Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

Woa, a very interesting forum, im new and Islam, well a javanese islam means there some hinduism and budhism, so I do believe Isa (Jesus) is a son of God, Well we all are His son as in Gepeto to Pinokio. and He always beyond our imagination.
once again Great forum, wonder what God would say seeing this,... hahaha Sorry Big Guy

Welcome. It appears your beliefs are a bit syncretic but I don't get puritanical about it. My goalis to promote the truth wherever it can be found.

Jesus never claimed to be THE Son of God but He never refuted or denied the ascription either. His claim was "oneness" with God, which does not mean two or three for those who can count.

 

[Muffled]

But according to Scripture Abraham did not worship many gods.
Genesis chapters 12 to 25 shows Abraham only had one God.
Gen 22:14.

Abraham had only one to whom he spoke and listened. His relatives had a bunch of Gods and he was brought up in their midst.

 

[Muffled]

:biglaugh:

I'm trying to decide whether this is special pleading used in desparation to defend an undefendable position, or whether you actually believe that any sort of attempt at rational comprehension of theology is futile. If the latter, I'm having trouble trying to figure out why you're posting here, apparently trying to convince people of your position.

At the very least, I commend you on having the courage to publicly declare that your beliefs are irrational.



If it's Boblical, you're reading the book of another religion.

This is either from page 69 or 70.

On the contrary, the poster simply said that human resoning is irrational not that he was using it. I use divine resoning myself which is why it can't be broken. You use human reasoning which explains why you are rarely able to discuss the issues and mostly rely on reposting your false conclusions.

I am reading the same Bible as you but my conclusions from it are divine and yours are human.

 

[arimoff]

I can count too. You have the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that is three.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus never claimed to be THE Son of God but He never refuted or denied the ascription either. His claim was "oneness" with God, which does not mean two or three for those who can count.

I can pretty much agree with you here unless you discount the implicit declaration in John 9:35-37 or his seemingly explicit declaration in John 10:36....

 

[arimoff]

Welcome. It appears your beliefs are a bit syncretic but I don't get puritanical about it. My goalis to promote the truth wherever it can be found.

Jesus never claimed to be THE Son of God but He never refuted or denied the ascription either. His claim was "oneness" with God, which does not mean two or three for those who can count.

G-D having a body is pagan also. Judaism does not support G-D having a body, You will never find anywhere in Tanakh that G-D showed Him self in any kind of image, because it will instantly become an idol.

 

[SkinnyCheruscian]

It is quite unlikely that Jesus claimed to be God, because given his background, i.e. an observant Jew, anybody saying that would have been taken for a madman. Accordingly, the unifying theme of the gospels is that the disciples do not realise that Jesus is the son of God, while of course the point of the narration is to prove that he is. Given this trope of the texts, it is understandable why teh authors of the gospels but clues here and there, but not overt claims. When the gospels were written the judeo-christian branches of early christianity still existed who considered Jesus teh messiah, but not in the sense of son of God, and who did not attribute any special significance to his death. The gospels were written as theological statements in distinction to other views, not as historical accounts.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

G-D having a body is pagan also. Judaism does not support G-D having a body, You will never find anywhere in Tanakh that G-D showed Him self in any kind of image, because it will instantly become an idol.

What "LORD" is it that present's himself to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18..? Was it the "Lord G-D" or is the word "lord" in that chapter synonymous with something else? I've often wondered and would like to opinion from some one of the Jewish faith.

 

[AK4]

G-D having a body is pagan also. Judaism does not support G-D having a body, You will never find anywhere in Tanakh that G-D showed Him self in any kind of image, because it will instantly become an idol.

Wow i guess God showing His hind parts to Moses isnt one time. Or Him wrestling with Jacob. Or even the man and woman He appeared to at the same time[cant remember exactly where that was]. Oh dont forget Solomon also.

Even reading them in context show that it was God not just an messenger or angel that appeared to them.

Try again.

 

[spinoza]

You say that you are trying to find evidence of the divinity of Jesue, what you have done is quote passages from the bible, which cannot be taken as the literal revealed word of Jesus, as most of it was written many years after his death and therefore would be hearsay and is third party 'evidence'.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus never claimed to be THE Son of God but He never refuted or denied the ascription either. His claim was "oneness" with God, which does not mean two or three for those who can count.

If Jesus never claimed to be THE Son of God then why does John 10:36 B say that Jesus said, "I am the Son of God" ?

'Oneness' was expressed in Prayer at John 17:11,21-23 by being one in purpose, unity, goal, belief, work, objective, agreement......

 

[SkinnyCheruscian]

Jesus in the gospel of John is very different from Jesus in the other three gospels, called the synoptic gospels.
That John is the odd one out has been recognised by theologians from the early middle ages on. People from the mainstream denominations often criticise non-canonical documents, e.g. the gospel of THomas, as non-authentic because they contain ideas from gnosticism. However, the same thing has to be said about John, which was written quite late, i.e. in the 2nd century. In the third century, when there were still debates about what should go in the canon and what not, the gospel of John was controversial.

In summary, the gospel of John certainly does not render words of Jesus authentically. Any linguistic analysis shows that Jesus in this gospel talks very differently from Jesus in the other, earlier gospels. Thus John is to me religious poetry, at times very beautiful, but as a historical document this needs to be read with a lot of caution.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus in the gospel of John is very different from Jesus in the other three gospels, called the synoptic gospels.
That John is the odd one out has been recognised by theologians from the early middle ages on. People from the mainstream denominations often criticise non-canonical documents, e.g. the gospel of THomas, as non-authentic because they contain ideas from gnosticism. However, the same thing has to be said about John, which was written quite late, i.e. in the 2nd century. In the third century, when there were still debates about what should go in the canon and what not, the gospel of John was controversial.

In summary, the gospel of John certainly does not render words of Jesus authentically. Any linguistic analysis shows that Jesus in this gospel talks very differently from Jesus in the other, earlier gospels. Thus John is to me religious poetry, at times very beautiful, but as a historical document this needs to be read with a lot of caution.

I agree and I should point out that this thread was predominately built up by the OP in his interpretation of the book of John. He's listed more quotes from that book than any other.

 

[AK4]

Mt 4:3 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

Mt 4:6 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
and *said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON {their} HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' "

Mt 8:29 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"

Mt 16:16 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Mt 26:63 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."

Mt 27:40 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
and saying, "You who {are going to} destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."

Mt 27:43 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
"HE TRUSTS IN GOD; LET GOD RESCUE {Him} now, IF HE DELIGHTS IN HIM; for He said, 'I am the Son of God.' "

Lets take a look at this a minute and this is just the book of Matthew. You have satan, demons, chief priests, scribes and elders and His disciples all calling Jesus the Son of God yet this aint good enough evidence for ya. But wait it gets better. Everyone agrees Jesus only spoke the truth right and if anyone made a claim about something Jesus would correct them right, you know like in Matt 19:17. Answer yourselves this, why didn’t Jesus correct all them who said this like He did to that man in Matt 19:17?

Try thinking on your own and not what some theologians tell ya. Its so clear. And for all those who say “well this was written after His death, so the authors could have just put it there”. The authors are trying to portray Jesus as Lord and Messiah and as one who has authority over all men yet they actually put in a passage where Jesus corrected a man for calling Him good but never corrected anyone or thing when called the Son of God???!!!

Are you guys serious?

:thud:

 

[arimoff]

What "LORD" is it that present's himself to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18..? Was it the "Lord G-D" or is the word "lord" in that chapter synonymous with something else? I've often wondered and would like to opinion from some one of the Jewish faith.

Genesis 18

1. Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot
2. And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground.

they were Angels.

If it is interesting for you the explanation is in the link, otherwise if I paste it here it will take a lot of space.

Vayeira Torah Reading - Parshah with Rashi

 

[arimoff]

Wow i guess God showing His hind parts to Moses isnt one time. Or Him wrestling with Jacob. Or even the man and woman He appeared to at the same time[cant remember exactly where that was]. Oh dont forget Solomon also.

Even reading them in context show that it was God not just an messenger or angel that appeared to them.

Try again.

Lets start with details, before trying to prove me wrong why don't you look up the passages and I will show you that it wasn't G-D but angels.

 

[Baydwin]

Lets start with details, before trying to prove me wrong why don't you look up the passages and I will show you that it wasn't G-D but angels.

I have read somewhere that there was one angel (the Melach Elohim, at least I think that's the spelling) that was more like an avatar (in the internet sense, not the Hindu one) of G-d rather than simply a messanger. That people said to see the Melach Elohim was to, in effect, see G-d.

 

[Ba'al]

You have satan, demons, chief priests, scribes and elders and His disciples all calling Jesus the Son of God yet this aint good enough evidence for ya.

Why would it be? Son of God means someone close to God, that's it. Move on to something that's relevant.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why would it be? Son of God means someone close to God, that's it. Move on to something that's relevant.

Doesn't Son mean Son, just as Father means Father (life giver)?

Doesn't 'firstborn' in the heavens (Col 1:15,16) mean born first ?

Since God is unbegotten and the Son is begotten doesn't that make Jesus Son?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Genesis 18

1. Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot
2. And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground.

they were Angels.

If it is interesting for you the explanation is in the link, otherwise if I paste it here it will take a lot of space.

Vayeira Torah Reading - Parshah with Rashi

Thanks and thanks for the link. I get it now. I suspected as much.