Did Jesus say he was God???

[captainbryce]

What I believe is going on is that Jesus claimed God to be his birth Father meaning Jesus is THE son of God and supernatural. One thing i would like to point out about this is that because of this earthly birth of Jesus, he becomes Gods Firstborn son. (Not First created, but born on earth)

Except that's not what the scripture actually says.

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

The scripture says Jesus was the first born "over all creation". That means he was the first creation, not the "first born on Earth". And actually, that wouldn't even make sense because he wasn't the first born on Earth. Cain (son of Adam and Eve) was the first born on Earth. But since all things were created through Jesus, being God's firstborn over all creation now makes sense.

What we all argue is what was Jesus before he emptied himself? Was he God or an Angel?

After reading your perspective, I think it's safe to assume that we argue MORE than just that. I don't believe he claimed to be God OR an angel.

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

The Jews saw Jesus's Claim at
Jhn 10:33
They replied, “We’re stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God.”

So clearly the Jews saw Jesus as claiming to be God even though he was a man. So clearly to say "SON OF GOD" carried implications of being God in some way.

It amazes me how trinitarians who bring this argument up always seem to conveniently forget that it was these same Jews who were in fact conspiring to have him executed! The scripture says that they concocted LIES so that they could find an excuse to have him executed. With this taken into consideration, why should we believe their claims of blasphemy came from the heart? These were corrupt leaders who were looking for any excuse they could to find him guilty.

what about John 10:34-36 - Jesus knew that OT judges where called gods because of their god like sovereignty and that Moses was like a god to Aaron and called gods. Jesus argues then how much more can the Incarnate Son of God be called God. (Because Jesus is Godman - Mary bore Gods Child)

That is an INTERPRETATION. But that's not actually what Jesus said! He merely asked a question, that was legit in its own right (before all of the trinitarian presumptions).

 

[captainbryce]

Right so how could very learned men in theological law have accused someone of something so permissible?

That's a very interesting question. Let's see what the bible says about that (since it actually answers this question).

John 11:47-53
47 Then the leading priests and Pharisees called the high council together. “What are we going to do?” they asked each other. “This man certainly performs many miraculous signs. 48 If we allow him to go on like this, soon everyone will believe in him. Then the Roman army will come and destroy both our Temple and our nation.”

49 Caiaphas, who was high priest at that time, said, “You don’t know what you’re talking about! 50 You don’t realize that it’s better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” 51 He did not say this on his own; as high priest at that time he was led to prophesy that Jesus would die for the entire nation. 52 And not only for that nation, but to bring together and unite all the children of God scattered around the world. 53 So from that time on, the Jewish leaders began to plot Jesus’ death.

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

It's not that the men were not "learned" or that they accused him of something permissible. They accused him of making himself "equal" with God, which Jesus never did. In fact he specifically said that he can do NOTHING without God. And that he Judges as God tells him to. He also said that the father is greater than the son. So their accusation was false. But that didn't matter, because they were determined to have him killed regardless!

I think it is because they knew he was indicating far more than was indicated in those verses.

There is nothing "indicated" in the verses beyond what was said. Jesus said exactly what he meant, and what he said made perfect sense. It was the Jewish leaders who were conspiring against him that choose to misrepresent his words (as an excuse to have him killed).

Jesus claimed a uniqueness in his being a son that no one had previously claimed and that extra (how ever much and of whatever kind) was what gave them the idea for the accusation.

I agree. But again, that doesn't equate to him making himself equal with God or of the type of blasphemy they were accusing him of.

 

[look3467]

It's only in harmony when you accept that the Law is valid for "All generations" for "perpetuity". Otherwise you call God a liar.

The works of mankind have been to try to sever the most important link between the Messiah and his message, which was how to live in full compliance with the intent of the Law.

Harmony as a means to an end. The law condemns. There is no saving grace in the law. So any forgiveness from the law must come from God.

To forgive, God must first fulfill His own law as a man, thus purchasing the rights to it as a man, by being victorious over it. Where no man could....save God.

Grace has won out in victory over the condemnation of the law by grace.

We no longer are judged by the law for the purposes of salvation, for Jesus was judged for that in our place.

However, consequences for our own sins are required here on earth and maybe forgiven upon repentance, otherwise, penalty applies.

Reap what we sow is the rule.

Life of our souls is a gift from God and no man...save God...could have accomplished it.
Hence......Jesus.

Blessings, AJ

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't think people actually understand what Laws are...a law does not condemn. Breaking of a law can lead to condemnation. The law in and of itself tells you a basic structure to follow that will lead to the most balance (peace) in your society.

Being i'm not Jewish, I would be very hardpress to say that their laws condemn....

 

[Walkntune]

I don't think people actually understand what Laws are...a law does not condemn. Breaking of a law can lead to condemnation. The law in and of itself tells you a basic structure to follow that will lead to the most balance (peace) in your society.

Being i'm not Jewish, I would be very hardpress to say that their laws condemn....

Laws are for those who refuse to walk in love.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Laws are for those who refuse to walk in love.

Or Laws are obeyed by those who walk in love?

I find the casting away of laws as people just wanting freedom to do whatever they want and claim their right.

If you love you will obey the law. Almost all basic laws establish are based on the idea that people love themselves and would not want something bad to happen to them. So if you treat others how you would treat yourself you would not do them harm.

 

[Walkntune]

Or Laws are obeyed by those who walk in love?

I find the casting away of laws as people just wanting freedom to do whatever they want and claim their right.

If you love you will obey the law. Almost all basic laws establish are based on the idea that people love themselves and would not want something bad to happen to them. So if you treat others how you would treat yourself you would not do them harm.

If I say to my spouse if you love me you will be faithful it is not the faithfulness that keeps the love but its the love that keeps the faithfulness. If there is no love than the faithfulness would only be kept by law and have no meaning anyway.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If I say to my spouse if you love me you will be faithful it is not the faithfulness that keeps the love but its the love that keeps the faithfulness. If there is no love than the faithfulness would only be kept by law and have no meaning anyway?

No, because they are not mutually inclusive.

You can be faithful and not love someone and you can love someone and not be faithful.

In the same way you can be faithful to someone and love them, and you can love someone and be faithful to them.

Respect for instance does not follow love, but a person who respects you will be faithful to you, though they may not love you. Though loving the person does tend to make things like faithfulness easier.

 

[Walkntune]

No, because they are not mutually inclusive.

You can be faithful and not love someone and you can love someone and not be faithful.

In the same way you can be faithful to someone and love them, and you can love someone and be faithful to them.

Respect for instance does not follow love, but a person who respects you will be faithful to you, though they may not love you. Though loving the person does tend to make things like faithfulness easier.

The moment you are not faithful you are not in love. At least not in real love but only carnal and selfish love. Real love is selfless. Carnal love has no meaning either.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The moment you are not faithful you are not in love. At least not in real love but only carnal and selfish love. Real love is selfless. Carnal love has no meaning either.

What is real love besides the definitions that people give it?
What is faithfulness besides how people define it.

Would you say a man who is married to a woman who both agree that they can have relations with another man or woman to be unfaithful? They certainly would not agree.

But this will devolve into two different school of thoughts in which I don't think there will be a resolution lol.

 

[metis]

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the "least" of the Laws will be called the least in the Kingdom. Though he did seem to indicate there were some laws greater than others, he did not imply that any were unimportant regarding their fate in the Kingdom.



I don't think Jesus remotely indicates any of them can be ignored. A commonly abused and misinterpreted passage is "All the Law hangs on these two". Many use that as a way of saying "All the rest are not binding" and come up with some abstract definition of love. It's the opposite. Jesus was saying that every single commandment was summarized by Love of God and neighbor. Not replaced by as the rascals try to say.



Peter's vision, which he explicitly explains as a purely metaphorical demonstration that gentiles are allowed into the church, is one of the most abused and mangled passages in the entire NT. It has nothing to do with the Dietary Laws, much like Mark 7:14 and others. While most Christians will run to call Acts 10 as doing away with the laws, (Which would make Peter a false prophet but who cares about that, right?) there are fortunately a handful of gentile churches that haven't been deluded into this garbage that it's okay to eat whatever you want. Funny still, most Christians have no problem chowing down on blood, even though the alleged Council of Jerusalem (a questionable event and possibly interpolated according to many scholars, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century) specifically forbade it. What it seems is that most Christians are looking for any interpretation which excuses them from any discipline or restraint on their "freedoms". But what was originally intended was most likely the strictest of "legalism", the same "legalism" most antinomians hate with great passion.

Biblical Health Principles









For starters, his anti-wealth and communitarian ideals.



I don't think the Essenes didn't necessarily have their own missionaries and evangelists of sorts. I doubt it was just people who all came to their own decision to go live up on Mt. Carmel.



Enoch is clearly referred to in Jude, as well as Assumption of Moses, and Testament of Solomon is referred to regarding power over demons.

Thanks for the above but it's impossible for me to imagine that the early church would have walked away from the Law if Jesus hadn't opened the door in some way. Secondly, Jesus is quoted as saying all of the Commandments were based on love of God and man, which is simply not true.

So, to me, when I see conflicting verses, I focus in on the actions that result, and that result is that the church walked away from the Law.

 

[1robin]

That's a very interesting question. Let's see what the bible says about that (since it actually answers this question).

John 11:47-53
47 Then the leading priests and Pharisees called the high council together. “What are we going to do?” they asked each other. “This man certainly performs many miraculous signs. 48 If we allow him to go on like this, soon everyone will believe in him. Then the Roman army will come and destroy both our Temple and our nation.”

49 Caiaphas, who was high priest at that time, said, “You don’t know what you’re talking about! 50 You don’t realize that it’s better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” 51 He did not say this on his own; as high priest at that time he was led to prophesy that Jesus would die for the entire nation. 52 And not only for that nation, but to bring together and unite all the children of God scattered around the world. 53 So from that time on, the Jewish leaders began to plot Jesus’ death.

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

Very comprehensive answer. Good job. The evidence that was given of his claiming to be divine, semi-divine, beyond mortal was the statement he actually made about raising the Temple. They were not lying at that point. He was claiming something that even the prophets had not. He was claiming by his own power he could raise himself from the dead. I am not a strict Trinitarian. My only claim is that Jesus was and claimed to be something beyond a prophet, teacher, Rabbi, mortal etc... and I thin we agree. If so there is no meaningfully contention between us.

It's not that the men were not "learned" or that they accused him of something permissible. They accused him of making himself "equal" with God, which Jesus never did. In fact he specifically said that he can do NOTHING without God. And that he Judges as God tells him to. He also said that the father is greater than the son. So their accusation was false. But that didn't matter, because they were determined to have him killed regardless!

Claiming to forgive sins, to have existed before the world and universe, and to by his OWN power raise the dead is anything but a mere prophet, healer, teacher, etc.... Even if he did not mean that he was equal to God it was easy to see why they thought he was claiming that and why the Trinitarian claim is reasonable even if ultimately false. In my opinion it is not really an important question. I must believe his death forgave my sins and be born again either way.

There is nothing "indicated" in the verses beyond what was said. Jesus said exactly what he meant, and what he said made perfect sense. It was the Jewish leaders who were conspiring against him that choose to misrepresent his words (as an excuse to have him killed).

I will not contend this too much but if any series of letters in human history have more meanings than a plain reading it is the Bible. There are levels of understanding a sophistication in even simple verses that is chilling. Hebrews said there is 50 levels of meaning in every verse. I do not agree but there sure is more than a surface meaning many times.

I agree. But again, that doesn't equate to him making himself equal with God or of the type of blasphemy they were accusing him of.

The only thigh certain is he was no mere teacher or prophet. He was something unique, perhaps God, perhaps divine but not God, perhaps just extremely empowered. I do not think what he is can be settled this side of the dirt.

 

[metis]

Let me return to the issue of Jesus, the church, & the Law by citing these verses:

Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”

5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”

8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”


Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”

John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”

Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”

7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”

10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”

14:20: “All foods are clean.”

I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”

Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”

5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”

6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”

Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”

Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”

 

[1robin]

Let me return to the issue of Jesus, the church, & the Law by citing these verses:

Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”

5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”

8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”


Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”

John 8:44: “The father you spring from is the devil… The Jews answered… .”

Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”

7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”

10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”

14:20: “All foods are clean.”

I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”

Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”

5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”

6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”

Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”

Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”

Let me add something to what Sherman posted.

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the "least" of the Laws will be called the least in the Kingdom.

Not obeying laws makes one least in the Kingdom but he is still in the kingdom. Nicodemus obeyed countless laws yet Jesus said he was not even in the kingdom. That is because getting into the kingdom or getting kicked out of it (which IMO is impossible) has nothing to do with obedience but grace and grace alone. If you can out-sin grace then how was it ever grace to begin with. Not that I am for a second suggesting obedience is not very important.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Let me add something to what Sherman posted.

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the "least" of the Laws will be called the least in the Kingdom.

Not obeying laws makes one least in the Kingdom but he is still in the kingdom. Nicodemus obeyed countless laws yet Jesus said he was not even in the kingdom. That is because getting into the kingdom or getting kicked out of it (which IMO is impossible) has nothing to do with obedience but grace and grace alone. If you can out-sin grace then how was it ever grace to begin with. Not that I am for a second suggesting obedience is not very important.

I suppose you are referring to John 3:16, which is an interesting view, I would say that the story of Nicodemus in John is the retelling of the story of The Good Samaritan found in Luke, and the that of the young teacher of Law found in Matthew. John however takes a completely different route with his, which given the writing style makes sense. Rather than focusing on eternal life gained by the teachings of the law or the loving of the neighbor, we find it is now only attainable through Christ.

 

[1robin]

I suppose you are referring to John 3:16, which is an interesting view, I would say that the story of Nicodemus in John is the retelling of the story of The Good Samaritan found in Luke, and the that of the young teacher of Law found in Matthew. John however takes a completely different route with his, which given the writing style makes sense. Rather than focusing on eternal life gained by the teachings of the law or the loving of the neighbor, we find it is now only attainable through Christ.

What parallels do you see with those other stories and Nicodemus? I believe that story was literal, do you not? Your last sentence is the core of my faith and Protestantism and IMO Christianity. The standard is perfection, that cannot be achieved by effort, it can be granted however through substitutionary atonement. Either it is grace or heaven will be empty. John 3 I believe but not 3:16.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What parallels do you see with those other stories and Nicodemus? I believe that story was literal, do you not? Your last sentence is the core of my faith and Protestantism and IMO Christianity. The standard is perfection, that cannot be achieved by effort, it can be granted however through substitutionary atonement. Either it is grace or heaven will be empty. John 3 I believe but not 3:16.

Well given that in each of the stories it is a teaacher of law that approaches Jesus, yet this is the first case that we see that the teacher is given a name.

Given the positive reactions between Jesus and Nicodemus (A Pharisee), it is interesting that he would be named in John but not in the other gospels. Especially since Nicodemus is mentioned at the crucifixion (an interesting thing given that it was the Pharisees allegedly responsible for it).

I just find it interesting that he is mentioned in John, as posing Jesus a question related to eternal life, same as was done by the other teachers of the law, but this is the only time one is given name.

 

[icebuddy]

This, like John 1:1c, should be read as "Claim/make yourself to be a god". In the indefinite. The concept of being "Son of God" has absolutely no clear indication of being "God" but as "a god". It's important to remember that "Divine beings" were in fact called "Elohim". Human souls, such as when Samuel's was summoned, may also have been referred to as Elohim. The issue at stake was them claiming Jesus to be some kind of "Divine being" incarnated, and that's pretty much what John 1:1c is implying as well by referring to him as the incarnation of the "Logos".

What I see is that Jesus was claiming God to be his direct birth Father (Virgin Birth) and the Jewish where calling Jesus a *******. However, Jesus is called Jehovah in other parts of the bible and I disagree with your John 1:1 rendering as "a god".

if you look back to John 5:18 the Jewish leaders said Jesus was claiming "equality with God". So clearly they were not saying Jesus was "a god" like an angel but God on a equal level as the Father as seen here.

Jhn 5:18 So the Jewish leaders tried all the harder to find a way to kill him. For he not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God.

The Trinity Delusion: John 10:33

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. trust the Holy Spirit for guidence

The traditional Trinitarian "make yourself God" has Jesus dishonestly changing the subject and meaning of the accusation in 10:34, this proper grammatically correct one has Jesus being completely consistent with their accusation.

All Greek to English Bibles render "God" and not "a god", but thats not the point. If you look back at john 5:18 you will see that the Jewish leaders saw Jesus claims as to being "Equal" to God. Now ask yourself a question: is "a god" Equal to "God"? Now you can claim they are in error by thinking this, but its clearly what they meant to say.

in Love,
Tom

 

[icebuddy]

Except that's not what the scripture actually says.

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

The scripture says Jesus was the first born "over all creation".

To be born or Birthing only happens on earth. When was Jesus Born? Read Luke 2:7 and Heb 1:6

Luk 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

So clearly Jesus was Born and became "Firstborn" at his earthly birth. (Birth doesnt happen outside of flesh)

hebrews 1:5 shows Jesus is not an angel. and that days already existed when God became his Father (pointing to earthly birth) and Hebrews 1:6 shows that angels were already present when God became a Father to Jesus. Meaning Jesus didnt become Firstborn until after creation.

That means he was the first creation, not the "first born on Earth". And actually, that wouldn't even make sense because he wasn't the first born on Earth. Cain (son of Adam and Eve) was the first born on Earth. But since all things were created through Jesus, being God's firstborn over all creation now makes sense.

You have misunderstood the word "Firstborn" when used in the bible. You are making the word mean "First in order" and not as it is meant for heir ship. Jesus is called Firstborn to show his rank over Creation. Keep Reading too... Col 1:18 sums this all up to be true.

If First born meant "Order of Birth" then why are no women called Firstborn in the bible unless they have no brothers? What about King David being Jesses last son to be born but was the Firstborn? What about 2 brothers trading their Firstborn heir ship over soup? Clearly Firstborn is meaning Jesus's heir ship and points to his birth on earth when God said to him He will be a Father and told the angels to worship him on this day that Mary gave birth to Jesus.

After reading your perspective, I think it's safe to assume that we argue MORE than just that. I don't believe he claimed to be God OR an angel.

Fair enough

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

Jesus was human and fully devine at the same time. Jesus shows signs of his humanity. He didnt know where lazarath was,laid, but knew he had died. Surely Jesus could have tapped into his devine nature but out of his humanity asked, "Where is he"? Jesus tells us that no one knows the time and we shouldnt be setting dates as a religious organization of when he will return. However, we believe Jesus in heaven knows now everything.

It amazes me how trinitarians who bring this argument up always seem to conveniently forget that it was these same Jews who were in fact conspiring to have him executed! The scripture says that they concocted LIES so that they could find an excuse to have him executed. With this taken into consideration, why should we believe their claims of blasphemy came from the heart? These were corrupt leaders who were looking for any excuse they could to find him guilty.

We are reading Gods divine word and he put it there for us to learn and know. You act as if God put lies in his word, i hope I'm in error on this thought of you... I find it interesting that you use Matt 24:36 to point to me something without seeing the clear message of not setting dates... (Assuming you to be a follower of the WTBS)

i also wanted to add that it was Gods plan to have Jesus executed not the Jews. God controls everything and even Jesus says

Jhn 10:18 No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”

Jhn 15:13 There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.

i love you Jesus!



In Love,
tom

 

[metis]

In post 7807, please note this gospel citation that quite clearly negates the following of the Law, and the citations from Paul and the author of Hebrews continues in that vein. One simply cannot say that they are upholding the Law if they're ending it. OTOH, there are citations dealing with the keeping of the Law, so what goes here?

I think there are at least two items that might account for this. One is that I do believe Paul, and eventually the others, comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to be "one body", as Paul insists, whereas there is actually a division within: Jews and gentiles operating under different rules. How can there be "one body" under these circumstances, especially when you may have intermarriage between them, and then how does one observe the "agape meal"-- kosher of not kosher? Remember Peter's eating cheeseburgers with gentiles when James came on to the scene and reprimands Peter.

We see this walking away from the Law long before the end of the century, but as I said previously, how could they do that if Jesus supposedly said they had to follow the entire Law? Well, teaching that Jesus "fulfilled the Law" is obviously the approach that was taken, but stop for a second and think what does "fulfill" mean in this context? Or, to put it another way, is the Law to be followed or not if one's Jewish, and all the apostles were just that?

If Jesus said that they should abandon the Law, that would make him a "false prophet", but to say he "fulfilled the Law" is sort of a way out of it, even though it really does defy logic if one thinks about it because it really doesn't answer the question as to whether Jews still needed to keep it?

Just a reminder: Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.” Now did Jesus actually say these words or was assigned to him later after the church walked away from the Law? I don't know, but the latter is at least a hypothetical possibility.