Did Jesus say he was God???

[lew0049]

"Okay, I have read many posts on this issue and I believe that is the easiest way to connect Jesus and God. It seems very logical to me; however, I am sure that some of you will disagree because of the presupposed conclusion you have already made on this matter."

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Thanks, I needed that.

Regards,
Scott

Your welcome sir.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Okay, I have read many posts on this issue and I believe that is the easiest way to connect Jesus and God. It seems very logical to me; however, I am sure that some of you will disagree because of the presupposed conclusion you have already made on this matter.

Simply look at John 1:1 and 1:14 (which gives the purpose of John's gospel)

“Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

"Jesus said unto Him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."


Because John is attempting to appeal to both Gentiles and Jewish readers, "word" is recognized by both both in thought and philosophy. Relating it to the OT, the "word" is used to as an execution of God's will.

"The Word was with God", so the Word is distinct from the Father. Therefore, this is saying, "Jesus was with God". The "Word was God", so Jesus was God in the fullest sense. In essence, this phrase is saying "Jesus was God."

Sorry, but none of this proves he is God....Jesus referred to himself as the son. God guided him. God dwelt within him (The holy spirit of God was upon Jesus)....God commanded Jesus what he should say.... But Jesus was not God..If he was he would not need to be commanded of what to say..... At the end he said he was returing to his father which is our father..."his God" which is our God.....This type of language is repeated over and over so that people wouldn't mis-interpert who he was but they (you and others) did anyway.

 

[JayHawes]

Sorry, but none of this proves he is God....Jesus referred to himself as the son. God guided him. God dwelt within him (The holy spirit of God was upon Jesus)....God commanded Jesus what he should say.... But Jesus was not God..If he was he would not need to be commanded of what to say..... At the end he said he was returing to his father which is our father..."his God" which is our God.....This type of language is repeated over and over so that people wouldn't mis-interpert who he was but they (you and others) did anyway.

The Jews and Christians clearly understood what the phrase "Son of God" meant.


"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" John 10:33,36.


What you may not understand is that the Jews in OT times did in fact beleive that God was a triune being. Consisting of The Father (the one Jesus referred to), The Son, and The Holy Spirit. The Jews though only rejected Jesus as being that Son , a part of diety. It was later in history that Jews ceased to beleive that God was triune. Keep in mind that God is a title for a being beyond our understanding. In the Bible God even calls his Son, God.


"But of the Son he (God) says, Your seat of power, O God (Jesus), is for ever and ever; and the rod of your kingdom is a rod of righteousness.You have been a lover of righteousness and a hater of evil; and so God (Jesus), your God (the Father), has put the oil of joy on your head more than on the heads of those who are with you." Hebrews 1:8,9

 

[Popeyesays]

"What you may not understand is that the Jews in OT times did in fact beleive that God was a triune being. Consisting of The Father (the one Jesus referred to), The Son, and The Holy Spirit. The Jews though only rejected Jesus as being that Son , a part of diety. It was later in history that Jews ceased to beleive that God was triune. Keep in mind that God is a title for a being beyond our understanding. In the Bible God even calls his Son, God."

That strikes me as wishful thinking or a bald assertion, one or the other. Scripture please?

Regards,
Scott

 

[lew0049]

Sorry, but none of this proves he is God....Jesus referred to himself as the son. God guided him. God dwelt within him (The holy spirit of God was upon Jesus)....God commanded Jesus what he should say.... But Jesus was not God..If he was he would not need to be commanded of what to say..... At the end he said he was returing to his father which is our father..."his God" which is our God.....This type of language is repeated over and over so that people wouldn't mis-interpert who he was but they (you and others) did anyway.

Well, if God was only "in" Jesus then it is safe to say that John 8:58 and many others should be thrown out.

Have you not thought it possible that you are looking at the phrases "my Father" and "my God" too literally? If you are going to take those phrases literally then you should also take "Son of Man" literally - which really would make absolutely no sense. Also, how does it literally make sense that Jesus is God's Son. By our understanding, there needs to be a mother... my point being that we aren't supposed to take it literally b/c if we do, we don't understand. You can't look at the word "Father" and only use the logic that is appropriate to your means.

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but recently I encountered the same questions as you with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because to my understanding - a father and son would mean two different people. However, after I pondered over this issue I realized that I would also lack an understanding if God/Jesus was to tell me how the universe was physical created in every way. Nobody in mankind would be able to comprehend this marvel since there was Nothing.

And yes, He would need help on earth because He if he was in the flesh - He would have mankinds sin and temptations all around Him.

Is it not possible to look at the "trinity" as a spring, river and sea which are all one nature? Father/spring - Son/river - Holy spirit/sea

Lastly, how did I misinterpret the quotes I used? It is like using simple addition.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Jews and Christians clearly understood what the phrase "Son of God" meant.


"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" John 10:33,36.


What you may not understand is that the Jews in OT times did in fact beleive that God was a triune being. Consisting of The Father (the one Jesus referred to), The Son, and The Holy Spirit. The Jews though only rejected Jesus as being that Son , a part of diety. It was later in history that Jews ceased to beleive that God was triune. Keep in mind that God is a title for a being beyond our understanding. In the Bible God even calls his Son, God.

All they did was mis-understand him. He at no point in all that said he was God or was trying to convince them he was God. As you have pointed out in those verses and the others that come after that, they mis-understood him and he had to clear up their misunderstanding of the law and who he was.

John
10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

(ONENESS)...But (NOT one in the same)

Can you show evidence that the Jews believed in a truine God? I been looking through the OT and I don't see it.

"But of the Son he (God) says, Your seat of power, O God (Jesus), is for ever and ever; and the rod of your kingdom is a rod of righteousness.You have been a lover of righteousness and a hater of evil; and so God (Jesus), your God (the Father), has put the oil of joy on your head more than on the heads of those who are with you." Hebrews 1:8,9

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is some one elses interpertation of Jesus. The Book of Hebrews is another one of those books/Letters written long after Jesus. I believe this particular book was written 50-95 CE. Again, this is some ones' speculation of the Messiah. These verse offer no more than an interpertation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, if God was only "in" Jesus then it is safe to say that John 8:58 and many others should be thrown out.

Why is that??? I find nothing wrong with that verse. That verse is in harmony with the rest of the things he said. One of the interpertations one can give is that he existed in heaven before Abraham was born on earth. We already know that Jesus was sent from heaven, not by his will (in heaven), but by the will of God who sent him...

Have you not thought it possible that you are looking at the phrases "my Father" and "my God" too literally?

Why? Is it supposed to be easier or more exceptible to interpert that he was talking about himself when we can clearly see that he wasn't? This is clearly a possessive statment. He is talking about something besides himself.

My home, my castle.
my car
my food

If you are going to take those phrases literally then you should also take "Son of Man" literally - which really would make absolutely no sense.

Sure it does. Why doesn't it make sense to you?
He was the son of man or else he wouldn't have said it. He was Yeshua ben Mariam...Isa ibn Maryum (Jesus son of Mary). This would certainly make him son of man. There is no question that he is a son of God. That's not in question here. Even with all these attributes it still doesn't make him God...

Also, how does it literally make sense that Jesus is God's Son.

Again, him being God's son is not in question. The sciptures show that there were many called the sons of God. A physical act is not needed for one to be the son of God.

my point being that we aren't supposed to take it literally b/c if we do, we don't understand.

Why not?......I have no problem understanding it. One does not have to dig deep to interpert something that is as clear as spring water.

You can't look at the word "Father" and only use the logic that is appropriate to your means.

Why not?..It clearly shows that he isn't God....Jesus knew he wasn't. He gave us the clear signs when we read that he prayed to to God..not himself...When ever he asked God for something...not himself...When he told God he was finshed with the task that God gave him...not himself....When we read that he gave up his soul back in the hands of God...not himself or his hands.... Every chance Jesus got to glorify God he did it...not himself......Why did he do all these things???...Well, because he wasn't God...

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but recently I encountered the same questions as you with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because to my understanding - a father and son would mean two different people. However, after I pondered over this issue I realized that I would also lack an understanding if God/Jesus was to tell me how the universe was physical created in every way. Nobody in mankind would be able to comprehend this marvel since there was Nothing.

If God caused you to understand the things that he reveals to you then there is no question that you would be able to absorb and understand it all. Jesus on the other hand, by God's permission, would also cause me to understand. But we know from ready the scripture Jesus admitts not knowing it all, but if it be by the will of God that we should know or that Jesus should know then all would understand.

And yes, He would need help on earth because He if he was in the flesh - He would have mankinds sin and temptations all around Him.

There is no question he needed help. That is why the holy spirit of God was with him. From what is said of Jesus in the scriptures (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) mankinds sin and temptations had no effect on Jesus. It shows that he was without sin. He had been tempted and reject those temptations.

Is it not possible to look at the "trinity" as a spring, river and sea which are all one nature? Father/spring - Son/river - Holy spirit/sea

This is something that is best left up to the trinitarians. The trinity concept is something I don't ponder over. With that said, trinity itself is not in question here. That is a subject of a different thread.

 

[Popeyesays]

Trinity is not really an issue.EVERY Revealed religion shows a trinity.

First is God, Who gives the Gift of Revelation to
The Divine Messenger (Jesus, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Baha`u'llah, Muhammad).
And third is the Gift Itself the Holy Spirit, the Revelation.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . . . . .

One Source, One continuing Revelation, One Voice for all the Prophets.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

Sorry, but none of this proves he is God....Jesus referred to himself as the son. God guided him. God dwelt within him (The holy spirit of God was upon Jesus)....God commanded Jesus what he should say.... But Jesus was not God..If he was he would not need to be commanded of what to say..... At the end he said he was returing to his father which is our father..."his God" which is our God.....This type of language is repeated over and over so that people wouldn't mis-interpert who he was but they (you and others) did anyway.

This statement is tantamount to saying that Jesus is God in the flesh. Are you trying to say that there is another spirit in Jesus, a human spirit and that God only dwell s alongside him. That is what the Paraclete is all about. This doesn't work because Jesus says He is without sin and the presence of a human spirit would be preclude Jesus from making that statement.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This statement is tantamount to saying that Jesus is God in the flesh.

Nope, again this is your interpertation as to what it might mean. There have been plenty filled with the holy spirit but they weren't God in the flesh.

Are you trying to say that there is another spirit in Jesus, a human spirit and that God only dwell s alongside him.

Was he not a walking, talking, breathing young man upon the time he was baptized. I don't think the scrtures say he was born and the holy spirit was upon him at birth. It wasn't until later on when he received the holy spirit. He received it and a voice from the heavem made a proclamation. The scripture show him saying father (God in heaven...not on earth in the form of Jesus) into your hands I give my spirit. At no point does any of this show him as God in the flesh

That is what the Paraclete is all about. This doesn't work because Jesus says He is without sin and the presence of a human spirit would be preclude Jesus from making that statement.[/

quote]

Prove it please or this interpertation?
So show me a quote in the scripture in the bible that says "before" Jesus was baptized and the holy spirit decended upon him that he was walking around without a soul.

 

[Muffled]

[/color]

Nope, again this is your interpertation as to what it might mean. There have been plenty filled with the holy spirit but they weren't God in the flesh.



Was he not a walking, talking, breathing young man upon the time he was baptized. I don't think the scrtures say he was born and the holy spirit was upon him at birth. It wasn't until later on when he received the holy spirit. He received it and a voice from the heavem made a proclamation. The scripture show him saying father (God in heaven...not on earth in the form of Jesus) into your hands I give my spirit. At no point does any of this show him as God in the flesh

That is what the Paraclete is all about. This doesn't work because Jesus says He is without sin and the presence of a human spirit would be preclude Jesus from making that statement.[/

quote]

Prove it please or this interpertation?
So show me a quote in the scripture in the bible that says "before" Jesus was baptized and the holy spirit decended upon him that he was walking around without a soul.

Actually the Holy Spirit enters Jesus at conception. The angel says that the Holy Spirit is upon Mary but that is only because Jesus is contained within Mary. At the Baptism of Jesus the Holy Spirit rests on Jesus but there is no reference to an infilling.

 

[Muffled]

Let's revisit the fact that Jesus has been given things that only God has. The Qu'ran says that God does not have partners. In other words God isn't giving anything that belongs to Him to someone else. Therefore the fact is that Jesus is God in the flesh or He would be a partner of God. Since He can't be a partner of God He must be God in the flesh.

 

[Popeyesays]

Let's revisit the fact that Jesus has been given things that only God has. The Qu'ran says that God does not have partners. In other words God isn't giving anything that belongs to Him to someone else. Therefore the fact is that Jesus is God in the flesh or He would be a partner of God. Since He can't be a partner of God He must be God in the flesh.

A truly fine example of arguing in a circle.

"
In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises [1]. Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: "If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most case-iron rigor".[1] In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.
Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in the Prior Analytics.
The phrase is sometimes used to simply mean "suggests the question". This recasting of the term more directly describes a related fallacy, known as the Fallacy of many questions, that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[/color]
At the Baptism of Jesus the Holy Spirit rests on Jesus but there is no reference to an infilling.

Oh, but he was "Filled" with the holy spirit as I said. This is what the scriptures say.The spirit being upon him at his baptism is synonymous with being filled


Luke 3:21
And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.


Then we read a little more and discover that this meant he was filled with the holy spirit.

Luke 4:1
And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

You may have to change your thinking on that one. Again, the bible and the quran are an easy read. it is not hard to understand them nor is there any mystery in the message or in the messengers.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's revisit the fact that Jesus has been given things that only God has.

Not true. He doesn't have everything. He didn't know the day nor the hour. This knowledge is with God alone.

Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

You did say one thing correctly. The fact that he was given things.....

This is further proving my point that he is not God. The fact that he is given things proves that he is not God.

The Qu'ran says that God does not have partners. In other words God isn't giving anything that belongs to Him to someone else.

This is incorect. The bible as well as the quran show that if God wills it then it is so.

Genesis 28:13
There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying.

Quran 2:212
Decked out fair to the unbelievers is the present life, and they deride the believers; but those who were godfearing shall be above them on the Resurrection Day; and God provides whomsoever He will without reckoning.

So, again. God gives to those whatever he wills. Jesus being seperate from God and not his partner is no exception.

Therefore the fact is that Jesus is God in the flesh or He would be a partner of God. Since He can't be a partner of God He must be God in the flesh.

I have said this once before. There is no way for you or others to use the quran to backup your trinitarian views because the quran is directly opposite from what you assert.

The quran says God has not begotten a son, has no consort and no partners. All of his angelic beings, messengers or prophets are subservient to his will. Jesus included.

 

[Muffled]

A truly fine example of arguing in a circle.

"
In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises [1]. Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: "If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most case-iron rigor".[1] In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.
Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in the Prior Analytics.
The phrase is sometimes used to simply mean "suggests the question". This recasting of the term more directly describes a related fallacy, known as the Fallacy of many questions, that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself.

Regards,
Scott

I have studied logic and fail to see your reasoning. Perhaps you need to see it in silogisms.

Premise 1 God does not have partners

Premise 2 Jesus is a partner of God

Conclusion Jesus is God

 

[Popeyesays]

I have studied logic and fail to see your reasoning. Perhaps you need to see it in silogisms.

Premise 1 God does not have partners

Premise 2 Jesus is a partner of God

Conclusion Jesus is God

Perhaps you should spell syllogism correctly.

How about this:

God does not have partners.

Jesus bore a Divine Revelation to mankind.

Therefore: Jesus is not God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

Jesus never existed, a religious myth, much like many other religious myths.

 

[Muffled]

Not true. He doesn't have everything. He didn't know the day nor the hour. This knowledge is with God alone.

Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

You did say one thing correctly. The fact that he was given things.....

This is further proving my point that he is not God. The fact that he is given things proves that he is not God.




This is incorect. The bible as well as the quran show that if God wills it then it is so.

Genesis 28:13
There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying.

Quran 2:212
Decked out fair to the unbelievers is the present life, and they deride the believers; but those who were godfearing shall be above them on the Resurrection Day; and God provides whomsoever He will without reckoning.

So, again. God gives to those whatever he wills. Jesus being seperate from God and not his partner is no exception.



I have said this once before. There is no way for you or others to use the quran to backup your trinitarian views because the quran is directly opposite from what you assert.

The quran says God has not begotten a son, has no consort and no partners. All of his angelic beings, messengers or prophets are subservient to his will. Jesus included.

This is a lot like the question of whether Jesus was crucified having the answer yes and no. Yes He did have the knowledge and no He didn't. It does not diminish His omniscience.

These are not instances of God giving things that only belong to Him. These gifts belong to His creation.

This is not a preclusion because God does not act contrary to His own will.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus was crucified having the answer yes and no. Yes He did have the knowledge and no He didn't. It does not diminish His omniscience.

I'm not sure you made any sense here...Yes he did but no he didn't.....:sarcastic

He can't be omniscient but not know certain things..that would make him an oxymoron.