Did Jesus say he was God???

[waitasec]

I'm finding this whole stint to be funny though. I'm searching and I can't find a charge of him claiming to be "God" or "King of the Jews"....The claim that one of their scriptures said is that there is a law that no one can claim to be the "son of God".....according to John 19:7.

matthew 26:15
What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?

for what?


48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

for what?

the pink elephant often goes unnoticed...go figure

 

[Dirty Penguin]

matthew 26:15
What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?

for what?


48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

for what?

the pink elephant often goes unnoticed...go figure

I can only assume Judas lied to the Romans about Yeshua. Given Pilates questioning I'm assuming the lie was that Yeshua was claiming to be "King of the Jews". This would have been met with swift punishment as the Romans were in control and would not have their subordinates usurp their authority. This may be why Pilate asked him what he did (Are you king of the Jews)...but Yeshua says (that is what you say). We say it like this...(That's what you said, not me). Of course after cosidering the accusations Pilate really could find any fault with Yeshua and pretty much wanted set him free. This is the only way I can personally reconcile the pink elephant in their scriptures.

What's interesting to me is if he was "God" and knew he was then why did he have his followers, those with money, sell everything to buy swords? For what purpose would "God" need with men with swords..?

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

For what?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

4543 posts. What's the record?

 

[Protester]

4543 posts. What's the record?

and a whole lot more I would add.

/INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION/BOOK FIRST. - OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR/CHAPTER 2. - WHAT IT IS TO KNOW GOD,—TENDENCY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.:
CHAPTER 2.
WHAT IT IS TO KNOW GOD,—TENDENCY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.
Sections.
1. The knowledge of God the Creator defined. The substance of this knowledge, and the use to be made of it.
2. Further illustration of the use, together with a necessary reproof of vain curiosity, and refutation of the Epicureans. The character of God as it appears to the pious mind, contrasted with the absurd views of the Epicureans. Religion defined.
1. By the knowledge of God, I understand that by which we not only conceive that there is some God, but also apprehend what it is for our interest, and conducive to his glory, what, in short, it is befitting to know concerning him. For, properly speaking, we cannot say that God is known where there is no religion or piety. I am not now referring to that species of knowledge by which men, in themselves lost and under curse, apprehend God as a Redeemer in Christ the Mediator. I speak only of that simple and primitive knowledge, to which the mere course of nature would have conducted us, had Adam stood upright. For although no man will now, in the present ruin of the human race, perceive God to be either a father, or the author of salvation, or propitious in any respect, until Christ interpose to make our peace; still it is one thing to perceive that God our Maker supports us by his power, rules us by his providence, fosters us by his goodness, and visits us with all kinds of blessings, and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ. Since, then, the Lord first appears, as well in the creation of the world as in the general doctrine of Scripture, simply as a Creator, and afterwards as a Redeemer in Christ,—a twofold knowledge of him hence arises: of these the former is now to be considered, the latter will afterwards follow in its order. But although our mind cannot conceive of God, without rendering some worship to him, it will not, however, be sufficient simply to hold that he is the only being whom all ought to worship and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of all goodness, and that we must seek everything in him, and in none but him. My meaning is: we must be persuaded not only that as he once formed the world, so he sustains it by his boundless power, governs it by his wisdom, preserves it by his goodness, in particular, rules the human race with justice and Judgment, bears with them in mercy, shields them by his protection; but also that not a particle of light, or wisdom, or justice, or power, or rectitude, or genuine truth, will anywhere be found, which does not flow from him, and of which he is not the cause; in this way we must learn to expect and ask all things from him, and thankfully ascribe to him whatever we receive....

---John Calvin

 

[Shermana]

"Servetus asked too many questions...."

_ John Calvin

This website hilariously justifies Servetus's burning and basically implies it was the right thing to do............(dot dot)
Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Printer Friendly Version​

Calvin and Servetus

​

by William Wileman

A calm and impartial view of this sad subject has been reserved for this place, and for a chapter of its own. The immense advantage of having been able to consult and to weigh the evidence of the principal writers certainly not fewer than forty - about the case of Servetus, besides several biographies of the man himself, will greatly aid the writer.

It is very common to hear the remark, "What about Servetus?" or, "Who burned Servetus?" There are three kinds of persons who thus flippantly ask a question of this nature. First, the Roman Catholics, who may judge it to be an unanswerable taunt to a Protestant. Second, those who are not in accord with the great doctrines of grace, as taught by Paul and Calvin, and embraced and loved by thousands still. Then there is a third kind of persons who can only be described as ill-informed. It is always desirable, and often useful, to really know something of what one professes to know.

I shall narrow the inquiry at the outset by saying that all Roman Catholics are "out of court." They burn heretics on principle, avowedly. This is openly taught by them; it is in the margin of their Bible; and it is even their boast that they do so. And, moreover, they condemned Servetus to be burned.

Those who misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrines of grace call for pity more than blame when they charge the death of Servetus upon those views of divine truth known as Calvinistic. Perhaps a little instruction would be of great value to such. It is very desirable to have clear ideas of what it is we are trying to understand. In most disputes this would make a clear pathway for thought and argument. Most controversies are more about terms than principles.

The third sort of persons are plainly incompetent to take up this case, for the simple reason that they know nothing whatever about it. Pressed for their reasons, they have to confess that they never at any time read a line about the matter.

The duty of the historian is not to plead, but to narrate facts. I shall do this as impartially as possible. One writer need not be imitated (W. H. Drummond, D.D.), who is not ashamed to disfigure his title-page: "Life of Michael Servetus, who was entrapped, imprisoned, and burned by John Calvin." Less scurrilous, but equally prejudiced, is Dr. R. Willis. It is a weak case that needs the aid of ink mixed with abusive gall.

The simplest method of arranging my material will be to ask and to answer three questions. First, why was Servetus burned? Second, who burned him? Third, what part in the matter was taken by John Calvin?

Michael Servetus was born at Villanueva, in 1509. After a liberal education, he studied medicine; and anticipated Harvey in the discovery of the circulation of the blood. It appears that he had a lively genius, but was unstable, erratic, and weak. In 1530 he published a book "On the Errors of the Trinity." His views need not be given here; one specimen will suffice to give an idea of them. He said that the doctrine of the Trinity was "a three-headed Cerberus, a dream of Augustine, and an invention of the devil." The book, however, on which his trial was based was his "Restitutio Christianismi." Only two copies of this are known to exist; and both are out of England. I have seen a copy of the reprint of 1790. Servetus sent the manuscript of this to Calvin for his perusal; and a lengthy correspondence took place between them, extending from 1546 to 1548. Of this Calvin says: "When he was at Lyons he sent me three questions to answer. He thought to entrap me. That my answer did not satisfy him lam not surprised." To Servetus himself he wrote: "I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity."

And now occurs what foundation there is on which is built the accusation against Calvin. It occurs in his well-known letter to Farel, dated February 13th, 1546. "Servetus wrote to me a short time ago, and sent a huge volume of his dreamings and pompous triflings with his letter. I was to find among them wonderful things, and such as I had never before seen; and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive."

********

The main facts therefore may now be summarized thus:

1. That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment.
2. That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.
3. That he had been sentenced to the same punishment by the Inquisition at Vienne.
4. That the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, Calvin having no power either to condemn or to save him.
5. That Calvin and others visited the unhappy man in his last hours, treated him with much kindness, and did all they could to have the sentence mitigated.

Three hundred and fifty years after the death of Servetus, a "monument of expiation" was erected on the spot where he suffered death at Champel, near Geneva. It bears the date of October 27th, 1903; but the unveiling ceremony was postponed until November 1st. On one side of this monument are recorded the birth and death of Servetus. On the front is this inscription:

"Dutiful and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience, according to the true principles of the Reformation and of the Gospel, we have erected this expiatory monument. October 27th, 1903."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

4543 posts. What's the record?

Not sure what the record will be......

It's like an endless game of ping pong in here....

 

[look3467]

48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

for what? >>>wiatasec

First is a full fulfillment of a prophecy where the story depicts the Fathers joy over the Sons work, in the spiritual sense, Jesus.

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; not the first Adam but the Second. The first is as Esau, worldly, while Jacob represented the spiritual.
The first (Esau as like the first Adam hunted as was as like a man of the world)
The second (Jacob as like the second Adam was spiritual. Not of this world)

So, naturally the story goes God preferred Jacob over Esau, for in Jacob the world of Esau would be saved.

If the story was that Esau would have gotten the blessing, than the world would have remained the same with no change.

So the fulfillment of that prophecy came through.

Again in Judas the fulfillment of prophecy: Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

The kissing of Jesus was the beginnings of the works of God in Jesus via Judas, for Jesus wrath is kindled for a short while or until His death on the cross.

Wrath not in angry way, but in a consuming way. Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The wrath of God is defined spiritually as love that consumes. God has no enemies He can not forgive.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Not sure what the record will be......

It's like an endless game of ping pong in here....

With good reason, Cutting to the chase and not chasing rabbits.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Muffled]

A perfect example of the presumptions that "Christians" take in how they interpret it. Thank you. Because I have disagreed with him, and he thinks he hears from G-d, therefore I have (in his mind) called G-d nothing. Who am I to call you out and say you're lying about being a prophet? Well, a Jew who believes in what the Bible says about how to identify prophets. Who are you to say that you hear from G-d and the Spirit directly and thus use that as the basis of your argument? This is not the first time a Christian has tried to play this game.

Meanwhile, the crux of your arugment is based on the idea that you truly hear from G-d. You are demanding prophetic acknowledgment, but according to my beliefs (just as you have yours), you cannot possibly have the Spirit confirming your beliefs, and in my beliefs, you are commiting a mortal sin by claiming such as the reason for why one should regard your belief as correct.

Thus, you either believe Muffle directly hears from G-d, or you call Him nothing. I see. Well thanks for sharing your opinion. Let me rephrase: I don't think you hear from the Divine and think you're lying on a most blasphemous level and you're committing a grave sin you may not understand the severity of. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense. You can simply reject God whenever you wish because you simply don't believe in His method of speaking to you.

I am nothing. This is the word that I have been given at Baptism: Isa 41:24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work is of nought; If I were to speak, you would do well not to listen but it is Jesus in me who speaks because I get out of the way and don't speak on my own.

 

[Muffled]

Depending how you interpret ("one"). I'm looking at Yeshua's prayer to his god and the declaration in 1John 4:12-13...as ("one in purpose") and not - one in the same - ....

So now you can look at one and it comes out none? What kind of reasoning is that? You are trying to say that "one" is equal to "one in purpose." In the first I count one word and the second three words. There is no equivalency there. Perhaps you will try to read the mind of Jesus and tell us that you think he intended to say "one in purpose" instead of "one" but that can only be pure specualtion. Perhaps you will try context but I haven't rally seen you make a valid effort at that either.

"one" is not equivalent to "same." If I say 1 and 2 = 3, 2 and 1 = 3, the elements add up the same but the elements are different they are not the same. The answer is "one" but the elements are not the same. That is why people have trouble with this because they look at the elements instead of the answer.

Father - God
Son - God and flesh
Paraclete - God and believers and flesh

The elements are not the same but it is the same God in the elements.

 

[Muffled]

1John 4:12-13
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

God dwells in us and in me for a little time. When God dwells in me I am one with God but I can't say that it is a constant state. The love of God always abides in me. It is a fruit of the Spirit as are joy and peace. However that does not mean that God is completely controlling my mind all the time. That is why Jesus prayed for oneness in John because it isn't automatic as it is with Jesus who does not have a human spirit to contend with.

 

[waitasec]

First is a full fulfillment of a prophecy where the story depicts the Fathers joy over the Sons work, in the spiritual sense, Jesus.

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; not the first Adam but the Second. The first is as Esau, worldly, while Jacob represented the spiritual.
The first (Esau as like the first Adam hunted as was as like a man of the world)
The second (Jacob as like the second Adam was spiritual. Not of this world)

So, naturally the story goes God preferred Jacob over Esau, for in Jacob the world of Esau would be saved.

If the story was that Esau would have gotten the blessing, than the world would have remained the same with no change.

So the fulfillment of that prophecy came through.

Again in Judas the fulfillment of prophecy: Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

The kissing of Jesus was the beginnings of the works of God in Jesus via Judas, for Jesus wrath is kindled for a short while or until His death on the cross.

Wrath not in angry way, but in a consuming way. Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The wrath of God is defined spiritually as love that consumes. God has no enemies He can not forgive.

Blessings, AJ

i think you misunderstood...
arrest him, for what?

 

[Muffled]

Nothing in this tells me that Jesus is God. If he is God then why didnt he say so. Why is he only ever telling us that his actions are not of him but of the father.

He did say so. In a later post you said something about Him being smart enough to say it directly. Evidently saying it indirectly was sufficient for the Pharisees to understand it. I would say that He is smart enough to say it indirectly so only those who completely understand what He is aying will know. That says to me that He isn't intersted in making a univesal declaration (for all to hear). There is a similar sentiment in a place where Jesus explains his use of parables so that only those who can hear will really hear. Perhaps it also fits in with the "pearls before swine" concept as well.

You are welcom to explain why you find each element not to be persuasive. Saying that you have a failure to understand is of course understandable if you wish to stand by that.

He says that because people will not simply believe that He is God without Him teling them and not even after He has told them. That is due to the fact that people don't know God. However they should have been able to recognize God from His Word. They weren't even able to do that.

 

[idav]

He did say so. In a later post you said something about Him being smart enough to say it directly. Evidently saying it indirectly was sufficient for the Pharisees to understand it. I would say that He is smart enough to say it indirectly so only those who completely understand what He is aying will know. That says to me that He isn't intersted in making a univesal declaration (for all to hear). There is a similar sentiment in a place where Jesus explains his use of parables so that only those who can hear will really hear. Perhaps it also fits in with the "pearls before swine" concept as well.

You are welcom to explain why you find each element not to be persuasive. Saying that you have a failure to understand is of course understandable if you wish to stand by that.

He says that because people will not simply believe that He is God without Him teling them and not even after He has told them. That is due to the fact that people don't know God. However they should have been able to recognize God from His Word. They weren't even able to do that.

Whenever a person is vague enough then it leaves a lot of room for interpretation for everyone to be right depending on context. The fact that Jesus was arguing back would indicate that he did not agree with the pharisees.

It was evident that he alluded to being son of man and son of god. That is all that's needed and he added that we are all to be sons of god when the naysayers got mad.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So now you can look at one and it comes out none? What kind of reasoning is that? You are trying to say that "one" is equal to "one in purpose." In the first I count one word and the second three words. There is no equivalency there.

It's not a numbers game even though that's what you want it to be. I say he meant (one in purpose) and you are ill-equipped to refute that given the way his followers interpreted his teaching in 1John 4:12-13. Surely Yeshua didn't mean for his disciples to be one "God". No. He meant one in purpose.

Perhaps you will try to read the mind of Jesus and tell us that you think he intended to say "one in purpose" instead of "one" but that can only be pure specualtion. Perhaps you will try context but I haven't rally seen you make a valid effort at that either.

Sure I've given context. I've given it throughout this thread. Your refusal to pay attention to it says more about you than me. Here's context right here....

John 17:22-23
And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and loved them, as you loved me.

1John 4:12-13
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Notes on the Bible by Albert Barnes
And the glory ... - The honor which thou hast conferred on me by admitting me to union with thee, the same honor I have conferred on them by admitting them to like union with me. May be one, even as we are one - Not in nature, or in the mode of existence - for this was not the subject of discourse, and would be impossible - but in feeling, in principle, in purpose.


People's New Testament
17:22,23 The glory which thou gavest to me I have given to them. God gave Christ the glory of Sonship and this resulted in their unity. So Christ gives to his disciples the glory of becoming the sons of God (Joh 1:12 1Jo 3:1). This glory, the adoption and gift of the Spirit, ought to effect that they may be one as we are one. We cannot pray this prayer of Jesus and have the party spirit or labor to build up sectarianism. In the spirit of love we should oppose it, and labor to destroy sectarian names, creeds, organizations and interests. As the Son and the Father are one, have one work, one kingdom, one spirit, one interest, so must all that are Christ's. We must keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). There is one body and one Spirit, as there is one Lord (Eph 4:4,5).

"one" is not equivalent to "same.

Sure it is. At least when it comes to your scriptures it can.

Gen. 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This unity between Adam and Eve is not viewed as if it would be one person walking around but one is purpose.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Whenever a person is vague enough then it leaves a lot of room for interpretation for everyone to be right depending on context. The fact that Jesus was arguing back would indicate that he did not agree with the pharisees.

It was evident that he alluded to being son of man and son of god. That is all that's needed and he added that we are all to be sons of god when the naysayers got mad.

Correct. :yes:

 

[Shermana]

It makes perfect sense. You can simply reject God whenever you wish because you simply don't believe in His method of speaking to you.

I am nothing. This is the word that I have been given at Baptism: Isa 41:24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work is of nought; If I were to speak, you would do well not to listen but it is Jesus in me who speaks because I get out of the way and don't speak on my own.

Rejecting your declaration of personal prophetic inspiration is not rejecting G-d. But I appreciate you revealing that you demand personal prophetic acknowledgement. You are facing a mighty severe Heavenly punishment if you do not repent of this false declaration of personal prophecy. In fact, I'd personally have you mentally evaluated. I hope you realize that you can't force people to accept you as a prophet as part of your argument, you have to actually debate and not rely on demanding their acceptance from others of you as speaking Holy Truth without question.

Sadly, it seems so many Trinitarians resort to this demand for Accepting some degree of prophetic inspiration within them when they can't actually argue their case. Sadly.

 

[look3467]

i think you misunderstood...
arrest him, for what?

Blasphemy! Need to know what that meant? Based on many of the responses, the answer would be alien to the wise.

Ecc 2:15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.


Quote and excerpt from John Gills exposition of the bible:
Ecc 2:15 - Then said I in my heart, as it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me,.... The wisest of kings, and the wisest of men; that is, he looked over things in his mind, and considered what had befallen him, or what were his present circumstances, or what would be his case, especially at death; and said within himself, the same things happen to me, who have attained to the highest pitch of wisdom, as to the most errant fool; and therefore no true happiness can be in this sort of wisdom. The Targum paraphrases it thus,

"as it happened to Saul the son of Kish, the king who turned aside perversely, and kept not the commandment he received concerning Amalek, and his kingdom was taken from him; so shall it happen to me;''

and why was I then more wise? the Targum adds, than he, or than any other man, or even than a fool; why have I took so much pains to get wisdom? what am I the better for it? what happiness is there in it, seeing it gives me no advantage, preference, and excellency to a fool; or secures me from the events that befall me?

Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity; this worldly wisdom has nothing solid and substantial in it, as well as pleasure; and it is a vain thing to seek happiness in it, since this is the case, that the events are the same to men that have it, as to one that has it not.

Worldly wisdom alone may be good to thy neighbor, but to thy self? But godly wisdom may not only be good to thy neighbor, but to thy self also!

The charge of blasphemy was what Jesus was arrested for.

Mat 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Can I expect the following verse to be understood in the wisdom of God?
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Is He not God or what? All the widom of this world could never give a correct answer, only the wisdom of God in us could we see to understand it.

Blessings, AJ

 

[waitasec]

Blasphemy! Need to know what that meant? Based on many of the responses, the answer would be alien to the wise.

"look, he's the one who calls himself god"​

is that accusing him of speaking sacrilegiously about himself, really? besides wasn't that the judgment of the high priest? it was the truth, wasn't it...?or was it?
otherwise what you are saying is that jesus was subjected to mans standards of who god is and not his own... interesting.

 

[Shermana]

John 10:33, like 1:1c, has an anarthrous and should be read as "Thou make thyself to be a god". That's the whole reason he quotes Psalm 82:6 right afterwards, which says "gods".