Did Jesus say he was God???

[Evolution_Not]

I can't read 700+ threads so pardon me.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
This is the accepted dogma of Catholic and mainstream Christianity. Entire books are devoted to supporting this belief. It's not explainable but when challenged for an understanding it will be refered to as a great mystery. If you were unaware of such a belief and read the bible would you come away with the same interpretation? Or would you come away confused upon hearing of such a pronouncement?
I am specifically talking about the declaration that Jesus is God, the Holy spirit is not the subject of this examination. Verse from scripture used as support would seem to have validity or at least have you scratching your head. But are they taken out of context? If taken on a poponderance of the evidence it supports the opposite belief that Jesus is a seperate created being. Further is this trinity god belief rooted in paganism when it strayed from its original purity? Christ said the wolves were creaping in already. First lets look at the logical evidence. We have the angels and man, all seperate beings. But God cannot create a seperate Son as well? God said he was sending his SON to be a sacrafice and if in reality his son is just a part of himself then we are the subject of a fraud. Who died on the cross? Can God die? As God as said that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit.
So God could put on a fleshy body and the fleshy body can die but not his spirit. If God could die a second death then all things would cease to exist. So even if it were true that God subjected himself to such torment we would still be subject to a fraud.
Consider the following
Lazarus: When Lazarus died, being a dear friend of Jesus, he wept for him. Who gives life but God so why would Jesus, if he were God, weep?
Jesus in the desert: Satan new he was the Son of God and tempted him with all the kingdoms of the earth. Do you think Satan could tempt God?
Jesus praying: Jesus prayed to his father on the Mount of Olives. If he were God then who was he praying to?
Jesus on the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 14:34)
Was he crying out to himself?
So know lets examine the evidence of the proponents for the belief that Jesus is God.
I and my Father are one (John 10:30) If I said I and my son were one you would either call me a nut case or understanding exactly what I am implying. A common phrase is "Like father, like son". He is only relating total agreement. Clearly this is intentionaly taken out of context to support the trinity. Look at the following verse; is this a growing trinity to infinity or the borg collective? Why not say we are also part of this trinity?
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe thou hast sent me. (John 17:21)
Did Jesus send himself?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God
(John 1:1) And the Word was made flesh, and dwealt among us...... (John 1:14)
Jesus is the flesh and brings his fathers word. God is working through him. Compare the following
verse. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwealleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14:10) Does God not work through men?
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape (John 5:37). If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him John 14:7). There is no contradiction here. The first verse is literal and the second verse is virtual in context. Jesus is not claiming to be God.
And Thomas answered and said unto him (Christ), My Lord and My God. (John 20:28)
In this so called proof text much is made of the fact that Jesus did not rebuke him for refering to him as God. Read again the above verse John 14:10, John 5:37
This trinity belief contributes nothing but confusion and derates the sacrafice of the Father and the suffering of the Son. It befuddles me why so many great scholars accept this. Maybe its a form of church politcal correctness. Perhaps its the church beaurocracy they have to answer to. I don't.I'm not interested in the traditions of men. I think I have made the point and have no need to write a book against such false teachings as the trinity.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Part 1:

Sure I can. What I throw out is commentary by the writers of these scriptures. As I have said to some one else here, it is clear that the writers nor the deciples were witnesses to the birth of Yeshua but you can certainly see that they wrote about the birth and the events surrounding the birth. This shows that the information they received was second, third hand etc. In their writing you can clearly see whan they give their commentary. This is evident when you begin to read the book of John as well as Luke who admits to Theopolis getting his information from those who were actually witnesses.

It goes against science even. Believing and using a portion of a text to disprove the rest of the text simply won't work.

Where does Paul quote scripture. At the time of Paul's preaching I don't believe at that point there was much wrtten down as to the life and times of Yeshua. I don't believe at any point in Paul's ministry he quotes anything Yeshua ever said. On the other hand the writes of the 4 books and acts show that they gathered their information from either being near Yeshua or getting information from those who were near Yeshua.

Paul himself never talked to or from what we see from the scriptures ever met Yeshua so all that is given from him is his opinion. His total claim of being an apostle is that he heard a voice on the road. This means nothing. He is the only one that heard the voice and really, how is that any different than those today claiming God spoke to them or Yeshua appeared to them in a dream? He was a self proclaimed apostle was responsible for making Yeshua into a god.

He was a God-proclaimed apostle whose authority was recognized by all of the disciples and the early church, not to mention this latter-day one.

I see...because Paul said he was God we must believe that Yeshua was God despite the lack of acknowledgment from Yeshua or his followers?

Jesus was a man on earth. He had no power of Himself, by His own admission. But that was when He was a man on earth.

The deciples as well as Paul were not christians. They didn't receive that title until later. This title was "given" to then. The deciples of Yeshua didn't go out professing to be christians.

Not until Acts 11. So, when their books were written, they were Christians.

That verse does not prove deity. It shows divinity, yes....but deity and devinity are not the same ting. Once can be divine without being a god.

What are you talking about? You can't be divine without being God because that's the meaning of the word:

di·vin·i·ty

/dɪˈvɪn

ɪ

ti/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-vin-i-tee]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1.the quality of being divine; divine nature. 2.deity; godhood. 3.a divine being; God. 4.the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase

) the Deity. 5.a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities. 6.the study or science of divine things; theology. 7.godlike character; supreme excellence. 8.Also called divinity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.

This is more comentary from men who assumed Yeshua to be God and it is a quote from Psalms 45:6 as well as 7 almost verbatim. You must also note the context because in Hebrews 1:9 reads, "God, your God, anointed you." This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him. So again, this does not prove deity.

You might as well concede the argument. You throw out Hebrews 1:8, but then take verse 9 as credible. I can live with verse 9 because it is Scripture. And it's Scripture that reconciles with the rest of my scriptural belifs: it is more proof of one God manifestin Himself in three persons -all of them God. Verses8, and 9 show two of them: thee Father and the Son.

This commentary has already been addressed. Yeshua is God's word in the flesh........This has been previously shown.

No, Jesus is the Word and the Word was God in the beginning.

This has been addressed and nothing to do with Yeshua or Yeshua being God.

Yes it does. "His name shall be called...mighty God" Once again, so-called scholars are satanic corrupt people who are reconciling the Bible to their beliefs.

What we have today is not divinely inspired unless you can read koine greek or aramaic. Are you quoting from scriptures such as this? Are you fluent in these languages? See that's the problem with people making statements such as the one you made. You're reading translated scriptures not to mention you don't have access to all of the scrolls that were not included in what is known as "the bible".... and then you make an accusation like this. Now it is on you to show what greek has been corrupted.

This is the best argument out there. The argument that the original manuscripts are holy, but copies aren't. The argument that they have to be in Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew to be holy, etc.

The Declaration of Independence was translated into French, does that mean it wasn't written by Thomas Jefferson, does it mean it's not the Declaration of Independence.

No. You're not going to make a dime here.

In answer to your last statement, I refer you to 30,000 places in Scripture that have been corrupted in certain new versions.

Again, that's not exactly what that verse says. But as I've shown with John, Yeshua was God's word manifest in the flesh.

That's not what it says. It says:

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

John 1:14 -

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

Obviously reference to Jesus.

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth

"Glory as the only begotten of the Father" That's Jesus, who was the Word, not simply "the Word".

I agree.......and as I see it as his nature of divine and human ran together without distiction and he knew that whatever power he possessed was granted to him by God.

As a man, by God the Father.

Now it's on you to show why you believe this is father son and holy spirit speaking here instead of just God or God and his angels.

Because the angels were created too, and therefore had no power to create man. God said, "Let us make man in our own image" -referring to Himself in the pluaral. As God created the earth by himself for the previous 5 days, He was obviously still operating on that.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Part 2

This has nothing to do with Yeshua or the trinity. Read by itself I can understand how you made that conclusion but all altogether it has nothing to do with Yeshua. It's going to be a real stretch for you to use OT to prove trinity.

No it isn't. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The Old Testament is just as holy and scriptural as the New Testament. I was using that verse as a reference of the Trinity because it's another instance of God referring to Himself in the plural.

I hope that you take the time to review what scholars say about this verse. It is said that some scholars (F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc.) Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command.

Of course I don't take the time to give satanic men the time of day. Many so-called Biblical scholars are unsaved, and are therefore prejudiced against parts of the Bible, and would use their positions of authority to discredit those parts. I wouldn't trust their conclusions or new versions as far as I could throw this planet.

I was going to stay awa from his opinions but here we go. You're going to have to demostrate how Paul expressed this verse as trinity or Yeshua being deity. Take a look at how he viewed Yeshua in relation to God from the beginning of that letter. He viewed them separate.

Romans: 3,4
3 concerning his (GOD's) Son, who sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord

Romans 7 (in part)
May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where does he use trinity here? He separates the "two"...Where is Yeshua being viewed as deity here?.....

YES: he separates the two.

In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the Lord as a differentiation from the Father who is usually called God. But to make clear that both are God, there are places where they were both referred to as such.

Rome 1:8,9
8 First of all, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ concerning all of YOU, because YOUR faith is talked about throughout the whole world. 9For God, to whom I render sacred service with my spirit in connection with the good news about his Son, is my witness of how without ceasing I always make mention of YOU in my prayers

He continues to view them separate....

Of course he does because they are: there's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God manifesting Himself in three persons.

So I can only conclude that by posting this reference to the verse you are putting an emphasis on the greek word that has been rendered as "deity" and guess this word spoken by Paul is to mean deity instead of divine?

Divine implies godhood. I see you're now trying revise the English language.

I view it as divine and there is no question as to whether Jesus possesses all the fullness of divine quality or nature. For some context see Col. 1:19

You're going to have to be reconciled to the fact that there is no differentiation between divine and deity.

Col. 1:19
"For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him."

This verse then tells us that it was God's, Yeshua's Father himself that gave good pleasure, or allowed the Son to possess this fullness of divine quality.

As a man on earth -not in the beginning when the Word (Jesus) was God.

NON Christians have every right to question a doctrine that doesn't make any sense to them.

Why would you want to? And as I said, some things will never make sense.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Yeshua.

Of course it does. It's a reference to the last days when the nations and the kings thereof will be gathered to destroy Israel and Jerusalem. God will intervene directly and destroy the armies of the nations. The Jews, thinking that the Messiah has finally come, will come running out of Jerusalem, and will ask Him, "What are these wounds in thine hands?". -Referring to the wounds that He received during the crucifixtion- He will respond, "These are the wounds I received in the house of my friends." At that point, Christians believe, the Nation of Israel, the Jews, will realize that they crucified their Messiah.

So God sits at the right hand of God?
God sits beside himsel?

God the Son is sitting next to God the Father -another picture of the Trinity that you think is a man-made concept.

I couldn't find that. My bibles don't go that far. Did you mean to refernce another book?

The reference is Luke 24:51 -when Jesus ascends bodily into heaven.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Let's put the eighth chapter in context:

"16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

17It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
19Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
20These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
21Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
22Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. "

Even here he draws a line between Himself and God.

Regards,
Scott

Thanks Scott...I thought I touched on this some pages back.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can't read 700+ threads so pardon me.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
This is the accepted dogma of Catholic and mainstream Christianity. Entire books are devoted to supporting this belief. It's not explainable but when challenged for an understanding it will be refered to as a great mystery. If you were unaware of such a belief and read the bible would you come away with the same interpretation? Or would you come away confused upon hearing of such a pronouncement?
I am specifically talking about the declaration that Jesus is God, the Holy spirit is not the subject of this examination. Verse from scripture used as support would seem to have validity or at least have you scratching your head. But are they taken out of context? If taken on a poponderance of the evidence it supports the opposite belief that Jesus is a seperate created being. Further is this trinity god belief rooted in paganism when it strayed from its original purity? Christ said the wolves were creaping in already. First lets look at the logical evidence. We have the angels and man, all seperate beings. But God cannot create a seperate Son as well? God said he was sending his SON to be a sacrafice and if in reality his son is just a part of himself then we are the subject of a fraud. Who died on the cross? Can God die? As God as said that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit.
So God could put on a fleshy body and the fleshy body can die but not his spirit. If God could die a second death then all things would cease to exist. So even if it were true that God subjected himself to such torment we would still be subject to a fraud.
Consider the following
Lazarus: When Lazarus died, being a dear friend of Jesus, he wept for him. Who gives life but God so why would Jesus, if he were God, weep?
Jesus in the desert: Satan new he was the Son of God and tempted him with all the kingdoms of the earth. Do you think Satan could tempt God?
Jesus praying: Jesus prayed to his father on the Mount of Olives. If he were God then who was he praying to?
Jesus on the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 14:34)
Was he crying out to himself?
So know lets examine the evidence of the proponents for the belief that Jesus is God.
I and my Father are one (John 10:30) If I said I and my son were one you would either call me a nut case or understanding exactly what I am implying. A common phrase is "Like father, like son". He is only relating total agreement. Clearly this is intentionaly taken out of context to support the trinity. Look at the following verse; is this a growing trinity to infinity or the borg collective? Why not say we are also part of this trinity?
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe thou hast sent me. (John 17:21)
Did Jesus send himself?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God
(John 1:1) And the Word was made flesh, and dwealt among us...... (John 1:14)
Jesus is the flesh and brings his fathers word. God is working through him. Compare the following
verse. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwealleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14:10) Does God not work through men?
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape (John 5:37). If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him John 14:7). There is no contradiction here. The first verse is literal and the second verse is virtual in context. Jesus is not claiming to be God.
And Thomas answered and said unto him (Christ), My Lord and My God. (John 20:28)
In this so called proof text much is made of the fact that Jesus did not rebuke him for refering to him as God. Read again the above verse John 14:10, John 5:37
This trinity belief contributes nothing but confusion and derates the sacrafice of the Father and the suffering of the Son. It befuddles me why so many great scholars accept this. Maybe its a form of church politcal correctness. Perhaps its the church beaurocracy they have to answer to. I don't.I'm not interested in the traditions of men. I think I have made the point and have no need to write a book against such false teachings as the trinity.

Finally, some one who gets it.

I have asked these questions as well. You've expressed them well.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Part 1:


It goes against science even. Believing and using a portion of a text to disprove the rest of the text simply won't work.

Then the disagreement we have is whether we believe these words to be inspired by God. If that's what you believe then I can understand your position.

He was a God-proclaimed apostle whose authority was recognized by all of the disciples and the early church, not to mention this latter-day one.

He was not. The only information given about his supposed apostleship is from him. He said he heard the voice and only him. Luke who writes this down for Theopolis is where we find this, in the book of Acts. Luke, even being Pauls's long time friend, does not write it from the perspective as if he was an eyewitness but hearing this rumor he wrote his letter. Is this the clear proof of Paul's apostleship? It's ok if you choose to believe it is. I don't. To me, he is a self proclaimed apostle.

Jesus was a man on earth. He had no power of Himself, by His own admission. But that was when He was a man on earth.

I understand where you're coming from but as Yeshua showed that before he came here he had his own will. He, before coming here, had his own will, was "taught" by God, sent by God and commanded by God what to say. He gave no indication that before coming here he was God nor did he give any indication while he was here that he was God. Trinitarians use the formula (100% man 100% God)...Well the question is with this formula did Yeshua "know" he was God? It would have to be a no given all the weeping and praying to God Yeshua didand he couldn't be God if he didn'tt know he was God....and if he didn't know he was God then how do people gather he was?

What are you talking about? You can't be divine without being God because that's the meaning of the word:

God's angelic beings, regardless of them being created, were divine. Being divine does not mean you have to be a god regardless of the english definition.

Here's your definition right back at you....

Divinity
1.the quality of being divine; divine nature.
2.deity; godhood.
3.a divine being; God.
4.the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase

) the Deity.
5.a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.
6.the study or science of divine things; theology.
7.godlike character; supreme excellence.
8.Also called divinity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.

You helped to prove my point for me. All of the ones highlighted describes God's angelic beings...especially 5 and 7. So again, being divine does not mean one has to be a god or God.

You might as well concede the argument. You throw out Hebrews 1:8, but then take verse 9 as credible. I can live with verse 9 because it is Scripture. And it's Scripture that reconciles with the rest of my scriptural belifs: it is more proof of one God manifestin Himself in three persons -all of them God. Verses8, and 9 show two of them: thee Father and the Son.

You referrenced it. I just went with what you referenced and as I said in Hebrews 1:9 it reads, "God, your God, anointed you." This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him. So again, this does not prove deity.

No, Jesus is the Word and the Word was God in the beginning.

I respect your position. We just have a difference in how we view Yeshua.

Yes it does. "His name shall be called...mighty God"

And as I've said, Mary was not commanded to call her son by that title but she was commanded to call him Yeshua (salvation) and even later we do not find one referrence from her or any of Yeshua's followers calling him by that title. Not even the centurion called him that. The only one who makes a reference back to Isaiah is the writer of the book of Matthew. None of the other authors refer to this supposed prophecy seeing as it seemed important of the coming of the messiah. It can not be found anywhere else in any of the NT books but is soley interperted by this writer only.

Once again, so-called scholars are satanic corrupt people who are reconciling the Bible to their beliefs.

Whoes to say your own scholars haven't done the same? So because the Jewish scholars translate their text and it is rendered differently than the one you use they must be corrupt even though it used by many who actually speak the language? Isaiah 9:6, if you choose to read it before and after that quote, was a sign for King Ahaz in his day and time. A prophecy that was to take place hundreds of years later would mean little or nothing to him given the situation he was in at the time.

This is the best argument out there. The argument that the original manuscripts are holy, but copies aren't. The argument that they have to be in Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew to be holy, etc.

This is what you said "attempts to revise them by corrupting the original Greek are satanic"

My question to you is how would you know unless you speak koine greek or if you understand aramaic?

I try my hardest to use scriptures that have been translated to the best of the ability of the scholars ressponsible for translating them. In that case I often use multiple bibles when doing research. I also try to define the hebrew and greek using hebrew and greek to english dictionaries and lexicons. Will there be something that gets screwed up? Yes. It is always the case when translating to a different language.

The Declaration of Independence was translated into French, does that mean it wasn't written by Thomas Jefferson, does it mean it's not the Declaration of Independence.

When translating to a different language one may still get a sence of its original source (i.e. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Indipendence) but once it's translated into a different laguage it may loose some nuance.

This happens in jewish or arabic prayers or recitation of scripture. It takes on a whole new expression when translated. Or when trying to do word for word translation something is bound to be lost.

In answer to your last statement, I refer you to 30,000 places in Scripture that have been corrupted in certain new versions.

But as you say "versions".....Is it corrupt in its current form or has it been corrupt in the process of translating it? There's a difference and that's what I was getting at. You say that it would be satanic to to revise them by corrupting the orginial greek yet you nor I read or speak the original greek thus we are left to rely on translations. Now what you may have to ask yourself is "What bible am I reading from and what does it say about what version it is"....I can bet you whatever flavor your reading it has gone through plenty of revisions. Now do you take comfort in the "version" you have or will you dismiss it because it may contain corruption? I'm quite sure the answer is no, you like the bible you have. There's nothing wrong with that. It's only suspect when people start saying other things are corrupted without investiogating the "versions" they rely on.

That's not what it says. It says:

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

John 1:14 -

Yes....

John 14:24
"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

John 17:14
I have given them your word;and the world has hated them (God's word) because they (God's word - not Yeshua or Yeshua's word) are not of the world, even as I (Yeshua) am not of the world.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,]

The word of God taught to Yeshua by God then God sent Yeshua into the world as a "Messenger" to give the people the word as he was commanded to do and after Yeshua was done with the task God gave him to do he prays to God and in that prayer he informs God..thy will is done.(I have completed what you gave me to do).......

I'm not makingthis up. This is pretty much what it says so, for me, I can't conclude that Yeshua is God. It's fine for those who want to or feel they need to....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Part 2


No it isn't. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The Old Testament is just as holy and scriptural as the New Testament. I was using that verse as a reference of the Trinity because it's another instance of God referring to Himself in the plural.

Yes I do. I think it is you that is off the mark. How you gathered trinity from Genesis is beyond any real knowledge of the what word elohim means. Think of it sometimes like the kings english when the king would say "We are not amused"...What we is he talking about? He's talking about the "royal we". We can clearly see the king is only talking about himself. Thus is the case with God in the OT when the word elohim is used. Later in that same chapter we get a sense of that when we see;

Genesis 1:27
So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

We could continue but the OT is full of referrences like this and they are classifying God as singular. If you don't believe me ask a jewish scholar or jewish linguist at any university.

Of course I don't take the time to give satanic men the time of day. Many so-called Biblical scholars are unsaved, and are therefore prejudiced against parts of the Bible, and would use their positions of authority to discredit those parts. I wouldn't trust their conclusions or new versions as far as I could throw this planet.

Do you have proof against the ones I cited or is this...."because they don't agree with me then they must be hethens"?

In the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the Lord as a differentiation from the Father who is usually called God. But to make clear that both are God, there are places where they were both referred to as such.

And yet you asked if I knew what I was talking about. In the NT the followers of Yeshua called him lord, he was also called rabbi (which means master and/or teacher). Certainly not a master such as we think of them today. They held a high regard and respect for him because they knew he brought them the word of God. I'd have to research but I believe there were others in the scriptures referred to as lord. Lord was a sign of respect for him not because they thought him to be God especially since there is nothing in the NT from any of his followers to conclude he was God.

Of course he does because they are: there's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God manifesting Himself in three persons.

You and I can wrestle with the concept of trinity all day long and get no where. If you believe in the trinity then that is fine. I have found no evidence to support this theory but for those who live by it, fine with me, that is there way.

Divine implies godhood. I see you're now trying revise the English language.

You've already given the definition....English...might I add. and divine can mean a lot of things and one does not have to be God or a god to be divine. Check your definition you gave...it's right there. It is your interpretation Yeshua is God.

You're going to have to be reconciled to the fact that there is no differentiation between divine and deity.

Again, it's right there in your own definition you provided.

Divinity
1.the quality of being divine; divine nature.
2.deity; godhood.
3.a divine being; God.
4.the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase

) the Deity.
5.a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.
6.the study or science of divine things; theology.
7.godlike character; supreme excellence.
8.Also called divinity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.

Having divine qualities or attributes, godlike charateristics and ranking below God but above humans....

Sounds like those angels I was talking about.

Of course it does. It's a reference to the last days when the nations and the kings thereof will be gathered to destroy Israel and Jerusalem. God will intervene directly and destroy the armies of the nations. The Jews, thinking that the Messiah has finally come, will come running out of Jerusalem, and will ask Him, "What are these wounds in thine hands?". -Referring to the wounds that He received during the crucifixtion- He will respond, "These are the wounds I received in the house of my friends." At that point, Christians believe, the Nation of Israel, the Jews, will realize that they crucified their Messiah.

Every OT one liner is not in reference to Yeshua. Hosea 12:4 is about Jacob and has nothing to do with Yeshua. Read it from the beginning and go past that verse. This event had nothing to do with Yeshua.....

God the Son is sitting next to God the Father -another picture of the Trinity that you think is a man-made concept.

And in my view Yeshua, the son, sitting at the right hand of God is not God.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Then the disagreement we have is whether we believe these words to be inspired by God. If that's what you believe then I can understand your position.

I appreciate that. I can understand a non-Christian's position in believing that the Bible is inspired or not. I don't understand how Christians can. But, you're not a Christian, so I suppose I can understand.

He was not. The only information given about his supposed apostleship is from him. He said he heard the voice and only him. Luke who writes this down for Theopolis is where we find this, in the book of Acts. Luke, even being Pauls's long time friend, does not write it from the perspective as if he was an eyewitness but hearing this rumor he wrote his letter. Is this the clear proof of Paul's apostleship? It's ok if you choose to believe it is. I don't. To me, he is a self proclaimed apostle.

The knowledge of Paul's authority comes from two sources.

1. The fact that the early Christian churches received and acted on his epistles,
2. and independent historical sources that show he was accepted by the rest of the church.

I understand where you're coming from but as Yeshua showed that before he came here he had his own will. He, before coming here, had his own will, was "taught" by God, sent by God and commanded by God what to say. He gave no indication that before coming here he was God nor did he give any indication while he was here that he was God. Trinitarians use the formula (100% man 100% God)...Well the question is with this formula did Yeshua "know" he was God? It would have to be a no given all the weeping and praying to God Yeshua didand he couldn't be God if he didn'tt know he was God....and if he didn't know he was God then how do people gather he was?

I've covered why Jesus prayed: because His human nature made Him subject to the Father's will, and thus would have to pray to Him.

He wept, imo not for the fact that Lazarus was dead, but for the fact that He felt compassion for Mary and Martha and all the others who did not know that Jesus would raise him from the dead.

These two facts prove nothing other then Jesus' human nature.

His divine nature is proven through His wisdom, knowledge, holiness, and in the instances when Jesus displayed independent prescience.

God's angelic beings, regardless of them being created, were divine. Being divine does not mean you have to be a god regardless of the english definition.

Here's your definition right back at you....

Divinity
1.the quality of being divine; divine nature.
2.deity; godhood.
3.a divine being; God.
4.the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase

) the Deity.
5.a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.
6.the study or science of divine things; theology.
7.godlike character; supreme excellence.
8.Also called divinity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.

You helped to prove my point for me. All of the ones highlighted describes God's angelic beings...especially 5 and 7. So again, being divine does not mean one has to be a god or God.

I've done no such things.

Nowhere is Jesus called a minor divinity, and you can't prove minor divinity if you throw out actual deity.

He had a Godlike nature, not godlike character, so no. 7 is out.

You referrenced it. I just went with what you referenced and as I said in Hebrews 1:9 it reads, "God, your God, anointed you." This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him. So again, this does not prove deity.

In verse 8 when the Father addresses the Son as "God", He wasn't addressing God because of verse 9?

No. The Father annointed the Son as king, not as God. He's God either way. Verse 9
proves nothing other then a Godhead. Verse 8 proves my point.

I respect your position. We just have a difference in how we view Yeshua.

You view him as what exactly? You're not a Christian.

And as I've said, Mary was not commanded to call her son by that title but she was commanded to call him Yeshua (salvation) and even later we do not find one referrence from her or any of Yeshua's followers calling him by that title. Not even the centurion called him that. The only one who makes a reference back to Isaiah is the writer of the book of Matthew.

Mary was instructed to call her son Jesus because of the symbolism of the name. That doesn't mean that He wasn't the Son of God.

None of the other authors refer to this supposed prophecy seeing as it seemed important of the coming of the messiah. It can not be found anywhere else in any of the NT books but is soley interperted by this writer only.

The writer realized the amazing parallels:

"A virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call His name Immanuel which is interpreted God with us" -It's not like this happens everyday. So, a child is born through immaculate conception, fulfills the prophecies from the same book and others regarding being born in Bethlehem, and being a Saviour, so the writer (Matthew) rightly refers to the prophecy that predicts these happenings; but you say it's just an interpretation? If that's so, it's the most inspired and correct interpretation ever made.

It's right in the Bible: proof of His deity. When confronted with it, you throw it out as being a misinterpretation, etc. The fact remains that that's what the Bible says.

Whoes to say your own scholars haven't done the same? So because the Jewish scholars translate their text and it is rendered differently than the one you use they must be corrupt even though it used by many who actually speak the language?

Jews who are non-Christians, and indeed resent Christianity as being an upstart religion, are not unbiased; and will use their positions to discredit the very cores of said religion.

That's why I don't trust them.

Isaiah 9:6, if you choose to read it before and after that quote, was a sign for King Ahaz in his day and time. A prophecy that was to take place hundreds of years later would mean little or nothing to him given the situation he was in at the time.

What are you talking about?

That's what we call prophecy! It had nothing to do with his time; so what? That's why we call it prophecy!

You're misinterpreting it badly. Not only by my standards, but even by an apostate's standards because you're completely leaving out the fact that what Isaiah and other prophets say are prophecy.

This is what you said "attempts to revise them by corrupting the original Greek are satanic"

My question to you is how would you know unless you speak koine greek or if you understand aramaic?

I took classes in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

I understand them well enough. That's why I don't care when someone says, "Well, in the Greek..." -They can't fool me.

When translating to a different language one may still get a sence of its original source (i.e. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Indipendence) but once it's translated into a different laguage it may loose some nuance.

Not if God's behind a certain translation.

Yes....

John 14:24
"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

John 17:14
I have given them your word;and the world has hated them (God's word) because they (God's word - not Yeshua or Yeshua's word) are not of the world, even as I (Yeshua) am not of the world.

The word of God taught to Yeshua by God then God sent Yeshua into the world as a "Messenger" to give the people the word as he was commanded to do and after Yeshua was done with the task God gave him to do he prays to God and in that prayer he informs God..thy will is done.(I have completed what you gave me to do).......

Those words you have highlighted are not capitalized -that is they don't refer to Jesus: they're referring to the words Jesus are speaking at that time.

Jesus is the Word.
What Jesus says is God's word.

I'm not makingthis up. This is pretty much what it says so, for me, I can't conclude that Yeshua is God. It's fine for those who want to or feel they need to....

What it says for you is not the same as what it says.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The knowledge of Paul's authority comes from two sources.

1. The fact that the early Christian churches received and acted on his epistles,
2. and independent historical sources that show he was accepted by the rest of the church.

That, again, is why I said for me I see him as a self proclaimed apostle. If the church saw him as a apostle because of his supposed vision then that is on them. They included his letters etc as scripture and as I've read them the conclusion I draw is that his apostleship is self proclaimed.

I've covered why Jesus prayed: because His human nature made Him subject to the Father's will, and thus would have to pray to Him.

Given the fact that he had his own will in heaven he was most certainly not God. As he shared with his followers, he was sent here, not by his own will, but the will of the one who sent him. That's pretty much verbatim. This would mean if he, before coming here had his own will then he's not God. Yeshua saw himself separate from God in every respect. He, in various places, shows us he had his own will, had his own glory, was taught by God, and instructed by God as to what he should say. In the 8th chapter of John while having a conversation with the people he says he "knows" God. He didn't say (I am God)...He knew he wasn't God.

He wept, imo not for the fact that Lazarus was dead, but for the fact that He felt compassion for Mary and Martha and all the others who did not know that Jesus would raise him from the dead.

I tend to agree here but this does not show that he was God. He was able to "revive" Lazarus by God's permission. This power, which he previously spoke of, was given to him...as he said. We know that none of his followers viewed him as God due to the words they spoke in reference to him.

John 11:22
But I know, that even now, whatever you ask of God, God will give it you.

These two facts prove nothing other then Jesus' human nature.

His divine nature is proven through His wisdom, knowledge, holiness, and in the instances when Jesus displayed independent prescience.

Well, I agree....I don't deny Yeshua being human and possessing divine attributes that were given to him by God. That is most certainly not in question.

Nowhere is Jesus called a minor divinity, and you can't prove minor divinity if you throw out actual deity.

First of all your position was that in order fro one to be divine one had to be deity. This is not true given the definition you provided. One can most certainly be divine without being a deity.

Divinity
1.the quality of being divine; divine nature.
2.deity; godhood.
3.a divine being; God.
4.the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase

) the Deity.
5.a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.
6.the study or science of divine things; theology.
7.godlike character; supreme excellence.

So yes, angelic beings fit the description which would mean they are divine but not God or gods.

He had a Godlike nature, not godlike character, so no. 7 is out.

second, Yeshua does fit the description as well. Let's use your "Godlike nature" for a second. He had "God(like) characteristics but to be God(like) doesn't mean that one is God but only having the characteristics. We know that to be the case because Yeshua himself said his power was given to him by God. He ranked below God as number seven shows becuase he nor his followers thought him to be God and he himself said God was greater than him and God was greater than all. He was no more than God's word sent by God to share the word of God.

In verse 8 when the Father addresses the Son as "God", He wasn't addressing God because of verse 9?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]B. F. Westcott [/FONT](1825–1901) was Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
"It is scarcely possible that [Elohim,God] in the original can be addressed to the king. . . . Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God.'" With good reason, therefore, the New World Translation and a number of other translations render Hebrews 1:8 as, "God is your throne."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

A. T. Robertson remarking on whether QEOS in Hebrews 1:8 is a nominative or a vocative stated:​

"O God (hO QEOS). This quotation (the fifth) is from Psalms 45:7. A Hebrew nuptial ode (epiqalamium) for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether hO QEOS is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in John 20:28 with the Messiah termed QEOS as is possible, John 1:18) or hO QEOS is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: "God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God." Either makes good sense"-Word Pictures in the N.T., vol 5, p.339.
[/FONT]
A New Commentary of Holy Scripture Including the Apocrypha:

"O God: see on Ps 45:6. In the Psalm the King is addressed as God (Elohim: cf. Ps 82:6). If this translation is retained our Lord is here proclaimed as God by the Father (= 'they God' in next verse). The other translation 'thy throne is God' is equally possible and we cannot say which of the two our writer adopts." (page 605. Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, edited by Charles Gore, Henry Leighton Goudge, Alfred Guilaume, 1946 reprint of corrected edition of March 1929.

As I have said before, That verse does not say Yeshua is God.

Mary was instructed to call her son Jesus because of the symbolism of the name. That doesn't mean that He wasn't the Son of God.

But it doesn't mean he is........

"A virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call His name Immanuel which is interpreted God with us" -It's not like this happens everyday. So, a child is born through immaculate conception, fulfills the prophecies from the same book and others regarding being born in Bethlehem, and being a Saviour, so the writer (Matthew) rightly refers to the prophecy that predicts these happenings; but you say it's just an interpretation? If that's so, it's the most inspired and correct interpretation ever made.

Then we shall agree to disagree because we will spin off and get caught up in word play....Your rendering says virgin and mine says young woman.....This writer, whom you say was inspired......, appears to have gathered a great deal of information from the writings of Mark and out of all the gospels....Acts....Heb...Romans etc......This supposed important prophecy is only interpreted by this author. None of the other, not even Luke or Paul, reference this supposed prophecy. This was this author's interpretation of OT scripture and applied it to Yeshua when in fact it was a prophecy given to Ahaz and a prophecy King Ahaz would witness in his day.

Jews who are non-Christians, and indeed resent Christianity as being an upstart religion, are not unbiased; and will use their positions to discredit the very cores of said religion.

If you discredit their scholarly work then at least show that they are in error with their translation. The ones that I use make no mention that it is their intentions to defame the christian way of life. They are simply giving a rendering or a commentary that, so far as I can tell, does not cast a spotlight on your way of life.

You're misinterpreting it badly. Not only by my standards, but even by an apostate's standards because you're completely leaving out the fact that what Isaiah and other prophets say are prophecy.

I never said it wasn't a prophecy. Where are you getting that from. I said it was a "sign"...(a prophecy)....but it was a prophecy for King Ahaz. This was a prophecy given to him and one he would witness.

Not if God's behind a certain translation.

Then I must assume the bible you use is the first edition of it's kind and has never been revised. Is this your position? To me your statement doesn't make any sense because if God is behind the translation and the KJV as well as others have gone through so many revisions and versions then surely God was not with these scholars and translators from the start or there would be no need to revise or submit a new version......

Those words you have highlighted are not capitalized -that is they don't refer to Jesus: they're referring to the words Jesus are speaking at that time.

What are you talking about? Yeshua never wrote anything so all of the gospels as well as Acts is the writers quoting something Yeshua was to supposed to have said. Furthurmore it wouldn't make a difference whether something is upper or lower case seeing as though in aramaic and greek these distinctions did not exist. Yeshua is God's word...he is God's representative here on earth. He spoke for God. He spoke with the words of God who commanded him of what he should say.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Is Jesus God in the flesh?

Hi!

Us peanuts think so, but we're just peanuts!

Cheers!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hi!

Us peanuts think so, but we're just peanuts!

Cheers!

hmmmmm.....peanuts....:drool:

 

[Mr. Peanut]

hmmmmm.....peanuts....:drool:

Hi!

YUM!

Cheers!

 

[Muffled]

It has been said that the Godhead is a mystery designed by God. What is a "mystery"? A mystery is something that is understood by some, but is hidden from others. I Timothy 3:16 says, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

The bible clearly tells us that the godhead can be understood. Romans 1:19-20 says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The entire ministry of Jesus Christ was characterized by the use of parables to teach his disciples. This often frustrated them. Matthew 13:10-11 tells us that Jesus was asked of His disciples, "Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."

On the surface, this might not seem fair. However, whether or not the hearer understands it depends on the condition of the heart. Jesus went on to explain in Matthew 13:13-15: "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

This statement is a subterfuge by those who have no evidence for their Three Persons in the Godhead concept. There is one person who is Father, Son and Paraclete. People get confused by the Father/Son relationship thinking that it must be as fathers and sons on earth but God is not like us in that way and the evidence is contrary to that kind of thinking.

There are some spiritual things that are hard to explain without using a worldly parallell that people can relate to. Even with the parables the Apostles still had trouble understanding. I have used parables in this thread but without others being able to reach the understanding. I think some people aren't able to free themselves of a mindset effectively blocking their ability to understand.

I believe that those who have argued most on this thread have a heart for God but unless they have received Jesus as Lord and Savior there is no guarantee of guidance into the truth. Even with guidance there is no guarantee that the Holy Spirit would move them in this direction.

 

[lew0049]

When one makes a statue of Praxiteles, can the statue sculpt?

Over and over the Bible tells us that God is Spirit.

Regards,
Scott

Old thread I know but ran across this. Well, when Alfred Hitchcock made all of his movies, you will also find that he was in the movies as well. Hence, he was the creator and part of it as well.
Well, you can interpet the Bible however you see fit (as well all do differently); nevertheless, if "something" had the ability and power to create the universe and life - then I personally think that limiting His powers is absurd. By doing so, you are essentially saying that you know more than even him and his capabilities.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Old thread I know but ran across this. Well, when Alfred Hitchcock made all of his movies, you will also find that he was in the movies as well. Hence, he was the creator and part of it as well.
Well, you can interpet the Bible however you see fit (as well all do differently); nevertheless, if "something" had the ability and power to create the universe and life - then I personally think that limiting His powers is absurd. By doing so, you are essentially saying that you know more than even him and his capabilities.

But given the testimony of Yeshua and those who were his follwers there s nothing there to suggest that Yeshua was God. If you continue down the track of logic one can not make the connection that Yeshua is God when Yeshua makes statements such as;


God is greater than me and God is greater than all.

I have not returned to my father, your father and my god and your god

My God, My God why have yo left me.

I have come down from heaven, not by my will, but by the will of God who sent me.

And as you know there are plenty more. I know this may be tough for trinitarians to wrap their minds around Yeshua not being God but when Yeshua says before coming here he had his own will but he came here not by his own will but by the will of God who sent him then it should be clear that he isn't God. When he says God taught him, commanded him what he should say and sent him with a word for the people then again, it should be clear that Yeshua is not God. When one of the followers of Yeshua says to him "Whatever you ask of God, God will give it to you", again, we can not assume they thought him to be God.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus is not the Father, the Father is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is not the Spirit, The Spirit is the Spirit - God the Holy Spirit, Jesus is Jesus - God the Son, The Father is the Father - God the Father. These three Persons are one God. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son, all the Fulness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ, the Spirit is sent forth from them and proceeds from them and is in all who have believed unto salvation.

This thread isn't in relgious debates, so there is no requirement for you to back up your statements with scripture (which you can't do anyway).

The question is one of identity, although Popeye tries to derail that into a question of universality.

Human beings are identified with a name usually and it represents the soul. God is a spirit and also goes by many names. A person as a spirit in a body could have a name different from the name of his soul that carries throughout incarnations. God in a body is also a living soul and carries the name Jesus. However the spirit of God that is within identifies with the spiritual name Jehovah which is why we see Jesus using that name in reference to Himself.

"Father" and "Son" are relationship words not names to identify. However when used as "The Father" and "The Son" only one person is uniquely identified. The fact that Isaiah equates "The Father" with "The Son" indicates God's word spelling out that this is the same person but not in the definition of a soul but as the everlasting spiritual entity.

 

[Popeyesays]

This thread isn't in relgious debates, so there is no requirement for you to back up your statements with scripture (which you can't do anyway).

THis IS the religious debate forum.

Roughly speaking God is God and no man is God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

Roughly speaking God is God and no man is God.

Roughly speaking if God is God then he can be anything he wants to be.

 

[Popeyesays]

Roughly speaking if God is God then he can be anything he wants to be.

Can you pour all the oceans into a teacup? It's not the capacity of God that is in question, but the capacity of man.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

Can you pour all the oceans into a teacup? It's not the capacity of God that is in question, but the capacity of man.

No one is suggesting that God vacate the rest of the universe while simultaneously acting through a personal mortal body.