Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[blü 2]

Sure I do.
["before Abraham was, I AM]

Now tell me ─ what explanation of that have I already given you at least twice? Spell it out for me.

And tell me, where do the words "I am God" appear in you quote? Are you saying there's a divine typo omitting the word 'God' after 'I am'?

And tell me, since I asked you before: which explanation ─ my 'Jesus is not God' or your 'Jesus is God' ─ fits better with that quote and the other quotes I set out in my previous post to you? Talk me through it.

This time, don't forget to explain why Jesus calls the Father 'the only true god'.

And why Jesus says the Father is the god he, Jesus, worships.

"said unto Moses, "I am that I am"

I'll believe in prophecies when you give me a satisfactory demonstration of magic, the actual alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics.

Meanwhile, let me know when you finally fail to find Jesus saying "I am God".

 

[Spartan]

If he really said any of that he was being silly, and had far too high an opinion of himself.

Sure, just purposefully mouth off so the Jews will pick up stones to kill you (John 8:59). Nope. You'll need a better explanation.

 

[Spartan]

Meanwhile, let me know when you finally fail to find Jesus saying "I am God".

I was thinking the same thing of you - let us know when you finally get it (John 8:58).

By the way, here's another killer verse that buries you:

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

Revelation 22:13 repeats Jesus speaking that he is the "Alpha and Omega," the same thing he said above.

And both scriptures are "red letter" scriptures in the Bible (i.e. the words of Jesus).

Gotta love it! (Snoopy dance)

 

[blü 2]

I was thinking the same thing of you - let us know when you finally get it (John 8:58).

Ah, so you didn't read my two previous replies to you about John 5:58. That explains a fair bit.

And you still can't tell me why Jesus worships the Father?

Still can't tell me why Jesus calls the Father 'the only true god'?

Still not able to go near those questions, still having to cherry-pick what you'll answer?

By the way, here's another killer verse that buries you:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” - Jesus, Revelation 1:8

That's hardly a problem after I've given you all of Jesus' denials that he's God, and you haven't got a single one of him claiming to be or Paul claiming him to be.

I will allow in passing that it's arguable that John of Patmos gives us a 6th Jesus in the NT.

Revelation 22:13 repeats Jesus speaking that he is the "Alpha and Omega," the same think he said above.

Bearing all of Jesus' plain denials that he's God, that must mean Jesus is using that title in his role as God's agent. Because as you recall, Jesus said,

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”​

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 ..., I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

Or is it your argument that Jesus was lying when he said those things? In which case he might as easily be lying in Revelation.

 

[Spartan]

Ah, so you didn't read my two previous replies to you about John 5:58. That explains a fair bit.

And you still can't tell me why Jesus worships the Father?

Still can't tell me why Jesus calls the Father 'the only true god'?

Still not able to go near those questions, still having to cherry-pick what you'll answer?

That's hardly a problem after I've given you all of Jesus' denials that he's God, and you haven't got a single one of him claiming to be or Paul claiming him to be.

I will allow in passing that it's arguable that John of Patmos gives us a 6th Jesus in the NT.
Bearing all of Jesus' plain denials that he's God, that must mean Jesus is using that title in his role as God's agent. Because as you recall, Jesus said,

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”​

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 ..., I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

Or is it your argument that Jesus was lying when he said those things? In which case he might as easily be lying in Revelation.

See my previous posts why those are ineffective.

 

[blü 2]

See my previous posts why those are ineffective.

Still can't say why Jesus calls the Father the only true God?

Still can't say why Jesus says he worships the Father?

Still think Jesus said, Me, me, why have I forsaken me?

Still can't bring yourself to admit that if there was indeed an historical Jesus among the five or six on offer in the NT, neither he nor anyone else had heard of the Trinity doctrine?

You have the makings of a fine apologist ─ no, I unconditionally withdraw that and apologize. It's too gross an insult, and it isn't even true.

 

[Kenny]

Being a Christian doesn't make you a Jew, sir.

Just going by what scripture says. It's the circumcision of the heart.

 

[Marcion]

I certainly see the Christian Christ Jesus as largely fictional. But the Yeshua of Q-lite may or may not have been historically connected to the person who allegedly started the original mission.

So, the REAL Jesus, the historical Jesus of Q-lite, was more of a tantric-yogic Master and not yet the Jesus that was created by Christianity. His real teachings are (still) universal and can be applied within or without any religious or non-religious setting. In fact, you may consider the real teachings of Jesus as anti-religious, in the sense that they go to the heart of mysticism, which is beyond religious bickering, divisiveness and superstitions.

 

[metis]

I've thought about that before. It is true that we weren't under the Jewish law, but as I thought about it, every person has a law which we brake anyways. So I figured, either way, I still needed Jesus.

Exactly, and the Sermon On the Mount still so much resonates with me.

 

[metis]

Romans chapter 1 addresses that very issue. Basically, everybody, Jew and Gentile alike, has a sense of right and wrong and we don't always do what it right, so we do in fact all need Jesus.

And I think we need those in all religions and also secular elements that speak up and teach the "law of love".

 

[JJ50]

Sure, just purposefully mouth off so the Jews will pick up stones to kill you (John 8:59). Nope. You'll need a better explanation.

The gospel writers created the character called Jesus. Much of what is attributed to him isn't credible.

 

[metis]

The gospel writers created the character called Jesus. Much of what is attributed to him isn't credible.

How do you supposedly know that?

I am not a believer in scriptural inerrancy, but trying to figure out what Jesus actually said versus words put into his mouth is so terribly difficult, and this is true about historical accounts in general, btw.

So, my approach is to real all scripture as allegory, learn from what they teach, and then see what's possibly usable. It's an imprecise art but it's the best that I can do. To put it another way, we're in an area where uncertainty is paramount.

 

[JJ50]

How do you supposedly know that?

I am not a believer in scriptural inerrancy, but trying to figure out what Jesus actually said versus words put into his mouth is so terribly difficult, and this is true about historical accounts in general, btw.

So, my approach is to real all scripture as allegory, learn from what they teach, and then see what's possibly usable. It's an imprecise art but it's the best that I can do. To put it another way, we're in an area where uncertainty is paramount.

Oh come on the things attributed to Jesus aren't credible, no one who is truly dead is resurrected. The miracles he is supposed to have performed aren't possible. Demons don't exist.

 

[Spartan]

The gospel writers created the character called Jesus. Much of what is attributed to him isn't credible.

Sounds like a theory, JJ. Got any evidence to back that up?

 

[JJ50]

Sounds like a theory, JJ. Got any evidence to back that up?

No one has any evidence to back up the Biblical accounts of the things that guy was supposed to have done, the Bible is NOT evidence.

 

[metis]

Oh come on the things attributed to Jesus aren't credible, no one who is truly dead is resurrected. The miracles he is supposed to have performed aren't possible. Demons don't exist.

I'm a scientist, and as a scientist it's always important for us to realize our limitations in terms of what we both know and don't know.

 

[Spartan]

No one has any evidence to back up the Biblical accounts of the things that guy was supposed to have done, the Bible is NOT evidence.

Sorry, but the New Testament was not "the Bible" for several hundred years after the events in the life of Christ. The Gospels and Epistles were actually over two dozen independent manuscripts, written by multiple individuals, floating around separate communities and countries. The "Gospels" were separate, independent, historical manuscripts - INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATIONS.

So do try to have some discernment about your claims so they sound credible, which they don't at the present time.

 

[JJ50]

Sorry, but the New Testament was not "the Bible" for several hundred years after the events in the life of Christ. The Gospels and Epistles were actually over two dozen independent manuscripts, written by multiple individuals, floating around separate communities and countries. The "Gospels" were separate, independent, historical manuscripts - INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATIONS.

So do try to have some discernment about your claims so they sound credible, which they don't at the present time.

The gospels are NOT historical manuscripts, however much you wish to pretend they are.

 

[Spartan]

The gospels are NOT historical manuscripts, however much you wish to pretend they are.

Sorry, you're not credible. Nor do I believe you've done any serious investigations to support that claim.

 

[JJ50]

Sorry, you're not credible. Nor do I believe you've done any serious investigations to support that claim.

If you believe the things attributed to Jesus have any credibility, you obviously don't have a questioning mind.