PermianAg said:

---

Codker - Why did you post this question?

---

I just find it interesting Jesus used "pseudepigraphal sources" in his sermons.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Regardless of whether I said he needed to study those texts or not, that is what he did. For whatever reason Jesus decided to base his sermon on pseudepigraphal sources, which the Pharisees and Sadducee's did not regard as scripture, notably the Essenes and far right Jews did. And Eve if what you say is true you are literally admitting that Gods "inspiration" is just some idea a second temple Jew wrote.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

dermdoc said:

---

And there is the disconnect. Jesus did not need to read or have them beamed into his head.

He is the same as God.

Does God need to read Scripture? Or have it beamed into His head?

---

Ok well according to the passages I quoted earlier God is required to read scripture while on the throne of Israel sooo.

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Regardless of whether I said he needed to study those texts or not, that is what he did. For whatever reason Jesus decided to base his sermon on pseudepigraphal sources, which the Pharisees and Sadducee's did not regard as scripture, notably the Essenes and far right Jews did. And Eve if what you say is true you are literally admitting that Gods "inspiration" is just some idea a second temple Jew wrote.

---

You have cause and effect backwards. God inspired the second temple Jew. Thus is isn't surprising that God(Jesus) expressed similar ideas, since they started with God.

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

---

Sure. The pseudepigraphal sources just happened to include the life history of the woman at the well.

Instead of starting with your hypothesis and using it to explain everything else, you should listen to what others are saying and see that there is an alternate explanation. Could Jesus have read scripture? Maybe, the gospels don't really talk about Jesus studying scripture on his own but they also don't say he didn't. Did Jesus have to read scripture, or in particular the pseudepigrapha? No, there are other alternate explanations for how and why similar ideas are expressed in both Jesus's teachings and the pseudepigrapha.

And give up on relying on the instructions to a mortal king of Israel as applying to Jesus when he is on the political throne of Israel. Jesus didn't sit on the political throne of Israel while he was on earth 2000 years ago. That was one of the big challenges the Jews had with recognizing the messiah. They were expecting a messiah that would come save them from the Romans, not one that was there to save them from eternal death.

Rather the "political" rule of Jesus will be at the second coming. Maybe the Jesus as King has to read scripture will apply then, but since the second coming would be the fulfillment of scripture, the prior rules might not apply. After all, we are no longer called to sacrifice animals because Christ was the ultimate sacrificial lamb.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Regardless of whether I said he needed to study those texts or not, that is what he did. For whatever reason Jesus decided to base his sermon on pseudepigraphal sources, which the Pharisees and Sadducee's did not regard as scripture, notably the Essenes and far right Jews did. And Eve if what you say is true you are literally admitting that Gods "inspiration" is just some idea a second temple Jew wrote.

---

You have cause and effect backwards. God inspired the second temple Jew. Thus is isn't surprising that God(Jesus) expressed similar ideas, since they started with God.

---

Sounds like you are admitting that pseudepigraphal sources are inspired.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

---

Sure. The pseudepigraphal sources just happened to include the life history of the woman at the well.

Instead of starting with your hypothesis and using it to explain everything else, you should listen to what others are saying and see that there is an alternate explanation. Could Jesus have read scripture? Maybe, the gospels don't really talk about Jesus studying scripture on his own but they also don't say he didn't. Did Jesus have to read scripture, or in particular the pseudepigrapha? No, there are other alternate explanations for how and why similar ideas are expressed in both Jesus's teachings and the pseudepigrapha.

And give up on relying on the instructions to a mortal king of Israel as applying to Jesus when he is on the political throne of Israel. Jesus didn't sit on the political throne of Israel while he was on earth 2000 years ago. That was one of the big challenges the Jews had with recognizing the messiah. They were expecting a messiah that would come save them from the Romans, not one that was there to save them from eternal death.

Rather the "political" rule of Jesus will be at the second coming. Maybe the Jesus as King has to read scripture will apply then, but since the second coming would be the fulfillment of scripture, the prior rules might not apply. After all, we are no longer called to sacrifice animals because Christ was the ultimate sacrificial lamb.

---

Having inspiration from God doesn't make Jesus God. Daniel received special inspiration from God, including information no one else knew, but that did not make him God. The only person who decides who God is, is Yahweh Elohim. Jesus is required to read scripture, because he is the king of Israel. The throne of Israel comes with obligations, these obligations are imposed by Yahweh Elohim. Actually, Jesus was literally called the king of Israel in the passage I cited, which occurred 2000 years ago. The political rule of Jesus was actually more than 2000 years ago.

Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT, if you follow the two powers theology and the Metatron tradition. The Angel of the Lord was God's representative on earth, and for all intents and purposes held God's authority. He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He is all throughout the OT.

Zobel said:

---

Jesus is Yahweh, the Word.

---

Then why isn't faith in the Angel of the Lord enough?

Enough for what?

"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them."

Anathema to your heresies.

Zobel said:

---

Enough for what?

"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them."

Anathema to your heresies.

---

Heresy for reading the bible. ok...

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

---

Sure. The pseudepigraphal sources just happened to include the life history of the woman at the well.

Instead of starting with your hypothesis and using it to explain everything else, you should listen to what others are saying and see that there is an alternate explanation. Could Jesus have read scripture? Maybe, the gospels don't really talk about Jesus studying scripture on his own but they also don't say he didn't. Did Jesus have to read scripture, or in particular the pseudepigrapha? No, there are other alternate explanations for how and why similar ideas are expressed in both Jesus's teachings and the pseudepigrapha.

And give up on relying on the instructions to a mortal king of Israel as applying to Jesus when he is on the political throne of Israel. Jesus didn't sit on the political throne of Israel while he was on earth 2000 years ago. That was one of the big challenges the Jews had with recognizing the messiah. They were expecting a messiah that would come save them from the Romans, not one that was there to save them from eternal death.

Rather the "political" rule of Jesus will be at the second coming. Maybe the Jesus as King has to read scripture will apply then, but since the second coming would be the fulfillment of scripture, the prior rules might not apply. After all, we are no longer called to sacrifice animals because Christ was the ultimate sacrificial lamb.

---

Having inspiration from God doesn't make Jesus God. Daniel received special inspiration from God, including information no one else knew, but that did not make him God. The only person who decides who God is, is Yahweh Elohim. Jesus is required to read scripture, because he is the king of Israel. The throne of Israel comes with obligations, these obligations are imposed by Yahweh Elohim. Actually, Jesus was literally called the king of Israel in the passage I cited, which occurred 2000 years ago. The political rule of Jesus was actually more than 2000 years ago.

Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT, if you follow the two powers theology and the Metatron tradition. The Angel of the Lord was God's representative on earth, and for all intents and purposes held God's authority. He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He is all throughout the OT.

---

Actually, both the Hebrew and Greek terms used in the Bible mean 'messenger' not angel as in wings. Regardless, I still don't see how it is separate from his Divinity even if the messenger was the preincarnate Jesus. Aside from all of this…is this 'point' your trying to prove have anything to do with soteriology? Jesus was learned. We all agree.

Narrator: they were

codker92 said:

---

PermianAg said:

---

Codker - Why did you post this question?

---

I just find it interesting Jesus used "pseudepigraphal sources" in his sermons.

---

I see. That IS cool. It also seems to me to be reasonable and compatible with the Son fully taking on a human nature, including learning and integrating those learnings into His teachings.

What a mystery his dual nature is. Nice to know that he didn't short-change his human nature.

Thanks for sharing.

What about this is so interesting to you? I'm not disputing that it is not interesting, just seeking to understand what

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

---

Sure. The pseudepigraphal sources just happened to include the life history of the woman at the well.

Instead of starting with your hypothesis and using it to explain everything else, you should listen to what others are saying and see that there is an alternate explanation. Could Jesus have read scripture? Maybe, the gospels don't really talk about Jesus studying scripture on his own but they also don't say he didn't. Did Jesus have to read scripture, or in particular the pseudepigrapha? No, there are other alternate explanations for how and why similar ideas are expressed in both Jesus's teachings and the pseudepigrapha.

And give up on relying on the instructions to a mortal king of Israel as applying to Jesus when he is on the political throne of Israel. Jesus didn't sit on the political throne of Israel while he was on earth 2000 years ago. That was one of the big challenges the Jews had with recognizing the messiah. They were expecting a messiah that would come save them from the Romans, not one that was there to save them from eternal death.

Rather the "political" rule of Jesus will be at the second coming. Maybe the Jesus as King has to read scripture will apply then, but since the second coming would be the fulfillment of scripture, the prior rules might not apply. After all, we are no longer called to sacrifice animals because Christ was the ultimate sacrificial lamb.

---

Having inspiration from God doesn't make Jesus God. Daniel received special inspiration from God, including information no one else knew, but that did not make him God. The only person who decides who God is, is Yahweh Elohim. Jesus is required to read scripture, because he is the king of Israel. The throne of Israel comes with obligations, these obligations are imposed by Yahweh Elohim. Actually, Jesus was literally called the king of Israel in the passage I cited, which occurred 2000 years ago. The political rule of Jesus was actually more than 2000 years ago.

Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT, if you follow the two powers theology and the Metatron tradition. The Angel of the Lord was God's representative on earth, and for all intents and purposes held God's authority. He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He is all throughout the OT.

---

So have we finally pivoted from the scripture reading nonsense to a debate about the Godness of Jesus? Because I'm pretty sure everyone you are debating with believes Jesus is God. So you are not going to get very far on that one.

A group of people in the streets called him King. I am pretty sure that isn't sufficient to become
king. In fact, historically there were a number of false messiahs. I'm guessing there were plenty of precessions where the people in Jerusalem declared someone King of the Jews.

You quoted Isaiah earlier.

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7

So when in his mortal ministry did Jesus sit on the throne of David (from then on and forevermore)?

As for your scriptural reading requirement of Kings of Israel, it says when the king sits on the throne. When did Jesus sit on the throne?

But ok, now you have pivoted to Jesus's political rule was as "The Angel of the Lord". Pretty sure the passage about kings reading scripture didn't say "The Angel of the Lord" has to read the scripture.

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

On a quick thought, there are two flaws in your reasoning.

First, Jesus is God, and it is not the Jews who decide what is or isn't Scripture, but God Himself. God preserved the Scriptures that Jesus utilized during his mission on this earth.

Second, Jesus is the Word. It is reasonable to say that not only did he come to know the Scriptures in a supernatural way, but He also is the only true Interpreter of the Scriptures. Whether He read all books or just knew what they said is not known to us, and I suspect when we are in His presence in the next life, we aren't going to care particularly.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

Who commands the law be carried out?

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Councilor, what precedent is your Star Trek referenced based? I have empathy for those on the spectrum, not lawyers.

And WTH is pseudepigraphal?

codker92 said:

---

yell_on_6th st said:

---

Codker, you on the spectrum? Gotta be…

---

If I am, and I am right about my point, then what does that make you?

---

Can you rephrase the question

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

Who commands the law be carried out?

---

You do realize that Jesus brought a new covenant, right? We aren't still sacrificing animals at an alter, etc, etc

A point not clearly articulated is easily missed.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

What about the post is anti-trinitarian?

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

---

Sure. The pseudepigraphal sources just happened to include the life history of the woman at the well.

Instead of starting with your hypothesis and using it to explain everything else, you should listen to what others are saying and see that there is an alternate explanation. Could Jesus have read scripture? Maybe, the gospels don't really talk about Jesus studying scripture on his own but they also don't say he didn't. Did Jesus have to read scripture, or in particular the pseudepigrapha? No, there are other alternate explanations for how and why similar ideas are expressed in both Jesus's teachings and the pseudepigrapha.

And give up on relying on the instructions to a mortal king of Israel as applying to Jesus when he is on the political throne of Israel. Jesus didn't sit on the political throne of Israel while he was on earth 2000 years ago. That was one of the big challenges the Jews had with recognizing the messiah. They were expecting a messiah that would come save them from the Romans, not one that was there to save them from eternal death.

Rather the "political" rule of Jesus will be at the second coming. Maybe the Jesus as King has to read scripture will apply then, but since the second coming would be the fulfillment of scripture, the prior rules might not apply. After all, we are no longer called to sacrifice animals because Christ was the ultimate sacrificial lamb.

---

Having inspiration from God doesn't make Jesus God. Daniel received special inspiration from God, including information no one else knew, but that did not make him God. The only person who decides who God is, is Yahweh Elohim. Jesus is required to read scripture, because he is the king of Israel. The throne of Israel comes with obligations, these obligations are imposed by Yahweh Elohim. Actually, Jesus was literally called the king of Israel in the passage I cited, which occurred 2000 years ago. The political rule of Jesus was actually more than 2000 years ago.

Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT, if you follow the two powers theology and the Metatron tradition. The Angel of the Lord was God's representative on earth, and for all intents and purposes held God's authority. He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He is all throughout the OT.

---

Actually, both the Hebrew and Greek terms used in the Bible mean 'messenger' not angel as in wings. Regardless, I still don't see how it is separate from his Divinity even if the messenger was the preincarnate Jesus. Aside from all of this…is this 'point' your trying to prove have anything to do with soteriology? Jesus was learned. We all agree.

---

Jesus commanded everyone to love Yahweh with all of their heart, soul, and mind. Im just following orders here.

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." John 7:16

Seems pretty clear it came from God, not from man.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

---

Sure. The pseudepigraphal sources just happened to include the life history of the woman at the well.

Instead of starting with your hypothesis and using it to explain everything else, you should listen to what others are saying and see that there is an alternate explanation. Could Jesus have read scripture? Maybe, the gospels don't really talk about Jesus studying scripture on his own but they also don't say he didn't. Did Jesus have to read scripture, or in particular the pseudepigrapha? No, there are other alternate explanations for how and why similar ideas are expressed in both Jesus's teachings and the pseudepigrapha.

And give up on relying on the instructions to a mortal king of Israel as applying to Jesus when he is on the political throne of Israel. Jesus didn't sit on the political throne of Israel while he was on earth 2000 years ago. That was one of the big challenges the Jews had with recognizing the messiah. They were expecting a messiah that would come save them from the Romans, not one that was there to save them from eternal death.

Rather the "political" rule of Jesus will be at the second coming. Maybe the Jesus as King has to read scripture will apply then, but since the second coming would be the fulfillment of scripture, the prior rules might not apply. After all, we are no longer called to sacrifice animals because Christ was the ultimate sacrificial lamb.

---

Having inspiration from God doesn't make Jesus God. Daniel received special inspiration from God, including information no one else knew, but that did not make him God. The only person who decides who God is, is Yahweh Elohim. Jesus is required to read scripture, because he is the king of Israel. The throne of Israel comes with obligations, these obligations are imposed by Yahweh Elohim. Actually, Jesus was literally called the king of Israel in the passage I cited, which occurred 2000 years ago. The political rule of Jesus was actually more than 2000 years ago.

Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT, if you follow the two powers theology and the Metatron tradition. The Angel of the Lord was God's representative on earth, and for all intents and purposes held God's authority. He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He is all throughout the OT.

---

So have we finally pivoted from the scripture reading nonsense to a debate about the Godness of Jesus? Because I'm pretty sure everyone you are debating with believes Jesus is God. So you are not going to get very far on that one.

A group of people in the streets called him King. I am pretty sure that isn't sufficient to become
king. In fact, historically there were a number of false messiahs. I'm guessing there were plenty of precessions where the people in Jerusalem declared someone King of the Jews.

You quoted Isaiah earlier.

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7

So when in his mortal ministry did Jesus sit on the throne of David (from then on and forevermore)?

As for your scriptural reading requirement of Kings of Israel, it says when the king sits on the throne. When did Jesus sit on the throne?

But ok, now you have pivoted to Jesus's political rule was as "The Angel of the Lord". Pretty sure the passage about kings reading scripture didn't say "The Angel of the Lord" has to read the scripture.

---

I would like to point out that I never actually specified that Jesus read the scripture during his earthly ministry, I simply said that he read the scripture. I have an argument showing that jesus did read scripture during his earthly ministry, but it will take a while to type out so I will post later. For now the following will suffice.

If anything, Jesus read scripture in heaven before he came to earth. The idea of the pre-existence of souls in the OT supports this. Jesus' knowledge of scripture came from reading the scripture while he was in heaven. Here is the passage showing Jesus receiving thrones, one of which is the throne of david.

The throne of David was held by God after the destruction of Israel... Daniel 7:9,13-14.

9 I continued watching until thrones were placed and an Ancient of Days sat; his clothing was white like snow and the hair of his head was like pure wool and his throne was a flame of fire and its wheels were burning fire.


13 I continued watching in the visions of the night, and look, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and kingship that all the peoples, the nations, and languages would serve him; his dominion is a dominion without end that will not cease, and his kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

What about the post is anti-trinitarian?

---

Because Jesus is fully human and, at the same time, fully God, which makes the entire thread moot


Edit: you'd have to reject the above idea of the Trinity to take the stance you're taking

NCNJ1217 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

What about the post is anti-trinitarian?

---

Because Jesus is fully human and, at the same time, fully God, which makes the entire thread moot


Edit: you'd have to reject the above idea of the Trinity to take the stance you're taking

---

Sound like a conclusion to me. Have anything to support what you are saying other than your opinion? There are many many many passages about Jesus doing the will of Yahweh. The will of Yahweh is found in his law, which cites the King of Israel's duty to read scripture. In Daniel, the Son of Man aka Jesus is given thrones, including the throne of Israel, partially to fulfill God's promise to David.

Jesus is the Word. He is the Word become flesh. Read the Gospel of John. It's all right there in black and white.

Your human logic can't comprehend this.

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

God did limit Himself by promising never to flood the Earth again. I don't know about all the swearing, but I think God can impose limitations on Himself

---

The very concept of Jesus as the God-Man is God limiting himself because if he weren't fully man, His sacrifice wouldn't have meant as much.

---

Kind of the whole point. If Jesus, as a man, on earth was completely omnipotent, then what did he really give up by becoming a man. Scripture is clear that we are not of the same substance when we are glorified. This is what Christ meant when he said that God does not put new wine into old wineskins...

---

I don't think anybody on here understands your point. That's a big part of the problem.

The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man.

So what did he give up? He took on humanity and all that comes with it. He felt hunger and tiredness and pain. He felt death.

The problem I see in your argument is you're reducing God to one or two things (omnipotence and probably omniscience). God in the Scriptures is so much more than that and in your reduction you lose that.

---

Key word "kind of" my point. Really what I find interesting is how, according to you, Jesus was instructing people in what you call the law using pseudepigraphal sources. However not all Jews considered those sources scripture…

EDIT: Really? Cmon, Really? Im the one suggesting Jesus read books like a normal person. The other posters are the ones insisting Jesus had all that info beamed into his head like in star trek.

---

Beamed into his head like Star Trek seems to miss the point, doesn't it. Inspiration from God is a little different than being God and therefor omniscient.

There are a number of times in scripture where Jesus knows things without being told. The Samaritan women at the well, for example. Clearly didn't get that information from reading books. So either Jesus was God and omniscient or Jesus was not God and relied on inspiration from God (Holy Spirit) similar to the prophets.

Regardless, there is scriptural evidence for Jesus having knowledge beyond a normal man, yet you want to dismiss that for some reason to insist he needed to study scripture and and a bunch of other religious texts to give a sermon.

---

Jesus definitely had knowledge beyond the church father because he read the pseudepigraphal sources which the church fathers did not have access to.

---

Sure. The pseudepigraphal sources just happened to include the life history of the woman at the well.

Instead of starting with your hypothesis and using it to explain everything else, you should listen to what others are saying and see that there is an alternate explanation. Could Jesus have read scripture? Maybe, the gospels don't really talk about Jesus studying scripture on his own but they also don't say he didn't. Did Jesus have to read scripture, or in particular the pseudepigrapha? No, there are other alternate explanations for how and why similar ideas are expressed in both Jesus's teachings and the pseudepigrapha.

And give up on relying on the instructions to a mortal king of Israel as applying to Jesus when he is on the political throne of Israel. Jesus didn't sit on the political throne of Israel while he was on earth 2000 years ago. That was one of the big challenges the Jews had with recognizing the messiah. They were expecting a messiah that would come save them from the Romans, not one that was there to save them from eternal death.

Rather the "political" rule of Jesus will be at the second coming. Maybe the Jesus as King has to read scripture will apply then, but since the second coming would be the fulfillment of scripture, the prior rules might not apply. After all, we are no longer called to sacrifice animals because Christ was the ultimate sacrificial lamb.

---

Having inspiration from God doesn't make Jesus God. Daniel received special inspiration from God, including information no one else knew, but that did not make him God. The only person who decides who God is, is Yahweh Elohim. Jesus is required to read scripture, because he is the king of Israel. The throne of Israel comes with obligations, these obligations are imposed by Yahweh Elohim. Actually, Jesus was literally called the king of Israel in the passage I cited, which occurred 2000 years ago. The political rule of Jesus was actually more than 2000 years ago.

Jesus is the Angel of the Lord in the OT, if you follow the two powers theology and the Metatron tradition. The Angel of the Lord was God's representative on earth, and for all intents and purposes held God's authority. He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He is all throughout the OT.

---

So have we finally pivoted from the scripture reading nonsense to a debate about the Godness of Jesus? Because I'm pretty sure everyone you are debating with believes Jesus is God. So you are not going to get very far on that one.

A group of people in the streets called him King. I am pretty sure that isn't sufficient to become
king. In fact, historically there were a number of false messiahs. I'm guessing there were plenty of precessions where the people in Jerusalem declared someone King of the Jews.

You quoted Isaiah earlier.

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7

So when in his mortal ministry did Jesus sit on the throne of David (from then on and forevermore)?

As for your scriptural reading requirement of Kings of Israel, it says when the king sits on the throne. When did Jesus sit on the throne?

But ok, now you have pivoted to Jesus's political rule was as "The Angel of the Lord". Pretty sure the passage about kings reading scripture didn't say "The Angel of the Lord" has to read the scripture.

---

I would like to point out that I never actually specified that Jesus read the scripture during his earthly ministry, I simply said that he read the scripture. I have an argument showing that jesus did read scripture during his earthly ministry, but it will take a while to type out so I will post later. For now the following will suffice.

If anything, Jesus read scripture in heaven before he came to earth. The idea of the pre-existence of souls in the OT supports this. Jesus' knowledge of scripture came from reading the scripture while he was in heaven. Here is the passage showing Jesus receiving thrones, one of which is the throne of david.

The throne of David was held by God after the destruction of Israel... Daniel 7:9,13-14.

9 I continued watching until thrones were placed and an Ancient of Days sat; his clothing was white like snow and the hair of his head was like pure wool and his throne was a flame of fire and its wheels were burning fire.


13 I continued watching in the visions of the night, and look, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and kingship that all the peoples, the nations, and languages would serve him; his dominion is a dominion without end that will not cease, and his kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.

---

Yeah, all the "read books like a normal person" didn't mean during his earthly ministry. You really meant while he was in heaven before his earthly ministry, because that is when a "normal person" reads scripture.

How does that even make sense with your passage of writing a copy of scriptures that is approved by the priests. Prior to Christ's sacrifice, the gates of heaven were locked. How did the priests get to heaven to approve Jesus's copy of the scripture that he was supposedly reading every day?