Did Jesus say he was God???

[absols]

useless ..u cant mean but useless to b .. the end

 

[savagewind]

I'm sorry. I understand "useless". Yes, I am. I'm sorry.

 

[Shermana]

Irrational because I do not agree with your delusional angel’s theory. You run out of argument so you insert this non-sense like betting, as you did to me before, to divert the RF readers from your lack of knowledge on how to debate knowledgeably.

No, I don't think you understand what it means to "run out of argument", that's what YOU have done, which is why you have nothing left but to call my belief "Delusional", I don't even understand what you were trying to do with your midrash. It is you who does not know how to debate knowledgeably and simply insists that your view is right and then says you disproved me when you have not whatsoever. Now take my bet and shut up or keep your peace. Say Amen and we'll settle it that way since you are in fact being extremely irrational and not debating knowledgably. I don't understand why you call it nonsense. You made a big deal about me using the word "May" as if I'm wrong for not being 100% sure. Well it looks like you're the one who isn't sure since you refuse to make the bet. How does that sound? Take the bet if you're so sure about your belief. You obviously won't listen to fact and reason and think you somehow disproved me in your own "nonsense" view of logic. So take the bet and shut up and prove that you are so "certain". What do you got to lose? Why do you think I'm trying to "intimidate" you? I'm just saying put your money where your mouth is and stop the insults.

I proved you wrong about your non-sense theory with your midrash interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and 1:26.

You didn't prove me wrong whatsoever. This is what I'm talking about you being irrational. You think you somehow proved me wrong when you didn't whatsoever, I don't even understand why you brought in the Midrash exactly and how that whatsoever disproved me.

You think that your words are so divine that God will listen to you. You do not represent the Jewish Midrash exposition of Genesis at all. You represent nothing but you ego.

This is what I'm talking about. You don't even understand what the official Jewish Midrashic position is on this and act as if I'm the only person with this view and that it's just my ego talking. That's a nice attempt at insulting me and trying to circumvent the actual point, but no dice. Meanwhile, you believe that it's talking about the Trinity there which is not in the text whatsoever. You don't even have an answer as to when the Angels were created. You base your idea on the beginning being before Creation on your "understanding". No, it's YOUR ego that you are defending. You have not debunked or disproved me whatsoever.

Yeah sure!

Put your money where your mouth is and say Amen to my bet.

Scholars says this, scholars says that.

What else is new?

What happen you run out of argument that you kept in your shoe box.

Another perfect example of the total deficiency of your understanding of how debate and arguments work. Without scholars, we have no means of knowing anything about the logic or grammar or exegesis of the text. If you don't have any scholars that agree with your case, there's probably a reason for it in most cases. Only very rarely is there a case to be made where all or most scholars disagree.

 

[Muffled]

Ok. But can you show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus explicitly, outright says that he is God?[/quote]

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.

"God" is not one of the names Jehovah uses but "I am" is one of the names he uses.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus says "Let them be one as we are one" about the Disciples, thus John 10:30 is metaphorical about "oneness" relating to purpose and unity of intent.

I don't believe repeating an unproven statement does anything to help prove it.

 

[Muffled]

It means counselor, comforter or helper. I don't see how that's relevant to what I said though.

I believe those are paraphrases. I beleive it actually means joined to the believer.

One can also see Para at work in parachute where the person is joined to a chute.

 

[captainbryce]

Jesus NEVER says that he is God and there is ZERO scriptural evidence that he was. Sorry!

 

[Philomath]

Ok. But can you show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus explicitly, outright says that he is God?[/quote]

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.

"God" is not one of the names Jehovah uses but "I am" is one of the names he uses.

Jesus saying he existed before Abraham does not mean he was God. I'm still waiting for a quote from the bible where Jesus clearly says "I am God". The fact that people in this thread have had to do so much work to prove this point, makes it clear that he never said he was God.

 

[captainbryce]

The fact that people in this thread have had to do so much work to prove this point, makes it clear that he never said he was God.

Exactly! It's a "conjured" notion that Jesus is God. If that we ever meant to be a part of his teachings, he would have just said that!

 

[Shermana]

I don't believe repeating an unproven statement does anything to help prove it.

What's provable exactly? What's not proven here? He says "Let them be one AS we are one". How have you proven that "I and the Father are one" does NOT mean the same kind of "oneness" AS he wants the disciples to be as well?

 

[Shermana]

Jesus saying he existed before Abraham does not mean he was God. I'm still waiting for a quote from the bible where Jesus clearly says "I am God". The fact that people in this thread have had to do so much work to prove this point, makes it clear that he never said he was God.

Additionally, the name itself is more "I shall be" than "I am", and also, God uses the words "I am" as a name, not as a statement-within-a-name. He'd have to say "I am I am" to be identifying as the being holding that name. Stating "I am" does mean "I am the being known as I am". It's simply distorted grammar. But since when has proper grammar stood in the way of Trinitarians?

Otherwise you are correct, Jesus is merely stating he existed as a being before Abraham existed. Even Prominent Trinitarians have rendered it "I have been" and warned not to use that verse because it's more or less Modalism besides abusing the grammar. You'd think that would be easy to see, but when it comes to Trinitarian-land...

 

[BornAgain]

Jesus NEVER says that he is God and there is ZERO scriptural evidence that he was. Sorry!

Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Why would the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy?

Remember the keywords here are “blasphemy” and “makest thyself God” = STONING

Lev 24:16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

According to verse 33, Christ made a claim about His Deity from v30, and that was enough evidence for the Jews to accuse Christ of blaspheming God.

Did Christ deny it, that He is what the Jews claimed to be, that He is God? No!

Christ did not!

In fact Christ admitted it by saying that He is the Son of God V36, and that is the reason why He is God.

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Jn 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

VERSE 28 Christ said, “neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
VERSE 29 Christ said “no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.”

Can you see the difference between V28 and V29?

You can’t!

Because Christ’s hand and the Father’s hand are ONE, or “no man can pluck them out of Christ’s and the Father‘s hand” and that is the reason why Christ said, Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Christ claimed his equality, as far as verses 28 and 29 is concerned, with God. And that was enough evidence for blasphemy!

 

[gzusfrk]

Jesus NEVER says that he is God and there is ZERO scriptural evidence that he was. Sorry!

first john 5:20

 

[captainbryce]

first john 5:20

1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we live in fellowship with the true God because we live in fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life.

A) The "he' in the last sentence is referring to "the true God", not "his Son, Jesus Christ".

B) This is not Jesus speaking, it's John speaking. So even IF he was referring to Jesus in the last sentence (which he's not), my statement still stands. Jesus NEVER refers to himself as "God".

 

[captainbryce]

Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Why would the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy?

Remember the keywords here are “blasphemy” and “makest thyself God” = STONING

The Jews were LOOKING for a reason to kill him remember. They were trying to come up with false witnesses and lies about him that would give them an excuse to execute him. That doesn't mean that their accusations were true.

According to verse 33, Christ made a claim about His Deity from v30, and that was enough evidence for the Jews to accuse Christ of blaspheming God.

That's not what happened according to verse 33. What happened according to verse 33 is that the Jews ACCUSSED HIM of blasphemy! Jesus makes no such claims.

Did Christ deny it, that He is what the Jews claimed to be, that He is God? No!

Yes, he DID deny it. He corrected them by saying he was the SON of God. But they all knew "blasphemy" was a made up claim anyway and they intended to find any reason to kill him anyway.

In fact Christ admitted it by saying that He is the Son of God V36, and that is the reason why He is God.

Uh, no. That is a contradiction that defies logic. One cannot be the SON of God and God at the same time. Secondly, this is circular logic. The argument is whether or not Christ ever said he was God. The answer is HE DIDN'T. Christ never made the claim that he was God, only the Son. Only when you invent a reason why the two must be one in the same can you accuse him of blasphemy. But at the end of the day you are twisting his words to mean what you want them to mean. You are doing the same thing the Jews did (before Christ rebuked them). Falsely accusing him of saying something that he did not.

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Jn 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

VERSE 28 Christ said, “neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
VERSE 29 Christ said “no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.”

Can you see the difference between V28 and V29?

Yes. The difference is the part that you ignored. "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL." He never says HE is greater than all. He always makes the father Superior! God gives authority to Jesus (to judge all mankind), and that's why he gives eternal life. But that does not mean he is EQUAL to the father. He clearly says that he is NOT.

Christ claimed his equality, as far as verses 28 and 29 is concerned, with God. And that was enough evidence for blasphemy!

No he does not. He actually does the opposite and declares his father's superiority in verse 29. He also does it in John 14:28 and Matthew 24:36.

 

[BornAgain]

====================7-6-13===========

The Jews were LOOKING for a reason to kill him remember. They were trying to come up with false witnesses and lies about him that would give them an excuse to execute him. That doesn't mean that their accusations were true.

“That doesn't mean that their accusations were true.”

OK, so we should change the wordings in the bible to suit your theology.

Blasphemy, they were accusing Christ.

Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE IS SAYING, "BUT FOR BLASPHEMY" AND NOT “That doesn't mean that their accusations were true.”

That's not what happened according to verse 33. What happened according to verse 33 is that the Jews ACCUSSED HIM of blasphemy! Jesus makes no such claims.

“What happened according to verse 33 is that the Jews ACCUSSED HIM of blasphemy!”

BUT YOU WROTE:
“That doesn't mean that their accusations were true.”

NOW YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOUR STATEMENT.

Why did they accuse Christ of blasphemy?

VERSE 28 Christ said, “neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
VERSE 29 Christ said “no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.”

Can you see the difference between V28 and V29?

You can’t!

Because Christ’s hand and the Father’s hand are ONE, or “no man can pluck them out of Christ’s and the Father‘s hand” and that is the reason why Christ said, Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Blasphemy said the Jews.

Yes, he DID deny it. He corrected them by saying he was the SON of God.

Jn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

When Christ said, Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Did he say anything like “I am the Son of God?” NO! Christ did not say anything, all He said was, Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one. And that makes Him God because He is the Son of God.

But they all knew "blasphemy" was a made up claim anyway and they intended to find any reason to kill him anyway.

What are you saying? “But they all knew "blasphemy" was a made up claim anyway”

How did you know that? Support it with scriptures and I will believe you.

BUT YOU WROTE:
“What happened according to verse 33 is that the Jews ACCUSSED HIM of blasphemy!”

I AM REALLY CONFUSE HERE!

Uh, no. That is a contradiction that defies logic.
One cannot be the SON of God and God at the same time. Secondly, this is circular logic.
The argument is whether or not Christ ever said he was God. The answer is HE DIDN'T. Christ never made the claim that he was God, only the Son.

The train of thoughts here is, “I and the Father are One”, “blasphemy” “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” said the Jews, the Lord Jesus Christ answered, “because I said, I am the Son of God?”

There was no misunderstanding, or denying on the Lord Jesus Christ’s part when He said, “I and the Father are One”, and the Jews, “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” and “I am the Son of God” as God.

The Lord Jesus Christ’s argument on this is,

Joh10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

If, then, these terms can be applied to ordinary mortals or even angels, how could the Lord Jesus Christ be accused of blasphemy when He applied them to Himself, the One whom the Father set apart and sent into the world? The Lord Jesus Christ was not offering a false claim; He was merely asserting what He was by right.

From the human/flesh side of understanding -the Jews- “I and the Father are One” is considered as God and blasphemous, but from the spiritual side -the Lord Jesus Christ- “I and the Father are One” and “I am the Son of God?” is God and not blasphemous.

Only when you invent a reason why the two must be one in the same can you accuse him of blasphemy.

I am inventing.

YOU WROTE:
“But they all knew "blasphemy" was a made up claim anyway”

Now who is inventing here you or me?

 

[BornAgain]

The difference is the part that you ignored. "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL." He never says HE is greater than all. He always makes the father Superior! God gives authority to Jesus (to judge all mankind), and that's why he gives eternal life. But that does not mean he is EQUAL to the father. He clearly says that he is NOT.

No he does not. He actually does the opposite and declares his father's superiority in verse 29. He also does it in John 14:28 and Matthew 24:36.

FIGURE THESE VERSES OUT

"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL."

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

WHICH ONE DID I IGNORE AGAIN?

 

[captainbryce]

OK, so we should change the wordings in the bible to suit your theology.

No, changing the wording is what YOU need to do in order to claim that Jesus is God (which the bible doesn't actually say). My theology requires no such alterations. He says he was the Son of God and that's it! Just because the Jews accused him of blasphemy doesn't mean he was guilty of it.

Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE IS SAYING, "BUT FOR BLASPHEMY" AND NOT “That doesn't mean that their accusations were true.”

You're missing my point (and not following some basic logic here). YES, the bible says that the Jews accused him of blasphemy. WHAT'S YOUR POINT? That because the people conspiring to kill him made an accusation that they were telling the truth? That makes no sense!

“What happened according to verse 33 is that the Jews ACCUSSED HIM of blasphemy!”

BUT YOU WROTE:
“That doesn't mean that their accusations were true.”

NOW YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOUR STATEMENT.

I'm not contradicting anything, you're just not following this simply line of reasoning here. A false accusation is not the same thing as a factual charge! What part about that do you not understand?

Why did they accuse Christ of blasphemy?

The answer is OBVIOUS. They were trying to come up with an excuse to execute him.

When Christ said, Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Did he say anything like “I am the Son of God?” NO! Christ did not say anything, all He said was, Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one. And that makes Him God because He is the Son of God.

John 17:20-21
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

I guess under you're interpretation of John 17:20-21, that makes every Christian GOD then too! :yes:

What are you saying? “But they all knew "blasphemy" was a made up claim anyway”

How did you know that? Support it with scriptures and I will believe you.

Here you go!

Mark 14:1-2
1 It was now two days before Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The leading priests and the teachers of religious law were still looking for an opportunity to capture Jesus secretly and kill him. 2 “But not during the Passover celebration,” they agreed, “or the people may riot.”

Mark 14:55-59
55 Inside, the leading priests and the entire high council were trying to find evidence against Jesus, so they could put him to death. But they couldn’t find any. 56 Many false witnesses spoke against him, but they contradicted each other. 57 Finally, some men stood up and gave this false testimony: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, made without human hands.’” 59 But even then they didn’t get their stories straight!

I AM REALLY CONFUSE HERE!

No kidding! :sarcastic

There was no misunderstanding, or denying on the Lord Jesus Christ’s part when He said, “I and the Father are One”,

There doesn't have to be. He was speaking metaphorically (just like in John 17:20-21). It is a symbolic statement, not literal.

The Lord Jesus Christ’s argument on this is,

Joh10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

If, then, these terms can be applied to ordinary mortals or even angels, how could the Lord Jesus Christ be accused of blasphemy when He applied them to Himself, the One whom the Father set apart and sent into the world? The Lord Jesus Christ was not offering a false claim; He was merely asserting what He was by right.

From the human/flesh side of understanding -the Jews- “I and the Father are One” is considered as God and blasphemous, but from the spiritual side -the Lord Jesus Christ- “I and the Father are One” and “I am the Son of God?” is God and not blasphemous.

Okay, that is YOUR interpretation of Christ's argument. Mine is this

1) He NEVER says he is God
2) The Jews were lying and fabricating evidence to have him arrested

His point in John 10:34-36 is that if people who received God's message in the OT were called gods without being labeled blasphemous, then there is no call to make this accusation against someone who identifies as merely the Son of God. It's really that simple!

I am inventing

YOU WROTE:
“But they all knew "blasphemy" was a made up claim anyway”

Now who is inventing here you or me?

Yes, YOU are inventing. The trinity is an invented concept, one that Christ never taught. My claim of the lying and treachery of the Jews is backed up in all four gospels.

 

[BornAgain]

No, changing the wording is what YOU need to do in order to claim that Jesus is God (which the bible doesn't actually say). My theology requires no such alterations. He says he was the Son of God and that's it! Just because the Jews accused him of blasphemy doesn't mean he was guilty of it.

YOU ARE RIGHT Christ IN NOT GUILTY OF BLASPHEMY BECAUSE HE IS TRULY God.

Jn 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Jn 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
Jn 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Isa 6:5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

READ ISAIAH CHAPTER 6

John claims that Isaiah saw Jesus and spoke of him. In other words, he identified Jesus with the Lord.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The Christians believe God is All-knowing.
If Jesus was God, was He All-knowing?
If He was All-knowing, how you explain this verse:

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36