• 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 claim to be God?

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
:biglaugh:pretty much shoots down Anastasios' statement about rationalism... we just don't have enough information to make a rational claim on absolute truth.

Scholars, exegetes and theologians are human, just like everyone else. the doctrine of the Trinity isn't an absolute. Perhaps there can be no absolute truth where humanity is concerned, since humanity cannot see or reason absolutely. Perhaps we need to work with truth as being relative to what we are capable of understanding. The Trinity is truth, relative to Christian understanding, just as Allah is truth relative to Muslim understanding. Perhaps any absolute truth is greater than any one perspective...

Scientists are now finding out that the laws of physics might not work just as we thought, with the advent of quantum physics, too.

My whole, entire point with the Trinity is that it is one expression of truth, as that truth is perceived by one group of humanity, and that it is no more or less "incorrect" than any other system of perceiving God. is it perfect? No! That's why it remains a mystery. Maybe someday we might understand more. But the whole "I'm right, you're wrong" argument here is pointless. Can both be right? Why not?

Well, there is no doubt that every monotheistic religion projects a "trinity" of sorts. The whole problem starts when you try to stretch the concept to describe a partitioning or multiplication of the Godhead.
Most are aware of the Hindu "Trinity". Yet the Hindu faith also describes the same kind of "triune" truth as any of the other monotheistic religions.

Each of those religions expresses this trinity (without trying to divide or multiply "God"):
The Gift: (The Revelation)
The Giver of the Gift: (God)
The Recipient of the Gift: (The Revealer)

Hereby we have the Torah, God and Moses; the Gospel, God and Jesus; the Qur'an, Allah and Muhammad; the Avestas, God and Zoroaster; the Bayan, God and the Bab; the Aqdas, God and Bahau'llah, etc.

Note that this does not try to make the three legs of the Trinity into a single Godhead or multiply the three legs of the Trinity into a multiplicity of God. It is just a description of the relationship between God, the Prophet and the revealed text.

So yes, there is a trinity concept which does not violate the unity of God.

Regards,
Scott
 

Anastasios

Member
sojourner said:
:biglaugh:pretty much shoots down Anastasios' statement about rationalism... we just don't have enough information to make a rational claim on absolute truth.
...
My whole, entire point with the Trinity is that it is one expression of truth, as that truth is perceived by one group of humanity, and that it is no more or less "incorrect" than any other system of perceiving God. is it perfect? No! That's why it remains a mystery. Maybe someday we might understand more. But the whole "I'm right, you're wrong" argument here is pointless. Can both be right? Why not?

From Mirza Tahir Ahmed, Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth:


In another chapter we briefly covered the progress of Muslim thought and intellectual pursuits in many areas of human interest. During that period, although Muslim enquiry was predominantly influenced by Quranic teachings and the traditions of the Holy Prophetsa, it could not be entirely qualified as Islamic. There was a rapid proliferation of academic growth in all directions. Many new philosophies and sciences were acquired from past eras of secular, academic and scientific achievements. Also, many a new branch of religious and secular knowledge was pioneered by some outstanding Muslim thinkers. Thus, religion and rationality went hand in hand. They drew their thrust largely from the emphasis on the pursuit of knowledge laid in the Quran and the instructions of the Holy Prophetsa. The role of rationality was so powerfully highlighted that religious belief and rationality became synonymous. The proclamation by the Quran that Muhammadsa is a universal Prophet with a universal message, is in itself tantamount to declaring that the religion of Islam is founded on rationality. No religion with any element of irrationality can be acceptable to the universal conscience of man:
And We have not sent thee but as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner, for all mankind, but most men know not (34:29)
Again, the Quran demonstrates the universality of its teachings by addressing all human, moral, social and religious problems of man, irrespective of race, colour, creed or nationality. It is necessary therefore, that Islamic teachings should have the potential of global application with an appeal to universal human nature. But this is not the only reason why we draw this conclusion.
The Quran manifestly acknowledges the role of rationality for the attainment of truth without drawing any separating line between religious or secular truths. Truth is the religion of Islam, Islam is the religion of Truth. The truth requires no compulsion for the transmission of its message, the only instrument it needs is rationality. As such, Islam invokes human intellect to investigate the truth of the Quranic teachings with reference to the study of human nature, history and rationality. It arouses the human faculties of reasoning and deduction, not only for the pursuit of religious investigation, but also for the attainment of secular knowledge. Impressed by this outstanding emphasis by the Quran on the quest for knowledge, Professor Dr. Abdus Salam*, the renowned Nobel Laureate was invoked to study the impact of this enlightning attitude on the Muslim thought of the early period. In one of his articles on this subject, he observes:
'According to Dr. Mohammed Aijazul Khatib of Damascus University, nothing could emphasize the importance of sciences more than the remark that "in contrast to 250 verses which are legislative, some 750 verses of the Holy Quran—almost one-eighth of it—exhort the believers to study Nature—to reflect, to make the best use of reason and to make the scientific enterprise an integral part of the community's life". The Holy Prophet of Islam—peace be upon him—said that it was the "bounden duty of every muslim—man and woman—to acquire knowledge".' (LAI, C.H., KIDWAI, A (1989) Ideals and Realities. Selected Essays of Abdus Salam. 3rd ed. World Scientific Publishing Co. London, pp.343–344)
The enquiry by itself is not sufficient, however, warns the Quran. The inner truth of man is a prerequisite for him to draw right conclusions from it. This principle of fundamental importance is dictated in the very beginning in the Surah Al-Baqarah. It should be remembered that though Al-Baqarah is formally counted as the second after Surah Al-Fatihah which contains the gist of the entire Quran, in effect it could be treated as an introductory Surah. Thus Al-Baqarah may be counted as the first Surah with which the full text begins. Al-Baqarah begins with the following opening statement:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Ever Merciful.
I am Allah, the Most Knowledgeable.
This is that perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; a guidance for the righteous (muttaqi). (2:1-3)
This profound declaration, simple as it may appear, demands special attention for the comprehension of its underlying message. The Divine teachings are obviously expected to guide the unrighteous to the right path. What, then, is the significance of the claim that this book can guide only those who are already righteous? What the Quran implies is simply this that the seeker after truth must necessarily be true himself or his inquiry will prove futile. The discovery of truth according to this declaration depends essentially on the honesty of the enquirer's intent. A profound wisdom is reflected in this short simple statement:
... a guidance for the righteous. (2:3)
The same principle often applies to the realm of secular enquiry as well. Every enquiry made with a biased mind will often lose credibility. Attention is drawn to the fact that an honest, healthy mind is a prerequisite for every true meaningful enquiry. A mind bonded to prejudice cannot draw unbiased conclusions. An observer with a squint in his eye cannot see straight. Hence, no guidance is in itself sufficient to lead one to truth. It takes a sound, unbiased, healthy, honest mind to benefit from it. It is here that one problem is resolved but another begins.
Contrary to what one may expect in the realm of religious controversies, little inner truth is displayed by most of the warring religious factions in the world today. One would normally expect that the religious should adhere more strongly to truth than the secular. In reality however, we find the opposite to be true in the later stages of every religion. In the beginning of religions it is invariably the religious who are unbiased and uncompromisingly committed to truth rather than the rest of the society, be it secular or avowedly religious. The graph of rationality, reason and truth touches its highest peak at a time when the religious founders are themselves alive.
Returning to the verses under discussion, we find that in them God is introduced as the Knower of all things to the point of absolute precision. Thus the knowledge that He bestows has to be perfect and most reliable. Yet the recipient of that knowledge may fail to benefit from it if he lacks the quality of inner truth.
If we replace the idea of God with that of rationality, for the convenience of the non-believer, the statement would read as follows:
That which is absolutely rational cannot lead anyone to the truth except those who possess a quality of righteousness or inner truth within them. This provides the most essential prerequisite for the attainment of reliable knowledge, be it religious or secular. Both the source of information and the recipient of information must be true.

 

Maxist

Active Member
Part of God, Christ claimed to be part of God. Able to be worshipped as God. If you beleive that we are all part of God, then we are all to be worshipped as Christ, making Him no longer a diety. And I will be able to say he.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
No, yet I can quite clearly Quote where John the Pharisee Nicodemus or Nicolaitans which doctrine we hate, have done....or Paul the fake apposite, Jew and murder of the faithful martyr have done....or Simon the destroyer/Stone of stumbling to the house of Israel did.
Then I can also quite clearly show where a dragon is something that claims it made the river, Christ didn't the Pharisee did, then established a city on blood shed and convinced the world Christ came as living sacrifice, which is to teach as Balaam.

So as witness in defence of Christ, Paul’s testimony, John and Simon can be classed as null and void in which any stating Christ said he was God, is clearly against Christ to begin with…..as these say he did say that, yet clearly when asked “Good Christ”…he replies “there is none good, yet God”
So there are to many references by Christ to state have trust in God and to many by Pharisees and now Christians have trust in man….it is idolatry and will soon stop as that is the dragon in Revelations, or beast that took its power from the first.
 

!Fluffy!

Lacking Common Sense
MidnightBlue said:
The question has come up on a couple of other threads. On the face of it, it seems like a pretty straightforward question, yet opinions differ sharply on this question.

Can anyone provide an example of Jesus claiming to be God?

The criteria:
  • It must be something Jesus said himself, not something said about him by someone else.
  • It must be something said by Jesus during his earthly lifetime, not something said in a vision or other ecstatic experience.

The claims of Jesus in the Synoptics:
  1. To be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah
  2. To be the divine, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 9 (considered blasphemous)
  3. To be the UNIQUE Son of God (considered blasphemous)
  4. To be Lord of the Sabbath
  5. To be able to forgive sins (considered blasphemous)
  6. To be an appropriate object of religious faith
  7. To be the Heir to God
  8. To be greater than King David, Solomon, Jonah, the Temple
  9. To be 'owner' of the angels and the Elect
  10. To speak eternally binding and existent sayings--own His OWN authority
  11. To be "able" to abolish the OT scriptures
  12. To be the authoritative interpreter of the OT
  13. To be the issue upon which the eternal destinies of humans depend(!)
  14. To be worth higher loyalty and commitment that the family
  15. To have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father, and the SOLE 'dispenser' of that knowledge
  16. To send prophets
  17. To be omnipresent
  18. To be of equal status with the Father and the Spirit, and to share 'the Name' with them
  19. To be able to grant derivative authority over evil spirits
  20. To be able to grant kingdom authority IN THE SAME WAY the FATHER does(!)
  21. To be "God" visiting them (as promised in the OT messianic prophecies)
  22. To be co-operative/interchangeable in some operations with the Spirit
  23. To have special knowledge of heavenly events
  24. To have ALL authority in HEAVEN
  25. To have authority over the Holy Spirit(!)
[Matthew 11:27] [Matthew 12:28//Luke 11:30] [Matthew 23:34; Matthew 24:5//Mark 5:23//Luke 21:8] [Mark 9:42; Matthew 28:18//Luke 24:25, 46] [Luke 12:8-9; Matthew 26:64//Mark 14:61-4] [Mark 12:1-11] [Matthew 16:16; Mark 14:27; Matthew 25:17-46] [Luke 19:43ff] [Luke 21:14] [Luke 22:29; Matthew 9:2//Mark 2:5//Luke 5:20] [Matthew 8:21-2; Luke 9:59] [Luke 5:22, 9:47]


Source:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Moon Woman said:
The claims of Jesus in the Synoptics:
  1. To be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah = did not fulfil that required to be Messiah.
  2. To be the divine, eschatological Son of Man of Daniel 9 (considered blasphemous) = No it isn’t there are quite a few sons of man, it is current belief, not that of the Bible
  3. To be the UNIQUE Son of God (considered blasphemous)
  4. To be Lord of the Sabbath
  5. To be able to forgive sins (considered blasphemous) = He said he sent them, translation states other wise.
  6. To be an appropriate object of religious faith = Christ didn’t ever do so, the Pharisee did and so teachings as a dragon.
  7. To be the Heir to God = Christ said the seat on the left or right is not mine to give….when many come to the master of the house, the master shall not know them…master = God
  8. To be greater than King David, Solomon, Jonah, the Temple = True everyone knows him more then them today.
  9. To be 'owner' of the angels and the Elect = God is
  10. To speak eternally binding and existent sayings--own His OWN authority = he said he would have no authority unless God had given it to him.
  11. To be "able" to abolish the OT scriptures = Paul did that; Christ said they stand, I did not come to end the law yet to fulfil it.
  12. To be the authoritative interpreter of the OT = Anyone can do that, it is where Pharisees and Christians come from.
  13. To be the issue upon which the eternal destinies of humans depend(!) = Christ said give up wealth and follow the commandments what has that to do with him self? He asked that you follow God and seek repentance of sins?
  14. To be worth higher loyalty and commitment that the family
  15. To have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father, and the SOLE 'dispenser' of that knowledge = Most prophets have also done this as I can having been to heaven in this life time.
  16. To send prophets = God sends prophets, the parts in Revelations are forged clearly, so forgive me if I am wrong, yet where did Christ say he would send them? He said many we will send, heaven is oneness and one consciousness not 2.
  17. To be omnipresent = All those who sit in the presences of God are in oneness they feel hear and know God’s thoughts, so anyone in heaven can be.
  18. To be of equal status with the Father and the Spirit, and to share 'the Name' with them = Incorrect, the name of the father is Yahweh, Jehovah or simply THE (EL), Yeshua’s name means salvation. Christ also sits at the right hand of God any king throne will show that is not the same level the knight or princes sit lower then the king always. In this case having seen it first hand it is circle surrounding the throne, elders sit around God Christ is one of them. It does not state over wise in Revelations it is assumption made by many.
  19. To be able to grant derivative authority over evil spirits = We all can do this, it is a thing called faith and understanding, evil spirits stem from EGO, so when someone’s ego gets the better of them, this in turn can cause illnesses to form…now when the disciples clearly say they healed with oil, and this oil we now know contains cannabis or is supposed to which then heals leprosy and many illnesses the disciples also healed. That is a true follower or what Christian should be, as clearly related even by James. Cannabis and the main active ingredient destabilizes EGO and if isn’t done holy, their yolks will be taken as Isaiah states and so causing paranoia schizophrenia ect.
  20. To be able to grant kingdom authority IN THE SAME WAY the FATHER does(!) = like earlier the left and right seat is not mine to give, also many will say did you not teach in our street and the master will say I do not know you, God is master.
  21. To be "God" visiting them (as promised in the OT messianic prophecies) = It says Emmanuel which means God with us…..yet on same Genius means God is with us or in us as does Immanuel. Christ clearly stated it is through faith in God that he performed miracles.
  22. To be co-operative/interchangeable in some operations with the Spirit = again all of us can do this
  23. To have special knowledge of heavenly events = True a Prophet as Christ called him self on a quite a few occasions sees in dreams what may happen, also with enough faith you can change and cause events.
  24. To have ALL authority in HEAVEN = God does
  25. To have authority over the Holy Spirit(!) = The holy spirit existed well before Christ it is the books of the Pharisee John who claims it is sent after, yet when many have already spoken of it earlier in the old testament, it is void that Christ made it or sent it. Also on countless occasions, it is written when I am back with my father.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html[/quote


That is the most Anti-Christ or ways of anti-heaven , well done you have clearly labelled most points that stand as testimony of what a worker of iniquity is....now see if we can find the true meaning of Christ is, so people follow God and not man.
 

Soundoc

Member
MidnightBlue said:
The question has come up on a couple of other threads. On the face of it, it seems like a pretty straightforward question, yet opinions differ sharply on this question.

Can anyone provide an example of Jesus claiming to be God?

The criteria:
  • It must be something Jesus said himself, not something said about him by someone else.
  • It must be something said by Jesus during his earthly lifetime, not something said in a vision or other ecstatic experience.

If I prove to you that Jesus Christ is Almighty God in human flesh, would you put your life in His hands and trust Him to save YOU from an eternal hell-fire?
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Soundoc said:
If I prove to you that Jesus Christ is Almighty God in human flesh, would you put your life in His hands and trust Him to save YOU from an eternal hell-fire?

You might want to know that MidnightBlue went AWOL several months ago. ;)
 

may

Well-Known Member
lunamoth said:
Hi Scott, respectfully of course, even in context it still takes putting one's interpretation on it to get that They are one in purpose from 10:30 I and my Father are one. I can see the Incarantion here, as well as the Mystery of the Trinity.

peace to you and yours,
Laurie
John​
10:30:

When saying, "I and the Father are one," did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Since the NT is essentially fables written by unknown authors, one can't put much stock in what is written there.
 

PetShopBoy88

Active Member
There must be a distinction betwixt what Jesus claimed and what gospel authors or others claim Jesus claimed. I wouldn't go so far as wanderer085, but caution is needed.
 
Top