did Jesus ever say he was god?

[LittleNipper]

That doesn't even make sense. o_o


Christ = Greek translation of Hebrew messiah. Which means anointed (with a sort of "chosen" connotation) and does not have any divine connotations to it at all. Kings were also anointed.

I think you're thinking of Immanuel, but Jesus never identified himself as Immanuel as far as I am aware.

CHRIST AND IMMANUEL are the very same. GOD with us.

 

[Breathe]

Are you less human than your earthly father? JESUS cannot be less GOD than who HE emanates from. And HE clearly called HIMSELF the I AM. Before Abraham was, I AM. (John 8:58)

There is no proof Jesus was divine, and the "I AM" could refer to "Before there was Abraham, there is God".

CHRIST AND IMMANUEL are the very same. GOD with us.

Theologically for a trinitarian Christian, yes. Linguistically, no. For a Jew, no. IIRC Judaism holds the word/meaning immanuel to not be related nor to refer to the Messiah (Christ).

 

[sojourner]

IIRC Judaism holds the word/meaning immanuel to not be related nor to refer to the Messiah (Christ).

That's because Jesus changed the paradigm of the Messiah from an earthly warrior-king to God Incarnate.

 

[Katzpur]

Are you less human than your earthly father? JESUS cannot be less GOD than who HE emanates from. And HE clearly called HIMSELF the I AM. Before Abraham was, I AM. (John 8:58)

Jesus is no less divine than His Father, but He referred to His Father as His God. Therefore, He is equal to His Father in terms of nature, but subordinate to His Father in terms of their Father-Son relationship.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus is no less divine than His Father, but He referred to His Father as His God. Therefore, He is equal to His Father in terms of nature, but subordinate to His Father in terms of their Father-Son relationship.

My! How Trinitarian of you!

 

[LittleNipper]

There is no proof Jesus was divine, and the "I AM" could refer to "Before there was Abraham, there is God".


Theologically for a trinitarian Christian, yes. Linguistically, no. For a Jew, no. IIRC Judaism holds the word/meaning immanuel to not be related nor to refer to the Messiah (Christ).

I don't wish to insult you. That is not my intent, but the truth be told, IF the New Testament is historically accruate and one is going to belive that this Jesus was once here, the reality is that the Jews there picked up stones to stone JESUS. Now either they totally understood exactly what JESUS meant or they were stupid and had no clue about scripture -------- Me thinks that they were smart cookies. They knew exactly what JESUS was saying.

Read Isaiah 7:10-25 and then read Matthew 1:18-25

 

[blueman]

Jesus is no less divine than His Father, but He referred to His Father as His God. Therefore, He is equal to His Father in terms of nature, but subordinate to His Father in terms of their Father-Son relationship.

Subordinate in relation to His role on earth to carry out the purpose of His Father as a redeemer and restoring the relationship between God and man. Spiritually, Jesus is equal in nature and deity to God The Father.

 

[LittleNipper]

My! How Trinitarian of you!

JESUS proved that HE could control nature, heal the sick and crippled, know what people were doing without being informed, put satan in his place, prophesy of the future, and raise the dead. ONLY GOD can do that much.

 

[Breathe]

I don't wish to insult you. That is not my intent, but the truth be told, IF the New Testament is historically accruate

I know you're not attempting to insult me

However, "IF" the New Testament is historically accurate, and that's the point..

It's not going to be totally accurate, there are going to be stories that have been exaggerated, pieces that have been lost in translation, Aramaic idioms that are taken literally due to their word-for-word translation into Koine Greek, common-day first century Jewish thought that has been lost to us in the twenty-first century, stories and metaphors intending to explain a purpose, the mixing of two different styles of thought (Hellenic and Semitic) - and probably, blatant fabrications and outright lies to further the message.

 

[LittleNipper]

I know you're not attempting to insult me

However, "IF" the New Testament is historically accurate, and that's the point..

It's not going to be totally accurate, there are going to be stories that have been exaggerated, pieces that have been lost in translation, Aramaic idioms that are taken literally due to their word-for-word translation into Koine Greek, common-day first century Jewish thought that has been lost to us in the twenty-first century, stories and metaphors intending to explain a purpose, the mixing of two different styles of thought (Hellenic and Semitic) - and probably, blatant fabrications and outright lies to further the message.

Well, do you apply that to the Jewish claim to Israel? Seems one would be skating on thin ice. Such logic cuts both ways. Either the Bible is true or a bunch of Jewish men made the whole thing up (goes for both Old & New Testament).

 

[Breathe]

Either the Bible is true or a bunch of Jewish men made the whole thing up (goes for both Old & New Testament).

That's rather an appeal to extremes - I prefer myself the middle ground, containing truths.

There's no proof God created the Earth in seven days, for example - and to believe such a thing would be considered intellectually dishonest considering the mass of evidence that we have to support the contrary.

1. The Tanakh ("Old Testament") is completely independent from the New Testament
2. 3. It doesn't have to be "wrong" or made up. Sections of it are most likely historical, but other parts are probably not.
3. 4. The Tanakh contains metaphors and historical acts (or pseudo-historical), so why would this not also be for the New Testament?

Either way, a bunch of men (not necessarily Jewish men) wrote the whole thing, over time. Matthew did not pen the Gospel of Matthew, nor did John pen John or Revelation, just like Moses didn't write the Torah (first five books of the Tanakh).

It doesn't make it wrong, but this is what happens when you delve into literalism, you can destroy the beauty of the message.

 

[Katzpur]

My! How Trinitarian of you!

Really? I thought trinitarians believed the Father and the Son to be equal in every respect. Mormons do believe them to be equal in terms of their divine nature. In other words, the Father is no more or less divine than the Son, just as you are no more human than I am (or visa versa). Does that surprise you?

 

[Katzpur]

Subordinate in relation to His role on earth to carry out the purpose of His Father as a redeemer and restoring the relationship between God and man. Spiritually, Jesus is equal in nature and deity to God The Father.

Subordinate in His role as Creator prior to His incarnation, subordinate in His role as Redeemer during His mortal ministry, and subordinate in His role as our Mediator and Advocate at the Last Judgment.

 

[LittleNipper]

That's rather an appeal to extremes - I prefer myself the middle ground, containing truths.

There's no proof God created the Earth in seven days, for example - and to believe such a thing would be considered intellectually dishonest considering the mass of evidence that we have to support the contrary.

1. The Tanakh ("Old Testament") is completely independent from the New Testament
2. 3. It doesn't have to be "wrong" or made up. Sections of it are most likely historical, but other parts are probably not.
3. 4. The Tanakh contains metaphors and historical acts (or pseudo-historical), so why would this not also be for the New Testament?

Either way, a bunch of men (not necessarily Jewish men) wrote the whole thing, over time. Matthew did not pen the Gospel of Matthew, nor did John pen John or Revelation, just like Moses didn't write the Torah (first five books of the Tanakh).

It doesn't make it wrong, but this is what happens when you delve into literalism, you can destroy the beauty of the message.

There is no proof GOD didn't (create in 6 days) in reality. There is more logic behind the truth that the FLOOD destroyed what was already fast coming apart. Actually, I do believe Moses did write down exactly what GOD revealed to him. And being an Egyptian prince, he had more access to any old documents then anyone else... (even if you question Divine revelation). The beauty of the message is that it is true and is not dated. It can still be applied today with good consequences. Children obey your parents that you may live longer. He who lives by the sword will likely die by it...

 

[Breathe]

There is no proof GOD didn't in reality. There is more logic behind the truth that the FLOOD destroyed what was already fast coming apart.

Uhm. I'm glad you're so devout in your faith, but I cannot disagree with you more..

Actually, I do believe Moses did write down exactly what GOD revealed to him. And being an Egyptian prince, he had more access to any old documents then anyone else...

Like the Epic of Gilgamesh?

The beauty of the message is that it is true and is not dated. It can still be applied today with visible good reactions. Children obey your parents that you may live longer. He who lives by the sword will likely die by it...

Indeed, the metaphors are good for learning life lessons.

 

[LittleNipper]

Uhm. I'm glad you're so devout in your faith, but I cannot disagree with you more..


Like the Epic of Gilgamesh?


Indeed, the metaphors are good for learning life lessons.

There is debate as to who copied what. My educated guess is that the Gilgamesh epic is inferior to the Genesis story. Just read both. The one is very matter of fact. The other seems to miss the boat...

So I ask, how do you know, what do you base your opinion on, and what if you're wrong?

:angel2:

 

[Breathe]

There is debate as to who copied what. My educated guess is that the Gilgamesh epic is inferior to the Genesis story. Just read both. The one is very matter of fact. The other seems to miss the boat...

Epic of Gilgamesh is an earlier story than Noah's Ark. So is the Hindu flood.

So I ask, how do you know, what do you base your opinion on, and what if you're wrong?

:angel2:

How do I know what? The flood didn't happen? Geology, archaeology, the sheer impossibility (which has been described in another thread a lot), etc.
If something else, can you please explain?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No worries there.
After all, I am a seeker. :yes:

 

[LittleNipper]

Epic of Gilgamesh is an earlier story than Noah's Ark. So is the Hindu flood.


How do I know what? The flood didn't happen? Geology, archaeology, the sheer impossibility (which has been described in another thread a lot), etc.
If something else, can you please explain?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No worries there.
After all, I am a seeker. :yes:

There was likely an oral truth. Grandpa Noah was there and this truth became corrupted among the pagans for obvious reasons. Moses wrote what GOD dictated concerning the creation and the FLOOD, etc...

Sir, how deep are the oceans? How much of the earth is covered with water? How were the vast majority of fossils formed? What fossiles do they find in the most abundance? Who is the ruler over secular thought? What does satan want everyone to believe and why?

If one is wrong, one could likely spend an eternity regretting it.
A seeker also listens as well as searches.

 

[Breathe]

There was likely an oral truth. Grandpa Noah was there and this truth became corrupted among the pagans for obvious reasons. Moses wrote what GOD dictated concerning the creation and the FLOOD, etc...

Sir, how deep are the oceans? How much of the earth is covered with water? How were the vast majority of fossils formed? What fossiles do they find in the most abundance?

I believe you should take this to another thread; this is not really related to the subject at hand.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/80788-noahs-ark.html

Who is the ruler over secular thought?

Logic and proof.

What does satan want everyone to believe and why?

Satan is not against God, Satan is an angel who does God's bidding, who tests us in our faith. He may not be the most popular, but he is most certainly not evil in any traditional Jewish sense.

If one is wrong, one could likely spend an eternity regretting it.
A seeker also listens as well as searches.

Sorry, but I don't buy any "eternal hell" theories, at all. I don't have a view of God where it makes Him into an evil Sky Father who tortures people simply for following their hearts, and I have huge problems attempting to reconcile that in any way with Divine Benevolence.

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe you should take this to another thread; this is not really related to the subject at hand.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/80788-noahs-ark.html

Logic and proof.
Satan is not against God, Satan is an angel who does God's bidding, who tests us in our faith. He may not be the most popular, but he is most certainly not evil in any traditional Jewish sense.

Sorry, but I don't buy any "eternal hell" theories, at all. I don't have a view of God where it makes Him into an evil Sky Father who tortures people simply for following their hearts, and I have huge problems attempting to reconcile that in any way with Divine Benevolence.

Satan is a fallen angel who does as much as he is allowed to do and hates righteous men.
See JOB 1:6-12 and JOB 2:1-7

GOD is not evil. But HE will not suffer evil to have eternal access to HIM. MEN choose their eternity. They either listen to GOD and trust HIM, or they lean on the temptation to take charge of their own destiny (much as satan). GOD will allow man to build his own bed. GOD provides opportunities for repentence. Judas hanged himself ---- don't blame GOD. Perfect example of a person who will not say he is sorry. Then there is Peter.