Did Jesus say he was God???

[psychoslice]

I think Jesus was saying they were simply ignorant of the reality of who he himself was as the Incarnation of the Chosen Messiah, nothing more about Monism.

This "Enlightenment Monism" concept is a nice idea but I don't quite think it's what the authors were intending to be gleaned.

On the outside of the story it doesn't seem that way, but go into the kernel of truth and there it is, this is why Jesus spoke in parables to the many, many were not ready for the inner truth, so the stories he told would act as catalyst for those who pondered over the stories.

 

[Shermana]

On the outside of the story it doesn't seem that way, but go into the kernel of truth and there it is, this is why Jesus spoke in parables to the many, many were not ready for the inner truth, so the stories he told would act as catalyst for those who pondered over the stories.

Perhaps you'd like to point to a particular parable that you feel contains this particular message of Monism.

 

[challupa]

If Jesus were just a man there would be no story because He would have fallen into temptation. The story is a powerful one because it shows that God in a human body can overcome the frailties of the human body. Everything looks rosy from a spiritual vantage point. How easy is it for God to endure the wrenching feeling of hunger and not be tempted to turn stones into bread. It is easy in the spirit but not so easy in the flesh.

I believe that is the whole point. God is not winning souls by wiping out whole cities but He is winning souls by dieing on the cross. Displaying power wins people over for a little bit but showing His love for us wins us over forever.

I believe the convolution comes not from God. It is simple: God who has displyed Himself in power reveals Himself in love and extends that love to us.

He's God. Why would anything be difficult? I mean really?

 

[psychoslice]

Perhaps you'd like to point to a particular parable that you feel contains this particular message of Monism.

Then the disciples came up and asked Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered them, “Because the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given for you to know, but it has not been given to them…For this reason I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see, and hearing they do not listen or understand.” –Matthew 13: 10,11,13

He would speak the word to them with many parables like these, as they were able to understand. And He did not speak to them without a parable. Privately, however, He would explain everything to His own disciples. –Mark 4:33-34

 

[Shermana]

Then the disciples came up and asked Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered them, “Because the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given for you to know, but it has not been given to them…For this reason I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see, and hearing they do not listen or understand.” –Matthew 13: 10,11,13

He would speak the word to them with many parables like these, as they were able to understand. And He did not speak to them without a parable. Privately, however, He would explain everything to His own disciples. –Mark 4:33-34

I asked for a particular parable that specifically deals with what you claimed that he was teaching about this Monistic ideology you claim he was referring to.

All that says is that he spoke in terms that most people would not be able to understand, even though most of the parables aren't too hard to figure out.

So let's try again, you claimed Jesus spoke about this Monism in parables. Obviously that statement is not one of the parables in question. Surely you should have no problem identifying one of them that you claim is about Monism that most people wouldn't be able to understand except the "enlightened".

If you can't find a particular parable to back your claim, you can simply just admit it, that works. It shouldn't be too hard. I don't think there's any parable that Jesus teaches that's too hard to get the gist of, so if your impression is that you can't post one because you feel no one can understand it, that's totally different, but go ahead and post it anyway so I can see which one of them you feel correlates to what you feel was indisputably contextual to the idea of supporting Monism.

 

[psychoslice]

I asked for a particular parable that specifically deals with what you claimed that he was teaching about this Monistic ideology you claim he was referring to.

All that says is that he spoke in terms that most people would not be able to understand, even though most of the parables aren't too hard to figure out.

So let's try again, you claimed Jesus spoke about this Monism in parables. Obviously that statement is not one of the parables in question. Surely you should have no problem identifying one of them that you claim is about Monism that most people wouldn't be able to understand except the "enlightened".

If you can't find a particular parable to back your claim, you can simply just admit it, that works. It shouldn't be too hard. I don't think there's any parable that Jesus teaches that's too hard to get the gist of, so if your impression is that you can't post one because you feel no one can understand it, that's totally different, but go ahead and post it anyway so I can see which one of them you feel correlates to what you feel was indisputably contextual to the idea of supporting Monism.

Its really up to you to find what is within the words, or the esoteric meaning that was pointed to, I can give you my own inner experience of the words but that will be mine and not yours, even Jesus didn't tell the common folk, you must enter your own true inner being, and there you will find the truth, or what the words were pointing to, just try it, but not with the belief that you have been hanging onto, or what others have told you, only you can do it.

 

[psychoslice]

Anyone who reads the Gospels with any degree of understanding recognizes without doubt that they are about something completely different than ordinary cultural ideas. However, people read the Gospels literally and mechanically and do not understand what they read. They read how Jesus continually condemned the Pharisees and other worldly falseness, but they do not see that it applies to them, - to their own inner Pharisee, always pretending to be something it is not. They also read through the film of inherited conditioning that has thickened for two millennia of church interpretation and indoctrination.

 

[Shermana]

Anyone who reads the Gospels with any degree of understanding recognizes without doubt that they are about something completely different than ordinary cultural ideas. However, people read the Gospels literally and mechanically and do not understand what they read. They read how Jesus continually condemned the Pharisees and other worldly falseness, but they do not see that it applies to them, - to their own inner Pharisee, always pretending to be something it is not. They also read through the film of inherited conditioning that has thickened for two millennia of church interpretation and indoctrination.

I most certainly agree. They are about JEWISH Cultural ideals.

But let me know when you plan on providing a single example that we can examine.

 

[psychoslice]

I most certainly agree. They are about JEWISH Cultural ideals.

But let me know when you plan on providing a single example that we can examine.

I don't want to give you a bible lesson, but I want you to go within and for yourself see where the words take you.

Here is an example: Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is available immediately and that it is within the person. It is not "here nor there" as a literal place. If the word "kingdom" is updated to modern usage it means "state" (not a literal state, but a psychological or spiritual state). Heaven is perfect order. So the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus taught indicates a higher state of conscious order, which is not to be entered after death, but during life. It cannot be entered by calling, "Lord, Lord," or by tradition. Few people ever see or hear beyond the conditioned structure of their cultural system. Still, the teaching is there, in the Gospels, beyond the words, - beyond historical and traditional interpretation and prejudice, - available only to those who seek for it from an inner need for truth and light.

 

[Shermana]

I don't want to give you a bible lesson, but I want you to go within and for yourself see where the words take you.

I appreciate your concern about not wanting to give me a "Bible lesson", but here's a "Bible lesson" for you: You can't just give some mystification of the bible and then claim "It's the truth that only enlightened folk like myself can understand". I'll bet you I can understand anything you try to tell me about it. As far as I'm concerned, this is your way of admitting that you can't actually find a single example of a parable for discussion, and that you haven't actually read enough of it to discuss specifics. In your examples below, you've confused sayings of Jesus with "parables". But you're welcome to prove me wrong. After all, this is a debate site. Preaching is not encouraged, in fact it's against the rules. So please debate and don't preach.

Here is an example: Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is available immediately and that it is within the person. It is not "here nor there" as a literal place

.

Yeah I kinda figured that one out a long time ago. He's actually saying it's EVERYWHERE, but at the same time, it's limited to those who have achieved their way into it.

If the word "kingdom" is updated to modern usage it means "state" (not a literal state, but a psychological or spiritual state).

Possible, but it's most likely he's referring to an actual "realm" of God's control. The word "State" did not always mean "Government or Land region". This is where your lack of understanding of etymology steers you off into tangents that are most likely not what the original authors intended. This is almost in the same vein as those who think the Bible was written in English. Unless you can prove that the word for "Kingdom" has a similar meaning to "State", kindly admit that this is an issue of you trying to push an English idiom onto Koine Greek.

Heaven is perfect order. So the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus taught indicates a higher state of conscious order, which is not to be entered after death, but during life.

I actually think you are somewhat correct on this, but there is also the issue of why people would martyr themselves for the sake of the Kingdom. What is their reward? Is it only for their rebirth in this life? Perhaps so. But what is the "Bosom of Abraham"? Do you believe Jesus was only speaking metaphorically of hell as well? Are you familiar with the Gnostic ideas of the Aeons and the Light Kingdom?

It cannot be entered by calling, "Lord, Lord," or by tradition.

Are you referring to Matthew 7:22-23? That's Jesus telling people who think all they have to do is call Jesus Lord to enter the Kingdom while refusing to obey the Law of Moses that they'll get rejected from it. And there's the issue of "on that day". But what is "That day"?

Few people ever see or hear beyond the conditioned structure of their cultural system.

I most certainly agree with that.

Still, the teaching is there, in the Gospels, beyond the words, - beyond historical and traditional interpretation and prejudice, - available only to those who seek for it from an inner need for truth and light.

You have changed the point of your Theological story, that has nothing to do with your Monist idealism. Everyone has their own idea of what the "Truth and light" is. But I can say with certainty that yours ain't it.

 

[psychoslice]

Hi Shermana, I think you know what i am saying as I know what you are saying, we just see it in a different light, I know this is debate, but you cannot really debate the bible, its so full of error, it has been manipulated over many years. All you can do is use the words that you are spiritually discerned with, or directed to, there is no other way, for no religion owns the truth, no book can ever hold it. But back to the original question, did Jesus say he was god, he did and he didn't, it depends on what side you look at, either the outer, or the inner, you can work out he rest, after all you know more than I do.

 

[Kristine]

I love to read the scriptures, I also love to record preaches from different priests, and lectors. After recording it, I use audio transcription services from scribeon.com which would let me transcribe these recordings faster and easier. After which, I'll have my copy and let it distribute to the children around the corner of our home, this way I'll be able to teach them good words from our Lord. Sometimes, these scriptures really mean a thing in our life, it is sometimes the answer to our questions.

 

[starlite]

God did rise from the dead, Jesus IS God.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Jesus himself said authority had been “given” him...who gave Jesus the authority? Even after returning to heaven...Jesus sat at the right hand of God and still had power and authority. Notice that Jesus did not become God in heaven.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Matthew 28:18) . . .And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. . .[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](1 Peter 3:22) . . .He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Jesus’ authority is not limited to the living. He is also “judge of the living and the dead” and has God-given power to resurrect those who have fallen asleep in death. (Acts 10:42; John 5:26-28) [/FONT]

 

[psychoslice]

The whole story of Jesus was to personalize the inner Christ that we all are, he sounded like he was saying he was God, but when you understand that he was talking about his inner SELF, the Christ, then it all makes sense.

We are all Christ Consciousness, many have realized this through being Enlightened, or Awakened, the story of Jesus is just one story out of many, they all point to the same thing, and that is Awakening.

 

[shalom-sobal]

Still there is no line jesus say I am god

They mean direct sentence

All lines describing him as prophet not god

Forexample,

the words that I say unto you , I speak not from myself but from the Father abiding in Me doeth His works

Just like massangers they talk behalf god



John 14:11 ... I am in the Father and the Father in Me

And so all massangers..


Ward father doesn't mean father literally

It is like using word of son in bible

Father is common ward in christianti

They say for religious man oh father, help me

It doesn't me he is real father

Bible use ward son with all prophets to show that they all same
And so jesus like Adam and both of them son of god

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God



Here jesus saying there is only one god so he is not god

So clear, but people still not admit

Mark
29*“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a]

You. As christian should obey jesus
And jesus said there is only one god

So you have to believe there is only one god or you
Will be considered as unbeliever of jesus

Direct sentence take priority on undirect sentence

Islam come to reveal the truth that jews killed someone other
Than jesus whose face lifted like jesus as miracle

And he is prophet

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.



God know better what is inside bible he send jesus

God say in quran

Sahih International
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.


You will never find sentence in bible jesus saying Iam god


. All rights reserved.

 

[challupa]

Here is why the Trinity won.

Found this paragraph to be quite revealing. It sounds like it was a political choice to choose the Trinity definition not because it was the truth, but because it was expedient. From the book "When Jesus became God" by Richard Rubenstein.

Hosius was the one Constantine sent to Alexandria to try to get the two battling groups to come to some kind of a compromise. Athanasius convinced him there could never be a compromise. The two sides were far to divided for that to happen. So Hosius had to make a decision of which side to choose and what would serve Rome the most. One that Constantine would approve because it would bring the most power to the nation and their official religion. Here is why I say this:

"Hosius would surely have found this exposition convincing. (That Jesus had to be a God because a mere human couldn't save mankind from sins, only a God could). His people -- the people of Western Europe -- would not accept a Jesus who was too much like them. They knew they were feeble sinners, struggling to survive in a hostile environment. The Christ they wanted and needed was a High God who could save them by His grace and comfort them through the ministrations of His Church. In fact, Arian theology implicitly reduced the role of the institutional Church. If Jesus' life and character were supposed to serve ordinary Christians as a usable model of behavior, the principal mission of the clergy would be to help people transform themselves, not maintain theological and political unity throughout the Empire. This was another reason Constantine would probably favor the doctrine of Alexander and Athanasius. The Church he needed was one that would help him keep order among the ordinary folk: people who would never become immortal unless God decided for reasons of His own to save them.

Hosius made up his mind. He would write immediately to tell the emperor that compromise was impossible. The Arian heresy could neither be tolerated nor accommodated. It had to be suppressed. At the same time, he would recommend a strategy to end the division in the Christian community as quickly and decisively as possible.

So there is another reason why the Trinity followers had support. It was a better belief to give more power to the Emperor and the Church. It was what was wanted and needed to reach these goals. That doesn't mean it was the truth.

I am finding this all very interesting. Probably because I don't have a 'horse in this race' and don't care one way or the other which was true. It's just fascinating reading to see how this was all decided and it really does seem that the Trinity became the established doctrine because it was expedient to the goals of that day and age. This book doesn't really address what doctrine was correct, but it's more focused on how the trinity doctrine became the victorious one.

 

[Muffled]

Anyone who reads the Gospels with any degree of understanding recognizes without doubt that they are about something completely different than ordinary cultural ideas. However, people read the Gospels literally and mechanically and do not understand what they read. They read how Jesus continually condemned the Pharisees and other worldly falseness, but they do not see that it applies to them, - to their own inner Pharisee, always pretending to be something it is not. They also read through the film of inherited conditioning that has thickened for two millennia of church interpretation and indoctrination.

I don't believe I have done that in this thread but I am willing to hear what one construes as such.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't believe I have done that in this thread but I am willing to hear what one construes as such.

Its pretty simple really, the church over many years have focused the scriptures to their own interpretation, they read in the scriptures how god didn't like this and how he didn't like that, they use what they have come to believe as a wepon against those who don't agree with their interpretation, and the other also have used their interpretation as a wepon as well. There is no one way of enterpreting the Scriptures, whatever level of Consciousness you are, that is where your discernment of truth will come from.

In the dark ages the level of Consciousness was very low and hence the dark ages, today there are many who are questioning the old beliefs, they are realizing that God is within and was never found outside, these are the ones who will lead us all to a higher Consciousness, we then will realize what was meant by heaven on earth because that is the only place where you will ever find it, and also we will realize that Jesus if he ever did existed was simply telling us that we are all God, that is collectively .

 

[Shermana]

There is no one way of enterpreting the Scriptures,

Do you believe that the original authors intended to have more than one way of reading what they wrote? I don't.

 

[1robin]

Do you believe that the original authors intended to have more than one way of reading what they wrote? I don't.

I agree with you here which is a very uncomfortable state to be in. Just kidding but I have a question for you. Even if the Hebrews did not think Christ the messiah that is certainly a potential mistake they made. How do Jews today account for their turning him over to be killed. I for some reason have never heard the Jewish take on this. They killed or caused to be killed what was the only sinless being known to history and a great teacher at the very least and potentially the unique son of God or even God himself. How are those events understood in Judaism?