Did Jesus say he was God???

[arimoff]

Little by little. Genesis 3:15 does not name Jesus as the 'seed' that will deal Satan the fatal death bruise to his head either. Messiah is not named at Daniel 9:25,26 either. So little by little or gradually prophecies are revealed by increasing information.

Yes, Genesis was written way before Jesus. However, according to Colossians 1:15,16; Rev 3:14 Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was.- Psalm 90:2, but Jesus as 'firstborn' in the heavens was at the beginning of all creation.

Genesis 3:15
And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב:

Rashi: And I shall place hatred: You intended that the man should die when he would eat first, and you would marry Eve, and you came to Eve first only because women are easily enticed, and they know how to entice their husbands. Therefore,“I shall place hatred.”

He will crush your head: יְשׁוּפ‏ ְרֹאשׁ lit. he will crush you the head. He will crush you, like (Deut. 9:21):“And I crushed it,” which is translated by the Targum as וְשָׁפִית יָתֵיהּ

and you will bite his heel: Heb. שׁוּפֶנוּ. You will not stand upright and you will bite him on the heel, and even from there you will kill him. The expression תְשׁוּפֶנוּ is like (Isa. 40:24):“He blew (נָשַׁ&#1507 on them.” When a snake comes to bite, it blows with a sort of hiss, and since the two expressions coincide [i.e., they sound alike], Scripture used the expression of נְשִׁיפָה in both of cases.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=7781&p=3&showrashi=true

Where exactly in Genesis 3:15 you saw something that has to do with Jesus? or maybe you have a different Genesis?
You don't get the point, who cares what is it written in Colossians and revelations, it has nothing to do with the Jews, you trying to prove one religion with another.

 

[AK4]

Just because they haven't found Q it doesn't mean historians beliefs are unfounded! Historians rely on evidence and they have enough of it that 85% of NT scholars believe in the Q document. Luke and Matthew share word for word statements and yet were written independently. Even if they were written from the same oral tradition that would be quite a coincidence. If you and me told the same story what are the chances we'd use the same sentences?

Probably 90% of christians believe there is a hell. Does that make it true? Nope. Probably 99.999% of the worlds population believe in freewill. Does that make it true? Nope.

 

[AK4]

I'm sorry...but I feel as though you're stretching and trying to draw unproven parallels here.

I dont know what more ya want. How am i?

 

[Ba'al]

Probably 90% of christians believe there is a hell. Does that make it true? Nope. Nope.

90% of Christians don't even know what their own bible says. Scholars that dedicate their entire lives to a field of study should know a little more than the layman.

 

[AK4]

90% of Christians don't even know what their own bible says. Scholars that dedicate their entire lives to a field of study should know a little more than the layman.

The question then you should ask yourself is are most of these "scholars" also sheeple too. Look at these collges and universities and theological schools. You dont agree with the teacher, most likely you flunk.

 

[Ba'al]

The question then you should ask yourself is are most of these "scholars" also sheeple too. Look at these collges and universities and theological schools. You dont agree with the teacher, most likely you flunk.

These are historians and NT scholars. And they almost all agree.

 

[AK4]

These are historians and NT scholars. And they almost all agree.

And that makes them right? Alot people [scholars and scientists] believe in man made global warming too. Does that make it true?

 

[Ba'al]

And that makes them right? Alot people [scholars and scientists] believe in man made global warming too. Does that make it true?

It amuses me that you won't believe historians and scholars yet you believe the bible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I dont know what more ya want. How am i?

What I'm saying is that the site you posted was wrong. No Jewish scholar agrees to this. Not because it is trying to insinuate that Yeshua is "God"...but that the exegesis itself on the name of the biblical god is completely wrong.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It amuses me that you won't believe historians and scholars yet you believe the bible.

You got it all wrong. If that scholar says....(Yes, there was a man named Yeshua who lived in the first century and we as scholars agree he was crucified under Roman persecution)...then AK4 would be shouting it from the roof tops. I personally think there is very little in the way of "evidence" for the existence of the biblical Yeshua...but nearly ALL scholars agree he actually existed.....and since they think he did...I'm quite sure AK4 is not going to say...'Well, what do they really know'....NO...because if it agrees with his ideology then it's true and if it doesn't then it must not be....

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Probably 90% of christians believe there is a hell. Does that make it true? Nope. Probably 99.999% of the worlds population believe in freewill. Does that make it true? Nope.

Hell is mentioned in Scripture. But what is the definition of the Bible hell?
Jesus was in hell Acts 2:27,31. Jesus, according to John 11:11-14, believed he would be in a deep sleep-like state while in hell until God resurrected him.
So the biblical hell is the common grave of mankind. Hell fire then is symbolic of destruction as the 'fires of the garbage dump Gehenna' was used as an incinerator to destroy things and not keep things burning forever.

Genesis shows: Satan and Adam had free will to choose to obey or not.

 

[Ba'al]

Try to quote the original post cause it looks as if I posted that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ba'al- thanks for bringing that to my attention and making that clear. It is from AK4

 

[The Enlightened One]

I don't think you can make such a cut-and-dried distinction as that, and remain on the safe side of factual.

I think I can. Christians made that distinction for themselves when they started worshiping another god, christ. No matter how you rationalize it to me, Christians are the only ones that believe he was the lord, and I believe early Christians technically broke one of the comandments when they started refering to Jesus as lord.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think I can. Christians made that distinction for themselves when they started worshiping another god, christ. No matter how you rationalize it to me, Christians are the only ones that believe he was the lord, and I believe early Christians technically broke one of the comandments when they started refering to Jesus as lord.

Please notice at Psalm 110:1 KJV that there are two (2) LORD/Lord's mentioned.

The LORD in all upper case letters is where the tetragrammaton (YHWH) stood for God's name. Lord, not in all capital letters, is not God (YHWH) but another Lord. Many were called Lord in Scripture besides Jesus. We even use the word Landlord and know that is not talking about God. Yet we know 'sir' 'owner' or 'master' can refer to someone as Lord. Jesus being Lord and 'teacher', John 13:13,14, in teaching humility.

So 'first-century Christians' did Not believe Jesus as Lord was LORD God.
Mt 7:21.
Who did Jesus call Lord of heaven at Mt 11:25; Rev 11:15? Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8) because Jesus appropriately used the Sabbath for doing the healing work commanded by his Heavenly God. Mt 8:16,17.

Isn't Jesus King of Kings and Lord of Lord's of all earthly kings (rulers) or all earthly Lords -Rev 19:16? Yet Jesus is not Lord over his God. Rev 3:12.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Why then do so many Christians refer to him as God? Is that folly on their part, or was it due to the Roman Catholic church(back when they were "persecuters")?
I guess if you think about it not every branch of Christianity "believes" that Christ was God; regardless, Jews are NOT Christians, and the two "testaments" WERE written centuries apart, which was what I originally stated.

 

[arimoff]

Please notice at Psalm 110:1 KJV that there are two (2) LORD/Lord's mentioned.

The LORD in all upper case letters is where the tetragrammaton (YHWH) stood for God's name. Lord, not in all capital letters, is not God (YHWH) but another Lord. Many were called Lord in Scripture besides Jesus. We even use the word Landlord and know that is not talking about God. Yet we know 'sir' 'owner' or 'master' can refer to someone as Lord. Jesus being Lord and 'teacher', John 13:13,14, in teaching humility.

So 'first-century Christians' did Not believe Jesus as Lord was LORD God.
Mt 7:21.
Who did Jesus call Lord of heaven at Mt 11:25; Rev 11:15? Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8) because Jesus appropriately used the Sabbath for doing the healing work commanded by his Heavenly God. Mt 8:16,17.

Isn't Jesus King of Kings and Lord of Lord's of all earthly kings (rulers) or all earthly Lords -Rev 19:16? Yet Jesus is not Lord over his God. Rev 3:12.

First of all shabbat is a day of rest, so the so called Jesus desecrated his fathers or his own laws to heal people? makes a lot of sense. Hebrew letters don't have capital letters. I believe we have been trough this already. Stop playing around.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

First of all shabbat is a day of rest, so the so called Jesus desecrated his fathers or his own laws to heal people? makes a lot of sense. Hebrew letters don't have capital letters. I believe we have been trough this already. Stop playing around.

Unfortunately people will continue this. I've mentioned a few times Semitic languages didn't use upp or lower cased lettering. Nor does the Greek language.

 

[Muffled]

I find nothing in scripture that supports this notion. Here are two verses that I believe contra-indicate it:

Joh 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

RE: But were the Jews right in what they were saying in verse 18?____ Verse 19 Jesus answers them that he does Not do a single thing of his own initiative.... by verse 26 God gives or grants to Jesus to have life in himself (immortality) not before that.

Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

In these two verses we see that Jesus is God, The Father is God and Jehovah is God. Sonce God is one, these verses are only revealing that God has many names and titles.

RE: Going back to Gen 1:26 God is talking to his 'firstborn' Son
(Col 1:15,16) in the heavens when God says let "us" make.....

I think too much can be made of a name. It is not proof in and of itself. Jesus means God saves but Joshua had the same name and he was not God.

RE: In the Hebrews doesn't Jesus mean Jehovah is salvation?
That points to Jehovah as the source of Jesus salvation.

However there was a priest named Joshua who figured in Messianic prophecy:
Zec 6:11 yea, take of them silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;
12 and speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh Jehovah of hosts, saying, Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah;
13 even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

It does not appear to be an accident on the part of God that he has chosen Joshua to represent "the Branch" who will be priest and king. Only Jesus has fulfilled both offices.

What is more significant about the name of Jesus is the reason the angel is designating it: Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

Since God is the only Savior, it is another proof that Jesus is God in the flesh.

RE: At Titus 2:11-13 and 3:4-6 both Father and Son are spoken of together in connection with salvation. They are both saviors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is pure speculation there is nothing in this verse to suggest who the other/s are in the word "us."

V 19 does not then appear to be a denial but a confirmation.

How does "Jehovah is salvation" get turned into "Jehovah saves me?" Jesus is named that because He is that as expressed in Mt. 1:21.

They are one Savior as Jesus says in John 10:30.

 

[Muffled]

I'm not surprised. And I don't see them in the same way as you do at all.

God was Jesus' Father, and Jesus was equal to God in that He had the same perfect nature. He was perfect in all things, all-knowing, all-powerful and absolutely loving and merciful. Who else who has ever lived could say that? Since this verse does not even mention the name "Jehovah," I'm not even sure why you used it as an example. Incidentally, one thing cannot be equal to itself. In order for there to be a comparison, there must be two things. On the other hand, Jesus also said that His Father is greater than He. He was not referring to their divine nature when He did, but to His (i.e. Jesus') subordinate place within the Godhead.

That's right. Jehovah created the Heavens and the Earth. He did so under His Father's direction. Ephesians 3:9 states that God "created all things by Jesus Christ."

Yes, we see here that Jesus is God. We don't see that He is God the Father, though. Since I don't believe in the Trinity, I see God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ (also God) as not being physically "one," but "one in will and purpose."


God the Father is not the Savior of this world. It is His Son, Jesus Christ who is the Savior of this world. Jesus was "God" before His birth. He was "God" during His mortality. He is "God" today. He reigns in Heaven where He sits on the right hand on His Father. Would you care to explain how one being sits on his own right side?

I see through the eyes of Jesus. I suggest you examine where your viewpoint is coming from.

"Things" is an inaccurate term. It suggests substance but no-one has proven yet that the spirit is substantive. Entity is a better term since it just means something that exists. If Jesus is viewed as spirit and thing (human body) and God is viewed as spirit then there is a difference. However that does not mean that there are two spirits. Eph 4:4 ... one spirit ... Then the question becomes why is that spirit viewed as separate entities even though it isn't. The answer is that The Father is unseen but Jesus reveals The Father through the body. If you were to view all my incarnations you would think that I was several persons but I have only one spirit.
Krishna is reputedly (his own words) an incarnation of God. If that were so it would still be the one spirit of God and not another.

Eph 3:9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;

This does not say what you claimed it said.

Jesus did not say this. He simply said that He and the Father are one. One in purpose was attached by those who wish to diminish the Word.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works.

In this Jesus is saying that the body is not doing any of the work of salvation but the Father who He identifies as Himself does the work of salvation.

No problem. God is omnipresent. He is literally beside himself infinitely.