Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

Sorry, but the above analogy doesn't even get close to fitting what we're dealing with. If I talk about "my father", then it is very clear that I am referring to a separate person other than myself even though we're related. If I say that I don't know when the "end times" will happen but that "my father" knows, then it's obvious I'm talking about another person even though we're related.

Therefore, for you to say that I'm operating under some sort of "delusion" is quite misplaced.

I will accept that as valid due to the evidence you have provided.

I believe I would like to see you prove this point rather than just make a declaration.

Then you would be incorrect because God is not a father in the same way that your father is.

I beilieve when someone says something is clear it means he can't prove his point.

I believe this to be incoorect because the knowing here means experiencing. Since God the son only exists as a concept when there is a physical presence then there can come a time when that concept doesn't exist. This does not mean that the Spirit of God has ceased to exist but only that the body no longer exists. Jesus knows when the world will end just as much as the Father does because it is the same intelligence but Jesus will not be there to experience it as the Father will but the Spirit is the same person in or out of Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

And he disagreeed with the pharissees on that point. Became a semantic bickering of what it means to be sons of the most high.

I believe at the trial He did not differ with them so an interpretation that Jesus did differ with them elsewhere appears to be inconsistent and therefore not a good interprettion.

 

[Muffled]

Only according to the Gospel of John is Jesus seen as a deity. The Synoptic Gospels do not see Jesus as God.

Starting with John 10:30

. The Jews were addressing his claim in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." It is this earlier claim that he was claiming to be god that inflamed the Jews and they moved to stone Jesus.

Jesus tried to appeal to them reminding them of his great works. But he does not address the cause of their anger: ie. his blasphemous claim he is god in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

They make it clear in John 10:33. "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Jesus is forced to come up with a different answer, something more acceptable because his first try was unsatisfactory. Jesus has put his foot in his mouth before.

So he replies with a question in John 10:34 " Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?

It is a bit of convoluted logic that he references to god figuratively calling people gods in Psalms. The man is desperate, his first answer was unsatisfactory and he is about to get stoned. So he brings up past examples where people were also called gods and therein is his justification and rationalism. Thus offering the semantic legality of his claim.
It did not work for him the third time he claimed to be the Christ. The Jews were a bit tired of this and asked that he be crucified. And he was. Final proof he lost all credibility and was punished. Did the Jews judge god or a misguided Jewish rabbi? The fact the Jews are still around. One has to conclude it was the latter.

Welcome to RF. I hope you enjoy the debates and take adavantage of other areas as well.

I believe this is not correct since Matthew has Immanuel - God with us and Luke has the inspiration of God into the conception although that is somewhat oblique.

I believe however "I and my Father are one can be seen as the answer to their objections and the two together become the reason for stoning although if the former were the reason then why wasn't the stoning previous to the statemsnt Jesus Makes in John 10:30.

I do not believe this is the case because it was believed that a person could not perform the miracles without God and that the miracles stood as a testimony of His veracity.

I believe this has more to do with God's mercy that their innocence and the holocaust hardly represents a God protecting His people.

 

[icebuddy]

The word god has always meant more than just God the Almighty....as it has been used to refer to men, judges, and Jesus in the bible and can mean mighty ones. It is only in recent times that the word god is thought to only mean the almighty creator. And so instead of being "watered down" it has been restricted in its meaning. They may have meant that Jesus was claiming to be God, but that was an accusation, and Jesus only claimed to be the Son of God.

Since Jesus expresses the Father fully and exactly by his very being, what then show we think of when Jesus is called god? Show we think less than that which he fully expresses or exactly of who he expresses...? When Thomas was confronted with this, how did Thomas respond?

You "struggle" with my thoughts because you are misunderstanding my beliefs.

Ill agree to that. Its hard to know ones beliefs in full if they dont have a particular religion that they follow. Thats why you see me asking what religion people are...

You said this " To say Jesus who is the Image of God is expressing 'a god" lesser than "The God" sounds odd to me...? " It sounds odd to you because I have never said that.

Ok, if you where in Thomas shoes and was kneeling before Jesus, whould you say to Jesus, "My Lord and My God" or would you in the back of your head be thinking... Not God but something like a man or a judge as indicated above?

And this which you said..."Does your Jesus who is the image of God exactly express the Father or does he fall short? " also is something that I would not have said or believe, of course, he doesn't fall short, and he is the image of God expressing his God the Father, representing his God and Father.

This is Good... Still would like to dig deeper into your thoughts...

There is no "your Jesus" there is only one Christ Jesus, the messiah and Son of God.

Great! i like the way you said that... What i would add to this, where would you place Jesus before becoming a man on earth... (Just Probing your belief)

All of the OT was originally written in the same case lettering and so Isaiah would have written it that way and so it would have been mighty god and not mighty God or Mighty God. And so being that all letters were of the same case, to determine who is being referred to you need to take the verses in context. And I do not believe that Isaiah meant that the Messiah would be God Almighty, but mighty one, as god can and does mean mighty ones, or ones of a higher position, or renowned ones.

Context tells us that Jehovah is both God and Savior, why then say the Savior is not Jehovah or Mighty God as Jehovah is? Is 44:6-8 says the repurchaser of Jehovah is called "Jehovah of Armies". Context says like Isaiah 46:9 that there is none like God, yet we read Jesus is exactly like God... No other Rock but God, yet we read Jesus is the Rock... No other true Shepherd and we are Gods Sheep, yet Jesus is the true shepherd and we are his sheep. No other foundation but God, yet Jesus is our foundation. No other savior but God, yet Jesus is our Savior. That is why when We/I read passage of the old testament God Jehovah being applied directly to Jesus we can say, oh, I get it, Jesus is God. But how might go through our minds, and we read PHIL 2:5-8 where Jesus was in the very nature of God and emptied himself to become a man. Our God is also really our Savior too. Some might say "Form of God" means spirit, but why didnt God put the word "Spirit" saying Jesus was in the form of a spirit and became man. Rather Gods word says "Form of God" became the "Form of Man"... Ask the question What does form of Man mean? Was Jesus a man? Why then does one say "Form of God" means anything but God?

I see no difference in meaning between "in" and "is"

If God had 1 image that reveals himself to us, that would be Jesus (Is Gods Only True Image) The invisible made visible through Jesus.

If God had Images that fall way short of expressing him, yet still show images or Glimpses of God, that would be in the image of God.



For example: Clouds sometime look like images we know. If a cloud looked like a man, we could say that cloud is "In the image of a man" but we could not say that cloud "Is the visible image of any one man". We are like the clouds expressing Gods image, and Jesus is the real image of the true God. Jesus isnt one of many images, Jesus is the only one true image of God.

I don't understand why this that you said above as I have never said that Jesus was forced into anything. But I do believe he is the Son and the Messiah and not God the Almighty as Jesus himself says he has a God and Father. I'm sure you know what verse I am referring to. And I take Jesus at his word.

Yes, no need to look for it. When Jesus emptied himself from the "Form of God" to become the "Form of Man" he became like every Jew. As a Jew, Jesus had a God the Father, yet he himself was God made into man, creator of all things.

i pointing out that the JW belief is that Jesus was an angel, then became a man (less than the angles, who he was boss angel), then back to angel(Boss Angel again). Do you see that as possible? Jesus has Angels over him to protect him and help him, yet he was Boss angel at one time in need of no help... Just trying to help you see how no matter what belief you have, at some point Jesus was lower than God, Angels, and even the lowest of men. But not because he was forced or that was his Job. Jesus did this because he loved his creation. Everything was created by Jesus and For Jesus...

In Love,
Tom

PS - These are my beliefs and I believe them to be true

 

[metis]

I will accept that as valid due to the evidence you have provided.

I believe I would like to see you prove this point rather than just make a declaration.

Then you would be incorrect because God is not a father in the same way that your father is.

I beilieve when someone says something is clear it means he can't prove his point.

I believe this to be incoorect because the knowing here means experiencing. Since God the son only exists as a concept when there is a physical presence then there can come a time when that concept doesn't exist. This does not mean that the Spirit of God has ceased to exist but only that the body no longer exists. Jesus knows when the world will end just as much as the Father does because it is the same intelligence but Jesus will not be there to experience it as the Father will but the Spirit is the same person in or out of Jesus.

I established the point, so I honestly don't know what I could possibly "prove" beyond what's found in the gospels themselves, such as the verse I paraphrased. I guess you'll just believe in what you believe in regardless as to what evidence might be presented.

 

[icebuddy]

You bet. I believe, but could not prove Jesus is God but I can show he was not a man like the rest of us.

Just keep reading my posts, I believe there are many proofs that Jesus is God all over the place... For example, Who is the Jews Rock? Ps 78:35 and Is 44:6-8 Gods is their Rock and he know of no other Rock. So to a Jew, to say Jesus was their Rock was to say Jesus was their God of the OT. now Read 1 Cor 10:1-4 what does Gods word not want us to be ignorant of? Read Psalms 78:14 who was guiding the Jews by Cloud during the day?

in Psalms 78 the Jews are told to hand down their stories of God so that their Children would not forget who their God is. God is your Rock, God is the one who guided you, God is Creator alone, God is your shepherd, God is your savior, no one is like God, ect...

Now these Children who have been handed down all of this info hear that Jesus is Everything that they have been taught that God is alone. Either Jesus is God or equal to God or he is a false prophet... Then as Paul and the disciples write and explain, Jesus was God and with God, in the form of God and became in the form of man to become our Savior, died and rose again. Although he emptied himself, do not forget who he was 1Cor10:1-4 and Hebrews 1:10-12 with PS 102:25-27

Revelation 22:12-21 should be enough, but people dont believe because they have ideas of what God can and cant do... Yet Jesus closes everything out when we read "Yes he is coming soon, come Lord Jesus" at Verse 20,21 and we read in verse 12 that Jesus is coming as the Alpha and Omega. Many people see Jesus as the Offspring of David and focus on that alone, yet dont realize he is also the root source of David too...

PS - these are my beliefs and I believe them to be true

 

[Harikrish]

Welcome to RF. I hope you enjoy the debates and take adavantage of other areas as well.

I believe this is not correct since Matthew has Immanuel - God with us and Luke has the inspiration of God into the conception although that is somewhat oblique.

I believe however "I and my Father are one can be seen as the answer to their objections and the two together become the reason for stoning although if the former were the reason then why wasn't the stoning previous to the statemsnt Jesus Makes in John 10:30.

I do not believe this is the case because it was believed that a person could not perform the miracles without God and that the miracles stood as a testimony of His veracity.

I believe this has more to do with God's mercy that their innocence and the holocaust hardly represents a God protecting His people.

There were others before Jesus that also performed miracles. Elijah and Elisha also raised the dead.
The mob told Jesus they were not attacking him for his miracles or works but for blasphemy.

John 10:" 33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

 

[metis]

To add to my last post, here's where one can check and see how Jesus used the name "Father", and please note that Jesus' references are to someone other than himself: Bible, Revised Standard Version

 

[1robin]

To add to my last post, here's where one can check and see how Jesus used the name "Father", and please note that Jesus' references are to someone other than himself: Bible, Revised Standard Version

The claim that Jesus is God is not a claim that he was the father. The trinity (true or false) claims three individual wills or persons composing one being.

 

[metis]

The claim that Jesus is God is not a claim that he was the father. The trinity (true or false) claims three individual wills or persons composing one being.

I think most people who look at this objectively would either call that "polytheism" or "bad math".

Secondly, the early church itself had difficulty with this, so the concept of the "trinity" hardly was a slam dunk. Thirdly, it was the gentile church, not the Jewish one, that made that theological decision long after Jesus and the apostles were dead and the church was run by gentiles. Fourth, if Jesus had walked around saying "I am God", no Jew in their right mind would have followed him. Fifth, Jesus on many occasions differs himself from God, including saying that he knows not when the end times will occur and that only the Father does.

And what's the clear-cut evidence as found in scripture that Jesus actually is God? None that I've ever seen.

 

[Desert Snake]

The claim that Jesus is God is not a claim that he was the father. The trinity (true or false) claims three individual wills or persons composing one being.

That is only one understanding of the 'trinity'. It doesn't hold up when we examine the nature of Esa or the authority needed to modify previous Covenant laws. The idea of 'three individual wills' at once discredits the authority of Esa, and simultaneously puts Him at odds with the father, as only G-d can change or modify the Covenant.
In the context of 'individuals', apart from each other, it only works with a completely new Covenant, (only some churches believe this), or a direct statement against the father i.e. JHVH.
Obviously, neither of these options is true Christianity, that is why Jesus is the same as the father in Spirit, the only seeming 'separation' here is that G-d while manifesting Himself into human form partially separated Himself from His Deity aspect.
Another thing to consider, the 'trinity' is by all account referred to as monotheistic, this means that even the churches who use this description for the Godhead understand that it is one Deity. As soon as you get 'individual' agendas in the equation, it is no longer monotheism.

 

[1robin]

I think most people who look at this objectively would either call that "polytheism" or "bad math".

I would call it anything but. Most people think of even human as dualistic beings. A body and soul. Even the mind and brain have much evidence to suggest they are unique. What can be philosophically valid for mere humans is certainly reasonable for a divine being without any limitations. If I was to ask why couldn't God be three persons comprising one being I have no idea what potential conflict it would cause. There are literally endless examples of multiple independent parts comprising both singular identity and a corporate identity.

Secondly, the early church itself had difficulty with this, so the concept of the "trinity" hardly was a slam dunk. Thirdly, it was the gentile church, not the Jewish one, that made that theological decision long after Jesus and the apostles were dead and the church was run by gentiles. Fourth, if Jesus had walked around saying "I am God", no Jew in their right mind would have followed him. Fifth, Jesus on many occasions differs himself from God, including saying that he knows not when the end times will occur and that only the Father does.

The council that dealt the most with this issue had 1800 bishops invited. It was actually a council about the essence of Christ not his unique existence. Only two bishops rejected his divine nature.

And what's the clear-cut evidence as found in scripture that Jesus actually is God? None that I've ever seen.

I am not really a trinity defender. I mostly just point out how horribly the issue is argued. It is like both sides are shooting holes in the sky and kicking up a sand storm of debris but no one gets hit. I believe Jesus is divine, I can give evidence until I am sick that he could not possibly be merely human. But I have never found a need to have a firm position. I must do the exact same thing to be saved either way.

 

[1robin]

That is only one understanding of the 'trinity'. It doesn't hold up when we examine the nature of Esa or the authority needed to modify previous Covenant laws. The idea of 'three individual wills' at once discredits the authority of Esa, and simultaneously puts Him at odds with the father, as only G-d can change or modify the Covenant.
In the context of 'individuals', apart from each other, it only works with a completely new Covenant, (only some churches believe this), or a direct statement against the father i.e. JHVH.
Obviously, neither of these options is true Christianity, that is why Jesus is the same as the father in Spirit, the only seeming 'separation' here is that G-d while manifesting Himself into human form partially separated Himself from His Deity aspect.
Another thing to consider, the 'trinity' is by all account referred to as monotheistic, this means that even the churches who use this description for the Godhead understand that it is one Deity. As soon as you get 'individual' agendas in the equation, it is no longer monotheism.

No individual agendas, but individual wills with the same agenda.

I must first find out who Esa is. Do you mean Issa? It is not a biblical name and I could not even Google it. Much of what you said is not far enough from my position to justify disagreement but Esa was lost on me.

 

[Desert Snake]

No individual agendas, but individual wills with the same agenda.

I must first find out who Esa is. Do you mean Issa? It is not a biblical name and I could not even Google it. Much of what you said is not far enough from my position to justify disagreement but Esa was lost on me.

Sorry about that, yes, it's the same. I simply used it as it's easier to write than 'Jesus', which I continually misspell (it's a typing thing).
That's just a transliteration, lol no other meaning than Jesus/Yeshu/Yesu/Yeshua

 

[1robin]

Sorry about that, yes, it's the same. I simply used it as it's easier to write than 'Jesus', which I continually misspell (it's a typing thing).
That's just a transliteration, lol no other meaning than Jesus/Yeshua/Yesu/Yeshua

No problem, I am almost illiterate myself so I take short cuts when I can. Was there any remaining contentions you have with my position?

 

[Desert Snake]

No problem, I am almost illiterate myself so I take short cuts when I can. Was there any remaining contentions you have with my position?

No only those I mentioned. I believe that when Jesus states He is doing the will of the Father, this means that He is noting the difference between His 'man form', and His authority which is divine.

 

[metis]

I would call it anything but. Most people think of even human as dualistic beings. A body and soul. Even the mind and brain have much evidence to suggest they are unique. What can be philosophically valid for mere humans is certainly reasonable for a divine being without any limitations. If I was to ask why couldn't God be three persons comprising one being I have no idea what potential conflict it would cause. There are literally endless examples of multiple independent parts comprising both singular identity and a corporate identity.

If it is beyond our limitations then that cuts both ways. There simply is no real evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as the "trinity", nor can one argue it using any logic because, as you say above, it's really above our comprehensive ability.

The council that dealt the most with this issue had 1800 bishops invited. It was actually a council about the essence of Christ not his unique existence. Only two bishops rejected his divine nature.

That makes no difference as truth is not a majority thingy, especially since Jesus had long been dead and the bishops did not know him.

I am not really a trinity defender. I mostly just point out how horribly the issue is argued. It is like both sides are shooting holes in the sky and kicking up a sand storm of debris but no one gets hit. I believe Jesus is divine, I can give evidence until I am sick that he could not possibly be merely human. But I have never found a need to have a firm position. I must do the exact same thing to be saved either way.

The only real "evidence" you can produce is your interpretations out of your own scriptures, which is and are highly subjective. Also, it seems from your last sentence is that there's something you believe you can do to earn your salvation, and there are some Christians that would argue against that approach. I would suggest that if a Christian really means to be "saved" that they should do what they read in the Sermon in the Mount plus being a "sheep" such as found in Matthew 25, not to earn salvation but to do the will of the Father because it's simply the right thing to do.

 

[1robin]

If it is beyond our limitations then that cuts both ways. There simply is no real evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as the "trinity", nor can one argue it using any logic because, as you say above, it's really above our comprehensive ability.

Since I do not defend the trinity that is not really a problem for me. I however will defend the evidence that leaves no room for Jesus merely being a man.

That makes no difference as truth is not a majority thingy, especially since Jesus had long been dead and the bishops did not know him.

It was not a claim to truth. It was a claim about our agreement to what is the truth. From the earliest days Christianity had a majority opinion that Christ was divine. You may say that is not true but what you said is that we did not believe that in our earlier years.

The only real "evidence" you can produce is your interpretations out of your own scriptures, which is and are highly subjective. Also, it seems from your last sentence is that there's something you believe you can do to earn your salvation, and there are some Christians that would argue against that approach. I would suggest that if a Christian really means to be "saved" that they should do what they read in the Sermon in the Mount plus being a "sheep" such as found in Matthew 25, not to earn salvation but to do the will of the Father because it's simply the right thing to do.

I emphatically deny any hint to my ability to earn my salvation. That is probably the position I am most opposed to in all of theology. I am a grace alone Christian. How in the world did you get the opposite idea from my statements? Obedience is important but it won't do anything for salvation. Christ and Christ alone was enough.

Any theological issue is primarily based on scripture. How is that a detriment? Any position on Christ (including yours) is an interpretation of scripture.

 

[Harikrish]

If it is beyond our limitations then that cuts both ways. There simply is no real evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as the "trinity", nor can one argue it using any logic because, as you say above, it's really above our comprehensive ability.



That makes no difference as truth is not a majority thingy, especially since Jesus had long been dead and the bishops did not know him.



The only real "evidence" you can produce is your interpretations out of your own scriptures, which is and are highly subjective. Also, it seems from your last sentence is that there's something you believe you can do to earn your salvation, and there are some Christians that would argue against that approach. I would suggest that if a Christian really means to be "saved" that they should do what they read in the Sermon in the Mount plus being a "sheep" such as found in Matthew 25, not to earn salvation but to do the will of the Father because it's simply the right thing to do.

All this could have been avoided if the Jews had a more precise language to write the inspired word of God. Their use of singular mixed with plurals created the dilemma of a plurality of Gods. Their imprecise use of past , present and future tenses also made their prophesies timeless with no expiration date. So what has happen can happen again and what has not happened is yet to happen and what is never going to happen is a long long time away.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hebraic theology is focused on worship of one G-d, as opposed to the insistence that there is only one G-d. The reason Jesus has to be G-d in Spirit is because otherwise we don't have a clear monotheistic system. The 'man aspect' of Isa is never questioned, this is where the confusion lies. Traditional Xianity does not say "a man is G-d", it rather states that the man Jesus was in Spirit, G-d spoke through Him, literally that His spirit was G-ds. This of course means that there isn't a 'separate' Deity of Jesus, there obviously can't be, if Jesus's Spirit was G-ds while in man form. That is the only contention I tend to have with Trinitarian concepts in that they are not always presented in a clear manner, or even claim a 'separate' entity for Jesus in Spirit form, (how is that possible?).
Or rather I should say that the Divine nature of the Godhead isn't 'one', it clearly is in Scripture, as I noted earlier, Jesus says He does the will of the father, this is pretty clear.
Sidenote: Jesus also says that He is in the father and the father is in Him, this is not like a 'one way communication', He is saying that the Spirit is the same.
Of course, and I'm not alone on this, I also don't believe Jesus said 'G-d why have you forsaken me' on the cross, or if He did, it wasn't meant the way it often portrayed, there are various explanations as to what those words/verse really mean but I find it almost laughable to think they really mean that. A skeptic might think these words were 'added' in order to delineate between the 'father' and Jesus, I think it more likely it is a misunderstanding in the translation context.