• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus say he was God???

OurCreed

There is no God but Allah
I am new to this Forum, but not new to the experience. A lot has been said in this thread, but I would like to give evidence from the Bible and other sources that conclusively prove that Jesus and His Father (God/Yahweh/Jehovah) are not the same being.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this, but I will only give a couple.
I hope that I am not repeating what others have said earlier in this thread.

First of all, Jesus' disciples never concluded nor did they imagine that Jesus was the almighty creator of the universe, Yahweh (or Jehovah if you prefer).

The teaching of the Trinity did not get fully accepted into the "church" until the council of Nicea many years after much apostasy had crept into the congregations.

If we analyze the vision that John had in Revelation chapters 4-6 we read that John saw someone seated on the throne. We know that this refers to God (chapter 4:11 lets us know that this is Yahweh/Jehovah). During this vision, he sees other spirit creatures around this throne (24 elders seated upon thrones, four living creatures, many angels, etc).
Noteworthy is the fact that in chapter 5 verse 5 a description of someone else who is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David and has conquered. Later in the same vision he is referred to as The Lamb.
It is obvious that this "Lamb" refers to Jesus.
So the question is: if God is on the throne and "The Lamb" is in the midst of the throne and all the other spirit creatures, how is it that they can be confused for the same person? It is obvious that they are two separate and distinct beings with two separate and distinct roles in heaven.

You're right, thanks for proving from the Gospels that Jesus (as) is clearly thought as just an ordinary human, a prophet or messenger sent by the One God.

The idea that Jesus (as) is part God and part human is just nonsense added later on.
 
You're right, thanks for proving from the Gospels that Jesus (as) is clearly thought as just an ordinary human, a prophet or messenger sent by the One God.

The idea that Jesus (as) is part God and part human is just nonsense added later on.
Yes, while on earth Jesus was a human of flesh and blood, he was certainly a prophet. The Bible also refers to him as God's son.
 

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
I believe Jesus knows whether a person viewed Him as God or not and would not have said seek me unless He knew the person believed Him to be God. However He did say: John 7:17 If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.

I believe you will not be able to reason from the verse to this conclusion.

I believe the passage does not talk about the love of Jesus so there can be no comparison derived.

Little of scriptures stand to reason.

Yet Jesus said he was the way.

If Jesus' words are just for those who already believe in him then he could hardly have come to cure the ill and not the well.

To believe in a literal Jesus kills all his good work as you then forget that he generally spoke of the spirit and not the reality of the flesh.

Regards
DL
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I am new to this Forum, but not new to the experience. A lot has been said in this thread, but I would like to give evidence from the Bible and other sources that conclusively prove that Jesus and His Father (God/Yahweh/Jehovah) are not the same being.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this, but I will only give a couple.
I hope that I am not repeating what others have said earlier in this thread.

First of all, Jesus' disciples never concluded nor did they imagine that Jesus was the almighty creator of the universe, Yahweh (or Jehovah if you prefer).

The teaching of the Trinity did not get fully accepted into the "church" until the council of Nicea many years after much apostasy had crept into the congregations.

If we analyze the vision that John had in Revelation chapters 4-6 we read that John saw someone seated on the throne. We know that this refers to God (chapter 4:11 lets us know that this is Yahweh/Jehovah). During this vision, he sees other spirit creatures around this throne (24 elders seated upon thrones, four living creatures, many angels, etc).
Noteworthy is the fact that in chapter 5 verse 5 a description of someone else who is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David and has conquered. Later in the same vision he is referred to as The Lamb.
It is obvious that this "Lamb" refers to Jesus.
So the question is: if God is on the throne and "The Lamb" is in the midst of the throne and all the other spirit creatures, how is it that they can be confused for the same person? It is obvious that they are two separate and distinct beings with two separate and distinct roles in heaven
.

I beleive your arguments are new but definitely not conclusive proof.

To the best of our knowledge from the Bible the apostles John and Matthew knew that Jesus was the embodiment of Yahweh. Peter may not have grasped the concept but I doubt that a lack of belief proves anything in light of what Jesus said.

I believe a lack of understanding of scripture is not limited to those of our day but that does not change what scripture says or disprove it.

I believe this is a vision and as such does not have to present a reflection of reality. That would be like saying that Jesus is a lamb instead of a human because the vision depicted Him that way.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Liar. You presume too much for yourself. Delusion will do that.

Regards
DL

I believe that you have blasphemed Yahweh. I believe your assessment of delusion to be an assumption without basis.
I also believe that I have presumed nothing and you have no evidence that I did.
 

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
I beleive your arguments are new but definitely not conclusive proof.

To the best of our knowledge from the Bible the apostles John and Matthew knew that Jesus was the embodiment of Yahweh. Peter may not have grasped the concept but I doubt that a lack of belief proves anything in light of what Jesus said.

I believe a lack of understanding of scripture is not limited to those of our day but that does not change what scripture says or disprove it.

I believe this is a vision and as such does not have to present a reflection of reality. That would be like saying that Jesus is a lamb instead of a human because the vision depicted Him that way.

Jesus is not nearly as evil as Yahweh. He is not much better with his anti-love divorce and forgiveness policies but still not like his genocidal son murdering demiurge dad.

If you wish to debate the morality of God and Jesus, we could come to some end game. To argue if they were real is a waste of time.

If they are good then their morality will prove it, or not.

Care to confirm the morality of the God you follow and whom I reject as a demiurge?

Regards
DL
 

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
I believe that you have blasphemed Yahweh. I believe your assessment of delusion to be an assumption without basis.
I also believe that I have presumed nothing and you have no evidence that I did.

That prick deserves blasphemy and all moral men will reject his evil ways. Come and show us your morals and those of the evil God you follow.

Regards
DL
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I would be interested to know how you arrived at this conclusion...to the best of MY knowledge, nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe the letters of John reveal his beliefs as opposed to just reporting what Jesus says and Matthew calls Jesus Immanuel which is basically calling Him God.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
You're right, thanks for proving from the Gospels that Jesus (as) is clearly thought as just an ordinary human, a prophet or messenger sent by the One God.

The idea that Jesus (as) is part God and part human is just nonsense added later on.

I believe he has done no such thing and that you are in error about things being added later.
 

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
I believe you have a thread for this and that it is not germaine to this thread.

That is like saying that you do not care about the satanic moral tenets you follow.

That is why Christians never want to look at their morals. They know that they are corrupted.

Regards
DL
 

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
I believe he has done no such thing and that you are in error about things being added later.

You do not know your own history.


Originally Posted by animefan48

Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.







Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity) But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)


http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx



Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!


The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!


"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".

Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180


"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".

R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980


The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.


"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.


"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).


"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).


Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .

(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)


Constantine’s Victory Arch says it all.


[MOVIE] Secrets of Christianity – Selling Christianity | Simcha Jacobovici TV


Regards

DL
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Greatest I Am said: "The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!"

I believe the Bible is the earliest evidence that we have and the Trinity is consistent with the Bible.
 
Top