Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

You understood me wrong

When we commit sins there isnt a divine part in us which do the same thing ( since we're one), and when we do fulfill our toilet needs , there isnt a divine part in us which is doing the same , it wouldnt be called a divine part in this case;

Hope its clear now

Not really but if we tug at it long enough maybe the essence will emerge.

For my part, I do not do most physical acts spiritually. My physical mind is quite capable of setting things in motion and the autonomic system does the rest.

I once washed dishes spiritually. It took me days to come down off a spiritual high.
I don't doubt that the physical temptations of forty days in the desert by Jesus required rigid spiritual control of the body and physical mind.

It is for this reason that Jesus can say "be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

 

[Muffled]

Thank you very much for the answer, even though it still didnt answer my original Q which was:
Where the divine part goes when Jesus performed his human needs?

We will make a deal , Ill be patient waiting for a direct response, and on the other side you'll be more patient than myself answering the tons of questions I have to ask about this issue , deal?

If you just said "deal" behind your screen, then we shall begin ( Gather your patience please )

Lets say it was me who had to die for the universe, would God wants to come into my body??
Well, I have to say that as a human Im not always clean ( especially when I go to WC, or have my menses), so would God really accept to come into my body?

Can't God do what he wants without passing through a dirty body? Doesnt it mean that he is not powerful?

Can't God take away sin without having to die?

If Jesus died? Doesnt it mean God is dead? WHo are we supposed to worship??

If jesus took away all our sins, doesnt it mean that if Im a follower of Jesus I can kill and steal?
If I'm not able to do so, then what the benefit of Him dying for me?

If it was me who offered to die for the world, why God wouldnt just give me that power ( as He can do whatever He wants) of resurrecting souls without coming into my body?

Isnt it bit of unjust that one person die for all the rest ? Then whats the purpose of life after him??


Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate it

Yes. That is exactly what God is saying He will do.

Omnipresence says that He is already there. The spirit does not reside in unclean places for Him any more than it does for us. (Although I have met a few judges that appeared to have had their head in an unclean place.) The reality is that God created it all and is in it all including our middenheaps (for those uncouth read it as **** piles).

Actually the desire to take shortcuts is a human trait. A person could steal to become rich instead of working hard but it is not a good thing to do. A person could take up the sword instead of the cross but that is not what is usually required. (That is exactly what the Apostles thought was a good idea when Jesus was arrested)

The answer is an unqualified yes. However it is a shortcut since it requires a subjugation of a person's will. Jesus wants a person to ask Him to take away his sin. Without the cross no-one is likely to ask for that or have faith that He can do it.

You answered this question previously by saying that Jesus is part God, part human. The human part dies and the Spirit moves on. Then later the Spirit moved back into a resurrected body, so worship God wherever He is and by whatever name He calls Himself.

How is a person to perform that which is taken away? I am not sure what you mean by the second question. If you mean that a person is still able to sin that there is no benefit, I would disagree. It is the change of heart that is the benfit. It is the person who will not acknowleddge his sinfulness that does not benefit or the person who simply refuses to have a change of heart and reject sin.

I am sure He could but if you were willing to die for sin would that be the same as God being willing to die for sin?

There is a question in the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar: What have you sacrificed? It does seem unfair to God that His creation should turn against Him but whoever said that life is fair. So God has to make sacrifices to recover from something that never should have happened. I don't understand your second question.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me.

Again Jesus equates Himself with God belief in one is belief in the other as well.

Latching on to the first quote and trying to make it fit you perception does not make it so. The whole chapter the biblical Yeshua is talking about his oneness (in purpose) to his god. Nowhere in any of the quote should it be assumed he is equating himself to his god nor was it something his followers listening and questioning him thought.

Your bible (John 14).

14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

If he is "God" there be no need to say or do this.

14:23 Yeshua answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

If Yeshua is "God" there be no reason to say or do this in this manner.

14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.


If he is "God" he can not be sent.

14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Where did the biblical Yeshua equate himself to "God" in this quote?.....Nowhere. It distinctly shows he is separate from his god.


14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

So clear it needs no interpretation.

14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

He NEVER equated himself to his god. All he ever did was state that he spoke on behalf of the god that sent him with a message and all the time was commanded by that god to fulfill a task that was given to him.

Threads like this will drag on because of your ability to misrepresent what your scriptures actually say. You're scripture plainly show the biblical Yeshua not to be "God" in the flesh......

 

[Muffled]

Latching on to the first quote and trying to make it fit you perception does not make it so. The whole chapter the biblical Yeshua is talking about his oneness (in purpose) to his god. Nowhere in any of the quote should it be assumed he is equating himself to his god nor was it something his followers listening and questioning him thought.

Threads like this will drag on because of your ability to misrepresent what your scriptures actually say. You're scripture plainly show the biblical Yeshua not to be "God" in the flesh......

You make many claims but you don't back them up with evidence. I do not thow a purpose perception in where there isn't one as though it were actually there. I recognize the meanings of the words that are there. It is true that John 14 cohesively points to Jesus claiming to be God. It is not something out of context and I take context seriously.

In reality you contribute to the extension of this thread by refusing to provide valid evidence. You keep making claims you can't prove and I have to keep reminding you that you need to prove your claims.

 

[Muffled]

The Biblical hell according to Scripture is the common grave of dead mankind.
What does Scripture say at: John 11vs11-14; Psalm 6v5; 13v3; 115v17; 146v4 and Ecclesiastes 9v5,10?

Hellfire [Gehenna] is a symbolic place of destruction.
Gehenna was a place where things were destroyed not kept burning forever.

When Jesus died, why didn't Jesus see Jesus as God?________

According to Scripture Jesus did Not resurrect himself.
God resurrected the unconscious dead Jesus.

Doesn't the heavenly resurrected Jesus according to Rev [2v18] still see himself as still the Son of God?_________

At Rev [3v12] doesn't Jesus still believe he has a God over him?________

This varies as you ought to know but I would agree with you on the verse referrriing to where Jesus went since no-one goes to Hell until the end.

Gehenna is a symbol for Hell since Jews had no other reference point. However the symbol represents a real place. It is true the body will be consumed but the spirit lives on in the midst of the fire.

Do you ever read your own statements, lol. You are claiming that He didn't? Then what is the source of your claim? If you are saying the dead body is God you are incorrect. Jesus is only God when the Spirit of God is in the body.

No, it says nothing to that affect.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This varies as you ought to know but I would agree with you on the verse referrriing to where Jesus went since no-one goes to Hell until the end.
Gehenna is a symbol for Hell since Jews had no other reference point. However the symbol represents a real place. It is true the body will be consumed but the spirit lives on in the midst of the fire.

If No one goes to 'hell' [haides] until the end, then how does one explain Acts [2vs27,31] that Jesus was in hell until God resurrected him?_________

Also, since all in hell [haides] are 'delivered up' according to Rev [20vs13,14] then how could they go to hell in the end, if in the end, after emptying out hell, then vacant, emptied-out hell, void of people, dies a symbolic second death and even death will be no more?- Rev [21v4].

Gehenna did Not keep things burning forever. Gehenna being a real garbage dump used to dispose of refuse and carcasses. Gehenna was a fitting description of destruction or annihilation not a perpetual burning.

Adam had No spirit of life until God breathe the breath of life into Adam [Gen 2v7]. After receiving the breath of life Adam became a living soul.
At death Adam became a dead soul. Ezekiel 18vs4,20.
Adam returned to the dust of the ground where he originally had no spirit of life. No spark of life. Adam, by sinning, disconnected his spirit from his source of life [God], and just like an unplugged fan slowly wound down until he stopped in death. Adam's spirit of life did not remain with any part of Adam.

 

[Muffled]

If No one goes to 'hell' [haides] until the end, then how does one explain Acts [2vs27,31] that Jesus was in hell until God resurrected him?_________

Also, since all in hell [haides] are 'delivered up' according to Rev [20vs13,14] then how could they go to hell in the end, if in the end, after emptying out hell, then vacant, emptied-out hell, void of people, dies a symbolic second death and even death will be no more?- Rev [21v4].

Gehenna did Not keep things burning forever. Gehenna being a real garbage dump used to dispose of refuse and carcasses. Gehenna was a fitting description of destruction or annihilation not a perpetual burning.

Adam had No spirit of life until God breathe the breath of life into Adam [Gen 2v7]. After receiving the breath of life Adam became a living soul.
At death Adam became a dead soul. Ezekiel 18vs4,20.
Adam returned to the dust of the ground where he originally had no spirit of life. No spark of life. Adam, by sinning, disconnected his spirit from his source of life [God], and just like an unplugged fan slowly wound down until he stopped in death. Adam's spirit of life did not remain with any part of Adam.

There is no refeence to fire in that verse. It could have been translated "grave" since that is more apt. This verse suggests that: Eph 4:9 (Now this, He ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? If it said lowest parts I might agree with you that he visited spirits trapped in Hell. On the other hand I haven't seen anything that suggests that people were previously trapped there.

Here again the word translated as hades would better be translated as "grave." You wouldn't expect hell to be thown into hell:
Rev 20:14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire
The church tends to use Hell to refer to the lake of fire but that is not its original meaning. Hell was a similar place to Hades.

It is true that the analogy is not perfect but it is the closest thing at hand just as Hell is not a good description either but the closest thing we had in the english language at the time KJV was written. Lake of fire is closer but also not very difinitive.

You are in effect saying that God doesn't exist or that He didn't create man in His image.

 

[JL Fuller]

You forgot the Old Testament too. Re-read Isaiah. It has Jesus through and through.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There is no refeence to fire in that verse. It could have been translated "grave" since that is more apt. This verse suggests that: Eph 4:9 (Now this, He ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? If it said lowest parts I might agree with you that he visited spirits trapped in Hell. On the other hand I haven't seen anything that suggests that people were previously trapped there.
Here again the word translated as hades would better be translated as "grave." You wouldn't expect hell to be thown into hell:
Rev 20:14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire
The church tends to use Hell to refer to the lake of fire but that is not its original meaning. Hell was a similar place to Hades.
It is true that the analogy is not perfect but it is the closest thing at hand just as Hell is not a good description either but the closest thing we had in the english language at the time KJV was written. Lake of fire is closer but also not very difinitive.
You are in effect saying that God doesn't exist or that He didn't create man in His image.

Lake of fire [second death] and Gehenna go hand in hand in that Gehenna was a garbage dump where things were destroyed and not kept burning forever. So Gehenna [hellfire] and second death is fitting of destruction or annihilation. That is why Psalm 92v7 can speak of the wicked being destroyed or annihilated forever. Everlasting punishment [2 Thess 1v9] is everlasting destruction with no future hope of life anywhere in heaven or earth.

God has the attributes or qualities of love, justice and wisdom. We have the capacity to display or reflect that spiritual image of God to varying degrees.
Such as what James [3v17] describes.

God exists but never approved of a literal fire for people. Deut 18v10;12v31.
Please notice who the symbolic fire is for at Matthew 25v41.
Even Satan is Not death proof. Jesus then destroys Satan- Hebrews 2v14 B.
Jesus proves to be the 'seed' that deals Satan [serpent] a fatal death bruise to his head.
Gen 3v15.

 

[Muffled]

You forgot the Old Testament too. Re-read Isaiah. It has Jesus through and through.

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. No doubt Jesus is the Messiah mentioned in Isaiah and that the book confirms the divinity of the Messiah as opposed to those who claim that Christians invented it.

Jesus however is only mentioned symbolically by name in Zechariah.

As God of course his imprint is all through the Bible.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. No doubt Jesus is the Messiah mentioned in Isaiah and that the book confirms the divinity of the Messiah as opposed to those who claim that Christians invented it.
Jesus however is only mentioned symbolically by name in Zechariah.
As God of course his imprint is all through the Bible.

Isn't Jesus imprint at Revelation 3v14 b that he is the beginning of the creation by God? Colossians 1vs15,16 has Jesus as firstborn in the heavens and all other things [heavenly or earthly] coming through Jesus. Whereas the Psalms have God as having No beginning but that God is from everlasting to everlasting meaning too that God can not die. Only God was before the beginning.

 

[jaareshiah]

The discussion of God as a trinity in a "Godhead" has been ongoing since the days of Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 C.E till his death in 337 C.E. Though some history books says that Constantine was "converted to Christianity", in reality, he used so-called "Christianity" to keep his kingdom from suffering a serious split or division. His kingdom was declining and was being divided. He therefore employed the so-called Christian churches that existed everywhere to become his political support.

Constantine sensed that the “Christian” religion—albeit apostate and deeply corrupted by then—could be effectively utilized as a revitalizing and uniting force to serve his grand scheme for imperial domination. Adopting the foundations of apostate Christianity to gain support in furthering his own political ends, he decided to unify the people under one “catholic,” or universal, religion. Pagan customs and celebrations were given “Christian” names. And “Christian” clergymen were given the status, salary, and influential clout of pagan priests.

With the Arian controversy causing his kingdom to be divided, he was determined to unite the opposing factions at any cost. The continuing religious disputes of the relationship of the Son of God to Almighty God was creating a serious fracture in his kingdom. Hence, he called the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. to settle the matter. Being Pontifex Maximus, religious head of the Roman Empire, he used his powerful influence to sway many of the three hundred "bishops" that attended, offering them positions of power, prominence, and wealth as officers of the Roman State religion.

In order to resolve it to his satisfaction, he presided over the council, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, that of "one substance with the Father." The trinity formula was now taking shape. However, is this formula proposed by Constantine, who had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked, that Christ and God are equal, Scriptural ?

Jesus, in speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar concerning worshipping the Father, told her that "you worship what you do not know; we worship (Greek pro·sky·ne´o) what we know...the hour is coming...when true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth."(John 4:22, 23) Thus, Jesus included himself among those who ' worshipped the Father with spirit and truth.' This one Scripture alone provides evidence that Jesus is not God, but rather is among the throng of individuals who worship the Father. This coincides with Jesus words he told to Mary upon his resurrection, saying that "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and to your God."(John 20:17) Hence, Jesus worships the Father and thus has a God, who he so often called "my Father".(Matt 7:21; 10:32)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You make many claims but you don't back them up with evidence. I do not thow a purpose perception in where there isn't one as though it were actually there. I recognize the meanings of the words that are there. It is true that John 14 cohesively points to Jesus claiming to be God. It is not something out of context and I take context seriously.

In reality you contribute to the extension of this thread by refusing to provide valid evidence. You keep making claims you can't prove and I have to keep reminding you that you need to prove your claims.

First off there's a difference between "proof" and "evidence".....with that said we are all using the bible to "prove" the validity of the bible. Again, with that said....your claim for the biblical Yeshua as being "God in the flesh" is unfounded. You accuse me of the exact same thing you began the thread with and that is listing a whole bunch of quotes. The difference between you and I is I don't have to read between the lines of a very basic quote to try and prove something. The biblical Yeshua explicitly said he wasn't "God" and even explicitly said he had a god. You've seen the quotes but you refuse to listen to your own bible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You forgot the Old Testament too. Re-read Isaiah. It has Jesus through and through.

If you really take the time to study the OT, specifically Isaiah, you'd quickly realize it has nothing to do with the biblical Yeshua.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you really take the time to study the OT, specifically Isaiah, you'd quickly realize it has nothing to do with the biblical Yeshua.

Then how do you explain Isaiah 11v1?

Who is the 'him' of verses 2-10?
Compare verse 4 of Isaiah with verse 15 of Revelation chapter 19.

Who is the ensign or signal of Isaiah 11v10,12?

Who does Isaiah picture at 52vs13 to 53v12?
Who is the servant of 52v13?

Which verse was Not carried out in the NT?

 

[Muffled]

First off there's a difference between "proof" and "evidence".....with that said we are all using the bible to "prove" the validity of the bible. Again, with that said....your claim for the biblical Yeshua as being "God in the flesh" is unfounded. You accuse me of the exact same thing you began the thread with and that is listing a whole bunch of quotes. The difference between you and I is I don't have to read between the lines of a very basic quote to try and prove something. The biblical Yeshua explicitly said he wasn't "God" and even explicitly said he had a god. You've seen the quotes but you refuse to listen to your own bible.

A body of evidence taken to its logical conclusion is a proof. Evidence by itself is not proof. Stating that something is true is neither evidence nor proof.

This is a statement, neither evidence nor proof.

My quotes are a body of evidence that serves as a proof that Jesus is God in the flesh. Your quotes are a body of evidence that does not support your conclusion.

ROTFLMAO! For a person who inserts words that aren't there, you have no place to stand. It is not a matter of reading between the lines but a matter of reading verses in context instead of just extracting a verse as though it were never part of a discourse. All kinds of lies are made up about people by quoting them out of context.

I haven't seen you prove anything yet. You make a lot of statements you can't prove. I listen very closely to the Bible and to Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

The discussion of God as a trinity in a "Godhead" has been ongoing since the days of Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 C.E till his death in 337 C.E. Though some history books says that Constantine was "converted to Christianity", in reality, he used so-called "Christianity" to keep his kingdom from suffering a serious split or division. His kingdom was declining and was being divided. He therefore employed the so-called Christian churches that existed everywhere to become his political support.

Constantine sensed that the “Christian” religion—albeit apostate and deeply corrupted by then—could be effectively utilized as a revitalizing and uniting force to serve his grand scheme for imperial domination. Adopting the foundations of apostate Christianity to gain support in furthering his own political ends, he decided to unify the people under one “catholic,” or universal, religion. Pagan customs and celebrations were given “Christian” names. And “Christian” clergymen were given the status, salary, and influential clout of pagan priests.

With the Arian controversy causing his kingdom to be divided, he was determined to unite the opposing factions at any cost. The continuing religious disputes of the relationship of the Son of God to Almighty God was creating a serious fracture in his kingdom. Hence, he called the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. to settle the matter. Being Pontifex Maximus, religious head of the Roman Empire, he used his powerful influence to sway many of the three hundred "bishops" that attended, offering them positions of power, prominence, and wealth as officers of the Roman State religion.

In order to resolve it to his satisfaction, he presided over the council, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, that of "one substance with the Father." The trinity formula was now taking shape. However, is this formula proposed by Constantine, who had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked, that Christ and God are equal, Scriptural ?

Jesus, in speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar concerning worshipping the Father, told her that "you worship what you do not know; we worship (Greek pro·sky·ne´o) what we know...the hour is coming...when true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth."(John 4:22, 23) Thus, Jesus included himself among those who ' worshipped the Father with spirit and truth.' This one Scripture alone provides evidence that Jesus is not God, but rather is among the throng of individuals who worship the Father. This coincides with Jesus words he told to Mary upon his resurrection, saying that "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and to your God."(John 20:17) Hence, Jesus worships the Father and thus has a God, who he so often called "my Father".(Matt 7:21; 10:32)

That is neither here notr there but the history that I read was that He prayed to Yahweh for victory in battle and won. Upon seeing his prayer answered He converted to Christianity and proclaimed his empire a Christian empire.

Your conclusion is false for two reasons. First Jesus is using the "we" to signify Jews in general. Since Jesus is Jewish He can do that. Second there is no reason why God could not consider Himself as God (I have argued this before). The assumption that he can't makes no sense to me whatever. Is God going to deny Himself? I never see Him doing that. He always seems to procalim Himself in my view. Is self worship a bad thing? I don't see how it can be in God's case.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That is neither here notr there but the history that I read was that He prayed to Yahweh for victory in battle and won. Upon seeing his prayer answered He converted to Christianity and proclaimed his empire a Christian empire.
Your conclusion is false for two reasons. First Jesus is using the "we" to signify Jews in general. Since Jesus is Jewish He can do that. Second there is no reason why God could not consider Himself as God (I have argued this before). The assumption that he can't makes no sense to me whatever. Is God going to deny Himself? I never see Him doing that. He always seems to procalim Himself in my view. Is self worship a bad thing? I don't see how it can be in God's case.

Who does the heavenly resurrected Jesus say is his God at Revelation 3v12?

Did Jesus resurrect himself to heaven? There is no Scripture that says Jesus resurrected himself out of hell but that God resurrected him. Acts 2vs27,31,32

Doesn't the heavenly Jesus still consider himself to be the Son of God at Rev. 2v18?

Who are the two [2] thrones for at Rev. 3v21 if self-worship is involved?

 

[Muffled]

Who does the heavenly resurrected Jesus say is his God at Revelation 3v12?

Did Jesus resurrect himself to heaven? There is no Scripture that says Jesus resurrected himself out of hell but that God resurrected him. Acts 2vs27,31,32

Doesn't the heavenly Jesus still consider himself to be the Son of God at Rev. 2v18?

Who are the two [2] thrones for at Rev. 3v21 if self-worship is involved?[/quote]

Obviously you aren't listening because I have stated more than once previously that it doesn't make any difference as to whether Jesus is God in the flesh or not.

What is your point, Jesus and the Father are one? A dead body that the Spirit of God has already left can't resurrect itself but it isn't the body that gives Him His identity but the Spirit of God that dwelt within the body.

Yes and there is no problem with that.

It is difficult for me to understand what point you are trying to make here. One throne is in Heaven; the other on earth.

 

[Muffled]

You understood me wrong

When we commit sins there isnt a divine part in us which do the same thing ( since we're one), and when we do fulfill our toilet needs , there isnt a divine part in us which is doing the same , it wouldnt be called a divine part in this case;

Hope its clear now

What you mnean is that the presence of God does not mean control over the person, otherwise the sin would not be committed.

Jesus is under the control of the spirit within and that spirit is The Spirit of God, so He does not sin. However the body has a mind and will of its own and often enough that is in conflict with the mind and will of the spirit. However Jesu said "be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." The mind of the body is worldly.