Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

I DO find the interpretation that the old ways are shed to be highly offensive, and so do most Jews, besides the Trinity, that's the other reason why the usual Jewish approach to what they're told represents Christianity is "get lost". This view relies completely on cherry picked interpretations of Paul, in which Paul completely trumps everything Jesus said, such as in Matthew. Trying to tell us Jesus said the Old Law was done away with? That makes you can now cross dress and marry your sister. Take your pro-cross-dresssing and pro-sister marrying version of Christianity to another thread. Ye are known as among the "least". This is about whether Jesus said he was G-d, which he clearly didn't, not even by stretches, if you actually count context and grammar.

You have no idea what "works of G-d" actually means, I'll bet the only "work" you can think of is trying to convince people.

 

[look3467]

I DO find the interpretation that the old ways are shed to be highly offensive, and so do most Jews>>> Shermana

You suppose that's why Jesus was crucified?

Listen, I don't mean to offend because that is not in my nature.

To present the works of God as His works of creation and salvation are totally in His will to perform regardless of what any of us may think or believe.

The old is not done away with, but rather fulfilled, meaning rendered of none effect.

These are the works of God in a sequence:
1. Creation = His introduction of His creation of all there is and the creation of the first set of parents.

2. The fall = by reason of separation due to our ability to be independent entities (gods) we eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil; making us as in the likeness of God.

3. The Judgment = because of the fall, judgment can not be avoided and the sentencing pronounced.

4. Punishment/death = the resultant of the Judgment due to the fall and of a designed work of God.

Those are the works of God (The Old)of which was in need of finishing.

So let's add one more:
5.Redemption = God in Jesus redeems the world back from the separation as a new creation.
Jesus said, "It is finished" period.

Now, everything in between as human happenings, stories, characters, are events of human nature with God influencing the out come and are of human works.

I will accept your sarcasm as to "I'll bet the only "work" you can think of is trying to convince people" as truth.

I am not offended by anything pertaining to God's works, since I am fully convinced of His truths.

Mat 11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Just to ease the offense, the nation of Israel will and shall all be saved as Gods gift.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

The old is not done away with, but rather fulfilled, meaning rendered of none effect.

So explain the difference between rendered of none effect and done away with, sounds like the same thing to me. That's like saying "The French Franc is not done away with, but its been rendered of none effect". So you are saying, by your lack of response to what I said, that Christians are now allowed to Cross dress freely. That's a nice opinion, but irrelevant to whether Jesus said he was G-d.

And it sounds like the only "Work of G-d" you can think of is "being saved by accepting Jesus", that's not G-d's work, in my opinion, that would be utter blasphemy that violates everything Jesus says, not to mention the Book of Hebrews and James and John and Peter and Jude.

You suppose that's why Jesus was crucified?

He'd be rightfully put to death like any other false prophet if that was what he taught. But it appears you're not even aware what his official charge was.

 

[look3467]

So explain the difference between rendered of none effect and done away with>>>Shermana

The same laws still apply as a school master but not as a requirement.

By non effect meaning that according to the law, the least unclean thought condemned us, giving us no hope of ever complying with the law in whole, let alone having the ability to become saved.

Only God could make any changes wouldn't you think?

And that He did. The whole purpose of the law and it's strictness was to give no man the benefit of claiming his or hers righteous works and thus getting puffed up in pride.

God then , so worked to Finnish His work of creation in the form of a human body by offering that body (Jesus) up via the High priests and the Roman government to be an offering to us by fulfilling all that we could not do.

That alone gives God the credit of salvation and not of anything mankind could do.

The chosen (Nation of Israel) given oracles of God to proclaim to the world were in concert with Judas Iscariot, the High priests, the Roman government and the 12 Apostles instruments in the hands of the Potter to make and to form to His own will on the vessels of creation to achieve His end results.

Thus all the instruments are His to work with and are without any condemnation, for it is He who willed it that way.

In your case, you are a Messianic Jew not because you wanted, but because God choose for you to be as like He choose who I am.

But together, regardless of our views be brothers and sisters by the fulfillment of the law, by Jesus, liberating us all to want, to desire and not be forced to worship God as we see fit.

As for cross dressers and the like...to each his own.

God knows the hearts and thus deals accordingly, regardless of who we are.

If you or I, exercise evil, is the consequence any different?

Yet the forgiveness is the same to us both.

And it sounds like the only "Work of G-d" you can think of is "being saved by accepting Jesus"

No, I explained to you the work of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

God works in all our lives, in yours and in mine as a God of love and compassion.

Those works are personal works.

But the works of God which effects the soul of mankind are as I have outlined in the four steps.

If Jesus is not the center of all creation, then He is not the beginning of it either.

But He is the beginning of creation in that He as God recreated the first creation of death and separation to reconciliation and life forever.

Wouldn't you think that God in His infinite love would do all that for us?

Blessings, AJ

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

No. It's contested by scholars and theologians. These aren't just casual opinions such as your or mine. These are from people educated in the relevant fields.

It is in every Christian manuscript and translation (including Coptic and Pe****ta).

So what?....You have no original manuscripts. They're copies of copies of copies. Even Codex Sinaiticus is a late copy. Eusebius' quote is the earliest known quote and he's not the only one that quoted it that way. Either these historians of the day were lying or they, at one point in time before the originals were burned and destroyed, had access to said originals and quoted the verse appropriately.

The fact of the matter is it IS contested and seen as an interpolation. There are plenty of interpolations in your scripture. I'm not pointing a finger to say that's a bad thing but showing that there is an awareness of the issues. There are manuscripts that are regarded as beneficial to Christian theology but they weren't included in the bible for one reason or another or simply wasn't available (known about) when theologians were assembling scriptures to be included in a bible.

It is also available in early literature from as early as the second century AD.

But then again we actually have scholars that know the verse in question is highly contested regardless of what you may believe.

"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).

Additionally Eusebius fits the time frame perfectly and let's not forget how he originally quoted it. This is one of the reasons scholars have good reason to conclude the verse is a later addition/change.

 

[Mark2020]

No. It's contested by ...

As I said, words without proof are good for nothing.
If your proof is Eusebius, the Diatessaron is a hundred years earlier, and it has it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The point is not in Jesus denying He is not God or King of the Jews because he is.

Sure it is because that's what this thread is actually about. "Did he say he was God"...and the answer would have to be (NO)...unless you're into stretching your scriptures to fit your preconceived notions.

..."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.

This has nothing to do with Yeshua. Your translation is telling of Christian fingertips but when you go to the source (Jewish translators) it's a completely different meaning.

Mesoretic Text (Hebrew to English)
Isaiah 9:6
For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;


The NRSV (New Revised Standard Versions
Isaiah 9:6
For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Shermana]

As I said, words without proof are good for nothing.
If your proof is Eusebius, the Diatessaron is a hundred years earlier, and it has it.

Which Diatesseron exactly? As you can remember from earlier, the earliest version is simply not known, at best is the Arabic(ized) copy and maybe a few scattered fragments and remnants.

And there's also the fact that when the line shows up in Ignatius's epistles....many scholars deem it an interpolation as well. Apparently, SOMEONE was going around interpolating the triune formula in a bunch of Church Manuscripts after the 3rd century.

 

[Mark2020]

(Hebrews 1:8 [NKJV]) But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.

I had already given too much evidence supporting this translation, but I still noticed that some try to give some poor arguments about it.
So I decided to share with you the Sahidic Coptic translation, which you know is among the oldest translations:

(Hebrews 1:8 [CopticS]) ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΔΕ ϪΕ ΠΕΚΘΡΟΝΟС ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ϢΟΟΠ ϢΑ ΕΝΕϨ ΝΤΕ ΠΙΕΝΕϨ. ΑΥШ ΠϬΕΡШΒ ΜΠСΟΟΥΤΝ ΠΕ ΠϬΕΡШΒ ΝΤΕΚΜΝΤΡΡΟ.

ΠΕΚΘΡΟΝΟС ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ϢΟΟΠ ϢΑ ΕΝΕϨ ΝΤΕ ΠΙΕΝΕϨ:
(pekethronos epnoute shob sha eneh ente pieneh)
ϢΟΟΠ: (from ϢШΠ&#917 means 'to be' or 'to exist' and it precedes ϢΑ ΕΝΕϨ ΝΤΕ ΠΙΕΝΕϨ, which means 'to the age of the age' (forever / eternity)

So the meaning, as G. Horner translates it, would be:

(Hebrews 1:8 [CopticS, Horner])
but to the Son, Thy throne, God, is being unto age of the age; and the staff of the straightness is the staff of thy kingdom.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As I said, words without proof are good for nothing.

The evidence is in the writings of Eusebius itself. Either Eusebius lied or there were multiple differing copies floating around during the time.

If your proof is Eusebius, the Diatessaron is a hundred years earlier, and it has it.

Because you have no originals. At best Tatian collected copies...maybe even copies of copies. Origen, Euesbius and others quotes raise an eyebrow because it is far from what you have in your scripture and it begs the question.

 

[Mark2020]

Which Diatesseron exactly? ...

Both Arabic and Latin translations.

And your "apparently" proof is good for nothing...

 

[Shermana]

Both Arabic and Latin translations.

Ah, the Latin translation! (Those Latin translations are the most notorious for interpolations, that's where the Comma Johannum comes from!) Of course. And we know what year that came from, right? I really hope an original copy of the Diatesseron is found one day, it seems they really went out of their way to destroy the originals for some reason. I wonder if it came from the same era that the same "Triune Formula" interpolations appear in the "long-versions" of the Epistles of Ignatius.

 

[Mark2020]

Ah, the Latin translation...

lol
Latin translators are bad...
Arabic translators are bad...
All Christian translators are bad...
All Christians who quoted it are bad...

Your logic is unbelievable!!!

As I said your proof is too weak to be compared to all that.
All what you gave was "apparently someone did something"
Against all translations, manuscripts and quotations!!!

 

[Shermana]

Yeah that totally debunks what I said. My logic may be "unbelievable" to you, but to anyone remotely interested in honest examination of the texts, what I say is as legit as any scholar saying the same thing. The fact is, you base your ideas on "Translations" as if there's no possibility of tampering. You probably wouldn't even acknowledge the Comma Johannum being an interpolation. No need to discuss what the scholars say about Ignatius's epistles either, we can just sweep that under and whistle. No need to address why all the original Diatesserons seem to be gone either.

 

[Mark2020]

Yeah that totally...

And I think you'll say that Coptic translators are bad too.

 

[Mark2020]

The evidence is in the writings of Eusebius itself...

That's still nothing.
Compared to hundreds of other manuscripts, translations and quotations, that's a joke.

 

[Shermana]

That's still nothing.
Compared to hundreds of other manuscripts, translations and quotations, that's a joke.

Perhaps you're honorable enough to admit that maybe Eusebius had a different copy? (And a copy that was apparently A-ok with the Ruling Elite).

Why is the last page of Matthew missing from the Sinaiticus, I wonder if that's just coincidence.... (A coincidence like all the Syriac versions of the Diatesseron magically disappearing)

*Edit: May be the Vaticanus where the last page of Matthew is gone, time to check.

 

[Mark2020]

Perhaps you're honorable enough ...
Why is the last page of Matthew missing from the Sinaiticus, I wonder if that's just coincidence....

*Edit: May be the Vaticanus where the last page of Matthew is gone, time to check...

Perhaps you're honorable enough to stop lying?

As we can see here is the last page of Matthew from the Sinaiticus:
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

And here from the Vaticanus:
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Of course both are available and both contain the verse.
As I said it is in every manuscript.
I hope things are clear now. Who is telling the truth and who is not.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, it appears that I was incorrect on that one. That's why I said I need to check, I have to look where I read that the last page of Matthew was missing from a major manuscript, but it appears you are not honorable enough to admit that maybe Eusebius had another copy. And it appears you refuse to acknowledge that the Latin translation of the Diatesseron may have a late dating.

Aha:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]At least two texts have been found that make no mention of these things:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]"Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place."
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif](Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636) [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

So much for EVERY Manuscript.

Don't you just love those Coptic texts? I do.

And there's also evidence that Origen got edited...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]The Hibbert Journal notes that Origen quotes Matt.28:19 three times---ending the quote abruptly at "nations" each time, and "that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'In my Name,' struck [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]out." [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif](Conybeare).[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Mark2020]

Okay, it appears that I was incorrect on that one.

Not just that one.
Rather 'as usual', or do you want me to remind you?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif](Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636) [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Useless...
Both Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic have it.
(Matthew 28:19 [CopticB]) ⲙⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲁ`ⲥⲃⲱ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉⲛⲱⲙⲥ `ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ `ⲉ`ⲫⲣⲁⲛ `ⲙ`ⲫⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ `ⲡϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ
(Matthew 28:19 [CopticS]) ΒШΚ ϬΕ ΝΤΕΤΝϮСΒШ ΝΝϨΕΘΝΟС ΤΗΡΟΥ. ΝΤΕΤΝΒΑΠΤΙΖΕ ΜΜΟΟΥ ΕΠΡΑΝ ΜΠΕΙШΤ ΜΝ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΜΝ ΠΕΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΕΤΟΥΑΑΒ.

Otherwise show the manuscript that you got.

but it appears you are not honorable enough to admit that maybe Eusebius had another copy. And it appears you refuse to acknowledge that the Latin translation of the Diatesseron may have a late dating.

Again and as ever, useless..

"admit that maybe" : funny.

Attacking all the Latin translators (and all Arab and Coptic ones) for not liking the translation of a book is another one of your funny arguments.

Try not to look more desperate than you already are.