Did Jesus say he was God???

[Jensen]

Quote:
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (and here Jesus does not say that he is God, only that he receive the glory that he had before the world was.)

Tom said...Yes, 1john1:1-4 says that was Eternal Word of Life. Every Jew saw Gods Word as God, not as something separate and less God

And why not address verse 5 and what it says and what I said? Instead you go to other verse and speak of the word. Jesus in verse 5 speaks of his father and does not call himself God. That is why I gave the verse, to show that Jesus is not God.



Quote:
And so why not believe Jesus and what he says instead of his opposers?

Tom said.....Why not have a full belief? Not being mean, just pointing out. Look at Titus 2:13-14
First off Titus calls Jesus God and if thats not enough he says who gave himself to redeem us. If that together isnt enough, whos appearing? God the Father is invisible and can never be seen... So who exactly is going to appear? Revelation 22:12 Jesus is called Alpha and Omega clearly in scripture, but i have heard many work arounds for this. Ask yourself, who is appearing? who are we gonna see? When that happens (Death or his return) are you prepair to look to him and say, "Not God"? (Thats what you are doing to Jesus, who is the Image of the invisible God)


Tom your idea of "full belief" is to avoid the verses that show that Jesus and the bible does not teach that Jesus is God. You always go to only verses that you think support your view. Such as Titus 2:13-14. I did a close examination of those verses and then looking at numerous translations, one can not build a doctrine that Jesus is God from those verses as they are translated differently in different bibles and appear to not say the same thing, and so this makes those verses unreliable for building a doctrine especially if it appears to be in contradiction of other verses on the same subject. And then, you end up saying that Jesus is the image of God...


Quote:
Why is that those that say they are led by the Holy Spirit do not agree on what they have learned with the help of the Holy Spirit? They should be in exact harmony on their beliefs and as we have seen, they are not.


Tom said....Im in harmony with many believers. Even those not even living close to me... I will admit that there are some different people that visit this page.

That's not what I asked....why are those that say they are lead by the Holy spirit usually not in agreement. If lead by the Spirit, they should be in complete agreement. And most who claim this are not in agreement.


Quote:
So you believe that when he hands all back to God that he, Jesus, will become God with God. That is will be God? But until that happens he is not yet God?


Tom said...Thats tricky, i believe Jesus started off as God and although emptied himself and put on humanity that I will never forget his starting point and will always see him as God. However, He is now a resurrected man with Gods Power. That is why you hear God/Man from time to time... Dont you think it interesting that it takes an act of Jesus for God to be all in all?


There is nothing in the bible that says that Jesus started off as God.
And I've never read "God/Man" in the bible anywhere. Another addition to the scriptures? Also, nowhere in the bible does it say that it takes an act of Jesus for God to be all in all. Adding to the bible?


Quote:
You really shouldn't be asking others what their religion is.

Tom said...
I think the opposite. There should be nothing to hide when talking about these issues. Why would anyone want to believe someone if they have no others who believe as they do? At some point one needs to join with a body of believers or he/she will find hardship that just might overcome them...


I've done fine without a body of believers to belong to.


Quote:
They may be your beliefs but that doesn't mean they are true.


Tom said...
I believe them. I will agree that i dont know everything, but when it comes to the Image of God and looking to Jesus and thinking "not God" is very dangerous to me..


For me thinking of Jesus as God is idolatry and very dangerous.


Quote:
God bless....

Tom said,,,
You too, just remember that Im very passionate of what I believe. i use to believe as you in many ways when I first became a christian. i just think that something opened up in my mind that allows me to see the way i do. Your beliefs are good and your love for Jesus is what maters. i just dont see how one can be in the same situation as Thomas and say to Jesus, "My Lord but not my God". (Thats how I see it)


I don't see how one can ignore what Jesus, the Lord and the one that Christians are to follow, said in John 17:3

 

[psychoslice]

If Jesus did existed, then I would say he would have been a self realized man, to me he didn't say he was God, that is the man Jesus, but he did alluded to his true self being one in God. Jesus must of known that we all are part of God, the only difference is he was self realized and the people that followed him wasn't. He spoke in metaphors and parables, this was because the people were not yet ready to hear the full truth, the metaphors and parables were like seeds that could grow within each person listening to Jesus, when the time was right the seed would grow.

That seed can only grow from that place within, this deep within can be called the Virgin, being the place that is never contaminated by the carnal world. When the seed grows within we begin to change, the Christ is born, and because of this we must die to our old self, the carnal mind.

This is how I see the message of Jesus, and for me personally, I don't care if he existed or not, its the message the reaches deep within that matters, not the man Jesus.

 

[Jensen]

Jesus was only saying why are they making a fuss about him calling himself the Son of God when men have been called "gods"; he was not saying that he is God.


(this was in answer to message 8701)

 

[Jensen]

You bet. I believe, but could not prove Jesus is God but I can show he was not a man like the rest of us.

Hebrews 2:17https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews 2&version=KJV


17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hebrews 2:17https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews 2&version=KJV


17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

I gotta say, what does that verse even mean.

 

[Jensen]

Do you know that there is no possible way in the Greek to say Jesus is not God and be in line with scripture? Serious. ill give you the task to try to write something in the greek that says, "Jesus is not God". its impossible to write that in the greek when it says Jesus is God(Theos). You can water down the words all you want, but thats the truth.

Jesus is Theos! <--- Do you agree or disagree?

One can say in Greek that Jesus is no (&#948;&#949;&#957 God.

 

[Jensen]

Since Jesus expresses the Father fully and exactly by his very being, what then show we think of when Jesus is called god? Show we think less than that which he fully expresses or exactly of who he expresses...? When Thomas was confronted with this, how did Thomas respond?

Jesus is not called god..he is called the Son of God.
Thomas was a doubter, I will believe Jesus' word over his. John 17:3

Ok, if you where in Thomas shoes and was kneeling before Jesus, whould you say to Jesus, "My Lord and My God" or would you in the back of your head be thinking... Not God but something like a man or a judge as indicated above?

First of all I would not be in Thomas' shoes as he doubted that Jesus was the Messiah, and I do not. And I would be thinking Son of God, Christ, and Savior, who died for me, good to see you.

Great! i like the way you said that... What i would add to this, where would you place Jesus before becoming a man on earth... (Just Probing your belief)

Completely undecided.

Context tells us that Jehovah is both God and Savior, why then say the Savior is not Jehovah or Mighty God as Jehovah is? Is 44:6-8 says the repurchaser of Jehovah is called "Jehovah of Armies". Context says like Isaiah 46:9 that there is none like God, yet we read Jesus is exactly like God... No other Rock but God, yet we read Jesus is the Rock... No other true Shepherd and we are Gods Sheep, yet Jesus is the true shepherd and we are his sheep. No other foundation but God, yet Jesus is our foundation. No other savior but God, yet Jesus is our Savior. That is why when We/I read passage of the old testament God Jehovah being applied directly to Jesus we can say, oh, I get it, Jesus is God. But how might go through our minds, and we read PHIL 2:5-8 where Jesus was in the very nature of God and emptied himself to become a man. Our God is also really our Savior too. Some might say "Form of God" means spirit, but why didnt God put the word "Spirit" saying Jesus was in the form of a spirit and became man. Rather Gods word says "Form of God" became the "Form of Man"... Ask the question What does form of Man mean? Was Jesus a man? Why then does one say "Form of God" means anything but God?

I would say "Oh, I get it, Jesus is God's representative". And all that you stated above is because he is God's representative and was given authority and power by God his Father.

If God had 1 image that reveals himself to us, that would be Jesus (Is Gods Only True Image) The invisible made visible through Jesus.

If God had Images that fall way short of expressing him, yet still show images or Glimpses of God, that would be in the image of God.

I see no difference.

For example: Clouds sometime look like images we know. If a cloud looked like a man, we could say that cloud is "In the image of a man" but we could not say that cloud "Is the visible image of any one man". We are like the clouds expressing Gods image, and Jesus is the real image of the true God. Jesus isnt one of many images, Jesus is the only one true image of God.

We were made in the image of God...that is of many of the same attributes.
Jesus is in the image of God for the same reason, but also as God's representative and bearer of the Good News for our salvation, and died for us....he is the Son of God. That is the difference between Jesus and the rest of us.

Yes, no need to look for it. When Jesus emptied himself from the "Form of God" to become the "Form of Man" he became like every Jew. As a Jew, Jesus had a God the Father, yet he himself was God made into man, creator of all things.

I guess Jesus didn't know that....he only called himself the Son of God.

i pointing out that the JW belief is that Jesus was an angel, then became a man (less than the angles, who he was boss angel), then back to angel(Boss Angel again). Do you see that as possible? Jesus has Angels over him to protect him and help him, yet he was Boss angel at one time in need of no help... Just trying to help you see how no matter what belief you have, at some point Jesus was lower than God, Angels, and even the lowest of men. But not because he was forced or that was his Job. Jesus did this because he loved his creation. Everything was created by Jesus and For Jesus...

Jesus was lower than God and the angels, I don't disagree with that.

 

[Muffled]

There were others before Jesus that also performed miracles. Elijah and Elisha also raised the dead.
The mob told Jesus they were not attacking him for his miracles or works but for blasphemy.

John 10:" 33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

I believe that gives credence to what they said but they never said they were God.

The miracles testify that Jesus is a man of God and therefore speaking the truth about being God but the Pharisees rejected that concept simply because they held a belief that God could not inhabit a human body. Who knows where they got that idea from since it is never stted in the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

To add to my last post, here's where one can check and see how Jesus used the name "Father", and please note that Jesus' references are to someone other than himself: Bible, Revised Standard Version

I believe this is neveer stated by Jesus, so it is a misconceived notion by the reader. Jesus does say "I and my Father are one."

 

[Muffled]

The claim that Jesus is God is not a claim that he was the father. The trinity (true or false) claims three individual wills or persons composing one being.

I believe that is the (false) doctrine of the Trinity not the Trinity itself. There are not three individual wills or persons in th Trinity. THere is one will and one person according to the spiritual definition. There is onlly one person in the physical definition that is absolutely God. The paraclete is a multitude of physical manifestations but God is present most often in a background role, and the human person tends to be incharge most of the time.

Jesus and the Father are one person so it is true that the Father is Jesus. However in concept the two are separate because one represents God in the Body and the other represents God outside of the body.

 

[metis]

I believe this is neveer stated by Jesus, so it is a misconceived notion by the reader. Jesus does say "I and my Father are one."

I'm not certain in which context your first sentence relates to, and as far as the second sentence is concerned, the question, which I covered in an earlier post, is whether Jesus is referring to he and God being "on the same page", if you know what I mean? "I and the Father are one" really doesn't make sense if taken literally. If it had been, then it would be more likely rendered "I am God", or words to that effect.

 

[1robin]

On this post, even though it really doesn't relate to our topic, let me just say that the Sabbath, "Shabbat" in Hebrew, was not named after a Roman god, plus that its observance is mandated by Torah but only for those of us whom are Jewish.

I did not say it was. I said declaring that the day of rest must occur on a certain day which IS named after a Roman God is arbitrary. Not that I think it is even a relevant issue for 200 years but we need clarity.

 

[1robin]

The reality, as mentioned before, is that majorities really don't much count when it comes to whether a particular narrative or theological concept are true in reality. Where it can and often does count is what Joseph Campbell often stated, namely that "the myth became the reality" (note that "myth" does not mean falsehood in this context).

They count for so much that that is how we settle the destiny of democratic nations. That is how it was determined that Israel should exist as a nation again. I did not hear a single Jew refuse to accept because of bad methodology.

That is a interpretation, not necessary the interpretation. Another possibility is that it relates to Jesus' eventual death.

It even goes on to explain exactly what it was talking about.

The Attitude of Christ
…6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.…

It does not say he emptied himself of life or to death. It said he emptied himself and remained obediently in that state until the point of death.

Look, every one of the issues is going to come down to an argument just like this. I believe one interpretation is far better that it's opposite and if you cannot agree to that then we will be at an impasse.

Whether he was "the word" or the "messiah" is highly conjectural, but that goes beyond the scope of what we're discussing. However, this is what the "N.T." does say, so I can accept it as far as that's concerned, but this still really has nothing to do with Jesus' supposed divinity.

I will take the conjecture of an eyewitness over a guy in a forum anyway. BTW what is conjecture about this:

New International Version
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

that would also not make every scripture just conjecture.

First of all, there's been long debate as to whether Matthew's and Luke's lineages actually do match, but if you do manage to check back in Numbers, you'll note that there are discrepancies, if my memory is correct. However, again, the issue at stake really isn't about whether Jesus was the messiah.

I have seen so many harmonies I no longer even entertain these arguments. As to his being the messiah that is the issue, at least among the issues that the genealogy applies to.

Again, not related. BTW, there is literally no way that Jesus can be linked through lineage back to David with ny certainty of being correct because the records were destroyed during the Babylonian exile, and only two of the tribes managed to keep their lineages intact, and David's line was not one of them. After the exile, members of the various tribes began to intermarry, thus making it even more impossible to tell whom was related to whom almost a thousand years earlier.

Then why did not the Jews use that far more immediate and emphatic accusation. They specialized in keeping, maintaining, and verifying claims to lineage and not one peep about it was mentioned. I can't imagine those specialists not looking the first time a justification was needed to deny Christ's claims.

This is probably the strongest card you have as, indeed, this is what the gospels say. Now are the authors saying this as supposed fact or is there some sort of symbolic accounting here? Hard to say. Either way, the idea of God impregnating a woman is logical to some gentiles but illogical to most Jews, and even some Christian theologians have sharply questioned whether it can or should be taken literally.

Secular studies and proper exegesis developed over thousand of years is pretty much unanimous that you assume a literal interpretation unless sufficient reasons exist to deny it. The NT is classified as historical biography. It makes predominantly claims to historical fact and where analogous it specifically points it out or it is obvious in most cases. Analogies do not solve actual necessities. As Greenleaf said if they were lying or making up analogies to get out of actual difficulties there is no motive that explains their faith in the face of persecution. IOW they knew and believed in all conditions. The best explanation is it was true.

If I say "God is my Father", what's your next question? Do you just accept that I mean biological father or maybe that I am a "son of God", which we Jews traditionally called ourselves? The terminology "son of God" is quite possibly what the authors capitalized on to claim Jesus as being of God. I think as time went on this became more and more accepted in terms of supposedly being God, but other evidence also points to some disputes that continued on into the 2nd century church and beyond dealing with this.

Jesus made it very clear he was not only the son of God but THE unique son of God. Not even the Jews denied this, that is what they charged him with. They and countless theologies believe we are all sons of God in a general way but Jesus was claiming something unique, that was the whole problem. Biological claims to son ship don't even make any sense for a spiritual father anyway.

On top of this, one has to remember that the gospels were written at least two decades after Jesus was martyred, and we well know through history how that often gets played out. An example is that after Gandhi was assassinated, many Hindus began to deify him. However, on many occasions Gandhi had made it clear that he was merely a mortal man.

You are going to play every card in the deck with emphasis aren't you? Lets see what the bibles greatest living critic has to say about this.

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

On top of that Paul's core passion narrative has a source that has been dated to a few years or months of Christ's death. But even without this it's sourcing beats just about every other ancient historical text ever written in any subject. If we don't know this we don't know anything of ancient history.

OK, this is one area that I alluded to in a previous post that I said I would eventually get into, but I had to wait for you or someone else to bring it up.

Is the "Holy Spirit" as covered in the "N.T." the same as "God's Spirit" as mentioned in the Tanakh (I capitalized the "S", whereas in most Bibles I've seen it isn't capitalized)? If it is, let me just mention that we never called our name for God and God's Spirit duality (as compared to "trinitarian") or any other words like that. IOW, it simply was viewed as "the spirit of God".

I do not know that one. I am not an OT expert. I know what the Holy Spirit is to Christians but not if it equals what you refer to.

Secondly, exactly what is "spirit" to begin with? I've seen many, many discussions on this, but there doesn't seem to be any particular agreement beyond that it supposedly goes beyond our senses. But if that's the case, then how do we know it exists? For example, is the HS with you right now? with me? How can one tell one way or another?

My personal deduction would be a will and mind that do not have material components. It's existence can be felt and interact with material but it is not it's self a material. Why would my spiritual senses be any less valid than my visual sense. The idea we only have 5 senses is al but debunked today.

So, what exactly is the HS, and does it somehow go beyond "God's Spirit", thus deserving to be called as if it were some sort of separate entity in the trinitarian approach?

That is a question for a Jewish or Judaism scholar not a Christian layman. One note progressive revelation would explain this confusion quite well. The spirit, soul, heaven, hell, salvation, morality are all present in the OT but were amplified and illuminated in the NT.

Agreed. However, remember that being preachy isn't evidence.

I am not preaching I am using biblical scripture to illuminate biblical claims.

 

[Desert Snake]

I did not say it was. I said declaring that the day of rest must occur on a certain day which IS named after a Roman God is arbitrary. Not that I think it is even a relevant issue for 200 years but we need clarity.

Jesus=Sunday Shabbat makes sense to me.

Funny though as people think 'Sabbath' has to mean Saturday.

 

[1robin]

Because your god mythology has limit's ?

Your really going to have to pick up the quality of your assumptions here. This is just boring.

"Son of god" existed before jesus was even born.

Christ existed before anyone was born.

when jesus was born the Emperor was the "son of god"

No he claimed it, unlike Christ he never demonstrated it with a single example of any kind. He is dust and Christ's body disappeared under Roman guard.

And when the unknown authors of the gospels compiled collections together with 2 plagiarizing gmarks compilation, they were competing against the Emperors divinity.

You seriously think a book hated by their own nation, hated by the parent empire, and which they knew the facts of and chose to risk death to defend was written as a challenge to Caesar? You mean the book that Rome tried to wipe out was intended to wipe them out (actually it eventually did I guess).

They were trying to get gentiles that worshiped the first son of god, to worship the second "son of god" who just died.

That was not even close to the purpose of the bible. In fact no Apostle initially wanted to spread the word to any gentiles. God had to commission a Roman and instruct his Hebrews to do so before they were willing. Your talking about Church tradition from a much later time period that has never been biblical. You may want to stick with picking on Islam.

 

[1robin]

Jesus=Sunday Shabbat makes sense to me.

Funny though as people think 'Sabbath' has to mean Saturday.

Your right to point out what calendar day we take off to concentrate on God is not the point but we need some clarity here.

To Jews the Sabbath is Saturday and they have OT reasons for thinking so.
Sunday is not the Sabbath, it is the day of the Lord and was based on which day he arose and not part of the faith until that time.

 

[1robin]

I gotta say, what does that verse even mean.

In order to be an example to man he had to become like them in many ways. Let me give another verse that illuminates this one.

The Attitude of Christ
…6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.…

 

[1robin]

One can say in Greek that Jesus is no (&#948;&#949;&#957 God.

One could say that in any language. Doesn't make it any truer.

 

[Desert Snake]

In order to be an example to man he had to become like them in many ways. Let me give another verse that illuminates this one.

The Attitude of Christ
&#8230;6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.&#8230;

My issue with the verse is the wording. In Hebraic tradition if I describe someone as a "high priest" and knowledgable ("in things pertaining to..."), etc. not only am I describing a non-Deific person, I am describing someone who is even lower than the Prophets.
If it is descriptive and not literal it is really descriptive.

 

[1robin]

My issue with the verse is the wording. In Hebraic tradition if I describe someone as a "high priest" and "knowledgable in things pertaining to...", etc. not only am I describing a non-Deific person, I am describing someone who is even lower than the Prophets.
If it is descriptive and not literal it is really descriptive.

Which verse?

Christ had many rolls and had everything necessary to fulfill them.

1. He was to be an example to us. He felt and endured pain, suffering, and perhaps doubt. Yet his divine will triumphed through suffering not in-spite of it.
2. He was not to be a merely earthly human priest. He was to be an eternal divine priest. Human priests are only pale shadows of a divine reality which he fulfilled.
3. He was to be the perfect sacrifice and was to have obeyed the law in every detail. There exists no reliable record off his failure to do so.