Did Jesus say he was God???

[otokage007]

You're not alone because many are not very into the Bible.
Clergy often teach non-biblical religious myths as Scripture.- Acts 20 vs 29,30

If God was Jesus on earth, how would God fit on earth because 1st Kings [8 v 27] in part mentions the heaven of heavens canNot contain God......

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

According to Psalm [90 v 2] God had No beginning meaning No starting point.
Only God was before the beginning.
Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
No Scripture says God sent himself to earth, but rather that God sent his Son here.

Back in heaven, after God resurrected Jesus back to heaven [ Acts 2 v 31 ],
the heavenly Jesus according to Revelation [ 2 v 18 ] still thinks he is the Son of God, and that according to Revelation [ 3 v 12 ] Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.

thnks for claryfing that to me

 

[1robin]

You got me!....I'm not sure why one would enter a debate thread and take the peculiar stance that he has no defense either way. Maybe your comments are suitable for the various threads here at RF that are not in the debate section.....

My particular stance was against a method used by Islam to determine Christ's divinity that is meaningless. That is applicable to this thread.

You got me!...I never understood the trinitatian thinking on this. There's no scriputal evidence to support such a notion.

I don't think you got it. The use of Christ's diminished status as proof he was not divine is not valid. If a NASCAR that can go 250 miles an hour is entered in another race where restricter plates are necessary then to then say it can't go 250 mph is an inacurate statement.

I can give you plenty of "divine" people...(non-biblically speaking)...

That is the opposite of what I asked. I said give me an example of a person who existed previous to the creation and made all things that were made, who is not divine.

But that's just it. I'm not debating this from a fiction position. I'm taking it at face value. I'm not doubting the walking on water or rising from the dead or healing the sick. I'm simply dealing with the thread question....and the conclusion from Yeshua's own lips, scriptually speaking, was that he had a god above him whom he prayed to...who sent him to Earth with a task to complete. I simply think anything beyond that is speculation.

He had a God above him that in his dimished state while on earth it was necessary to be completely dependant on. Again diminished from what? This accounts for far less than 1% of his existance. To use this sliver of his total existance as proof for the whole is intellectuallly dishonet.

No. There are many forms of worship but as you investigate the claim that Yeshua was worshiped one soon realizes that he wasn't (prayed to)...rather he was shown reverence. The English is horrible sometimes in translation.

Whatever you will allow it to be is the same as what is rendered to God.

The argument still follows. This is Paul's interpretation of a man he never met. Even still, his position on Yeshua is contrary to the words in their bible that are attributed to Yeshua.

Who was he talking to on the way to Demascus? It wouldn't matter anyway because the Holy Spirit was available to supply all truth.

You're arguing a moot point here. I'm not contesting the historicity of Yeshua.....at least not in this thread....

You were indeed contesting whether many biblical claims ever actually happened. Go back and look.

Yet I made it...the justification for it is laid out right there in their four gospels.

No you didn't, not in that post anyway.

I guess...if that's the one you're eluding to in your previous post. I don't think I've ever heard of it. I'm well aware of the stance the Quran takes regarding Isa. Beyond the Quran everything else seems to be mere commentary. Many Muslims try to rationalize Isa not being "God"...but I find their arguments to Christians falling on def ears.

If you look at the circumstances concerning Muhammad when he recieved revelations they are exactly the same as the bible records for demonic possession. So their claims are likely satanic IMO. Being that they claim that Christ was God, did not die on the cross, and did not rise and that is most likely a lie from satan then the opposite is more likely true. Add in that the descriptions of the anti-Christ in the bible extraordinarily and accurately describe Islam and things start to really click into place. However this isn't the thread for that.

 

[paarsurrey]

You're not alone because many are not very into the Bible.
Clergy often teach non-biblical religious myths as Scripture.- Acts 20 vs 29,30

If God was Jesus on earth, how would God fit on earth because 1st Kings [8 v 27] in part mentions the heaven of heavens canNot contain God......

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

According to Psalm [90 v 2] God had No beginning meaning No starting point.
Only God was before the beginning.
Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
No Scripture says God sent himself to earth, but rather that God sent his Son here.

Back in heaven, after God resurrected Jesus back to heaven [ Acts 2 v 31 ],
the heavenly Jesus according to Revelation [ 2 v 18 ] still thinks he is the Son of God, and that according to Revelation [ 3 v 12 ] Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.

I agree with what I have coloured in magenta from you post above.

Jesus was neither god, I think you agree with me here, nor Jesus was a son of god. Jesus was born of Mary and Mary was not a wife of god, as I understand and believe.

 

[1robin]

I agree with what I have coloured in magenta from you post above.

Jesus was neither god, I think you agree with me here, nor Jesus was a son of god. Jesus was born of Mary and Mary was not a wife of god, as I understand and believe.

I do not support Jesus' being God but I can't stand bad ways of determining that:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Who was this "Word"? "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (verse 14). John goes on to explain that the Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us" was Jesus of Nazareth. He also gives us explicit and definitive statements containing important details about Jesus prior to His human birth.
Much More Than a Man | United Church of God
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world
John 17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
There are plenty more verses that make it clear that Jesus existed before Adam did. No mere human has ever done that.


As for your son of God claim. Not even Christ's worse critics the Muslim's claim that he did not claim he was the son of God. There are so many scriptures that say that specifically that to claim the opposite is obsurd.

I don't care what people believe about this issue but if they got that way through ignorance (not an insult) I try and help.

 

[Shermana]

John 1:1c should in fact be read as "And a god was the word". That point has been proven and justified and demolished the "Word was God" translation a great many times on this thread, but I will be happy to go over it again if need be.

 

[1robin]

John 1:1c should in fact be read as "And a god was the word". That point has been proven and justified and demolished the "Word was God" translation a great many times on this thread, but I will be happy to go over it again if need be.

I will reserve my own judgement on what it should have said. All the NT commentators said it was refering to Christ at the site I was at (that's 8 total) Why should I adopt your claim and ignore theirs? It could be that this proves the trinity but I do not care.

 

[Shermana]

I will reserve my own judgement on what it should have said. All the NT commentators said it was refering to Christ at the site I was at (that's 8 total) Why should I adopt your claim and ignore theirs? It could be that this proves the trinity but I do not care.

Most commentators happen to be members of the Orthodox Trinitarian establishment, so that should be a factor. And it's hardly just the JWs who disagree. But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The NT commentators said it was referring to Christ". I also agree that "The word" is referring to Christ. What it doesn't refer to however, is God. At least in 1:1c.

 

[1robin]

Most commentators happen to be members of the Orthodox Trinitarian establishment, so that should be a factor.

It is more likely their allegience is an effect of their beliefs not the cause of them. That was very well said I think.

And it's hardly just the JWs who disagree. But I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The NT commentators said it was referring to Christ". I also agree that "The word" is referring to Christ. What it doesn't refer to however, is God. At least in 1:1c.

Sorry if I missunderstood. I do not care what JW believe either way. I was not using it as proof of God even though it has been. I said Jesus existed prior to Adam and those verses are evidence. That was all. It was more of an argument that Jesus being God can't be ruled out kind of thing. You should know by now I do not care much about the Trinity either way just about stupid arguments that are used to prove one side or the other.

 

[Shermana]

It is more likely their allegience is an effect of their beliefs not the cause of them. That was very well said I think.

I would argue the opposite that they base their beliefs mostly on their confirmation bias and they often are willing to overlook critical evidence that go against their ideas to the point of inventing fabricated "rules" like Colwell's. I Would very much question the honest reasons for each individual defending the Proto-Orthodox side whether they are doing it out of real belief from an objective examination of the evidence or from purely a desire to defend their own spin out of the social necessity.

Sorry if I missunderstood. I do not care what JW believe either way. I was not using it as proof of God even though it has been. I said Jesus existed prior to Adam and those verses are evidence. That was all. It was more of an argument that Jesus being God can't be ruled out kind of thing. You should know by now I do not care much about the Trinity either way just about stupid arguments that are used to prove one side or the other.

Jesus existing before Adam as the First Created Spirit Being most certainly is part of my own beliefs, the idea that he existed before the world was founded means nothing more than His existence as the "Firstborn of Creation", the first being. Creation of the Souls was before the Creation of the World, and Jesus was the Firstborn of the Souls. The Incarnation of the "Logos".

Again, I bring up Philo's Logos Theology which most Anatolian Jews who were the intended audience would recognize the concept from.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not support Jesus' being God but I can't stand bad ways of determining that:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Who was this "Word"? "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (verse 14). John goes on to explain that the Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us" was Jesus of Nazareth. He also gives us explicit and definitive statements containing important details about Jesus prior to His human birth.
Much More Than a Man | United Church of God
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world
John 17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
There are plenty more verses that make it clear that Jesus existed before Adam did. No mere human has ever done that.


As for your son of God claim. Not even Christ's worse critics the Muslim's claim that he did not claim he was the son of God. There are so many scriptures that say that specifically that to claim the opposite is obsurd.

I don't care what people believe about this issue but if they got that way through ignorance (not an insult) I try and help.

Thanks for agreeing that Jesus was not a god; if I have understood it correctly.

 

[Shermana]

Thanks for agreeing that Jesus was not a god.

The text agrees he WAS "a god", just not "The god". There is only one "god of the gods", but as even Paul says "indeed there are many gods and lords".

Even The word "Allah" may have come from "Al-Elah" to distinguish between "The God" and "a god". This concept of "a god" was also seen in early Coptic of John 1:1c.

As well as with John 10:34. The word "god" can apply to Angels. The concept is that Yashua is the incarnation of the Prime Angel who is above all other Angels.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not support Jesus' being God but I can't stand bad ways of determining that:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Who was this "Word"? "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (verse 14). John goes on to explain that the Word who "became flesh and dwelt among us" was Jesus of Nazareth. He also gives us explicit and definitive statements containing important details about Jesus prior to His human birth.
Much More Than a Man | United Church of God
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world
John 17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
There are plenty more verses that make it clear that Jesus existed before Adam did. No mere human has ever done that.


As for your son of God claim. Not even Christ's worse critics the Muslim's claim that he did not claim he was the son of God. There are so many scriptures that say that specifically that to claim the opposite is obsurd.

I don't care what people believe about this issue but if they got that way through ignorance (not an insult) I try and help.

I think I never claimed that Jesus was son of a god.

My religion mentions Jesus as son of Mary only; and not even once mentions that Jesus was a son of god; and god never had a wife named Mary to make Jesus a son of god, in my opinion.

I quote from Quran in this connection:

"The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?"

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

 

[1robin]

I think I never claimed that Jesus was son of a god.

I meant your claims on the subject.

My religion mentions Jesus as son of Mary only; and not even once mentions that Jesus was a son of god; and god never had a wife named Mary to make Jesus a son of god, in my opinion.

The bible is the authorative source on Jesus. It is more reliable in every category on the subject than any other text.

I quote from Quran in this connection:

"The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?"

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

I said that Islam does not reject the fact that Jesus "claimed" to be the son of God. I know they do not believe he is even though the verse you posted is contradicted by another in the Quran. Muhammad got his info from heretical jewish tribes in the Arabian peninsula. He mistakenly thought the trinity was God, Mary, and Jesus and thought that God and Mary physically had Jesus. This is something no actual Christian has ever believed, and is another example of where the Quran came from.

 

[paarsurrey]

I meant your claims on the subject.

The bible is the authorative source on Jesus. It is more reliable in every category on the subject than any other text.

I said that Islam does not reject the fact that Jesus "claimed" to be the son of God. I know they do not believe he is even though the verse you posted is contradicted by another in the Quran. Muhammad got his info from heretical jewish tribes in the Arabian peninsula. He mistakenly thought the trinity was God, Mary, and Jesus and thought that God and Mary physically had Jesus. This is something no actual Christian has ever believed, and is another example of where the Quran came from.

Islam rejects that Jesus was son of god in physical terms, very clearly.

I quote from Quran:

[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[112:3] ‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[112:5] ‘And there is none like unto Him.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

If you differ with me; please quote from Quran in support of you viewpoint;Quran is the first and the foremost source of Islam/Muhammad whatever the denomination .

 

[Muffled]

This issue is often emphasized as alleged proof of Jesus's divinity. So what do you make of Jesus allegedly giving this power which he says was GIVEN to him, to his disciples?

He still retains it as the Paraclete. We, the disciples are only His instrument for doin so.

 

[Muffled]

It's not like i'm very into the Bible, but isn't Jesus "God on Earth"?

Yes. He is. Granted there are naysayers who claim the Bible is being taught as myth but the truth is the naysayers are treating the Bible as a myth and claiming their own words as truth.

PS: I don't advise reading the Bible without the guidance of the Holy spirit, since it is easy to misinterpet through men's thinking.

 

[Muffled]

Islam rejects that Jesus was son of god in physical terms, very clearly.

I quote from Quran:

[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[112:3] ‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[112:5] ‘And there is none like unto Him.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

If you differ with me; please quote from Quran in support of you viewpoint;Quran is the first and the foremost source of Islam/Muhammad whatever the denomination .

However Jesus is not begotten. The term is used for His conception because no better term fits but the reality is that a man and woman did not have sex to form Him.

Su 3:59 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; he created him from dust then said to him: "Be": And he was.

 

[waitasec]

Yes. He is. Granted there are naysayers who claim the Bible is being taught as myth but the truth is the naysayers are treating the Bible as a myth and claiming their own words as truth.

PS: I don't advise reading the Bible without the guidance of the Holy spirit, since it is easy to misinterpet through men's thinking.

such a wide brush.

naysaying isn't necessarily claiming truth...
it's claiming skepticism...and that's the truth

 

[1robin]

Thanks for agreeing that Jesus was not a god; if I have understood it correctly.

I in no way said that. Actually you might be able to wrongly take it that way. However I will clarify. I do not adopt a position on the subject but lean more towards that he is than that he is not. However my responsabilities and path to heaven are the same either way so I rarely debate the issue much. Both sides have a very good argument. I do however debate stupid standards used to determine whether Jesus is God or not. The Muslim test made popular by Mr Deedat that askes if Jesus ever said he was God, is about the silliest way of determining the issue possible. The subject deserves better scholarship and more appropriate investigative methods.

 

[1robin]

I would argue the opposite that they base their beliefs mostly on their confirmation bias and they often are willing to overlook critical evidence that go against their ideas to the point of inventing fabricated "rules" like Colwell's. I Would very much question the honest reasons for each individual defending the Proto-Orthodox side whether they are doing it out of real belief from an objective examination of the evidence or from purely a desire to defend their own spin out of the social necessity.

I spent 2 years isolated from every denomination that exists with only a bible and and the Holy Spirit. I even through my tv out. I read the Bible cover to cover twice and then researched all the areas that are critical. I then concluded my understanding of doctrine and chose a Church that was the closest. Baptist. I imagine that if my lazy self can be objective that many others can as well. Regardless Christians have no monopoly on bias. It exists on every side of every issue. The difference I allow for it on both sides and you complian of it on only one.

Jesus existing before Adam as the First Created Spirit Being most certainly is part of my own beliefs, the idea that he existed before the world was founded means nothing more than His existence as the "Firstborn of Creation", the first being. Creation of the Souls was before the Creation of the World, and Jesus was the Firstborn of the Souls. The Incarnation of the "Logos".

Well we are not that far apart. I do not think there is any profit in splitting the hairs that seperate us.

Again, I bring up Philo's Logos Theology which most Anatolian Jews who were the intended audience would recognize the concept from.

Why do they deny Jesus as the messiah if they adopt all of the other extraordinary characteristics that you have mentioned. If the messiah is someone different why don't we find him in the bible doing these unique things.