Did Jesus say he was God???

[Tranquil Servant]

I don't agree with you.

Bible is not a reliable source; it was neither revealed from the one true attributive creator God on Jesus nor it is written by Jesus; nor even dictated by Jesus to anybody.

It was written by anonymous sinful scribes after when Jesus left for India from Judea, in my opinion.

Quran rejects that Jesus was a god or son of God:

[4:172] O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah and a fulfilment of His word which He sent down to Mary, and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not ‘They are three.’ Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, Allah is the only One God. Far is it from His Holiness that He should have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a Guardian.
[4:173] Surely, the Messiah will never disdain to be a servant of Allah, nor will the angels near unto God; and whoso disdains to worship Him and feels proud, He will gather them all to Himself.

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

I think it is very clear from Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

Question- sometimes the context of a passage is misinterpreted by others; especially in another language....
In this sentence- "Far is it from His Holiness that He should have a son", Is the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) trying to imply that God wouldn't have a son because there must be sexual intercourse in order to conceive a baby? Which we know God would never do.
Also, a lot of the time in the Bible when you read (or hear) the term "son of man" it is just another way of saying "Human."
About the Ancient Hebrew Language

 

[Shermana]

We can't prove through our English Bibles that Jesus called himself God. The only way of really "proving" is by investigating ancient scriptures in Aramaic or Hebrew....
Curious minds would find this link interesting-http://reluctant-messenger.com/God-in-flesh.htm.

The Koine is fine when discussing with Trinitarians because it disproves the Trinitarians when read properly. The key issue however is the direct context on critical issues like how to read the Grammar of John 8:58, whether he is saying "I am" or "I have been", and understanding that the "Septuagint" is not set in stone and has varying versions. We simply don't know if the Pe****ta version predates the earliest known Greek either, or if it's the same.

The Aramaic and Hebrew however are up to dispute as to interpretation. The issue of whether it should be translated as "lord" or LORD and the confusion over this has been well discussed in previous pages, such as with Lamsa's interpretation.

The currently known "Aramaic-English" translations happen to all be by Trinitarian apologists.

Ultimately, it boils down to an attempt to force the reading of "LORD" instead of "Lord" and to say "This is what the Aramaic says" as if there's no dispute over the matter.

By the way, I am an Aramaic Primacist, but I do not approve of these "Aramaic translation's" claims.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

The Koine is fine when discussing with Trinitarians because it disproves the Trinitarians when read properly. The key issue however is the direct context on critical issues like how to read the Grammar of John 8:58, whether he is saying "I am" or "I have been", and understanding that the "Septuagint" is not set in stone and has varying versions. We simply don't know if the Pe****ta version predates the earliest known Greek either, or if it's the same.

The Aramaic and Hebrew however are up to dispute as to interpretation. The issue of whether it should be translated as "lord" or LORD and the confusion over this has been well discussed in previous pages, such as with Lamsa's interpretation.

The currently known "Aramaic-English" translations happen to all be by Trinitarian apologists.

Ultimately, it boils down to an attempt to force the reading of "LORD" instead of "Lord" and to say "This is what the Aramaic says" as if there's no dispute over the matter.

By the way, I am an Aramaic Primacist, but I do not approve of these "Aramaic translation's" claims.

Thanx for the info.
I'm sorry but I don't know what a Aramaic Primacist is?
do you mind explaining?

 

[Shermana]

I believe the first source documents for at least some of the NT to be written in Aramaic and later translated to Greek. Not all the NT was written originally in Greek in this view.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

I believe the first source documents for at least some of the NT to be written in Aramaic and later translated to Greek. Not all the NT was written originally in Greek in this view.

What is your view on Jesus and the Trinity?
If you don't mind me asking..

 

[Tranquil Servant]

(assuming that the original scriptures didn't confirm the divinity of Jesus)
I think its fair to state that the current state of the Bible isn't candid about the Divinity of Jesus.
Now the next legitimate question should be why didn't Jesus say he was God if he really was God?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11:25&version=CEV

 

[Shermana]

What is your view on Jesus and the Trinity?
If you don't mind me asking..

Jesus was the incarnation of the highest angel (not necessarily Michael), the firstborn of Creation, the Personification of Wisdom. The early disciples had no concept that he was the incarnation of God, this was developed in the late 1st, early 2nd centuries. Both the Trinity and its identical sister Modalism are heretical blasphemies, a major reason why Jews look at Christianity with such hostility. I and others have gone over pretty much each and every alleged Trinity defense and "proof text" and demolished them to shreds in this thread.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Jesus was the incarnation of the highest angel (not necessarily Michael), the firstborn of Creation, the Personification of Wisdom. The early disciples had no concept that he was the incarnation of God, this was developed in the late 1st, early 2nd centuries. Both the Trinity and its identical sister Modalism are heretical blasphemies, a major reason why Jews look at Christianity with such hostility. I and others have gone over pretty much each and every alleged Trinity defense and "proof text" and demolished them to shreds in this thread.

(This may sound sarcastic but I don't mean it to be)
What causes you to believe Jesus in an incarnation of the highest angel but God?
I really wanna know
Also, when you say "the firstborn of creation" do you mean physical (earthly) creation?

 

[Shermana]

(This may sound sarcastic but I don't mean it to be)
What causes you to believe Jesus in an incarnation of the highest angel but God?
I really wanna know
Also, when you say "the firstborn of creation" do you mean physical (earthly) creation?

To put a long story short, Philo's Logos Theology, Wisdom of Solomon 7-9 and Proverbs 8-9. Firstborn of Creation means First of the Heavenly creation, though they still have bodies and are independent, conscious beings. The first among the "Denizens of heaven".

 

[Tranquil Servant]

According to my understanding, It was the Greek and the Romans who caused the teachings of the Bible to be corrupted by applying Doctrines which came from Greek mythology and Pagan beliefs.They Interpreted the scriptures through their understanding which was based on Pagan beliefs.

The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heracleitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century-ad Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists, philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of the 4th-century-bc Greek master philosopher Plato, the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.
--Encyclopedia Britannica

It seems as though this theology developed from Greek origins....?
But you seem to know more about this than I do; so what do you think?

 

[Shermana]

I see no reason to believe that the Greeks exclusively owned or invented the concept anymore so than that Aristotle invented the idea of the "Unmoved Mover".

 

[Tranquil Servant]

logos, ( Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan&#8221 plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.
--Encyclopedia Britannica

Pardon me If I offend but I personally think it's contradictory to accept a Greek philosophy/theology but reject scripture that was originally written in Greek.
Unless I misunderstood..?
I also believe some of the NT scriptures were written in Aramaic.

 

[Shermana]

From your own quote:

Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems,

The idea of a personified wisdom is by no means exclusive to the Greeks, and I believe that's the concept what "Wisdom" personified is being explained in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon, the actual Personification, an actual Spiritual being, that encompasses, represents, defines, and participates in what we refer to as "Wisdom".

Pardon me If I offend but I personally think it's contradictory to accept a Greek philosophy/theology but reject scripture that was originally written in Greek.

Please explain further why you feel it's contradictory and what you feel that I am rejecting. The Greeks had similar concepts that the Jews had which you read with Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon. I don't see why that entails that I must believe against the same Logos Theology which the Jews seem to have a similar version of in their own terms which we can clearly see with Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon and some of the Midrash and early Apocrypha.

Unless I misunderstood..?

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding something about the idea that two cultures can have the same idea of a "Personification of Reason/Wisdom/Logos". Just because the Greeks came to the same conclusion that the Jews apparently also had (again I mention Aristotle's Unmoved Mover ) does not mean the Greeks invented the concept and therefore it's a non-Jewish idea. It may be a non-RABBINICAL idea, but I believe the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Jews did in fact have a form of "Logos Theology" long before Philo tried explaining what this "Wisdom" was in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solmon.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

From your own quote:


The idea of a personified wisdom is by no means exclusive to the Greeks, and I believe that's the concept what "Wisdom" personified is being explained in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon, the actual Personification, an actual Spiritual being, that encompasses, represents, defines, and participates in what we refer to as "Wisdom".




Please explain further why you feel it's contradictory and what you feel that I am rejecting. The Greeks had similar concepts that the Jews had which you read with Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon. I don't see why that entails that I must believe against the same Logos Theology which the Jews seem to have a similar version of in their own terms which we can clearly see with Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon and some of the Midrash and early Apocrypha.



I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding something about the idea that two cultures can have the same idea of a "Personification of Reason/Wisdom/Logos". Just because the Greeks came to the same conclusion that the Jews apparently also had (again I mention Aristotle's Unmoved Mover ) does not mean the Greeks invented the concept and therefore it's a non-Jewish idea. It may be a non-RABBINICAL idea, but I believe the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Jews did in fact have a form of "Logos Theology" long before Philo tried explaining what this "Wisdom" was in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solmon.

I appreciate the clarification.
I consider myself a "Follower of the Messiah" but sometimes it's hard to explain or define what I believe (sounds confusing-I know).
Let's Just say I have faith but when it comes to trying to explain why I believe in the Bible, there always a conflict. So I find myself trying to avoid Doctrines and philosophies because I believe a lot of them came from pagan beliefs. After all, When God appeared to Abraham, the world was filled with pagan beliefs. After Joseph was given land in Egypt, Many of the Hebrews abandoned their beliefs or incorporated Egyptian beliefs into theirs because of the oppression they endured. Then, after Moses came and brought God's law, Many of the Hebrews starting marrying people of other tribes and "mixing" their beliefs. Even after King David, Solomon, and the rest of the prophets before Jesus, many of the Jewish leaders incorporated Hellenistic beliefs into theirs. The Pharisees and Sadducees were influenced by the Greek authority. This is why in the new Testament they're portrayed in such a negative way

I know your probably thinking how can I still believe in the Bible with everything I just mentioned. Let's just say I have faith that God's messages are still in there.
However I don't call myself "Christian" because I believe it was a label given by the Greeks to the followers of Jesus in an attempt to separate and cast them out of society.
And.. I don't believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity because (once again) I believe this doctrine was revealed by the Romans (who were pagan).
I believe God has endless power. Powers we think we understand and Powers we can't conceive. To say that God is 3 "persons" in one is ridiculous to me.
I believe God has many Attributes, powers, and Manifestations. The doctrine of the Trinity limits God and to say that Jesus is the "fullness" of God or that Jesus is all of God's manifestations in one person, doesn't sound right to me either.
I believe that Jesus is many manifestations of God's powers and Attributes put into one. One that mankind can relate too. We only know as much as God wants us to Know. The attributes we relate to God are limited to our understanding of what they are. Only God knows the full scale of what they are because he is the source of these attributes; For example: if a person believes he or she is patient, that person’s understanding of patience is only a microscopic portion of the true essence of what patience is (which God is).

Sorry for the long post. I'm just trying to make sense. I hope you understand

 

[URAVIP2ME]

logos, ( Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.
--Encyclopedia Britannica

Or, pre-human-existence of Jesus.

Pre-human as Jesus being the beginning of the creation by God according to Rev. 3 v 14.
At Proverbs [8 vs 22-31] the one speaking there is said to be 'created'.

The Un-created God had no beginning. -Psalm 90 v 2
Jesus being the beginning of the creation by God shows only God was before the beginning. Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

 

[Muffled]

such a wide brush.

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

I agree. Skepticism is neither the truth nor naysaying.

I was skeptical about the moon being made of green cheese and the witnesses and pictures prove that it isn't made of green cheese.

I was skeptical that Kennedy would make a good president but he did a good thing by setting Bobby after the mob. (That probably got both of them killed although some theorists say that Castro was responsible for John's death)

 

[Muffled]

Please quote from Jesus that Christians are Paraclete.

There were no Christians during Jesus' three years ministry in Jerusalem. Jesus was a Jew and his disciples were also Jews, in my opinion.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,

The Greek word translated as comforter is Paracletos. Comforter is not a good translation of the word and there are other ways it is translated but none of them fit the meaning of the Greek. Paraclete means joined in body to the Holy Spirit. For instance Parachute means that the body is tied to an umbrella type dvice that lets the person descend to the ground slowly and Paraglider means a body is tied to an airfiol device that allows a person to fly. Having the Holy Spirit in control of our bodies allows us not to sin.

 

[Muffled]

I give verse 3:59 with some preceding and some following verses for the context:



I think you have misunderstood the verses of the Quran; Quran provides the reason in the verses (Bible does not provide claims and reasons in its verses) that if Adam was created from dust as Christians believe without a father and a mother then Adam should be a double god of the Christians. If Jesus was born of one parent i.e. Mary and Christians make him a god or son of god, then Adam with the same reason should have been their double god or double son of god having born without both the parents, as do the Christians believe.

Nice try. Then you would have to be the same person as me because we both are made of dust. Not!!! That is fallacious reasoning. The spirit that is within us also makes us distinct persons. Adam is not God because he doesn't have the Spirit of God withn. Jesus is God because He does have the Spirit of God within.

The Spirit of God within me (Paraclete) gives me understanding of the Qu'ran.

 

[waitasec]

I agree. Skepticism is neither the truth nor naysaying.

are you claiming your own words as truth?


:tsk:

 

[Ciko]

I have been asked to produce evidence of the divinity of Jesus. This is not just good evidence, it is overwhelming evidence.


Words of Jesus

John 14:9 ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
John 14:10 ... the words that I say unto you , I speak not from myself but from the Father abiding in Me doeth His works
John 14:11 ... I am in the Father and the Father in Me
John 10:30 I and My Father are one
John 10:33 ... thou being a man makest Thyself God
John 8:58 Jesus said ... before Abraham was born, Jah (Jah is the short form of Jeshovah)
John 8:59 They took up stones therefore to cast at Him
Mark 2:5 and Jesus seeing their faith saith ... thy sins are forgiven
Mark 2:7 ... who can forgive sins but one, even God
Mark 10:17 ... good teacher Mark 10:18 Why callest Me good? None is good save one, even God John 10:11 I am the good shepherd
Mat. 1:21 ... call his name Jesus; for it is He that shall save his people from their sins
Prophecies of the Messiah Jesus
Isa. 45:21 ... I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides Me a just God and savior, there is none besides Me
Isa. 7:14 ... a sign: behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel (God with us)
Isa 9:6 a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called: Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Attributes of God
Omnipresence
John 1:46 Nathaniel saith unto Him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
John 1:49 Nathaniel answered him, Rabbi thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
John 1:50 Jesus answered ... thou shalt see greater things than these
Omniscience
Luke 6:8 ...the Pharisees watched Him ... that they might find how to accuse him but He knew their thoughts
John 4:17 ... Thou sayest well, I have no husband
John 4:18 for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband
Omnipotence
Mark 4:41 ... Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?

(He turned water into wine, multiplied bread, healed the sick and the blind, raised a man who was dead for four days)
Authority
Luke 4:36 ... for with authority and power He commandeth the unclean spirits and they come out
Mat 7:29 for He taught them as one having authority
Mat 28:18 ... Jesus ...spake... saying, all authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth
The "I am" statements of Jesus
John 8:12 ... I am the light of the world
John 14:6 ... I am the way, the truth and the life
John 6:35 ... I am the bread of life
John 10:9 I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved
John 11:25 ... I am the resurrection and the life
John 15:1 I am the true vine (this is a reference to Jesus being the Paraclete)

my brother i know bible, you have missunderstood everything jesus said, no he never said he was God or that we shall worship him.