Did Jesus say he was God???

[look3467]

Okay, so like I said, you must have completely ripped James out.

No, but are you saying that the whole of the bible rests on the book of James alone?

If I were building a house and bought the printed plans as a completion for a whole house, and the plans stated that I should work with the contractors as a requirement, would you say it is something similar to the book of James?

I mean if I were buying the faith plus works view.

But what if I bought the plans without my work requirement, having faith alone that the contractors would Finnish the house well, wouldn't that accomplish the same thing?

I mean I would have to place my faith in the contractors to do a good job right?

Jesus is the contractor who contracted to do a job for the Father, build the Fathers house of which we are.
The work done in building the house is Jesus, who makes us His building blocks.
He is the mortar that glues all the blocks together.

Now, as for our works, well, there are blocks which are specialty blocks, support blocks, unseen blocks, surface beautifying blocks, side walk blocks.

The story of the Potter portrays that very picture.

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Does Pharaohs works matter in the following scripture? Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

What power did Pharaoh have not to do what God raised him up to do?

Would you say Pharaoh soul went to hell because of his works of which he had no control over?

I mean when God says "for this same purpose have I raised thee up", what choice did Pharaoh have?

What choice did the Jews have in rejecting Jesus? Were they not commanded to do so?
Num 5:29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
Jesus is the "another".

Was not Jesus accused of blasphemy? Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Jesus was a stranger and was accused of blasphemy and by law was put to death.

Can you follow the logic there?

Pharaoh, the Jews, the Roman soldiers who placed Jesus on the cross, the high priests who accused Jesus and condemned Him to death, are they not all one and the same in the fulfillment of the crucifixion of Jesus?

Can it be not seen here as the work of God in progress to bring about the salvation of mankind?

So why the emphasizes on personal works when God's works is what granted us salvation?

And did not Jesus say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do?

If they knew what they were doing, guess what? Jesus would have never been crucified, and you and I would still be lost.

Faith is exercised with the heart, not with the body. The body exercise is a resultant of the faith exercised within, a change of heart, a rebirth of one's spirit, all done in the spirit without the body.

Works in the flesh die with the body, but the renewed spirit lives on because of the works of the Father in Jesus.

Once, one is able to understand that, then faith is grounded, unshakable, solid as a rock, unmovable and not effected by anything earthly to effect a change that God has instituted in our hearts.

I can talk to anyone, regardless of religious beliefs, and not be offended or offend because I understand the works of God in loving all of humanity as His creation.

blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

What you are basically saying

"Ignore James and all the verses you posted by Paul, you don't think the Bible goes by those verses alone do you? You can just ignore them as if they don't exist and go by this Theology here which I barely use any verses, and if that, rarely in context."

Essentially, your whole argument is "Yes I include James....but I don't, because all these other verses trump and negate it".

Typical Antinomian Logic, I'm used to it.

Why don't you tell us how exactly you do include James since you say you didn't rip it out. Do you just relegate it something you read but don't actually apply?

There are several single passages or verses that define many key points of Theology, and this seems to obviously apply to you, so why do you brush off James while accepting just a few passages here and there that aren't even in context for your own?

You still have yet to explain the whole "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" thing, you made it out like it was a choice for someone "in a bind" without any further details.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dirty Penguin:

This would really be as bad as a quotation from Shirley McLane!

Romans 1
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith. 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;
19because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

Seeing as though you're new here I first would like to welcome you.

Now, the quote from Jodi Foster will be displayed every time I post because it's in my signature section. The focus of this thread is not to debate whether "God" exist or not. For the sake of this particular thread I'm going on the assumption that "God" actually does exist. The question is did the biblical Yeshua ever express in any of the 4 gospels or in the book of Revelation he is "God". So far the answer to this question is (NO).....As far as that signature of mine...let's just say neither you nor I can show evidence that your god exist or does not exist. This fact transcends all of the religions on this planet. You can believe in the existence of your god but it hardly diminishes the beliefs others have that they believe their god(s) exist.

 

[Falcon]

Jesus certainly did indicate that He was God in the four Gospels and also in the Book of Revelation, you forget that there is only 'one " correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and that correct interpretation was understood by the early Christians , they would have known how to distinguish Canonical from erroneous writings, this interpretation and that interpretation alone is the only way the Holy Bible was intended by the copyiers and those that selected which Books would comprise our completed Bible. There is no such thing as private correct interpretation unless it is revealed by those ''teachers with authority " that have passed on up through the centuries that exact same correct interpretation /correct understanding of Scripture , all of this is explained via Bible passages. God intended that His Word be interpreted as One True Interpretation ,not as we find today with approximately 30,000 different conlicting interpretations and unfortunately still growing and with each new split from one of the Protestant groups become more watered- down and moving further away from the true Interpretation of the gospel. One flock , One Shepherd, That One Shepherd has the same commands for all of His sheep in His One Flock . Man is the inventor of confusion ,God isn't.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus never indicated he was G-d, he indicated he was the Son of G-d and the promised Moshiach as written in the Scriptures.

That correct interpretation was held by the Arians perhaps? You have yet to understand apparently that the "Early Christians" go back to 30 A.D. and the 300 A.D. ones were more "late early". You also don't seem to get that not all of them agreed and that there were numerous competing beliefs. The "Early Christians" never discussed the Trinity until Tertullian, there is a 150 year gap and it was invented by gentile converts, not the original Nazarenes. You hold a lot more stock in the Nicea council than they deserve.

You're right that man is the inventor of Confusion, such as when they added parts to 1 John 5:7 and such.

You say there is no such thing as a "Private interpretation", so which organization has this correct interpretation?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus certainly did indicate that He was God in the four Gospels and also in the Book of Revelation, you forget that there is only 'one " correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and that correct interpretation was understood by the early Christians , they would have known how to distinguish Canonical from erroneous writings, this interpretation and that interpretation alone is the only way the Holy Bible was intended by the copyiers and those that selected which Books would comprise our completed Bible. There is no such thing as private correct interpretation unless it is revealed by those ''teachers with authority " that have passed on up through the centuries that exact same correct interpretation /correct understanding of Scripture , all of this is explained via Bible passages. God intended that His Word be interpreted as One True Interpretation ,not as we find today with approximately 30,000 different conlicting interpretations and unfortunately still growing and with each new split from one of the Protestant groups become more watered- down and moving further away from the true Interpretation of the gospel. One flock , One Shepherd, That One Shepherd has the same commands for all of His sheep in His One Flock . Man is the inventor of confusion ,God isn't.

What Shermana said.

And I also have to add this...I've given you the correct understanding of your bible plenty of times. No, Yeshua is not "God". It wasn't something he taught his followers. They thought he was the son, servant or and/or ambassador sent from "God". The devil did not think Yeshua was "God". Nowhere in the 4 gospels do any of the verses reveal Yeshua as such nor is it in the book of Revelation. You've shown yourself to have a great lack of knowledge of your scripture and the history surrounding them.

 

[Falcon]

Penguin, where did you get your authority to say that you have the correct interpretation? Please show me Book, Chapter and Verse , where it says that any individual is correct "by private interpretation ' .I'll be waiting for your unBiblical answer !

 

[look3467]

Essentially, your whole argument is "Yes I include James....but I don't, because all these other verses trump and negate it".>>>Shermana

Pretty simple logic really. If one comes from the point of view that works are essential in obtaining one's salvation, then one's salvation rests solely on the individual.

If works is the tell-tell sign for having gained our salvation, then Christ needed not be crucified.

But if faith alone, with a change of heart, the tell-tell sign will be noted.

Then Christs faith alone is what works we rest in.

In order for that to happen, God alone is totally responsible for our salvation.

blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

The devil did not think Yeshua was "God">>>Dirty Penguin

Whose side are you on?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

Penguin, where did you get your authority to say that you have the correct interpretation? Please show me Book, Chapter and Verse , where it says that any individual is correct "by private interpretation ' .I'll be waiting for your unBiblical answer !

Whose interpretation is not private? Do you have a specific organization in mind?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Penguin, where did you get your authority to say that you have the correct interpretation?

We all have the authority. You quoted a couple of spurious verses that I happened to correct for you.

Please show me Book, Chapter and Verse , where it says that any individual is correct "by private interpretation ' .

You first...

We all have our own private interpretation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Whose side are you on?

Blessings, AJ

I take no sides. I'm as neutral as it gets.

 

[Protester]

This is a misinterpretation of the "Logos Theology" of Philo which Paul and John's readers were well familiar with, indeed, it was through the Logos that all things were made. The Father however was the Overseer.

That the angels were involved in Creation with the "Let us" was ancient Jewish Theology that the Church tried to sweep aside. There's a reason they rarely mention Philo.

The very use of the word "Creator" can cause problems without this understanding.

"Wisdom" was the First made thing, and by "Wisdom" was all things made as said in Proverbs.

I see that many here have a hard time finding a copy of the ISBE? Guess! you can get a copy of the entire thing when you start using Bible programs like those from the Crosswire Bible society. So, just to give a tiny excerpt , as compared to whole article, this is a small part of what the ISBE has on Logos:

...The most probable view is that Philo and John found the same term current in Jewish and Gentile circles and used it to set forth their respective ideas; Philo, following his predilections for Greek philosophy, to give a Hellenic complexion to his theory of the relation of Divine Reason to the universe; John, true to ,his Hebrew instincts, seeing in the Logos the climax of that revelation of God to man of which the earlier Jewish theophanies were but partial expressions.....

and there is even a section on Philo, Judeaus a snippet:

...The result was Philo's peculiar type of theosophy--we cannot call it a system. Taking the Old Testament for text, he applied the "allegorical" method, with curious consequences. He taught that the Scriptures contain two meanings: a "lower" meaning, obvious in the literal statements of the text; and a "higher," or hidden meaning, perceptible to the "initiate" alone. In this way he found it possible to reconcile Greek intellectualism with Jewish belief.,,,

While both these entries are detailed they regrettably are not as good theologically speaking as the article on Interpretation, now that is one of the better the ISBE. (By the way such sites as the Blue Letter Bible has a searchable ISBE on their site.) Protestants of a conservative vein, believe in the literal, historical, grammatical form of interpretation and eschew allegory.:beach:

 

[Falcon]

Penguin, never have you properly refuted by verses presented to you.
On to the subject at hand.
Now Penguin I ask you if all religious matters are settled by the Bible , why didn't the apostles write down absolutely everything that Christ revealed to them ? Did not Christ trust the apostles, who were eyewitness to His works and words, to pass on the truth ? Did the apostles have to wait until the gospels were written before they started to preach ?
To prove to you that it is possible to misunderstand the Bible , I give you 2nd Peter 3: 16 and of course John 20: 30. And it's definitely not" Bible Alone " [ sola Scriptura ] you can find that to be true by reading 2nd Thess. 2:15.
Jesus in verse Matt. 18: 17 refers to His Apostolic ,Universal [ take notice - " existing then" ] that His Church alone is the highest authority on earth. The NT writers were familiar with this idea as well . In 1 Tim. 3: 15 St. Paul refers to the Church as the" pillar and foundation of truth "
Penguin, with this kind of Scriptural evidence , your evidence will prove to be errant without adequate Scriptural proof , your evidence will have no meaning because the evidence points to an authorative body on earth-- the Church.
Here is the clincher that you asked me for, it's found in 2 Peter 1: 20-21 ]. It explains that divine inspiration is not a matter of personal interpretation.
yes , you might throw out 2nd Tim; 3 ; 16-17 . Of course we as Catholics believe that all Scripture is inspired and useful for teaching .... but never does it say , it is all that is needed. Jesus does speak of His Apostolic Church as being 'Authorative' but never the Holy Bible. This isn't my saying but it is the saying of the Lord, so I trust the Lord's advice over my own private interpretation of Holy Scripture
To deny the existence of an earthly Authorative Church leaves us who are seeking the "real Truth " to our own wits about what is divinely revealed , and consequently to our own selves as a source of infallible truth. now we both know that isn't the way God planned it ,because if it was, Jesus would have never established His Church as having the absolute authority for us on earth until Jesus returns.

 

[look3467]

I take no sides. I'm as neutral as it gets.

The bible states: Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

So, no fence straddlers, ether or.

Either one is for Him or one is against Him.

If the Devil did not think Yeshua was/is God, then either we believe it or not.

There is no neutral position.

Either we believe Jesus was as God in human form or not.

..."I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot"...

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

Just because the Devil did not think Jesus was G-d, doesn't mean he is.

The Devil never says "You are not G-d", he is testing to see if Yashua is the Christ. If the Devil acknowledges that Yashua is the Christ, does that mean you don't believe that either? Be consistent.

 

[look3467]

Just because the Devil did not think Jesus was G-d, doesn't mean he is.

The Devil never says "You are not G-d", he is testing to see if Yashua is the Christ. If the Devil acknowledges that Yashua is the Christ, does that mean you don't believe that either? Be consistent.

The devil knew who Jesus was! Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

The question had to do with Jesus' ability to reject the conditions upon which all mankind were subjected to, to that of the Fathers will.

Can you name one individual in the whole of humanity, save Jesus who fulfilled that feat?

It was not that the devil knew not who Jesus was, but that he rightfully knew, for the supreme test could not be diminished one bit if Jesus, as God, was to conquer the whole world for the Father.

The question then had to be published as stated in order for Jesus to be victorious over the conditions mankind were subjected to at the cost of the souls of mankind.

That is what is the hidden meaning spiritually discerned.

Only as God could Jesus not be as Adam, meaning, as the dead Adam, but was as the new Adam, one with life, the life that only God has.

The new Adam was the price paid for the old Adam, thus redeeming the old Adam by renewal of the old Adams dead spirit, in the new Adam.

God doubles things twice before He brings it to pass.

1st Adam + 2nd Adam doubled = the third Adam, the new creature.

What is the number of a man? 6?
Double that 66

Now the third time God brings it to pass, the renewed 6.

So here is the formula:

1st Adam =life in the flesh + separation. (Death)
2nd Adam = God in the flesh = full redeeming power over separation (Death)
3rd Adam = the new Adam creation = sons of God, born again, no longer dead but alive.

So here you are: Born of the flesh (Old man) but separated from God (Dead in spirit)
When you are born again of God (New man) you are a new creature.

Bottom line.

Only God, as creator could save His own creation. Could mankind do it? Absolutely not!
But God as man could, which He did.

But because of fulfillment, Jesus could not claim glory until after His resurrection as victor.

Either one believes that Jesus was God or one doesn't.

The question to Jesus was posed to address that very fact.

blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

I think you're the only one who understands what you mean by that.

So once again, if the Devil agrees that Yashua is the "Son of G-d", does that mean you disbelieve it?

(PS "Son of G-d" is a title used for Angels in Job 2.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The bible states: Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

This means nothing to me. Neutral means just that. I'm strictly arguing on the grounds of theology. I don't have to take sides nor do I have to be a believer in any particular religion (i.e. Christianity, Judaism or Islam) in order to debate biblical subjects.

So, no fence straddlers, ether or.

Either one is for Him or one is against Him.

I'm neither. I know it's hard for you to accept but that's just how it is.

If the Devil did not think Yeshua was/is God, then either we believe it or not.

He didn't and you don't.

There is no neutral position.

Neutral for me but it wasn't for the devil. He knew Yeshua wasn't "God".

Either we believe Jesus was as God in human form or not.

I don't because your scriptures are clear on that fact.

 

[Protester]

The devil knew who Jesus was! Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Matthew 4
1Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2When he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was hungry afterward. 3The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

4But he answered, "“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”"

Christ came as a man, besides, as one theologian put it he deposited his powers to the Holy Spirit and Who held back those Godly powers except in those cases that Christ needed them to display --to men-- who He was and that His Word was true.

Christ answer was sufficient, he needed no powers to prove to Satan anything.

The question had to do with Jesus' ability to reject the conditions upon which all mankind were subjected to, to that of the Fathers will.

Can you name one individual in the whole of humanity, save Jesus who fulfilled that feat?

It was not that the devil knew not who Jesus was, but that he rightfully knew, for the supreme test could not be diminished one bit if Jesus, as God, was to conquer the whole world for the Father.

The question then had to be published as stated in order for Jesus to be victorious over the conditions mankind were subjected to at the cost of the souls of mankind.

That is what is the hidden meaning spiritually discerned.

Only as God could Jesus not be as Adam, meaning, as the dead Adam, but was as the new Adam, one with life, the life that only God has.

The new Adam was the price paid for the old Adam, thus redeeming the old Adam by renewal of the old Adams dead spirit, in the new Adam.

God doubles things twice before He brings it to pass.

1st Adam + 2nd Adam doubled = the third Adam, the new creature.

No third Adam, just the two, the 1st sinner and the Second who never sinned.

1 Corinthians 15

45So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49As we have borne the image of those made of dust, let’s also bear the image of the heavenly. 50Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can’t inherit the Kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.



What is the number of a man? 6?
Double that 66

Now the third time God brings it to pass, the renewed 6.

So here is the formula:

1st Adam =life in the flesh + separation. (Death)
2nd Adam = God in the flesh = full redeeming power over separation (Death)
3rd Adam = the new Adam creation = sons of God, born again, no longer dead but alive.

So here you are: Born of the flesh (Old man) but separated from God (Dead in spirit)
When you are born again of God (New man) you are a new creature.

Bottom line.

Only God, as creator could save His own creation. Could mankind do it? Absolutely not!
But God as man could, which He did.

But because of fulfillment, Jesus could not claim glory until after His resurrection as victor.

Either one believes that Jesus was God or one doesn't.

The question to Jesus was posed to address that very fact.

blessings, AJ

Scripture is used to interpret Scripture, also remember the principle of single meaning. Now let's look at what I consider an expert in at least defining what Interpretation is--though I'm tempted just to put up this who definition of Interpretation since where this came from the ISBE (See the site, Blue Letter Bible) because it is just really a great one on Interpretation, and I really don't consider everything in the ISBE either of equal quality or even that by the same author. The author of this one also did the one on allegory, which is quite good mind you, but still he saw allegory in a place or two that many conservative Baptists wouldn't.:no:

By the way D. Penguin please note the following commentary!

...But in regard to the material contents of the Scriptures, matters are different and the principles of interpretation must be different. God is the author of the Scriptures which He has given through human agencies. Hence, the contents of the Scriptures, to a great extent, must be far above the ordinary concepts of the human mind. When John declares that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to redeem it, the interpreter does not do justice to the writer if he finds in the word "God" only the general philosophical conception of the Deity and not that God who is our Father through Christ; for it was the latter thought that was in the mind of the writer when he penned these words. Thus, too, it is a false interpretation to find in "Our Father" anything but this specifically Biblical conception of God, nor is it possible for anybody but a believing Christian to utter this prayer (Mt 6:9) in the sense which Christ, who taught it to His disciples, intended.....

...Again, the principle of parallelism, not for illustrative but for argumentative purposes, is a rule that can, in the nature of the case, be applied to the interpretation of the Scriptures alone and not elsewhere. As the Scriptures represent one body of truth, though in a kaleidoscopic variety of forms, a statement on a particular subject in one place can be accepted as in harmony with a statement on the same subject elsewhere. In short, in all of those characteristics in which the Scriptures are unlike other literary productions, the principles of interpretation of the Scriptures must also be unlike those employed in other cases.....

....It is one of the characteristic and instructive features of the New Testament writers that they absolutely refrain from the allegorical method of interpretation current in those times, particularly in the writings of Philo. Not even Ga 4:22, correctly understood, is an exception, since this, if an allegorical interpretation at all, is an argumentum ad hominem. The sober and grammatical method of interpretation in the New Testament writers stands out, too, in bold and creditable contrast to that of the early Christian exegetes, even of Origen. Only the Syrian fathers seemed to be an exception to the fantasies of the allegorical methods. The Middle Ages produced nothing new in this sphere; but the Reformation, with its formal principle that the Bible and the Bible alone is the rule of faith and life, made the correct grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures practically a matter of necessity. ....G. H. Schodde

Anyway, D. Penguin, as far as Christians are concerned (conservative ones) a person cannot properly interpret Scripture unless he is a believer. As the Catholic readers of this response may note, Origin and Philo are swear words to the Fundamentalist.