# God is Jesus  rather than  showing Jesus is God



## marketgunner (Dec 27, 2017)

We often discuss Jesus claims to be God and get confused with Jesus being Human but here is verses that show God talking about being crucified as a human.

 Zec 12:10

¶
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

 Zec 12:11

In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.


notice the" House of David "
is different from the "inhabitants of Jerusalem"  (Romans)

notice "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced"

quoted  slightly differently in John 19, not first person but referring to Zech.12

notice they realize what they had done and that God is on the cross They turn to God and mourn.

Prophets who denied Christ deny even being Prophets in the next Chapter. They claim to be farmers.

Are there any more verse that have God showing Himself on the cross?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 27, 2017)

I will concede that this word is sometimes translated  "to me" elsewhere.  However "they will look towards" the one whom they have pierced would be correct
 asStrong's Concordance
el: to, into, towards
Original Word: אֶל
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: el
Phonetic Spelling: (ale)
Short Definition: against
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. particle
Definition
to, into, towards
NASB Translation
about (12), above (1), according (4), addition (2), adjacent* (1), after (4), after* (1), *against (162*), along (1), along* (1), among (3), among* (1), because (5), before (11), before* (4), behind* (2), beside (3), beside* (3), between* (2), carried (1), concerning (31), corresponding* (1), defied* (1), everywhere* (1), faced (1), facing* (3), far (1), greatly* (1), inside* (1), next (1), next* (1), nor (1), onto (1), opposite (1), opposite* (2), outside* (12), over (23), recalls* (1), regard (2), regarding (1), straight* (3), through (1), together* (2), *toward (75*), toward* (2), visit* (1), where (1), where* (2), wherever* (4), whom* (1), within (1). "to me" however this is a translation. The word used gives no indication of "me", Nor is it capitalized as some translations have it.   The true use is "towards". No me. 

I keep telling everybody that we can't use our translations to analyze scriptures


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 27, 2017)

I have seen it discussed and it is clear in the Hebrew.  It is correct and was a considered a Messianic text by the old Rabbis

I do not find your "el" being used at all, 

"asher" uses a pronoun if it is indefinable, it is often accompanied by the personal pronoun expletively, used to show the connection.

The  despite your explanation, the NASB and many others still uses "me"  as is shown in Hebrew


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 27, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> I have seen it discussed and it is clear in the Hebrew.  It is correct and was a considered a Messianic text by the old Rabbis
> 
> I do not find your "el" being used at all,
> 
> ...


 I don't know any Hebrew, I just use Biblehub. Can you point out the validation of "me". I'll just have to trust it because I would not know the difference. The greek, I do much better with


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 27, 2017)

413 is the post I posted previous

ThiText Analysis
Str	Translit	Hebrew	English	Morph
8210 [e]	wÉ™-Å¡Ä�-pÌ„aá¸µ-tî	×•Ö°×©Ö¸×�×¤Ö·×›Ö°×ªÖ´Ö¼×™Ö©	And I will pour	Verb
5921 [e]	â€˜al-	×¢Ö·×œÖ¾	on	Prep
1004 [e]	bêá¹¯	×‘ÖµÖ¼Ö¨×™×ª	the house	Noun
1732 [e]	dÄ�-wîá¸�	×“Ö¸Ö¼×•Ö´Öœ×™×“	of David	Noun
5921 [e]	wÉ™-â€˜al	×•Ö°×¢Ö·Ö£×œ ×€	and on	Prep
3427 [e]	yÅ�-wÅ�-Å¡êá¸‡	×™×•Ö¹×©Öµ×�Ö£×‘	on the inhabitants	Verb
3389 [e]	yÉ™-rÅ«-Å¡Ä�-lim,	×™Ö°×¨×•Ö¼×©Ö¸×�×œÖ´Ö·Ö—×�	of Jerusalem	Noun
7307 [e]	rÅ«-aá¸¥	×¨Ö¤×•Ö¼×—Ö·	the spirit	Noun
2580 [e]	á¸¥ên	×—Öµ×ŸÖ™	of favor	Noun
8469 [e]	wÉ™-á¹¯a-á¸¥Äƒ-nÅ«-nîm,	×•Ö°×ªÖ·Ö£×—Ö²× ×•Ö¼× Ö´Ö”×™×�	and of supplications	Noun
5027 [e]	wÉ™-hib-bî-á¹­Å«	×•Ö°×”Ö´×‘Ö´Ö¼Ö¥×™×˜×•Ö¼	and they shall look	Verb
*413 [e]	â€™ê-lay	×�Öµ×œÖ·Ö–×™	on me	Prep*
853 [e]	â€™êá¹¯	×�ÖµÖ£×ª	-	Acc
834 [e]	â€™Äƒ-Å¡er-	×�Ö²×©Ö¶×�×¨Ö¾	whom	Prt
1856 [e]	dÄ�-qÄ�-rÅ«;	×“Ö¸Ö¼×§Ö¸Ö‘×¨×•Ö¼	they have pierced	Verb
5594 [e]	wÉ™-sÄ�-pÌ„É™-á¸�Å«	×•Ö°×¡Ö¸×¤Ö°×“Ö£×•Ö¼	and they shall mourn	Verb
5921 [e]	â€˜Ä�-lÄ�w,	×¢Ö¸×œÖ¸Ö—×™×•	for him	Prep
5594 [e]	kÉ™-mis-pêá¸�	×›Ö°Ö¼×žÖ´×¡Ö°×¤ÖµÖ¼×“Ö™	as one mourns	Verbs from Biblehub


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 27, 2017)

We certainly should not use NASB as a guide to decide what Hebrew means.

I try to use the Hebrew or Greek and the Young's Literal for English help to be accurate

let me add the translation of Hebrew of Greek, not the original language


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 27, 2017)

1gr8bldr said:


> I don't know any Hebrew, I just use Biblehub. Can you point out the validation of "me". I'll just have to trust it because I would not know the difference. The greek, I do much better with



Me too, I have not seen "el" used at all.  

I have 

and they shall look"  as  _nabat_

"upon me whom they pierced" as "_daqar_"

if the pronoun is there is is attached , I do not know it.

This is the only verse where it is used as "pierced"  or"daqar" is used


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2017)

The Jewish understanding of this verse has always been that the one pierced was one in an intimate relationship with God.

Zechariah 12:9
On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.

Doesn't God the Father give the Son that power on "that day?"
Isn't there some kingdom on the earth that God the Father gives to the Son to reign upon that he eventually returns to his Father?

It's the same argument as to who destroyed Jerusalem, God or Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> We often discuss Jesus claims to be God and get confused with Jesus being Human but here is verses that show God talking about being crucified as a human.
> 
> 
> Are there any more verse that have God showing Himself on the cross?



What about this one;

Revelation 1:7-8
7Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him — even those who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. So shall it be! Amen. 8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2017)

"Those who pierced him."

The actual individuals, the Romans, the Jews, humanity?

Again, did they kill God? If so who resurrected him? Wouldn't it present a heresy to say that God died on the Cross? For starters the universe would disappear.


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 27, 2017)

There is a lot of the same argument here.

Jesus was not going to make a kingdom of or on earth to prrset to the Father.

ekelisa is drawn out assembly , the church will be renoved from the earth,  This is our examples throughout Hebrew history, the Hebrews were drawn out of sinful Egypt .  The Jews were called back out of Persia , the Christian is called out of sin


This is a Morman teaching but also shared by JW's  Muslims.


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 27, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about this one;
> 
> Revelation 1:7-8
> 7Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him — even those who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. So shall it be! Amen. 8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty.


 
wow, I did not know that one


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> There is a lot of the same argument here.
> 
> Jesus was not going to make a kingdom of or on earth to prrset to the Father.
> 
> ...



That's weird, I initially thought you were with your belief in pre-existing spirits coming to the earth to take on flesh for redemption.  

No but I can see some of their beliefs and the JW's as the Kingdom or even the heavenly Heaven being physical. Streets of Gold? Mansions? Fountains? 
First it's a Promised "land." Second we have to be physically resurrected.  "New heaven and a new earth." 

Now let us pursue your belief that Jesus is God. Jesus is physical. The Mother of Jesus/God is human. Jesus resurrected physically. He is a King. He has a body. He is at the right hand of the Father. He will return to the earth in hie resurrected body. We will see him as he is and become like him. We will share in his inheritance.
Jesus died on a cross and was physically resurrected.

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Kingdom, physical Jesus, handed over to his Father.

I'm still waiting on what this New Earth will be. This promised land that some will dwell in forever and ever. Is this just another one of those types, mirrors, examples, or shadows?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> wow, I did not know that one



Even from a Trinity perspective, it's not looked upon that God died on the Cross. It's that fine line that one must cross to believe that. 
Maybe it was just his human nature that died and his divine nature resurrected him. 
His human nature was pierced. His human nature died, etc.
We can't say that it was God who died on the Cross. That it was God who was pierced. That God suffered. It just don't sound right. 
Good discussions though. Makes one delve into how they view God and his Son and their divinity. 

To me, even when I believed in the Trinity as a Baptist, when Christ died, the atonement was made by the humans nature of Christ's death.
It was all about the human nature of Jesus. Human sin, human blood, and human atonement. Even as a Baptist, it was never presented to me that God had to die and atone in the form of divinity or deity. 
I believed that he was part of the Trinity but that part of his divinity was not on the Cross. It never was presented that God had to do it but that a man had to do it. True this man had a heavenly Father but it was the 100% man part of this man that died. 

They pierced the man persona of Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> There is a lot of the same argument here.
> 
> Jesus was not going to make a kingdom of or on earth to prrset to the Father.
> 
> ...



It may be but there are many other Christians that believe in a future earthly Kingdom where the Son will reign and present this Kingdom to his Father.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 27, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> wow, I did not know that one



"but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water.”

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood — and these three are in agreement."

This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

Interesting as to how we all view exactly what the blood, water and Spirit mean.

Pertaining to Jesus, he was born of blood and water. The Spirit testified this.
Us; we must be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom.

And it's all tied to the piercing; the blood and water and the testimony of the Spirit. 
That's pretty awesome no matter what you believe!


----------



## Israel (Dec 28, 2017)

"Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.

Isaiah


and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This is My Son -- the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'


Matthew



The willingness to suffer the loss of all and only of that in which one's soul delights is to us a very rare thing.
To purpose it is another matter, altogether.
Who can know this? 
Who can know such a soul?
Who can be made..._willing_ to?

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.


The total of intimacy between Father and Son is excluded from all prying eyes. Yet, it is completely open. 

It may be of all, what _alone is _in every sense expressible, or understandable...open as open may be understood to imply a boundlessness unfathomable.

What does not _pale_ here...?

Experience (in part) reveals discrepancy, discrepancy reveals comparison, comparison reveals the knowledge of good and evil.

How we are pressed to this salvation!

Thanks be to God.


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 28, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's weird, I initially thought you were with your belief in pre-existing spirits coming to the earth to take on flesh for redemption.
> 
> No but I can see some of their beliefs and the JW's as the Kingdom or even the heavenly Heaven being physical. Streets of Gold? Mansions? Fountains?
> First it's a Promised "land." Second we have to be physically resurrected.  "New heaven and a new earth."
> ...



I think it will be Heaven,  but our place there was forfeited when we were expelled, It is a place for the redeemed .

The souls of men are the fallen ones. We were expelled with Satan,,  Psalms 82.

He will give the redeemed souls to God to Glorify God ,


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 28, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> "but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water.â€�
> 
> "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood â€” and these three are in agreement."
> 
> ...




¶
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
 Jhn 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Two births, one physical, one spiritual

We must be born again, (spiritually) but you also must be in the flesh to participate in the death of Christ.

Human first,  rebirth second to see Heaven.

Flesh and blood will bold see Heaven.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> I think it will be Heaven,  but our place there was forfeited when we were expelled, It is a place for the redeemed .
> 
> The souls of men are the fallen ones. We were expelled with Satan,,  Psalms 82.
> 
> He will give the redeemed souls to God to Glorify God ,



Who will give the redeemed souls to God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> ¶
> Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
> Jhn 3:6
> That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
> ...



Then kingdom means Heaven?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

We must be born of water(flesh) and Spirit. Jesus came by water and blood?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

Water and blood poured out of Jesus. Could this be his human and divine natures?
My thoughts were on this "blood and water" as I drifted off to sleep last night.

I'm trying to see how the Spirit, water, and blood  can be the Trinity. 
Spirit is God
Water is Spirit
Blood is Son


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 28, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Who will give the redeemed souls to God?



Jesus will show to all that He is God and is able to redeem .
Those who do not accept Him will still acknowledge Him.

This is the end of the Millennial reign when all end promises are fulfilled to Israel.

but these redeemed have already been to heaven at he rapture.
Jesus will present the completion of redemption to God.

Then, 

 Rev 21:3

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 28, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Then kingdom means Heaven?



The Kingdom of God includes all,  It includes Kingdom of Heaven


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> Jesus will show to all that He is God and is able to redeem .
> Those who do not accept Him will still acknowledge Him.
> 
> This is the end of the Millennial reign when all end promises are fulfilled to Israel.
> ...



"Millennial reign" sounds like a kingdom on earth. Is this Mormon or JW?

Relate this Millennial reign to 1 Corinthians 15:52;

in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

This event where the mortal become immortal. Does this sound strictly like a spiritual kingdom to you? Yet if one is in Heaven as a spirit already. Why return to a physical kingdom on the earth?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> Jesus will present the completion of redemption to God.



Start with the ascension of Jesus. Was this in his glorified body? Did Jesus exist separate from his Father after his return to Heaven or did he return to his previous existence as he had before he went to the earth as a man? Trinity or Oneness, did the Jesus part change after the ascension to the way it was before his trip to the earth?
Did he once again become exactly as the pre-existing 1/3 of the Godhead he was before being born a man?
If so then will he return to the persona of man when he returns to the earth? Remember God never changes. 

What I'm wondering is how do you see the persona of Jesus today as he is in Heaven? Oneness or Trinity. If one was to die today and go to Heaven would they see God and Jesus or just God through Jesus or Jesus as God.
Would he be separate or one? Perhaps we'll only see Jesus as God(Oneness). If so what happened to the 100% man Jesus? 
If God is now Jesus in the Oneness persona, then the Mormon view of God being physical isn't that far off anymore. This would mean that God has always been man. God never changes.

If only one then where is the glorified body of the human man Jesus? Where is the man Jesus who is sitting next to his Father? The one who will return one day in his body to reign over this Millennial Kingdom with the recently resurrected humans? When the mortal are given  immortality.

God never changes. Jesus is God. Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. He has to have a human existence somewhere even today. There has to be a man called Jesus in his glorified body somewhere as we speak. He has to return. He has to reign. 
                                                                                                                           He has to present the completion of redemption to God.

If you got all that figured out, you are doing way better than me. 

"He has to present the completion of redemption to God."


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 28, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> "Millennial reign" sounds like a kingdom on earth. Is this Mormon or JW?
> 
> Relate this Millennial reign to 1 Corinthians 15:52;
> 
> ...




no , that is after the rapture, 

1Co 15:50

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption


Why be physical?  I do not think it will be


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> no , that is after the rapture,
> 
> 1Co 15:50
> 
> ...



What about flesh and bones? When exactly do we take on immortality? When we die a physical death or at our resurrection?

 53For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> no , that is after the rapture,
> 
> 1Co 15:50
> 
> ...



Who will reign over this Millennial kingdom on earth after the "spiritual" rapture?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

Well to get back on topic, that is if they pierced the side of God, what is death? Death is separation maybe.

When they pierced the side of Jesus, blood and water ran out.
"the blood of Jesus purifies us from every sin."
"cleansing blood"

What about the "water?"

Can we somehow tie blood and water to mean that Jesus was God? Does this have anything to do with the divinity of Jesus or is this something more to do with his physical persona?

The Spirit, the one who sent Jesus never runs out of his side.  An eyewitness saw the water and blood run out. 
Does it symbolize real human death? Release of the Spirit? Baptism/cleansing power? Spirit?
Death by separation? 
Oneness?

Maybe it just represents Christ's total death. His eternal life and mortal life departed from his body. The blood and water was just the evidence the witness saw. Jesus was dead. Physically and spiritually. Separation from God. His Father's spirit had also left him. Jesus had two natures. He had to die physically and spiritually. I don't see this as God dying but as God's spirit leaving.
Then his Father resurrected him.

One last thing is the prophesy that the Messiah's legs would not be broken. John was eager to show that this had to be the Messiah because his side was pierced instead of his legs being broken.


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 28, 2017)

I think God will rule from the throne. 
I know the sinful be destroyed. 

Rev 17:17

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Rev 20:10

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


He is pronounced King of Kings, Lord of Lords


Then the temple is gone

Rev 21:22

And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

Zechariah 12:9-11
"And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11"In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

Two things I notice are mourning for an "only child" and bitter weeping over a "firstborn."

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him--even those who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. So shall it be! Amen.

Everyone will mourn.

Ezekiel 37:14
I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.'"

Maybe not related.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> I think God will rule from the throne.
> I know the sinful be destroyed.
> 
> Rev 17:17
> ...



God's throne in Heaven or God as Jesus in a literal throne on the Earth?


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 28, 2017)

One , both are mentioned on One Throne,  but I dont know.

I have been told Jesus on throne in Jerusalem


----------



## Israel (Dec 28, 2017)

Image with false promise of substance.

Vs

Substance in promise of image.

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.


----------



## Spineyman (Dec 30, 2017)

There are three distinct persons in the Trinity. All equal in Power and Glory.


 Hebrews 1:1-4 

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2017)

Spineyman said:


> There are three distinct persons in the Trinity. All equal in Power and Glory.
> 
> 
> Hebrews 1:1-4
> ...



If Jesus is God, then God is Jesus as well. Would you agree with the OP that they pierced the side of God?

How physical did God become? How God can man become? Was Jesus both in the respect that "They pierced God's side?"
Taking it to the next level, when we see Jesus and become like him; Spiritual, physical, or both? Unity? Oneness?
Next the kingdom; Spiritual, physical, or both?

It was God who chose a physical earth and physical men to put spirits in. How physical will our new life become? How physical did God become?


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 31, 2017)

spiritually we experience spiritual stimuli, physically we experience the physical world, mentally we experience the abstract ?  

We exist as the only spiritual/physical beings.

God did too , in the physical Jesus.


Heb 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 31, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> spiritually we experience spiritual stimuli, physically we experience the physical world, mentally we experience the abstract ?
> 
> We exist as the only spiritual/physical beings.
> 
> ...



I'm following you so far. Spiritual beings become flesh. Will the dead saints return from the immediate heaven(spiritual) with Christ, for their mortal bodies to receive mortality to then enter the New Heavens and Earth(physical)? Maybe just a new heaven then?(physical)Maybe the original Heaven?(physical)If not where is Jesus today? Is he still in his body that he ascended in? Will Christ return spiritually or physically?
Why or what purpose will his return trip to the physical be? Immanuel that is.

1 Corinthians 15:52-53
in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.


----------



## marketgunner (Dec 31, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm following you so far. Spiritual beings become flesh. Will the dead saints return from the immediate heaven(spiritual) with Christ, for their mortal bodies to receive mortality to then enter the New Heavens and Earth(physical)? Maybe just a new heaven then?(physical)Maybe the original Heaven?(physical)If not where is Jesus today? Is he still in his body that he ascended in? Will Christ return spiritually or physically?
> Why or what purpose will his return trip to the physical be? Immanuel that is.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:52-53
> in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.



I can only surmise  a Physical kingdon after the rapture is to  keep the promises made to Israel

Physical is only for this universe, we are changed after the rapture , 

Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom.


----------



## Spineyman (Dec 31, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> If Jesus is God, then God is Jesus as well. Would you agree with the OP that they pierced the side of God?
> 
> How physical did God become? How God can man become? Was Jesus both in the respect that "They pierced God's side?"
> Taking it to the next level, when we see Jesus and become like him; Spiritual, physical, or both? Unity? Oneness?
> ...



It is Trinity, not oneness. There are three distinct persons of the Godhead.
Quest. 4. What is God?
Ans. 4. God is a Spirit,(1) infinite,(2) eternal,(3) and unchangeable,(4) in his being,(5) wisdom,(6) power,(7) holiness,(8) justice, goodness, and truth.(9)

(1) John 4:24.
(2) Job 11:7-9.
(3) Ps. 90:2.
(4) James 1:17.
(5) Exod. 3:14.
(6) Ps. 147:5.
(7) Rev. 4:8.
(8) Rev. 15:4.
(9) Exod. 34:6-7.

Quest. 5. Are there more Gods than one?
Ans. 5. There is but One only, the living and true God.(1)

(1) Deut. 6:4; Jer. 10:10.

Quest. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
Ans. 6. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God the same in substance, equal in power and glory.(1)

(1) I John 5:7; Matt. 28:19.

Jesus was both God and man. He took on to distinct natures. That is the only way One could stand in the gap and atone for the sin of all mankind. He had to be fully man to take upon Him self the sin of the whole world, and He had to be fully God to give us through adoption access back to the Father that was broken when Adam sinned.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 31, 2017)

Spineyman said:


> It is Trinity, not oneness. There are three distinct persons of the Godhead.
> Quest. 4. What is God?
> Ans. 4. God is a Spirit,(1) infinite,(2) eternal,(3) and unchangeable,(4) in his being,(5) wisdom,(6) power,(7) holiness,(8) justice, goodness, and truth.(9)
> 
> ...



Then you agree that they pierced the side of God? God became physical and died for physical man's sin. God the physical was resurrected into a new glorified physical body and ascended up into heaven. True?

I'm not looking for any more Trinity lessons, I understand the concept of both Trinity and Oneness.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 31, 2017)

marketgunner said:


> I can only surmise  a Physical kingdon after the rapture is to  keep the promises made to Israel
> 
> Physical is only for this universe, we are changed after the rapture ,
> 
> Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom.



I've heard it explained that the Church is now Israel. We are presently atoned. Then at the second coming physical Israel will be atoned. The promises made to Israel as you say. When the deliverer comes from Zion as per Romans 11. 

Joel 3:16 The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

God kinda put Israel on hold due to the blindness to allow the Gentiles salvation per Romans 11. God is not dealing with Israel today. He is dealing with the Church. The mystery revealed to Paul.

Perhaps then the future physical Kingdom is just for Israel. A new Jerusalem coming down from Heaven. A new Heaven and Earth. Just for the Jews. Maybe?

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 2, 2018)

I have been looking into this "They will look upon me the one whom they pierced". Seems really strange that in John 19:37 that he tells us he is quoting a verse, then misquotes it????.  Especially since  John has the NT mindset. 
37 And, as another Scripture says: “They will look on the One they have pierced.” . ????


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have been looking into this "They will look upon me the one whom they pierced". Seems really strange that in John 19:37 that he tells us he is quoting a verse, then misquotes it????.  Especially since  John has the NT mindset.
> 37 And, as another Scripture says: “They will look on the One they have pierced.” . ????



Who is "they" that will look upon the one they pierced? Israel? The Romans? Mankind?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Who is "they" that will look upon the one they pierced? Israel? The Romans? Mankind?


10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

Many uses of "They". I looked the uses up in the greek. I think the "They" is not specified by the greek but rightly assumed. So no help there. So then, They would be "the house of David" and The "inhabitants of Jerusalem". LOL, so who then exactly is this referring to?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have been looking into this "They will look upon me the one whom they pierced". Seems really strange that in John 19:37 that he tells us he is quoting a verse, then misquotes it????.  Especially since  John has the NT mindset.
> 37 And, as another Scripture says: “They will look on the One they have pierced.” . ????


It also seems really strange that the "me" turns to "him". Why would it not continue with the me's through the next two him's?

look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 2, 2018)

The House of David is the Jews. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are the invaded Romans

The quotes do not match because of the language difference.  Hebrew, quoted in Greek in the NT , translated to English.

Does a misquote change the meaning of an original?

The Jews realized they had killed God as Jesus on the cross.   Read next chapter to see the extent of their change and grief


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 2, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> The House of David is the Jews. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are the invaded Romans
> 
> The quotes do not match because of the language difference.  Hebrew, quoted in Greek in the NT , translated to English.
> 
> ...


A misquote gives indication that the OT translation may not be we now assume. Extra points are given to the fact that the socalled misquoter lived in that day and would have known without bias. . How do you get the idea that "the jews realized they had killed God as Jesus on the cross". Sorry but that's delusional, and most will agree, even with me being the 
 odd ball.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> It also seems really strange that the "me" turns to "him". Why would it not continue with the me's through the next two him's?
> 
> look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.



Interesting. Also "only son" and "firstborn."
"They" will realize that they killed God's only son and firstborn.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> The House of David is the Jews. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are the invaded Romans
> 
> The quotes do not match because of the language difference.  Hebrew, quoted in Greek in the NT , translated to English.
> 
> ...



They realized they had killed a Father's son and firstborn.

 They will look on "me" whom they have pierced and mourn for "him" as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for "him" as for a firstborn son who has died.

Could God be the "me" and Jesus the "him?"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

Zechariah 12 continues with explaining who will mourn. I would assume it was "they."

Next chapter;

Zechariah 13:1
"On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

Next comes the removal of idols and false prophets.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 2, 2018)

i misspoke, not a misquote but a difference in translation due to different languages.  Hebrew to English  and Hebrew to Greek to English

It is God speaking in the OT  first person and a third person reference in the NT. The third person usage would not  reference "me".

The most impressive  comments are made by Rabbi's that this was a Messianic text.. ( Rashi)

It is God speaking and thus the reference to both. They mourn for Jesus, but one cannot not mourn for God


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> They realized they had killed a Father's son and firstborn.
> 
> They will look on "me" whom they have pierced and mourn for "him" as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for "him" as for a firstborn son who has died.
> 
> Could God be the "me" and Jesus the "him?"



yes,


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> yes,



That is not what John 19:36-37 says. It says the one pierced is Jesus.

36Now these things happened so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of His bones will be broken.” 37And, as another Scripture says: “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

John didn't say it as if it was 1st person God. He says it like they pierced Jesus the Son.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

I'm not exactly sure how to explain this as English is hard but I think the "me" was another way of showing "him."
such as;

They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child.

so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, 

and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him,

and they will look to me—the one whom they pierced.

I just feel like one really grasping if this is the verse they are reaching for to show the Trinity. There are other verses one could use that are way easier to grasp for a Trinity belief than this one.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

Maybe like if I was wrongly accused and thrown in jail. I could say "they will look at me when I'm free and feel remorse for him.

I don't really talk like that but I think they did in old England. One would have to examine the Hebrew text to see how Trinitarian the translators were.

This one capitalizes "Me" and "Him"

"so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him"

Most of the others don't. If one is wearing Trinity goggles or Oneness goggle, then the rendering of the meaning can change depending on the goggles.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 2, 2018)

It was a third person statement , mentioning prophecies listed in scripture, not a direct  quote unless it is in Hebrew. John listed the appropriate prophesies

  Look at the other verses of John.19. They are different from the OT too, 


The preposition noting direction of" look towards"   is "_elay_" and attached to  "_nabat_"  It is there and widely accepted, undisputed by those who know Hebrew,
I can only repeat others.
I have had the most resistance of this from JW's and liberal Jews


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not exactly sure how to explain this as English is hard but I think the "me" was another way of showing "him."
> such as;
> 
> They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child.
> ...



It shows God was on the cross as well as Jesus.

Many other verses show Jesus as God which some have trouble accepting Jesus is Human and God, This verse shows God (preincarnate Jesus?) is God and speaking


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 2, 2018)

To show the Trinity, we have many other verses i john  5 :1 

but you know all these verses already


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

Well I might have to rethink this one more time. It does appear to be two different persons as per this translation;

The correct translation of Zechariah 12:10 should be.”they will look onto Me concerning whom they have pierced and they will mourn for him” 

“et asher”  is “concerning whom” not "whom."

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/analysis-of-zechariah-1210/

They will look to me concerning the one whom they pierced;
        they will mourn over him like the mourning for an only child.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

They will look onto Me concerning whom they have pierced is way different than "they will look on Me whom they have pierced."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> It shows God was on the cross as well as Jesus.
> 
> Many other verses show Jesus as God which some have trouble accepting Jesus is Human and God, This verse shows God (preincarnate Jesus?) is God and speaking



Even from a Trinity perspective, that sounds like a odd way of presenting it. I would probably say, they looked upon Me(God the Father), concerning whom they pierced, Him, my Son(God the Son.)
It still shows a Trinity belief but the Me becomes the Father instead of the preincarnate Jesus.

Me(Father) concerning whom they pierced(Son). The Trinity is still there and this shows it better than your way which sounds more Oneness.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 2, 2018)

Regardless of what people might believe now,  No one in that time period  believed the verse indicated that God would be pierced .


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Regardless of what people might believe now,  No one in that time period  believed the verse indicated that God would be pierced .



Nor did they believe Mary was the Mother of God.


----------



## Mako22 (Jan 3, 2018)

You guys crack me up with all your pseudo theology and your mastery of the Greek and Hebrew languages. Obviously God did not die on the cross since he has always existed and always will; I mean hes God! Jesus the man died on the cross but the part of him that is God did not.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 3, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Regardless of what people might believe now,  No one in that time period  believed the verse indicated that God would be pierced .



But all of Israel will understand what we can clearly see know. It was and is considered Messianic by the Rabbi's before Jesus and is still by conservative groups.


----------



## Israel (Jan 3, 2018)

Woodsman69 said:


> You guys crack me up with all your pseudo theology and your mastery of the Greek and Hebrew languages. Obviously God did not die on the cross since he has always existed and always will; I mean hes God! Jesus the man died on the cross but the part of him that is God did not.



I think if any man can find that "space"..._line of demarcation_...somehow occupy with his understanding the thing he imagines is where God ends and Jesus the man begins, or Jesus the man ends and God begins, well, he just might find it is just that...his own imagination.

I am persuaded that just as much, and to no less extent than Jesus experienced death, His Father remained just as fully involved in that experience.

Of course I cannot explain this; how that what could appear as "more than One" never is, but I begin to perceive a never ending glory as One exalts His Word above His name...and that Word never ceases to exalt the name of the Father. Such a love is made ours.

Even that we may be one...as He is.

Words fail. But being "lost in love" may be the closest my poesy may allow...for now.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 3, 2018)

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/56/56-4/JETS_56-4_781-800_Claunch.pdf


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

Woodsman69 said:


> You guys crack me up with all your pseudo theology and your mastery of the Greek and Hebrew languages. Obviously God did not die on the cross since he has always existed and always will; I mean hes God! Jesus the man died on the cross but the part of him that is God did not.



You do believe that God incarnate as a man don't you? That God came to the earth in the form of a man? That this man's side was pierced? 
Tell us who the two persons are that are speaking in Zechariah 12:10? "Me" and "Him"
Do you see "Me" as the God persona and "Him" as the man persona? If the "Me" person is God, is it the pre-incarate Jesus(Trinity) or just God(Oneness)?

Pretty simple questions. Who was the "Me" and was was the "Him"?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

The “Divinity” of Jesus
To say that Jesus is not God is not to deny that he is uniquely
invested with the divine nature. Divinity is, so to speak, “built
in” to him by virtue of his unique conception under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, as well as by the Spirit which
dwelt in him in full measure (John 3:34). Paul recognizes that
the “fullness of the Godhead dwells in him” (Col. 1:19; 2:9). In
seeing the man Jesus we see the glory of his Father (John 1:14).
We perceive that God Himself was “in the Messiah reconciling

Who is Jesus by Anthony Buzzard;
http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia/PDF/who_is_jesus.pdf


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

Maybe after we, as individuals are elected, the Spirit leads us all down different paths to show the importance of Unity. 
The same unity Jesus wanted the disciples to have that he has with his Father.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> You do believe that God incarnate as a man don't you? That God came to the earth in the form of a man? That this man's side was pierced?
> Tell us who the two persons are that are speaking in Zechariah 12:10? "Me" and "Him"
> Do you see "Me" as the God persona and "Him" as the man persona? If the "Me" person is God, is it the pre-incarate Jesus(Trinity) or just God(Oneness)?
> 
> Pretty simple questions. Who was the "Me" and was was the "Him"?


I just don't think they saw it as "me". And I don't think we can reinterpret it. It was a prophesy. Even capitalizing the Me as some have done now is not right. Sooooo, many times "me" referring to God in the OT and yet it was not capitilized, and now some of our translators have capped a prophesy??? As if it were originally this way. Not all the translations have done this. Back to my point,  If they had of interpreted it this way then we would see other context involving this issue


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I just don't think they saw it as "me". And I don't think we can reinterpret it. It was a prophesy. Even capitalizing the Me as some have done now is not right. Sooooo, many times "me" referring to God in the OT and yet it was not capitilized, and now some of our translators have capped a prophesy??? As if it were originally this way. Not all the translations have done this. Back to my point,  If they had of interpreted it this way then we would see other context involving this issue



And to the point that one must see that it was actually God's side that was pierced. That this is what the Jews will see in the future when Christ appears again. 
They will instantly realize that it was God whose side they pierced and mourn for his only son as one would mourn a firstborn. They will instantly realize it was God on the Cross and not just the Son.
If they realized it was God's side they pierced, they'd mourn as if they pierced God, not mourn as if they had killed an only child and firstborn. The mourning is the key.

I would think that scripture would be way more clear of this aspect if it was the prophesy.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 3, 2018)

The other chapters show this is the prophesy and effects of the realization that Jesus is God

Zec 13:4
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:
 Zec 13:5
But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.

False prophets will not be tolerated
 Zec 13:3

And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

They will realize the meaning  of the prophecy


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> The other chapters show this is the prophesy and effects of the realization that Jesus is God
> 
> Zec 13:4
> And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:
> ...


And how does this give realization that Jesus is God?  No one expected that God would become a man. No one. Mercy, they were looking for a leader, to bring them out from under the thumb of Rome. The Son of man, Son of God, Son of David, the annointed of God.  The best you could do is to say that they missed it. Of which then has merit.  The only thing I see is that "on that day" "pierced", "cleansed from sin", that their will no longer be any prophets called by God. If anyone still prophesies....... hmmmm but John says blessed are those who read the words of this prophesy?????.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 3, 2018)

no, God is Jesus.  on the cross.. 

no one missed anything. It is well known and believed byeven the Jews.

 We have many examples that say Jesus  is God but being man also cause confusion for many because they think they are equal when totally different.

The Jewish teachers who had taught Jesus is not God are being berated. They turned out to be false.

God told us He was to be a man, throughout the Bible.

Isa 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

God with us or with us is God

 Isa 9:6

For unto us a *child* is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, *The mighty God*, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The writer of Hebrews
Heb 10:5

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

"no, God is Jesus. on the cross.."

Isn't that the same thing as Jesus is God?

Regardless what you are saying is the Jews knew that God would be the Messiah. They just didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

I would bet to differ on that. I think the main reason they didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah was because they thought he was saying that he "was" God. In there eyes they didn't believe God was the Messiah. They didn't believe God was Jesus.
They believed he would merely be "sent" from God. That God with us would be a man sent from God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

Interesting that folks have always wondered if Jesus was God, but they have never asked if God was Jesus. That would make Mary the Mother of God. Might be more to that they most of us can visualize.

Spirits becoming man. God becoming man. God's side getting pierced. God in human form resurrecting. Man in human form resurrecting. Man returning to spirit form. God returning to Spirit form. Spiritual Unity!

Or man staying in glorified human form along with God who stays in human form. All in glorified bodies. Living in Unity in Heaven or on the New earth. 

Maybe if we all return to spirit form then it's in Heaven but if we stay physical after the resurrection, it's on the New Earth. God reigns as Jesus in human form. God is now Jesus. God's side is pierced. Oneness.
Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven.

Interesting concepts. Interesting beliefs. Interesting thoughts.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

2 Corinthians 5:19
For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation.

Could God be in Christ and do this without actually being Christ? If he was "in Christ" how could he be Christ? Either he was in Christ or he was Christ. 

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Why did John see Jesus as the "Lamb of God" and not God?
If he had just said "It's God, he has come in the form of a man to take away our sins. God is now Jesus. God is now a man.
The one and only true God has now incarnate as a man. 
God's side was pierced. 

God the only God incarnate as a man. Not the pre-existing 1/3 of the Godhead known as the Son. The actual one we think of when we say "God." That God. That God incarnate as a man. God became man. God is now Jesus. When you see Jesus, you see God.
Oneness is so much easier to grasp and understand. I can visualize God becoming a man. I can't visualize a pre-existing 1/3 of a pre-existing Godhead becoming incarnate as a man.

That doesn't even sound like a good definition of Incarnation. God didn't incarnate as man. The pre-existing Son part of the Godhead incarnate as man. 
It just doesn't have the same feeling as the actual one God who incarnate as man.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

John 4:23-24
But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” 

Concerning God;

"worship the Father in spirit." 
"God is Spirit."

Concerning Christ;

1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Concerning us;

Ephesians 1:4
Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.

1 Timothy 3:16
Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> no, God is Jesus.  on the cross..
> 
> *no one missed anything. It is well known and believed byeven the Jews.*
> 
> ...


Your delusional, having lost all credibility. No one believed God was coming to die on the cross or that the messiah was God. You can find tons of people who believe it now, but just because you find a few prophesies that you think you understand [in hindsight] does not mean they believed it then. Just because you want to believe it... and sell it.... does not mean anyone will buy it. EDIT, your post 49 quoted "The Jews realized they had killed God as Jesus on the cross. Read next chapter to see the extent of their change and grief" End quote. How do we read Zech which is a prophesy and assume that it is fulfilled when Jesus is killed, this even falsely assuming  the next chapter gives any indication that they grieve over killing God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

There is not a distinction of persons in the Godhead.

John 10:30
"I and the Father are one."

This could not be possible under the Trinity belief as the Father is 1/3 of the God head and the Son is 1/3 of the Godhead.
“God is a Spirit.” A Spirit does not have flesh and bones.

God had to become man in order to have flesh and bones.

"They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son."

Who is speaking here? God? Man? God as Jesus?
The one God incarnate as man or the 1/3 part of the Godhead incarnate as man?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Your delusional, having lost all credibility. No one believed God was coming to die on the cross or that the messiah was God. You can find tons of people who believe it now, but just because you find a few prophesies that you think you understand [in hindsight] does not mean they believed it then. Just because you want to believe it... and sell it.... does not mean anyone will buy it.



It's like he is playing Monday night quarterback. He is trying to convey with OT prophesy that the Jews knew that God was Jesus and that God's side would be pierced.

Even from a Trinity perspective or a modern Christian perspective, most would understand that the Jews of that time did not see or understand the Messiah would be God. Even if they did believe that the Jews of that time understood that Jesus was the Son of God, they would have never thought that God was actually in a human form to the point that God's side was pierced.

They would not or could not have felt this concept. 

Now supposin' they did. They would have seen it more in line with the Oneness belief instead of the Trinity belief.

They might could have been convinced that God who is Spirit, God who is one, God who has all power, God who is, well God, that God could have incarnate as a man.
That this one and only God became Jesus. That this one and only God, who is spirit,  incarnate as man.
They may could have be convinced to believe this.

There would be no way possible to convince a Jew that the pre-exisitng 1/3 of the always being Son part of the Godhead and always existing as a separate but equal part of the Godhead. That's a concept they would not have understood even with all of the prophesy of the Messiah being Immanuel. 

Immanuel being the one and only God? Yes. Immanuel being the pre-exisiting 1/3 of the always existing Son in more than Word? No.
Immanuel would have been perceived as the one God. Jews didn't have a Trinity conception. Immanuel would have been God in a Oneness concept.
If they had believed God was Jesus. If they had to believe Immanuel was "God with us"  being more than his Son, then it would have been the one and only true God in the Jewish concept of only one God. Oneness and not Trinity.

Even if the Trinity is the way it is, the Jews back then would have never believed it possible. The concept that God's side was pierced would be the most foreign concept in their minds that it would be fallacy. Unbelievable.
Their God was Spirit. Their God was one. The Jew's faith is the sh’ma: “Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one.”


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's like he is playing Monday night quarterback. He is trying to convey with OT prophesy that the Jews knew that God was Jesus and that God's side would be pierced.
> 
> Even from a Trinity perspective or a modern Christian perspective, most would understand that the Jews of that time did not see or understand the Messiah would be God. Even if they did believe that the Jews of that time understood that Jesus was the Son of God, they would have never thought that God was actually in a human form to the point that God's side was pierced.
> 
> ...


He's backward translating Immanuel  from a NT mindset.  The concept comes from the Jews as they struggled in faith in their journey.... "Is God with us or not". He told Abraham "I will be with you".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> He's backward translating Immanuel  from a NT mindset.  The concept comes from the Jews as they struggled in faith in their journey.... "Is God with us or not". He told Abraham "I will be with you".



Even today we know that God is with us. We see him in the bush. It doesn't mean the bush is God. We feel his Spirit in the Son. We sense his presence in the wind.
We experience the unity Jesus had. We want the unity Jesus wanted the disciples to have. The unity he had with his Father. We know the Father is greater yet we know that to see the Father we must have the Son.

Maybe God is with us through the Son. Maybe we can have the Father and Son. Maybe the Son is our Mediator.
I hope he is. I hope we haven't lost that part of Christianity.

That in trying to figure out this Father, Son, and Holy Spirit concept that we lose the message.

That we lose the message of who the Messiah is. That the meaning overwhelms the message which is the Gospel.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2018)

I'd hate to think that we must see that God's side was pierced in order to receive the salvation based on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God who died as a man for our sins.
To me this is the gospel. This is the real gospel. This is the true Jesus. Any other is a false preaching, another Jesus.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Your delusional, having lost all credibility. No one believed God was coming to die on the cross or that the messiah was God. You can find tons of people who believe it now, but just because you find a few prophesies that you think you understand [in hindsight] does not mean they believed it then. Just because you want to believe it... and sell it.... does not mean anyone will buy it. EDIT, your post 49 quoted "The Jews realized they had killed God as Jesus on the cross. Read next chapter to see the extent of their change and grief" End quote. How do we read Zech which is a prophesy and assume that it is fulfilled when Jesus is killed, this even falsely assuming  the next chapter gives any indication that they grieve over killing God.



no , they mourn for the son,  God said looked upon me whom they pierced.

The Jews do not believe Jesus was God nor God was on the cross , even now,  but this is a future event that the Jews in general will believe and mourn.  
Some of the teachers, before Jesus  and after, believed this to be Messianic, but did not believe it applied to Jesus,

But since it does, God is showing Himself on the Cross.

Scripture shows God would be a man.

This scripture shows it , yet it has not happend for the Jewish nation,...
 yet.


----------



## Israel (Jan 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'd hate to think that we must see that God's side was pierced in order to receive the salvation based on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God who died as a man for our sins.
> To me this is the gospel. This is the real gospel. This is the true Jesus. Any other is a false preaching, another Jesus.



I think I hear you.

We might discover of ourselves a bent toward a complexity, the wanting to take a simple thing (received), and complicate it to an end of adding burden, rather than relief.

Let's face it, if God wanted to make things at all "hard" for us (if we discover this bent in ourselves)...who could ever hope to match his ability? Who can outstrip God for complexity? For depth? And so this bent is most often exposed in contest we do not even know we have entered; for with the clever, He will show Himself clever. Or shrewd. (Who do we think _always_ wins such a contest?)

Paul clearly warned against losing the simplicity of the gospel (or more rightly, letting it slip) substituting _something else for the simplicity of devotion to Christ._

And we know Jesus had this warning against those who would lay grievous burdens upon others...never lifting a finger in relief...but seeking only to add...burden to burden.

Yet, who would deny Paul's depth of understanding? Do we not wrestle (after a fashion) in it, seeking his trail of bread from this to that, and from that to...that? Yes, he used the simple things, but built upon them in such wisdom that we might, in some way...have our minds enlightened to the depth of this common faith we share. Explaining how the law works "over" a man till a death is accomplished...tell me, do not each of us still to this very moment, deal with such a matter...in some form of understanding?

What are the "have to's" vs what are the "free to's"? And if it all be, as Paul has also said, "for freedom's sake we have been set free"...how free...is free? If we are to, again, as Paul says "be judged by the law that gives liberty"...how does that work...in any situation...in every circumstance? In these things a man might come to a deep examination...even of that "bent" mentioned..."do I seek to capture...or set at liberty"? And if so..."how free have I been made...to see it so?"

How free is Christ? What did he "have to" do...vs "what is/was he free" to do? Do we know the bounds of this...(if indeed there are any bounds to His liberty)? How free is Christ? Is he bound by men's understanding of anything? Is He free to appear even...a curse? How loosely did He hold, that it might be free to any man to see...how freely He held His Father? And also...how tightly?

We know how hard He came up against those who _thought they knew_. And how hard they came up against Him. Especially to "points" of law...they thought...they knew. 

"But I tell you, whoever looks upon a woman with lust..."

What isn't ground up to dust of our own understanding by His appearing? What isn't exposed "of man" in His light? In what "thing" can a man hide? His own goodness? His own devotions? His own understandings? What doesn't get exposed? Even (and perhaps ultimately) his own will to form of all other things a likeness of himself to reflect back the affirmation that he is, and "has" being in himself made known through effect upon all he perceives as "not himself". To make "like himself" of _things_. And by that, _capture things_...to himself.

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be My disciple."

Yes, a man may come to understand the "why" of his love and affections for many things...even (and especially) the things seemingly _closest_ to him...they are the very most amenable to his impression...upon them. What is most bendable...to his own will.  (funny how a man, perhaps in the midst of a bitter divorce will find less of an objection here)..."she was staunch refusal...of me".

What is remotest to a man is never so for long. He will print and imprint in an ever outward display to the point that if he were to convert the whole of the world, save one to himself, he would lose sleep over that one. The princess and the pea. The one thing that refuses his _totality of comfort_...is always enemy.


And Jesus comes out of the garden, precisely looking for all that is purposed to His demise, looking for all that is so purposed against any comfort (as we might understand it) to all that is no comfort, _the cross_ (as we might have once understood) "Whom do you seek?"

“Jesus of Nazareth,” they answered.

Jesus said, “I am He.” 
(let me help you find Him)


Who can explain...how God makes friends?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> no , they mourn for the son,  God said looked upon me whom they pierced.
> 
> The Jews do not believe Jesus was God nor God was on the cross , even now,  but this is a future event that the Jews in general will believe and mourn.
> Some of the teachers, before Jesus  and after, believed this to be Messianic, but did not believe it applied to Jesus,
> ...



OK, that's different than you response #78 where you said;
"no one missed anything. It is well known and believed by even the Jews."

What you meant was they will know in the future. They will know that they pierced God's side and mourn for his Son.
That's what I thought you meant until until your post #78.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> no , they mourn for the son,  God said looked upon me whom they pierced.
> 
> The Jews do not believe Jesus was God nor God was on the cross , even now,  but this is a future event that the Jews in general will believe and mourn.
> Some of the teachers, before Jesus  and after, believed this to be Messianic, but did not believe it applied to Jesus,
> ...


I can accept this.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 4, 2018)

just to be clear,

If God wasn't on the cross, you can't be saved
If Man was not on the cross you can't be saved.

God took the penalty, and was separated from the Godhead because of SIN (total)

A Man took the penalty and we share in the death through flesh and blood

If it wasn't God the sindebt was not paid,
It it wasn't man,(one of us) we cannot participate.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> just to be clear,
> 
> If God wasn't on the cross, you can't be saved
> If Man was not on the cross you can't be saved.
> ...


Bible context tells me only this; 
If he was not the firstborn son of God, then the remainder of the family has not been redeemed. How is it then, after his death, that he is called, the firstborn of many brothers?


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 4, 2018)

please elaborate,


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> please elaborate,


In Ex God gives the Israelites that he is delivering directions that every firstborn male who opens a womb, animal and man, must be redeemed, or bought back. Early firstborn males often went to work the temple however God decided to commission the Levites to this task. So any other males basically made a contribution to the Levites for the fact that they were taking their place. That's paraphrasing, however, God's description was different, saying any male not redeemed, break his neck. So it was not a payoff, or buy back, but became a tradition that was followed right up in the days of Jesus, including Jesus.  On the eight day, they went to the temple and offered a lamb, doves or other, I don't recall. This was required of the firstborn only. The remainder of the family, the 2nd son, the 3rd son, and on, did not have to be redeemed because the requirement set forth by God had been done. However, what it really did was call to attention that it was done because someone else had taken one's place.  Sort of like the military. It calls a mental attention to a thankfulness that I don't have to go, because someone else is making that sacrifice. Hmmm, poor analogy, however, it did act as a way to remind rather than a task they were required. It was a constant reminder of the passing of the responsibility off on another. Finally, 
 after how many thousands of years, ? it's finished.  Someone [a levite] had taken the firstborns place in service to God.  And this is why the firstborn ritual  is no longer part of culture, no longer is a replacement being used, because Jesus, as the firstborn son, has came into the temple as "the faithful high priest in service to God" heb 2;17 having redeemed the remainder of the family as "the firstborn of many brothers". "For those who believe on his name, he gave the right to become children of God, children not born of natural descent, nor by a humans decision, or a husbands will, but born of God" Jn 1:12
Edit, I really failed to convey the beauty in all that, or the mindset of those offering/redeeming their firstborn son. Or the emotion of the glory of it "being finished". It's been years since I had these topics on my mind. I really need to study back through so I don't forget what I have learned


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 4, 2018)

Exo 13:2

Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

This type of thing?

This redemption is not salvation and but it is a tax . 

The Priests / Levites work in the temple. Those from other tribes did not.  Redeem meant a tax on any who were first born.

Jesus not a  type of this,
the first born is a picture of Jesus, instead


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> Exo 13:2
> 
> Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
> 
> ...


So where then does the word "redeemer" come from?

Jesus is many things from the OT. Our {passover} lamb, our redeemer, our high priest, our mediator. 

The firstborn has emphasis all throughout the OT. A Dbl inheritance, at some point taking charge and ruling his Father's household/estate including siblings, people acquired, herds, his means of making a living. It's all under the firstborn.  Matt 28, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> Exo 13:2
> 
> Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
> 
> ...


This ain't no tax



Exodus 13

SEARCH
A A A A A
Bible Book List 


Exodus 13New International Version (NIV)
Consecration of the Firstborn
13 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.”

3 Then Moses said to the people, “Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the Lord brought you out of it with a mighty hand. Eat nothing containing yeast. 4 Today, in the month of Aviv, you are leaving. 5 When the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites and Jebusites—the land he swore to your ancestors to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey—you are to observe this ceremony in this month: 6 For seven days eat bread made without yeast and on the seventh day hold a festival to the Lord. 7 Eat unleavened bread during those seven days; nothing with yeast in it is to be seen among you, nor shall any yeast be seen anywhere within your borders. 8 On that day tell your son, ‘I do this because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ 9 This observance will be for you like a sign on your hand and a reminder on your forehead that this law of the Lord is to be on your lips. For the Lord brought you out of Egypt with his mighty hand. 10 You must keep this ordinance at the appointed time year after year.

11 “After the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites and gives it to you, as he promised on oath to you and your ancestors, 12 you are to give over to the Lord the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the Lord. 13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

14 “In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ 16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the Lord brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> This ain't no tax
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So... For a long while the firstborn Israelites served in the temple helping Aaron. But they made a golden calf when Moses was on the mountain. So, Moses said something I don't recall, a call that seemingly called for those not ok with this calf to come to him. The Levite clan was the clan who showed up. So God later had the math done, people counted, calculated overages,,,,, gave x amount to the levites, the extra to Aaron, ....... and redeemed the Israelites from their predetermined firstborn requirements to serve as priests. The other tribes had sinned and could no longer come near the temple or God's wrath would kill them. Their work was through..... but they had to continue this with all their firstborns, a constant reminder that their duties were being served by a replacement, temporary, no, but not until a sinless Israelite could approach the temple. He entered in, not just behind the curtain, the stages of cleanliness, but into the Holly of Hollies


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

Interesting, I'm learning a bit here. I don't know enough about the "firstborn" other than what I learned about the Moses story.

Now back to the discussion on why they would mourn Jesus like he was an only child and firstborn. I'm assuming he was both.
I'm thinking that I would mourn the death of any of my children. Naturally one would mourn the death of an only child more maybe.
But why the firstborn?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

I know that out of the time context Jesus was the firstborn just as he foreknew the ones he predestined. So in Word or as the Word he was already here as were we. 

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

When in time did Jesus become the firstborn of God? His physical birth/incarnation? 

Colossians 1:15 
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

He was the firstborn "over" all creation.
In Word everything was made through him or for him. He was the main part of the plan from the get go. He was the plan/Word.
His part in the plan came first then every thing else was.

Colossians 1:18
And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence.

OK, what does it mean that he was the  "firstborn from among the dead?"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

Just reading briefly on it. It is not a tax. It's an actual redemption. You either pay it or lose your firstborn. It's one or the other, take your pick.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 4, 2018)

There was no Temple during Aaron, The Tabernacle was after the Golden calf.
Levites were chosen to service in the Temple. The first born makes were required to represent the families at the Temple/Tabernacle twice a year, Ros Hosana and Yom Kippur.  

Redeem means replace, God said first born males were His, to be redeemed with another animal to the Temple.

 Exo 34:20

But the firstling of an CensoredCensoredCensored thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

The first born had to bring a offering to the assembly


Jesus was not of the Priest of Israel   but of God.  

He was the ransom.  He did not go in the Holy of Holies here but in Heaven


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 4, 2018)

It went from animals to money later

Numbers 3:45–47 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborns among the children of Israel . . . You shall take five shekels per head, according to the holy shekel, by which the shekel is twenty gerahs.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

I read many verses where it appears God chose and/or appointed Jesus as his Son and/or firstborn. He is the One who has been appointed by God to be in authority over all things.
Maybe some of it is the authority part of being a firstborn a certain superiority in privilege and authority. But why would God have to appoint Jesus to do this? If he is the firstborn then it would be just another aspect of it.

Verses that say;
"I will become his father and he will become my son."
"You are my son! This very day I have become your father!"
"You are My Son, Today I have begotten You."
"My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him."
"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
"God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name."
"Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father,"
" God anointed Jesus"

Isaiah 42:1
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.


Hebrews 1:2-3
But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Hebrews 5:5
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”

John 8:54
Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory means nothing. The One who glorifies Me is My Father, of whom you say 'He is our God.'

1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

It sometimes appears that God appointed, elected, anointed, gave authority to, chose, Jesus to be his Heir, Son, Firstborn, and/or High Priest.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

marketgunner said:


> It went from animals to money later
> 
> Numbers 3:45–47 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborns among the children of Israel . . . You shall take five shekels per head, according to the holy shekel, by which the shekel is twenty gerahs.



I read where they still do that. But it's not a tax.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I read many verses where it appears God chose and/or appointed Jesus as his Son and/or firstborn. He is the One who has been appointed by God to be in authority over all things.
> Maybe some of it is the authority part of being a firstborn a certain superiority in privilege and authority. But why would God have to appoint Jesus to do this? If he is the firstborn then it would be just another aspect of it.
> 
> Verses that say;
> ...


Here is another way to look at it that will not be popular. Jesus was born again when the Spirit came down on him and remained. [Today, you have become my son] His ministry kicks into high gear. Jesus was sinless but was fully man therefore he was under the same curse of "you will surely die". But God was pleased with him and raised him from the dead, the firstborn from the dead.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Here is another way to look at it that will not be popular. Jesus was born again when the Spirit came down on him and remained. [Today, you have become my son] His ministry kicks into high gear. Jesus was sinless but was fully man therefore he was under the same curse of "you will surely die". But God was pleased with him and raised him from the dead, the firstborn from the dead.



But he was firstborn before his death wasn't he? I understand his death and resurrection made him the firstborn of the dead(meaning sinners). Once he arose all the dead in Christ became sons. In this way he became the firstborn of the dead.
But wasn't he already the only begotten Son of God? God's only Son? When the Holy Spirit anointed Jesus, God said today this is my Son. Even that was before he became the Firstborn of the dead.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> But he was firstborn before his death wasn't he? I understand his death and resurrection made him the firstborn of the dead(meaning sinners). Once he arose all the dead in Christ became sons. In this way he became the firstborn of the dead.
> But wasn't he already the only begotten Son of God? God's only Son? When the Holy Spirit anointed Jesus, God said today this is my Son. Even that was before he became the Firstborn of the dead.


I agree that he is both, firstborn from the dead, not being the same as firstborn. However, I believe he became God's firstborn son at his baptismal by way of being "born by the Spirit"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I agree that he is both, firstborn from the dead, not being the same as firstborn. However, I believe he became God's firstborn son at his baptismal by way of being "born by the Spirit"



Isaiah 42:1
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.

Matthew 12:18
"Here is My servant, whom I have chosen, My beloved, in whom My soul delights. I will put My Spirit on Him, and He will proclaim justice to the nations.

Colossians 1:19
For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

Romans 8:29 
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

1 Corinthians 2:7
No, we speak of the mysterious and hidden wisdom of God, which He destined for our glory before time began.

Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love

1 Corinthians 15:49
And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so also shall we bear the likeness of the heavenly man.

Even in Word we were there. Jesus was there- "to be conformed to the image of his Son."
"that he might be the firstborn among many"

In Word we had to be there to. So that that he might be the firstborn among many. We had to be there in the sense that Jesus was so that he might be the firstborn among many and so that we could be conformed to the image of his Son.

So that we can bear the likeness of the heavenly man.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I agree that he is both, firstborn from the dead, not being the same as firstborn. However, I believe he became God's firstborn son at his baptismal by way of being "born by the Spirit"



Psalm 89:27
"I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth."

Why did God have to appoint him firstborn? Being an only child, he would have to be the firstborn.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Psalm 89:27
> "I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth."
> 
> Why did God have to appoint him firstborn? Being an only child, he would have to be the firstborn.


God told Abraham not to sacrifice Issac, that he would provide


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Psalm 89:27
> "I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth."
> 
> Why did God have to appoint him firstborn? Being an only child, he would have to be the firstborn.


My belief is that Joseph is Jesus bilogical father. If not the I don't think he would qualify for messiah. He has to be a descendant of David, and it does not come through the mother. Nowhere in scripture do we see, so in so's name, son of a woman. It's always a man. Of course many attempts are made to try to justify it through Mary, but they are all reverse engineering


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is that Joseph is Jesus bilogical father. If not the I don't think he would qualify for messiah. He has to be a descendant of David, and it does not come through the mother. Nowhere in scripture do we see, so in so's name, son of a woman. It's always a man. Of course many attempts are made to try to justify it through Mary, but they are all reverse engineering


  To Art,
I know this will not be popular, no one wants to hear it, but Matthew and Luke are not legitimate writings. They both copied from Mark or another source called "Q". Of course no one will accept this, or further investigate it, but it's a fact. For example, Mary gets all this info, how she will have a son, how can this be etc, yet she and the brothers go to take charge of Jesus because they say "he out of his mind". That's called editorial fatigue. They were making stuff up, embellishing stories and simply forgot that this contridicted. Must have been a long night. So many of these type things. Extremely interesting study though. And Matt, same stuff, but a example of how much later it was written.... then having a motive to force Mary to be a virgin over a mistranslation of young woman. Jewish times had a lingo, such as "A wave, a real big wave", meaning 1 wave. The Matthew creator saw on a foil, on a foil of a donkey and not knowing jewish culture , he had Jesus ride in straddling 2 donkeys. So not only was it copied, it was much later and much was lost and biases were penned as fact. Being a bible student requires us to know our bible. Part of knowing it is knowing where and why we have so many contradictions. However, the truth is still within. If you ever get interested in these things I can show you tons of these, all different forms, location errs, genealogy errs, editorial fatigue, doublets, etc. SUPER interesting. It may seem like a crisis of faith, but it's not. How could we not expect the book to be free from human influence. Oh, and the next SUPER interesting study is the early church fathers. We have volumes and volumes of their writings argueing over doctrine. Oh, then the book of Enoch, another great study


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is that Joseph is Jesus bilogical father. If not the I don't think he would qualify for messiah. He has to be a descendant of David, and it does not come through the mother. Nowhere in scripture do we see, so in so's name, son of a woman. It's always a man. Of course many attempts are made to try to justify it through Mary, but they are all reverse engineering



Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

What role did the Holy Spirit play in his visit that made Jesus Immanuel?

Luke 1:31-33
Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you shall give Him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!”

This could explain why God had to predestine, choose, appoint, elect, anoint, give authority to, make the firstborn, etc. God's Son and firstborn.
It would explain why God would have to "give" Jesus the throne.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> To Art,
> I know this will not be popular, no one wants to hear it, but Matthew and Luke are not legitimate writings. They both copied from Mark or another source called "Q". Of course no one will accept this, or further investigate it, but it's a fact. For example, Mary gets all this info, how she will have a son, how can this be etc, yet she and the brothers go to take charge of Jesus because they say "he out of his mind". That's called editorial fatigue. They were making stuff up, embellishing stories and simply forgot that this contridicted. Must have been a long night. So many of these type things. Extremely interesting study though. And Matt, same stuff, but a example of how much later it was written.... then having a motive to force Mary to be a virgin over a mistranslation of young woman. Jewish times had a lingo, such as "A wave, a real big wave", meaning 1 wave. The Matthew creator saw on a foil, on a foil of a donkey and not knowing jewish culture , he had Jesus ride in straddling 2 donkeys. So not only was it copied, it was much later and much was lost and biases were penned as fact. Being a bible student requires us to know our bible. Part of knowing it is knowing where and why we have so many contradictions. However, the truth is still within. If you ever get interested in these things I can show you tons of these, all different forms, location errs, genealogy errs, editorial fatigue, doublets, etc. SUPER interesting. It may seem like a crisis of faith, but it's not. How could we not expect the book to be free from human influence. Oh, and the next SUPER interesting study is the early church fathers. We have volumes and volumes of their writings argueing over doctrine. Oh, then the book of Enoch, another great study


LOL, and I accused someone of losing all credibility yesterday. If I had any here, I just lost the remainder. Oh well, but I speak from having spent years studying specific topics rather than just cut n paste what someone else studied, or having a Mom and Pops religion, and I have never discussed these things with anyone whom actually had investigated them. Most just say "no it's not so". As an apologetic one must know both sides of the debate to be able to make a reasonable case for one side. When I was a trin, I took pride in thinking I had deep pockets to pull verses from to stump the JW's who visited my front porch. Funny thing, I think they knew exactly which verses I was going to run to. Hmmm, they may have had a small degree to do with my interest in understanding the trinity of my upbringing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, and I accused someone of losing all credibility yesterday. If I had any here, I just lost the remainder. Oh well, but I speak from having spent years studying specific topics rather than just cut n paste what someone else studied, or having a Mom and Pops religion, and I have never discussed these things with anyone whom actually had investigated them. Most just say "no it's not so". As an apologetic one must know both sides of the debate to be able to make a reasonable case for one side. When I was a trin, I took pride in thinking I had deep pockets to pull verses from to stump the JW's who visited my front porch. Funny thing, I think they knew exactly which verses I was going to run to. Hmmm, they may have had a small degree to do with my interest in understanding the trinity of my upbringing.



That's the thing about Scripture. One can pull verses for or against Trinity, Oneness, OSAS, election, predestination, Israel, Preterism. Futurism, kingdoms, etc. 

Thank God salvation is a gift and not from us. Oh, there are verses for and against that a well. You know the old grace vs works debate. Easy believism vs Lordship Salvation.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is that Joseph is Jesus bilogical father. If not the I don't think he would qualify for messiah. He has to be a descendant of David, and it does not come through the mother. Nowhere in scripture do we see, so in so's name, son of a woman. It's always a man. Of course many attempts are made to try to justify it through Mary, but they are all reverse engineering



Mary is a descendant of David, too. 
Jesus 's Father was God.
He became the Son of God when He became Son of Man
The Father was not the Father until Jesus became the Son. 
Heb 1:6

¶
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:5

¶
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What role did the Holy Spirit play in his visit that made Jesus Immanuel?


hmmm, the role the HS played,  The "HS will come upon you and you will conceive". It looks like the HS is the father instead of the father.  Luke was not trying to build a case for the trinity, he was trying to force Jesus into an incorrect translation of a prophesy of virgin mother.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 5, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> hmmm, the role the HS played,  The "HS will come upon you and you will conceive". It looks like the HS is the father instead of the father.  Luke was not trying to build a case for the trinity, he was trying to force Jesus into an incorrect translation of a prophesy of virgin mother.



Didn't Matthew and Mark do this as well?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 5, 2018)

Matthew 1:18
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Even if Mary wasn't a virgin, she was found to be pregnant before her and Joseph came together.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Didn't Matthew and Mark do this as well?


Not mark


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 5, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Matthew 1:18
> This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Even if Mary wasn't a virgin, she was found to be pregnant before her and Joseph came together.


Mark is a solid gospel, it's Matthew and Luke who got carried away. They tried to make Jesus fit so called prophesy, as if they wanted to help Jesus to succeed. He needed no help, and in doing so, they bordered on effecting credibility of the gospel.


----------



## marketgunner (Jan 5, 2018)

Matthew presents Jesus a  King.
Mark presents Jesus as Servant
Luke presents Jesus as a Man
John presents Jesus as God

They would not be the same.

Remember Q is speculation and has not been found


----------

