Did Jesus Claim to be God?

[moorea944]

John 10:30 (NIV)
30 "I and the Father are one.”​

Your already reading that as a Trinitarian. I and my father are one. What does that mean if Jesus is the "son of God". And Jesus always does the will of his Father... It means that he is one with his Father in purpose, will, mind, spirit. God works "through" His son, helping him in everything. Very simple to understand.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

False

They just had a different definition of the relationship of god and the son, they still viewed him as divine ?

Where do you get this rhetoric from ??



You again are lost to what happened.

Early Jewish Christians were still Hellenistic Jews who viewed Jesus as being the son of god.



Islamic faith has no historical value here.



Had you stated Jesus first real Galilean followers who were Aramaic said Jesus was not god. Then you would be correct. But these were Jews, not Jewish Christians.

Surely what u said is 100% falsehood!!!


The only person who preached the socalled divinity is the unrecognized person called Paul.
Ebionite Sect was the most purest of all early jewish christians and they viewed Jesus as Messianic Prophet.
All the major disciples did not trust Paul at all, they viewed him as enemy wolf wearing sheep clothes.



As for Arianism they say: there was a time when Jesus was nothing!!!
It means he is creation created by the Creator!!!

 

[outhouse]

Bart Ehrman

I have been arguing that most Jews rejected Christian claims about Jesus because Jesus was just the *opposite* of what the messiah was expected to be. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who would overthrow God’s enemies and set up a new kingdom on earth in which God’s will would prevail. Jesus was and did none of that. He was a lower-class peasant who was arrested, humiliated, tortured, and executed. He didn’t destroy God’s enemies. He was crushed by th...em.

 

[outhouse]

Surely what u said is 100% falsehood!!!

Provide sources.

islam has no credibility at all in the history of Christians or Jews

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Provide sources.

islam has no credibility at all in the history of Christians or Jews

Google Ebionites. Dont tell me its made up story...!



The only falsehood regarding "divinity" of jesus pbuh is from paul, and he is no authority at all except for those who seek misguidance.

 

[outhouse]

The only person who preached the socalled divinity is the unrecognized person called Paul.

False

Paul joined a movement of people who viewed Jesus as divine.

Ebionite Sect was the most purest of all early jewish christians and they viewed Jesus as Messianic Prophet.

False

Ebionites came much later and have nothing to do with the origins of the movement.

All the major disciples did not trust Paul at all, they viewed him as enemy wolf wearing sheep clothes.

False Paul became so popular even Marcion loved him.

Because some people did not trust him means nothing, they ended up being the minority.

As for Arianism they say: there was a time when Jesus was nothing!!!

provide sources.

It means he is creation created by the Creator!!!

Rhetoric. Unsubstantiated apologetic mythology.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Anyways iam not denying that there were disbelievers & blasphemers who believed Jesus pbuh to be divine. But there were also believers in the true monotheistic message of Jesus peace be upon him.

 

[outhouse]

Google Ebionites. Dont tell me its made up story...!

Please learn what your debating.

WIKI

Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary, and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[6][7] Consequently, very little about the Ebionite sect or sects is known with certainty, and most, if not all, statements about them are conjectural.


Again Islamic rhetoric has no place in this time of history, and it has no credibility here.

 

[outhouse]

Anyways iam not denying that there were disbelievers who believed Jesus pbuh to be divine. But there were also believers in the true monotheistic message of Jesus peace be upon him.

There is no such thing as true monotheistic message. That is Islamic rhetoric with no credibility

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

There is no such thing as true monotheistic message. That is Islamic rhetoric with no credibility

The blasphemers were rejected by the early jewish christians.
They are regarded to be mostly followers of Paul.

I acknowledge that there were people back then who became worshippers of Jesus pbuh. Allah swt mentioned them in surah maryam:


36. ['Iesa (Jesus) said]: "And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path.

37. Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about 'Iesa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah] from the meeting of a great Day.

The disbelievers deceived many from following straight path and they killed many true followers of Jesus pbuh for rejecting socalled divinity.

 

[Neo Deist]

Is it certain that Jesus claimed to be God? Why or why not?

There are verses that hint at it, depending on how you read them, but chances are they have been take out of context. Over the centuries, Jesus has been elevated to godhood status by The Church, and that continues being taught to this day. For every verse that someone quotes that might suggest YES, they are other verses that would contradict them with a big NO.

According to the anonymous authors that actually wrote the NT in Koine Greek, no Jesus never came out and said "I AM GOD." Everything in the NT was written decades after Jesus' death, so it would have been easy to spin the stories to try and make the OT messiah mold conform to the Jesus story. Since it is 3rd party hearsay, be skeptical. Jesus never wrote a single word in the Bible.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

That verse is often quoted to prove that Jesus does indeed make the claim. However, you have to read the entire chapter in order to understand what Jesus was talking about. By itself it would seem as if Jesus was confirming his deus status, but what does being "one" actually mean? One person? Like minded? Same agenda? Jesus goes on to explain that he was preaching the word of God, and describes the works that he was doing. For that reason, the Jews did not stone him. Obviously he was referring to "being on the same page with God's plan."

John 8:58 "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

By itself, that verse does not make a lot of sense in English. It has to do with context and how the phrase was rendered. Many believe that Jesus was referring to himself as God, comparing his answer to Exodus 3:14 [God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you."] However, some scholars argue that Jesus was actually saying something to the effect of "I exist in superior rank to Abraham," and that seems to be supported by John 8:56 [Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.] Depending on which camp someone is in, they will interpret these verses in a certain way, in order to try and justify a particular belief. The end result of this segment is that Jesus hid in the temple after he said "I am" so that he would not be stoned to death. If he was God, why would he be afraid and need to hide?

Psalm 82:6-7 "I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.

This supports what Jesus said to the Jews in the temple, when they wanted to stone him. To be called a "god" (with a little 'g') means that you hold a sacred office; that God has chosen you to serve as a judge and representative of His work. It also affirms what Jesus was saying all along...he was a son of God and sent with a purpose. He was human, divinely chosen and doing God's work.

 

[outhouse]

The blasphemers were rejected by the early jewish christians.

We don't know that. Your following Islamic rhetoric with no credibility. We know nothing of the real Aramaic followers. And the Christian apologetic rhetoric states they sided with paul.

I'm the first person to admit jesus was only a man, but I wont let you use apologetic rhetoric as credible history.

They are regarded to be mostly followers of Paul.

False.

Paul had the majority behind him. he defined what would become Christianity.


Without Paul we would have the same religion exactly like it is.

I acknowledge that there were people back then who became worshippers of Jesus pbuh.

Yes all of them.

The movement did not start in Israel. What would become Christianity started in the Diaspora all over the Roman Empire with no center of origin.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus has been elevated to godhood status by The Church

False.

There was no church early on.

They viewed him as divine from the start by his actions in the temple that developed the martyrdom that started the theology and mythology.

The main argument was never his divinity, it was his relationship to god that was debated the most, as well as if his substance was all spirit or all man and still divine.

 

[Skwim]

Your already reading that as a Trinitarian.

If anything I'd be reading it as a Dualitarian.

I and my father are one. What does that mean if Jesus is the "son of God".

Yeah, what does that mean? Christianity is always backing itself into theological corners with things like this.

And Jesus always does the will of his Father... It means that he is one with his Father in purpose, will, mind, spirit. God works "through" His son, helping him in everything. Very simple to understand.

Really!! Should we assume this comes from the same text that says he is the son of himself?

 

[psychoslice]

I don't think he did, he said himself that he cannot do anything without the father, that he declared the father, as a man he wasn't God, but he as his true SELF, as with all of us, was God, we are all collectively God, like it or not.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think he did, he said himself that he cannot do anything without the father, that he declared the father, as a man he wasn't God, but he as his true SELF, as with all of us, was God, we are all collectively God, like it or not.

Does this mean we help him think and do godly things? 'Cause I sure don't remember anything like that. Or do we occupy a part of his being, like his big toe or something? Because most everyone else makes a distinction between us and him, just what does it mean to comprise this god? .

 

[psychoslice]

Does this mean we help him think and do godly things? 'Cause I sure don't remember anything like that. Or do we occupy a part of his being, like his big toe or something? Because most everyone else makes a distinction between us and him, just what does it mean to comprise this god? .

Separation from God is ignorance, there is nothing but God, or what I can, the Source of all, of course there is no God in the sky looking down and judging us, that's a very childish view of God. We as the mind body organism arised from God, as I said, there is only God. We as the mind body organism because of our ignorance believe we are separate from God, and hence the ignorance of separation, because of this separation we suffer, we try to do all on our own, when in fact we have no choice to do what we do. This idea that we can do what we want without God is also the reason we all suffer, we may as well surrender to God, and do what we want to do, because that is all we can do.

 

[Neo Deist]

False. There was no church early on.

Not false.

Tell that to the Catholics who trace the Pope's line of succession all the way back to Peter, upon whom Christ's church was founded.

Furthermore, the concept of Jesus as God incarnate took shape in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, and was not an official doctrine until the Council of Chalcedon of 451 CE.

 

[outhouse]

Not false.

Yes factually.

For the first few hundred years NO church existed. They worshipped out of houses we know as Pater Famalias.

Tell that to the Catholics who trace the Pope's line of succession all the way back to Peter, upon whom Christ's church was founded.

Oh so you believe their apologetic rhetoric dictates history?

and was not an official doctrine until the Council of Chalcedon of 451 CE.

False, in 325 he was defined as eh same substance as god, one in the same.

But that does not mean they did not view him as divine from the start. We know they did.

Have you every read Pauls text?

 

[moorea944]

If anything I'd be reading it as a Dualitarian.

Yeah, what does that mean? Christianity is always backing itself into theological corners with things like this.

Really!! Should we assume this comes from the same text that says he is the son of himself?

If anything I'd be reading it as a Dualitarian.

Why? Can't you just believe in what the bible tells us?

Yeah, what does that mean? Christianity is always backing itself into theological corners with things like this.

Theological corners? Not really. Scripture tells us that he is the son of God. Why would we want to believe in something else.... like God the son.....

Really!! Should we assume this comes from the same text that says he is the son of himself?

What? The son of himself? Can you please give us a verse? Would love to see that one.....