Did Jesus say he was God???

[LioneDea]

He was referring to his existence as a Spirit Being, the personification of Wisdom, that's why they accuse him of making himself to be "a god".

Lione D' ea: The case was, he is not man according in his existence.



(end.)

 

[jasonwill2]

....and according to 2nd Corinthians 4 v 4 Satan is the 'god' of this world of badness.....

The Bible is a book of lies, and The God of Christianity is cruel and vindictive, petty, like a child. But indeed Satan is the god of this world. But of badness? A lie: only two things are bad, denying yourself (or others via proxy in crimes that hurt them), or by trying to kill god either directly or through Satan.

Satan is god of this earth and of life. This "badness", sin has kept life alive for millions of years. It's called instincts. our need to sate our desires, such as lust, has kept us around for so long. Without sin nothing would have a drive to survive.

Leviathan is the God of everything else though, as well as literally the universe.

Lione D' ea: Many false-christ appears at this time, did you ashamed of being a liar, you have to glad it if your false-christ do lying, the out come of your statement is you insult your own father satan.

The Bible is all lies, I reject it. And so with it, any claim of True or Single Divinity from Jesus or Yahweh!

Satan is offended by nothing but denial of Self and by trying to kill Him or his Father Leviathan who is the Universe Personified.

Also of note: your assuming that I believe this bull of thinking that Satan is a liar and that Jesus is truth. SO I can't insult Satan by saying he's not a liar, as you assume that I am glorifying evil because I am a Satanist. Satan can't be evil as evil is uniquely a human act and Satan isn't a human.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, that's what Trinitarians would like the gospels to say, the gospels say that he was crucified for being the "King of the Jews". His actual charge was for declaring G-d to be his father.

And the people wanted him punished because he called himself the "son of God"....

Some Christians have it all twisted. Calling ones self the Messiah or the son of "God" in the eyes of the Romans was not a punishable offense. As you pointed out, the Romans would crucify him if he claimed to be the (King of the Jews). I suspect he never called himself that but the Romans crucified him to appease the crowd. During his supposed trial the Jews were focused on if he thought he was the "son of God"...which was a punishable offense in the eyes of Jews.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

anyone who thinks jesus is/was god needs a psychiatrist for sure. stop looking verbs n provers n start seeing sense just common sense.

Correct....


And "common sense" is listed under my religion heading.....

Welcome to the forum.

 

[jasonwill2]

Correct....


And "common sense" is listed under my religion heading.....

Welcome to the forum.

Jesus is silly.

 

[LioneDea]

The Bible is a book of lies, and The God of Christianity is cruel and vindictive, petty, like a child. But indeed Satan is the god of this world. But of badness? A lie: only two things are bad, denying yourself (or others via proxy in crimes that hurt them), or by trying to kill god either directly or through Satan.

Satan is god of this earth and of life. This "badness", sin has kept life alive for millions of years. It's called instincts. our need to sate our desires, such as lust, has kept us around for so long. Without sin nothing would have a drive to survive.

Leviathan is the God of everything else though, as well as literally the universe.

Lione D' ea: Satan will not allow he is not a liar, because he was the Father's this, and then you remove this character to him that is contrary on my belief, and then you further out there are two things that are bad in this world, first of all, we have to know that if indeed these two things you are mentioned that we see in reality let us prove that your opinion, John 8:47 Read:

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Lione D' ea: Is it only bad mention here in this reality according in the paragraph said, I think not because it said "He that is of God heareth God's words, therefore it is not bad, but if you are doing bad things, then ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God, to whom you are, in John 8:44 Read?

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The paragraphs indicate us, there are two appear in reality we live in the world, if you're in God or in the devil, if you are in God you hear his words, his commandments, but if not you are in your father the devil, doing lusts, murderer and liar, this is from world, God hate of these acts.

The Bible is all lies, I reject it. And so with it, any claim of True or Single Divinity from Jesus or Yahweh!

Satan is offended by nothing but denial of Self and by trying to kill Him or his Father Leviathan who is the Universe Personified.

Also of note: your assuming that I believe this bull of thinking that Satan is a liar and that Jesus is truth. SO I can't insult Satan by saying he's not a liar, as you assume that I am glorifying evil because I am a Satanist. Satan can't be evil as evil is uniquely a human act and Satan isn't a human.

Lione D' ea: I'll give you an example to your accusing in writing, says there in

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 40:22 of King James Version)


Lione D' ea: Do you think Bible tells you a lie in that simple fact?



(end.)

 

[LioneDea]

Correct....


And "common sense" is listed under my religion heading.....

Welcome to the forum.

Lione D' ea: Before would speak of common sense, you must first prove the answers to the questions, before you judge if there is a basis or no you had, don't worry say something if you not know the answers, because I will reveal my answers in that sealed book.



(end.)

 

[jasonwill2]

Lione D' ea: Satan will not allow he is not a liar, because he was the Father's this, and then you remove this character to him that is contrary on my belief, and then you further out there are two things that are bad in this world, first of all, we have to know that if indeed these two things you are mentioned that we see in reality let us prove that your opinion, John 8:47 Read:

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Lione D' ea: Is it only bad mention here in this reality according in the paragraph said, I think not because it said "He that is of God heareth God's words, therefore it is not bad, but if you are doing bad things, then ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God, to whom you are, in John 8:44 Read?

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The paragraphs indicate us, there are two appear in reality we live in the world, if you're in God or in the devil, if you are in God you hear his words, his commandments, but if not you are in your father the devil, doing lusts, murderer and liar, this is from world, God hate of these acts.





Lione D' ea: I'll give you an example to your accusing in writing, says there in

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 40:22 of King James Version)


Lione D' ea: Do you think Bible tells you a lie in that simple fact?



(end.)

I reject that verse of Isaiah 40:22 as it is talking about a false god, as well as the other verses as they are slander against Satan, Man, and Leviathan (the True God)

Your god is not my god, and your Satan is not my Satan.

"Satan" is simply the name you gave to a larger and more ancient concept, predating Christianity by about 800 million years.

Satan, in short, is LIFE. He is the very essence of life. Anything that rejects him and calls him evil is calling life evil.

The Bible is a book of lies because it says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that Adam lived hundreds of years, and that Jesus Christ is The Creator, when in fact none of those are true. It says the god wants to save us, but the truth is there is nothing to save us from.

Jesus talked about Hell, and fire and nashing of the teeth. There is no hell. When spirits die, if they even do die, they simply reside in our realm, ON THE EARTH, not to some mystical "Heaven" or "Hell".

In fact, a study of history can show how the idea of a fire and brimstone Hell grew over time. If you accept The Bible as fact you are stuck in a spiritual pipe dream of self-deceit.

"Satan" is just a convenient word for a force of nature, for evolution and our natural instincts. It is very real, but not in the way that you think. Satan means "adversary, opposition, accuser".

All of life is adversarial and oppositional to competition, or else it would be eliminated through natural selection. And Satan, as this force, acts to accuse the weak to cause one of two things 1) to weed them out, or 2)to make them adapt.

"Satan" cannot be a liar as he has no coherent voice: he is more like a force than a spirit. When I speak, Satan speaks, but when you speak, so does Satan speak also. Satan is inside all of us, as he made us. He is our flesh, and our flesh is Him. He is our spirit, and our spirit is Him.

Satan is the god that extends within and without of each person. He is life personified.

As I said, my Satan is not your Satan, and my God is not your God.

Jesus was a liar, as he sought to deceive the masses. And if He was right, then his father was an irresponsible god for letting Satan run rampant. If The Bible is right, wouldn't it just be better to judge Satan now so that man can at least not be tempted as much by him?

Such obvious inconsistencies in such a so-called "righteous judge" brings the question: Is all this happening for the glory of God? If so, then it is at the cost of billions of Hell-bound souls.

So either Jesus was a liar, or God is evil. I choose to believe that Jesus was a liar, and that his Father is a liar, because it is much more logical.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: (Issue: Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 8:1-22) I see the conflict in your statement brother, to whom rests this prophecy, really means, to Ahaz and the people of Judah or to the child Immanuel or to Hezikiah, where here in three?

There was no conflict in my statement. You said ("It does not matter, who the children of Ahaz are,") and I was pointing out that theologians are the ones who find it important enough in their interpertations of Isaiah to try and determine whether the child spoken of is Mahershalalhashbaz or Hezikiah. I've given my reasons as to why I think it is Mahershalalhashbaz.

Now, you listed Isaiah 8:1-22 but did you even read them and apply the context to all of Isaiah 7? In 7 it says the young woman will give birth to a son. This son is the sign to Ahaz and the people of Judah that (God was with them). In 8 it mentions Isaiah's second son. This is important and crucial to the prophecy because notice what it says at 8:4 and you should hopefully come to the conclusion it has nothing to do with Yeshua.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
7:3
And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field.

7:14
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

7:16
For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 8 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
8:3
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

8:4
For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

8:18
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.


Now do you see it? Before this child was able to call upon his parents Damascus and Samaria will be defeated by the King of Assyria. Remember, Ahaz was facing pending war with them and the sign that (God was with them) is right here. Right there at 8:18 Isaiah is telling you outright that he and his "children" are a "sign" and token in Israel. Remember, in 7:3 he was instructed to take his first son with him to King Ahaz and his second son would be the one born that would be the sign that (God was with Ahaz and the people of Judah). This is why in 9:5(6) it says ("a child HAS BEEN BORN TO US"). And after that you can see how Samaria etc. begins to fall.

Lione D' ea: Again, did the child already exist there when he born by the young woman at that time, do you have any specific information in Bible can we read to prove the Immanuel there appeared in that time, what is your answer?

See above.

Lione D' ea: Then let us see the Jewish Bible if that God in King James Version is on wrong:

That's what I've been posting to show some of the inaccuracies in the KJV.

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." (The complete Jewish Bible)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (King James Version)


Lione D' ea: Almost identical to the word of God rendered both two(2) versions, you did not answer yet the question, again If the child himself was not God, why in 9:5 of Isaiah said: "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." Also you quoted "God", the questions is, did the verse tell us the born child is God or not, if not why the verse state, the mighty God?

They're different in the way they are interpreted. In the Jewish Tanakh it is rendered....

the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.

This is implying that the wondrous adviser, the might God, the everlasting Father (YHWH) called his name (the son that was to be born) the prince of peace.


The KJV is implying something different.

and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace

The KJV is implying that this son that was born IS the wondrous adviser, mighty God, Everlasting Father, the prince of peace.

I take the Jewish Tanakh over the KJV.

Lione D' ea: (1) I did not any state a young-woman CANNOT be a wife and she CANNOT have a child

You said implicitly and explicitly that (almah) meant "virgin". I disagree.

if you remember also, I said:Just clear, you said that this is second child, does indicate Immanuel is not the first-born, why not said in verse 14 the term Mother if she turned this second child which is Immanuel was her second-born?,

Because Isaiah already had a son (see Isaiah 7:3). As I explained already the focus was not on the first child or that she was a mother. It was to focus on the prophecy concerning the second son that would be the sign that (God was with Ahaz and the people of Judah).

(2) To be called (almah) doesn't mean you had to be a virgin., I did not state to be called almah is to had to be a virgin, because the verse tell us the young woman is Virgin,

You did right here --> (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2853097-post6111.html)

what is the proof, 9:5 of Isaiah Read your scripture, "For a child has been born to us, a son", Plural or singular, therefore my question again in Isaiah 7:14, before the young-woman conceive, is she a Virgin?

No. And I've said this a few times already.

Lione D' ea: Let us read Proverbs 8:22,24-25 Read

"The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old."

24 I was created when there were yet no deeps, when there were no fountains replete with water.

25. I was created before the mountains were sunk, before the hills;(The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D' ea: If he really created by God according you and the scripture, why did the 8:22 said before His works if he was first created, is there a problem in translating?

It appears to mean (before his god created the Heavens and the Earth). The key understanding is whomever this is, they're saying they were created. If one wants to hold to the notion that this is about Yeshua then they need to accept that this character is saying "God" created them which means this person is not "God" that is doing the creating.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Lione D' ea: Before would speak of common sense, you must first prove the answers to the questions, before you judge if there is a basis or no you had, don't worry say something if you not know the answers, because I will reveal my answers in that sealed book.

So far you've been wrong in pretty much every response to me so I not worried about what you think you can reveal to me.

 

[jasonwill2]

Jesus is not God. Maybe the son of Yahweh yes, but not God as Yahweh is NOT God.

That is even if Jesus existed in the first place.

Ave Satana.

 

[jasonwill2]

.....

 

[`mud]

Jason,
What CAN be said ! ! !
Really good stuff ! ! ! ! ! ! !
~
Life is stuff,
stuff is Life.
~
`mud

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus is silly.

Strip away all the hype and fantastical claims written in the NT and you quickly learn that Yeshua was just a regular man. A rebel rouser of sorts but a regular man none the less. I don't think he was silly rather the people writing after his death who never met him wrote some silly things.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

'rebel rouser' ?

Jesus was politically neutral. Even when the people offered Jesus political office [king] Jesus remained neutral and withdrew. -John 6 v 15

Jesus nor his followers got involved in the issues of the day.
They did not even get involved with issues between the Jews and Romans.

 

[Muffled]

No, what was ambiguous was your OP. I've been direct when it comes to John 8:58 or 10:33

One (with) is not the same as one in the same. (See: John 17:21 and 23)

It is true that they are not one and the same because Jesus has a body and the Father does not. However there is one Spirit of God that is in Jesus and everywhere else (The Father) and in believers (The Paraclete, that we may be one).

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;

 

[Muffled]

hmmm therz just one small thing i need to ask,sorry if i hurt anyone unintentionally.so u say jesus is/was god but how come god was running while romans were chasing him with swords.at the end they catch him n crucify him.now that raizes hell lot of doubts,

Jesus didn't run and was not chased. The Romans were not even present at the arrest of Jesus.

The facts reveal the exact opposite of what you infer. Jesus did not resist His fate when He could have called on ten thousand angels to defend Him. He was true to His purpose as one would expect from God.

 

[Muffled]

"Forgive them Father for they know not what they do". You would not pray to yourself would you?

I talk to myself and prayer is just talking. The Father they knew, Jesus they didn't.

 

[LioneDea]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick


"Forgive them Father for they know not what they do". You would not pray to yourself would you?



Lione D' ea: Lols

 

[LioneDea]

There was no conflict in my statement.[/U] You said ("It does not matter, who the children of Ahaz are,") and I was pointing out that theologians are the ones who find it important enough in their interpertations of Isaiah to try and determine whether the child spoken of is Mahershalalhashbaz or Hezikiah. I've given my reasons as to why I think it is Mahershalalhashbaz.

Now, you listed Isaiah 8:1-22 but did you even read them and apply the context to all of Isaiah 7? In 7 it says the young woman will give birth to a son. This son is the sign to Ahaz and the people of Judah that (God was with them). In 8 it mentions Isaiah's second son. This is important and crucial to the prophecy because notice what it says at 8:4 and you should hopefully come to the conclusion it has nothing to do with Yeshua.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
7:3
And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field.

7:14
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

7:16
For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 8 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
8:3
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

8:4
For, when the lad does not yet know to call, 'Father' and 'mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."

8:18
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.


Now do you see it? Before this child was able to call upon his parents Damascus and Samaria will be defeated by the King of Assyria. Remember, Ahaz was facing pending war with them and the sign that (God was with them) is right here. Right there at 8:18 Isaiah is telling you outright that he and his "children" are a "sign" and token in Israel. Remember, in 7:3 he was instructed to take his first son with him to King Ahaz and his second son would be the one born that would be the sign that (God was with Ahaz and the people of Judah). This is why in 9:5(6) it says ("a child HAS BEEN BORN TO US"). And after that you can see how Samaria etc. begins to fall.

Lione D' ea: So I asked here is in my previous question back then, the second child, why there's 7:14 mentioned young woman, why not Mother, because the point there that I ask is, why it state young-woman if she had a first-born there according to your sense, so there is a conflict in your analysis regarding in our issue of Isaiah 7:14, plus another conflict of not sure in your answered about of Isaiah 7:14 the prophecy is for Ahaz: read your reply:

Dirty Penguin; Yes it does. It's important enough to theologians to the point of trying to determine whether the prophecy is talking about Mahershalalhashbaz or Hezikiah. (new)

The prophecy is meant for King Ahaz(previous answer) and the people of Judah.(new) I've elaborated plenty to this fact with scripture and independent commentary. The child born, in my opinion, was Mahershalalhashbaz. This was the sign that (God was with the people of Judah). ( @ 03-28-2012)


Lione D' ea: Many to mention you almost blended the passage which there was occurred and there is prophecy for future. These mentioned you took it in passage of Isaiah 7:14 have not yet occurred at their time which you attached to Chapter 8. The Mahershalalhashbaz is the name of man that existed, why you appended to passage of 7:14 of Isaiah which this prophecy is not yet occurred in that time, another conflict which your bases to attach in 7:14, is the passage of 8 and 9; Isaiah 7:13:

Isaiah 9:5-6 Read: "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.

"To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this."


Isaiah 7:13 "And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?" (The complete Jewish Bible)


Lione D' ea: Here in this passages mention, you contradict yourself in 7:14 of Isaiah, because the mention of Isaiah 9:5 is singular form which referring to the child in David house(kingdom). proving the Isaiah 7:14 the term with child is in the bosom of the young-woman, not meant to us she had 2 sons there. Isaiah 8 and 9 are the basis you use for attach in 7:14 not me who listed that, I follow where did you jump other verses. Who mention child in Isiah 7:14 really, is it for Ahaz or Immanuel, if you are clueless you can admit you don't know who is the child as sign there?

See above.



That's what I've been posting to show some of the inaccuracies in the KJV.



They're different in the way they are interpreted. In the Jewish Tanakh it is rendered....

the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.

This is implying that the wondrous adviser, the might God, the everlasting Father (YHWH) called his name (the son that was to be born) the prince of peace.


The KJV is implying something different.

and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace

The KJV is implying that this son that was born IS the wondrous adviser, mighty God, Everlasting Father, the prince of peace.

I take the Jewish Tanakh over the KJV.



You said implicitly and explicitly that (almah) meant "virgin". I disagree.




Because Isaiah already had a son (see Isaiah 7:3). As I explained already the focus was not on the first child or that she was a mother. It was to focus on the prophecy concerning the second son that would be the sign that (God was with Ahaz and the people of Judah).




You did right here --> (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2853097-post6111.html)

Lione D' ea: Isaiah 9:5 Read:

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."


Lione D' ea: The son of God is mighty as well as his Father, and the Son is also called the father, the fact in Proverbs 8:32 it say's:

Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

Lione D' ea: The Son of God is the speaker here in this verse, Why I believe in Isaiah 9:5-6 is the Son of God mentioned there, because it written there not the Almighty God, because the Almighty God is the Father, are you agree?