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

[look3467]

Throughout the ages mankind has created to themselves gods to relate to out of what was seen. Tress, elephants, rats, bulls and so forth.
They all had within them a spark of godliness but unbeknown to themselves who it was, therefore could by the inner man, developed a god for themselves.
So what you all are saying is correct up to that point.
But what needs to be looked at is that at a time appointed in all of time, God, the real God chose to revel Himself to mankind, starting with Abraham.
Down the line to the point where Jesus comes into the picture.
Given then all there is to know about God is in then displayed to the world to see via the Jewish people.
Therefore, there is no excuse not to know who this real God is, but, God taking in to account the free will of mankind, allows mankind to chose Him or nothing, yet loving mankind so that He Himself provided the means by which all mankind are predestined to be saved.

I know, it's not easy to believe or understand, but I'm telling you, that above what I said, there is no other.
God has covered all His bases and has left no stone unturned in the thoughts of mankind concerning Him, yet, He loves every one of them as His children.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"The man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man 'Where are you?' He answered, 'I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.' " - Gen 3:8-10

But you're still grasping at straws. Jesus never said he was God. He didn't teach it to his followers nor did he imply that he was. On the contrary this is what he said about himself and God....

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.

Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.


Joh 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent
me, and to accomplish his work.


Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.

Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things

The "context" is he is NOT God nor did he ever claim to be nor did he ever imply that he was. He went to great lengths to imform the people he was a (son of God) and all that he did and all that he had was (given) to him or taught to him by God.

If John 8:58 is taken in the context of a monotheistic culture, (and remember that Jesus himself quoted from Genesis on occasion, and also said 'scripture cannot be broken') then it has everything to do with it. What would be the difference between the two? The former is just the 'word' showing up at his pleasure, the latter is actually being born of a woman and entering into the genetic line of Adam, ie: a Son of Man, something Jesus called himself over and over and over.

8:58 is not a declaration of him being God. It is a declaration of him existing way before Abraham was. Earlier in the chapter sets the tone for 8:58. He said he was not of this world. He was from above and he was (before) Abraham was.

8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Him being eternal existing before Abraham, being in heven before he was here on earth is reiterated in his (Prayer To God) later in the very same book of John.

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.

Throughout John Chapter 8 Jesus never passed up an opportunity to glorify God (The one that sent him). He never skipped a beat to inform them God was his father and it was God that sent him. None of chapter 8 shows any indication that he was God.

8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me

8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

(I love verse 29. God sent him and is with him. Jesus works to please God). One in purpose but not one in the same.

8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

8:49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

He had plenty of chances to inform them he was God but he didn't because he wasn't. All praise from Jesus went to God who taught him, sent him from heaven into the world and commanded him what to say. 8:58 has been taken way out of its original contex and interperted to mean something Jesus never intended.

 

[Popeyesays]

"All of creation was called into being from/IN the MIND of God.
Is that NOTHING?!"

This is a material universe. Therefore Creation is material. Something was created, and yes, since there was no material until the BANG! it was material from nothing.

I am not a thought. I am a man. The universe which supports my existence is substance.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Scott1]

My question is...

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

Not in those words... but it's been pretty obvious to us for 2,000 or so years....

If you'd care to read about it:
Scripture Catholic - JESUS CHRIST'S DIVINITY - SOME OF MANY EXAMPLES

The Divinity of Christ
Peace in Christ,
S

 

[!Fluffy!]

and I do not share the sentiment that it is 'ignorant' to believe that Jesus was not God.

That sentiment was never expressed by me or anyone else on the thread, but is someone else's fantasy.

You seem to be upset and very animated. I would appreciate that we refrain from the name calling. I was under the impression that this type of behavior was not the Christian way.

I never called you any names. So not only did you misunderstand completely the meaning but you also misinterpreted the tone. There was nothing emotional about it at all. Logic and reason were presented straightforwardly, so you may want to read it again with an open mind.

I will repeat myself. Divinity does not mean one MUST be God.

Please provide credible scholarship for this bizarre theory of the Judaic concept of divinity. Please show us how the Jews of Jesus time understood and defined the concept of divinity separate from deity (specifically in the form of how a human being - such as Jesus - might be considered divine, yet not deity) as you have described it here. This is nothing more than an anachronistic error, and really has nothing to do with the Bible or the rabbinical jews understanding of divinity.

You've said so much here and most, not all of it, I don't disagree with. I never said Jesus wasn't divine but having divine attributes, which Jesus himself admintts was given to him by God, does not mean he is God.

Hmm. And yet you choose to ignore the extreme reaction of those who should have known better than we do what Jesus' words meant: the rabbinical jews of his time. Why all the drama, the rending of robes, the gnashing of teeth, the crying out, the accusations of heresy, the demands for his crucifixion? Why is that?

After all that they had went through they were pleased and excited to have him in their presence again. He didn't have to correct Thomas for the respect thomas showed. Jesus never claimed to be God. If he is God then who was he praying to throughout the 4 gospels.

Pleased and excited, shocked, and disbelieving. Thomas was not showing respect by calling Jesus his Lord and his God. He was not cursing which is what saying "Oh my God!" is. Clearly. To anyone who knows anything at all about Judaism.

BTW, trying to minimize what happened with Thomas is just another example of the convoluted mental and linguistic gymnastics one has to go through to discount the divinity of Christ as it is expressed over and over and over again in the New Testament. The wiser and more intellectually honest path would be to either reject the testimonies of the disciples altogether as myth or entertain their veracity as witnesses.

In the New Testament, people worshiped Jesus. There are plenty of accounts to that effect. (I am tired of pulling out the same scriptures repeatedly). It is against every tenet of the Jewish religion to worship anything or anyone but God. Either they were fooled by a scammer, they were heretics, or they were convinced by Jesus that He was God's only begotten Son, that he was Divine and worthy of worship reserved for God alone.


John the Baptist rebuked his followers who wanted to worship him. Later the disciples rebuked those who wanted to worship them.

Jesus is praying to His Father in heaven, God. That you see that as a problem for the Son of God is clear; there are plenty of threads about the trinity so I don't think we have to go into it again on this one. The subject of the OP is enough.

I'm sorry but your exegesis is unsubstantiated and contradicted by thematic structure, context or language as I pointed out before. If we are going to use the Bible as our basis for argument please answer this: Why would I believe your theories 2000 years after the fact, rather than John's own conclusions regarding the events he witnessed first-hand? I understand, like I said before, if you reject the truth of the Bible (in which case, it makes no sense for you to keep quoting something you don't believe to be truthful). To keep using scripture to negate scripture really isn't logical.

I'd really appreciate it if you would answer the questions I asked before, it might put the whole thing in better perspective for me if you do.

God's divinity is not in question but whether or not Jesus is God is.

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.

I don't believe that Jesus was God.

You are wrong again. The topic is not about whether Jesus was God, or anyone's personal belief, the topic is Biblical: did Jesus claim to be God, specifically did he claim to be God's only begotten Son, in the Bible.

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

someone suggested that it was "ignorant" to believe that Jesus was not God.

I. No, you are wrong. AAMOF I don't know anyone on this forum who would make such a stupid remark. I pointed out an ignorant statement claiming there could be divinity apart from the deity of God for the rabbinical Jew. It's just not true.

2. Calling a statement ignorant is no insult, and only refers to a knowledge gap. I'm ignorant on a lot of subjects and don't have a problem admitting it -- but not this one. A state of ignorance has nothing to do with opinion, or with someone's intelligence, it has everything to do with what they know or don't know.

Ignorance:​

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is sometimes misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and taken as an insult.​

In many cases ignorance is seen as a pleasant alternative to harsh reality. Willful ignorance (or vincible ignorance) is a bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.​

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

But being divine does not automatically mean he was deity.

demonstrates an abysmal lack of understanding of the culture and context of the day.

So that was the exchange. I never said "it is ignorant to believe Jesus was not God"!

!!

P.S.: For the Jew there is no Divinity or Sovereignty apart from God.

---------------------

The original topic - Jesus' claims to divinity in the Bible - is an interesting subject, and I've said pretty much everything I have to say. I'll withdraw gracefully with thanks to everybody for a good discussion.

 

[rocketman]

Please provide credible scholarship for this bizarre theory of the Judaic concept of divinity. Please show us how the Jews of Jesus time understood and defined the concept of divinity separate from deity (specifically in the form of how a human being - such as Jesus - might be considered divine, yet not deity) as you have described it here. This is nothing more than an anachronistic error, and really has nothing to do with the Bible or the rabbinical jews understanding of divinity.

That is so totally on the money! Excellent posts in this thread !fluffy! Your scholastic approach and logic are a joy to behold.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Sorry, I missed this last one:

He had plenty of chances to inform them he was God but he didn't because he wasn't. All praise from Jesus went to God who taught him, sent him from heaven into the world and commanded him what to say. 8:58 has been taken way out of its original contex and interperted to mean something Jesus never intended.

You say 8:58 is out of context (it is clearly NOT) and have still not explained its meaning with any credibility. You seem to be unable the grasp the gravity, the overwhelming authority of this statement. The Jews knew, and immediately picked up rocks to stone him for saying it:

Before Abraham was, I AM.

Shortly thereafter, He declared himself to be the Son of God to the blind man he had healed on the Sabbath.

Jn 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

And you need to keep reading.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

 

[rocketman]

But you're still grasping at straws. Jesus never said he was God.

Wrong my friend. For me it is rock solid. In fact any other version simply doesn't make any sense to me, especially given that only God was worthy of being the replacement sacrifice for us all. I realise now you don't understand what I have been saying all along.

On the contrary this is what he said about himself and God...

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

So what? That's what one would expect God in the flesh to say. Tell me, is the power of the Holy Spirit it's own? No, it comes from God, and yet God says in several places 'I will send my spirit'. Why? Because he can't send himself in his fullness because it would be too much. So he acts through extended agency. If he was required to act through a personalised human extended agency, say, for the task of being messiah, then that agency would be completely subservient and subject to the Father, just as the agency of the spirit is. And how fitting that the Spirit is the initiator of the Son's conception.

All of your colourful quotes are exactly what one expects from a human extended agency of God. And they all come from the book of John, which contains v 1:1,14. Here's some more colour for you: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God..... And the word became flesh and dwelt among us." Now then, did the author of the book you so liberally quote from reach your conclusion? No.

In John 3:16 Jesus calls himself the 'one and only' or 'only begotten' Son of God. That means the only one born of a woman. Which means the rest of us, although born of a woman, were not classified as begotten children of God according to Jesus!

(The rest of us are spirit-begotten children once saved. That is, we must be born again of spirit. John3:5-8).

So he really did claim to be the Son of God, which in those days meant God in the flesh. Since there is only one God, the term 'Son of God' means God in a human body, and in this case, a begotten one, unlike in Eden. Let's look at John 5:18 to see the context of the day "...he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." Which is exactly what one is doing when one says what Jesus said in a shema-based monotheistic religious society! Jesus following words thereafter (in v19 and on) do not deny it! (how easy it would have been!) but are rather an attempt to explain to the onlookers that God in the flesh/Son of Man is only an extended agency of God and is only acting accordingly: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself.." Which is what I have been saying all along! He had to become human. He pointed out that he was a human son of Adam at least 30 times. Everytime you quote from John you add to my assertion, not take away from it. The thing is you don't understand what I am saying.

I'm not asking you to agree, but it would be nice if you just slow down long enough to try to see what I (and over a billion christians) are saying before you post again.

 

[wizanda]

In other gospels verses’ (Vs) John Nicodemus the Pharisee!

Lead up to Pilate silently ---- 'EGO I-Mee' (I AM) conversation?
Go only to the lost sheep of Israel ---- whole world?
Destroying of the temple made up by the Pharisees --- Told as truth?

That is to begin with, John is made up and is easily shown with loads more points like these....

 

[doppelganger]

We have a different definition of "creation." To me, it's one thing to provide the lump of clay and another to mold it into a form. True that we can not provide the clay but we can and do help mold the form.

Most of the associated meanings with the Hebrew word bara' translated in Genesis 1 as "created" is to form, shape, give order to by cutting or pruning away. From Gesenius's Lexicon:

"Creation" is the act of "giving form to." That why "God" creates the Universe through the power of the Divine Word (logos).

 

[Popeyesays]

Luna,

Yes, someone did call it "ignorant. Post #220 in this thread.

"
Quote:
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DreGod07
I see....So you truely believed that they "worshipped" him in the sense that He worshipped God...????

I have to ask the question that way because Jesus showed us over and over that he worshipped God and not himself. So far I have not found evidence where he taught the people he was God and was to be glorified.

A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND
The rabbinical Jews knew and taught that supernatural acts performed by humans were either by the power of God or of Satan. Jesus provided evidence of his divinity through his miracles. He healed the sick and raised the dead as testimony and proof of his divinity. By whose authority? was a question he was asked by religious authorities in public. What was his response?

Jesus Christ answered "yes" when asked if he were the Messiah, the Christ, and the Son of God. Jesus' enemies and his disciples agreed: Jesus claimed to be the only-begotten Son of God, he claimed divinity when asked outright by his enemies -- who then vowed they would stop at nothing to see him killed for his heresy. Jesus Christ claimed boldly that only He knew the Father. He claimed that if they destroyed this temple (his body) he would be raised again in 3 days. Was he lying?

I AM
Jesus openly forgave sins, knowing only God could forgive sins; He spoke boldly and openly as the Pharisees attested "with authority" saying such things as "Before Abraham was, I AM" -- knowing only God Almighty referred to himself as I AM. Not only that, after his death and resurrection he urged his followers to pick up their crosses and follow him, to proclaim the Gospel and testimony of his life, death resurrection and ascension, knowing fully the price they would pay. All the disciples were martyred in horrible ways, with one possible exception. Have you ever witnessed a stoning, a flaying, an upside down crucifixion... Was Jesus evil?

WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM?
His disciples worshiped Him and proclaimed him to be the Son of God, and He did not rebuke them BUT encouraged and praised them for their open hearts. When Thomas realized by touching Jesus wounds that he was indeed risen he called Jesus "My Lord, and My God", he worshiped him, and as Jesus blessed Thomas he also made it clear that by the disciples first hand testimony those who had NOT seen with their eyes what they had seen would receive the Gospel and salvation. What did he mean to accomplish by accepting worship set aside for the Almighty and Sovereign God? Was he nuts? Did he really pull one over on the disciples, hiding away in the desert somewhere for 3 days? They were obviously shocked and disbelieving upon seeing him again after laying his dead body in a tomb. Was he a liar? Were they deceived?

RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT
He then breathed on the disciples and said receive the holy spirit - "the One who will come after" he had promised before his crucifixion. It is the Holy Spirit of God that makes salvation by faith possible, and was passed on from the disciples to contemporary followers of Christ. This is what the disciples want us to believe.

All of these things have been attested to in the New Testament and the applicable verses have been offered in this thread, they are not secret or hidden or difficult to comprehend. Read them. If the choice is made to believe Christ was not who HE CLAIMED to be, the Divine Son of God, that's perfectly understandable. But to believe he never claimed to be divine is unsustainable based on what is testified to by witnesses in the Bible.

Unless there is some extra-Biblical credible evidence to the contrary, no other conclusion beyond "JESUS CLAIMED to be divine" fits the New Testament accounts. If the testimony of the Bible is rejected, we really have no other witnesses or testimony to consider and the entire subject becomes nothing more than conjecture.
__________________

I wasn't born again yesterday - A.S.A. Jones
:cross:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,

Scott
​

 

[YmirGF]

If you are CREATED in the IMAGE of The CREATOR....

well you do the math.

Precisely, but sadly, Scott will never agree to this due to his insistence on placing limitations on "god". It is always rather amusing when people pigeon-hole "things" of this nature. Imho, it is the expected result of paying too much attention to the thoughts of others while ignoring a glaring reality that is at hand. The herd mentality deftly ignores anything that does not fit its preconceived pigeon-holed logic.

 

[Popeyesays]

Precisely, but sadly, Scott will never agree to this due to his insistence on placing limitations on "god". It is always rather amusing when people pigeon-hole "things" of this nature. Imho, it is the expected result of paying too much attention to the thoughts of others while ignoring a glaring reality that is at hand. The herd mentality deftly ignores anything that does not fit its preconceived pigeon-holed logic.

Well, "strawberry noises" to you. too Paul. I am not putting any limitations on God, I am pointing out the obvious limitations of man.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

Most of the associated meanings with the Hebrew word bara' translated in Genesis 1 as "created" is to form, shape, give order to by cutting or pruning away. From Gesenius's Lexicon:

"Creation" is the act of "giving form to." That why "God" creates the Universe through the power of the Divine Word (logos).

My understanding is the the Christian belief is that God created ex nihilo, but that's not based on Gen 1. Not sure where the basis of that theology is.

 

[lilithu]

You are wrong again. The topic is not about whether Jesus was God, or anyone's personal belief, the topic is Biblical: did Jesus claim to be God

And the answer is a resounding NO. And yet this thread is 32 pages long. :sarcastic

 

[lilithu]

"Creation" is the act of "giving form to." That why "God" creates the Universe through the power of the Divine Word (logos).

:yes: And that Logos is in us. Humans are both created and creator. Heck, I'd say the universe is both created and creator. Whatever form it is now could not have been without what is was before.

 

[lilithu]

My understanding is the the Christian belief is that God created ex nihilo, but that's not based on Gen 1. Not sure where the basis of that theology is.

I think it's from a mistranslation of Genesis 1. At least, many people think that's what Gen 1 says.


luna, I have a bone to pick with you!!

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.

You have said this repeatedly, in this thread and others. So when this morning during a discussion group on Jesus someone asked what the Episcopalian view of the crucifixion is, I said I didn't know for sure but this is what a friend tells me.....

And two people in the room who were ex-Episcopalians said, "No, the Episcopalians believe that we are guilty of original sin and that Jesus was sent in order to die as a sacrifice to wash us of our sins."

So... I don't really have a bone to pick. I just want to know: do you feel your view is "unusual" amongst your brethren in faith?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Please provide credible scholarship for this bizarre theory of the Judaic concept of divinity.

So you are in disagreement that God's angelic beings are a divine instrument that do his will? Is this your position?

Please show us how the Jews of Jesus time understood and defined the concept of divinity separate from deity (specifically in the form of how a human being - such as Jesus - might be considered divine, yet not deity) as you have described it here.

OK......

Matthew 9:6
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

They glorified God....(NOT JESUS)......Whom they also aknowledge GAVE power to Jesus.

The jews of his time never viewed him as God. He said over and over he was the son of man or the son of God. They may have been upset when he portrayed his existence as being greater than Abraham because he was eternal before the world was and Abraham long to see Jesus' day (the coming of the messiah). None of them interperted any of his sayings to mean he was God. Jesus (Constantly) professed he was (SENT) by God (FROM) Heaven and not of his own will. He knew exactly who he was...way before he was flesh. He informed us who he was after he became flesh and none of it had anything to do with him being God.

Hmm. And yet you choose to ignore the extreme reaction of those who should have known better than we do what Jesus' words meant: the rabbinical jews of his time. Why all the drama, the rending of robes, the gnashing of teeth, the crying out, the accusations of heresy, the demands for his crucifixion? Why is that?

John
8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

He talked about God his father and as 8:54 says ("he is your God") not I am your God. It wasn't until after he said Abraham rejoiced to see his coming and how he existed "before Abraham" they got upset with him and wanted to kill him.

Jesus viewed himself as an eternal being sent here by God to do the will of God who taught him and commanded him what to say. His "I am" is an eternal statement of fact. His claim of being eternal before Abraham was is a fact reiterated in John 17:5

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.

Pleased and excited, shocked, and disbelieving. Thomas was not showing respect by calling Jesus his Lord and his God. He was not cursing which is what saying "Oh my God!" is. Clearly. To anyone who knows anything at all about Judaism.

John 20:24-29​

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.

25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Most of the bibles I've seen render that verse with and exclamation mark at the end. The highly used King James version as well as others seem to render it the same way. The question is (Why would they render it that way if it was a statement of fact and not one of surprise)?? Given the scholar's learned ability to translate the scripture how did this mark creep in there? Additionally, the scriptures have been revised over and over by other scholars and this mark has remained. It would appear that the many translators/scholars have agreed with the rendering that it is a statement of excitement.

Jesus is praying to His Father in heaven, God. That you see that as a problem for the Son of God is clear;

I get the picture that Jesus, himself, didn't have a problem praying to God...he who taught Jesus and sent Jesus into this world to do his will. Jesus didn't have a problem with it so why should I? He clearly stated that God taught him, sent him to do his will and commanded him what he should say.

I'm sorry but your exegesis is unsubstantiated and contradicted by thematic structure, context or language as I pointed out before.

And yet it is Jesus' own words (rather what is attributed to Jesus saying) that he was TAUGHT BY GOD, AND SENT BY GOD TO DO THE WILL OF GOD......

I'd really appreciate it if you would answer the questions I asked before, it might put the whole thing in better perspective for me if you do.

If I have the time I'll go back and see if I can find that question. Do you know the post number?

 

[lunamoth]

I think it's from a mistranslation of Genesis 1. At least, many people think that's what Gen 1 says.

I don't know what most people think, but I am currently taking a course called Education for Ministry and the very first lesson is on Gen 1. The supporting materials I have read said that the best translation Gen 1 does not describe creation ex nihilo, although that is part of Christian theology. There are different ways that Gen 1:1 can be translated, but the most accepted does not support ex nihilo, but the forming of the earth out of chaos. But I'm not a scholar or theologian...I'm taking this course at their word.

luna, I have a bone to pick with you!!

Yikes!

You have said this repeatedly, in this thread and others. So when this morning during a discussion group on Jesus someone asked what the Episcopalian view of the crucifixion is, I said I didn't know for sure but this is what a friend tells me.....

And two people in the room who were ex-Episcopalians said, "No, the Episcopalians believe that we are guilty of original sin and that Jesus was sent in order to die as a sacrifice to wash us of our sins."

So... I don't really have a bone to pick. I just want to know: do you feel your view is "unusual" amongst your brethren in faith?

I don't think I'm a heretic, if that's what you mean. Episcopalians range from very Protestant flavors to very Catholic or Orthodox flavors. My view is much more like that of Eastern Orthodox and this is completely 'kosher' as far as the Episcopal church is concerned. I might bet that there are more Episcopalians who believe as your two friends for two reasons: 1. the very strong Protestant tradition of the USA and 2. because of the language of our liturgy, which does talk about sacrifice for our sin, forgivness of our sin. But every theologically leaning course I've taken presents the theories of atonement in an even-handed manner, presenting all the diverse ways people have thought about salvation and atonement.

In the end it is Mystery. Yes, Christ 'died for our sins,' but I really like Marcus Borg's explanation of the sacrificial 'temple' language. I've got to go let my puppy out but I'll return and give a passage from Borg.

 

[lunamoth]

From The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg. You mentioned that you are reading The Meaning of Jesus by Borg and Wright. I read that recently as well: very very interesting comparison. I think on this topic they come down very close to each other. I'll check it this evening and post about what I find.

The fifth is the familiar sacrificial understanding of Jesus' death: "Jesus dies for our sins." Though its ingredients are in the New Testament, its full development did not occur until about nine hundred years ago. Yet it is the one most emphasized in popular Christianity and is central to the earlier paradigm. In its developed form, it see the story of Jesus primarily within the framework of isn, guilt, and forgiveness. We have all sinned against God and are guilty. Our sins can be forgiven only if an adequate sacrifice is made. The sacrifice of animals does not accomplish this, nor can the sacrifce of an imperfect human (for such a person would simply be dying for his or her own sins). Thus God provides the perfect sacrifice in the form of the perfect human, Jesus. Now forgiveness is possible, but only for those who believe that Jesus dies for our sins.

If taken literally, all of this is very strange. It implies a limitation on God's power to forgive; namely, God can forgive only if adequate sacrice is made. It implies that Jesus' death on the cross was necessary---not just the consequence of what he was doing, but that it had to happen, that it was part of God's plan of salvation. It also introduces a requirement into the very center of our life with God: Knowing about and believing in Jesus and his sacrifical death.

But in its first-century setting, the statement "Jeus is the sacrifice for sin" had quite a different meaning. The "home" of this language, the framework within which it makes sense, is the sacrificial system centerein the temple in Jerusalem. According to temple theology, certain kinds of sins and impurities could be dealt with only through sacrifice in the temple. Temple theology thus claimed an institutional monopoly on the forgiveness of sins; and because the forgivenss os sins was a rerequisite for entry into the presence of God, temple theology also calimed an institutional monopoly on access to God.

In this setting, to affirm "Jesus is the sacrifice for sin" was to deny the temple's claim to have a monopoly on forgivenss and access to God. It was an antitimeple statement. Using the metaphor of sacrifice, it subverted the sacrificial system. It meant: God in Jesus has already provided the sacrifice and has thus taken care of whatever you think separates you from God; you have access to God apart from the temple and its system of sacrifice. It is a metaphor of radical grace, of amazing grace.

Thus "Jesus dies for our sins" was originally a subversive metaphor, not a literal description of either God's purpose or Jesus' vocation. It was a metaphorical proclamation of radical grace; and properly understood, it still is. It is therefore ironic to realize that the religion that formed around Jesus would within four hundred years begin to claim for itself an institutional monopoly on grace and access to God.