Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

@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.

Ok but I already responded. I need a link.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Priests are not part of revelation, Prophets are, huge difference. Priests teach, like our Rabbis or preachers, they don't have divine revelations, else they would be Prophets. Prophets would be a type and shadow of Jesus, if He is Divine, not priests.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

No not even close. One would never elevate a priest to that status. The Priests in the Temple were not the direct intermediary between the person and Deity, the sacrifice offered was. I would say that considering how traditional Xianity views Deity and Jesus sacrifice, there really is no comparison.

 

[1robin]

Priests are not part of revelation, Prophets are, huge difference. Priests teach, like our Rabbis or preachers, they don't have divine revelations, else they would be Prophets. Prophets would be a type and shadow of Jesus, if He is Divine, not priests.

What a priest is, is part of revelation. Prophets are a shadow of Christ. He was too big to have only one roll. If I was to list all the OT events that point to Christ we would be here all day. He was an example of divine spirit/will overcoming fleshly fault for us, an example of what true priest hood is, he was healer, exorcist, teacher, etc.....



You cannot get more emphatic that this.

New International Version
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.

That was an apostle commissioned by Christ not a poster in a forum.

 

[1robin]

No not even close. One would never elevate a priest to that status. The Priests in the Temple were not the direct intermediary between the person and Deity, the sacrifice offered was. I would say that considering how traditional Xianity views Deity and Jesus sacrifice, there really is no comparison.

My view does not elevate anyone. OT themes are pale reflection of NT truths. They were dim reflection of divine facts. They only facilitated things and never accomplished them in actuality. I did not elevate them at all. I can prove my claims are orthodox biblical doctrine as far back as we can go, can you?

 

[Desert Snake]

My view does not elevate anyone. OT themes are pale reflection of NT truths. They were dim reflection of divine facts. They only facilitated things and never accomplished them in actuality. I did not elevate them at all. I can prove my claims are orthodox biblical doctrine as far back as we can go, can you?

What claims? I'm explaining to you that priests aren't part of revelation besides adhering to the doctrine, therefore describing Jesus as a priest is only as good as that description, saying 'priest' is not saying 'Prophet', as well, they aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Desert Snake]

My view does not elevate anyone. OT themes are pale reflection of NT truths. They were dim reflection of divine facts. They only facilitated things and never accomplished them in actuality. I did not elevate them at all. I can prove my claims are orthodox biblical doctrine as far back as we can go, can you?

I have no idea what this even means. When we look at OT religious doctrine we don't use the standard of a priesthood that Jesus even railed against, this makes no sense. Jesus modified the laws as well, against priestly doctrine, but told us that He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, so, no, apparently Jesus did hold the Covenant in high regard.

 

[1robin]

I have no idea what this even means. When we look at OT religious doctrine we don't use the standard of a priesthood that Jesus even railed against, this makes no sense. Jesus modified the laws as well, against priestly doctrine, but told us that He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, so, no, apparently Jesus did hold the Covenant in high regard.

Jesus did not rail against the biblical idea of human priesthood. He railed against it's corruption. Jesus affirmed OT priesthood for human beings what he hated was they way some humans misused the office.

Of course he modified laws of a priesthood once the true and eternal priest had come. He never ever denied the office prior to that. He denied only its abuse.

I will once again give you biblical proof of both human representation of Jesus later priesthood but also the human occupancy of the roll it's self.

Jesus a Priest Like Melchizedek
…16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is attested of Him, "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." 18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness…

Melchezidek is a mysterious figure but one definitely human. He was specifically said to be a type of Christ. Not equal in any category but like unto him.

I have never debated the priesthood before but it is one easy argument to make. Got any verses for what you claim?

BTW Jesus fulfilled the law because we can't do so perfectly. The whole NT covenant is one of grace not law. Again I will give you scripture.

Alive in Christ
…13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.…

WE are alive to Christ through faith not law.

 

[allfoak]

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

It was great!
The problem that i see is that the Bible does that to itself.
Another annihilated thread.

 

[1robin]

It was great!
The problem that i see is that the Bible does that to itself.
Another annihilated thread.

Thanks, however your horrifically flawed opinion is not evidence and only annihilates credibility when that flawed.

 

[allfoak]

Thanks, however your horrifically flawed opinion is not evidence and only annihilates credibility when that flawed.

Wow!

 

[1robin]

Wow!

Wow, how? Too emphatic or what?

 

[allfoak]

Wow, how? Too emphatic or what?

Sure.
Let's go with that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus did not rail against the biblical idea of human priesthood. He railed against it's corruption. Jesus affirmed OT priesthood for human beings what he hated was they way some humans misused the office.

Of course he modified laws of a priesthood once the true and eternal priest had come. He never ever denied the office prior to that. He denied only its abuse.

I will once again give you biblical proof of both human representation of Jesus later priesthood but also the human occupancy of the roll it's self.

Jesus a Priest Like Melchizedek
…16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is attested of Him, "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." 18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness…

Melchezidek is a mysterious figure but one definitely human. He was specifically said to be a type of Christ. Not equal in any category but like unto him.

I have never debated the priesthood before but it is one easy argument to make. Got any verses for what you claim?

BTW Jesus fulfilled the law because we can't do so perfectly. The whole NT covenant is one of grace not law. Again I will give you scripture.

Alive in Christ
…13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.…

WE are alive to Christ through faith not law.

Big difference in comparison. you're comparing Jesus as priest here with a remarkable priest, that is not the same as comparing Jesus to priests in general, the usual priesthood etc., notice the difference? Jesus was a Rabbi, but you wouldn't compare Him to a neighborhood Rabbi, Jesus was a teacher as well, should we compare Him to teachers? No of course not. That is the problem and it might stem from a sort of connect the dots to making Jesus the 'replacement heifer' of priestly sacrifice, something else which doesn't make sense if we consider how different Jesus's teachings were from the usual priestly ones.
The differentiation between priests you make as well is arbitrary, we assume Jesus is being compared to upright people but it isn't stated, just another thing that isn't made clear.

 

[1robin]

Sure.
Let's go with that.

All right. I withdraw the emphatic nature of my claims. BTW you understood my complaint was against your comment on the historicity of the bible not (of course) your agreement with my superb terminology.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus did not rail against the biblical idea of human priesthood. He railed against it's corruption. Jesus affirmed OT priesthood for human beings what he hated was they way some humans misused the office.

What's the difference? He railed against all the things that always make it corrupt, aside from flat out telling us to break various torah laws, those laws He changed are not some footnote, I think Xians sometimes make the mistake of thinking 'oh it's no big deal to break the Sabbath or eat pork' etc. but to those priests that was a major deal.

 

[1robin]

Big difference in comparison. you're comparing Jesus as priest here with a remarkable priest, that is not the same as comparing Jesus to priests in general, the usual priesthood etc., notice the difference?

How does anyone know he is remarkable? There is like two verses that even mention him and both suggest he was merely human. It does not state anything about his level of virtue. That was not really the point anyway. It is saying that the priesthood of man was a type of Christ's priesthood.

Jesus was a Rabbi, but you wouldn't compare Him to a neighborhood Rabbi, Jesus was a teacher as well, should we compare Him to teachers? No of course not. That is the problem and it might stem from a sort of connect the dots to making Jesus the 'replacement heifer' of priestly sacrifice, something else which doesn't make sense if we consider how different Jesus's teachings were from the usual priestly ones.

I certainly can as a type, but not in capacity. Jesus and the office of Rabbi are comparable as a type. They both taught revelation. However Jesus had far greater capacity and access. Sort of like saying a ruler is comparable in type to a yard stick. They both measure but one has greater capacity. Priest is not about an office or function type, not a person.

I do not even know what your doing. I have shown the biblical authors themselves credit the office of Human priest and Christ's priesthood. What is left to debate.

The differentiation between priests you make as well is arbitrary, we assume Jesus is being compared to upright people but it isn't stated, just another thing that isn't made clear.

It is not about people it is about the concept of the priesthood. No, I am not assuming they were perfect people. I have in fact suggested the opposite. Moral perfection was not possible for a human priest nor demanded. That is why they performed ritualistic cleansing because they were morally flawed. I don't think your getting what I am saying. The OT priesthood was a pale reflection of what Christ would be. A pale reflection is not moral perfection. That would be a mirror image.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is not about people it is about the concept of the priesthood. No, I am not assuming they were perfect people. I have in fact suggested the opposite. Moral perfection was not possible for a human priest nor demanded. That is why they performed ritualistic cleansing because they were morally flawed. I don't think your getting what I am saying. The OT priesthood was a pale reflection of what Christ would be. A pale reflection is not moral perfection. That would be a mirror image.

I'm not sure why you keep saying 'OT priesthood', in Jesus's time it would be the NT priesthood, though technically the verse doesn't say 'The Pharisees 'or something.
I understand the nature of literary comparison, but this is Scripture, it's easy to over analyze and misinterpret things.

 

[1robin]

I'm not sure why you keep saying 'OT priesthood', in Jesus's time it would be the NT priesthood, though technically the verse doesn't say 'The Pharisees 'or something. I understand the nature of literary comparison, but this is Scripture, it's easy to over analyze and misinterpret things.

No, the office of priesthood was established in the OT. Jesus did not establish a new office he assumed an old one.

Basically human priests stood in symbolically until the real guy showed up. The office it's self remained the same. Pharisees did not have to be mentioned as it was not a Pharisee office when established, it was a human one until Christ came. These aren't interpretations these are emphatic point blank statements.

Anyway that's it for me, have a good night.

 

[Jensen]

I believe that gives credence to what they said but they never said they were God.

The miracles testify that Jesus is a man of God and therefore speaking the truth about being God but the Pharisees rejected that concept simply because they held a belief that God could not inhabit a human body. Who knows where they got that idea from since it is never stted in the Bible.

Of course Elijah and Elisha never said they were God, neither did Jesus. He said that he is the Son of God. It was his accusers that said that he claimed to be God...wrongly.