Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the 'i am' is such a weak argument, i cant believe any reasoning person would actually take it seriously.
-
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
the 'i am' is such a weak argument, i cant believe any reasoning person would actually take it seriously.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
How about you pay attention to the context of the situation. Yeshua said he was the (son of "God") who will be "seated at the right hand of the power of "God".....Their beef with him at this point was that he said he was "the son of God"......nowhere did he ever say ("he was God")....You totally looked passed the plain text and read way too much into your scriptures stuff that isn't even there. (See. John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12)
I think we have proven it many times here already, but:
(Matthew 13:15-17 [KJV]) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
You keep posting such useless posts instead of seriously discussing the arguments given...
(Matthew 13:15-17 [KJV]) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
You keep posting such useless posts instead of seriously discussing the arguments given...
outhouse
Atheistically
that script was written hundreds of years before the dogma of the trinity was created by man
Two mistakes in one sentence...
BottomlessThought
Member
Your quotes seem to adequately prove that Jesus has all the attributes of God, but only if:
1. Jesus existed.
2. God exists.
3. The Bible is to be taken literally.
In increasing order of doubt from probably wrong to provably wrong.
1. Jesus existed.
2. God exists.
3. The Bible is to be taken literally.
In increasing order of doubt from probably wrong to provably wrong.
Shermana
Heretic
I believe all 3 of those (#3 where it is correctly translated and authentic), but I completely disagree that any of those quotes prove he had the attributes of THE G-d as opposed to "A god".
The "sins are forgiven" thing proves the poster didn't read the part about where it specifically says such was given to human beings, for example.
BottomlessThought
Member
Let's put aside the hilarious flaws involved in believing that God exists, forget taking the Bible literally (a position I find completely laughable, akin to taking complete fiction on a horribly unlikely idea at its word even when that fiction is clearly flawed in nearly every way possible, but that is not our current argument). If you would be willing to put your beliefs up to scrutiny, visit the "Proofs of God" debate here.
How do the quotes not prove that Jesus had omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and omnibenevolence? They seem rather convincing to me, although of course, there is also contradictory evidence (lol) in the Bible.
Shermana
Heretic
I've put my beliefs up to much scrutnity, I used to be Atheist, however this is not the thread to discuss those things, and I've posted in many debates about the Ontological existence and evidence of Deity. You're on the wrong thread for that.
If you want to get into the reason why Jesus having supernatural characteristics makes him to be "The G-d" as opposed to "A god", (He's not all knowing as you say, not even the end time is known to him) bring up a specific specific point of contention. I see no reason why the Moshiach who is the Incarnation of the Highest Created Soul wouldn't be Omnibenevolent.
I suggest you not only stick to the actual thread topic (again, this is not a thread for discussing the veracity of the Bible beyond the manuscript evidence of various passages, or the belief in Deity itself), but also to go over the past few pages to see where all these claims and issues are discussed in detail. As you can see, merely by the fact that even the son of man does not know the Hour, that clearly disproves what you consider "Omniscience". And "Omnibenevolence" is a difficult term to define, and I see no reason why the Holiest of the Spirits of Heaven under the Lord of Spirits wouldn't be Omnibenevolent.
Which of the quotes in the beginning do you think are not conclusively debunked in terms of being "The G-d" here so far? For example "John 8:12 ... I am the light of the world" does not mean he is The G-d, it merely means he is the chosen one sent to guide to the Truth. Interpretation is not up to interpretation when it comes to what the author intended.
If you want to get into the reason why Jesus having supernatural characteristics makes him to be "The G-d" as opposed to "A god", (He's not all knowing as you say, not even the end time is known to him) bring up a specific specific point of contention. I see no reason why the Moshiach who is the Incarnation of the Highest Created Soul wouldn't be Omnibenevolent.
I suggest you not only stick to the actual thread topic (again, this is not a thread for discussing the veracity of the Bible beyond the manuscript evidence of various passages, or the belief in Deity itself), but also to go over the past few pages to see where all these claims and issues are discussed in detail. As you can see, merely by the fact that even the son of man does not know the Hour, that clearly disproves what you consider "Omniscience". And "Omnibenevolence" is a difficult term to define, and I see no reason why the Holiest of the Spirits of Heaven under the Lord of Spirits wouldn't be Omnibenevolent.
Which of the quotes in the beginning do you think are not conclusively debunked in terms of being "The G-d" here so far? For example "John 8:12 ... I am the light of the world" does not mean he is The G-d, it merely means he is the chosen one sent to guide to the Truth. Interpretation is not up to interpretation when it comes to what the author intended.
Last edited:
BottomlessThought
Member
You are right: the place for that argument is not here. Though I assure you it would be short and bloody.
Looking at the depth of the discussion here, I cannot be bothered (sorry) to engage with any of the quotes being discussed. But let me put a question to you: how do you know what the authors of the Bible intended when it came to interpretation? For all you know, it could have been complete fiction in their eyes; similarly, their verses could have been merely flowery ways of putting forward the idea that Jesus was omnipotent (I will concede that he is not omniscient). How do you know, one way or another?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
One thing you must do when joining a thread like this is make the assumption that all is true. You don't have to believe that it is but at least debate as if it is. It's without a doubt the believer believes in his scripture so those of us who don't believe don't come off as being offensive or disrespectful.
I have my doubts whether he existed. My signature clues you in on how I feel about number 2. As far as literal....well that's up for debate but the bible is written in a way where most of it was to be taken literally.
Majority view of conservative Christians? I would doubt that, on Gospel of Luke - Bible Survey
But, actually, I would argue while he started out a gentile on his way of becoming a Christian he first became a Jew, I think he was at least a Jew that first converted Judaism before he became a Christian. Some would even probably he was born a Jew, See Was Luke a Gentile? But while this article makes a very good argument that Luke wasn't a Gentile it doesn't still make a convincing argument, Luke had converted Judaism as a Gentile before he became a Christian, So, as the old saying goes, "You can have your cake and eat it too!"
So, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels strikes me as quite strong, and I would also agree with, How We Got Our Bible.
But from a conservative source, when you got a little time to read, though from my viewpoint that these even in totality won't take that long to read:
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part One by Dr John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Two
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Three
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Four
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
what do you have to go off that would prove jesus/yeshua was a deity? scripture? that doesnt cut it.
As far as we know he was a traveling teacher of judaism who was baptised and ticked off the romans and hebrews and was quickly nailed to a cross. beyond that no one knows.
Shermana
Heretic
Again, I don't think this thread is about the authenticity of the scriptures (as opposed to manuscript authenticity regarding select verses like 1 John 5:7) but whether or not Jesus says he is G-d in said Scriptures, of which the overwhelming answer is no.
If you want to get into questions of why we consider Jesus to be who the scriptures say, start another thread. I will say that I base my answer on the historicity of the "Messianic Cult" and what I consider to be the interpretation of the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. There's no way of proving that Alexander the Great led the Macedonian army or that even Napoleon was the leader of France (as opposed to a well-developed character and national mascot whose supposed personal writings appear to be fraudulent), so my basis of Jesus' existence as the manuscripts regard him is as grounded as any other text which attributes amazing feats to people, but in this case, what is attributed to him matches (in my belief) what is written in previous prophetic writings about who the Savior is supposed to be. I have no reason to either disbelieve certain cultures who refer to "beings who came from the sky" who did wondrous things.
Now regarding whether he was a deity or not, I already know that the ancient Israelites referred to angels and "heavenly beings" as "gods", so it doesn't take much of a step to say that the Moshiach, the Highest of All Souls and Redeemer of Israel could rightfully be referred to as a "god". Just as we Israelites are called "gods", except he is far higher on the Hierarchy.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
What other possible type of evidence would there be? Can you name a single other example of any type of evidence?
If you want to get into whether Jesus fits the Messianic prophecies as they are written, specifically, I suggest a new thread that's not a question of whether or not he claimed to be G-d.
outhouse
Atheistically
you brought it up lol
it would be great if there was something in reality, ancient scribes noting a spectacular event in his lifetime. We have none. Wonder why?
Instead what we have is people who wrote about him after his death who never knew or met him following a movement they wanted to get behind and creating their own personal version later exploited by others who collected ancient scripture. Which was later edited and content compiled for a specific dogma leaving a very narrow view of a traveling teacher of judaism who was baptised.
Shermana
Heretic
In relation to your objection.
My guess is it may have something to do with the mass burning of documents that occured around the 300s, the "Gospel to the Hebrews" was likely written by Matthew himself.
Mark is most likely written by Peter's scribe, there's not much reason to say otherwise, and Matthew is based on the "Gospel to the Hebrews" which was unanimously considered back in the day to have been by Matthew himself. If it was edited later, it paints a very Jewish picture which the later churches tried to get around.
As I said, if you want to discuss the historicity and authenticity of the claims and manuscripts, start another thread. This is about whether Jesus called himself G-d in the available manuscripts. Of which the answer is "No!"