Did Jesus say he was God???

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, it is in past tense but it is also a prophecy. There is no person who could have fulfilled this in the past. At the time that Isaiah wrote his book the Northern Kingdom of Israel had alrady gone into captivity by the Assyrians.

This goes back Isaiah 7:14, which in its original context, it has a different signification.


In Isaiah 7, God has sent the prophet Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judea that the king of Syria and his ally, the king of the northern ten tribes (Israel) will not be able to conquer Judea. To convince Ahaz that this prophecy is true, he invites the king to name a sign for God to give him, and Ahaz refuses, saying that he will not put God to the test. Well he shouldn't have said that because this is how Isaiah responds to him

"Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

This message was given to Ahaz in his day and in his lifetime. Since he reigned from about 735 B.C. to 715 B.C. it would mean nothing to him or do him no good if this prophecy was to take place 700 years later. The birth of the child is supposed to be a sign that God is giving to King Ahaz, since Ahaz refused to name a sign for himself. The purpose of this sign is to convince Ahaz that his kingdom really will not be conquered by Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel.

It says before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good (i.e., avoid things that will hurt him and accept things that will help him), that the lands he is afraid of will get conquered. Now, the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians happened around 721 B.C. So once again we're pointed toward a child born in the 8th century B.C. In examining 7 and on into 9 this could be talking about Isaiah's own son (The young woman shall conceive and bare a son........And I went unto the prophetess and she conceived and bore a son.......For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us...).....NOW...THAT WE ARE WAYYYYYYYY....OFF TOPIC........Where in the NT does Yeshua confirm he is God? I have displayed a multitude of veses where he displays the opposite.

John 17 (1-20) Is one of Yeshua's prayers to God I love. It clearly shows how he knew hew was seprate from God and not God, How the deciples knew it and that he was sent by God and wasn't God and how he believe that they were one in purpose and he prayed his deeciples would be as well.

 

[lew0049]

Then what's the point of his mission if he revealed things to us we couldn't possibly understand?


This is not how Yeshua taught his followers. Everytime he reveled something they could not understand and they informed him they didn't understand he had to reveal it a different way. if it was such a mystery he wouldn't have felt as though his followers were ready to go out to spread the word.

It is quite clear to me the things he said. When he says "MY GOD MY GOD why have YOU left me!" It is perfectly clear he is not talking to or about himself. I don't know why christians struggle with this and still presume to call Yeshua God.




In the case of Yeshua he didn't reveal things this way. Sure there were some who did'n understand and he did his best to clear up any misunderstandings. None of his follerws viewed him as God. He was never called Immanuel nor was his mother intructed to name or call him that regardless of what the author of the NT books felt and wrote. He never said or portrayed himself equal to God..... but a servant of his who was GIVEN the ability to do the things he did.



Then you going to have to prove this because I'm quite sure his followers didn't make the assumption he was God when he screamed out "MY GOD MY GOD why have YOU left me!" The centurion didn't say this man was truely God in the flesh. Yeshua didn't say John 20:17 I'm God your god. He said "MY GOD *AND* YOUR GOD....

But as Popeyesays.....there are DOZENS of quotes from Yeshua......not others....but Yeshua where he is flat out showing everyone that he is separate..but one in purpose as he hoped we'd be as well.

And I used to agree on many of the things you are saying; neverthless, it later occurred to me that there is more. I guess the best way to illustrate what I am saying is to look at an example: John 4:25-26 compared with some of the things in the other synoptic gospels. It's obvious that went out of his way to avoid claiming He was the Jewish Messiah. He would ask His disciples in private (matt 16:13) and would sometimes exhort people who discovered it "to tell no man" (Matt 16:20). Yet with the Samaritian woman, Jesus says "I who you speak of am He" when she told Him she knows the Messiah is coming called Christ.
The above encounter took place in Samaria, not Judea. You have to realize that the Jews during this time viewed the coming of the Messiah as One who would deliver them from political oppression of Rome - which is why Jesus was careful to make such blunt claims. He wanted to elicit from His disciples a more spiritual concept of the one who came to redeem his people (Luke 19:10 and John 10:10 i believe).
Much of what Jesus said in His parables I highly doubt people understood, but to those who were truly seeking they would understand (Matt: 13:13). Look how many times Jesus told someone He preformed a miracle on to tell no one. or the instance in John 6:15. Also, at the end Jesus did declare Himself before the high priests when asked "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" He says I am.
Another quote that is used often is when Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I"
My take on this quote is as follows: The Father is greater than Jesus in function and in position (just like a father holds a higher position than a son in our society). The Father and Son are the same in nature, in essence, and in character though (john 8:58, 10:30)
ALso, John 1:1 - if you didn't know, in Greek when the definite article is used, i often stressses the individual, and when not, it denotes the nature of the one mentioned ('the' is not used). Thus you can look at the sentence as saying "and the Word was on the nature of God." The same usage is seen other times in John ( 8:58, 10:30, 20:28) and other places in the NT (Col. 1:15-16, 2:9 Titus 2:13). Jesus as being Yahweh is also seen through how the NT attributes his characteristics which in the OT ONLY apply to God. (john 19:37, Zeh 12:10)
obviously there is more but hope that illustrates what I am talking about. Have a good one.

 

[Muffled]

[/color]

This goes back Isaiah 7:14, which in its original context, it has a different signification.
In Isaiah 7, God has sent the prophet Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judea that the king of Syria and his ally, the king of the northern ten tribes (Israel) will not be able to conquer Judea. To convince Ahaz that this prophecy is true, he invites the king to name a sign for God to give him, and Ahaz refuses, saying that he will not put God to the test. Well he shouldn't have said that because this is how Isaiah responds to him

"Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

This message was given to Ahaz in his day and in his lifetime. Since he reigned from about 735 B.C. to 715 B.C. it would mean nothing to him or do him no good if this prophecy was to take place 700 years later. The birth of the child is supposed to be a sign that God is giving to King Ahaz, since Ahaz refused to name a sign for himself. The purpose of this sign is to convince Ahaz that his kingdom really will not be conquered by Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel.

It says before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good (i.e., avoid things that will hurt him and accept things that will help him), that the lands he is afraid of will get conquered. Now, the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians happened around 721 B.C. So once again we're pointed toward a child born in the 8th century B.C. In examining 7 and on into 9 this could be talking about Isaiah's own son (The young woman shall conceive and bare a son........And I went unto the prophetess and she conceived and bore a son.......For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us.

We are not off topic because Isaiah called the child that would ne a light to the Galilee region: The Almighty God and The Everlasting Father.

You are incorrect about the context. Just because Isaiah had children as signs, that does not mean that Isaiah has contined talking about that to the point of "a son shall be born unto us". Note also that he does not claim that the son is his or that it is born unto him.

Here is where the context proceeds from:
Isa 8:22 And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness.9:1 ¶ Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.

The "nevertheless" is in reference to the dark days that Isaiah prophesied.

Also there is no person from that area who is known as the Almighty God forever. Jesus is the only person of record fulfilling this prophecy.

You might note also that there is an as yet unfulfilled verse that from other prophesies I would expect to be fulfilled around the time of the Second Coming of Jesus.

Isa. 9:5 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And I used to agree on many of the things you are saying; neverthless, it later occurred to me that there is more. I guess the best way to illustrate what I am saying is to look at an example: John 4:25-26 compared with some of the things in the other synoptic gospels. It's obvious that went out of his way to avoid claiming He was the Jewish Messiah. He would ask His disciples in private (matt 16:13) and would sometimes exhort people who discovered it "to tell no man" (Matt 16:20). Yet with the Samaritian woman, Jesus says "I who you speak of am He" when she told Him she knows the Messiah is coming called Christ.
The above encounter took place in Samaria, not Judea. You have to realize that the Jews during this time viewed the coming of the Messiah as One who would deliver them from political oppression of Rome - which is why Jesus was careful to make such blunt claims. He wanted to elicit from His disciples a more spiritual concept of the one who came to redeem his people (Luke 19:10 and John 10:10 i believe).

And I don't really disagree with you here.

Much of what Jesus said in His parables I highly doubt people understood, but to those who were truly seeking they would understand (Matt: 13:13). Look how many times Jesus told someone He preformed a miracle on to tell no one. or the instance in John 6:15. Also, at the end Jesus did declare Himself before the high priests when asked "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" He says I am.

Again, I agree. I've already said this as well. So far you're confirming what I've been saying all along. God sent Yeshua into the world to save a lost people. But no where in all of this does he confirm he is God in the flesh. What you will find is that he was a servant of God sent here by God to complete a task that God had given him and everything that he did was by the will of God who sent him.

This is nothing new. Yeshua did everything by permission of God.

Luke 11:20
But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

This same kind of expression can be found in the quran.

Another quote that is used often is when Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I"
My take on this quote is as follows: The Father is greater than Jesus in function and in position (just like a father holds a higher position than a son in our society). The Father and Son are the same in nature, in essence, and in character though (john 8:58, 10:30)

I've already explained 8:58. There's no doubt that Yeshua existed before Abraham. He confirms this in his prayer to God.

John 17:5
and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory whichI had with thee before the world was made.

And he says it again later in his prayer to God.

John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am,to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.

So not only did he exist before Abraham, backing up what he said in 8:58, he is separate from God prior to God sending him to earth.

I have explained 10:30 as well. They are one in purpose but not one in the same. Yeshua confirms this later in John.

John 17:21-23

[21] that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

[22] The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

[23] I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved

As I have been saying all along....Yeshua is one in purpose with God but not one in the same. He prayed that his followers would become one in purpose as well.

ALso, John 1:1 - if you didn't know, in Greek when the definite article is used, i often stressses the individual, and when not, it denotes the nature of the one mentioned ('the' is not used). Thus you can look at the sentence as saying "and the Word was on the nature of God." The same usage is seen other times in John ( 8:58, 10:30, 20:28) and other places in the NT (Col. 1:15-16, 2:9 Titus 2:13). Jesus as being Yahweh is also seen through how the NT attributes his characteristics which in the OT ONLY apply to God. (john 19:37, Zeh 12:10)
obviously there is more but hope that illustrates what I am talking about. Have a good one.

Again, 8:58 and 10:30 have been explained. 20:28 Is not him calling Yeshua...God....None of his disciples ever considered him God in the flesh.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We are not off topic because Isaiah called the child that would ne a light to the Galilee region: The Almighty God and The Everlasting Father.

And this is where we differ. We are both caught in the middle of translation differences. I use the Tanankh and the scholars render the verse much different than the KJV.

Isaiah 9:6 (Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition[FONT=&quot])
[FONT=&quot]For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

And if it's translation then what we may wound up doing is trying to translate each hebrew word down to see if it is the scholars of the KJV or the scholars of the Tananhk who has translated it incorrectly. My hebrew is really rusty so I don't care to do that. I personally don't have any problem with this rendering. I've looked at some other scriptures and they are rendered the same way.
[/FONT][/FONT]

You are incorrect about the context. Just because Isaiah had children as signs, that does not mean that Isaiah has contined talking about that to the point of "a son shall be born unto us". Note also that he does not claim that the son is his or that it is born unto him.

Fair enough....BUT........I did say "Could Be"....I never said it was.

 

[rocketman]

Where in the NT does Yeshua confirm he is God?

That is not the OP.

Besides, Jesus own words in no way lack support for the other view. Every word Jesus spoke 'to' God is exactly what we would expect God to say while he was here in human form. He cannot violate the very rules and regulations that he gave to Adam and Eve's line (which Jesus said he entered into). The rules for those in Adam and Eve's line regarding how to act and what to do for/toward God are well known. If he did break even one minor law then he would have no longer been qualified to die in our place, no matter WHO he really was. Jesus words, attitude and submissiveness are all as expected. Anything else and we'd be toast.

Therefore other factors must be considered. Both Jesus (Mark12:29) and the rest of the Jews (Deut6:4,5) believed that there was only one God. This is a non-negotiable absolute in their religion. That then is the framework for all of this. This does present some problems for those who want to maintain a different identity for Jesus, including the seperate-god/spirit-offspring idea.

Also, there is no evidence in the OT to suggest that anyone other than God was qualified to be the "lamb of God" who would take away the sins of the world. Only God is worth more than all of us put together (that rules angels out). If Jesus was some 'special class' of being who was able to be human without sinning then it makes a mockery of God creating flawed man in the first place. (why not a race of Jesus-beings then?) Unless Jesus was God in the flesh the OT theology doesn't add up.

The disciple John (John1:1,14) certainly saw Jesus as God in the flesh, according to ALL the major translations (and no, the often added word 'a' in the JW version doesn't count, besides, it would violate the shema, Deut6:4,5). There is absolutely no technical reason why God could not simultaneously exist here in human form and in fullness everywhere else all at once. Absolutely non whatsoever. Zip. Zero. Zilch. After all, it wouldn't be the first time (Gen3:8). It only seems bizzare if one refuses to think of God as being everywhere all at once.

When we do look at what Jesus said, we can measure it by what came before. For example, in the OT God granted 'glory' to others, but makes it very very clear in Isaiah 42:8,48:11 etc that he does not share his personal glory with anyone, and yet Jesus clearly claimed that before he became human he shared glory with God (John 17:5) One might try to argue that this may be a special glory and not God's personal glory but that would be inventing the concept of God having a glory that he could share which was not also personal to him - lol! - not only would the logic therein be self-defeating, it would amount to making things up.

Another factor is the recorded behaviour of those around Jesus. One cannot use only Jesus words and then dismiss the other words of those who wrote them. There is little scholarly basis for doing so, and doing so without evidence forfeits the debater from the debate, rendering their assertions mere personal opinion. Therefore, the attitude of those around Jesus and toward Jesus are very telling. Not the least of which is mentioned in Luke 24:52 where the disciples actually worship Jesus AFTER he had ascended to heaven. This was never done for prophets and was something only reserved for God, the one God that everyone, including Jesus enemies and Jesus himself, agreed was the ONLY one.

The 'lamb' had to become limited, one of us, so the lamb acts in a LIMITED fashion, asking God for help. Simultaneously who else is worth more than all of us put together but God? (evidence and explanation please). Somehow God had to get someone worth more than all of us put together into a limited body in Adam's line that would satisfy the payment required by the law. Hmm. Jesus preached strict monotheism yet said he was God's only fleshborn son. (!) What the...

God in the flesh is often easier to accept intelectually than it is emotionally, and I understand if others cannot.

 

[Muffled]

That is not the OP.


Another factor is the recorded behaviour of those around Jesus. One cannot use only Jesus words and then dismiss the other words of those who wrote them. There is little scholarly basis for doing so, and doing so without evidence forfeits the debater from the debate, rendering their assertions mere personal opinion. Therefore, the attitude of those around Jesus and toward Jesus are very telling. Not the least of which is mentioned in Luke 24:52 where the disciples actually worship Jesus AFTER he had ascended to heaven. This was never done for prophets and was something only reserved for God, the one God that everyone, including Jesus enemies and Jesus himself, agreed was the ONLY one.

Much has been said about Jesus never saying He should be worshiped, however when Jesus was worshiped He did not reuke those who did. Contrast that with the Angel in the Book of the Revelation telling John not to worship him.

Then we have these bersed where Jesus considers it a blessing if you recognise that He is God:
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think the question of whether or not Jesus claims godhood is very relevant to the original post.

Jesus never did make such a claim, that He did not is all the evidence required to support the notion that Jesus is not God in the flesh.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

I think the question of whether or not Jesus claims godhood is very relevant to the original post.... Jesus never did make such a claim, that He did not is all the evidence required to support the notion that Jesus is not God in the flesh.

Regards,
Scott

Scott, in order to be thorough one must also consider that Jesus was often secretive about the subject of his identity. One must also consider the record that his enemies believed that he claimed to be God. So did his disciples. There are the other indirect factors I mentioned regarding the theology, others worshipping him after he returned to heaven, and the record that God had already been here before in a body of some sort. In that overall context a strong argument can be made that verses such as John 8:58 can be taken as-is, as can the subsequent response of the Jews.

The entire thoelogical, monotheistic context and it's implications must be answered, not just a word here and there.

"Only begotten Son" is a claim to diety-as-human in a monotheistic religion. Period. Jesus could have denied the charge that he was the Son of God but he never did. He told Simon that God the Father had revealed that exact knowledge to Simon. (Matt 16:17) This then is not talking about your regular run-of-the mill expression: 'sons of God'. This was different.

Peace.

 

[UnityNow101]

If Jesus was secretive about his identity and didn't really reveal himself to be God, then how can God expect people to believe that Jesus was God in the first place? It seems to me that if it is essential for people to believe that Jesus is God, he would have had to make himself known as such. Otherwise, we must take him and God Almighty at their word.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is not the OP.

Actually it is. The poster presented a title with a question mark at the end. But suprisingly he answers his own question by presenting what he feels is the answer to that question. I then posed the question. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Besides, Jesus own words in no way lack support for the other view. Every word Jesus spoke 'to' God is exactly what we would expect God to say while he was here in human form.

No...it's what you YOU would expect. To me it is perfectly clear. Yeshua knew he wasn't God. This is evident by his actions (and) his words. Even Satan knew he wasn't God. His desciples knew he wasn't God.

Matthew 4:6, 4:9
and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, `He will give his angels charge concerning you.` and, `On their hands they will bear you up, So that you don`t dash your foot against a stone.`"

He (Satan) said to him, "I will give you all of these things, if you will fall down and worship me."

Here we see that Satan saw them as seperate. If it is to be known that Yeshua is "God in the flesh" then Satan would have been the best of witnesses but Satan does not acknowledge him as such. He regards Yeshua as a man protected by God through the angelic beings. He further goes on to try and entice Yeshua and tells him all could be his if Yeshua would would worhip him.

Interesting that Satan would try and entice "God" with material possessions and to try and get "God (The Creator)" to worship him ("Satan, the created").

Also, there is no evidence in the OT to suggest that anyone other than God was qualified to be the "lamb of God" who would take away the sins of the world.

And there is no evidence in the NT to suggest that because he forgave people of their sins that he is God. When he did do this the people questioned him on it.....

Mark 2:5-10:
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. 6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins

Part of verse 10 saying he has power (on earth) to forgive sins is the key for me because that makes it sound as though this power was given to him to be able to do this - on earth. Then I have to go back to the scripture to see if my reasoning is justified...And you know what...It is......

Matthew 28:18
Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth."

No God here...The authority was givent to him in heaven as I have been saying. He existed before the world was, before Abraham was, in heaven and having his own will. All authority to do the things he did was given to him.

Luke 11:20
But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Only God is worth more than all of us put together (that rules angels out).

Yeshua included. Yeshua confirms this as well. He even includes himself in this. He informs us God is greater than him and God is greater than all.

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all...........

John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

We know that he was sent because he said he was. So this definately talking about him.

If Jesus was some 'special class' of being who was able to be human without sinning then it makes a mockery of God creating flawed man in the first place. (why not a race of Jesus-beings then?) Unless Jesus was God in the flesh the OT theology doesn't add up.

It's fine if that's how you see it. But I often thought of it as God sending a perfect being into this world as an example for all of us imperfect beings, giving us something to strive to become....

John 17:23
I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sentme and hast loved them even as thou hast loved

The disciple John (John1:1,14) certainly saw Jesus as God in the flesh, according to ALL the major translations

Don't you mean the author of the book of John saw Yeshua as God? I thought most of the scholars were in agreement the scripture dates back to about 90-100 years after the supposed ressurection. He'd have to have been a pretty old dude.

Another factor is the recorded behaviour of those around Jesus. One cannot use only Jesus words and then dismiss the other words of those who wrote them. There is little scholarly basis for doing so,

I don't think I have done that. I have given a lot of quotes that Yeshua made but I have also listed whole conversations in full context. So I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[rocketman]

If Jesus was secretive about his identity and didn't really reveal himself to be God, then how can God expect people to believe that Jesus was God in the first place?

I never said he didn't claim to be God, I'm saying that without keeping an eye on the actual context it might sound like he is not saying anything of the sort.

 

[rocketman]

Actually it is.

Of-course the poster will give their opinion. So? Did they say "we can only go on what Jesus said and nothing else" as you seem to be suggesting?

No...it's what you YOU would expect.

Not at all. I used to think as you do, and argue exactly as you do now. But eventually I realised it didn't make sense in an overall context. Personally it was the last thing I expected.

Interesting that Satan would try and entice "God" with material possessions and to try and get "God (The Creator)" to worship him ("Satan, the created").

Why? Aha, now I see that you still don't understand why the messiah had to become truly human. I'm sure you know that Satan has always wanted to sit in the big chair (Is 14:12-14). So there before him was God in the flesh, allowing himself to be subject to temptation with only human abilities to resist, and after 40 days in the desert no less. Of-course Satan would see this as an opportunity to indulge his ego. But Jesus overcame.

All authority to do the things he did was given to him.

Which is required for not only your view but the opposite view as well.

Yeshua included. Yeshua confirms this as well. He even includes himself in this. He informs us God is greater than him and God is greater than all.

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all...........

Again, the Father by definition has to be greater than the 'Son' for both views to work.

It's fine if that's how you see it. But I often thought of it as God sending a perfect being into this world as an example for all of us imperfect beings, giving us something to strive to become....

Fair enough, I'm not criticising your personal beliefs, but I repeat that if God already had someone capable of being human who did not sin then why bother with Adam's line? Why not just make more Jesus-beings? It simply doesn't add up.

Don't you mean the author of the book of John saw Yeshua as God?

If you like. But I accept that he was also a disciple based on John 21:24. We have no real way of knowing what happened to the original copy of the gospel of John and therefore when it was written.

Are you suggesting that it is ok to take some of the words of that book for use in a debate but not others?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, according to the Fathers revelation to Simon-Peter Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (God clearly equated the two), the priests also knew the Christ would be the 'Son of the living God', Jesus said he was the only fleshborn Son yet he said there is only one God, the disciples worshipped him after he went to heaven, he claimed to share Gods un-sharable glory, his enemies were angry with him and had him killed him because he claimed to be God and there is no evidence that anyone other than God was valuable enough to pay the price for us. I'm convinced.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of-course the poster will give their opinion. So? Did they say "we can only go on what Jesus said and nothing else" as you seem to be suggesting?

You keep saying that I'm suggesting that we should only go on the words of Yeshua. This is not the case, although they are a perfect start, I've listed many things people said about him. Now I don't have the time to go back and list every post where I did but they can be found. They are in this thread, The trinity thread as well as the (Koran....Jesus is son) thread and most likely a few other threads.

The OP says he was ask to produce evidence....and then he asserts it is "Overwhelming" evidence. I then asked the question, because it wasn't as overwheming to me as he thought, "Where does Yeshua confirm he is God?" This is what brings us here. If it wasn't the OP then the poster would have dismissed me for being off topic and he wouldn't have respond they way he has been responding. So the question I asked was a very valid one. When trinitarians say Yeshua is God, I want to know where and in what verse did Yeshua say this. I want to also read the context of the chapter. I want to research and read commentary by learned scholars and linguist so that I can get a better understanding of the chapter and verse. Saying Yeshua was 100% man and 100% God does little for me because as of this day that has not been validated. That is conjecture. Saying he is God has, so far, been shown as conjecture comapared to what Yeshua said, his actions, what the people said about or two him.

Not at all. I used to think as you do, and argue exactly as you do now. But eventually I realised it didn't make sense in an overall context. Personally it was the last thing I expected.

That's fine if that is how you see it. I don't. I've been reading the sciptures, and not just the many flavors of the KJV, for a very, very long time. I don't scan through picking out verses to suite me. I read it in it's context and compare it with multiple versions of the chapter and verse in question and by multiple translators. I truely do understand "context".....and because I can understand the context I'm never swayed by man made doctrines such as the trinity.

Why? Aha, now I see that you still don't understand why the messiah had to become truly human.

Don't get me wrong. I know why he came to this world. I've expressed it plenty of times. I just don't see it the way you do.

I'm sure you know that Satan has always wanted to sit in the big chair (Is 14:12-14).

We all know Lucifer had some issues with authoruty and thought he was better than God's creation.

So there before him was God in the flesh

Nonsense and none of this can be validated. Lucifer never saw Yeshua as God in the flesh. He saw Yeshua as one of God's sons who stood in his way to corrupt God's creation. With Yeshua serving him (satan), he could continue with his plans to corrupt. It is evident in what he says that he did not view Yeshua as God. He would have known it if he was God. But on the contrary. He tells Yeshua to worship him, (not God).....He tells him to try and cause harm to himself for he knows that it written that God has appointed Yeshua with guardian angels. He was one of God's sons (not God)...he had guardian angels....(God has no need to be protected by his creation)....

Again, the Father by definition has to be greater than the 'Son' for both views to work.

And what view is this?......My view and your view?....

Yeshua was one in purpose, as he said he was, but not one in the same.

but I repeat that if God already had someone capable of being human who did not sin then why bother with Adam's line?

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. He sent Yeshua as an example of perfection to a people that had lost their way. His perfection can be something we strive for, thus making us better.

Are you suggesting that it is ok to take some of the words of that book for use in a debate but not others?

I don't look upon it as something you can use to debate some one elses way of life. I have no right to say your way of life is wrong. I can look upon the life style and man made doctrines and say that I don't agree. As far as the (bible)...It certainly does need scrutany. The KJV alone has gone through many revisions so scrutany isn't a bad thing. It's no mystery that the earliest known scriptures do not contain certain information that can be discovered in later translations of the same scripture. Words are very powerful and even more powerful when it comes to religion.

So, according to the Fathers revelation to Simon-Peter Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (God clearly equated the two), the priests also knew the Christ would be the 'Son of the living God', Jesus said he was the only fleshborn Son yet he said there is only one God, the disciples worshipped him after he went to heaven, he claimed to share Gods un-sharable glory, his enemies were angry with him and had him killed him because he claimed to be God and there is no evidence that anyone other than God was valuable enough to pay the price for us. I'm convinced.

Were you asking me a question or did you just want to express your circular view? I can't be sure. If it's a question then I'm all ears.

 

[rocketman]

If it wasn't the OP then the poster would have dismissed me for being off topic and he wouldn't have respond they way he has been responding.

It's part of the OP, not the whole OP.

I truely do understand "context".....and because I can understand the context I'm never swayed by man made doctrines such as the trinity.

Don't be offended but I don't see that you understand the context, especially given your response to my question about the book of John. I agree we should not be swayed by man-made doctrines. That is why I have no trouble with the biblical doctrine of a multi-faceted God. Many facets, one God, ONE name: Matt 28:19, A name that Jesus equated with himself in John 8:58. I came to this view on my own btw.

It is evident in what he says that he did not view Yeshua as God. He would have known it if he was God.

Possibly not actually. Satan said "If you are the Son of God.." If the Father had to reveal it to Simon perhaps Satan didn't know either, but he would have at least had an idea that this might be the Son of God. So what is the alternative? Are you saying that Jesus was an angel? Some kind of spirit-offspring of God? If the latter then Satan would still have a chance to indulge his ego. "The Son of God" was used by Satan in a titular sense, denoting a station or rank or special authority. He could have used many other terms including envoy, ambassador, messiah, etc but he chose that one, even though there is only one God.

....(God has no need to be protected by his creation)....

God takes personal risks with his creation. When human sins made him grieve who protected him from the pain? No-one. If it is true that he needed to become (simultaneously) human for a time, a human who had to eat, stay warm in the cold and cool in the heat, sleep, etc and so on, then yes that body would need protecting up until the time at the end when that body, that flesh and blood was given in our place. And I do think it is true that he neded to simultaneously become one of us, who else is worth more than all of us put together?

And what view is this?......My view and your view?....

Correct. Quoting Jesus words to the Father might make you feel your view is supported but I can say exactly the same thing about the other view.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. He sent Yeshua as an example of perfection to a people that had lost their way. His perfection can be something we strive for, thus making us better.

Who was Jesus? Why not make more of his type? Why Man? Still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I don't look upon it as something you can use to debate some one elses way of life. I have no right to say your way of life is wrong. I can look upon the life style and man made doctrines and say that I don't agree. As far as the (bible)...It certainly does need scrutany. The KJV alone has gone through many revisions so scrutany isn't a bad thing. It's no mystery that the earliest known scriptures do not contain certain information that can be discovered in later translations of the same scripture. Words are very powerful and even more powerful when it comes to religion.

I'll have to take that as a yes to my question. In which case if you quote Jesus words from John, but then dismiss what John himself said, then I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously. Unless you present some sound scholarly reasoning for your selections. Is it just John you have trouble with? What about the others? What about Luke? In Luke 24:52 the disciples worship Jesus after he ascended to heaven. What about Matthew? In Matthew 26:65 the priests felt Jesus words were blasphemous enough to have him killed. What about Mark? In Mark 12:29 Jesus said there is only one God, yet in 14:62 agreed he was 'the Son of the Blessed One', something considered blasphemous by his captors, and rightly so in a monotheistic religion. What about Acts? Most scholars believe Luke and Acts were written by the same person (see here) In Acts 9:15 Jesus says that Paul is to be his chosen instrument. Even if one of the books attributed to Paul are really so, then the diety of Jesus is a done deal.

It's no mystery that the earliest known scriptures do not contain certain information that can be discovered in later translations of the same scripture.

I haven't used any of those contentious scriptures. (While I'm on that subject, some trivia if anyone else is interested, I found out why the NIV and others render Luke 19:44 as "..because you did not recognise the time of God's coming to you" and it's because the expression of 'a visitation' in OT tradition meant God intervening.)

Were you asking me a question or did you just want to express your circular view? I can't be sure. If it's a question then I'm all ears.

It's up to you if you address those points.

Perhaps you could tell us who/what you think Jesus was before he became flesh and blood?

 

[lew0049]

Scott, in order to be thorough one must also consider that Jesus was often secretive about the subject of his identity. One must also consider the record that his enemies believed that he claimed to be God. So did his disciples. There are the other indirect factors I mentioned regarding the theology, others worshipping him after he returned to heaven, and the record that God had already been here before in a body of some sort. In that overall context a strong argument can be made that verses such as John 8:58 can be taken as-is, as can the subsequent response of the Jews.

The entire thoelogical, monotheistic context and it's implications must be answered, not just a word here and there.

"Only begotten Son" is a claim to diety-as-human in a monotheistic religion. Period. Jesus could have denied the charge that he was the Son of God but he never did. He told Simon that God the Father had revealed that exact knowledge to Simon. (Matt 16:17) This then is not talking about your regular run-of-the mill expression: 'sons of God'. This was different.

Peace.

Great point - When the words Father and Son are used, it suggests to people one was there before the other one, just we think of father and son in our world. But, when you think of it as producing something that is the "same kind as Himself" the word Father is the only logical word that can be used. The Father did not "make" the Son, The Father beget the Son. Begetting literally means to be the father of; just as man begets humam babies. Whereas to create is to make, which means you make something of a different kind of yourself, just as a man could make a status of Himself yet it is still not a real man.
Just as something can be the source of something without it actually being there before it.

 

[Popeyesays]

If Jesus was secretive about his identity and didn't really reveal himself to be God, then how can God expect people to believe that Jesus was God in the first place? It seems to me that if it is essential for people to believe that Jesus is God, he would have had to make himself known as such. Otherwise, we must take him and God Almighty at their word.

As to those who claim Jesus was being covert in His claims:

I find it funny. He died on the cross because He made His claims very clear.

As to "Father" and "Son" implying anything: Well, no. The prayer He taught was started with the phrase "Our Father" . . . so God is father to us all aqnd we are sons and daughters of God.

Many have devoted much of their own sense of person into believing Jesus is God and, having given that much weight to the concept, they cannot deal with the idea they might be fablizing Jesus and forcing Him into a role He never authorized.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He died on the cross because He made His claims very clear.

You confuse story and fact ...

 

[Popeyesays]

You confuse story and fact ...

I trust you don't think I have any doubts about the historicity of Jesus. I don't. I also believe He died was a Manifestation of God and the Gospels are close enought to fact to functioin as Holy Text.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

The Father did not "make" the Son, The Father beget the Son. Begetting literally means to be the father of; just as man begets humam babies. Whereas to create is to make, which means you make something of a different kind of yourself, just as a man could make a status of Himself yet it is still not a real man.
Just as something can be the source of something without it actually being there before it.

Right! I wish I had thought to phrase it that way. Well said. It amazes me that people skip over the bit where Jesus said he was the 'only begotten Son'.