Did Jesus say he was God???

[Iti oj]

When I thouht about this with my kitten, I did a lot of research I decided if peta supports it, it is probaly morally ok.

 

[Shermana]

When I thouht about this with my kitten, I did a lot of research I decided if peta supports it, it is probaly morally ok.

I didn't know Peta had an official position on the Trinity.

 

[Muffled]

The idea of Jesus being God I feel was made to make Christianity stand over all other religions, Jesus saying he was the way the truth the life, if you believe this, then he is the only way, but of course he isn't, but try to tell a Christian that and all hell breaks out.

I believe this was God's intention.

I believe it can't be so easily dismissed or we wouldn't have such a long thread.

Surely I believe one would not take an adversarial position and expect not to be opposed.

 

[Muffled]

When I thouht about this with my kitten, I did a lot of research I decided if peta supports it, it is probaly morally ok.

I believe that is a less than rational outlook and depending on anything other than God can be less than helpful.

 

[F0uad]

The idea of Jesus being God I feel was made to make Christianity stand over all other religions, Jesus saying he was the way the truth the life, if you believe this, then he is the only way, but of course he isn't, but try to tell a Christian that and all hell breaks out.

He never said he is the only way and if that was the case it would be impossible for Moses(pbuh) to go to heaven.

 

[1robin]

See, here's what I'm talking about. When James says "Faith alone is dead", you respond with, which is not at all what the text is implying, but is simply a half-truth of the issue:


James is in fact saying that Faith alone does not save. That's not just human perspective. I've made whole threads about this, where the "Faith alone" side got smacked into orbit.

Every Hebrew, Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc... knows interpretation and not first glance understandings are required for all Holy Scripture. I will add a bit below but before I opened the ball on this completely, I wanted to make sure you are attempting or desiring that be done. Every single works based salvation guy I have ever debated eventually disappears into the ether at some point. This subject takes quite a bit of work if it justifies any and wanted to make sure you wanted to do so and this is the place for it. Anyway as to James I will post the most accepted commentator in history says:

I. Upon this arises a very great question, namely, how to reconcile Paul and James. Paul, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, seems to assert the directly contrary thing to what James here lays down, saying if often, and with a great deal of emphasis, that we are justified by faith only and not by the works of the law. Amicae scripturarum lites, utinam et nostrae—There is a very happy agreement between one part of scripture and another, notwithstanding seeming differences: it were well if the differences among Christians were as easily reconciled. “Nothing,” says Mr. Baxter, “but men’s misunderstanding the plain drift and sense of Paul’s epistles, could make so many take it for a matter of great difficulty to reconcile Paul and James.” A general view of those things which are insisted on by the Antinomians may be seen in Mr. Baxter’s Paraphrase: and many ways might be mentioned which have been invented among learned men to make the apostles agree; but it may be sufficient only to observe these few things following:—1. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men’s embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10:1-21, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it. 2. Paul not only speaks of different works from those insisted on by James, but he speaks of a quite different use that was made of good works from what is here urged and intended. Paul had to do with those who depended on the merit of their works in the sight of God, and thus he might well make them of no manner of account. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used even as evidence; they depended upon a bare profession, as sufficient to justify them; and with these he might well urge the necessity and vast importance of good works. As we must not break one table of the law, by dashing it against the other, so neither must we break in pieces the law and the gospel, by making them clash with one another: those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong; for we must take our work before us; there must be both faith in Jesus Christ and good works the fruit of faith. 3. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men: “Show me thy faith by thy works,” says James, “let thy faith be justified in the eyes of those that behold thee by thy works;” but Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God, who justifies those only that believe in Jesus, and purely on account of the redemption that is in him. Thus we see that our persons are justified before God by faith, but our faith is justified before men by works. This is so plainly the scope and design of the apostle James that he is but confirming what Paul, in other places, says of his faith, that it is a laborious faith, and a faith working by love, Gal. 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:3; Titus 3:8; and many other places. 4. Paul may be understood as speaking of that justification which is inchoate, James of that which is complete; it is by faith only that we are put into a justified state, but then good works come in for the completing of our justification at the last great day; then, Come you children of my Father—for I was hungry, and you gave me meat, etc.

II. Having thus cleared this part of scripture from every thing of a contradiction to other parts of it, let us see what is more particularly to be learnt from this excellent passage of James; we are taught,
Verses 14
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Jas.2.14-Jas.2.26
1. I have supplied Henry among a thousand scholars because: 1. He is the most accepted, 2. He goes into great depth and scholarship on this most trying of perceived contradictions as he should. 3. I have not seen anything in his commentary of James I disagree with after reading and looking into it for many years.

2. Now the first response of anyone on the wrong side of a commentary or a scholar is to suggest commentators and scholars are of no value. Then why is what you say of value if that be so?

3. The one who finds consistency in the NT as they exist has less need of theatrics or wishful thinking than the person that must exclude parts of the NT, to do so. The man who interprets rightly has no need of scissors.

4. The debate over works or grace can't even happen until you can show works is even theoretically possible.

a. You must show what the exact standard is.
b. You must show has finite works justify infinite gain.

5. If you prayed to silence the one who is wrong, then either I am not it or your prayers were not answered. Just kidding, but you brought that bit of silliness up.

Now if you can address a and b, and you are indicating you wish to attempt full resolution of this issue and here is where you wish to do so I will back up and address the rest of your post. BTW every respected Christian commentator I am aware of agrees with Henry for the same reasons. I did not pick him out of the group because he agrees with me.

 

[Shermana]

Stop making all these conditionals and accept the challenge to a moderated debate or be done with it and have your peace.

I am not it or your prayers were not answered.

I didn't. I was waiting on you. Besides, it doesn't happen instantly.

 

[look3467]

Matthew Henry's was my first volume set of books I bought at a second had book store when I was 22.

But with the computer in play, the sky is limitless in accessing information per-tenant to understanding scriptures.

In the case of faith and works, Henry covers it well.

It is like owning a car. The car works but requires an operated.

The working car alone gets you no where. But with the operator, it does.

Now similarly, works acceptable (Meaning a vehicle that is useful) must first have an operator (Faith) to effect a good work. Meaning an acceptable work).

The law mainly states that a vehicle must have all the necessities for it to operate safely, and if not, well, the vehicle is of no use. (Condemned until repaired)

The law (vehicle) is like our vehicle pointing us to faith (operator) to put it to good use.

How is it determined that, that is the correct rendition of faith and works?

By extrapolating the theme prevalent throughout the whole bible and that is God saving His own creation by His works and not ours.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

If works are not an issue and God takes over for those who have enough faith, Jesus and Paul and James and John and Peter sure wasted a LOT of breath and ink in trying to tell people how to act and warning them towards good behavior.

 

[1robin]

Stop making all these conditionals and accept the challenge to a moderated debate or be done with it and have your peace.

Setting goal posts and what is necessary to lay a foundation for a discussion is a part of every debate.

I didn't. I was waiting on you. Besides, it doesn't happen instantly.

If that prayer did not work at the time it was offered then of what application were you using it? I have no desire to silence anyone so do not wait on me to do so.

 

[Shermana]

Setting goal posts and what is necessary to lay a foundation for a discussion is a part of every debate.

You mean you want to rig the debate in a way that plays to your rules before you'll even start it. That speaks volumes. You didn't even address what I said about how your goal posts are wrong to begin with.

If that prayer did not work at the time it was offered then of what application were you using it? I have no desire to silence anyone so do not wait on me to do so

What part about that I didn't make the prayer without your agreement to it don't you understand? And what part about the idea that such things don't necessarily work instantly don't you get either?

However, if you admit you're too afraid or unwilling to make a prayer for those who blasphemously push doctrines that send souls to hell to be silenced, my point is made all the same. Even the apostles wished for the silencing of those who pushed false doctrines. See Revelation.

 

[1robin]

You mean you want to rig the debate in a way that plays to your rules before you'll even start it. That speaks volumes. You didn't even address what I said about how your goal posts are wrong to begin with.

Claims come with burdens and foundations necessary to establish a context for a discussion. It was your claim that obedience is what determines salvation. That inherently mandates you must provide the specific level of obedience necessary. Some ambiguous criteria does not permit evaluation. Your claims require certain information to carry the debate. Where is it?

What part about that I didn't make the prayer without your agreement to it don't you understand? And what part about the idea that such things don't necessarily work instantly don't you get either?

That prayer has no mutual agreement necessary. Let's say I fell of a building and prayed for gravity to be suspended. That type of prayer requires timely responses to fulfill its purpose.

However, if you admit you're too afraid or unwilling to make a prayer for those who blasphemously push doctrines that send souls to hell to be silenced, my point is made all the same. Even the apostles wished for the silencing of those who pushed false doctrines. See Revelation.

In a debate the silliest thing possible is to hope your opponent be struck silent. I have certain desires for humanity in general, and desires for specific people and situations. I never said you can't pray for that, nor said there is anything wrong with it, I said in this context I do not have and wish to silence others. I value and appreciate serious debate even if it requires a person who is completely wrong to illustrate his views. The apostles debated their opponents, I do not remember them silencing them though that would be a rational desire.

Now are you going to supply what your position mandates or did your wish to silence who is wrong backfire?

 

[Shermana]

That inherently mandates you must provide the specific level of obedience necessary.

No it doesn't. You're simply adding goalposts that don't necessarily exist. In fact, that's part of the debate itself. You could make the same argument that the Jews must prove the "exact level of obedience" to avoid being struck by the curses of Deuteronomy. Meanwhile, I can ask you the same concept. How much "faith" must one have in order to be the same type of Christian outlined in the Epistles. Obviously most Christians from my experience act nothing like, NOTHING like the type of person the Epistles of Paul say a person should act like, so what's the problem? Do they not have enough faith? How about you prove how much "faith" one must have before they start bearing fruits of the Spirit of which we can evaluate properly?

Yeah, it works like that too. Back at you.

And then in your interpretation, you have to explain why Paul bothers blabbering about how to act and being a good person. What's the point in consciously adjusting your behavior if Christ's sacrifice does all the magic for you? Why even state that Fiery indignation awaits those who continue to sin?

The apostles debated their opponents, I do not remember them silencing them though that would be a rational desire.

The Apostles tried debating unless it was futile because the other side resorted to one rabbit hole or another or refused to address arguments or made up interpretations that were non-arguments yet stuck to them I imagine, and then they just left and shook the dust off once they realized no amount of facts and reasoning was going to stick.

However, Revelation says that the false churches and their leaders will suffer a terrible fate.

I don't really wish for you to be silenced in such a way, that's my method of putting those who refuse to debate reasonably to the wall and prove that they're not willing to put their own feet to the fire.

But if you'd like, I'll pray for you to have your nose rubbed in the truth in a way which you can't escape or ignore.

 

[look3467]

How small is a mustard seed verses the size of the moon?

Faith is measured not by man, but by God.

If by man, then judgment is the only result.

And if by God, judgment is reserved to Him only.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

How small is a mustard seed verses the size of the moon?

Faith is measured not by man, but by God.

If by man, then judgment is the only result.

And if by God, judgment is reserved to Him only.

Blessings, AJ

Well then, a man's righteousness and conduct and obedience should be measured by God just like claims of his "faith", right? I should not have to prove some quantifiable measure of such righteousness then, and we should go by the general statement of Jesus that it has to exceed the Scribes and Pharisees, right? Otherwise, good luck quantifying the level of "Faith" one needs.

 

[Muffled]

He never said he is the only way and if that was the case it would be impossible for Moses(pbuh) to go to heaven.

I wouldn't gurantee that he did. I believe he was most likely reincarnated many times and may be here now.

How are you able to interpret "The Way" as not being the only way?

I believe what seems inpossible with men is possible with God. I believe if Moses is alive today that he will be a Christian.

 

[F0uad]

I wouldn't gurantee that he did. I believe he was most likely reincarnated many times and may be here now.

How are you able to interpret "The Way" as not being the only way?

I believe what seems inpossible with men is possible with God. I believe if Moses is alive today that he will be a Christian.

I don't think this is supported by anyone
It would mean that the other sons of god, Prophets and god fearing man all were following a wrong way, i belief that it was the only way in that time
Well you can belief whatever you want but there is no evidence for it.

 

[1robin]

No it doesn't. You're simply adding goalposts that don't necessarily exist. In fact, that's part of the debate itself. You could make the same argument that the Jews must prove the "exact level of obedience" to avoid being struck by the curses of Deuteronomy. Meanwhile, I can ask you the same concept. How much "faith" must one have in order to be the same type of Christian outlined in the Epistles. Obviously most Christians from my experience act nothing like, NOTHING like the type of person the Epistles of Paul say a person should act like, so what's the problem? Do they not have enough faith? How about you prove how much "faith" one must have before they start bearing fruits of the Spirit of which we can evaluate properly?

If a teacher said you must pass her test or your would be shot and then handed out a blank piece of paper what would you do? Would you demand goal posts or accept goal posts are unnecessary? I am quite glad you asked my level of faith. It is the exact level needed that produces a born again, salvation response from Christ. See how easy that is when you have a coherent model? It has no need of an amount because it has immediate verification of the threshold. Your does not and that is just one of the many indicators it is an incoherent standard. I receive nothing in this life the instant I reach this ambiguous and arbitrary level of obedience to indicate I have reached the criteria. That is why you must provide the criteria in detail. I can't debate an open question in the form of the model for the most important test in history. I can show the incoherence of your claim in general and why it is impossible in general but without an actual standard (or goal posts) it is a hypothetical and a generalized ambiguous concept that cannot be resolved beyond a generality. I was confused by your act like comments. Are you asking why every single actual Christian does not always act like what James suggested, or why don't we all act alike, or what?

Yeah, it works like that too. Back at you.

Done and done. Next. I do not have to wait for the justification for my criteria until it is too late for it to make a difference as only a capricious God would invent. Mine comes with instant confirmation. You usually do not pass something back until you have completed your task. So far I have done mine and that is it and it was your burden first.

And then in your interpretation, you have to explain why Paul bothers blabbering about how to act and being a good person. What's the point in consciously adjusting your behavior if Christ's sacrifice does all the magic for you? Why even state that Fiery indignation awaits those who continue to sin?

Supply which verses your referring to for which argument and I will see if I can supply an answer. I am not going to go to where I think the verses are for YOUR argument and supply a bunch of things and have you suggest you are using another section of verses. I will answer the last one but all the difference in the world is contained in the context and language use. Paul is not demanding anyone earn their way to heaven. He is talking about what would be true of Christians in General as they grow. In other what characteristics separate faith that produces a born again experience and the faith of the superficial or intellectual believer. That was though whole point for the story in the instance I thought of. Just in typing the last few lines I remembered two others you may have meant so again I await which verses your using.

The Apostles tried debating unless it was futile because the other side resorted to one rabbit hole or another or refused to address arguments or made up interpretations that were non-arguments yet stuck to them I imagine, and then they just left and shook the dust off once they realized no amount of facts and reasoning was going to stick.

Ok, let me ask for a occurrence of an apostle silencing the person debating or disagreeing with him. None come to mind beyond the child that kept yelling about who they were because she had a demon.

However, Revelation says that the false churches and their leaders will suffer a terrible fate.

I agree that they will. What is the point in saying so? I spent 3 intensive years and two additional ones on only this issue. I had a very unique set of circumstances that allowed me to think of nothing else. I was a post conversion model of Luther's pre-conversion dedication on that one issue. I have experienced at most about 12 distinct things I would classify as probably miraculous. At least 4 were direct refutations straight from God concerning prayers about works salvation models. 3 additional ones were a miraculous direction to a specific Christian teacher on salvation (the same one al three times, in 2 different methods), the rest could be viewed as consistent with it but not direct answers to it. I no longer fear I may be wrong about this.

I don't really wish for you to be silenced in such a way, that's my method of putting those who refuse to debate reasonably to the wall and prove that they're not willing to put their own feet to the fire.

I was pretty sure you had motives beyond actually silencing anyone. I however do not see how the motives above are served by that prayer.

But if you'd like, I'll pray for you to have your nose rubbed in the truth in a way which you can't escape or ignore.

I have prayed and had those I admire pray for that very thing. The opposite conclusion always occurred. I have no idea why but I do feel comfortable telling anyone I will pray for them to be negatively affected and have no desire to have anyone do it towards me even if I have no belief it will occur. It is not as bad but reminds me of the Catholics who would place curses and anathemas against anyone who disagreed with their church dogma. I do find merit in praying that God will lead others to truth in whatever way he wishes. Supplying only prayers for negative actions seems a little arrogant and malevolent to me. Why are we still talking about this and still not talking about what you must supply to even make debating a works model possible?

I must have a standard to evaluate, you have mine even if you disagree with it, I can not even breech this issue proper until you do and indicate you are in this for the long run. I can't debate salvation piecemeal or in brief and it deserves no less than comprehensive resolution. If you are not interested in those then get out now before much is invested, it will not be claimed any kind of victory by me at this point if you do.

 

[Shermana]

1Robin, that is some of the blatant dodging and dancing and incoherency I've seen yet, I'm not even going to respect you with an adequate reply. I have made it quite clear that I'm in it for the long run. You're the one who's looking for one excuse or another, or to set it up in a way which caters to your preconceived views apart from an objective playing field before the debate even begins. I have said let's do it over and over again, but you only want to do it your way in your terms, when I'm saying let's do it in an open field manner. You have refused a simple challenge to have a 1x1 moderated debate, and you're using fancy excuses which don't even make any sense to get out of it. It's quite obvious. You're being more than hypocritical, you didn't come even close to addressing what I said in coherent terms, you act as if your view is such a solid concrete one when it is in fact a historically controversial, complex issue debated among the scholars and christian thinkers for centuries, and you have not supported your claim. If anyone thinks you have actually defended your view and made a solid case of why I have to make preconditions to have such a debate, more power to them.

Until then, have an interesting life.

 

[1robin]

Well then, a man's righteousness and conduct and obedience should be measured by God just like claims of his "faith", right? I should not have to prove some quantifiable measure of such righteousness then, and we should go by the general statement of Jesus that it has to exceed the Scribes and Pharisees, right? Otherwise, good luck quantifying the level of "Faith" one needs.

You must supply what God commanded for us. Some generalized ambiguousness standard concerning arbitrary scribes or Pharisees is not adequate alone. Which scribes and Pharisees? Must I be better than the average, the least, the greatest? As in most cases your interpretation renders Christ words ambiguous and a meaningless waste of time and mine make them a perfectly applicable and reasonable statement about salvation. Yes we must exceed them all because perfection is the standard. I must not do one less sin or one more obedient act than them, I must do what none of them ever did on their own. I must become perfect as Christ is perfect. I do that through substitutionary atonement not effort. Effort can never make a man perfect and no less than God said it over and over. I can't earn a gift, I can't merit infinite gain, I can not add to what Christ fully paid for by my puny efforts. I must accept the provision that automatically makes my righteousness exceed all the scribes and Pharisees combined or give up the game as unwinnable and incoherent. Your only contention so far for your misinterpretations, is misinterpretations of other scriptures. Even when you have constructed scripture to adapt to what you wish them to say you have a contradictory, ambiguous, irrational smoking pile of rubble left that defies every philosophic principle and coherent agreement intended by God. The divine harmony and consistency of the overall narrative of the Bible should not be a casualty of dogma. If it ever came from God it would not be required or found wanting and should be tried, if it is required then it is not of God, should be found wanting, and left untried.

Works based salvation does not work.
The gap between perfection and even the best mans efforts is infinite.