• 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???

andys

Andys
I can't resist a quick jibe.

Some antiquated scrolls replete with contradictory, superstitious nonsense, may indeed have claimed that some fellow named Jesus was a god. But let's not seriously contend that this fellow actually existed, and was a god.

For those of you who are that easily beguiled, you ought to read the Night Before Christmas, which reveals the existence of a jolly old elf. There are even illustrations to show what he looks like.
 

Falcon

Member
Shermana, you wrote : "That's nice that you think the Catholic Church gets their teachings from the time of Peter and Paul, but there's simply no evidence for that to be the case."

Not meaning in an insulting manner, but only in your mind is there no evidence of Christ's Church being based on the teachings of Jesus via His Apostles.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Shermana, you wrote : "That's nice that you think the Catholic Church gets their teachings from the time of Peter and Paul, but there's simply no evidence for that to be the case."

Not meaning in an insulting manner, but only in your mind is there no evidence of Christ's Church being based on the teachings of Jesus via His Apostles.

You must have confused what I said, I said that there's no evidence of those teachings being the same as the Catholic Church's. Christ's church was most close to the original Jerusalem Church led by James and the Antioch Church led by Peter, the Nazarenes were the True Church. Have you heard of "Pseudo-Clement"? It may not exactly be so Pseudo...
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
This is a commentary.
I need a reference on Greek Grammar.

I see... so you were looking for more of a definition of the word that hasn't already been given?

Let's be clear here. I don't disagree that the word "midst" doesn't mean center, middle or midway. Because it does. But to get an understanding as to why it is used you "must" look at the context. You have failed to show, in context, that (in the midst of), in Rev. 7:17, to clearly show the biblical Yeshua is the one seated upon the the throne..when in fact chapters 4, 5 and even 6 says explicitly and shows Yeshua to be "standing" (in the midst of the elders and the one, his god, who is seated upon the thrown).

Rev. 4:8 and 10 says it's the "Lord God Almighty" who is sitting on the throne.
Rev. 5:6-7 says Yeshua (the Lamb) was "standing" (in the midst of)-(among, near, between) the elders and he, Yeshua (the Lamb) steps forward to take the scroll from (the one sitting upon the throne), his god.

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are speaking of two different distinct entities. We know this by the use of the word (kai) when talking about "God" (who is sitting on the throne) and Yeshua (The Lamb who is standing among his god and the elders who are all sitting upon their thrones). In context Rev. 7:17 is no different thus the question the OP raised has been answered by the biblical words of Yeshua himself. "Did Jesus say he was God?". No because he explicitly said he had a god (Rev. 3:12) whom he prayed to (John 17).
 
Last edited:

look3467

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I can't resist a quick jibe.

Some antiquated scrolls replete with contradictory, superstitious nonsense, may indeed have claimed that some fellow named Jesus was a god. But let's not seriously contend that this fellow actually existed, and was a god.

For those of you who are that easily beguiled, you ought to read the Night Before Christmas, which reveals the existence of a jolly old elf. There are even illustrations to show what he looks like.

Good morning to you!

Let's suppose all of what you said was true, then any belief that Jesus was not God, then there is nothing lost.

But, let's again suppose that Jesus was real and that He really came to save your soul, and you'd believe it, then all is gained and nothing lost.

Why would it? Because first hand knowledge and experience in my life dictates that He is God.

Against that, there is no argument save you don't believe it.

So, I contend that what is written about Him as God, and my experience and knowledge of Him hath made me the wiser, as knowledge gained, understanding given equals wisdom.

Not only am I not alone, but millions have similar experiences, of which you may not know until you've had yours!

Blessings, AJ
 

Shermana

Heretic
I understand your point of view, but it's all symbolic.

Anyway it's already been proven:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2580368-post3959.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/ao-speaker-confusion.html (edited for character limits)
Example of Speaker Confusion Trick: "John is Alpha and Omega"


To see how easy it is to use the "speaker confusion trick" let's "prove" that John is the Alpha and Omega [1] of Rev. 1:8.

We are instructed by John in the introduction of his Revelation (Rev. 1:1) that we will be hearing this revelation from God which he gave to Jesus Christ and which was sent through his angel to his servant John. So, it is God's revelation, Jesus' revelation, the angel's revelation, and John's revelation, and we will be hearing the words of all of them from time to time.


At Rev. 1:6-7, John is obviously speaking:


...hath made us kings and priests unto God .... [The KJV continues in Rev. 1:8] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (1:9) I JOHN, who also am your brother....


Notice, since the KJV doesn't use quotation marks at all (they hadn't yet been invented in 1611), you are free to mentally insert them whenever and wherever you wish (as was the case in the original manuscripts and their copies for centuries thereafter). Therefore, you may interpret the whole statement of Rev. 1:8 as being the words of the Lord, or you may decide that the Lord's actual words end at "the beginning and the ending," and that the rest of the words in Rev. 1:8 are descriptive words added by John.


If you look at Rev. 1:8 in The Jerusalem Bible, RSV, NRSV, NEB, and REB, you will find that their trinitarian translators have decided that only the first part of Rev. 1:8 is spoken by God, and they use quotation marks to show that.


If you look at Rev. 1:8 in the NASB, NAB (1970), NAB (1991), NJB, and the NIV, however, you will see that their trinitarian translators have decided that all of Rev. 1:8 was spoken by the Lord God, and they use quotation marks to show that meaning.


But to use the "speaker confusion trick" to "prove" that John is the Lord Almighty we would point to the fact that John was definitely speaking at Rev. 1:7, and then (by using our own punctuation or the KJV's lack of quotation marks) we merely say that John continued speaking in Rev. 1:8 and identified himself as "the Lord," "Alpha and Omega," and "the Almighty"!! Finally we would point to Rev. 1:9 and say that John continues speaking and positively identifies himself as "John, also" or, in other words, "John, in addition to [his titles of Rev. 1:8]"!!





Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word "his" in verse 14 that they didn't mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing "His Commandments" (not "My Commandments")! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously notGod as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text, e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; MKJV; Young's Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa’s translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses "him."


So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.


The only other use of the title "Alpha and Omega" confirms this understanding.
"And He who sits on the throne said, `Behold, I am making all things new.' .... And He said to me, `It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. .... He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.'" - Rev. 21:5-7, NASB.


"Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be `sons' of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his `brothers.' (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those `brothers' of Jesus are referred to as `sons of God [the Father].' (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)." - pp. 412-413, Reasoning from the Scriptures, WBTS, 1985.
So Rev. 21:6, 7 confirms the understanding that the Alpha and Omega is the Father, not Jesus.


In short, there is no reason, other than a desire to support the trinity tradition, to believe that Jesus is being called "Alpha and Omega" in Rev. 22. And there is good evidence to believe that it is his Father only who uses this title for himself.






...........................................................................................

3. Isaiah 48:16


Another example of "speaker confusion" I have seen attempted by certain anti-Watchtower trinitarians is found at Is. 48:16 in the KJV.


Is. 48:16 - Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD [Jehovah], and his spirit, hath sent me. - KJV.


Commenting on this scripture some trinitarians will say: "The speaker of Is. 48:16 is Jehovah as identified by context in the first part of the verse and as shown by his identification in verse 17 where he continues to speak. But notice that Jehovah, who is speaking, says: `The Lord GOD [Jehovah] ... hath sent me.' Therefore there must be at least two persons who are Jehovah!"


The answer to such "proof" is obvious: "speaker confusion." Isaiah, like most other Bible writers, often interspersed the conversation of one person with statements by others and often doesn't identify the new speakers. Very often they appear to be comments by Isaiah himself.


That this is very likely the case here is shown, not only by context, but by these modern trinitarian Bible translations: The RSV and the NIV Bibles show by quotation marks and indenting that Isaiah himself made the final comment in Is. 48:16. The NAB also indicates a new speaker there, and, in the St. Joseph edition of the NAB, a footnote for Is. 48:16 tells us that the final statement was made by Cyrus! And the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992, comes right out and says at Is. 48:16,


" 'Come here and listen to me! ... from the beginning, I spoke clearly, so that people could know what I said.' Then Isaiah said, 'Now the Lord [Jehovah] my master sends me and his Spirit to tell you these things.' "


The New English Bible (NEB), The Revised English Bible (REB), and the Bible translation by Dr. James Moffatt (Mo) consider the last statement of Is. 48:16 to be spurious and leave it out of their translations entirely.



Certainly these trinitarian translations would have rendered this scripture (and punctuated it accordingly) to show a two-Jehovah meaning (or given such an alternate rendering in the footnotes) if their trinitarian translators had thought there was even the slightest justification for such an interpretation! (Also analyze Jer. 51:19 - Jacob is the former of all things- Jehovah of hosts is his name, according to this trinitarian-type "speaker confusion" reasoning!)


Some notes by trinitarians on this scripture:


"The prophet himself, as a type of the great prophet, asserts his own commission to deliver this message: Now the Lord God (the same that spoke from the beginning and did not speak in secret) has by his Spirit sent me, v. 16." - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Isaiah Chapter 48 verse 16..

.
And that's just the start of the whole "Alpha and Omega" and "First and Last" thing. The issue of who is speaking becomes a shell game for the Trinitarian.

Why is Jesus called the "Last Adam"?
 
Last edited:

IsmailaGodHasHeard

Well-Known Member
I am sorry but you are wrong miss. Shall I prove it?

Sorry about calling you miss. Jesus said in John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I AM." I am sure that you as a Jew, are aware that such a claim means that Jesus is claiming to be God, because I AM is the name that God used when Moses asked for a name in the Book of Exodus before he was to go to Pharaoh.
 

Mark2020

Well-Known Member
Here again:

(Revelation 1:8 [NIV])
I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Two more interesting points here, let's examine the underlined words:
1-"who is to come":
(Matthew 16:27 [NIV])
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

2-
"who is":
Check this verse in Greek:
(Revelation 1:8 [TR])
εγω ειμι το α και το ω αρχη και τελος λεγει ο κυριος ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος ο παντοκρατωρ

"who is"
in Greek is"ο ων" (or the Being)
ων is from the verb εἰμί (to be):
verb, present, active, participle, singular, nominative, masculine

Where else do we see "ο ων" without predicate?


(Exodus 3:13-14 [NIV]) Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

In Greek:
(Exodus 3:14 [LXX]) και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας

Given 1 and 2
Then Jesus (the
Son of Man) is God
 

Shermana

Heretic
Sorry about calling you miss. Jesus said in John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I AM." I am sure that you as a Jew, are aware that such a claim means that Jesus is claiming to be God, because I AM is the name that God used when Moses asked for a name in the Book of Exodus before he was to go to Pharaoh.

I notice you didn't quote the rest. It said something about bringing up something I haven't addressed twice already.


1. "I am" as it is translated, can be "I will be", and is a NAME, not a statement.

2. The word "I am" is used for "was "and "Will be", and "will be" can be "was", such as in Abraham "was".

http://concordance.biblos.com/genesthai.htm As you can see, the same word for "was" is used for "become". Tense in Greek is not totally like English and this confusion is often exploited.

To be gramatically correct, the only way that it can be read, away from Trinitarian bias, (which many Translations are deliberately guilty of contributing to by capitalizing the "I AM") is "I was". You cannot use a statement as a name to be gramatically correct, thus Jesus did not declare himself to be "I am", but to say "I existed" in the context of the sentence. In French, "Je suis" has similar use of multi tense. Yashua simply existed before Abraham. This standard CARM argument actually thinks the JWs invented this concept.

John 8:58, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Perhaps he hasn't read the famous and KJV-shattering scholar Edgar Goodspeed?

"I existed before Abraham was born." Edgar J. Goodspeed, New Testament An American Translation

As noted, our Savior used the phrase “ego eimi” many times, but it is also interesting to note that in only one instance did the Jews try to stone him after he used this phrase. (John.8:58) When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in John 6:35 & 48, no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true also of verses 51 & 52 — they questioned how Jesus could give his flesh as food, but not his usage of the phrase “ego eimi”. We can also note in John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Jesus used “ego eimi” with the Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, on these occasions they did not seek to stone him. He further used it in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14, and while some responded that he was insane, they did not seek to stone him for using the expression “ego eimi” or make any comment regarding his usage of it. And in John 11:25, when he uses this phrase, does Martha respond that Jesus is the God of Israel? No, she says that he is “the Christ [anointed one of Yahweh, his Father. (Psalm 2:2: 45:7; 61:1)], the Son of God.” (verse 27) It should be plain from this that Jesus was not using this phrase in some mysterious way to make himself Yahweh.

John 8:58: “I am” = Eternal?
John 8:58 – “I am”




3. This dubious mockery of using upper case letters of "Lord" to now use "AM" is a modern recent invention that is a ripoff of the use of uppercase "Lord" for "Kurio".

4. Jesus said "I am" several times and didn't get stoned.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Here again:

Wow, are you trying to deliberately confuse the reader? You are trying to say that Jesus is the Speaker of verse 1:8. That's why I posted that whole thing on the "Speaker confusion" issue.

This has nothing to do with Greek-English definitions. Why don't you actually quote the whole quote when you quote people, do you think doing so will confuse the reader so they won't see all the content you avoid and subjects you change?
 

Shermana

Heretic
You proved that Jesus was the speaker in verse 1:8 as opposed to verse 1:11 from the Greek? I think you proved that you're trying to change the subject.

I hope you aren't relying on the "Son of man is going to come in his Father's glory" thing. If you are, you're welcome to your opinion that such is the same context.
 
Top