Did Jesus say he was God???

[F0uad]

Hold the phone there, F0uad. You might be right about what I said. I was not intending to give a hyperliteral interpretation of those verses. I was only attempting to show that orthodox scholarship was headed in the opposite direction you were. I am not saying JH was right nor I was wrong. I was saying every one commonly used for scholarly commentary was going left and you were going right. Since you did not think left the proper way to go I did not bother to clarify exact details. The point is most people who understand the Bible thinks this relates to the people of God. I said Israel thinking of the non devided kingdom. However it may be more accurate to say the house of Judah. What is clear is that it had virtually nothing to do with Jesus and the season for figs. If you wish I will try and see if I agree in detail with that poster. He may be headed left at 275 degrees and I may be headed left at 265 degrees but we are headed in the same direction but you are headed in the opposite direction at 90 degrees. I guess we are lucky I was working on planes and not driving the ship while in the Navy.

Its still a different interpretation there are so many different interpretations on the verses as i said earlier even among scholars yet you ignored that fact.
My questions still remain what is symbolic about the "Hunger'' part and these words ''Because it was not the seasons for figs'' pay close attention to the highlighted area. To point out Shabir ally in hes debate with James white refutes the whole "Symbolic theory'' if you want me to quote him..

 

[F0uad]

We get out of all these problems if we think of this as a parable type event. BTW nice Avatar. I can take the post-it down now.

Well i am not a Christian so its not a problem for me, if you are just looking for excuses then your just twisting your text to fit your agenda, something Jesus(pbuh) condemned the pharisees for.

 

[1robin]

Still different interpretations that are so many different interpretations on the verses as i clearly have shown before just keep ignoring that fact.
My questions still remain what is symbolic about the "Hunger'' part and these words ''Because it was not the seasons for figs'' pay close attention to the highlighted area.

If there was, it might very well be my error, not the scholars. I did not see a need to be hyper accurate. I was only trying to indicate the direction. It is possible I paraphrased something I found and made a mistake concerning Judah v/s Israel. If your point was there is disagreement so we should give up and turn out the lights then what happens when this exact same thing happens in Islam. The Quran has differing official readings in addition to interpretations. I do not see that as much of a problem for the Quran but by the standard you give here, you should.

Even if the slight discrepancy was not mine but the scholars that does not mean there for the complete opposite conclusion is true. If one person said 1 + 1 = 1.9 and the other said it = 2.1 the answer is not therefore 7 billion. It is more likely around 2. I will check into the issue concerning "being hungry" but there is no reason to insist a one to one relationship between a literal and a symbolic. Not every verb or noun is required to have a symbolic counterpart.

 

[1robin]

Well i am not a Christian so its not a problem for me, if you are just looking for excuses then your just twisting your text to fit your agenda, something Jesus(pbuh) condemned the pharisees for.

I can prove this is not true. I had put forth the almost unanimous opinion that this event had a symbolic meaning long before you introduced this claim. I did not invent my claim to counter yours. Mine just happened to resolve this additional issue as well giving more weight to it being the truth.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

According to R0bin many Biblical scholars belief it was the people of Israel instead of Judah, i pointed out there are many interpretations on this event. I honestly think if you read the chapter as it is it can only be interpreted literally because of the words: "Hungry'' and ''Because it was not the time of season figs''.

The House of Israel did not reside in Judaea in the first century CE as it had been taken into Assyrian captivity over 700 years previously. Only the House of Judah remained in the area of Jerusalem in the time of the first century.

 

[F0uad]

If there was, it might very well be my error, not the scholars. I did not see a need to be hyper accurate. I was only trying to indicate the direction. It is possible I paraphrased something I found and made a mistake concerning Judah v/s Israel. If your point was there is disagreement so we should give up and turn out the lights then what happens when this exact same thing happens in Islam. The Quran has differing official readings in addition to interpretations. I do not see that as much of a problem for the Quran but by the standard you give here, you should.

Even if the slight discrepancy was not mine but the scholars that does not mean there for the complete opposite conclusion is true. If one person said 1 + 1 = 1.9 and the other said it = 2.1 the answer is not therefore 7 billion. It is more likely around 2. I will check into the issue concerning "being hungry" but there is no reason to insist a one to one relationship between a literal and a symbolic. Not every verb or noun is required to have a symbolic counterpart.

Nice way to curve around it so ill repeat my self again if you really belief that your interpretation is right explain those words..

 

[F0uad]

I can prove this is not true. I had put forth the almost unanimous opinion that this event had a symbolic meaning long before you introduced this claim. I did not invent my claim to counter yours. Mine just happened to resolve this additional issue as well giving more weight to it being the truth.

No thats not true at all since you did not even address the points i raised what are found in the verses themselves. You said ''we'' would have problems with it therefore the symbolic meaning should be used, that in my eyes is twisting the text to serve your purpose.

 

[F0uad]

The House of Israel did not reside in Judaea in the first century CE as it had been taken into Assyrian captivity over 700 years previously. Only the House of Judah remained in the area of Jerusalem in the time of the first century.

So those great scholars that Robin quoted got it wrong?

 

[Meshak]

Hi, I am new here and I am a non-trin. I dont go into doctrine debate because Jesus says we know them by their fruit, not by what we believe or what we say.

No, Jesus did not say "I am God", not even once.

I dont argue about the things Jesus did not say.

My faith in Jesus is very simple.

blessings.

 

[F0uad]

Hi, I am new here and I am a non-trin. I dont go into doctrine debate because Jesus says we know them by their fruit, not by what we believe or what we say.

No, Jesus did not say "I am God", not even once.

I dont argue about the things Jesus did not say.

My faith in Jesus is very simple.

blessings.

Welcome to the forum.

I tend to agree that what Jesus(pbuh) taught was easy and in simple language.

 

[Meshak]

Welcome to the forum.

I tend to agree that what Jesus(pbuh) taught was easy and in simple language.

I dont see any Christians here. Am I the only Jesus' follower?

blessings

 

[1robin]

No thats not true at all since you did not even address the points i raised what are found in the verses themselves. You said ''we'' would have problems with it therefore the symbolic meaning should be used, that in my eyes is twisting the text to serve your purpose.

Not at all. I said that if the parabolic issue is taken to be true then these inconsistencies vanish, and that is a good indicator that the symbolic view is correct, but not proof. All historical and theological claims are determined by probability. If I want to consider whether King Leonidas actually killed 20,000 Persians with 300 Spartans and their few allies, I line up all the facts I have on either side and choose the one that is most probable. It is an inexact science, but all that is available.

We have a choice here between a literal and a symbolic view. I stack commentaries, issues like conservation of writing space versus importance, theological research, the overall narrative, and other verses with similar language on the side of it being a symbolic act. On the side of it being literal I have only your interpretation to consider. IMO it is about 90% in favor of a symbolic meaning and 10% in favor of a literal. This also lines up with my "spiritual intuition" for lack of a better word.

 

[1robin]

So those great scholars that Robin quoted got it wrong?

I have no idea why you think it important. If I said Israel mistakenly, when it should have been Judah that does not make it there for no one. I went back and found out what happened. Most sources say it applies specifically to Jerusalem and the church that was centered there. I did not think about whether the kingdom was divided at this time or not, so I said Israel when in fact it probably should be Judah. Technically it should be the religous institutions centered in Jerusalem and spread throughout Judah. That was a mistaken assumption I made but it does not help your case at all. We both and others here have gone the symbolic route; my easily understood mistake does not change the direction we all went in. For the record I found what the greatest Christian commentator said on these versus to be exactly the same as I would have put it, if on the witness stand.


11:12-18 Christ looked to find some fruit, for the time of gathering figs, though it was near, was not yet come; but he found none. He made this fig-tree an example, not to the trees, but to the men of that generation. It was a figure of the doom upon the Jewish church, to which he came seeking fruit, but found none. Christ went to the temple, and began to reform the abuses in its courts, to show that when the Redeemer came to Zion, it was to turn away ungodliness from Jacob. The scribes and the chief priests sought not how they might make their peace with him, but how they might destroy him. A desperate attempt, which they could not but fear, was fighting against God.

11:19-26 The disciples could not think why that fig-tree should so soon wither away; but all wither who reject Christ; it represented the state of the Jewish church. We should rest in no religion that does not make us fruitful in good works. Christ taught them from hence to pray in faith. It may be applied to that mighty faith with which all true Christians are endued, and which does wonders in spiritual things. It justifies us, and so removes mountains of guilt, never to rise up in judgment against us. It purifies the heart, and so removes mountains of corruption, and makes them plain before the grace of God. One great errand to the throne of grace is to pray for the pardon of our sins; and care about this ought to be our daily concern.

All other major commentators said the same thing using a few different words. What is crystal clear is that a non-symbolic view is in the opposite direction of scholarly concensus and on the very fringe. In fact I do not know how a symbolic story can get any more obvious, unless it point blank says so, and in most cases that did not happen. It did a few times (the seed, the sower, etc...) Jesus said he spoke parabolically so that people outside of true faith in him would not understand. Could it be that is what is going on here? I have no wish to keep banging my head on this wall so I have no plans to add to this.

 

[1robin]

I dont see any Christians here. Am I the only Jesus' follower?

blessings

Hello Meshak, does my being a Baptist not qualify? I assure you we are devoted to faith in Christ quite fervently. I am a Trinitarian agnostic. I think both sides have a good case. I only critique the methods used to determine a certain side's claims and the demand that Jesus say some words in a certain order, arbitrarily invented and imposed on him is a very bad one. Muhammad never said he was a homo sapien, by that standard he was there for not a human. I however look at what Muhammad did and it is easy to see that he was all too human.

 

[Meshak]

Hello Meshak, does my being a Baptist not qualify?

I am sorry, I did not see you. My apologies.

I assure you we are devoted to faith in Christ quite fervently.

I dont know about that. Jesus says we know them by their fruit, I dont see much of mainstream churches striving to be faithful to Jesus by their practice.

I am a Trinitarian agnostic. I think both sides have a good case. I only critique the methods used to determine a certain side's claims and the demand that Jesus say some words in a certain order, arbitrarily invented and imposed on him is a very bad one. Muhammad never said he was a homo sapien, by that standard he was there for not a human. I however look at what Muhammad did and it is easy to see that he was all too human.

I dont know anything about Muhammad but I know what Jesus says. Jesus says He is Son of God and was sent by His Father to be the Lamb of the world.

Trin churches are changing Jesus' salvation by saying you have to believe in the trinity to be saved. That's not what Jesus said.

blessings.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
I am sorry, I did not see you. My apologies.

No problem, I was sure that was the case.

I don’t know about that. Jesus says we know them by their fruit, I don’t see much of mainstream churches striving to be faithful to Jesus by their practice.

That is a subjective and relative claim. No human is 100% faithful. So on a scale of 1 - 100 what number do you assign what Churches? What did you base that on? Is that number below the value that separates good fruit from bad? Did you simply invent an arbitrary value and claim it to be the standard? Even in a bad Church I have seen many good things done and I do not feel qualified to judge them. I will leave that to God. I selected Baptist as my denomination because they have the most accurate creed I could find. I have been involved with very active and devoted Churches dedicated to service in Christ's name. I do not agree with your assessment.

I don’t know anything about Muhammad but I know what Jesus says. Jesus says He is Son of God and was sent by His Father to be the Lamb of the world.

Is this an argument against him being divine or something else? My point was the method by which that is determined used in this thread was wrong, not that Jesus is or is not divine.

Trin churches are changing Jesus' salvation by saying you have to believe in the trinity to be saved. That's not what Jesus said.

I have never been to a Church that said this. What is a Trin church I have never even heard of one that did. BTW I gather you do not think Jesus is God. Do you believe he was divine? I see no need to decide on whether Jesus was God or not. I have to do the exact same thing to be saved either way. I do lean towards him being the divine logos and unique son but have no firm position nor need of one.

 

[Meshak]

That is a subjective and relative claim. No human is 100% faithful.

Jesus says to be perfect He would not command if it is impossible.

So on a scale of 1 - 100 what number do you assign what Churches? What did you base that on? Is that number below the value that separates good fruit from bad?

I you read my thread "Christians in the military" you will know where my position is coming from.

Did you simply invent an arbitrary value and claim it to be the standard? Even in a bad Church I have seen many good things done and I do not feel qualified to judge them. I will leave that to God. I selected Baptist as my denomination because they have the most accurate creed I could find. I have been involved with very active and devoted Churches dedicated to service in Christ's name. I do not agree with your assessment.

Read the above.

Is this an argument against him being divine or something else? My point was the method by which that is determined used in this thread was wrong, not that Jesus is or is not divine.

I asess everything with fruit we are producing about our faith because that is Jesus' method.

I have never been to a Church that said this. What is a Trin church I have never even heard of one that did. BTW I gather you do not think Jesus is God. Do you believe he was divine? I see no need to decide on whether Jesus was God or not. I have to do the exact same thing to be saved either way. I do lean towards him being the divine logos and unique son but have no firm position nor need of one.

Jesus never said "I am God", not even once. I go by what Jesus said. He is Son of God and Savior of the world. Trin churches are adding their own doctrine to Jesus' Gospel.

Jesus does not care what you say or believe if you are not obedient to His Word.

PS, trin churches call non-trin believers are cult. And they have history of persecuting them. That is not godly fruit at all, brother.

blessings.

 

[F0uad]

Ill just wait till the day you finally start answering questions robin..

 

[1robin]

Ill just wait till the day you finally start answering questions robin..

I guess that is one way out of the theological cul-de-sac you find yourself in.

 

[1robin]

Jesus says to be perfect He would not command if it is impossible.

Is there a single example of human perfection outside Christ is all of human history? I am sure not perfect, are you? If perfection is the standard what need is there of Christ? This is a worthy goal but one that no one has ever reached.

I you read my thread "Christians in the military" you will know where my position is coming from.
Read the above.

There is no subject and only occasionally an argument that frustrates me until now. I think saying Christians should not fight to save their families is quite offensive. I served 9 years in the Navy myself. Christ’s commands are not institutional they are personal and meant to be read with common sense. They are for men not armies. They are in a person to person context and not made to be adopted by nations. The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. If good people no longer will fight evil will overtake us all and oppress if not kill most of us. Hitler in the 1940's comes to mind. The same God that gave a lesson on personal conduct also led wars of annihilation against people who occupied land he had selected for Israel. Any God that would not occasionally completely wipe out the evil men do and the men who do it is unworthy of worship. I am going to leave this here before I get frustrated further.

I assess everything with fruit we are producing about our faith because that is Jesus' method.

I never said you can't assess what fruit people produce. I said sweeping condemnations of entire denominations is a little beyond your power. You also can never know if your judgments about how much fruit is enough or how much is not until you die and maybe not even then. If you are pushing some kind of works salvation you are talking to the wrong person. I studied nothing else for about 3 years and can shut that down pretty quick if necessary. This verse alone renders that issue moot.
“Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (vss 12-15)
We are rewarded for works but salvation is based on faith in the merits of Christ alone.

Jesus never said "I am God", not even once. I go by what Jesus said. He is Son of God and Savior of the world. Trin churches are adding their own doctrine to Jesus' Gospel.

Why do you think this is something he must do or he is not God. When you meet someone do you say hello I am a human being. Nope, because it is obvious.

Jesus does not care what you say or believe if you are not obedient to His Word.

Wrong. He primarily cares about what I believe and what I do is secondary. I see where this is going and since I have had no one go down this works exit ramp in a while then bring it on. Just make the statement that you believe works are required to be saved so we are both on the same page and then we can begin. By the way what flavor are you, Catholic or some other kind?
New International Version (©1984)
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

PS, trin churches call non-trin believers are cult. And they have history of persecuting them. That is not godly fruit at all, brother.

What are you talking about? Give some examples please. Most church on church persecution was Catholic versus protestant and they are both Trinitarian.