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

[Dirty Penguin]

If God walked in the garden of Eden why can't this be God too being baptised as a human being born into Adam's line?

This is the second question like this and to me there is no information given int the 4 gospels that God did this. On the contrary, God spoke from the heavens and said this is my som whom I am well pleased. That alone, to me, is clarification of their seperate nature.

This thread is about what Jesus said about himself. What do you think of the things that I showed you he said about himself?

Well I don't have any problem addressing what Jesus said. Let's try this. If you'dike to post all of the passages where you believe Jesus said he is God.

 

[lunamoth]

Wanted to add a bit more. Your points 1-4 I think are addressed by my response about the Incarnation and Jesus not knowing his divinity while on earth. A couple of thoughts about your other points:

5. If Jesus was God incarnate and then ascended into heaven, then what relationship do we have with him? He is as far removed from us now as the Father. All we have is a record of what he said.

I am surprised actually to read this from you. I think we have talked before about God being both immanent and transcendent. I don't think God is far removed from us, although I think there are things that act as veils that keep us from 'seeing' Him. You know the concept of thin places, where we have greater ability to access God, a place, through song, through the Eucharist, through love. Jesus was the ultimate 'thin place' where the veil was not just thin, but not there at all.

6. If Jesus was God, he would have said so.

Again, I don't think Jesus knew of his divinity, even while he knew his calling was to fulfill the role of Messiah. However, even if he did know...how far would it get him to proclaim himself God? Ceasar proclaimed himself god, as did others. It is much more convincing, I think, to act in such a way that others conclude that you are God. Baha'u'llah claimed very clearly that he was a Manifestation of God. Does that make his claim more convincing than that of Jesus?

The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is
the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of
His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who
representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His
Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this
duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived
thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of
every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of
transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him
Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are
inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other.
Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of
Divine inspiration.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 19)

Again, thank you for the excellent post.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Click on the little picture of the scales in the top right of the post you want to frubal.

Thanks.....

 

[lilithu]

We most likely will end up agreeing to disagree, and I do not share the sentiment that it is 'ignorant' to believe that Jesus was not God. So, my comment was not really directed to you. And, you gave a very nice answer to my question. Thank you!

I don't think Jesus on earth knew he was God, but as NT Wright puts it, he knew his vocation. By faith, as part of his human vocation, he believed his calling was to fulfill those things that God was expected to fulfill. The incarnation means that he was fully human, and fully God. It does not mean that while on earth he was omnipotent, omniscient, etc..

So, Jesus was faithful and obedient in much the same way as Abraham, yet unlike Abraham his role was to fulfill what was expected of God.

He also called people to repent, and taught that the Kingdom of God is near. It's as you say, and more I think.

I believe all of that too, lilithu, but I don't think it precludes Jesus being God. That is what I find most inspiring about the Incarnation too, that God would be with us and share fully in our suffering, and your'e right if Jesus was just God that would not be very relevant to us.

I don't think it went down that way exactly. Yes, he was tortured and crucified and really died. Significantly, he offers the perfect example of non-resistance to evil in this. And through this perfect self-sacrifice in love, the power of evil is exhausted. The veil is torn and whatever it is that we thought was between us and God was removed.

I can't deny that, especially in Paul, the language of sacrifice for sin is used, but to me this has never meant a quid pro quo kind of payment or appeasing an angry god. Like you, I find such a god to be monstrous, unjust, uncompassionate. I think the key to the atonement is in the Incarnation itself. The hideous death suffered by Jesus, the world (us) saying "no" to God's son, was transformed to victory when God said emphatically, "Yes!" with the resurrection. Love conquers evil; love conquers death. Not only for Jesus, but for us as well.

Thank you, luna

Thank you!

Based on what he said, I think that Jesus believed he was sent by God. I think he thought that "judgment" and God's Kingdom on Earth was coming soon, so yes, he did call on people to repent - to get into right relationship with God. But I don't see him thinking of himself as God.

You say that he didn't know he was God but he actually was. In my theology, I believe that everyone is actually God but they don't know it. (God *is* with us, sharing our suffering.) I think the real disagreement between us here is that you believe there was something innately special about Jesus that made him different from us. I believe that we all have the potential to be what he was/became and what made him special is that he actually lived up to that potential whereas most of us don't even come close. I don't think we're gonna convince each other on this point, and that's fine by me.

Funny you should bring up N.T. Wright. I am currently reading The Meaning of Jesus, by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. And actually, my personal view falls in between the two of them. I lean more towards Borg, obviously, but think that Wright has some great points. (But really, my views come from Catholic liberation theology.) And I also sometimes just wonder why Borg feels the need to "debunk" everything. Wright's approach is much more reverent - satisfied with the mystery. Despite their disagreements, they are great friends.

 

[lilithu]

I am surprised actually to read this from you. I think we have talked before about God being both immanent and transcendent. I don't think God is far removed from us, although I think there are things that act as veils that keep us from 'seeing' Him. You know the concept of thin places, where we have greater ability to access God, a place, through song, through the Eucharist, through love. Jesus was the ultimate 'thin place' where the veil was not just thin, but not there at all.

I'm surprised that you're surprised. My reasoning is very similar to the reasoning you give for why Jesus, the Christ must be "God with us." I think.

Most Christians, not all, view God as transcendent. It's for that reason that the incarnation of God as Jesus is considered so special. You were saying this yourself in the other post. He came and walked with us, suffered and died, and then was resurrected and ascended into heaven. And I was saying that if that's the case, then the God that was with us is no longer with with us. He's up in heaven.

My argument is that if you view the Christ as identical to the historical Jesus, then the Christ left us when Jesus left us.

Yes, I believe in the immanence of God as well as God's transcendence. That is why I believe in the Christ, not as separate from us, but living in us. In my view, when Jesus died, he died. But Christ was resurrected. I view them as related, of course, but not identical.

 

[Popeyesays]

Rocketman,

Betulah is very particular, it is an unmarried and therefore virgin girl-pubescent, but 'unsullied'. This is a perfect description of Mary.

Almah is appropriate for discussing a young woman, betrothed, married, right up until she becomes a first time mother. This is an apt description of the King's young wife at the time Isaiah was writing.

Please understand I accept the virgin birth--it is stipulated in both the Gospels and the Qur'an.

Regards,
Scott

 

[blackout]

I am surprised actually to read this from you. I think we have talked before about God being both immanent and transcendent. I don't think God is far removed from us, although I think there are things that act as veils that keep us from 'seeing' Him. You know the concept of thin places, where we have greater ability to access God, a place, through song, through the Eucharist, through love. Jesus was the ultimate 'thin place' where the veil was not just thin, but not there at all.

Nice! I like that thought.

Different things,
in different seasons,
definately do thin the veil....
until there is only Him....
and you IN Him.

Though, in my case anyway,
I do not think I would have really ever had
much of an inkling of what's possible IN God,
if it hadn't been for Y'shuas example.
He ripped down the veil and said...
"Look! See what's possible".

God is only as "removed" from us,
as we are from Him.

 

[rocketman]

This is the second question like this and to me there is no information given int the 4 gospels that God did this.

Did what? Enter humanity? John 1:1,14.

On the contrary, God spoke from the heavens and said this is my som whom I am well pleased. That alone, to me, is clarification of their seperate nature.

Fair enough, you see them as seperate.

Just out of curiosity, where was the Father and where was the Spirit when God was walking and talking with Adam in the garden? (Gn 3:8-10)

Well I don't have any problem addressing what Jesus said. Let's try this. If you'dike to post all of the passages where you believe Jesus said he is God.

I'm not going to drudge through it all again. It's up to you if you want to go back and answer any of them.

 

[rocketman]

Rocketman,

Betulah is very particular, it is an unmarried and therefore virgin girl-pubescent, but 'unsullied'. This is a perfect description of Mary.

Almah is appropriate for discussing a young woman, betrothed, married, right up until she becomes a first time mother. This is an apt description of the King's young wife at the time Isaiah was writing.

Scott, I respectfully disagree with what you said an about an almah being married.

" Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman and children born to an almah would be illegitimate. "

Bethulah is occasionaly used for a married woman, almah never is.

Almah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/B/BeckAlmah/BeckAlmah.PDF

Please understand I accept the virgin birth--it is stipulated in both the Gospels and the Qur'an.

Noted.

 

[Popeyesays]

Scott, I respectfully disagree with what you said an about an almah being married.

" Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman and children born to an almah would be illegitimate. "

Bethulah is occasionaly used for a married woman, almah never is.

Almah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/B/BeckAlmah/BeckAlmah.PDF


Noted.

Disagree or not, it is perfectly correct. As to corroboration, ask a Rabbi.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lilithu]

Just out of curiosity, where was the Father and where was the Spirit when God was walking and talking with Adam in the garden? (Gn 3:8-10)

At the time when this text was written there was no concept of the Christian Trinity. You can make an argument for the existence of the Spirit from Gen 1:2, but Son, no Trinity.

 

[YmirGF]

I am willing to agree to disagree, and wasn't particularly interested in this argument until someone suggested that it was "ignorant" to believe that Jesus was not God. That's when I got "invested" in the argument.

Ignorant is as ignorant does.

1. As has been pointed out, Jesus prayed to God. His entire ministry was focused away from himself towards God. It does not make any sense that God would come to us as God and teach us to pray to God, third person, and not to himself, first person, if he truly were God.

Unless of course he was showing people that there is a larger aspect of their being that cannot be contained within the physical environment. Then it would make some sense. I suggested recently about the "proper way to address the inner self or larger identity" as a method for unfolding the experience of Oneness. I have stopped short of suggesting this method as I feel people will simply insist that I am meaning a type of prayer when in fact I am not. I'm still working out the details though. So, from my standpoint, having the Christ "pray" to "god" makes perfect sense if you understand the intent that observer quite obviously misunderstood.

2. If Jesus was God incarnate, then his death is not as meaningful. An omnipotent being comes down, knowing full well that he'll live again, and offers himself up to die. There is no real sacrifice. It makes the entire passion story moot.

Unless of course the story as told is riddled with errors and what are essentially old wives tales or old husband's tales intermixed with a distorted version of an actual event.

3. If Jesus was God incarnate, sent as a human sacrifice, as if this is the only way to appease God's wrath, then God is a bloodthirsty vengeful deity that I want nothing to do with.

Well, that is of course if the story as given is correct. My suggestion is that it isn't. Remember there was no live TV or printed media in those days. If people did not personally know the Christ they would not know who was being crucified. In theory, they could have strung up anyone and it is not like the crowd would really know. In this light, the fellow who denied knowing the prisoner brought before him may well have been telling a simple truth.

4. If Jesus was God then what chance do we have to ever emulate him? It's only because he was a human that he was approachable.

You have had the Oneness experience Lilithu, why can't you just think of him as being the pinnacle of consciousness that the human animal can aspire to? No, you can't become a carbon copy, but in theory you can get pretty close because even the Christ is still growing and expanding. My view of the incarnation thingy is that it was simply to make people aware of what they could become and what they will inevitably become. Pity his PR crew screwed up the message.

5. If Jesus was God incarnate and then ascended into heaven, then what relationship do we have with him? He is as far removed from us now as the Father. All we have is a record of what he said.

What relationship? I'd wager that one could have a very personal relationship. Given that he was a man, he ought to understand our limited grasp of things and our other ridiculous foibles. Far removed? That does not compute. There is no division Lilithu as your experience of Oneness should have taught you. We are One, so how exactly can we be separated except perhaps if our minds and conscious beliefs do not allow us to see the reality of the love that binds us?

6. If Jesus was God, he would have said so.

I highly doubt that and you are on record on RF as saying, "I am god" and that is a phrase that I personally shun although I might be inclined to say that I am considerably more than simple "God concepts" could ever entail. The same goes for you.

On this one I feel you are dead wrong. Any being whose realization is past a particular "elementary" stage would never say those three words, although I understand completely why you think they would. The simple fact is -- they wouldn't.

 

[lilithu]

YmirGF, this is a case where you really should pay attention to the context in which the post was made before you start offering your "wisdom."

Ignorant is as ignorant does.

Unless of course he was showing people that there is a larger aspect of their being that cannot be contained within the physical environment. Then it would make some sense. I suggested recently about the "proper way to address the inner self or larger identity" as a method for unfolding the experience of Oneness. I have stopped short of suggesting this method as I feel people will simply insist that I am meaning a type of prayer when in fact I am not. I'm still working out the details though. So, from my standpoint, having the Christ "pray" to "god" makes perfect sense if you understand the intent that observer quite obviously misunderstood.

Unless of course the story as told is riddled with errors and what are essentially old wives tales or old husband's tales intermixed with a distorted version of an actual event.

Well, that is of course if the story as given is correct. My suggestion is that it isn't. Remember there was no live TV or printed media in those days. If people did not personally know the Christ they would not know who was being crucified. In theory, they could have strung up anyone and it is not like the crowd would really know. In this light, the fellow who denied knowing the prisoner brought before him may well have been telling a simple truth.

You have had the Oneness experience Lilithu, why can't you just think of him as being the pinnacle of consciousness that the human animal can aspire to? No, you can't become a carbon copy, but in theory you can get pretty close because even the Christ is still growing and expanding. My view of the incarnation thingy is that it was simply to make people aware of what they could become and what they will inevitably become. Pity his PR crew screwed up the message.

What relationship? I'd wager that one could have a very personal relationship. Given that he was a man, he ought to understand our limited grasp of things and our other ridiculous foibles. Far removed? That does not compute. There is no division Lilithu as your experience of Oneness should have taught you. We are One, so how exactly can we be separated except perhaps if our minds and conscious beliefs do not allow us to see the reality of the love that binds us?

I highly doubt that and you are on record on RF as saying, "I am god" and that is a phrase that I personally shun although I might be inclined to say that I am considerably more than simple "God concepts" could ever entail. The same goes for you.

On this one I feel you are dead wrong. Any being whose realization is past a particular "elementary" stage would never say those three words, although I understand completely why you think they would. The simple fact is -- they wouldn't.

 

[look3467]

If Jesus was to fulfill His mission, He had to do it as a human with all the human traits as we all have, yet, with the power of God to work on God's behalf, or in other words, be as God, shouldering the burden of His own making.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[YmirGF]

YmirGF, this is a case where you really should pay attention to the context in which the post was made before you start offering your "wisdom."

Indeed. I guess I will leave it to you to dictate your version of alleged "wisdom" then.

Forgive my intrusion.

 

[Popeyesays]

In His Essence, His Essential nature, God is far beyond our comprehension. We cannot look upon the sun without losing our ability to see. We cannot stand to contemplate God in His Essence either.

The manifestation of God, like Christ, is something we can contemplate, as if the effulgence of the sun were reflected in a mirror that lowers the level of light to soething we can behold without losing our ability to comprehend it. Christ is a reflection of the Effulgence of God safe for us to behold.

Is Christ God, in this sense? No, but it is as close to God as we can comprehend or tolerate.

That is the limitation of being a Creature of God. To attribute the Manifestation "Godhood" is a primitive response, very akin to the concept of animism.

We are in a state of maturity, and it is time to set aside the comfortable notions of "GOD among us", to understand that God provides us the means to contemplate Him and love Him without the capacity to behold the Essence of God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[look3467]

In His Essence, His Essential nature, God is far beyond our comprehension. We cannot look upon the sun without losing our ability to see. We cannot stand to contemplate God in His Essence either>>>Popeyesays

Common sense.

The manifestation of God, like Christ, is something we can contemplate, as if the effulgence of the sun were reflected in a mirror that lowers the level of light to soething we can behold without losing our ability to comprehend it. Christ is a reflection of the Effulgence of God safe for us to behold.>>>Popeyesays

As the moon reflects the Suns light so is Christ, yet, in order to save humanity from utter extinction, God had to become as man in human form, and suffer His own penalty exacted on mankind as a result of the creation of the flesh.

You and I are therefore left out of the equation.

That is the limitation of being a Creature of God. To attribute the Manifestation "Godhood" is a primitive response, very akin to the concept of animism.>>>Popeyesays

Not Godhood, but Godhead of which only God can forgive sins, raise the dead and save the world.

Primitive? Only about 2,000 years or so.

We are in a state of maturity, and it is time to set aside the comfortable notions of "GOD among us", to understand that God provides us the means to contemplate Him and love Him without the capacity to behold the Essence of God.>>>Popeyesays

I will agree to the state of maturity, as an individual, and, as humanity as a whole.

God with us is not a notion but a reality to those of us who have experienced a rebirth.

And in doing so, we are being molded into His image as we grown in maturity.

Without God being in Jesus, we all stand not a chance.
Peace>>>AJ

 

[Popeyesays]

"As the moon reflects the Suns light so is Christ, yet, in order to save humanity from utter extinction, God had to become as man in human form, and suffer His own penalty exacted on mankind as a result of the creation of the flesh."

This is another sequitur argument. God's knowledge is perfect, He does not need to become His Creation to know anything about man, His knowledge of man is perfect. His knowledge of how to redeem His Creation would be perfect if He needed it.

As a matter of fact there is nothing in Creation that requires redeeming. Creation is perfect as it is. Man is perfect as he is. Salvation and Redemption are perfect as they have always existed. The Covenant of God is and has always been perfect.

Man with his ability to act on his own will is perfectly created and the perfect nature of man. Man's ability to act according to his own will is the perfection which God created.

There is no need for God's Essence to come to Creation it is always and has always been right here. WQe just cannot perceive it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Did what? Enter humanity? John 1:1,14.

This actually isn't a declaration of Jesus confirming that he is God. This is from the mind of the author of the book of John. It still remains to be proven that even the author viewed him as God. From 1:1 and 14 it, (to me), shows that there is a special relationship with God. Jesus confirms this later and clears up any notion that he was God.

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.

Not only is this a prayer (TO) God but it is a declaration of their seperate nature way before the world existed.

Fair enough, you see them as seperate.

I see them as seperate because that is how Jesus saw it as well.

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Just out of curiosity, where was the Father and where was the Spirit when God was walking and talking with Adam in the garden? (Gn 3:8-10)

Well it would appear that Adam and Eve didn't eaven know where God was. They HEARD THE VOICE OF GOD walking in the Garden. Every other verse after that says nothing of God presenting himself or anything of Adam and Eve looking upon the face of God. But none of that has anything to do with the idea of Jesus being God. There's still no evidence from Jesus throughout the 4 gospels that he viewed himself as God or tought his disciples he was God.

I'm not going to drudge through it all again. It's up to you if you want to go back and answer any of them.

It's ok. You don't have to. I did say you could if you like. I've read the few that you posted and none of them have anything to do with him beig God. People may want to interpert it that way and that is on them.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"As the moon reflects the Suns light so is Christ, yet, in order to save humanity from utter extinction, God had to become as man in human form, and suffer His own penalty exacted on mankind as a result of the creation of the flesh."

This is another sequitur argument. God's knowledge is perfect, He does not need to become His Creation to know anything about man, His knowledge of man is perfect. His knowledge of how to redeem His Creation would be perfect if He needed it.

As a matter of fact there is nothing in Creation that requires redeeming. Creation is perfect as it is. Man is perfect as he is. Salvation and Redemption are perfect as they have always existed. The Covenant of God is and has always been perfect.

Man with his ability to act on his own will is perfectly created and the perfect nature of man. Man's ability to act according to his own will is the perfection which God created.

There is no need for God's Essence to come to Creation it is always and has always been right here. WQe just cannot perceive it.

Regards,
Scott

Now that I have been told how to give frubals..........I'm going to give you some.

This is a great response......