javajo
Well-Known Member
Many good translations and in depth commentaries on the verse here: http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-16.htm1 Timothy 3:16
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus say he was God???
- Thread starter Muffled
- Start date
"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.
Jesus never called Himself God. He was accused of being equal with God, meaning that He was God.
You see, it has to do with whose allegiance the Jews people gave to. To them God the Father was their only one and all others false.
That was a designed feature of God in order that Jesus would be rejected.
By His rejection, God now could incorporate in His salvation plan all of humanity instead of just those to whom He had chosen to introduce Him to the world.
Now there is neither Jew nor Greek: Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Prior to Jesus, there were only the Jews who had a direct relationship with God and all others..........well, had their own gods.
Blessings, AJ
Translations, commentaries are all good and fine, yet what is key is, faith in God even to the very simple in understanding.
Blessings, AJ
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
To be "equal WITH" does not mean one is that which he is trying to be equal with because he will still be separate to that which he's trying to be equal with but never can be.
Now of course that was ("THEIR") charge but Yeshua immediately attempts to clarify their misconceptions.....
John 519-
Then answered Jesus and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do, he himself does. For the Father loves the Son, and has shown him all things that himself does and he will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.
This it Yeshua right here telling them he is not "equal with" his god.
Last edited:
How does that make Jesus an exact copy of God? We already knew the line of Jacob and David would inherit this.
You are correct in your explanation.
But what you are not seeing is the reason why? Why did He not claim His divinity?
If Jesus was to claim His divinity as God, then Jesus could not fill our shoes as God, but as a man God, He could.
And to that is the reason why.
Blessings, AJ
Jesus as a mere man could like us, affect our souls to no degree with respect to salvation.
But as God, He had the full authority to effect a change in all of our souls in respect to our salvation.
Of all the religious beliefs that you know about, tell in which one has God doing all the work of salvation?
blessings, AJ
Why would Jesus want to deceive anyone by saying he was Son if he wasn't?
-John 10v36
Weren't the demons still in heaven the same time Jesus was in heaven before God sent Jesus to earth?
According to Mark [1v24] the demons say they know who Jesus is.
The demons believe: Jesus is the the Holy One of God.
Mark wrote [14vs61,62] that Jesus was asked if he was the Son of God?
Jesus answered, "I am". Not I am God, but I am the Son of God.
That is why at Mark [10v18] Jesus could say why call him good?
There is none good but one, that is, God.
The God of Jesus is that one God. -Rev 3v12
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
We can do this all day long but the fact is that verse (Matthew 28:19) is highly contested and regarded as an interpolation.
"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).
"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).
Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit" (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).
"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord...........We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged" (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page
Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same" (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).
So regardless of what bible you find that verse or those who may have quoted it some time ago there is good reason to call it into question seeing as though at one point in time it was no quoted the way you have it in your bible. The general consensus is that it is an interpolation...like may other supposed saying in your scriptures....
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Then what's the disconnect? Trinitarians can't keep using that verse or any other if they are going to continue to ignore the biblical Yeshua's clarification of the charges against him. 'You're making your self equal to God'.....'No I'm not. I'm nothing without my god. He instructed me and guides me'.....'Are you the King of the Jews'.....'That's what you say. That's not what I'm saying'.....etc....
I've missed nothing. What I'm not doing is taking something so plain and direct and giving my own interpretation as to what he "might" have meant when he said what he said. Even if you look at my paraphrasing above it is still spot on to what your scriptures says...thus I conclude Yeshua never said he was "God" nor taught his followers he was. As far as "God" forgiving its creation of wrong doings or "sin" there is nowhere in the OT that "God" comes in the flesh in order to do such a thing.
2 Chronicles 7:14
"if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Jeremiah 31:34
"No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
Jeremiah 36:3
"It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin."
:sad:
Last edited:
Neither is it highly contested nor regarded as an interpolation. Maybe only in the minds of those who like to make up stories and believe them.
It is in every Christian manuscript and translation (including Coptic and Pe****ta). It is also available in early literature from as early as the second century AD.
The point is not in Jesus denying He is not God or King of the Jews because he is.
The term "servant" is not above his master is evidently necessary in order for Jesus to be in servitude to the powers that be. In other words subjected to mankind's laws and rule that only as a servant could He accomplish His mission.
As God why should He? And as God what could He accomplish? God could have easily had but to speak anything into or out of existence.
So as a servant, Jesus could be as like you and I subject to all the conditions that mankind faces.
But as God, able not to trespass any of His own rules.
It was then by design that Jesus would allow mankind to lord over Him, to accuse him OF BLASPHEMY, and to find fault with Him in order that Jesus as God could remove the death penalty which loumed over all of us and gift us with life instead.
..."there is nowhere in the OT that "God" comes in the flesh in order to do such a thing"...
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Now, God being the designer and creator of all there is, designed us as independent entities, as gods, would you not reason that as God the creator, the designer, at some point that He would make the move to save that creation? When at the very point of the individual entity becoming as like Him, separated from Him by reason of designed effect? (Death)
The tree with held from mankind (Tree of life) was re introduced in the form of Jesus.
In Jesus there is life should we reach out and eat of the fruit of knowledge of His existence.
As for the forgiveness of sins: The one who bought all our sins is the owner of all of it, lock stock and barrel.
Being the owner, as only God can be, owns the right to forgive whom He pleases, when He pleases.
But the main point of His coming was not so much to forgive our sins committed, but to reconcile us back to the Father since mankind became lost in the creative process due to no fault of mankind.
It was all God's doing.
If you could look through the eyes of God, you would see all that has transpired in the His creative works: 1.creation, 2. the fall, 3. the judgment and 4. the death of humanity.
That is the first creation.
The second is like unto the first in that step four is eliminated completely!
Jesus, as God went through those four same steps and nailed them to the cross, ending the death penalty of step four, as a gift from God to all mankind.
What is left is the spiritual 3 steps.
Mind you, these are not documented word for word concepts but are implied, extrapolated in light of those four steps.
We become so busy trying to explain every detail of every passage that we miss the main concept, and that is the works of God verses the3 works of man.
God is love period. Did He not demonstrate it in Jesus when Jesus spoke not a word as He was led like a sheep to the slaughter?
Did Jesus not ask, "forgive them Father for they know not what they do"?
So, how is it then that we want to paint God as incapable of presenting Himself as Jesus in order to accomplish His own goals?
Are we of greater understanding than God that we should deny God His rightful ways of working thing out?
Humbling ourselves to His majesty, His Kingship, His Lordship, his creative powers, His sustaining love in spite of our own selfish desires, is the beginnings of our new relationship with Jesus as our God, known to us only as Jesus. For who has seen God and lived?
Blessings, AJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by look3467
Jesus never called Himself God. He was accused of being equal with God, meaning that He was God.
To be "equal WITH" does not mean one is that which he is trying to be equal with because he will still be separate to that which he's trying to be equal with but never can be.
In other words, if I were to explain what you said above in number form, it would look like this: 1 = 1 but 1 = 0 when 1 tries to equal 1, because 1 = 0 being separate, 1 could never equal 1.
The way it is is like this: 1 = 1, in creation,(Father) 1=1 in re creation(Son)and 1 = 1
in sustainability. (Holy Spirit)
Keep those things in mind when you are navigating through the maze of differing opinions, scripture interpretations, traditions and anything mankind has dreamned up.
Gods works are what matters. mankind's works are limited only to this existence.
Blessings, AJ
Shermana
Heretic
Once again, Isaiah 9:6 should read: "A mighty god" and "Father of ages". There is absolutely no "The" before Mighty God, which is severe scripture twisting by dubiously adding the non-existent article on the translator's parts (KJV is guilty and others), and "Avi Ad" is in the posessive sense so at best it can be read as "Father OF Eternity" but "Ad" doesn't always mean "Eternal", especially in this direct posessive sense, it comes out to, as many translate it as, "Father of ages". Many early translations of Isaiah 9:6 use "A strong god" for El Gibbor. (Notice it is El, not Elohim). Omitting the possessive to call it "Everlasting Father" is another example of blatant scripture twisting by the translators. "Father of ages" is not the same thing.
But the use of the article "the" before "Mighty G-d" is one of the most glaringly obvious twistings of scripture there is.
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=26
You can even read it as "mighty power"
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Just because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge all scholars outside of the Evangelical camp doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. And even many Evangelicals are surprisingly honest enough to at least acknowledge it. And many Bibles include footnotes on the subject or even Bible-dictionaries mention it, like the Interpreter's.
Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua - Trinitarian Baptism and Matthew 28.19
Last edited:
It may very well read as you say but in context with the works of God, it is rendered as written.
You see, but can not see the works of God in the dealings with Old Testament scripture and the change to the law which God instituted in Jesus.
Why was Jesus rejected by the Jews? Why is Jesus still not accepted by the Jews as the Messiah the Son of the Living God?
Blindness still remains on the part of the nation of Israel and all others in the world as to the divinity of Jesus.
Not until Jesus is accepted as to He really is, blindness by the scripture to Jesus remains.
Limiting God to the Old Testament and not to the Son's new creation is tyo remain subject to the laws of the Old Testament.
Grace thus does not exist as a gift from God in our behalf and are left to rely on our own righteous merits to perhaps may be, God's grace will forgive us.
The New Creation requires no merit on our part! In fact it beckonds us to rest from our works at righteouness because Jesus already fulfilled them for us.
So, you and I and everybody who wishes, and desires, find their year of Jubilee (Sabbath rest) in Jesus.
Otherwise, continue on your present course missing out on a tremendously wonderful blessings on having a personal relationship with God through Jesus.
Blessings, AJ
Shermana
Heretic
I have no idea how you disproved anything I said.
It appears you have no idea what an actual Jubilee year or Sabbath rest is either.
Why was Jesus entire Church Jewish until much later? He was rejected by most because the Pharisees saw him as a threat.
The Trinity remains to be one of the main reasons why most Jews absolutely despise what they're told is "Christianity" and will continue to be until it is dispelled.
It appears you have no idea what an actual Jubilee year or Sabbath rest is either.
Thanks for your advice, but you have no idea what my relation with G-d and Yashua is like. Why don't you try actually sticking to the grammar issues instead of making pointless personal attacks in which you feel you are bold enough to say that I don't know G-d and Jesus? I'll bet you haven't even had a real prayer answered in a long time.
Last edited:
Scholars without solid proofs are useless...
Words like "probably" or "doubt" are good for nothing...
Last edited:
Don't say should read...
Say your opinion, or someone else's...
Try to have some respect towards people...
Did you not read the first sentence of mine? ..."It may very well read as you say"...
I am presenting you with view of a different angle pertaining to "the works of God".
The intent and purpose of the works of God in Jesus was to re-create the Old to the New.
All who believe in Jesus are in the new, shedding the old (works of the Law) to the New (works of God).
If that offends you I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
Is not the word "free" have anything to do with the word Jubilee?
Lev 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
Proclaim Liberty? From what? As a servant to?
Lev 25:9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
Lev 25:11 A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.
Meaning Rest from?
Lev 25:54 And if he be not redeemed in these years, then he shall go out in the year of jubile, both he, and his children with him.
Jesus is our rest, our Sabbath and are set free in the year of His atonement as our Jubile.
In that context, are the works of God.
Blessings, AJ