Did Jesus say he was God???

[FerventGodSeeker]

You're doing it again. You will find (NOWHERE) in these postings where I said Jesus was not divine.

Divine...YES

Deity...NO

These verses do not preclude him being divine but they do preclude him being God. There's no doubt that he was divine and his divinity was given to him by God. He said he came from heaven to do a job for God. Being divine is not in question...Being God is.

You'll have to explain your definition of divinity if I'm going to comment there.

The question was asked and all I did was show the verses where Jesus gave a clear answer. To look past what he said in order for it to fit a trinity theory is speculation on your part.

I haven't looked past a thing. You have shown that Jesus was a man. Wow, great. It's what Trinitarians already believe. It is not mutually exclusive with His deity.

Is Jeus God in the Flesh?......NO

Interpretation.

John 20:17
Jesus saith 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.

Question...Why did He say, "My God, and your God"? Wouldn't the typical phraseology be "our God"? Why would He single the Father out as personally His own?

Again, John 5:18 has the answer: "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."

The verse shows exactly the opposite of what you claim it to; Jesus claimed a completely unique, intimate relationship with God the Father and made Himself equal to God in doing so.

John 7:28-29
7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Yes, "He" being God the Father...once again, this does not preclude the existence of God the Son.

There are plenty of instances where he said he is subservient and nowhere, he says he is God but the contrary.

Oh, please....I cited a whole litany of verses where Jesus Himself, and also His Apostles, said that He is God...even with the help of another you've responded to only 2 of them, and poorly at that. I have responded to all the verses you have cited.

Your assuming I'm talking about him being good or how he uses the word good in a particular context. I'm not. That verse shows that he does not think of himself as God or equal to God.

That's your interpretation. My point was that the statement is a hyperbole. Jesus here says only God is good and thus you assume that in saying so He is precluding Himself from being God....yet in other places He does in fact call Himself good, as well as others. So, once again, we see that the verse doesn't say what you'd like it to.

 

[Popeyesays]

Divine nature+ Jesus was OF God. To claim He WAS God is to deny the Oneness of God, which is proclaimed throughtout the TaNakh.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Divine nature+ Jesus was OF God. To claim He WAS God is to deny the Oneness of God, which is proclaimed throughtout the TaNakh.

God is One in the Old Testament in the same sense that is used of a man and his wife when they become "one" flesh in Genesis...does that mean that man and wife become one person? Obviously not, so that's hardly an argument against plurality of persons in the Godhead.

 

[Popeyesays]

God is One in the Old Testament in the same sense that is used of a man and his wife when they become "one" flesh in Genesis...does that mean that man and wife become one person? Obviously not, so that's hardly an argument against plurality of persons in the Godhead.

That is literalist malarkey in short.

You are also referring to the Old Testament which is a Christian text. I was refering to the TaNakh which is the Judaic text. The Old Testament is distorted by the Septaguint.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

You are also referring to the Old Testament which is a Christian text. I was refering to the TaNakh which is the Judaic text. The Old Testament is distorted by the Septaguint.

Regards,
Scott

I was referring to the Hebrew word for "one", not the Septuagint Greek. My point still stands.

 

[Popeyesays]

Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul and all your might - Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

The first law of Judaism is quoted above, your argument falls.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You'll have to explain your definition of divinity if I'm going to comment there.

Jesus' divinity was granted to him. All power that he had was given to him. I don't think that you and I are are in disagreement with that. If we are then you'll have to explain.

I haven't looked past a thing. You have shown that Jesus was a man. Wow, great. It's what Trinitarians already believe. It is not mutually exclusive with His deity.

Again, if you want to worship because you believe he is ZGod then as I have said befor.....Great...go for it.....As the scripture show he he is not a deity. Deity and divinity are totally different and one does not need the other. Divine he was...Deity he wasn't.

Question...Why did He say, "My God, and your God"? Wouldn't the typical phraseology be "our God"? Why would He single the Father out as personally His own?

I'll leave the interpertations up to you. The statememnt in itself shows that he is not God.

Again, John 5:18 has the answer: "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."

Yes. They misunderstood him too. They accused him making himself equal to God so he had to correct them because they were wrong.

John
5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

5:18 has nothing to do with answering 20:17. All he said was God is working here and I work. This was their misunderstanding and that's why he answered then saying he could do nothing by himself. That statement clears up him supposedbly being equal to God. That's why he said it. He furthur says whatever God does he does and God would show him greater things that they would marvel at.

The verse shows exactly the opposite of what you claim it to; Jesus claimed a completely unique, intimate relationship with God the Father and made Himself equal to God in doing so.

Again, This has been answered above. They accused him of being equal and he said he can do nothing without God thus showing he was not equal.

Yes, "He" being God the Father...once again, this does not preclude the existence of God the Son.

Oneness and (one in the same) are totally different.

Oh, please....I cited a whole litany of verses where Jesus Himself,

I'm sorry but youy really didn't. It's OK though. You continue to do what you do. I don't agree with it but to each his own.

 

[Muffled]

Divine nature+ Jesus was OF God. To claim He WAS God is to deny the Oneness of God, which is proclaimed throughtout the TaNakh.

Regards,
Scott

Jesus claimed to be Jehovah which is the name for the one true God and to be one with Him. This does not make God two or three.

Where is your Biblical proof for this statement?

 

[Muffled]

Jesus' divinity was granted to him. All power that he had was given to him. I don't think that you and I are are in disagreement with that. If we are then you'll have to explain.



Again, if you want to worship because you believe he is ZGod then as I have said befor.....Great...go for it.....As the scripture show he he is not a deity. Deity and divinity are totally different and one does not need the other. Divine he was...Deity he wasn't.




I'll leave the interpertations up to you. The statememnt in itself shows that he is not God.



Yes. They misunderstood him too. They accused him making himself equal to God so he had to correct them because they were wrong.

John
5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

5:18 has nothing to do with answering 20:17. All he said was God is working here and I work. This was their misunderstanding and that's why he answered then saying he could do nothing by himself. That statement clears up him supposedbly being equal to God. That's why he said it. He furthur says whatever God does he does and God would show him greater things that they would marvel at.



Again, This has been answered above. They accused him of being equal and he said he can do nothing without God thus showing he was not equal.




Oneness and (one in the same) are totally different.




I'm sorry but youy really didn't. It's OK though. You continue to do what you do. I don't agree with it but to each his own.

You are not leaving the interpretation up to us when you provide your own interpretation as fact. How did you arrive at this interpretation? What is your reasoning. I see nothing in the verse that suggests in any way that Jesus isn't God in the flesh.

 

[Popeyesays]

Jesus claimed to be Jehovah which is the name for the one true God and to be one with Him. This does not make God two or three.

Where is your Biblical proof for this statement?

The term "Jehovah" was not one that would have rolled out of the mouth of Jesus. There is no "J" sound in Hebrew/Syriac/Aramaic.

Not even in Greek for that matter--the Greek of the time.

Jehovah is a made up word to pronounce the Tetgragramaton in English The reason the name of God is a tetragramaton in the first place was to avoid making a word of it. It was not to be pronounced.

Are you aware of what the TaNakh is? It is the Hebrew text of what Christians call the Old Testament. The Christian Old Testament is not a faithful translation of the TaNakh Why? Because the translators of the Bible--the King James in particular--never opened the TaNakh, they relied upon the Greek translation called the Septaguint.

A majority of the Rabbis of tghe time were highly offended that someone would translate the TaNakh at all. The Rabbis of the time who actually spoke Greek with fluency were shocked by the inaccuracies of the translation in particular.

Deuteronomy in the TaNakh has this to say about the possibility of God being divided into three separate facets.

SHEMA YISROEL, AD-DO-NOI ELO-HAI-NOO, AH-DO-NOI ECHOD.

"Hear O Israel, G-d is our L-rd, G-d is One." (Deuteronomy 6:4)​

This is the first law of Judaism, the one recitation every Jew is called upon to repeat each day.

"God i9s our Lord."

"God is One."

God is not "three".

Jesus said He came not to change the law as written by Moses, and He did not.
Why would He break this ONE law.

Regards,
Scott

 

[love]

God could never bleed. The Spirit of God became flesh in the body of Jesus Christ. Add it up anyway you want to.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The term "Jehovah" was not one that would have rolled out of the mouth of Jesus. There is no "J" sound in Hebrew/Syriac/Aramaic.

Not even in Greek for that matter--the Greek of the time.

Jehovah is a made up word to pronounce the Tetgragramaton in English The reason the name of God is a tetragramaton in the first place was to avoid making a word of it. It was not to be pronounced.

Are you aware of what the TaNakh is? It is the Hebrew text of what Christians call the Old Testament. The Christian Old Testament is not a faithful translation of the TaNakh Why? Because the translators of the Bible--the King James in particular--never opened the TaNakh, they relied upon the Greek translation called the Septaguint.

A majority of the Rabbis of tghe time were highly offended that someone would translate the TaNakh at all. The Rabbis of the time who actually spoke Greek with fluency were shocked by the inaccuracies of the translation in particular.

Deuteronomy in the TaNakh has this to say about the possibility of God being divided into three separate facets.

SHEMA YISROEL, AD-DO-NOI ELO-HAI-NOO, AH-DO-NOI ECHOD.

"Hear O Israel, G-d is our L-rd, G-d is One." (Deuteronomy 6:4)​

This is the first law of Judaism, the one recitation every Jew is called upon to repeat each day.

"God i9s our Lord."

"God is One."

God is not "three".

Jesus said He came not to change the law as written by Moses, and He did not.
Why would He break this ONE law.

Regards,
Scott

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

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul and all your might - Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

The first law of Judaism is quoted above, your argument falls.

Regards,

Scott

LOL...did I not just explain this? The same word for "one" is used in the verse which explains that a man and woman cleave together and become "one" flesh. So, no, sir, my argument still stands.

 

[Popeyesays]

LOL...did I not just explain this? The same word for "one" is used in the verse which explains that a man and woman cleave together and become "one" flesh. So, no, sir, my argument still stands.

Sit down.

Brace yourself.

If a man and woman cannot cleave together to be one person, then .
neither can God and Jesus, since God is not flesh at all.

That hiss is the sound of the air escaping your argument.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Jesus' divinity was granted to him. All power that he had was given to him. I don't think that you and I are are in disagreement with that. If we are then you'll have to explain.

I'm afraid we are in disgreement. I believe Jesus has always been God.

Again, if you want to worship because you believe he is ZGod then as I have said befor.....Great...go for it.....As the scripture show he he is not a deity.

Again, your interpretation.

I'll leave the interpertations up to you. The statememnt in itself shows that he is not God.

I'm afraid it doesn't. Again, that's your interpretation

Yes. They misunderstood him too. They accused him making himself equal to God so he had to correct them because they were wrong.

Who is "they"? In John 5, that is the author John's own commentary on Jesus' statement; notice that it is not the same as John 10 where the Jews give commentary on it. If John believed it why don't you?

John
5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes." verse 21. In verse 19 we see that the Son is subservient to the Father on earth, as Trinitarians believe. Then we see in verse 20 that Jesus will soon be shown ALL things that the Father does...meaning He's omniscient, just like the Father...more equality. Then, as I just showed in verse 21, we see that both Father and Son have equal power to give life....more equality. So, we continue to see that you pluck verses out of context to support your views, and the Trinitarian view takes the full scope of the Biblical data into account.

5:18 has nothing to do with answering 20:17.
[/QUOTE]In one Jesus uses the phrase "My Father" and in the other it explains what calling God "My Father" means...I'm not sure how much more clear of a correlation you want.

All he said was God is working here and I work. This was their misunderstanding and that's why he answered then saying he could do nothing by himself.

Sure, He was in human form having taken the form of a servant and given up His authority...but then He clears it up further by showing that He will one day regain His full stature by being showed all things by the Father, and that He and the Father have equal power to give life. He even later in the passage says that both He and the Father are to be honored the same, which we've already covered. Again, if you honor the Father as God, and Jesus demands the same honor, then in what way would you be obligated to honor Him?

That statement clears up him supposedbly being equal to God. That's why he said it. He furthur says whatever God does he does and God would show him greater things that they would marvel at.

If God is omnipotent, and Jesus does all things the God the Father does...then wouldn't that make Jesus omnipotent?

Oneness and (one in the same) are totally different.

I agree, which is why argument for the "Oneness" of God do nothing to harm the Trinitarian standpoint. We believe God is One; that doesn't mean we believe all Persons in the Godhead are one and the same.

I'm sorry but youy really didn't.

So you deny the very existence of posts #285 and #319 in this thread? I really did, whether you agree with my beliefs or not, and you really didn't respond to any but 2 of them.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Sit down.

Brace yourself.

If a man and woman cannot cleave together to be one person, then .
neither can God and Jesus, since God is not flesh at all.

That hiss is the sound of the air escaping your argument.

Regards,
Scott

Hardly...it's the hiss of the air escaping your misunderstanding, I hope. Trinitarians do not believe the Father and Jesus are the same Person. Good try, though.

 

[Popeyesays]

Hardly...it's the hiss of the air escaping your misunderstanding, I hope. Trinitarians do not believe the Father and Jesus are the same Person. Good try, though.

No, they believe that God has a multiple personality disorder, or worse is some kind of committee. Shema O Yisroel. Adonai Elohaynu. Adonai Echod.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

No, they believe that God has a multiple personality disorder, or worse is some kind of committee.

Aw, that's cute...go with ridiculous strawman descriptions when you can't deal with the actual teaching.

I think this thread has just about run out of gas. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I just hope the commenters and readers of this thread have been able to see some of the weaknesses in non-Trinitarian teaching and Bible interpretation, and the strengths of the Trinitarian position. That's all I can really do, thanks for your time...if you want to further dialogue we should probably do it in PM. God Bless.

 

[Popeyesays]

Aw, that's cute...go with ridiculous strawman descriptions when you can't deal with the actual teaching.

I think this thread has just about run out of gas. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I just hope the commenters and readers of this thread have been able to see some of the weaknesses in non-Trinitarian teaching and Bible interpretation, and the strengths of the Trinitarian position. That's all I can really do, thanks for your time...if you want to further dialogue we should probably do it in PM. God Bless.

A flounce?

Regards.
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You are not leaving the interpretation up to us when you provide your own interpretation as fact.

Sure I am. All verses I've posted from Jesus say he was sent, not by his will but the will of God.

If Jesus existed in heaven before coming here (and we know he did because he said he came from heaven) then he is not God because he said he was sent not by his will but the will of God. Jesus at one point, "while on earth", says he has not ascended to his father, God which is also our father, God. This was all after he had done what God sent hime to do. We know that to be fact becasue after he did God's will he told God this...

John
5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

John
17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.


John 20:17
Jesus saith 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.

How did you arrive at this interpretation?

Sorry, no interpertation needed to see that Jesus is not God. A oneness with God but not God.

I see nothing in the verse that suggests in any way that Jesus isn't God in the flesh.

Keep looking.

Look, you were the one who originally asked the question, What.....did you just want people who sided with your assumption to reply?????