|
Post by snow on Jan 13, 2020 15:56:14 GMT -5
That's plain ignorant of them. Who have you met that would be that upset? Some 2x2s, I don’t think it ever dawned on them. There’s some Baptist, whether it was known to them is a guess. Then quite a few Catholics. I think the anti-Semitic people have been acquainted with Christianity but still harbor hatred toward the Jews. The last anti-Semitic attacker had been raised in a Christian home, so was reported. It just has been that people don’t catch that the Holy Bible is about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I can’t figure that out. Unless they just haven’t really read the Bible? A lot really haven't read their bible. They only know what their pastor says on Sunday. I know I've quoted scripture to my sisters and they didn't even know that they were in the bible. I always get the comment, well I'll have to ask my pastor when I ask about something they had no idea was in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jan 13, 2020 17:34:40 GMT -5
A lot really haven't read their bible. They only know what their pastor says on Sunday. I know I've quoted scripture to my sisters and they didn't even know that they were in the bible. I always get the comment, well I'll have to ask my pastor when I ask about something they had no idea was in the bible. Ignorance is bliss.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 13, 2020 17:39:29 GMT -5
Penta = five. The five books of Moses. Septua = 70. Referring to the 70 (maybe 72) rabbis (or men) who selected the books for the Greek version of their Bible before the time of Jesus, for the benefit of the Jews in the Diaspora. Called the Septugint. The problem with the Septuagint was that it contained books that were not originally written iN Hebrew. But it was accepted by the Greek speaking Jews, and subsequently by the Roman church. And today it is the Catholic OT and Apokripha. (sp.) The Jews some time in the 2nd century CE (approx.) compiled another canon which left out all the books that were not originally written in Hebrew, and today that is the Old Testament that most Protestant churches us. Hebrews today call it the Tanack (sp), and that is their Bible. Torah = Hebrew law. This normally is used for the 5 books of Moses, but there is more torah than is included in the "Torah" - much of it oral. Okay Bob instead of rushing though my thoughts on this subject of the Bible’s reliability I now see I need to take my time and be more formal so others may judge if my facts hold. "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher" so ordered King Ptolemy. And when it was handed to King Ptolemy on or about the annual feast of Tevel in the 3rd century BCE, and almost immediately the Rabbi’s regarded the translation as a distortion of their sacred text and not suitable for use in the synagogue. Then within the next 3 century’s Hebrew books other than the Torah were translated into Greek. I’ll admit from my research it is not conclusive of which was translated when or where; And Joel Kalvesmaki surmises some may even have been translated twice into different versions and then revised. And then continuing into the 3rd Century of our time the early church fathers were still fighting over the quality and style of the different translators and why they also varied considerably from book to book from a literal translation to paraphrasing to an interpretative style. It takes quite some study to see that during the translation process of the Septuagint itself and then from the Septuagint being edited into other versions one may make a distinction of the stages the process went through which can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. Thus, one ends up with somewhere around 200 quotes that do not hold up to a fact check when compared with the Jewish Text. Is this not enough fact to show that the English Bible is not reliable? And I’ll ask again did Jesus read the Jewish scroll in the Temple or did he ask for a Greek translation? If my point is not made then I’m seemly not the one to make it. I don't really disagree with you in this matter because I'm not the expert. I do know, however, that what passes for the Septuagint today is subject to extensive translation, as well as what the "church" refers to as "corrections". I would take the Jewish Tanakh that's used by the Orthodox Jews today to be more in line with the original texts than the Septuagint. BTW, all of the Torah writings were written originally in Hebrew, thus not the parts of the Septuagint that were rejected by the Orthodox Jews.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 13, 2020 17:44:15 GMT -5
Okay Bob instead of rushing though my thoughts on this subject of the Bible’s reliability I now see I need to take my time and be more formal so others may judge if my facts hold. "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher" so ordered King Ptolemy. And when it was handed to King Ptolemy on or about the annual feast of Tevel in the 3rd century BCE, and almost immediately the Rabbi’s regarded the translation as a distortion of their sacred text and not suitable for use in the synagogue. Then within the next 3 century’s Hebrew books other than the Torah were translated into Greek. I’ll admit from my research it is not conclusive of which was translated when or where; And Joel Kalvesmaki surmises some may even have been translated twice into different versions and then revised. And then continuing into the 3rd Century of our time the early church fathers were still fighting over the quality and style of the different translators and why they also varied considerably from book to book from a literal translation to paraphrasing to an interpretative style. It takes quite some study to see that during the translation process of the Septuagint itself and then from the Septuagint being edited into other versions one may make a distinction of the stages the process went through which can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. Thus, one ends up with somewhere around 200 quotes that do not hold up to a fact check when compared with the Jewish Text. Is this not enough fact to show that the English Bible is not reliable? And I’ll ask again did Jesus read the Jewish scroll in the Temple or did he ask for a Greek translation? If my point is not made then I’m seemly not the one to make it. I don't really disagree with you in this matter because I'm not the expert. I do know, however, that what passes for the Septuagint today is subject to extensive translation, as well as what the "church" refers to as "corrections". I would take the Jewish Tanakh that's used by the Orthodox Jews today to be more in line with the original texts than the Septuagint. BTW, all of the Torah writings were written originally in Hebrew, thus not the parts of the Septuagint that were rejected by the Orthodox Jews. Okay good this subject require so much study and holding so many thoughts juggling in the air with discussing at times it hard to know how one's message is received.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2020 11:25:43 GMT -5
Only for those who are not fearful of the facts: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPIRCS6WOwQYou may not like the host or the rabbi but they are very plain speaking easy to understand and give reference to where they take their facts from. If this rabbi is blowing smoke I'll be the first to apologize when I find him untrue to the facts. When I listened to him, it seemed he was coming from the Jews’ belief that their Messiah has not come yet. I noticed the scriptures he pulled into question, one would have to believe the Son of God was begotten since before the world ever became, to understand the prophecy or accuracy of the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jan 14, 2020 12:21:27 GMT -5
When I listened to him, it seemed he was coming from the Jews’ belief that their Messiah has not come yet. That's exactly what Jews believe. They are awaiting the first coming of Christ/Messiah, while Christians are awaiting the second coming. I noticed the scriptures he pulled into question, one would have to believe the Son of God was begotten since before the world ever became, to understand the prophecy or accuracy of the scriptures. That's what I was taught growing up by my 2x2 parents. Jesus has always existed. Not sure if that plays into Jesus being begotten/created by God. I think not. At least not till he was begotten on earth.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2020 13:14:03 GMT -5
When I listened to him, it seemed he was coming from the Jews’ belief that their Messiah has not come yet. That's exactly what Jews believe. They are awaiting the first coming of Christ/Messiah, while Christians are awaiting the second coming. I noticed the scriptures he pulled into question, one would have to believe the Son of God was begotten since before the world ever became, to understand the prophecy or accuracy of the scriptures. That's what I was taught growing up by my 2x2 parents. Jesus has always existed. Not sure if that plays into Jesus being begotten/created by God. I think not. At least not till he was begotten on earth. You’re right. The fact was taught to me that God’s Son was begotten before the world ever became. He was not called Jesus at that time. Just God’s only begotten Son. Though the 2x2s has not correlated or gathered the fact that Jesus is God’s only begotten Son’s human body. Jesus should have never been put on him. Emmanuel was the name prophesied in Isaiah. But the Greek word came out of that to a translation of Joshua to Iosesus then became Jesus. I think Dennis has his name as the Jews would say it as Yeshua , which means God saves..
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 14, 2020 15:09:15 GMT -5
Only for those who are not fearful of the facts: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPIRCS6WOwQYou may not like the host or the rabbi but they are very plain speaking easy to understand and give reference to where they take their facts from. If this rabbi is blowing smoke I'll be the first to apologize when I find him untrue to the facts. When I listened to him, it seemed he was coming from the Jews’ belief that their Messiah has not come yet. I noticed the scriptures he pulled into question, one would have to believe the Son of God was begotten since before the world ever became, to understand the prophecy or accuracy of the scriptures. And the Jews never believed that God had a son, which is why they don't understand the prophecy of those scriptures. The prophesy was breathed into life by the insertion of Pagan theology of Christians. Kind of like predicting that the president of the United States would eventually morph into a savior.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 14, 2020 16:54:00 GMT -5
When I listened to him, it seemed he was coming from the Jews’ belief that their Messiah has not come yet. I noticed the scriptures he pulled into question, one would have to believe the Son of God was begotten since before the world ever became, to understand the prophecy or accuracy of the scriptures. And the Jews never believed that God had a son, which is why they don't understand the prophecy of those scriptures. The prophesy was breathed into life by the insertion of Pagan theology of Christians. Kind of like predicting that the president of the United States would eventually morph into a savior. Yes, and that’s why they wanted to kill him for they thought he blasphemed. Though I disagree on the deal about morphing a president into a savior. Though some world leader will morph into the Antichrist and then end up killing 2/3 rds of the Jews during the tribulation. As the Antichrist will present himself to the Jews as their savior, I suppose in a sense it’s still is true especially if Trump is the Antichrist. Some seem to think he’s put there by God, even himself.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jan 14, 2020 17:10:28 GMT -5
And the Jews never believed that God had a son, which is why they don't understand the prophecy of those scriptures. The prophesy was breathed into life by the insertion of Pagan theology of Christians. Kind of like predicting that the president of the United States would eventually morph into a savior.SHUT UP YOU!!!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 14, 2020 18:14:38 GMT -5
And the Jews never believed that God had a son, which is why they don't understand the prophecy of those scriptures. The prophesy was breathed into life by the insertion of Pagan theology of Christians. Kind of like predicting that the president of the United States would eventually morph into a savior.SHUT UP YOU!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 15, 2020 0:19:49 GMT -5
And the Jews never believed that God had a son, which is why they don't understand the prophecy of those scriptures. The prophesy was breathed into life by the insertion of Pagan theology of Christians. Kind of like predicting that the president of the United States would eventually morph into a savior. Yes, and that’s why they wanted to kill him for they thought he blasphemed. Though I disagree on the deal about morphing a president into a savior. Though some world leader will morph into the Antichrist and then end up killing 2/3 rds of the Jews during the tribulation. As the Antichrist will present himself to the Jews as their savior, I suppose in a sense it’s still is true especially if Trump is the Antichrist. Some seem to think he’s put there by God, even himself. Actually the Antichrist would have more success with the Jews if he didn't pose as a "christ".
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 15, 2020 0:21:43 GMT -5
And the Jews never believed that God had a son, which is why they don't understand the prophecy of those scriptures. The prophesy was breathed into life by the insertion of Pagan theology of Christians. Kind of like predicting that the president of the United States would eventually morph into a savior. Yes, and that’s why they wanted to kill him for they thought he blasphemed. Though I disagree on the deal about morphing a president into a savior. Though some world leader will morph into the Antichrist and then end up killing 2/3 rds of the Jews during the tribulation. As the Antichrist will present himself to the Jews as their savior, I suppose in a sense it’s still is true especially if Trump is the Antichrist. Some seem to think he’s put there by God, even himself. What are you using as your source that the Jews wanted to kill him?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 15, 2020 0:24:03 GMT -5
And the Jews never believed that God had a son, which is why they don't understand the prophecy of those scriptures. The prophesy was breathed into life by the insertion of Pagan theology of Christians. Kind of like predicting that the president of the United States would eventually morph into a savior.SHUT UP YOU!!! Scared you, didn't I.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 15, 2020 0:30:46 GMT -5
The Prophets (Nevi’im), who wrote hundreds of years before Jesus’ birth, envisioned a messianic age as a period of universal peace, in which war and hunger are eradicated, and humanity accepts God’s sovereignty. No mention of Jesus here.
However by the first century due to the Greeks trying to take over the Jews text and bend it they for all time started the hatred of Jews for not wanting to eat the flesh and drink the blood, the view developed that the messianic age would witness a general resurrection of the dead, the in-gathering of all the Jews, including the 10 lost tribes, to the land of Israel, a final judgment and universal peace and the Jews had killed Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 15, 2020 0:49:01 GMT -5
Yes, and that’s why they wanted to kill him for they thought he blasphemed. This is the common understanding of Christians, but it's really an uninformed perception. It is questionable whether Jesus even called himself the son of god. Except for the Book of John, he never called himself that -- he called himself the son of MAN. If the Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy, they could most certainly have killed him. On all Jewish religious matters they were free to punish as they pleased any of their offenders. The Romans didn't care what they believed as long as they didn't threaten the control of the Romans over them. According to the Bible the Jews turned him over to the Romans who routinely crucified anyone who threatened Roman control. The Romans would never have crucified anyone claiming to be a son of a god. They were Pagans, who believed in many gods, and "sons of gods", for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 1:17:44 GMT -5
Yes, and that’s why they wanted to kill him for they thought he blasphemed. This is the common understanding of Christians, but it's really an uninformed perception. It is questionable whether Jesus even called himself the son of god. Except for the Book of John, he never called himself that -- he called himself the son of MAN. If the Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy, they could most certainly have killed him. On all Jewish religious matters they were free to punish as they pleased any of their offenders. The Romans didn't care what they believed as long as they didn't threaten the control of the Romans over them. According to the Bible the Jews turned him over to the Romans who routinely crucified anyone who threatened Roman control. The Romans would never have crucified anyone claiming to be a son of a god. They were Pagans, who believed in many gods, and "sons of gods", for that matter. No, the Chief priest did end up telling Pilate that Jesus was planning an insurrection when Pilate said he was going to release Jesus because he saw no fault in him. Then, of course Pilate had no choice but to crucify him. When the Chief priest questioned Jesus and asked Jesus if he was the Son of God, Jesus said back to him, “Thou sayest.” Which was affirming what the priest said. The priest then rent his clothing and said that Jesus blasphemed and that was a reason enough to kill him. But then the Chief priest told Pilate that the Jews couldn’t kill him because they had a law against it; which was a flat out lie. Btw, he called himself the Son of man as prophesied in Daniel.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 1:20:55 GMT -5
Yes, and that’s why they wanted to kill him for they thought he blasphemed. Though I disagree on the deal about morphing a president into a savior. Though some world leader will morph into the Antichrist and then end up killing 2/3 rds of the Jews during the tribulation. As the Antichrist will present himself to the Jews as their savior, I suppose in a sense it’s still is true especially if Trump is the Antichrist. Some seem to think he’s put there by God, even himself. What are you using as your source that the Jews wanted to kill him? The Bible and other articles online.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 15, 2020 1:27:24 GMT -5
What are you using as your source that the Jews wanted to kill him? The Bible and other articles online. several of have already pointed out the bible is unreliable. Can you list your other sources? For most of Christian history, Jews were held responsible for the death of Jesus. This is because the New Testament tends to place the blame specifically on the Temple leadership and more generally on Jewish people. According to the Gospels, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate was reluctant to execute Jesus but was egged on by bloodthirsty Jews — a scene famously captured in Mel Gibson’s controversial 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ.” According to the Gospel of Matthew, after Pilate washes his hands and declares himself innocent of Jesus’ death, “all the people” (i.e., all the Jews in Jerusalem) respond, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). Where do you think the Gospel writers got this idea? It is not to be found in the Jewish text.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 11:21:45 GMT -5
Yes, and that’s why they wanted to kill him for they thought he blasphemed. This is the common understanding of Christians, but it's really an uninformed perception. It is questionable whether Jesus even called himself the son of god. Except for the Book of John, he never called himself that -- he called himself the son of MAN. If the Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy, they could most certainly have killed him. On all Jewish religious matters they were free to punish as they pleased any of their offenders. The Romans didn't care what they believed as long as they didn't threaten the control of the Romans over them. According to the Bible the Jews turned him over to the Romans who routinely crucified anyone who threatened Roman control. The Romans would never have crucified anyone claiming to be a son of a god. They were Pagans, who believed in many gods, and "sons of gods", for that matter. Jesus did say he was the Son of God. He said it many different ways and many people witnessed it. However in John 10:36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD?
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jan 15, 2020 12:40:23 GMT -5
This is the common understanding of Christians, but it's really an uninformed perception. It is questionable whether Jesus even called himself the son of god. Except for the Book of John, he never called himself that -- he called himself the son of MAN. If the Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy, they could most certainly have killed him. On all Jewish religious matters they were free to punish as they pleased any of their offenders. The Romans didn't care what they believed as long as they didn't threaten the control of the Romans over them. According to the Bible the Jews turned him over to the Romans who routinely crucified anyone who threatened Roman control. The Romans would never have crucified anyone claiming to be a son of a god. They were Pagans, who believed in many gods, and "sons of gods", for that matter. Jesus did say he was the Son of God. He said it many different ways and many people witnessed it. However in John 10:36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD? ** I agree with you, STR. BobW needs to read the Bible again. In the gospels Jesus refers himself the son of man, Son of God, and the I AM God of the Old Test. In the book of Rev. Chapter 1 and 21 Jesus said he is The Almighty God, the Alpha and Omega and God/the Christ himself.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jan 15, 2020 14:07:09 GMT -5
Am I reading this correctly in Luke it also says Adam was the Son of God.
Luke 3: 38 which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 14:25:24 GMT -5
Am I reading this correctly in Luke it also says Adam was the Son of God. Luke 3: 38 which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Yes. The OT days Israel was God’s firstborn son. It also says Ephraim was his firstborn son. In your quote note the letter g, whether it’s capitalized or not. If it’s not capitalized it’s speaking to the human or natural. If it’s capitalized it’s speaking to the spiritual. The Son of God was begotten before the world ever began. The Father is a spirit, so he would begat a Son that was spirit. However, when God was ready for God’s Son to come to earth, he prepared a human body for that already existing eternal spirit of his only begotten Son. As in Psalms says , a body hast thou prepared me.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 14:28:54 GMT -5
This is the common understanding of Christians, but it's really an uninformed perception. It is questionable whether Jesus even called himself the son of god. Except for the Book of John, he never called himself that -- he called himself the son of MAN. If the Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy, they could most certainly have killed him. On all Jewish religious matters they were free to punish as they pleased any of their offenders. The Romans didn't care what they believed as long as they didn't threaten the control of the Romans over them. According to the Bible the Jews turned him over to the Romans who routinely crucified anyone who threatened Roman control. The Romans would never have crucified anyone claiming to be a son of a god. They were Pagans, who believed in many gods, and "sons of gods", for that matter. Bob is using the English translation of Hebrew (“son of man”) the same way that workers have used every word of the Bible historically – i.e., bearing current English meaning, not Jewish meaning. In Hebrew, “ben adam” (son of man), or in Aramaic “bar adam” (son of man) refers to the Messiah. Therefore, Jesus laid claim to be the Messiah in His claim to be the Son of Man. Of course, this post is intended for the eyes of 2x2/visitors who might be deceived by the Bible-illiterates who portray themselves as knowledgeable Bible expositors. But since my posts on page one already dealt with "ben adam" for the eyes of visitors, this post is briefly posted on page 24, just in case a visitor or two reads that far past page one of this thread – this post will therefore be deleted within 30 minutes unless someone quotes it to preserve and protect it from my ability to delete it. The bar Adam also was mentioned that Barabas’ name means son of man. And that it wasn’t coincidental that the transgressor freed instead of Jesus, would bear that name meaning “son of man.” CORRECTION: Barabbas means “son of the father.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 14:50:12 GMT -5
Sorry sharingtheriches - I added this Edit later - so add it here so it too is preserved and protected from my ability to delete; Edit -"If the Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy, they could most certainly have killed him." This sentence is in direct contradiction of what the Bible says about the Jews' 'freedom' to punish anyone for blasphemy - Joh 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Joh 18:29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? Joh 18:30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Joh 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: Joh 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. You’re correct. I meant to quote this last night then forgot it. Thank you. Fact I think I said that the priest had said they had a law they could kill him and that was a lie.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 15:20:51 GMT -5
You’re correct. I meant to quote this last night then forgot it. Thank you. Fact I think I said that the priest had said they had a law they could kill him and that was a lie. The context of these verses led up to: Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. By the Jewish law the Jews were to STONE to death any blasphemer among them, so by Jewish law their charge against Jesus for blasphemy would have been sufficient for the Jews to STONE Jesus to death. So it was Roman law that forbid the Jews from putting anyone to death, not Jewish law. And THAT shows WHY the Jews charged Jesus claim to be King of the Jews - as challenging Caesar's authority over the Jews - in order to create a ROMAN cause to CRUCIFY Him - hense John 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. (i.e., by crucifixion, (not by stoning) and for claiming to be King of the Jews, not for blasphemy.) Yes, he was to be “lifted up” just as Moses’ rod. Also in order to be numbered with the transgressors, was the reason he asked his apostles about swords. And this also was part of the Chief priest coming up with the insurrection allegement.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 15, 2020 16:58:08 GMT -5
This is the common understanding of Christians, but it's really an uninformed perception. It is questionable whether Jesus even called himself the son of god. Except for the Book of John, he never called himself that -- he called himself the son of MAN. If the Jews wanted him killed for blasphemy, they could most certainly have killed him. On all Jewish religious matters they were free to punish as they pleased any of their offenders. The Romans didn't care what they believed as long as they didn't threaten the control of the Romans over them. According to the Bible the Jews turned him over to the Romans who routinely crucified anyone who threatened Roman control. The Romans would never have crucified anyone claiming to be a son of a god. They were Pagans, who believed in many gods, and "sons of gods", for that matter. Jesus did say he was the Son of God. He said it many different ways and many people witnessed it. However in John 10:36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD? Read the three gospels again. All mention of him being the Son of God were made by gentiles, not himself.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2020 19:37:25 GMT -5
Jesus did say he was the Son of God. He said it many different ways and many people witnessed it. However in John 10:36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD? Read the three gospels again. All mention of him being the Son of God were made by gentiles, not himself. Matthew 26:63-64. But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I admire thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: ... Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, he hath spoken blasphemy; The priest knew he said he was the Son of God. Matthew 14:33. Then they (Apostles) that we’re in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. John 1:34. (John the Baptist) And I saw , and bare record that this is the Son of God. John 1:49. Nathaniel answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, Thou Art the Son of God; Thou Art the King of Israel. Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:18. He that believeth on him is not condemned ; but he that believeth not is already condemned, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So there were more then Gentiles said it.
|
|