Is Jesus God?

[Yoshua]

1. Jesus claimed to be the messiah, not and god. I didn't say it, neither did he. With all due respect, those are your words, not the gospels.

My words? I did not said it. The Scripture said it.
John 4:25-26
25. The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us."
26. Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He."

John 20:27-28
27. Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
28. Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

2. Jesus himself says that his disciples and him are one. So only in this case you don't care what Jesus says but only whether the desciples claimed. Jesus says, his disciples and him are one. The same Jesus who said I and the father are one.

John 17:20-23
20. "I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21. that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.
22. "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one;
23. I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.

Yes, Jesus said that they are one with the disciples. The reason that the disciples should be one (as the Father and Jesus are one) is for the unity to all things that Jesus had been doing in His ministry.

Lets take a look on what is being one with the Father here.
Jesus Asserts His Deity
22. At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
23. it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
24. The Jews therefore gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25. Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these bear witness of Me.
26. "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.
27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28. and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.
29. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
30. "I and the Father are one."
Anything that Jesus did is for God's name (Father) that bears witness of Him. Therefore, being one Jesus is doing things in accordance with the Father's will.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

This is just out of curiosity. you quoted quoted verse that's messiah and Christ in the same verse (Within brackets). Now why would someone do that. It's like saying "your dad is coming (the one called father)". Just in two different languages. May I ask why?

Hi Firedragon,

The scripture is copied in my NASB translation computer database, this parenthesis is indicated here. We may remove that if you like but this will not change the meaning that Messiah means Christ or the anointed One.

Thanks

 

[firedragon]

My words? I did not said it. The Scripture said it.
John 4:25-26
25. The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us."
26. Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He."

John 20:27-28
27. Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
28. Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 17:20-23
20. "I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21. that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.
22. "And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one;
23. I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.

Yes, Jesus said that they are one with the disciples. The reason that the disciples should be one (as the Father and Jesus are one) is for the unity to all things that Jesus had been doing in His ministry.

Lets take a look on what is being one with the Father here.
Jesus Asserts His Deity
22. At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
23. it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
24. The Jews therefore gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25. Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these bear witness of Me.
26. "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.
27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28. and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.
29. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
30. "I and the Father are one."
Anything that Jesus did is for God's name (Father) that bears witness of Him. Therefore, being one Jesus is doing things in accordance with the Father's will.

Thanks

You said Jesus claims to be messiah and god. What I say is that Jesus claims to be messiah. Of course. But he never anywhere claims to be messiah AND GOD. john 4:25 and 26 only claims the messiah. Only. No god there. And its absurd to have christ within brackets when it has already said messiah, the same thing, if its a software, its misleading.

Messiah and god,
Those were your words. But I understand perfectly that's your theology and I don't intend to say question your theology. But I do question the scriptural or/and historical claims Jesus made.when you quote the upper room incident, it's not Jesus who says I am god. Hope you understand what I meant. it was Thomas who said kyrio mou kai ho theos mou.

yes he does say my god. But it was the doubting Thomas, your words were "Jesus claims to be messiah and God". He never did.A

Also, once I told my boss that we have achieved a record sales figure for 3 radio channels I was working for. He asked me how much. I showed him the revenue sheet to surprise him. He was surprised, and he exclaimed "Jesus Christ". And no, he wasn't calling me Jesus Christ, it was only his expression. Peace brother.

 

[Oeste]

They tried to stone him because he claims to be the Messiah. Thats blasphemy enough to the Jews.

Doubtful...the Jews were eagerly awaiting a Messiah to establish the Olam HaBa and end the Roman occupation. It would be totally illogical for the Jews to stone someone promising to be their deliverer. Besides, believing yourself to be a Messiah or anointed one wasn't considered by the Jews to be a sin punishable by stoning, but claiming to be God most certainly would be.

Athronges, Simon of Peraea, Judas of Galilee and a host of others all claimed to be the Messiah and I'm sure there were no lack of rocks in Jerusalem.

They tried to stone him because he claims to be the Messiah. Thats blasphemy enough to the Jews. And if you assess Jesus to be God because he says "I and my father are one" then even the disciples are Gods.

That's an argument you're most likely to get from Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses, but not from Trinitarians.

Moses was no murderer. If you consider them murders, it was God who did it. Moses was powerless as any prophet was, it was Gods will. In that case it was Gpd who was a murderer and if you believe Jesus is God, it was him.

No where in the bible can I find any command by God for Moses to kill the Egyptian. That's something Moses decided to do on his own, without heavenly or governmental sanction.

You cant say fleeting statements that all prophets were sinners. Personally I dont believe the bible to be accurate narrations. You seem to be knowledgeable in the bible, them you would know that the book names Torah in the bible was written at least by four different schools of thought. Thus, you cannot trust them as infallible.

Why not? They would have the same author wouldn't they?

And if you believe in the bible then the prophets were not only sinners, good God they were abominations. They commit incest, sleep with prostitutes, do the most malicious acts known to man.

Exactly! Yet God still chose them, showing there's hope for us yet.

And if Jesus is God, he has picked some of the dirtiest people to be his emissaries. And he has commanded people to eat cow shi(t and walk naked.

I certainly dont believe it was God who did them, because they are plain stupid and God nor Jesus would not approve of these acts. And I understand that there could be many verses in the NT books to give Godship to Jesus while giving evidence to the sinful nature of man. But they contradict the words of Jesus.

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Actually all of scripture works in harmony with itself. Also, since Jesus has always been with the Father, it's hard for me to see how he could not have approved of any act by God in the Old Testament. It would be like your left hand not approving of what your right was doing.

Jesus never spoke them, and Paul works against the teachings of Jesus, in the book itself.

Let me get this straight...are you saying Jesus didn't choose his disciples? Isn't that a bit like the solider who tells the corporal he refuses to take the hill because the President didn't speak the words?

If you are God, why would you need to say I of myself can do nothing?

"Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. John 5:19"

You're looking at the bible piecemeal rather than as a whole.

Also, this verse doesn't tell me Jesus "...can do nothing". What it does tell me is Jesus doesn't deviate from the Father.

Since you know Greek as well I am happy. Then also you must analyse this verse. It says Gar An, for likely. Which means likely what God would do. And Poiee or what God might do. Jesus does what God would likely might do. There is a bit of a misinterpretation there. It does not explicitly say that Jesus is God. Even in the most evolved Gospel, John. And when you say see, it doesnt mean physically see with your own eyes. In Greek or in many other languages when you say "I see" it doesnt always mean with your eyes. Its an understanding. Mata penawa. Enakku Vilannguthu or in Greek, 'blepee'.

No one can see God and live does not apply. If you quote the old testament you must also agree that God does not beget children, as in physically beget children.

I believe the only reason we're discussing John 5:19 is because you brought it up to show Jesus was not God. I did not bring this verse up to show that Jesus was God.

Jesus says, I ascend towards my father and your father, my God and your God in John 20:17 (words might differ. I cant remember exactly). Patera Mou, Patera Humuon, Theon mou kai theou Humuon.

I understand the theology of Jesus's divinity, but not the literary validity.

When one person says "Why do you call me good. No one is good except God" he is basically saying dont call me good.

No. He is asking why are you calling him good. Your are putting words and meanings into his mouth that are not there. If he wanted to say "Don't call me good" he would have said "Don't call me good". Aramic is robust enough for him to make such a declaration.

And yes, I know the Jews would have loved to see Jesus simply materialize in their midst, declare he was God, and smite the nearest Roman legion with a lightening bolt, but that was not the plan for redemption God had in mind.

Cmon bro. Thats to me, an absurd thing to say that Jesus didnt say dont, but was asking a question why, so that doesnt mean Jesus is human.

I would respectfully disagree. It would be absurd for me to put "don't" when "don't" isn't there.

And though you said Jesus did not say "Only God is Good", he says "oudeis agathos" or no one is good, then says "if not one, the God". And I didnt mean to say that Jesus not Good, lol.

I am saying Jesus said "Only God is Good". What I am also saying is that at no time did Jesus say he wasn't.

The arguments are very vague, even in the Gospel of John. Being an evolved book in terms of the divinity of christ, it still lacks conviction to prove with no doubt at all that Jesus is God. There should be statements made by Jesus himself simply saying "i am God" like when God says "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. ‘You shall have no other gods before Me. (Deuteronomy 5:6-7)"

Ah! So what did Moses ask of God?

• Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Exodus 3:13

And what did Jesus say?

• Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:56-59

Kind of hard for me to envision Jesus as just a man if he was before Abraham, and if he's using "I am" to describe himself.

Earlier I mentioned that you appear to be looking at verses piecemeal. Try to look at scripture holistically. I understand the urge is to toss out scripture, books, and to demote apostles that don't write they way we think they should, but to me the canon we have makes sense just as it is.

The key for me has been to let scripture interpret itself. If I find it conflicts with other scripture than some other interpretation must have been intended. It also means that when God says man will not understand Him, that His ways are not our ways, then that must be true. (Isaiah 55: 8-9).

In fact, when someone offers me a God that is nicely explained and understandable, then I'm pretty sure they're not describing the God of scripture. Quite simply, I think an amoeba would have a better shot at understanding Capital Gains and the Alternative Minimum Tax than man would of understanding God. But I'm sure that won't prevent some amoeba's claiming they can explain the whole thing to their fellow amoebas in a nutshell.

 

[firedragon]

Doubtful...the Jews were eagerly awaiting a Messiah to establish the Olam HaBa and end the Roman occupation. It would be totally illogical for the Jews to stone someone promising to be their deliverer. Besides, believing yourself to be a Messiah or anointed one wasn't considered by the Jews to be a sin punishable by stoning, but claiming to be God most certainly would be.

Athronges, Simon of Peraea, Judas of Galilee and a host of others all claimed to be the Messiah and I'm sure there were no lack of rocks in Jerusalem.



That's an argument you're most likely to get from Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses, but not from Trinitarians.



No where in the bible can I find any command by God for Moses to kill the Egyptian. That's something Moses decided to do on his own, without heavenly or governmental sanction.



Why not? They would have the same author wouldn't they?



Exactly! Yet God still chose them, showing there's hope for us yet.



I'm not seeing the contradiction. Actually all of scripture works in harmony with itself. Also, since Jesus has always been with the Father, it's hard for me to see how he could not have approved of any act by God in the Old Testament. It would be like your left hand not approving of what your right was doing.



Let me get this straight...are you saying Jesus didn't choose his disciples? Isn't that a bit like the solider who tells the corporal he refuses to take the hill because the President didn't speak the words?



You're looking at the bible piecemeal rather than as a whole.

Also, this verse doesn't tell me Jesus "...can do nothing". What it does tell me is Jesus doesn't deviate from the Father.



I believe the only reason we're discussing John 5:19 is because you brought it up to show Jesus was not God. I did not bring this verse up to show that Jesus was God.



No. He is asking why are you calling him good. Your are putting words and meanings into his mouth that are not there. If he wanted to say "Don't call me good" he would have said "Don't call me good". Aramic is robust enough for him to make such a declaration.

And yes, I know the Jews would have loved to see Jesus simply materialize in their midst, declare he was God, and smite the nearest Roman legion with a lightening bolt, but that was not the plan for redemption God had in mind.



I would respectfully disagree. It would be absurd for me to put "don't" when "don't" isn't there.



I am saying Jesus said "Only God is Good". What I am also saying is that at no time did Jesus say he wasn't.



Ah! So what did Moses ask of God?

• Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Exodus 3:13

And what did Jesus say?

• Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:56-59

Kind of hard for me to envision Jesus as just a man if he was before Abraham, and if he's using "I am" to describe himself.

Earlier I mentioned that you appear to be looking at verses piecemeal. Try to look at scripture holistically. I understand the urge is to toss out scripture, books, and to demote apostles that don't write they way we think they should, but to me the canon we have makes sense just as it is.

The key for me has been to let scripture interpret itself. If I find it conflicts with other scripture than some other interpretation must have been intended. It also means that when God says man will not understand Him, that His ways are not our ways, then that must be true. (Isaiah 55: 8-9).

In fact, when someone offers me a God that is nicely explained and understandable, then I'm pretty sure they're not describing the God of scripture. Quite simply, I think an amoeba would have a better shot at understanding Capital Gains and the Alternative Minimum Tax than man would of understanding God. But I'm sure that won't prevent some amoeba's claiming they can explain the whole thing to their fellow amoebas in a nutshell.

"Aramaic is robust enough to make that statement". - Oeste

Oh, My God.

Peace.

 

[moorea944]

Doubtful...the Jews were eagerly awaiting a Messiah to establish the Olam HaBa and end the Roman occupation. It would be totally illogical for the Jews to stone someone promising to be their deliverer. Besides, believing yourself to be a Messiah or anointed one wasn't considered by the Jews to be a sin punishable by stoning, but claiming to be God most certainly would be.

Athronges, Simon of Peraea, Judas of Galilee and a host of others all claimed to be the Messiah and I'm sure there were no lack of rocks in Jerusalem.



That's an argument you're most likely to get from Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses, but not from Trinitarians.



No where in the bible can I find any command by God for Moses to kill the Egyptian. That's something Moses decided to do on his own, without heavenly or governmental sanction.



Why not? They would have the same author wouldn't they?



Exactly! Yet God still chose them, showing there's hope for us yet.



I'm not seeing the contradiction. Actually all of scripture works in harmony with itself. Also, since Jesus has always been with the Father, it's hard for me to see how he could not have approved of any act by God in the Old Testament. It would be like your left hand not approving of what your right was doing.



Let me get this straight...are you saying Jesus didn't choose his disciples? Isn't that a bit like the solider who tells the corporal he refuses to take the hill because the President didn't speak the words?



You're looking at the bible piecemeal rather than as a whole.

Also, this verse doesn't tell me Jesus "...can do nothing". What it does tell me is Jesus doesn't deviate from the Father.



I believe the only reason we're discussing John 5:19 is because you brought it up to show Jesus was not God. I did not bring this verse up to show that Jesus was God.



No. He is asking why are you calling him good. Your are putting words and meanings into his mouth that are not there. If he wanted to say "Don't call me good" he would have said "Don't call me good". Aramic is robust enough for him to make such a declaration.

And yes, I know the Jews would have loved to see Jesus simply materialize in their midst, declare he was God, and smite the nearest Roman legion with a lightening bolt, but that was not the plan for redemption God had in mind.



I would respectfully disagree. It would be absurd for me to put "don't" when "don't" isn't there.



I am saying Jesus said "Only God is Good". What I am also saying is that at no time did Jesus say he wasn't.



Ah! So what did Moses ask of God?

• Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Exodus 3:13

And what did Jesus say?

• Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:56-59

Kind of hard for me to envision Jesus as just a man if he was before Abraham, and if he's using "I am" to describe himself.

Earlier I mentioned that you appear to be looking at verses piecemeal. Try to look at scripture holistically. I understand the urge is to toss out scripture, books, and to demote apostles that don't write they way we think they should, but to me the canon we have makes sense just as it is.

The key for me has been to let scripture interpret itself. If I find it conflicts with other scripture than some other interpretation must have been intended. It also means that when God says man will not understand Him, that His ways are not our ways, then that must be true. (Isaiah 55: 8-9).

In fact, when someone offers me a God that is nicely explained and understandable, then I'm pretty sure they're not describing the God of scripture. Quite simply, I think an amoeba would have a better shot at understanding Capital Gains and the Alternative Minimum Tax than man would of understanding God. But I'm sure that won't prevent some amoeba's claiming they can explain the whole thing to their fellow amoebas in a nutshell.

Doubtful...the Jews were eagerly awaiting a Messiah to establish the Olam HaBa and end the Roman occupation. It would be totally illogical for the Jews to stone someone promising to be their deliverer. Besides, believing yourself to be a Messiah or anointed one wasn't considered by the Jews to be a sin punishable by stoning, but claiming to be God most certainly would be.

Firedragon is correct. Not only did they want to kill Jesus, they wanted to kill the apostles too. Jesus was the Son of God. They hated that! For the Jews to believe that their God would have a son through a women was inconceivable!!! Plus, the Jews wanted to kill them because they are preaching a "new covenant". You dont need the "law" anymore, it's by faith that your saved. Repent and be baptised for your sins too. And your now equal with the Gentiles (dogs as the Jews called them).
Plus, they really didnt believe that Jesus was their deliever. They wanted someone like David, that would come in on a white horse with an army and free them from the Romans. But Jesus? Nope. Turn the other cheek....

 

[Dionysus]

b.s. Think about how it would really go down. Things haven't changed that much. Stop being such a sucker.

 

[Yoshua]

You said Jesus claims to be messiah and god. What I say is that Jesus claims to be messiah. Of course. But he never anywhere claims to be messiah AND GOD. john 4:25 and 26 only claims the messiah. Only. No god there. And its absurd to have christ within brackets when it has already said messiah, the same thing, if its a software, its misleading.

Messiah and god,
Those were your words. But I understand perfectly that's your theology and I don't intend to say question your theology. But I do question the scriptural or/and historical claims Jesus made.when you quote the upper room incident, it's not Jesus who says I am god. Hope you understand what I meant. it was Thomas who said kyrio mou kai ho theos mou.

yes he does say my god. But it was the doubting Thomas, your words were "Jesus claims to be messiah and God". He never did.A

Also, once I told my boss that we have achieved a record sales figure for 3 radio channels I was working for. He asked me how much. I showed him the revenue sheet to surprise him. He was surprised, and he exclaimed "Jesus Christ". And no, he wasn't calling me Jesus Christ, it was only his expression. Peace brother.

Ok. Firedragon, We settled with the Messiah. Now, I would like to comment regarding your answer about John 20:28. Let us study the whole narration and the context.

John 20:19-29
17. Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, `I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"
18. Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her.
Jesus among His Disciples
19. When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you."
20. And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21. Jesus therefore said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
22. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23. "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25. The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
26. And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you."
27. Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
28. Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

In v.18, Mary Magdalene announce to the disciples that she has seen the Lord Jesus. (Thomas was not included and it does not specify who are those disciples that she was told aside form v.1 & v.2 Simon Peter & Peter)
In v.19, Jesus came and appeared with the disciples (Thomas was not included)
In v.25, Those disciples who have seen Jesus told Thomas. Truly he doubted about the information that Jesus appeared to them. Thomas claimed that he must see Jesus first before believing.
Note: Thomas has in mind (in advance) that Jesus came and appeared to other disciples without him but to assure the validity of information, he must see Jesus first.

In v.26, take note of the span of days, this is after eight days that Thomas knew about Jesus appearance with the other disciples. Look at the first word of Jesus, He say "Peace be with you," then He continues saying "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
In v.28, Thomas confessed "My Lord and my God!"

Now, let us analyze the situation about the expression. This is what most of the non-trinitarians believers used to misinterpret it as the expression. Let me ask you this questions:
1. Why would Thomas will uttered such a phrase "My God" to Jesus when they are not allowed to call someone "God" during their time?
2. Why Jesus does not corrected nor rebuke Thomas if He was not God?
3. Do you think that a person's reaction to commit such an expression is valid when Thomas knew the information about Jesus appearance beforehand (after eight
days passed)?
4. Would somebody will react such expression upon the following sequence of scenario?
- eight days passed knew that Jesus appearance
- Jesus appeared first and uttered "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but
believing."
5. Why Thomas was not stoned by the other disciples when He uttered "My Lord and My God"? (When Jesus claimed to be God, the Jews stoned Him) Why not for
Thomas?

In relation to your example with your boss is far from the context with the scenario of Jesus and Thomas and the setting itself. That is a bad hermeneutics. In the first place, Jesus was already seen by Thomas; uttered a statement before Thomas confessed "My Lord and My God."

Thanks

 

[Oeste]

They tried to stone him because he claims to be the Messiah. Thats blasphemy enough to the Jews.

Doubtful...the Jews were eagerly awaiting a Messiah to establish the Olam HaBa and end the Roman occupation. It would be totally illogical for the Jews to stone someone promising to be their deliverer. Besides, believing yourself to be a Messiah or anointed one wasn't considered by the Jews to be a sin punishable by stoning, but claiming to be God most certainly would be.

Athronges, Simon of Peraea, Judas of Galilee and a host of others all claimed to be the Messiah and I'm sure there were no lack of rocks in Jerusalem.

Firedragon is correct. Not only did they want to kill Jesus, they wanted to kill the apostles too.

Why did they want to stone Jesus Moorea?

Was it because he said he was the Messiah, an anointed one? Israel had plenty of folks claiming the same in abundance! Did they pick up rocks and stone them all, and if so, how do you explain Athronges, Simon, or Judas?

Scripture doesn't tell us the Jews were trying to stone Jesus because he was the Messiah but of his claim to be God.

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." John 10:32

Jesus was the Son of God. They hated that! For the Jews to believe that their God would have a son through a women was inconceivable!!! Plus, the Jews wanted to kill them because they are preaching a "new covenant". You dont need the "law" anymore, it's by faith that your saved. Repent and be baptised for your sins too. And your now equal with the Gentiles (dogs as the Jews called them).
Plus, they really didnt believe that Jesus was their deliever. They wanted someone like David, that would come in on a white horse with an army and free them from the Romans. But Jesus? Nope. Turn the other cheek....

Agreed.

I don't disagree with you or Firedragon that certain Jews wanted Jesus dead, just on the reason why these Jews wanted to stone him. Yoshua is correct.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You said Jesus claims to be messiah and god. What I say is that Jesus claims to be messiah. Of course. But he never anywhere claims to be messiah AND GOD. john 4:25 and 26 only claims the messiah. Only. No god there. And its absurd to have christ within brackets when it has already said messiah, the same thing, if its a software, its misleading.

Messiah and god,
Those were your words. But I understand perfectly that's your theology and I don't intend to say question your theology. But I do question the scriptural or/and historical claims Jesus made.when you quote the upper room incident, it's not Jesus who says I am god. Hope you understand what I meant. it was Thomas who said kyrio mou kai ho theos mou.

yes he does say my god. But it was the doubting Thomas, your words were "Jesus claims to be messiah and God". He never did.A

Also, once I told my boss that we have achieved a record sales figure for 3 radio channels I was working for. He asked me how much. I showed him the revenue sheet to surprise him. He was surprised, and he exclaimed "Jesus Christ". And no, he wasn't calling me Jesus Christ, it was only his expression. Peace brother.

Firedragon, you are correct.....Jesus had told Martha earlier (John 20:17), "I ascend to....my God and your God." Vs.18 tells us that she told the disciples what He had said to her. And, later, Thomas is going to ID Jesus as, "my God"? Yeah, right!

Regarding the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, because of His claim to be Messiah? They wanted a fighting Messiah, to remove the Roman rule.....but they knew Jesus wouldn't fight! Look at their words at John 11:48. They knew It, because of His Sermon on the Mount, to "love your enemies." (Matthew 5:44) They didn't want that!

And, regarding the Jews claiming Jesus was 'making himself God,' (John 10:33), look at a Greek Interlinear of that verse. They didn't say, "making himself THE God." That's what they would've said, being Greek is a language without indefinite articles. (See the wording in an Interlinear of John 10:1, yet all Bibles say "a thief and a plunderer.")
So, actually, what they were saying is that Jesus was making himself a god. But in the end, we realize it was what they were saying, and they were screwed up in their thinking, anyways.

 

[firedragon]

1. Direct references to Jesus being God are mostly justified by quoting third party statements. e.g. The doubting thomas
2. Jesus says "Your father" 9 times before he says "My father" but he is apparently the begotten son.
3. God has many sons. If Jesus was indeed a biological son, then Ephreim must be his elder brother.
   
4. In John 10 the Jews do say 'If you are the Messiah tell us plainly'. It is after this discussion that they try to stone him. Thus it is more possible that he was claiming to be Messiah and the Jews found it blasphemes. Those who understand the Jews will know where the Messiah stands for them. They were expecting a sword wielding, powerful leader, not a gentle peaceful one who says show the other cheek.
5. Gospel of John is a more evolved book. The theology in that is much more evolved than the previous books. None of them had an author, and the stories in all four are different, and it is a known fact that John had a minimum of two authors and that he was influenced by evolved theologies and older writings like Philo's.
   
6. Mary Magdalene telling that Jesus has risen depends on the manuscript, many dont believe that ever happened due to more authentic manuscripts not having that part in the bible. Its new.
7. Jesus calls himself "Son of man" many a time. Bar Nasha. That means human. In the old testament the phrase Son of man is used some 90 times. Or is it 93. Cant remember exactly. Ben Adam or Houios tou Anthropou. That means human. You can refer to yourself, or another person. I think the book of Ezekiel says Son of man around 80 times. This is the language you must try and relate to.
   
8. Oh also, Israel is Prototokos, the eldest son, or the first born. First born is the heir, the legacy. Thats how old languages work. Thus, Gods eldest son must be more important than Jesus??
9. Before Abraham I am. I am or Ego Eimi. They refer to Moses' story with God. IN that God says "I am what I am" or "I am the being". Thats "Ego Eimi Ho On". Not Eimi ho Eimi (Like Paul in 1 corinthians 15 10) )) for these new generations to think that it was the same thing Jesus was claiming. And Saul also says I am what I am.
10. If Jesus was God, he would say "I am God". It is others who say it, not Jesus himself. If a disciple exclaims "My God my lord" that does not make Jesus God. There are many who call themselves divine these days and they worship humans. At least, I say again "At least" that man must claim himself to be God. Thats the least. Then we can assess what he is saying. When he doesnt even say that "He is God", why are we completely banking our salvation on what others say. Third party exclamations.

I perfectly agree that theology can be anything, and arguments can be outside the scripture. Some say "i saw Jesus last night". Now thats a viable argument though we wont believe him. Thats more viable because thats his belief. We can call him a lunatic, but we cant dispute his argument because we were not there. But when someone says scripture says this or that, they have to prove. Jesus does not claim to be God. You can personally believe it. Thats your right you were born with.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Firedragon, you are correct.....Jesus had told Martha earlier (John 20:17), "I ascend to....my God and your God." Vs.18 tells us that she told the disciples what He had said to her. And, later, Thomas is going to ID Jesus as, "my God"? Yeah, right!

Regarding the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, because of His claim to be Messiah? They wanted a fighting Messiah, to remove the Roman rule.....but they knew Jesus wouldn't fight! Look at their words at John 11:48. They knew It, because of His Sermon on the Mount, to "love your enemies." (Matthew 5:44) They didn't want that!

And, regarding the Jews claiming Jesus was 'making himself God,' (John 10:33), look at a Greek Interlinear of that verse. They didn't say, "making himself THE God." That's what they would've said, being Greek is a language without indefinite articles. (See the wording in an Interlinear of John 10:1, yet all Bibles say "a thief and a plunderer.")
So, actually, what they were saying is that Jesus was making himself a god. But in the end, we realize it was what they were saying, and they were screwed up in their thinking, anyways.

You are absolutely right brother. But hope its okay if I say my thought??

Jews accuse Jesus of claiming divinity, yes. But that is not God. They say he claims to be theon. That could easily be that he is claiming to be divine, not as their almighty God.

God himself appoints Moses as divine. That doesnt mean he is God. There are little Gods and big Gods like little lords in an estate and the big lord who owns it.

Same case when Jesus says "Theoi Este", Gods you are. Thus in the old times you were called God's. That is not God's. ITs divine or little lords. Little lord represents the almighty God. Little lords in a farm represents the big lord who owns it. Jesus was merely saying that.

Err. Well, I know that I could have said it any better. But bottom line is, calling someone theon does not always mean God. Then Moses is also God.
You can messiah, which is a divine position. Only if you could speak a different language this could be explained better. Errm, nope I dont know spanish and french.

Cheers bro.

 

[Oeste]

Firedragon, you are correct.....Jesus had told Martha earlier (John 20:17), "I ascend to....my God and your God." Vs.18 tells us that she told the disciples what He had said to her.

Since there is only one God, what other God do you think Jesus could ascend to?

And, later, Thomas is going to ID Jesus as, "my God"? Yeah, right!

Exactly right unless you're claiming Thomas was lying.

Regarding the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, because of His claim to be Messiah?

Can you quote the specific passage where the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah?

They wanted a fighting Messiah, to remove the Roman rule.....but they knew Jesus wouldn't fight!

I don't think anyone here is contesting whether Jesus came to establish his kingdom via force or not.

Look at their words at John 11:48. They knew It, because of His Sermon on the Mount, to "love your enemies." (Matthew 5:44) They didn't want that!

Okay... I see the biblical verse but I'm not sure how this ties in with the topic at hand.

And, regarding the Jews claiming Jesus was 'making himself God,' (John 10:33), look at a Greek Interlinear of that verse. They didn't say, "making himself THE God." That's what they would've said, being Greek is a language without indefinite articles. (See the wording in an Interlinear of John 10:1, yet all Bibles say "a thief and a plunderer.")
So, actually, what they were saying is that Jesus was making himself a god. But in the end, we realize it was what they were saying, and they were screwed up in their thinking, anyways.

You have me totally confused with this statement Hokeycowboy.

Are you saying that Jesus was proclaiming himself "a god" and not "the God" and that the Jews were stoning him because he claimed to be "a god" rather than "the God"???

And when you say "they were screwed up in their thinking" are you saying the Jews would not have stoned him if he claimed to be "the God" but "a god", or are you saying the Jews would not have stoned him if he claimed to "the God" but not "a god"?

 

[moorea944]

Ok. Firedragon, We settled with the Messiah. Now, I would like to comment regarding your answer about John 20:28. Let us study the whole narration and the context.

John 20:19-29
17. Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, `I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"
18. Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her.
Jesus among His Disciples
19. When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you."
20. And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21. Jesus therefore said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
22. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23. "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25. The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
26. And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you."
27. Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
28. Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

In v.18, Mary Magdalene announce to the disciples that she has seen the Lord Jesus. (Thomas was not included and it does not specify who are those disciples that she was told aside form v.1 & v.2 Simon Peter & Peter)
In v.19, Jesus came and appeared with the disciples (Thomas was not included)
In v.25, Those disciples who have seen Jesus told Thomas. Truly he doubted about the information that Jesus appeared to them. Thomas claimed that he must see Jesus first before believing.
Note: Thomas has in mind (in advance) that Jesus came and appeared to other disciples without him but to assure the validity of information, he must see Jesus first.

In v.26, take note of the span of days, this is after eight days that Thomas knew about Jesus appearance with the other disciples. Look at the first word of Jesus, He say "Peace be with you," then He continues saying "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
In v.28, Thomas confessed "My Lord and my God!"

Now, let us analyze the situation about the expression. This is what most of the non-trinitarians believers used to misinterpret it as the expression. Let me ask you this questions:
1. Why would Thomas will uttered such a phrase "My God" to Jesus when they are not allowed to call someone "God" during their time?
2. Why Jesus does not corrected nor rebuke Thomas if He was not God?
3. Do you think that a person's reaction to commit such an expression is valid when Thomas knew the information about Jesus appearance beforehand (after eight
days passed)?
4. Would somebody will react such expression upon the following sequence of scenario?
- eight days passed knew that Jesus appearance
- Jesus appeared first and uttered "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but
believing."
5. Why Thomas was not stoned by the other disciples when He uttered "My Lord and My God"? (When Jesus claimed to be God, the Jews stoned Him) Why not for
Thomas?

In relation to your example with your boss is far from the context with the scenario of Jesus and Thomas and the setting itself. That is a bad hermeneutics. In the first place, Jesus was already seen by Thomas; uttered a statement before Thomas confessed "My Lord and My God."

Thanks

Now, let us analyze the situation about the expression. This is what most of the non-trinitarians believers used to misinterpret it as the expression. Let me ask you this questions:
1. Why would Thomas will uttered such a phrase "My God" to Jesus when they are not allowed to call someone "God" during their time?

I just want to first say that it is the trinitarians that misinterpret. But anyhow....
Thomas did not call Jesus God. Our "English bibles" do. He is calling him "Elohim". You are my Lord and my Elohim. But this verse with "God" in it, is great for trinitarians!! But when you open a Hebrew book, you see what is really said.

Look at John 10. The Jews didnt like Jesus calling himself the Son of God. They didnt really understand him. They thought that he was calling himself God, but he wasnt. Jesus has a great comeback and he tells them that you and your fathers were called gods or Elohim. The Judges were also called Elohim too and the Levi priests. Because they were the ones who brought the word of God to the people. That is why Thomas called Jesus, you are my Lord and my Elohim (God).

2. Why Jesus does not corrected nor rebuke Thomas if He was not God?

Jesus knew what he was saying in Hebrew.

5. Why Thomas was not stoned by the other disciples when He uttered "My Lord and My God"? (When Jesus claimed to be God, the Jews stoned Him) Why not for Thomas?

Jesus never claimed to be God, or his father. Jesus always gave his father the glory in everything he did.

 

[Oeste]

Now, let us analyze the situation about the expression. This is what most of the non-trinitarians believers used to misinterpret it as the expression. Let me ask you this questions:

1. Why would Thomas will uttered such a phrase "My God" to Jesus when they are not allowed to call someone "God" during their time?

I just want to first say that it is the trinitarians that misinterpret. But anyhow....
Thomas did not call Jesus God. Our "English bibles" do. He is calling him "Elohim".

Then why does my bible say “theos” and not “Elohim”? Are you sure it's Trinitarians misinterpreting?

You are my Lord and my Elohim.

What exactly does “My Lord and my Elohim” mean to you?

But this verse with "God" in it, is great for trinitarians!! But when you open a Hebrew book, you see what is really said.

So to understand Koine Greek we should read it in Hebrew?

Look at John 10. The Jews didnt like Jesus calling himself the Son of God. They didnt really understand him.

Aaah. So the Jews “didn’t like” Jesus calling himself “the Son of God”. Should he have called himself “Son of man” instead?

In other words, do you think that the Jews misunderstood him because he called himself the “Son of God” rather than the “Son of man”, or do you think the Jews understood Jesus perfectly when he called himself “Son of man” but just misunderstood him when he called himself the “Son of God”?

They thought that he was calling himself God, but he wasnt.

So what was he actually calling himself then? Was it “Son of God", "Son of man", or something else entirely?

Jesus has a great comeback and he tells them that you and your fathers were called gods or Elohim.

Well let’s take a look:

1 God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?

3 Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler​

Before getting into what this actually means, I’d like to get your explanation of it. Are you saying that Jesus quoted this verse to show he was just like the ‘gods’ who know and understand nothing?

Also, are you saying that the Jews dropped their rocks once Jesus correctly identified himself as one of these wicked gods?

Or are you saying we need to take verse six, “I said you are gods…” and then ignore/take a break from the surrounding verses?

The Judges were also called Elohim too and the Levi priests.

Can you give us scriptural examples where the Jews referred to a Levite priest as “my Lord and my Elohim (God)? Also, where did these other gods fit in? Was it before God, beside Him, or after Him?

2. Why Jesus does not corrected nor rebuke Thomas if He was not God?

Because they were the ones who brought the word of God to the people. That is why Thomas called Jesus, you are my Lord and my Elohim (God).

Jesus knew what he was saying in Hebrew.

So Jesus doesn’t rebuke people if he knows what he's saying in Hebrew???

Why Thomas was not stoned by the other disciples when He uttered "My Lord and My God"? (When Jesus claimed to be God, the Jews stoned Him) Why not for Thomas?

Jesus never claimed to be God, or his father. Jesus always gave his father the glory in everything he did.[/QUOTE]

Your answer doesn’t quite answer Yoshua's question as to why Thomas wasn’t stoned by the Jews or other disciples.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Since there is only one God, what other God do you think Jesus could ascend to?

You yourself are saying it!

Yes, exactly. There is only ONE true God, the Father, as Jesus stated more than once. (John 17:3; John 4:23-24; etc.) So why are you (and others) intent on going beyond what is written, by making Jesus, God?

Can you quote the specific passage where the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah?

John 11:48-50; John 11:53. They were so wicked, they wanted to kill Lazarus, too! John 12:9-11.


Lastly, you said:

"Are you saying that Jesus was proclaiming himself "a god" and not "the God" and that the Jews were stoning him because he claimed to be "a god" rather than "the God"???

And when you say "they were screwed up in their thinking" are you saying the Jews would not have stoned him if he claimed to be "the God" but "a god", or are you saying the Jews would not have stoned him if he claimed to "the God" but not "a god"?"

Why are you intentionally misconstruing the verse? Other than saying he was the Messiah, Jesus wasn't "proclaiming himself" anything more. They were!

 

[Oeste]

Since there is only one God, what other God do you think Jesus could ascend to?

You yourself are saying it!

Yes, exactly. There is only ONE true God, the Father, as Jesus stated more than once. (John 17:3; John 4:23-24; etc.) So why are you (and others) intent on going beyond what is written, by making Jesus, God?

When, exactly, have I said anything different? Did you not read post 1564?:

1Tim.2:5. For there is one God, 'and' one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Agreed. This scripture is in accordance with Trinitarian doctrine, but refutes the Tritheists who believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 separate Gods.

Christ Jesus is a Man.

Agreed, but he also God, otherwise Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 9:26, and Philippians 2:6 are lies.

If it's your intent to, as you say, to "go beyond what is written" and lump disparate doctrines like the Trinity and Tritheism together, let me know, as I find it relatively easy "go beyond what is written" by whatever Witnesses and Mormons believe and lump them together as well.

Can you quote the specific passage where the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah?

John 11:48-50; John 11:53. They were so wicked, they wanted to kill Lazarus, too! John 12:9-11.

Context, HockeyCowboy, context. We were talking about death by stoning remember? That’s all I’ve been talking about in my last few posts.

I think we need a recap here:

In post 1587, Yoshua addressed NewChapter and quoted John 10: 30-33:

God was in Jesus is what that means. That does not mean that Jesus was God Himself (John 14:28:).

Hi New,

Did you know that during their time, they are very cautious and careful to call someone "God'? this is the reason why they stoned Jesus when He claimed He is one with the the Father.

John 10:30-33
30. "I and the Father are one."
31. The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
32. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
33. 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."

Firedragon disagreed and in post 1588 states that the Jews picked up stones because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and not because he claimed to be God:

They tried to stone him because he claims to be the Messiah. Thats blasphemy enough to the Jews.

I took issue with Firedragon's statement in post 1604:

Doubtful...the Jews were eagerly awaiting a Messiah to establish the Olam HaBa and end the Roman occupation. It would be totally illogical for the Jews to stone someone promising to be their deliverer. Besides, believing yourself to be a Messiah or anointed one wasn't considered by the Jews to be a sin punishable by stoning, but claiming to be God most certainly would be.

But you agreed with Firedragon in post 1610 that Jesus wasn’t proclaiming to be God, just the Messiah.

Firedragon, you are correct.....
...And, regarding the Jews claiming Jesus was 'making himself God,' (John 10:33), look at a Greek Interlinear of that verse. They didn't say, "making himself THE God." That's what they would've said, being Greek is a language without indefinite articles. (See the wording in an Interlinear of John 10:1, yet all Bibles say "a thief and a plunderer.")
So, actually, what they were saying is that Jesus was making himself a god. But in the end, we realize it was what they were saying, and they were screwed up in their thinking, anyways.

Since both you and Moore agree with Firedragon there must be scriptural evidence. I simply want to know where I can find it...specifically the passage that allows a Jew to pick up a stone and kill anyone claiming to be Messiah. The verses you’ve pointed out so far, John 11:48-50; John 11:53, don’t appear to show this at all.

Lastly, you said:

"Are you saying that Jesus was proclaiming himself "a god" and not "the God" and that the Jews were stoning him because he claimed to be "a god" rather than "the God"???

And when you say "they were screwed up in their thinking" are you saying the Jews would not have stoned him if he claimed to be "the God" but "a god", or are you saying the Jews would not have stoned him if he claimed to "the God" but not "a god"?"

Why are you intentionally misconstruing the verse? Other than saying he was the Messiah, Jesus wasn't "proclaiming himself" anything more. They were!

But it is still a proclamation by Jesus HockeyCowboy!​

So we have TWO proclamations here, one by Jesus, and the other by the crowd. Let's look at both of them.

In the first proclamation you state Jesus was not, at John 10, proclaiming himself to be “anything more” than like the wicked messiahs or gods of Israel found at Psalm 82: 1-7. Is this correct?

Also, that the crowd mistakenly thought Jesus to be proclaiming himself to be like God, but once Jesus straightened them out, and convinced them he wasn’t “anything more” than the wicked gods or judges of Israel, they decided to drop their stones.

Is this also correct?

And from both of these proclamations,and from the dropping of stones, we see the Jews justly thought to be a Messiah like a wicked god was not an act punishable by stoning, but to be Messiah like God was an act punishable by stoning, and once Jesus rightly explained he was a Messiah like the wicked gods or judges of Israel and not a Messiah like true God he justly escaped stoning by the Jews.

Is this also correct, or am I still, somehow, "misconstruing the verse"???

 

[Notaclue]

Notaclue said: ↑
1Tim.2:5. For there is one God, 'and' one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

You changed my post ? The word 'between' is not in the Scripture. Man dreamed it up !


1Tim.2:5.(D.R.) For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

Christ Jesus is of God and of Man.


(Quote) Oeste
↑
Num.23:19. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


I remember and old quote from Gracie Allen..."Never put a period where God has put a comma".

I find most people who read this verse put a period at "God is not a man" rather than continuing on with "...that he should lie".
This verse does not tell us God is not man, only that God is not a man that he should lie. In other words, God is not a liar like man.



Ho.11:1. When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

11:9. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.


for I am God, and "not" man;


Do you think Gracie Allen would like this comma?


Peace to you and Gracie Allen.

 

[Oeste]

Notaclue said: ↑
1Tim.2:5. For there is one God, 'and' one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

You changed my post ? The word 'between' is not in the Scripture. Man dreamed it up !

No, I did not nor can I change your post. Your post is always as it has been unless you or perhaps a forum moderator changes it. In response to a question I posted, you responded with 1Tim 2:5 and it included the "between" with it, third line from the bottom.

Here it is:

Notaclue said: ↑
1Tim.2:5.(D.R.) For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

Well, previously you quoted it with the "between", and I'm not sure how you feel this changes whether Jesus is God, if at all. You would need to elaborate on your position more. Either way, I think it better to have a mediator who is both God and man.

Notaclue said: ↑Christ Jesus is of God and of Man.

What do you mean by “of God and of Man”? That Jesus is both God and Man, that he is neither God nor Man, that he is only God or Man, that he is the same God and the same man, or something else entirely?

Yoshua specifically asked you about modalism which is still unanswered. What is your response???

Notaclue said: ↑
(Quote) Oeste
↑
Num.23:19. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Actually this is your quote originally, as you brought it up first. I did re-quote it in my response.

I remember and old quote from Gracie Allen..."Never put a period where God has put a comma".

I find most people who read this verse put a period at "God is not a man" rather than continuing on with "...that he should lie".
This verse does not tell us God is not man, only that God is not a man that he should lie. In other words, God is not a liar like man.

Notaclue said: ↑
Ho.11:1. When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
11:9. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.
for I am God, and "not" man;

Do you think Gracie Allen would like this comma?

In a word? “No”.

I think you missed the whole point of Gracie Allen's comment Notaclue, but before I answer your question, please comment on the following:

“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” Psalm 137:9​

Anyone can pick up this verse and put it forth as the nature of happy men, just like anyone can pick a verse and put it forth as the nature of God.

But what Gracie Allen is stating is that scripture must be understood in context. It’s not something we lift, separate and evaluate in a vacuum. So let’s look at the scripture surrounding Hosea 11:9 and discuss it like reasonable men:

7 My people are determined to turn from me. Even if they call to the Most High, he will by no means exalt them. 8 "How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused. 9 I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath. Hosea 11:7-9​

First, I would like to point out someone can pluck “the Holy One among you” and argue this is a precursor of Christ just as easily as someone could pick “For I am God, and not man“ to show God is not Jesus, but I suspect either approach would be viewed with a fair amount of skepticism.

We’ve already discussed how God is not a man… that lies or repents (Numbers 23:19). At Hosea 11:9 we also see that God is not a man… that comes in wrath, so it’s perfectly harmonious and continuous with Numbers. It’s also perfectly harmonious with Jesus, because Jesus was not a man that had to lie and thus repent, nor is he a man that came in wrath.

IMO, Hosea 11:7-9 is simply stating God has compassion for Israel as well as Ephraim and wants neither to perish. Even though He can be angry at our stubborn behavior His compassion prevails over his anger. So these verses show a contrast between God and fallen man.

Next, I need to ask myself: If I say "Jesus is not a man...that lies, steals or repents" does that mean Jesus is not a man??? What would you say?

Lastly, what I don’t see here is a verse that simply says "God is not a man", and even if there were such a verse, it would be written prior to the incarnation and birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not after, so it wouldn’t apply. However I do see verses that say our Savior is God, specifically in the book of Isaiah. I've mentioned these verses before and no one has commented on this or the majority of questions posted.

 

[Yoshua]

If Jesus was God, he would say "I am God". It is others who say it, not Jesus himself. If a disciple exclaims "My God my lord" that does not make Jesus God. There are many who call themselves divine these days and they worship humans. At least, I say again "At least" that man must claim himself to be God. Thats the least. Then we can assess what he is saying. When he doesnt even say that "He is God", why are we completely banking our salvation on what others say. Third party exclamations.

Hi Firedragon,

If someone wants to claim who he is, do you need to say " I am....... If I'm a father, do I need to tell you that I'm a father? If I say that he is my son, would that conclude that I'm a father?

Thanks