First Word of Jesus was repent

[Mattathias]

Actually, it depends on whether a person is walking by the Spirit or not.

When an atheist’s spirit speaks it is the atheist expressing himself, not another person.

The difference between us and Elohimis that He is divine and all composite parts of Elohim are in agreement. "For there are three that testify in heaven"

The elohim of Jesus doesn’t have composite parts.

All throughout the Gospel according to John, Jesus is declaring His equality with God.

Jesus declared his functional equality with God.

They crucified Him for this...because they perceived Him as a blasphemer. Do you think He was?

No.

My point here is that you misunderstood the meaning of the passage because you were unaware of the conjugation of a word.

You pointed out that there is a finer point in Greek that is not immediately apparent in English and I agreed with you.

The same is true for Deuteronomy 6:4. You either haven't been taught this or you just haven't studied it yet.

You haven’t persuaded me because you haven’t established that the number 1 is itself plural.

But I have now moderately explained it and used an equivalent situation to illustrate what most people miss without looking deeply at the manuscript texts.

You didn’t use an equivalent situation. I pointed out to you previously that the LXX translates the singular “elohim” in Hebrew by using the singular “theos“ in Greek. This is also the case in English; “elohim” and “theos“ are translated by using the singular “God” (or “god”).

At this point, you are just making assertions without lexical support.

See any standard Hebrew Lexicon.

Biblically, how did you come to that conclusion?

By reading in scripture the ways in which angels and human persons are alike now.

Apparently, He can, and did...

A quick summary of our positions before proceeding:

Me: God cannot die and did not die.

You: God can die and did die.

You conceited that "the First and the Last" is Jesus and the Father:
View attachment 218697
So how do you make sense of this?:
View attachment 218696
two people are speaking here, yet they say "There is no God besides me".

There aren’t 2 people speaking in this verse. Only 1. The Father.

The Father says here, “There is no God besides me.”

We’ve previously spoken in this thread about Jesus having no God besides the Father.

Revelation says that "the First and the Last" was dead and has come to life.

There aren’t 2 persons speaking in this verse. Only 1. As I pointed out previously, Jesus is speaking about himself in this verse.

“There is no God besides me,“ said the Father. He cannot die and did not die.

Jesus is the Messiah, a mortal human person. He could die and he did die.

So two persons, Jesus and his God, have used the phrase “the first and the last” in speaking about themselves. The phrase is a category statement. Jesus is the first and last of a category; his God is the first and the last of a category. The phrase is a shared title. A shared title (see, for example, theos) doesn’t mean they share the same identity.

 

[Diakonos]

You haven’t persuaded me because you haven’t established that the number 1 is itself plural.

When you take Hebrew, you learn that:
The singular form of "one" in Hebrew is יָחִיד (yachid- also know as the "numeric one"... this is a number)
The plural form of "one" in Hebrew is אֶחָד (echad- also known as the "unified one"... this is a composite)

There aren’t 2 people speaking in this verse.

They are both speaking, my friend.

So two persons, Jesus and his God, have used the phrase “the first and the last” in speaking about themselves. The phrase is a category statement. Jesus is the first and last of a category; his God is the first and the last of a category.

Do you have this all planned out, or do you make it up as you go?
What are these categories?

That is the point I have been making this whole time. Jesus shares titles with the Father, including "God". I never said that they share the same identity. You don't seem to understand Trinitarianism.

 

[Blik]

you avoided the question , so i will make it more dircect.

gentile Christ followers are not required to keep the Law and the Sabbath, as gentiles were never under the Law, ( not mandated by rome, but by God and the specific covenant He made with Israel only),

gentile Christ followers are to follow the N.T. teachings.

do you agree or disagree with this statement??

If you were a Christian who followed scripture you wouldn't be talking such rot.

We are told to take all our sin to Christ, Christ will forgive. You are caught up in such flesh that you put that into your own fleshly words: "are you required" and you are ready to make a case for judging out of something you don't understand.

If you were as Christ told you to be, you would want to obey Him because you love Christ. As a purely fleshly person you use accusations, and threats instead of love, so if I should want to obey the Lord you can be cruel. You didn't get this "required" from scripture, did you?

You say you are not under the law, and intimate you will not listen to law. Christ does judge you by law and that law kills if you don't take what you break to Christ for forgiveness. The only law you are not under is the law that Christ has forgiven you for breaking.

You deny God the Father, saying God is only for Israel. I guess you exist because of a great bang? If you were a Christian following Christ you would read all of scripture and learn about God's Israel.

I am simply pointing out what you keep telling us. God will judge these things in you, I can't.

 

[Mattathias]

When you take Hebrew, you learn that:
The singular form of "one" in Hebrew is יָחִיד (yachid- also know as the "numeric one"... this is a number)
The plural form of "one" in Hebrew is אֶחָד (echad- also known as the "unified one"... this is a composite)

That’s not what I learned when I took Hebrew in college.

In this YouTube video a native Israeli teacher provides instruction on how to count from 1 - 10 in Hebrew.

Notice that the numeral 1 is echad, not yachid. Yachid occurs only eight times in scripture, and is never used in reference to the 1 true God. It, like echad, is singular.

If we were to visit a Jewish kindergarten classroom and ask one of the tykes to tell us in Hebrew how to say the numeral 1, the child would respond by saying “echad”. If we were to ask that same child to hold up only echad finger, the child would hold up 1 finger. (I’ve had the pleasure of observing this myself.)

View attachment 218725
They are both speaking, my friend.

There are a couple of ways that we can evaluate how many speakers there are in this verse. The first way is to answer the question: When did these last days begin?

Do you have this all planned out, or do you make it up as you go?

Is this the way you want others to treat you?

What are these categories?

Human and deity.

That is the point I have been making this whole time. Jesus shares titles with the Father, including "God". I never said that they share the same identity.

When you say that Jesus is God and the Father is God are you not saying that their identity is God?

You don't seem to understand Trinitarianism.

I do.

 

[Mattathias]

A correction on something I wrote in post #184.

I wrote that the Hebrew word “yachid” occurs only eight times in scripture. That’s incorrect. It actually occurs twelve times in scripture. The point isn’t changed but the statistical data is now correct.

(My daughter asked me a question while I was typing my original comment about “yachid”. The answer to her question was “eight“. I realized later that I posted what I said to her instead of what I had intended to write. A multi-tasking faux pas.)

 

[gb9]

If you were a Christian who followed scripture you wouldn't be talking such rot.

We are told to take all our sin to Christ, Christ will forgive. You are caught up in such flesh that you put that into your own fleshly words: "are you required" and you are ready to make a case for judging out of something you don't understand.

If you were as Christ told you to be, you would want to obey Him because you love Christ. As a purely fleshly person you use accusations, and threats instead of love, so if I should want to obey the Lord you can be cruel. You didn't get this "required" from scripture, did you?

You say you are not under the law, and intimate you will not listen to law. Christ does judge you by law and that law kills if you don't take what you break to Christ for forgiveness. The only law you are not under is the law that Christ has forgiven you for breaking.

You deny God the Father, saying God is only for Israel. I guess you exist because of a great bang? If you were a Christian following Christ you would read all of scripture and learn about God's Israel.

I am simply pointing out what you keep telling us. God will judge these things in you, I can't.

so, just as i said, and you freaked out about it, you DO think one has to keep the Law and Sabbath to saved.

you do have a zeal for God and righteouness, it is to bad you believe all the judeaizer lies that you believe.

 

[Funkus]

Jesus didn't just go around telling people to repent, like John the baptist.
He spoke of the kingdom, and actually spoke from the kingdom of heaven
That is why when the guards were sent to arrest him they couldn't do it saying no-one ever spoke the way he did, if he had a one track simple message they would not have said that about him!

 

[Blik]

so, just as i said, and you freaked out about it, you DO think one has to keep the Law and Sabbath to saved.

you do have a zeal for God and righteouness, it is to bad you believe all the judeaizer lies that you believe.

I am sorry for you, I will pray that your heart can be opened and you can hear the words of our Lord. It is your choice, and the Lord gives you the right to make your choices. My post wasn't kind, perhaps you could have heard something of it if I would have been kinder.

 

[gb9]

I am sorry for you, I will pray that your heart can be opened and you can hear the words of our Lord. It is your choice, and the Lord gives you the right to make your choices. My post wasn't kind, perhaps you could have heard something of it if I would have been kinder.

that is mutual. i have been unkind to you in the past, so maybe just pray for each other, and let the Lord's will be done.

 

[Blik]

Jesus didn't just go around telling people to repent, like John the baptist.
He spoke of the kingdom, and actually spoke from the kingdom of heaven
That is why when the guards were sent to arrest him they couldn't do it saying no-one ever spoke the way he did, if he had a one track simple message they would not have said that about him!

From the first, though, the core of the gospel is that we are made righteous through Christ.

Wouldn't you say that the message of Christ is to repent of sins and give them to His forgiveness so we are made righteous and can live with the Lord in our life to come?

 

[Diakonos]

That’s not what I learned when I took Hebrew in college.[/QUOTE
This video is a lesson in modern Hebrew. What kind of Hebrew did you learn in college?
Modern Hebrew?
Ashkenazi Hebrew?
Sephardi Hebrew?
Mizrahi Hebrew?
Classical Hebrew?
Yemenite Hebrew?
Tiberian Hebrew?
Medieval Hebrew?
Mishnaic Hebrew?

Also, I would like to gain some more common ground with you before we continue with this. What is your understanding of the difference between the word yachid and echad in the Bible?

There are a couple of ways that we can evaluate how many speakers there are in this verse. The first way is to answer the question: When did these last days begin?

Are you saying that you don't know how many people are speaking in this verse? If you know, then just tell me who you think is speaking.

Is this the way you want others to treat you?

If I am wrong, then I would rather be set straight and as fast as possible. I wasn't going out of my way to be rude. It was an honest thought. I'm not saying that you made it up (maybe you did, I don't know). Someone else probably made it up and told you that. I highly doubt that you came to that conclusion on your own. When a thread of doctrine has to avoid many passages and jump through so many hoops to avoid an obvious conclusion seen in Scripture, it is always because somewhere is history, someone didn't like what the Bible says, so they invest their own doctrine and spread it like gangrene. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has anticipated every heresy and has sown details throughout the Bible so that the approved may find them, and "the approved may become evident".

Human and deity.

Biblically, how did you come to that conclusion?

When you say that Jesus is God and the Father is God are you not saying that their identity is God?

No, I am not, and neither is any consistent Trinitarian.
When we say "Jesus is God" What we mean is that Jesus is Devine. We are not saying that Jesus is identical with that being which is God (which I would suggest is the whole Trinity). And Jesus is not identical with the whole Trinity, He is one member of the Trinity. Everyone who understands the doctrine understands that when Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are called "God", three Gods are not postulated because those are not identity statements. Those are predicate statements. Those statements predicate the properties of those persons, namely, the property of being Devine.

 

[Mattathias]

Your post #191 is constructed in such a way that I can’t easily respond to it. I’ll address your first comment in this post.

Our textbooks for Hebrew language courses was titled “Biblical Hebrew Step By Step”. I’m providing a link to a description of the textbooks. https://www.logos.com/product/4333/biblical-hebrew-step-by-step

The video I provided is counting in modern Hebrew. How can we confirm or deny that counting in modern Hebrew is the same as counting in Biblical Hebrew? I suggest we can do it by consulting a standard Hebrew Lexicon. When we do, we find confirmation that counting in modern Hebrew is done the same way counting was done in the Hebrew manuscripts our English language Bibles are translated from.

 

[Mattathias]

...counting in modern Hebrew is done the same way counting was done in the Hebrew manuscripts our English language Bibles are translated from.

An example of counting in Joshua 12: 7-24 is offered for consideration as confirmation of the point.

“Now these are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the sons of Israel defeated beyond the Jordan...the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one; the king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one; the king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one; the king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one; the king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one; the king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one; the king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one; the king of Makkedah, one; the king of Bethel, one; the king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one; the king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one; the king of Mason, one; the king of Hazor, one; the king of Shimron-meron, one; the king of Achshaph, one; the king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one; the king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam in Carmel, one; the king of Dor, one; the king of Goiim, one; the king of Tirzah, one; in all, thirty-one kings.”

In every instance in this accounting, it is the the Hebrew word “echad” which is translated as “one”. This may be confirmed by consulting a Hebrew Lexicon.

 

[Mattathias]

When you take Hebrew, you learn that:
The singular form of "one" in Hebrew is יָחִיד (yachid- also know as the "numeric one"... this is a number)

There are only 12 occurrences of the word “yachid” in the OT. They are:

1. Genesis 22:2
2. Genesis 22:12
3. Genesis 22:16
4. Judges 11:34
5. Psalm 22:20
6. Psalm 25:16
7. Psalm 35:17
8. Psalm 68:6
9. Proverbs 4:3
10. Jeremiah 6:26
11. Amos 8:10
12. Zechariah 12:10

The range for what you call the “singular form of ‘one’,” “numeric one” and “a number” is limited to those 12 verses. If what you said is correct, then no where else can that concept be found in the OT.

Does it make sense to you that - in the entirety of the OT - the biblical authors only speak about a person, place or thing in the singular form of one 12 times?

Does it make sense to you that - with the exception of the 12 passages listed above - the biblical author’s only and always speak about a person, place or thing using what you call “the plural form of one”?

 

[Mattathias]

When you take Hebrew, you learn that:
The singular form of "one" in Hebrew is יָחִיד (yachid- also know as the "numeric one"... this is a number)

”Yachid” is never used in the OT in reference to God. (See the 12 occurrences listed in post #194.)

If Hebrew teaches what you say it does then the OT almost never uses the number 1 - in reference to anyone or anything.

That’s what you‘re committed to.

 

[John146]

Christians often scold other Christians for trying to be perfect before the Lord. They point out that it is impossible to achieve perfection and it is prideful to even try. They point to the fact that our personal righteousness does not save us, we are misinformed to even try to achieve it.

Repentance would necessarily mean working toward our personal ability to be righteous. Jesus told us in His very first message to us to repent.

Matthews 4:17 From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has become near”.

I believe His first message is found here...

Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

 

[Funkus]

From the first, though, the core of the gospel is that we are made righteous through Christ.

Wouldn't you say that the message of Christ is to repent of sins and give them to His forgiveness so we are made righteous and can live with the Lord in our life to come?

Yes but that's the trouble, when summarising it up it covers so much ground everyone will agree with you, but the details are overlooked when doing this and as i can see from this thread - how much disagreement there is!
some of this is from not seeing how Jesus spoke and thinking he spoke the way humans normally do, when he usually didn't

So what's the answer, it comes to me when I see Jesus himself frequently choosing non-simple language to try to convey the heavenly to humans and the need to seek it. He spoke like no other ever did, so i think its a wrong idea to just say he had a simple repentance message only because i don't think that is what those who heard him thought. He has the 'words of life' it says in John. I think some of the disagreements go away from the richness and depth of language Jesus spoke in but it won't go away if his words are no higher than our words, or our preachers or anyone else that ever spoke

 

[Diakonos]

@Mattathias
I'm not sure why my post was formated that way. My apologies.
here, I will attempt to reconstruct the post so you can comment from here:


-I would like to gain some more common ground with you before we continue with this. What is your understanding of the difference between the meanings of the words yachid and echad in the Bible?


-Are you saying that you don't know how many people are speaking in this verse? If you know, then just tell me who you think is speaking.

-If I am wrong, then I would rather be set straight and as fast as possible. I wasn't going out of my way to be rude. It was an honest thought. I'm not saying that you made it up (maybe you did, I don't know). Someone else probably made it up and told you that. I highly doubt that you came to that conclusion on your own. When a thread of doctrine has to avoid many passages and jump through so many hoops to avoid an obvious conclusion seen in Scripture, it is always because somewhere is history, someone didn't like what the Bible says, so they invest their own doctrine and spread it like gangrene. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has anticipated every heresy and has sown details throughout the Bible so that the approved may find them, and "the approved may become evident".

(The 2 categories of "the First and the Last):

-Biblically, how did you come to that conclusion?


-No, I am not, and neither is any consistent Trinitarian.
When we say "Jesus is God" What we mean is that Jesus is Devine. We are not saying that Jesus is identical with that being which is God (which I would suggest is the whole Trinity). And Jesus is not identical with the whole Trinity, He is one member of the Trinity. Everyone who understands the doctrine understands that when Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are called "God", three Gods are not postulated because those are not identity statements. Those are predicate statements. Those statements predicate the properties of those persons, namely, the property of being Devine.

 

[infinitekhanol]

Blik said

Christians often scold other Christians for trying to be perfect before the Lord. They point out that it is impossible to achieve perfection and it is prideful to even try. They point to the fact that our personal righteousness does not save us, we are misinformed to even try to achieve it.


I agree with Blik that some Christians believe that it is impossible for man not to sin or to achieve perfection. I have encountered them. They cite what they consider relevant scriptures to support themselves. One of such scriptures is Isaiah 64:6 where it is written "but we are all as an unclean thing and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" {old KJV), Their belief is that we can only strive. My question to them always is why then did Christ Jesus come in the first place? Why did our Father send his begotten son to the world?

When we say we are Christians or born again and a new creature in Christ, why do we still put our wine into the old bottle? St John said in 1 John 3:8-10 that he that commits sin is of the devil and he that does righteousness is of God. And whosoever is born of God does not commit sin for his (God's) seed remains in him. In this is the children of God manifest and the children of the devil.

We must decide not to sin and follow through with our decision. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "go and sin no more." His word to us is to repent. Repentance here means turning away from sin. To strive is not enough. we must stop sinning. Our believe in him and the understanding he has given us enables us to achieve this because the Holy Spirit which our Father has shed in our hearts guides us towards the right path. The sincerity and integrity of our heart is very key.

The God Almighty mandates us to be Perfect and Holy as he is. This is the only way we can reflect his kingdom on earth as his children (as it is in heaven so on earth.) It is a mandate. He cannot tell us to do it if he knows it will be impossible for us to achieve. In him all things are possible. so, if we are truly in him, nothing can be impossible for us. The bible tells us that we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

To be perfect is to reflect the fullness of God on earth as our Lord Jesus showed us and the holy Spirit continues to show us. It is to be Christ like. To reach the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13) i.e while we are here on earth. This is our purpose on earth - to reflect the fullness of God

one may ask, if we say we are a new creature and have the seed of God's righteousness in us with the power and authority to stop sinning, why do we continue to sin? i think we should reflect on this. For me, i will come back to it in my next post.

• 

 

[Cor]

Christians often scold other Christians for trying to be perfect before the Lord. They point out that it is impossible to achieve perfection and it is prideful to even try. They point to the fact that our personal righteousness does not save us, we are misinformed to even try to achieve it.

Repentance would necessarily mean working toward our personal ability to be righteous. Jesus told us in His very first message to us to repent.

Matthews 4:17 From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has become near”.

Hi, This is somewhat my experience. But the input they put in has that output. So if you want to change the output you have to change their?

Repentance and forgiveness of sin would be preached in Jesus name, that sounds like a reference to the kingdom.

For it also at His name people will bow.

What is it that their foundation is layed upon? Is it believing what He did to secure salvation[heaven when one Dies] or is their foundation Jesus Christ....His name in my view would be about who He is. From a passage I read...and I need to find that Sunday School book when people came to enlightenedment if who He was they had to bow down. This type of humbling from recognizing who you are not in the presence of God in my opinion is a form of repentance.

But people have not imputed the foundation that Christ is the son of God that came from heaven and was before us all. So this may be why they do not turn to Him in repentance but turn to as foundational what He did to secure their salvation. And so it this renders a different output of ideals and therefore course of behavior patterns