Did Jesus say he was God???

[look3467]

Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus Christ where Followers of the Roman Religion and the Supreme God was JOVE, also Known as JOVE Pitar (Jove the Father)

For Anyone Preaching a God who is Referred to has "Father", around 1-33AD can only be referring to JOVE (Father God)
Temple Mount(First Temple) Was Built by Herod to Honour JOVE and rebuilt by Hadrian to honour the Same God, whom mutated into YHWH (Its Transliterated Form).

All the Temples of Jerusalem where all Most Likely Roman Temples, that Honoured Jove-Pitar

Do you exercise the two commandments? Love God and neighbor?

Blessings, AJ

 

[herushura]

Do you exercise the two commandments? Love God and neighbor?

Blessings, AJ

I Guess Jesus was Loving the Neighbouring God of the Romans and most likely never read the Torah, He Even Dressed like a Whitely Dressed Roman

 

[idav]

I believe if Jesus, at the start of his ministry, as soon as he was baptized, went straight to the temple and declared he was God, he would have had no three year ministry. They'd have killed him on the spot. He did tell the woman at the well in Samaria, where no Jewish leaders would enter, that he was the Messiah, early in his ministry. When Peter exclaimed that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, he told his disciples not to reveal it yet. Later he became more open about it as the time for him to give his life approached. The very thing they crucified him for was blashpemy, making himself out to be God. He said he could forgive sins, which they knew only God could do, and under oath he said he was the Son of God. Note, he wasn't just a nice teacher, he was either crazy, lying, or he is the Lord.

They had no real evidence of him saying he was God. They crucified him for claiming to be king of the jews or messiah. Messiah never meant being god.

 

[Mark2020]

They had no real evidence of him saying he was God. They crucified him for claiming to be king of the jews or messiah. Messiah never meant being god.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2599375-post4238.html

 

[javajo]

They had no real evidence of him saying he was God. They crucified him for claiming to be king of the jews or messiah. Messiah never meant being god.

Among other things, he forgave sins, which only God can do, and he said he was Lord of the Sabbath, which only God is. Here is why they crucified Him:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:18

When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? Mark 2:5-7

UNDER OATH, Jesus said he was the Son of God, the Messiah, and was accused of blasphemy, which among other things is saying you are God:

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. Mark 14:61-64

 

[doppelganger]

They had no real evidence of him saying he was God. They crucified him for claiming to be king of the jews or messiah. Messiah never meant being god.

Probably true of the Synoptics, but in "John" he is clearly charged with blasphemy for claiming a unity of identity with the divine.

 

[Shermana]

Probably true of the Synoptics, but in "John" he is clearly charged with blasphemy for claiming a unity of identity with the divine.

That is if you read John 10:33 as "G-d" instead of "a god" as it should be.

 

[doppelganger]

That is if you read John 10:33 as "G-d" instead of "a god" as it should be.

Then why would his accusers consider it blasphemy? He meant "a god" (sorta, though that's not the best way to say it) and they heard "God". It's right there in the story.

 

[Shermana]

Then why would his accusers consider it blasphemy? He meant "a god" (sorta, though that's not the best way to say it) and they heard "God". It's right there in the story.

They only heard "G-d" if you go by the Trinitarian version and interpretation. The blasphemy was for declaring himself to be the Moshiach in their own interpretation of what blasphemy meant, that he said he was the Son of G-d, Christ and King of Israel. That's all. Not for declaring himself to be G-d but "a god". Otherwise, explain John 10:34-35. Ultimately, the accusation is given at 36, and the explanation is at 37.

Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

 

[Mark2020]

They only heard "G-d" if you go by the Trinitarian version and interpretation. The blasphemy was for declaring himself to be the Moshiach, the Son of G-d, Christ and King of Israel. That's all. Not for declaring himself to be G-d but "a god". Otherwise, explain John 10:34-35.

Is declaring himself to be the Moshiach a blasphemy?

 

[javajo]

Can anyone but God forgive sins? Control the elements? Rise from the dead? Create all things? The first chapter of the first book of the new testament says:

Matthew 1:23 (KJV) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 

[Shermana]

Is declaring himself to be the Moshiach a blasphemy?

The word "Blasphemy" is vague. For example:

""We heard him blaspheme Moses,and even God ...

". Acts 6:11 makes it clear that one can blaspheme more than G-d. As does 2 Peter 2:10

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

As well, blasphemy can apply to merely speaking bad about one's god.

You have brought these men here, though they have neither
robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. ...

The crime of blasphemy basically relates to any kind of lie on a spiritual nature, generally applying not to common people but holy people like Moses and the "glirious ones". The word "Blaspheme" thus can mean any kind of false witness of a Divine nature something like declaring oneself a false prophet, or a false Christ or false Priest. A false prophet is to be put to death, so thus, if Christ was not Moshiach while claiming to be, he'd be guilty of blasphemy.

 

[doppelganger]

They only heard "G-d" if you go by the Trinitarian version and interpretation. The blasphemy was for declaring himself to be the Moshiach in their own interpretation of what blasphemy meant, that he said he was the Son of G-d, Christ and King of Israel. That's all. Not for declaring himself to be G-d but "a god". Otherwise, explain John 10:34-35. Ultimately, the accusation is given at 36, and the explanation is at 37.

First of all, it should be obvious by now that I am not a "trinitarian" and have no theological motive to interpret the text that way. Second of all, there's nothing in the text of the "John" story to support your claim that his blasphemy was claiming to be the Messiah. Here's the whole text, again, with context:

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’ 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

I think you are conflating this story in your mind with the version in the Synoptics, where he IS accused of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah. E.g. Matt. 26:62-66; Mark 14:60-65; Luke 22:66-71. It is equally clear in the Synoptics that the accusation was blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah, as it is clear in John that the accusation of blasphemy for claiming to be "God." Which hearkens back to my comment several pages ago, that the author(s) of "John" intended to have their character claim divinity (though not in the sense you or marc are arguing about, or that this whole thread is about) and this was not a purpose that was clearly shared by the authors of the Synoptics, which are ambiguous, at most.


So, my claim was that in the story written by the author(s) of "John", the accusation against Jesus was that he had committed blasphemy for claiming to be "God". This is crystal clear in verse 33. Now the author(s) did not actually have him say he was "God." That much is true about this passage, in context. His accusers misunderstood him and accused him of claiming to be "God". He said "I and the Father are One" and defended that statement against the allegations in verse 33, by saying that everyone is "a god," and that he is the "son of God" and "the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

These authors clearly did write the character as claiming a unity of identity with the divine - though not claiming to be "God" as either his accusers in the story were claiming, or as "trinitarians" insist. The divinity of a claim of being "one with God" is not the same as claiming to be "God."

It's a statement of mysticism. Which is why the authors have the religious leaders in the story not understand, and it's why it's rarely understood even today.

To be clear, I am not pretending I know whether an actual historical character named Jesus said any of this. Nor am I claiming that this is the one viewpoint of the Bible on the subject (it rather obviously is not). I am merely discussing the text provided specifically by the author(s) of "John."

 

[horizon_mj1]

Can anyone but God forgive sins? Control the elements? Rise from the dead? Create all things? The first chapter of the first book of the new testament says:

Yes anyone can forgive sins, control the elements, rise from the dead, create things (of course not all things though). Wasn't the New Testament of the Bible all about how we were to be "like" a certain person, and therefore be granted the same "powers"?

Matthew 1:23 (KJV) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Jesus is the Son sent to teach Humanity "how" to properly preserve ourselves for all eternity. This IMO is one of the reasons in the Bible it states to look everywhere, and to seek and it will be found; it is just at times we do not like the answers so we fool ourselves into thinking things in which are not Truth, but a manipulation of the Truth.

 

[Mark2020]

The word "Blasphemy" is vague...

This still isn't an answer to my question.
Anyway, I think these are clear:
(John 5:17-18 [NIV]) Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

(John 19:6-7 [NIV]) As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

 

[idav]

This still isn't an answer to my question.
Anyway, I think these are clear:
(John 5:17-18 [NIV]) Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

(John 19:6-7 [NIV]) As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

Being accused and doing are two different things. They accused him of lots of things but Jesus defended himself. He call all children of god so calling himself a son of the most high was not supposed to be a big deal. Trinitarians agreeing with the pharisees accusations is wrong because Jesus thought the pharisees were wrong which is why he always had smart alec replies for them making them sound stupid.

 

[Mark2020]

Being accused and doing...

"making himself equal with God" aren't their words, read the chapter well.

 

[idav]

"making himself equal with God" aren't their words, read the chapter well.

Thanks but I know how to read. The words neither confirm or deny it. Jesus was sly like that. Everytime someone accused he said that they were the ones saying it not him. I agree with Doppel when he says it's ambiguous at best. It does however answer the OP that Jesus did NOT say he was god. Did he imply it? Well pharasees and trinitarians certainly think so.

 

[Mark2020]

Thanks but I know how to read. The words neither confirm or deny it. Jesus was sly like that. Everytime someone accused he said that they were the ones saying it not him. I agree with Doppel when he says it's ambiguous at best. It does however answer the OP that Jesus did NOT say he was god. Did he imply it? Well pharasees and trinitarians certainly think so.

I've already proved that many times in this thread.

 

[idav]

I've already proved that many times in this thread.

Know you haven't. You've proved that you have the same misconceptions as the pharisees.