Thursday, 3 July 2014
Eranoites strike again: A response to Angel Lawin
"Hello again Brothers and Sis:
Let us read what BOBO Benett of answeringjudaism had written against our post a few weeks ago
BOBO said :
// No Christian denies Jesus being the Son of David and that he will come from the house of David. BEING THE SON OF GOD FROM ETERNITY DOESN'T REFUTE HIM BEING THE SON OF DAVID. Erano is STRAW MANNING the incarnation. Jesus has two sonships in the New Testament, a divine sonship and a royal sonship as I have mentioned before in the past. Solomon is adopted as God's son and also has a royal sonship. Also, Christians don't deny that 2 Samuel 7 being applied to Jesus, BUT that doesn't automatically mean that Jesus was a sinner or become a sinner as I have pointed out previously: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/how-erano-evangelista-deceived-humanity.html //
Brothers and Sis, take note of what BOBO said ---//“Also, Christians don't deny that 2 Samuel 7 being applied to Jesus” //
--Here BOBO admits that 2 Samuel 7 is applied to Jesus."
It's a given it's applied to Jesus, no Christian disputes that. It's not admission, it's acknowledgement.
"With his admission BOBO had already contradicted every article he made about Jesus being a Son of God and dying for the sins of mankind because 2 Samuel 7 is all about God speaking about a coming descendant of David NOT a son of God from eternity , Not divine but only of David’s own flesh and blood, therefore only a man- whose task is to build a house for the name of God and when he succeeds, will be granted by God the title Son of God but when he commits wrong, will be flogged by men. Therefore there is no need to delve into his other articles. This admission of his is enough to discredit everything he has written.
2 Samuel 7 has nothing with his vicarious death on the cross and my point about Jesus being the Son of God is not refuted by him being a Son of David. Lawin hasn't touched my point or paid attention. I said Jesus had TWO sonships, one royal, one divine. The sonship in 2 Samuel 7:14 is ROYAL sonship and not divine sonship. Here is a part of the same article that Lawin quotes from.
"Within the text of 2 Samuel 7:12-17, it refers to the coronation of the King Solomon. This is royal sonship. Although Jesus was the Son from eternity, the sonship that is spoken of in Hebrews 1:5-8 is sonship in terms of his coronation, which occurred after his resurrection and sat at the Father's righthand. All three events that I have mentioned are to do with the coronation of the Messianic King. David, Solomon, then the Messiah himself. Solomon is God's son in reference to his coronation, which doesn't refute Christians as Erano claims the passage does."
While the context of Hebrews 1 affirms Jesus is the Son of God from eternity, it acknowledges that Jesus has the TWO sonships I mentioned. It would be important for Lawin to point this out to his audience.
Now the deathblow to BOBO:
Hey BOBo AKA Jake Benett-answer this question
Why don’t we read what God said again in 2 Samuel 7:14
I WILL BE HIS FATHER, AND HE WILL BE MY SON. WHEN HE DOES WRONG, I WILL PUNISH HIM WITH THE ROD OF MEN, WITH FLOGGINGS INFLICTED BY MEN.
II Samuel 7:14 (NIV)
Question to BOBO (since he is reading our posts) since he admits that what God said in 2 Samuel 7 applies to Jesus and Jesus was flogged by men- what will be the reason ACCORDING TO GOD’S DECREE IN 2 SAMUEL 7:14 why God will forsake him to be flogged by men? Is it for our sins or for his sins?
Don’t hide in that trash article of yours, it is nothing now because of your admission that God's word in 2 Samuel 7 applies to Jesus. Since it applies to Jesus then it follows that Jesus is under the condition set by God. You have no right to insist your explanation. It’s God's word that we will heed, not yours. Answer the simple question stated above as based on what God said in 2 Samuel 7:14."
I post the article constantly because YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE AT ALL!! That is why I keep posting my article and I have answered your question.
Again: When Jesus was crucified and flogged, he was NOT guilty of sin, rather he was ACCUSED FALSLY of sin. Jesus did NOT receive the punishment that was due in 2 Samuel 7:14-16 at all. In fact the very NT which Erano quotes says he was SINLESS. Even Jesus testifies of this fact. Jesus does not fall under the condemnation of 2 Samuel 7:14-16. Jesus himself ALSO SAID he came to GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM FOR MANY I.E, DIE FOR OUR SINS!!!!
I have answered the simple question based on the word of God but you choose to ignore my answer and continue in lala land.
"Also BOBO said : // Also in Luke 1: note the following
""30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
This type of sonship requires one to be a descendant of David which Jesus affirms in the book of Revelation. A distinction between the two sonships is obviously there, when you cross referrence the statements given in Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7. How does Jesus inherit the name Son if he is already the Son? Because Hebrews is talking about 2 sonships, one royal and the other divine."" //--
Brothers and Sis, it is very clear in Luke 1:31-32 that Jesus is only a descendant of David thus the exact fulfillment of what God said in 2 Sam.7:14 therefore since Jesus was flogged by men, then there is no more question that Jesus was punished by God for his own sins. BOBo was one great liar in his explanations. Furthermore he has no right to explain the scriptures in the first place because he is not the prophet spoken by God in Deut.18:18-19"
Your prophet is not the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18, you assume it rather than prove it. Thus my points against Erano stand no matter how he propagates his bombastic claim that he is a prophet, when in fact he is a false one. The article already responds to your point on 2 Samuel 7:14 and you have no response to what I have said. Deuteronomy 18 has already also been covered elsewhere:
Once again Lawin, you haven't said anything.