Did Jesus say he was God???

[Popeyesays]

We only know the words of Jesus because of Tradition. If you don't trust Tradition you also can't trust that Jesus said those words.

Not so. If one believes that God protects His own word, and the words of Jesus are the words of God then traditional dogma cannot claim Scriptural authority.

One is faced with the simple fact that Paul's wordes are his own understanding of God's words and one is left with facing that Paul is commentary.

There is no guarantee of commentary, and the Council ofc Nicaea cannot declare commentary to be Revelation.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

Not so. If one believes that God protects His own word, and the words of Jesus are the words of God then traditional dogma cannot claim Scriptural authority.

One is faced with the simple fact that Paul's wordes are his own understanding of God's words and one is left with facing that Paul is commentary.

There is no guarantee of commentary, and the Council ofc Nicaea cannot declare commentary to be Revelation.

Regards,
Scott

And if you believe that God can protect a covenant with us then you believe that the Tradition of the Church is just as protected as the Order of the Baha'i Faith. If it is only His words that are protected (which is not what Christiantiy believes...that is a Baha'i concept, and an Islamic concept), then the words of Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ are all equally just commentary. If you believe that the Bible is inerrant and that you do not need the Church, which is even more radically sola scritupra than most Protestants, then you encourage Biblioidolatry, elevating the book to the status of God.

The Church picked Scripture that was inspired to reveal God's nature.

You can't force the Baha'i hermeneutic on the Christian religion.

You are of course free to believe anything you wish about the Bible. But it seems to me you are violating your own pricniple about not telling others that your interpreratation is correct and Christians are wrong. Likewise, you are encouraging Christians to "think for themselves" and feel free to come to conclusions other than what the Church has taught, while the same encouragement to Baha'is could lead them to be disenrolled.

Aside to Art: I was not trying to misrepresent the Baha'i view of Jesus, but it is closer to the Arian view than it is to the Trinitarian view, as this thread shows. I believe I've read Baha'i commentary (by Abdul Baha) that says the Arians were correct in their understanding of God but they were wrong to try to disunite the faith: it's better to be united in error than disunited with some right and some wrong.

 

[arthra]

Etu Malku:

Well the Gospel story is that Jesus wrote somethiing in the sand and those who were going to stone the woman caught in adultery walked away... must have something pretty powerful I'd say. My view is that the teachings of Jesus are contained in the Gospels and these were passed down until finally translated into Koine Greek and written down... The reason for this I believe is that Jesus lived in an Aramaic culture in and around Galilee that was mostly verbal. The scribes and tax collectors wrote things down. Beware of those who carry notebooks and constantly scribble...

- Art

 

[arthra]

Luna moth wrote:

Aside to Art: I was not trying to misrepresent the Baha'i view of Jesus, but it is closer to the Arian view than it is to the Trinitarian view, as this thread shows. I believe I've read Baha'i commentary (by Abdul Baha) that says the Arians were correct in their understanding of God but they were wrong to try to disunite the faith: it's better to be united in error than disunited with some right and some wrong.
__________________


Luna:

I don't recall anywhere from my reading that "says the Arians were correct in their understanding of God". Could you support that with a source?

It appears like you are implying that Baha'i Faith is an Arian heresy...

- Art

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

[/color]

I didn't have to because he shows us in these verses that he isn't God. The "Son of God" is clearly different than "God the son"

That's your interpretation.

I agree with you here but I disagree with you that I interperted the passages to say he wasn't God.

You agree that we interpret everything we read, but disagree that you interpret these verses, which you read??

There was no need to do that. He said God sent him to do, not his will, but the will of God.

Yes, God the Father.

He says this over and over...He said he was commanded by God to say the things he did.....

Yes, God the Father.

The holy spirit decended upon Jesus and (God spoke from the heavens)

Yes, God the Father. Are you seeing it yet. The fact that Jesus was sent by God the Father and obeyed Him (obviously, since God cannot contradict Himself) does not mean that Jesus is not God the Son. Such verses do nothing to further your case.

I believe honoring and worshiping are two seperate acts. I believe it to mean to (respect)

I you take that verse to mean that you would worship Jesus then keep doing what you do.

Once again, notice that you interpret these verses ("I believe"...). Are you an infallble interpreter of Scripture?

Seondly, there are different levels of honor. If you honor the Father to the point that you worship Him, Jesus demands the same. You do not give that to Him, and therefore disobey Him.

What verses show the deciples considered Jesus (God)?...Come on now. If you seriously believed they believed he was God then bring forth the biblical quotes.

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

"But Jesus answered them, 'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.' Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." John 5:17-18

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28

"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Acts 20:28

"of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." Romans 9:5

"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;" Colossians 2:9

"But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.' " Hebrews 1:8

There's several, and let's not forget the numerous times that Jesus is worshipped in Scripture: Matt. 2:2, 11; Matt. 8:2; Matt. 9:18; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 15:25; Matt. 20:20; Matt. 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Hebrews 1:6; Rev. 5:12-14.

So again, if the people who followed Jesus from the very beginning worshipped Him and believed Him to be God, why don't you?

 

[Popeyesays]

"And if you believe that God can protect a covenant with us then you believe that the Tradition of the Church is just as protected as the Order of the Baha'i Faith. If it is only His words that are protected (which is not what Christiantiy believes...that is a Baha'i concept, and an Islamic concept), then the words of Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ are all equally just commentary. If you believe that the Bible is inerrant and that you do not need the Church, which is even more radically sola scritupra than most Protestants, then you encourage Biblioidolatry, elevating the book to the status of God. "

In my estimation you have skipped a logical step here. That's a non-sequitur, The conclusion is not evident from the progression of argument. One and Two do not equal Four.

Tradition is constantly in danger of becoming "idle fancy" and "vain imagining". It is an invention of man, not Revelation.

It stretches to serve a purpose but it can never return to it's original shape.

BBy the way I googled Arian, Aryan, and Arius in True Seeker and found no matches. Right now I do not have access to Ocean.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Fervent God Seeker,

When Thomas says "My God" it is an expression of awe in finding Jesus before himself. It is not an assertion that Jesus is God.

Surely you have heard people express that in everyday life.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Fervent God Seeker,

When Thomas says "My God" it is an expression of awe in finding Jesus before himself. It is not an assertion that Jesus is God.

Sure it's an expression of awe; that doesn't deny the simple fact that he said it TO Jesus. He called Jesus his Lord and God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Fervent God Seeker,

When Thomas says "My God" it is an expression of awe in finding Jesus before himself. It is not an assertion that Jesus is God.

Surely you have heard people express that in everyday life.

Regards,
Scott

Thanks. You beat me to it.

 

[Sonic247]

My Lord and my God, if you think that is an expression one person would say to another then I wouldn't critisize other people interpretations.
(especially if they were Jewish)

 

[Popeyesays]

My Lord and my God, if you think that is an expression one person would say to another then I wouldn't critisize other people interpretations.
(especially if they were Jewish)

Why not? By using it without quote marks to delineate it as someone else's words, you just used it in just that manner to me.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Sure it's an expression of awe; that doesn't deny the simple fact that he said it TO Jesus. He called Jesus his Lord and God.

In your imagination, I'm sure. However, the words on the page do not uphold that point of view. The purpose of Taw'il is to broaden understanding, not narrow it.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Sonic247]

So do you think I was calling you that, I know you knew that I wasn't so why bring it up? Or are you saying that the mistake people make when they read the Bible?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Why not? By using it without quote marks to delineate it as someone else's words, you just used it in just that manner to me.

Regards,

Scott

It's a terribly ahistorical method of interpretation to assume that Jews 2,000 years ago used the phrase "My God" the same way that 21st century English-speakers do. The verse explicitly says that the phrase was directed TO Jesus.

 

[Popeyesays]

It's a terribly ahistorical method of interpretation to assume that Jews 2,000 years ago used the phrase "My God" the same way that 21st century English-speakers do. The verse explicitly says that the phrase was directed TO Jesus.

FGS,

Thomas was not speaking English. Nor was he speaking Koine.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

In your imagination, I'm sure.

LOL...if by "my imagination" you mean "the words on the page," you're absolutely right.

However, the words on the page do not uphold that point of view.

Sure they do. The verse says that Thomas said it TO Jesus, and I believe it; you don't.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FGS,

Thomas was not speaking English. Nor was he speaking Koine.

Regards,
Scott

I never said he was speaking English; it's your interpretation of these verses that assumes that since modern English-speakers use the phrase "My God" in a certain way, that such must be, and is in fact most likely, the way that a Jew 2,000 years ago meant it. It's ahistorical interpretation.

 

[Popeyesays]

"'S'wounds, he is b eing contrary."

Is a 13th century quotation in English. It means "By His wounds (on the cross), he is being contrary".

It is an oath, not an address to the person hearing the statement.

Thomas was swearing an oath by God and talking to Jesus at the same time.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

"'S'wounds, he is b eing contrary."

Is a 13th century quotation in English. It means "By His wounds (on the cross), he is being contrary".

It is an oath, not an address to the person hearing the statement.

Thomas was swearing an oath by God and talking to Jesus at the same time.

Regards,
Scott

Not only are the statements themselve fundamentally different gramattically (one is TO a person, one is about a 3rd party to someone else), but you're again attempting to use English to define a non-English phrase used by a 2,000 year old Jew. It's not gonna fly.

It IS an address directly to Jesus, as the verse explicitly states.

 

[Popeyesays]

So you say, that's an assertion, not a fact.

Let's put the verse in context:
16Jesus said unto her, "Mary!" She turned herself and said unto Him, "Rabboni!" (which is to say, "Master").


17Jesus said unto her, "Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say unto them, `I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"

18Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her.

19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in their midst and said unto them, "Peace be unto you."

20And when He had so said, He showed unto them His hands and His side. Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord.

21Then said Jesus to them again, "Peace be unto you. As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you."

22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

23Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25The other disciples therefore said unto him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said unto them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe."

26And after eight days the disciples were again within, and Thomas was with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be unto you."

27Then said He to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger and behold My hands, and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing."

28And Thomas answered and said unto Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Jesus said unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed."

Note, please Mary did not call Him God.

In Greek and English Lord does not equal GOD in semantic terms. It was a common phrase for a master.

The point of the whole exercise is the third verse in green. Thomas was expressing belief in both Jesus and God by the oath he swore.

I used the 21st century King James for clarity.

Regards,
Scott