Has God ever said "I'm Jesus"?
And has Jesus ever said "I'm God"?
As for the holy spirit, they both have it, as do all christians in lesser degrees..
How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?
- Thread starter RestlessWanderer
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Has God ever said "I'm Jesus"?
And has Jesus ever said "I'm God"?
As for the holy spirit, they both have it, as do all christians in lesser degrees..
I wanted to comment on this thread, but this is the only post that inspired me.
Nuff said.
: )
No, He said, My Name is "Yeshua of Nazareth."
He said, He was I AM, which is a Reference to when ELOHIM said He was I AM TO BE to Moses, and then later said His Name was YHWH [LORD][MOST HIGH GOD] Yahweh!
The Spirit of God is indeed the Spirit of God!As for the holy spirit, they both have it, as do all christians in lesser degrees..
[QUOTE="Dropship[/quote]
“Be ye followers of me, even as I am also of Christ” (I Cor. 11:1)
2 Peter 1
1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
2
Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
https://missiontoburma.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Final-Book-in-English-make-questions.pdf
https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/deity_bruce.pdf
Most English versions of the Bible translate 2 Peter 1:1 as does the NASB, which attributes "God" and "Savior" to one person: Jesus Christ. In this way, they provide evidence that Peter called Jesus "our God" (Greek: tou theou hêmôn) - a strong indication of His Deity. Some translations, however, render the verse in a fashion similar to the ASV: "by the righteousness of our God and the Savior, Jesus Christ." The insertion of "the" before Savior indicates that there are two persons in view: Our God (the Father) and Jesus Christ.
“Be ye followers of me, even as I am also of Christ” (I Cor. 11:1)
2 Peter 1
1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
2
Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
https://missiontoburma.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Final-Book-in-English-make-questions.pdf
https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/deity_bruce.pdf
Most English versions of the Bible translate 2 Peter 1:1 as does the NASB, which attributes "God" and "Savior" to one person: Jesus Christ. In this way, they provide evidence that Peter called Jesus "our God" (Greek: tou theou hêmôn) - a strong indication of His Deity. Some translations, however, render the verse in a fashion similar to the ASV: "by the righteousness of our God and the Savior, Jesus Christ." The insertion of "the" before Savior indicates that there are two persons in view: Our God (the Father) and Jesus Christ.
Most apologetic debate on this verse has centered on the so-called Granville Sharp Rule. For several papers dealing with this Rule, see For Further Reading... below.
But even if the Granville Sharp Rule is not a valid rule of Greek grammar, or if it is, but 2 Peter 1:1 is not an example of it, there is substantial contextual evidence that both "God" and "Savior" modify Jesus Christ. First, there are three examples of a similar phrase in 2 Peter in which it is clear that one person is in view: namely, "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (1:11; 2:20; 3:18). The Greek of this phrase is identical to the Greek of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ," with the exception of Lord/God (kuriou/theou). In 3:2, we find "the Lord and Savior," again signifying one person. It would seem inconceivable that Peter would intend two persons in one case and one person in all the others, when employing the same (or nearly the same, in the case of 3:2) Greek construction every time.
Further, Peter uses the phrase "our God and Father" in 1 Peter 1:3 (Greek: ho theos kai patêr). Again, one person, not two are in view. The differences between this phrase and those in 2 Peter are a matter of case (ho theos is nominative, whereas tou theou is genitive) and the pronoun "our" (Greek: hêmôn), neither of which is significant in determining the intended referent.
The final difficulty in supposing that "God" refers to the Father in 2 Peter 1:1 is what to do with "by the righteousness." Peter's point, here, is that the faith he and his fellow Christians have received is "by" (or "in") the "righteousness of our God and [the] Savior." The Greek makes it clear that the righteousness is that of both God and Jesus Christ (both "God" and "Savior, Jesus Christ" are in the genitive case). Both God and Christ (if there are two persons in view) are the source of our faith - and that source is the one righteousness they share. As Bigg rightly argues:
EN DIKAIOSUNÊ TOU THEOU hÊMÔN KAI SÔTÊROS IÊSOU CHRISTOU
objection: A number of non-Trinitarian apologists have written about this verse. They typically argue that this verse is either not an example of the Granville Sharp Rule, or that the Rule itself is not a valid rule of Greek grammar.
Response: Please see the For Further Reading section, below, for several articles responding to non-Trinitarian arguments, defending the Granville Sharp Rule and its application to 2 Peter 1:1
But even if the Granville Sharp Rule is not a valid rule of Greek grammar, or if it is, but 2 Peter 1:1 is not an example of it, there is substantial contextual evidence that both "God" and "Savior" modify Jesus Christ. First, there are three examples of a similar phrase in 2 Peter in which it is clear that one person is in view: namely, "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (1:11; 2:20; 3:18). The Greek of this phrase is identical to the Greek of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ," with the exception of Lord/God (kuriou/theou). In 3:2, we find "the Lord and Savior," again signifying one person. It would seem inconceivable that Peter would intend two persons in one case and one person in all the others, when employing the same (or nearly the same, in the case of 3:2) Greek construction every time.
Further, Peter uses the phrase "our God and Father" in 1 Peter 1:3 (Greek: ho theos kai patêr). Again, one person, not two are in view. The differences between this phrase and those in 2 Peter are a matter of case (ho theos is nominative, whereas tou theou is genitive) and the pronoun "our" (Greek: hêmôn), neither of which is significant in determining the intended referent.
The final difficulty in supposing that "God" refers to the Father in 2 Peter 1:1 is what to do with "by the righteousness." Peter's point, here, is that the faith he and his fellow Christians have received is "by" (or "in") the "righteousness of our God and [the] Savior." The Greek makes it clear that the righteousness is that of both God and Jesus Christ (both "God" and "Savior, Jesus Christ" are in the genitive case). Both God and Christ (if there are two persons in view) are the source of our faith - and that source is the one righteousness they share. As Bigg rightly argues:
Are we to say with Wiesinger that God is righteous in so far as He ordained the Atonement, Jesus Christ in so far as He accomplished it? or must we not think with Spitta, that the Atonement is not here in question at all; because it can hardly be meant that, on the ground of the Atonement, a faith has been given to the readers of the Epistle which is isotimos ["equal in honor"] to that of the writer? The righteousness intended is not that which makes atonement, but that which gives equally. But, if the righteousness is one and the same, it becomes exceedingly difficult to keep God and Christ apart (Bigg, p. 252).1
en dikaiosunh tou qeou hmwn kai swthroV Ihsou CristouEN DIKAIOSUNÊ TOU THEOU hÊMÔN KAI SÔTÊROS IÊSOU CHRISTOU
Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. So the one article (tou) with theou and sôtêros requires precisely as with tou kuriou hêmôn kai sôtêros Iêsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2Pe 1:11 as in 2Pe 2:20; 2Pe 3:2, 2Pe 3:18. So in 1Pe 1:3 we have ho theos kai patêr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Tit 2:13 (RWP).
Some grammarians have objected that since hêmôn is connected with theou, two persons are in view. The pronoun seems to "bracket" the noun, effectively isolating the trailing noun. However, in v. 11 of this same chapter (as well as in 2:20 and 3:18), the author writes tou kuriou hêmôn kai sôtêros Iêsou Christou, an expression which refers to one person, Jesus Christ.....Further, more than half of the NT texts that fit Sharp's rule involve some intervening word between the two substantives. Several of them have an intervening possessive pronoun or other gen. modifier. Yet, in all such cases, the intervening term had no effect on breaking the construction. This being the case, there is no good reason for rejecting 2 Pet 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ (Wallace, pp. 276-277).
Some grammarians have objected that since hêmôn is connected with theou, two persons are in view. The pronoun seems to "bracket" the noun, effectively isolating the trailing noun. However, in v. 11 of this same chapter (as well as in 2:20 and 3:18), the author writes tou kuriou hêmôn kai sôtêros Iêsou Christou, an expression which refers to one person, Jesus Christ.....Further, more than half of the NT texts that fit Sharp's rule involve some intervening word between the two substantives. Several of them have an intervening possessive pronoun or other gen. modifier. Yet, in all such cases, the intervening term had no effect on breaking the construction. This being the case, there is no good reason for rejecting 2 Pet 1:1 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ (Wallace, pp. 276-277).
objection: A number of non-Trinitarian apologists have written about this verse. They typically argue that this verse is either not an example of the Granville Sharp Rule, or that the Rule itself is not a valid rule of Greek grammar.
Response: Please see the For Further Reading section, below, for several articles responding to non-Trinitarian arguments, defending the Granville Sharp Rule and its application to 2 Peter 1:1
Jehovah's Witnesses
objection: Apologist Greg Stafford objects to the grammatical parallels cited in the Commentary, above, saying that they are actually "proof to the contrary" - that is, that Peter is actually referring to two persons in 2 Peter 1:1Response: It is certainly a truism of Bible translation and exegesis that one must take a number of factors into consideration, apart from grammatical possibility. A writer's "habitual use of language" and the "presuppositional pool" he 'swims' in are perfectly valid indicators to help the translator determine original intent. However, one cannot simply pick and choose which factors are most significant and ignore or sidestep factors that one does not like. One cannot assume the author's presuppositions on the basis of arguments from silence. The fact that Peter may not call Jesus "God" elsewhere is not an argument that he could not do so in this verse, as Mr. Stafford admits. The question is: Is there anything in Peter's theology that expressly precludes him from calling Jesus "God?" If there were, Mr. Stafford and the numerous other non-Trinitarian apologists who have written on this verse would surely have mentioned it.
The issue at hand is one of resolving referential ambiguity: Does "God" and "Savior" refer to one Person (Jesus Christ) or two (the Father and the Son)? In such cases, one of the most important factors - perhaps the most important - is examining the same grammatical construction in other settings where the meaning is clear. In another context, this methodology is defended by Mr. Stafford himself. In one of his Internet postings dealing with the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar and the translation of John 1:1, Mr. Stafford writes:
If parallel grammatical constructions are valid factors in resolving referential ambiguity, constructions written by the same author in the same book are even more compelling. Mr. Stafford's suggestion that 2 Peter 1:1 is "significantly different" than the "Lord and Savior" verses in 2 Peter, and therefore should not be understood in the same way, is special pleading. The substitution of theos for kurios in 2 Peter 1:1 does not change the grammatical structure of the phrase. Indeed, as Harris points out, when "Savior" is used in 2 Peter it always refers to Christ and is always preceded by an articular noun which also refers to Christ (Jesus as God, p. 235). It must be pointed out that if Peter wanted to clearly distinguish Christ from His Father in this verse, he had only to add the article before "Savior" (Greek: tou theos kai tou sôtêros), as he does in the very next verse (Greek: tou theou kai Iêsou tou kuriou hêmôn).2
Mr. Stafford suggests that 2 Thessalonians 1:12 is similar grammatically to 2 Peter 1:1 ("the grace of our God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ." Greek: tên charin tou theou hêmôn kai kuriou Iesou Christou), but here most scholars agree that God and Jesus are distinguished from one another. Mr. Stafford is correct - just as he is when he says that "Grammar is not the sole criterion by which a text should be translated" (Stafford, p. 403). The difference between this verse and 2 Peter 1:1 is that here we have "Lord Jesus Christ," which is a common New Testament formula (occurring 63 times). While Jesus is called "Savior" many times, He is only referred to with the phrase "Savior Jesus Christ" 4 times - all in 2 Peter. The fact that "Lord" appears so often before "Jesus Christ" makes it likely that it had come to be considered part of a compound proper name. But the same cannot be said of "Savior." When Peter writes "Savior Jesus Christ," he is using a title ("Savior") followed by a name which further defines who that Savior is.3 This is not the case with "Lord Jesus Christ." There may have been a time in the early church where a believer might say: "I serve my Lord, Jesus Christ," and by this, mean to further define "Lord" as the person named "Jesus Christ." But by the time the New Testament was written, the title "Lord" had become synonymous with "Jesus Christ," and when appearing before it, was thought to be virtually part of His name. This same phenomenon occurred with "Christ." No New Testament author would think of separating "Christ" from "Jesus," as in: "Jesus, Christ" (as if "Christ" further defined who Jesus was), and the same is true of "Lord."
The fact that "Lord Jesus Christ" may be taken as a unit makes it unlikely that "Jesus Christ" is appositional to "God and Lord" (as in, "the grace of our God and Lord, who is Jesus Christ"). It is grammatically possible, and some scholars have taken it that way (most notably, Bultmann), but most scholars, grammarians, and commentators agree that it is more natural to take "Lord Jesus Christ" as a unit, in which case "God" is a separate subject. But this is not true of "Savior Jesus Christ." In this case, it is unlikely that Peter would expect his readers to take "Savior" as part of Jesus' name. Instead, because Peter knew that simply saying "our God and Savior" would lead his readers to assume that the Father was in view4, he added "Jesus Christ" to make clear to whom he was referring.
It may be supposed that "God" functions as a proper name in 2 Peter 1:1, in which case it could be isolated from "Savior, Jesus Christ" as a second subject. However, while "God" may function as a proper name in some contexts, the possessive pronoun in this verse militates against "God" being a proper name. Further, there are no examples in the NT or LXX in which "God" appears in the same construction as 2 Peter 1:1 (articular theos joined by kai to an anarthrous singular, personal noun that is not a proper name) where two persons are in view.
In conclusion, Mr. Stafford recognizes - as did Winer before him5 - that the grammar of 2 Peter 1:1 leads in a theological direction with which he is uncomfortable. He therefore must either overcome the grammar or argue that Peter's theology would preclude him from writing what - grammatically - he seems clearly to have written. Mr. Stafford's grammatical ripostes actually do little to damage the solid evidence that Jesus is called "God" in this verse. Mr. Stafford - again following Winer6 - is left with his theological argument.7 For an apostle who heard Thomas call Jesus "my God," who was comfortable directing the highest praise to Christ in doxological formulas, and who ascribed to Christ the same righteousness as His Father, it is far from impossible that Peter called Jesus "God," particularly when the grammar points us solidly in that direction.
The issue at hand is one of resolving referential ambiguity: Does "God" and "Savior" refer to one Person (Jesus Christ) or two (the Father and the Son)? In such cases, one of the most important factors - perhaps the most important - is examining the same grammatical construction in other settings where the meaning is clear. In another context, this methodology is defended by Mr. Stafford himself. In one of his Internet postings dealing with the Dana Mantey Greek Grammar and the translation of John 1:1, Mr. Stafford writes:
Still, when they referred to Xenophon's Anabasis 1:4:6 EMPORION D' HN TO XWRION ("the place was a market") and then say "we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1" (Dana and Mantey, 148) the foundation is laid, grammatically, for a parallel translation. But, of course, the theology of the grammarians overrides their good grammatical judgment, as is evident by their Trinitarian coloring of this verse on page 140 of the Manual Grammar (Stafford, "Greg Stafford Responds to the Julius Mantey Letter to the WTB&TS").
Thus, Mr. Stafford recognizes that parallel grammar is essential in resolving ambiguity (in John 1:1, a semantic ambiguity centering on the anarthrous theos), and that theology may override a scholar's "good grammatical judgment."If parallel grammatical constructions are valid factors in resolving referential ambiguity, constructions written by the same author in the same book are even more compelling. Mr. Stafford's suggestion that 2 Peter 1:1 is "significantly different" than the "Lord and Savior" verses in 2 Peter, and therefore should not be understood in the same way, is special pleading. The substitution of theos for kurios in 2 Peter 1:1 does not change the grammatical structure of the phrase. Indeed, as Harris points out, when "Savior" is used in 2 Peter it always refers to Christ and is always preceded by an articular noun which also refers to Christ (Jesus as God, p. 235). It must be pointed out that if Peter wanted to clearly distinguish Christ from His Father in this verse, he had only to add the article before "Savior" (Greek: tou theos kai tou sôtêros), as he does in the very next verse (Greek: tou theou kai Iêsou tou kuriou hêmôn).2
Mr. Stafford suggests that 2 Thessalonians 1:12 is similar grammatically to 2 Peter 1:1 ("the grace of our God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ." Greek: tên charin tou theou hêmôn kai kuriou Iesou Christou), but here most scholars agree that God and Jesus are distinguished from one another. Mr. Stafford is correct - just as he is when he says that "Grammar is not the sole criterion by which a text should be translated" (Stafford, p. 403). The difference between this verse and 2 Peter 1:1 is that here we have "Lord Jesus Christ," which is a common New Testament formula (occurring 63 times). While Jesus is called "Savior" many times, He is only referred to with the phrase "Savior Jesus Christ" 4 times - all in 2 Peter. The fact that "Lord" appears so often before "Jesus Christ" makes it likely that it had come to be considered part of a compound proper name. But the same cannot be said of "Savior." When Peter writes "Savior Jesus Christ," he is using a title ("Savior") followed by a name which further defines who that Savior is.3 This is not the case with "Lord Jesus Christ." There may have been a time in the early church where a believer might say: "I serve my Lord, Jesus Christ," and by this, mean to further define "Lord" as the person named "Jesus Christ." But by the time the New Testament was written, the title "Lord" had become synonymous with "Jesus Christ," and when appearing before it, was thought to be virtually part of His name. This same phenomenon occurred with "Christ." No New Testament author would think of separating "Christ" from "Jesus," as in: "Jesus, Christ" (as if "Christ" further defined who Jesus was), and the same is true of "Lord."
The fact that "Lord Jesus Christ" may be taken as a unit makes it unlikely that "Jesus Christ" is appositional to "God and Lord" (as in, "the grace of our God and Lord, who is Jesus Christ"). It is grammatically possible, and some scholars have taken it that way (most notably, Bultmann), but most scholars, grammarians, and commentators agree that it is more natural to take "Lord Jesus Christ" as a unit, in which case "God" is a separate subject. But this is not true of "Savior Jesus Christ." In this case, it is unlikely that Peter would expect his readers to take "Savior" as part of Jesus' name. Instead, because Peter knew that simply saying "our God and Savior" would lead his readers to assume that the Father was in view4, he added "Jesus Christ" to make clear to whom he was referring.
It may be supposed that "God" functions as a proper name in 2 Peter 1:1, in which case it could be isolated from "Savior, Jesus Christ" as a second subject. However, while "God" may function as a proper name in some contexts, the possessive pronoun in this verse militates against "God" being a proper name. Further, there are no examples in the NT or LXX in which "God" appears in the same construction as 2 Peter 1:1 (articular theos joined by kai to an anarthrous singular, personal noun that is not a proper name) where two persons are in view.
In conclusion, Mr. Stafford recognizes - as did Winer before him5 - that the grammar of 2 Peter 1:1 leads in a theological direction with which he is uncomfortable. He therefore must either overcome the grammar or argue that Peter's theology would preclude him from writing what - grammatically - he seems clearly to have written. Mr. Stafford's grammatical ripostes actually do little to damage the solid evidence that Jesus is called "God" in this verse. Mr. Stafford - again following Winer6 - is left with his theological argument.7 For an apostle who heard Thomas call Jesus "my God," who was comfortable directing the highest praise to Christ in doxological formulas, and who ascribed to Christ the same righteousness as His Father, it is far from impossible that Peter called Jesus "God," particularly when the grammar points us solidly in that direction.
https://carm.org/about-jesus/did-every-new-testament-author-believe-in-the-deity-of-jesus/
The phrase translated “of God and our Savior Jesus Christ” in II Peter 1:1 is more precisely translated “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (NKJV). The reason for this is that in the Greek text the definite article appears before the word “God,” but not before the word “Savior.” When two nouns (in this case, “God” and “Savior”) of the same case and number, as here, are joined by the conjunctive kai (“and”), and the first is preceded by the definite article but the second is not, they refer to the same person or thing. In this case, Jesus Christ is identified as both God and Savior.
https://www.apostolic.edu/know-the-word-the-deity-of-christ-in-ii-peter/
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/petrine_christology.html
https://probe.org/the-apologetics-of-peter/
The Deity of Jesus Christ in 2 Peter
1:1 our God and Savior Jesus Christ
1:11 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
2:20 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
3:18 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/chart-61-01/
The phrase translated “of God and our Savior Jesus Christ” in II Peter 1:1 is more precisely translated “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (NKJV). The reason for this is that in the Greek text the definite article appears before the word “God,” but not before the word “Savior.” When two nouns (in this case, “God” and “Savior”) of the same case and number, as here, are joined by the conjunctive kai (“and”), and the first is preceded by the definite article but the second is not, they refer to the same person or thing. In this case, Jesus Christ is identified as both God and Savior.
https://www.apostolic.edu/know-the-word-the-deity-of-christ-in-ii-peter/
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/petrine_christology.html
https://probe.org/the-apologetics-of-peter/
The Deity of Jesus Christ in 2 Peter
1:1 our God and Savior Jesus Christ
1:11 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
2:20 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
3:18 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/chart-61-01/
E
evyaniy
Guest
In addition to what you explained, when He said to Him come follow Me, it was pointing to the cross and the Man's need of salvation. Yeshua had not accomplished our salvation yet when answering the man's question about how to inherit Eternal Life. He told Him to obey the commandments because that is what was required of Yeshua which ultimately meant He had to die to save us from our sins. For us it is through faith in Him and His sacrifice for forgiveness that gives us the gift of Eternal Life.
Psalm 119:
73Your hands have made me and fashioned me;
give me understanding to learn Your commandments.
The Son was not created nor fashioned.
Psalm 119:
176I have strayed like a lost sheep;
seek Your servant, for I have not forgotten Your commandments.
nor has the Son ever strayed like a lost sheep.
E
evyaniy
Guest
That verse and the last stanza was prayed while He was dead. There is also a mistranslation of the word lost sheep. The word is abad/avad H6 which is translated destroyed or perished in nearly all of it's 184 uses. Destroyed and perished means slain. You can look up abad H6 to see that. He is actually saying "I am lost like a slain Lamb" which is His condition when He is praying that verse. He was dead. In the last stanza He is asking His Father to raise Him to life again according to the promise of life in the law to Him.
When He says seek Your Servant for I have not forgotten Your commandments. He is not only saying He was completely obedient to His Father's commandments in giving His life to save us, but He also remembers His Father's commandment that He would be raised from the dead for being obedient and is asking His Father to keep His promise and commandment to raise Him.
The verse is actually one of the greatest proofs it is His prayer if it were translated properly. He is the slain Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world as other passages and the sacrifices in the law tell us
This has been explained in other posts in other threads a number of times. Don't mind explaining it again. It is proof it is the Son's prayer.
E
evyaniy
Guest
As a Man He was made and fashioned in the womb. Psalm 139 which is also the Son's prayer tells us that as well. He eternally pre-existed becoming a Man of course but He was given a body (a body You have prepared Me) to save us. It says that in multiple places in Scripture. That verse is in complete agreement with the rest of Scripture concerning Him.
I was thinking of the word before that, taah, "to err." And you've said yourself, the Son has never erred or strayed.
E
evyaniy
Guest
taah H8582 can have a number of meanings. It does mean sin or even err all the time. It can mean wander or astray as being lost or staggering about or out of the way etc. He was dead when praying this verse. He was out of the way and lost in death. He was suffering while dead for us as Pslam 88 tells us. Even the word astray does not mean sin or err. It means not where He belonged which is alive.
He ends the Psalm with for I do not forget Your commandments. He is again declaring His innocence and obedience to the commandments as He does all through the Psalm. He never admits to any sin in the entire Psalm and declares His obedience throughout including in this last verse when He asks the Father to seek Him and raise Him according to the promise of life in the law to Him for His obedience.
Here is what BLB has for the taah.
KJV Translation Count — Total: 50x
The KJV translates Strong's H8582 in the following manner: err (17x), astray (12x), wander (10x), seduced (3x), stagger (2x), out of the way (2x), away (1x), deceived (1x), miscellaneous (2x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
תָּעָה tâʻâh, taw-aw'; a primitive root; to vacillate, i.e. reel or stray (literally or figuratively); also causative of both:—(cause to) go astray, deceive, dissemble, (cause to, make to) err, pant, seduce, (make to) stagger, (cause to) wander, be out of the way.
He ends the Psalm with for I do not forget Your commandments. He is again declaring His innocence and obedience to the commandments as He does all through the Psalm. He never admits to any sin in the entire Psalm and declares His obedience throughout including in this last verse when He asks the Father to seek Him and raise Him according to the promise of life in the law to Him for His obedience.
Here is what BLB has for the taah.
KJV Translation Count — Total: 50x
The KJV translates Strong's H8582 in the following manner: err (17x), astray (12x), wander (10x), seduced (3x), stagger (2x), out of the way (2x), away (1x), deceived (1x), miscellaneous (2x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
- to err, wander, go astray, stagger
- (Qal) to err
- to wander about (physically)
- of intoxication
- of sin (ethically)
- wandering (of the mind)
- (Niphal)
- to be made to wander about, be made to stagger (drunkard)
- to be led astray (ethically)
- (Hiphil) to cause to wander
- to cause to wander about (physically)
- to cause to wander (of intoxication)
- to cause to err, mislead (mentally and morally)
- (Qal) to err
תָּעָה tâʻâh, taw-aw'; a primitive root; to vacillate, i.e. reel or stray (literally or figuratively); also causative of both:—(cause to) go astray, deceive, dissemble, (cause to, make to) err, pant, seduce, (make to) stagger, (cause to) wander, be out of the way.
If we read the Old Testament it’s evident that God is one person. Who has a spirit and speaks a word of power that creates.
like this
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
… And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”( that is faith)
Genesis 1:1-3 KJV
John the apostles is speaking revelation about the God we just read what he did , how his spirit moves as his voice speaks and in him is all power and existance if he says let there be …..creation obeys and it is as he spoke it’s how he created the heavens and earth he just spoke we read here of a very distant view of this all powerful God and creator ….then later we hear the commandment that is clear but also it’s not personal and it’s not “ what gods saying “ it’s what Moses is teaching those people because they were idolaters who worshipped many gods he’s saying the Lord your God is one Lord.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”
Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV
Then the new testement is the revelation of who God is personally in Jesus Christ this is our God and was always God but he never showed himself in the flesh until he came surrendered his glory lives as one of us among us subjected to higher heavenly authority and perfect in his subjection to the point of following his Will to save us all the way through the spit and beatings and whippings and insults to the cross where the hung him up like a thief who wouldn’t repent or a murderer but ……it’s thier own creator in the flesh come to save thier souls …….
Now there is this man a perfect man a real man Ho was born of a woman born under Gods authority and he had to do it or Nono e was ever going to be able to intercede and offer salvstion to mankind by his own life lived as a perfect man of God the son of God the begotten whomis the intercessor but it’s God in the form of man and it’s also him who is on the throne he always has been t he only thing the tree new is God now has become flesh and interceded the holt spirit is the spirit of God the spirit of life and power and creation his own living and life giving spirit
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
1 John 5:7 KJV
The precedes not a name but a title of a person and a service or sub purpose in this case God became a man to be perfect because we can’t and haven’t now we have a high priest in heaven when he returned that is able to save us and intercede and advocate for us because he knows temptation is hard to get through perfectly he did it in the flesh exactly like we do he felt the pull of the human flesh but he always held true to God in every way like none of us nor anyone could do even to the point of suffering and death our God loves us enough to come and walk among us and say “ here I am believe in me repent and follow me and I will give you my Holy Spirit to always be with you , I will always be with you because of my own living spirit in you The Holy Ghost of the lord
Jesus the son of God
Who is the true God fully manifest I. The sight of man and can still be seen and heard and known and followed and believed on in the gospels if we take time to hear the greatest story ever told.
It is the story of Immanuel the creator of all things who came to walk among his creation and live among them struggle with them hurt and even cry tears of pain and sorrow with them mourn with them feel the fragility and know the perception we lowly creatires have when looking so high up at him who we never knew Jesus was always suprises people didn’t know him and realize who he really was that the father is in him and his spirit is the spirit of God the Holy Ghost
hes definitely Jesus the ot tells of of wonders he’s done and things he created and deals he made with certain folk . Tells us true stories and true promises of this messiah God made flesh the son to create himself eternal children to fill his kingdom ….and we all had already lost ourselves by sin he could have just re created perfect people but he actually does love us enough to lay down his life and take it up again having the command of God in heaven
If you read the ot as it’s about God and things he’s done promises ect then the new testement as if it is the revelation of the true God who came to be one of us in companionship and call us friends and children
like this
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
… And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”( that is faith)
Genesis 1:1-3 KJV
John the apostles is speaking revelation about the God we just read what he did , how his spirit moves as his voice speaks and in him is all power and existance if he says let there be …..creation obeys and it is as he spoke it’s how he created the heavens and earth he just spoke we read here of a very distant view of this all powerful God and creator ….then later we hear the commandment that is clear but also it’s not personal and it’s not “ what gods saying “ it’s what Moses is teaching those people because they were idolaters who worshipped many gods he’s saying the Lord your God is one Lord.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”
Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV
Then the new testement is the revelation of who God is personally in Jesus Christ this is our God and was always God but he never showed himself in the flesh until he came surrendered his glory lives as one of us among us subjected to higher heavenly authority and perfect in his subjection to the point of following his Will to save us all the way through the spit and beatings and whippings and insults to the cross where the hung him up like a thief who wouldn’t repent or a murderer but ……it’s thier own creator in the flesh come to save thier souls …….
Now there is this man a perfect man a real man Ho was born of a woman born under Gods authority and he had to do it or Nono e was ever going to be able to intercede and offer salvstion to mankind by his own life lived as a perfect man of God the son of God the begotten whomis the intercessor but it’s God in the form of man and it’s also him who is on the throne he always has been t he only thing the tree new is God now has become flesh and interceded the holt spirit is the spirit of God the spirit of life and power and creation his own living and life giving spirit
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
1 John 5:7 KJV
The precedes not a name but a title of a person and a service or sub purpose in this case God became a man to be perfect because we can’t and haven’t now we have a high priest in heaven when he returned that is able to save us and intercede and advocate for us because he knows temptation is hard to get through perfectly he did it in the flesh exactly like we do he felt the pull of the human flesh but he always held true to God in every way like none of us nor anyone could do even to the point of suffering and death our God loves us enough to come and walk among us and say “ here I am believe in me repent and follow me and I will give you my Holy Spirit to always be with you , I will always be with you because of my own living spirit in you The Holy Ghost of the lord
Jesus the son of God
Who is the true God fully manifest I. The sight of man and can still be seen and heard and known and followed and believed on in the gospels if we take time to hear the greatest story ever told.
It is the story of Immanuel the creator of all things who came to walk among his creation and live among them struggle with them hurt and even cry tears of pain and sorrow with them mourn with them feel the fragility and know the perception we lowly creatires have when looking so high up at him who we never knew Jesus was always suprises people didn’t know him and realize who he really was that the father is in him and his spirit is the spirit of God the Holy Ghost
hes definitely Jesus the ot tells of of wonders he’s done and things he created and deals he made with certain folk . Tells us true stories and true promises of this messiah God made flesh the son to create himself eternal children to fill his kingdom ….and we all had already lost ourselves by sin he could have just re created perfect people but he actually does love us enough to lay down his life and take it up again having the command of God in heaven
If you read the ot as it’s about God and things he’s done promises ect then the new testement as if it is the revelation of the true God who came to be one of us in companionship and call us friends and children
E
evyaniy
Guest
He refers to Himself as a slain Lamb in verse 176. amazing.
He ends with saying for I do not forget Your commandment again stating His innocence and obedience which He has completed at this point since He was dead after giving His life to save us as the Law and His Father required of Him.
In Psalm 88 He says in part
88:4 I am counted among those who go down into the pit.
I am like a Man Who has no Help,
88:5 set apart among the dead,
like the slain who lie in the grave,
whom You remember no more.
they are cut off from Your hand.
88:6 You have laid Me in the lowest pit,
in the darkest depths.
88:7 Your wrath lies heavily on Me.
You have afflicted Me with all Your waves.
Taah would be a good word to describe this condition as it also means to reel and stagger. He is being afflicted with waves of suffering according to Psalm 88. He is also by Himself and alone He says in the Psalm. He needs His Father to seek and find Him and raise Him according to the promise of life in Leviticus 18:5 that the Man Who did the Law would live even though He had to die to save us.
He ends with saying for I do not forget Your commandment again stating His innocence and obedience which He has completed at this point since He was dead after giving His life to save us as the Law and His Father required of Him.
In Psalm 88 He says in part
88:4 I am counted among those who go down into the pit.
I am like a Man Who has no Help,
88:5 set apart among the dead,
like the slain who lie in the grave,
whom You remember no more.
they are cut off from Your hand.
88:6 You have laid Me in the lowest pit,
in the darkest depths.
88:7 Your wrath lies heavily on Me.
You have afflicted Me with all Your waves.
Taah would be a good word to describe this condition as it also means to reel and stagger. He is being afflicted with waves of suffering according to Psalm 88. He is also by Himself and alone He says in the Psalm. He needs His Father to seek and find Him and raise Him according to the promise of life in Leviticus 18:5 that the Man Who did the Law would live even though He had to die to save us.