Did Jesus say he was God???

[BornAgain]

I think you assume literal law is what I am talking about. I am not talking about circumcision, or eating unclean food. That is not the law which even the man who asked the question was talking about.

But

That seems to be your view and it seems to serve you well.

Lk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

Where do you read this “written in the law” the Lord Jesus Christ asked the scribe?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Lk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

Where do you read this “written in the law” the Lord Jesus Christ asked the scribe?

That's what I would have to ask you, is it the law of Moses or is it another law.

 

[BornAgain]

That's what I would have to ask you, is it the law of Moses or is it another law.

The Lord Jesus Christ was talking about the Ten Commandment. The first four commandments are meant for God and the rest to thy neighbour or fellow human.

Mt 22:37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
Mt 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Mt 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Lord Jesus Christ was talking about the Ten Commandment. The first four commandments are meant for God and the rest to thy neighbour or fellow human.

Mt 22:37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
Mt 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Mt 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So the law is love.

 

[BornAgain]

So the law is love.

IN this parable, we are talking about the Law of Moses to begin with, which the scribe, the priest, and the Levite came short of fulfilling it because they can not LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR.

Your analysis OR theory of “LOVE” does not follow the parable itself because you have another agenda that you want to express. You think that if you express your “LOVE OBJECTIVELY“ to anyone and vice versa, automatically God will be in you. This parable if you read it correctly does not interpret your INTERPRETATION of “LOVE”.

You ignore the non-religious Samaritan compare to the religious priest and Levite, either one came short of the glory of God to "INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE", because no one can fulfill the Law of Moses completely.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

IN this parable, we are talking about the Law of Moses to begin with, which the scribe, the priest, and the Levite came short of fulfilling it because they can not LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR.

Your analysis OR theory of “LOVE” does not follow the parable itself because you have another agenda that you want to express. You think that if you express your “LOVE OBJECTIVELY“ to anyone and vice versa, automatically God will be in you. This parable if you read it correctly does not interpret your INTERPRETATION of “LOVE”.

You ignore the non-religious Samaritan compare to the religious priest and Levite, either one came short of the glory of God to "INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE", because no one can fulfill the Law of Moses completely.

It is you who have not read the parable correctly. As again who is the neighbor the Samaritan or the man who was attacked? What is the law? It is love. He who loves me will follow my commandments. The commandment is the law the law is love. Paul says in corithians that between faith, hope and love that love is the most powerful.

 

[1robin]

Even with that said, as I said to Bornagain, Paul's message must either be referring to the "worship" of Fallen Angels, or he is at complete odds with Abraham, Moses, and Joshua, who all did in fact "Worship" Angels.

Can you give me a few of the verses that record them doing this? I am sure you are more familiar with the OT than I am and can do so quicker.

 

[1robin]

If you want to take it like that sure go ahead.

Though I would ask what was the reason Jesus told that parable and its clear its not about one person.

What is clear is that nothing in that parable is detailed enough to provide the standard for salvation. It is too ambiguous for that purpose. If more than one act then how many? If more than one person then how many? What kind of acts? How are they balanced against sin? Every single type of works based salvation model dies the death of a thousand qualifications. It is a logical absurdity.

 

[Shermana]

Can you give me a few of the verses that record them doing this? I am sure you are more familiar with the OT than I am and can do so quicker.

Genesis 18:2. Some translations say "bowed down" in an attempt to escape from the implications of "Shawkah".

Now again, I ask again, you do know what "worship" means, right?

 

[1robin]

Genesis 18:2. Some translations say "bowed down" in an attempt to escape from the implications of "Shawkah".

Now again, I ask again, you do know what "worship" means, right?

Is this the sum total of what justifies your argument? I do not think the question of whether you or I agree on what "worship" means is the foundation for resolution. The fact that every single translation gives "worship" as the proper interpretation for the verses I gave is as solid a standard as necessary. The most common interpretation of the verse you gave is that the Lord is one of the three beings in that verse however one thing is clear. Worship used in that verse is far less profound than in the verse I gave. In fact most interpretations say only that he bowed.

Verse 2. - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him. Not in addition to (Kalisch), but including (Keil), Jehovah, whose appearance to the patriarch, having in the previous verse been first generally stated, is now minutely described. That these three men were not manifestations of the three persons of the Godhead (Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Cyril), but Jehovah accompanied by two created angels (Keil, et alii, may be inferred from Genesis 19:1.

 

[Shermana]

Is this the sum total of what justifies your argument? I do not think the question of whether you or I agree on what "worship" means is the foundation for resolution. The fact that every single translation gives "worship" as the proper interpretation for the verses I gave is as solid a standard as necessary. The most common interpretation of the verse you gave is that the Lord is one of the three beings in that verse however one thing is clear. Worship used in that verse is far less profound than in the verse I gave. In fact most interpretations say only that he bowed.

Verse 2. - And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him. Not in addition to (Kalisch), but including (Keil), Jehovah, whose appearance to the patriarch, having in the previous verse been first generally stated, is now minutely described. That these three men were not manifestations of the three persons of the Godhead (Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Cyril), but Jehovah accompanied by two created angels (Keil, et alii, may be inferred from Genesis 19:1.

"Far less profound". Well there we have it. We can now interpret "worship" to be "Far less profound". So therefore, the worship given to Jesus is "Far less profound" than the worship given to God. Case closed. (Unless you can somehow prove objectively how the worship given to Jesus is not "less profound", good luck with that)

And no, the three angels were not manifestations of the three persons of the godhead no matter how you slice it, that's some extreme Trinitarian forcing into the Old Testament. And it wasn't even God accompanying two angels. It was Three Angels accompanying God if anything, and even if it was, the other angels are still worshiped. I do understand that it's a "common interpretation" but it's an example of how Trinitarians have tried to force the text to fit their doctrine historically. The Church Fathers certainly didn't buy it as you showed, it's a very recent invention, probably meant to get around problems like this one.

 

[1robin]

"Far less profound". Well there we have it. We can now interpret "worship" to be "Far less profound". So therefore, the worship given to Jesus is "Far less profound" than the worship given to God. Case closed. (Unless you can somehow prove objectively how the worship given to Jesus is not "less profound", good luck with that)

Why are you so torn up? Less profound is a subjective comparison and not a definition nor was it an attempt at one. Not to mention I think you missed the entire point any way. I know you are looking for a semantic argument concerning whatever definition of worship you have adopted. The example you gave meant simply bowing down. In no way (even if worship is a proper translation for the verse) is that a very reverent application of the word. I have known very well your intention was to somehow use semantics to attempt to claim that the worship given to Christ was less substantial than given to God. To avoid this semantic drain pipe I was pointing out that any worship that can be translated as simply bowing down is about the lest "profound" definition possible and therefore whatever was given to Christ by default was just as or more substantial. That is why I asked I that was the only verse used for your position.

And no, the three angels were not manifestations of the three persons of the godhead no matter how you slice it, that's some extreme Trinitarian forcing into the Old Testament. And it wasn't even God accompanying two angels. It was Three Angels accompanying God if anything, and even if it was, the other angels are still worshiped. I do understand that it's a "common interpretation" but it's an example of how Trinitarians have tried to force the text to fit their doctrine historically. The Church Fathers certainly didn't buy it as you showed, it's a very recent invention, probably meant to get around problems like this one.

I did not give a Trinitarian interpretation of the three men. Nor did the scholar I provided. He said that the best interpretation is that one of them was the "spirit of the Lord" which in almost all forms applies to Christ. He and I believe I also said that the other two were created angels. Not the HS or God. The arguments used for claiming "the Lord" was one of the men was far far more substantial and scholarly than you indicate and while not proven is well justified and I can provide many others from very respected scholars. They were not shoving doctrine into places it will not fit. I would have thought the simple claim you do not agree far more credible than it's all conspiratorial trinitarianism.

 

[Shermana]

Why are you so torn up? Less profound is a subjective comparison and not a definition nor was it an attempt at one. Not to mention I think you missed the entire point any way. I know you are looking for a semantic argument concerning whatever definition of worship you have adopted. The example you gave meant simply bowing down. In no way (even if worship is a proper translation for the verse) is that a very reverent application of the word. I have known very well your intention was to somehow use semantics to attempt to claim that the worship given to Christ was less substantial than given to God. To avoid this semantic drain pipe I was pointing out that any worship that can be translated as simply bowing down is about the lest "profound" definition possible and therefore whatever was given to Christ by default was just as or more substantial. That is why I asked I that was the only verse used for your position.

So basically you're just quibbling about the "profoundness", but when asked to explain how the "profoundness" of Jesus being worshiped is somehow different, or on the same level as being with God, you quibble more about how it's a "Semantic" issue. By all means, please show how the worship given to Christ was more "Substantial" or kindly refrain from pushing this nonsense.

I got news for you, Semantics are everything when it comes to pushing phony doctrines like the Trinity and that Jesus was god.

Care to try again and actually substantiate your point this time or is it more quibbling?

I did not give a Trinitarian interpretation of the three men. Nor did the scholar I provided. He said that the best interpretation is that one of them was the "spirit of the Lord" which in almost all forms applies to Christ. He and I believe I also said that the other two were created angels. Not the HS or God. The arguments used for claiming "the Lord" was one of the men was far far more substantial and scholarly than you indicate and while not proven is well justified and I can provide many others from very respected scholars. They were not shoving doctrine into places it will not fit. I would have thought the simple claim you do not agree far more credible than it's all conspiratorial trinitarianism.

Trinitarianism is 100% conspirational and I'll be happy to explain how.

PS When it comes to "Scholars" who promote the Trinity, there are non-Trinitarian scholars who don't consider them all that "Scholarly" but more or less simple defenders of doctrine. I wouldn't push appeal to authority especially when there are far more scholarly secular scholars who think they're fully of malarkey. The fact is, there's absolutely nothing in the text indicating that it's THE god visiting with two other angels, it says three angels. End of story.

 

[Shermana]

In other words, you can't just brush off a person's objection as "Semantics" and act as if their counter-argument doesn't somehow make a serious claim against your unsubstantiated claim about how there's different degrees of application. If anyone is making a deal about Semantics, it's your case, in that you are trying to make a different meaning of the same word without any sort of actual concrete contextual analysis beyond a totally subjective, relative interpretation, especially so when there are "Substantial" scholars on the other side of the argument who agree with what I'm saying.

 

[Repox]

Isn't it interesting that none of the gospel writers or Paul were eyewitnesses to Jesus? Also, the gospel writers were Creeks, not Jews, and they wrote 35 to 70 years after the death of Jesus, and they wrote in Creek, not Hebrew or Arabic. It is also interesting that none of them visited the area of his ministry. Apparently, they were opportunist attempting to start a new religion. Today, they would be talented script writers for Hollywood blockbusters.

They were not honest men. They proposed to have special knowledge when in fact they only had rumors, gossip, and some stories embellished by others over several decades. Kind of like the exaggerated stories Jewish writers wrote about their heroes (See The Bible Unearthed). In short, truth may not sell, but a well spun story has legs.

 

[1robin]

Isn't it interesting that none of the gospel writers or Paul were eyewitnesses to Jesus? Also, the gospel writers were Creeks, not Jews, and they wrote 35 to 70 years after the death of Jesus, and they wrote in Creek, not Hebrew or Arabic. It is also interesting that none of them visited the area of his ministry. Apparently, they were opportunist attempting to start a new religion. Today, they would be talented script writers for Hollywood blockbusters.

They were not honest men. They proposed to have special knowledge when in fact they only had rumors, gossip, and some stories embellished by others over several decades. Kind of like the exaggerated stories Jewish writers wrote about their heroes (See The Bible Unearthed). In short, truth may not sell, but a well spun story has legs.

Where did you get this stuff? Some of the Gospel writers were definitely eyewitnesses and others are careful to state they are from interviews with eyewitnesses. Creeks are Indians and not Semitic or Greek. Some of the Gospels writers were as Jewish as Jews get but even if they were Aztecs they had access to what they claimed so what difference does it make. The area was Hellenized at the time and so Greek (not Creek) was the obvious language to be used. Most of what you claim here is wrong nor would make any difference even if true but I have replied enough.

 

[1robin]

So basically you're just quibbling about the "profoundness", but when asked to explain how the "profoundness" of Jesus being worshiped is somehow different, or on the same level as being with God, you quibble more about how it's a "Semantic" issue. By all means, please show how the worship given to Christ was more "Substantial" or kindly refrain from pushing this nonsense.

No, I am trying to avoid a semantic discussion at anytime by pointing out unless you have additional verses the context and definitions would be on my side. I pointed out that Bowing down is about the most inert form of worship possible so that no matter how you define what was done concerning Christ there is no possibility it was less reverent and avoid the whole mire you wish to bog the discussion within.

I got news for you, Semantics are everything when it comes to pushing phony doctrines like the Trinity and that Jesus was god.

I do not make too many argument in that context.

Care to try again and actually substantiate your point this time or is it more quibbling?

The quibbling over whatever definition of worship you have adopted to support your position is what I am trying to avoid. It is not firm definitions that I am trying to avoid it is ones adopted for convenience.

Trinitarianism is 100% conspirational and I'll be happy to explain how.

I am sure you would but that was not the point. The scholarly reasons the commentators gave for their interpretation was not conspiratorial even if there is a Trinitarian conspiracy nor could you know they were even if they were.

PS When it comes to "Scholars" who promote the Trinity, there are non-Trinitarian scholars who don't consider them all that "Scholarly" but more or less simple defenders of doctrine. I wouldn't push appeal to authority especially when there are far more scholarly secular scholars who think they're fully of malarkey. The fact is, there's absolutely nothing in the text indicating that it's THE god visiting with two other angels, it says three angels. End of story.

Since me and you will never agree by opinion and have different interpretations then scholasticism is the only avenue left. Why don't you go ahead and explain the difference in worship between that given to Christ and whatever other verses you wish to use to contend it as it is taking more time to avoid the swamp with someone who wishes to be there than just wading through.

 

[Shermana]

Worship means only to bow down, end of story, you can ask the Jews at Judaism DIR if you don't believe me, you can use Strong's, you can use any Lexicon. It is not the definition I "have adopted". If anyone has adopted a different definition, it is Trinitarians. There is absolutely no reason to believe the word Shakaw and Proskuneo change their definition no matter what the context. Perhaps I should make a whole thread on this subject.

You have not in any way whatsoever demonstrated that bowing down to Christ was "more reverent" than Abraham bowing to Angels or even King David bowing to King Saul. You merely asserted that it was so.

I'll throw you a bone here however, I do believe there is something to this "more reverent" ness when bowing to God. However, there is absolutely no way whatsoever you will be able to prove that bowing to Jesus is on this level of reverence. "Good luck trying" as I said.

If your argument is that I'm getting into Semantics because I said Worship means only to physically bow down, you have no argument. I hope I understand what you're saying correctly there. The scholarly reasons you claim the scholars gave have no basis. None. They are purely, 100% an attempt to defend the doctrine, imposing it on the Jewish scripture. They have NO reason to justify it from a purely Jewish context.

Now you are asking me to explain the differences in worship between Christ and the Angels? I asked YOU to explain the difference. You first.

 

[Repox]

Where did you get this stuff? Some of the Gospel writers were definitely eyewitnesses and others are careful to state they are from interviews with eyewitnesses. Creeks are Indians and not Semitic or Greek. Some of the Gospels writers were as Jewish as Jews get but even if they were Aztecs they had access to what they claimed so what difference does it make. The area was Hellenized at the time and so Greek (not Creek) was the obvious language to be used. Most of what you claim here is wrong nor would make any difference even if true but I have replied enough.

Which gospel writers were eyewitnesses? In fact, none were! I refer you to the works of Bart D. Ehrman, a biblical scholar. There is no historical evidence that any of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to Jesus or his ministry. Sorry, sad but true. For almost two thousand years Christians have accepted their stories as truthful. Kind of like fairy tales, you can't put it down because it is so, oh so, fanciful.

 

[1robin]

Worship means only to bow down, end of story, you can ask the Jews at Judaism DIR if you don't believe me, you can use Strong's, you can use any Lexicon. It is not the definition I "have adopted". If anyone has adopted a different definition, it is Trinitarians. There is absolutely no reason to believe the word Shakaw and Proskuneo change their definition no matter what the context. Perhaps I should make a whole thread on this subject.

I must be missing something. The sum total Jewish understanding of the concept of worship is physically bending over. Is that correct?

You have not in any way whatsoever demonstrated that bowing down to Christ was "more reverent" than Abraham bowing to Angels or even King David bowing to King Saul. You merely asserted that it was so.

That was no the claim. I said that bowing down is the most minimalistic expression of worship I think possible and therefor no possibility that whatever did concerning Christ could be less significant. I am basically saying that no temperature can claim to be lower than -273K for another body as an allegory.

I'll throw you a bone here however, I do believe there is something to this "more reverent" ness when bowing to God. However, there is absolutely no way whatsoever you will be able to prove that bowing to Jesus is on this level of reverence. "Good luck trying" as I said.

As I have said the only burden my claims have is that what was done in Christ's case can not be demonstrated to be less significant than in God's. I am still sure you must have better and more versus for your position than that one you gave.

If your argument is that I'm getting into Semantics because I said Worship means only to physically bow down, you have no argument. I hope I understand what you're saying correctly there. The scholarly reasons you claim the scholars gave have no basis. None. They are purely, 100% an attempt to defend the doctrine, imposing it on the Jewish scripture. They have NO reason to justify it from a purely Jewish context.

Actually you came up with a very very more simplistic definition for worship than I thought. I do not claim to agree with it but my assumption you were going to produce and arbitrarily narrow definition appears to be wrong.

Now you are asking me to explain the differences in worship between Christ and the Angels? I asked YOU to explain the difference. You first.

You must first demonstrate that none of the three beings was the Lord. If one was then I have no need to explain beyond that point. I thought the opposite would result but it seems you have given yourself virtually every burden here.