Hebrews 1: 4 Commentary

(PLEASE READ ALL OF MY LAST COMMENT AND ALL OF THIS COMMENT) And anyway we are all Christians here anyway (I presume)so we really shouldn’t argue about this we should just look at what the Bible says and .all that is said not just what parts that we think are true and what parts we think are not true because then we are making ourselves our own god. The WHOLE BIBLE is true because it God spoken and I truly do believe that God wouldn’t let His holy awesome word be defiled by us man.New International Version Malachi 3:6 says “I the LORD do not change” that means his attitude doesn’t change his mind doesn’t change and his word does not change!!!!!!!!!! If any of us are wrong than it is not something we should be defensive about because hen we will be wrong even longer and even be more ashamed about it we all lose our way sometimes actually it seems like all the time like sheep.Remember it is not bad to be wrong we are all wrong all the time. But it is GOOD to be humble enough to admit that we are wrong ( whichever one is wrong) so that we may know the truth and have a better relationship with God I am not saying that I didn’t get mad or trying to say I am better than you guys because i already got mad if you are even mad, it just seemed like you are. And remember you do not know it all none of us do so we can’t rely on what we think is so we have to rely on the unchanging God who knows all things. ( And Charles by the way you are presenting your information it sort of seems as if you are trying to disprove the Bible and could ‘mislead’ someone so kind of be careful of the words you chose o.k.)

By michael kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/6/2011 05:31 am

Dear Charles,

I am sorry for being harsh I was just a little frustrated and did not think of what I was posting. I think the reason why we may be getting so defensive about this is because we are making this about ourselves, not about God. That is why my post was a little “mean”. How about we all study about what we disagree on and then come back with what we come out with. But remember that we must look at context and not to come in with pre-concieved thoughts and to pray about what we come out with so we don’t have to fight about it because if we do pray about it and let God reveal what is really going on so that we don’t end up saying something false which could really lead someone astray. Also, we could end up humiliating ourselves

By michael kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/6/2011 05:09 am

Angel, why are you SHOUTING so much?

You shouted: “WHEN A GENEALOGY IS RECORDED OF THE WOMAN IT IS TRACED THROUGH THE HUSBAND. THEREFORE ONE DOES NOT NEED TO MENTION THE WIFE…”

You’re wrong, Angel, and you know it. First of all the Bible does NOT record any woman’s genealogy but, when it is necessary to include a woman’s name, IT DOES. For example in Matthew’s genealogy from Abraham to Jesus he mentions Rachab, Ruth, and other women, even as you yourself stated that this is “where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph.” If Rachab (a prostitute) was important enough to get a mention in a man’s genealogy, don’t you think the Virgin Mary was important enough to have herself mentioned in HER OWN genealogy? I am keeping my shouting to a minimum, but I hope you understand how ridiculous this shout of yours was.

Your next shout: “EVEN YOU STATED THIS. SO WHICH IS YOUR BELIEF? SO THEN; DOES LUKE TELL US OF THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS THROUGH MARY, MENTIONED THROUGH HER HUSBAND JOSEPH ACCORDING TO JEWISH MARRIAGE LAWS OR NOT? “

I don’t think I understand your question. There IS no genealogy through Mary, period. It’s an excuse and a lie. The genealogies are both through Joseph and one of them (Luke, probably) screwed it up.

Then you said (no shout, this time): “He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli.”

I agree. That’s why it is so darn obvious that one of the genealogies is false – UNLESS you want to advance the theory I suggested to you (:) ).

You continued: “But in Luke IT IS NOT said that Heli begat Joseph,the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David.”

You’re again twisting the “word of God”, Angel. 1. Yes, it does say that Heli begat Joseph, because that’s what being someone’s son means. And 2. there are NO in-laws in a genealogy. If for any weird reason he wanted to trace an ancestry through an in-law he would have said so. The Bible says SON, not son-in-law I know you are INTENTIONALLY distorting the Bible again. My shout now: THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, NOT WHAT ANGEL WISHES IT WOULD HAVE SAID. So this in-law story is another excuse and lie. Besides how do you explain the fact that there are only 28 generations from David to Jesus in Matthew’s genealogy and no less than 42 in Luke’s?

Another of your shouts: “DID YOU NOTICE THAT ” AS WAS SUPOSSED ” WAS ONLY USED WITH JOSEPH AND NOT WITH ANYONE ELSE IN LUKE 3.”

Yes, because Luke believed that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. All the others are biological fathers. I thought you knew that! Again you are INTENTIONALLY twisting the word of God. It is Jesus who was the supposed of Joseph” NOT Joseph the supposed son of Heli! Why are you twisting the “word of God”.

These are the words of the Bible:

Luke: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Matthew: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

THAT’s what the Bible says, not what you said in post 27.

I have proved once AGAIN that one of the genealogies is false. Your only way out is to twist the Word of God. But THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, NOT WHAT YOU WISH IT WOULD HAVE SAID. All your no-leg “FACTS” are excuses and lies.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/6/2011 02:07 am

charles:
My back; as you say has never been against; the wall as you claim. Even in your own words you condemned your own beliefs stating in post 19; “And, FYI, I don’t have “my” Bible. Several people here seem to take the liberty to twist the words of the Bible to their own ends. I consult modern Bibles; the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, the Septuagint, and other extra-Biblical books. I comment on what THEY SAY, not on what I wish they WOULD HAVE SAID.” You can’t see that you yourself are USING BIBLES TO DISPROVE THE BIBLE FACTS. I DON’T MAKE THE BIBLE SAY WHAT I WANT IT TO SAY EVER. IT’S THERE.

NOW; these are your own words from the same post 19 in which you state ” And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23) Forgive me if I have to repeat the words of Luke to a self-proclaimed “scholar”, but they say: THE SON OF JOSEPH, WHICH WAS THE SON OF HELI. Got it? Joseph, NOT, Mary, was the son of Heli - which contradicts Matthew, who says that Joseph was the son of Jacob. SON, not daughter! If you know anything at all about Jewish history you would know that NOBODY traced their lineage through the feminine side.”

Now should I say to you what you stated to me ” Why you so angry and resorting to such negative accusations.” And also you state that you are only here to free me and all others here from our own illusions.

HERE IS A KNOWN FACT AND TRUTH. WHEN A GENEALOGY IS RECORDED OF THE WOMAN IT IS TRACED THROUGH THE HUSBAND. THEREFORE ONE DOES NOT NEED TO MENTION THE WIFE SINCE HER HUSBAND IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HER BLOOD LINE THROUGH THE MARRIAGE ONLY.

EVEN YOU STATED THIS. SO WHICH IS YOUR BELIEF? SO THEN; DOES LUKE TELL US OF THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS THROUGH MARY, MENTIONED THROUGH HER HUSBAND JOSEPH ACCORDING TO JEWISH MARRIAGE LAWS OR NOT?

Matthew 11:1-17 Genealogy of Joseph:
Luke 3:23-38 Genealogy of Jesus through Mary’s genealogy mentioned through Joseph:

In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told Mt 1:16, that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke “the son of Heli”? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke IT IS NOT said that Heli begat Joseph,
the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David.

DID YOU NOTICE THAT ” AS WAS SUPOSSED ” WAS ONLY USED WITH JOSEPH AND NOT WITH ANYONE ELSE IN LUKE 3. GOES WITH EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. JESUS WAS THE PRESUMED SON OF JOSEPH. NOT JOSEPH WAS THE SON OF HELI. THAT VERSE NEVER EVEN STATES THAT.

HERE is an example of this JEWISH TRADITION in effect here in 1 Samuel 24:16.

1 Samuel 24:16
16 And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.

So was KING SAUL David’s father then? NO NO NO . David is the son of Jesse.

DO YOU SEE IT NOW; The son of Heli - that is, the son-in-law: for Heli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING.

So as I said before ” AS WAS SUPPOSED ” means ” to presume he was the son of Eli “; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to Matthew 1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi. Which leads us finally; to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God. IN OTHER WORDS, it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell us as so. Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of JESUS, but traces it through Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews, that “the family of the mother is not called a family.”

DID YOU NOTICE HOW LUKE 3:38 ENDS.

LUKE 3:38
38 WHICH WAS THE SON OF ENOS, WHICH WAS THE SON OF SETH, WHICH WAS THE SON OF ADAM, WHICH WAS THE SON OF GOD.

LIKE I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS THROUGH MARY. CAN’T MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER. BUT THESE ARE THE FACTS.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/6/2011 00:29 am

Make that 20 through 24… they just keep on coming!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 18:40 pm

Michael, I prefer to discuss the Bible objectively. In post 14 I explained why, contrary to what you had said in post in post 10, the Bible has indeed changed over the centuries and no geological or factual evidence give any credence to Biblical accounts or prophecies. Now if you want to argue this objectively, you are of course welcome to do so. But if all you’re going to do is to get on the defensive and vent anger at me, as you did in posts 20 through 22, then the best advice I can give you is to avoid my postings.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 18:35 pm

And tell people of Jesus

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 18:22 pm

For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corinthians 1:22-25 NKJV) angel we can not make Charles believe for the devil has blinded him we must pray for him

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 18:21 pm

Charles you have been saying the Bible is not true so why are you know using as your basis

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 18:15 pm

And Charles please do not comment on things you know nothing about because if you really studied the Bible you would know it were true. I know you are just being desperate to prove us wrong because you are using fallacies by just slamming me and angel not what we believe in.

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 18:13 pm

So you do believe in God Charles if so do you think God would let his word change

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 18:10 pm

Angel, I think you started post 18 on the wrong footing. You claimed to be “a scholar who looks at all proofs, true and false” and yet when you saw with your eyes that the Septuagint contradicted the modern Bible translations, what did you do? Did you see the true and false? No, you didn’t! You all of sudden declared the Septuagint a fraud! That’s what you did when you were caught with your back against the wall. So much for “a scholar who looks at all proofs, true and false!”

Now here in post 18 you changed your tune a little and admitted the Septuagint bible “has been DRASTICALLTY CHANGED”. Well, welcome to the club! That’s what I have been trying to say all along: we DON’T know what the word of God is because the books of the Bible have been changed by scribes scores or hundreds of times. But the Septuagint is the oldest one that still exists and therefore the least corrupted one we have.

And, FYI, I don’t have “my” Bible. Several people here seem to take the liberty to twist the words of the Bible to their own ends. I consult modern Bibles; the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, the Septuagint, and other extra-Biblical books. I comment on what THEY SAY, not on what I wish they WOULD HAVE SAID.

I see you are once again caught in an embarrassing situation with the genealogy of Luke. You went around in circles trying to avoid the Bible’s words, so let me bring them back to you: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23) Forgive me if I have to repeat the words of Luke to a self-proclaimed “scholar”, but they say: THE SON OF JOSEPH, WHICH WAS THE SON OF HELI. Got it? Joseph, NOT, Mary, was the son of Heli - which contradicts Matthew, who says that Joseph was the son of Jacob.

SON, not daughter! If you know anything at all about Jewish history you would know that NOBODY traced their lineage through the feminine side. Read the entire genealogy of Jesus of Luke again and tell me if Mary is mentioned at all.

No, right?

When one Bible book tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli and the other that he was the son of Jacob, you don’t have to be a scholar to understand that there is a clear contradiction.

If you want an excuse, I’ll give you one: Joseph was a twin from two fathers, Heli and Jacob, and we’re not sure which one of them was the real dad

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 15:17 pm

PLEASE ALL COME AND COMMENT HERE !!!
charles:
Did you forget that I am a scholar who looks at all proofs, true and false. Yet your accusations seems to imply that because I don’t see your views as truth; I am lost and dumb founded. I have tried to speak to you spiritually and you couldn’t grasp or receive it. So then I spoke to you carnally about everything and yet again; you did not grasp or understand me. I have showed you even how one sided you stand and proved to you how we as man are always deceived of our own preconceived perceptions of our own beliefs and always pre-establish a reality of our own conception of our truths. In other words we are masters of illusions. Quick with a slight of hands to draw all truths in a cloud of smoke and mirrors only to reveal what we want others to see.

WELL THEN…. Lets review the facts once again. YOU say I made Luke a liar. LETS SEE.

HERE IS AN EASY QUESTION. Who holds the seed of life; MAN OR WOMAN? Please say you said man cause science has proved that. And that the woman is an incubator for the seed which lays within her. I know….. I am wrong! NO. I wish I was. Let me explain; a chicken who lays an egg without a rooster; won’t have that seed of life in it; it’s just an egg. It needs GOD”S spark that he gave every male. Now when the rooster gives her that seed of life “BAM” ….. LIFE! The egg develops into a fetus and life is present. Then later on a baby chic is hatched.

Now YOU say I made Luke a liar. And that it speaks of Joseph and not Mary. Once again. YOU ARE WRONG. Then why are they so different as you say. Did you forget I explained this before. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy from David’s son SOLOMON. That is why Joseph made the journey to Bethlehem. To pay his taxes. Because he was from the house of david.

Now; Luke’s genealogy is from Mary. She to was from the house of david but through David’s other son NATHAN. So therefore she to had to go to Bethlehem. Also Joseph and Mary were not married yet. They were engaged only. So if Mary wasn’t from the house of david then why would she go to Bethlehem to pay her taxes. Also OBVIOUSLY you do not understand the phrase “as was supposed” in luke 3:23. Let me help you. It means: ( PRESUMED TO BE THE SON OF JOSEPH )

supposed ( adjective )
1. presumed to be true without certain knowledge
2. believed to be true on slight grounds; highly doubtful
3. expected or obliged (to) I’m supposed to be there at nine
4. Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence.

supposed (adjective )
1. meant, expected, required, obliged
2. presumed, alleged, professed, reputed, accepted, assumed, rumoured, hypothetical, putative, presupposed
3. supposed - mistakenly believed; improbable, unlikely - not likely to be true or to occur or to have occurred;
4. supposed - doubtful or suspect; so-called, alleged, questionable - subject to question;
5. supposed - based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence; “hypothetical situation”
hypothetic, hypothetical, suppositional, suppositious, supposititious, conjectural, divinatory
theoretic, theoretical - concerned primarily with theories or hypotheses rather than practical considerations; “theoretical science”

Now I hope this helps you cause I can’t make this any plainer. Also since Joseph was not the father of JESUS CHRIST; THEN WHO WAS?
The HOLY GHOST was.

And WHO was the HOLY GHOST?
GOD WAS!!!

SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHOW ME OR EXPLAIN THE GENEALOGY OF GOD…..
BESIDES STATING THE OBVIOUS… GOD, JESUS, HOLY GHOST…..

SINCE GOD WAS THE SEED OF LIFE; JESUS IS THE ONLY ONE BORN NOT OF SIN. FOR WE ARE BORN OF INIQUITY AS STATED IN THE BIBLE… GOD’S HOLY LIVING WORD.

SO THEREFORE JESUS WAS SON OF GOD AND SON OF MAN. SO THAT WAY THE SON OF GOD COULD COME AND REDEEM THE SONS OF MAN SO THAT WAY THE SONS OF MAN CAN BECOME THE SONS OF GOD….. THROUGH JESUS CHRIST ONLY!!!!! AMEN….

NOW AS YOU TOLD ME BEFORE “You are not going to believe that black is black and white is white,”

CHARLES I HAVE READ THE SEPTUAGINT BIBLE AND IT HAS BEEN DRASTICALLY CHANGED EVEN THE ORIGINAL. I POSTED WHY IT IS FALSIFIED. YET YOU CAN’T ACCEPT THAT.

SO I LEAVE YOU THIS TO PONDER THEN… AS STATED BY YOU…

“EVERY BIBLE IS WRONG AND CHANGED THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TRUSTED AND THEREFORE NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH OF GOD’S WORD AND HE DOESN’T SHOW US EITHER.”
THEN WHY IS YOUR BIBLE THE ONLY ONE THAT IS CORRECT. AND YES YOURS IS A BIBLE ALSO. SO YOUR STATEMENT ALSO INCLUDES YOUR BIBLE. DOESN’T IT?

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 06:17 am

Have you not always felt an emptiness inside that void can only be filled with Jesus and his love

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 03:49 am

Number 1 in your first commentary you used the Bible as your proof so why would you now say it is not true you just don’t want to admit that there is a God and you will be accountable for all the wrong things you have done so you put up some lame excuse so you do not have to live life fearing God and humbling yourself. But let me tell you (and I tell you this to let you know and to save you from Hell ) that if you don’ t believe in Jesus and how he died for you on the cross than you shall go to Hell. This is not a threat it is an invitation God will forgive you of your sin for Jesus died on the cross for you and me and before I was a Christian I was unclean also, but God forgives and loves and gives us a hope and joy so that even on bad days and even at death you can have a joy because you shall know that one day you will be in heaven with Jesus who died for you.

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/5/2011 03:46 am

Angel (post 12), didn’t I already show a bunch of contradictions. You are not going to believe that black is black and white is white, so even though you saw proof with your own eyes that the pre-flood genealogy was changed in the Bible you still say there is no contradiction, and you say that in block letters!! The number of animals that Noah was told to put on the ark is contradictory. The commandment to eat or not eat pork is contradictory. The year Jesus was born is contradictory…. it’s no use proving all this over and over to you because you don’t undersand proof and you don’t understand truth.

The Bible is inconsistent with reality and with science and is self-contradictory. I have proved it many times. I will end with one more example: you say that Luke’s genealogoy was Mary’s, but Luke tells us it was Joseph’s. So aren’t you making a liar of Luke?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2011 08:09 am

Re post 10. Dear Michael, you say “there are many proofs that the Bible is real like the fact like it has never changed (dead sea scrolls) all of the geological evidence (chariot wheels) and all the profecies that have come true (Daniel)”

1. The Bible HAS changed many times, even without the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scribes have changed it many times, and I have proved at least one instance (the pre-flood geneaology). The scrolls were written by the same people and, in some cases, at the same time of the rewriting of some Bible books, so they SHOULD be the same. But this is not always the case. I have noted on one of these verses how, if we try to believe both the geneaology of the Bible and what the scrolls say about Enoch and Lamech, we’d conclude that Lamech and Enoch had a long conversation about Noah long after Enoch had died! So much for this fallacy.

2. It is false to assume that geology or archaeology or any other science prove the Bible right. To begin with, geology puts the date of the creation of Earth at over 4 BILLION years ago versus a mere 6,000 in the Bible! Archaeology proves the existence of people all around the world tens of thousands of years before Adam was created! Any educated person understands that the Bible is ridiculously inaccurate.

3. No Bible prophecy has come true, period. First of all no Bible prophecy is a prophecy because they are all so vague that nobody can interpret them with any certainty. Daniel is a good example of this. Daniel’s prophecies are so vague that I absolutely cannot give a good name to people claiming to to understand them. It’s sheer quackery. Some are worse; they are downright false. For example when Isaiah prophesizes Immanuel and instead we have Jesus, that is ipso facto NOT a fulfilment. It’s the wrong man, for God’s sake! And yet many people treat that as a fulfilment! It’s a travesty, really, and sheer madness to call that a fulfilment of a prophecy when the exact opposite is true.

So, Michael, your faith is what it is. Who am I to question it? But I will question the wrong assertions you make. Personally I think the ONLY way to get close to God is in a spiritual way, NOT with a set of books that are contradictory and inconsistent, as I have proved over and over again.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2011 07:56 am

Sorry all. HERE IS THAT LINK….. http://www.evolutionofacreationist.com/excerpts.html and PLEASE READ AND STUDY IT…..

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2011 05:29 am

charles:
Michael is correct about JESUS. Yes i know we have had our discussions and i do respect what you have to say but the BIBLE HAS NO CONTRADICTIONS AT ALL. Please feel free to show me all the contradictions cause I can show you that there are in did NO contradictions. For example you used the different genealogies in matthew and luke and I showed why they were different. Because the one in matthew was joseph’s and the one in luke was mary’s. Both from the lineage of david. Joseph through solomon and mary through nathan. Both who are sons of david ( solomon and nathan. ) For you say my bible is wrong well then so should your bible ( SEPTUAGINT ) because then they have all been changed then. Yet there are to many proofs as stated that the bible is not in any way in err of itself. Read this charles. This is by an ex-evolutionist. /BIBLE STUDIES/TheEvolutionofaCreationist.pdf Proving your theory is wrong and GOD’S is correct. This pdf book here is for all to read and study. PLEASE DO… AND charles just because you say different ; doesn’t mean it’s ” THE TRUTH ” as you stated in post 9. Because now that is being hypocritical; for you stated that we are all wrong and you are right. And also the bible is proof upon proof. GOD BLESS YOU ALL…….

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2011 05:22 am

I am sorry for my bad grammar omit youth

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2011 03:39 am

I am not going to say anything further but Jesus calls himself the I AM which I have already stated. Also there are many proofs that the Bible is real like the fact like it has never changed (dead sea scrolls) all of the geological evidence (chariot wheels) and all the profecies that have come true (Daniel) and the fact that my life was nothing but emptiness until I came to knoew of Jesus Christ.by personal things I have seen like a man who was not happy with money popularity and fame and gave it up to become a youth a humble Christian also Christians are different from other people they are happy and actually do not sin. Christianity is not a religion in which we make a set of rules to get close to our “god” it is a relationship in which God loved us enough, the ugly wretched siners you and I are, to crush His son on the cross and lay our sins on Him so that we may have a relationship with Him and Jesus.

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2011 03:37 am

Dear Michael (post 8), I understand your enthusiasm. I was like you once. Here are a coule of steps which you will probably ignore, but the world would be a better place if we DIDN’T ignore others:

1. There are MANY holy books in the world. The Bible is considered the holy book by about 20-25% of the peole. That’s a huge number, but certainly not everybody and not a majority by any means. The other 75-80% have their own REASONS why THEY are right. You, Michael, are not better then them and they are not better than you. We should RESPECT them.

2. Those 20-25% who believe in the Bible don’t necessarily agree with one another. Some commentators here, for example, do not believe Jesus is God. They feel the Bible tells them he’s NOT. So, while I respect your read of the Bible, remember that not everbody understands it the same way. Pease RESECT such people. I personally believe that the gosel of John hints strongly at Jesus being God, though it does NOT say it, while most other Bible books hint strongly that he is NOT God. Jesus, himself, never called himself God.

3. There are so many contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible that I can’t treat it as a source of truth. Please RESPECT my opinions too and accept these contradictions, because that’s the TRUTH.

I can debate every word you said, but please remember that saying something is true just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t it cut it. Why?

A. Because nothing proves itself. PROOF has to be PROOF, i.e. sciectifically verified or at least corrobarated by verifiably independent sources. Otherwise we have the Vedas that are true, the Quran that is true, Shakespeare that is true, etc. etc. No! It obviously doesn’t work like that.

B. Because the Bible contradicts itself and nothing can be true if it says opposing things.

If you what to know why I insistg about these Bible cobtradictions I can direct you to several debates I have already had here about some of them.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/2/2011 10:02 am

How can Jesus be the Son and be God? The Word of God proclaims it and that makes it so, whether we can understand it or not. how did God speak the universe into existence? it is not comprehensible by us humans. how can God be eternal? How can it be that He has no beginning point? Can you understand that? I know it is true because it is said in the bible. That is all the proof a christian should need. If you look at the commentary I posted (number 4) Jesus said in John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” after this the Jews wish to stone Him for calling Himself God (John 8:58 NKJV) Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” (Exodus 3:14 NKJV) so Jesus is calling Himself God. also in commentary 4 John 1:1 is quoted which is proof that Jesus is God. Also in commentary 5 a verse is quoted in which the Jews tell Jesus that they wish to stone him because he claims to be God. I know I can not change your mind only God can. please pray about it if you are a Christian and read your Bible whether or not you are a Christian for “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the word of God” ( Romans 10:17)

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/2/2011 03:52 am

We’re all sons of God. Jesus called us all brethren. A son of God, BY DEFEINITION, not God. How can your son be you?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/1/2011 23:35 pm

Last add the context clearly shows that God calls Jesus his Son vs.8&2 you cannot be ignorant of the context or else you may end up with a completely wrong interpretation of the passage. For more great info. Go to calvaryroswell.com click Bible studies then click courses and then How to Study the Bible (2011) and watch all the videos and do what it instructs I recently took this course and it has changed my Bible reading experience

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/1/2011 02:39 am

To add to that John 10:33 says we are not stoning You( Jesus) for any of these replied the Jews but for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be God

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/1/2011 02:08 am

The writer of Hebrews is not having to exalt Jesus over the angels because Jesus is not God’s son nor because he is not God. The Jews were at that time struggling in their faith in Jesus so the writer is trying to back up their faith. The Jews thought of the angels higher than Jesus so the author was telling the Jews that Jesus is higher than the angels also Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus is at the right hand of God thus being the same “rank” as God no angels are the same “rank” as God also if Jesus is better than angels and not as great as God what would that make him a human , no He is God also Jesus said I AM who I AM which is clearly speaking of God. John 1:1 says in the beginning was the Word ( referring to Jesus) and the word was with God and the Word was God, it DID NOT say the word was NOT God, it says and the Word WAS God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us(which is how you know it speaks of Jesus. Jesus says before Abraham was I AM which God says to Moses in the burning bush, also why would Jesus use bad grammar unless it was to prove a point. So obviously the answer is that Jesus is God and God’s son. I hope that you change your mind about this fact. God bless

By Michael Kolker (wrote 17 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/1/2011 01:57 am

Does not the passage talks about contradictions while making comaprison beteen Jesus and the Angels? In that case it would be therefore a,b, and c!

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/27/2010 21:28 pm

Why is Jesus compared to angels? Depending on your interpretation of the Bible, Jesus is
a) God
b) God’s son
c) both a and b
d) neither a nor b
If the answer is a, b or c, there would be no reason to compare Jesus to angels, who are merely creations of and vastly inferior to God. There is no passage anywhere in the Bible telling us that God is better than angels, is there? So the fact that Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) felt the need to compare Jesus to angels suggests that the answer may be d.

By Charles Fiott (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/25/2010 15:31 pm

1)The theme of the section Heb.1:5-2:18 is announced in this verse.In this section,it is shown that Jesus Christ is better than the angels.
2)It was the tradition that the Law was given to the people of Israel through the mediation of the angels.Read Acts 7:53;Gal.3:19.
3)We can find references in the o.T. & the N.T.for the ministry of the angels.Here are some of them.Dan.9:21;Matt.1:20;2:13;4:11;Luke 1:11,18,26;
22:43;Acts 12:7;27:23.
4)”Better”-(Gr.=kreisson)the key word of the Epistle is introduced for the first time here.It occurs 13 times in this Epistle.See Heb.1:4;6:9;7:7,19,
22;8:6(twice);9:23;10:34;11:16,35,40;12:24.
5)Jesus Christ is better than the angels because of the higher status He has
than the angels.
6)In Heb.1:5-14,it is shown that Jesus Christ is better than angels as Son of God.The writer used seven O.T. quotations to prove his point.Ps.2:7;
2 Sam.7:14;Deut.32:43;Ps.104:4;Ps.45:6,7;Ps.102:25-27&Ps.110:1.
7)In Phil.2:9-11,we can find the exalted position of Jesus Christ.He was given a name which is above every name.At the name of Jesus ,every knee has to bow;every tongue has to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.Read Is.45:23.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/16/2008 00:02 am