Posts by fjtoth

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Your explanation, as I see it, takes away from the glory and meaningfulness of Jesus' earthly ministry. Either God spoke through his Son "in times past" or he didn't. Hebrews 1 shows there is a vast difference in the way God spoke to mankind before and after Jesus arrived.

Perhaps you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps not. I don't know. They believe Jesus was the archangel Michael and God's spokeperson to mankind. But Hebrews 1:5 denies that with the question "For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you.'"? Jesus was not the archangel.

Additionally, what would be the point of Hebrews 2:2, 3, where we're told that the OT messages were spoken through angels and the Christian gospel was presented to us by God's Son and those who knew him personally? If God's Son spoke "in times past," why is there no mention of this? The writer asks, "For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard."

Again, "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God?" (Hebrews 10:29)

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

Lilly,

why are you being so condescending to me when I asked an honest question? You use terms like "here you go again putting your own spin on things" and "whay can't you understand" and accusing me of twisting scripture. Haven't you ever had a calm discussion about biblical texts before? I am not getting upset at you for disagreeing, I am simply asking questions. Do you feel I am trying to disprove you for that is not my intention at all. I am trying to learn about certain texts.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as condescending, but you are starting to make me question your sincerity. You keep saying the same things over and over despite my pointing out to you that you are going beyond what is written. That's what I meant by "there you go again putting your own spin on things." How many ways do you expect me or anyone to show you that you just plain find it hard to accept clear, easy-to-understand statements?

Hebrews 1 says God spoke by the prophets in times past, yet you keep insisting he spoke by his Son. That is evidence of living in denial. What more can I say?

For instance by giving me that text in Matthew you shed light on the issue so thank you for that. I see what you mean about the Angels appearance but in Matthew it clearly identifies this person as "an angel of the Lord" so this text does not help with my question. I will try again to state my question.

Again, what more can I say? You keep trying to prove that Hebrews 1 is all wrong, that you know better. I showed you that Daniel 10 is describing an angel. I showed you right there in the context. But you don't seem satisfied. Now you want the context to come right out and say precisely that the man in linen is an "angel of the Lord." You want to believe that in OT times Jesus existed as a person less powerful than Michael the archangel.

There are many times when the OT people said an "angel of the LORD" appeared to them. I was simply asking when they specifically say "I saw GOD" and the bible says "no one has seen God at any time" who did they see? Could it be reasonable that they had actually seen Jesus - the image of God? The only one who actually answered my question is Mondo.

And how about what I told you about Jacob wrestling with a man who was actually an angel and who Jacob thought was God? How could he or anyone have seen Jesus if Hebrews 1 clearly, plainly, specifically says that God spoke by his prophets and Hebrews 2 says he spoke by his angels? I certainly hope you don't go through the rest of the Bible and question the actual wording of every verse just as you have been doing with these few verses in Hebrews. You seem to have your mind made up that God spoke to men by means of Jesus, and that's all there is to it despite what the Scriptures teach.

It is interesting that the words spoken to Daniel by the man is very similar (not saying exactly the same) as the words spoken to John by Jesus and recorded in Revelation. And both said they saw a man - not Angel. Why do you think this is so?

The words are most certainly not "very similar." They are not identical. You seem to want to believe that they ARE identical. Isn't that a case of believing only what you WANT to believe? Honestly, Lilly, if I sound condescending, I'm not. I just can't get over how easily you keep saying in so many words that your view is better than the one given in the Bible.

At any rate, I'm an old man, and it's past my bedtime, and I've got to get up early in the morning for work.

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

Lilly,

The clothing in Daniel and Revelation is different because in Revelation we have Christ as king and thus he is wearing the long Robe.

I know you are sincere, but there you go again, attempting to put your own spin on the Scriptures instead of accepting what they say. Daniel 10:12, 13 clearly shows that the man in linen is inferior to the archangel Michael who helped him in his struggle with the prince of Persia. Revelation does not in any way suggest that Jesus is an angel, so there is a monumental difference between Daniel's vision and John's in Revelation.

Can you or anyone else find any scripture where an Angel is described in the same detail as this man in Daniel?

Matthew 28:3 says concerning an angel: "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow." And, as I mentioned, the man in linen is identified in Daniel 10, not as the Son of God, but as an angel inferior to Michael. Why is that so hard to grasp if it isn't because of your pre-conceived view of Jesus?

Also why is the term "someone like a son of man" used?

Ezekiel, Daniel and many others were also called "son of man." That does not mean they were Jesus in some prehuman form.

We know we are made in God's image and thus Christ's image. But what about Angels, could they be said to be "someone like a son of man"?

Angels are called "sons of God." Couldn't that mean they also are in God's image? If not, why not? "Son of man" was a term that simply meant "you" or "mere mortal." It did not mean "descendant of man," as it might in English. Angels took on the form of animals in Daniel and Revelation, but this angel had the appearance of a man.

About Hebrews: I explained that one already and fully believe what it says but still - it does not dismiss the idea that Christ who is the image of God is the one that people saw in the OT.

I don't believe you do "fully believe what it says." Otherwise you wouldn't add "but still." You continually try to find a way to ignore what it clearly states. Many examples could be given of where men and women thought they saw God when it was actually an angel that they saw. I'll give just one: Jacob wrestled with "a man," according to Genesis 32:24. But Hosea 12:4 says the "man" was "an angel." When the wrestling match was over, Jacob said: "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." (Genesis 32:30)

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

Lilly,

the description of that man Daniel saw matches the one of Jesus in Revelation.

Really? Note the differences:

Daniel: "dressed in linen"
Revelation: "clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across his chest with a golden sash" (no mention of linen)
Daniel: "his body was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning"
Revelation: "his head and his hair were white like white wool, like snow" (no mention of beryl or lightning)
Daniel: "his eyes were like flaming torches" (plural)
Revelation: "his eyes were like a flame of fire" (singular)
Daniel: "the sound of his words like the sound of a vast multitude of people"
Revelation: "his voice was like the sound of many waters" (no mention of people)

All the Angels support God so why can't Angels support Jesus?

Where are you getting the word "support" from? The word is "help," not "support." It is blasphemous to say that God needs help or support from anyone.

If Jesus existed prior to coming to earth, which we know he did, how could there be no mention of him in the OT?

As you mentioned earlier, there are many OT prophecies concerning the Messiah. But human reasoning cannot successfully contradict the Scriptures. Either you accept what Hebrews 1:1,2 and 2:2,3 clearly say, or you pit yourself against the facts of history as given in the Bible.

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

Look at Daniel 10:1-11, here Daniel sees and speaks with Christ in his pre-human form. Compare this with Revelation 1:12-16. By comparing these texts we can see that this IS Jesus.

Lilly,

The glorious person seen in Daniel 10 "was a certain man dressed in linen." In verses 12 and 13 he tells Daniel that he was helped by Michael the archangel in a struggle with "the prince of the Persian kingdom." Doesn't it demean God's Son to suggest that he was not as great as Michael and that he needed help in a strenuous effort against someone?

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

Lilly,

I think it's simply amazing how you are attempting to destroy the meaning of Hebrews 1:1, 2. Your explanation tries to make it appear that this portion of the Bible doesn't exist or that it's uninspired. Why can't you accept the simple fact that the writer is saying times are different in "these last days"? His point is very clear. He says plainly that God spoke in many and various ways in the past. But he did not do it through his Son. Instead he did it through the prophets. It is beyond me that you can't accept his simple explanation of facts.

In chapter 2, verses 2 and 3, he makes the point that it was very serious to disobey God when he spoke in the past but that it is much more serious now because of the change. The change came when God began speaking by means of his Son. This, in fact, is a big part of the message of the epistle to the Hebrews. Why are you trying to water it down?

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

You cited the text that says God spoke to us "through the prophets" well Isaiah and Daniel were Prophets. This does not mean that Jesus did not and could not have spoken directly to them.

Lilly,

You have a choice. Either you can take the writer of Hebrews at his word or you can try to force your pre-conceived notion into what he wrote. I prefer to take him at his word. As I said above, you are denying the uniqueness of Jesus' ministry. You are saying he spoke to men "in the past" whereas the writer of Hebrews 1:1, 2 makes it very clear that God's Son first began speaking to men in "these last days," to use his words, not before "these last days."

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

That's why he doesn't appear in secular history.

Yes. Additionally, the works of Roman historians who lived during Jesus' ministry or during the next century have almost completely perished. All things considered, comparatively very, very few historians have concluded that Jesus did not exist.

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

Lilly,

Some ancient people who saw and spoke with the pre-human Jesus were Daniel, Isaiah, King David, Abraham and I know there were others.

How can that be? Hebrews 1:1, 2 states: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son."

Aren't you denying the uniqueness of Jesus' ministry and revelation of truth? The writer of Hebrews pointedly contrasts "the past" with "these days," "our forefathers" with "us," and "the prophets" with God's "Son."

The writer does not say that Jesus spoke with Daniel, Isaiah, David and Abraham. Instead, he goes on to say that those men and others heard God speak through the voice of angels. Jesus never was an angel, such as JWs claim. That is why the Christian message is more glorious and requires greater attention: "For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him." (Hebrews 2:2, 3)

Frank

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

fjtoth

It seems obvious that there is no one home. I can't even see a light on!

Isn't that what someone would say who sadly has had no experience with answered prayer?

I'm saying that the Trinity backing is not as solid as many would choose to believe.

Amen! Nowhere does the Bible force the conclusion that God is three persons in one. There is far too much uncertainty and emotionalism attached to this topic, as well as a lot of reading into what a text says rather than letting it speak for itself.

It turns me off when I hear that persons are not Christians if they don't believe in the Trinity. What about Luke who penned more than any other inspired writer of the New Testament and who devoted not a single word to the effect that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God? What about Matthew, Mark, James and Jude? If some see the Trinity in the writings of John and Paul, let that be their faith. But why must they try to impose their convictions on others who are not so convinced? The test should be answers to prayer, not legislation from a church or another sinful human.

"Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (Romans 14:4)

"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12)