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.
Does it matter to God's message contained in the Bible if Jesus literally and actually met with the samaritan Woman at the well in the John 5 passage? I say no. The important message God wanted to send to believers was not that God knew what this woman's story was. The important part the author of John was conveying was that the woman had five husbands, including her current one. This is because the author was making a point. The Samaritan woman is the passage symbolically represents the northern kingdom of Israel which was disinherited. The five husbands are the conequring nations who took her, namely Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids, and Hasmoneans. The current husband is Rome. It is significant that Jesu forgives the woman, because it signals to the audience that God is regrafting the new Israel onto Judah to form All Israel.
Honestly, it does not matter if Jesus is the messiah or not. The OT literally provides salvation through faith on its own by just believing in the Angel of the Lord. You keep saying the Jews missed the messiah. Jesus was a Jew and you are missing the passages of the NT where people called Jesus the king of Israel. Somehow, even after I have continually brought this to your attention, because you are not paying attention or because or your preconceived notions about Jews, you believe they killed Jesus. The Pharisees did not follow Torah, they violated Torah, and sold their people to the Romans and they sold their own culture for their own profit.
The "political rule" of Jesus was already established in the OT and it did not go away. God disinherited Israel, although he kept a righteous remnant in Judah. He used the Persians as his "political instrument" just as he uses the adversary as his personal prosecutor to carry out his plans. Even at the time of Jesus, the conservative right leaning Jews did not sacrifice animals. Only the left leaning Sadducees and Pharisees did. The conservative right wing Jews, Essenes, and those who followed a strict reading of Torah did not sacrifice at the temple... I don't know why you keep acting like Jews are trying to bring back sacrifices. Even at the time of Jesus, the conservative jews did not do this...
Seems like you need to reread your OT. You claim the "conservative Jews" who did not sacrifice animals at the temple followed a strict reading of the Torah? How is that following Leviticus 1?
Animal sacrifice was happening in the temple at the time of Jesus. Do you somehow dispute that? Or are the Essenes the only Jews that count in your opinion?
Yes, I used Jews as a shorthand to reference various subsets of Jews. No I do not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. But somehow a group of people proclaiming Jesus as King on Palm Sunday ended with a group of people wanting his crucified on Friday. Are you claiming that the Sunday group had the authority to make Jesus King but the Friday group was completely different? Or maybe people from the Sunday group were expecting the Messiah to overthrow Rome and establish an independent state of Israel, but felt betrayed when Jesus kicked the money lenders out of the temple rather than kicking the Romans out of Jerusalem.
This topic is too long for a forum. You are apparently some kind of biochem person. What you are asking me to explain is akin to a doctoral thesis. But I will do my best to sum it up simply an accurately.
At the time of Jesus, the Romans held complete control over worship, including which factions of Jews ran the temple. The Romans permitted the Sadduccees and Pharisees to run the temple sacrifices. The Essenes had numerous disagreements with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who both received government subsidies from the Hasmoneans and later the Romans. One prime example is that the Pharisees and Sadducees held Court, including court on sabbath days. These Court proceedings enforced Roman practices, including pagan customs on the sabbath.The Essenes did not agree with this and believed the Second Temple was corrupt. Becuase the Essenes held a strict view of Torah, they did not offer animal sacrifice because Deuteronomy only permits sacrifices at the temple. Since in the view of the Essenes the temple was defunct, holding sacrifices was improper. Also, the Essenes regarded the War Scroll and the Temple Scroll as scripture. Both of these texts say God favors prayer and a pure heart above sacrifice, which is also found in the OT...
Yes, the Sunday group was the Righteous Remnant, and could make Jesus king. But they did not because God already made him king back in the Daniel passages The Pharisees and the Sadducees were not in God's Kingdom and had no power to make Jesus King. The Romans had no power to make Jesus king. The Essenes were not expecting the Messiah to overthrow rome. They read the book of Enoch and beleived it is scripture. In that book, the messiah is called a "white ox" and that "white ox" is killed but becomes a bull in which all the animals take refuge..
Regardless, in some ways Jesus did overthrow Rome because the Germans who destroyed rome followed Jesus' teachings.
EDIT: I assure you the righteous Jews were happy the money lenders were kicked out of the temple.
