Did Jesus say he was God???

[waitasec]

Not at all which is why I always go to a Jewish source to see how they understand and render their scriptures. Let me just say this categorically....The Septuagint is WORTHLESS and I'm not sure why we're trying to use Greek renderings of the Hebrew scripture.......There are some things in the KJV they got right and others where they clearly missed the mark. Exodus 3:14 is a prime example.....


http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.a...=14&portion=13
3:14 'I Will Be Who I Will Be,' replied God to Moses. [God then] explained, 'This is what you must say to the Israelites: 'I Will Be sent me to you.' '

3:15God then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.

The above is how it should be. Notice in 3:15 "God" actually tells Moses his name?

"YHVH...is my eternal name"......and this is how I'm to be recalled for all generations...

i agree that the septuagint is worthless. and i think that the footnote confirming what you are pointing out is interesting... i will be what i will be
it's there for everyone to see. what is interesting is that "i am" and "i will be" are two very different things and why do the translations that are based on the septuagint misrepresent the original?

my point being is that when jesus uses these words "i am" he is saying "i will be" god meaning he isn't now but will be.

 

[waitasec]

for clarification i have to reiterate this excellent point of yours...

3:15God then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.

The above is how it should be. Notice in 3:15 "God" actually tells Moses his name?

"YHVH...is my eternal name"......and this is how I'm to be recalled for all generations...

i don't understand how anyone can argue with this...

 

[starlite]

Seems he had a moment of doubt there but maybe he got over it somehow. "Father into your hands I commit my spirit." Although those are different versions of what he said not sure of the order. Either way not the words of a god. They are words of a follower of god.

While we cannot be sure of Jesus’ motives for saying this, his words seem to indicate that Jesus recognized that Jehovah had taken His protection away so that His Son’s integrity could be fully tested. It is also possible that Jesus said this because he wanted to fulfill what Psalm 22:1 foretold regarding him.(Matt. 27:46.)

 

[awemazed]

To me it looks like being the son OF God is not the same as being God. Like my son is son of his father (my husband) but is NOT my husband. He is the SON- The only son who has the divine and unique nature of The Father but still… not the FATHER Himself.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

To me it looks like being the son OF God is not the same as being God. Like my son is son of his father (my husband) but is NOT my husband. He is the SON- The only son who has the divine and unique nature of The Father but still… not the FATHER Himself.

Good point ^above^.
The heavenly resurrected Jesus still considers himself to be the 'Son' of God.
-Rev 2v18

Jesus at Revelation [3v14 B] is called the beginning of the creation by God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My research gives evidence that John was the writer:
(1) The writer of the book was evidently a Jew, as is indicated by his familiarity with Jewish opinions.—Joh 1:21; 6:14; 7:40; 12:34.
(2) He was a native dweller in the land of Palestine, as is indicated by his thorough acquaintance with the country. The details mentioned concerning places named indicate personal knowledge of them. He referred to “Bethany across the Jordan” (Joh 1:28) and ‘Bethany near Jerusalem.’ He wrote that there was a garden at the place where Christ was impaled and a new memorial tomb in it, that Jesus “spoke in the treasury as he was teaching in the temple”, and that “it was wintertime, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the colonnade of Solomon”.
(3) The writer’s own testimony and the factual evidence show that he was an eyewitness. He names individuals who said or did certain things (Joh 1:40; 6:5, 7; 12:21; 14:5, 8, 22; 18:10); he is detailed about the times of events (4:6, 52; 6:16; 13:30; 18:28; 19:14; 20:1; 21:4); he factually designates numbers in his descriptions, doing so unostentatiously.—1:35; 2:6; 4:18; 5:5; 6:9, 19; 19:23; 21:8, 11.
(4) The writer was an apostle. No one but an apostle could have been eyewitness to so many events associated with Jesus’ ministry; also his intimate knowledge of Jesus’ mind, feelings, and reasons for certain actions reveals that he was one of the party of 12 who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry. For example, he tells us that Jesus asked Philip a question to test him, “for he himself knew what he was about to do.” Jesus knew “in himself that his disciples were murmuring.” He knew “all the things coming upon him.” He “groaned in the spirit and became troubled.” The writer was also familiar with the apostles’ thoughts and impressions, some of which were wrong and were corrected later.
(5) Additionally, the writer is spoken of as “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.” He was evidently one of the three most intimate apostles that Jesus kept nearest to him on several occasions, such as the transfiguration and the time of his anguish in the garden of Gethsemane. Of these three apostles, James is eliminated as the writer because of his being put to death about 44 C.E. by Herod Agrippa I. There is no evidence whatsoever for such an early date for the writing of this Gospel. Peter is ruled out by having his name mentioned alongside “the disciple whom Jesus used to love.”
Authenticity:
The Gospel of John was accepted as canonical by the early Christian congregation. It appears in nearly all the ancient catalogs, being there accepted without question as authentic. The epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 C.E.) contain clear traces of his use of John’s Gospel, as do also the writings of Justin Martyr a generation later. It is found in all the most important codices of the Christian Greek Scriptures— the Sinaitic, Vatican, Alexandrine, Ephraemi, Bezae, Washington I, and Koridethi codices—as well as in all the early versions. A fragment of this Gospel containing part of John chapter 18 is contained in the John Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52), of the first half of the second century. Also parts of chapters 10 and 11 are found in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 1 (P45), and a large part of the whole book is found in the Bodmer Papyrus No. 2 (P66) of the early third century.

starlite- found your ^above^ post to be very interesting.
Thanks for posting.

 

[waitasec]

While we cannot be sure of Jesus’ motives for saying this, his words seem to indicate that Jesus recognized that Jehovah had taken His protection away so that His Son’s integrity could be fully tested. It is also possible that Jesus said this because he wanted to fulfill what Psalm 22:1 foretold regarding him.(Matt. 27:46.)

either way it is either self fulfilling...
or a moment of doubt...and if jesus were god why would he doubt...?


it doesn't add up :no:

 

[waitasec]

To me it looks like being the son OF God is not the same as being God. Like my son is son of his father (my husband) but is NOT my husband. He is the SON- The only son who has the divine and unique nature of The Father but still… not the FATHER Himself.

so then what would set him apart from anyone else?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

either way it is either self fulfilling...
or a moment of doubt...and if jesus were god why would he doubt...?
it doesn't add up :no:

Also, by Jesus saying, ' My God, my God why have you forsaken me' showed not doubt, but showed everyone that God was Not upholding him, or Not comforting him, rather that Jesus was laying down his life of his own free choice, his own free will for us.

 

[Muffled]

:biglaugh:


(Philippians 2:6 [KJV]) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

(Philippians 2:6 [NA27])
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

μορφῇ :

morphé: form, shape​

Short Definition: form, shape, outward appearance
Definition: form, shape, outward appearance.

3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence.

form. shape; figuratively, nature -- form.


A grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament :

μορφή form; like “form”, μ. can den. anything from “outward appearance” to “substance”, in vv. 6–7 perh. transl. nature.

ὑπ-άρχων ptc -άρχω though often simply be, the exact sense is be from the beginning, w. ref. to God would mean being from all eternity.


The complete word study dictionary : New Testament

Morphé̄ in Phil. 2:6–8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphé&#772 of God who was not God. However, morphé̄ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God.

We currently use morph as a verb to indicate a change from one form to another. However there is no form to God (that we know of) so the natural meaning here would be "nature." The sense of the statement is that God went from His natural state to a human state withut losing equality with His natural state. Perhaps the devil thought a human form would change God's view of things but God is immutable.

 

[Muffled]

for the christians he said , but acuatly he did not , because there is no evidence .
only the writers gospels claims (whom did not never met Jesus (pbuh)ever of their lives !!!)
there is no credibitly , because in this case we called the mass modification/edit of original gospel of Jesus (pbuh) inspiration
that's why we had more than four gospel in the history (rejected gospels) .and because the main editor paul was Jewish maybe he add these gospels to Torah "old testemant" . and call it "Bible" inspite the contradictions and different between the New and Old testement .

Honesly if we count the argument that deny the deity of Jesus (pbuh) we will find many and many
but if we count the argument that support the deity of Jesus (pbuh) we will find few and may have other explaination or wrong translation .

There is no evidence to back up your statements. You have said the equivalence of the moon is made of green cheese. The evidence says otherwise.

 

[Muffled]

we'll see.

it's as if he just takes those words at face value without regard to what gave those words meaning

"just as you are in me and I am in you"
means nothing in that sentence with out the qualifier which so happens to be
"that all of them maybe one"

now if mark2020 can show how a group of people can be one being, rather than in one accord, then i will concede...but i doubt that he can because it defies logic and reason on all levels.

I can. God is omnipresent. He can dwell in any believer.

Try this one out. May the moon be as yellow as the sun. Obviously the moon may not be yellow except in certain atmospheric conditions. The same works for people. People may be one with God if they permit God to be in control but it is not their natural state. Jesus is one with God. It is His natural state just as the sun is yellow in its natural state. The text does not say may Jesus be one with God, it says He is one with God.

 

[starlite]

either way it is either self fulfilling...
or a moment of doubt...and if jesus were god why would he doubt...?


it doesn't add up :no:

I agree that Jesus "didn't" doubt at all

 

[outhouse]

There is no evidence to back up your statements. You have said the equivalence of the moon is made of green cheese. The evidence says otherwise.

in this case and context I think he should not throw stones while in a glass house

 

[outhouse]

(whom did not never met Jesus (pbuh)ever of their lives !!!)

this was all he said correct

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We currently use morph as a verb to indicate a change from one form to another. However there is no form to God (that we know of) so the natural meaning here would be "nature."

First off let's just state the obvious here. Yeshua is not the one speaking here at Philippians 2:6, considering "your" thread here asks (Did Jesus say he was God???), but it's obviously written by some one whom we know never met Yeshua. Even so Paul still preaches, as did Peter, that Yeshua has a god that exalted Yeshua.

Philippians 2:9 (Etherige from the Pe****ta)
Wherefore also Aloha (God) greatly exalted him, and gave him a name that is more excellent than all names

emphasis mine.

Acts 5:31 (RKJV)
Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins

Acts 5:31 (Etheridge - from the Pe****ta)
Him hath Aloha constituted a Prince and a Saviour, and elevated him at his right hand, to give repentance and remission of sins unto Israel.

The sense of the statement is that God went from His natural state to a human state withut losing equality with His natural state. Perhaps the devil thought a human form would change God's view of things but God is immutable.

Wrong.....

Mark 11:12-13
And the day after, when he went from Beth-ania, he hungered. And he saw a certain fig-tree from afar which had leaves on it, and he came to it, if he might find upon it somewhat; but when he came, he found on it only the leaves, for the time was not for figs (to have been ingathered)

Mark 13:32
But of that day and of that hour man knoweth not, nor the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

If he was equal to/with his god because he IS "God", as you assert, then he, as "God", should know the day and hour....and if he IS "God", as you assert, then he, as "God", should have had full knowledge of the seasons and knew the tree was not in season to grow figs. Instead...he curses the the tree and the tree would, from that day forward, not grow figs....

So NO....He's not "God" or equal to his god.

 

[waitasec]

I can. God is omnipresent. He can dwell in any believer.

Try this one out. May the moon be as yellow as the sun. Obviously the moon may not be yellow except in certain atmospheric conditions. The same works for people. People may be one with God if they permit God to be in control but it is not their natural state. Jesus is one with God. It is His natural state just as the sun is yellow in its natural state. The text does not say may Jesus be one with God, it says He is one with God.

yes people are one with god just as jesus was nonetheless.

 

[waitasec]

I agree that Jesus "didn't" doubt at all

why:
expressing surprise or indignation

doubt:
feeling uncertainty or lack of conviction

 

[Muffled]

yes people are one with god just as jesus was nonetheless.

Saying it does not make it so. The text does not state that people are one with God. Read it and weep as they say in crd games when the person has a winning hand.

 

[Muffled]

either way it is either self fulfilling...
or a moment of doubt...and if jesus were god why would he doubt...?


it doesn't add up :no:

It is not self fulfilling.

1. v6 But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised of the people.

God doesn't force people to despise Jesus or repraoch Him. The reaction to Jesus should have been one of joy such as the shepherds who witnessed the angels announcement of His birth exhibited.

2 v8 Commit thyself unto Jehovah; Let him deliver him: Let him rescue him, seeing he delighteth in him.

This is exactly what the Pharisees said but God didn't make them say it.

3. vs14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint: My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; And my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; And thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

Jesus didn't force the Romans to not give Him water or to nail Him to the cross.

4. v18 They part my garments among them, And upon my vesture do they cast lots.

Jesus did not require the soldiers to cast lots for His garments

Quite obviously an assignation of doubt does not fit and a reference to prophecy being fulfilled does fit. THere is no way to prove that the statement is a statement of doubt.