Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

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.

I believe this is not a denial of His statement that He is one with the Father but a justification for saying it. IMO the argument doesn't work because gods are not the same thing as God. It probably was the closest He could find in scripture.

 

[Muffled]

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


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.

I don't believe this to be true. I believe there is only one correct way to interpret a verse. The idea that a verse can make opposite statements is as illogical as saying two different natures are the same nature.

I don't believe this concept can be supported from scripture. Please present the information that supports your belief because I believe otherwise a belief without a basis is simply fantasy or a regurgitation of someone else's fantasy.

I believe this discussion is important because a belief that Jesus is not God in the flesh allows a view that He doesn't need to be obeyed but a belief that he is God in the flesh means He must be obeyed.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe this is not a denial of His statement that He is one with the Father but a justification for saying it. IMO the argument doesn't work because gods are not the same thing as God. It probably was the closest He could find in scripture.

Merely an instance of a Homonym, which the Bible employs throughout.

 

[Muffled]

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.

This is your opinion. I believe I have proven my point and that all others have been able to do is repeat illogical statements. However for the benefit of our new friend the OP presents evidence for Jesus being God in the flesh and most of the arguments to the contrary prenise two wills which would make jesus an God separate entities. Sometimes arguments are made on the basis of attributes.

 

[F0uad]

I don't believe this to be true. I believe there is only one correct way to interpret a verse. The idea that a verse can make opposite statements is as illogical as saying two different natures are the same nature.

Well so do i and i belief also that you and most of the Christians interpret it wrongly however i also belief that your scriptures have been altered in the past and definitely influenced by Pauline teachings instead of the early Jerusalem followers.

I can pick over 50 verses straight out of my head without even opening a bible or to search it up that clearly makes Jesus(pbuh) not god and is a separate being of god. As i said it depends on interpretation, you will interpret it in the way that he had two natures and i don't.

I don't believe this concept can be supported from scripture. Please present the information that supports your belief because I believe otherwise a belief without a basis is simply fantasy or a regurgitation of someone else's

What? This is just basic logic its stupid that i have to repeat this over and over and you still don't get it. If God is not all-powerful and all-knowing he automatically stops being god since that all-powerful and all-knowing makes him god in the first place. Now if there is a being that isn't all-powerful and all-knowing he automatically isn't god. Its like saying that a circle can be a square on the same time it makes no sense and can only be solved by saying its a mystery.

I believe this discussion is important because a belief that Jesus is not God in the flesh allows a view that He doesn't need to be obeyed but a belief that he is God in the flesh means He must be obeyed.

Its important for you and the Christians who belief so but not for the rest of the world since we don't belief that in the first place.

 

[Desert Snake]

Its important for you and the Christians who belief so

Yeah, that's most of Christianity.

but not for the rest of the world since we don't belief that in the first place.

Obviously. Different religions...what's your point.

 

[F0uad]

Obviously. Different religions...what's your point.

I wasn't even replying to you.. my point was that its not important for the rest of the world..

 

[idav]

I believe this is not a denial of His statement that He is one with the Father but a justification for saying it. IMO the argument doesn't work because gods are not the same thing as God. It probably was the closest He could find in scripture.

In context what does the OT mean when it says ye are gods. He wouldn't deny being god in that context. He may say he does what the father asks but would never say he is the father. He does make a distinction between himself and the father even with the oneness aspect.

 

[Shermana]

This is your opinion. I believe I have proven my point and that all others have been able to do is repeat illogical statements. However for the benefit of our new friend the OP presents evidence for Jesus being God in the flesh and most of the arguments to the contrary prenise two wills which would make jesus an God separate entities. Sometimes arguments are made on the basis of attributes.

Just as I think that any Trinitarian argument is a repetition of illogical statements.

Which responses to a Trinitarian claim do you think are so illogical that don't have rational application to the text or are founded rebuttals which have grammatical, textual, and theological backing?

Do you just simply write off any response to a Trinitarian/Modalist claim as illogical or do you have a reason for believing the statements are such?

 

[1robin]

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

Sometimes I am wrong but hopefully most of the time right, but either way I am always sincere and try to indicate it if at some point something I thought was right turned out not to be. What do you have, an avatar rolodex?

 

[1robin]

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

It might be said to be but that would be false. Modalism denies distict indivisuals. I do not think there is one individual that reveals himself in three ways. I believe (if true) that God is a being composed of three persons. By modes I meant dualistc or trimodal, etc...... I did not suggest researching modes because of Modalism. Man is also said to be trimodal Mind, Body, Spirit.

 

[Shermana]

It might be said to be but that would be false. Modalism denies distict indivisuals. I do not think there is one individual that reveals himself in three ways. I believe (if true) that God is a being composed of three persons. By modes I meant dualistc or trimodal, etc...... I did not suggest researching modes because of Modalism. Man is also said to be trimodal Mind, Body, Spirit.

But what is a "Distinct individual" if they are "the same being"?

This goes back to the endless arguments about what "person" means, they ultimately end up meaning "different beings" in the end. The word "person" is far from clear cut defined in any Trinitarian description, it's just a jargon-word that doesn't have a concrete definition and is essentially vague and poses more questions than it answers. In the end, the word "person" almost always ends up meaning "a distinct being that's not ultimately the same being as the other "persons" which renders its Trinitarian concept void to begin with. Hence, it goes back to the "Too much for the human mind to understand" concept.

 

[F0uad]

Sometimes I am wrong but hopefully most of the time right, but either way I am always sincere and try to indicate it if at some point something I thought was right turned out not to be. What do you have, an avatar rolodex?

I find this one nicer its the Moroccan flag with a "Islamic" Moon and star form.

 

[1robin]

I find this one nicer its the Moroccan flag with a "Islamic" Moon and star form.

I thought it was a Christmas special with all the green and red. I liked your original one the best. What was it?

 

[F0uad]

I thought it was a Christmas special with all the green and red. I liked your original one the best. What was it?

It was a boat on water with the words God is great in Arabic.

I am using this one until the Africa Cup Football is over or when Morocco loses.

 

[Desert Snake]

It might be said to be but that would be false. Modalism denies distict indivisuals. I do not think there is one individual that reveals himself in three ways. I believe (if true) that God is a being composed of three persons. By modes I meant dualistc or trimodal, etc...... I did not suggest researching modes because of Modalism. Man is also said to be trimodal Mind, Body, Spirit.

Why do people have such a difficult time understanding this?? Serious question it's not that complicated.

p.s. I don't call myself a Trinitarian but I don't think it goes against my beliefs either, just a personal preference.

 

[1robin]

It was a boat on water with the words God is great in Arabic.

I am using this one until the Africa Cup Football is over or when Morocco loses.

Are you a fair weather fan? I have seen you original one somewhere else and liked it but variety is good too.

 

[1robin]

But what is a "Distinct individual" if they are "the same being"?

This goes back to the endless arguments about what "person" means, they ultimately end up meaning "different beings" in the end. The word "person" is far from clear cut defined in any Trinitarian description, it's just a jargon-word that doesn't have a concrete definition and is essentially vague and poses more questions than it answers. In the end, the word "person" almost always ends up meaning "a distinct being that's not ultimately the same being as the other "persons" which renders its Trinitarian concept void to begin with. Hence, it goes back to the "Too much for the human mind to understand" concept.

I am out of time and we have been down this road before. In short I think the most meaningfull difference is that they are three seperate but consistent wills. They all act on their own at times but never inconsistently. The exception might be when Christ was on Earth and dependant on the father but I think that is the exception not the rule. Technically I think being differs from person by a person having a distict mind.

 

[F0uad]

Why do people have such a difficult time understanding this?? Serious question it's not that complicated.

p.s. I don't call myself a Trinitarian but I don't think it goes against my beliefs either, just a personal preference.

Because it makes no sense define a soul or a spirit..
If one is the conscious then the other is irrelevant i am not sure how a body is a being since its portraiture is that of a shell were we live in and nothing else.

Many have tried explaining the trinity some came up with material objects, Food, Body parts, Families but none have explained how this could work within a person or being.

 

[Desert Snake]

Because it makes no sense define a soul or a spirit..
If one is the conscious then the other is irrelevant i am not sure how a body is a being since its portraiture is that of a shell were we live in and nothing else.

Many have tried explaining the trinity some came up with material objects, Food, Body parts, Families but none have explained how this could work within a person or being.

I view the trinity as three different entities, this doesn't contradict my beliefs at all. I think people are getting confused because they are combining the trinity into one entity.
Anyways my .02$