Did Jesus say he was God???

[Dirty Penguin]

Isaiah 9:6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and governments shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Prince of Peace.

Nice quote. I like that one too....

Mighty God (EL Gibor)

Gabri-El (Mighty God)

Now are we to assume that the Angel Gabriel is God as well?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just because Paul got all caught up in explaining what he never understood does not make those confusions fact.

Paul did not know what he was talking about. He was an amazing thinker but why should we be expected to accept his explanations over the actual statements of Jesus?

Jesus was in a far higher state of communion with God tan Paul or any of the disciples ever were. After all the disciples followed and obeyed Christ, Christ often found His disciples confused, errant, ignorant and misunderstanding. Paul never even had the benefit of meeting Jesus.

Regards,
Scott

Thanks....Scott......

 

[JayHawes]

Those who usually deny that Jesus is God to my experience have a morphed view of who or what Jesus did and was.

The Bible plainly says the following:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
- The Word is Jesus (Rev 19:13)

Col1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Col 1:17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist

Col 2:9For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

The Word Godhead comes from the greek word Theotos, meaning diety, the state of being God.

 

[JayHawes]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays
Just because Paul got all caught up in explaining what he never understood does not make those confusions fact.

Paul did not know what he was talking about. He was an amazing thinker but why should we be expected to accept his explanations over the actual statements of Jesus?

Jesus was in a far higher state of communion with God tan Paul or any of the disciples ever were. After all the disciples followed and obeyed Christ, Christ often found His disciples confused, errant, ignorant and misunderstanding. Paul never even had the benefit of meeting Jesus.

Regards,
Scott



Paul met Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9, 2 Corinthians 12,Galatians 1,2). His revelation allowed him to understand The Gospel of Jesus, he testified that he haerd things that he was not allowed to utter. This man heard unspeakable things, and through his experience preached boldly the Gospel.
Jesus chose 12 Apostles, with Paul being the last, to preach and teach his Gospel. For a man to call Jesus's Apostles liars...is very, very far-fetched. Paul met Jesus face to face unlike many people today...

Jesus himself did not openly say that he was God because he came to serve others not to be served. He even told his followers not to tell anybody that he was Christ (Matthew 16:20). Why? because at his death everyone would know who he was, Thomas knew when he said to Jesus: My Lord and my God (John 20:28).

 

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays
Just because Paul got all caught up in explaining what he never understood does not make those confusions fact.

Paul did not know what he was talking about. He was an amazing thinker but why should we be expected to accept his explanations over the actual statements of Jesus?

Jesus was in a far higher state of communion with God tan Paul or any of the disciples ever were. After all the disciples followed and obeyed Christ, Christ often found His disciples confused, errant, ignorant and misunderstanding. Paul never even had the benefit of meeting Jesus.

Regards,
Scott



Paul met Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9, 2 Corinthians 12,Galatians 1,2). His revelation allowed him to understand The Gospel of Jesus, he testified that he haerd things that he was not allowed to utter. This man heard unspeakable things, and through his experience preached boldly the Gospel.
Jesus chose 12 Apostles, with Paul being the last, to preach and teach his Gospel. For a man to call Jesus's Apostles liars...is very, very far-fetched. Paul met Jesus face to face unlike many people today...

Jesus himself did not openly say that he was God because he came to serve others not to be served. He even told his followers not to tell anybody that he was Christ (Matthew 16:20). Why? because at his death everyone would know who he was, Thomas knew when he said to Jesus: My Lord and my God (John 20:28).

Who says he met Jesus on the road. Jesus was already dead and ascended?

He had a vision, we know nothing about that vision whatever other than what Paul tells us. The vision was for Paul, no one else. Visions are like that.

Regards,

Scott

 

[lunamoth]

He had a vision, we know nothing about that vision whatever other than what Paul tells us. The vision was for Paul, no one else. Visions are like that.

13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Sounds to me like Paul's vision was intended for more than just himself.

 

[JayHawes]

Who says he met Jesus on the road. Jesus was already dead and ascended?

He had a vision, we know nothing about that vision whatever other than what Paul tells us. The vision was for Paul, no one else. Visions are like that.

Regards,

Scott

All the prophets had visions, are we to deny all of them also? God himself says that he would give people visions (Joel 2:28). These visions are used to enlighten the people of God, they are not all just for the person who receives them. Consider Revelation, the whole of which was a vision, which was written and sent to the seven Churches in Asia by JOhn of Patmos. If you want to center out Paul's Vision, why not all the visions in the Bible ( which is a good portion of it)? And what about John who personally walked with Jesus and learned from him, who taught that Jesus was God (John 1:1, Rev 19:13)? But i know you have your reasons for denying Paul, maybe you have a certain belief which he taught against, and therefore you call his teachings wrong and false...?

 

[Popeyesays]

All the prophets had visions, are we to deny all of them also? God himself says that he would give people visions (Joel 2:28). These visions are used to enlighten the people of God, they are not all just for the person who receives them. Consider Revelation, the whole of which was a vision, which was written and sent to the seven Churches in Asia by JOhn of Patmos. If you want to center out Paul's Vision, why not all the visions in the Bible ( which is a good portion of it)? And what about John who personally walked with Jesus and learned from him, who taught that Jesus was God (John 1:1, Rev 19:13)? But i know you have your reasons for denying Paul, maybe you have a certain belief which he taught against, and therefore you call his teachings wrong and false...?

I consider Revelations largely apep talk for the churches facing adversities at the time--spiritual guidance and lessons? Sure. It's couched in allegory and metaphor. To read it literally is not possible if one approaches it with a rational mind.

John says clearly that all the events of Revelations were being played at that very time--the Christian tendency to consider Revelations to be the map of a literal end of days is not reasonable either.

Is there some prophecy in there? Sure, but it's not literal and is shrouded in layers of meaning. The many-headed dragon is a good metaphor for the Imams of Islam, by the way.

Many layers of mean ing and the best way to miss the meaning is to insist on literal interpretation.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Sounds to me like Paul's vision was intended for more than just himself.

The symbols and metaphors have a lot of meaning. Abdu'l Baha ev en used just this story to explain to Howard McNutt just how badly he had blown his message to Khareilah and the potential covenant breakers in Michigan. He had to explain to Howard that he was like Saul, that he had lost his sight, but that God had restored it. He was speaking of sight as understanding of course. Howard repeated to the friends over and over "I was Saul, but now I am Paul, for I see." until he internalized it.

A vision is a spiritual insight granted by the Holy Spirit, it is not the literal presence of Jesus in the case of Saul. They were not the direct words of Jesus as heard by Peter and the others. It was a vision and it must be puzzled out for meaning. Frankly, most of that meaning was for Paul, no one else. One need only look at the spiritual change in Paul to see how important it was.\\That v\change cannot manifest itself directly in another merely by hearing the event described.

Visions are little personal miracles, and they are no more convincing to those who do not witness them than are miracles in general.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

The symbols and metaphors have a lot of meaning. Abdu'l Baha ev en used just this story to explain to Howard McNutt just how badly he had blown his message to Khareilah and the potential covenant breakers in Michigan. He had to explain to Howard that he was like Saul, that he had lost his sight, but that God had restored it. He was speaking of sight as understanding of course. Howard repeated to the friends over and over "I was Saul, but now I am Paul, for I see." until he internalized it.

A vision is a spiritual insight granted by the Holy Spirit, it is not the literal presence of Jesus in the case of Saul. They were not the direct words of Jesus as heard by Peter and the others. It was a vision and it must be puzzled out for meaning. Frankly, most of that meaning was for Paul, no one else. One need only look at the spiritual change in Paul to see how important it was.\\That v\change cannot manifest itself directly in another merely by hearing the event described.

Visions are little personal miracles, and they are no more convincing to those who do not witness them than are miracles in general.

Regards,
Scott

This is the quote from Acts, note that it is to Ananias about Paul, not to Paul.

Originally Posted by Acts 9
13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Did the Lord tell Ananias that Paul was his chosen instrument to carry His name to the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of Israel?

 

[Popeyesays]

This is the quote from Acts, note that it is to Ananias about Paul, not to Paul.

Originally Posted by Acts 9
13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Did the Lord tell Ananias that Paul was his chosen instrument to carry His name to the Gentiles and their kings, and before the people of Israel?

They both had a vision, the same caveats apply.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

They both had a vision, the same caveats apply.

Regards,
Scott

Just to be clear then, you think that the Lord told Ananaias that Paul was His chosen instrument, but that information was meant only for Ananias and no one else?

added:

Do you think the Lord was telling Ananaias the truth?
Do you believe it really was the Lord speaking to Ananaias, or was he being decieved?
Do you think Acts is an 'uncorrupted' book, or do you think it was tampered with or made up?

If you think Ananaias did see the Lord and the Lord was telling the truth that Paul is His instrument, why do you think this is only meant for Ananaias?

And, if it happened, and it is the truth, why should we not then believe that Paul had the true Gospel? Why should we not take his Epistles as seriously as the Testimonies of the Gospel writers?

 

[JayHawes]

You keep on saying that visions are meant only for those who see them, without realizing that God used visions to rely major portions of the Bible.

1)Was God telling Ananias the truth, of course because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2),

2)was he being decieved? Ananias was not being decieved because he did what Christ tells everyone to do, he told Paul about Jesus and led him in salvation.

3)Is Acts an uncorrupted book? People who have pre-formed ideas about Christianity whether wrong or right will call allthings that disagree with them wrong or corrupt. It is simple, if you have the idea that someone was lying about something, say, Paul's Conversion....then one would deny the testimonies written by Luke in Acts. Deny Paul's Testimony in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, and deny the simple fact that Paul stopped killing Christians and converted to the faith....

For some reason you doubt his writings, is it because his teachings go against one of your beliefs? So to keep yours you deny his? Paul taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul along with Peter, and Bartholomew, and John, and Thomas, and all the others preached the Gospel of Jesus. But they, being Jews didn't preach widely to the Gentiles (non-jews). Paul however being more educated than Jesus' first Apotles taught scripture quite well, and went unto the gentiles, which was and is the majority of mankind. He was the main Apostle for the gentile world, and therefore he wrote most of the letters we have today, why did he write letters? Becuase he was always traveling or in prison forpreaching God's Gospel. And, why shouldn't you take his writings seriously?he was an Apostle just as was John, and Mathhew, and Peter, and James.

 

[SonOfNun]

Nice quote. I like that one too....

Mighty God (EL Gibor)

Gabri-El (Mighty God)

Now are we to assume that the Angel Gabriel is God as well?

No it's EL- as in El-Elyon -- The Lord Most High
El-Olam -- The Everlasting God
El-Shaddai -- The God Who is Sufficient for the

 

[lunamoth]

You keep on saying that visions are meant only for those who see them, without realizing that God used visions to rely major portions of the Bible.

1)Was God telling Ananias the truth, of course because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2),

2)was he being decieved? Ananias was not being decieved because he did what Christ tells everyone to do, he told Paul about Jesus and led him in salvation.

3)Is Acts an uncorrupted book? People who have pre-formed ideas about Christianity whether wrong or right will call allthings that disagree with them wrong or corrupt. It is simple, if you have the idea that someone was lying about something, say, Paul's Conversion....then one would deny the testimonies written by Luke in Acts. Deny Paul's Testimony in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, and deny the simple fact that Paul stopped killing Christians and converted to the faith....

For some reason you doubt his writings, is it because his teachings go against one of your beliefs? So to keep yours you deny his? Paul taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul along with Peter, and Bartholomew, and John, and Thomas, and all the others preached the Gospel of Jesus. But they, being Jews didn't preach widely to the Gentiles (non-jews). Paul however being more educated than Jesus' first Apotles taught scripture quite well, and went unto the gentiles, which was and is the majority of mankind. He was the main Apostle for the gentile world, and therefore he wrote most of the letters we have today, why did he write letters? Becuase he was always traveling or in prison forpreaching God's Gospel. And, why shouldn't you take his writings seriously?he was an Apostle just as was John, and Mathhew, and Peter, and James.

Hi JayH (and welcome to RF ). I appreciate your response but just to be clear these are the qeustions I am asking of Scott.

As for why Scott refuses to accept any authority in Paul's witness is probably because Paul speaks as if Christ is God, the Only Son of God and the Savior. Paul teaches freedom from the law through the love of Christ. The bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ would mean that there can't be another Manifestation of Christ coming back to earth in a different bdoy. These ideas conflict with Baha'i teachings. Or at least this is my best understanding of why Paul is thus rejected.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No it's EL- as in El-Elyon -- The Lord Most High
El-Olam -- The Everlasting God
El-Shaddai -- The God Who is Sufficient for the

Thanks. For a minute there I thought my hebrew was getting rusty so I had to check it out. Again, Are we to assume Gabriel (Mighty God) means that the angel Gabriel is God as well?

The name Gabriel consists of two parts. The final bit is

(El 93a), the abbreviated form of

, • Elohim, the genus God.
The first segment of the name Gabriel comes from the verb

(gabar 310), prevail, be mighty, have strength. The derivation (geber 310a) means man,

(gibbor 310b) means mighty man like the much mentioned champion soldiers that armies used to parade off, (gebura 310c) means might. But that the basic meaning of this word leans towards might and not towards masculinity is argued by derivations (gebira 310d) and (geberet 310e), both meaning lady or queen. Still, the word geber can still be found in modern Israel on doors of guys bathrooms.

Source:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Arie/Names/Gabriel.html

As we can see there are many different meanings of that word. Strength and Mighty are just a few. We have to be careful when reading the english translation. I showed this in another quote where at the end of the quote the scholars added the word (he) at the end of the verse but when you review the original greek the word does not appear at the end at all. We have to be careful of how some scholars play with or add words to the scriptures to fith their ideas.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

[/b]


Nice quote. I like that one too....

Mighty God (EL Gibor)

Gabri-El (Mighty God)

Now are we to assume that the Angel Gabriel is God as well?

I can show you where God in the Old Testament is referred to as El Gibor...can you show me the same for Gabri El?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

hmmmm....Not as impressive as you may beleive.......Let's see... (I am)....well Proverbs of Solomon comes to mind...

Proverbs
8:22 God possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of
old.

8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

What these verse have to do with Jesus being eternal you'll have to inform me. Where is he mentioned in any of these verses?

hmmmmm let's see (I am).... Well Melchisedec comes to mind.

Hebrews
7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

And with all those cool qualities, He was only "made like unto" the Son of God...who's the Son of God again?

With all of that said, that I am statement holds no water. Here's why....

Jesus said it; argue with Him if you have an issue, not me, I'm just quoting Him.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The scholars who translated this do a very good job but observe John 9:9

Yes, they did...now please tell me, why did Jesus intentionally use the present tense here when it would have been gramattically correct to use the past tense? Can you think of somewhere else in the Bible where that kind of apparent error in grammar took place (I'll give you a clue, look in Exodus 3...)?

See how they added the (HE) in brackets in 9:9 when the word (HE) is not even at the end of the quote? So The Iam statement is not what you think it is.

LOL...So what? Putting "he" at the end of John 8:58 wouldn't change the obvious and intentional grammatical oddity there, nor would it change the meaning. Arguing on the basis of words that aren't there in the original text isn't gonna get you very far here, my friend.

I seem to be doing pretty well. How about you?

Well I can see you don't have a self-esteem problem...but pride comes before the fall, friend.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can show you where God in the Old Testament is referred to as El Gibor...can you show me the same for Gabri El?

I see.....Answering questions with questions.......

Are you disagreeing that they don't mean the same thing?...(mighty God)...

I mean...it's ok if you do...

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I see.....Answering questions with questions.......

Are you disagreeing that they don't mean the same thing?...(mighty God)...

I mean...it's ok if you do...

I'm disagreeing that the context of the statements can be paralleled as you are attempting to do. Show me where God is called Gabri El and then we'll talk.