Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

There is no such scripture.

Thank you for revealing that you haven't read Revelation 1:1. Tis quite common for "Christians' to not have actually read the scriptures they claim to make bold assertions about, whether its laziness or ego or both I don't know, but you may want to actually consider reading the Bible before you say what it doesn't say:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him

Now maybe you DID read Revelation 1:1 and you have a different understanding of what "God gave Him" means. So here we see that God gave Jesus revelation, not only proving that Jesus had to be given revelation from God (i.e. He didn't know something that GOd knew) but it also shows that even after the ascension, they are still TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS.

So feel free to explain what you think "God gave Him" means in this sense.

Moral of the story: Ressurected Jesus still doesn't know what "God" knows, and the authors used the word "God" to mean "Someone other than Jesus".

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.

Wow, I guess that explains it (cough). So when the Voice says "This is my beloved son, of whom I am well pleased", that's just talking about people who don't know either then? Right.

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

This was your response to the idea that they had two separate minds. So therefore you are calling the Book of Revelation Blasphemous since it says that God GAVE Jesus his revelation. Now while he was alive he said that he doesn't know what day or hour the Judgment will come, but here he is in his ressurected form and he STILL has to receive knowledge from the Father. I am very much thinking you have not actually read Revelation beyond the "Trinitarian" verses.

So please explain why Jesus receiving Revelation from God who GAVE it to him doesn't count as "two minds". Why would one need to receive knowledge from another person if they are the same mind?

Additionally, though you didn't mention this specifically, might as well say that there is no blasphemy in the concept that angels are in fact called gods and that the "Heavenly council" consists of beings that are called "gods" (i.e. "powers" in Hebrew). You'd be calling Hosea 12:2 and Psalm 136:2 blasphemous. You simply don't understand what "god" means. If my view that Jesus is a god is blasphemous, may I die a blasphmer's death this week. The word "Elohim" defacto is used to refer to Angelic beings. The word "God" often has an article to distinguish THE God from lesser beings called "gods".

Now what I don't believe is that there are two "God of the gods". If anything, Trinitarians are blasphemers for asserting that there are "3 gods in one">

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Apparantly All Messengers somewhat declaired they are God:

With regards to Muhammad:

Recorded saying of Muhammad: "I am He and He is I, save that I am I, and He is He"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahl_al-Tustari

Another quote is when Muhammad threw shafts, Quran says: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” Qur’án 8:17.

Also “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” Qur’án 48:10.

With regards to Jesus:

Jesus said: “I and father are one”
“Whoever has seen Me, has seen the Father”

With Regards to Moses:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." Exodus 7:1

"He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him." Exodus 4:16

​

With regards to Baha’u’llah:

“When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!” Baha’u’llah

 

[F0uad]

Apparantly All Messengers somewhat declaired they are God:

With regards to Muhammad:

This is blasphemous in Islam if Mohammed(saws) did so we would not follow him. The Quran clearly says that God doesnt incarnate becomes hes creation or a human and whoever says he is, is a liar and will go to hell.

Recorded saying of Muhammad: "I am He and He is I, save that I am I, and He is He"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahl_al-Tustari

These are words from a Mystic Sufi person.

Another quote is when Muhammad threw shafts, Quran says: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” Qur’án 8:17.

Lets say in sack of argument he threw those Shafts does that mean its hes? We belief that everything we have belongs to god.

Also “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” Qur’án 48:10.

What has this to do with Mohammed(saws) being god.

Are these the only two verses you could come up with? Poor!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is blasphemous in Islam if Mohammed(saws) did so we would not follow him. The Quran clearly says that God doesnt incarnate becomes hes creation or a human and whoever says he is, is a liar and will go to hell.

These are words from a Mystic Sufi person.

Lets say in sack of argument he threw those Shafts does that mean its hes? We belief that everything we have belongs to god.

What has this to do with Mohammed(saws) being god.

Are these the only two verses you could come up with? Poor!

I don't think you understand the meaning of these verses, the Hadith, and other verses from Bible, which are all consistant with each other, and shows the same point.
If you learned somethings regarding Islam, which are not consistant with other revelations, then those things must be only in your particular sect, which you grew up, and learned.

Who said God incarnates? I think, you interprete everything literally.
In Baha’i view, God can never incarnate as a human. God created Messengers who perfectly reflect His attributes and Will. This does not mean the Messengers are God, but they are His Manifestations.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For ... through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.... And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.... Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence.... And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain....” Baha’u’llah

 

[`mud]

I think I have never read such a terribly distorted explaination of what existance and life are supposed to represent.
This thread is the personification of that poor thinking.
If God really existed he would puke in disgust at all these distorted and perverse opinions of the "now" that life means to normally disposed awareness. But go on with your folley....I'll just watch.
~
`mud

 

[1robin]

If God really existed he would puke in disgust at all these distorted and perverse opinions of the "now" that life means to normally disposed awareness. But go on with your folley....I'll just watch.
~
`mud

Since you made a claim to knowledge you have the burden of proof. So let's hear it.

 

[Muffled]

then he didn't die for our sins.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Once The Spirit of God left the body, the body died. Therefore Jesus died. The result is the same in this case because of the exigency of the body ie on the cross.

 

[`mud]

The question put forth was in the quest for a proof of "proof" ?
And also a request for some "hidden" possession of a some "burden" of some sort of knowledge of a particular power of "being" to recognize the real existance of the fulfilling presence of life all about us. This endearing beginning creation and ending of everything that is providing us with the essentials of the "now" all about us. The looking into the promise of there being a tomorrow that will allow everyone to kiss the morning anew, and learn from the memories of the yesterdays.
The only burden here is the ignorance as to the real meaning of life, that to do unto others as one would have done to thyself, and of course, do no harm. I think Matthew said that Jesus said that, don't know for sure, because Jesus never wrote anything, except in the sand, and the wind of the Spirits blew those words away.
As to "KNOWLEDGE" or gnosis as it is sometimes known, it is never a "burden" because the existance of life itself is the proof within the reality of the presence of life.
So there are thrones, and heavens to house the thrones, and paths throughout those firmaments to hold the palaces, and water there, above the firmaments below, and below them after all.
But there is no real hell, just "LIFE", "NOW", "TOMORROW", and what we ourselves can make of it.
~
I'll do as I said, watch this folley, and maybe learn were the errors are.
~
`mud

 

[Muffled]

Thank you for revealing that you haven't read Revelation 1:1. Tis quite common for "Christians' to not have actually read the scriptures they claim to make bold assertions about, whether its laziness or ego or both I don't know, but you may want to actually consider reading the Bible before you say what it doesn't say:
Now maybe you DID read Revelation 1:1 and you have a different understanding of what "God gave Him" means. So here we see that God gave Jesus revelation, not only proving that Jesus had to be given revelation from God (i.e. He didn't know something that GOd knew) but it also shows that even after the ascension, they are still TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS.

So feel free to explain what you think "God gave Him" means in this sense.

Moral of the story: Ressurected Jesus still doesn't know what "God" knows, and the authors used the word "God" to mean "Someone other than Jesus".


Wow, I guess that explains it (cough). So when the Voice says "This is my beloved son, of whom I am well pleased", that's just talking about people who don't know either then? Right.

This was your response to the idea that they had two separate minds. So therefore you are calling the Book of Revelation Blasphemous since it says that God GAVE Jesus his revelation. Now while he was alive he said that he doesn't know what day or hour the Judgment will come, but here he is in his ressurected form and he STILL has to receive knowledge from the Father. I am very much thinking you have not actually read Revelation beyond the "Trinitarian" verses.

So please explain why Jesus receiving Revelation from God who GAVE it to him doesn't count as "two minds". Why would one need to receive knowledge from another person if they are the same mind?

Additionally, though you didn't mention this specifically, might as well say that there is no blasphemy in the concept that angels are in fact called gods and that the "Heavenly council" consists of beings that are called "gods" (i.e. "powers" in Hebrew). You'd be calling Hosea 12:2 and Psalm 136:2 blasphemous. You simply don't understand what "god" means. If my view that Jesus is a god is blasphemous, may I die a blasphmer's death this week. The word "Elohim" defacto is used to refer to Angelic beings. The word "God" often has an article to distinguish THE God from lesser beings called "gods".

Now what I don't believe is that there are two "God of the gods". If anything, Trinitarians are blasphemers for asserting that there are "3 gods in one">

The number of assumptions you make continue to amaze me. I have read it many times but that doesn't mean that something specific is revealed to me in the process. So I went back and re-read the scripture that you provided and it still doean't say what you are saying it does.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the title of the text and represents the whole book. It is given to Jesus to show to believers instead of directly. This is only a nominal difference. God could have shown the book in His own name but Jesus is a name that believers can identify as more personal.

That is an assumption. The text does not say that Jesus does not know what is being shown.

There is no support for saying that they are two different beings. There is still the dichotomy of God in the flesh and outside of it since Jesus still lives.

Not right. People who knew God would hear His voice and those who didn't would not. What the peole who knew God didn't know was that Jesus is The Son of God.

Trinitarians would be blaspheming if they said there were three Gods in one. They don't. I don't. I see one God in three. They see one God in three persons (Theological definition of person).

 

[Muffled]

This is blasphemous in Islam if Mohammed(saws) did so we would not follow him. The Quran clearly says that God doesnt incarnate becomes hes creation or a human and whoever says he is, is a liar and will go to hell.

These are words from a Mystic Sufi person.

Lets say in sack of argument he threw those Shafts does that mean its hes? We belief that everything we have belongs to god.

What has this to do with Mohammed(saws) being god.

Are these the only two verses you could come up with? Poor!

It is probably from the Hadith which gives one more reason to disregard Hadiths.

This is not what the Qu'ran says. It is a muddled intepretation of what it says.

 

[Shermana]

The number of assumptions you make continue to amaze me. I have read it many times but that doesn't mean that something specific is revealed to me in the process. So I went back and re-read the scripture that you provided and it still doean't say what you are saying it does.

Excellent job totally ignoring the actual argument and addressing the specific issue, a simple brush off and hand waving will do the trick instead. If you're not here to debate, stick to the DIRS. Thank you for demonstrating your excellent dodging abilities, I'm sure they come in handy when tricky questions and arguments get you bogged down.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the title of the text and represents the whole book. I

That's the title that some versions like the KJV give it. It has other titles in other versions. Are you a KJV_onlyist by chance? It is called "The revelation of John" in my Bible. And many others. The title means nothing. Thank you for demonstrating your dodging abilities once again. Now either way, look at the other titles: "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as its called in many versions. Does that mean that John GAVE the Revelation? No. It was the Revelation that John received. Likewise, it was a revelation that Jesus received. I can't see how any reasonable person would see "That God gave him" as anything except Jesus receiving insight that he didn't know before from a separate being. You have to really resort to some major twisting and dodging to get anything different from that.

t is given to Jesus to show to believers instead of directly. This is only a nominal difference. God could have shown the book in His own name but Jesus is a name that believers can identify as more personal.

Wait, do you even realize by your statement that you are saying that God and Jesus are two different beings? Are you not having cognitive dissonance with this statement? Do you understand what a "Revelation" that is "Given" entails? What do you mean it's only a "Nominal difference"? What does Jesus as a name that "people can identify as more personal" have anything to do with the fact that it says Jesus was GIVEN his revelation? Do you know what "Give" means? It means someone else is receiving something. If Jesus was "Given" his revelation, someone else (God) Gave it to him. The text says "That God gave him". That means two different beings. It couldn't be more clear. I can't imagine what it would be like to possibly interpret that as something anything different. You'd think "That God gave him" would be pretty clear cut.

That is an assumption. The text does not say that Jesus does not know what is being shown.

Okay, so I will ask again: Why did God have to GIVE it to him. Why did Jesus not know the day or hour while he was on Earth?

There is no support for saying that they are two different beings. There is still the dichotomy of God in the flesh and outside of it since Jesus still lives.

If it says "God gave him" that means there are two different beings. Do you have anything besides "Nuh uh" to offer?

Not right. People who knew God would hear His voice and those who didn't would not. What the peole who knew God didn't know was that Jesus is The Son of God.

Ummm...okay...so what does that have to do with what I said?

Trinitarians would be blaspheming if they said there were three Gods in one. They don't.

God the Father, God the son, God the Spirit = 3 gods in one. That's how it is.

I don't. I see one God in three. They see one God in three persons (Theological definition of person).

So I will ask for about the 100th time on this thread alone (I NEVER get an answer to this question by any Trinitarian when asked)....WHAT IS A "PERSON"???

 

[Muffled]

The question put forth was in the quest for a proof of "proof" ?
And also a request for some "hidden" possession of a some "burden" of some sort of knowledge of a particular power of "being" to recognize the real existance of the fulfilling presence of life all about us. This endearing beginning creation and ending of everything that is providing us with the essentials of the "now" all about us. The looking into the promise of there being a tomorrow that will allow everyone to kiss the morning anew, and learn from the memories of the yesterdays.
The only burden here is the ignorance as to the real meaning of life, that to do unto others as one would have done to thyself, and of course, do no harm. I think Matthew said that Jesus said that, don't know for sure, because Jesus never wrote anything, except in the sand, and the wind of the Spirits blew those words away.
As to "KNOWLEDGE" or gnosis as it is sometimes known, it is never a "burden" because the existance of life itself is the proof within the reality of the presence of life.
So there are thrones, and heavens to house the thrones, and paths throughout those firmaments to hold the palaces, and water there, above the firmaments below, and below them after all.
But there is no real hell, just "LIFE", "NOW", "TOMORROW", and what we ourselves can make of it.
~
I'll do as I said, watch this folley, and maybe learn were the errors are.
~
`mud

It appears that you don't have anything germaine to say so it would be wise for you to remain silent and speak of those things that are not germaine in a more appropriate post.

 

[1robin]

So I will ask for about the 100th time on this thread alone (I NEVER get an answer to this question by any Trinitarian when asked)....WHAT IS A "PERSON"???

That is a tough question. That is why the Trinity is referred to as a mystery.

However I will take a stab at it. Within the context of the Trinity a person is:
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
person - definition of person by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I would add that IMO it is an individual intellect. These three intellects may have the same basic nature but different roles. It is like "matter" as devided into solid, liquid, and gas. Same nature (matter) but different roles and characteristics.

I do not know if that is satasfactory to you (I wonder if anything would be) but I think it is a reasonable opinion.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Revelation [3 v 14; 1 v 5] Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.

God had No beginning [ Psalm 90v 2] meaning God was before the beginning.

Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

God and Jesus are always in the masculine in Scripture.

God's holy spirit, however, which was used in creation [Psalm 104 v 30] although in Greek grammar an neuter can be called a 'he' or 'him'.
Just as in English a ship [neuter] is sometimes called as a 'she' or 'her'.

Romans 8 vs 17,26 refers to God's spirit as neuter as 'it' or 'itself'
Numbers 11 vs 17,25 also has God's spirit used as an impersonal force [neuter] 'it'.

 

[jasonwill2]

I think I have never read such a terribly distorted explaination of what existance and life are supposed to represent.
This thread is the personification of that poor thinking.
If God really existed he would puke in disgust at all these distorted and perverse opinions of the "now" that life means to normally disposed awareness. But go on with your folley....I'll just watch.
~
`mud

I think he is actually laughing in a mixed attitude of disgust and hilarity as these poor animals paradoxically deny him while actually doing exactly what their animal minds are programmed to do. I think it's more like a misfire though of how our minds evolved. Give it a few hundred-thousand years (maybe even a million or so) and it will probably even out.

Since you made a claim to knowledge you have the burden of proof. So let's hear it.

The skeptic does not need to prove their skepticism, as he is merely expressing he does not believe you when you say god exists. The skeptic is justified in his opinion when one does not adequately provide evidence or proof for their claim.

(FYI The Bible isn't proof and contradicts basically all of modern science which has proven again and again to be reliable and very useful)

 

[FearGod]

Apparantly All Messengers somewhat declaired they are God:

With regards to Muhammad:

Recorded saying of Muhammad: "I am He and He is I, save that I am I, and He is He"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahl_al-Tustari

Another quote is when Muhammad threw shafts, Quran says: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” Qur’án 8:17.

Also “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” Qur’án 48:10.

With regards to Jesus:

Jesus said: “I and father are one”
“Whoever has seen Me, has seen the Father”

With Regards to Moses:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." Exodus 7:1

"He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him." Exodus 4:16

​

With regards to Baha’u’llah:

“When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!” Baha’u’llah

Mohammed pbuh never claimed that he is god or compared himself to god,he is just a messenger and god's slave.

Yes Bahaullah claimed that he is god,and we don't believe that to be true,Jesus pbuh didn't claim himself to be god,but i guess that is a historical mistake done by human.

Your link about Sahl al-Tustari which i did never hear about his name before and i never heard about such hadith that Mohammed pbuh to compare himself with god,bahaullah is far different from our belief in Islam,in my opinion bahaullah is much close to hindusim than to islam,specially that Iran is close to India and to the east than the Abrahamic religion which is born in the Arabs & jews world.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Not only did Jesus say I and the Father are one, Jesus prayed that his followers also be one just as he and his Father are one. -John 17 vs 11,21,22,23.
Surely Jesus was not praying they all be God, but that they would be one in unity or belief.
That way Jesus could rightfully say that his Father is greater than Jesus [John 14 v 28 ]

1st John 4 v 12 says that No man as has seen God at any time. People saw Jesus.

Exodus 33 v 20 says No man can see God and live. People saw Jesus and lived.

One can 'see with the mind's eye' in that People could see Jesus and understand him as being a 'Chip off the old Block', so to speak.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Mohammed pbuh never claimed that he is god or compared himself to god,he is just a messenger and god's slave.

Muhammad never claimed to be God, but we believe He was a Manifestation of God, He was a Messenger of God, and His servant.

Yes Bahaullah claimed that he is god,and we don't believe that to be true,Jesus pbuh didn't claim himself to be god,but i guess that is a historical mistake done by human.

No, Baha'u'llah did not claim to be God. He claimed to be a Manifestation of God.
Jesus, also did not claim to be God. Historically and Based on the Bible, Jesus said such things as "I and Father are the one" which I quoted from the Bible.
Do you mean that Bible is corrupted? If yes, then please discuss here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/133479-bible-not-corrupted.html

Your link about Sahl al-Tustari which i did never hear about his name before and i never heard about such hadith that Mohammed pbuh to compare himself with god,
.

You might have never heard of him or Hadith, so what?

bahaullah is far different from our belief in Islam,.

Baha'u'llah in Baha'i Belief is the promised one in Islam, Quran as well as Christianity and other Faiths, including Hindu.

Please see here:
Baha'u'llah: The Great Announcement of the Qur'an
Also please see this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...uran-challenge-bring-ten-invented-surahs.html

in my opinion bahaullah is much close to hindusim than to islam,specially that Iran is close to India and to the east than the Abrahamic religion which is born in the Arabs & jews world.

You are entitled to have your openion, and it is respected.

 

[F0uad]

It is probably from the Hadith which gives one more reason to disregard Hadiths.

This is not what the Qu'ran says. It is a muddled intepretation of what it says.

Its from a Hadith that has no full chain of narration that is only seen Authentic by Bahai, kinda silly to promote your religion with blasphemous oral sayings?

O and you know the Quran better then Moi? Even the Bahai person didn't interpret Allah(swt) being incarnated.

Since you started this how would you interpret this:

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).


Or what about the Islamic creed (Tahweed)?:

Allah is Eternal; He has no beginning.
All the creations have a beginning. Allah created them.

Allah is Everlasting; He has no end.
It is mentally possible for all the creation to end.

The Attributes of Allah are eternal and everlasting; they have no beginning or end.
The attributes of the creation are created. They have a beginning and it is mentally possible for them to end.

The Attributes of Allah do not change, develop, or transform, because those processes belong to the attributes of the creation.
The attributes of the creation change, develop, and transform from one state to another, because Allah is their Creator.

Allah is the Creator of the world and what is in it. He is the Creator of good and evil. He is the Creator of the actions of the slaves, and He is their Sustainer.
The creations do not create good or evil. They do not create any of their actions. The one who cuts an apple is not able to put it back together as it was.

Allah is One with no partners to Him. He is One in His Self, Attributes, and Actions.
The creations are of many different shapes and colors. Even the same kind of fruit can be either sweet or sour. Yet the creations still resemble each other in many aspects.

Allah is not a body; He does not have a size, and does not occupy space.
The creations have sizes and places in which they reside.

Allah does not need the creation.
The creations are in need of their Creator; they are in need of Allah.

Allah is the only One Who deserves to be worshipped. No one is God but He.
The creations do not deserve to be worshipped, because they are weak and are in need of their Creator.

The creed of the Muslims is that Allah is unlike the creations. Imam al-Junayd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Tawhid is to differentiate between the Eternal and the created.”

 

[Shermana]

That is a tough question. That is why the Trinity is referred to as a mystery.

However I will take a stab at it. Within the context of the Trinity a person is:
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
person - definition of person by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I would add that IMO it is an individual intellect. These three intellects may have the same basic nature but different roles. It is like "matter" as devided into solid, liquid, and gas. Same nature (matter) but different roles and characteristics.

I do not know if that is satasfactory to you (I wonder if anything would be) but I think it is a reasonable opinion.

That would be Modalism.

Yes, you should "wonder if anything would be satisfactory" since the very concept of the actual Trinity, as gotquestions.org says, is "Not possible to be understood by the human mind", so why would any explanation be satisfactory to someone who doesn't buy the concept of "mystery" or things that aren't "Possible to be understood". Your definition of "person" is not even close to the general Athanasian or Nicene concept, so it wouldn't be acceptable to the classical "Trinitarians" either, it would be rejected as Sabbelianism. If they are different intellects and different minds, then they are in fact separate beings, not just "persons". You'll have to explain how a "person" can be different without being a different being.