I am absolutely sure that (a) you have no doubts, and (b) you have no warrant for such naive and arrogant certainty.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus say he was God???
- Thread starter Muffled
- Start date
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
It's neither impressive nor accurate but, then again, the same might be said about your uncritical acceptance of scripture.
Doodlebug02
Active Member
Yes, Jesus most certainly is God in the flesh. 
Muffled
Jesus in me
I did not use the words of Paul because there are many who like to argue that Paul doesn't know much and isn't inspired. However Christians do believe that Paul was inspired so that when he writes that Jesus is the exact representation of God that it corroborates what Jesus has already said.
I don't mind addressing questions that are contrary to what I believe the word says. The JW's say that Jesus is an angel (This is a similar belief to that of the Muslims because angel means messenger). One of the verses they use is this:
I Thes. 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Their claim is that Jesus has the voice of an archangel making him an angel. However the word with can also mean accompaniment such as the with the trump phrase. Would they be so quick as to say that Jesus had a trumpet for a mouth? Jw's have taken their belief and systematically removed the words of Jesus claiming to be God. I suspect if they hadn't believed that evidence to be cogent they wouldn't have worked so hard to remove it.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Part 1
The title of the thread was the question he says some one asked him. He proceeds to answer that question with chapter and verse. In that original post he gives no real explanation as to how he arrived at the interpertations but simply submitted chapter and verse as a proof. These quotes have been dealt with and some of them dealt with in their full context...such as the famous John 8:58.
Please believe me...I'm not.....It takes much more than a thread like this to offend me.
Sure I do. Yeshua never made a claim that he was God or that he was equal to God. On the contrary, He gave us clear information that he wasn't. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand context. Really, it isn't hard to understand.
What response was that? The time frame in which it was written or that it seemed like the author seemed to be inserting some of his own ideas in to the book?
And again, 8:58 was dealt with some time back. He was before Abraham because that is truth.....He confirms his existence before the world ever existed. The jews seemed to regard Abraham as the highest of the prophets and they took offense to some "young" man claiming to be as knowledgeable or more knowlegeable than Abraham.
This may be considered conjecture on your part. That scripture is clear. He (Satan) never regarded Yeshua as God in the flesh. He knew who Yeshua was. He knew that Yeshua was a protected son of God. We know that Satan is no stranger for being in the presence of God. He was there up to the time he was cast out. In the book of Job he comes to present himself before God and actually speaks to God concerning Job. And as I think of this interaction I think Satan would not have addressed Yeshua as one of God's protected servants if it was to be known by the multitude (followers of Yeshua) that Yeshua was actually God in the flesh.
I have no idea "what" kind of being (if you will) Yeshua was before coming here. I know he was separate from God having his own will. He was taught by God, he was instructed by God what he should say to the people. He was sent by God, he was stengthened by the power of God and given the power by God to do the things he did and when he was done with the task that God gave him to do he informed God thy will is done. I do not speculate beyond this. All of this is confirmed by scripture and none of it suggest he is God..
God had plenty of "sons". Lucifer himself is a son of God's. There's no doubt that Yeshua was a son of God's. Being a son of God's is a title we all can hold.
What if God was one of us...I think some one made a song about it.......
This is your assumption that God can be contained by and affected by his creation. If this is how you see it then that is your view.....
I'm having some trouble understanding the question. Why not send Yeshua, a perfect being, to show the people how they needed to be living? If he was as flawed as man was then people would have never listened to him (I guess). To me that question is a minor one. Why didn't God just make it all good? Why did he create evil if we are not to follow in the footsteps of evil. Surely God knows the outcome of all things?
Look, that's on you. You can either respond to me or don't. I hold no knife to your side to get you to do anything. We can look upon the book of John and tell very clearly where he is quoting something or where he is interjecting his own view......unless the book as a whole was completely from his mind......I can't remember which is older than them all...(Matther or Mark)....It could be that one of them is the oldest and the others were just copies with a few suttle changes in order to personalize their version. I really don't know. If it is quoted as Yeshua saying it I don't have a problem with quoting it. I've also quoted what others in the book of Matt, Mark, luke and John said "about" Yeshua. The best you could point out is that I normally don't anything of the opinions Paul has to offer.
See Part 2....
The title of the thread was the question he says some one asked him. He proceeds to answer that question with chapter and verse. In that original post he gives no real explanation as to how he arrived at the interpertations but simply submitted chapter and verse as a proof. These quotes have been dealt with and some of them dealt with in their full context...such as the famous John 8:58.
Please believe me...I'm not.....It takes much more than a thread like this to offend me.
Sure I do. Yeshua never made a claim that he was God or that he was equal to God. On the contrary, He gave us clear information that he wasn't. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand context. Really, it isn't hard to understand.
What response was that? The time frame in which it was written or that it seemed like the author seemed to be inserting some of his own ideas in to the book?
And again, 8:58 was dealt with some time back. He was before Abraham because that is truth.....He confirms his existence before the world ever existed. The jews seemed to regard Abraham as the highest of the prophets and they took offense to some "young" man claiming to be as knowledgeable or more knowlegeable than Abraham.
This may be considered conjecture on your part. That scripture is clear. He (Satan) never regarded Yeshua as God in the flesh. He knew who Yeshua was. He knew that Yeshua was a protected son of God. We know that Satan is no stranger for being in the presence of God. He was there up to the time he was cast out. In the book of Job he comes to present himself before God and actually speaks to God concerning Job. And as I think of this interaction I think Satan would not have addressed Yeshua as one of God's protected servants if it was to be known by the multitude (followers of Yeshua) that Yeshua was actually God in the flesh.
I have no idea "what" kind of being (if you will) Yeshua was before coming here. I know he was separate from God having his own will. He was taught by God, he was instructed by God what he should say to the people. He was sent by God, he was stengthened by the power of God and given the power by God to do the things he did and when he was done with the task that God gave him to do he informed God thy will is done. I do not speculate beyond this. All of this is confirmed by scripture and none of it suggest he is God..
God had plenty of "sons". Lucifer himself is a son of God's. There's no doubt that Yeshua was a son of God's. Being a son of God's is a title we all can hold.
What if God was one of us...I think some one made a song about it.......
This is your assumption that God can be contained by and affected by his creation. If this is how you see it then that is your view.....
I'm having some trouble understanding the question. Why not send Yeshua, a perfect being, to show the people how they needed to be living? If he was as flawed as man was then people would have never listened to him (I guess). To me that question is a minor one. Why didn't God just make it all good? Why did he create evil if we are not to follow in the footsteps of evil. Surely God knows the outcome of all things?
Look, that's on you. You can either respond to me or don't. I hold no knife to your side to get you to do anything. We can look upon the book of John and tell very clearly where he is quoting something or where he is interjecting his own view......unless the book as a whole was completely from his mind......I can't remember which is older than them all...(Matther or Mark)....It could be that one of them is the oldest and the others were just copies with a few suttle changes in order to personalize their version. I really don't know. If it is quoted as Yeshua saying it I don't have a problem with quoting it. I've also quoted what others in the book of Matt, Mark, luke and John said "about" Yeshua. The best you could point out is that I normally don't anything of the opinions Paul has to offer.
See Part 2....
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Part 2
Again, I don't have any beef with either of the books. I'll quote from either of the four books regardles of why they were written. I do this because for the most part they mirror each other.
I don't see it as worship the way some christians do. It's ok with me if that is the way you see it. I see it as a sign of respect, homage....But again that's me. And since my greek is rusty I tend to look for a definition of the word used to see what actual learned scholars have to say. Then it all comes down to the situation the word is being used or context if you will.
Strong's Greek Lexicon
4352. proskuneo pros-koo-neh'-o from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.
The latin vulgate use the same word (adore). Other bibles are in accordance with Strong's lexicographical rendering of the word. "Maybe" in the greek language that is the only word that was available to be used but depending on the situation the word can be applied broadly.
Yeshua said in John 20:17 he has a god and this god was the same for all of us. He did not exclude himself nor did he equal himself with God. We can see all throughout the four "gospels" he prays to God. We know that HE (Yeshua) "worships" God because he told us he did.
John 4:22
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
Yeah, but it had NOTHING to do with him being God. The priest asked him to to tell him if he be the "son of God". Yeshua said.... "It is you who say I am"....."but I am the son of man whom you will see seated at the right hand of God......
Ok....so the book Matthew and Mark differ slightly as to what Yeshua said...or didn't say. As you can see, in this kangaroo court, there was little he would be able to say to a mob that wanted him dead. They rendered their verdict after hearing him say he would be seated at the right hand of God........But notice.....he never claimed to be God....
So what? Are we to assume Luke was there when all of this supposedly took place with Paul? I don't think so. At best he can only write what he heard. He seems to confirm this at the beginning of the book of Luke. If Luke is the writer of Acts....so what....He wrote a "story"...a story to who?...... he wrote it to The-oph'ilus of what he himself heard from others who probably heard the stories from others.
Acts 1:1
In the first book, O The-oph'ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,
So...ok what was the first book?....It was the book of Luke which is commonly called a gospel but even that one was addressed to The-oph'ilus.
Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
"they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses"
Sounds to me he wasn't even an eyewitness to the events but merely writing what he had heard happen by those who supposedly were eyewitnesses.
He said he "carefully investigated" the stories that were handed down to him, but he does not say how this investigation was undertaken. In his address he never reveals who he spoke to in his investigations?
Again, see above........
Again, I don't have any beef with either of the books. I'll quote from either of the four books regardles of why they were written. I do this because for the most part they mirror each other.
I don't see it as worship the way some christians do. It's ok with me if that is the way you see it. I see it as a sign of respect, homage....But again that's me. And since my greek is rusty I tend to look for a definition of the word used to see what actual learned scholars have to say. Then it all comes down to the situation the word is being used or context if you will.
Strong's Greek Lexicon
4352. proskuneo pros-koo-neh'-o from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.
The latin vulgate use the same word (adore). Other bibles are in accordance with Strong's lexicographical rendering of the word. "Maybe" in the greek language that is the only word that was available to be used but depending on the situation the word can be applied broadly.
Yeshua said in John 20:17 he has a god and this god was the same for all of us. He did not exclude himself nor did he equal himself with God. We can see all throughout the four "gospels" he prays to God. We know that HE (Yeshua) "worships" God because he told us he did.
John 4:22
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
Yeah, but it had NOTHING to do with him being God. The priest asked him to to tell him if he be the "son of God". Yeshua said.... "It is you who say I am"....."but I am the son of man whom you will see seated at the right hand of God......
Ok....so the book Matthew and Mark differ slightly as to what Yeshua said...or didn't say. As you can see, in this kangaroo court, there was little he would be able to say to a mob that wanted him dead. They rendered their verdict after hearing him say he would be seated at the right hand of God........But notice.....he never claimed to be God....
So what? Are we to assume Luke was there when all of this supposedly took place with Paul? I don't think so. At best he can only write what he heard. He seems to confirm this at the beginning of the book of Luke. If Luke is the writer of Acts....so what....He wrote a "story"...a story to who?...... he wrote it to The-oph'ilus of what he himself heard from others who probably heard the stories from others.
Acts 1:1
In the first book, O The-oph'ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,
So...ok what was the first book?....It was the book of Luke which is commonly called a gospel but even that one was addressed to The-oph'ilus.
Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
"they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses"
Sounds to me he wasn't even an eyewitness to the events but merely writing what he had heard happen by those who supposedly were eyewitnesses.
He said he "carefully investigated" the stories that were handed down to him, but he does not say how this investigation was undertaken. In his address he never reveals who he spoke to in his investigations?
Again, see above........
rocketman
Out there...
Good, because I am only here in friendship.
I agree it has been dealt with. Muffled did a fine job. I guess we'll have to disagree on the meaning of that verse.
If you are going to quote Jesus words from John you need to demonstrate in a properly scholastic manner why Johns other words are not submissable otherwise I cannot take you seriously.
By that measure then so is yours. What remains is the fact that Satan used the term Son of God when he knows there is only one God. And (sigh) I repeat again for anyone who missed it: In Matthew 16:17 The Father himself reveals that Jesus is the Son of God, thus this is no regular expression.
Was it known that early on? Why Gods revelation to Simon?
Right, so for you there is no context, you seem to want to take Jesus words as regularly as possible with left-brain logical analysis and no room for the bigger picture. I'll give you an idea of who Jesus was before he became human: see John 1:1,14. If you dismiss these verses without serious reason then I'm sorry but I cannot take you seriously.
Being the 'only begotten Son of God' is a title that none of us can hold.
Let us not forget the monotheistic context yet again. We are talking about a singular God who made his oneness the centerpiece of his self-promotion for thousands of years. You would do well to study up on just how absolute this monotheistic understanding was amongst the learned Jews of Jesus day. Anything, and I mean anything at all that steps inside of that exclusive domain of the Sovereign was a big no-no, blasphemous, worthy of death. 'Only begotten Son of God' is a whopper if there was ever one.
Wrong. Very wrong. The words come from the OT, not me: Gen 6:5,6.
Your trouble probably stems from your apparant lack of a context. Jesus primary job was to die for the world.
So, why was he worth more than all of us put together? How can a single created being be worth more than all of us put together? Lucifer was the highest that could be created (but not in God's image, and he fell). Who was created in God's image that is worth more than all of us put together? Who can step in and take the penalty on our behalf and have it really equal the sum of the rest of us in-God's-image types? And why bother with us in the first place if the Jesus-type was already extant, in God's image, and sinless? There is only one candidate for the Messiah in all of the scriptures: God, the same God who walked and talked on earth with the first humans. God was personal from the beginning, he only became distant when we turned on him. Jesus said he is the best idea of the Father we can have. That's personal, again.
That's like asking why didn't God make us sinless robots, and has what to do with the OP? So I ask again: why, if there was a pre-existing being capable of being human and not sinning then why not make more of them, why bother with man? The theology does not add up here.
What are you talking about? I responded clearly. I cannot take you seriously because you basically say that some of the scriptures can be trusted and not others, but this all falls back on your personal opinion. It would be good if you presented something a bit more solid. If the authors doctored the narrative how can you trust the Jesus-quotes? You are in a precarious position my friend.
As for Paul, well, you seem transfixed with 'Jesus-only-quotes' so I thought I would show you where Jesus himself said that Paul was his mouthpiece, and we all know that Paul equated God with Jesus.
Were prophets worshipped by the Jews after ascending into heaven? Don't forget Matt 4:10. The disciples actions are extrordinary for people of their culture. Absolutely extrordinary.
I completely disagree. The charge was blasphemy. It was nothing else but. The priests understood, as the Father did when revealing things to Simon, that the annointed one was also the Son of God, obviously a special use of the term.
??
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
If you say so.....
No problem.
What I said was we can clearly see from the way it was written that there are times when he (the writer of the book of John) is quoting something Yeshua said or when he clearly is rendering his interpertation. I have quoted plenty from the book (or letters) of Matt, Mark, Luke and John and not just the words of Yeshua..
All he said was "and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, `He will give his angels charge concerning you"
Ok...he called Yeshua a son of God.....No where in all of that does Satan show that Yeshua IS God. He clearly makes the distinction.
No one, so far, is doubting Yeshua being a son of God's. Shucks, God has plenty of sons.
Genesis 6:2
The sons of God....................
Job 1:6
And there was a day when the sons of God came together before the Lord.........
Luke 3:38
The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God......
Luke 20:36
And death has no more power over them, for they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God...........
Matthew 5:9
Happy are the peacemakers: for they will be named sons of God.
It is my position that they knew he wasn't God. In the same book (Matthew), the writer asserts in (1:23) the birth of Yeshua is the fulfilling of a prophecy Isaiah had where Isaiah said that the child that was born was called by the all mighty, Emmanuel
So later in Matthew 4:6 Satan made no claim that Yeshua was God rather a son of God's whom He (God) had given Yeshua angels to protect him.
16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16:16 And Simon Kepha answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
16:17 And Yeshua answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for no man hath revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Is this the "revelation" you speak of?
Now how could I dismiss the authors views?
Again, no doubt that Yeshua was a son of God's. He was the only one sent to earth in the fashion in which he came.....(born of a woman). None of the other sons of God came to earth this way and none of was given the power from God to do the things Yeshua did.
Strong's Greek Lexiocon
3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child).
Yet Yeshua said he sought not his own glory.
But yet the structure of your question is like mine.....But you seem to expect that I seem to know what God knows. My question goes beyond yours and asks why didn't God just skip the theatrics and make it all good. Surely he's the all knowing and the sole controller......These questions are no less valid. But none of it has anything to do with the OP.....
Again, I said we can clearly see where the authors of the books/letters interject their beliefs or opinions when they wrote them. And as I said in the last post...the best you can accuse me of is not quoting Pauls opinions.
I certainly didn't say either of them "doctored" them. Luke is an example. He wrote the accounts of other people who were the eyewitnesses of particular events and he wrote them to Theopolis. What could he doctor? Shucks, it was his works to Theopolis...
And where did Yeshua say this? Remember, Luke wasn't an eyewitness but received his information second, third maybe even fouth hand...
rocketman
Out there...
Look, Dre, that's not serious scholarship. What evidence do you have to back up these claims? It's clearly just your opinion at work here. I can no longer take you seriously.
He called him "THE" Son of God. If the title is used even by God the Father, and there is only one God, then there is no distinction.
But only one begotten Son. See further on..
I understand and respect your position.
That verse is even translated for us: "God with us". Heady stuff, after all, God is, well, God.
Wrong. He used the expression "the" son of God, as the Father did in Matt 16:17 and the priests did later. They never said 'a son of God'. They all understood there was something different and special about the propheised Messiah to come.
Was there another revelation to Simon in the gospels regarding the identity of Jesus that we haven't heard of?
So you agree with John that Jesus was the Word who was with God and was God and then dwelt among us? (John 1:1,14)
You are forgetting something: we are all begotten. Therefore according to Jesus we are not Sons of God, certainly not in the titular sense that the angels in Matthew, Satan, the Father, Simon-Peter and the Priests used it. They all said "THE" Son of God. Jesus was the only example of a born-from-woman Son of God, which means that every other kind of 'son-of-god' was subject to a DIFFERENT meaning altogether, including all of the begotten humans and miscellaneous angels who were called sons of God. A son is literally a flesh and bone body. Think about that. If Jesus was some kind of separate spirit-son before he came to earth in a human body why didn't we hear about God's 'son' earlier in the OT? We didn't because YHWH said that there were no other Gods, never were and never will be. (Is 43:10) The only begotten son therefore is God's presence in a flesh and blood body; no mere begotten human, no mere angel, but one worth more than all of us put together.
Speaking in his human role yes, he was well within the old laws by being modest. Yet he also asked to share the (un-sharable) glory he had with God before the world began, refering to his return to heaven. This is a good example for you of how Jesus was at once fully human (and acted it to the letter) and was also fully God. Otherwise, these two glory-statements would be a contradiction.
My question has everything to do with the OP. If we are trying to determine if Jesus was God in the flesh we need to establish motive and context and reason and capability and qualification. Again I ask: If there already existed a type of being who could be human without sinning then why bother with Man? Why not just make more Jesus-beings?
We could get purely theoretical and ask your question, in which case we would need to abandon all of the scriptures pertaining to the fall of man, why it was allowed, what it's purpose is and so on, and it still wouldn't answer the OP. (Perhaps you are not familiar with such things, if so there are plenty of threads on this forum that cover such topics.)
You have not established what the personal opinions of the authors were. If you dismiss the narrative then how can you be sure their Jesus-quotes are accurate?
Saying that they put their own personal view into scripture is saying that they doctored them, where the definition of 'doctor' means to tamper with or alter, thus changing the original meaning.
Really? You don't know. Many scholars believe that Luke who wrote Luke-Acts was Paul's friend Luke from Col 4:14. And if it's such a problem why keep quoting from him? You seem to be continually contradicting yourself.
I have already told you: Acts 9:15 "..This man is my chosen instrument.." You have quoted Jesus own words from the author of the book of Luke/Acts several times - will you now reject Jesus words?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
So by your reasoning the deciples were witnesses of ALL that they wrote? They witnessed the birth of Yeshua, his life as a child...etc...etc...?
This is impossible and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some of what they wrote they heard from others. To comment on the events that took place with Mary and Joseph all the way up to the point in which they became deciples they were not witnesses so this would definately mean the stories they wrote down concerning Yeshua were the ones that they heard. I didn't say the stories weren't true...I'm saying they weren't eyewitnesses to all of the events of the life of Yeshua.
Oh, I see....so because he called Yeshua "the" son of God....then God only has one son??......I see......But as I have said..God has plenty of sons
Genesis 6:2
"THE" sons of God....................
Luke 3:38
The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, "THE" son of God......
The question is...do you mean in a physical sense or a spiritual sense? I can agree with you if you mean spiritual sense....If so then son of God is a position in which one holds.
Yeshua was "the only son" that was sent to earth by God in this manner (through a woman). There is no information in the OT to suggest that the other sons of God came to earth in this fashion. Lucifer himself being cast out and then later presenting himself to God along with the other sons of God was not revealed to come to earth is this fashion.
Well I agree that it has been "translated" and complied together in a book (bible) for You. This is what the church did. I'm not saying they were wrong for doing it. That's just the result of their work. But the scroll of Luke and Acts were written to Theopolis. This is what Luke says.
Luke 3:38
.......Adam, "THE" son of God.......
What was so special about it. Simon said Yeshua was the Messiah, the son of the living God. I agree. You would have something if Simon said "Thou art the Messiah, the living God"...but he never made such a claim. Him being the son of God has never been in question (at least in this thread)...Him being God in the flesh is the question...
Now, again, how could I dismiss the authors views? I simply don't agree with the intepertations that have come from the quotes.
Again, for me, there's nothing special about all of this. Yeshua knew he was both because he said he was. He knew he was "begotten" in the sense that he was sent here to earth through the human process of birth unlike the other sons of God, thus making him son of God and son of man.
And that is pretty much what I said in my last post....
Are you sure about that????? There is no information given that the sons of God are flesh, bone and blood unless we are talking about Yeshua and Adam. Son can also be in the spirutual sense like Israel.
Exodus 4:22
And you shall say to Pharaoh, `Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son,
Then we shall agree to disagree here.
So haven't we all been trying to do this from the beginning? The OP reported a question raised to him and fired back with what he asserts is "overwhelming" evidence and in that OP he left it at that...chock full of random chapter and verses, quotes and expressions and none of them in their origional context. If Jesus is God in the NT as God said God was in the OT then I need to know where because it hasn't been found in the in the four books where he made such a claim. If Jesus commanded or demanded worship (prayer to him)..As God does in the OT then I need to know where. From what I have seen it has not been produced from the 4 books that he made such a claim. I can find, however, all to the contrary.
I never said they "doctored" anything. Look at your definition. In order to doctor something it has to already exist.
(The Gospels "are not to be taken literally" they are "writings suited to an occasion" or "combat writings". Their authors "are writing down the traditions of their own community concerning Jesus". (Father Kannengiesser).
He wrote he was the investigator of those who were the eyewitnesses.
Does he write that he was with Paul when he received his supposed vision or are we to assume he was there?
Again, this is written by Luke because some one told him this happened. How could he have accurately investigated what some one supposedly indepently heard in their mind what Yeshua supposedly said?
rocketman
Out there...
You are going around in circles. You quote from them when it suits you yet when it doesn't suddenly they are not good enough, wether it be injecting their own view or now they are not first-hand witnesses and so on. By your logic all of the scriptures must be dimissed. You should just state that and get itover with. Like I said I no longer take you seriously.
You were saying that the stories are personal opinion, and now second-hand accounts.
But only one begotten son.
That's plural.
But not a begotten son.
The other humans who were called sons of God on occassion were not begotten?
First you quote it in your favour, now you dismiss it as church-modified. This is why I no longer take you seriously.
God said it. And it was singular, titular, and had to be revealed - it was no ordinary use of the term. This is the concept you are missing.
What's your interpretaion? Why is yours superior to the writer bringing you Jesus words? Explain with proof.
Yes, in the language of the day, and especially in the context that Jesus emphasised: that he was flesh and blood over and over (son of Adam) and born of a woman.
Fine. It would have been interesting to see how you got out of that one though.
Jesus had an important human role to play. Perhaps if you tried to answer the glory-contradiction it would click for you.
You say it's ok to quote Jesus, then you say it's not ok to quote those who bring the quotes, except where it suits you.
How do you know his investigations aren't correct? You seem happy to quote him on occasion, so don't complain about him. Either that or stop quoting him.
There is the expression 'we' used quite a bit in the book of Acts. Look it up. Maybe he was a witness to some things. At any rate, if you dismiss some of Luke's words, how do you know the one's you keep are accurate? You are in a precarious position. Most people would have refused to debate you any further with this kind of dance-around-point approach.
I could say similar things about all of the quotes you have put forth where the writer reports on events where he was most likely not present. You say the stories may be true, then you say they may not be, so your real position is "I don't know". It seems hardly worth the effort to entertain this any further.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
rocketman
Out there...
Exactly. I'm sure you'll disagree but this sounds to me like a pretty special version of "God with us" then for the prophecy to actually have to mention it at all.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Jesus IS a special version of "God with Us". . . no disagreement at all. He was the Word of God made palpable to our touch, ears, sight, etc.
So was Moses, so was Muhammed. So was Abraham, so was Baha`u'llah. "God with Us" for ever and ever.
Regards,
Scott
rocketman
Out there...
Thanks Scott. The Baha`i view is always refreshing in a splintered world.
Do Baha`i folk believe that all of those guys you mention have their own personal human identity also, or is their identity 'god' so to speak? Thanks for any info.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
It's a complex reality. All of Them are indeed seperate people boron of different mothers in different placfes at different times.
Yet They are One Reality at the same time: Call Them all by the same name and your are not incorrect, call Them all by Their unique names are you are equally right.
They are each the Revealer of God's Word, each a page in the Book of God. A book never to be complete, because we are never to be "left alone".
Regards,
Scott
rocketman
Out there...
Thank you Scott. Very enlightening.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Come on...If that was the case then I wouldn't have quote from them period. It's fine with me if you feel the need to not take me serious. I do get bothered over things like that.
No i didn't. I said we can clearly see where some of the authors opinions or what the author believe when we read the books. It is without any doubt Luke wrote his that way. He addressed his book to Theopolis. I never said we should not read from them or that it was wrong for the writers of those books to write them or the way they did.
That's what Luke said...not me.......and it stands to reason that none of them witnessed the birth of Yeshua but they certainly wrote about it......So yes.....some of the information is second hand.....
So how do you define begotten? I don't think you and I diifer when it comes to the definition....Our view can be seen in the last two post and we seem to be saying the same thing.
True so God has plenty of sons.....
I can get with that....
Yeshua was the only one of God's sons that was sent to earth by God in fashion in which he did. None of the other sons of God came to earth like this.
But they were still sons of God....
Where did I say they modified any of the books? THIS is what I ACTUALLY said;
"Well I agree that it has been "translated" and complied together in a book (bible) for You. This is what the church did. I'm not saying they were wrong for doing it. That's just the result of their work."
Where in all of this did I say they modified the scriptures? I actually defended them. They translated the books, scrutanized them and compiled them into a book (Bible) and presented it to the people. My personal view is that there are other books that we should consider as scripture but I don't really have a problem with the church gathering scrolls, translating them for the people and compliling them into one book for them.....
ok...if you say so...but I didn't see a contradiction...
Again, where did I say this????......Please go back through the recent post, should you choose to....and tell me where I said this.....
AGAIN, I merely stated a fact......Luke wasn't an eyewitness. How do I know this?..Because he said his information came from those who were eyewithnesses. I also said a few post back that I didn't hae a problem quoting from him because for the most part his prologue to Theopolis mirrors the other books (not 100%) but close to it.
Whose complaining? Where did I make any compalints about Luke?
Maybe he was but tha't why I asked the question and I did look....(again) and Luke gives no indication that he was with Paul when her received his supposed vision.
What did I dismiss.....?
I gave no indication they werent. The best you can get me on is my view on Paul. And that in itself is beyond the scope of this thread. I'll be happy to join a thread dedicated to Saul/Paul.....
Out of the 4 books I never gave a commentary on what is true or not......
No problem.......Peace....