Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

I agree "Son of God" is a title, and one of respect, it just isn't true in a physical sense.

I would point out that the only place Jesus calls Himself Jehovah is in Revelations, which is not Gospel, but rather commentary and prophecy. Commentary and prophecy is full of symbolic usage.

Earlier someone else said "Why couldn't God take a little piece of Himself and put it into Jesus. . .?"

Because the little piece, if God would actually be able to invest pieces of Himself in anything would cease to be God as soon as it was separated from God. The Torah, the Scrolls, the Qur'an and the Gospel insure us that God is Single and cannot be multiplied or divided.

This universe is contingent upon a Creator, it cannot exist without the exercise of the Will of God. God is contingent upon nothing else than God. That makes God without "physical (in the sense of matter or energy of this universe) form" Creation i9s Material, and GOd is Other.

Regards,
Scott

This is an absolutely contrary statement to God's omnipresence. Omnipresence means that God exists in everything.

God does not have to go anywhere or be separated in order to control a body. He is already there and His oneness is not changed when He takes control of a body.

This is correct and explains why God is not divided when He inhabits the body of Jesus.

This is also true but it is not evidence against the divinity of Jesus.

This is not the case. I had a verse from John saying this in the OP.

 

[YmirGF]

My two cents is that not a lot of you understand the inherent nature of Oneness. It is as if folks have this stunted vision of human personality and insist on squeezing everything through that narrow appeture. Since they do not understand the nature of Oneness and what that really means they cling to their amusing little list of can's and cannot's as if they are authorities on the fullness of human identity. If only reality were so simple and so easily defined. Such is the arrogance of "modern" man as we have this tendency to believe we have everything neatly figured out and there is no possibility we are in error. (I sure hope the Christ does his homework prior to his next "romp" here on Earth as he is going to have a pretty tough "sell job" to get his message across.)

In essence, due to the all encompassing nature of Oneness and conscious realization OF Oneness it is consistent for the Christ to refer to a "father" and also call himself a "son" or perhaps even admit that people who labelled him as such were right to do so. It is a slippery slope though as language cannot fully describe the connection between the two other than allude to the reality that the physical image is a manifestion of the entity (Father or God). Ah well, what would I know as I don't have any charming little books to back up what I am saying. I have only my experience and my own personal visions. Life is tough, eh? As usual, what would I know. I never claim to be right but curiously I never insist that I am wrong, lol. :slap:

 

[Muffled]

My two cents is that not a lot of you understand the inherent nature of Oneness. It is as if folks have this stunted vision of human personality and insist on squeezing everything through that narrow appeture. Since they do not understand the nature of Oneness and what that really means they cling to their amusing little list of can's and cannot's as if they are authorities on the fullness of human identity. If only reality were so simple and so easily defined. Such is the arrogance of "modern" man as we have this tendency to believe we have everything neatly figured out and there is no possibility we are in error. (I sure hope the Christ does his homework prior to his next "romp" here on Earth as he is going to have a pretty tough "sell job" to get his message across.)

In essence, due to the all encompassing nature of Oneness and conscious realization OF Oneness it is consistent for the Christ to refer to a "father" and also call himself a "son" or perhaps even admit that people who labelled him as such were right to do so. It is a slippery slope though as language cannot fully describe the connection between the two other than allude to the reality that the physical image is a manifestion of the entity (Father or God). Ah well, what would I know as I don't have any charming little books to back up what I am saying. I have only my experience and my own personal visions. Life is tough, eh? As usual, what would I know. I never claim to be right but curiously I never insist that I am wrong, lol. :slap:

It seems natural enough for people to compare God to Human Beings wanting Him to be like us. The truth is that the likeness is not complete. We are finite and God is infinite. We know a little but God knows all. We have a little power but God controls all.

Then it becomes even harder for people to distinguish between the outward appearance of man in Jesus and the inward spirit of God. People seem to think because Jesus looks like a man that He can't be God but that is judging by appearances.

 

[Katzpur]

It seems natural enough for people to compare God to Human Beings wanting Him to be like us.

I think it's natural for us to compare God to human beings because the Bible says we're created in His image.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think it's natural for us to compare God to human beings because the Bible says we're created in His image.

Doesn't necessarily mean a physical image. I think one needs to look for an image spiritual in nature. In particular "man" seems to share in some small degree the ability to exercise free will. The Bible is much more concerned with spiritual matters than it is with physical descriptions.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I was brought here from that long drawn out thread (Koran.....Jesus is son).

I was told that proof of Jesus being (God in the flesh) could be found here. I've found nothing but the contrary........

Jesus was not God. How do I know this....? He said it himself......Jesus did God's, not his, will. How do I know this....? He said it himself.

Here is what Jesus said. This should be plain and simple.....

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.


Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.


Joh 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent
me, and to accomplish his work.


Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.


Lu 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."


Joh 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me.


Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me,
for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord,
but he sent me.


Mr 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


Joh 7:16 So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who
sent me;


Mt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


Mr 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good
but God alone.


John 8:50 "And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

I'm quite sure there is plenty more. Why does it seem so hard to take Jesus's word for it? He said he was here to do God's will, Everything he did was by leave of God, He could do nothing but by the will of God., Any "divinity" Jesus had was given to him by God...etc...etc...etc........

 

[Katzpur]

Doesn't necessarily mean a physical image.

Yeah, well I've heard that before. But I can't think of a single solitary example of where we might use "image" to mean anything other than the representation of something's physical qualities. Maybe you can give me an example of how you would personally use the word "image" to mean something else.

The Bible is much more concerned with spiritual matters than it is with physical descriptions.

True, but when it speaks of God creating man in His image, it is speaking of the physical creation of the universe and of all life. Each of the animals was created by God to reproduce after its own kind. Man, however, was formed "in God's image, after His likeness." Five chapters later, we read that Adam begot a son "in his image, after his likeness." In other words, when Adam reproduced, his offspring were of his same species.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm quite sure there is plenty more.

Yes, there are many, many more.

Why does it seem so hard to take Jesus's word for it? He said he was here to do God's will, Everything he did was by leave of God, He could do nothing but by the will of God.

Agreed.

Any "divinity" Jesus had was given to him by God...etc...etc...etc........

And yet the Only Begotton Son of a divine being would pretty much have to be divine himself, wouldn't you agree?

 

[EtuMalku]

I believe that there have been many 'Christs' throughout our existence. His is the same story as Kemetic Neter Horus thousands of years before. This God-Man figure exists to remind us that Man is a Childe of the God(s) and to them, must He aspire for Union.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yeah, well I've heard that before. But I can't think of a single solitary example of where we might use "image" to mean anything other than the representation of something's physical qualities. Maybe you can give me an example of how you would personally use the word "image" to mean something else.

True, but when it speaks of God creating man in His image, it is speaking of the physical creation of the universe and of all life. Each of the animals was created by God to reproduce after its own kind. Man, however, was formed "in God's image, after His likeness." Five chapters later, we read that Adam begot a son "in his image, after his likeness." In other words, when Adam reproduced, his offspring were of his same species.

Or, in other words he possessed the same "Free Will" that his physical father did. Physically man is just an animal--it is the quality of rational thought and free will that set him apart from the animal and make this creature "man".

Regards,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

Or, in other words he possessed the same "Free Will" that his physical father did.

If you like, but that's not what it says.

Physically man is just an animal--it is the quality of rational thought and free will that set him apart from the animal and make this creature "man".

But dogs don't beget cats, and cows don't beget horses. There are many species in the animal kingdom, of which man is one. I'm not arguing that, nor am I arguing that the rational thought and free will that God gave man does not set him apart from all of the other animals God created. God gave us the ability to become like Him someday. He didn't give the other species within the animal kingdom this ability. That, however, is entirely beside the point of what it meant for God to have created man "in His image, after His likeness."

 

[Popeyesays]

If you like, but that's not what it says.

But dogs don't beget cats, and cows don't beget horses. There are many species in the animal kingdom, of which man is one. I'm not arguing that, nor am I arguing that the rational thought and free will that God gave man does not set him apart from all of the other animals God created. God gave us the ability to become like Him someday. He didn't give the other species within the animal kingdom this ability. That, however, is entirely beside the point of what it meant for God to have created man "in His image, after His likeness."

In the old Testament, God cannot even be looked upon, He appears asa burning bush because Moses, His Own Prophet, cannot look upon Him and live. If God were shaped like a human, why would Moses be unable to look upon God.

My scriptures say that God is not Knowable in His Essence, cannot be perceived by the eye of man. We know nothing of what God is or is not that has not been revealed by His Prophets think that the explanation of Creation in Genesis is literal in any sense is not reasonable. It's an allegory and it has ten thousand possible interpretations all of which only give us a glimpse of the truth behind the words.

This literal mindedness is what turned me off with the LDS back when I was fifteen, almost 45 years ago, and it remains the issue with me.

I(t doesn't make sense to try to make God anthropomorphic. God is beyond the description and understanding of any man--even Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Scott
To

 

[UnityNow101]

To place God into any preverbial "box" is wrong in my estimation. We must remember that God is infinately exalted above His creation and His essence is unknowable to our finite minds. Otherwise, we would all understand God and understand His Being..But we don't. Even among certain religious groups there are numerous differences between their views on God's essence and being.

 

[Katzpur]

In the old Testament, God cannot even be looked upon, He appears asa burning bush because Moses, His Own Prophet, cannot look upon Him and live. If God were shaped like a human, why would Moses be unable to look upon God.

God's physical shape has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Besides, God didn't appear as a burning bush. His voice was heard coming from a burning bush. And what about these passages from the Old Testament?

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 24:10-11 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Exodus 33:22-23 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

My scriptures say that God is not Knowable in His Essence, cannot be perceived by the eye of man.

I can accept that. Mine say otherwise, and they don't describe Him as as "essence."

We know nothing of what God is or is not that has not been revealed by His Prophets think that the explanation of Creation in Genesis is literal in any sense is not reasonable.

The thing is, Scott, a man I believe to have been such a prophet said precisely the opposite.

This literal mindedness is what turned me off with the LDS back when I was fifteen, almost 45 years ago, and it remains the issue with me.

Okay. Sorry we turned you off. A lot of people are actually excited to learn that they can trust what the Bible says about God without having to look for the hidden meaning behind the words. I guess we each have to find our own path. The Latter-day Saints, by the way, are not Bible literalists, but we do keep the metaphorical interpretations to a minimum. (By the way, I didn't know you and I were as close in age as we are. I'll be 59 later this year. )

 

[Popeyesays]

I;ve always found that particular verse strange--that God would "moon" the elders of Israel.

Those verses are all symbolic, rather than literal.

Yup, sixty in July (the 28th actually.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

I;ve always found that particular verse strange--that God would "moon" the elders of Israel.

Well, I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way, but I'll admit it's a bit odd. If the verse is symbolic, though, the symbolism obviously means something. What would your interpretation be?

Those verses are all symbolic, rather than literal.

It sounds to me as if you take most everything the Bible has to say as metaphorical. Would that be the general Baha'i perspective? I would agree that the Bible does contain a certain amount of metaphorical, symbolic and figurative language, but I don't see how you can possibly say that Exodus 33:11 (And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend) is symbolic. To me, it's almost saying: "Now understand, this really happened the way it is stated. Don't try to change the straightforward meaning of it."

Yup, sixty in July (the 28th actually.)

One day after my husband turns 65. I guess we're all getting up there.

 

[lunamoth]

I;ve always found that particular verse strange--that God would "moon" the elders of Israel.

Regards,
Scott

Perhaps referring to the idea that while we may not always recognize when God is with us, in retrospect we can know where He's been.

 

[Muffled]

I was brought here from that long drawn out thread (Koran.....Jesus is son).

I was told that proof of Jesus being (God in the flesh) could be found here. I've found nothing but the contrary........

Jesus was not God. How do I know this....? He said it himself......Jesus did God's, not his, will. How do I know this....? He said it himself.

Here is what Jesus said. This should be plain and simple.....

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.


Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.


Joh 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent
me, and to accomplish his work.


Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.


Lu 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."


Joh 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me.


Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me,
for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord,
but he sent me.


Mr 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


Joh 7:16 So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who
sent me;


Mt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


Mr 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good
but God alone.


John 8:50 "And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

I'm quite sure there is plenty more. Why does it seem so hard to take Jesus's word for it? He said he was here to do God's will, Everything he did was by leave of God, He could do nothing but by the will of God., Any "divinity" Jesus had was given to him by God...etc...etc...etc........

What you mean is that you wish to view what you found from a contrary spirit. None of the verses you show here has anything to do with the evidence provided which you haven't answered. Except the verse where Jesus asks "why do you call me good only God is good." If you had read that verse in the OP you would have seen connected to it the verse where Jesus says "I am the good shepherd."

If Jesus does nothing but the will of God it proves that He has the will of God. The reference to his own will is most likely a reference to the will of the flesh which includes the mind of the body. The flesh has a will of its own and contends with the spirit. It is no less true of us than it is of God. Just about every other verse you quoted reflects this dichotomy.

Yes the Father is greater because He is not in the flesh. The flesh limits God's capacity. For instance the Father is everywhere but Jesus has to be in one place at a time. Granted the spirit within is one with God's spirit so it isn't as though God were handicapped by this but for those following Jesus looking for healing He was a lifeline that they didn't have otherwise because they were not aware that the Holy Spirit was available to everyone.

 

[Katzpur]

If Jesus does nothing but the will of God it proves that He has the will of God. The reference to his own will is most likely a reference to the will of the flesh which includes the mind of the body. The flesh has a will of its own and contends with the spirit. It is no less true of us than it is of God. Just about every other verse you quoted reflects this dichotomy.

The flesh has a will of its own? How on earth are you coming to that conclusion? Jesus had His own will, but it is always in complete unity with His Father's will.

Yes the Father is greater because He is not in the flesh.

The Father is greater only because He is the Father. Christ is subordinate to His Father only because of their Father/Son relationship and not because He had a physical body. Could you please provide some examples from the scriptures that would substantiate this reasoning?

The flesh limits God's capacity.

If his knowledge and power extend everywhere, what He is made of would be inconsequential.

For instance the Father is everywhere but Jesus has to be in one place at a time.

Well I'll be darned. I could have sworn that Jesus always referred to "my Father in Heaven" as opposed to "my Father everywhere."

 

[Harvster]

God's physical shape has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Besides, God didn't appear as a burning bush. His voice was heard coming from a burning bush. And what about these passages from the Old Testament?

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 24:10-11 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Exodus 33:22-23 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

I've always been taught that when God appeared to the various people in the OT it was Christ that appeared to them.