Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
I'm not quite sure what you are saying? Are you agreeing with me?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus say he was God???
- Thread starter Muffled
- Start date
I'm not quite sure what you are saying? Are you agreeing with me?
Since 1st Peter 2:13 has LORD in all capitals then it is referring to the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Psalm 110:1 mentions two (2) LORD, Lord's.
When LORD is in all capitals it is used in place of the Tetragrammaton. Then LORD stands for Almighty God. Whereas when Lord is Not in all capitals then the Tetragrammaton does Not appear, and Lord, without all capitals, stands for Jesus Not as Almighty God, but rather as Mighty God as Isaiah addresses Jesus at Isaiah 9:7. No where in Scripture is Jesus addressed as Almighty God.
imaginaryme
Active Member
I would argue that Jesus did not explicitly state that he is god, but that he specifically used words to imply that he is god. The basis for my argument would be the progression of John 8 where no words of Jesus draw stones until I am, the curious lack of similarity of John 8:58-59 to other gospels; and the preponderance of evidence in the Bible to suggest the divinity of Jesus.
I would also argue that the true nature of this debate resides in the concept of trinity, and would thus propose a solution in the terms of being and becoming. The Father is god is being. The Son is god is being. The Holy Ghost is god is becoming. I would further contend that such debate occurs when one seeks to understand the meaning of Jesus rather than the message of Jesus, which is the difference in words explicitly and implicitly stated; and this is why I would argue, if there was anything to debate.
I would also argue that the true nature of this debate resides in the concept of trinity, and would thus propose a solution in the terms of being and becoming. The Father is god is being. The Son is god is being. The Holy Ghost is god is becoming. I would further contend that such debate occurs when one seeks to understand the meaning of Jesus rather than the message of Jesus, which is the difference in words explicitly and implicitly stated; and this is why I would argue, if there was anything to debate.
In John 8:24 "He" is not part of the original statement. Jesus' words were not constucted normally but were influenced by OT Heb. usage. It is an absolute usage meaning, "I AM" and has immense theological significance. the reference may be to both Ex 3:14 where the Lord declared His name as "I AM" and to Is. 40-55 where the phase "I am" occurs repeatedly ( esp. 43:10,13,25 ) In this Jesus referred to Himself as God (Yahweh- the Lord) of the OT, and directly claimed full deity for Himself. [ John Macarthur ]
Furthermore chapter 8 is climaxed by Jesus saying, "most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58) Is that not clear enough? It was for the Jews there who understood the OT scriptures. Because they then took up stones to kill Jesus. (v.59)
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This is Jesus, the Ascended Jesus, informing John he has a god. I notice trinitarians play fast and loose with the terms Father and God. They are synonymous. When the biblical Yeshua says "my god" he is talking about his father (God). When he says "Father"...he is taking about his "god"...No where do we find the biblical Yeshua separating the two in their meaning.
Case in point;
John 8:54
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Even so. The OT usage of the word denotes various interpretations depending on the context. This is why Kings can be referred to as "Lord" as well as using the same title for God. Context plays a big part in understanding the meaning of a word or phrase. The biblical Yeshua uses asks a question in Matthew 18 and uses the word "Lord" and I'm quite sure he wasn't trying to say that the person he was talking about in the story was to be consider God Nor did his listeners think that was what he was trying to say. But even your biblical Yeshua answers this issue of being called lord.
Matthew 22:41-46
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]41 Then, surrounded by the Pharisees, Jesus asked them a question:
42 "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They replied, "He is the son of David."
43 Jesus responded, "Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, call him Lord? For David said,
44 `The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.
45 Since David called him Lord, how can he be his son at the same time?"
46 No one could answer him. And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.
[/FONT]
So the biblical Yeshua is not the "LORD" but referred to as a "lord". He was called that out of reverence and respect. It's like calling someone "Sir". It's even like calling someone "master" but not like in reference to "God".
Actually it is mentioned but the NIV translators render the word (adown) as "master". The biblical Yeshua above is referring to this very word because he is speaking of what is written in Psalms. Basically the Messiah will be seated at the right had of God. This is what is meant when reference in Mark 14:61-62. The biblical Yeshua always saw himself and professed to the people he was the servant of his god. While on earth and in heaven he remained the same. This is why if you fast forward to Revelation it is mentioned that there are two thrones in heaven and we find God receiving prays from his creation and they ask (who's worthy of opening the seals?). Now why they would dare ask their creator that if they knew God (WAS) worthy and the only one to open the seals....instead the "Lamb"...AKA Yeshua, enters and they deem him as being worthy of opening the seals. So even in heaven, accordingly to your scripture, the biblical Yeshua is not God and totally separate except for being one in purpose.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Even so. It means nothing considering I don't even think I mentioned any of the bibles that contain the [he] in brackets. Even though the "He" is not in the verse the same rendering is repeated at verse 8:28 When he says (I am) but notice he says his Father (everyone's god) "sent" him. Truth be told the meaning of verse 24 is in verses 12 and 23. The biblical Yeshua gave testimony of behalf of himself saying (he was the light of the world who was from above). His response in verse 24 is because they didn't believe him and mocked what he was saying. See, this is what I mean by understanding the story's context instead of picking bits to make it say something it isn't.
It is not....NOT AT ALL. All the biblical Yeshua was saying was that he existed in heaven before Abraham came into being. This is shown in a couple other places in the very same book of John. The biblical Yeshua existed in heaven with his god and possesed his own will, was sent to earth by his god with a task to do and completes that task. We know he existed (WITH) his god in heaven because in his prayer to his god he says so. And after his ascension we find the biblical Yeshua (The Lamb) back in heave amongst "God's" creation and in the midst of "God"...but not as "God" but completely separate.
I just answered that and it's not the first time in this thread that I've addressed it. The biblical Yeshua, in John 8:58, says (I am). In fact he says it a few times in that chapter, again, depending on context. He said it so much that no one sought to kill him until he "appeared" to be disrespecting Abraham. The whole chapter absolutely has nothing in relation to Ex. 3:14. In your English translated versions you have harped on the words "I am". All that (I am), in this context, means is (I exist or I existed).
ergo - (I, me, my)
eimi - (To, to happen, to exist, to be present)
'Yeshua said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I existed.'
That's all it says.....no more...no less...
Unless you get a kick out of reading something that just isn't there......
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
However this is the reality as He claimed. He is my king. He is the king of some Jews, however many have refused God the same way they did in First Samuel.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Although Jesus is only a reality for as long as God wills, the Bible does not say when That reality would no longer be necessary. Jesus reigns for a thousand years but no indication is given as to whether He continues to reign after that.
This is an authority headship. It is not an indication of a separate person but simply which aspect of God, God considers to have the most authority. This is more perceptual on our part than an essential neccessity.
My point is not that there isn't an earthly kingdom or heavenly kingdom but rather that those kingdoms are subsets of the spiritual kingdom.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Excuse me, but you do not exist. All there is for evidence is a word that purports to come from you but you talk like Penguin so you must be him and your own persona doesn't exist.
The reality is that you don't have any evidence to back up your claims.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
No we're two different people.
You might be right though...I have no way to prove it to you.... dang it....
averageJOE
zombie
Crap! We have no evidence telling us that humans can't walk on water, therefore it must be true!
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Muffled
Jesus in me
I don't believe in the null hypothesis. If we had evidence that men could not walk on water, it would be evidence. The question of whether a person's words ae true or not depends on the reliability of the speaker.
BTW I have seen a man walk on water. My brother saw him also.
Muffled
Jesus in me
That is not the same thing. A person would not say that he had walked on water but that he had walked on ice.
Sorry, just my poor attempt at being lighthearted.
You are of course absolutely right.
Putting all things together, what Jesus did was demonstrate on a 'small' scale what he will be doing on a LARGE scale or GRAND scale during his coming 1000-year rulership over earth. He calmed the stormy waters of the sea showing we will have climate control. Feeding people showing we will have an abundance of food. Curing the sick showing we will have health care. Bringing back the dead showing we will have life. Endless life free from sickness, free from hunger, and free from worry about external forces.
Each of us will sit under our own vine and own fig tree with no one to make us tremble or be afraid. ( Micah 4:4). Each of us will build our own house, and no one else will occupy (No foreclosures) -Isaiah 65:21,22.
Last edited: