Tell me where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God

[sojourner]

THERE can be no compromise with God’s truths. Hence, to worship God on his terms means to reject the Trinity doctrine.

How does it mean that? Why? The doctrine is sound and legitimate. It frames God quite well in a paradigm of love and community.

It contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught.

No, it doesn't.

It contradicts what God says about himself in his own inspired Word.

No, it doesn't.

“Acknowledge that I alone am God and that there is no one else like me.”

What other god or human being is uniquely Trinitarian in nature?

 

[sojourner]

God’s interests are not served by making him confusing and mysterious.

The writers of Genesis couldn't agree on an understanding of God. Your assertion makes no sense. God is mystery, because we do not stand outside God far enough to make a judgment.

It is he who promotes such false doctrines to ‘blind the minds of unbelievers.’

Oh, you mean like the ones where Jesus is not God? Thank you for acknowledging that!

And the Trinity doctrine also serves the interests of clergymen who want to maintain their hold on people, for they make it appear as though only theologians can understand it.

...As if the doctrine of substitutionary atonement hasn't ever been exploited in such a manner...

Accurate knowledge of God brings great relief.

The Trinity brings me great relief, thanks for noticing!

 

[Harvey]

Faith in the word of God does the works.
Following all that the word says can't be done
unless you fall in love with Jesus.
A bride can do anything for a husband she is in love with, and he gives all power.

 

[Me Myself]

Faith in the word of God does the works.
Following all that the word says can't be done
unless you fall in love with Jesus.
A bride can do anything for a husband she is in love with, and he gives all power.

so... Jesus is your husband? o.0

 

[Animevox]

God didn't say that, though, in Psalm 146. It's not a quotation. The writer says it. Therefore, in order for God to have said it, God would have to have written it. so, by asserting that God didn't write it, you're further asserting that you're wrong in saying God said it. God clearly didn't say it.

The Psalmist clearly had no concept of the Incarnation -- that it was possible for God to be Incarnate.

Religion is culturally-based. God is God of the Hebrews -- not the Gentiles. Therefore, using your criterion, if God is really God, then God would be God of everyone, not just the Hebrews. Which means that God (Allah) isn't really the God of the Arabs. Which we know is wrong. So your attempt here is a major fail.

Thomas made the claim, and was not refuted.

God is the God of everyone. Islam isn't an Arab-based religion. Please, don't speak of what you know so little.

“And We have not sent you [Muhammad] but as a mercy to all the world" (Qur'an 21:107).

“And We have not sent you [Muhammad] but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them good tidings and warning (them against sin)" (Qur'an 34:28)

“O people of the Book (Christians and Jews)! Come to a word that is just between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords beside God" (Qur'an 3:64).

Clearly, Islam is a religion of Mankind, not Arab's.

God didn't say that, though, in Psalm 146. It's not a quotation. The writer says it. Therefore, in order for God to have said it, God would have to have written it. so, by asserting that God didn't write it, you're further asserting that you're wrong in saying God said it. God clearly didn't say it.

God isn't human. You don't put human-like attributes to God. He doesn't write. All he must say is "Be" and it is. Simple as that. As of concerning if it's God's words.

Are you implying that the writer is wrong? Why not trust the writer? You seem to be happy taking other verse's that God didn't say to prove your points, but when I take a verse, you say "God didn't say it". Well by saying so, you're basically just cherry-picking your own Bible.

 

[Animevox]

That passage isn't concerned with "saving from death." It's concerned with Jesus setting a new order of priesthood. They are, theologically, different issues. I will not accept passages taken out of their context and twisted to proof-text an uninformed eisegetical stance.

No, that passage is clearly concerned with Jesus praying for God to save him. That's what it says. It's not out of context, it's clear-cut and explicit. Jesus prayed and had a God. Accept it.

"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will".

"My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done".

Are you seriously telling me that I can SERIOUSLY take something as EXPLICIT as this OUT OF CONTEXT? Really? Jesus was clearly praying for God to save him. These two verse's are irrefutable evidence.

 

[Animevox]

I worship both, since both Father and Son are God.

God is one throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. The trinity doesn't exist in the Bible. This is a later idea that people arrived at after the Bible was written.

Thomas was there. When Thomas saw him after the resurrection, Thomas claimed him as God and got no argument.

You cannot conclude that Jesus is God by just arguing from silence. It is clear that to affirm Jesus is God involves logical self-contradiction and contradiction with the divine scriptures.

Now let me bring you to a passage where Jesus Christ is before the Jewish Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin asks him "Are you the Messiah, The Son of The Living God?" and Jesus said "I am" in Marks Gospel. But in Matthew and Luke's account of the same episode, Jesus says "You say that I am" so unless you can first establish the actual words of Jesus, you cannot build a reasonable commentary on that.

When"LORD" is found all caps, it uses "LORD" as a substitution for the tetragrammaton.
See? There are all kinds of implications that Jesus is Divine.

The Bible translator's just do a trick on people. Because when they translate "LORD" or "Son of God" in reference to Jesus Christ (pbuh) they put a capital "S" in son, and they capitalize all of "LORD".

In Greek, there's no capital or lower case, it's a total arbitrary thing the translators are doing. It's just a translation trick, it's not in the text.

 

[sojourner]

God is the God of everyone. Islam isn't an Arab-based religion. Please, don't speak of what you know so little.

...Which is why Muslims bow toward Mecca and which is why the Quran is written in Arabic...
because Islam is such a universal religion.

God isn't human. You don't put human-like attributes to God.

The writers of Genesis certainly did...

Are you implying that the writer is wrong?

No, I'm implying simply that you said "God said it," which is clearly not the case here.

but when I take a verse, you say "God didn't say it". Well by saying so, you're basically just cherry-picking your own Bible.

that's right! Because you said that "God said it." Of course I'm going to point that out! Pointing out your error doesn't constitute "cherry-picking."

 

[sojourner]

No, that passage is clearly concerned with Jesus praying for God to save him. That's what it says. It's not out of context, it's clear-cut and explicit. Jesus prayed and had a God. Accept it.

No, the passage is clearly dealing with Jesus' priesthood. Accept it.

"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will".

"My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done".

Are you seriously telling me that I can SERIOUSLY take something as EXPLICIT as this OUT OF CONTEXT? Really? Jesus was clearly praying for God to save him. These two verse's are irrefutable evidence.

These passages have nothing to do with Hebrews.

 

[sojourner]

God is one throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament.

And the doctrine specifically asserts God's oneness.

The trinity doesn't exist in the Bible. This is a later idea that people arrived at after the Bible was written.

Yet again: So What!? The bible isn't the only legitimate or explicit source of doctrine. Why are you so into sola scriptura? The church has never bought into that stance.

You cannot conclude that Jesus is God by just arguing from silence. It is clear that to affirm Jesus is God involves logical self-contradiction and contradiction with the divine scriptures.

I'm not arguing from silence. I'm arguing your position that you said no one who was with Jesus claimed that he was God. Clearly, Thomas did make that claim.

It's just a translation trick, it's not in the text.

It's not in the text, but in translation, context and meaning, and not necessarily transliteration, are the main concerns, so that the meaning of the text comes through -- not simply the words (which may carry no contextual meaning).

 

[Animevox]

...Which is why Muslims bow toward Mecca and which is why the Quran is written in Arabic...
because Islam is such a universal religion.

So what? The Qur'an is written in arabic. The Bible is written in greek. What's the difference? Every religion is culturally-based. The Qur'an being written in arabic doesn't mean that it's only for Arabs.

As for Muslims praying toward Mecca. So what? Even Christians. Why don't you read your Bible?

Mecca is mention in Hebrew's. "Bakkah" is thought to be an older name for "Mecca", as it is described as the location of the first mosque, which Islam teaches to be the Kaaba, and a home to Abraham(pbuh), who, according to the Qur'an, built the Kaeba with his son Ishmael(pbuh). Many translations simply render "Bakkah" as Mecca, and the passage is cryptic if they are not the same city.

However, the name Bacca or Bakka is known by all Arabs as another name for Makka, it is not known or used anywhere else.

The writers of Genesis certainly did...

Yes, they did to Jesus, and he isn't God. So God doesn't need to write.

No, I'm implying simply that you said "God said it," which is clearly not the case here.

Let's not get off topic. Point is, it's mentioned in your Bible, and many Christian's such as yourself disagree with it. How sad.

that's right! Because you said that "God said it." Of course I'm going to point that out! Pointing out your error doesn't constitute "cherry-picking."

It's in your Bible, that's all I meant, and you disagree with it.

 

[Animevox]

No, the passage is clearly dealing with Jesus' priesthood. Accept it.

That is another interpretation that you formulated from your own pre-conceived perception. That verse is clearly dealing with Jesus(pbuh) praying to his God, just like all Muslims do. If Jesus knelt down and prayed to his God, then why aren't you following his footsteps? If you truly love him, then follow his teachings and pray to the same God that he prayed to. By definition, he is a Muslim, because a "Muslim" means to "submit" and that's exactly what Jesus did. Yet Christian's don't submit. There love is false.

 

[Animevox]

And the doctrine specifically asserts God's oneness.

I don't believe the "doctrine". I believe the scriptures. The scripture's don't mention the "Trinity" so this "doctrine" that the Bible isn't the only source of revelation holds no water.

Yet again: So What!? The bible isn't the only legitimate or explicit source of doctrine. Why are you so into sola scriptura? The church has never bought into that stance.

This is why I don't believe the church's. They form their own opinion about the Bible, and when there opinions are passed down generation after generation, and when you're teaching that to kids, the Bible loses all of it's numerical value. It's nothing more than Christian dogma.

So why should we believe the Church's and there man-made doctrine's? Of course they're not gonna like sola-scriptura, because it doesn't suit there agenda, so they create different rules and standards that suit it. I rather believe the verbatim word of God. It makes much more sense, and is the BEST source of revelation.

I'm not arguing from silence. I'm arguing your position that you said no one was with Jesus claimed that he was God. Clearly, Thomas did make that claim.

It DOESN'T matter. Just because Jesus was silent when Thomas made this claim doesn't mean that Jesus is God. There are plenty of other verse's where Jesus says he has a God, he prays to God, and that God is one. I rather believe the explicit verse's over the implicit one's.

It's not in the text, but in translation, context and meaning, and not necessarily transliteration, are the main concerns, so that the meaning of the text comes through -- not simply the words (which may carry no contextual meaning).

There is no "capital" or "lower-case" in the greek-version of the Bible, so the implication that "Lord" being capitalized hints that Jesus is God already holds no water. It's a Bible-translating trick like I've already told you, they do this to subconsciously make the reader believe that Jesus is God.

If you read anywhere else where other people are called "Son of God" they use a lower-case "s". This isn't a coincidence.

It's a trick, it's not in the text, and it has nothing to do with the meaning of the Bible, because the Bible doesn't focus on capital letter or lower-case letters.

Reading the Bible in the context of the words should be enough.

 

[Animevox]

...Which is why Muslims bow toward Mecca and which is why the Quran is written in Arabic...
because Islam is such a universal religion.

The writers of Genesis certainly did...

No, I'm implying simply that you said "God said it," which is clearly not the case here.

that's right! Because you said that "God said it." Of course I'm going to point that out! Pointing out your error doesn't constitute "cherry-picking."

The very fact that Jesus was given birth, and came out as a little helpless baby is enough to refute the claim that Jesus is God. It's utter blasphemy to claim that God came out of a women and came out crying and screaming and being helpless and weak. Such nonsense is insulting to God; this itself is enough to prove Jesus isn't God. How can you claim that God came out of a woman? Are you mad? Are you insane? How can you insult God in such a manner? How could you ascribe such rubbish to God? Pitiful.

 

[sojourner]

Animevox said:

As for Muslims praying toward Mecca. So what? Even Christians. Why don't you read your Bible?

We don't pray toward Mecca. Sorry.

Animevox said:

Yes, they did to Jesus, and he isn't God. So God doesn't need to write.

Sorry. Genesis doesn't mention Jesus. but they did highly anthropomorphize God.
No, God doesn't need to write. but God also shouldn't be quoted as saying something God was never quoted as saying, such as in the Psalm you mentioned.

Animevox said:

Let's not get off topic. Point is, it's mentioned in your Bible, and many Christian's such as yourself disagree with it. How sad.

So? slavery is mentioned in the bible, and we disagree with that. Is that sad?

Animevox said:

It's in your Bible, that's all I meant, and you disagree with it.

I don't disagree with it. I disagree 1) that God said it, as you assert, and 2) that "son of man" in the Psalms is completely synonymous with "Son of Man," as Jesus uses the term.

 

[sojourner]

Animevox said:

That is another interpretation that you formulated from your own pre-conceived perception. That verse is clearly dealing with Jesus(pbuh) praying to his God, just like all Muslims do.

Nope. It has to do with the exegetical process, which has been a train wreck in your hands in this thread.

Animevox said:

If Jesus knelt down and prayed to his God, then why aren't you following his footsteps? If you truly love him, then follow his teachings and pray to the same God that he prayed to. By definition, he is a Muslim, because a "Muslim" means to "submit" and that's exactly what Jesus did. Yet Christian's don't submit. There love is false.

This is nothing more than thinly-veiled provocation and misrepresentation. we certainly do follow God's will. But that doesn't make us remotely Muslim. Nor did it make Jesus so, especially because Islam didn't exist until about 600 years after his death.

 

[sojourner]

I don't believe the "doctrine". I believe the scriptures. The scripture's don't mention the "Trinity" so this "doctrine" that the Bible isn't the only source of revelation holds no water.



This is why I don't believe the church's. They form their own opinion about the Bible, and when there opinions are passed down generation after generation, and when you're teaching that to kids, the Bible loses all of it's numerical value. It's nothing more than Christian dogma.

So why should we believe the Church's and there man-made doctrine's? Of course they're not gonna like sola-scriptura, because it doesn't suit there agenda, so they create different rules and standards that suit it. I rather believe the verbatim word of God. It makes much more sense, and is the BEST source of revelation.



It DOESN'T matter. Just because Jesus was silent when Thomas made this claim doesn't mean that Jesus is God. There are plenty of other verse's where Jesus says he has a God, he prays to God, and that God is one. I rather believe the explicit verse's over the implicit one's.



There is no "capital" or "lower-case" in the greek-version of the Bible, so the implication that "Lord" being capitalized hints that Jesus is God already holds no water. It's a Bible-translating trick like I've already told you, they do this to subconsciously make the reader believe that Jesus is God.

If you read anywhere else where other people are called "Son of God" they use a lower-case "s". This isn't a coincidence.

It's a trick, it's not in the text, and it has nothing to do with the meaning of the Bible, because the Bible doesn't focus on capital letter or lower-case letters.

Reading the Bible in the context of the words should be enough.

Since Christians were formulating doctrine well before there ever was a bible, and since the bible is part of Christian Tradition, that position certainly does hold water, and the fact that you don't understand 1) how doctrine has always been formulated, 2) the nature of the texts and how we have always used them, and 3) that the bible isn't the "verbatim word of God" only goes to bolster my earlier argument that you simply don't have a dog in this fight.

 

[sojourner]

The very fact that Jesus was given birth, and came out as a little helpless baby is enough to refute the claim that Jesus is God. It's utter blasphemy to claim that God came out of a women and came out crying and screaming and being helpless and weak. Such nonsense is insulting to God; this itself is enough to prove Jesus isn't God. How can you claim that God came out of a woman? Are you mad? Are you insane? How can you insult God in such a manner? How could you ascribe such rubbish to God? Pitiful.

How else would God become Incarnate? Would he grow out of a cabbage patch? No, wait! The stork would bring him! The very fact that Jesus was given birth and came out -- not only as a little helpless baby, but as an outcast in a stable -- is enough to show both God's determination to save us, as well as God's wish to reconcile us to God's Self.

Once again, thank you for demonstrating that you simply don't have a dog in this fight. It's like the house is on fire, and so you knit a potholder, thinking it will help.

 

[Shermana]

Animevox said:

It DOESN'T matter. Just because Jesus was silent when Thomas made this claim doesn't mean that Jesus is God. There are plenty of other verse's where Jesus says he has a God, he prays to God, and that God is one. I rather believe the explicit verse's over the implicit one's.

Thomas made no such claim, even in the 4th century the phrase was recognized as a "Statement of Exclamation directed at God", i.e. not directed at Jesus. It was the ancient equivalent of OMG and this was understood even before the early orthodox church was fully united. It is rather telling that only Novatian seems to have made use of this verse as a proof text of the Trinity, even Athanasius for whatever reason didn't see fit to employ it in his debates against the Arians.

And with that said, there's good reason to believe John's gospel ended at verse 24. The ending contradicts with Matthew and Luke as well. Bernard Muller has good reason to believe the whole Doubting Thomas affair is an interpolated addition to begin with.

http://historical-jesus.info/jnadd.html

 

[Dingbat]

The most confusing part I find about Divinity of Jesus or Christ being God is that the earliest gospel we have which is that of St. Mark makes no reference to divinity or Jesus' birth. In fact in Mark the most Jesus says outright is that he is a prophet. Later on in the gospel he makes references to being the Messiah but little else. Other gospels that came later included the birth and divinity of Christ which leads to me being very confused. Usually the earliest work is likely to be the best recording and it makes little reference to anything more divine about Christ other than being a Messiah. The other Gospels tend to change dramatically what St. Mark lays out and gives a much more divine and miracle driven Christ. Which is quite different from the Christ in St. Mark who is a healer, rabbi, prophet, and hints at being the Messiah.