Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

Who said that the Lord Jesus Christ is just “a god”?

The text when read gramatically correct.

The angel, Gabriel, was he “a god”?

Yes indeed, as are all Angels, who are called "gods" (Elohim) throughout the OT.

From these verses I do not see any other or different “a god” or “gods”.

What you don't see is that Angels are in fact called gods.

Do not look any further the answer is here.

If you had bothered to click the link I provided or listened to what I said, the NWT is far from the only translation that translates the Anarthrous there correctly, numerous independent scholars do. Generally only church-aligned translations stick to the "God" translation. Even ardent and prominent Trinitarian translators like Wallace use "Divine" instead and advise against the "God" translation.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01096.html

Elsewhere angels are called ʾelohim (usually "god" or "gods"; Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6), more often bene ʾelohim or bene ʾelim (lit. "sons of gods") – in the general sense of "divine beings.

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other/heteros/different gods before me.

Christ made a tremendous claim both for Himself and for the Holy Spirit, for ALLOS here implies the personalality of the Holy Spirit, and equality of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father.

How do you possibly derive that Jesus is saying the Spirit is equal with the Father from that verse?

What part about the word "before" meaning "more important than" did you not get the first time?

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

As has been explained multiple times, they are only metaphorically, united in purpose. Care to quote John 17:11?

"so that they may be one as we are one."

According to your interpretation, Jesus is calling for the Disciples to also be part of God.

Only in the mind of the unbelievers they, the Trinity, are divided.

Only in the mind of those who read the text correctly and in context you mean?

 

[BornAgain]

The text when read gramatically correct.
Yes indeed, as are all Angels, who are called "gods" (Elohim) throughout the OT.

What you don't see is that Angels are in fact called gods.

Therefore, you are saying that the Lord Jesus Christ is just an angel of God. A creation of God.

 

[Shermana]

Therefore, you are saying that the Lord Jesus Christ is just an angel of God. A creation of God.

That is correct. The Highest of the Celestial Divine beings, the firstborn created Being, who was the instrument of which all other creation was made through. Wisdom incarnated, the Logos of Philo in the flesh.

 

[BornAgain]

That is correct. The Highest of the Celestial Divine beings, the firstborn created Being, who was the instrument of which all other creation was made through. Wisdom incarnated, the Logos of Philo in the flesh.

If Christ was just a creation or a created angel of God, can people worship Him?

 

[Shermana]

If Christ was just a creation or a created angel of God, can people worship Him?

Just like they can worship David and Saul and other leaders, just like how Moses and Joshua worshiped the Angel that was sent to them.

As long as they still Serve God only, they are allowed to, and encouraged to display the physical sign of loyalty and humility to those in the Divine chain of command. If they are "Serving" another god though, then it's a no. So "Serving Jesus" is otherwise "Serving God".

Do you understand what "worship" even means and why people would "worship" in the first place?

 

[BornAgain]

The Highest of the Celestial Divine beings, the firstborn created Being

What part of the bible did you get this statement?

 

[BornAgain]

Just like they can worship David and Saul and other leaders, just like how Moses and Joshua worshiped the Angel that was sent to them.

Do you understand what "worship" even means and why people would "worship" in the first place?

Worshipping God is absolutely different when one is worshipping individuals like, David, Saul and perhaps Moses, or Abraham. Michael Jordan, during his heydays was praised and worshipped not because he was divine, but of his worthiness as a basketball player.

The English word means “worthship” and denotes the worthiness of the individual receiving the special honor due to his worth. Individual worthiness can not be compared to God’s worthiness.

While the word is used of men, it is especially used of the divine honors paid to a deity, whether of the heathen religions or the true and living God.

When given to God, worship involves an acknowledgment of divine perfections. Worship presupposes that God is, that he can be known by man, and that his perfections set him far above man.

Worshipping the angel of the Lord also can not be compared to worshipping God, and also to individuals like David and Saul. Angels were just messengers of God. For example,

Lk 1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
Lk 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings.

In the OT we often find the phrase “the angel of the Lord.” In almost every case, this messenger is regarded as deity and yet is DISTINGUISHED from God (Gen 16:7-14; 22:11-18; 31:11, 13; Exod 3:2-5; Num 22:22-35; Judg 6:11-23; 13:2-25; 1 Kings 19:5-7; 1 Chron 21:15-17).

These references show that the Angel is the Lord himself adopting a visible form (and therefore a human appearance) for the sake of speaking with people (e.g., Judg 13:6, 10, 21).

He is also the executant of divine wrath (e.g., 2 Sam 24:16; 2 Kings 19:35). In all these ways, as we can see from the NT perspective, the Angel is part of the OT preparation for the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, when you compared worshipping man and worshipping God or even worshipping the angels of the Lord, you are like comparing a hurricane and a beautiful sunny day in Florida.

 

[BornAgain]

"Serving Jesus" is otherwise "Serving God".

Can you clarify this statement?

 

[Shermana]

Worshipping God is absolutely different when one is worshipping individuals like, David, Saul and perhaps Moses, or Abraham. Michael Jordan, during his heydays was praised and worshipped not because he was divine, but of his worthiness as a basketball player.

The English word means “worthship” and denotes the worthiness of the individual receiving the special honor due to his worth. Individual worthiness can not be compared to God’s worthiness.

While the word is used of men, it is especially used of the divine honors paid to a deity, whether of the heathen religions or the true and living God.

When given to God, worship involves an acknowledgment of divine perfections. Worship presupposes that God is, that he can be known by man, and that his perfections set him far above man.

Worshipping the angel of the Lord also can not be compared to worshipping God, and also to individuals like David and Saul. Angels were just messengers of God. For example,

Lk 1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
Lk 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings.

In the OT we often find the phrase “the angel of the Lord.” In almost every case, this messenger is regarded as deity and yet is DISTINGUISHED from God (Gen 16:7-14; 22:11-18; 31:11, 13; Exod 3:2-5; Num 22:22-35; Judg 6:11-23; 13:2-25; 1 Kings 19:5-7; 1 Chron 21:15-17).

These references show that the Angel is the Lord himself adopting a visible form (and therefore a human appearance) for the sake of speaking with people (e.g., Judg 13:6, 10, 21).

He is also the executant of divine wrath (e.g., 2 Sam 24:16; 2 Kings 19:35). In all these ways, as we can see from the NT perspective, the Angel is part of the OT preparation for the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, when you compared worshipping man and worshipping God or even worshipping the angels of the Lord, you are like comparing a hurricane and a beautiful sunny day in Florida.

The original English meaning of worship is not the question here necessarily, even though it implies "worthy of being kneeled/bowed to",

the term itself in Hebrew, Shakaw, only ever connotates a direct physical bowing. It does not entail anything other than the physical action of prostrating or kneeling oneself to a Superior.

Your explanation that worshiping a messenger of God is not quite the same level as worshiping God is exactly what I'm saying. Worshiping Jesus is thus like Worshiping an Angel, and not like Worshiping God, whom Jesus Himself worshiped.

acknowledgment of divine perfections

That is a philosophical add on, it has nothing to do with the overall meaning of directly bowing except an extension of the idea.

this messenger is regarded as deity and yet is DISTINGUISHED from God

Ah, so you agree and understand that angels are in fact called "gods" or "deities".

There is no difference between worshiping man, angels, and God except acknowledgement of who you are worshiping. If you worship a Fallen angel or evil god who is not a direct servant of God's will, then you are not worshiping God, but if you worship a direct link in the chain, you are thus acknowledging God as your superior. It's like saluting.

All "worship" means is "To bow down to", anything else from there is extrapolation.

 

[Muffled]

This is most likely the correct rendering of what it means there:

1. "He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, aJrpagmo" ] equality with God"[1] - NEB.

2. "He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God" - TEV (and GNB).

Php 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, ASV

This makes sense to me. Already being God meant that He didn't have to struggle to be equal with God because He already was. Paul does word things badly sometimes but the meaning is there for people with reasoning ability.

 

[Muffled]

That is correct. The Highest of the Celestial Divine beings, the firstborn created Being, who was the instrument of which all other creation was made through. Wisdom incarnated, the Logos of Philo in the flesh.

I believe this is not the case. God is His word. The word is not a creation. The word ie God performs the creation.

Let me provide an example. I am a person with a brain. My brain has thoughts. The thoughts are not a separate created entity. My thoughts come from my brain and are part and parcel of my brain. Granted my thoughts can be reproduced on paper but the paper does not become my brain and the words written there are only a reflection of what my thoughts are.

So when jesus is the Word of God He is not a reflection of God but the very intelligence of God which means that He is God.

 

[Muffled]

What part of the bible did you get this statement?

The second part appears to be a misinterpretation of this verse: Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

 

[BornAgain]

Your explanation that worshiping a messenger of God is not quite the same level as worshiping God is exactly what I'm saying.

FOR THE RECORD, OR SOMETHING TO REMEMBER MENTALLY FOR FUTURE REFERENCES: I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. No offense on caps.

Worshiping Jesus is thus like Worshiping an Angel, and not like Worshiping God, whom Jesus Himself worshiped.

According to the bible, in the O.T., and even in the N.T. angels were just messengers of God and not God Himself. So, if Christ is just an angel or a creation of God, -this is according to you- then, He is just a messenger of God, and that is His worthiness or value in worshipping Him, just a messenger.

Christ, as an angel -according to you-, His worthiness as a messenger of God cannot be equaled with the worthiness of God Himself.

In other words you can not give the same kind of worship/worthiness to Christ as you give to God.

The angel of the Lord, -in the O.T. and N.T.- were worshipped, by human of course, only when they are present, or were bringing messages from God to human, and nowhere in the bible did it say, that angels were to be worship on a daily basis like God.

There is no difference between worshiping man, angels, and God except acknowledgement of who you are worshiping.

So, if I worship an angel or a human, -as long as I worship God- there is no difference between God‘s, angels‘, and human‘s worthiness. In other words worthiness has really nothing to do between God‘s, angels‘, and human’s worthiness as long as one acknowledge God.

If you worship a Fallen angel or evil god who is not a direct servant of God's will, then you are not worshiping God,

but if you worship a direct link in the chain, you are thus acknowledging God as your superior. It's like saluting.

This is not biblical, this is pure polytheism. Did you really think I went for it? That the Lord Jesus Christ is really an angel?

“but if you worship a direct link in the chain, you are thus acknowledging God as your superior.”

Not even in the Old Testament did it say something like this. This is your concocted theory about angels. You know Paul warned the Colossians about worshipping angels?

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind

Col 2:18 NLT VERSION Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on self-denial. And don’t let anyone say you must worship angels, even though they say they have had visions about this. These people claim to be so humble, but their sinful minds have made them proud.

Paul against worshipping of angels? According to your own angel's theory, if Christ is really an angel, then Paul just contradicted, in this chapter alone, his own writings about Christ.
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

What is this sound to you? Essenism? Worshiping of angels? Or perhaps Gnosticism or in contemporary Judaism with a syncretistic addition of local Phrygian ideas. Paul met these errors, not by controversy or personal authority, but by presenting the counter truth that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God,

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Well, at least you acknowledge Christ existed in the bible, but the only thing is, you cannot see Christ as God, so you made stories about worshiping angels, and worshipping “direct link in the chain” -I must say that is so original “direct link in the chain” WOW!-and invented this theory about Him as a special angel of God. Wow! That is truly fascinating.

According to your angel’s theory, angels were created in the 2nd to 5th day of creation in Genesis. Undocumented of course since it is what it is a theory.

Next time please give some quotation from the bible to make YOU more believable, but now I’m not buying what you are selling.

How can you say Christ is not God when it says clearly in the bible that He is truly God?

On the other hand, you are saying that He is an angel of God, but cannot find that assumption in the bible.

Which one is the Truth? Documented or Undocumented?

>(~));> >(~));> >(~));> >(~));> >(~));> >(~));> >(~));>

 

[BornAgain]

The second part appears to be a misinterpretation of this verse: Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

I knew that. I just want him to say that word "firstborn" as in the first creation of God.

This is the first verse the J Witness would say when you tell them that Christ is truly God.

It's like crumbs between their lips, they can not deny that they ate the cookies.

Catch them by their own words

 

[BornAgain]

I believe this is not the case. God is His word. The word is not a creation. The word ie God performs the creation.

Let me provide an example. I am a person with a brain. My brain has thoughts. The thoughts are not a separate created entity. My thoughts come from my brain and are part and parcel of my brain. Granted my thoughts can be reproduced on paper but the paper does not become my brain and the words written there are only a reflection of what my thoughts are.

So when jesus is the Word of God He is not a reflection of God but the very intelligence of God which means that He is God.

WOW! You cannot say it any better than this. May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob truly bless you with more knowledge about the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Shermana]

According to the bible, in the O.T., and even in the N.T. angels were just messengers of God and not God Himself. So, if Christ is just an angel or a creation of God, -this is according to you- then, He is just a messenger of God, and that is His worthiness or value in worshipping Him, just a messenger.

That's right. But a highly ranked one.

Christ, as an angel -according to you-, His worthiness as a messenger of God cannot be equaled with the worthiness of God Himself.

Correct.

In other words you can not give the same kind of worship/worthiness to Christ as you give to God.

The "worship" is of the same kind. Physical bowing. It's the amount of "worth-ship" that one ascribes which is different.

The angel of the Lord, -in the O.T. and N.T.- were worshipped, by human of course, only when they are present, or were bringing messages from God to human, and nowhere in the bible did it say, that angels were to be worship on a daily basis like God.

That makes no difference in the concept. Nowhere does it say Jesus was worshiped anywhere except a few key instances.

So, if I worship an angel or a human, -as long as I worship God- there is no difference between God‘s, angels‘, and human‘s worthiness. In other words worthiness has really nothing to do between God‘s, angels‘, and human’s worthiness as long as one acknowledge God.

No you are now deviating from what I said and meant. There is no difference in the actual act of bowing. The ascribing of worth is what is different as long as the angel is in the Divine chain of command.

This is not biblical, this is pure polytheism. Did you really think I went for it? That the Lord Jesus Christ is really an angel?

The Bible IS "Polytheistic" but it's more "Henotheistic". The reactionary focus to make it "Monotheistic" is artificial. You simply are reverting back to not understanding what "gods" means and how it means angels. You are simply in denial that Angels are in fact called gods/elohim. That would make it "Polytheistic" no matter how you slice it, but the difference is that in TRUE Polytheism as opposed to Henotheistic "Polytheism" which the Bible is.

The word "Polytheism" is a bit of a murky misnomer. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Or what a lot of people means.

So Yes, the Lord Jesus Christ is really an angel.

“but if you worship a direct link in the chain, you are thus acknowledging God as your superior.”

Not even in the Old Testament did it say something like this. This is your concocted theory about angels. You know Paul warned the Colossians about worshipping angels?

It most definitely implies it or the Angel of the LORD and King David would not be worshiped. Paul warned about worshiping rebellious Angels who he also told women in Corinthians that they had to be wary of as well.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind

You simply have a wrong translation there, it is about people who "Delight" in worshiping Angels. If you're "delighted" to worship Angels, you're probably worshiping rebellious ones (demons) and thus going out of your way to do it. Worshiping an Angel is not something you should be "delighted" to do, and the "Angels" in question are most likely in reference to such fallen ones that he also mentions in Corinthians.

Young's Literal Translation
let no one beguile you of your prize, delighting in humble-mindedness and in worship of the messengers, intruding into the things he hath not seen, being vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh,

Paul against worshipping of angels? According to your own angel's theory, if Christ is really an angel, then Paul just contradicted, in this chapter alone, his own writings about Christ.
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

He didn't contradict, again, you simply are not getting the right translation or context. It is clearly about the worship of gods not in the divine chain of command.

What is this sound to you? Essenism? Worshiping of angels? Or perhaps Gnosticism or in contemporary Judaism with a syncretistic addition of local Phrygian ideas. Paul met these errors, not by controversy or personal authority, but by presenting the counter truth that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God,

The type of "Gnosticism" in question probably did not exist at the time by the way. Jesus Christ as the "image" of the Invisible god simply means He is the representative, not the exact manifestation.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The word "Firstborn of every creature" does NOT mean "Pre-eminent" necessarily, and even if it did, it still implies he's "Pre-eminent" AMONG the creatures, and not just over them. He would still be a Creature whether he's the First Created or the Pre-eminent, no matter how Trinitarians try to wiggle around that "Firstborn" word. Besides, Prototekos does not necessarily correlate directly to the same word "Firstborn" in Hebrew and may in fact only be literal since it's only ever used literally in the NT.

Well, at least you acknowledge Christ existed in the bible, but the only thing is, you cannot see Christ as God,

I do not see what is not real.

so you made stories about worshiping angels, and worshipping “direct link in the chain” -

These stories are not my invention.

I must say that is so original “direct link in the chain” WOW!

Again, it's not that original. You even acknowledged that the Israelites worshiped the angels earlier. Abraham even worshiped the Angels in Genesis 18.

-and invented this theory about Him as a special angel of God. Wow! That is truly fascinating.

I appreciate you giving me credit for "inventing" this "original" theory but this is just a standard understanding.

According to your angel’s theory, angels were created in the 2nd to 5th day of creation in Genesis. Undocumented of course since it is what it is a theory.

According to your theory, the Angels always existed? This is the standard Jewish Midrashic understanding by the way. There's lots of things undocumented in the Torah, you're in the misunderstanding that if it's not in the Bible it didn't happen. Good luck where that takes you.

Next time please give some quotation from the bible to make YOU more believable, but now I’m not buying what you are selling.

Again, you're under the delusion that if it didn't happen in the Bible, it isn't true, and you probably don't give any credence to the Jewish Midrash or the extracanonical writings, which if that's the case, you're simply on a different, and irrational level of Biblical interpretation.

How can you say Christ is not God when it says clearly in the bible that He is truly God?

Because you're interpreting it wrong and using Trinitarian translations that deliberately distort and twist the grammar?

On the other hand, you are saying that He is an angel of God, but cannot find that assumption in the bible.

It's clearly implied by the use of the word "A god" and that Angels are called "gods" and that Angels are worshiped, things you seem to have acknowledged but yet attempt to find ways of wiggling out.

Which one is the Truth? Documented or Undocumented?

What's "Documented" according to your particular interpretation is not necessarily Truth. Jewish Midrash carries a lot of authority, not everything in the text is all that's true, there's some truth in the extracanonical writings like Enoch, and you have to read carefully and account for all these things and not just go by a "If it's not in the Bible it's not there" approach.

 

[BornAgain]

Again, you're under the delusion that if it didn't happen in the Bible, it isn't true, and you probably don't give any credence to the Jewish Midrash or the extracanonical writings, which if that's the case, you're simply on a different, and irrational level of Biblical interpretation.

May I remind you that the title of this debate is “Did Jesus say he was God???”

Where do we find the answers for this? Inside the bible or outside the bible?

Delusion is something you believe that is not real or does not exist. Tell me who is delusional here.

You just said the truth, “if it didn't happen in the Bible, it isn't true,”

But if it did happened or written in the bible, then it must be true.

You should be very careful about your wordings. It can go against you because your religion does not have a deep foundation about the truth of the bible.

You just pick up thing on the go and just blurt it out in the open without giving it a thought.

 

[Shermana]

May I remind you that the title of this debate is “Did Jesus say he was God???”

May I remind YOU?

Where do we find the answers for this? Inside the bible or outside the bible?

Inside. And nowhere does the Bible say Jesus is God.

Delusion is something you believe that is not real or does not exist. Tell me who is delusional here.

The one who believes Jesus said he was God. And if you're going to bring up John 8:58, I've covered that in many tens of pages on this thread alone.

You just said the truth, “if it didn't happen in the Bible, it isn't true,”

Quoting me out of context doesn't help your equally erroneous interpretation that if it's not in the Bible it isn't true.

But if it did happened or written in the bible, then it must be true.

And Jesus didn't say he was God in there.

You should be very careful about your wordings. It can go against you because your religion does not have a deep foundation about the truth of the bible.

My religion indeed has a very deep foundation of the truth of the Bible. Yours is based on distortions and historically entrenched lies. I do have to be careful about my wordings though, because people can misconstrue what I say just like they misconstrue what the Bible says.

You just pick up thing on the go and just blurt it out in the open without giving it a thought.[

Is that supposed to be some kind of rebuttal? Oh the irony.

 

[icebuddy]

God can do anything He wants. However that does not mean He is those 3 angels themselves, they may have simply accompanied Him.

Understand that those are your thoughts being inserted here just as you may believe others like myself do the same. I personally see God Almighty as the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. However, I have seen you have been here for a long long time and your love for God is not unseen. I have taken some time away from these board because of many reasons, but your zeal for God is great.

The point is that He most likely was not. Since he sent messengers to check out Sodom and not Himself, it specifically says that.

A point I would like to make is this: If angels and/or messangers of God can and are looked upon as God himself, how much more can we look to Jesus as God himself? Not to mention how Jesus on earth tells us to Follow Him, His commandments, His people, ext... (Not to mention he Created and always existed with the Father and was brought forth at the proper time)

As for Genesis 19:24, that could either be a grammar issue like saying "He sent it down from Himself" or it may relate to the concept of the Targumic Memra, or it may be a transmission error.

Fair enough, but i like to see that the 3rd person was in heaven pulling the lever...

Jews Response

The Jews also didnt believe in Jesus

Anyways, May love follow us while we post...

In Love,
Tom

 

[icebuddy]

No where in the bible does Jesus explicitly say that he's god

Neither Does Jesus say he is an Angel, Micheal, archangel, Savior, King, or many other things. What are your thoughts on that? Do you believe Jesus is your King and Savior?

In Love,
Tom