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

[~Amin~]

Then stop doing it. And NO, you didn't answer it.
please review my posts #107 and #114 and respond by quoting whatever it is you disagree with. IN CONTEXT.

Thank you but can you also respond to my
previous statements about the father
seeking those who worship Him, and jesus
worshiping the Father?
Its past my bed time I dont know
were you are but in Australia its night , night TIME,
To my Christian brothers and sisters chat to you latter.

 

[!Fluffy!]

And multiple instances of a verse penned by an unknown apologist more than half a century later proves what?

you don't get it because you didn't bother to scroll up.

context. you have to read ALL the posts in context, one after the other.

Amin made the comment "This verse is only in the trinitarian version,
but there are many other translations which the
verse is different, so lets use verses ALL christians use" which i have shown to be patently false.

...as is your remarkably baseless comment on the text's origins.

 

[!Fluffy!]

goodnight amin. and i'm still waiting for your rebuttal to #107 and #114.

 

[Smoke]

...as is your remarkably baseless comment on the text's origins.

It's not baseless at all. No serious scholar would date the Gospel of John any earlier than Jay does. Personally, I think a later date is more likely.

That the author was an apologist is not an insult, and is very clear from the author's remarks about the Jews.

 

[rocketman]

1.In the court house the judge is refered to as your honour,
or your worship, this doesnt mean his God.

That's a fair question, and it's back in line with the OP so I'll answer it.

That particular usage of the English word ‘worship’ comes from the Old English ‘worth-ship’. The word became contracted over time, like many english words. It's a different usage to the worship of a Deity. If you are saying that this ‘worth-ship’ was what the healed man meant I strongly disagree.

The verb προσκυνέω (proskunew) is used in John 9:38. It is the strongest word used to describe worshipping God in the NT. Notice how it is used in John 4:20-25 and 12:20 for example. But it can be used in other ways so let's look at the context.

Remember that Jesus himself in Matt 4:9 quoted Deuteronomy 6:16 "Worship (proskunew) the Lord your God and serve him only". Does this mean that you can worship anyone else? No. If the healed man was only paying homage why would John use such a strong word?

Did the healed man have a religious motivation or purpose when he worshipped Jesus? "If this man were not from God he could do nothing" he said in v33. When Jesus offered him the identity of the Son of Man he wanted to know who it was. He DID NOT worship him for giving his sight back, but he did worship him becasue he BELIEVED Jesus was the Son of Man, and as a Jew he most likely would have understood that special term. At this point many of the Jews thought Jesus was a nutcase, so he was pretty safe for a time.

For reference, did the other guys in Jesus' team let people bow down to them? Look at Acts 10:25,26 - When Cornelius fell down to worship Peter he stopped him saying that he was just a man.

Did anyone ever worship Jesus in an openly spiritual sense? In Matthew 14:33 - After Jesus calmed the storm, the disciples worshipped Him and said "truly you are the Son of God" Sounds like religious worship to me! Did Jesus stop them? No.

In Matt 28:9,17 - After the resurrection, his disciples worshipped Him. And to put some icing on this cake, in Luke 24:52, Even after he had gone back to heaven, they still worshipped Him. You can't pay regular homage such as a kiss on the hand to someone who is in heaven. But you can worship in a spiritual sense.

2.This verse is only in the trinitarian version,
but there are many other translations which the
verse is different, so lets use verses ALL christians use.:yes:

What are you talking about? I thought people of your faith rejected the entire NT no matter it's translation (?) Do you realise that you are saying that there is a version out there that you accept as accurate? But if you want the major variations of this verse, well, there are none:

[NET] He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

[NIV] Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshipped him.

[NASB] And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

[NLT] "Yes, Lord," the man said, "I believe!" And he worshiped Jesus.

[MSG] "Master, I believe," the man said, and worshiped him.

[BBE] And he said, Lord, I have faith. And he gave him worship.

[NRSV] He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped him.

[NKJV] Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him.

 

[ayani]

i still find something "not quite right" about worshiping Jesus. i have no problem with those who do, it's just not something i can reconcile with tawhid. many people have said "ana al-Haqq" through the ages, as a way to point to God, to point out union with God as possible and available. this is my take on it.

 

[Popeyesays]

Actually, Rocketman all those clauses containing worship are just as likely to refer to God as to Jesus. The SOn of Man was not a station of worship in Judaism. Look it up for yourself in the Talmud and the TaNakh.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

Actually, Rocketman all those clauses containing worship are just as likely to refer to God as to Jesus. The SOn of Man was not a station of worship in Judaism. Look it up for yourself in the Talmud and the TaNakh.

Regards,
Scott

Depends what sect. How much information was lost when the city of peace was taken over by the Romans? The thinking of the pharisies and sadducees and others of the day has not been fully preserved but if we accept Matt 26:63-65 as a reliable witness then we see that Son of God and Son of Man are used in a titular sense, and are used interchangebly, and refer directly to the Messiah. Whatever else they meant they drew the penalty of death for blasphemy if one applied the title to oneself, according to those verses.

The healed man could very well have heard some of these ideas at the temple, given that both he and the priests were contemporaneous. And the miracle of his restored sight may have helped him believe that Jesus was this messiah, a blasphemous title for mere men, thus religious-worship-worthy for the real thing, if that's who you thought was in front of you.

The idea of god in the flesh or somehow or other with us was not new to the Jews of Jesus' day. God walked in the garden of Eden and spoke (obviously not in a 'begotten' body), and Isaiah predicted the immanuel, and there are other more subtle verses. So these ideas are not without some grounding.

So overall we see that Jesus calls himself by the divine name, accepts the shema, admits he is the 'annointed one' (which was considered blasphemy: why?) has at the very least his followers worshipping him, claims in John 17:24 that he is an ancient being that shared in God's glory (God sharing his glory?? This is therefore a claim of divinity) he predicts havoc in the capitol because people did not recognise the time of 'God' coming to them. And so on and on...

I have no problem with good folks who don't accept his divinity, but I think it's only fair to point out that there is more than enough evidence there for a reasonable person to believe he was the prophesied immanuel ("god with us"). I think the best objections so far have not been technical but rather those related to the unusual logic of one God in two places, which is simply really: if God were to simulataneously exist within humanity, he must follow the rules that he gave to humanity. Simple.

Is not John 8:58 a yes answer to the OP? How can it be any other way given the savagely monotheistic culture of the time? How can you take the most sacred name and clearly apply it to yourself as if you were the ONE from Jewish history AND support the Shema if you were not saying that you were the big G? For me it's solid as a rock.

Cheers.

 

[logician]

Jesus never said anything, because such a man/god never existed.

 

[rocketman]

Okay is the word trinity in the Bible?
please give staight forward answer.

No. It doesn't need to be. Language evolves. Like the "worth-ship to worship" thing we looked at earlier.The bible uses different words to describe these things. Many words are developed over time to better help people communicate. It's easier to say 'trinity' than it is to say 'father, son and holy spirit.'

Back to the story:

This reminds me of another important point related to the OP:

Jesus said in "the name of the father, son and holy spirit." Matt 28:19

(He would later utter the sacred name, refering to himself, in John 8:58.)

Notice in Matthew he says 'name' and not 'names'(plural). He claims to be the Son so therefore this is another claim he makes to the sacred name for himself. That all three 'aspects' have one name as described by someone who supported the shema shows that what would later be called the trinity adds scholastic support to the idea that Jesus claimed he was a God.

 

[Popeyesays]

The most frequent use of "Son of Man" occurs in Yechezkel (Ezekial), some 93 times, but the phrase is a reference to the Prophet Ezekiel as God speaks to him repeatedly addressing him as "Son of Man".

The phrase is used only 16 times in the rest of the TaNakh.

Nowhere is it used synonymously with "Son of God".

Regards,
Scott

 

[UnityNow101]

Take a look at the most telling passages in the New Testament which shows us that there is but ONE God that we are to worship. Notice how Jesus states that there is ONE God, and never takes the time to expound upon the doctrine of the trinity, which he most certainly would have done at this moment.

Mark 12:28-34;

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."
32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Depends what sect. How much information was lost when the city of peace was taken over by the Romans? The thinking of the pharisies and sadducees and others of the day has not been fully preserved but if we accept Matt 26:63-65 as a reliable witness then we see that Son of God and Son of Man are used in a titular sense, and are used interchangebly, and refer directly to the Messiah. Whatever else they meant they drew the penalty of death for blasphemy if one applied the title to oneself, according to those verses.

The healed man could very well have heard some of these ideas at the temple, given that both he and the priests were contemporaneous. And the miracle of his restored sight may have helped him believe that Jesus was this messiah, a blasphemous title for mere men, thus religious-worship-worthy for the real thing, if that's who you thought was in front of you.

The idea of god in the flesh or somehow or other with us was not new to the Jews of Jesus' day. God walked in the garden of Eden and spoke (obviously not in a 'begotten' body), and Isaiah predicted the immanuel, and there are other more subtle verses. So these ideas are not without some grounding.

So overall we see that Jesus calls himself by the divine name, accepts the shema, admits he is the 'annointed one' (which was considered blasphemy: why?) has at the very least his followers worshipping him, claims in John 17:24 that he is an ancient being that shared in God's glory (God sharing his glory?? This is therefore a claim of divinity) he predicts havoc in the capitol because people did not recognise the time of 'God' coming to them. And so on and on...

I have no problem with good folks who don't accept his divinity, but I think it's only fair to point out that there is more than enough evidence there for a reasonable person to believe he was the prophesied immanuel ("god with us"). I think the best objections so far have not been technical but rather those related to the unusual logic of one God in two places, which is simply really: if God were to simulataneously exist within humanity, he must follow the rules that he gave to humanity. Simple.

Is not John 8:58 a yes answer to the OP? How can it be any other way given the savagely monotheistic culture of the time? How can you take the most sacred name and clearly apply it to yourself as if you were the ONE from Jewish history AND support the Shema if you were not saying that you were the big G? For me it's solid as a rock.

Cheers.

Slam dunk rocketman. Thanks for all your illuminating posts, I have enjoyed the education immensely.

 

[~Amin~]

"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the TRUE worshippers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is
SEEKING SUCH TO WORSHIP HIM"(father). JOHN 4,23.
And Also Jesus worshiped the Father,
he went a little farther and fell on his face and
WORSHIPED, saying, "O My Father. Mathew 26,39
he didnt worship himself did he?

sorry brought it back no one responded why?

 

[~Amin~]

"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the TRUE worshippers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is
SEEKING SUCH TO WORSHIP HIM"(father). JOHN 4,23
And Also Jesus worshiped the Father,
he went a little farther and fell on his face and
WORSHIPED, saying, "O My Father. Mathew 26,39
he didnt worship himself did he?

Its back again.

 

[blackout]

"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the TRUE worshippers
will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is
SEEKING SUCH TO WORSHIP HIM"(father). JOHN 4,23.
And Also Jesus worshiped the Father,
he went a little farther and fell on his face and
WORSHIPED, saying, "O My Father. Mathew 26,39
he didnt worship himself did he?

sorry brought it back no one responded why?

It's just the only thing that makes any sense to me at all.
No. He did not worship himself.

 

[~Amin~]

sorry i can't help it, i just had to respond.

And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. King James Version 1611, 1769
NKJV - Jhn 9:38 -Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him. New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NLT - Jhn 9:38 -"Yes, Lord," the man said, "I believe!" And he worshiped Jesus. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NIV - Jhn 9:38 -Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV - Jhn 9:38 -He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
NASB - Jhn 9:38 -And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV - Jhn 9:38 -He said, "Lord, I believe"; and he worshiped him. Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV - Jhn 9:38 -And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. American Standard Version 1901 Info
Webster - Jhn 9:38 -And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him. Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
HNV - Jhn 9:38 -He said, "Lord, I believe!" and he worshiped him. Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info
Vulgate - Jhn 9:38 -at ille ait credo Domine et procidens adoravit eum Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

You wrote down the same Bible in different years,
BUT we have for eg the JAHOVAS WITNESS which make
up a big number of christians who refute these verses
They dont believe in hell,
They dont believe in trinity,
THey dont believe in the cross but rather the stake,
the SEVEN DAY ADVENTIST also dont believe in hell,
And the ROMAN CATHLICS have 7 extra books which
you call doubt full.
So you see evry SECT has MADE the Bible According
to how they feel.
They have DIFFERENT BIBLES.

Is it not true that the trinity Doctrine came OVER
3 HUNDRED YEARS AFTER CHRIST, MADE UP BY THE
CHURCH COUNCIL?

 

[mcteethinator]

Even if that were true, what's your point? Jesus claimed to be both.

read the quote I was responding to.

 

[blackout]

Can someone here provide an actual background
on the (meaning)origins of the word "worship" for me?

I'm not good at digging that kind of stuff up.
Past websters and wickepedia I'm not sure where to go.

I've been thinking about my own connection with the word.
For me I can profoundly respect, and even be blown away by the "doings",
or "presence" of a higher reality revealed/poured forth in another.
Like when you're in the presence of a "master" of anything.
Master musicians for example, stirring the soundwaves in a hall,
to a supernatural high!... and you almost want to hit the floor on your knees...
or rise up to the heavens... or explode!.... exclaiming "oh My God!"!.."My God!"!
in the awsomeness of what you're experiencing (hearing/beholding)!
But it's not the "men" persay, making you hit the floor,
altering your reality, quickening your heart, elevating & blowing your mind...
it's GOD MOVING BIG TIME through and in those men,
thus lifting EVERYONE in it to a higher state of being and reality.
It is the masterful co-creation of men IN God....
doing what would even "ordinarily" seem impossible.

And so even if you can do nothing but hit the floor in awe...
it's still The Father... It is HIS Supernatural Presence....
that brings you to your knees.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

 

[rocketman]

read the quote I was responding to.

You said:

They just believe what the Jews believe - that a human who is also God is impossible and that the Messiah would not be divine. being the Messiah and the Son of God are 2 seperate things

Matthew 26:63 quotes a Jewish high priest asking Jesus: "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God. "

So there is one record at least that some Jews put the two together. It was therefore considered blasphemy to call yourself the Messiah to those people at that time. The record says that they charged Jesus with blasphemy for agreeing to that charge.