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

[F0uad]

no, your China analogy took it off topic.
Me Myself was pointing out that one cannot know a person completely.

You created a strawman with your China talk.

Where is the straw?
You wasn't the other person was, so your point here is that we cannot know someone fully?? Therefore.....

The point being that the Koran is in the same boat he scoffs at for the Bible being in.

Thats not true at all as i have pointed out a couple of times already. Your getting annoying i will just stop here.

OnTopiC:

I think that the idea of Jesus(pbuh) being a deity was later developed true oral sayings and scripture.
Ill show you a couple of scriptures that confirms my view, Mark's Gospel coming from 65-75 AD, Luke and Matthews Gospel between and then we have John's gospel ranging from 90 to 100 AD.

Christian scholars and historians belief that Mark (The oldest Gospel) was a source to use by Matthew and Luke in the opposition in there own gospels. Now that is natural if someone has written an gospel your going to write a other one by using the existence document and to bring out the message you would like to have.
Some Christians Scholars agree that Matthew and Luke made ''improvements'' by Mark's gospel with improvements i mean developing the idea of Jesus(pbuh) being a deity.
I think the ''Improvements'' are very important ill show you a couple that i know:

For example in Mark's gospel someone addresses Jesus(pbuh) as Rabi such in mark chapter 9 verse 5 however in Matthew chapter 17 verse 4 the same incident you can compare them side by side the same person refers Jesus as lord. So in the earlier gospel he is called Rabi(teacher) and in the newer one he is called lord. Or compare mark 4 verse 38 where they call him Teacher and again in Matthew its Lord same incident.

There are improvements what we find in the newer gospels where Jesus(pbuh) describes him as lord for example in mark 13 verse 35 it says ''master of the house '' compare that with Matthew 24 verse 42 where he allegedly says ''your Lord'' again same incident.

There are later improvement that calls Jesus(pbuh) as a son of god for example in Mark chapter 8 verse 29 Peter calls him ''the Messiah'' but compare that with Matthew chapter 16 verse 16 where Peter replies with ''your the messiah the son of the living God''. so the newer gospel here insured ''the son of the living god'' what is admitted by many scholars who worked on this.

There are later improvements where Jesus(pbuh) named God by hes name in Mark and later in Matthew its Father. Mark Chapter 3 verse 35 says ''Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother'' if we compare that with Matthew 12 verse 50 it says ''For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." So in the oldest Gospel its god and the newer one its Father.

There are also later improvements to reduce the emphasis of One-God by Jesus(pbuh) in Mark its ''Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one'' Wherein Matthew deleted the first commandment from Deuteronomy and has it as this ''And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.This is the great and first commandment.''
So here in the newer gospel that of Matthew the first commandment is thrown out the sayings of Jesus(pbuh) so Matthew has it all wrong since the first commandment isn't ''You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'' just read Deuteronomy or the sayings of Jesus(pbuh) in Mark.

Now i can go on and on i didn't even quote John once but he is the most simple to point out since he is the latest gospel wherein he is describes as a super deity.
I am not claiming that who ever wrote Mark's gospel didn't belief Jesus(pbuh) was god i am simply making the argument that the story was improved over and over starting at the beginning not to forget that Paul had much influences in the Christian Community and scriptures.

 

[McBell]

Thats not true at all as i have pointed out a couple of times already.

opinions vary.

Your getting annoying i will just stop here.

I understand.

 

[rusra02]

Give me one unequivocal statement where Jesus Christ unambiguously states his own divinity.

Jesus never claimed to be Almighty God. I believe there are no verses in the Bible that unambiguously state otherwise. Jesus said in prayer to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) When accused by Jews of making himself equal to God, Jesus replied: Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “you are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son."(John 10:34-36)
Both in his pre-human existence and after his resurrection, Jesus is a "Mighty God" as Isaiah 9:6 gives him this title. Yet, he remains subject to his Father. (1 Corinthians 11:3) Neither the word nor the idea of a trinity appears in the Bible.

​

.​

 

[Animevox]

And yet that is what the Koran is.
Actually, the Koran is not even gods words as spoken to Mohammed.
they are Gabrial's words as spoken to Mohammed.
Or at best they are gods words as spoken to Gabriel as spoken to Mohammed.

So, using your logic....


Perhaps you should clean up your own back yard before sticking your nose in your neighbors?


Apparently he prefers to allow hundreds of hadiths to be written all saying all manner of things even contradicting each other and the Koran.

yeah, way better proof of gods word you got there...

Everything in the Qur'an is directly God's words through Gabriel (Who is the Angel; Holy Spirit, Not like you and me) spoken to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). There's a major difference between the two. One is people claiming they spoke to God and wrote it from there own minds, while the other is directly from God, which is why you won't find any contradiction/discrepancy in the Qur'an, while in the Bible, you'd find plenty.

Nice try using the Hadith's though, that isn't our Holy Book, it doesn't represent Islam, The Holy Qur'an does.

On the other hand, The Bible does represent Christianity, and it is flawed.

 

[Animevox]

Jesus never claimed to be Almighty God. I believe there are no verses in the Bible that unambiguously state otherwise. Jesus said in prayer to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) When accused by Jews of making himself equal to God, Jesus replied: Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “you are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son."(John 10:34-36)
Both in his pre-human existence and after his resurrection, Jesus is a "Mighty God" as Isaiah 9:6 gives him this title. Yet, he remains subject to his Father. (1 Corinthians 11:3) Neither the word nor the idea of a trinity appears in the Bible.

​

.​

What the Qur'an shows clearly is that Jesus can't be part of a trinity.
God is One throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament.
The word "trinity" doesn't even exist in the bible.
This is a later idea that people arrived at.

 

[McBell]

Everything in the Qur'an is directly God's words through Gabriel (Who is the Angel; Holy Spirit, Not like you and me) spoken to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). There's a major difference between the two. One is people claiming they spoke to God and wrote it from there own minds, while the other is directly from God, which is why you won't find any contradiction/discrepancy in the Qur'an, while in the Bible, you'd find plenty.

Nice try using the Hadith's though, that isn't our Holy Book, it doesn't represent Islam, The Holy Qur'an does.

On the other hand, The Bible does represent Christianity, and it is flawed.

I understand that you are not likely to accept the fact that the koran is actually in worse shape than the Bible using your logic.


The Bible is supposed to be straight from gods mouth to a person who wrote it down.
The Koran is supposed to be gods words as spoken to gabrial, as spoken to Mohammad, as spoken to Mohammed's followers for years and years and years before being written down. Then you gotta add all the Hadith's.

Now if you want to continue counting the hits and ignoring the misses in order to falsely puff up your favorite book, that is fine with me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Determined to be authentic and authentic are two different things. It's either authentic or it isn't. As for the Qur'an, it isn't the same. The Qur'an is directly God's words. The angel (Gabriel; The Holy Spirit) who isn't part of God; spoke to God, and delivered the message directly to the Messenger/Prophet at the time, and he having a miraculous memory spoke it, as others wrote it down for him. There's a difference, one is writing God's words directly from the Prophet having memorized it, while the other is just writing from your own mind and claiming it to be from inspiration.

Then the Book of Mormon must be even more true than the Quran.

Joseph Smith wrote the whole thing himself, as God directed him to do.

 

[Animevox]

I understand that you are not likely to accept the fact that the koran is actually in worse shape than the Bible using your logic.


The Bible is supposed to be straight from gods mouth to a person who wrote it down.
The Koran is supposed to be gods words as spoken to gabrial, as spoken to Mohammad, as spoken to Mohammed's followers for years and years and years before being written down. Then you gotta add all the Hadith's.

Now if you want to continue counting the hits and ignoring the misses in order to falsely puff up your favorite book, that is fine with me.

Neither the Qur'an or the Bible came from God's mouth to a person. How dare you put human-attributes to God?

The Bible was written by people who claimed that it was out of inspiration from God, just because they said it was out of inspiration doesn't mean that it was from God. Proof of this is actually reading the Bible, doesn't look like God's work, does it? So it's basically just people writing it hoping for people to believe that it was from God.

As for the Qur'an, it's completely different. It makes more sense for a religion as a whole, doesn't contradict itself, and is God's words. Proof that it is God's words is that it's never been changed for 1400 years.

It all boils down to which one makes more sense, would I believe some people's writings claiming that it was from God, or a Prophet that spoke to God thru the Holy Spirit? I would rather believe the Qur'an because it seems WAY more like God's work, while the Bible is flawed and contains many contradictions and the Qur'an reaffirms that.

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy" Qur'an (4:82)

 

[Shermana]

John 14:9
"If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

That means Jesus is the Representative, in context to the rest of the passage. Most Trinitarians step on this one with caution. Representative does not equate to Same being of "different person". Origen says this pretty much in other words. It simply means to know Jesus is to know what God is LIKE, as prominent Trinitarian scholar Barclay explains:

Examining the Trinity: Seen Me: Seen Father-John 14:7-9

*
Origen, the greatest and most knowledgeable scholar of the NT Greek explained John 14:9:

"But ... God is invisible .... Whereas, on the contrary, God, the Father of Christ, is said to be seen, because `he who sees the Son,' he says, `sees also the Father.' This certainly would press us hard [to explain], were the expression not understood by us more correctly of understanding, and not of seeing. For he who has understood the Son will understand the Father also." - p. 277, vol. iv, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publishing.

Trinitarian minister and acclaimed New Testament scholar, Dr. William Barclay, also comments on John 14:7-9:

"The Jews [including Jesus, of course, and those to whom he spoke] would count it as an article of faith that no man had seen God at any time .... To see Jesus is to see what God is like." - p. 159. "`He who has seen me has seen the Father,' Jesus is the revelation of God." - p. 161.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, p. 380, tells us:

"What is seen in a vision is a revelation from God. Statements that human beings have seen or will see God Himself do not refer to a perception of a physical aspect of God by human physical senses but a process of coming to some amount of understanding of God, often just a simple realization of His greatness or some other aspect of His nature, either by a revelatory vision (Isa. 6:15; Ezk. 1:26-28), … or by their acquaintance with Jesus Christ (Jn 14:9, cf. 1:18)." – Eerdmans, 1991.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, 1986 printing, Zondervan, pp. 513, 515, 518, explains the meanings of horao.

"Horao" means "... become aware (Gen. 37:1). (b) figuratively it comes to be used of intellectual or spiritual perception .... It also means ... attend to, know or have experienced (Deut. 11:2), or be concerned about something (Gen. 37:14; Is. 5:12)." - p. 513. - - "Besides the general meaning of to know, horao and its derivatives can mean to obtain knowledge". - p. 515.

This trinitarian reference also states:

"For the NT God is utterly invisible (Jn 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Col. 1:15) ... yet the resurrection narratives especially stress that the risen Christ is visible." - p. 518.

Professor Joseph H. Thayer (who was "the dean of New Testament scholars in America" - Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. IX) in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ("a standard in the field") also defines horao with similar meanings and specifically tells us that John 14:7, 9 is in the category of "2. to see with the mind, to perceive, to KNOW."

John 10:30
"I and the Father are one."

See John 17:21, where it says "Let them be one AS we are one", so it clearly is implying unity in purpose, thought, and action.

Too ambiguous?

Too not at all implying He's God.

 

[F0uad]

I understand that you are not likely to accept the fact that the koran is actually in worse shape than the Bible using your logic.


The Bible is supposed to be straight from gods mouth to a person who wrote it down.
The Koran is supposed to be gods words as spoken to gabrial, as spoken to Mohammad, as spoken to Mohammed's followers for years and years and years before being written down. Then you gotta add all the Hadith's.

Now if you want to continue counting the hits and ignoring the misses in order to falsely puff up your favorite book, that is fine with me.

Like i said earlier if you do not know the subjects don't make claims that you cant support.

Do we know who the Gospels wrote? No.
Each testimony differs and comes from a different time so how is this more reliable according to you then one Book? Also the Biblical preservation is based on Oral tradition so your claim that it was written down makes no sense.

The Quran was written down at the same exact date it was revealed do your homework it was only not fully compiled the compiling of the text finished 15years after Mohammed(saws) by hes close companions and guess what we have that same manuscript. Wherein the oldest gospel comes from 65 to 75 years after Jesus(pbuh) written by unknown sources and people till the newest reaching from 90 to 100 AD.

As for the hadiths you don't even know what they are so your pretty silly to make claims about them.

 

[Shermana]

Isaiah 9:6: For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:6 should read "A mighty god (Angel), the Father of the age to come" (Avi is possessive, clearly showing that the "Everlasting Father" ignores the grammar, and "Ad" doesn't always mean "Perpetual"). Justin Martyr quotes it as "Angel of Mighty counsel". Also, it's a long compound name. So there's no commas, it's one long description. "He is Mighty God" is a forced interpretation. El can mean god and angel, which it does often mean. Try asking a Jew if Isaiah 9:6 says its about God Himself in the Flesh. There's many ways of translating this.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

As Justin Martyr clearly explains:

Examining the Trinity: Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"

The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.

And my second favorite Trinitarian scholar, James Moffatt (Greek Professor Emeritus of Oxford) translated it as "mighty hero". Even more interestingly, is that the Catholic New American Bible has it as "God-hero". And as stated, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars has it as "mighty hero" as well. In addition, the "Mighty God" translation has never been once described in any Midrash as "God in the flesh".

Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible(1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero." Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Now for "everlasting Father", the Douay Rheims is about the only English version to accurately reflect this that it's "Father of" (Avi, not Av), in the posessive form, but Young's kind of gets it too.

Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

- Young's

the Father of the world to come

- Douay Rheims, the official Catholic English version, (i.e. one of the granddaddy Trinitarian English versions). This is most likely the correct rendition, since "Ad" doesn't necessarily always mean "Eternity/Perpetuity" as much as "an age". Even the Medieval Catholics recognized this.

Isaiah 43:10+11 - "You are My witnesses," says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior."

Young's Literal Translation
And gone up have saviours on mount Zion, To judge the mount of Esau, And the kingdom hath been to Jehovah!' - Obadiah 1:21

What about the "saviors" that God sends here? Some translations change it to "deliverers" to avoid this problem. God, the Savior, sends saviors. Also, the "before me" most likely refers to "More important than me", and the "after me" means "Following me" as in "Like me/as powerful as me". That's why Psalm 136:2 describes God as the "god of the gods". It's also helpful to know what "god" actually means.

Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Unfortunately for your case, that's not Jesus speaking there. Jesus doesn't speak until 1:11. And you'll see a spurious "Alpha and Omega" interpolated into the KJV that the Trintiarians forced into there.

 

[Animevox]

Then the Book of Mormon must be even more true than the Quran.

Joseph Smith wrote the whole thing himself, as God directed him to do.

The Book of Mormon isn't a revelation from God.
It was written in the 1800s by a person just like you and me.
Just because he wrote it himself doesn't make it true, and you assuming that God directed him to write it also isn't true.

By that logic, I can go out right now, write a book, and claim that it's truer than any other religion, because I wrote it myself as God told me to.

See the logic in that?

 

[Katzpur]

Then the Book of Mormon must be even more true than the Quran.

Joseph Smith wrote the whole thing himself, as God directed him to do.

I'm not sure exactly how facitious you're trying to be, but Mormons don't believe that Joseph Smith wrote one word of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Shermana]

Can we stick to the subject here and make another thread for discussion on whose prophets are right? I'm trying to shoot down "Trinity proof texts" here.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Well then, how about John 8:58, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am."

Even if Jesus was 'BORN' before Abraham doesn't mean He is God.

Or the old standby John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

That is John saying something about some 'WORD'. 'WORD' could be interpreted in so many ways. How is that an unambiguous statement of Jesus saying anything along the line of 'I am God'.

Of course there is Collossians 1:13-17, etc.
The idea of Trinity it seems to me is that the Father, Son, Spirit aren't the same individuals, but share the same Divine nature, all equally God. Just like you and I aren't the same people, but we are equally human.

That is Paul speaking not Jesus and in no clear terms shows Jesus's statement anywhere close to 'I am God and worship me' which is what the OP asks for.

So still no unambiguous statement of Jesus stating He is God.

 

[Shermana]

Well then, how about John 8:58, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am."

1. It should actually read, as Prominent Trinitarian scholars Goodspeed and Moffatt (Emeritus Professor of Greek at Oxford) put it, "I have been". Similar in a way to how "I am " in French can be used for past tense. Jesus is merely stating that he's existed since before Abraham.

2. The name itself is not really "I am" (even if the Sinaiticus says so), but "I shall be". Eyheh does not mean present tense at all.

3. Jesus is not saying that his name is I am. He's stating it as a matter of fact, whereas the name in Exodus 3:14 is stated as a name.

4. Goodspeed correctly points out that the "I am" translation is 100% Modalist, not Trinitarian, like the "Word was God" translation we see below, which he writes as "Word was Divine".

Or the old standby John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Should read "And the word was a god", anarthrous Theos. I have many, many posts on this subject on numerous threads, and can provide links for this one if asked.

Of course there is Collossians 1:13-17, etc.

Jesus is the "Firstborn of Creation", and as "Wisdom" is described in PRoverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9, Wisdom is the personified being representing God's Wisdom, though still an independent being apart from the Father Himself, this is explained further in Philo's Logos Theology. Also, it says that all things were made THROUGH him, the word "Dia" can mean "by" but only in the sense of "Through" . The created Spirit known as "Wisdom" is like the Foreman of Creation, though God is the CEO.

The idea of Trinity it seems to me is that the Father, Son, Spirit aren't the same individuals, but share the same Divine nature, all equally God.

But what is 'Nature"? Characteristics or material substance? Do the Angels ("Divine beings") not have this "nature"? The concept of "Essence" in Nicean terms most likely referred to actual material substance. And it's not scriptural.

Just like you and I aren't the same people, but we are equally human.

So that would mean Jesus and the Father are both gods, not both the same being. Except the Father is the "god of the gods" (Psalm 136:2).

 

[loverOfTruth]

Isaiah 9:6: For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 43:10+11 - "You are My witnesses," says the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior."

First of all, you cannot use prophecies from Old Testament to say Jesus claimed He is God. That is certainly not Jesus's statement. Secondly, even Jews don't interpret it that way - so that is in no certain way clear and unambiguous.

Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

I hope I helped you out with your question

Note Revelation 1:6 which states "... has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father " . It would certainly not say His God if it was Him.

So if anything that contradicts Revelation 1:8 and makes it more ambiguous as to who this Lord refers to. Moreover, God Almighty has no Beginning and no End.

So once again none of those are clear and unambiguous statements of Jesus stating He is God.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Give me one unequivocal statement where Jesus Christ unambiguously states his own divinity.

Not only that Jesus never stated in any unambiguous way that He(Jesus) was God rather Jesus stated in clear and unambiguous way that there is only One God and that's not Jesus :

Mark 12 NIV - The Parable of the Tenants - Jesus then - Bible Gateway
Under the section titled 'The Greatest Commandment'
28 One 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]
....
32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
....
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

So Even Jesus(pbuh) thought that God is One really means God is One and the person who believes in that, is close to the kingdom of God.
This is exactly the same and first commandment of Islam : There is no god but God.

And yet again, in Clear, Unequivocal and Unambiguous statements in the Bible saying 'There is no god but One God'.
"We know that 'An idol is nothing at all in the world' and that 'There is no God but one.' 1 Corinthians 8:4.

And yet again :
"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Mark 10:17, KJV

Which makes it even clearer that Jesus is referring to the One and Only God(and not himself) as good.

 

[McBell]

Can we stick to the subject here and make another thread for discussion on whose prophets are right? I'm trying to shoot down "Trinity proof texts" here.

My apologies.

 

[sojourner]

Well the Christian idea is that several unknown writes got inspired while in Islam we just have one who we know.

OK. How does "one known writer" represent Divine authority any better than "several unknown authors?"