Did Jesus say he was God???

[Protester]

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.....

Mark 14
. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn’t agree with each other. 57 Some stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Even so, their testimony did not agree.

60 The high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?” 61 But he stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

62 Jesus said, "“I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”"

63 The high priest tore his clothes, and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” They all condemned him to be worthy of death. 65 Some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to beat him with fists, and to tell him, “Prophesy!” The officers struck him with the palms of their hands.---World English Bible

I would hope that was settle the argument, considering the Sanhedrin thought Christ claimed to be God.

 

[Shermana]

Mark 14
. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn’t agree with each other. 57 Some stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Even so, their testimony did not agree.

60 The high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?” 61 But he stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

62 Jesus said, "“I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”"

63 The high priest tore his clothes, and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” They all condemned him to be worthy of death. 65 Some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to beat him with fists, and to tell him, “Prophesy!” The officers struck him with the palms of their hands.---World English Bible

I would hope that was settle the argument, considering the Sanhedrin thought Christ claimed to be God.

Now perhaps you can prove that this passage somehow proves that the Sanhedrin thought he was claiming to be G-d, especially since they told him to prophecy. Of couse, you may think that the only definition of "blasphemy" is to think you are G_d, of which you'd be quite wrong. Also, if you're hoping that Jesus using the phrase "I am" somehow proves it too, you'd be not only twisting grammatical context, but going by an incorrect rendering of the name which should be "I shall be" as we've shown multiple times.

So consider your hopes dashed.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Mark 14
. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn’t agree with each other. 57 Some stood up, and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Even so, their testimony did not agree.

60 The high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?” 61 But he stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

62 Jesus said, "“I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”"

63 The high priest tore his clothes, and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” They all condemned him to be worthy of death. 65 Some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to beat him with fists, and to tell him, “Prophesy!” The officers struck him with the palms of their hands.---World English Bible

I would hope that was settle the argument, considering the Sanhedrin thought Christ claimed to be God.

First off I love Mark in relation to the other gospels considering Matthew and Luke drew from it when composing their gospels but NONE of this shows that the Sanhedrin thought Yeshua claimed to be "God". At best they thought, if you observe verse 62, he was claiming to (be equal to) as far as status or station to his god. But even this status was "given" to him by his god and not something he possessed himself. It in no way shows he is "God". When we observe Revelation 4 and 5 we know this for sure. As "God" is on the throne receiving praise from his creation Yeshua is "standing" in the midst (near) the 24 elders who were seated upon their own thrones around "God". Yeshua (The Lamb) steps forward to retrieve the scroll that his god had in his hand. You can assume Yeshua is "God" all you like but your own scriptures show him saying explicitly he has a god....and it shows that he wouldn't be at "God's" side until "God" granted him the ability to be at his side.

 

[Protester]

Now perhaps you can prove that this passage somehow proves that the Sanhedrin thought he was claiming to be G-d, especially since they told him to prophecy. Of couse, you may think that the only definition of "blasphemy" is to think you are G_d, of which you'd be quite wrong. Also, if you're hoping that Jesus using the phrase "I am" somehow proves it too, you'd be not only twisting grammatical context, but going by an incorrect rendering of the name which should be "I shall be" as we've shown multiple times.

So consider your hopes dashed.

Mark 14
62 Jesus said, "“I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”"

63 The high priest tore his clothes, and said, “What further need have we of witnesses?--World English Bible

I can give you an answer from the well-known commentators, Jamison, Fausset, and Brown for the above verse.

Mark 14:62:

62. And Jesus said, I am—or, as in Matthew (Mt 26:64), "Thou hast said [it]." In Luke, however (Lu 22:70), the answer, "Ye say that I am," should be rendered—as DE WETTE, MEYER, ELLICOTT, and the best critics agree that the preposition requires—"Ye say [it], for I am [so]." Some words, however, were spoken by our Lord before giving His answer to this solemn question. These are recorded by Luke alone (Lu 22:67,68): "Art Thou the Christ [they asked]? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask [interrogate] "you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go." This seems to have been uttered before giving His direct answer, as a calm remonstrance and dignified protest against the prejudgment of His case and the unfairness of their mode of procedure. But now let us hear the rest of the answer, in which the conscious majesty of Jesus breaks forth from behind the dark cloud which overhung Him as He stood before the Council. (Also see on Joh1 8:28.)
and—in that character.
ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven—In Matthew (Mt 26:64) a slightly different but interesting turn is given to it by one word: "Thou hast said [it]: nevertheless"—We prefer this sense of the word to "besides," which some recent critics decide for—"I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sit on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The word rendered "hereafter" means, not "at some future time" (as to-day "hereafter" commonly does), but what the English word originally signified, "after here," "after now," or "from this time." Accordingly, in Lu 22:69, the words used mean "from now." So that though the reference we have given it to the day of His glorious Second Appearing is too obvious to admit of doubt, He would, by using the expression, "From this time," convey the important thought which He had before expressed, immediately after the traitor left the supper table to do his dark work, "Now is the Son of man glorified" (Joh 13:31). At this moment, and by this speech, did He "witness the good confession" emphatically and properly, as the apostle says in 1Ti 6:13. Our translators render the words there, "Who before Pontius Pilate witnessed"; referring it to the admission of His being a King, in the presence of C泡r's own chief representative. But it should be rendered, as LUTHER renders it, and as the best interpreters now understand it, "Who under Pontius Pilate witnessed," &c. In this view of it, the apostle is referring not to what our Lord confessed before Pilate—which, though noble, was not of such primary importance—but to that sublime confession which, under Pilate's administration, He witnessed before the only competent tribunal on such occasions, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of God's chosen nation, that He was THE MESSIAH, and THE SON OF THE BLESSED ONE; in the former word owning His Supreme Official, in the latter His Supreme Personal, Dignity.

Or for that matter, the well-known Puritan commentator, Matthew Henry:
Mark 14:63:
53-65 We have here Christ's condemnation before the great council of the Jews. Peter followed; but the high priest's fire-side was no proper place, nor his servants proper company, for Peter: it was an entrance into temptation. Great diligence was used to procure false witnesses against Jesus, yet their testimony was not equal to the charge of a capital crime, by the utmost stretch of their law. He was asked, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? that is, the Son of God. For the proof of his being the Son of God, he refers to his second coming. In these outrages we have proofs of man's enmity to God, and of God's free and unspeakable love to man.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Mark 14
60 The high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it which these testify against you?” 61 But he stayed quiet, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
62 Jesus said, "“I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”"
63 The high priest tore his clothes, and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy!
I would hope that was settle the argument, considering the Sanhedrin thought Christ claimed to be God.

Verse 61 Jesus is asked if he is the SON?
Jesus answers YES or yes I am the Son.
Jesus next refers to himself as 'Son of Man'.
Jesus says he sits [not at his own right hand] but sits at the right hand of power.
Where is Jesus seated according to Matthew 22v44; Mark 12v36; Luke 20v42; Hebrews 1v13; Psalm 110vs1,2 ?

 

[Shermana]

Mark 14
62 Jesus said, "“I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.”"

And what is Jesus saying that he is exactly? Note that we have debunked the use of "I am" as any kind of statement, since the name itself is not really "I am", and it's a name, not a statement. As for well-known commentators, I'm all for using good scholarly references, but as we've demonstrated, using Trinitarian references does not count as any proof of anything, and there's been more then one case where they deliberately distort the text itself in their translation in some kind of dishonest use of their credential.

63 The high priest tore his clothes, and said, “What further need have we of witnesses?--World English Bible

Do you even understand what the context here is? What is he claiming here? Claims of MESSIAHHOOD and being the "Son of G-d". Nothing more. You have to read into the text something that's not there to get them to say that they think Jesus is claiming to be G-d himself.
I can give you an answer from the well-known commentators, Jamison, Fausset, and Brown for the above verse.

Mark 14:62:

62. And Jesus said, I am—or, as in Matthew (Mt 26:64), "Thou hast said [it]." In Luke, however (Lu 22:70), the answer, "Ye say that I am," should be rendered—as DE WETTE, MEYER, ELLICOTT, and the best critics agree that the preposition requires—"Ye say [it], for I am [so]."

I agree here, you say that I am he/so. Not even considering the issue of what the name "I shall be" actually is. Many trinitarian translations are willing to admit this. one at least, but some still stubbornly use any kind of "I am" reference they can.

Some words, however, were spoken by our Lord before giving His answer to this solemn question. These are recorded by Luke alone (Lu 22:67,68): "Art Thou the Christ [they asked]? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask [interrogate] "you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go." This seems to have been uttered before giving His direct answer, as a calm remonstrance and dignified protest against the prejudgment of His case and the unfairness of their mode of procedure. But now let us hear the rest of the answer, in which the conscious majesty of Jesus breaks forth from behind the dark cloud which overhung Him as He stood before the Council. (Also see on Joh1 8:28.) and—in that character.

And this verse is talking about Jesus's claim to be the CHRIST. Quite a big difference. Claiming yourself to be the Christ and G-d's son would probably be considered blasphemous if they were making false pretenses.

ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven—In Matthew (Mt 26:64) a slightly different but interesting turn is given to it by one word: "Thou hast said [it]: nevertheless"—We prefer this sense of the word to "besides," which some recent critics decide for—"I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sit on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The word rendered "hereafter" means, not "at some future time" (as to-day "hereafter" commonly does), but what the English word originally signified, "after here," "after now," or "from this time." Accordingly, in Lu 22:69, the words used mean "from now." So that though the reference we have given it to the day of His glorious Second Appearing is too obvious to admit of doubt, He would, by using the expression, "From this time," convey the important thought which He had before expressed, immediately after the traitor left the supper table to do his dark work, "Now is the Son of man glorified" (Joh 13:31).

None of this implies anything except Yashua claiming to be the Christ who will "Sit at the Right hand" of power. There is NOTHING here that indicates Trinity or Modalism in any event.

At this moment, and by this speech, did He "witness the good confession" emphatically and properly, as the apostle says in 1Ti 6:13. Our translators render the words there, "Who before Pontius Pilate witnessed"; referring it to the admission of His being a King, in the presence of C泡r's own chief representative. But it should be rendered, as LUTHER renders it, and as the best interpreters now understand it, "Who under Pontius Pilate witnessed," &c. In this view of it, the apostle is referring not to what our Lord confessed before Pilate—which, though noble, was not of such primary importance—but to that sublime confession which, under Pilate's administration, He witnessed before the only competent tribunal on such occasions, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of God's chosen nation, that He was THE MESSIAH, and THE SON OF THE BLESSED ONE; in the former word owning His Supreme Official, in the latter His Supreme Personal, Dignity.

Okay, do you even understand what's being said here? Or do you think Christ = G-d himself just because? He is only claiming to be Christ and King of the Jews. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything this is great proof of how Trinitarians look at the text to read into something that's not there.

Or for that matter, the well-known Puritan commentator, Matthew Henry:
Mark 14:63:
53-65 We have here Christ's condemnation before the great council of the Jews. Peter followed; but the high priest's fire-side was no proper place, nor his servants proper company, for Peter: it was an entrance into temptation. Great diligence was used to procure false witnesses against Jesus, yet their testimony was not equal to the charge of a capital crime, by the utmost stretch of their law. He was asked, Art thou the Son of the Blessed? that is, the Son of God. For the proof of his being the Son of God, he refers to his second coming. In these outrages we have proofs of man's enmity to God, and of God's free and unspeakable love to man.

[/quote]Do you seriously not understand what is being said here? Please, feel free to quote a single line or sentence from ANYTHING you posted that indicates that Jesus was claiming or held to be considered G-d incarnate instead of the "Christ".

 

[Daviso452]

I say we bury the discussion. This thread is too long and is way past its expiration date.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I say we bury the discussion. This thread is too long and is way past its expiration date.

:no:

 

[idav]

Jesus never even said to call him father and said to call no man father. Paul disagreed.

 

[Muffled]

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:

I have the Holy spirit with me intepreting.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus never even said to call him father and said to call no man father. Paul disagreed.

Where did Paul say to call Jesus as Father ?

 

[Muffled]

Jesus never even said to call him father and said to call no man father. Paul disagreed.

This is the null hypothesis. It lacks evidence. If you can prove that it is necessary for Jesus to be called Father, then it would make sense.

I believe that it is not necessary for Jesus to be called Father because He called Himself one with the Father. I think that Jesus would prefer to preserve the distinction while reminding us that it is only a distinction of the Way inwhich the Father reveals Himself.

However Jesus as God in the flesh does not exactly come under the heading of man.

I wouldn't call it disagreement. This is always a difficult problem. When God works in me; the appearance is that I did something. Paul is simply talking about the appearance of being Father to believers. 1Th 2:11 as ye know how we dealt with each one of you, as a father with his own children, exhorting you, and encouraging you, and testifying, However even with that there is an acknowledgement that males taking care of their children are acting like fathers.

 

[idav]

Where did Paul say to call Jesus as Father ?

Paul said to call himself father. Catholics followed suit.

 

[idav]

This is the null hypothesis. It lacks evidence. If you can prove that it is necessary for Jesus to be called Father, then it would make sense.

I believe that it is not necessary for Jesus to be called Father because He called Himself one with the Father. I think that Jesus would prefer to preserve the distinction while reminding us that it is only a distinction of the Way inwhich the Father reveals Himself.

However Jesus as God in the flesh does not exactly come under the heading of man.

I wouldn't call it disagreement. This is always a difficult problem. When God works in me; the appearance is that I did something. Paul is simply talking about the appearance of being Father to believers. 1Th 2:11 as ye know how we dealt with each one of you, as a father with his own children, exhorting you, and encouraging you, and testifying, However even with that there is an acknowledgement that males taking care of their children are acting like fathers.

Jesus said call no man father which included Paul. Jesus told us to call god father ....our father who art in heaven.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I don't disagree with that. I am just saying that Good Master and Good Shepherd are used in reference to Good Person and only God fits that description, whereas good carpenter does not necessarily denote Good Person.
This is due to the fact that Jesus is not talking about herding sheep, but about being Good to the people who are with Him. Good Minister also denotes Good Person.

I don't know the Greek but I can recognize usage. A word amy be the same but used to mean diferent things.

It is a judgement of God based on our own preferences. God won't win big at the casino for me; so He is a bad God. That isn't the case. I don't have God's help to win big at the casino because He is good whether I like it that way or not. Certainly the Egyptians would not have viewed God as Good.

This is a misinterpretation on your part. The concept is that a man brings forth that which he considers important (treasure). Evil men tend to think evil is more important than good but that doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing good if it is meaningless to them to do so. I did jail ministry for many years and without question criminals have a criminal mentality that they hold dear, yet they are still capable of doing good things as long as it doesn't interfere with their criminal desires.

Of course people can do good but not because they are good but because God is good. I would liken this to a person doing a reproduction of a Rembrandt painting. It will be good because the original was good but it won't be as good as the original.

 

[waitasec]

I have the Holy spirit with me intepreting.

you think you are the only one who assumes that?
which is why there is an array of interpretations...
:areyoucra

 

[Shermana]

you think you are the only one who assumes that?
which is why there is an array of interpretations...
:areyoucra

He's a self-declared prophet.

And I believe that saying that you have the Spirit when you don't would fit the description of what Jesus said is the unforgivable sin, using it as support for your unsupportable arguments. A warning for the rest.

 

[Shermana]

]I don't disagree with that. I am just saying that Good Master and Good Shepherd are used in reference to Good Person and only God fits that description, whereas good carpenter does not necessarily denote Good Person.

Well you're wrong, because the word for "Good Shepherd" is different. Obviously whatever "Spirit" is telling you these things is a bit confused on the actual Greek.

This is due to the fact that Jesus is not talking about herding sheep, but about being Good to the people who are with Him. Good Minister also denotes Good Person.

And what about "Good soldier"? You cannot just use the same word for "Good" in English to denote different concepts in Greek to support your argument.

I don't know the Greek but I can recognize usage. A word amy be the same but used to mean diferent things.

You have it backwards, it's two different words in Greek with the same word in English being used. Doesn't work.

It is a judgement of God based on our own preferences. God won't win big at the casino for me; so He is a bad God.

That makes no sense.

That isn't the case. I don't have God's help to win big at the casino because He is good whether I like it that way or not. Certainly the Egyptians would not have viewed God as Good.

Your argument here is a total non-sequitur, G-d doesn't have to do everything you want him to do to be a "good G-d". While your point may be that everyone has their idea of what makes G-d "good", that's not the point whatsoever here.

This is a misinterpretation on your part. The concept is that a man brings forth that which he considers important (treasure). Evil men tend to think evil is more important than good but that doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing good if it is meaningless to them to do so. I did jail ministry for many years and without question criminals have a criminal mentality that they hold dear, yet they are still capable of doing good things as long as it doesn't interfere with their criminal desires.

No, that's not at all the context of what Jesus is saying there. Total dodge. The word "good" you used to describe that Jesus is calling himself G-d, you allow him to use different words for "good" to suit your point, now when Jesus says there are "good" people, but you won't let that same other word for "good" mean it. Likewise, Jesus uses the same word for "good" in "good Teacher" in a Parable of the Master and the Servants, for each of the servants who is profitable. By your logic, Jesus would be saying the servants each represented G-d.

Of course people can do good but not because they are good but because God is good. I would liken this to a person doing a reproduction of a Rembrandt painting. It will be good because the original was good but it won't be as good as the original.

So then, retract your point about the use of "I am the good shepherd" being the same kind of "good" as if that's a proof text for your point.

 

[waitasec]

He's a self-declared prophet.

you mean like harold camping?

And I believe that saying that you have the Spirit when you don't would fit the description of what Jesus said is the unforgivable sin, using it as support for your unsupportable arguments. A warning for the rest.

oops.

 

[Godobeyer]

He's a self-declared prophet.

And I believe that saying that you have the Spirit when you don't would fit the description of what Jesus said is the unforgivable sin, using it as support for your unsupportable arguments. A warning for the rest.

every Messanger or Prophet from GOD declared for him self .

Jesus (pbuh) declared him self from the first day when he was baby spoke the people and defend for his mother , and tell the people that he is a messanger of God , that why the people and the jews did not try to kill Marry (pbuh) (his mother) innocent !!!.(for the sin of Adultery) (btw this story told by God in the Quran).
in ancient law of the jews the woman which found guilty by adultery, should be killed !!!
why the jews could not kill her , if they were certainly sure that she is adutlty