Did Jesus claim Himself to be God?

[Jeremy Mason]

Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. Thomas was not some "valley girl" using the Lord's name in vain; that's Rule #3 in the Big Ten. Look at the order in which Thomas states,"My Lord and my God". First he acknowledges the Messiah/Lord and caps it off with My God.


[Just becasue he said in one place doesnt mean that he is God, how about the other verses where he is telling you that he is not the main Hero , the main Hero is God, I(Jesus) turned on the switch but the electricity is coming from the Powerhouse (God almight)> i am sorry if my examples are a bit childesh because my Economics teacher have taught me to keep the examples in Apples and Oranges, they are much easier to understand, i am sure you guys would not mind the words but focus on the message/quote]

You are half right on this one. The Father is the Powerhouse/ God Head which gave Jesus, his Son all authority in Heaven and Earth. Jesus was/is without sin and the only thing that's perfect is God. (Remember those white lambs without defect the Israelites had to sacrifice for atonement).

 

[kai]

Does that apply to Jews? Judaism, Jisrael and the josen ones?

jumping jehosephet!

 

[Popeyesays]

Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. Thomas was not some "valley girl" using the Lord's name in vain; that's Rule #3 in the Big Ten. Look at the order in which Thomas states,"My Lord and my God". First he acknowledges the Messiah/Lord and caps it off with My God.


[Just becasue he said in one place doesnt mean that he is God, how about the other verses where he is telling you that he is not the main Hero , the main Hero is God, I(Jesus) turned on the switch but the electricity is coming from the Powerhouse (God almight)> i am sorry if my examples are a bit childesh because my Economics teacher have taught me to keep the examples in Apples and Oranges, they are much easier to understand, i am sure you guys would not mind the words but focus on the message/quote]

You are half right on this one. The Father is the Powerhouse/ God Head which gave Jesus, his Son all authority in Heaven and Earth. Jesus was/is without sin and the only thing that's perfect is God. (Remember those white lambs without defect the Israelites had to sacrifice for atonement).

Amazement is a powerful thing. The last recorded words of most test pilots is: "Oh, ****." usually spoken in very calm tones.

Thomas was amazed, the words which slipped from his lips were not considered, they were simply uttered.

The words of the Bible are meant to contain several levels of meaning, none of which is WRONG. The only way to find wisdom in it is to examine all the meanings one can find and amalgamate them.

Regards,
Scott
Regards,
Scott

 

[nawab]

See bro, If Thomas called Jesus My Lord so whats the big deal, my friend who was charged for fighting called the Magistrate My Lord and the Magistrate didnt correct him either. so, if a normal Magistrate can be called My Lord or Me Lord, why cant Jesus be called a Lord, In UK there a tons of Lords, and people are forced to address them as Lords. the main thing Jesus says The words you hear are not mine but the father who sent me, All Power is given to Jesus Given it does not belongs to him, i can give you a general attorny of Power you can even sell my house with it. In the book of Job it is testifying that man are worm and the son of man is a worm which means every tom, dick and harry is a worm and Jesus being the son of man is also a worm so we all including Jesus are worms in front of the sight of God almighty, i agree with this. so we all are the same but obviously Jesus do belong in the company of those nearst to God, but the Christians lift Jesus further up to proof the Salvation, If there was no Salvation in Christianity, Paul said Your Preaching is vain and your faith is vain which means in Christianity no salvation, religion has nothing to offer mankind. its true when the Christian missionaries come to us they dont talk about Hygiene or science or Philosophy they only thing they will tell us is you have no salvation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There is nothing in the four gospels where Yeshua clamed to be God. He didn't do it implicitly or explicitly. Sorry but that verse in Revelation I keep seeing here means nothing if you're trying to prove him being God. This is supposedly (AFTER) his ascension to heaven and while he is there we see that he says that he has a god (Explicitly Stated).

While John is telling us of the one on the throne, the one that everyone is worshipping...he calls him God.....but then the "Lamb" enters and he is the one who is worthy of opening the seals. I have read various places and a few have told me that the "
Lamb" being mentioned there is Yeshua. So if God is the one receiving the praise then the one that enters is the "lamb" who is worthy of this task.... then....NO....Yeshua is not God.

He flat out says that he came not of his own will but it was God that "sent" him. In order to be sent there must be a sender. While here he constantly prayed and informed his followers he was the servant, he wasn't as good as God, he did not know when the end was to come only his god. In the "end" he tells his god in a prayer that he knows that his god is the one true god and he is the messiah whom his god has sent. He tells his god that thy will (the task that was given to him) is done.....

Nowhere in the 4 gospels can we find Yeshua telling his followers he is God.

 

[Scott1]

Nowhere in the 4 gospels can we find Yeshua telling his followers he is God.

Agreed.

 

[nawab]

Thats why my conclusion in my first post was that Jesus his speach in the bible was that of a Messenger/Prophet more than a co-God or God himself., I would like to stress please worship the creator not the created, admire the Painter not the painting

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Wow!! reading is good, " My Lord and my God". You people are trying, but not comprehending.

 

[uss_bigd]

Wow!! reading is good, " My Lord and my God". You people are trying, but not comprehending.

Jesus acknowledged Thomas' statement of faith when he said on verse 29

John 20:29

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.":bow:

 

[Popeyesays]

Jesus acknowledged Thomas' statement of faith when he said on verse 29

John 20:29

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.":bow:

Just a comfort, not an acknowledgement of Godhead.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

John 20:28 and 29 means nothing in light of Yeshua's supposed ascension back to heaven where he tells John,

Revelation 3:12
All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God, and they will never have to leave it. And I will write my God's name on them, and they will be citizens in the city of my God--the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God. And they will have my new name inscribed upon them.

He explicitly informs John he has a god. I'm quite sure John did not take him to mean he was God.

If Yeshua is God then at this point there should be no statements made like this. Regardless of how you try to spin it....In John 20:17 way before your mis intepreted John 20:28 Yeshua tells the women he has a god..("But go find my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.")....then as you can see right here...after the ascension he flat out says it THREE times he has a god.

NO...Yeshua is not God, he did not claim to be, he did not teach that he was, nor did his followers did not believe that he was.....

 

[Bishadi]

and informed his followers he was the servant, he wasn't as good as God

Now that is comprehension…

Mark 10:18……

In Great Britain, [1] lord is a general title for a prince or for a feudal superior (especially a feudal tenant who holds directly from the king, i.e., a baron). In the United Kingdom the title today denotes a peer of the realm, whether or not he sits in Parliament as a member of the House of Lords[1]. The title is primarily taken by men, while women will usually take the title 'lady'. However, this is not universal, as the Lord of Mann and the Lord Provost of Edinburgh (2003–2007), are examples of women who use 'lord'.

• Lord Bishop
• Lord Chamberlain
• Lord Chancellor
• Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
• Lord Commissioner of Justiciary
• Lord of Council and Session
• Lord High Admiral
• Lord High Constable
• Lord High Treasurer
• Lord Justice Clerk
• Lord of Parliament
• Lord President of the Council
• Lord President of the Court of Session
• Lord Privy Seal
• Lord Rector

Seems like Lord can mean a bunch of people……. by god!

Hang on Lord of Mann………..

The title Lord of Mann (Manx: Chiarn Vanninagh) is used on the Isle of Man to refer to Queen Elizabeth II, who is the Island's Lord Proprietor

Had to check as it caught my eye……..

And since the interpretations of the bible being used are english, I thought maybe a little english word usage may assist………

 

[nawab]

Thats what i meant when i said in UK, has lords by the tons

 

[lockyfan]

Jesus claimed to be the son
He never said that we should worship him as a God he always directed it to the father

Jesus in col 3:15-16 we find had a beginning and he died and was resurrected

In psalms 90:2 we find that God has always existed and will always exist. Never dies

So if Jesus was god, then God died, but considering God doesnt die and if he did everything would be destroyed, how then could jesus be God.
It just simply doesnt fit

 

[bigNavySeal]

Nowhere in the bible did Jesus claim or say that he was God. Just like many other prophets / important figures Jesus was given noble reference by God, and in my opinion you should read it as such. I don't understand why people take the idea of 'Son of God' so literal.

I personally see verses like "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" as an explanation of the role of a Prophet / Appointed by God in relation to the Overarching yet Invisible presence of God.

If I were to believe in a God, a Single God who is omniscient and omnipotent would make the most sense to me. At the most Jesus would be a figment of Gods imagination, just like we all are...

 

[truthofscripture]

Brain X started an interesting thread on John 1:1 about whether or not Jesus is God. He wants to keep the discussion to John 1:1, so in deference to him, I am starting another thread that is wide open in terms of Bible references. I have a problem I hope you all can help me solve.

I teach Bible study to 6-8th graders as part of their Confirmation training so this subject is extremely important to me and my students. In an adult Sunday School class last Sunday, our new pastor made the comment that although we as Lutherans believe that Jesus IS God, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus Himself while here on earth did not claim to be God.

I rather verbally disagreed with him. I think that not only did Jesus claim to be God quietly sometimes, but He actually "SHOUTED it from the rooftops" to those who "had ears to hear." Now we as a class have an assignment. We are to find the Biblical passages where Jesus claims His divinity, His equal standing with God the Father.

I have ideas...but could you help me?

There is one very important thing to consider. Actually, there are two. First off, when thinking we have the sense of a scripture, it is critical to first see if it is in harmony with ALL other scriptures. In other words, does it conflict with the meaning of other scriptures? The second thing to consider, is that God the Almighty has seen to the preservation of His word, the Bible, throughout the ages, but that many translations exist that aren't accurate. So we must seek out an accurate translation in order to know what God MEANT to say to us. That being said, and having compared ALL scriptures to all other scriptures, I can say with 100% certainty that Jesus never claimed to be his father. In fact, he claiimed to be sent by his father. He claimed that his father is greater than he is. He prayed to his father. He said that he is the same as his father in thought and deed, but was NOT his father. On the face of it, how can one be his own father anyway? It's impossible. Jesus didn't pray to himself, resurrect himself, send himself, beget himself, work with himself, create himself, and a plethora of other things showing that Jesus is God the Almighty's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, the firstborn of all creation. He was CREATED. One cannot create himself now, can he? Realize that God said, from heaven for all to hear, that "this is my son, listen to him".

 

[Vishvavajra]

A lot of people get confused by the "son" part and think it suggests divinity, when that is far from the case. "Son of God" is a formulaic title that usually refers to anointed kings in the Hebrew scriptures. Both Jesus and Paul refer to all of those who follow the correct path as "Sons of God." In other words, it's not a unique designation, nor is it meant to be understood literally as if Jesus were the fruit of God's loins, which is taking the metaphor rather too far.

If Jesus is framed as unique in the Gospels, it's because his status as Son of God (i.e. anointed king) is meant to signify his fulfillment of messianic prophecy. In other words, it's not that there is only one Son of God (Jesus himself says otherwise in the Beatitudes, after all), but Jesus is a Son of God in a special sense.

The one and only instance of Jesus in the Gospels saying something that could be construed as a claim to divinity is the statement in John, "I and the Father are one." But it is clear this is a mystical assertion, not a bland statement of fact. Nor does it imply that he is the only one for whom this is true. The context of the statement is very interesting, though: Jesus reinterprets Psalm 82--which originally had Yahweh addressing the assembly of gods and passing judgment on them--as instead referring to humans as those who hear the word and judgment of God. Therefore if the Psalm itself refers to people as "gods" (Elohim), then how is it presumptuous for Jesus to accept the title "Son of God"? The implication is that in fact we are all divine, in a sense, although the way in which this is true is couched as a mystery that is not easy to explain.

Paul similarly distinguishes between Jesus and God, although for him Christ is something that all people partake in and that makes us something more than mere mortals.

The Trinitarian idea of "God the Son" developed much later and is not present in any of the canonical scriptures.

 

[truthofscripture]

A lot of people get confused by the "son" part and think it suggests divinity, when that is far from the case. "Son of God" is a formulaic title that usually refers to anointed kings in the Hebrew scriptures. Both Jesus and Paul refer to all of those who follow the correct path as "Sons of God." In other words, it's not a unique designation, nor is it meant to be understood literally as if Jesus were the fruit of God's loins, which is taking the metaphor rather too far.

If Jesus is framed as unique in the Gospels, it's because his status as Son of God (i.e. anointed king) is meant to signify his fulfillment of messianic prophecy. In other words, it's not that there is only one Son of God (Jesus himself says otherwise in the Beatitudes, after all), but Jesus is a Son of God in a special sense.

The one and only instance of Jesus in the Gospels saying something that could be construed as a claim to divinity is the statement in John, "I and the Father are one." But it is clear this is a mystical assertion, not a bland statement of fact. Nor does it imply that he is the only one for whom this is true. The context of the statement is very interesting, though: Jesus reinterprets Psalm 82--which originally had Yahweh addressing the assembly of gods and passing judgment on them--as instead referring to humans as those who hear the word and judgment of God. Therefore if the Psalm itself refers to people as "gods" (Elohim), then how is it presumptuous for Jesus to accept the title "Son of God"? The implication is that in fact we are all divine, in a sense, although the way in which this is true is couched as a mystery that is not easy to explain.

Paul similarly distinguishes between Jesus and God, although for him Christ is something that all people partake in and that makes us something more than mere mortals.

The Trinitarian idea of "God the Son" developed much later and is not present in any of the canonical scriptures.

The statement in John, "I and the Father are one" actually means that Jesus and his Father are in agreement, in harmony. Jesus was sent by his Father and Jesus brought only what his Father gave him to say. they are in total agreement. A team. Working together. After all, Jesus was with his Father for countless millions of years before he came to Earth as a human baby. Whatever Jesus knows, came from his Father. Nothing mystical about it.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The statement in John, "I and the Father are one" actually means that Jesus and his Father are in agreement, in harmony. Jesus was sent by his Father and Jesus brought only what his Father gave him to say. they are in total agreement. A team. Working together. After all, Jesus was with his Father for countless millions of years before he came to Earth as a human baby. Whatever Jesus knows, came from his Father. Nothing mystical about it.

Could be. But I can't think of another example of that phrasing in Greek (ἕν ἐσμεν--literally "we are one thing") having that meaning. I suppose it could be a Semiticism.

Of course, that doesn't solve the problem that the people at the time would have had no context for that statement. The idea that Jesus was existent from the beginning of the cosmos (even though his mind and body were both born at a particular time in a particular place) would have been difficult enough--indeed, it's not until John, the last of the canonical Gospels by a good margin, that that idea develops--but in the context of what is being said and to whom it is being said, it doesn't seem to be very informative. Now, of course the Gospel is being written after these theological ideas have had a chance to evolve, but having Jesus say things to the priests that only make sense in light of theological ideas that they would have been unable to parse seems odd.

And that's not getting into the question of whether the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with a sort of cosmic logos without beginning or end can properly be called "un-mystical."

 

[truthofscripture]

Could be. But I can't think of another example of that phrasing in Greek (ἕν ἐσμεν--literally "we are one thing") having that meaning. I suppose it could be a Semiticism.

Of course, that doesn't solve the problem that the people at the time would have had no context for that statement. The idea that Jesus was existent from the beginning of the cosmos (even though his mind and body were both born at a particular time in a particular place) would have been difficult enough--indeed, it's not until John, the last of the canonical Gospels by a good margin, that that idea develops--but in the context of what is being said and to whom it is being said, it doesn't seem to be very informative. Now, of course the Gospel is being written after these theological ideas have had a chance to evolve, but having Jesus say things to the priests that only make sense in light of theological ideas that they would have been unable to parse seems odd.

And that's not getting into the question of whether the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with a sort of cosmic logos without beginning or end can properly be called "un-mystical."

Owing to the phrase's usage elsewhere, and the context, it pretty much does mean they are of the same mind,or thought,or agreement.