Did Jesus say obviously " I am a God" in Gospel?

[rocketman]

But being divine does not automatically mean he was deity.

You have just demonstrated that you do not understand the culture and context of the day.
As !fluffy! has said, this is a ridiculous and blatently ignorant statement.

And there is no evidence that "God entered into the human race as the son of Adam" but the contrary.

No one else in no other way could meet the requirements of the Messiah. God does not break his own rules, but he didn't want us to be lost, so he found a way to satisfy the rules and to save us. And
he had to do it himself. Who does Jesus say he is? Compare Ex 3:14 with John 8:58.

So if God (Gen Ch 3)can walk in the garden of Eden and talk to Adam and Eve what's so shocking about him showing up born of a woman?

And yet Jesus himself disagrees with your assertion.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Either Isaiah 42:8 is a lie or Jesus really meant what he said in John 8:58

 

[rocketman]

Done....

And it is still clear the way that I previously posted it.

So "a few scribes" = "the multitudes". I fail to see how.

Should I be looking deeper into these very simple statements as to what he did?

No, but I would recommend actually reading the thing.

 

[lilithu]

But being divine does not automatically mean he was deity.

Yes it does. This is a ridiculous and i'm sorry to have to say it but blatantly IGNORANT statement.

No, it isn't. It's a difference in definition. And...

1.of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
6.Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely: He has the most divine tenor voice.
7.being a god; being God: a divine person.

since your definition is number 7 on the list, it was not at all an unreasonable statement.

 

[!Fluffy!]

No, it isn't. It's a difference in definition. And...

1.of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.
4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.
5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
6.Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely: He has the most divine tenor voice.
7.being a god; being God: a divine person.

since your definition is number 7 on the list, it was not at all an unreasonable statement.

You are wrong. The context of the discussion clearly revolves around #1 and as rocketman pointed out,

But being divine does not automatically mean he was deity.

demonstrates an abysmal lack of understanding of the culture and context of the day. As God's divinity and the nature of God's divinity is not in question here, further clouding the water doesn't add to the discussion at this point. You might want to scroll up for context if you'd like to join the conversation in progress.

 

[lilithu]

You are wrong. The context of the discussion clearly revolves around #1 and as rocketman pointed out,

demonstrates an abysmal lack of understanding of the culture and context of the day. As God's divinity and the nature of God's divinity is not in question here, further clouding the water doesn't add to the discussion at this point. You might want to scroll up for context if you'd like to join the conversation in progress.

I know the context in which it was said. I responded to the "Son of Man" argument earlier but rocketman ignored me. God's divinity is not in question but whether or not Jesus is God is. And the simple acknowledgment that Jesus had divine attributes does not make him God.

Speaking of understanding the culture and context of the day, the Jews at that time - and the early followers of Jesus were Jews - did NOT view the Messiah as God incarnate sent down to wash them of their sins. First of all, they would not have believed they had original sin and thus would not need that kind of a "perfect human sacrifice" Secondly, the Jewish idea of the Messiah was an earthly king sent by God to restore Israel from bondage, in this case bondage to the Romans. They would not have been looking for God incarnate and would have a hard time recognizing such a concept, to say the least, as it goes against one of the core beliefs of Judaism (that God is transcendent).


Btw, calling a statement ignorant just because you don't agree with it doesn't add to the discussion.

 

[Popeyesays]

The fact that the Messiah was a king meant to restore the independence of Israel was what made the issue important to the Roman Governor. Jesus was not crucified because He claimed to be the SOn of God, or the Son of Man--or God incarnate--the ROmans could have cared less.

That He seemed to be declaring Himself the legitimate king of Palestine was the issue to the Romans. THe Romans had a pet king of Judea and governed the rest openly. THAT was the issue to Rome. It was a treasonous claim, and treason was a captial crime.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

I responded to the "Son of Man" argument earlier but rocketman ignored me.

I wasn't ignoring you. My next post explained the Son of Man thing in the context of this thread, which I said I would do at the end of the post you responded to.

And the simple acknowledgment that Jesus had divine attributes does not make him God.

We can dance around with the term 'divine' but at the end of the day Jesus attributed to himself God's name and God's glory even though they were God's alone, as shown. And he promoted the shema. That is a powerful context, and not missed at all by the many who accused him of blasphemy along the way. The evidence for a yes answer to this OP is there in the scriptures.

Speaking of understanding the culture and context of the day, the Jews at that time - and the early followers of Jesus were Jews - did NOT view the Messiah as God incarnate sent down to wash them of their sins.

That's a big claim. I can show you where you could be considered short of the mark:

Matt 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means 'God with us' ". We know they meant the Messiah when we look a few verses ahead to 2:4 "..he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.." No explanation, just an assumption on the part of the author that the reader would see that 'God with us' was also to be the Messiah. Isaiah 9:6 is still considered to be messianic to this day.

Matt 26:63 "...Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.." I am not going to waste my time yet again elaborating what Son of God in a titular sense meant to a monotheistic people.

(There was a basis for this kind of messiah/God thought in the OT:

43:11 - "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no saviour."

45:21 - "And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour: there is none but me."

Jer 23:6 "..this is the name by which he will be called: The LORD our righteousness"

etc etc)

John the baptist, who when asked if he was the messiah or a prophet answered no and no. When they asked him who he was then in John 1:21 he said "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord" - which was a quote from Isaiah 40:3 where 'Lord' is YHWH, ie: God Himself. So John the baptist knew the messiah was the 'Lord'.

And he knew that sins had to be washed away: v29 "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This is clearly refering OT prophecies such as Isaiah 53:5,7,10-12 etc.

First of all, they would not have believed they had original sin and thus would not need that kind of a "perfect human sacrifice"

As I have shown there were those who held these ideas to varying degrees.

Secondly, the Jewish idea of the Messiah was an earthly king sent by God to restore Israel from bondage, in this case bondage to the Romans.

Right, many were hoping for physical salvation not necessarily spiritual salvation. Not everyone was John the Baptist after all.

They would not have been looking for God incarnate..

Something Jesus criticised them for in Luke 19:44

Btw, calling a statement ignorant just because you don't agree with it doesn't add to the discussion.

The word simply means without knowledge. It would be nice if people gave explanations and not just opinions. There are other threads for that.

 

[Popeyesays]

Isaiah in the original Hebrew says nothing about a 'virgin' at all, you know.

Regards,

Scott

 

[lilithu]

We can dance around with the term 'divine' but at the end of the day Jesus attributed to himself God's name and God's glory even though they were God's alone, as shown. And he promoted the shema. That is a powerful context, and not missed at all by the many who accused him of blasphemy along the way. The evidence for a yes answer to this OP is there in the scriptures.

That's a big claim. I can show you where you could be considered short of the mark:

Matt 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means 'God with us' ". We know they meant the Messiah when we look a few verses ahead to 2:4 "..he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.." No explanation, just an assumption on the part of the author that the reader would see that 'God with us' was also to be the Messiah. Isaiah 9:6 is still considered to be messianic to this day.

Matt 26:63 "...Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.." I am not going to waste my time yet again elaborating what Son of God in a titular sense meant to a monotheistic people.

(There was a basis for this kind of messiah/God thought in the OT:

43:11 - "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no saviour."

45:21 - "And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour: there is none but me."

Jer 23:6 "..this is the name by which he will be called: The LORD our righteousness"

etc etc)

John the baptist, who when asked if he was the messiah or a prophet answered no and no. When they asked him who he was then in John 1:21 he said "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord" - which was a quote from Isaiah 40:3 where 'Lord' is YHWH, ie: God Himself. So John the baptist knew the messiah was the 'Lord'.

And he knew that sins had to be washed away: v29 "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" This is clearly refering OT prophecies such as Isaiah 53:5,7,10-12 etc.

As I have shown there were those who held these ideas to varying degrees.

Right, many were hoping for physical salvation not necessarily spiritual salvation. Not everyone was John the Baptist after all.

Something Jesus criticised them for in Luke 19:44

The word simply means without knowledge. It would be nice if people gave explanations and not just opinions. There are other threads for that.

lol, you post bible verses as if they are historical fact. The claims to which you refer were written decades after Jesus' death, by people who heard from people who were there (at best). I have no doubt that they were sincere in their writings, but they were writing from a different perspective than that of the original followers, having had decades to reinterpret what went down. And even then there was not the solidified belief that Jesus was God incarnate. That didn't become "fact" until the Council of Nicea in the fourth century.

To go back to the OP, Jesus never outright says, "I am God" in any of these texts. Why is that? It's because they were written when that belief had not yet solidified into the Christian psyche.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Im aure his actions spoke louder then his words

 

[Popeyesays]

Lilithu,

That's it in a nutshell. Jesus never makes the claim because being God incarnate was not anything anybody brough up. Jesus never claims to be born of a virgin either, no one brought it up.

The nature of Christ was not an issue to those who actually lived in the day. It only became an issue when people made it an issue. It is a doctrine born among men, not revealed by God. It is the result of people's imagination.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

To those invested in trying prove that Jesus was not God...why? If Jesus, the Christ, was not God there's not a whole lot of point to Christianity or the NT, besides a few inspiring sayings.

 

[doppelganger]

If Jesus, the Christ, was not God there's not a whole lot of point to Christianity or the NT, besides a few inspiring sayings.

You don't really think that, do you Laurie?

 

[lunamoth]

You don't really think that, do you Laurie?

What is the point of Christianity if Jesus is not God with us?

 

[doppelganger]

What is the point of Christianity if Jesus is not God with us?

Oh, OK, you said "God" and not "God with us" the first time. That's more like it.

 

[lunamoth]

Oh, OK, you said "God" and not "God with us" the first time. That's more like it.

Yes, to me that is an important distinction.

 

[Popeyesays]

To those invested in trying prove that Jesus was not God...why? If Jesus, the Christ, was not God there's not a whole lot of point to Christianity or the NT, besides a few inspiring sayings.

The point of Jesus' announcement was to fulfill the promise of the Messiah. he did that. He did not have to be "GOD" incarnate to do that, after all Moses was not God incarnate.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

The point of Jesus' announcement was to fulfill the promise of the Messiah. he did that. He did not have to be "GOD" incarnate to do that, after all Moses was not God incarnate.

Regards,
Scott

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you be more specific?

 

[Popeyesays]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you be more specific?

By that I mean: None of the Messengers is "GOD" incarnate. They are God Manifested.

Yes, there is a difference in the terms.

"1 : readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sight 2 : easily understood or recognized by the mind : obvious "

In the sense that a shipping manifest describes, itemizes and warrants the contents of a shipment. The piece of paper is NOT the cargo, but it is the legal and warranted affidavit of the contents of the cargo.

Regards,
Scott

 

[look3467]

How suppose an invisible God, a spirit God can hope to save the world that He Himself created from the condition He placed us in in the first place?

A prophet had not the with all or the qualifications to be a savior of himself, much less the savior of the world!

There lies the answer to the question, was He born a virgin, Why, and was He as God the day He was judged for the world?

May I give an observation concerning the word virgin birth?
Considering the nation of Israel as been the Chosen to be the testimonial truth of the real God, are therefore considered virgins, meaning espoused to God, and chaste.

Well, they labored and travailed in the birthing of Jesus, and then because God had given them the birthright to God, Jesus then steals that birthright from them, thus causing them rejecting Jesus, crucifying Him.
That is a fulfillment of prophecy.

If that alone can not given understanding, nothing else will.

Peace>>>AJ

Only God Himself could save the world, so tell me, how did He accomplish it?