Did Jesus say he was God???

[Nada]

I believe this means you can't prove your point.

I beleive Jesus does say He is good. So that means He must be God. Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.

No.he is not God.You misunderstand the meaning in the holy scriptures.Jesus is clearly explaining he is not God.

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Jesus is calling the Father his God.God does not have a God.Only those who have been created have a God.Jesus is the Son of the Most High.The Almighty God.

 

[Nada]

I believe this means you can't prove your point.

I beleive Jesus does say He is good. So that means He must be God. Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.

When you speak to people,especially about the Word of God,its usually a good idea to do so with love.You should not tell me things like,"I believe this means you can't prove your point."
If you feel strongly about something,just ask.You do not have to be harsh or sarcastic about it. Jesus said,"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
John 13:35

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

So let us be civil about things and speak with love

 

[metis]

Jesus is clearly explaining he is not God.

It's all but impossible for me to picture any Jews following Jesus if he said he was God. I hypothesize that the very early Christians believed that Jesus was of God, but when the church later became more gentile, the "of" was dropped and Jesus became essentially deified.

 

[Nada]

It's all but impossible for me to picture any Jews following Jesus if he said he was God. I hypothesize that the very early Christians believed that Jesus was of God, but when the church later became more gentile, the "of" was dropped and Jesus became essentially deified.

I do not believe Jesus is God and neither did his disciples.The Pharisees and Sadducees did everything in their power to try to bring Jesus down.Jesus was more advanced then them in scripture and this burned them up.He preached love and they hated him.Everything they did when they took Jesus was illegal according to their own Jewish laws.He did not have a trial.They took him by night.They had him executed before passover.According to Jewish law there are not supposed to be executions held the day before,the day of,or the day after passover.Everything was done against the law.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Jesus said to his disciples as they approached Jerusalem- "They're going to crucify me in there"
So, knowing they were going to execute him anyway on a blasphemy charge for calling himself the Son of God, he might as well have gone the whole hog and said he WAS God, because he had nothing to lose.
But no, he maintained he was the SON of God right to the end because he WASN'T God..

"..the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
'I am' said Jesus.
The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked.
You have heard the blasphemy" (Mark 14:61-63)

 

[metis]

I do not believe Jesus is God and neither did his disciples.

We agree here.

The Pharisees and Sadducees did everything in their power to try to bring Jesus down.Jesus was more advanced then them in scripture and this burned them up. He preached love and they hated him.

Some of them apparently did. It was not that Jesus was more "advanced", as that would be highly unlikely, but it probably was more that Jesus had a very liberal interpretation of the Law. Nor should you assume they hated him-- maybe just some of the things he taught.

Everything they did when they took Jesus was illegal according to their own Jewish laws.He did not have a trial.They took him by night.They had him executed before passover.According to Jewish law there are not supposed to be executions held the day before,the day of,or the day after passover.Everything was done against the law.

Jesus was put before Pilate, the Roman leader there, and was crucified under Roman Law, not Jewish Law. The exact timing vis-a-vis Passover is unclear since the synoptic gospels and John's gospel don't match. Of the two, John's gospel on this is more logical since Jesus could have been brought forth to the Sanhedrin on the "preparation day" for Passover, but not after Passover started.

 

[Nada]

We agree here.



Some of them apparently did. It was not that Jesus was more "advanced", as that would be highly unlikely, but it probably was more that Jesus had a very liberal interpretation of the Law. Nor should you assume they hated him-- maybe just some of the things he taught.



Jesus was put before Pilate, the Roman leader there, and was crucified under Roman Law, not Jewish Law. The exact timing vis-a-vis Passover is unclear since the synoptic gospels and John's gospel don't match. Of the two, John's gospel on this is more logical since Jesus could have been brought forth to the Sanhedrin on the "preparation day" for Passover, but not after Passover started.

Jesus was more advanced then the Pharisees and the Sadducees.Jesus explained many things to them but they could not understand.Even Nicodemus was schooled by Jesus.
John 3:1,2. Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Some of these men knew who Jesus truly was.

When the Pharisees and Sadducees brought Jesus to the Romans for execution,that was not done out of love.They wanted him dead and gone.



Caiaphas then announced to the Court, "He has spoken blasphemy. What need have we of further witnesses?"

The rest of the men of that awesome court, hearing these words spoken by their high priest, unlawfully confirmed his judgment shouting, "He is guilty of death!"

Jesus was accused according to Jewish law not Roman law.

The Jews did bring Jesus by night to the High Priest.The High Priest Caiaphas questioned him and accused him.
John 18:28-31. 28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

30“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”

31Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. 32This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.

So as you can see it was not the Romans who accused him or sentenced him.

Pilate asked the Jews who they wanted to be released.

38“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

40 They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

So the Romans never charged Jesus with a crime.He was condemned by the Jews.All of this was done by the actions of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Jesus was falsely charged and laws were broken so this could be so.Jewish laws........

 

[Nada]

We agree here.



Some of them apparently did. It was not that Jesus was more "advanced", as that would be highly unlikely, but it probably was more that Jesus had a very liberal interpretation of the Law. Nor should you assume they hated him-- maybe just some of the things he taught.



Jesus was put before Pilate, the Roman leader there, and was crucified under Roman Law, not Jewish Law. The exact timing vis-a-vis Passover is unclear since the synoptic gospels and John's gospel don't match. Of the two, John's gospel on this is more logical since Jesus could have been brought forth to the Sanhedrin on the "preparation day" for Passover, but not after Passover started.

That Jesus was to be convicted on some charge or other, and be put to death, had been already determined by the priestly judges; their failure to find witnesses against Him threatened to delay the carrying out of their nefarious scheme. Haste and precipitancy characterised their procedure throughout; they had unlawfully caused Jesus to be arrested at night; they were illegally going through the semblance of a trial at night; their purpose was to convict the Prisoner in time to have Him brought before the Roman authorities as early as possible in the morning—as a criminal duly tried and adjudged worthy of death. The lack of two hostile witnesses who would tell the same falsehoods was a serious hindrance. But, “at the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” Others, however, testified: “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”i And so, as Mark observes, even in this particular their “witness” or testimony did not agree. Surely in a case at bar, such discrepancy as appears between “I am able to” and “I will,” as alleged utterances of the accused, is of vital importance. Yet this semblance of formal accusation was the sole basis of a charge against Christ up to this stage of the trial. It will be remembered that in connection with the first clearing of the temple, near the commencement of Christ’s ministry, He had answered the clamorous demand of the Jews for a sign of His authority by saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He spoke not at all of Himself as the one who would destroy; the Jews were to be the destroyers, He the restorer. But the inspired writer is particular to explain that Jesus “spake of the temple of his body,” and not at all of those buildings reared by man.j


One may reasonably inquire as to what serious import could be attached to even such a declaration as the perjured witnesses claimed to have heard from the lips of Christ. The veneration with which the Jews professed to regard the Holy House, however wantonly they profaned its precincts, offers a partial but insufficient answer. The plan of the conspiring rulers appears to have been that of convicting Christ on a charge of sedition, making Him out to be a dangerous disturber of the nation’s peace, an assailant of established institutions, and consequently an inciter of opposition against the vassal autonomy of the Jewish nation, and the supreme dominion of Rome.k




There is so much more.Click this link to read the rest.


https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-34?lang=eng

 

[metis]

Jesus was more advanced then the Pharisees and the Sadducees.Jesus explained many things to them but they could not understand.Even Nicodemus was schooled by Jesus.
John 3:1,2. Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Some of these men knew who Jesus truly was.

When the Pharisees and Sadducees brought Jesus to the Romans for execution,that was not done out of love.They wanted him dead and gone.

Jesus was accused according to Jewish law not Roman law.

The Jews did bring Jesus by night to the High Priest.The High Priest Caiaphas questioned him and accused him.
John 18:28-31. 28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

30“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”

31Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. 32This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.

So as you can see it was not the Romans who accused him or sentenced him.

Pilate asked the Jews who they wanted to be released.

38“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

40 They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.

So the Romans never charged Jesus with a crime.He was condemned by the Jews.All of this was done by the actions of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Jesus was falsely charged and laws were broken so this could be so.Jewish laws........

Taking a literalistic approach to scripture will get one into trouble most of the time. These are accounts written decades or even centuries later by people who most of the time weren't there and who have a theological perspective that is hardly objective. OTOH, we actually know quite a bit more how both Roman law and Jewish Law worked.

Any serious Roman or Christian scholar well knows that crucifixion was a Roman form of capital punishment, plus that the Romans couldn't care less about Judaism as long as order was kept and taxes were paid.

So, what was Jesus likely tried for? Probably sedition. Why? Well, overturning the tables at the Temple that were used as a rather notorious form of Roman taxation would certainly be justification, and also Jesus talking about his "kingdom" certainly would have sent up red flags to the Romans. He seems to have likely viewed as a trouble-maker, and the Romans were brutal towards anyone like that. Pilate even got called back to Rome to justify why he crucified so many.

 

[metis]

That Jesus was to be convicted on some charge or other, and be put to death, had been already determined by the priestly judges; their failure to find witnesses against Him threatened to delay the carrying out of their nefarious scheme. Haste and precipitancy characterised their procedure throughout; they had unlawfully caused Jesus to be arrested at night; they were illegally going through the semblance of a trial at night; their purpose was to convict the Prisoner in time to have Him brought before the Roman authorities as early as possible in the morning—as a criminal duly tried and adjudged worthy of death. The lack of two hostile witnesses who would tell the same falsehoods was a serious hindrance. But, “at the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” Others, however, testified: “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”i And so, as Mark observes, even in this particular their “witness” or testimony did not agree. Surely in a case at bar, such discrepancy as appears between “I am able to” and “I will,” as alleged utterances of the accused, is of vital importance. Yet this semblance of formal accusation was the sole basis of a charge against Christ up to this stage of the trial. It will be remembered that in connection with the first clearing of the temple, near the commencement of Christ’s ministry, He had answered the clamorous demand of the Jews for a sign of His authority by saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He spoke not at all of Himself as the one who would destroy; the Jews were to be the destroyers, He the restorer. But the inspired writer is particular to explain that Jesus “spake of the temple of his body,” and not at all of those buildings reared by man.j


One may reasonably inquire as to what serious import could be attached to even such a declaration as the perjured witnesses claimed to have heard from the lips of Christ. The veneration with which the Jews professed to regard the Holy House, however wantonly they profaned its precincts, offers a partial but insufficient answer. The plan of the conspiring rulers appears to have been that of convicting Christ on a charge of sedition, making Him out to be a dangerous disturber of the nation’s peace, an assailant of established institutions, and consequently an inciter of opposition against the vassal autonomy of the Jewish nation, and the supreme dominion of Rome.k




There is so much more.Click this link to read the rest.


https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-34?lang=eng

Let me recommend that you save your time as I taught Christian theology for 14 years, so there's not likely anything that you could cite that I haven't run across many times before.

 

[Nada]

Taking a literalistic approach to scripture will get one into trouble most of the time. These are accounts written decades or even centuries later by people who most of the time weren't there and who have a theological perspective that is hardly objective. OTOH, we actually know quite a bit more how both Roman law and Jewish Law worked.

Any serious Roman or Christian scholar well knows that crucifixion was a Roman form of capital punishment, plus that the Romans couldn't care less about Judaism as long as order was kept and taxes were paid.

So, what was Jesus likely tried for? Probably sedition. Why? Well, overturning the tables at the Temple that were used as a rather notorious form of Roman taxation would certainly be justification, and also Jesus talking about his "kingdom" certainly would have sent up red flags to the Romans. He seems to have likely viewed as a trouble-maker, and the Romans were brutal towards anyone like that. Pilate even got called back to Rome to justify why he crucified so many.

Did you even read my comments?

 

[metis]

Did you even read my comments?

Yep, I did.

 

[Nada]

Let me recommend that you save your time as I taught Christian theology for 14 years, so there's not likely anything that you could cite that I haven't run across many times before.

Lol....Oh..ok.

 

[metis]

Lol....Oh..ok.

You can laugh all you want, but I can tell that you simply know so very little how serious theology actually works. I recommended earlier that you not waste your time, and now I'm not going to waste my time with someone with such a naive approach to theology. Let me recommend you do some serious studying instead of just quote mining.

Good bye.

 

[Nada]

You can laugh all you want, but I can tell that you simply know so very little how serious theology actually works. I recommended earlier that you not waste your time, and now I'm not going to waste my time with someone with such a naive approach to theology. Let me recommend you do some serious studying instead of just quote mining.

Good bye.

Your assumptions are wrong.Your approach is wrong.Your speech is wrong.You seriously need to calm down.Just because you went to school and taught for 14 years means very little.One does not come to understand the Word of God by attending Universities or any other schools.It is by grace alone.

Acts 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.



Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--


If you want to split,by all means,do so. :tsk:

 

[JM2C]

No.he is not God.You misunderstand the meaning in the holy scriptures.Jesus is clearly explaining he is not God.

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Jesus is calling the Father his God.God does not have a God.Only those who have been created have a God.Jesus is the Son of the Most High.The Almighty God.

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[JM2C]

Of course Jesus is not God!

Check this-

"He asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt 13:16/17)

See, if he really was God, he'd have corrected him.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

He is God in John 1:1 “and the Word was God” before He became flesh in John 1:14 “and the Word became flesh”

Some theologians change the “and the Word was God” with “and the Word was a god"

His relationship to His Father is as the Son of God from eternity even while He was still the flesh. “I and the Father are ONE” –John 10:30

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

He is God in John 1:1 “and the Word was God” before He became flesh in John 1:14 “and the Word became flesh”

Some theologians change the “and the Word was God” with “and the Word was a god"

His relationship to His Father is as the Son of God from eternity even while He was still the flesh. “I and the Father are ONE” –John 10:30

This has been addressed throughout this entire thread and you're simply wrong....:no:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Oh please...

Codex Sinaiticus
Hebrews 1:8
"But with respect to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"

While Codex Sinaiticus should be the go to source given its age it's not the only one that lays it out like that.....

NIV
"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever"

NSV
"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever"

But this has been dealt with already in this thread. The biblical Yeshua says it's God's throne. not his...but that he is privileged enough to sit on the throne (with) his god.

Codex Sinaiticus
Matthew 5:34
"But I say to you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God"

The biblical Yeshua says it's "God's" throne. He didn't say (my).

Case in point....

Codex Sinaiticus
Revelation 3:21
"He that overcomes, I will give to him to sit with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne."

The biblical Yeshua makes it clear that he has a god but is not "God". In Revelation the "Ascended" Yeshua again makes it clear he isn't "God". In fact theres a section of Revelation where "God" is on the throne and all of his heavenly creation is bowing before him asking who's worthy of opening the seal...but the only one worthy was one who was in the midst of the crowd who then steps forward to take the seal from "God"...(see Revelation 5)...Rev. 5 clearly shows you that "God" is on the throne and it is the "lamb that was slain" who take the scroll from his god and who is proclaimed worthy to open the seal......

NET
"but of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever"

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
"But concerning The Son, he said, “Your throne, oh God, is to the eternity of eternities."

 

[Shuttlecraft]

If Jesus was God, I'm Nanny McPhee..
This is a key verse-
"He asked his disciples “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt 13:16/17)


You see, Jesus is telling Peter that God revealed to him that he's the Son of God.
Therefore we can conclude that God hasn't yet revealed it to the people who claim Jesus is God, maybe they're having to stand in line to wait their turn..