Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

jesus 100 % human & 100 % god? maybe thats why his cup runneth over. I respect you for being devout, when I write I convey my perception of the truth & if thats what I believe, no one can debate, dispute or change that. christianity in its infancy didnt have a bible. The different sects had books atributed to the apostles. 1 might have all of peter, etc. But it was the roman emperor constantine that took the 5 books of Moses & gathered up all of the christian books. He with his scribes went thru the 13 apostles books. mary magdelene was an adopted apostle. Constantine thru oout what he deemed heresy. Thats why not every apostle got a book in the testament. Constantine had other books written to coincide with the beliefs of christianity but with alterations that go against Judaism. Its was impossible to change the books of Moses, it had been established for too long, but christianity was still new. Thats why the new testament claims do not marry but if you do, do not divorce. The purpose of marriage was to be fruitful and multiply, divorce was ok if unhappy but if either party marry again and divorce, you cant get back together or its adultery cause you cast them away. This is an ancient military tactic. When you take over a town you didnt destroy everything, then your empire is a kindom of rubble. You take control with everything intact, even the people. You want the land, crops, livestock, buildings and the poeple to take care of it. But you want to keep their numbers to a minimum, so you can leave less men to run the town while you march your army to the next town. The reason to combine the 2 beliefs, try to get them under 1 roof it takes less men to watch them and you know where they are and when they all worship. In 321 a.d. constantine passed a law to worship on sunday. Jesus worshipped on Saturday the Sabbath, sunday coincides with sun worship of ancient babylonia. This is why the 1st christian bible is in greek, that was the common language of rome, and not in Hebrew. Jesus was Jewish and most if not all of his apostles too. So wouldnt they write in Hebrew? Rome was a war machine whos main goal was furthering the empire. They knew people will refuse to give up their beliefs, so modify them to romes benefit and you can even pretend their are your beliefs. Do you think constantine gave up his female slaves that bathed him and pleasured him? Sori, I can be long winded. I'll step of the soap box, for now.

I got lost in here somewhere. Is any part of, or one of, your arguments a claim that divorce is not good is a result of military doctrine in some way? I am a veteran and we taught to subdue the enemy not divorce them. By the way Latin was more common in Rome than Greek and Greek was a common language in Israel especially among merchants, tax collectors, and physicians. Can you pick your best claim only and we can resolve that first.

 

[look3467]

captainbryce,

You are acknowledging that both God and Jesus have the same authority.

One could not save humanity without the other, for one had to be in the flesh to accomplish it.

The basic theme is, Father God created all there is, God the Son redeemed all there is, and God the holy Spirit supports all there is that was redeemed.

You have to understand that when Jesus is speaking to the Father is because as God in the flesh, Jesus must be as a fleshly creature, as you and I, for the express purpose of conquering eternal death and hell's deliverance for us.

Jesus can not, could not forgive sin without being fully vested with the power of Almighty Father to do so.

As like you and I, born after the spirit of our first parents, we could never attain the perfection required to deliver our own soul, let alone the souls of the whole of humanity..... save God himself.

If, one can not see passed verses in the bible to extract the spiritual significance of the differences between what Jesus had to comply with and what God could perform, did perform, as both flesh and God, then, yes, I can understand why many deny the divine nature of Jesus as God.

All the same, Christ purchased salvation for all mankind...bar none.

All this debating is for our enlightenment, joy, contentment and peace in the knowledge of a loving God, regardless of our differing opinions.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

You are acknowledging that both God and Jesus have the same authority.

Matthew 28:18 New International Version
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

jesus 100 % human & 100 % god?

He's half man, half bear, and half pig. I'm super cereal guys...

 

[Muffled]

The problem I have with Jesus or any other human being regarded as God is as follows..

That would imply that the Jews are the supreme race, as God was one of them. I have noticed how black churches have a black christ and white ones have a white christ.. IMO transforming God into man promotes racism or racial inequality..

I believe Jesus addressed this issue in these verses: John 4:9 The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a Samaritan woman? (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

So I believe Jesus is pointing her away from His being Jewish to the reality of God in Him who cares about everyone and is willing to give them the gift of life.

I don't believe Jews were chosen because they were supreme but because they were stubborn. (Speculating it may also be becuase they kept good notes)

This is not as strange as it seems because I believe jesus is in the black person and the white person and in women also.

 

[Muffled]

If Jesus or more correctly Yeshua is God then how come He died. God cannot die like humans

I believe you are in error. When God is in a body the body is just as vulnerable to death as the body of a human.

I believe the human spirit does not die any more than the Spirit of God unless God were to decide to terminate it.

I beleive the physical body of Jesus died because it was assulted by natural and human elements and it was the purpose of God for it to die and be raised again.

 

[Muffled]

Unfortunately, that doesn't prove that Jesus is God. Only that he existed WITH God "in the beginning" (either as a concept or as a spirit entity, we don't know).

The only thing that exists in the beginning is God.

 

[captainbryce]

captainbryce,

You are acknowledging that both God and Jesus have the same authority.

I am acknowledging that Jesus has been granted the authority to judge by God (ie: God has allowed this). God has relinquished this authority to his son.

John 5:30
I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.

That's not the same thing as saying they have the "same authority". Clearly they don't, as Jesus made it clear that God is greater than he is.

Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good."

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

One could not save humanity without the other, for one had to be in the flesh to accomplish it.

Now you are placing limitations on the power of God. God can do ANYTHING he want's at anytime (because he is all-powerful). He absolutely could save humanity without Jesus. But he choose Jesus to be the savior of humanity because this was the BEST, most efficient, and most "righteous" way of judging mankind. God is setting the perfect example of fairness, not just for humans, but also for angels. There was no "better" way to save mankind, then by using a sinless man.

Jeremiah 11:20
But you, LORD Almighty, who judge righteously and test the heart and mind, let me see your vengeance on them, for to you I have committed my cause.

2 Timothy 4:8
And now the prize awaits me--the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me on the day of his return. And the prize is not just for me but for all who eagerly look forward to his appearing.

But I do agree that Jesus could not have done it without God!

The basic theme is, Father God created all there is, God the Son redeemed all there is, and God the holy Spirit supports all there is that was redeemed.

That's YOUR basic theme (a trinitarian theme). That is not a theme I see in the bible because nowhere in there does it describe "God the Son". There was the Son of God, who is a god himself, but not God Almighty.

You have to understand that when Jesus is speaking to the Father is because as God in the flesh, Jesus must be as a fleshly creature, as you and I, for the express purpose of conquering eternal death and hell's deliverance for us.

Nothing about that sentence is logical. I also don't find that it is supported in scripture. Scripture says that Jesus has his own God! How could God have a God who was over him? That is not logical and when things don't make sense, it's because they aren't true.

Jesus can not, could not forgive sin without being fully vested with the power of Almighty Father to do so.

I agree. In fact, I already said that!

As like you and I, born after the spirit of our first parents, we could never attain the perfection required to deliver our own soul, let alone the souls of the whole of humanity..... save God himself.

You're wrong. We COULD do that IF we like Jesus was born through God's will and not the offspring of Adam (who tainted all his descendants with original sin). The reason Jesus could do it is because he was not affected by original sin, and this is why God gave him the authority to forgive sin. None of that equates to Jesus being God himself.

If, one can not see passed verses in the bible to extract the spiritual significance of the differences between what Jesus had to comply with and what God could perform, did perform, as both flesh and God, then, yes, I can understand why many deny the divine nature of Jesus as God.

I haven't denied the divine nature of Jesus. I am denying that he was God. There is a difference! Trinitarians like to twist that up as if they are one in the same, but the fact is, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

All the same, Christ purchased salvation for all mankind...bar none.

All this debating is for our enlightenment, joy, contentment and peace in the knowledge of a loving God, regardless of our differing opinions.

Blessings, AJ

I agree. At the end of the day, none of this really matters. It's all academic. Salvation is not dependent on whether we fully understand the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. It is dependent on whether or not we accept him as our savior, for the remission of sins.

 

[BornAgain]

The only thing that exists in the beginning is God.

You can not say it any better than that.

 

[captainbryce]

You can not say it any better than that.

Except to say that Jesus was also in the beginning.

John 1:2
He was with God in the beginning.

 

[BornAgain]

Except to say that Jesus was also in the beginning.

John 1:2
He was with God in the beginning.

Israel had worshipped the one only true God under the Name of Jehovah;

Christians are to worship the same one only and true God under the Name of 'the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.'

The only thing that exists in the beginning is God.

 

[captainbryce]

Israel had worshipped the one only true God under the Name of Jehovah;

Actually, they didn't. They worshiped YHVH, which is properly transliterated as Yahweh. "Jehovah" is an erroneous construct of the Tetragrammaton.

Christians are to worship the same one only and true God under the Name of 'the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.'

That's not what scripture says. "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" are not NAMES. They are titles! The phrase "in the name of" in the context of Matthew 28:19 means "by the authority of". It does not denote the specific names of God. Only the father is described as "God" in the bible.

 

[BornAgain]

Actually, they didn't. They worshiped YHVH, which is properly transliterated as Yahweh. "Jehovah" is an erroneous construct of the Tetragrammaton.

JEHOVAH English rendering of the Hebrew consonants YHWH, which make up the divine name. At a late date it became a matter of binding scruple not to pronounce the divine name, and Jews (in reading the Scriptures) customarily substituted the noun adhonai, which means "Lord." LXX followed this lead, using the Greek kyrios, "Lord," to stand for the divine name--a significant thing in the light of the usual NT designation of Jesus as kyrios. But the formulation "Jehovah" arose by inserting the vowels of adhonai into the consonants YHWH.

YHWH This is not in reality a word but is known as the "Tetragrammaton," the four consonants standing for the ancient Hebrew name for God commonly referred to as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh." The original Hebrew text was not vocalized. YHWH was considered too sacred to pronounce, so adonai ("my Lord") was substituted in reading. When eventually a vowel system was invented, since the Hebrews had forgotten how to pronounce YHWH, they substituted the vowels for adonai, making "Jehovah," a form first attested at beginning of the 12th century A.D.

That's not what scripture says. "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" are not NAMES. They are titles! The phrase "in the name of" in the context of Matthew 28:19 means "by the authority of". It does not denote the specific names of God. Only the father is described as "God" in the bible.

How do you explain this?

Ac 4:12 And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name/”by the authority of” under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

“by the authority of” the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" (II Cor. 13:14),

which is a prayer addressed to Christ for His grace, to the Father for His love, and to the Holy Spirit for His fellowship - is designed to serve the same purpose.

 

[1robin]

Except to say that Jesus was also in the beginning.

John 1:2
He was with God in the beginning.

Just out of curiosity what are you claiming Jesus is?

We have humans, angels and divinity to choose from. I am not arguing he is God but neither humans nor angels are eternal.

 

[alviataylor]

I think this is enough for me to believe in it..1

 

[captainbryce]

JEHOVAH English rendering of the Hebrew consonants YHWH, which make up the divine name. At a late date it became a matter of binding scruple not to pronounce the divine name, and Jews (in reading the Scriptures) customarily substituted the noun adhonai, which means "Lord." LXX followed this lead, using the Greek kyrios, "Lord," to stand for the divine name--a significant thing in the light of the usual NT designation of Jesus as kyrios. But the formulation "Jehovah" arose by inserting the vowels of adhonai into the consonants YHWH.

YHWH This is not in reality a word but is known as the "Tetragrammaton," the four consonants standing for the ancient Hebrew name for God commonly referred to as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh." The original Hebrew text was not vocalized. YHWH was considered too sacred to pronounce, so adonai ("my Lord") was substituted in reading. When eventually a vowel system was invented, since the Hebrews had forgotten how to pronounce YHWH, they substituted the vowels for adonai, making "Jehovah," a form first attested at beginning of the 12th century A.D.

Thank you for the history lesson. But I'm aware of all these facts (as indicated in my previous posts). I'm simply letting you know why "Jehovah" was actually the WRONG transliteration, and why Yahweh is more correct (phonetically).

How do you explain this?

Ac 4:12 And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name/”by the authority of” under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.

Simple. The explanation is given in the full context of the scripture. Look back at the previous verse (in which the specific NAME is given).

Acts 4:11-12
11 For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says,

‘The stone that you builders rejected
has now become the cornerstone.’

12 There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”

Clearly, based on the context of the scripture, JESUS is the only "name" of anyone who saves. Obviously, that is a completely different context from Matthew 28:19 (which gives us no name at all, but the authority of God, his spirit, and the savior, his son).

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" (II Cor. 13:14),

which is a prayer addressed to Christ for His grace, to the Father for His love, and to the Holy Spirit for His fellowship - is designed to serve the same purpose.

I agree. But again, this doesn't equate to them being the same "person". Logically, if they were all the same person, addressing them individually for different reasons wouldn't even make sense (since they all are responsible for those things).

 

[look3467]

I am acknowledging that Jesus has been granted the authority to judge by God (ie: God has allowed this). God has relinquished this authority to his son. >>>captainbryce

If then, God relinquishing His authority to Jesus, that makes Jesus equal to God, does it not?
Was that not what they accused Him of?

Clearly they don't, as Jesus made it clear that God is greater than he is.

You believe Jesus would boast while in the flesh? If He would of, then He would have defiled His complete submissiveness as in the flesh, which no man except God could do.

Now you are placing limitations on the power of God. God can do ANYTHING he want's at anytime (because he is all-powerful). He absolutely could save humanity without Jesus. But he choose Jesus to be the savior of humanity because this was the BEST, most efficient, and most "righteous" way of judging mankind. God is setting the perfect example of fairness, not just for humans, but also for angels. There was no "better" way to save mankind, then by using a sinless man.

..." He absolutely could save humanity without Jesus"...

Why then a sinless man?
Can you name one individual in the whole of humanity that was sinless, save God Himself?

"The best...more efficient way...most righteous...of Judging of mankind?

You mean to tell me that Jesus died because He judged mankind? You mean by judgment, save some and condemn others?

Why then would He die for all of them, both saved and condemned? If that be the case, that He died for all, why judge?

I will tell you who was judged, not mankind but Jesus was judged!

He paid the price for us all. You and I pay nothing, for it is a free gift of God by Jesus.

But I do agree that Jesus could not have done it without God!

Well.....there you go.....so it was God as Jesus, right?

You first have to establish that FACT in order to understand what it means for Jesus to be completely submissive as a lesser/as we are, than God right?

No one but God can save period! If Jesus can not save, then God can not save for they are one in the same.

"Whom do they say "I AM"?

"Who shall I say sent me"? "I AM THAT I AM"!
Exo_3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:

Jesus before His arrest was asked:
Joh_18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he.

Blessings my friend, AJ

 

[Shermana]

For the 1000th time or so on this thread: Ahem...

The name told to Moses is "I shall be". Ehyeh is simply not Present Tense. English translations are persistently incorrect in that sense, but they are correct if "I am" is not read as an absolute present tense statement but in the vein of "I shall be".

Jesus does not say his name is I am. He would have to say "My name is I am", rather than simply stating "I am". To avoid this abuse of John 8:58, which they claim is ultimately Modalistic, esteemed Trinitarian Professors Goodspeed and Moffatt translate John 8:58 as "I have been", especially so in that it's keeping in the same tense as "Abraham was". The verb "Ego Eimi" does not necessarily always imply immediate Present tense.

The correct translation of John 8:58. List of alternate readings to "I am."

Jesus and God are not one and the same.

 

[1robin]

For the 1000th time or so on this thread: Ahem...

The name told to Moses is "I shall be". Ehyeh is simply not Present Tense. English translations are persistently incorrect in that sense, but they are correct if "I am" is not read as an absolute present tense statement but in the vein of "I shall be".

Jesus does not say his name is I am. He would have to say "My name is I am", rather than simply stating "I am". To avoid this abuse of John 8:58, which they claim is ultimately Modalistic, esteemed Trinitarian Professors Goodspeed and Moffatt translate John 8:58 as "I have been", especially so in that it's keeping in the same tense as "Abraham was". The verb "Ego Eimi" does not necessarily always imply immediate Present tense.

The correct translation of John 8:58. List of alternate readings to "I am."

Jesus and God are not one and the same.

Can you evaluate post #7557 for the benefit of the one that gave me the info just out of curiosity?

 

[1robin]

He's half man, half bear, and half pig. I'm super cereal guys...

Charlie don't surf, and cereal don't post. If you get the former reference I will explain the latter.