Did Jesus say he was God???

[look3467]

This quote is very telling of what was going. Jesus seemed to always be about forgiveness and even about loving thy enemy. He is asking god to forgive someone who is harming his son. Would god have forgiven if Jesus had not asked? Maybe maybe not but it is a clear attempt to bring about a forgiving god. If god can forgive for harming his own son god can forgive for anything but it doesn't mean that god couldn't have done it prior to sacrificing his son. I doubt it had to be that drastic as Jesus was already preaching of love and forgiveness and that quote only shows the same qualities he had been displaying throughout his ministry. It doesn't mean Jesus needed to be god to do this especially if he is asking God to do the forgiving.

Let's look at the two thief's on the cross with Jesus. Did they have any forgiveness in their heart? About the closest one came to was in stating that this man had done nothing wrong.

The point is that mankind can not forgive to the degree that God can. Jesus understood at that point the object of His mission, thus fulfilling all prophecy.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The part in red, was the fulfillment of that prophecy when Jesus made the statement.

Blessings, AJ

 

[idav]

Let's look at the two thief's on the cross with Jesus. Did they have any forgiveness in their heart? About the closest one came to was in stating that this man had done nothing wrong.

The point is that mankind can not forgive to the degree that God can. Jesus understood at that point the object of His mission, thus fulfilling all prophecy.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The part in red, was the fulfillment of that prophecy when Jesus made the statement.

Blessings, AJ

How is that fulilling prophecy when Jacob is supposed to have been able to do the same thing, being the light of the gentiles and bringing salvation. It isn't a god thing it is a line of David thing.

Isaiah 49
5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am[a] honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

 

[javajo]

Jesus gave doubting Thomas a mild rebuke at John 20v29.
John is clear that what he wrote at verse 31 that he [John] wrote was so that we might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...

Lets examine that. Here is some of the passage:

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

What was the rebuke? There was none. He just said because he saw him he believed. And said there is a blessing to those who believe, having not seen him. Now you stopped short when you say it was written that we may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; for it goes on to say that if we believe we will have life through him. We who did not see him after he rose from the dead are blessed if we heed his words and believe on him for eternal life.

Just because doubting Thomas exclaimed My Lord and my God did not mean he was addressing Jesus directly because even today we hear on news reports of people exclaiming, "O my God" and we know they are not calling the reporter as God, but calling out to God.

People don't realize they are using God's name in vain when they say that. They are not using it with a filth or curse word, but they are using his holy name in a common way. Same as when someone uses Jesus Christ in a common way. Thomas was exclaiming that Jesus is his Lord and his God. Like me, if I say, "Jesus Christ is my God", that's fine. But if I say, "Jesus, she's hot, oh my God!", that is using his name in vain and he won't hold those guiltless who use his name in vain.

The resurrected Jesus made it quite clear at John [20v17] that he still has a God over him. What does Jesus say at Revelation 3v12 ?

Jesus, the Son of God is God Incarnate, God in the flesh, Emmanuel, which means God with us. As John says in the first chapter the Word (Jesus), was with God and the Word WAS God. He was the only begotten of God. Not a created angel, he was (is) God's Son and is God. God is made up of three persons, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Anyway, the Bible is very clear on the Deity of Christ. If you don't believe Christ is God, you have a problem with the Bible, not me.

 

[InChrist]

Saying that humans can't accomplish that is pretty sad especially with being created in Gods image. Furthermore I don't see why he couldn't just be the Son of God to do it. I wonder, when God has a son does he automatically become God or does God have to bestow the title onto his son?

I believe the scriptures portray Jesus as the eternal Son, who at a point in our time became human. He has always had the eternal nature, attributes, and characteristics of God the Father. As a human son has his father's human nature, the Son of God has God the Father's nature. Human nature if finite and God's nature is infinite. Although humans are made in His image to the extent that we can think, feel, choose, create, etc. we do not possess certain powers and abilities that only Go does. Humans having inherited a sin nature from Adam are incapable of living a life of perfection as Christ being God was able to do.

 

[look3467]

How is that fulilling prophecy when Jacob is supposed to have been able to do the same thing, being the light of the gentiles and bringing salvation. It isn't a god thing it is a line of David thing.

Isaiah 49
5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am[a] honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

All stories whether real or not are a picture of Christ.

Jesus is the center of all there is, the actual beginning of life.

A type of Christ is what all those stories depict.

All prophecy is a lie until it is made truth in fulfillment.

Some prophecy was for the times and others for the times of Christ.

Some came as warning while those of Christ were yet to be fulfilled until His advent.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

I believe the scriptures portray Jesus as the eternal Son, who at a point in our time became human. He has always had the eternal nature, attributes, and characteristics of God the Father. As a human son has his father's human nature, the Son of God has God the Father's nature. Human nature if finite and God's nature is infinite. Although humans are made in His image to the extent that we can think, feel, choose, create, etc. we do not possess certain powers and abilities that only Go does. Humans having inherited a sin nature from Adam are incapable of living a life of perfection as Christ being God was able to do.

I agree with you in all except for the following: "... Humans having inherited a sin nature from Adam"...

What we inherited is the enabling condition for sin, and not Adams sin.

However, Adam was enabled and so are we.

That is what we inherited, and we are accountable for our own sins and not of our fathers.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Lets examine that. Here is some of the passage:

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

What was the rebuke? There was none. He just said because he saw him he believed. And said there is a blessing to those who believe, having not seen him. Now you stopped short when you say it was written that we may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; for it goes on to say that if we believe we will have life through him. We who did not see him after he rose from the dead are blessed if we heed his words and believe on him for eternal life.

People don't realize they are using God's name in vain when they say that. They are not using it with a filth or curse word, but they are using his holy name in a common way. Same as when someone uses Jesus Christ in a common way. Thomas was exclaiming that Jesus is his Lord and his God. Like me, if I say, "Jesus Christ is my God", that's fine. But if I say, "Jesus, she's hot, oh my God!", that is using his name in vain and he won't hold those guiltless who use his name in vain.

Jesus, the Son of God is God Incarnate, God in the flesh, Emmanuel, which means God with us. As John says in the first chapter the Word (Jesus), was with God and the Word WAS God. He was the only begotten of God. Not a created angel, he was (is) God's Son and is God. God is made up of three persons, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Anyway, the Bible is very clear on the Deity of Christ. If you don't believe Christ is God, you have a problem with the Bible, not me.

My friend, that is basic Christianity of which if that is all you believed you'd be safe, secure and with life everlasting.

For those who want to engage in deeper thoughts without loosing sight of those basic beliefs can, and still be safe and secure with life everlasting.

I stand on a firm foundation I have not built, for someone greater than I has, and I will stand on it with all that is within me.

If some don't believe in God, you suppose that would make God's love of non-effect?

What if God has concluded "all" in unbelief?

Would that mean that believer and non-believer are equally favored?

Did the father in the story of the Prodigal son favor one son over the other?

Did he no love both the same?

Love is in the power of God to give to whomever He pleases, even to them that don't deserve it.

Who are we to judge who they are as if we had power to judge in God's behalf.

We do have the power to witness to the world with our living the love of God causing God to draw many to us for demonstration of His love.

If we fail, it is not because God failed, but it is us that failed.

Blessings, AJ

 

[idav]

I believe the scriptures portray Jesus as the eternal Son, who at a point in our time became human. He has always had the eternal nature, attributes, and characteristics of God the Father. As a human son has his father's human nature, the Son of God has God the Father's nature. Human nature if finite and God's nature is infinite. Although humans are made in His image to the extent that we can think, feel, choose, create, etc. we do not possess certain powers and abilities that only Go does. Humans having inherited a sin nature from Adam are incapable of living a life of perfection as Christ being God was able to do.

Your reciting from the creed not from scripture. Son doesn't automatically have the fathers nature otherwise the designation of 'son' would not be worth mentioning. Being the Son of God is worth mentioning and is significant.

All stories whether real or not are a picture of Christ.

Jesus is the center of all there is, the actual beginning of life.

A type of Christ is what all those stories depict.

All prophecy is a lie until it is made truth in fulfillment.

Some prophecy was for the times and others for the times of Christ.

Some came as warning while those of Christ were yet to be fulfilled until His advent.

Blessings, AJ

Sure when Isaiah has to do with the actual times it is multifaceted and other times it is prophesy? You have to jump through hoops to make that factual for Isaiah. The truth is that it is significant that the line of Jesus came from that of Jacob. It really didn't matter that Jesus wasn't God because he came from a line of humans chosen by God to bring salvation. God had already purified that line without the need for the sacrifice. Gods forgiveness, especially in the OT, was contingent on the Fathers will nothing else and especially not human sacrifice.

 

[look3467]

Sure when Isaiah has to do with the actual times it is multifaceted and other times it is prophesy? You have to jump through hoops to make that factual for Isaiah. The truth is that it is significant that the line of Jesus came from that of Jacob. It really didn't matter that Jesus wasn't God because he came from a line of humans chosen by God to bring salvation. God had already purified that line without the need for the sacrifice. Gods forgiveness, especially in the OT, was contingent on the Fathers will nothing else and especially not human sacrifice.>>>idav

But it does matter is the whole point of this discussion.

I will agree with you on this line... "because he came from a line of humans chosen by God to bring salvation"...as being the status of angels.

In other words, they were doing God's bidding in the offering of Jesus.

Hence, "They know not what they do".

Blessings, AJ

 

[Falcon]

Rev1; 18 -God says He is the " Alpha and the Omega " In Rev. 22v13 Jesus also says He is the " Alpha and Omega " , the First and the Last , the beginning and the end " The only conclusion is that Jesus is God, unless you believe that Jesus lied .
Rev. 1v 17- Jesus again says that " I am the First and the Last , I am alive for evermore "

 

[idav]

But it does matter is the whole point of this discussion.

I know yet is seems like your ignoring my points. Everytime I make a point you tell me more of the different trinity propaganda. No matter, I've shown more than several points that explain away the scripture without having to first assume the Nicene Creed to be factual.

 

[look3467]

Rev1; 18 -God says He is the " Alpha and the Omega " In Rev. 22v13 Jesus also says He is the " Alpha and Omega " , the First and the Last , the beginning and the end " The only conclusion is that Jesus is God, unless you believe that Jesus lied .
Rev. 1v 17- Jesus again says that " I am the First and the Last , I am alive for evermore "

No argument there with any of it.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

I know yet is seems like your ignoring my points. Everytime I make a point you tell me more of the different trinity propaganda. No matter, I've shown more than several points that explain away the scripture without having to first assume the Nicene Creed to be factual.

That's fine. Lets agree to disagree. I see your point because i was there to. But now I see things differently and to my understanding more in tone with the works of God.

Blessings, AJ

 

[InChrist]

Your reciting from the creed not from scripture. Son doesn't automatically have the fathers nature otherwise the designation of 'son' would not be worth mentioning. Being the Son of God is worth mentioning and is significant.

What creed? I don't read creeds, only the scriptures. The Son would automatically have the same nature of God if He is co-eternal as I believe the scriptures indicate and Son may be worth mentioning to show the relational aspect within the Godhead. At least God thought it was important enough to mention in His Word.

 

[javajo]

What creed? I don't read creeds, only the scriptures. The Son would automatically have the same nature of God if He is co-eternal as I believe the scriptures indicate and Son may be worth mentioning to show the relational aspect within the Godhead. At least God thought it was important enough to mention in His Word.

I agree, The Son, the Only Begotten of the Father (begotten, not made), full of grace and truth, who was with God and was God, who created all things and by whom all things consist is fully God according to scripture.

 

[Shermana]

John 1:1c should read as "A god", along with 10:33, as it is in Acts 12:22.

 

[javajo]

John 1:1c should read as "A god", along with 10:33, as it is in Acts 12:22.

In Acts 12, people were saying," He ( Herod) is a god!" and thus not giving God the glory, for which God immediately killed him and he was consumed by worms.

If you read the Greek, there is no indefinite article. No 'a'. Never at all in Greek. Only the definite article 'the' occurs in the Greek language. The JW's do this same thing and add 'other' where it does not exist in the Greek in Colossians 1:16. This makes Jesus another God beside God and that is polytheism. Jesus is God. And there is only one. John 1:1 - Is Christ the Logos God?

 

[Shermana]

In Acts 12, people were calling Herod a god and thus not giving God the glory, for which God immediately killed him and he was consumed by worms.

If you read the Greek, there is no indefinite article. No 'a'. Never at all in Greek. Only the definite article 'the' occurs in the Greek language. The JW's do this same thing and add 'other' where it does not exist in the Greek in Colossians 1:16. This makes Jesus another God beside God and that is polytheism. Jesus is God. And there is only one. John 1:1 - Is Christ the Logos God?

Non trinitarian Translations of John 1:1

Yes, there is no indefinite article in Greek. But how we read it in English is different. Are you aware that there is a definite article almost every time before Theon or Theos in all other places? Do you know what Anarthrous means? There is a definite article however in 1:1b, and "Calwell's rule" is not really a rule but an opinion and one that has been quietly laid to rest by the recent Christian community once the scholars exposed all the times it doesn't apply. Basically Calwell's "rule" was aimed squarely at John 1:1c, and ended up failing on every occasion where it was used elsewhere, thus the "rule" does not apply.

You do not understand what Polytheism actually is. Who is the "god of this age" in 2 Corinthians 4:4? Polytheism is the placing of multiple gods as the ultimate god.

The word "god" is used for Angels. What does John 10:34-35 say? Are you disagreeing with Jesus when he says that the Israelites themselves are called "gods"? What then of the Angels who are called "Heavenly Beings" and "Sons of G-d"? The word "god" means Angels in Psalms 136:2 and Psalms 86:1. This does not mean they are HIGHER than G-d the "god of the gods".


There is no god higher than god, that is the concept. Serving any god other than the Most high god (as he is called the "Most high god" for a reason) lies in the sin. Not the acceptance of the existence of beings known as "Elohim".

Do you think the NLT's translation of 2 Cor 4:4 is incorrect?

The word "god" is the problem, and understanding its use as a nominative or possessive becomes tricky for those who don't understand what "Monotheism" actually means.

Judaism, as many schoalrs admit, is more HENOtheistic than Monotheistic. We accept the EXISTENCE of other beings called "gods", just as Paul says there are beings called "gods and lords", but they are not THE god and lord, which is what the Definite article is used for in most cases. (There are exceptions). This shows up in Hebrew at times with "Ha" such as "Elohei ha-elohim" where unlike the Greek, it is used to signify the actual plural (as opposed to the majestic plural singular use of Elohim).

And going by the Syriac Pe****ta, 1:1c uses "Eloah" which is the Singular, but "Elohim" in 1:1b.

Also, it helps to have a working understanding of Philo's "Logos Theology" which Anatolian Jews back in the day were well familar with. "Firstborn among Creation".

 

[look3467]

Note: The requirement for rescuing the world rest solely on God as He is the one who created it.

As a created beings born after the spirit of Adam (Adam's offspring) we have no power to effect a change in the creative process of God. Ref: Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Nor are we above our God.

So our case is hopeless.

Unless....ummm unless, God do it for us?

Bingo! God did it for us in Jesus! As God then God performs His own work in Jesus.

So, unless any one out there can come up with a type of Jesus not as God, to do "the" work of God, bring him on!

Blessings, AJ

 

[Protester]

I agree with Terrywoodenpic and I will add that you say it is overwhelming evidence and then proceed to give the your evidence as hearsay. It would never hold up in court.

Dr. John Weldon is a lawyer and helped write, The Case for Jesus the Messiah - Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists/Part 4 - JASWiki and The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ/Part 2 - JASWiki plus what you are probably looking for would Jesus Resurrection (and thus the proof of his divinity stand up in a court of law. The above link gets you to part two but you can also link to part 1 and it does have to do with what a lawyer and lawyers think about the case for Jesus being the Messiah. Sorry about that I still can't get to part 1! But part two does stand on its own.) {Terry I think I finally got it! Dr. Weldon describes the finding of some learned Englishmen on the topic of, The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus ChristPart I— Can It Persuade Skeptics?
I think you'll find this PDF file quite interesting.]
Does the Evidence For the Resurrection Offer Proof That Jesus Rose From the Dead?

But too many of you do not want to believe what the Bible says, and keep asking, How Accurate is the Bible? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site, it is very accurate.

And for alleged errors in the Bible I would suggest you look over this series, as these rather short commentaries give a good overview on the attacks on the accuracy of the Bible.

Alleged Errors in the Bible -- Part 1

Alleged Errors in the Bible - Part II

Alleged Errors in the Bible -- Part III

Alleged Errors in the Bible -- Part IV