Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

Nor does Islam it only says that translations is not the exact revelation that was given to Mohammed(saws) therefore verses can be miss presented or wrongly interpreted and certainly with rich languages as Hebrew, Greek and Arabic

If that is the case, then this is a sufficient answer.

Yes but it never said it loses core beliefs, what it loses is the beauty and true interpretation what can be significant in some cases.

I will have to wait to see the context the claim is made in the next time I run into it. It seems like a defense mechanism at times. What you claim is reasonable and I have no contention about this with you given your clarifications.

Why is this the case? Because like i said the Qurayesh dialect is preserved and is still being written in and the ''loving god'' theory makes no sense it is a doctrine that even fails on Christian terms.

You made #1 and #2 equivalent in your view so it is no longer relevant.

Ok.. still confused

Apparently you do not do what I was referring to. In many debates I have seen Muslims get frustrated or backed into a corner and claim "well you just do not know the Quran until you can read Arabic". I see that as a defense mechanism. A get me out of this claim that ends discussion without resolution. You do not seem to do this so it will be dropped.

Untrue Islamic views do not change like the Christian one do, there are different interpretations on this verse from the beginning so its not ''changed'' and the majority beliefs that Jesus(pbuh) was not crucified nor killed. I think the more important notion on the verse is that he didn't die since we both can't proof that it exactly was Jesus(pbuh) on the cross it could have been someone that looked like him.

The "official" or prevalent interpretation of the surah:
...They said, “We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God." They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)... (Qur'an, 4:157
Not long ago was that Judas or someone else was substituted for Christ. That was so terrible to defend that it seems today that Jesus was on the cross but did not die, which has terrible problems but less absurd ones. There are several more and I can get detailed if needed but the claim that interpretations of surah’s have not changed is simply incorrect. Half the Hadith's are rejected for bad interpretation, and which half depends on who is talking.
You seem to suggest that the details are not important but only the result that Christ did not die. Not true in comparative religion. To contrast I must take Islam's counter claims details to evaluate the competency of the claim not merely the conclusion. A conclusion is only as good as it's claim and evidence.

Well I am fully aware of that but you have to understand on what of Bias i have for me what Mohammed(saws) said is true.

Agreed, no one is without bias, not even me. So we must usually debate these issues between faiths or between faith and non-faith based on the most common ground. Law, science, logic, history etc....I could never expect you to simply adopt verses because they are in the Bible nor you with the Quran concerning me. That was the point. In the realm of semi-common ground I gave and can give not just experts but the greatest experts in human history that will support the Bible and have with reams of data and evidence. The question was can you supply (even a Muslim's) claims in these common ground areas that is comparable to what I did and will?

Ok this made no sense at all, moreover if we read the biblical verses you could also understand that Jesus(pbuh) was trying to prove he did not die when he let the Apostles touch him and later the stories developed wherein people started to think he died.

That is completely false and was contrary of the opinions of every single person that witnessed them. Everyone there drew the opposite conclusion from your and many died defending it. Do you think these types of claims have an even theoretical potential for persuasion of anyone not already very sympathetic? You are too smart to think so. Deedat used to make this point. His "spook" argument as i called it. It was one of his worst. Deedat either made brilliant or absurd claims. There was no middle ground, it was feast or famine concerning his claims. This one was famine. Why do you always require multiple posts to answer? Continued below:

 

[1robin]

This is only if you read the story as it develops in the ages there is more emphasis on this by John, Luke and Matthew. If we read the most early works of Mark we can't even be sure if he died or not, you at-least have to admit when we read the most early writings about the event we can't be certain.

I could not make claims like this without at least trying to support it with something. Have you ever even seen a single early extant manuscript much less read one, and especially have read a series of them that has this development. This is not only devoid of proof it is also virtually impossible. The manuscript tradition we have for the Bible is nothing like the Quran. The Bible had an explosive and early proliferation by many languages and cultures. How would anyone have controlled and mandated this progression in Ethiopian, Greek copies, Egyptian copies, Coptic Egyptian copies etc etc. Very early on there were thousands of manuscripts being copied in many nations. No one could possibly do what you claim. Now Islam's copies were strictly controlled and at one time actually burned. A few men could have made the Quran say anything they wish with a little cooperation. I am not saying they did, I am saying it was possible with the Quran and impossible with the Bible. Not only for the reasons I gave but also because vast numbers of these manuscripts were lost to history from early on until rediscovery mush later. Do they show any significant intentional changes. No they show what we have is very close to what originally existed. I have been researching textual issue lately and can add quite a lot more if needed. If I made a book and a hundred copies were made within 20 years by a hundred independent groups and in 100 years 10,000 copies were being produced by 1000 groups how can I get them all to change them all in the same way. If you instead insist it all happened before the copying really got going then there is no evidence for it for the same reason. These are guesses arising from intent and based on little evidence.

I was replying to your other argument where you tried to imply that the Romans risked death if he lived through that experience but its invalid. For instance, only Matthew's gospel mentions an earthquake, resurrected saints who went to the city and that Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb, while Mark is the only one to state the actual time of the crucifixion (the third hour, or 9 am) and the centurion's report of Jesus' death while that centurion who converted and became a Christian.

Do you know that the centurion that merely said " surely this is the son of God" is the same that was in dialogue with Pilot about the status of Jesus? I never said so and never heard so but it is irrelevant. We are both arguing from silence a little, but my argument is consistent with Roman law, customs and human nature.

Stop going off topic please.
Again i am not making the claim its not reliable, SCHOLARS ARE. John is not seen as a historical account at all by Historians even by super naturalists moreover this account of John takes about 125 years after the event if not longer to be reported.

Is that why John records that the "sheep gate" is still standing which was destroyed in 70AD. Your dates are way too late, and your claims are not the consensus nor even if they were would they have reliable evidence for them. For now I will try and avoid this black whole of dates and authors we always get into and rarely get out of.

So wait are you saying that the Centurion was not a Christian or that Pilate was not surprised to hear that Jesus(pbuh) died that quickly by that same Centurion?

I am saying I know of nothing beyond his "son of God statement" concerning his faith but that they did take as important and relevant the making sure that Christ was dead. This was no small matter for the efficient and thorough Romans. There is not the slightest indication that they did not thoroughly execute their full duty. There exists only one account of a crucified person sent to be killed on a cross who lived. He and two other were cut down soon after hung on the cross. Two died and one lived. However he was not beaten as Jesus was nor stabbed in the heart with a spear. If you believe Christ lived through the beating, crucifixion, being stabbed in the heart, being in a cave for three days with no medicine, food, or water, then pushing a rock away from the door getting by several guards and running around town claiming he never died but producing faith in everyone that he did so strong they died for it then you have more faith than I do.

The Romans were known for specific qualities.
1. They were systematic.
2. Dogmatic.
3. Brutal
4. Efficient.
5. Detailed in administration.
6. Ruthless.
7. Experts at death and torture.
8. Extremely dutiful given the most extreme punishment for the least offense.


Yet you have them all acting contrary to every one of these on the basis of no
Historical evidence of any of this.

 

[1robin]

How is this a reply?

It is the equivalent of your claim.

Its well known that stories develop as they progress in time an example of this is Jesus(pbuh) being seen as god starting from Mark to Matthew/Luke and then John. The same goes for the ''horrible'' punishment Jesus(pbuh) received where is the spear mentioned in the three synoptic gospels and i can give you many more examples.

How is this evidence or a reply? You simply assert things that have better explanations even if true. I "assert" for good reason the Gospels were all written between the late 50's to the late 70's. John was written to accentuate Christ's divine nature and mission. The earliest Gospels were written to appeal to Hebrews and concentrated on law related matters more acceptable to the audience for example. If you ever get around to actually posting evidence with claims then I can evaluate it, instead of mere assertions. How would a man in 100AD go around and gather up all of Mathew, Mark, and Luke, plus Paul's massive and early writings copied all over the place and make changes so that John's Gospel would fit? Or at any step along the way. How did they suppress every apostle and eyewitness claim that "I was there and that never happened". They do not exist, and there was no Uthman or Caliphate to burn everything and make an official (wrong or right) text. These Gospels were everywhere, and copied by many independent groups, the word of many people over thousands of years (they even go back to predictions and prophecies in the OT) not one "Muhammad" over a few dozen years, the NT alone has almost twice as much information as the entire Quran and the entire Bible is approx. 9 times as much information as the Quran. I have spent years looking into the reliability of the Gospels and simple assertions will never over turn that, only evidence comparable or better than what I have found will.

Stop mixing things up and pay attention please, you are the one bringing up ''Muslims, Quran, Islam'' with each comment you post. What has Islam to do with the crucifixion of Jesus(pbuh) when i am discussing it true Historical accounts and not the Quran.

You must stop this demanding and asserting what faults I have or not. I have put up with a bit ofthat but it is becoming far too frequent to indicate actual faults I have and not to indicate the hostility you import into all debates. Enduring someone general dissatisfaction is not worth at this level. I coment on the Quran because it is a fixed point you understand and adhere to, and the most obvious point of comparison. I do not bring up engineering, mathematics, or historical warfare because most people do not have the level of training I do in it and it would be meaningless most times. If I find they do have a background in them then I would use that as I am using the Quran, as a comparator and an accepted context. Many of your claims are relative, without a comparator relativity has no application. If I said cars are good it is meaningless. If I said cars are better than horses for transportation then that is relevant. Dial back the demands and accusations. I do not have the time.

This is what you said:
The evidence for a resurrection after death and a raising before death are exactly the same in this context.
If all historical claims are evaluated on probability then you would have a big problem because Jesus(pbuh) not dying is also a probability or someone that died in his place could also be a probability. Historical evidence is having multiplied individual references or sources of people that date back to the event of happening.

Of course everything that exists as an argument have probabilities. I have had 9 sem hours in probability. The issue is not does it have it, it is does it have as high a probability factor. Was Sadam hanged and died from it has a very high probability factor. Did Sadam die from a heart attach seconds before he was hung maybe but it's probability is low though it may be assigned one. It is about related rates or comparative analysis. What explanation best suits the facts? I argued that mine is more consistent with more facts. Yours may be consistent with a few but not as many and not as well.

Well you still haven't proven that it was Jesus(pbuh) to begin with secondly you still insist that a spear killed him yet its not considered to be historical by modern biblical scholars and historians. Thirdly you did not address that the stories developed as time progressed many years after the event. And as last you still haven't made up your mind on what really killed him.

I never intended to prove it. In fact I said these claims are not provable either way, the same with almost all history. I said that my conclusion is consistent with more evidence and in better ways than yours is. Mine is more probable and that is the exact way (the same word in fact) I said all historical claims are evaluated by. Vast numbers of all types of claims as well.

Well its a bad comparison because you possessed data and multiplied accounts of the event moreover you could double-check it, seen it on a youtube video with your own eyes there is all the evidence you need.
In the case of Jesus(pbuh) the only thing we have is a manuscript that is decades after the ''Crucifixion''.

This is why I use Islamic (Quranic) claims many times. They are of a similar type and known to you and me, the same way you do with the Bible. However you do not like that, nor apparently any other type of claim like the Sadam one either. So now that I have nothing available to give a relative value in reference to there is little too be said on your standard. Since I am not bound by your standard I will do so anyway. I am not only in possession of the very reliable Gospels alone. I have Paul’s writings which leave no doubt about what Christ suffered. I have vast numbers of OT prophecies concerning a dying messiah. I have Roman practices and specifically their crucifixion procedures, I have 2 billion people that claim to have met a risen Christ by virtue of a road map which is centered on the fact of his actual death and resurrection. This is not the Quranic requirement to agree to an intellectual concept, it is the claim to an experience only available if Christ died and if the Gospels are accurate. I have the steadfast faith of every early Christian that witnessed these events even in the face of death. I have my own experience of a risen Christ. I have general but consistent extra biblical sources about early Christian beliefs and actions. I have the words of the earliest Church fathers and the absence of competitive contemporary counter claims from eye witnesses. I have the consistent 3 facts the majority of NT scholars on all sides agree with. I probably halve dozens more but am not interested in typing more of them.

Moreover people in that time people would call other people dead much faster for example in Matthew it states that the daughter Jairus is already dead but yet according to Mark and Luke she was not dead yet.

Irrelevant and inapplicable telescoping common to all multiply attested historical literature. One is literal the other is a mashed up generalized story. Shabir loves this one and I conceded the point he makes but not yours. Do you believe a carefully controlled single small line of transmission from one source with no textual variation is more reliable than multiply attested, prolifically copied, independently copied, and unsupervised copied, texts that have 5% textual error? and I have been very generous here.

So either these verses contradict each other or people in those time had a different definition of death in some cases. So let’s say for example that Jesus(pbuh) was on the cross there is still no evidence that he really died the only thing you can say is that there is a probability that he died.

His death is consistent with more and better facts than his living through it.

 

[F0uad]

Hey i will reply tomorrow or the day after i have football practice today, hope nobody joins the conversation until then.

 

[1robin]

Hey i will reply tomorrow or the day after i have football practice today, hope nobody joins the conversation until then.

Very well, football (are you in high school, college, a pro, or a rugby player?). I remember two a days in my summers as a teen ager. Almost as bad as boot camp.

 

[Muffled]

Let me try to briefly explain from my years of thinking about these things. The ultimate truth is beyond our capability to fully intellectually grasp. So human understanding has evolved over the ages; from polytheism, to monotheism (positing a distinction between creator and creation; dualism), to non-dualism (Advaita in Sanskrit; creator and creation are not two but One; Brahman).

The Bible writers and Jesus’ teachings were primarily from a dualist philosophy. This is a valid philosophy and I am pro-Jesus, pro-Christianity. I also believe the east (India) has delved the Truth even one stage deeper than the west and has developed non-dual philosophy also. Creation is a thought-form and part of God/Brahman

I can see how this philosophy could develop but I beleive the truth of God is that Thought does not become creation but produces creation. This would be like a houseplan. It shows how to build the house but it is not the house itself.

Do you have a direct quote for that from The Veda?

 

[Muffled]

How can anything be both fully God and man at the same time unless it is just a difference in the conscious experience? And if that is the case than Jesus simply represented what we can all accomplish. And doesn't the New Testament teach that we are supposed to become ONE with Jesus and the Father.

I believe it is a matter of perspective.

I believe that there is a difference between Jesus and us in that Jesus did not have a human spirit present with His divine Spirit. It is out human spirit that tends to want to have control of our lives rather than cede them to Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

Hindu 'scriptures' were written before Jesus was born.




I explained the difference in the immediately preceding post to 1Robin. You guys are coming from the legitimate dualist school of thought (there is a creator and a creation). I'm coming from what I believe to be the more evolved non-dualist position (that we are all part of Brahman/God but under the maya-delusion of separateness).

I don't beleive in evolution. I do believe in devolution. I believe God created the dualism and man decided to devolve it.

 

[Muffled]

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)

Jesus is God becasue He is the Prince of Peace as predicted by Isaiah. The reason is that only God can bring peace. All others bring violence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Jesus is God becasue He is the Prince of Peace as predicted by Isaiah. The reason is that only God can bring peace. All others bring violence.

Yes, the case can be made using the selected phrases from the New Testament by conflating the manifestation of an avatar of God with the transcendent source, but we see here in Mark 10:18... “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone", Jesus is here making the distinction to teach the people not to conflate the phenomenal appearance of the body named Jesus with the spirit of God manifest in him.

All mortal souls have the potential to become one with God, and that is his real teaching,..to do all the things he did and more. But few understand this true teaching and instead of emulating his example of sacrificing his personal ego to realize union with God, they instead identify with their personal ego to praise the temporary form of Jesus as one and the same as the eternal omnipresent God that manifested through it, and trust and pray that this is all that is required for meeting God's promise of immortality.

Not you personally Muffled, but to those who originated this erroneous teaching, I say... 'woe to you hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.' - Matthew 23:13

 

[Tranquil Servant]

John 8
23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
If Jesus was God, why did He say "No one is good but God alone"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Jesus tells us that God and he are one, and goes on to imply that what (as perceived by people present at that time) he had to say, was not coming from himself, but from God the Father. He obediently did and said everything that that God willed him to do and say.

It therefore follows that all these quotes being used to imply that Jesus was God should be understood as him obediently fulfilling the will of God.

That's all for now....

 

[John Martin]

I just like to propose that Jesus Christ was fully human and fully divine. In order to understand this we need to understand the spiritual evolution of Jesus. I see four important moments in the life of Jesus before his death and resurrection.
The first moment was his birth as a human being from the womb of his physical mother Mary. The second moment was the day of his circumcision in which he entered into the collective consciousness of Judaism. We can say that he entered into religious womb of Judaism. Judaism was his religious womb. As a Jew he might have said that Judaism was his way his truth and his life. As a Jew he received collective identity and collective consciousness. As he grew in the womb of Judaism, he realized the limitations of his religion. The first limitation was that his religion divided humanity into two: Jews and the Gentiles. The second was that limited God only as the God of the Jews. The third limitation was that it understood God as a transcendent mystery inaccessible to the human beings, except through the prophets. The fourth limitation was that human being has to be subservient to the external code or Law. The fifth limitation was that his religion created an exclusive collective consciousness.
This discovery brings Jesus to the third important moment of his life which was his baptismal experience. The baptismal experience of Jesus was an experience in which Jesus comes out of the womb of his religion and enters into the universal presence of God. In this experience the wall between the Jews and the Gentiles is broken down and a new human consciousness is born. This new human consciousness can be described as the universal consciousness (the Son of God). This consciousness is united with the whole of humanity and creation. Now the wall between God and the Gentiles is broken down and God becomes the God of whole of humanity and creation. In this experience the heavens are opened and the spirit of God descends upon him. It means that God is no longer a transcendent mystery but also indwelling presence: I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Now Jesus declares that 'I am the way, the truth and the life'. As a Jew he might have said that Judaism was his way, his truth and his life, but now he says, 'I am the way, the truth and the life'. This is the birth of a new human consciousness which inaugurates the new covenant in which God writes the law in the hearts of the people. At the moment of Jesus' baptism Jesus heard 'You are my beloved Son', this is writing the Law in the heart of Jesus. God did not tell Jesus what he should do and should not do, who Jesus was. This is writing the Law in the heart. It is discovering the image and likeness of God in us. In the First Covenant a person will say 'the Law is the way, the truth and the life' and the New Covenant a person says, 'I am the way, the truth and the life'.
Finally this experience breaks down the walls of all the exclusive groups and creates one God, one creation and one human kind.
The fourth important moment in the life of Jesus was when he said 'the Father and I are one'. He experienced his oneness with God. Now Jesus embraces within himself all the four levels: he is a one physical human being, he was a hundred percent Jew but outgrew it, he is the Son of God, the universal consciousness and he is one with God. If we use an analogy of a tree: as a physical human being he is one leaf on a tree, as a belief system he grew in the branch of Judaism; he transcended it and entered into the universal consciousness of the trunk, the son of God; and then his awareness entered into the roots and realized oneness with God. In this way Jesus Christ is one hundred percent at the level of the roots and he one hundred percent human at the level of trunk, branches and leaves. As divine he embraces within himself all the prophets and sages (who belong to the level of Trunk), all the branches that represent belief systems and all the leaves that represent individuals. This experience is not limited to Jesus Christ alone but opens every human being both male and female.
In this sense I believe that Jesus is one hundred percent and divine and one hundred percent human. Everyone has this possibility but only they have to realize it.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

.......In this sense I believe that Jesus is one hundred percent and divine and one hundred percent human. Everyone has this possibility but only they have to realize it.

...Except for a couple of major differences; Jesus was conceived directly from God (not with man's sperm or woman's egg). It's like what Islam teaches; God said be and there he was. Mary was just the oven for the bun or the soil in which the seed rooted itself. Another thing is that Jesus was without sin while every other human that ever existed and will ever exist is and will be with sin. Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
This is why he says " Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" Also, Jesus called the kingdom of heaven or God, his kingdom and said he would reign as king but no mere human can ever make such a claim.
Matthew 21:43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
Matthew 20:21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
Luke 1:33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.
Luke 9:2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
Luke 23:42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Also, Jesus called the kingdom of heaven or God, his kingdom and said he would reign as king but no mere human can ever make such a claim.

Agreed that no mere human would have any credibility making such a claim, but the irony is that by presuming that the source of the words being conveyed by Jesus is originating from the Jesus human aspect of the avatar (Divine incarnation), and not omnipresnt God, that's what you seem to be implying.

So when Jesus said the he would reign as king in the Kingdom of God, that is God conveying to the listeners through Jesus that God reigns. A kingdom is ruled by a king naturally, so it follows that God is the king of the kingdom of God.

Similarly when Jesus said that I am the Way, the truth, etc.,..no one enters the Kingdom except by me, this is God speaking through the human vehicle. Union with God is the only way,...think about it?...nothing separate from God can enter into God, for God is one and not two things. For that reason Jesus taught,..seek God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength, etc.. One who does this will eventually become one with God. Of the two, God and the seeker, one of the two will disappear, guess which one?

I sought you Lord so constantly,
I finally became you,
Little by little you drew nearer,
Slowly but slowly I passed away... Anon Sufi

 

[John Martin]

...Except for a couple of major differences; Jesus was conceived directly from God (not with man's sperm or woman's egg). It's like what Islam teaches; God said be and there he was. Mary was just the oven for the bun or the soil in which the seed rooted itself. Another thing is that Jesus was without sin while every other human that ever existed and will ever exist is and will be with sin. Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
This is why he says " Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" Also, Jesus called the kingdom of heaven or God, his kingdom and said he would reign as king but no mere human can ever make such a claim.
Matthew 21:43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
Matthew 20:21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
Luke 1:33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.
Luke 9:2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
Luke 23:42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Tranquil Servant wrote:
Except for a couple of major differences; Jesus was conceived directly from God (not with man's sperm or woman's egg). It's like what Islam teaches; God said be and there he was. Mary was just the oven for the bun or the soil in which the seed rooted itself. Another thing is that Jesus was without sin while every other human that ever existed and will ever exist is and will be with sin.

Dear Tranquil Servant,
If this belief helps you then you should hold it. If that is the way God wanted let it be so.
but even hundreds of years before Jesus people had similar experience of God and declared, 'God and I are one'. They were born in an ordinary wayanddid not claim to be born without sin. In order to have the experience that Jesus had it is not necessary to be born in a special way and without being sinful.
Jesus had this experience in Judaism in which to have the experience Jesus had was impossible. Jesus' disciples accepted this experience a possibility only to Jesus. If only Jesus is privileged to have this experience then his birth should be something different than other human beings and he should be without sin. In that particular situation God might have inspired the evangelists to propose special birth to Jesus and special status to Jesus in order to satisfy the questions arose at that time. Today the human consciousness has grown very much and that proposal may not be necessary.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Agreed that no mere human would have any credibility making such a claim, but the irony is that by presuming that the source of the words being conveyed by Jesus is originating from the Jesus human aspect of the avatar (Divine incarnation), and not omnipresnt God, that's what you seem to be implying.

What I'm implying is that Jesus and God are one in the same. There are many times where it seems as though Jesus is speaking in third person perspective regarding God but actually he's speaking in first person perspective because he is speaking on behalf of the one who dwells in him (literally). However it was (and still is) considered blasphemous for anyone to refer to themselves as God (or equal to God); this is why Jesus had to speak inconspicuously and still he was accused of blasphemy and crucified. The flesh of Jesus is just a temple. And yes our own flesh are just temples too but our temples house our souls while the temple of Jesus houses the spirit of God; just like Mary's womb was chosen to shelter and nurture the manifestation of God.

So when Jesus said the he would reign as king in the Kingdom of God, that is God conveying to the listeners through Jesus that God reigns. A kingdom is ruled by a king naturally, so it follows that God is the king of the kingdom of God.

..Or that he being God, would reign as king. No other messenger or prophet made this claim (in the Bible) and most (if not, all) prophesied by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Daniel 7:13-14
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, [a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Similarly when Jesus said that I am the Way, the truth, etc.,..no one enters the Kingdom except by me, this is God speaking through the human vehicle. Union with God is the only way,...think about it?...nothing separate from God can enter into God, for God is one and not two things. For that reason Jesus taught,..seek God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength, etc.. One who does this will eventually become one with God. Of the two, God and the seeker, one of the two will disappear, guess which one?

...the seeker of course.....and why do you think that is??

Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death,but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ecclesiastes 3:20 All go to the same place; all come from dust,and to dust all return.

Like I mentioned before.....
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
AND
Ecclesiastes 7:20 Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”;
Jeremiah 8:9 wise will be put to shame; 9 they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?
Isaiah 40:25 “To whom will you compare me? 25 Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.

There is none who can become like God. God is the most righteous, compassionate, merciful, and humble; therefore he became like us. He manifested his salvation so that when the flesh perishes, we may live in his presence for eternity because that was his will from the beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is none who can become like God. God is the most righteous, compassionate, merciful, and humble; therefore he became like us. He manifested his salvation so that when the flesh perishes, we may live in his presence for eternity because that was his will from the beginning.

Yes, there is a mystical saying that God can only reveal God to God through the medium of God. This which seeks is that which is sought, and that which is sought is this which seeks. The breath of God that vivifies the clay body is indivisible with the omnipresence of God,..God is within.

However that's enough for now, thank you for your thoughtful response, it is not my intention to dissuade you from your present understanding of this subject based on a dualistic perspective of God.

God bless... :namaste

 

[John Martin]

I believe it is a matter of perspective.

I believe that there is a difference between Jesus and us in that Jesus did not have a human spirit present with His divine Spirit. It is out human spirit that tends to want to have control of our lives rather than cede them to Jesus.

Creating an essential difference between Jesus and the rest of humanity creates spiritual apartheid between Jesus and the rest of the humanity. This is not what Jesus wanted. Jesus came to liberate people from all oppressions, including spiritual oppression. Christian vision creates this spiritual apartheid and brings bad name to Jesus. In a way it does disservice to Jesus. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples to show that he came to empower people and not to enslave them.

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Yes, there is a mystical saying that God can only reveal God to God through the medium of God. This which seeks is that which is sought, and that which is sought is this which seeks. The breath of God that vivifies the clay body is indivisible with the omnipresence of God,..God is within.

However that's enough for now, thank you for your thoughtful response, it is not my intention to dissuade you from your present understanding of this subject based on a dualistic perspective of God.

God bless... :namaste

Thank You and may peace and blessings be upon you too.