Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

Investigate,

Hosea 12:1-2 clearly explains that the "Elohim" that Jacob wrestled with was an Angel. A major problem is many don't understand that "Elohim" doesn't always apply to Big G God but also gods. Samuel's Soul is also called an "Elohim". Most translations fail to recognize this when they refer to Peniel as Jacob seeing God face to face, he saw "a god" face to face. Elohim can mean "a god". If it was an Angel he wrestled with, he didn't see "God" face to face but "a god". Unfortunately, most translations don't pay close attention to Hosea 12:1-2 to know for a fact it was "a god" not God that Jacob wrestled with.

If Jacob had actually seen God, then the NT would be wrong when it says "No man has seen God and lived", but since when do these translators care about such contradictions?

Jacob was called, Israel, because He as a Prophet, was the representative of Israel.

This also makes no sense, how can he be representative of his own Dynasty, why not call Abraham Israel himself?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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 standard definition, its usage, its idioms and its synonyms are consistent and has more to do with and actual human beings than it does a particular facet of Christian dogma. The widely accepted use of the word has little to do with the trinity. The use of the word by trinitarians has been adopted and adapted to explain preconceived ideas of "God", Yeshua and "God's spirit"....

The reality is that person is the only word that we have for an entity that has personality.

Actually the word (being) can be used in its place. There are multiple beings on the planet with personality.

My cat was a person. He had a lot of personality.

Because your cat has personality does not denote that your cat is a person. This is what I mean by trying to stretch the definition. Personality is a characteristic and it can be and has been applied to multiple species on the planet but they, other than human beings, would hardly classify as "Person(s)"

 

[Shermana]

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

I don't see anything in that definition that actually explains what a "mode of being" is in regard to the word "person" or what "person" actually means in the Trinitarian context, it merely gives the same "explanation" that the Nicene fathers gave which doesn't actually define it, if anything Webster's is flat out saying that Trinitarianism is basically Modalism, which I've been suspecting for awhile. If a person is a 'mode", how then is it not blatantly modalism? Even the dictionaries can't explain the Trinitarian meaning of "person" it seems.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This also makes no sense, how can he be representative of his own Dynasty, why not call Abraham Israel himself?

I believe every prophet can be seen as the representative of His people, including Abraham. An example that comes to my mind is regarding Moses and Aron, when the children of Israel rebelled and said to Moses: “We cannot fight with the Amalekites, for they are powerful, mighty and courageous.” God then rebuked Moses and Aaron, though Moses was in complete obedience and not in rebellion.
So, IMV, this shows that Moses and Aaron were representatives of Childeren of Israel, and the blame and rebuke is addressed to them, as Israel, although, in reality, they were not in blame.

Investigate,

Hosea 12:1-2 clearly explains that the "Elohim" that Jacob wrestled with was an Angel. A major problem is many don't understand that "Elohim" doesn't always apply to Big G God but also gods. Samuel's Soul is also called an "Elohim". Most translations fail to recognize this when they refer to Peniel as Jacob seeing God face to face, he saw "a god" face to face. Elohim can mean "a god". If it was an Angel he wrestled with, he didn't see "God" face to face but "a god". Unfortunately, most translations don't pay close attention to Hosea 12:1-2 to know for a fact it was "a god" not God that Jacob wrestled with.

If Jacob had actually seen God, then the NT would be wrong when it says "No man has seen God and lived", but since when do these translators care about such contradictions?

Well, regarding the Angel, IOV, that also is not a physical appearance of some sort of creature. Again, in certain mystisim, everything is seen as God's Manifestations. Since God created us in His image, so, when those attributes are fully manifested in a person, then the image of God is seen in a spiritual sense.
I understand this as saying Jacob on one hand was Israel, as He was their representative, and on the other hand He Himself was an image of God and the angel, which was with struggle with Israel (Jacob).

I have already mentioned a verse from Rumi, that says, "Moses is gone to war with Moses" to me is the same mystical reality, as Jacob is in struggle with Jacob. The first jacob, being Israel, the second Jacob, the angelic attributes, the image of God.
Moses was also called "Like a God" according to Bible.

 

[Shermana]

“We cannot fight with the Amalekites, for they are powerful, mighty and courageous.” God then rebuked Moses and Aaron, though Moses was in complete obedience and not in rebellion.

Feel free to get the exact passage and quote in question. This google search will help you:

Let me google that for you

You should be careful to stick to the text in question and not your own text when discussing the original. I believe you quoted a Bahai scripture instead.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Feel free to get the exact passage and quote in question. This google search will help you:

Let me google that for you

You should be careful to stick to the text in question and not your own text when discussing the original. I believe you quoted a Bahai scripture instead.

I did use a sentance from baha'i scriptures in my explanation, but if you think the Bible does not say that, you can simply show that by quoting the bible. So, I don't think it's relavent. I already mentioned this is IOV.

 

[Shermana]

I did use a sentance from baha'i scriptures in my explaination, but if you think the Bible does not say that, you can simply show that by quoting the bible.

Ummm, please explain how one can prove the Bible doesn't say something by quoting the Bible. Logically, the person making the claim is the one who has to prove the Bible says it by quoting it when they are asked. That's like you asking me to prove that the moon is not made of Green Cheese by asking me to fly up and collect samples. How does one prove a negative. Do I have to quote the entire OT for you to show you that it's not there? If you can't prove that the Bible says it, then that's all the proof you need. Surely you should have no problem backing your own claim if you claim the Bible says it. If you can't back it, there's a reason for it. It only exists in your Bahai scripture, nowhere else. If you want to "investigate Truth", you have to realize that when one asks you to prove a quote exists, you can't ask them to prove it's not there by quoting the Bible, how does that possibly work? Perhaps one can quote the Bible to correct a mistranslation or poorly phrased paraphrase, but to prove that a quote itself doesn't exist, please, explain how that works. Don't you think the person who is asked to prove that the scripture is there should be the one to prove it instead of transferring the Burden of proof?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Ummm, please explain how one can prove the Bible doesn't say something by quoting the Bible. Logically, the person making the claim is the one who has to prove the Bible says it by quoting it when they are asked. That's like you asking me to prove that the moon is not made of Green Cheese by asking me to fly up and collect samples. How does one prove a negative. Do I have to quote the entire OT for you to show you that it's not there? If you can't prove that the Bible says it, then that's all the proof you need. Surely you should have no problem backing your own claim if you claim the Bible says it. If you can't back it, there's a reason for it. It only exists in your Bahai scripture, nowhere else. If you want to "investigate Truth", you have to realize that when one asks you to prove a quote exists, you can't ask them to prove it's not there by quoting the Bible, how does that possibly work? Perhaps one can quote the Bible to correct a mistranslation or poorly phrased paraphrase, but to prove that a quote itself doesn't exist, please, explain how that works. Don't you think the person who is asked to prove that the scripture is there should be the one to prove it instead of transferring the Burden of proof?

Please note that the Baha'i scripture I quoted, did not say literally those verses are in Bible, but rather the meaning that can be seen overal.
The point was that Prophets can be seen as the representative of their people.
So, if you read chapter of Numbers for example, the points can be seen:

Numbers 13:31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.

14:5 Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.

Here in 14:5, IMV it can be seen Moses and Aaon fell in their faces and accepted the rebuke on behalf of their people.
In other parts and chapters of Bible this can be seen.
I thought you are very familiar with Bible and you would see what I was talking about.

 

[Shermana]

"Falling on your face", which is what "worship" basically means, does not necessarily involve accepting Rebuke. It is a sign of humility, often in humbly asking for help in cases like this. So there is no rebuke involved, they are merely bowing for help because the Amalekites are so strong.

Context can be often garnered by looking at the preceding verses (and proceeding) but even then it can be debatable. In this case however, it's not too debatable:

1That night all the people of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. 2All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, “If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this desert! 3Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?” 4And they said to each other, “We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt.”
5Then Moses and Aaron fell facedown in front of the whole Israelite assembly gathered there. 6Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had explored the land, tore their clothes 7and said to the entire Israelite assembly, “The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. 8If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. 9Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will swallow them up. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.”

As you can see there is no actual rebuke. It is fear and trembling of a situation which they seek help for.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

"Falling on your face", which is what "worship" basically means, does not necessarily involve accepting Rebuke. It is a sign of humility, often in humbly asking for help in cases like this. So there is no rebuke involved, they are merely bowing for help because the Amalekites are so strong.

Context can be often garnered by looking at the preceding verses (and proceeding) but even then it can be debatable. In this case however, it's not too debatable:



As you can see there is no actual rebuke. It is fear and trembling of a situation which they seek help for.

Well, I wouldn't debate about this, if it was rebuke, or prayer and worship to ask for help, because I think the original point was prophets are representative of their people, and IMV, this is why Jacob is called israel.


Gill's Exposition of the Bible gives this interpretation: (To convince them of their sin and folly, can be understood as to accept to be their representative to take the rebuke because of their sin)

"Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces,.... Through shame and confusion of face for them, at hearing so shocking a proposal made, and such wretched ingratitude expressed; they blushed at it, and were in the utmost distress on account of it, and therefore threw themselves into this posture; or it may be this was done either to beg of them that they would lay aside all thoughts of this kind, or to supplicate the divine Majesty that he would convince them of their sin and folly, and give them repentance for it and forgiveness of it; and this they did before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel; to affect them the more with a sense of their sin and danger.

Numbers 14:5 Then Moses and Aaron fell facedown in front of the whole Israelite assembly gathered there.

 

[Shermana]

So why would Jacob be called "Israel" and not Isaac or Abraham?

Gill's interpretation is fairly close in that the "Sin and folly" was what caused them to feel fear and lose their natural courage, but the context from the answer afterwards seems to indicate that Moses and the people were mostly showing humility in asking for help, showing that they are helpless without Divine intervention.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So why would Jacob be called "Israel" and not Isaac or Abraham?
.

I am suggesting that every prophet that was sent to Israel could likewise be called Israel, regardless this was said in the scriptures or not, because each prophet is the repesentative of His Land, and perhaps this is the reason Jacob was called Israel.
Although depends on when exactly historically that land was called Israel.
I don't think that necessarily in a literal sense Jacob was called Israel, and told His people my new name is Israel(or maybe He did), but the Scripture is revealing certain truths to say that a prophet is the creator of His generation, through the revelations of God, and in this case Israelites.

Now this part of Baha'i Scripture explains it better what I was trying to say:

"in the Old Testament it is said in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 48, verse 12: “Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.” It is evident that it does not mean Jacob who was Israel, but the people of Israel. Also in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 43, verse 1, it is said: “But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art Mine.”
Furthermore, in Numbers, chapter 20, verse 23: “And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against My word at the water of Meribah”; 1and in verse 13: “This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the Lord, and He was sanctified in them.”
Observe: the people of Israel rebelled, but apparently the reproach was for Moses and Aaron. As it is said in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 26: “But the Lord was wroth with Me for your sakes, and would not hear Me: and the Lord said unto Me, Let it suffice Thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter.”
Now this discourse and reproach really refer to the children of Israel, who, for having rebelled against the command of God, were held captive a long time in the arid desert, on the other side of Jordan, until the time of Joshua—upon him be salutations. This address and reproach appeared to be for Moses and Aaron, but in reality they were for the people of Israel."

Abdulbaha - Some Answered Questions

 

[Muffled]

I don't see anything in that definition that actually explains what a "mode of being" is in regard to the word "person" or what "person" actually means in the Trinitarian context, it merely gives the same "explanation" that the Nicene fathers gave which doesn't actually define it, if anything Webster's is flat out saying that Trinitarianism is basically Modalism, which I've been suspecting for awhile. If a person is a 'mode", how then is it not blatantly modalism? Even the dictionaries can't explain the Trinitarian meaning of "person" it seems.

In a sense of being that is true. I am in this body now but was in a different body in my previous lives, so it can be said that I had the same mode of being but was multiple persons. When I was in Heaven I was there without a physical body so that is a different mode of being than being in a body. With Jesus in me, I am in the body but Jesus controls the body (at times) so that is a different mode of being from being in control of my body. However through all modes and physical persons, I am the same person with the same personality and the same goes for God.

 

[Muffled]

The standard definition, its usage, its idioms and its synonyms are consistent and has more to do with and actual human beings than it does a particular facet of Christian dogma. The widely accepted use of the word has little to do with the trinity. The use of the word by trinitarians has been adopted and adapted to explain preconceived ideas of "God", Yeshua and "God's spirit"....

Actually the word (being) can be used in its place. There are multiple beings on the planet with personality.

Because your cat has personality does not denote that your cat is a person. This is what I mean by trying to stretch the definition. Personality is a characteristic and it can be and has been applied to multiple species on the planet but they, other than human beings, would hardly classify as "Person(s)"

By that definition Jesus is the only person in the Trinity. However the word is deficient in describing the rest of the Trinity and no other words will work.

The idea's of God come from the Bible. God has personal attributes ie intelligence.

A rock is a being but has no personality.

However we don't have a better word for it and the word personality has the word person in it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

By that definition Jesus is the only person in the Trinity. However the word is deficient in describing the rest of the Trinity and no other words will work.

The definition stands for itself. It needs no clarification in describing Yeshua. Before his god sent him to Earth he could hardly be classified as a person. There are no words that describe him before being sent. "Heaven Being" is the only one that comes to mind.

(Person) is deficient in describing your trinity as you point out which is why (being) fits better. The use of the word (persons) by the church is simply their attempt to anthropomorphize Yeshua, "God" and "God's Holy Spirit.

The idea's of God come from the Bible. God has personal attributes ie intelligence.

The idea of "God" as a person is not in the bible. The interpretation of scripture only reveals this.

A rock is a being but has no personality.

True which is why using (person/s) to describe your god or its holy spirit doesn't work.

However we don't have a better word for it and the word personality has the word person in it.

Once again....(being) works well without the anthropomorphizing.

 

[Muffled]

The definition stands for itself. It needs no clarification in describing Yeshua. Before his god sent him to Earth he could hardly be classified as a person. There are no words that describe him before being sent. "Heaven Being" is the only one that comes to mind.

(Person) is deficient in describing your trinity as you point out which is why (being) fits better. The use of the word (persons) by the church is simply their attempt to anthropomorphize Yeshua, "God" and "God's Holy Spirit.



The idea of "God" as a person is not in the bible. The interpretation of scripture only reveals this.



True which is why using (person/s) to describe your god or its holy spirit doesn't work.



Once again....(being) works well without the anthropomorphizing.

And how do you interpret this verse? Is not reasoning a personal attribute?

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Talking is an personal attribute whether there is a mouth or not. I would prefer to have a person with a physical mouth talk to me and that is Jesus. The fact that The Spirit of God is in Jesus does not anthromorphize God any more than it does for any spirit person.

 

[waitasec]

And how do you interpret this verse? Is not reasoning a personal attribute?

it sure is...seems as though that is where your god has met his limit...isn't it nice to know that you play such a vital role in your reasoning

 

[Muffled]

I don't see anything in that definition that actually explains what a "mode of being" is in regard to the word "person" or what "person" actually means in the Trinitarian context, it merely gives the same "explanation" that the Nicene fathers gave which doesn't actually define it, if anything Webster's is flat out saying that Trinitarianism is basically Modalism, which I've been suspecting for awhile. If a person is a 'mode", how then is it not blatantly modalism? Even the dictionaries can't explain the Trinitarian meaning of "person" it seems.

They are trying to personalize modes of being but that just ends up confusing people. Being in a physical body is a mode of being and being in a spiritual state is a mode of being. However as I stated in my last post, changing a mode of being does not alter me as a person. The world tends to look at it more materialistically and only acknowledges the physical state as a person. However by the worlds definition I may well have been thousands of persons even though I only acknowledge the spiritual person that is the same in all the physical persons.

Modalism is defined differently. In modalism the three states of being are represented by images of three living persons (physical) presented by the same living person. This is erroneous because God's and our original state is spiritual not physical. True the spirit could take on the guise of three earthly bodies but that is not what is happening in the Trinity. The three states of water (another modal outlook) is in error because God does not change when He is in three states of being; He is immutable.

Why don't they just define it as a member of the Trinity and have done with it?

 

[al-amiyr]

No! He did not!

 

[1robin]

No! He did not!

I have never heard you claim that you are a Homo Sapien therefore are you not a human? The same way I conclude you are human even though you did not say so is by your actions and capabilities. The same way many Christians determine Christ was Divine. He accepted worship, forgave sin, and had supernatural power. I am not saying I personally know he was God I am saying that it is a reasonable conclusion and Islam's silly and irrational tests used to deny his Divinity are meaningless and irrelevant. There are good reasons to conclude Christ is not God as well but they are not the ones Islam mentions.