Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

If you actually read the post, that's more like spinning violently in a punch drunk state, he posted CARM ("CRAM")'s erroneous response and then went off about the Septuagint in a manner that didn't refute what I said whatsoever. Especially since the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically have it as "Ehyeh". Apparently he didn't take the time to look that basic fact up.

You will not draw me into this discussion. There was no need for my original post and I regret having posted it. Personal appraisals or damage to fragile egos have no part in a forum unless connected to a meaningful point. I do not intend to further propagate what I should not have begun. I also notice you did not even mention my request which anti-dates yours, so even courtesy is not a compelling reason to do so further. If you think my estimation faulty then ignore it.

 

[Shermana]

However I have asked you several times to give your take on an argument a friend suggested to me I thought was interesting and you have never done so

Okay, remind me of which argument this was.

 

[captainbryce]

I refuse to accept your understanding of things and believe my understanding is from God.

And I believe that mine is from God as well. What now? Stale mate? We are BOTH correct?

I believe this is the null hypothesis which is exremely difficult to prove and you have not proven it.

Actually, it is easily proved just by looking at the original Hebrew text (aka NOT the Septuagint or Masoretic texts).

Jesus does not have to say "my name" because the context supports the concept of Jesus identifying Himself with God.

Actually IT DOESN'T. And the only way it does support that concept would be IF he was identifying himself with "the name". Since clearly he is not, but in fact saying I am in a different context, then there is no support for your view that he was "identifying himself with God" (as God). In short, there is no evidence that supports your belief.

 

[captainbryce]

Now you reveal what is either blatant dishonesty or total ignorance when you say that my goal is to disprove Jesus as Messiah. I believe he was Messiah. You don't even know what it means to be Messiah. You just assume that in order to be Messiah, he has to be God.

:yes:

This is true of ALL trinitarians, not just BornAgain.

 

[BornAgain]

You don't even know basic Hebrew grammar. Your claim would have to be that the Masoretic changed it.

That came from your lips and not mine. I knew that you would somehow bring these things out.

What made you say that I claimed the Masoretic changed the “I AM”?

I DID NOT!

This is what I wrote,

“BUT THE THING IS, YOU GUYS FORGOT TO CHANGE THE "I AM" IN EXODUS 3:14/MASORETIC TO "I SHALL BE" WHICH YOU ARE NOW TWISTING AND SELLING TO CHRISTIANS AGAIN!”

You know why you are so confused?

You guys have TWO VERSIONS OF THE Masoretic text, one for the Jews only, and the other one you sold to Christians where it says, “I AM/EGO IEMI”

And you said:

This is an example of why Jews are so loathe to accept Jesus as Messiah, because of so-called Christians representing him and the grammar to suit their doctrines.

Our grammars to suit our doctrines? You guys been corrupting the word of God/Septuagint since the 1st century, because it was proven from the LXX that Jesus is the Messiah, and have been putting this blame, changing the word of God, on Christians ever since.

Jer 23:36 And the burden of Jehovah shall ye mention no more: for every man's own word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of Jehovah of hosts our God.

Christians do have the un adulterated New Testament, reasoned/argued/proven from the Septuagint. This is our doctrines. We did not change a thing to suit our theology.

 

[BornAgain]

No, YOU are trying to claim that Jesus and his disciples were speaking Greek, and reading scriptures that were translated from Hebrew to Greek. That is ridiculous! Jesus didn't read the septuagint translation. He read BIBLICAL HEBREW!

I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[1robin]

Okay, remind me of which argument this was.

Can you evaluate post #7557 for the benefit of the one that gave me the info just out of curiosity? I am primarily interested in a Jewish take on the fundamental philosophic principles in that post not necessarily the Biblical story its self. It is a tactic used by Ravi and others of opening up a person within their assumptions. Me and a PhD friend noticed Jesus doing it in many places like the well story or the guy who called Jesus good. If the theory is true Jesus was one lethal philosopher.

 

[Shermana]

At lunch a co-worker gave me an interesting insight into that verse. It also is among Ravi Zacharias's prime directives (so to speak). It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus was pointing out something to her about her own status in her own eyes. This is what Ravi calls forcing a person to open up under their own presuppositions. He was basically asking her how could a person who is technically (in the eyes of Jewish culture at the time) a half breed and inferior ask something expected to be given only to a "more approved" race. This also seems to be a tactic of God throughout the Bible. He asks who do you think you are? Not rhetorically but literally. It is the sort of tactic designed to pry open an intended discussion on the common ground of identity. I think he was saying are you asking as a half breed Samaritan or as a child of God born with an equal right to know the truth. She responded with almost too much wit to give credibility. She basically said she had a right or need even under the lesser status.

I do not think the Jewish race superior genetically. I do think they were given privileges based on the faith of certain people along the way and the promises God made. That seems to have come at a dreadful price as they were judged by a much higher standard. I do believe they have the most interesting history of any people, are still God's children (not implying automatic salvation), and have behaved far more honorably than their neighbors since 1948 at least. I was a little confused by what you stated concerning superiority.

I think that's reading too much into it in an attempt to get around the rather harsh (and unpalatable) plain reading of the text, in which Jesus flat out compares the Canaanite woman to a dog. This was common for Jews to consider the Canaanite woman a dog. I notice you say "Half breed Samaritan", but she wasn't even that. She was a Canaanite. The sworn enemy of the Jews, who are "slaves of slaves" to them. I don't see how she responded with "Too much wit". She responded with humble acceptance of her place. It's an example of how anyone can interpret anything from any verse, instead of reading it plainly.

The context was plain and simple that Jews, even Jesus himself, were regarded among each other as higher up on the Spiritual ladder, ESPECIALLY the Canaanites. This belief hasn't exactly gone away among ultra-Orthodox circles and may in fact have been the traditional Talmudic view, despite what apologists may try to say. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's hardly different than the concept of the Indian Brahman class, I see no need to justify it except when people try to revision the context in that episode.

The concept of racial/tribal hierarchy that was predominant in Jewish culture was apparently not a good fit when gentiles tried to shoehorn the gospels into their own interpretation, so I can see why they don't like the plain reading of the text and try to add all kinds of "mystical insight" into the idea. Jesus granted her wish because she herself compared herself to a dog and accepted her place as such while also accepting his place as the Chosen One , which in a way made her higher than the Jews themselves (who are the "Supreme" on the Caste totem pole according to Jewish culture) it's as simple as that. Any attempt to extrapolate something further involves twisting the text to something it simply doesn't say. Which we can do with practically any verse. It's a matter of taking what the text says as it says it, or applying our own attempt to soften and sugar coat it to get something more than it most likely was intended to mean.

 

[challupa]

I believe that we are not just animals but living souls. Is it plausible that incarnation into the body of an animal influenced the spirit to perform evil since that seems to be one of the states of nature? I believe it is possible but God doesn't really explain the origen of evil. Then there is the chiken and egg debate over whether nature would ever be evil in a perfect world.

I believe Jesus put it this way. If the devil works against himself how will he survive? However when healing is accomplished by evil spirits as in voodoo, I believe the intention is to fool people into thinking that the devil will always do good when that isn't reall the case.

Obviously one would wish for healers who do good but the lack of Christian belief does not mean the devil is directly involved. For instance a healer in my state managed to infect a whole bunch of people with a nasty disease because he had evil desires. A company in MA providing healing products managed to infect many people and many died because their greed superceded a desire to benefit patients.

Jesus speaks of the devil as a real person (spiritual definition of person not necessarily physical)

I believe this is not accidental. A person learns to do good somewhere in the traverse of many lives even if it doesn't show up as Christianity in this life.

I don't believe this can be ascertained except for the instance of voodoo where it is obvious.

Where do the choices come from? When I was a child I chose to watch relgious shows on TV. I wasn't taught to do that, so what was the basis for that choice? I chose to read science fiction books as a child but no one told me what kind of books I should read so what was the basis for that choice. People think choices are innate but the truth is not everyone watches religious shows on TV as a child or reads science fiction. Is there a religious gene or a science fiction gene? I don't believe so. I believe these are dispositions formed in a previous life.

You ask some interesting questions. I don't really see anything as 'evil', but rather a degree of things that 'don't work'. You made a comment that could there be evil in a perfect world. I think in order to understand perfect there would need to be all aspects of the experience. Perfect without imperfect would have not context, no understanding. It would become just a concept with nothing to compare it to. If there is a source of everything it would live in a world of concepts without the ability to experience experientially. Moving into the physical world allows for concepts to be 'experienced' and that allows for the whole of creation to be 'known' at different levels of understanding.

I didn't know you believed in multiple lives. I agree with that as it makes more sense to me than one time around it's over and out! Near Death Experiencers seem to come back with that message. They also seem to believe that we accumulate 'personality' traits so your comment about being predisposed to one thing or the other would seem logical if that were the case. But if that is the case, then the choices would seem to have been made 'before' birth and whatever the experience we decided to come to the physical world to experience would be planned in that state of being. Therefore, is there such as thing as 'evil' in the big picture or merely experiences of the concept of evil in order to fully understand the phenomenon. No devil, no God (at least not in the sense we usually understand that to be) and nothing other than experiencing all there is.

Of course in the physical world while we are experiencing our humanity, there is a lot of discomfort around things we define as evil. I am currently reading a book by Nanci Danison a NDE experiencer. She seems to think that who we are is Light Beings. That we join with the human animal which has it's own personality and we share the two in order to experience life here on Earth. I'm not sure what I think of that, but it would likely explain some of the things we do that are more animalistic in nature. Survival instincts etc. It also means that we do have the ability to override our animal nature side. She did make the comment that some of the 'souls' that merge with the human animal are young and not experienced in controlling the animal side of things and that's where you see more of the fear based behavior that she says is the human nature rather than the soul behavior.

 

[1robin]

I think that's reading too much into it in an attempt to get around the rather harsh (and unpalatable) plain reading of the text, in which Jesus flat out compares the Canaanite woman to a dog. This was common for Jews to consider the Canaanite woman a dog. I notice you say "Half breed Samaritan", but she wasn't even that. She was a Canaanite. The sworn enemy of the Jews, who are "slaves of slaves" to them. I don't see how she responded with "Too much wit". She responded with humble acceptance of her place. It's an example of how anyone can interpret anything from any verse, instead of reading it plainly.

The context was plain and simple that Jews, even Jesus himself, were regarded among each other as higher up on the Spiritual ladder, ESPECIALLY the Canaanites. This belief hasn't exactly gone away among ultra-Orthodox circles and may in fact have been the traditional Talmudic view, despite what apologists may try to say. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's hardly different than the concept of the Indian Brahman class, I see no need to justify it except when people try to revision the context in that episode.

The concept of racial/tribal hierarchy that was predominant in Jewish culture was apparently not a good fit when gentiles tried to shoehorn the gospels into their own interpretation, so I can see why they don't like the plain reading of the text and try to add all kinds of "mystical insight" into the idea. Jesus granted her wish because she herself compared herself to a dog and accepted her place as such while also accepting his place as the Chosen One , which in a way made her higher than the Jews themselves (who are the "Supreme" on the Caste totem pole according to Jewish culture) it's as simple as that. Any attempt to extrapolate something further involves twisting the text to something it simply doesn't say. Which we can do with practically any verse. It's a matter of taking what the text says as it says it, or applying our own attempt to soften and sugar coat it to get something more than it most likely was intended to mean.

If my answer was lacking it was not lacking because I made any attempt to lessen the impact of the language and implied hierarchy. My comments granted both. I do however not think Jesus actually considered her a dog. In God all men are created equal. I think he used the assumptions (real of false) within a persons mind and met them there. He was so good a philosopher he had no need to construct a counterargument. He would use the others argument to condemn their claims or point.

 

[`mud]

AND THE BUSH YELLED OUT:

I AM WHAT I WILL BE
I WILL BE AS THE WIND ITSELF
I WILL BE THE ESSENSE OF ALL
AND I WILL BE THE WILL OF THE ALL
AND YOU WILL WORSHIP FOREVER
~
AND IT'S STILL GOIN & GOIN &...WELL YOU KNOW..
~
`mud

 

[1robin]

AND THE BUSH YELLED OUT:

I AM WHAT I WILL BE
I WILL BE AS THE WIND ITSELF
I WILL BE THE ESSENSE OF ALL
AND I WILL BE THE WILL OF THE ALL
AND YOU WILL WORSHIP FOREVER
~
AND IT'S STILL GOIN & GOIN &...WELL YOU KNOW..
~
`mud

What was that?

 

[Shermana]

If my answer was lacking it was not lacking because I made any attempt to lessen the impact of the language and implied hierarchy. My comments granted both. I do however not think Jesus actually considered her a dog. In God all men are created equal. I think he used the assumptions (real of false) within a persons mind and met them there. He was so good a philosopher he had no need to construct a counterargument. He would use the others argument to condemn their claims or point.

So what does "Slave of slaves" mean? Why are Canaanites Slaves of slaves?

 

[`mud]

Did Jesus think in his own mind that He was God ?
If He thaught it, and didn't speak aloud the thought,
and we know that He didn't write it, I wonder why.
Started drifting into the wonder of His no writing,
nowhere, nothing of His mind's proponderousness.
But then, He was a man, and somewhat proud of Himself,
He was followed by many, even thousands at His robe's hem.
And He didn't speak of Himself as the one true God.
In what language ?
~
I find that I can't express as well as I could before my stroke.
Not a line in the sand, except once, so say's Paul.
I think He thaught He was God, his father, with His holy winds.
Sad that a great man/spirit would have to die that like.
He was so loved, and so hated to His death, such a shame.
~
And it goes on and on.
~
`mud

 

[1robin]

So what does "Slave of slaves" mean? Why are Canaanites Slaves of slaves?

I do not resist or contend with their being low in the social hierarchy of the time. I grant it without reservation. I was simply asking if you saw more to the verse not trying to undermine what it did say. You are claiming I gave why to detract from X. I am saying X is true and Y very likely could be as well.

 

[Shermana]

I do not resist or contend with their being low in the social hierarchy of the time. I grant it without reservation. I was simply asking if you saw more to the verse not trying to undermine what it did say. You are claiming I gave why to detract from X. I am saying X is true and Y very likely could be as well.

Let me just be clear, I didn't mean you or your friend particularly, I meant those in general, like the Theologians who try to make this common type of argument that Jesus didn't really mean what he said by "detracting".

I do not see anything more to the verse other than what the obvious plain message was, that Jesus was merciful in granting even a Canaanite's wish when she faithfully accepted her place and regarded Jesus as who he truly was, the Spiritual King and Messiah. Thus, her lowly status as a "Slave of slaves" and "dog" entitled her to some of the "Crumbs" of the "Children's bread", though still not for the "bread" of the "Children". I think trying to find anything more from this verse does a great disservice to the deep meaning of this, by trying to find a deeper meaning that attempts to change the point in a more PC modern liberal friendly manner, the intended context is lost.

 

[challupa]

In some ways wouldn't it take away the power of Jesus if he was God. After all, how can a God be tempted to sin or die on the cross if he is a God? Being without sin would be more powerful if Jesus was a human like everyone else. He is then attainable but if he is a God, most would say that's not attainable. Does this trinity notion take away the motivation to try to be like Jesus because of his supposed Godhood?

 

[Muffled]

In some ways wouldn't it take away the power of Jesus if he was God. After all, how can a God be tempted to sin or die on the cross if he is a God? Being without sin would be more powerful if Jesus was a human like everyone else. He is then attainable but if he is a God, most would say that's not attainable. Does this trinity notion take away the motivation to try to be like Jesus because of his supposed Godhood?

I can't imagine how power can be taken from the one who posesses it.

I believe He can't but that doesn't stop the devil from trying anyway.

I believe only by His choosing to not use His power to prevent it. BTW Jesus does use his power to keep from being thrown off a cliff in Nazareth.

I believe there is a verse in Isaiah where God says He looked for a man but couldn't find one.

I believe most are capable of saying the most non-sensical things.

I believe a child has to be weened on milk, ability to eat meat comes later. So although some things come as fruit of the spirit other things come with the presence of the spirit in power. Ga 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

 

[Muffled]

AND THE BUSH YELLED OUT:

I AM WHAT I WILL BE
I WILL BE AS THE WIND ITSELF
I WILL BE THE ESSENSE OF ALL
AND I WILL BE THE WILL OF THE ALL
AND YOU WILL WORSHIP FOREVER
~
AND IT'S STILL GOIN & GOIN &...WELL YOU KNOW..
~
`mud

I believe that believing bushes can yell is animism and fantasy on your part.

I believe "I am the one who continues to be" is a better translation.

None of this is stated by God from the burnng bush.

 

[Muffled]

By all means, explain in detail what you think is wrong with my understanding of English.


I believe the problem is not with the Greek but your understanding that the Bible is not written in English. "Ego Eimi" can imply past existence, same with French. "Je suis" for example is how certain verbs are made in Past tense. In the same way, Abraham "Genesthai" which means "Was" in this tense.

I have been waiting VERSUS I am waiting

Besides, none of you are addressing the fact that "I am" is a name. Not a statement. Jesus would have to say "I am I am" for your illogical logic to be logical. But he doesn't. So obviously it's yet another attempt by Trinitarians to warp and distort the grammar to suit their doctrine into what is otherwise completely preposterous interpretations of the text.[/quote]

I believe I have been doing that.

I understand that the Bible is not written in English. It is translated into English.
That is nice but the context does not necessitate that it be translated past tense and it is context that helps form a good translation. An imperfect view is that Jesus is talking about the past because He said before Abraham but that ignores the larger context of Jesus identifying who He is.

I believe that is not logical. If he were simply answering a question of name, He would have said my name is "I am." He is answering a question of Identity. In particular He is answering a question of pre-existence to His current life. By saying He has always existed He is answering the question.

I believe your conclusion is groundless. I have stated before that the translation fits the context.