Did Jesus say he was God???

[waitasec]

It is sure funny how people who do not believe in God are sure they know all the capabilities of that which they don't acknowledge.

and where do you think i got that idea from?
surely not the bible...

God didn't die.

what does 'rise from the dead' mean?

 

[1robin]

and where do you think i got that idea from?
surely not the bible...


what does 'rise from the dead' mean?

You have such a simplistic biased view of Christianity it is almost pointless to address it. The God who wrote the bible you claim to use says this:

New Living Translation (©2007)
But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means
1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So it is no wonder you have such an incorrect understanding of the bible.
Rise form the dead means his physical body was restored and reanimated from it's dead state. It also means his divine soul was reunited with the father in perfect union. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of the second death in the bible.

 

[waitasec]

You have such a simplistic biased view of Christianity it is almost pointless to address it. The God who wrote the bible you claim to use says this:

New Living Translation (©2007)
But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means
1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So it is no wonder you have such an incorrect understanding of the bible.
Rise form the dead means his physical body was restored and reanimated from it's dead state. It also means his divine soul was reunited with the father in perfect union. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of the second death in the bible.

so why does the bible say flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven?

 

[Shermana]

It also means his divine soul was reunited with the father in perfect union.

Why does Jesus still have to receive Revelation from the Father in the Book of Revelation if their "Souls" were reunited? I guess your definition of "Soul" is different? Or can you admit that the text plainly says they were still separate minds and separate entities even after Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[F0uad]

Why is it necessary that he be called that during his lifetime. Why do you apply arbitrary and irrationally high standards for the bible when you do not do the same for the Quran. I will prove this when ever we get round to discussing the Quran.

It is not necessary for you to understand that doctrine for it to be true. You have not addressed my long posts concerning the reliability of the bible. I do not wish to open a full bore discussion of is Jesus God until we conclude the quran v/s bible discussion. I just don't have the time necessary to get deep into both subjects. There was only one point here and it is an invalid and unjustifiable standard.

As far as the "tempted" issue goes. I don't think I ever agreed they were the same words. If you actually read the scripture in it's original Greek (which I actually posted for you) then it is obvious that there were two separate words that were translated as tempted in English. That issue is over with. My post explained in detail and included the verses, words, and definitions that pointed this out. I was even surprised how completely that issue was resolved. In the other post by my turn I meant you conclude your critique of the bible and I begin mine on the quran. Which way is correct Quran or Koran?

What has this to do anything with this:

The verse of Abraham(p) isn't really important i was pointing out that the same word was used. I know the verse i quoted it, the story indicates that Jesus(p) was being tempted by the Devil but that he did not gave himself into it. However this still contradicts with the verse of James when God says he cannot be tempted.

We both agreed it should been translated to Test so why should we shove it away..

Turn on what?
I didn't reply on a Trinitarian doctrine.

How does this answers my question? If it does then Jesus(p) didn't take away your sins since a soul caries the burden and the soul didn't die.

Thanks for understanding.

Can you also address the other verses i mentioned:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19, yet Jesus(p) is refereed as son of man 83 times in the Gospels alone without the old-testament included.

Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus(p) was a man, "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

The key part in the verse 19 is, "lo ish el bikhazab uben adam beyit nekham". The negation occurs at the beginning of the sentence with the word "ìà" or lo which is similar with the Arabicnegation la. What this literally means is: "It is not true that God is a man and will lie and the son of man and He will change His mind". The negation is distributed to each phrase which then yields, "God is not a man and He does not lie, He is not the son of man and He does not repent."

As we know the Gospels describe Jesus(p) in both man and the son of man. Verse 19 of Numbers 23 says that God is neither man nor the son of man. When we bring these two together do we not arrive at the conclusion that Jesus isn't God?

 

[1robin]

so why does the bible say flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven?

If you are going to spend considerable time critiquing the bible I recommend you make at least a minimal effort to understand it first. Almost every claim you make or question you ask is based on an incorrect understanding of scripture. This would be understandable if you were discussing complex theological issues but your points have been simplistic and easy to clear up. If you are not willing to spend time with a few commentaries or researching cultural language use I have to conclude your efforts to critique the bible are just manifestations of your resentment for it. You show no signs of sincerely desiring knowledge or any efforts to allow for simple harmonization. It took a whole three minutes to find the scholarly consensus concerning this issue. Why didn't you do this your self? The body we receive after we are raised from the dead is a different kind of body. Incorruptible, perfect, and eternal. It will not be flesh as we now know it to be. This is the body that Christ had after resurrection.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom - This is a Hebrew periphrasis for man, and man in his present state of infirmity and decay. Man, in his present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God; his nature is not suited to that place; he could not, in his present weak state, endure an exceeding great and eternal weight of glory. Therefore, it is necessary that he should die, or be changed; that he should have a celestial body suited to the celestial state. The apostle is certainly not speaking of flesh and blood in a moral sense, to signify corruption of mind and heart; but in a natural sense; as such, flesh and blood cannot inherit glory, for the reasons already assigned

Here is another:
Geneva Study Bible
{28} Now this I say, brethren, that {c} flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

(28) The conclusion: we cannot be partakers of the glory of God unless we put off all that gross and filthy nature of our bodies subject to corruption, that the same body may be adorned with incorruptible glory.

(c) Flesh and blood are taken here for a living body, which cannot attain to incorruption, unless it puts off corruption.
1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

As is obvious actually allowing for cultural language use, it is easily seen what was meant. That our corrupted mortal flesh cannot exist with an absolutely perfect God. Our incorruptible new bodies won't be what we know of today. They are described as incorruptible and perfect and that body can live with God. That is the type of body Christ had when he was resurrected. It is not flesh and blood as we know it.

There are at least seven accepted commentaries at that site from respected theologians and they all point out the same solution to you simplistic challenge. Why don't you try and find these answers yourself. I do not have the time or interest in clearing up every simplistic inaccurate counter point that you can invent. Reading back over this it is maybe a bit harsh but it gets old continuously clearing up inaccurate views on scripture used as counter claims. The discussion never advances

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Rise form the dead means his physical body was restored and reanimated from it's dead state. It also means his divine soul was reunited with the father in perfect union. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of the second death in the bible.

Jesus appeared in several different materialized bodies after God resurrected Jesus out of the Bible's hell [Acts 2 vs 31,32], and Jesus was resurrected back to the spirit as he was before God sent Jesus to earth to be born as a perfect human. So, Jesus physical body was Not restored to him.
As stated flesh and blood [physical] can Not inherit the kingdom...
-1st Cor. 15 v 50

Did Adam have a divine soul? Adam was a living soul [Genesis 2 v 7]
At death Adam became a dead soul.
The soul that sins dies [ Ezekiel 18 vs 4,20]
Adam sinned Adam died.

Isn't 'second death' the definition of the lake of fire at Rev. 20 vs 13, 14 ?

 

[waitasec]

If you are going to spend considerable time critiquing the bible I recommend you make at least a minimal effort to understand it first. Almost every claim you make or question you ask is based on an incorrect understanding of scripture. This would be understandable if you were discussing complex theological issues but your points have been simplistic and easy to clear up. If you are not willing to spend time with a few commentaries or researching cultural language use I have to conclude your efforts to critique the bible are just manifestations of your resentment for it. You show no signs of sincerely desiring knowledge or any efforts to allow for simple harmonization. It took a whole three minutes to find the scholarly consensus concerning this issue. Why didn't you do this your self? The body we receive after we are raised from the dead is a different kind of body. Incorruptible, perfect, and eternal. It will not be flesh as we now know it to be. This is the body that Christ had after resurrection.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom - This is a Hebrew periphrasis for man, and man in his present state of infirmity and decay. Man, in his present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God; his nature is not suited to that place; he could not, in his present weak state, endure an exceeding great and eternal weight of glory. Therefore, it is necessary that he should die, or be changed; that he should have a celestial body suited to the celestial state. The apostle is certainly not speaking of flesh and blood in a moral sense, to signify corruption of mind and heart; but in a natural sense; as such, flesh and blood cannot inherit glory, for the reasons already assigned

Here is another:
Geneva Study Bible
{28} Now this I say, brethren, that {c} flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

(28) The conclusion: we cannot be partakers of the glory of God unless we put off all that gross and filthy nature of our bodies subject to corruption, that the same body may be adorned with incorruptible glory.

(c) Flesh and blood are taken here for a living body, which cannot attain to incorruption, unless it puts off corruption.
1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

As is obvious actually allowing for cultural language use, it is easily seen what was meant. That our corrupted mortal flesh cannot exist with an absolutely perfect God. Our incorruptible new bodies won't be what we know of today. They are described as incorruptible and perfect and that body can live with God. That is the type of body Christ had when he was resurrected. It is not flesh and blood as we know it.

There are at least seven accepted commentaries at that site from respected theologians and they all point out the same solution to you simplistic challenge. Why don't you try and find these answers yourself. I do not have the time or interest in clearing up every simplistic inaccurate counter point that you can invent. Reading back over this it is maybe a bit harsh but it gets old continuously clearing up inaccurate views on scripture used as counter claims. The discussion never advances

so then what was the purpose of jesus' missing body?

 

[icebuddy]

Jesus cannot be God,
there is multiple reasons for this:
1. He is CLEARLY referenced as "the son of God".

He is also the Son of Man. With your same reasoning, Jesus cannot be man either... It is my guess that Jesus didnt become a son until he was born(birthed) on earth. (Becomming the Firstborn of Mary and God the Father)

2. When he is on earth clearly he is still praying to God his father

The beauty of what Jesus did for us is AWESOME! That the Word, who was God and with God. The one who was there already before the beginning, the Everlasting Word of life, did not consider all of that something to hold on to, but "Emptied Himself", to become the "son of man"(part of his creation) and learn what we go through as humans and then sacrifised his Blood for our sins forever(because he is God). Now Jesus who is both the Root and offspring of David mediates for us as our Saviour and our God with the Father.

Tts 2:13 while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.

3 Philipians Chapter 2 verses 5-7 state "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form(he was a spirit like God), gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form(by coming to earth) and came to be in the likeness of men." (brackets mine)

you dont see it from the perspective of many upon many from the time after Jesus died. By you saying he was a spirit like God is throwing you off from seeing the beauty of what Jesus really did for us. If you read beforehand you will see that in verse 3 that although as Men we are all equal, but we are to consider others as better than ourselves. We are to Mimic the example that Jesus gave us, that although equal as God, humbled himself even to the point of becomming a man lower than all men, sacrificing his life as a lamb sacrificed for our sins. If we were all to do that towards one another there would never be a problem...

In Love,
Tom

 

[icebuddy]

Apparently the Father is still greater than him even after he is ressurrected. That's why he has to receive revelation from God..

I dont disagree with you. I believe the Eternal Word of life that was God and with God is showing us a perfect example of how we are to treat eachother. Phil 2:3
That although equal to God, he humbled himself(emptied himself), became a man, a man with nothing and sacrificed himself for all mankind. You see this as a weakness of somekind, but it was all done out of voluntary. And Yes, Trinitarians believe in a heiarchy withing the Godhead. Hence the Father being the 1st person of the Trinity...

The Question that needs to be asked is can you have Equal in Value, yet different in Authority? i believe the answer is yes...

"Lowest"? What do you mean by "Lowest"? That he's lower than the Canaanite woman he calls a dog? John, who no man is greater than, says that he's unworthy to even untie his sandal strap.

Jesus Humbled himself even to death, not just any death, but as a sacrifice to all of mankind. Jesus is unique, one of a kind, as he is both Son of Man and Son of God, the root and offspring of David. John is a man as all men are born and exist. Jesus is the Eternal Word before becomming a man. Yet Even Jesus washed his desiples feet.

It's a title that Jesus uses for himself to indicate that he's just a man.

Son of God is also a title of divinity. "Son of" explains what you are. Son of man = man while the true Son of God = True God

Angels and men are called sons of god, but only Jesus is THE "Son of God".

The Trinity concept says that they are completely equal and that they are in effect the same Being, you said that Jesus is "Everything the Father is". Contradiction

Completely equal in being God and that in the being we call God exists Three Persons we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And yes, i believe Everything the Father is, Jesus expresses 100% to the the fullest. Jesus is the Image of the invissable. To see Jesus is to see God. Thats why i warn people to look Jesus in the face and say, "NOT GOD" is very unwise...

In Love,
tom

 

[icebuddy]

There is one and only one G-D

Amen! But what is your definition of God?

 

[Shermana]

That the Word, who was God and with God.

"A god".

Feel free to explain how you can be something and be with something at the same time.

Am I with Shermana right now?

 

[icebuddy]

One more thing, we don't know if Jesus spoke Greek. There is much evidence in the text that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and that the Greek is a translation of what he was saying.

You guys post a ton here... i will catch up, just behind and busy... However, I understand that when Jesus reads out of the Scriptures that he is reading the Greek translation of the Hebrew...

In Love,
Tom

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You guys post a ton here... i will catch up, just behind and busy... However, I understand that when Jesus reads out of the Scriptures that he is reading the Greek translation of the Hebrew...

In Love,
Tom

Personally I doubt that. He most likely spoke Aramaic. When reading from the Torah he most likely was reading Hebrew. We don't have any indication he was reading from a Greek copy/translation..

 

[Muffled]

Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus(p) was a man, "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."

The verse clearly says Man(HUMAN). I can quote more if wanted just a quick reminder Jesus(p) is called son of man 85 times in the Gospels.

If that is the case then God did pray to himself, called out for himself and talked to himself what would make no sense. Also God didn't take the burden but hes human body did if we would use your argument.

Please read my previous messages.

That is an incorrect assessment. The verse reveals that the writer perceived Him to be a man.

This is not surprising since I have very little doubt that Jesus was perceived as being a man. Jesus calls Himself son of man and that is correct since he is a child of Mary. He acknowledges the term son of God since He has no earthly father and God is the creator of half His DNA.

It makes perfect sense. The confusion is in your own mind.

Body and spirit are melded at conception and stay that way until death unless the spirit departs voluntarily (spirit walking) so whatever the body experiences the spirit experiences also. (In this case, Jesus did not experience death because the Spirit of God left before the body died)

I try to read all the messages but sometimes I miss a few. What specifically did you have in mind?

 

[Muffled]

even if jesus did say he was god...he lied.

god can't die.

God is a spirit. The evidence that the Spirit of God did not die is found in the Resurrection.

 

[Muffled]

Why does Jesus still have to receive Revelation from the Father in the Book of Revelation if their "Souls" were reunited? I guess your definition of "Soul" is different? Or can you admit that the text plainly says they were still separate minds and separate entities even after Jesus rose from the dead?

There is no such scripture. However if you were asking why Jesus still refers to the Father, the answer is that He is speaking to men who know the Father but don't necessarily know Jesus as well.

No. This would be blashemy tantamount to saying there are two Gods. However the body is a separate entity.

 

[waitasec]

God is a spirit. The evidence that the Spirit of God did not die is found in the Resurrection.

then he didn't die for our sins.

 

[InChrist]

then he didn't die for our sins.

He died in the flesh as the second Adam.

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19

 

[1robin]

then he didn't die for our sins.

Are we reduced to this idea again? It is like a weed. Useless and apparently impossible to eradicate. Christs soul was seperated from God the father in a spiritual sense. Christs soul was never destroyed. When the bible says death it means one of two things. 1. Physical death 2. Spiritual seperation from God (this is known as the second death) So which definition is applicable in this context? Did Christ free us from physical death? No, we still physically die. Did he take the second death for us ? Yes he was seperated from the father (hell) so we will never be. That is the biblically consitent view however I will admit it might be a little tricky without suffecient study an individual.