Did Jesus say he was God???

[allfoak]

What if Jesus was a man who became one with God through the same process that he said we need to go through to do what he did, which is through being born again.

There is reason to believe that Matthew 3: 17 has been corrupted and once said : "Thou art my son this day have i begotten thee".

Jesus said we needed to be born again.
I would think that since he is our example, that he would show us how it is done.

 

[Desert Snake]

Speaking of the words on the cross, 'G-d why have you forsaken me', if they mean that, it really goofs up the earlier pretext of Jesus saying/knowing that He will be crucified, He even knows who will betray Him etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

What if Jesus was a man who became one with God through the same process that he said we need to go through to do what he did, which is through being born again.

There is reason to believe that Matthew 3: 17 has been corrupted and once said : "Thou art my son this day have i begotten thee".

Jesus said we needed to be born again.
I would think that since he is our example, that he would show us how it is done.

This is an argument. I think Jesus does tell us that, in that we have to change in order to be saved, the only contention I have with this is literally the Scriptural text which denotes Jesus as divine previous to His baptism by John. I don't think that this narrative was included just for embellishment, I believe that it indicates a Divine nature that is different from ours, and in effect lends authority to the person of Jesus as well.
I think later in Scripture this indication that being born again is through Jesus as opposed to our own efforts is noted, the baptism by Jesus as opposed to John for instance, clearly we aren't talking about the same thing.

 

[allfoak]

Hebrews 1: 5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


Jesus said many times not to call him teacher and that he was our brother.
And of course the countless times he said follow me.
I do think that this verse and the ones about his baptism are very important and the significance overlooked.

 

[metis]

I however will defend the evidence that leaves no room for Jesus merely being a man.

Maybe you can produce such evidence as I certainly don't any longer see it. At one time I thought I did, as you well may remember.

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 supposed divinity of Jesus was long in question including in the early church, thus certain followers of Jesus split off, such as the Ebionites under the leadership of James. It simply was not a slam dunk. My theory is that many in the early church believed that Jesus was of God but not God. Later, the "of" pretty much got dropped, I tend to think, as gentiles, not brought up to believe that God isn't corporal, deified Jesus.

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?

But this is what you wrote in your previous post: "I must do the exact same thing to be saved either way" (underline is mine).

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

But your interpretations are not the only ones, nor are your scriptures the only ones.

 

[Desert Snake]

@Allfoak
This thread is too long it's logging me out. Good conversation however we'll have to pick it up elsewhere.

 

[metis]

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.

The only plural name for God was "Eloheim", which was one name for God out of around 20, plus our scriptures over and over again talk about God being one. Also, the modifying words when "Eloheim" is used are always singular. There's no confusion.

Their imprecise use of past , present and future tenses also made their prophesies timeless with no expiration date.

Tenses can be determined in the context used, so that really isn't a problem. In Torah study, we always use context to determine which era is being referred to.

 

[Desert Snake]

The only plural name for God was "Eloheim", which was one name for God out of around 20, plus our scriptures over and over again talk about God being one. Also, the modifying words when "Eloheim" is used are always singular. There's no confusion.



Tenses can be determined in the context used, so that really isn't a problem. In Torah study, we always use context to determine which era is being referred to.

Context context context. There is no doubt, monotheistic in entirety.

 

[metis]

Context context context. There is no doubt, monotheistic in entirety.

Thank you.

 

[allfoak]

@Allfoak
This thread is too long it's logging me out. Good conversation however we'll have to pick it up elsewhere.

pick it up where?

 

[JM2C]

There were others before Jesus that also performed miracles. Elijah and Elisha also raised the dead.

Did they say Jn 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”?

The mob told Jesus they were not attacking him for his miracles or works but for blasphemy.

Exactly! for blasphemy. Just like in, Jn 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

From the Jews thinking “calling God his own Father is making himself equal with God”, and that it blasphemy worthy of death by stoning, and just like in John 10:30-36, the Lord Jesus Christ did not deny it.

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."

The title of this thread is “Did Jesus say he was God???” According to the Jews in John 10:33 The Lord Jesus Christ was claiming to be God when He said Jn 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

Did the Lord Jesus Christ deny that He is God? NO! He did not in any way deny it. In fact He confirmed it that He is God because He is the Son of God in,

Jn 10:36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

And in Hebrew 1:8, God the Father Himself confirmed it also when He said “Thy throne, O God”

If Christ was just a creation, or an “a god” created by God/Father, according to JW’s NWT John 1:1, and God/Father called Him God in Hebrews 1:8 “The throne, O God” then God/Father violated His own decree when He commanded Moses,

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Ex 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

Now, by creating an “a god", according to JW’s NWT John 1:1, and God/Father called him God in Hebrews 1:8 “Thy throne, O God”, would make Him/God/Father an idolatrous God base on Exodus 20:3-4, and Exodus 20:5 would not make any sense at all ‘cause He/God/Father should be jealous of Himself by creating an “a god", according to JW’s NWT John 1:1, and called this created “a god", as God in Hebrews 1:8 “Thy throne, O God”. It does not make any sense at all, does it?

IOW, According to JW’s NWT John 1:1, Col. 1:15, God created an “a god", but according to Hebrews 1:8 God/Father called him God “Thy throne, O God”.

Why would God/Father create an “a god" and call this creation as “God” –“Thy throne, O God”? That is idolatry according to Exodus 20:3-4.

The question now is, who is wrong, JW’s NWT, or the author of Hebrews?

JW predicted the end of the world so many times and failed.

Dt 18:22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet/JW has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Dt 18:22 NLT If the prophet predicts something in the Lord’s name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet/JW has spoken on his own and need not be feared.

 

[icebuddy]

Im not watering anything but my plants

Thats another good one..

First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God.

It is your human limitations that you are using. John writes in verse 3 that nothing create was created apart from this Word. That would mean the word is uncreated as 1John 1:1-4 states plainly that the word is the "eternal word of life". Deut 32:39 says there is no god besides Jehovah, yet you expect to believe that there is at least 1 god beside Jehovah...? You have defined the word God in your head as being singular when the Hebrew is found in the Plural. Gods Image is just as part of God as his Wisdom is...

(Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os&#8242 in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho).

If Greek word for God (Theos) can be used of the Father without the definate article (ho) like passage Luke 20:38, doesnt that destroy the argument that the article must be there to mean God almighty or Jehovah. There are many passages where the Father is called Theos without being called Ho theos. Also Jesus is called Ho Theos at John 20:28...

Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ

Phil 2:6 says Jesus was in the Form of God and became the Form of Man. Ask yourself the question: What does form of Man mean to you? Was he a man... Then why would you think Form of God meant something totally different? If Paul want to say something different, he could of used a different word like "Spirit" or "Angel", but he knows Jesus is not a angel. After all, God is the real writer behind the bible and he used certain words for a purpose.

Bible Student,
We can all post people who agree with us in some way. one thing you may notice down the road is that WTBS dont always quote entire context of who they are quoting. Ive seen Trinitarians do this too... You say its easy, but look at these basics

1. If nothing created was created apart from Jesus, then why would one think Jesus is Created?
2. If God says there are no other gods beside him, why would we think John 1:1 reads that there is another god beside him...?
3. If God says He alone created and that no one was with him, why would one say that Another that is not God was with him and then say that Gods Wisdom wasnt always with God?
4. If God says He Alone is our Rock and that he know of not 1 other Rock, then why would we see Jesus as a different Rock?
5. If Thomas said directly to Jesus, "You are my Lord and My God", why wouldnt we believe this? Jesus also says blessed are those who believe as you, but dont get to see in person...

 

[Nada]

Thats another good one..



It is your human limitations that you are using. John writes in verse 3 that nothing create was created apart from this Word. That would mean the word is uncreated as 1John 1:1-4 states plainly that the word is the "eternal word of life". Deut 32:39 says there is no god besides Jehovah, yet you expect to believe that there is at least 1 god beside Jehovah...? You have defined the word God in your head as being singular when the Hebrew is found in the Plural. Gods Image is just as part of God as his Wisdom is...



If Greek word for God (Theos) can be used of the Father without the definate article (ho) like passage Luke 20:38, doesnt that destroy the argument that the article must be there to mean God almighty or Jehovah. There are many passages where the Father is called Theos without being called Ho theos. Also Jesus is called Ho Theos at John 20:28...



Phil 2:6 says Jesus was in the Form of God and became the Form of Man. Ask yourself the question: What does form of Man mean to you? Was he a man... Then why would you think Form of God meant something totally different? If Paul want to say something different, he could of used a different word like "Spirit" or "Angel", but he knows Jesus is not a angel. After all, God is the real writer behind the bible and he used certain words for a purpose.

Bible Student,
We can all post people who agree with us in some way. one thing you may notice down the road is that WTBS dont always quote entire context of who they are quoting. Ive seen Trinitarians do this too... You say its easy, but look at these basics

1. If nothing created was created apart from Jesus, then why would one think Jesus is Created?
2. If God says there are no other gods beside him, why would we think John 1:1 reads that there is another god beside him...?
3. If God says He alone created and that no one was with him, why would one say that Another that is not God was with him and then say that Gods Wisdom wasnt always with God?
4. If God says He Alone is our Rock and that he know of not 1 other Rock, then why would we see Jesus as a different Rock?
5. If Thomas said directly to Jesus, "You are my Lord and My God", why wouldnt we believe this? Jesus also says blessed are those who believe as you, but dont get to see in person...

No.........

 

[icebuddy]

Person does not just mean a human being.Look up the word person and read all of the definitions.Jehovah God is a person,Jesus is a person, but the holy spirit is not.

how does one blaspheme the Holy Spirit if its just a non-personal power?

When the holy spirt is given by God to people to carry out His will,these people are not being possessed by a person called the holy spirit, or holy ghost.It is God's active force.His power

The Holy Spirit has all the personalities of a person, how do you see these? The Holy Spirit has emotions, can be lied to, speaks, prays, is obeyed, has a will, and many more. More personalities are given to the Holy Spirit than anyone else in the bible, why do you think God did this? God lives in us through the Holy Spirit, who is God. unclean Spirits have occupied men and are not just the Devils active force, so why when Gods spirit indwells in a person are we to think its only a power. Can the Devil and his evil spirits do something that you think God cannot? BTW, I think it awesome to be possessed by the Holy Spirit. Now thats awesome.

Here is an example.

You Examples dont show me that the Holy Spirit is not a living being. To say the Life giving Spirit has no life itself is very odd. There are 100's of passages showing the Holy Spirit is personal. Do we Just toss those out? How do we even know God is a person or the Devil for that matter. What makes a person a person? I say this because the Holy Spirit has them all and Gods word has it all over the place...

Here John the Baptist refers to the holy spirit as power, not a person.

i do not see what you are pointing to... not even close... Sorry

Satan Enters People and His evil Spirits can also enter People. I just dont see how you can see what you see. I just hope this isnt a form of Blaspheme the Holy Spirit... BTW, I find it hard to believe one can Blaspheme a impersonal thing.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hebrews 1: 5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


Jesus said many times not to call him teacher and that he was our brother.
And of course the countless times he said follow me.
I do think that this verse and the ones about his baptism are very important and the significance overlooked.

Jesus also said that the only way to the father is through Him. In the book of Matthew He even states clearly that no-one even knows the father unless through Jesus. This is a 'problem' for the theories that Jesus is merely an example, no, He literally says we don't know the father until we adhere to Jesus.
The point I'm making here is that, we don't have an overlaying system for knowing the father, He says in essence we have to have Jesus, in this way he isn't really setting an example of something we can grasp of ourselves, otherwise Jesus would have said so, but He didn't, He very blatantly claimed to the Son of G-d and working in the authority of G-d.

 

[Nada]

how does one blaspheme the Holy Spirit if its just a non-personal power?



The Holy Spirit has all the personalities of a person, how do you see these? The Holy Spirit has emotions, can be lied to, speaks, prays, is obeyed, has a will, and many more. More personalities are given to the Holy Spirit than anyone else in the bible, why do you think God did this? God lives in us through the Holy Spirit, who is God. unclean Spirits have occupied men and are not just the Devils active force, so why when Gods spirit indwells in a person are we to think its only a power. Can the Devil and his evil spirits do something that you think God cannot? BTW, I think it awesome to be possessed by the Holy Spirit. Now thats awesome.



You Examples dont show me that the Holy Spirit is not a living being. To say the Life giving Spirit has no life itself is very odd. There are 100's of passages showing the Holy Spirit is personal. Do we Just toss those out? How do we even know God is a person or the Devil for that matter. What makes a person a person? I say this because the Holy Spirit has them all and Gods word has it all over the place...



i do not see what you are pointing to... not even close... Sorry

Satan Enters People and His evil Spirits can also enter People. I just dont see how you can see what you see. I just hope this isnt a form of Blaspheme the Holy Spirit... BTW, I find it hard to believe one can Blaspheme a impersonal thing.

The same way the Pharisees did when they sad it was power from satan that Jesus was using to perform his miracles. Matthew 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard about the miracle, they said, "No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons."



You see it was God's power,being His holy spirit, that Jesus was using to perform miracles and so forth.The Pharisees blasphemed against the holy spirit by saying what they did.

The scriptures say you can blaspheme against the Son and be forgiven but anyone who blasphemes against the holy spirt has no forgiveness in this life or the next.

Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

The holy spirit is God's active force and is what makes everything come together.
It is not a person

 

[Nada]

How do we even know God is a person or the Devil for that matter. What makes a person a person? I say this because the Holy Spirit has them all and Gods word has it all over the place...

By “person” Augustine meant someone who speaks and acts – especially in the great story of salvation. Now, we moderns know of machines that “speak” and “act”; so we might want to qualify this a little in terms of intentions and the will. A person is someone who expresses his or her intentions in words and acts, and responds to the words and actions of others. They are able to think about what they are doing (which is not what animals do). They are a self-reflective agent of communication, we might say.

This definition immediately shows that we are talking about an individual within a web (or potential web) of relationships. To apply the notion of “personhood” to God means that God is a being who says and does things, and in saying and doing them, does them to and for others. God also in some sense responds to human persons.

This is a God with whom we can have a relationship in a somewhat similar way that we might have a relationship with a human being. And the Bible certainly uses the language of interpersonal relationships as a model for our relationship with God. The biblical ideas of reconciliation, justification and redemption are all words drawn from the spheres of human relating.So it makes sense to think of God as personal, since it is these personal ideas that are at front and centre of how we are to think about what the Christian gospel brings about.


God is a person. But what does this mean?

 

[1robin]

Maybe you can produce such evidence as I certainly don't any longer see it. At one time I thought I did, as you well may remember.

I do remember you but not any specific argument. Let me change it to doctrine. As a fellow theist I thought you would consider doctrine as evidence but that is not necessarily the case. However if you deny my evidence/doctrine then we have no grounds by which to resolve anything about Christ. Let me know if you grant NT revelation.

The supposed divinity of Jesus was long in question including in the early church, thus certain followers of Jesus split off, such as the Ebionites under the leadership of James. It simply was not a slam dunk. My theory is that many in the early church believed that Jesus was of God but not God. Later, the "of" pretty much got dropped, I tend to think, as gentiles, not brought up to believe that God isn't corporal, deified Jesus.

I don't imagine any doctrines as profound and fantastic as biblical claims ever have universal agreement but the non-merely human nature of Christ is among the closest. His divinity has been a dominant or majority conclusion as far back as I care to check. I do not require it to be a slam dunk to claim it is core doctrine but neither can I claim majorities prove truth.

But this is what you wrote in your previous post: "I must do the exact same thing to be saved either way" (underline is mine).

Exactly, I must believe Christ paid my debt on the cross and be born again. I must do this whether he was a divinely inspired but merely human being or God in human form. I am having trouble why a Jewish person would reject a works model I do not even have?

But your interpretations are not the only ones, nor are your scriptures the only ones.

They are by far the best attested and most universally adopted. I resolved my core doctrine beliefs using myself, the Holy Spirit, and a bible over three years. Then I researched creeds to see where agreements and contrasts existed. I found almost all my beliefs to be orthodox Protestantism and almost that many to be orthodox Catholic (but with one major difference).

 

[metis]

I do remember you but not any specific argument. Let me change it to doctrine. As a fellow theist I thought you would consider doctrine as evidence but that is not necessarily the case. However if you deny my evidence/doctrine then we have no grounds by which to resolve anything about Christ. Let me know if you grant NT revelation.

Since we both seem to be able to read and study, then there is some common ground. However, how we may look at the scriptures can be and appears to be quite different.

I don't imagine any doctrines as profound and fantastic as biblical claims ever have universal agreement but the non-merely human nature of Christ is among the closest. His divinity has been a dominant or majority conclusion as far back as I care to check. I do not require it to be a slam dunk to claim it is core doctrine but neither can I claim majorities prove truth.

You're dealing with this as if there somehow was universal agreement as to the exact nature of Jesus vis-a-vis God, but that really was not at all the case, including within the early (pre-Constantine) church.

Exactly, I must believe Christ paid my debt on the cross and be born again. I must do this whether he was a divinely inspired but merely human being or God in human form. I am having trouble why a Jewish person would reject a works model I do not even have?

I'm not certain what you mean by the last sentence.

The concept of Jesus being the "final sacrifice" may well be a theological construct that are commonly used within Torah and Tanakh. Taking some of these items literally may miss the mark, therefore. If you read the Psalms, or even your own book of Revelations, and take all items literally, you'd be missing a great many points that the authors were undoubtedly trying to make. Allegory, metaphors, parables, and other types of symbolism were heavily used in Jewish tradition and show up throughout the scriptures.

They are by far the best attested and most universally adopted. I resolved my core doctrine beliefs using myself, the Holy Spirit, and a bible over three years. Then I researched creeds to see where agreements and contrasts existed. I found almost all my beliefs to be orthodox Protestantism and almost that many to be orthodox Catholic (but with one major difference).

Pretty much all faiths tend to make such claims, and I see these as just being variations of the "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" arguments.

 

[1robin]

Since we both seem to be able to read and study, then there is some common ground. However, how we may look at the scriptures can be and appears to be quite different.

I would suggest the majority conclusion on scripture be used as the best hope for a correct conclusion n though it is not a guarantee of it. For this issue we have no criteria that is objectively obvious. We would have to adopt some best explanation or conclusion criteria. Most of hem though are slam dunks. For example the fact that Christ existed prior to us cannot have any rational meaning by which he is merely a man.

You're dealing with this as if there somehow was universal agreement as to the exact nature of Jesus vis-a-vis God, but that really was not at all the case, including within the early (pre-Constantine) church.

You actually think any Christian thinks there was ever universal agreement about a single verse. Faith's burden is the lack of a defeater but my burden is best explanation or conclusion.

I'm not certain what you mean by the last sentence.

In my experience Judaism is a lawful of legalistic merit system not a grace system. It was odd to have a Jew (I HAVE ALWAYS WONDERED IS SIMPLY "Jew" AS A TERM EVER AN INSULT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE), take issue with even a mistaken verdict of a merit system of salvation. You seem to mistakenly think I believed it AND THAT IT WAS WRONG. Maybe I misread. I think it is wrong and so don't support it. I am a grace a - z Christian.

The concept of Jesus being the "final sacrifice" may well be a theological construct that are commonly used within Torah and Tanakh. Taking some of these items literally may miss the mark, therefore. If you read the Psalms, or even your own book of Revelations, and take all items literally, you'd be missing a great many points that the authors were undoubtedly trying to make. Allegory, metaphors, parables, and other types of symbolism were heavily used in Jewish tradition and show up throughout the scriptures.

I use accepted means of hermeneutics and exegesis in my studies or try my best to, but it would not make much difference if I get it wrong in a few places. It seems to be a necessary conclusion of the whole that Christ was the messiah promised in the OT and delivered in the NT. I wil give you one example of many. The blood of bulls and goats did not forgive anything and never could. They only pushed sin forward symbolically in anticipation of the true blood of the messiah taking care of that sin once and for all. Now if Jesus is not that messiah and animal sacrifice is no longer pushing anything forward then we have been screwed for 2000 years on both sides.

Pretty much all faiths tend to make such claims, and I see these as just being variations of the "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" arguments.

Despite you objections to them I do not see another way to resolve anything. However I think in this case most verses I would use are so emphatic that even this is unnecessary. Remember my claim is that I believe that Christ is God but I can demonstrate he was not merely a man.