Did Jesus say he was God???

[Francine]

Why did He ask His Father why He'd forsaken Him? It would have been impossible for the Father to have forsaken Himself.

Well the answer is right out of the Book of Mormon:

Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? ... Yea, he is the very Eternal Father. Alma 11:38-39

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. Ether 3:14

 

[Quath]

The closest that I have come to understand the concept of the Trinity is to assume that God has multiple personalities. But this is not really a good description since they do seem to appear in different bodies.

The next approach is to assume that when they mean they are the same is that they all belong to some divine council. Then their differences seem to make more sense. However, most Christians do not seem to accept this version.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

BEFORE Yeshua was sent here by his god it is written he had his own will. This will Yeshua had was before he was made flesh. If God is "One" then how does God have two wills?

John
6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.


If we are to believe that Yehsua is God then who taught God? If God is omnipotent and omniscient then how can he be taught.

John 8:28
.........I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

If we are to belive that Yeshua is God then why before coming here did Yeshua reveal that he did that which he saw God do?

John
8:38 I speak that which I have seen (with) my Father:

If we are to believe Yeshua is God and God is omnipotent then who can give God power? It is revealed that before coming here Yeshua is given power.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth

If Yeshua is God before coming here why does he tell us he will be returning to his god?

John
20:17
........I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my god, and your god.

If we are to believe that Yeshua was God all along then does God have a god. If God does not have a god then who was he crying out to?

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, my god, my god, why have you left me?

Should we not be looking upon these statements as being straight to the point that Yeshua is not God? If not why? And will your explanation be shown, using the four gospels, he is God?

If Yeshua is God incarnate then can we say that others in the scripture are God incarnate? If not why? And will your explanation be backed by scripture so that we may reference it?

Why have we not considered Haggai to be God incarnate? A lot of the wording gives the impression God is speaking through Haggai. If you don't consider Haggai to be God incarnate, which I know you don't, and Haggais was just a messenger bringing the word of God then observe what Yeshua says;

John
3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure.

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.

It appaers Yeshua simply reveals he is the student of God who was sent, not by his will but, by the will of God to carry out a task God gave him. This task was to give the people God's word (his sayings - commandment - truth - doctrine).

 

[Katzpur]

Well the answer is right out of the Book of Mormon:

Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? ... Yea, he is the very Eternal Father. Alma 11:38-39

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. Ether 3:14

Very good! I'm impressed. I mean that. (Though experience tells me you have more knowledge of Mormonism than the average person on the street. So what's your background anyway? Former LDS or what?)

The only thing is that you are not interpreting those verses the way a Latter-day Saint would. Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as the Eternal Father, but that is not because He and His Father are the same individual. It's because of His role as the creator (under His Father's direction), but more often because of His role as the Father of those who accept Him as their Savior and are born to eternal life. Just as God the Father (i.e. the first person of the Godhead) is the father of our spirits, Jesus is the Father of the new birth, since it is through Him that each of us has been given the promise of receiving a resurrected body.

 

[credance]

If you get confused ask Philip. He found out the hard way. I bet he felt like a dufus.

 

[Quath]

Pretty good list, DreGod07. Here is one that really confused me when dealing with the Trinity:

John 14:28
"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

 

[Francine]

Very good! I'm impressed. I mean that. (Though experience tells me you have more knowledge of Mormonism than the average person on the street. So what's your background anyway? Former LDS or what?)

My background was someone who was briefly very interested in Mormonism after a visit from missionaries, I read their pamplets and even the whole BoM (in two weeks, jumping around, smallest books to largest, although Alma was a good'un). All the air went out of my balloon, however, when I found that based only on the BoM, there's no very compelling reason for a Restoration. Maybe if I read D&C, but at this point I only accept BoM (tentatively) as scripture...I can see that no matter what the circumstances of its origin it does generally present the same plan of salvation as the rest of Christianity. In other words, I am open to the possibility that God is reaching many people through the Bom, and so it does serve his purposes.

 

[Katzpur]

My background was someone who was briefly very interested in Mormonism after a visit from missionaries, I read their pamplets and even the whole BoM (in two weeks, jumping around, smallest books to largest, although Alma was a good'un). All the air went out of my balloon, however, when I found that based only on the BoM, there's no very compelling reason for a Restoration. Maybe if I read D&C, but at this point I only accept BoM (tentatively) as scripture...I can see that no matter what the circumstances of its origin it does generally present the same plan of salvation as the rest of Christianity. In other words, I am open to the possibility that God is reaching many people through the Bom, and so it does serve his purposes.

Thank you for filling me in, Francine. I could tell you were not being contentious, but I was stumped by your knowledge.

Not to hijack this thread, but to provide you with an article you may find interesting, here is something you may wish to read: The Gertrude Specht Story.

 

[crystalonyx]

There really is very little biblical support for the trinity, this concept was developed more thoroughly much later in the history of Xianity.

 

[Francine]

The only thing is that you are not interpreting those verses the way a Latter-day Saint would. Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as the Eternal Father, but that is not because He and His Father are the same individual. It's because of His role as the creator (under His Father's direction), but more often because of His role as the Father of those who accept Him as their Savior and are born to eternal life.

The 27 books of the New Testament never refers to Jesus as our father, and in fact, Jesus revolutionized Judaism by calling Yahweh our Heavenly Father, Abba, "Papa" which implied a relationship that was so familiar and close that it shocked the religious authorities of the time, and it continues to scandalize Muslims to this day, because their view of the Creator is more exhalted. The bible calls Jesus our brother instead, because he is the first-fruits of the resurrection. The bible also says God is not the author of confusion, which is a good test for whether a doctrine has its origin in the Holy Spirit. A similar problem arose the last time we were visited by the LDS kids, they brought up a vision of Lehi about how the branch of the house of Israel in America was broken off and will be grafted back in during the latter days, and this vision is taken almost word for word from a parable Paul taught in Romans about the unbelieving Jews being broken off from the Israel of God so that the gentiles could be grafted in. The same symbolic figure, but talking about two totally different things. Confusion. Very disturbing to me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Pretty good list, DreGod07. Here is one that really confused me when dealing with the Trinity:

John 14:28
"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

That one is good but dip back just a little futher and check this one out...

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Not only is his god greater than him his god is greater than all. I presented the other quotes because I was told God was "One" but we see Yeshua, before even being sent to earth in the flesh, was taught by his god, did what he saw his god do, sent by his god, not by his own will and he was instructed by his god what to say.

I find it interesting talking to some, that what appears to be a straight forward declaration ends up in a multitude of interpertations to try and justify Yeshua being God. God can not possibly be "one" if Yeshua gives information that they aren't. Another interesting quote that some use is "The father and I are one" I was doing some research and found that the greek word (one) that is being used is (HEN) and that word means to be one in purpose (Also see John 17:21-23). The biggest one for me is John 6:38. Those who believe Yeshua to be God may have to explain how they come to the notion he is God after reading that simple and straight forward declaration.

 

[Katzpur]

The 27 books of the New Testament never refers to Jesus as our father, and in fact, Jesus revolutionized Judaism by calling Yahweh our Heavenly Father, Abba, "Papa" which implied a relationship that was so familiar and close that it shocked the religious authorities of the time, and it continues to scandalize Muslims to this day, because their view of the Creator is more exhalted.

The New Testament may not, but Isaiah, in prophesying of Christ's coming does: "...and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." I'm always surprised at how infrequently this verse is mentioned by trinitarians who are trying to argue their case. Mormons, on the other hand, because they are not trinitarians, have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a literal Father-Son relationship between God the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. It makes perfect sense to us that Jesus would have referred to His Father as "Abba."

The bible calls Jesus our brother instead, because he is the first-fruits of the resurrection.

And you will hear Mormons refer to Him as their Brother hundreds of times to every one time you hear them refer to Him as their Father. The fact that there is a verse in the Book of Mormon which refers to Him as the Eternal Father does have what I personally feel is a good explanation, though; it's the same explanation I would use with reference to Isaiah 9:6.

The bible also says God is not the author of confusion, which is a good test for whether a doctrine has its origin in the Holy Spirit.

Which is why I could never accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Reading the Athanasian Creed is enough to give me a headache.

A similar problem arose the last time we were visited by the LDS kids, they brought up a vision of Lehi about how the branch of the house of Israel in America was broken off and will be grafted back in during the latter days, and this vision is taken almost word for word from a parable Paul taught in Romans about the unbelieving Jews being broken off from the Israel of God so that the gentiles could be grafted in. The same symbolic figure, but talking about two totally different things. Confusion. Very disturbing to me.

I'm going to have to get back to you on this. That's an interesting dilemma, though. I'd like to look into it more.

 

[athanasius]

The New Testament may not, but Isaiah, in prophesying of Christ's coming does: "...and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." I'm always surprised at how infrequently this verse is mentioned by trinitarians who are trying to argue their case. Mormons, on the other hand, because they are not trinitarians, have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a literal Father-Son relationship between God the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. It makes perfect sense to us that Jesus would have referred to His Father as "Abba."

Good point! As a matter of fact that a great point! The Isaiah Prophecy quote is one of the best ones I have read in scripture to point to the divinity of Christ, his nature, and oneness with the Father(at least on a implicit level). These verse can demonstrate the oneness of the two very well but they do not demonstrate a explicit Trinitarian doctrine. Tradition was needed to see how these passages have been interpreted from the beginning to see the fuller dogma here. Of coarse the Councils also helped. Good thinking though! I agree with your assessment!

 

[Francine]

Good point! As a matter of fact that a great point! The Isaiah Prophecy quote is one of the best ones I have read in scripture to point to the divinity of Christ, his nature, and oneness with the Father(at least on a implicit level)

There's also a strange verse in the same book that seems to express the idea of God as both one and plural, simultaneously, Isa. 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 

[athanasius]

There's also a strange verse in the same book that seems to express the idea of God as both one and plural, simultaneously, Isa. 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

Very interesting! Good point! This verse from Isaiah and one from Genesis also hint implicitly to the oneness of God but the Plurality of Persons. Indeed the Council Fathers took many scriptures and tradition into play when formally defining the dogma. Great insight Francine!

 

[Francine]

Very interesting! Good point! This verse from Isaiah and one from Genesis also hint implicitly to the oneness of God but the Plurality of Persons. Indeed the Council Fathers took many scriptures and tradition into play when formally defining the dogma. Great insight Francine!

I believe it was Archbishop Sheen who said our understanding of the Trinity came about in the same way you gradually see more and more of the contents of a room as a light with a dimmer switch is slowly turned on. The truth was always there, but at a certain point in time the light was bright enough to allow recognition, which was then followed by formal definitions.

 

[OverStandIng]

There Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity . By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing . They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son . This Would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .

 

[Katzpur]

I believe it was Archbishop Sheen who said our understanding of the Trinity came about in the same way you gradually see more and more of the contents of a room as a light with a dimmer switch is slowly turned on. The truth was always there, but at a certain point in time the light was bright enough to allow recognition, which was then followed by formal definitions.

The way I look at it, the Apostles and others who were contemporaries of Jesus had more light by far than the philosophers and theologicans centuries later who defined God as a substance. The light was strongest at first, and the dimmer switch was slowly turned off, leaving men to stumble around in the dark as they tried to figure out how one could be three and three could be one.

 

[OverStandIng]

The way I look at it, the Apostles and others who were contemporaries of Jesus had more light by far than the philosophers and theologicans centuries later who defined God as a substance. The light was strongest at first, and the dimmer switch was slowly turned off, leaving men to stumble around in the dark as they tried to figure out how one could be three and three could be one.

Looking at it from a scientific point of view, light is considered chaos and darkness is considered good. If you sit in a dark room, you feel at peace (try it), just as you were in your mother’s womb. You felt secure, however, when you turn on the light you give birth to chaos.

 

[Katzpur]

Looking at it from a scientific point of view, light is considered chaos and darkness is considered good. If you sit in a dark room, you feel at peace (try it), just as you were in your mother’s womb. You felt secure, however, when you turn on the light you give birth to chaos.

I don't look at God from a scientific point of view. I can't understand Him from that point of view. I look at Him from a spiritual point of view and receive confirmation from the Holy Ghost of my beliefs.