Did Jesus say he was God???

[Dirty Penguin]

I said nothing about having a theological discussion. I just think it is insincere and hypocritical for an atheist to quote scriptures when the reality is that an atheist does not believe the scriptures to be true.

And I don't. By your logic it would be hypocritical for a Christian to quote the Qur'an considering he or she does not accept Muhammad as a prophet but when has that stopped any Christian on this forum from doing so? Most Atheist that discuss these theological concepts aren't necessarily "insincere". You usually can tell the ones that are while others want to simply keep the discussion/debate civil. Had the OP wished to only engage the opinion of fellow Christians he would have sought to place it in the proper thread section. Since he didn't then discussion is open to all who wish to comment....

 

[Shermana]

It is my Opinion that at the time of christ there were two sects of his followers those who received his message and lived by it , and those who created a cult around the messanger that is Jesus. The latter established a religion that is the religious institution we see today.and even these have their disputes created more sects. The first ones who just took Jesus's message lived by his teaching and his universal morals lived not rich lives but fulfilled where as the latter ones became the same thing that Jesus was unpleased with that being the oligarchy that was the Jewish temple.

You basically got it. The Nazarenes and "Jewish Christians" before Paul were those who actually took the message, which was basically a reactionary form of pre-Pharisee, pre-Talmudic ancient Israelite Torah-ism, coupled with belief in Yashua as the Prophecied Guilt Offering, and then later on, the Paulines and "Gentile" Christian sects warped the message into completely different, including deifying Jesus through beliefs like Modalism and the Trinity. And they also may have had a hand in editing and redacting the scriptures and church-father writings to their liking.

 

[Shermana]

And I don't. By your logic it would be hypocritical for a Christian to quote the Qur'an considering he or she does not accept Muhammad as a prophet but when has that stopped any Christian on this forum from doing so? Most Atheist that discuss these theological concepts aren't necessarily "insincere". You usually can tell the ones that are while others want to simply keep the discussion/debate civil. Had the OP wished to only engage the opinion of fellow Christians he would have sought to place it in the proper thread section. Since he didn't then discussion is open to all who wish to comment....

I love the defense of "You don't believe in the scripture so you can't quote it", such a laughable defensive tactic, speaks volumes. As if only believers can quote scriptures in a debate. Oh the desperation. It's as if they know they are cornered and are looking for the escape hatch. Perhaps Christians shouldn't quote anything Evolutionists say in their arguments against them either. No quoting Darwin either. Heck, they shouldn't quote anything they remotely disagree with by this logic.

 

[Mcshane22]

You basically got it. The Nazarenes and "Jewish Christians" before Paul were those who actually took the message, which was basically a reactionary form of pre-Pharisee, pre-Talmudic ancient Israelite Torah-ism, coupled with belief in Yashua as the Prophecied Guilt Offering, and then later on, the Paulines and "Gentile" Christian sects warped the message into completely different, including deifying Jesus through beliefs like Modalism and the Trinity. And they also may have had a hand in editing and redacting the scriptures and church-father writings to their liking.

Great info ill have to look into it more . My opinion was just a hypothesis I came to using my knowledge of social sciences and trying put myself into that point in time with all that was occurring , politically, cultural atmosphere. As well as biblical research

 

[outhouse]

It is my Opinion that at the time of christ there were two sects of his followers those who received his message and lived by it , and those who created a cult around the messanger that is Jesus. The latter established a religion that is the religious institution we see today.and even these have their disputes created more sects. The first ones who just took Jesus's message lived by his teaching and his universal morals lived not rich lives but fulfilled where as the latter ones became the same thing that Jesus was unpleased with that being the oligarchy that was the Jewish temple.

you might want to look into the disciples and who and what they were. Theres a god chance there were more then two, even though only so many were recorded or better yet, writings that survived.

 

[Mcshane22]

you might want to look into the disciples and who and what they were. Theres a god chance there were more then two, even though only so many were recorded or better yet, writings that survived.

Good point. Some times the deeper I try analyze the bible get the sense that I may only trying to rationalize the irrational.

Spinoza said it best when he said the idea of a omnipitant god taking the form as a man is just a as absurd as a circle taking upon the nature of a square

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Good point. Some times the deeper I try analyze the bible get the sense that I may only trying to rationalize the irrational.
Spinoza said it best when he said the idea of a omnipitant god taking the form as a man is just a as absurd as a circle taking upon the nature of a square

John concludes [20v31] that he [John] wrote that we might believe Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.

The resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks of himself as the Son of God.
-Rev 2v18
The resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.
-Rev 3v12
The resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he was:
'the beginning of the creation by God' according to Rev. 3v14 B.

 

[outhouse]

John concludes [20v31] that he [John] wrote that we might believe Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.

the author's [plural] of John is unknown.

The resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks of himself as the Son of God.
-Rev 2v18
The resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.
-Rev 3v12
The resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he was:
'the beginning of the creation by God' according to Rev. 3v14 B.

should not have even made it to canon its so far out there. Its not historical accurate in many aspects

 

[waitasec]

I just think it is insincere and hypocritical for an atheist to quote scriptures when the reality is that an atheist does not believe the scriptures to be true.

it's a way for an atheist to point out that these are unsubstantiated claims..
so in fact, it's sincerely appropriate.

 

[waitasec]

Had the OP wished to only engage the opinion of fellow Christians he would have sought to place it in the proper thread section. Since he didn't then discussion is open to all who wish to comment....

question is, whats the problem with that...?

 

[waitasec]

I love the defense of "You don't believe in the scripture so you can't quote it", such a laughable defensive tactic, speaks volumes. As if only believers can quote scriptures in a debate. Oh the desperation. It's as if they know they are cornered and are looking for the escape hatch. Perhaps Christians shouldn't quote anything Evolutionists say in their arguments against them either. No quoting Darwin either. Heck, they shouldn't quote anything they remotely disagree with by this logic.

you're absolutely spot on...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

John 10:34, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”

To me this statement makes no since unless in John 10:33 they actually accused him of being (a god).....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

question is, whats the problem with that...?

None at all. As Shermana said...it's a defense tactic on the part of (some) christians.

 

[Mcshane22]

To me this statement makes no since unless in John 10:33 they actually accused him of being (a god).....

From what I understand from reading 30-38 Jesus makes a clear distinction that he is not God the father but a son of god.

My take on these passages is he is not saying he is the Jewish messiah but explaining to them that they can believe in a messiah sent from god, but they find it hard to understand that he is bringing a similar message not as a deity or a messiah but a man with a universal moral code. He does this to relate to them, reminds me much of how Catholics established a relation of lady gautalupe for south America .

 

[idav]

To me this statement makes no since unless in John 10:33 they actually accused him of being (a god).....

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]?

The trinitarians have to go with the pharisee on this one. Obviously Jesus had a rebuttal from the OT it says "ye are sons of the most high, ye are gods" or some such thing. It would have been an opportune moment for Jesus to agree that he was saying he was God. Jesus clearly explained what being a son of god means.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thank you for pointing out that the website was Catholic, I didn’t realize that. Although, I don’t see that it makes any difference since I have no disagreement with their perspective on this subject. I notice you don’t seem to mind linking to Catholic, Christian, or Jewish websites when it suits your perspective though you may totally disagree with everything else they believe.

I don't mind linking if the information is correct. I'm not trying to insinuate that you're a catholic but pointing out that in that online version the bishops have posted they interpert the word to not mean "virgin" in the verses you linked. Now, the context will always dictate the meaning and use of the word. In Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy of a child to be born may have been in reference the son of Ahaz. Isaiah 9:6 confirms this.

Below are the Strong’s definitions for the Hebrew words almah and bethulah. You can as you say, go on all night or all day, but you are not going to convince me to agree with your position, as it seems I cannot convince you.

Then you need to do more research if it lead you to the conclusion that (almah) at Isaiah 7:14 says ("virgin"). The context of chapters 7, 8 and nine should not lead you to the conclusion that Isaiah was referring to a 731 year future prophecy to a non-believing king that was seeking alliances with the Assyrians of a pending war.

I have researched this and read all the passages using the word almah and believe the reference in Matthew to be correct, especially because as I have already said he was led by the Holy Spirit to make reference to this passage in Isaiah. Besides that there are instances where the word bethulah is used in the scriptures where the context does not always infer a virgin, as you assert it does.

And the 7 or so references that use the word, in context, does not infer "virginity". I've already shown that Gen. 24:43 has nothing to with virginity because at 24:16 the actual word for "virgin" is used.

5959. almah
damsel, maid, virgin
Feminine of elem; a lass (as veiled or private) -- damsel, maid, virgin.

Correct. Now look at it's masculine root (elem). It simply means "young man". Almah is the feminine form and means "young woman". It's more to do with a prepubescent girl of marriageable age who is protected (veiled) by her parents.

I agree there is nothing wrong with admitting error, but I am not at the point of honestly seeing error in the scriptures as recorded in Matthew.

I just showed you the contradiction. Matthew incorrectly makes a connection to a prophecy that had nothing to do with Yeshua especially considering the "almah" in 7:14 is a young woman and the prophecy faux pas of Zachariah with Jeremiah Matthew references.

 

[InChrist]

In Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy of a child to be born may have been in reference the son of Ahaz. Isaiah 9:6 confirms this.

[FONT=&quot]No, because the son of Ahaz was already born before the prophecy was given.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“In 2 Kings 16:2, the Bible reveals that Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign and he reigned for sixteen years. Therefore, his kingship ended at the age of thirty-six (20 + 16 = 36). We see also that 2 Kings 16:20 teaches that his son Hezekiah took the throne as king immediately upon his father's death. Moreover, 2 Kings 18:2 provides critical information indicating that Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. Therefore, since Ahaz died at the age of thirty-six and Hezekiah took the throne at the age of twenty-five, Hezekiah was eleven years younger than Ahaz (36 - 25 = 11). Since Isaiah chapter 7 describes Isaiah's visit to king Ahaz, Hezekiah was at least nine years old at the time of Isaiah's visit (20 - 11 = 9). Once again, this proves that Ahaz' son cannot be the subject of Isaiah 7:14 which prophesies that a child would be born of an almah. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Excerpt from: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/rrj_immanuel.html[/FONT]

And the 7 or so references that use the word, in context, does not infer "virginity". I've already shown that Gen. 24:43 has nothing to with virginity because at 24:16 the actual word for "virgin" is used.

Actually, Genesis 24:16 only shows that the word bethulah sometimes requires a qualification such as “no man had known her” to demonstrate that it means virgin within the context it is being used. This is not the case for the word almah which in the scriptures never refers to a young, married woman or where it means anything other than virgin with no qualifying clause necessary. The word betulah, is commonly understood as virgin, but it is still not always precise or always the case.

[FONT=&quot]At least once the word bethulah is used of a married woman: Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth. Sometimes the word bethulah is used to characterize the various pagan nations known for their idolatry and immorality: the virgin daughter of Sidon (Isa 23:12); the virgin daughter of Babylon (Isa 47:1); the virgin daughter of Egypt (Jer 46:11). The same word is used for the nation of Israel, at times in the context of their spiritual adultery: The virgin of Israel (Amos 5:2); The virgin daughter of Judah (Lam 1:15); the virgin daughter of Zion (Isa 37:22; Lam 2:13); the virgin daughter of my people (Jer 14:17).[/FONT]

Correct. Now look at it's masculine root (elem). It simply means "young man". Almah is the feminine form and means "young woman". It's more to do with a prepubescent girl of marriageable age who is protected (veiled) by her parents.

[FONT=&quot]Exactly, the feminine form is in reference to a girl who was unmarried and protected by her parents according to Hebrew cultural custom and was a virgin[/FONT]. [FONT=&quot]Whether the word almah is translated young women or virgin, the reality is that during that time and in that culture a young, unmarried woman was expected to be chaste and considered to be a virgin.[/FONT]

I just showed you the contradiction. Matthew incorrectly makes a connection to a prophecy that had nothing to do with Yeshua especially considering the "almah" in 7:14 is a young woman and the prophecy faux pas of Zachariah with Jeremiah Matthew references.

[/quote]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t see that you have shown any contradiction and still accept Matthew’s connection as legitimate and God-inspired.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](1) There are two accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus in the New Testament. One of these was authored by Matthew (chapter one), and the other was composed by Luke (chapter one). There is strong evidence that each of these accounts is characterized by the utmost reliability. The fact that Matthew was a Jewish publican (a tainted occupation for a Jew) argues for the integrity of his report. No fabricator would have chosen the identity of one possessed of such a despised reputation to make a defense of Jesus as the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Luke’s credibility as a historian has been defended brilliantly by such renowned scholars as Sir William Ramsay, who began his academic career as a skeptic but was turned around by the hard facts of evidence. The ancient historian had investigated carefully the background of Jesus (Luke 1:3) and he argued vigorously for the fact of the Lord’s virgin birth. As a doctor (Colossians 4:14), he would have resisted the notion of such an event had there not been compelling evidence for it.[/FONT]
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/341-modernism-and-the-virgin-birth-of-christ

[FONT=&quot]I have appreciated the way your persistence has caused me to search this word usage out because it has helped me to gain more insight and have further confidence in the scriptures, but I am also getting tired of going over the same thing repeatedly. If you continue to post on the word almah, I may or may not respond further as I want to get back to the main subject: the deity of Jesus Christ.[/FONT]

 

[InChrist]

Jesus had to be God in order to be the Mediator between God and humans. The redemption of humanity was dependent upon the human/God union in Christ. As a man Christ could represent humanity and as God, Christ’s death had infinite value to provide redemption for all the sins of all people throughout human history.

This relates to the kinsman-redeemer concept of the OT, where a person related by blood became the redeemer to buy a relative out of bondage and slavery (Lev.47.48). The eternal Son had to become related to the human race by blood, through the incarnation, to be the Kinsman-Redeemer for humanity. As the scriptures indicate, He (Christ) became a man to redeem humanity (Hebrews 2:14-16). These verses also show that prior to becoming human Jesus was not an angel (vs. 16). His sacrificial death was of infinite value because He was also fully God (Hebrews 9:11-28).

 

[Shermana]

Jesus had to be God in order to be the Mediator between God and humans

.

Why? So someone had to be someone else to be the mediator between himself and himself? I'm guessing this is where the dubious and vague "persons" argument comes into play.

The redemption of humanity was dependent upon the human/God union in Christ.

Why? Where does it say this so explicitly?

As a man Christ could represent humanity and as God, Christ’s death had infinite value to provide redemption for all the sins of all people throughout human history.

Nothing in scripture remotely says this. Such standard Trinitarian dogma is not scriptural and is based on post 2nd century thinking.

This relates to the kinsman-redeemer concept of the OT

Nothing like it whatsoever. The kinsman is not the same person as his kinsman. And it has to do with property.

, where a person related by blood became the redeemer to buy a relative out of bondage and slavery (Lev.47.48).

There is no Leviticus 47:48. I think you mean 25:25 and it has to do only with property. Why don't you quote exactly what you're talking about. What you're comparing it to has absolutely no basis in comparison. And the kinsman means brothers. Why don't you also show what site you're getting this info from so I can see their reasoning.

The eternal Son had to become related to the human race by blood, through the incarnation, to be the Kinsman-Redeemer for humanity

This is not at all what Hebrews 2:14-16 is comparing to begin with.

. As the scriptures indicate, He (Christ) became a man to redeem humanity (Hebrews 2:14-16).

The "scripture" indicates that Jesus was one of the Heavenly hosts who incarnated. And the issue of Hebrews' authenticity is another issue but that's for another thread.

These verses also show that prior to becoming human Jesus was not an angel (vs. 16).

That's not at all what verse 16 says.

"For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants."

Where does that say he wasn't an angel prior to indication? Nowhere? That's right. Trinitarians have such interesting ways of getting scripture to say what it doesn't say whatsoever.

His sacrificial death was of infinite value because He was also fully God (Hebrews 9:11-28).

And 9:11-28 don't say anything about him being G-d either. Another example of Trinitarians trying to get the scripture to say what they want even though it doesn't remotely say anything about it. Why don't you show which verse exactly from 9:11-28 you think says that Jesus was fully G-d?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[FONT=&quot]No, because the son of Ahaz was already born before the prophecy was given.[/FONT]

That's why I said ("may") but I do agree that Isaiah 7:14 is not talking about Ahaz's son. Personally I think it's about a son of Isaiah's as described by the Jews in this commentary. It breaks down chapters 7, 8 and 9 and in context I agree.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

[FONT=&quot]I don’t see that you have shown any contradiction and still accept Matthew’s connection as legitimate and God-inspired.[/FONT]

It's obvious you don't see the contradiction. Matthew is referring to a prophecy supposedly coming from Jeremiah when, in fact, we know he took the words from Zachariah. Additionally what's in Zachariah isn't even a prophecy.

[FONT=&quot](1) There are two accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus in the New Testament. One of these was authored by Matthew (chapter one), and the other was composed by Luke (chapter one). There is strong evidence that each of these accounts is characterized by the utmost reliability.[/FONT]

No there isn't.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The fact that Matthew was a Jewish publican (a tainted occupation for a Jew) argues for the integrity of his report. No fabricator would have chosen the identity of one possessed of such a despised reputation to make a defense of Jesus as the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy.[/FONT]

First off there's no evidence to support "Matthew" was the actual writer.

Gospel of Matthew
It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience. Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

[FONT=&quot] I may or may not respond further as I want to get back to the main subject: the deity of Jesus Christ.[/FONT]

Don't worry. We are still very much on topic. I understand though. There are so many interpretations when it comes to scriptures. As far as the supposed deity of Yeshua...I haven't found anything in the 4 gospels to suggest he is "God". The information contained suggest the opposite.