Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Oh....then put some smily faces and laugh thinhies....
:areyoucra
:cover::bounce:biglaugh:
-
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
Oh....then put some smily faces and laugh thinhies....
:areyoucra
:cover::bounce:biglaugh:
Muffled
Jesus in me
This is illogical. It is like saying that apples are red and fire engines are red, so apples are fire engines. Because I believe you are having trouble seeing your error, I will try to spell it out for you.
The passage does not say "they are one." If it did you would have a point.
You say He would not pray for an impossibility. That is true. It is theoretically possible. I come as close as anyone on this. When I embody the Holy Spirit I am just like Jesus and God is in me. That makes me one with God. However unlike Jesus I have my own ego that will take back my body as I see fit.
However your conclusion that "one" automatically means solely "one in purpose" has no basis. The text says "one" not "one in purpose." I am sure there are those who go by the Bible who think that makes them one in purpose with God but that is not equivalent to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Let us suppose that your premise is that believers can only be "one in purpose" and not "one." Then you are stating that Jesus is praying for that which can't happen because He is praying for believers to be "one." Not only that but the premise is false since believers can be one with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
This interpretive translation is misleading. God can't simply bring this about as He did when He said "let there be light." That is why He is praying for it. The translation "may" fits the context of prayer.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Jesus calls Himself good so the logical conclusion is that Jesus is God.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Welcome to the discussion. Knowledge does not equate to power. Try doing something as easy as levitating a book. I know it can be done and I know how to do it but I don't have the power to do it.
Most miracles God works through natural means, however there is no rational explanation for creation ex nihilo, out of nothing.
However, since miracles are performed more often with divine power, miracles are a sign that divinity is working. The fact that Jesus performed so many of them and ones where He just commands forces of nature to obey Him suggests His divinity.
Satan or Jesus having powers given to them by God doesn't make them divine. It would be a sign that divinity is working but does not suggest being the source especially when Jesus explicitly says he is not the source.
InChrist
Free4ever
I agree somewhat with Daviso, the posts are getting long and drawn out. I’m not saying it’s anyone’s fault. Conversation seems to do that as one thing leads to another, but it does become difficult (for me at least) to continue responding to each point when the posts become longer and longer.
I have been doing some more reading on the Philo’s Logos and Solomon’s Wisdom Theology. I have links to two articles below that you may find interesting, whether you can agree with them is a different matter. I do think that because wisdom is an attribute of God the Creator then it is eternal because God is eternal, as the quote below states. Since this is the case and according to Philo’s and Solomon’s Theology that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, is said to be Wisdom then He must be eternal and not a created being, angel or otherwise.
[FONT="]Jesus as God's Wisdom, and the Trinity Doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT="]‘Wisdom is an attribute of God, and is co-eternal with Him -- otherwise, Wisdom is a thing "added" to Him, or someone has "instructed" Him.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Nor is a trinitarian concept entirely foreign to Judaism. O'Neill [JCO.WD, 94] records the words of the Jewish historian Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, who laid out this exposition upon the three men who came to visit Abraham in Genesis 18:2, and were presumed to be divine figures:[/FONT]
[FONT="]...the one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power.[/FONT]
[FONT="]No one would question that Philo was a Jewish monotheist; yet here we have an exposition perfectly compatible with the Trinity: the Father, The Creative Power (the Son, or the Word), and the Royal Power (the Holy Spirit).”[/FONT]
Excerpt from: Jesus: God's Wisdom
[FONT="]The Trinity and the Nicean Creed[/FONT]
Nicean Creed and Wisdom Christology
P.S. I consider modalism to be heretical and all the believers I know who accept the Trinity do also.
Modalism
Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Modalism|What is Modalism? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Jesus is not calling himself good.
Shermana
Heretic
Your explanation is illogical. Perhaps you are having trouble seeing your own error in the logic. It says "As we are one". Do you understand what "as" means? I'd assume so, but it appears you don't.
Let them be one AS, key word AS, yes AS, "we are one". So however Jesus says "We are one", the "As" means the "Same thing". Kapiesce?
Jesus does not have his own ego? What does that mean?
It has complete basis, because Jesus said AS, key word AS "we are one". So if he says "I and the Father are one", then the "We are one" is the same concept of being one. And he says "Let them be one" AS "We are one". Thus, the same concept of being one. Your definition is the one that has no basis. Like Jesus not having an ego for example, whatever that means.
It appears you have a definition of being "one" that's unscriptural. Can you use scripture tgo back your own interpretation of what it means to be "one" to begin with?
Why can't he exactly? I really don't understand how this response is scripturally backed beyond your own presumption that Jesus is G-d.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Muffled
Jesus in me
Jesus in His pre-incarnate state is the Father. He makes this quite clear. "I and my Father are one."
No doubt it is possible that some modalist in the past held that belief but I do not. The Bible has instances of The Father and Son speaking in the same conversation. God is not limited by modes. He does not extinguish His omnipresence to take up residence in a body.
However attributes are not Gods in themselves otherwise the Muslims would have 99 gods. God is Love but we don't have a personalized love god roaming around Heaven and earth.
This is often the argument used for different persons but it has no evidence to back it up. The only real distinctions are modal and therfore not innate. I once had someone who had a list of attributes of God say that none of them would be attributable to Jesus. I went through the Bible and found all those attributes present in Jesus.
If you have three persons you have three gods. For instance there was a member of a congregation that I attended that thought the distnction between the Father and Son was that the Father was less loving and peaceful than the Son. This is incorrect.
What may be perceived as error may not be. It is a question of whether Jesus is considered one of the many names of God or the only one. It certainly is the name He is invested in at present. Ac 4:12 And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. Php 2:10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
Muffled
Jesus in me
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me,
waitasec
Veteran Member
not nom
Well-Known Member
"good" does not equal "good shepherd". for example, you're a good person, and you're a good race car driver, that's entirely different
what really gets me about this is that a shepherd isn't some kind of altruistic hero when he cares for his flock -- those are his slaves, his property after all. and throwing everything outside the flock of sheep into fire isn't taking care of the sheep, it's just being less vile to them than towards everyone else.
iow, nothing to brag about.
what really gets me about this is that a shepherd isn't some kind of altruistic hero when he cares for his flock -- those are his slaves, his property after all. and throwing everything outside the flock of sheep into fire isn't taking care of the sheep, it's just being less vile to them than towards everyone else.
iow, nothing to brag about.
InChrist
Free4ever
"good" does not equal "good shepherd". for example, you're a good person, and you're a good race car driver, that's entirely different
what really gets me about this is that a shepherd isn't some kind of altruistic hero when he cares for his flock -- those are his slaves, his property after all. and throwing everything outside the flock of sheep into fire isn't taking care of the sheep, it's just being less vile to them than towards everyone else.
iow, nothing to brag about.
The reality presented by the scriptures is that as creatures made by God the Creator we are His property. He is the good Shepherd who cares for His creation. Yet, He does not want slaves He wants a relationship based willingly on love. Of course those who think they are autonomous with no need of their Creator can and do run outside where the wolves are.
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
John 10:11
waitasec
Veteran Member
that makes sense as to why some christians try to control others because since they KNOW they are not their own property, they are to remind everyone isn't either....
right...that's why whenever one of my children second guesses me, i throw them in the fireplace....which is the same consequence your loving god set up
:areyoucra
Shermana
Heretic
Funny enough, in 1 and 2 Timothy (authenticity not being in question here) he says
"KJV: thou shalt be a good minister" 1:4:6
and
Suffer hardship with [me], as a good soldier 2:2:3
Let me guess, now the definition of "good" (Kalos) changes here? Or are you prepared to admit that Paul (or whoever wrote Timothy) is saying he's G-d and the "Good ministeers" are G-d too. If not, you must retract the "good shepherd" thing or admit that "Good shepherd" can be read like "good soldier" and "good minister".
And then we have Matthew 12:35 (and Luke 6:35), is Jesus the only good person in question here?
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.
And for the record, this one is for DP when we are discussing the blatantly Trinitarian-biased Aramaic Bible translation, look at the blatant liberty taken by the translator for John 10:11, this just speaks volumes:
"KJV: thou shalt be a good minister" 1:4:6
and
Suffer hardship with [me], as a good soldier 2:2:3
Let me guess, now the definition of "good" (Kalos) changes here? Or are you prepared to admit that Paul (or whoever wrote Timothy) is saying he's G-d and the "Good ministeers" are G-d too. If not, you must retract the "good shepherd" thing or admit that "Good shepherd" can be read like "good soldier" and "good minister".
And then we have Matthew 12:35 (and Luke 6:35), is Jesus the only good person in question here?
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.
And for the record, this one is for DP when we are discussing the blatantly Trinitarian-biased Aramaic Bible translation, look at the blatant liberty taken by the translator for John 10:11, this just speaks volumes:
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Correct. What they have listed there I can't find in any of the Pe****ta translations I have. Mark2020 liked to refer to the (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) as well as the translation from Etheridge. Both of these versions are at odds seeing as though Etheridge doesn't contain ("I AM THE LIVING GOD") in that verse. Not only does the prized Etheridge not contain this quote but it can't be found in Lamsa or Murdock's translation. As a matter of fact...Etheridge, Lamsa and Murdock are rendered the same way in their translation. I even searched the (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon - The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) and they don't even render it that way. If the verse was rendered that way then John 17:3 wouldn't make any sense.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Not according to the biblical Yeshua.
John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
or
John 7:28-29
Jesus therefore, while teaching in the Temple, cried aloud, and said, 'Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. And yet I have not come of my own accord; but there is One who has sent me, an Authority indeed, of whom you have no knowledge. I know Him, because I came from Him, and He sent me.
In order to be sent there must be a sender....
:sad:
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the greek word used john 10:14 is kalos "I am the kalos shepherd".... but if you look at Luke 18:19 or Mark 10:18 where a man calls Jesus 'good', the greek word is different...it is agathon "“Why do you call me agathon? Nobody is agathon, except one, God"
agathon is the greek word for good
Kalos (according to this online dictionary) means beautiful/fair.
Does anyone know why the translators chose to use the word 'good' rather then translate the actual greek word used??? I think shermana hit it on the head...'trinitarian bias'
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Even if it were fine to use either of them interchangeably it wouldn't matter because Yeshua says.....(There's is none good except God)....This further illustrates he isn't "God" nor was he claiming to be.
Mark 10:18
Jesus saith to him: Why callest thou me good (agathos)? There is none good, but one, God.
Matthew (19:17) and Luke (18:19), whom we know drew their material from Mark, stay consistent with Mark's usage of the word. John's gospel does not recall these words. I suspect there is some trinitarian bias in John but I guess the difference in words may be due to the fact that these gospels are written at different times for a particular crowd.