Even if Jesus is God..

[Elijah John]

Even if Jesus is God, didn't he focus on glorifying the Father more so than himself? Didn't he teach us to focus on the Father? To pray to the Father and worship the Father alone?

If so, why do so many modern Christians pray to Jesus instead, and worship Jesus as their main focus of devotion?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 17 by onewithhim]

Yes, Paul pays lip service to the Father and seems to make "Christ" subordinate. IN some verses, but consider some important other verses from the Pauline pen:

And ask yourself as you read them "do you think the way Paul talks about "Christ" is appropriate? Or should that kind of language be reserved for Jehovah alone."

"'...It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me".

How is that (in effect) not making a God out of "Christ"? In effect. How is that kind of language appropriate for a monotheist who is supposedly devoted to Father Jehovah?

Does Paul ever say anything approaching ""for me to live is Jehovah"? No, he does not. His heart is with "Christ" (judging by his words) and only nominally with the Father.

Would Paul be a Jehovah's Witness? How many times does he mention "Christ" vs "Jehovah" or the Father for that matter.

Paul is not a witness for Jehovah, he is a witness for "Christ"..

I think I remember counting up the number of times Paul mentioned Christ and the number of times he mentioned God or the Father, some years back. I see my work wasn't deemed significant by yourself. I did that to contribute to our discussion and your line of thought. Paul does indeed say things approaching "for to me to live is Jehovah."

(1) This introduction to his letter to the Romans is all about God, Jesus' Father.

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord...and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." (Romans 1:1-4, KJV)

The succeeding verses are all about the Father as well. "God" is always the Father, to Paul. Read through verse 9 and tell me if you see anyone besides the Father being revered there, in verses 1-9.

I see "God" mentioned MANY more times than even Jesus Christ throughout Paul's letters. Shall I count them?

(2) The letters to the Corinthians are likewise.

(I Corinth.) "Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of GOD...unto the church of GOD, which is at Corinth....Grace be unto you, and peace, from GOD OUR FATHER, and from the Lord Jesus Christ....I thank MY GOD always in your behalf, for the grace OF GOD which is given you by Jesus Christ....GOD is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of HIS SON Jesus Christ our Lord." (I Cor.1:1-4 and verse 9)

(II Corinth.) "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of GOD, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of GOD which is at Corinth....Grace be unto you and peace FROM GOD OUR FATHER, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. BLESSED BE GOD, EVEN THE FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, THE FATHER of mercies, and THE GOD of all comfort." (II Cor. 1:1-3)


I could go on, as I have done in the past, showing how, in letter after letter, Paul magnifies God, the Father, over anyone. I don't know how people totally miss this. [/b]

[Elijah John]

I don't agree that John and Paul had "extremely high Christology." I have shown very clear verses where John and Paul speak of Jesus as THE SON of God, and the Father as "the only true God." There are so many I couldn't even list them all here.

Perhaps I should have omitted the word "extremely" and used the word "very" instead. Examples of their very high Christology would included Paul claiming that Jesus was the first born of all Creation though which all things were created. Even his mother Mary? High Christology indeed.

And John painting Jesus as the man who came down from Heaven.

They do not focus their worship on Jesus. The passages that seem to show that Jesus is God are passages that have been TAMPERED WITH by men and there is much written about that. You take the tampered verses out (e.g. John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9...etc) and what you have left are crystal clear statements by both John and Paul that their worship goes to the Father, and Jesus is the Son and the Messiah (OF God).

"For me to live is Christ", "it is Christ who lives in me". Tampered verses? Or indicative of Jesus worship. Excess devotion at best. Paul sometimes pays lip service to the Father, but his heart is with "Christ" Shouldn't his devotional heart be with Father Jehovah alone? Seems like Paul is putting "Christ" before Jehovah, if so, how is that not a violation of the First Commandment?

When Paul said, "For me to live is Christ and to die is gain," he was reiterating the necessity of accepting the Father's means of saving the world.

The Father's means of salvation is His own love and mercy. (Psalm 79.9)

And isn't saying "for me to live is Christ" and "Christ is my everything" really saying the same thing, in different words? Again, why does Paul's heart not use such devotional language toward Father Jehovah? Where does he ever?

The Jews weren't going for that at all, so he naturally would emphasize Jesus' role in the scheme of things. He didn't have to reiterate anything about YHVH because the nation was dedicated to Him and they supposedly accepted YHVH as the Most High. They were familiar with YHVH's position in the universe. They didn't want to admit that Jesus was sent from God, so Paul kept bringing up Jesus Christ as God's means of salvation.

A thoughtful explanation and apologetic. Jews "weren't going for that" because they didn't have to. They have YHVH as their Lord and Savior:

I even I am YHVH, and beside me there is no savior.

Isaiah 43.11

I doubt you're equating Jesus with Jehovah, are you? Beside, Paul's main mission was to preach to the Gentiles, not the Jews. He should have been preaching the God of Israel YHVH to all the Nations, not "Christ". Again Thomas Paine was right when he said:

Instead of God, a man is preached.

Paul preached the man "Christ" not Jehovah God.

I am mystified as to why any Jehovah's Witness would put any creedence to the theology of a man who's heart was not with Jehovah, but with "Christ".

Help us O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us and purge away our sins, for they name's sake.

Psalm 79.9

Not "for Christ's sake", but rather for YHVH' name sake. Not for Christ's glory, but for the "glory of thy (Jehovah not Jesus) name.

YHVH had no need for Jesus in the plan of salvation other than to bear witness to YHVH's love and mercy, and preach repentance.

At least Jesus invoked the Father's name in the Lord's prayer, and bore witness to the Father. Paul bears witness to "Christ" far more often than he does Jehovah, and seldom if ever mentioned the Divine name "Jehovah".

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]

OK.

Now what are your thoughts on my post #21?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]

OK.

Now what are your thoughts on my post #21?

I gave my thoughts to post 21 in post 22. To sum, yes, Paul gave lip-service to the Father, but his heart was with "Christ" not so much with Jehovah. "Christ" is Paul's everything. Shouldn't it be Jehovah?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]

Methinks you didn't really give much attention to what I wrote in post #21.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]

Methinks you didn't really give much attention to what I wrote in post #21.

If you want to show me where exactly I missed, please..

Did you consider fully the arguments I made that Paul seems to put Jesus higher than Jehovah, at least emotionally? "Christ" seems to have a more cherished place in Paul's heart.

Again, why doesn't Paul say anything like "for me to live is Jehovah"? His heart is with "Christ".

Or why he seldom if ever mentions Jehovah by name?

Paul preaches "Christ" not Jehovah.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]

Methinks you didn't really give much attention to what I wrote in post #21.

If you want to show me where exactly I missed, please..

Did you consider fully the arguments I made that Paul seems to put Jesus higher than Jehovah, at least emotionally? "Christ" seems to have a more cherished place in Paul's heart.

Again, why doesn't Paul say anything like "for me to live is Jehovah"? His heart is with "Christ".

Or why he seldom if ever mentions Jehovah by name?

Paul preaches "Christ" not Jehovah.

Yes, I read everything you said about Paul being overly taken with Jesus, and I explained why I don't think he was thinking more of him than Jehovah. I tried to show that Paul mentioned God, the Father, so much that he had to have Jehovah on his mind in the utmost sense.

We also had discussed the fact that New Testament writers DID use the Tetragrammaton, undoubtedly, in their early writings, and that some people in the 2nd or 3rd century replaced it with "God" or "Lord." Since what we presented months ago has not been taken seriously or even remembered at all, I see no point in posting it again and again.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 16 by brianbbs67]

Annulment to Israel? Where does it say that?

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 19 by onewithhim]

Stop perpetuating the lie that we (the Jews) know Jesus was sent from God but won't admit.

There is nothing to admit. He isn't the Messiah. And we base that on the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians don't base their knowledge of the Messiah on the Hebrew scriptures. Not in Hebrew they don't. Christians believe in Jesus based on a translation. They wouldnt believe in Jesus if they were taught Hebrew. If they knew Hebrew they would be angry for being lied to.

Admit? Nothing to admit to! It is Christians who wont admit theyve been lied to. Ive showed them the mistranslations but they can't deal with it. Their comfort is in the lies and so they refuse to let them go. SERIOUSLY...You dont want to call us out on this. If you want to accuse the Jews then know that we will respond according to the truth. We won't be using a mistranslated bible. Id like to hear why Christians believe in Jesus if forced to stand on the truth of the scriptures in its original language. One doesn't need to know the language to see the lies.

For example: lets say the word 'computer' is in the bible. In Hebrew. You see the shape of letters that mean computer in Hebrew. And you see it translated correctly in an English bible. EXCEPT there is a place where it should say computer but it doesn't. In fact it's not even close to computer. And the passage with the error just so happens to be one of the passages that proves Jesus is the Messiah. And you say we won't admit? Admit to what? No, you want us to support lies. No. Forget it. Our truth is is based on truth. Christians require lies for their truth to be true. Youll never get us to endorse lies.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 19 by onewithhim]

Stop perpetuating the lie that we (the Jews) know Jesus was sent from God but won't admit.

There is nothing to admit. He isn't the Messiah. And we base that on the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians don't base their knowledge of the Messiah on the Hebrew scriptures. Not in Hebrew they don't. Christians believe in Jesus based on a translation. They wouldnt believe in Jesus if they were taught Hebrew. If they knew Hebrew they would be angry for being lied to.

Admit? Nothing to admit to! It is Christians who wont admit theyve been lied to. Ive showed them the mistranslations but they can't deal with it. Their comfort is in the lies and so they refuse to let them go. SERIOUSLY...You dont want to call us out on this. If you want to accuse the Jews then know that we will respond according to the truth. We won't be using a mistranslated bible. Id like to hear why Christians believe in Jesus if forced to stand on the truth of the scriptures in its original language. One doesn't need to know the language to see the lies.

For example: lets say the word 'computer' is in the bible. In Hebrew. You see the shape of letters that mean computer in Hebrew. And you see it translated correctly in an English bible. EXCEPT there is a place where it should say computer but it doesn't. In fact it's not even close to computer. And the passage with the error just so happens to be one of the passages that proves Jesus is the Messiah. And you say we won't admit? Admit to what? No, you want us to support lies. No. Forget it. Our truth is is based on truth. Christians require lies for their truth to be true. Youll never get us to endorse lies.

And I wouldn't want you to endorse lies. I know that the mainstream churches of Christendom teach many lies. When I said that the Jews didn't admit that Jesus was the Messiah, I was referring to the leaders of the Jews---the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. Many of the common folk accepted him as the Messiah, though they were relatively few. I believe that the ones that were expecting the Messiah then were basing their expectation on the Hebrew Scriptures. But I understand your point about something being lost in the translation.

I have The Hebrew-English Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society. I'll turn to (1) Isaiah 53 and look at what is said there. Am I right when I say that you and most Jews attribute this account to Israel itself as the wounded servant? I read over it, and I can't get that meaning from what is written. It says:

"He was wounded because of OUR sins, crushed because of OUR iniquities." (Verse 5)

Isaiah was clearly speaking of the sins of his people, Israel. He said "our" sins. The righteous servant (verse 11) was to be "crushed" because of the sins of Israel. The text says that "By his bruises we were healed....the LORD visited upon him the guilt of us all." (verse 6.)

Please explain how Israel itself could be the "righteous servant." (Isaiah had said that Israel had committed sins and iniquities ....verse 5, but were healed by what this righteous servant did.)

(2) Daniel 9: "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city until the measure of transgression is filled and that of sin complete, until iniquity is expiated, and eternal righteousness ushered in; and prophetic vision ratified, and the Holy of Holies anointed. You must know and understand: From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of the anointed leader is seven weeks; and for 62 weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress." (Verses 24, 25)

Am I right that the "anointed leader" is the Messiah? So you had looked forward to the Messiah (that is, your people back then looked forward to the Messiah coming), and he was to show up after a certain number of "weeks" which were "weeks of years," according to the footnote. The order to rebuild Jerusalem went out when Cyrus gave the Jews permission to go back to their land after 70 years, from Babylon, am I right? So then after 62 weeks of years the Messiah would appear?

How do you understand those verses? I would appreciate your explanations. I might have been wrong about some things. I have gone to a Hebrew-translated version of the scriptures. You say that if I knew Hebrew I would see how I have been lied to. Well I can't read Hebrew, so I go to the next best thing, I would say, that is, the JPS Hebrew/English Tanakh. From what I just went over, I still see the suffering servant as Yeshua bar Joseph, and also that the Messiah was prophesied to come when the 62 weeks of years in Daniel 9 were up.

I have heard from other Jews through the years that they aren't looking for the Messiah any longer, but I don't know why. I look forward to your input.