Did Jesus say he was God???

[waitasec]

:help::cold: Take that. I will see your one run of the mill emoticon and raise you several explodaemoticons:
:takeabow::takeabow:

This requires no meaningful contribution I can see the appeal it must have for your position. Of course I kid. I did find the post you addressed quite inconclusive as well.

ah you're just jealous 'cause i responded before you did...
:beach:

 

[Shermana]

Which is H2O...ice, water or water vapor?

Who actually created the world/universe? (John 1: 1-18)

The world was created THROUGH, not "by" the Firstborn of creation, "Wisdom", the first created soul. This is made clear in Proverbs 9 and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9. The problem is that in order to understand John, you need to understand the dominant strain of Philo's "Logos" Theology which apparently became too much of an inconvenience for the orthodox church to even discuss. Even Justin Martyr refers to Jesus as "God's Angel".

Also, the Ice, water, and Vapor analogy is a commonly flawed argument that is ultimately modalist. It is useful for revealing that most Trinitarians are actually Sabbelian Modalists in practice without realizing it.

 

[Shermana]

Of course the Jews do not believe this or Jesus would not have been killed (or maybe he would I don't know).

The Jews never indicated that they thought Jesus was claiming to be God, but "a god", this problem is exasperated by the fact that most Trinitarian translations have an abject refusal to properly translate the anarthrous Theos as "A god" when it doesn't suit their favorite sections ,though they have no problem with it in Acts 12:22 for some reason. The text says that the Jews thought Jesus was claiming to be some kind of Divine being, which would be blasphemy. Another problem is that many Trinitarians think the only kind of blasphemy there is to state that one is God himself, combined with a painful misunderstanding of the grammar of John 8:58 and the Holy Name itself. Either way, this has nothing to do with the Concept of Jesus being a "Person" in some different definition of the word "person" that can mean "A part of the same being with other persons", that definition doesn't even exist with reference to multiple personality disorder. Even the Greek Nicene fathers had no clear cut definition of "person", they tried pulling the same hoodwink that modern Protestants do by saying something hoping others don't ask for the details on what it means.

There are many obvious implications made from the bible even though the bible never states them in so many words.

But there aren't any implications, they are from dubious and stretched translations based on mangling of the grammar.

The bible does not say that Moses was a Homo Sapien but that is an obvious implication or conclusion

Entirely different subjects. Wondering if a person is a common man is not the same as trying to make a figure out to be the Incarnation of God through some vague definition of "person". In the usual meaning of "person", it means a person with an independent mind and soul who's not part of the "same being" as someone else. This radically different idea of "person" that Trinitarians have historically used (if there is an actual definition) has little to do with the normal definition of "person", and of that, the Bible has no obvious implications or conclusions about this "3 persons in one being" relationship, it's a matter of interpretation based on faulty understanding of Anatolian Jewish culture and distorted Greek grammar.

. The person hood of Jesus and the Holy siprit are noty quite as obvious but no less implied. I included the biblical definitions that showed that.

Where are these biblical definitions you included and how does it show that it's "no less implied"? Did you even define "Personhood" in a way which shows that a person can have a separate mind and will from another person but still be that same being?

We are not talking about an arbitrary definition of monotheism. However one being composed of three persons has been biblically defended as monotheism for over a thousand years.

It's been defined as Monotheism by the Trinitarians. Jews define it as Polytheism. If you believe that there are "3 persons in one god who are each god", that is defacto Polytheism. It would make sense that the Polytheists wouldn't outright call themselves Polytheist. If it is "Monotheism" then it's a very strange distortion of the concept since God is One and not divided. Might as well call Hinduism Monotheistic, they often call themselves Monotheistic too since all gods make up the Brahman!

So no, the Bible has no implication whatsoever that this "personhood" of Jesus means anything other than the fact that Jesus was a unique individual being with his own mind, his own will, and his own soul.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Jews never indicated that they thought Jesus was claiming to be God, but "a god", this problem is exasperated by the fact that most Trinitarian translations have an abject refusal to properly translate the anarthrous Theos as "A god" when it doesn't suit their favorite sections ,though they have no problem with it in Acts 12:22 for some reason. The text says that the Jews thought Jesus was claiming to be some kind of Divine being, which would be blasphemy.

And this is self evident when one observes Yeshua's reponse by citing the Psalms. If they were accusing him of being "God" then his response wouldn't make any sense. Since they were accusing him of being (a god) then his response makes logical sense..........but trinitarians refuse to acknowledge this seeing as it would go against their preconceived notions.

 

[Shermana]

I do notice they never, ever have an adequate response for John 10:34, some even say that Jesus was being sarcastic or changing the subject.

 

[1robin]

I do notice they never, ever have an adequate response for John 10:34, some even say that Jesus was being sarcastic or changing the subject.

I do not understand the contention. I find this response reasonable regardless which side of the Jesus is God position you are on.

People's New Testament

10:34 Is it not written in your law. In Ps 82:6. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God?

or

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

34-36. Is it not written in your law-in Ps 82:6, respecting judges or magistrates. Ye are gods-being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God.

I do not see the problem regardles of position. Seems pretty inocuous.

Actually it does have one implication. He was suggesting that the God he was being accused of claiming to be was the same one that the magistrates or judges were given their position and title by.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I do not understand the contention. I find this response reasonable regardless which side of the Jesus is God position you are on.

People's New Testament

10:34 Is it not written in your law. In Ps 82:6. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God?

or

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

34-36. Is it not written in your law-in Ps 82:6, respecting judges or magistrates. Ye are gods-being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God.

I do not see the problem regardles of position. Seems pretty inocuous.

Actually it does have one implication. He was suggesting that the God he was being accused of claiming to be was the same one that the magistrates or judges were given their position and title by.

It was at 10:33 where the Jews, at least in the your English bibles etc., accuse Yeshua of trying to make himself "God"....The charge and the response make no sense unless the they said to him...('trying to make yourself a god').....Yeshua's response would then make sense...("is it not written in your law that you are gods?")....

 

[Shermana]

Actually it does have one implication. He was suggesting that the God he was being accused of claiming to be was the same one that the magistrates or judges were given their position and title by.

1. The idea that the word "gods" refers to earthly authorities magistrates is entirely a KJV invention. There is no reason to believe this. Samuel's soul is called a god. People may not like it, Jews themselves may not like it, but the original intent of Psalm 82:6 was most likely to actually say that the souls of Israelites, like Samuel, are in fact "gods", but because of their sins they will die "Like men". If they die "like men" that means they aren't just "men" but will die "like them". Similarly, if I said "We will die like dogs" does that mean we are dogs?

2. If Jesus is accused of being God (although it should read "a god" since its an Anarthrous Theon as Dr. Jason Beduhn and many others have pointed out), then changing the subject to them being "gods" as magistrates makes absolutely no sense. As I said, it's dodging the question and changing the subject.

3. Your implication makes absolutely no sense, another example of how Trinitarians can read anything they want into the text beyond its plain meaning. If he is accused of being "God" in your translation, rather than "a god", in no way whatsoever does his response indicate that he is the one who made them gods. His response is a reaction to his accusation. Your interpretations both involve him changing the subject and not directly addressing the accusation even by your own use of "God" instead of "a god".

4

. 10:34 Is it not written in your law. In Ps 82:6. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God?

This basically admits and reveals that he's not calling himself God, but "a god", a sort of concession by saying that the accusation is not that he claims to be God but the "Son of god", which would imply an Angel. See Job 2:1. Sons of god = Angels. THE Son of god could gramatically be seen as the highest angel, the highest of the sons of god..

 

[Muffled]

I'm a bit confused, and I was confirmed a Catholic, and got the ashes and everthing, all for my Grandmother's sake.
But one thing I couldn't figure out.
Didn't God say that we couldn't see Him ? Why could we see Jesus, if indeed He was God, and all three persons were as one, why didn't they all go blind ?
I must have missed something in catechism classes.
It changed me into an Atheist, or agnostic, I'm not sure which way to go.
I'm 74 years old and still can't find an answer that makes sense.
I was confirmed in 1950 and that's a long time searching.
And there's a lot of posts in this thread, aren't there ?
~
`mud

Not so many that I can't answer your question.

Yes. The full extent of Him so all He revealed to Moses was a small piece. This is amazing considering that a spirit is invisable tothe naked eye. Maybe He revealed "The God Particles."

Jesus embodies the Spirit of God that is present in His body as it is everywhere. However seeing God in Jesus is not possible with the naked eye so it is more likely that God reveals Himself in Jesus by His words and actions. The physical body is visible but it has no part in God.

 

[Muffled]

We've established this already and have come to to the realization that this is what many (not all) Christians believe. This, however, is contrary to what Jews believed and it it contrary to what Yeshua taught. There is no place in the NT where Yeshua taught he and his god were one in the same. Same purpose...Yes...same person...No...:sad:

Spirits aren't classified as persons. Yeshua taught that.

Actually they're not. Yeshua taught he was separate from his god...before his god "sent" him, why he was here and after he ascended....we find the direct teaching from Yeshua expressing he was separate.

Let me guess. You were there to see Jesus take out His copy of Websters English dictionary and look up the definition of person so He could teach this. You might as well say that the moon is going to literally turn into blood and drip down on earth in a crimson tide.

Actually this is you convoluted concept of what Jesus taught and you consistently refuse to be logical about this.

 

[Muffled]

The world was created THROUGH, not "by" the Firstborn of creation, "Wisdom", the first created soul. This is made clear in Proverbs 9 and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9. The problem is that in order to understand John, you need to understand the dominant strain of Philo's "Logos" Theology which apparently became too much of an inconvenience for the orthodox church to even discuss. Even Justin Martyr refers to Jesus as "God's Angel".

Also, the Ice, water, and Vapor analogy is a commonly flawed argument that is ultimately modalist. It is useful for revealing that most Trinitarians are actually Sabbelian Modalists in practice without realizing it.

This does no agree with the Qu'ran which says that God does not have partners. It is God who creates. He isn't delegating to someone else.

I agree. God does not change states in Jesus and the Paraclete.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let me guess. You were there to see Jesus take out His copy of Websters English dictionary and look up the definition of person so He could teach this.

No more than you to come here and make the assertion that the (holy spirit) is in fact a person unless you and others are trying to redefine what a "person" is. A person is defined as a physical being and not a spiritual being.

Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com

a human being, whether man, woman, or child
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture
Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being the actual self or individual personality of a human being

Ghost/Spirit don't meet this definition. Yeshua confirmed this.

RSV Bible
Luke 24:37,39
But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.

Actually this is you convoluted concept of what Jesus taught and you consistently refuse to be logical about this.

They're not my words. This comes straight out of your bible. The only convolution is in your interpretation. This has been expressed by myself and others here in this thread. Your "concept" of Yeshua being "God" can't be found in your scripture. He never taught this to his followers and your scripture shows that he maintained he wasn't "god" before his god sent him to Earth, while he was here and after his ascension. You presented nothing to the contrary.

 

[`mud]

muffled,
In red, so many questions unanswered.
In purple I trust you refer to the flame which Moses witnessed.
Not a "piece" of Him, nor His voice(that was not visible), nor His mighty fist or arm. Those all came later in other metaphors, I think, and as for the Higgs comparison, not even close ! But, you may be indicating the lightning that carved the words from stone that Moses loosed from the mountain on which he stood.
I don't remember any other pieces of Him floating around in my books.
~
And in the royalist of blue halos that annointed His body, and invisable to all eyes, except God's, what part of Jesus' body arose to meet within the spirit to become one with the trinity, and become as one with the ghost and God himself. Adding to that; what became of His body ?
~
Sister Benaventeaur used to get angry with me for asking these sort of questions. Like: it had to have been awfully hard to get the nails from the cross, and from His flesh after He died. I wonder what kind of hammer they used in doing this feat. Did any of His flesh stay on the nails ? I really have to wonder about these sort of things.
~
`mud

 

[Muffled]

muffled,
In red, so many questions unanswered.
In purple I trust you refer to the flame which Moses witnessed.
Not a "piece" of Him, nor His voice(that was not visible), nor His mighty fist or arm. Those all came later in other metaphors, I think, and as for the Higgs comparison, not even close ! But, you may be indicating the lightning that carved the words from stone that Moses loosed from the mountain on which he stood.
I don't remember any other pieces of Him floating around in my books.
~
And in the royalist of blue halos that annointed His body, and invisable to all eyes, except God's, what part of Jesus' body arose to meet within the spirit to become one with the trinity, and become as one with the ghost and God himself. Adding to that; what became of His body ?
~
Sister Benaventeaur used to get angry with me for asking these sort of questions. Like: it had to have been awfully hard to get the nails from the cross, and from His flesh after He died. I wonder what kind of hammer they used in doing this feat. Did any of His flesh stay on the nails ? I really have to wonder about these sort of things.
~
`mud

Fortunately the thread still lives so questions can still be answered.

You are incorrect. Here is the reference: Ex 33:21 And Jehovah said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock:
22 and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand until I have passed by:
23 and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back; but my face shall not be seen.

I think you must have seen this in a movie. Ex 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Almost impossible to determine. The only recognizable indication were the scars in the hands and feet. Luke 24: 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.

The body does not become one with the Trinity.

HIs body is everlasting and the last anyone knew it was headed towards the stars.

There is no evidence about what happened to the nails and it makes no difference.

 

[Muffled]

No more than you to come here and make the assertion that the (holy spirit) is in fact a person unless you and others are trying to redefine what a "person" is. A person is defined as a physical being and not a spiritual being.

Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com

a human being, whether man, woman, or child
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture
Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being the actual self or individual personality of a human being

Ghost/Spirit don't meet this definition. Yeshua confirmed this.

RSV Bible
Luke 24:37,39
But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.




They're not my words. This comes straight out of your bible. The only convolution is in your interpretation. This has been expressed by myself and others here in this thread. Your "concept" of Yeshua being "God" can't be found in your scripture. He never taught this to his followers and your scripture shows that he maintained he wasn't "god" before his god sent him to Earth, while he was here and after his ascension. You presented nothing to the contrary.

This definition from Webster's is deficient in the a portion but the b portion is correct.
3
a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures

The reality is that person is the only word that we have for an entity that has personality. Webster's had this definition in the past but recently dropped it. My cat was a person. He had a lot of personality. If definition 1. is used which you used here, then there is only one person in the Trinity and the other two members of the trinity are not persons in the same way. God in me is a person similar to the way that I am a person but not the same way and God in me is not the same person as God in Jesus. However by the third definition the Spirit of God is the same person as the Father, in Jesus and in me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

God said:

'You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live'. (See Exodus 33: 18-23)

 

[`mud]

Hey Muffled,
I guess your right about the finger writing in the stones, both sides also.
And his hand covering Moses in the cleft, and his back to Moses as he left the mountain, and didn't Jacob see him once, and didn't die after all. I guess your right about all those pieces of him floating around. His finger, hand, back, and we're told, his face, face to face with the god of all gods.
~
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face,
and yet my life was spared."
~
About Jesus being not of sound body, you really think he's out there floating around the galaxies ? So I surmise that only his spirit joined the trinity with the holy spirit and the spirit of god. Not one person there, only the spirits. That's nice to have the spirits guiding us to our next decision in life, those decisions that were made by god in perspective of the next act of self will.
~
quote and remember:
"The body does not become one with the Trinity.
HIs body is everlasting and the last anyone knew it was headed towards the stars.
There is no evidence about what happened to the nails and it makes no difference."
end quote
~
And they still believe in Santa !
~
I was wondering about this quote which I found and what of it's meaning :
And the LORD said unto Moses, "Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them."
~
my memory fails sometimes, unless I've seen a movie, and that's been a while. Just trying to remember this one.
~
Nice talking with you,
`mud

 

[`mud]

hey Investigate,
An answer, of sorts:
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
~
But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
~
I always wonder why god didn't want anyone to see his face, except Jacob.
Moses was quite weird wasn't he, and he thought the earth was a disc floating in the void. And on top of that, he wrote Genesis.
~
`mud

 

[InvestigateTruth]

hey Investigate,
An answer, of sorts:
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
~

It depends on interpreting this. IMO, the story of Jacob and His wrestling has a figurative meaning. I see that as a mystical writing.
I don't think that literally there was a man who wrestled with Him.
In some mystical teachings, it is said that God is Manifested in everything. So, the World of Creation, is a manifestation of God. So, Jacob saw God being Manifested in the World of Existence. So, He saw His everyday struggles as a sign of God, and being face to face with God. Jacob was called, Israel, because He as a Prophet, was the representative of Israel.

There is a similar poet by Rumi, which says "Moses has gone to war with Moses." :

Rumi's Mathnavi: "Because the colorless has fallen captive to color, Moses has gone to war with Moses."​

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

I understand this as saying that, no one can see God's Essence.
It's like the Sun. No one can get too close to Sun and live.
~

I always wonder why god didn't want anyone to see his face, except Jacob.
Moses was quite weird wasn't he, and he thought the earth was a disc floating in the void. And on top of that, he wrote Genesis.
~
`mud

Well, It depends on interpreting these. I can see your point if one would believe Bible is to be interpreted literally.

 

[`mud]

hey Investigate,
Interesting take on the wrestling, but....

and the literal applications always persist in reading supposed spiritual scripture.
I'll give your input thinking.
~
Nice to chat,
`mud