Did Jesus say he was God???

[Mark2020]

.....

Originally Posted by Mark2020

(Matthew 28:19 [KJV]) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

"And after the passion, and the resurrection, and the ascension, Thaddæus went to Abgarus; and having found him in health, he gave him an account of the incarnation of Christ, and baptized him, with all his house. And having instructed great multitudes, both of Hebrews and Greeks, Syrians and Armenians, he baptized them in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, having anointed them with the holy perfume;"
Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddæus

"Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in running water." Didache

"and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" The Diatessaron

"Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117)

He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD)

“Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Hippolytus (170 – 235)

“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Cyprian (died September 14, 258)

"And what can the impious have to say if the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" Saint Gregory of Neocaesarea, also known as Gregory Thaumaturgus or Gregory the Wonderworker, (ca. 213 – ca. 270 AD)

"Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Saint Victorinus of Pettau or of Poetovio (died 303 or 304),

"Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" St. Gregory of Nyssa (c 335 – after 394)

"Go ye, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;"John Chrysostom (c. 349–407)

"Just as in our times, now that the faith hath been revealed, which then was veiled, to all men that have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"
Augustin (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430)

I have tens of other quotes if someone wants.

[Shermana]

And the Didache too.

What About The Didache? by Thomas Weisser - Christianity - Zimbio

The Didache is an ancient writing attributed to the Apostles. Since the discovery of an eleventh-century copy of it in 1875, it has been the subject of great controversy. Various dates have been ascribed to it and authorities have yet to agree on a date. The problem that we must consider is that some say it was written in the first century.


The particular part we are concerned with is Didache 7:


But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


Many Trinitarians claim this proves the Early Church was Trinitarian. Let us first consider that we are dealing with a forgery. Although it is ascribed to the Apostles they probably never saw it. Secondly, the internal evidence points to Didache 7 as an interpolation, or later addition. In Didache 9, which deals with communion, the writer says, "But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

Shortly after saying baptism should be performed in the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit he states the absolute necessity of being baptized in the name of the Lord (i.e., Jesus-the same Greek word as in Acts 10:48). This represents an obvious contradiction and gives validity to the argument Didache 7 is an interpolation.


Thirdly, the writer's approval of baptism by pouring presents a problem with dating it in the first century. Bigg points out that this must have been written after A.D. 250. He argues that pouring was generally unacceptable in baptism as late as Cyprian (c.250). Therefore, Didache 7 could be no earlier than the late third century.

[Mark2020]

Originally Posted by Shermana

And the Didache too.
...

No need for that really.
You've already said all writers and translators are bad

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

It's not a numbers game even though that's what you want it to be. I say he meant (one in purpose) and you are ill-equipped to refute that given the way his followers interpreted his teaching in 1John 4:12-13. Surely Yeshua didn't mean for his disciples to be one "God". No. He meant one in purpose.

Sure I've given context. I've given it throughout this thread. Your refusal to pay attention to it says more about you than me. Here's context right here....

John 17:22-23
And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and loved them, as you loved me.

1John 4:12-13
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Notes on the Bible by Albert Barnes
And the glory ... - The honor which thou hast conferred on me by admitting me to union with thee, the same honor I have conferred on them by admitting them to like union with me. May be one, even as we are one - Not in nature, or in the mode of existence - for this was not the subject of discourse, and would be impossible - but in feeling, in principle, in purpose.

People's New Testament
17:22,23 The glory which thou gavest to me I have given to them. God gave Christ the glory of Sonship and this resulted in their unity. So Christ gives to his disciples the glory of becoming the sons of God (Joh 1:12 1Jo 3:1). This glory, the adoption and gift of the Spirit, ought to effect that they may be one as we are one. We cannot pray this prayer of Jesus and have the party spirit or labor to build up sectarianism. In the spirit of love we should oppose it, and labor to destroy sectarian names, creeds, organizations and interests. As the Son and the Father are one, have one work, one kingdom, one spirit, one interest, so must all that are Christ's. We must keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). There is one body and one Spirit, as there is one Lord (Eph 4:4,5).

Sure it is. At least when it comes to your scriptures it can.

Gen. 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This unity between Adam and Eve is not viewed as if it would be one person walking around but one is purpose.

Again: It is impossible for you to read the mind of God and say what He meant. I believe He meant what He said.

I have to do a LOL. Do you even know the meaning of context? Since you think I don't maybe you can explain it to me in simple terms.

This in effect says we who have God dwelling in us are God.

Of course God is not substantive. That is why I don't say that Jesus is God because that would include the flesh as God but I say that Jesus is God in the flesh. However for identification purposes Jesus is God. However feeling, principle and purpose may fall short in defining God. It is much easier to smply say that God is the abiding Spirit in Jesus.

The things that ought to be and the things that are, tend to be quite different. We must have unity but the reality is far from what it should be.

You are in error. Parents become one flesh in their children. Children are rarely one in purpose with their parents. Even the parents often suffer from not being one in purpose. (I argue with my wife often)

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by Shermana

Rejecting your declaration of personal prophetic inspiration is not rejecting G-d. But I appreciate you revealing that you demand personal prophetic acknowledgement. You are facing a mighty severe Heavenly punishment if you do not repent of this false declaration of personal prophecy. In fact, I'd personally have you mentally evaluated. I hope you realize that you can't force people to accept you as a prophet as part of your argument, you have to actually debate and not rely on demanding their acceptance from others of you as speaking Holy Truth without question.

Sadly, it seems so many Trinitarians resort to this demand for Accepting some degree of prophetic inspiration within them when they can't actually argue their case. Sadly.

Rejecting a declaration means little but rejecting because you can't recognize God means much.

I demand nothing. I have simply informed you that God speaks through me.

If my declaration were false I would be in big trouble but God has blessed me greatly, has worked through me to save people and continues to bless me greatly. If He wanted to stop me all He would have to do is take my life. He said that He could do that anytime He wants.

The psychologists are as daffy as daffy duck. I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw one. This is an old tactic. A person believing in God must be mentally deficient or insane. Of course the person doing the analyzing is fine. That is the most self serving analysis ever attempted. (or as Festus put it: Ac 26:24 And as he thus made his defense, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad.)

I have all these pages and you think I don't appeal to reason! I am simply saying that I can make al these reasonable arguments but it won't make a bit of diffeence to you if you can't see God in the arguments. If a blind man reads a book what is he going to say he is reading?

Sadly there is no argument that can help you in your present condition. A change of heart would be good. Getting to know God would be even better.

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by Rasheed Saeed

I haven't read every single post, so this might have already been covered.

To define the assumption Jesus calming to be God doesn't add up to his sacrifice of his own son, Jesus. So God is punishing us for his "sacrifice" of his son(Though, he says we are all his children), Jesus. But Jesus is God is he not? So this circle will keep back-firing.

This might be new to this thread but is present in other threads, perhaps presented a bit differently.

I did not provide an assumption in the OP; I proovided evidence.

I am not sure to what "us" you are referring. Evil deeds such as crucifying God will not go unpunished unless the person repents. The sacrifice is the assurance by God's own participation that we will be forgiven.

I am not sure what the concept is here. God never suffers backfires so it would be futile to argue that.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Muffled

I did not provide an assumption in the OP; I proovided evidence.

You asked a direct question in the OP and the answer is NO. What followed was your assumption by the lists of verses you presented. If it was truly "evidence" as you claim there would hardly be any dispute but we find ourselves 470 pages and 4683 comments later......As I've said before this is not a new subject and will remain a circular discussion on the matter.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mark2020

Compared to that, what you have is a joke.

Again, it's a subject raised by scholars and theologians the like. Eseubius and Origen are regarded as historical persons writing history. I respect the fact that you and I are in disagreement but your tone is a little disrespectful. Lively debate is fine but you seem to take it to another level.

Originally Posted by Mark2020

But you surely ignored a lot of posts here.

I read them....and I've seen the information before and it still doesn't change the historical record.....

[Mark2020]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Again, it's a subject...

I've already given at least ten different quotings of the verse, some of them before your guys.
Picking Eusebius and Origen (whose quotes were even different from each other) over tens of others only shows a biased view.
I don't mean to insult you, but the evidence given by your scholars is the joke. It's nowhere near the hundreds or thousands of manuscripts, translations or quotes.

I read them....and I've seen the information before and it still doesn't change the historical record.....

If that's what you want to believe. I don't really care.

[Shermana]

some of them before your guys.

And when I show you that they're interpolations you start accusing me of hating everyone Roman and then go back to repeat your argument as if it's just 'useless words".