Did Jesus say he was God???

[dogsgod]

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.

That's hardly fair, everything supposedly said by Jesus is from anonymous writers. He had no contemporaries that could have quoted him.

 

[Ba'al]

That's hardly fair, everything supposedly said by Jesus is from anonymous writers. He had contemporaries that could have quoted him.

There are many quotes of Jesus in the gospels. That's NOT one of them. If Jesus was known to say that, they would have quoted him as they do in other places.

 

[dogsgod]

There are many quotes of Jesus in the gospels. That's NOT one of them. If Jesus was known to say that, they would have quoted him as they do in other places.

What places are more valid than other places? What difference does it make whether the unknown author of John quotes Jesus or the unknown author of Mark, or Matthew, or Luke?

 

[Ba'al]

Mark was written first. Then Matthew, then Luke, and then John. The christology becomes more apparent as time increases. In Mark, Jesus is a mere human. Matthew has Jesus as more than an ordinary human. Luke's version of Jesus is even more so. And lastly, John makes Jesus look divine. It's like when someone we love catches a fish and we tell stories about it afterwords. Over the years the fish gets bigger.

 

[dogsgod]

Mark was written first. Then Matthew, then Luke, and then John. The christology becomes more apparent as time increases. In Mark, Jesus is a mere human. Matthew has Jesus as more than an ordinary human. Luke's version of Jesus is even more so. And lastly, John makes Jesus look divine. It's like when someone we love catches a fish and we tell stories about it afterwords. Over the years the fish gets bigger.

Philo wrote of the Son of God before any of them and if anything his influence seems to have extended to the author of John over the others.

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew also called Judaeus Philo, is a figure that spans two cultures, the Greek and the Hebrew. When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century B.C.E. it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen. He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John (C. H. Dodd) and theEpistle to the Hebrews(R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge). In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. Philo of Alexandria [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

He's never quoted as saying that. The author of the book of John said that. The book of Mark, the supposed earliest known of the four gospels, is completely silent on that classification....as is the later Matthew and Luke.

 

[301ouncer]

He's never quoted as saying that. The author of the book of John said that. The book of Mark, the supposed earliest known of the four gospels, is completely silent on that classification....as is the late later Matthew and Luke.

Yes.
Mark shows Jesus as a Prophet.

Matthew shows Jesus as a Servant.

Luke showes Jesus as King.

John showes Jesus as God.

 

[301ouncer]

What places are more valid than other places? What difference does it make whether the unknown author of John quotes Jesus or the unknown author of Mark, or Matthew, or Luke?

It actually makes a big difference. You need to know who these writters were. According to mark, according to mathew,etc it shows that it is accorded to them by a third party.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It actually makes a big difference. You need to know who these writters were. According to mark, according to mathew,etc it shows that it is accorded to them by a third party.

First let me say welcome to the forum.

Second, let me let you know that "dogsgod" is very well informed of the historicity of Christianity. You may not have understood his reason(s) for asking the question but I can assure you, from reading other threads he's been in and speaking with him, he's knowledgeable.

Again, welcome and I hope you like it here at RF...

 

[301ouncer]

First let me say welcome to the forum.

Second, let me let you know that "dogsgod" is very well informed of the historicity of Christianity. You may not have understood his reason(s) for asking the question but I can assure you, from reading other threads he's been in and speaking with him, he's knowledgeable.

Again, welcome and I hope you like it here at RF...

I will read more of this thread. no worries.

Thank you for the welcome. hope to talk to you and others soon. :yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Tell me, what qualities did Jesus not have to qualify Him as our God?

What do you mean...?

Do you mean the fact that he said he wasn't and always placed himself subservient to his god before his god sent him to Earth, while he was on Earth and after his supposed ascension to heaven?

Show me how He was just like any other jewish man who could die for the sins of mankind and not be God

This escapes me I guess because I'm not sure Yeshua said he was sent to the (whole world) nor am I'm convinced he said he said he came to die for ("man's) sins. The book of John 1:29 makes the claim that John the baptist said he was. But we don't find this remark, as important as ALL Christians believe Jesus' primary role to be, in any of the other gospels. Remember, Matthew and Luke drew from Mark. John probably pulled some from all of them, considering his gospel came later....but there appears to be a lot of Ad-libbing in John's gospel

 

[Ba'al]

John probably pulled some from all of them, considering his gospel came later....but there appears to be a lot of Ad-libbing in John's gospel

Most scholars don't believe John used any of the other gospels as a source considering they have little in common and there are too many discrpancies between John and the others. They are the most skeptical of John as well. Most don't believe any of the historical events to be true.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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?

I have no idea. Doesn't it make it sound like Yeshua was a liar considering there were plenty in your OT that actually heard "Gods" voice?......But what we have is what you are reading from John. In the other books Yeshua is baptized by John the baptist and at this point "God's" voice is heard from the heavens. So either no one has heard "God's" voice or they actually did hear his voice.....Seems to me others have heard "God's" voice.

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.

But he isn't saying that at all. It's your interpretation of the passage that he is.

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?

First your emphasis on certain words of his prayer to his god is lacking because you leave out other important words indicating he's not "God". Let me first tackle what I highlighted above in red and just first off say that this statement make no sense at all. If Yeshua declares his god is the "only" god then there's no reason for anyone to assume that "God" has a god. Ask any Jew here and they will say that's blasphemous. Nowhere in the OT is "God" ever described as having a god and no one ever preached, taught or believed this.

Let's finish it though...take a look....

"that they may know YOU, the only true God, and Jesus (Christ whom You have sent.)"

This is Yeshua right here in his prayer to his god showing explicitly that he's not "God". He outright declares his god as the only god and it was his god that sent him. The rest of the prayer...is even more clarification to a lot of misconceptions given in this thread.

In the book of John Yeshua is quoted as saying (he came here not of his own will but of the will of the father who sent him). Who was the father? his god that's who. Here he's telling you he existed in heaven with the his god, as did plenty of heavenly host as discribed in your bible, and he had his own SEPARATE will. At the end of the bible in the book of Revelation Yeshua says it at least three times he has a god. This is supposedly AFTER his ascension. Go check it. God is sitting on the throne receiving praise from the heavenly host saying that he ("God") is worthy of prays...but then they ask who will open the 7 seals. It then says "NONE" was worthy in heaven nor on or in the earth to open the seals. When the "Lamb" enters he is deemed worthy of opening the seals. So from your very own scripture "God" would not be opening the seals but it would be Yeshua (The Lamb). But if Yeshua is "God" then what's the point of the theatrics? There are none. Your scriptures are quite clear in defining the positions and rolls of all involved.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Most scholars don't believe John used any of the other gospels as a source considering they have little in common and there are too many discrpancies between John and the others. They are the most skeptical of John as well. Most don't believe any of the historical events to be true.

I agree. Some of it seemed similar to the other stories but way more esoteric in style.

 

[dogsgod]

Most scholars don't believe John used any of the other gospels as a source considering they have little in common and there are too many discrpancies between John and the others. They are the most skeptical of John as well. Most don't believe any of the historical events to be true.

Historical events? Which events are historical?

 

[David69]

Jesus is part of god, part of him so therefore he is God the light side imo
I know this because because I am the messiah
btw, has anyone read in those scripture things that Jesus promised peter that he will take peter to be reborn with jesus on earth?

 

[Ba'al]

Historical events? Which events are historical?

"Historical event" might be the wrong term. I mean the things that people said and did.

 

[dogsgod]

"Historical event" might be the wrong term. I mean the things that people said and did.

What events that we read of in the gospels actually took place?

 

[Ba'al]

What events that we read of in the gospels actually took place?

I don't know. I'm saying scholars are most skeptical of John's.

 

[AK4]

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?

Did i say He said He was the Father? No. He is not the Father. Im not a trinitarian.

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?

Thats a lie. The scriptures show Him being worshipped while He was there also. Was Jesus some ordinary man? No. He emptied Himself from what He was to become like His brothers.