Jesus is not God

[Boomer613]

Why does Jesus have to be God?

If God is immortal then why did Jesus die? God is eternal and cannnot die 1 Tim 1:17.

Who does Jesus pray too? Himself?

If God can't be tempted, then why was Jesus? James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Why did Jesus claim he wasn't God in the Gospel of John? John 1 does not say "Jesus was God who came to earth and died of us", nor does John 1 say: "God took on human form".

Didn’t Isaiah the prophet states more than once that God is the only saviour? God saves through His agents.
Salvation itself was provided by God. If Jesus can forgive sin, then does this not make him 'God'? If this was the case then the disciples are 'God' too, since they also forgave sins. Yeshua said that he forgave sins on the basis of authority, not on the basis of personal power. Note what He said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the son does likewise John 5:19.

And

And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Matthew 28:18

Did Jesus raise himself from the dead? “When you were buried with the Messiah in immersion, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, Who raised HIM from the dead” (Colossians 2:12).

And

If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is master, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the dead, you will be redeemed (Romans 10:9).

 

[Pastek]

Most important :

John 1 -4.12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi

It states that all the power in heaven and earth is given unto Jesus. The father refers to Jesus as God, as well. So, you aren't referencing the Bible, I take it. If you are referencing the Bible, then the ''words'', apparently don't mean anything, ie 'god could mean sir, etc. So the father is calling Jesus sir, I guess?
Anyways, we can also assume that ''wine'' means beer. So Jesus turned ''water'', we'll call that cheese, into beer.

cheese into beer.

/q

 

[Boomer613]

Hi

It states that all the power in heaven and earth is given unto Jesus. The father refers to Jesus as God, as well. So, you aren't referencing the Bible, I take it. If you are referencing the Bible, then the ''words'', apparently don't mean anything, ie 'god could mean sir, etc. So the father is calling Jesus sir, I guess?
Anyways, we can also assume that ''wine'' means beer. So Jesus turned ''water'', we'll call that cheese, into beer.

cheese into beer.

/q

Did Jesus ever say he was God?

John 10:31-33 “The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

Some quote verse 33 to prove Jesus is God. Note that the verse does not say that Jesus is God, or that he claimed to be God, but rather that the Jews said that Jesus was making himself “God.” We assert that an accurate translation of John 10:33 would reveal that the Jews said that Jesus was claiming to be “a God,” i.e., a representative of God. Because they did not believe he represented God at all, they were actually going to stone him, which indicates that their overall spiritual perception was perhaps somewhat distorted. Let us look at Jesus’ reply:

John 10:34-36 Jesusa answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are Gods?’If he called them Gods, to whom the Word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

In verse 34, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82, verses 1 and 6. There, as in other Old Testament references, representatives of God were referred to as “Gods.” This was a common Hebrew usage that all the people understood. Jesus quotes these references, and then says, in essence: “Look, if those Old Testament leaders and judges were referred to as ‘Gods,’ what about me? I am by far the best representative God has ever had. Why do you say I am blaspheming when I say I am the Son of God?”

Psalm 82:1-8 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods [i.e., those who represent Him]. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God [i.e. the Messiah], judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

These verses make it very clear that those men whom God had chosen to represent Him to His people in Israel failed miserably to do so, generally speaking. The closing verse is a prophetic plea for the Messiah to come, the perfect representative of God who would vividly mirror His heart to all people. Note how precise Jesus was in choosing just the right verses to make his point. He had rigorously studied the Hebrew Scriptures, which he would hardly have had to do if he were God.

Is not John 10:24-36 a clear record of Jesus himself refuting the idea that he is God? It is also a record of Jesus differentiating between the Son of God and God Himself. Had Jesus been God, surely this would have been a wonderful opportunity for him to plainly say so, but he did not. His testimony of himself is perfectly consistent with the stated purpose of the Gospel of John: to reveal that Jesus is the Son of God. With the understanding of John which we have set forth in this chapter, this gospel now perfectly harmonizes with the rest of the New Testament. The historical “Jesus” is unified with the exalted “Messiah” into a proleptic portrait of “Jesus” that simultaneously brings him down to earth and exalts him.”

 

[Desert Snake]

Did Jesus ever say he was God?

I believe that He does, actually.

John 10:31-33 “The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

This is interesting. What we notice, here, is that Jesus is also inferencing that the people accusing Him, were not aware of what the ''father'', was teaching, via Jesus. This is part of the instances where it can be ascertained that Jesus was, in some manner, separating Himself from the accusers. This basically means that the accusers were not able to teach, from the Father, but from their books only, etc. Which, incidentally, they would have been the ''most'' knowlegable on.

Some quote verse 33 to prove Jesus is God. Note that the verse does not say that Jesus is God, or that he claimed to be God, but rather that the Jews said that Jesus was making himself “God.” We assert that an accurate translation of John 10:33 would reveal that the Jews said that Jesus was claiming to be “a God,” i.e., a representative of God. Because they did not believe he represented God at all, they were actually going to stone him, which indicates that their overall spiritual perception was perhaps somewhat distorted. Let us look at Jesus’ reply:


John 10:34-36 Jesusa answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are Gods?’If he called them Gods, to whom the Word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

Looking at this contextually, we have basically an ''argument'' from Jesus. Jesus is not declaring anything, here, He is rather saying that the accusers are wrong, and, using the Scriptures, to refute their own arguments. A problem with reading this as literal, or, I suppose, some might find it not a problem, is that, if it were literal, then Jesus would be inferring that the accusers were 'gods', /literal/, hence they of course would not be incorrect in the manners that Jesus refutes them.

In verse 34, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82, verses 1 and 6. There, as in other Old Testament references, representatives of God were referred to as “Gods.” This was a common Hebrew usage that all the people understood. Jesus quotes these references, and then says, in essence: “Look, if those Old Testament leaders and judges were referred to as ‘Gods,’ what about me? I am by far the best representative God has ever had. Why do you say I am blaspheming when I say I am the Son of God?”

And here we have the explanation, and it is a clear argument. There are no declarations from Jesus, concerning His deific or non Deific nature, at this point. We have to keep in mind, where are the references to Jesus calling Himself the ''son of God?" If that were a common saying, then why are people interpreting that as literal? There are various explanations that could explain an instance of that.

Psalm 82:1-8 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods [i.e., those who represent Him]. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God [i.e. the Messiah], judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

These verses make it very clear that those men whom God had chosen to represent Him to His people in Israel failed miserably to do so, generally speaking. The closing verse is a prophetic plea for the Messiah to come, the perfect representative of God who would vividly mirror His heart to all people. Note how precise Jesus was in choosing just the right verses to make his point. He had rigorously studied the Hebrew Scriptures, which he would hardly have had to do if he were God.

Is not John 10:24-36 a clear record of Jesus himself refuting the idea that he is God? It is also a record of Jesus differentiating between the Son of God and God Himself. Had Jesus been God, surely this would have been a wonderful opportunity for him to plainly say so, but he did not. His testimony of himself is perfectly consistent with the stated purpose of the Gospel of John: to reveal that Jesus is the Son of God. With the understanding of John which we have set forth in this chapter, this gospel now perfectly harmonizes with the rest of the New Testament. The historical “Jesus” is unified with the exalted “Messiah” into a proleptic portrait of “Jesus” that simultaneously brings him down to earth and exalts him.”

This idea actually does not harmonize with the instances of Jesus being referred to as God, and referring to Himself as God. The 'accusers', were not necessarily ''incorrect'', in their idea that Jesus was calling Himself God. Any instance of Jesus referring to Himself as 'Lord', or 'I Am', is de facto referring to Himself as God. There simply is no way around that.
'I Am', is clearly an inference to G-d.
'Lord', means JHVH, which is why it was later translated as such, in the Bible. There is no actual distinction, between the Deity inferences, here. If there are distinctions, then the entire Bible is not clear as to which 'gods' are being referred to. /or not./

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Gee, what a novel (and boring) thread.

Parenthetically ...

The Gospel of John was written in Greek by an anonymous author.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] According to Paul N. Anderson, the gospel "contains more direct claims to eyewitness origins than any of the other Gospel traditions".[16]F. F. Bruce argues that 19:35 contains an "emphatic and explicit claim to eyewitness authority".[17] Bart D. Ehrman, however, does not think the gospel claims to have been written by direct witnesses to the reported events.[9][18][19]

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[20][21] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[22][23][24][25][26][27] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.[28][29] According to Victorinus[30] and Irenaeus,[31] the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, theEbionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical.[32][not in citation given] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.[33]

The earliest manuscripts to contain the beginning of the gospel (Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75), dating from around the year 200, are entitled "The Gospel according to John".

According to some, the Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[34] summarized byRaymond E. Brown as follows:[35]

1. An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2. A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3. The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[36]

Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[37] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.[38][39]

- source

 

[Boomer613]

This idea actually does not harmonize with the instances of Jesus being referred to as God, and referring to Himself as God. The 'accusers', were not necessarily ''incorrect'', in their idea that Jesus was calling Himself God. Any instance of Jesus referring to Himself as 'Lord', or 'I Am', is de facto referring to Himself as God. There simply is no way around that.
'I Am', is clearly an inference to G-d.
'Lord', means JHVH, which is why it was later translated as such, in the Bible. There is no actual distinction, between the Deity inferences, here. If there are distinctions, then the entire Bible is not clear as to which 'gods' are being referred to. /or not./

Many Trinitarian believers use Yeshua's "I AM" statement to justify that he pre-existed before he was physically born unto the world, meaning if one can prove that Yeshua pre-existed they can also support the claim that he was more than a man and prehaps deity himself.

When Yeshua said, "before Abraham was, I am" in John 8:58, he was merely emphazing his Messianic claim. In other words, Yeshua was simply stating the it was 'he' who was chosen by Father's plan to live out the Messianic atonement work. The point is not that Yeshua "pre-existed" before Abraham, but that Yeshua was more important than Abraham, who we know was regarded by the Jews to be their "father." In other words, YHVH's divine plan was far greater than Abraham's. When Yeshua told the Pharisees that "Abraham rejoiced to see my day" he was saying that he is the one that was to be greater than Abraham because he would fulfilled the covenant Abraham sought and rejoiced to see accomplished.

 

[Boomer613]

Gee, what a novel (and boring) thread.

Parenthetically ...

​

Then no need to continue and post. I am sure others will contribute to post in your absence.

 

[idav]

I believe that He does, actually.

This is interesting. What we notice, here, is that Jesus is also inferencing that the people accusing Him, were not aware of what the ''father'', was teaching, via Jesus. This is part of the instances where it can be ascertained that Jesus was, in some manner, separating Himself from the accusers. This basically means that the accusers were not able to teach, from the Father, but from their books only, etc. Which, incidentally, they would have been the ''most'' knowlegable on.


Looking at this contextually, we have basically an ''argument'' from Jesus. Jesus is not declaring anything, here, He is rather saying that the accusers are wrong, and, using the Scriptures, to refute their own arguments. A problem with reading this as literal, or, I suppose, some might find it not a problem, is that, if it were literal, then Jesus would be inferring that the accusers were 'gods', /literal/, hence they of course would not be incorrect in the manners that Jesus refutes them.

And here we have the explanation, and it is a clear argument. There are no declarations from Jesus, concerning His deific or non Deific nature, at this point. We have to keep in mind, where are the references to Jesus calling Himself the ''son of God?" If that were a common saying, then why are people interpreting that as literal? There are various explanations that could explain an instance of that.





This idea actually does not harmonize with the instances of Jesus being referred to as God, and referring to Himself as God. The 'accusers', were not necessarily ''incorrect'', in their idea that Jesus was calling Himself God. Any instance of Jesus referring to Himself as 'Lord', or 'I Am', is de facto referring to Himself as God. There simply is no way around that.
'I Am', is clearly an inference to G-d.
'Lord', means JHVH, which is why it was later translated as such, in the Bible. There is no actual distinction, between the Deity inferences, here. If there are distinctions, then the entire Bible is not clear as to which 'gods' are being referred to. /or not./

All those issues solve themselves nicely if jesus was pantheist. You can take ye are gods sons of the most high to be figurative.

 

[viole]

All those issues solve themselves nicely if jesus was pantheist. You can take ye are gods sons of the most high to be figurative.

I always wondered how can anyone be a non-pantheist if pantheism were true.

Can you imagine a subset of God not believing in the whole set?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

For some christians Jesus pbuh was god, we dont have to agree with them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then no need to continue and post.

That was precisely my point.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe that He does, actually.
'I Am', is clearly an inference to G-d.
'Lord', means JHVH, which is why it was later translated as such, in the Bible. There is no actual distinction, between the Deity inferences, here. If there are distinctions, then the entire Bible is not clear as to which 'gods' are being referred to. /or not./

Isn't the Bible clear at Psalms 82:1 that the 'gods ' are human judges - Psalms 82:6
After all, the human judges were to use God's judgment standards in which to base their judgment on matters.
Wasn't Moses made ' god ' to Pharaoh according to Exodus 7:1 ?

Why put a capital "A" for "I am " when in Scripture it is not with an upper-case A

In the KJV Bible there are two (2) LORD/Lords mentioned at Psalms 110:1
The LORD in all upper-case letters is where the Tetragramatton (YHWH) stands for God's hallowed name
The Lord Not in all upper-case letters stands for the Lord Jesus. The Tetragrammaton is never applied to Jesus.

Gospel writer John was clear at John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 that No one can see God and live. People saw Jesus and lived.
For the record ( bare record ) at John 1:34 John records that Jesus is the Son
As spokesman for the apostles Peter says that Christ is the Son at John 6:69
Jesus said his teachings were Not his teachings at John 7:16
Jesus says his Father is greater than all - John 10:29
The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy for calling himself the Son of God - John 10:36
Martha believes Jesus to be God's Son - John 11:27
At John 14:28 John writes that the Father of Jesus is greater than Jesus

 

[outhouse]

Isn't the Bible clear

Not really

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Not really

True, the Bible is Not written ABC like a dictionary, but by looking at the Bible by topic subject arrangements we can see the internal harmony among its many writers, and see a clear picture of the Bible's main kingdom theme: Paradise Eden on Earth lost to paradise on Earth regained. At Revelation 22:2 we see a returning to earth of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for all Earth's nations.
See also Isaiah chapter 35

 

[idav]

I always wondered how can anyone be a non-pantheist if pantheism were true.

Can you imagine a subset of God not believing in the whole set?

Ciao

- viole

What i wonder is how one can take all thst figurative sruff as such but take the father son thing literally. He hints we are all sons which makes it fugurative.

What do you mean with the subset thing? At many points the the differences between types like pan and panen theism become unimportant.

 

[Desert Snake]

All those issues solve themselves nicely if jesus was pantheist. You can take ye are gods sons of the most high to be figurative.

My personal theology does not involve this subject; I don't have an opinion either way, on it. So, great, yes, I suppose so

 

[Desert Snake]

Then no need to continue and post. I am sure others will contribute to post in your absence.

Its an interesting debate. I will premise, that I don't believe deity to be ''exclusive'', to the Bible, and I don't have these aspects of the person of ''Jesus'', in my beliefs. I'm arguing from an academic or textual/traditional stance. There are some issues concerning this question, relating to Bibles, languages, and so forth. I will say that I'm also convinced that the most traditional Xian belief, is that of Jesus actually being G-d.