Peek-a-boo God/man: a doctrine of (in)convenience

When the christian adopts the belief that in Jesus two contradictory natures became one, it can be of no surprise that his divine monster will switch hats at a whim, that an explanation will need to be on hand when the new testament depiction of Jesus clashes with that belief.

What do you mean, David?

I’ll tell you.

Searching for their point of view on the union to make sure I’m not creating a straw man argument, I came across various trinitarian sources saying similar things.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; (Athanasian Creed, emphasis mine)

Jesus’ two natures are not “mixed together” (Eutychianism), nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. (Jesus’ Two Natures: God and Man, http://carm.org/jesus-two-natures)

The union of the two natures was complete. Jesus did not act as God on some occasions and then as a human at other times. Therefore we cannot divide events in His life into the category of human or divine. He lived and suffered as a human being, yet all the while He was God. It is not correct to say that He performed miracles as God but died on the cross as a human. Jesus was both divine and human at all times. He is a single, undivided personality. The two natures are inseparably united. Thus He is not merely God and man but rather the God-man. (In What Sense Was Jesus Christ God And Man Simultaneously? (Hypostatic Union), http://web.ccbce.com/multimedia/BLB/faq/nbi/222.html)

I believe that, based on these quotes, I have a grounding to strongly state what I say that follows.

The God and the man that was supposed to be Jesus where an inseparable union. Whatever Jesus said or did, whatever happened to him, it came from or impacted or was done by both sides of the coin.

This is very important when it comes to the life of Jesus as depicted in the gospels and other parts of the new testament. This is especially true in comparison to the excuses Jesus worshippers give for certain words, actions and descriptions of Jesus when those depictions flatly contradict how God is described in the Jewish Bible and even in the new testament itself.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever had this experience, but for me, when I challenge Jesus worshippers on things that Jesus said or did which conflicts with the truth about God, I’ll get the excuse that this particular thing was only relevant to Jesus’ flesh rather than his divinity.

Me: Hey, Jesus said he can do nothing of himself.
Monster worshipper: Oh, that was just about Jesus in the flesh.
Me: But Jesus claimed to not know something (the time of the second coming). In fact, he was an ignorant baby that grew and growing in wisdom and knowledge.
Monster worshipper: But that was just while he was in the flesh.
Me: But isn’t God omnipresent, yet Jesus was only in one place at a time?
Monster worshipper: Well that was while he was in the flesh.
Me: Jesus got tired and he fell asleep.
Monster worshipper: Well God had to experience our existence in the flesh.
Me: But isn’t God immortal?
Monster worshipper: The flesh died.
Me: But wait! Don’t you say that those great miracles show his being God? and isn’t the resurrection supposed to show his deity?
Monster worshipper: Yes it does!
Me: And you believe Jesus to be God when he said “before Abraham was, I am?”
Monster worshipper: Amen, he was.
Me: But doesn’t James say God can’t be tempted, but Hebrews says Jesus was tempted?
Monster worshipper: Well the human side of Jesus was tempted.

This may not be what all these people say, but too many of them that I’ve faced in the past have used one or many of these sorts of arguments.

The problem many times is that Jesus worshippers tend to jump in and out of the Jesus being God for uncomfortable new testament statements. But you read what the doctrine is meant to be in the quotes above. I’ve read them and their contexts. The natures, divine and human, are meant to be inseparably united. What Jesus went through, both natures went through. There is no get-out clause. The Jesus worshipper must contradict himself! Or herself!

When Jesus was tempted, God necessarily was tempted contradicting the new testament! When Jesus was sleeping, God was sleeping, contradicting the Jewish Bible. When Jesus got tired, the Almighty God’s strength was flagging?!? When Jesus got literally angry with emotion, God literally (not anthropomorphically) got angry. The God that stated that he would always the same, eternally consistent, and who is all knowing changed into a man, grew up and gained knowledge. When Jesus got injured, the invincible God was injured! When Jesus died, the immortal God died?!?!

The habit of christians to use the flesh of Jesus, to jump into the flesh to escape the divinity, many times, is an inadequate argument betraying the very statements of their doctrine. It’s false in so many ways.

Understand this! The God of a Jesus worshipper is not the God of the Jewish Bible, the God who created everything and thus was beyond everything. He cannot be. It’s a self defeating, self contradicting monster.

But it’s also important to know that these facts will not change the mind of many christians. Why? Because they were never primarily devoted to the God of the Jewish Bible. Harsh but true. They were devoted to the life and suffering of a man. That is why what they embrace is idolatry. They cling unfalteringly not to the glory of God, but to the life of a man.

Advertisements

About hesedyahu

I'm a gentile living in UK, a person who has chosen to take upon himself the responsibility God has given to all gentiles. God is the greatest aspect of my life and He has blessed me with a family. I used to be a christian, but I learnt the errors of my ways. I love music. I love to play it on the instruments I can play, I love to close my eyes and feel the groove of it. I wrote my songs when I was single and not so happy and since I've been married, I haven't written as much. I guess that shows how happy and blessed I am. What else is there?
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Peek-a-boo God/man: a doctrine of (in)convenience

  1. In many self-described “Bible-believing Evangelical” churches, they are really following a different “jesus” than the True Jesus Christ of the Gospels, who said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not abolish them. Many so-called “Christians” are really following the false “Christ” of Paul the Pharisee, who supposedly “abolished the Law.”

    Poem – What is love?

    Two men came to Jesus
    With different motivations.
    They asked Him the same question
    Relevant to all the nations:

    Which is the Most Important?
    The answer was the same.
    Jesus did not manipulate
    He was not there to play a game.

    “Love the Lord your God” said Jesus
    as He quoted from The Law –
    to fulfill and not abolish
    was His purpose, full of awe.

    Jesus did not make all Scripture
    Into one new great commandment.
    He summarized The Law and Prophets
    “First and Greatest” and “The Second.”

    The Love of God is higher
    Than the love of any man.
    Receive from God, give back to God-
    Then to others, that’s His plan.

    The Love of God involves much more
    Than simply “love your fellow man.”
    Worship, trust, and pray to God,
    and obey Him – that’s His plan

    To worship and pray to neighbors,
    Whoever they may be,
    Or trust and obey our enemies
    Would be idolatry.

    The love of God is first and greatest,
    And the love of man is second.
    “All we need is love” are words
    of dead Beetles on the pavement.

    “The entire law is summed up in a single command”
    are not the words of Jesus our Salvation.
    It’s false teaching of Paul the Pharisee
    an “accuser of our brethren.”

    “Love” without God is Satan’s word through Paul
    in his chapter to the Corinthians.
    “I will show you the most excellent way”
    is the road to eternal perdition.

    Where is God in Paul’s chapter on love?
    Nowhere in view of the eye.
    Paul sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi
    “I, I, I, I.”

    Jesus is The Most Excellent Way
    Not the words of a Pharisee.
    The words of Jesus are very clear.
    Jesus said, “You must follow ME.”

    • hesedyahu says:

      I’ve heard too many times someone claiming to know the real jesus or the true jesus. But there is always the problem in the belief that somehow his way was qualitatively better that those that came before. In so many ways, it wasn’t. And the notion of following him is empty as the claims of his messiahship are contradicted by the plain understanding of the Jewish Bible.

      Also, it’s odd that you would see Paul as a liar and yet believe him when he claims to have been a pharisee to as to use the term “pharisee” in a derogatory sense. That is inconsistent.

      • hesedyahu,
        You wrote QUOTE: ……” his messiahship are contradicted by the plain understanding of the Jewish Bible.”

        That is a very broad statement – what specifically are you talking about? Can you quote me some parts of the Jewish Bible as back up?

        Also, the point is not “how I see Paul”. I’m pointing to Jesus’ teaching recorded in the Gospels, and comparing them to Paul’s teaching in his letters, and finding that they don’t agree. These are statements of observable facts in the texts. Paul contradicts Jesus.

        Many self-professed “Bible-believing Evangelicals” won’t listen to the words of Jesus, because they are brainwashed through reciting their “mantra” – “all scripture is God-breathed.”

        This “Evangelical Mantra” has been accepted by the collective subconscious mind of “The Evangelical Church” without thought, question, reflection, or even 2 witnesses from the Scripture itself. It’s based on a misinterpretation, out of context, of one verse in one letter written by one man, Paul the Pharisee, who was unfamiliar with the personal ministry and teaching of Jesus.

        But, “Once an idea has been accepted by your subconscious, it remains there and it governs your behavior until it is replaced or changed.” [ as a pastor named Bishop Dale C. Bronner observed in one of his sermons]

        (Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.) Mantra (noun) (Hinduism.) A sacred formula believed to embody the divinity invoked and to possess magical power, used in prayer and incantation.

        When cult members repeat their mantra, it makes them deaf to the voice of God, unable to hear God. Instead, it puts their focus on their one “special man” above all others – his personality, words and teachings, character, life example, feelings, experience, intentions, mind, will, emotions, etc. Their cult leader is their hero – he is always right, could never be wrong about anything specific, and he must be obeyed in all things and never questioned. He will give himself a special title, write at least one special book, and claim special authority, with no need for a second witness to back him up.
        Here are 3 examples.

        .1) Fuhrer. The title of Adolf Hitler as the leader of the German Nazis, author of “Mein Kamph”. Mantra: “Heil Hitler.”

        .2) The self-appointed Prophet Muhammad, author of The Koran. Mantra: …..”and Muhammad is his prophet.”

        .3) Paul the Pharisee, the self-appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, whose 13 letters comprise one third of what, today, we call the “New Testament.” (The first, original “New Testament” was composed by the second century heretic Marcion, and he coined the term “New Testament.” His new “book” contained nothing except 10 of Paul’s letters and an abbreviated Gospel of Luke. There were no other “New Testament” books, and the Hebrew Scriptures were the “Old Testament” which was irrelevant, according to the heretic Marcion.) Mantra: “All Scripture is God-breathed….”

        I got my Masters Degree at Dallas Theological Seminary. I was attracted to the school because they put Paul’s mantra of “All Scripture is God-breathed” above everything else, and I wanted to heed Paul’s command and “Preach the Word” like Paul….

        This mantra is a misinterpretation out of context of 2 Timothy 3:16. It ignores the previous verse, 2 Timothy 3:15, which clearly indicates that Paul was NOT referring to his own letters when he wrote the words “All Scripture.”

        Paul was probably making reference to some of the Hebrew Scriptures, quite likely including the Law and the Prophets. We cannot be completely certain exactly which “Scriptures” Paul meant in “All Scripture”, and what Paul meant by “God-breathed.” Why can’t we be certain?

        Because we must establish a matter by the testimony of two or three witnesses, especially something as important as “What is the Word of God.” No one else in the pages of the Bible besides Paul ever said anything like “All Scripture is God-breathed”. And Paul only said it here, one time, in the middle of a personal letter.

        The Apostle Peter made reference to “Prophecy of Scripture,” not “All Scripture,” and no it’s not the same thing at all. Jesus never said anything like that. And no one, not even Paul, ever said that all Scripture was equal.

        I remember the general approach to the Bible at Dallas being that “every word in the 66 Books is the Word of God”….. and we should interpret it based on “the intended meaning of the author in the historical grammatical context.”

        That is the basic idea of the heavy-duty seminary language we were being trained in. It sounds so right, so intelligent, so professional, so “godly”….. but it is fundamentally flawed.

        When we look at Paul’s teachings and testimony about himself, (in his letters that make up 1/3 of the New Testament,) we should NOT immediately ask ourselves; “what did Paul say, what did Paul mean, and how does this apply to my life?” The fundamental question is NOT “what was in the mind of Paul?”

        Before any of that, the FIRST question to ask is; “does Paul agree with Jesus, who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets?”

        Paul contradicted himself, and his teachings and testimony about himself don’t harmonize with the teachings of Jesus (or with Luke’s record of his life.) Let’s not waste our time with endless debates about “what Paul really meant” with his wacky teachings about “baptizing the dead” or “there is neither male nor female.” Paul was wrong. Jesus reminds us from The Law “at the beginning, the Creator made them male and female.” [Matthew 19:4, Genesis 1:27]

        As to the question of “whether the Bible is ALL truly Gods WORDS”…

        The underlying unspoken assumption is that “The Bible” (66 Books) was given to us by God as “one book” and it’s all “equal” in level of authority, priority, and importance. This comes from unconsciously believing Paul’s mantra, the “Evangelical Mantra”, that “All Scripture is God-breathed”, and falsely assuming Paul was referring to every word in the 66 Books of the Bible. Yet even here, not even Paul, not even once, ever said that “All Scripture is EQUAL” in authority, priority, and importance.

        No one in the pages of the Bible ever said or wrote that “all Scripture,” or “the Bible,” is “all truly God’s words”. Jesus never said anything like that, and Jesus did not see it that way. Jesus did not see even the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the “Old Testament”, as a whole unit or book that was all equal or “all truly God’s words.” Jesus spoke of The Law, or The Law and the Prophets, holding these 2 sections of the Old Testament above the third, least important sections the “Writings.” And Jesus held the Psalms, the first book of the “Writings” section, above the other books in the “Writings” section in importance, since some parts of some Psalms are prophetic.

        Obviously, the New Testament Scriptures were not written when Jesus was walking the earth. But if we want to get closest to The Source, Jesus himself, it makes sense that we should look first to the eyewitness testimony of two of His appointed Apostles who walked with Him faithfully for over 3 years, Matthew & John. (Also to other eyewitness testimony, recorded by Mark and Luke.) This is more accurate, important, and authoritative than personal letters written by Paul the Pharisee, who never knew Jesus personally, had no part in His ministry, and had no eyewitness testimony.

        We should follow the Jesus of the Gospel writers. We should not follow the “jesus” of Paul the Pharisee or Muhammad or any other man, who had their own ideas of who “jesus” was and what He did.

      • hesedyahu says:

        Ah, I see you’re not one for brief answers. You should beware of what the bible says about the multitude of words. Anyway, most of what you said was irrelevant to what I said.

        The book “leaving jesus” and other articles on this blog go thru the scriptures that show that Jesus was no messiah, except maybe a false one. One piece of evidence is that individuals called moshiach in the Jewish Bible were either Aaronic priests or literal political kings. Jesus was neither.

        You also keep calling Paul a Pharisee which contradicts your point about eyewitnesses. The only evidence that he was one is the testimony of the books ascribed to him. So even though you see him as a liar, you believe him. Odd. You also refer to the first and fourth gospels as eyewitness reports of matt and john which contradicts your notion of eyewitnesses since there are not enough eyewitnesses to who the authors were.

        I’m not gonna reply to all your long repetitive essay. If you reply with a brief statement, I may respond. If it’s too long, I’ll probably either delete it or ignore it.

  2. …..”what the Bible says…..”
    The Bible doesn’t say anything.
    The question for me is, what Jesus of the Gospels says – and what God says through Moses and the Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures.

    You said, QUOTE: ” I used to be a christian, but I learnt the errors of my ways.”

    You can look at Acts chapter 8. This is before Paul and his false teaching, and before the word “Christian” was invented. There is no reason for us to debate about Paul’s credentials, or about “what it means to be a Christian.”

    Do you have a problem with any of the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, and if so what are your objections?

    • hesedyahu says:

      The Bible doesn’t say anything? That’s a bit inconsistent when you then say “what Jesus of the Gospels says.” He didn’t say anything based on your logic. Based on the logic that the Bible doesn’t say anything, then the Jesus of the Gospels didn’t say anything. He literally says nothing. Literally, the writer of the first gospel, whoever that is, wrote down something and then you read it and believe that he’s recording something factual.

      I didn’t bring up what christian means, you did. I don’t even know why if you then say there’s no reason to debate it. The reason why I challenged you on Paul is because of your inconsistency in stating a standard and then not sticking with it. But I’m ok with you dropping that topic.

      Remember, you came and chose to comment on my post. So there is no obligation upon me to bring up the incorrect positions of Jesus for you personally right now. My issues with the false messiah of the gospels are strewn throughout this blog, like his incorrect belief that the Jewish Bible prophesies about him. If you have a problem with another article, post on that article.

      The Jewish Bible, Moses and the prophets, the Torah, they make Jesus more or less redundant

      • Why do you think that Jesus of the Gospels in NOT “the prophet” like Moses, whom Moses recorded prophecy about in Deuteronomy 18, that we must listen to?

      • hesedyahu says:

        Deut 18:9 onwards. God tells the people not to learn the ways of the nations seeking after hidden knowledge thru occult means. Why? Because he would send a prophet like Moses, as they asked not to have God speak to them directly, he would give them a person to speak for him, a prophet. No, they didn’t have to wait over a millennium for God to speak thru a prophet. This section is about the role of any prophet, not a specific one. That’s the contextual meaning. So Jesus is not the subject of Dt 18. It’s not a text about messiah. It’s not a messianic prophecy. It’s about the role of a prophet.

        That’s why I say it’s not about Jesus.

      • hesedyahu,
        You don’t quote Torah.
        You give YOUR interpretation, saying the text can’t possibly mean what it says, it HAS to mean something else. You say that “a prophet” CANNOT mean “a prophet” it HAS to mean “prophets.”

        Moses said:
        “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to him.” [Deuteronomy 18:15]

        God responded to Moses:
        “The LORD said to me: ‘What you say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.” [Deuteronomy 18:17-19]

        Jesus of the Gospels said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not abolish them. He was a Jewish man, and recognized by many as a prophet.

        It seems clear to me that “a prophet” or “the prophet” CAN mean exactly what Yahweh said – it does not have to mean “prophets.”

      • hesedyahu says:

        I never said a prophet can’t mean a prophet. The fact that you put those words in my mouth is the exact reason why I had to challenge you about your claims about Paul. If you cannot be consistent there, then how can I expect you to be consistent elsewhere? I can’t! I said read from verse 9 to get context, which is what you more or less ignored.

        It’s fine. You asked your question, I answered. The discussion can end now.

  3. I quoted the Torah to back up my opinion – you did not.
    And now you want to end the discussion, since you can’t prove my point wrong. It’s your choice. I choose to listen to God’s voice, in the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, rather than your unsupported opinion.

    • hesedyahu says:

      I’m happy to say that I pointed you to Torah, to the whole passage and asked you to read from verse 8 of Deuteronomy 18. I don’t consent to your rigidity that I must literally quote it. The fact that I referred to it and you chose to ignore the whole passage that I pointed to and claim that because I didn’t literally quote it as you demand my interpretation is unfounded shows only that you don’t wish to deal with the text for yourself but expect to be spoon-fed. I said “look at and read the text” and you say “because you didn’t read it to me, you’re making unfounded statements.” I don’t have to feel bad at all about that. First you believe Paul’s lies, then you put words in my mouth that I did not say in this thread, and then you say because I don’t quote a passage, EVEN THOUGH I REFER TO IT, I don’t have a foundation for my point. What I said at the very beginning about your inconsistency is being revealed by your every response.

      • So we agree then that “the prophet” can mean “the prophet.” I’m not saying that your opinion is completely without “a foundation,” although I disagree. It might be possible for a reasonable person to see it that way- it’s debatable. What is clear without debate however, is that “a prophet” like Moses can mean “a prophet.” So we agree. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Yet neither do I want you to put words in God’s mouth that He didn’t say.

        Are there other specific teachings or claims of Jesus that you have problems with?

      • hesedyahu says:

        No. There is no “the” is the hebrew. So it’s not “the prophet” but rather “a prophet.” Samuel was “a prophet.” Isaiah was “a prophet.” Jeremiah was “a prophet.” And so on and so on.

        I didn’t put words in God’s mouth, so there’s nothing to worry about there.

        I’m indifferent about the multiple claims about Jesus. The core one is the notion that he was the promised anointed Davidic king, and he wasn’t. That makes the rest of what he said irrelevant and redundant as what is true is already found in Torah and the Jewish Bible. Sure, the gospels have him saying some wrong things and unfounded things, but since he is no one of any importance and he failed at being the promised Davidic king, that central claim means he can be generally ignored.

  4. So we agree it’s “a prophet” – singular.
    Why do you think Jesus is not the Davidic King (and High Priest and Prophet) ?

    You said QUOTE:
    “the gospels have him saying some wrong things and unfounded things,…..”
    Such as…..?
    and
    …..”what is true is already found in Torah and the Jewish Bible.”
    On that claim, with all due respect, I think you need to read [Deuteronomy 18:17-19] a bit more carefully. It is God speaking.

    I was on a different Jewish website, where they were insisting that Jesus blatantly “broke the Law.”
    Unfortunately, there had been some self-described “Christians” on the site before, who had been agreeing that Jesus “broke the Law”, but said that was fine, because Jesus “abolished the Law.” (That is the false teaching of Paul the Pharisee in his letter to the Ephesians 2:15.]

    In truth, Jesus didn’t “break the Law.” He specifically said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, NOT abolish them.

    On that other site, we looked at some specific cases, and point by point, we found that Jesus did not break the Law after all. They couldn’t come up with a single valid accusation against Jesus on that.
    .1) There was no law against healing someone on the Sabbath.
    .2) Jews were specifically permitted under the Law to pick ripe heads of grain in a field and eat them if they were hungry, and they were free to eat on the Sabbath. So when Jesus’ disciples did this, they were not breaking the Law.
    .3) Jesus never dishonored His mother.

    • hesedyahu says:

      I don’t know if we agree. Samuel was a prophet, singular. He wasn’t a multiple entity. Isaiah was a prophet, singular. Jeremiah was a prophet, singular. As it is written in the Torah, “I will cause a prophet to rise …” and God did this through Samuel, through Nathan, through Elijah. He sent a prophet each time. God didn’t wait over a millennium to send his people a prophet. He did it throughout time as the need arose as the whole context of Deuteronomy 18 verses 8 until the end of the chapter states.

      The nazarene wasn’t a high priest because, in the Torah, in the law that was given to Moses, a high priest only came from Aaron, through the Levites. Being a high priest would disqualify him from being a Davidic king who must be from Judah, a different tribe. He was not a Davidic king because he didn’t sit on the throne of David, not having any political kingly power like David. He wasn’t king of Israel at all like David was. He wasn’t even political king of Judah like the later kings were. Essentially he wasn’t even a king in the usual biblical sense of the word. He also fulfilled none of the explicit prophecies in the Jewish Bible that spoke explicitly of a promised Davidic king.

      I repeat, even after having read Deut 16-19 as well as the rest of the Jewish Bible, that Jesus is irrelevant and redundant, the truth needed being in the Torah and the Jewish Bible. I know it’s God speaking in Deut 18 verses 8 to the end of the chapter. I’ve read it very carefully in context and can see that God promises to send Israel a prophet to speak to people on his behalf. Samuel did that. Ezekiel did that. Amos did that. Micaiah did that. So yes, I am clear on what it means.

      Again your inconsistency creeps in, believing Paul’s lies about being a Pharisee. If you believe him about that, I can understand why you follow Jesus.

      I’m not going to deal with what has been said on other sites. If you want to talk to them, then do so.

      • You wrote QUOTE:
        “God didn’t wait over a millennium to send his people a prophet. He did it throughout time as the need arose…..

        Yes I agree with you – and God has not changed, He still does it, and will do it until the end. [Revelation 11:10]

        But then you wrote about, QUOTE:
        ….” the truth needed being in the Torah and the Jewish Bible.”

        So are you saying that God stopped forever from sending his people a prophet? (after the “completion of the Jewish Bible”) ? Are you saying that God did it throughout time, for a while, but then He stopped over 2000 years ago and has never done it since?

        Looking at [Deuteronomy 18:17-19] and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, I don’t see that.

      • hesedyahu says:

        The book of Revelations is not evidence. It’s not part of the Jewish Bible or Torah, so it’s as good as quoting the Quran or the book of Mormon for me: it has no authority.

        God not changing has nothing to do with this discussion. The destructions of the temples and the subsequent inability to do some of the commandments doesn’t mean he has changed. The fact that he ordained a Levitical priesthood forever and the fact they don’t operate now doesn’t mean he has changed. So the coming or the non-coming of prophets says nothing about him changing.

        Yet prophecy has ceased for now. After the giving of the Torah, God sent prophets and it stopped until now after Malachi. That doesn’t mean it’s stopped forever since it is promised that Elijah (not someone else, but the man himself) will return. I agree with Amos’ prophecy that there will be a famine of God’s word, meaning prophecy. I’m not stating that to argue interpretation with you. I’m stating why I have my stance, not to convince you of anything.

        And the issue is not whether God has stopped sending prophets. You’e focused on the failed messiah, Jesus. Your comments so far have only been focused on that failure’s status as prophet and messiah which I reject. Deut 18 is not a messianic prophecy, so whether Jesus is supposed to be a prophet or not has nothing to do with the fact that he isn’t the promised Davidic king.

  5. You said, QUOTE:
    “Yet prophecy has ceased for now. After the giving of the Torah, God sent prophets and it stopped until now after Malachi.”

    That’s your opinion.
    You provide no backup from any Scripture, because there isn’t any…..
    It’s essentially the same as the false but common idea in Christian Evangelical churches – “cessationist.” Namely, that after the completion of the ‘canon’ of the New Testament, there are no more prophets – prophecy has “ceased” since it is not needed anymore, “we have the Bible”…… they say……..

    Regarding the “prophet like Moses” referred to in Deuteronomy 18, you sort of want to have your cake and eat it too……
    I say it refers specifically to Jesus. But it might also have a wider application to other prophets over time, without any specified cut-off point.

    You say it doesn’t mean one specific prophet, but rather other various prophets over time. But you have no Biblical basis for arbitrarily setting a cut-off point at Malachi, lasting until today.
    I agree there was a temporary cut-off point at Malachi, for some time – but that prophecy started again around the time of Jesus.

    • hesedyahu says:

      “that’s your opinion.” You keep talking to me. Who else’s opinion were you expecting? Again you ignore what I said. I mentioned the prophecy of Amos and you state I have no scripture! The inconsistency again! Look, if you want a sola scripture approach, talk to someone else. I never claimed to bow to your demands or stipulations. And they are your stipulations. There is no text in the Jewish Bible that states that an argument is only valid if it quotes the Jewish Bible. So you’ve made up an unbiblical standard, and in the messed up state of being a failed messiah junkie, you insult my words for not going along with your made up standard and rejecting your failure.

      You’ve given no evidence that Deuteronomy 18 refers specifically to Jesus. You keep stating it as fact and you’ve produced no evidence. I didn’t arbitrarily set any cut off point. Just because I don’t state the reason here for your benefit, that doesn’t make it arbitrary, it makes it unstated. You jump to so many conclusions without evidence and then accuse me of the same. Maybe your issue is not with me but with yourself.

      Please, based on your standard, provide the scripture in the Jewish Bible that explicitly states that prophecy would start again at the time of Jesus. Be consistent with your own standard. The text would have to explicitly mention Jesus and/or something that could only be at his time period.

      • “Who else’s opinion were you expecting?”
        God’s opinion- starting in Genesis with the Patriarchs, the Law of Moses, the Prophets….. and continuing with the Gospel writers.

        Yes, I also ” agree with Amos’ prophecy that there will be a famine of God’s word, meaning prophecy.”

        Amos didn’t say how long that particular famine of prophecy would be. Sometimes God speaks, sometimes He is silent for a while – maybe hundreds of years. I’m not aware of even a single instance in the “Jewish Bible” where God said explicitly when He would speak next. (There might be a few times, but if so it is certainly rare.)

        Based on many Jewish witnesses, recorded by the Gospel writers, I’m observing that a long famine of prophecy ended around the time of Jesus. As I understand it, you ignore all this written testimony, and claim there has been no prophecy for over 2000 years.

      • hesedyahu says:

        I’m not amongst those who would call what God says simply his “opinion.” Some do. I don’t. God’s word is more than just opinion or a personal point of view as if there could be a valid different point of view. So you won’t be getting God’s “opinion” from me.

        Again, I would not add the gospel writers. That’s not part of the Jewish scriptures or Torah and they make fallacious arguments and contradict or add to Torah.

        Oh. You have no biblical evidence that prophecy would start again in Jesus’ time. So based on your own standard, despite your waffling, you don’t have a valid point.

        Oh, you don’t have biblical evidence that I have to our anyone else has to adhere to your unbiblical standard of quoting Bible verses to have a valid point. So based on your standard, you don’t have a valid point.

        Oh, you have no biblical evidence that Deuteronomy 18 is about Jesus. Based on your own standard, you don’t have a valid point.

        I don’t see any valid testimony. You claim that the gospels are from witnesses. I see no sufficient evidence for that claim.

  6. The Apostles Matthew and John, as well as Mark, were Jewish, and they wrote books- “Scripture” to use another word.
    You are obviously aware of the 3 sections of TaNaKh – Torah, Nabi’im, and Kethuvim…. and the Gospels are not part of that, no.

    God spoke through the Patriarchs, who recorded Genesis. Then there was a famine of hearing the word of Yahweh for about 400 years, until God raised up a prophet – Moses, who gave us The Law. God spoke through various prophets through time. Then after Malachi, there was another famine of hearing the word of Yahweh for about 400 years. This lasted until around the time Yahweh sent His only begotten Son, Yeshua, Jesus the Christ, a Prophet like Moses, who also fulfilled the roles of High Priest (Melchizedek and Aaron) and Davidic King.

    You admit that prophecy WOULD begin again at some point after Malachi – but you say it has not happened yet. Well, how would you know if it were to happen, and when? There would have to be some new witnesses that are not in the Tanakh, right?

    You have no evidence from the Tanakh that prophecy would NOT start again in Jesus time. And the Jewish witnesses in the Gospels provided much testimony that prophecy did start again. Jesus fulfilled many prophecies contained in the Tanakh – but the timing was up to God.

    • hesedyahu says:

      I have no reason to accept your belief about the authorship of the gospels. Throughout history the question of their authorship has remained. And you don’t have the authority to declare them scripture. So you don’t really have a leg to stand on with regards to that.

      You continue to make empty claims about the Yeshu and when prophecy is meant to start again. I’ve got no reason to accept it any more than is accept the claim that Mohammed or Joseph Smith continued the line of prophecy.

      It’s also an empty statement to say that Yeshu fulfilled prophecies. I’ve checked them. All of them. In context. In the original language. He didn’t. So unless you have something of substance to add, there’s not much more left to say.

      • What exactly does “Scripture” mean?

        Religious people have equated the term with “their entire ‘holy book.'” You with “the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), Evangelicals with the 66 Books of the Bible, Muslims with the Koran, Mormons with the Book of Mormon.

        “Scripture’ really just means something that is written down, in it’s fundamental sense.

        The idea that “Scripture equals every word in MY Holy Book” is a common viewpoint – but really it’s cult-like, making your “book” into God. There is an order of importance in Scripture. In the Hebrew Bible, it’s
        Torah
        Prophets
        Writings.

        Your views about what is “Scripture” are probably influenced subconsciously by the false teaching of Paul the Pharisee, that “All Scripture is God-breathed” which I explained above in an earlier comment. NO ONE in the pages of the Hebrew Bible, (and no one besides Paul in the New Testament) ever said such a thing. And no one said that all Scripture is equal in authority or importance.

        Mohammad and Joseph Smith wrote their own “new books”, on their own authority, with no second witness to back them up, and they contradicted The Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels – so they were wrong.

        Jesus did not write any books. He had two or more witnesses write about Him.

      • hesedyahu says:

        “Scripture really means something that’s written down …”

        I had to chuckle at that one. Let me consult the scriptures of Harry Potter. Let me consult the scriptures of Batman and the science books at school. Your ability to redefine the English language is amazing. Making a book into God???? That was hilarious.

        And then you become a psychic. “Your view about what is “Scripture” are probably influenced by false teaching of Paul the Pharisee.” I’m still chuckling. Not only do you have the audacity to try to divine what influences me, a total stranger to you, that you’ve only met a couple of days ago which, when compared to my whole life, is nothing more than a joke, not only that, but you try to go into my subconscious. I mean, just how arrogant do you have to be to not only know what a total stranger consciously thinks, but what that total stranger unconsciously thinks.

        And then you talk about “the false teachings of Paul the Pharisee.” It’s incredible. You accept as truth Paul’s lies about being a Pharisee. And then, and then, you talk about the false teachings of Paul the Pharisee when you’ve already accepted his falsehoods. And you still don’t see the inconsistency there. Amazing!

        And then, after having accepted the anti-Torah ideas, the anti-Tanakh ideas of the virgin birthed Jesus being the messiah (an anointed king who was never king or anointed in the proper manner), high priest (although according to the Torah, the ONLY high priest was descended from Levi and Aaron, which Jesus could not be) and prophet (I don’t have to comment on this yet because your paragraph shows the amazing nature of your loss of rationality), after having accepted those notions, you have the absolute nerve to then call Mohammed’s and Joseph Smith’s “prophecy” “of their own authority.” I mean, WHAT??? I can tell you don’t know anything about Islam because they claim to have forms of witnesses for stuff that happened to Muhammed.

        Not only did Jesus write anything, there’s no evidence that he told anyone to write anything about him. So the writers were simply self-willed individuals. And you still have provided no evidence that these people were eye-witnesses. You keep saying it as a mantra, but it’s got no backing. Although I would love to have seen the eye-witnesses to the virgin conception of Jesus. That’s funny. There’s no evidence the writers were prophets. In fact the very way they are written contradicts the notion that God commanded or guided their writing. You’re essentially bankrupt when it comes to evidence for adding the gospels to the Jewish Bible or even the Torah as a standard for testing truth. I’ve read the four gospels. You’ve got nothing.

        Look, good for you! I’m happy that you don’t worship Jesus as God. You’ve avoided the most obvious form of idolatry. I’m glad. At least you’re not transgressing the universal laws for humanity (I don’t mean the law of Moses). But I don’t understand the purpose of you continuing this dialogue. Are you simply preaching? Because what you’ve said has no biblically compelling force to it. You’ve deviated so far from my article that this is now irrelevant. So why are you continuing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s