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

[rocketman]

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".

Thanks for the info Scott.

The phrase also appears 81 times in the NT. And almost always is used by Christ to describe himself. Don't you think it's odd that he would call himself that? Why would someone cosntantly say that they were a 'son of Adam'? Today we say 'human being' rather than son of Adam. Why would he push his humanity when he also said things like "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me before the creation of the world.' ?? (John 17:24)

Jesus equates the three expressions 'Son of Man', 'Son of God' and the prophesied 'Messiah' in Matt 26:63-65. If we put that together we see that he believed that the messiah would be God entered into Adam's race. Clearly Jesus thought that being a man born of woman was a new thing for him: "What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!" John 6:62. Only if he entered into Adams race could he save that race because he had to recieve Adam's penalty. 'Son of Man': get it?

The expression the priests used was "The Christ, the Son of God", which is obviously titular and not generic in that instance because they then accused him of blasphemy. Jesus then says yes he is both of those things and the Son of Man, so he thought he was all three. So the priests used Messiah and Son of God in the same breath, and did not query Jesus when he said Son of Man.

There is precedent for 'son of man' associated with messiannic prophecy in the OT. Compare the following two scriptures from the two testaments:

Dan 7:13,14 "I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Matt 26:64 " But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Sound familiar?

According to John Ch1 Jesus is the 'part' of God that interacts with humanity. Paul calls Jesus the second Adam. Jesus says he came to get people in touch with the Father part of God (It was Jesus who used the term Father, Son and Holy spirit) We don't worship Jesus physical body anymore than we think of our loved one's as being only a collection of particles.

Immanuel, Son of Man, Second Adam...it makes sense.

 

[Popeyesays]

Rocketman,

Here's the quote in a little more context:
"57Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward 61and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "
62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[e] the Son of God."
64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered. 67Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?""

Please note that Jesus remains mute about the title Son of God, He says neither "Aye," nor "Nay". He instead chooses the term Son of Man which Caiaphas did not use. Further He does not say that the Son of Man is God, but rather sits beside God.

I think your conclusion is baseless.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

Please note that Jesus remains mute about the title Son of God, He says neither "Aye," nor "Nay". He instead chooses the term Son of Man which Caiaphas did not use. Further He does not say that the Son of Man is God, but rather sits beside God.

I think your conclusion is baseless.

Regards,
Scott

Scott, it's right there in front of you. How could you miss it?

"I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." v64"Yes, it is as you say,"

 

[Popeyesays]

Scott, it's right there in front of you. How could you miss it?

"I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." v64"Yes, it is as you say,"

Actually you are not noting ALL of His answer: "64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

In other words He refers to Himself in that verse as Son of Man, not Son of God. perhaps He is having a crisis of identity and can't tell Who He might be at that particular moment? Can He sit on His Own right hand? Well, yes he can but He will have to use His left hand to gesture if He does.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

Actually you are not noting ALL of His answer: "64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

In other words He refers to Himself in that verse as Son of Man, not Son of God.

Perhaps you didn't reed my earlier post thoroughly where I said:

The expression the priests used was "The Christ, the Son of God", which is obviously titular and not generic in that instance because they then accused him of blasphemy. Jesus then says yes he is both of those things and the Son of Man, so he thought he was all three.

 

[Popeyesays]

Perhaps you didn't reed my earlier post thoroughly where I said:

The expression the priests used was "The Christ, the Son of God", which is obviously titular and not generic in that instance because they then accused him of blasphemy. Jesus then says yes he is both of those things and the Son of Man, so he thought he was all three.

Christ and SOn of God are the same identification.

I would point out that "son of God" is not a perjorative to the Jews of the time. All humans are the children of God. In that sense Caiaphas Himself was a son of God.

Caiaphas would not have said "Christ" in any case, He would have said "Moissach". "Christ" is a Greek word and there is no reason for Caiaphas to speak Greek in those circumstances.

Regards,
Scott

 

[*Paul*]

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

Tertullian (160-215 ad)
Chapter 2. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead

In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian)

Iranaeus 115-190 ad:​

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: She believes in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimeth through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from the virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one”…
Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World

As you can see these are a fair bit less than three hundred years after Christ.

 

[rocketman]

Christ and SOn of God are the same identification.

Yes, in that verse for sure. The high priest clearly says them both in the same breath.

I would point out that "son of God" is not a perjorative to the Jews of the time.

You don't know that. You just said that "Christ and Son of God are the same identification." You are starting to confuse me as to what you actually think.

Caiaphas would not have said "Christ" in any case, He would have said "Moissach". "Christ" is a Greek word and there is no reason for Caiaphas to speak Greek in those circumstances.

Lol! You crack me up friend. It's just a translated word for goodness sake, everyone knows it means messiah. What on earth makes you think the bible says they spoke greek??? It's as if you think 'christ' is some thing other thing than the messiah. As I already said earlier:

"Jesus equates the three expressions 'Son of Man', 'Son of God' and the prophesied 'Messiah' in Matt 26:63-65."

At the very least he agreed he was all three.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yes, in that verse for sure. The high priest clearly says them both in the same breath.

You don't know that. You just said that "Christ and Son of God are the same identification." You are starting to confuse me as to what you actually think.

Lol! You crack me up friend. It's just a translated word for goodness sake, everyone knows it means messiah. What on earth makes you think the bible says they spoke greek??? It's as if you think 'christ' is some thing other thing than the messiah. As I already said earlier:

"Jesus equates the three expressions 'Son of Man', 'Son of God' and the prophesied 'Messiah' in Matt 26:63-65."

At the very least he agreed he was all three.

I agree He was the Messiah--no problem.

I agree He was the Son of Man--in a prophetic sense.

I believe in every metaphorical sense He Son of God as well.

That last title does not imply He was the physical progeny of God, nor does it mean He was in Essence God. Those meanings are impossible and irrational.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

I agree He was the Messiah--no problem.

I agree He was the Son of Man--in a prophetic sense.

I believe in every metaphorical sense He Son of God as well.

That last title does not imply He was the physical progeny of God, nor does it mean He was in Essence God. Those meanings are impossible and irrational.

Regards,
Scott

Ok, so we are pretty much back where we started. Now, why did this all amount to blasphemy in the eyes of his captors?

 

[Popeyesays]

Ok, so we are pretty much back where we started. Now, why did this all amount to blasphemy in the eyes of his captors?

Because His captors were interested in removing Him as a challenge to their own authority. They could not execute Him for a crime against the Temple, the Romans would not allow them to conduct an execution.

It was necessary to trump up charges before Pilate to have Him executed.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

Because His captors were interested in removing Him as a challenge to their own authority. They could not execute Him for a crime against the Temple, the Romans would not allow them to conduct an execution.

It was necessary to trump up charges before Pilate to have Him executed.

Regards,
Scott

Ok, to get him executed the public charge presented to Pilate was that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews" ; the religious charge deserving death discussed amongst themselves was "blasphemy". Which of the two do you think best represent their feelings toward Jesus?

So when the high priest says in Matt 26:65: "He has uttered blasphemy ... you have now heard his blasphemy" that was just for show huh? Everyone standing there including any public witnesses, including whoever recorded the event for us, were just supposed to pretend it was blasphemy even though it really wasn't?

Let's have a look at two definitions of blasphemy from the period:

"Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Luke 5:21

"It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." John 10:33

Blasphemy was the kind of thing that average Jews were willing to pick up stones and kill for. How much more so the council?

 

[look3467]

Ok, to get him executed the public charge presented to Pilate was that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews" ; the religious charge deserving death discussed amongst themselves was "blasphemy". Which of the two do you think best represent their feelings toward Jesus?

So when the high priest says in Matt 26:65: "He has uttered blasphemy ... you have now heard his blasphemy" that was just for show huh? Everyone standing there including any public witnesses, including whoever recorded the event for us, were just supposed to pretend it was blasphemy even though it really wasn't?

Let's have a look at two definitions of blasphemy from the period:

"Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Luke 5:21

"It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Blasphemy was the kind of thing that average Jews were willing to pick up stones and kill for. How much more so the council?

Well understood!

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Popeyesays]

Ok, to get him executed the public charge presented to Pilate was that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews" ; the religious charge deserving death discussed amongst themselves was "blasphemy". Which of the two do you think best represent their feelings toward Jesus?

So when the high priest says in Matt 26:65: "He has uttered blasphemy ... you have now heard his blasphemy" that was just for show huh? Everyone standing there including any public witnesses, including whoever recorded the event for us, were just supposed to pretend it was blasphemy even though it really wasn't?

Let's have a look at two definitions of blasphemy from the period:

"Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Luke 5:21

"It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." John 10:33

Blasphemy was the kind of thing that average Jews were willing to pick up stones and kill for. How much more so the council?

And the Council knew that if they picked up the stones and threw them they would be the ones on crosses at Roman hands.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rocketman]

And the Council knew that if they picked up the stones and threw them they would be the ones on crosses at Roman hands.

I didn't mean the council would literally use stones, so yeah, we agree they wanted him dead. Now, do we agree that it was because of his blasphemy? And if not, why when that's the reason listed?

Cheers

 

[Popeyesays]

I didn't mean the council would literally use stones, so yeah, we agree they wanted him dead. Now, do we agree that it was because of his blasphemy? And if not, why when that's the reason listed?

Cheers

The "blasphemy" was a practical thing for the Sanhedrin. Jesus threatened their social status, their authority, their way of life, and most of all their livelihood. The Council was used to rabble rousing holy men, they were not ready to deal with rabble rousers who stood a real chance of swaying the public to an anti-authoritarian fervor successfully.

Regards,
Scott

 

[look3467]

To really understand why Jesus was rejected via the Blasphemy issue, was so that Jesus could cut them off or for simpler terms, steal their birthright.
Jacob is a similitude of Jesus stealing the birthright from Esau and inheriting all of the Fathers Kingdom.
That was predicted to be done that way and pictures of that are everywhere in the bible.
Cain the first born kills the second, but Seth, steals the inheritance.
This had to be done this way in order for God to include both Jews ans Gentiles alike, equal to each other with none being over each other but only through the body of the resurrected Christ are than we all one.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Sola*5]

Tertullian (160-215 ad)
Chapter 2. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead

In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian)

Iranaeus 115-190 ad:​

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: She believes in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimeth through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from the virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one”…
Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World

As you can see these are a fair bit less than three hundred years after Christ.

Whoa, who knew? I read the rest of those works, they are really good, well worth the studying, thanks for the links. It's great as terutllian claims this is the belief that was held since the beginning of the gospel. What a blessing.

"That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true,"

 

[rocketman]

The "blasphemy" was a practical thing for the Sanhedrin. Jesus threatened their social status, their authority, their way of life, and most of all their livelihood. The Council was used to rabble rousing holy men, they were not ready to deal with rabble rousers who stood a real chance of swaying the public to an anti-authoritarian fervor successfully.

Regards,
Scott

Right, so regardless of the motivations of the priesthood for getting Jesus to speak blasphemy, the technical religious charge nevertheless was blasphemy.

Whatever words came out of his mouth were able to be declared as blasphemy. The priests knew what questions to ask!

This thread is about what Jesus said in relation to being a 'God' and here we have established that he spoke words regarding his identity which were considered blasphemous. And while he might have lived if they saw him as a nutcase rather than a threat, the fact remains that technically he committed blasphemy.

Add that to everything else that's been shown in this thread and I think the 'yes' case is strong.

 

[look3467]

Yes, Blasphemy. When an established religion has its source threatened, and told that they must now come to a stranger to get to God, makes for a very blasphemous situation as if the stranger were equal to God.
Done intentionally!