Muffled
Jesus in me
What you say is true. The significance of being born to Mary was to fulfill the prophesy that He would be the seed of David.
-
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
What you say is true. The significance of being born to Mary was to fulfill the prophesy that He would be the seed of David.
arimoff
Active Member
loooooool, firt of all, I don't think there is a direct prove of her being the direct seed of David. If G-D is the father but G-D is not of the seed of David, for those who don't know Jewish seed and tribe is passed trough the father, but being Jewish or not through the mother.
Now what do you mean to fulfill the prophecy? if G-D creates prophecy then what does it cost Him to create it saying you will have a savior my son? and there is no more need for Marry.
That prophecy is exactly made for people like you and Jesus, the self called saviors!!!
Last edited:
AK4
Well-Known Member
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....
I can agree with this. it does go both ways. You have all the apostles saying they saw Him, you have jews who didnt believe He was the Christ see Him and then some others. You can do this with almost all of histories people. You either believe what someone else wrote or you dont.
You can do the same thing with Plato.
Ba'al
Active Member
There's a difference between writers though. History and religious studies are social sciences. That is, they base their conclusions on evidence, facts, and data. It is as non-biased opinion one can get. As opposed to, say, the the Gospel of John. An anonymous writer that tells of Jesus through a believers eyes where the writer believes in miracles and that Jesus was somewhat divine. In addition, there are falsehoods and discrepancies between John and other Gospels that discredit the authenticity. And since we don't have the original manuscripts of John there are countless versions with differences between them. With all that you still believe what the church will tell you, but not a scholar.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I think Ba'al ansewered most of this for me. The 4 gospel writers are unknown. Maybe Saul/Paul's friend Luke wrote the book of Luke. I'm not sure. The mention of (Theopolis) in both (The book of Luke and Acts) might be what ties them together. It's no worry though. Luke was not a witness at all. He said he received his information second hand. There's no way to tell how accurate a job the author did in substantiating his witnesses so I'm sure he took the word of those who said they knew Yeshua. None of these anonymous writers knew him. I will concede for the sake of this thread that the biblical Yeshua existed. After careful study of the four gospels there is no place in them that indicates or describe Yeshua with "God".
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The notion that Luke knew Paul is a cooked up tradition. Besides, Luke relied on gMark and a sayings gospel, and Paul never met Jesus. Acts was probably written in the 90's or so, over thirty years after Paul's death. I'm not sure whether the Son of God counts as a god or not. Mark claims that his story is about the Son of God.
Ba'al
Active Member
"Son of God" was term used occasionally in the OT to someone who was close to God, usually prophets.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
It's also used by Mark.
Mark1-1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Ba'al
Active Member
Using the OT as a guide one should conclude that means Jesus was a prophet or at least someone who acts the way God wants. Nowhere in the OT does "son of God" reference anything more than that. It was used for angels as well but we know Jesus wasn't an angel for the time he walked the earth.
AK4
Well-Known Member
One would hope to believe that, but i dont put anything past anyone.
Please show me some of these discrepencies. Matbe i just have the eyes to see that fluidity of all the Gospels together.
With all that you still believe what the church will tell you, but not a scholar.
Ha, these churches teach half truths mixed with lies and fantasy. I "came out of her" as commanded [see Revelations]. And as for these scholars, i am very skeptical on them too because they all may have been to a theological cemetary---oops seminary and they are full of biasedness and there own imaginings too.
AK4
Well-Known Member
Well ive shown some examples what more can i say, also i shown other OT verses stating this also. Even some of the parables say this. You have Jesus saying that He was the only begotten God plainly yet that still aint good enough evidence. What can i say.
AK4
Well-Known Member
Tell me, what qualities did Jesus not have to qualify Him as our God? Show me how He was just like any other jewish man who could die for the sins of mankind and not be God
AK4
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
I think Ba'al ansewered most of this for me. The 4 gospel writers are unknown. Maybe Saul/Paul's friend Luke wrote the book of Luke. I'm not sure. The mention of (Theopolis) in both (The book of Luke and Acts) might be what ties them together. It's no worry though. Luke was not a witness at all. He said he received his information second hand. There's no way to tell how accurate a job the author did in substantiating his witnesses so I'm sure he took the word of those who said they knew Yeshua. None of these anonymous writers knew him. I will concede for the sake of this thread that the biblical Yeshua existed. After careful study of the four gospels there is no place in them that indicates or describe Yeshua with "God".
I take that back there is plenty more. Riddle me this and keep in mind the other scriptures i presented earlier in this thread. If no man has seen or heard the Father at anytime, who was it that was speaking and showing Himself to the likes of Abraham and Moses and others? Who or what was that being?
Also in Jesus saying that He was God, you say that He never said or implied this right? Well tell me then what this passage would mean if this isnt Him calling Himself [our] God.
John 17:1-5 -1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting R1267 up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, R1268 the hour has come; glorify R1269 Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even R1270 as You R1271 gave Him authority over all flesh, that to R1272 all F162 whom You have given Him, He R1273 may give eternal life. [remember "the only begotten God" verse]3 "This R1274 is eternal life, that they may know You, the R1275 only true God,[yes Jesus as God, has a God] and Jesus Christ whom You R1276 have sent. 4 "I R1277 glorified You on the earth, having F163 R1278 accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. [okay here comes the kicker] 5 "Now, R1279 Father, glorify R1280 Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with R1281 You before the world was.
Now, the GLORY which I had with You BEFORE the world was, Is this not Jesus implying who/what He was/is? Heres strongs definiton of the greek word used there for glory and tell me if this isnt Jesus calling Himself the Lord God
- opinion, judgment, view
- opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone
- in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory
- splendour, brightness
- of the moon, sun, stars
- magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace
- majesty
- a thing belonging to God
- the kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity
- a thing belonging to Christ 3c
- the kingly majesty of the Messiah 3c
- the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty
- of the angels 3c
- as apparent in their exterior brightness
- a most glorious condition, most exalted state
- of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth
- the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour's return from heaven
AK4
Well-Known Member
Angel also means messenger and Jesus was definitely a messenger or as put in Revelation, the Antipas which means in place of the father.
Also these sons of God in the OT were never worshipped. Jesus was. so theres another difference to those sons of God
Ba'al
Active Member
Jesus was a messenger. Jesus was not an angel. Your playing with translations to find what you want to believe. Jesus never said he was the father. Why not?
True they weren't worshiped, and neither was Jesus in his lifetime. Jesus didn't want to be worshiped, and said there was only one that was good enough to be worshiped, the Father. The worship of Jesus, a man, was drummed up after his death. So who changed the meaning of "son of God" and why?
Ba'al
Active Member
You need to read your bible. Jesus never once said he was the only begotten son. That was said by the anonymous author of John.
Well, he wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent etc. How about you give me 1 quality to qualify Jesus as being God.
Well, I've never said Jesus was like any other man but to address dying for everyone's sins? Jesus never said that either. That's something Paul wrote in his letters. Whoever would think God would kill someone else for our sins and not hold us accountable. How ridiculous.
Ba'al
Active Member
Tell you what. I'll give you 1 and when can explain it sufficiently I'll give you another, and we'll keep going like that. You'll be an expert by the time we're finished because there are alot. Here's the first:
In John(2:13-16) Jesus clears the temple merchants at the beginning of his ministry.
In Mt(21:12-13), Mk(11:15-18), and Lk(19:45-46) Jesus clears the temple merchants at the end of his ministry.