Did Jesus say he was God???

[F0uad]

I believe this is not quite correct. God is a spirit and as such never dies but Jesus is the Spirit of God in a body and the body can die.

And therefore Jesus(pbuh) didn't really die but only a shell (body).

However one could argue that Jesus having called Himself God would not have had God's approval to be resurrected but since He is God in the flesh He is one with God's purposes and that is indicated by His resurrection.

1. I don't belief he stated to be god you can interpret many verses as you want since most of them in context aren't clear. You can off-course cite verses that promote such ideas and neglect the others but this is simply ignorance.

2. I belief that Jesus(pbuh) being god contradicts the nature of a god therefore making him impossible to be one.

I am not really interested in this discussion to be honest i can share my opinions and thoughts but at the end we already know what the other is going to say and already beliefs.

 

[1robin]

And therefore Jesus(pbuh) didn't really die but only a shell (body).

F0uad you know that I have stated that I do not believe the issue one worth fighting over as it makes little practical difference and my comments normally only address the arguments themselves and their merit or lack thereof. In this case I think you misunderstand the argument. The physical death of Jesus is the primary issue in the classic argument. Physical death is not what Jesus experienced for us and not what he frees us from. We still physically die. His body physically died despite claims to the contrary by a man who existed 500 years after the events but that is not the main issue. Jesus soul was separated from the love of the father and that is what he frees us from. It is called the second death and is the more effectual of the two. He was separated from the fathers love so we never have to be. I cannot explain how this worked nor would I expect that I could. It is what the Catholics refer to as a divine mystery. I don't mind if people disagree but am only concerned that they disagree with what the actual issue is instead of a misunderstanding of what took place or what is claimed.

1. I don't belief he stated to be god you can interpret many verses as you want since most of them in context aren't clear. You can off-course cite verses that promote such ideas and neglect the others but this is simply ignorance.

I agree the issue is not crystal clear but do not believe that is the result of ignorance. The above however is.

2. I belief that Jesus(pbuh) being god contradicts the nature of a god therefore making him impossible to be one.

You would have to prove that God could not do this and even if you could then you would be describing a lesser concept than God. I will agree again that there are hard to nail down things that are going on and sympathize with confusion or apprehension but not rejection. The confusion is expected and not sufficient to justify rejection.

I am not really interested in this discussion to be honest I can share my opinions and thoughts but at the end we already know what the other is going to say and already beliefs.

I agree and only wish to clarify the argument not solve it.

 

[1robin]

Jesus doesn't really deny being god, after having said I and the father are one. However instead of affirming it he proceeded to quote the OT as saying "ye are gods". He was speaking of a connection with god for everyone not a personal divine thing that belongs to him. It all belongs to the father.

Actually his statement "ye are Gods" is far more sophisticated and complicated than you indicate. It has to do with legal declerations and appointed judges.I will not attempt to explain it as I did not suffeciently understand it but would recommend you research it a little more. It is a far more complex context than you indicated.

 

[Shermana]

Actually his statement "ye are Gods" is far more sophisticated and complicated than you indicate. It has to do with legal declerations and appointed judges.I will not attempt to explain it as I did not suffeciently understand it but would recommend you research it a little more. It is a far more complex context than you indicated.

1. There's no real evidence that "gods" ever applies to judges and legal appointees in any literature. It's a KJV thing that says "Bring him before the council" when it says "Bring him before God", which more likely meant to bring him before the Tabernacle. What we can garner however is that the word "gods" not only applies to angels but also to souls themselves, such as when the Witch of Endor brings Samuel's "Elohim" out. If you research this more, you'll see that this "gods = judges" thing has absolutely no merit, not even in the Jewish writings.

2. That would mean Jesus was changing the subject and dodging the issue dishonestly, and no one bothered to call him out on it. Rather shady of Jesus in that case.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus doesn't really deny being god, after having said I and the father are one. However instead of affirming it he proceeded to quote the OT as saying "ye are gods". He was speaking of a connection with god for everyone not a personal divine thing that belongs to him. It all belongs to the father.

Jesus says "Let them be one as we are one" which indicates that "I and the Father are one" is only the same sense AS the Disciples being one with the Father, in John 17. This point has been explained probably more than any other on this thread.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm new to this thread. Somebody want to summarize it for me? Thanks!

 

[Shermana]

I'm new to this thread. Somebody want to summarize it for me? Thanks!

Summary: Every single Trinitarian/Modalist logic and attempt at "proof texting" has been soundly defeated and proven to be a distorted/cherry picked reading, (in many cases much more than once) and the Arian-ish point of view has trumped every single point and been proven to be what the text actually implies when read correctly with right grammar and with the right understanding of Ancient Jewish logos-Theology.

 

[1robin]

Summary: Every single Trinitarian/Modalist logic and attempt at "proof texting" has been soundly defeated and proven to be a distorted/cherry picked reading, (in many cases much more than once) and the Arian-ish point of view has trumped every single point and been proven to be what the text actually implies when read correctly with right grammar and with the right understanding of Ancient Jewish logos-Theology.

I do not think he wanted a summary of what you wish was true.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Summary: Every single Trinitarian/Modalist logic and attempt at "proof texting" has been soundly defeated and proven to be a distorted/cherry picked reading, (in many cases much more than once) and the Arian-ish point of view has trumped every single point and been proven to be what the text actually implies when read correctly with right grammar and with the right understanding of Ancient Jewish logos-Theology.

Technically I agree that the Arian view has validity and is what one gets from a scripture only perspective. Its not what my parents believed, but they believed very strongly that God would guide me though they were uncomfortable with what I decided. I'm very fortunate in that.

 

[Shermana]

I do not think he wanted a summary of what you wish was true.

Well I encourage anyone to demonstrate a single Trinitarian argument that hasn't been totally deconstructed and proven to be full of holes. Link any post you want.

I understand you may wish it to be true that they all haven't been shattered, but I'm just stating the facts.

 

[F0uad]

F0uad you know that I have stated that I do not believe the issue one worth fighting over as it makes little practical difference and my comments normally only address the arguments themselves and their merit or lack thereof. In this case I think you misunderstand the argument. The physical death of Jesus is the primary issue in the classic argument. Physical death is not what Jesus experienced for us and not what he frees us from. We still physically die. His body physically died despite claims to the contrary by a man who existed 500 years after the events but that is not the main issue. Jesus soul was separated from the love of the father and that is what he frees us from. It is called the second death and is the more effectual of the two. He was separated from the fathers love so we never have to be. I cannot explain how this worked nor would I expect that I could. It is what the Catholics refer to as a divine mystery. I don't mind if people disagree but am only concerned that they disagree with what the actual issue is instead of a misunderstanding of what took place or what is claimed.

As you said a mystery.

I agree the issue is not crystal clear but do not believe that is the result of ignorance. The above however is.

I only said if you neglect the other verses i wasn't talking about the conclusion, i stated before that everyone can interpret it as they want.

You would have to prove that God could not do this and even if you could then you would be describing a lesser concept than God. I will agree again that there are hard to nail down things that are going on and sympathize with confusion or apprehension but not rejection. The confusion is expected and not sufficient to justify rejection.

Well then you agree (if i am correct) that these kind of ideologies and ideas are in the same sort as "can god throw you out of hes domain" can "god make a stone that is impossible to lift" and so forth they are at the same in the end plus hard to solve and most of the time do not make any sense.

I agree and only wish to clarify the argument not solve it.

I think we both know the argument already.

 

[F0uad]

Well I encourage anyone to demonstrate a single Trinitarian argument that hasn't been totally deconstructed and proven to be full of holes. Link any post you want.

I understand you may wish it to be true that they all haven't been shattered, but I'm just stating the facts.

I think your being to hard on this i mean most of the reasonable Christians that i spoke do belief that its a mystery. So how can you dismiss a mystery when some parts of your own religion has mystery's.

Like i said at the end it depends on interpretations remember i don't belief that Jesus(pbuh) taught these things but rather Paul (most early writings) that later influenced the writers of the Gospels.

 

[Shermana]

I think your being to hard on this i mean most of the reasonable Christians that i spoke do belief that its a mystery. So how can you dismiss a mystery when some parts of your own religion has mystery's.

Like i said at the end it depends on interpretations remember i don't belief that Jesus(pbuh) taught these things but rather Paul (most early writings) that later influenced the writers of the Gospels.

Well obviously the idea is to prove that the interpretations that this "mystery" is based on are illogical and irrational discrepancies and twisted grammar, cherry picked verses that deny the context of others, ignorance of earlier Jewish theological ideas, and to ultimately reduce the support hinges that this "Mystery" depends on so that (open minded) others can understand that it may not be so "mysterious" after all, but just a game of "believe it or not".

 

[Brickjectivity]

Part of the difficulty is that not everything Catholic is in the Bible. There are a lot of things it doesn't describe that people take for granted, like how to baptize, how is laying on of hands done and why, what is a holy kiss, what does being 'born of the spirit' mean, why should women wear hats. There are discussions of these things outside of the canon but not in it except for hints or clues.

 

[1robin]

Well I encourage anyone to demonstrate a single Trinitarian argument that hasn't been totally deconstructed and proven to be full of holes. Link any post you want.

I understand you may wish it to be true that they all haven't been shattered, but I'm just stating the facts.

You should know by now I have no desire either way. I do not engage in wish fulfillment nor do I have a wish in this debate. My only concern is the argumentation used should be sound. Both sides have competant claims. I hope one day someone will resolve the issue but for now it is unresolvable and I only challenge flag waving concerning victories that do not exist or arguemnts that only cloud the issue. Judging from the past you are the only one of us that has a wish or preference here between me and you anyway.

 

[1robin]

As you said a mystery.

Yes that is the only way I can describe it. I believe this to be appropriate. God should at times do things we cannot fathom if he is God.

I only said if you neglect the other verses i wasn't talking about the conclusion, i stated before that everyone can interpret it as they want.

I agree the issue is not one sided. Both sides have reasonable claims. I do not find the issue all that meaningful as I must do the exact same thing to gain heaven either way. I lean towards a Trinitarian view but it is not a firm position I hold. Maybe someday someone will clear it up but I doubt it.

Well then you agree (if i am correct) that these kind of ideologies and ideas are in the same sort as "can god throw you out of his domain" can "god make a stone that is impossible to lift" and so forth they are at the same in the end plus hard to solve and most of the time do not make any sense.

Those are interesting ideas. 1. Can God throw someone out of his domain. There is some interesting implications of this. It may be that out of his domain is a spiritual claim not a physical one. Some think (and I am sympathetic to it) that hell is not a location it is a condition where a soul is separated spiritually from God. 2. Stone too heavy to lift is a little more easy to deal with. A stone too heavy to lift for an omnipotent being is a logical impossibility. A paradox that has no actual reality. It is like asking if a round square could be made. That is a logical impossibility and as such can't possibly have an actuality. If it is round it no longer is a square and if square can't be round. It is nothing (a non-thing). I have a math degree and can throw some paradoxes at you that will blow your mind if you wish. I find them interesting.

I think we both know the argument already.

You may know it better than I, but I am familiar with it. My only concern is to point out when a counter claim has no relevance or an affirmative claim has no explanatory power or if someone claims it to be true or false without sufficient reason. I want to clarify and remove things that cloud the argument in the hope it may be resolved at some point. One of the ones I dislike the most is Deedat’s did Jesus say these exact words in this exact order. I think that argument has a net negative effect on the issue but there are other very good arguments against the Trinity.

 

[starlite]

Yes but he isnt referred to as "The son" , he is referred to as "The son of God".

Not only was he called "The Son of God"...but when he was resurrected back to heaven he sat at the right hand of God his Father. Wouldn't this make him separate from God?

 

[1robin]

Not only was he called "The Son of God"...but when he was resurrected back to heaven he sat at the right hand of God his Father. Wouldn't this make him separate from God?

Im bored so I will reply. The meaning or understanding of this verse "sitting at the right hand of the father" is thought to mean co-occupancy of the divine throne. It means he is equivalent with the father. Jesus is a seperate person but one of three persons that make up a single being. If you research modes of being it will help understand this confusing concept. That is the doctrine anyway, I have no idea if it is true.

 

[F0uad]

Im bored so I will reply. The meaning or understanding of this verse "sitting at the right hand of the father" is thought to mean co-occupancy of the divine throne. It means he is equivalent with the father. Jesus is a seperate person but one of three persons that make up a single being. If you research modes of being it will help understand this confusing concept. That is the doctrine anyway, I have no idea if it is true.

I am glad that you can be skeptical in a way i still remember when i first met you on this forum.

 

[Shermana]

Im bored so I will reply. The meaning or understanding of this verse "sitting at the right hand of the father" is thought to mean co-occupancy of the divine throne. It means he is equivalent with the father. Jesus is a seperate person but one of three persons that make up a single being. If you research modes of being it will help understand this confusing concept. That is the doctrine anyway, I have no idea if it is true.

But wouldn't "modes of being" be: Mode-alism?