-
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
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Correct. Their scriptures show that he was an ambassador speaking on behalf of the god that sent him. This means he is the "word of God".....just as an ambassador to the President is allowed to go and represent the US. He or she can be given an agenda by the President. While the ambassador (is not) the President he or she is speaking or working on behalf of the President. They have no authority to speak on their own rather speaking with the authority given to them.
John 3:34
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit.[/FONT]
Logically....in order to be sent there must be a sender.....
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
yep i agree, there is no way he would have given himself such a title when he had already rejected the title of 'good teacher'
our NWT bible translates John 10 as "I am the fine shepherd' for this reason.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the translators chose to remain anonymous
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Not really hard to keep a non existent secret, is it?and aint that a good thing
not nom
Well-Known Member
yeah well, here's the thing, everybody could come along and say that, if all proof you require is that they say it. it basically means you belong to the first book that can convince you, or has enough people convinced to put you under pressure or brainwash you from birth.
and personally, I'm done with not seeing how transparent that is. **** state religion, and more importantly, **** drones, in heaven as well as on earth. amen.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Well we can only go by the evidence presented in their bible. So far it suggest the biblical Yeshua was not "God", didn't claim to be nor was it something he taught his followers. The trinitarians here are snatching a quote here and there out of the bible trying to insinuate Yeshua "implicitly" said he was "God" and every quote they've brought up has been dealt with and shown they are in error. (Example John 8:58.....:no
.....Context is king and when a person takes a verse out of its intended context he or she can make the bible say what they want it to say.....
outhouse
Atheistically
heres the best explanation of this whole thread and should put it to bed.
im sure it wont, but here goes.
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[100]
The earliest Christians did not call Jesus "God".[101]
New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any explicit claims to be God.[102] :bow:
See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.
Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.[citation needed]
The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest
im sure it wont, but here goes.
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John, written c. 90-100.[100]
The earliest Christians did not call Jesus "God".[101]
New Testament scholars broadly agree that Jesus did not make any explicit claims to be God.[102] :bow:
See also Divinity of Jesus and Nontrinitarianism.
Pinchas Lapide sees Jesus as a rabbi in the Hasid tradition of Hillel the Elder, Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.[citation needed]
The gospels and Christian tradition depict Jesus as being executed at the insistence of Jewish leaders, who considered his claims to divinity to be blasphemous, see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus seems instead to have been executed as a potential source of unrest
Surely no-one would do that with the bible?..............shock................horror.Well we can only go by the evidence presented in their bible. So far it suggest the biblical Yeshua was not "God", didn't claim to be nor was it something he taught his followers. The trinitarians here are snatching a quote here and there out of the bible trying to insinuate Yeshua "implicitly" said he was "God" and every quote they've brought up has been dealt with and shown they are in error. (Example John 8:58.....:no
Oh deary me yes, but then I grew up, just like god told me to.
Muffled
Jesus in me
That is because you are transferring your own confusion to Him. I find Him to be quite logical in His approach.
Muffled
Jesus in me
]"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[/COLOR]
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.
That seems logical to me. So when the rich man calls Jesus Good Master, he is referring to someone who is a lord over something but Jesus is in effect saying that the only Good Master is God. The Good Shepherd is also a Good Master, so we are not comparing behavior with skill. Master and shepherd mean the same thing in the metaphorical sense that Jesus is using it.
This is true and to be expected. A creation logically belongs to its creator. However free will alters this to the point where the only slaves are the ones who volunteer to be slaves.
The creator still retains ownership even if He doesn't retain Lordship. Those who refuse to be part of the flock, can be disposed of as He wishes.
That is blasphemy. It is not vile to give a person what he deserves.
Muffled
Jesus in me
This is equivallent to good master and only possible through the Holy Spirit, which explains why it is an exhortation not a statement of inherency.
This passage is not about being good at fighting but about enduring hardship which cannot be near as bad as the hardship that Jesus had to suffer. There is a truth here that even God has to endure the hardship of evill in this world or eliminate the evil. He has chosen to suffer the evil to remain for now.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paul could not have endured the suffering he did so gladly if the Paraclete were not available to him.
That makes no sense. One does not say God is good because He defeated the Egyptians in the Red Sea. God defeated the Egyptians in the Red Sea because He is Good. How can one understand anything if one sees things backwards from reality?
Mat 12:34 Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil.
Jesus, God and the Paraclete are all compared to the Pharisees and those like them in this passage in Mat. Luke spcifically refers to those who have the Paraclete.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
i find it interesting that the holy spirit is credited for inspiring the words but then goes missing when interpreting it...don't you?
your passive aggressive tactics are interesting too
:tsk:
Shermana
Heretic
Nonetheless, this is about the use of the word "Good", of which we've proven two different definitions.
Yet it's the same use of "Good" in each case. We have two different definitions going on, and Paul uses the same "good" that Jesus uses, so we have a problem with you saying that "Good Shepherd" is the same kind of "good" as in "no one but G-d is good". Hopefully you understand enough Greek or foreign language in general to get this.
What does that have to do with the two different "goods" here that you're trying to say are the same?
I think you're trying to change the subject. We're talking about you saying that Jesus is "good" in the same way that "G-d is good", even though it's two different words, one in which Paul also uses in a similar qualitative context.
Why does one not say G-d is good for saving the Israelites from the Egyptians? This makes no sense. G-d is "good" because of things that make him "good". However, the "good shepherd" in the other use of the word "Good" is of a different kind of quality than "Kalos".
So Jesus basically wasted his breath because no one else was possibly good. What's the point of this passage? No one can possibly bring forth good things? When he said "I have not come to save the righteous", he didn't have anyone in mind whatsoever. In that case, the verse makes no sense if EVERY person is the "offspring of vipers". Do all people only bring forth evil things?
My error, I meant Luke 6:45 which is the same verse basically. But since we're here, what does it mean to "do good"? Didn't Jesus say that only good men bring forth good things and evil men bring forth evil? How then, can an evil man do good and bring forth what is good?
I'm at a loss how this is a cogent response. Let me reread here.
Last edited: