29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus makes very few claims about himself and tells those who ask how to be saved that they should follow the commandments. In John, Jesus hints in many places and sometimes explicitly states that God is his Father, and that Jesus and the Father are one, and says the way to be saved is to believe in Jesus. It's kind of odd that all four are considered infallible scripture.
The version you describe there about Yhwh torturing himself is basically how I always understood Christian thought. I was taught only someone perfect and sinless (e.g. God) could take the punishment for others. Growing up with that belief, it made all kinds of sense to me.
The Jews of that time have a way of saying "son" to indicate that someone has the qualities of something, or is like something, hence how the brothers James and John were called "sons of thunder".
Thanks for the chapter and verse on that line - I never knew there was such a direct claim in there.
I know about the different connotations of son, but sacrificing your only son is quite different than being the/a 'son of Gawd'.
The thing is, Heather, that the Temple sacrifice of "the perfect lamb" was made by Jewish priests as an homage to god, therefore, the sacrifice of Yeshua, supposedly the son of god, was made (just as Issac was scheduled for), to god -- god ordained the sacrifice of his own son, to himself!
Yes - but my point is that if Jesus IS Yahweh, then Yahweh sacrificed himself to himself to appease his own anger - there is no father/son relationship.
Not to dispute you Physter, but the "we" and "us" in the OT, are there because royalty (ask Stega, who's British), speaks of itself in the third person - which may make no sense, but it's true.
Third person, or plural as in "we are not amused"
Well, maybe YOU'RE not, but WE are!
In fact, when amusement eludes us, we make funny faces in the mirror --
Please cite the verse where it is 'prophesied' that 'Jesus would come'. Please then explain how one could know that Jesus was the one spoken of and not just a man about whom the stories were adjusted to make it seem that he was the one.
You can be a mother and a daughter - but you can't be your own daughter. The mother/daughter relationship, like the father/son relationship, requires two distinct individuals. In the old testament, Yahweh is not described as being a three in one deity. Don't you find it odd that he changed his mind so many times? First requiring that only a certain tribe be his chosen people, sacrificing animals to him like so many other tribes sacrificed to their imaginary gods - then deciding that there was an afterlife in heaven for those who believed he came down here to be tortured, well, not him, his son, who is him - gah, so hard to keep straight.
I don't really know specifically Heather, I'll have to look into that further and get back with you. I just know there are verses in the old testament, like in Isaiah and Jeremiah...I don't know which ones off the top of my head. I'll have to find them. Sorry I don't memorize the Bible as much as I should. Especially the Old testament. Our church focuses a lot on the New Testament.
I find it interesting that you would devote your life to a belief without doing much investigation. I mean you suggest your views must be correct because they've all been prophesied and proven true - but then you aren't familiar with a single specific prophesy.
Christians like the New Testament better than the Old Testament because, I think, it is better. There's more love, and less firey judgement. Christians talk as if the New Testament can supersede or wipe away all the problems of the Old Testament. But you remember Jesus said "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" and that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away.
If you accept the Bible, you have to figure out what to do with the whole thing. When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, did he really mean that the law would radically change after his resurrection? If so, what does "not abolishing" the law mean? Are all the books of our Old Testament included in Jesus' statement? If so, why does God accept human sacrifice or order the death of someone who gathered sticks on the Sabbath?