Did Jesus say he was God???

[metis]

They count for so much that that is how we settle the destiny of democratic nations. That is how it was determined that Israel should exist as a nation again. I did not hear a single Jew refuse to accept because of bad methodology.

You've got to be kidding. Yes, majority makes a difference when it comes to using a democratic process, but a majority means literally nothing when it comes to the issue of "truth". When the majority of people in the world believed the Earth was flat, did that make it the truth? Since the majority of people in the world do not "accept Jesus as their personal savior", does that mean he ain't?

The Attitude of Christ
…6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.…

It does not say he emptied himself of life or to death. It said he emptied himself and remained obediently in that state until the point of death.

Actually, I did make the mistake above when I assigned the terminology to the wrong issue dealing with Jesus.

Look, every one of the issues is going to come down to an argument just like this. I believe one interpretation is far better that it's opposite and if you cannot agree to that then we will be at an impasse.

I mentioned from the get-go that interpretation is terribly important but that we would work out of your "ballpark", namely the "N.T.". So, now you come back with the above as if you're surprised that interpretations can and do vary, including amongst Christians?

I will take the conjecture of an eyewitness over a guy in a forum anyway. BTW what is conjecture about this: New International Version
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

that would also not make every scripture just conjecture.

I have said it before, but let me say it again: literalistic approaches simply don't always work, and so much of what we read in any scriptures are pretty much hearsay that cannot be verified. I mentioned this even before we really got going on this, so why are you now acting surprised?

I have seen so many harmonies I no longer even entertain these arguments. As to his being the messiah that is the issue, at least among the issues that the genealogy applies to.

But it has literally nothing to do with whether Jesus is God-- they're separate issues.

Then why did not the Jews use that far more immediate and emphatic accusation. They specialized in keeping, maintaining, and verifying claims to lineage and not one peep about it was mentioned. I can't imagine those specialists not looking the first time a justification was needed to deny Christ's claims.

This was already explained to you, so I'm not going to waste time going back through it again. BTW, the fact that the genealogies were mostly lost explains why there were so many making claims as to being the messiah and that there was literally no way to prove them wrong.

Secular studies and proper exegesis developed over thousand of years is pretty much unanimous that you assume a literal interpretation unless sufficient reasons exist to deny it...

But what is "sufficient reason" for one theologian isn't necessarily that for another, and trying to determine what the author meant is not a precise art.

Jesus made it very clear he was not only the son of God but THE unique son of God. Not even the Jews denied this, that is what they charged him with.
They and countless theologies believe we are all sons of God in a general way but Jesus was claiming something unique, that was the whole problem.

No, it wasn't in all likelihood based on the questions that the Pharisee leaders are putting to Jesus, basically most of which centered around his take on the Law ("laws made by men").

You are going to play every card in the deck with emphasis aren't you? Lets see what the bibles greatest living critic has to say about this... The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus.

I couldn't care less what he says as it's only one opinion.

On top of that Paul's core passion narrative has a source that has been dated to a few years or months of Christ's death. But even without this it's sourcing beats just about every other ancient historical text ever written in any subject. If we don't know this we don't know anything of ancient history.

Which source? Paul wrote over 15 years after Jesus died. And why would you assume he "beats just about every other ancient historical text ever written in any subject"? You are totally confusing "opinion" with "reality", and the two are not synonymous terms.

My personal deduction would be a will and mind that do not have material components. It's existence can be felt and interact with material but it is not it's self a material. Why would my spiritual senses be any less valid than my visual sense. The idea we only have 5 senses is al but debunked today.

You avoided my question with the above, which asked how do you know what the H.S. is in the context to location and whom it supposedly affects.

I am not preaching I am using biblical scripture to illuminate biblical claims.

You are doing what you do all too often, namely elevating your "opinions" to the point of "facts". Common sense would sort of encourage you to go in the direction of asking me where I'm coming from, but instead you just pontificate on one thing after another after another.

You're right, we are at an "impasse" as it is extremely frustrating in more ways than one, and it's not because the vast majority of your positions are supported by either fact or logic. I post something but you ignore it; you cite opinions as if they're facts; you quote Joe Schmoe as if he's the "final answer"; you sermonize your beliefs minus any evidence much of the time; etc. If you ever were involved in any serious scripture study, you would well know that very little is cut and dry in this arena.

So, I will bow out of this discussion. I don't leave angry with you-- just frustrated.

 

[1robin]

You've got to be kidding. Yes, majority makes a difference when it comes to using a democratic process, but a majority means literally nothing when it comes to the issue of "truth". When the majority of people in the world believed the Earth was flat, did that make it the truth? Since the majority of people in the world do not "accept Jesus as their personal savior", does that mean he ain't?

So we are trusted with voting despite having no ability to detect truth. I think your making a proof minus anything equals zero argument which can't be. The bible says that only those who diligently seek God find him so the world population is not in the data group. The majority of people on earth claiming it is fact would not be compelling (or true) to one who knows it isn't. Since we are discussing interpretations or theology then there is no one who knows it isn't X or Y. So qualified opinion backed up with reason is about the only option. Just as Christ chose 12 ordinary people to proclaim truth, our justice system considers 12 votes guilty reliable enough to kill a man.

Actually, I did make the mistake above when I assigned the terminology to the wrong issue dealing with Jesus.

I did not catch it.

I mentioned from the get-go that interpretation is terribly important but that we would work out of your "ballpark", namely the "N.T.". So, now you come back with the above as if you're surprised that interpretations can and do vary, including amongst Christians?

I do not get it. Is a single Christian or a minority enough evidence to establish an interpretation as NT fact equal with a majority opinion. Ok, no more voting. Everyone gets to elect 6 billion presidents of 6 billion nations.

I have said it before, but let me say it again: literalistic approaches simply don't always work, and so much of what we read in any scriptures are pretty much hearsay that cannot be verified. I mentioned this even before we really got going on this, so why are you now acting surprised?

I didn't say they always work. I said they have been found to work so often they are the general rule. You think any argument despite it's weakness is a counter for any argument despite it's strength.

But it has literally nothing to do with whether Jesus is God-- they're separate issues.

It was not a God issue it was a messiah issue and one you brought up. I was merely explaining how Jesus genealogy was so necessary and how it best explains a divine person in a human body. It is very consistent and exactly what I should expect but it is not proof. I see you have already forgotten the two simplistic claims I made. Good evidence Jesus is God and almost undeniable evidence he is not merely human.

This was already explained to you, so I'm not going to waste time going back through it again. BTW, the fact that the genealogies were mostly lost explains why there were so many making claims as to being the messiah and that there was literally no way to prove them wrong.

Jews put them in the bible first, and the ones they placed there are far more likely to have been lost than ones about David. David's were of more importance than any. If so why did the Jews put genealogies in God's mouth?

But what is "sufficient reason" for one theologian isn't necessarily that for another, and trying to determine what the author meant is not a precise art.

This is just another way of saying no matter how weak an argument it counters another no matter how strong. That is fine if you want to believe it but no debate is possible.

No, it wasn't in all likelihood based on the questions that the Pharisee leaders are putting to Jesus, basically most of which centered around his take on the Law ("laws made by men").

No the charge was blasphemy, mainly his claiming to be unique and possibly divine.

"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods" ' [d]? 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 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'? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

The reason was they were losing influence and money, the excuse was the above.

I couldn't care less what he says as it's only one opinion.

So is yours and mine. I guess there is just no grounds for a discussion. Your historical nihilism leaves no option.

 

[Jensen]

One could say that in any language. Doesn't make it any truer.

This was to show Icebuddy that although he says that one can't say that Jesus is not God in Greek, it could be said that Jesus is no god in Greek, as he was using this argument to support his view that Jesus is God. As he believes there is no Greek word for the word "not".

Instead of using such to support his view, it is easily understood that Jesus is not God by John 17:3, spoken by Jesus himself.

 

[Desert Snake]

Which verse?

Christ had many rolls and had everything necessary to fulfill them.

1. He was to be an example to us. He felt and endured pain, suffering, and perhaps doubt. Yet his divine will triumphed through suffering not in-spite of it.
2. He was not to be a merely earthly human priest. He was to be an eternal divine priest. Human priests are only pale shadows of a divine reality which he fulfilled.
3. He was to be the perfect sacrifice and was to have obeyed the law in every detail. There exists no reliable record off his failure to do so.

Jesus as divine would indicate that this 'role' being played out by Jesus is metaphor, not literal. That's the problem. That verse, and some others in fact, do not indicate that this is metaphor, it is written as 'fact' or direct statement.

 

[1robin]

This was to show Icebuddy that although he says that one can't say that Jesus is not God in Greek, it could be said that Jesus is no god in Greek, as he was using this argument to support his view that Jesus is God. As he believes there is no Greek word for the word "not".

Instead of using such to support his view, it is easily understood that Jesus is not God by John 17:3, spoken by Jesus himself.

Oh no, if I had known that semantics were the issue I would have surrendered. I can't take semantic argumentation. Good luck.

 

[1robin]

Jesus as divine would indicate that this 'role' being played out by Jesus is metaphor, not literal.

How does that follow? Set up a premise - conclusion type argument. I might agree in some way or other.

That's the problem. That verse, and some others in fact, do not indicate that this is metaphor, it is written as 'fact' or direct statement.

It is only a problem once you show it isn't true. There is also the middle ground of a symbolic issue with a factual basis. This might be interesting. Can you amplify it?

 

[metis]

So is yours and mine. I guess there is just no grounds for a discussion. Your historical nihilism leaves no option.

No, it means that no one has a monopoly on the truth, and hearsay is not sufficient in any court of law or even something that one must automatically accept at face value in any serious Biblical studies. It means that words and sometimes events from thousands of years ago are extremely difficult to verify. It means that blind faith based on literalistic approaches can often lead one to become narrow-minded, arrogant, and even bigoted.

To me, a far better approach is to read and study the narratives, learn from them, and then apply that which seems to be helpful. The trouble is with so many is that they elevate their teachers but ignore their teachings.

To me, Jesus taught many things that make sense, although I have found that all too many virtually ignore what some may call the "social gospel" that's a huge part of the entire gospel. I grew up in one of those fundamentalist churches that did just that, namely no real concern for the poor, quite racist, extreme narrow-minded that creates a we/they dichotomy with the "we" always being correct, condemning of all other religions, often anti-science positions, strong emphasis on patriotism mixed with militaristic tendencies, etc. IMO, Jesus would be appalled with what he would see being passed off as "Christianity" with probably most of these fundamentalist churches.

 

[allfoak]

Historical Nihilism?
Did you make that up?

 

[Desert Snake]

How does that follow? Set up a premise - conclusion type argument. I might agree in some way or other.






It is only a problem once you show it isn't true. There is also the middle ground of a symbolic issue with a factual basis. This might be interesting. Can you amplify it?

This is quite interesting.
Ok I'll try to clarify a bit more.
First we can assume that the 'letters' might differ in speech, in terminology even, beause they are being written to different groups. That being said, the meaning should stay the same, within reasonable parameters.
This verse being from the book of Hebrews, we can therefore expect some expressions from that context. Here is the 'problem'.
-'High Priest' is a man. Not only a man, but a very earthly, studious character.
Does Jesus fit this description? *Yes, somewhat, I guess, though it does not indicate divinity of any sort.
-'knowledgable ("in things pertaining to"), ok this basically means 'smart person'. Ok, is Jesus smart? Well, yes, but so are many people. Again, no mention of divinity or even something extraordinary.
In a Hebraic religious context, 'smart person', and 'high priest' is basically a 'whatever, cool' description. The Prophets are not authoritative because they are 'smart', or 'high priests'. This description of Jesus puts him even below the Prophets in authority.
*even this seems iffy or quasi imo.

 

[1robin]

No, it means that no one has a monopoly on the truth, and hearsay is not sufficient in any court of law or even something that one must automatically accept at face value in any serious Biblical studies. It means that words and sometimes events from thousands of years ago are extremely difficult to verify. It means that blind faith based on literalistic approaches can often lead one to become narrow-minded, arrogant, and even bigoted.

Testimony was not relevant to what I was saying. I said numbers/agreement are counted as something even in the most important situations possible.

To me, a far better approach is to read and study the narratives, learn from them, and then apply that which seems to be helpful. The trouble is with so many is that they elevate their teachers but ignore their teachings.

This was not about anyone's behavior. This was about a way to resolve an issue as to what explanation is the best.

To me, Jesus taught many things that make sense, although I have found that all too many virtually ignore what some may call the "social gospel" that's a huge part of the entire gospel. I grew up in one of those fundamentalist churches that did just that, namely no real concern for the poor, quite racist, extreme narrow-minded that creates a we/they dichotomy with the "we" always being correct, condemning of all other religions, often anti-science positions, strong emphasis on patriotism mixed with militaristic tendencies, etc. IMO, Jesus would be appalled with what he would see being passed off as "Christianity" with probably most of these fundamentalist churches.

I was not discussing an application of Gospel ethics but what the Gospels say. I am sorry you grew up in a terrible church but that is not relevant here.

You would be a formidable partner in any discussion if you would allow any methodology by which a discussion can be resolved. I am not going to chase down anyone for a discussion.

Have a good one.

 

[1robin]

Historical Nihilism?
Did you make that up?

I made up the sequence not the words. I thought it was pretty good, do you disagree?

 

[1robin]

This is quite interesting.
Ok I'll try to clarify a bit more.
First we can assume that the 'letters' might differ in speech, in terminology even, beause they are being written to different groups. That being said, the meaning should stay the same, within reasonable parameters.
This verse being from the book of Hebrews, we can therefore expect some expressions from that context. Here is the 'problem'.
-'High Priest' is a man. Not only a man, but a very earthly, studious character.
Does Jesus fit this description? *Yes, somewhat, I guess, though it does not indicate divinity of any sort.
-'knowledgable in things pertaining to', ok this basically means 'smart person'. Ok, is Jesus smart? Well, yes, but so are many people. Again, no mention of divinity or even something extraordinary.
In a Hebraic religious context, 'smart person', and 'high priest' is basically a 'whatever, cool' description. The Prophets are not authoritative because they are 'smart', or 'high priests'. This description of Jesus puts him even below the Prophets in authority.
*even this seems iffy or quasi imo.

What verse was:

'High Priest' is a man. Not only a man, but a very earthly, studious character

from? It is not a an actual verse and even on biblical search engines they returned zero back, which is unusual because they usually return something back for everything.

Your whole argument depends on it and so until you ground it in biblical reality we are stuck at the start gate.

 

[Desert Snake]

When metaphor or descriptive language is used, the meaning is supposed to maintain a coherent quality, in a religious context, the terminology used to describe Jesus in these verses does not do that imo, these titles used are actually quite different from how one would describe even someone very unique, these are very mundane qualities for a person in the religious context.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hebrews 2:17https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews 2&version=KJV


17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

There are other verses similar to this, this is the one I was referencing. ^

 

[Desert Snake]

We have another problem in that Jesus, although in 'man form' is made like us, His Spirit is different, He really isn't "like one of us" in the strict sense of the terminology.
A high priest' on the other hand, is 'like one of us'
'knowledgable' ,("things pertaining to") is "like one of us"

Again, even below the prophets.

 

[JayJayDee]

Perhaps someone could explain to me the mediator role of Jesus.

Firstly, why did man come to need a mediator between them and their Creator in the first place?

If Jesus is an equal part of the godhead, why could one part of God act as the only mediator for the rest? (1 Tim 2:5, 6) Or was it only for the Father? Do we need a mediator between us and the Holy Spirit? If not, why not?

If Jesus is an equal part of the godhead, why don't we need a mediator between us and him? Where is the equality?

Why do we never find the term "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" when we clearly see the term, "God the Father" in the Bible? (1 Cor 8:5, 6)

Why did Jesus call his Father "the only true God" and not include himself? (John 17:3)

Why did Jesus call his Father "my God" (three times in this one verse) even after his return to heaven? (Rev 3:12) Can God have a God? Does he worship the other equal parts of himself? If so, where is the command to worship the Holy Spirit?

Of the son is 'uncreated', why does Rev 3:14 call Jesus "the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God" (NASB) Also mentioned by the apostle Paul in Col 1:15, 16.

Why did Jesus say that "Jehovah" (the Father) "alone" was to be worshipped? (Luke 4:8; he was quoting Deut 10:20)

Why do only two parts of the godhead have personal names? The Father and the son are named many times, but the Holy Spirit is nameless. Titles are not names. Why can we only pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ? Why not pray to the son or the Holy Spirit? Can anyone provide scripture where it tells us to pray to anyone but the Father?

Please supply scripture to back up answers.

Thank you.

 

[Desert Snake]

What verse was:
from? It is not a an actual verse and even on biblical search engines they returned zero back, which is unusual because they usually return something back for everything.

Your whole argument depends on it and so until you ground it in biblical reality we are stuck at the start gate.

That wasn't a verse, I was describing the inferred meaning of 'high priest'.

 

[Desert Snake]

@1robin

I'll just make a new thread referring to these verses, this thread is too long and keeps logging me out, besides being slightly off topic.

 

[Desert Snake]

Perhaps someone could explain to me the mediator role of Jesus.

Firstly, why did man come to need a mediator between them and their Creator in the first place?

If Jesus is an equal part of the godhead, why could one part of God act as the only mediator for the rest? (1 Tim 2:5, 6) Or was it only for the Father? Do we need a mediator between us and the Holy Spirit? If not, why not?

If Jesus is an equal part of the godhead, why don't we need a mediator between us and him? Where is the equality?

Great questions.
The 'mediator' aspect of Jesus means that the people He was addressing were faulty in their worship, we can deduce this because Jesus spoke highly of the Prophets, and they didn't need mediators. I believe that Jesus, when He said people had to know the father through Him was indicating that they were way off base in their worship, they may have been worshipping a different Deity even, we actually aren't sure what exactly was going on at the time, there may have been widespread worship of previous 'gods'/goddesses who knows.

 

[1robin]

That wasn't a verse, I was describing the inferred meaning of 'high priest'.

You can't do that when the human aspect of the meaning is the core necessity of your argument. If we are going to make deductions from Biblical scripture I would state priest to mean the individual that was to serve as the spiritual medium between the Father and humanity. The OT under what is called progressive revelation was a crude but true version of things that were amplified in the NT. The human priest was a type and shadow of Jesus who was the real priest in almost every way. The human priest was ceremonially clean but not morally perfect. Jesus was both. The priest was temporary Jesus was eternal. Priest could not forgive sin only offer blood that would push the debt forward year by year. Christ was the true priest who could forgive sin and by his blood actually eradicate the infinite debt it incurred. A biblical view is one that suggest that human priests were symbols of the true priest to come (Christ).

If we are going to deduce the meaning of priest mine is far more biblical.