Did Jesus say he was God??? (moral, Earth, Messiah, virgin)

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

I agree "Son of God" is a title, and one of respect, it just isn't true in a physical sense.

I would point out that the only place Jesus calls Himself Jehovah is in Revelations, which is not Gospel, but rather commentary and prophecy. Commentary and prophecy is full of symbolic usage.

Earlier someone else said "Why couldn't God take a little piece of Himself and put it into Jesus. . .?"

Because the little piece, if God would actually be able to invest pieces of Himself in anything would cease to be God as soon as it was separated from God. The Torah, the Scrolls, the Qur'an and the Gospel insure us that God is Single and cannot be multiplied or divided.

This universe is contingent upon a Creator, it cannot exist without the exercise of the Will of God. God is contingent upon nothing else than God. That makes God without "physical (in the sense of matter or energy of this universe) form" Creation i9s Material, and GOd is Other.

Regards,
Scott

This is an absolutely contrary statement to God's omnipresence. Omnipresence means that God exists in everything.

God does not have to go anywhere or be separated in order to control a body. He is already there and His oneness is not changed when He takes control of a body.

This is correct and explains why God is not divided when He inhabits the body of Jesus.

This is also true but it is not evidence against the divinity of Jesus.

This is not the case. I had a verse from John saying this in the OP.

[YmirGF]

My two cents is that not a lot of you understand the inherent nature of Oneness. It is as if folks have this stunted vision of human personality and insist on squeezing everything through that narrow appeture. Since they do not understand the nature of Oneness and what that really means they cling to their amusing little list of can's and cannot's as if they are authorities on the fullness of human identity. If only reality were so simple and so easily defined. Such is the arrogance of "modern" man as we have this tendency to believe we have everything neatly figured out and there is no possibility we are in error. (I sure hope the Christ does his homework prior to his next "romp" here on Earth as he is going to have a pretty tough "sell job" to get his message across.)

In essence, due to the all encompassing nature of Oneness and conscious realization OF Oneness it is consistent for the Christ to refer to a "father" and also call himself a "son" or perhaps even admit that people who labelled him as such were right to do so. It is a slippery slope though as language cannot fully describe the connection between the two other than allude to the reality that the physical image is a manifestion of the entity (Father or God). Ah well, what would I know as I don't have any charming little books to back up what I am saying. I have only my experience and my own personal visions. Life is tough, eh? As usual, what would I know. I never claim to be right but curiously I never insist that I am wrong, lol.

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

My two cents is that not a lot of you understand the inherent nature of Oneness. It is as if folks have this stunted vision of human personality and insist on squeezing everything through that narrow appeture. Since they do not understand the nature of Oneness and what that really means they cling to their amusing little list of can's and cannot's as if they are authorities on the fullness of human identity. If only reality were so simple and so easily defined. Such is the arrogance of "modern" man as we have this tendency to believe we have everything neatly figured out and there is no possibility we are in error. (I sure hope the Christ does his homework prior to his next "romp" here on Earth as he is going to have a pretty tough "sell job" to get his message across.)

In essence, due to the all encompassing nature of Oneness and conscious realization OF Oneness it is consistent for the Christ to refer to a "father" and also call himself a "son" or perhaps even admit that people who labelled him as such were right to do so. It is a slippery slope though as language cannot fully describe the connection between the two other than allude to the reality that the physical image is a manifestion of the entity (Father or God). Ah well, what would I know as I don't have any charming little books to back up what I am saying. I have only my experience and my own personal visions. Life is tough, eh? As usual, what would I know. I never claim to be right but curiously I never insist that I am wrong, lol.

It seems natural enough for people to compare God to Human Beings wanting Him to be like us. The truth is that the likeness is not complete. We are finite and God is infinite. We know a little but God knows all. We have a little power but God controls all.

Then it becomes even harder for people to distinguish between the outward appearance of man in Jesus and the inward spirit of God. People seem to think because Jesus looks like a man that He can't be God but that is judging by appearances.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Muffled

It seems natural enough for people to compare God to Human Beings wanting Him to be like us.

I think it's natural for us to compare God to human beings because the Bible says we're created in His image.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I think it's natural for us to compare God to human beings because the Bible says we're created in His image.

Doesn't necessarily mean a physical image. I think one needs to look for an image spiritual in nature. In particular "man" seems to share in some small degree the ability to exercise free will. The Bible is much more concerned with spiritual matters than it is with physical descriptions.

Regards,
Scott

[Dirty Penguin]

I was brought here from that long drawn out thread (Koran.....Jesus is son).

I was told that proof of Jesus being (God in the flesh) could be found here. I've found nothing but the contrary........

Jesus was not God. How do I know this....? He said it himself......Jesus did God's, not his, will. How do I know this....? He said it himself.

Here is what Jesus said. This should be plain and simple.....

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.


Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.


Joh 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent
me, and to accomplish his work.


Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.


Lu 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."


Joh 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me.


Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me,
for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord,
but he sent me.


Mr 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


Joh 7:16 So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who
sent me;


Mt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


Mr 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good
but God alone.


John 8:50 "And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

I'm quite sure there is plenty more. Why does it seem so hard to take Jesus's word for it? He said he was here to do God's will, Everything he did was by leave of God, He could do nothing but by the will of God., Any "divinity" Jesus had was given to him by God...etc...etc...etc........

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Doesn't necessarily mean a physical image.

Yeah, well I've heard that before. But I can't think of a single solitary example of where we might use "image" to mean anything other than the representation of something's physical qualities. Maybe you can give me an example of how you would personally use the word "image" to mean something else.

The Bible is much more concerned with spiritual matters than it is with physical descriptions.

True, but when it speaks of God creating man in His image, it is speaking of the physical creation of the universe and of all life. Each of the animals was created by God to reproduce after its own kind. Man, however, was formed "in God's image, after His likeness." Five chapters later, we read that Adam begot a son "in his image, after his likeness." In other words, when Adam reproduced, his offspring were of his same species.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by DreGod07

I'm quite sure there is plenty more.

Yes, there are many, many more.

Why does it seem so hard to take Jesus's word for it? He said he was here to do God's will, Everything he did was by leave of God, He could do nothing but by the will of God.

Agreed.

Any "divinity" Jesus had was given to him by God...etc...etc...etc........

And yet the Only Begotton Son of a divine being would pretty much have to be divine himself, wouldn't you agree?