Can Jesus lie?

[placebofactor]

Jesus never lied, nor could he. To be untruthful is to be deceitful. The Lord’s own words always agreed with his deeds and with actuality. Truth is shown to be reality, based on God’s revelations. When Jesus was asked concerning his return, he responded to the question with, “No man knows, not the Son but the Father.” Was he speaking the truth? Answer, "Of course he was."

Question: Why didn’t he know? To draw a proper answer to the question, three factors need to be united into one answer: God’s foreknowledge, our hope, and Jesus speaking the truth. When the question was asked, the Jews were under the heavy hand of the Romans and the corrupt Jewish religious leaders.

Now, what if Jesus had been told by the Father the exact day and hour of his return? I am sure the disciples would have asked him many more questions concerning the future. If asked, and he had been given the answer, he would have had to tell them about men like Nero, Diocletian, and Galerius, and how Christians would be threatened, imprisoned, tortured, and put in the Colosseum for sport.  

He would have had to tell them about the future Holy Roman Empire led by the Popes of Rome. He would have had to tell them about their cruelty against believers. How the Roman church would imprison tens of thousands, then torture and murder them. He would have had to reveal to them if asked about their methods of torture and murder. About how thousands would be beheaded, suffer the smashing of bones, boiling in water, dragging, being skinned alive, starvation, and about those who would be wrapped in bloody animal skins and fed to wild dogs.

And after this, would come the persecution and murder of Christians by the nations of Islam. About Nazi Germany, the holocaust.

Now let’s bring this all to a conclusion. If Jesus had been told of the day and hour of his return, and if then asked, he would never have lied. He would have told them about all the above future tyrants and what their future generation of Christians would suffer. And by the way, he would have to tell them, “It’s going to be another 2000 years before I return.”

If these things had been told the disciples on the Mt. of Olives, and they had written in their gospels of these things, what would have happened to the church? The church would have died before it was born. The Father knew this, which is most likely why he hid this even from his beloved Son.  
Your thoughts

[1213]

...
Heb 1:3  And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 

"Exact representation" as...

… He is the image of the invisible God...
Col. 1:14-16

[Capbook]

...
Heb 1:3  And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 

"Exact representation" as...

… He is the image of the invisible God...
Col. 1:14-16

The word "nature" in Hebrews 1:3, which bears Strong#G5287, in Greek "ὑπόστασις hypostasis" defined by Bible Lexicon specifically in this verse as - essence, etc. By the definition, Jesus is God in essence the same with the Father.

Heb 1:3  N1And He is the radianceG541 of His gloryG1391 and the exactG5481 R1representationG5481 of His natureG5287, and N2 R2upholdsG5342 allG3956 thingsG3956 by the wordG4487 of His powerG1411. When He had madeG4160 R3purificationG2512 of sinsG266, He R4satG2523 downG2523 at the rightG1188 handG1188 of the R5MajestyG3172 on highG5308, 

G5287 (Mounce Lexicon)
ὑπόστασις hypostasis
5x: pr. a standing under; a taking of a thing upon one’s self; an assumed position, an assumption of a specific character, 2Co_11:17; an engagement undertaken with regard to the conduct of others, a vouching, 2Co_9:4; or of one’s self, a pledged profession, Heb_3:14; an assured impression, a mental realizing, Heb_11:1; a substructure, basis; subsistence, essence, Heb_1:3.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Capbook in post #72]

The word "nature" in Hebrews 1:3, which bears Strong#G5287, in Greek "ὑπόστασις hypostasis" defined by Bible Lexicon specifically in this verse as - essence, etc. By the definition, Jesus is God in essence the same with the Father.

That has to be the absolute worst argument I've ever come across...

God is spirit. Scripture is clear on this point. God is NOT a man.

Jesus is flesh. Scripture could not be more clear on this point. Jesus IS a man.

They are not the same "essence" nor are they the same "nature," one being Divine, the other Human.

[Mr E]

[Replying to 1213 in post #71]

… He is the image of the invisible God...
Col. 1:14-16

Quite so. The "image" is a likeness, but not 'the same' as the original, the way your reflection is like you, but not you. The image is a facsimile the way a painting, or a sculpture is created to depict something or someone. You would never consider these likenesses to be the actual thing or person they portray. The image is a representation the way an ambassador or spokesperson stands in the place of another, carrying authority or holding office representing a greater power, without being the one they represent.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to 1213 in post #71]

… He is the image of the invisible God...
Col. 1:14-16

Quite so. The "image" is a likeness, but not 'the same' as the original, the way your reflection is like you, but not you. The image is a facsimile the way a painting, or a sculpture is created to depict something or someone. You would never consider these likenesses to be the actual thing or person they portray. The image is a representation the way an ambassador or spokesperson stands in the place of another, carrying authority or holding office representing a greater power, without being the one they represent.

Mr. E, you really need to get yourself a good Greek to English Lexicon. “Express image” does not mean a reflection, symbol, or partial likeness. It means Jesus is the exact, perfect, undiminished imprint of God’s very essence.

“Express image means that everything the Father is in His inner essence, Jesus perfectly and visibly embodies. The keyword behind “express image” is the Greek “charaktēr,” which refers to an engraved stamp or the exact imprint made by a seal. He is the precise, flawless imprint of God’s very being. Another example, the imprint on a coin is identical to the die that struck it, no distortion, no approximation. So, when applied to the Son of God, it means He is the exact representation of God’s inner reality, not a reflection or copy.

[Mr E]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #75]

I study Greek and Hebrew, but thanks for the suggestion.

YOU (and I, and Adam and Jesus) are made in the image of God. That does not make us God, or even 'like' God. That's the original promise (a lie) presented in the garden.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #75]

I study Greek and Hebrew, but thanks for the suggestion.

YOU (and I, and Adam and Jesus) are made in the image of God. That does not make us God, or even 'like' God. That's the original promise (a lie) presented in the garden.

Again, get yourself a good Lexicon; Strong's is okay, but it's too vague; it doesn't break words down. I don't know where you studied Hebrew and Greek or how many years you studied, but someone taught you wrong on the phrase "Express image." If you want to be a good teacher, be sure you know what you're talking about. If not, you will be called out. One more thing, don't ever be afraid to admit you are wrong, it's the only way to grow and gain respect from others.

Express: In Greek is "charakter". An engraver, a graving tool. Usually, something graven, cut in, stamped, etc. A character, as a letter, mark, or sign. In N.T. Impress, image, form; Hebrews 1:3, "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person," as in the express image or counterpart of the Father's essence or being.

Counterpart: A part of a thing corresponding to another, as in the left arm is the counterpart of the right arm.

[Mr E]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #77]

That's just obtuse.

Is an engraving a representation of something? A stamped copy? When Jesus said-- look at that coin-- whose image is stamped on it? -Was he implying that the image on the coin was Caesar himself, or the representation of Caesar? Get a grip.

The image might have a resemblance and it might bring to mind, but it is not the same as.... not ever.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #77]

That's just obtuse.

Is an engraving a representation of something? A stamped copy? When Jesus said-- look at that coin-- whose image is stamped on it? -Was he implying that the image on the coin was Caesar himself, or the representation of Caesar? Get a grip.

The image might have a resemblance and it might bring to mind, but it is not the same as.... not ever.

Wow, talk about abusing verses. The study of ancient Greek not only means to understand the word and it's meaning and root, but to understand the word in the culture it was written. The denarius bore Caesar’s physical likeness and inscription, marking it as his property and under his authority.

Jesus uses the coin to show that what bears Caesar’s image belongs to Caesar, hence taxes are legitimately owed. Contrast that with God’s image, and the deeper point. Coins bear Caesar’s image; give them to Caesar. Man bears God’s image; give yourself to God. In essence, the image on the denarius indicates ownership and civic duty, not divine nature.

[Mr E]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #79]

The concept in play is "image." An image can be an exact representation, even an exact copy, without being the same. How?

Go look in a mirror. What do you see? Is that you?

Of course it is, and of course it is not.