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

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

I do understand. I just don't agree with you given the many times Jesus shows us that he isn't God. As I have said before, he knew who he was before being sent here by God. Before coming here he had his own will. As being a servent to God in heaven he knew his purpose for cming here. He was to do the will of God who taught him, sent him and commanded him what he should say. He informs us that while in heaven he was seperate from God.

So what? That's what one would expect God in the flesh to say.

That's what you would expect a servent of God to say. As I said while he was in heaven he gives the same information....

He was sent by God and not his own will. He sought the glory he had with his father before the earth was.

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."

And he that was born in flesh testified of the ("one") that taught him, sent him and commanded him what he should say. He that came testifying of the one true God, our God and His God are one in purpose but not one in the same.

Now then, did the author of the book you so liberally quote from reach your conclusion? No.

Sure he does. I wouldn't be able to pull out so much evidence that Jesus isn't God if the author didn't agree. Now remember he wasn't the only author that believed Jesus was not God. The other three Gospels echo each other and suprisingly neither of them written at the exact time as the other. And they're all screaming the same thing. Jesus came to do the will of God who sent him.

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.

And as I have said before, I don't agree. Jesus nor the scriptures are a mystery to me. When I read what he said about himself or about God it is perfectly clear.

And as far as the followers that you mention, are you counting ALL christians or are you just counting the ones that believe as you do that Jesus is God? For I am not alone, not even amongst your christian bretheren, when I say Jesus is not God because he said he wasn't. I stand along side plenty of other christians who understand this fact.

 

[lilithu]

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.

I agree, but creation ex nihilo was what we were taught in Lutheran school, and the cited proof was Genesis. In fact, I think it caused something of a stir recently when Robert Alter's translation of Genesis came out and he clearly showed that creation was out of something.

But looking back, that was always obvious, wasn't it? Even in the NIV version:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The earth? The deep? the Spirit hovering over the waters? Clearly something was there already even before God spoke "Let there be light" and started to create. God separated light from darkness. divided them. ie - God started to organize chaos, to give it form. First God separated light from dark, then above from below, then water from land, etc.

If one were a biblical literalist, one would have to concede that God is an "engineer" just like we are. But I'm not a biblical literalist and I believe that the Genesis story only tells creation from the understanding of the author(s) and that God does indeed provide the substrate as well as the form. Tho I'm not sure whether God "creates" ex nihilo so much as "pours" Godself into existence.

I don't think I'm a heretic, if that's what you mean.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was asking.

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.

To be clear, the two people in my discussion group do NOT believe this. That is why they were in a UU church on a Sunday morning and not an Episcopalian one. If they had been taught/allowed to believe as you believe, they might never have left the church of their upbringing for UU. They both still consider themselves Christian.

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.

Referring to your subsequent post, it's nice. My liberation theology professor taught something similar in terms of what Jewish atonement meant. But he also emphasized the social justice element, which is what resonates with me. Indeed, this morning that's what my fellow UUs were talking about in our discussion group - Jesus standing with the blind, the lame, the outcast, and the poor, and how much of a threat that would have been to the authorities. I agree that Jesus' death was an expression of his love, but for me that came about directly because of his opposition to injustice. And one of the biggest sources of injustice was the "institutional monopoly" that the Temple priests had on the people. Power to the people! :jam:

Next week we're discussing Borg and Wright's views on the meaning of Jesus' death, so, given that Wright is an Episcopalian bishop, that oughta do something to convince the folks in my class that your views are not heretical. Unfortunately, I am going to miss the class.

 

[Popeyesays]

It's always seemed obvious to me that Genesis 1 is a creation myth, plain and obvious. One cannot expect it to be a description of events, rather it is an explanation of the inexplicable.

To sweat the details seems unproductive.

"Science is the governor of nature and its mysteries, the one agency by which man explores the institutions of material creation. All created things are captives of nature and subject to its laws. They cannot transgress the control of these laws in one detail or particular. The infinite starry worlds and heavenly bodies 243 are nature's obedient subjects. The earth and its myriad organisms, all minerals, plants and animals are thralls of its dominion. But man through the exercise of his scientific, intellectual power can rise out of this condition, can modify, change and control nature according to his own wishes and uses. Science, so to speak, is the "breaker" of the laws of nature."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 242)


Regards.
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

I agree, but creation ex nihilo was what we were taught in Lutheran school, and the cited proof was Genesis. In fact, I think it caused something of a stir recently when Robert Alter's translation of Genesis came out and he clearly showed that creation was out of something.

I'm not debating this. Ex nihilo is the Christian doctrine, but it can't be based on Gen 1, at least not according to the scholarship I'm studying. It must be based upon something else. According to my reading it was formulated to combat the idea of dualism, that matter is bad compared to spirit that is good. Christian theologians needed to make the point that it's All created by God, and all good. Saying that there was something, chaos, that he started with opened the door to the argument that that chaos which was the material God shaped, is the source of evil.

But looking back, that was always obvious, wasn't it? Even in the NIV version:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The earth? The deep? the Spirit hovering over the waters? Clearly something was there already even before God spoke "Let there be light" and started to create. God separated light from darkness. divided them. ie - God started to organize chaos, to give it form. First God separated light from dark, then above from below, then water from land, etc.

If one were a biblical literalist, one would have to concede that God is an "engineer" just like we are. But I'm not a biblical literalist and I believe that the Genesis story only tells creation from the understanding of the author(s) and that God does indeed provide the substrate as well as the form. Tho I'm not sure whether God "creates" ex nihilo so much as "pours" Godself into existence.

No arguments from this corner.

To be clear, the two people in my discussion group do NOT believe this. That is why they were in a UU church on a Sunday morning and not an Episcopalian one. If they had been taught/allowed to believe as you believe, they might never have left the church of their upbringing for UU. They both still consider themselves Christian.

Yes, I figured they did not believe it now. It's up to each of us, I guess, to wrestle with what it means that Jesus died for us. Don't get me wrong lilithu...I do think something Happened on the cross. I think God broke through once and for all, and established a new covenant. We have choice in the matter, whether we accept this idea, or not.

Referring to your subsequent post, it's nice. My liberation theology professor taught something similar in terms of what Jewish atonement meant. But he also emphasized the social justice element, which is what resonates with me. Indeed, this morning that's what my fellow UUs were talking about in our discussion group - Jesus standing with the blind, the lame, the outcast, and the poor, and how much of a threat that would have been to the authorities. I agree that Jesus' death was an expression of his love, but for me that came about directly because of his opposition to injustice. And one of the biggest sources of injustice was the "institutional monopoly" that the Temple priests had on the people. Power to the people! :jam:

Next week we're discussing Borg and Wright's views on the meaning of Jesus' death, so, given that Wright is an Episcopalian bishop, that oughta do something to convince the folks in my class that your views are not heretical. Unfortunately, I am going to miss the class.

I re-read the part of The Meaning of Jesus about the Cross. Wright emphasizes the victory over evil, the exhaustion of evil in the face of Love, and I like this language. I find it much more meaningful than Borg's explanation above, but Borg's explanation helps me understand the temple/sacrifical language better. Wright also talks a lot about salvation as return from exile, and healing, also language that speaks to me.

As you will/have read, Wright's take on the earliest Christian understanding of Jesus' death is as a fulfillment of the scriptures: the messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures. Read page 103 of The Meaning of Jesus, and especially:

It (the interpretation of Jesus' death) was not, that is, a matter of the early Christians "feeling forgiven," experiencing the divine forgiveness for mral misdemeanors as an inner existential reality. Nor was it a new theory about how "atonement" functioned, supplanting previous Jewish beliefs on the subject. It was the early Christian deduction, from Jesus' resurrection, that his death had been afterall effective, as the hinge upon which the door to God's new world had swung open. To say that the messiah had died for sins in fulfillment of the scriptures was to make a claim, not so mcuh about an abstract theology into which individuals could tap to salve their guilty consceinces, as about where Israel and the world now were within God's eschatologcial timetable. The sins that had caused Israel's exile had now been dealt with, and the time of forgiveness had arrived.

Anyway, interesting conversation. Too bad you will miss next week's discussion. Maybe someone will tape it for you.

 

[lunamoth]

OK, a bit more from Wright (a bit off topic now, but heck, it's better than the "is not!" "is too!" debate ):

So he spoke of the Passover bread as his own body that would be given on behalf of his friends, as he went out to take on himself the weight of evil so that they wouldn't have to bear it themselves. He spoke of the Passover cup as containing his own blood. Like the sacrificial blood in the Temple, it would be poured out to establish the covenant--but this time the new covenant spoken of by the prophet Jerimiah. The time had now come when, at last, God would rescue his people, and the whole world, not from mere political enemies, but from evil itself, from the sin which had enslaved them. His death would do what the Temple, with its sacrificial system, had pointed toward but had never actually accomplished. In meeting the fate which was rushing toward him, he would be the place where heaven and earth met, as he hung suspended between the two. He would be the place where God's future arrived in the present, with the kingdom of God celebrating its triumph over the kingdoms of the world by refusing to join in their spiral of violence. He would love his enemies, turn the other cheek, go the second mile. He would act out, finally, his own interpretation of the ancient prophecies which spoke to him of a suffering Messiah.

 

[lilithu]

It's always seemed obvious to me that Genesis 1 is a creation myth, plain and obvious. One cannot expect it to be a description of events, rather it is an explanation of the inexplicable.

To sweat the details seems unproductive.

Yes, it is a creation myth. But that doesn't mean it's not to be taken seriously. Real myths are rich in meaning.

The creation story in Genesis is beautiful.
Day 1: God divides light from dark, day from night
Day 2: God divides the water above from the water below, the heavens from the earth
Day 3: God divides land from sea
also, God calls forth plants
Day 4: God calls forth the sun and the moon and the stars and puts the sun in charge of the day and the moon in charge of the night
Day 5: God calls forth birds in the skies and fish in the seas
Day 6: God calls forth the animals of the earth
also, God creates man in God's own image

Look at it:
The first half of creation is devoted to organizing chaos, separating things into their respective places. This is necessary in order for the next step.
The second half of creation is devoted to calling forth the things that would naturally fill these places. If one looks at the language, God doesn't even "create" the stars and animals and plants. Once God had prepared the proper environment so that they could exist, all God has to do is call, with God's voice/word, and they come into being of themselves.
And there is symmetry in the dividing and the calling forth.
Day 1, night and day/Day 4, moon and sun.
Day 2, the waters above (skies) and the waters below/Day 5, birds and fish
Day 3, the land, plants/Day 6, animals and man

Only man is created, because only man is in God's image. Everything else comes into being either through organizing or as a result of organizing.

Calling something a myth is not a license to ignore it. Calling something a myth means that it has more layers of meaning within it than just the plain prose. Imo, those who would view Genesis I literally, as a record of fact, are the ones who are not giving it the respect it deserves.

 

[lunamoth]

Yes, it is a creation myth. But that doesn't mean it's not to be taken seriously. Real myths are rich in meaning.

The creation story in Genesis is beautiful.
Day 1: God divides light from dark, day from night
Day 2: God divides the water above from the water below, the heavens from the earth
Day 3: God divides land from sea
also, God calls forth plants
Day 4: God calls forth the sun and the moon and the stars and puts the sun in charge of the day and the moon in charge of the night
Day 5: God calls forth birds in the skies and fish in the seas
Day 6: God calls forth the animals of the earth
also, God creates man in God's own image

Look at it:
The first half of creation is devoted to organizing chaos, separating things into their respective places. This is necessary in order for the next step.
The second half of creation is devoted to calling forth the things that would naturally fill these places. If one looks at the language, God doesn't even "create" the stars and animals and plants. Once God had prepared the proper environment so that they could exist, all God has to do is call, with God's voice/word, and they come into being of themselves.
And there is symmetry in the dividing and the calling forth.
Day 1, night and day/Day 4, moon and sun.
Day 2, the waters above (skies) and the waters below/Day 5, birds and fish
Day 3, the land, plants/Day 6, animals and man

Only man is created, because only man is in God's image. Everything else comes into being either through organizing or as a result of organizing.

Calling something a myth is not a license to ignore it. Calling something a myth means that it has more layers of meaning within it than just the plain prose. Imo, those who would view Genesis I literally, as a record of fact, are the ones who are not giving it the respect it deserves.

Not to mention that this first part of Genesis is one of the relatively more recent and highly developed parts of the OT, having most likely been written after the exile.

 

[look3467]

Who but God could save His own creation?
Obviously, mankind couldn't!
How suppose than, do you think God did it?
Surely, must be a God-man, or God with man or as God Himself?

I will to believe that Jesus was God the day He had to burden the sin's of the world.
The Sun was darkened, meaning that the heavens were empty of the presence of God, and the moon turned to blood, meaning the Son was shedding His blood for the world as God.

Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

God only in Jesus could take away the sins of the world.
Jesus then was God at the cross redeeming the world back unto Himself.
Silence in heaven? Empty?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[lunamoth]

To be clear, the two people in my discussion group do NOT believe this. That is why they were in a UU church on a Sunday morning and not an Episcopalian one. If they had been taught/allowed to believe as you believe, they might never have left the church of their upbringing for UU. They both still consider themselves Christian.

Lilithu, try this out on your discussion group (from here)

<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The Cross thus acquires ontological rather than forensic significance.[61] This is why juridical notions of atonement and justification cannot truly be reconciled with the soteriology underlying the christology of the ecumenical councils. John Breck identified this as the primary reason why Eastern soteriology never developed along Western lines: &#8220;&#8230; none of the traditional Western theories of justification, atonement, etc., really necessitates personal divine involvement in the death that accomplishes our redemption.&#8221;[62] In other words, the soteriology implicit in the christological definitions of the ecumenical councils is based on the assumption that Christ saves us primarily by who he is as opposed to what he does, although the importance of the latter is affirmed as well, e.g., in the Nicene Creed, without however defining the exact manner in which his actions were salvific.


<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Thus, as many theologians have noted, the Orthodox understanding of Christ&#8217;s crucifixion, derived from soteriological christology, is diametrically opposed to the Anselmian theory of satisfaction which underpins both Catholic and Lutheran notions of justification. God is not a judge in a courtroom, and Christ did not pay the legal penalty or &#8220;fine&#8221; for our sins. His redemptive work was not completed on the Cross, with the Resurrection as a nice afterword. The eternal Son of God took on our fallen human nature, including our mortality, in order to restore it to the possibility of immortality. Jesus Christ died so that he might be resurrected. Just as Christ is homoousios with the Father in his divinity, we are homoousios with him in his humanity; it is through our sharing of his crucified and resurrected human nature that our own human nature is transformed from mortality to immortality. John Meyendorff summarizes the significance of the Cross for the Christian East as follows:

&#8230; In the East, the Cross is envisaged not so much as the punishment of the just one, which &#8220;satisfies&#8221; a transcendent Justice requiring a retribution for one&#8217;s sins. As George Florovsky rightly puts it: &#8220;the death on the Cross was effective, not as a death of an Innocent One, but as the death of the Incarnate Lord.&#8221; The point was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish the frightful cosmic reality of death, which held humanity under its usurped control and pushed it into the vicious circle of sin and corruption.[63]

 

[Popeyesays]

I believe it shoulod be taken seriously, and myth is fertile ground.

My point is that it cannot be taken literally. The spiritual truths are far more important that trying to see it as a description of events.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

I do understand.

No you do not.

And around and round we go...

You understand what you mean, but definitely not what I am saying. Your answers clearly show that. Phil 2:5-8 might help you but I get the feeling your word-over-context approach will block your view once again. You don't have to agree, but at least try to understand what you are disagreeing with. Currently you do not. Not even close.

Before I exit this now way off-topic thread, three of my favourites on this subject:

"..A voice of one calling: In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God..." -Isaiah/John the Baptist

"..Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.." -Moses/Jesus

"..They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognise the time of God's coming to you..." -Jesus himself

You're not about to understand any time soon I suspect. There is no point in me going on. Enjoy the rest of the debate Dregod.

Cheers to the rest of you lot, I'm out of here.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No you do not.

Yes I do.....:sarcastic

You understand what you mean, but definitely not what I am saying.

You've said nothing new or special that the 1.5 billion of your bretheren have been saying for the past 2000 years. We get it. We understand. We just don't agree with it.

Phil 2:5-8 might help you but I get the feeling your word-over-context approach will block your view once again.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before some one would start throwing out the opinions of those who never met Jesus, the opinions of men who never talked to Jesus and the opinion of those who never knew him. This is another "classic" example of some one who believed he was God regarless of what he said about who he was and who God was.

You don't have to agree

Well, I don't...

but at least try to understand what you are disagreeing with. Currently you do not. Not even close.

You don't get it. I do understand..I just don't agree with your interpertation of the Messiah.....Whom God who sent into the world to save a lost and misguided people.

There is no point in me going on. Enjoy the rest of the debate Dregod.

I want to thank you for this debate.

Cheers to the rest of you lot, I'm out of here.

.......bye.......

 

[lilithu]

No you do not.

Yes I do....

lol.

You're not about to understand any time soon I suspect. There is no point in me going on.

You mean you actually thought you were going to convince someone?

.......bye.......

You mean you actually enjoyed that?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

lol.



You mean you actually enjoyed that?

As with all those who profess Jesus to be God...they at some point can debate no more and move on. The information as to who he was and who God was to him and us that I have posted is just the tip of what he said. Even the opinions of men in the other books later seem to be conflicted in their assertions as to who he was. I think I enjoyed it a little. I never backed down nor gave up the fight to show who Jesus was. Below are some of the opinions of men which I do agree (personally)....

Romans8:34
Who will give a decision against us? It is Christ Jesus who not only was put to death, but came again from the dead, who is now at the right hand of God, taking our part.

Hebrews 7:25
So that he is fully able to be the saviour of all who come to God through him, because he is ever living to make prayer to God for them.


1st Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one peacemaker between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

I also thank you for standing your ground as well.

 

[lunamoth]

As with all those who profess Jesus to be God...they at some point can debate no more and move on. The information as to who he was and who God was to him and us that I have posted is just the tip of what he said. Even the opinions of men in the other books later seem to be conflicted in their assertions as to who he was. I think I enjoyed it a little. I never backed down nor gave up the fight to sow who Jesus was. Below are some of the opinions of men which I do agree (personally)....

Romans8:34
Who will give a decision against us? It is Christ Jesus who not only was put to death, but came again from the dead, who is now at the right hand of God, taking our part.

Hebrews 7:25
So that he is fully able to be the saviour of all who come to God through him, because he is ever living to make prayer to God for them.


1st Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one peacemaker between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Hiya Dregod,

Do you have a thread where you elaborate more on what you do believe, rather than what you don't? If so maybe you could show us a link to it.

luna

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hiya Dregod,

Do you have a thread where you elaborate more on what you do believe, rather than what you don't? If so maybe you could show us a link to it.

luna

I can't say that I do. I browse through the topics and the ones that jump out at me I comment on.