Even verse 29 [ the verse right before John 10:30 ] states the Father is greater than all.
No where does it say the Son is greater than all.
By verse 36 Jesus' recorded words are that he himself is stating that he [Jesus] is the Son of God.
-
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
Even verse 29 [ the verse right before John 10:30 ] states the Father is greater than all.
No where does it say the Son is greater than all.
By verse 36 Jesus' recorded words are that he himself is stating that he [Jesus] is the Son of God.
Shermana
Heretic
Regardless if you think its a myth, the grand bulk of this organized entity called the Christian Church relies on this particular interpretative aspect of the "Myth", and if more non-believers joined in on realizing that by their own "myth" they are grossly mistaken on this critical aspect which binds them, it can be a serious blow to its foundations.
In other words, would you, the non-believer, like to see this Mega-entity start having to address the serious flaws in its most key doctrines? Can you imagine that it would be a great start to breaking the grip of its institutional authority?
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
URMVP2ME,
I took some time away from all chat boards because Ive had some personal things to attend to. I hope all is well with you and that the NHL season starts soon!
It is the Quaker belief that Jesus was one with the Father as God before the creation of anything. That in their special relationship to one another, the son emptied himself to die for all sins. That Jesus was then given back authority over all things by the Father. Jesus is greater then all created things and so is the Father. (thats how we see it)
Awesome! Jesus is also the Son of Man and the Son of Mary. (Their Firstborn Son) At what point in time did Jesus become Born is the question? We believe Jesus to be birthed some 2000+ years ago.
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
because Jesus Emptied Himself to become a man(Phil 2:6-7), making him both the offspring and the Root of David(Rev 22:16) BTW, Jesus rarely claimed to be our Savior, Son of God, and the Messiah. He always wanted his followers to tell him, "Who do you think I am"?
Ask yourself the reverse of that question: If Jesus was a man himself, why would Jesus claim to be the son of man in the first place? (See the parallel?) Only God could be sinless and satisfy his own wrath. That is why we say Jesus is both God(Root of David) and Man(offspring of David).
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you are jumping to conclusions without performing reasoning. Saying that something is obvious is begging the question (a logical fallacy). However I believe we can agree that Jesus considers the concept of Father and Himself to be different, otherwise He would not bother to make the distinction. I believe Jesus does say the Father is greater than Himself but does not state in what way. Since Jesus is one with the Father, there must be a way that can be true while there is also a way for them to be distinct. What does Jesus have that the Father doesn't? - a body. What does the Father have that Jesus doesn't? - the universe. What then is the source of unity? - They are one Spirit. One Spirit is our definition of God.
I believe this is merely a perception on your part. I find it clear and without contradiction.
Muffled
Jesus in me
What is your reasoning? Are you saying the Father isn't God? Are you saying that there is a oneness with God that isn't God? How do you manage that?
I believe you are also jumping to your conclusion. This verse says absolutely nothing about purpose or mindset. I believe you are pulling this out of thin air.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe this doesn't make sense. However if you are trying to say that Jesus was a different spirit from the Spirit of God, I believe there is no evidence to support that view.
Shermana
Heretic
How do you derive that from my quote?
Huh? This is like a non sequitur. What do you even mean? Oneness with God does not mean being God. Explain yourself.
Actually it's a standard understanding of the verse. If Jesus says "Let them be one AS we are one", the word "As" means "Just like". So in your interpretation of "being one", it would mean the Disciples are being invited to be God.
..and I hope all is well with you icebuddy, and who do you root for?
How about first born in the heavens?_____ Col. 1 v 15 'firstborn of every creation...'
Wouldn't 'every creation or creature' include any angels?
Would you agree God had no birth and no beginning?_____ -Psalm 90 v 2
So, only God was 'before' the beginning.
That means Jesus as firstborn was not before the beginning as God was before the start or beginning of creation.
What does Revelation 3 v 14 say about Jesus pre-human existence ?
Religion actually degrades Jesus when it teaches that he was God in the flesh. How so? Consider an illustration. Some workers make a request of their supervisor, but he says that he does not have the authority to grant it. If his statement is true, the supervisor has wisely displayed an awareness of his limitations. If it is not trueif he can grant
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
What is constantly ignored in this thread, perhaps because we tend to get so caught up in problematic metaphysical questions about what God is and all the attendant philosophical/ Greek baggage that has come with that is the question of what God does.
In the case of Jesus, we see someone who uses God's own authority and does things only God was expected to do. We see Jesus expound the Scriptures "with authority", we see him position himself as "the bridegroom of Israel", as a person who forgives sins, who relativizes the Sabbath by setting down new criteria (the Sabbath was made for man), who claims himself as the Lord of the Sabbath, as someone who never reports "God says thus to me and so I to you", but speaks with the very authority of God himself. That is, with no need to justify his words. He brings about the healing of the sick, heralds the freeing of the captives, casts out demons. The actions of Jesus stand in significant contrast to the actions of the prophets of God throughout Hebrew Scripture. He does not at first resist God's call, there is no purification of his lips. He inserts his own private ritual within the central Jewish feast of Passover, he is ambivalent towards the Temple cult, the place of God's presence. Further, he takes no care to prophesy the departure of the LORD from its walls, but is even reported as comparing his own body to the Temple that he will rebuild.
In short, aside from questions of what God is, there is a strong case to make that Jesus is simply identical with what God does. This, I believe, is the proper starting point for considering the divinity of Christ.
In the case of Jesus, we see someone who uses God's own authority and does things only God was expected to do. We see Jesus expound the Scriptures "with authority", we see him position himself as "the bridegroom of Israel", as a person who forgives sins, who relativizes the Sabbath by setting down new criteria (the Sabbath was made for man), who claims himself as the Lord of the Sabbath, as someone who never reports "God says thus to me and so I to you", but speaks with the very authority of God himself. That is, with no need to justify his words. He brings about the healing of the sick, heralds the freeing of the captives, casts out demons. The actions of Jesus stand in significant contrast to the actions of the prophets of God throughout Hebrew Scripture. He does not at first resist God's call, there is no purification of his lips. He inserts his own private ritual within the central Jewish feast of Passover, he is ambivalent towards the Temple cult, the place of God's presence. Further, he takes no care to prophesy the departure of the LORD from its walls, but is even reported as comparing his own body to the Temple that he will rebuild.
In short, aside from questions of what God is, there is a strong case to make that Jesus is simply identical with what God does. This, I believe, is the proper starting point for considering the divinity of Christ.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Saying the one sent is not greater than the one sending, is to say they are equal or at least leaves that open. Jesus, whatever he was certainly no simple teacherl. The Bible said he existed before time (the foundation of the Earth), and will come on the clouds of glory thousands of years after he died and was raised and has been given all authority under heaven. This is no mere prophet.
Jesus existed before the foundation of the earth [ and universe ] and so did all of the angels because the angelic sons of God applauded or shouted with joy at the founding of the earth.- Job 38 vs 4-7
We are at the threshold of Jesus 'time of Glory' [Matthew 25 vs 31,32]
We are at the threshold of Jesus 'time of Glory' [Matthew 25 vs 31,32]
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Are you saying that you believe Jesus is an angel, but not God? That is atleast a new one.
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
I have seen 2 Stanley cups in the last 7 years.(was at the game) We happen to be rivals but its hockey and I love hockey. To answer your question: The Ducks
My Son is in the Photo by my name, he got to play with the pros and be apart of last years Skills Competition... Love the Ducks!
If one reads the Bible from Gen to Rev what would one see? We would see Boys/Men in the OT being called Firstborn not because they were the first one to be born, but because they where head heir to the Family. I only found one Lady being called Firstborn, but that because she had no brothers. In this we see many Girls born First, but the men are called Firstborn, why is that? Again, its showing Heirship. To add to this, we see Younger Brothers being called the Firstborn son and even King David was the last son born to Jesse and he was the Firstborn Son. All thought the OT we see the title "Firstborn" as an heirship of who is First in heirship(always) and very seldom the First to be born in the OT.
While Reading the NT we see the Word and that Nothing was created that was created apart from the Word. We see the Word being called Eternal Life that was with God, we see nothing that indicates the "WORD" as being created, what we see is the opposite in John 1:3. Then we see the Word who is in the Form of God and fully Divine as God empty himself to become a man. Now as a man, Jesus, we see that Mary has her Firstborn Son (luke 2:7) The Father now says to Jesus, "You are my Son" (Heb 1:6) then goes on to Quote passages of Jehovah directly to Jesus to make sure we dont get lost on who this is (Heb 1:10-12/Ps 102:25-27) and thats why we see passages like "God With Us" and "Mighty God" and "My Lord and My God" that us Trinitarians get excited!
Back on track: Lets say Jesus never existed until his earthly birth some 2000 plus years ago. Could we still call him the "Firstborn of creation"? The Answer is Yes, because He is Heir to all of his Fathers(GOD) kingdom and has authority over all creation. (Matt 28:18) But to Go one step beyond this, all things where created By Jesus and For Jesus and when we keep reading from Col1:15 to Col 1:18 we see the full explaination.
So my Question to you is clear: If Firstborn always means Head Heir ship and almost never means First in a series in the bible, and never means First created, why would one not see this as Jesus being Called Heir over all Creation alone? Why must one insist this means Jesus was created 1st, when clearly Firstborn is an heirship title and Jesus is indeed Heir over all Creation?
At that time it was written yes. The Father quotes many OT passages of Jehovah God and applies them directly to Jesus. Hebrews 1:10-12 is a good example. I also see no problem with this passage applying to Jesus. Dont forget the Father is Called the Beginning and End of all things.
And we believe Jesus is the Word and the Word is God and with God as Eternal Life. Ask yourself a question: Read Ps 90:2 and take out the word God and add the Word of Life. Would you object that Before the Mountains and the Earth was the Word of Life? Would you object that the Word of Life is Everlasting to Everlasting? Dont forget what the Father says about Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12. Also Heb 13:8
Just to show you that you could be in error. If Jesus never existed and God chose him to be his Firstborn Son when born to Mary. Could Jesus be called Firstborn over all creation? (Although he never existed until 2000 years ago?)
You are forcing something here and making words mean something they dont mean. Gods inspired word doesnt use the word "First Created" as you are implying. I hope after reading this post in its fullest you will understand my side of things.
ill pull out my NWT because my NIV says "Ruler of Gods Creation". ...
Continue
Last edited:
icebuddy
Does the devil lift Jesus up?
There are a number of things that i see here: Jesus is being called the Beginning (Arche) of Gods Creation. The Context of revelation is not downplaying Jesus, its lifting him up. Ask yourself a question: How would you read if a passage said: Jehovah God the Beginning and End of all of his Creations? Would you say Jehovah had a beginning or and End? Not to mention Jesus is expressing the Father Fully and if the Father is Beginning and End of all Creation, I would expect Jesus to also be the Beginning and End of all Creation, wouldnt you?
the Easy way out here for a Trinitarian is that the Word can and is Translated into "Ruler" and fits nicely into the scope of things. Specially after reading Jesus was already there in the beginning and nothing was created apart from Jesus. So just as you read the Father being called the Beginning of all things and would not see a problem, I also See Jesus being called the Beginning of All things as not a problem. Why would I? Jesus is the image of God expressing him to the Fullest...
Got to work...
Tom
Muffled
Jesus in me
Because as I believe Jesus saying He is one with the Father means that He is one with God because God is the Father.
I believe oneness with God means being God. For instance the ink in the pen is one with the pen. However I believe that is not a good analogy because God does not have components but we attribute components to him by making the dichotomy between the Father and Son even though it is one spirit in Jesus and everywhere else as well.
Then I beleive it is a standard error in understanding since there is no evidence to support it.
Exactly. I believe that I am one with God when I write this and that means that I am God in the flesh. However I do not stay in this state but revert to myself often enough. That is why it is a prayer because this oneness is so hard to achieve unless one is God to start with as Jesus is. Jesus is praying for something to come into existence that does not exist but in Him it existed from conception.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I don't believe there is any evidence to support this. I believe Jesus can state this because He is speaking as the identfying Spirit of God that has always existed but the body of Jesu was the reult of a conception which occurred in the fullness of time.
Shermana
Heretic
Muffled said:
Okay, that doesn't really explain how you derive that from what I said according to what I said. Not even by your own understanding would this make sense of what I said.
Okay, and I believe "oneness" simply means being in harmony and unison in thought and deed. There's a reason you can't find a good analogy, the concept you present is not tenable.
As if there's evidence for yours?
Okay, so you believe you are God in the flesh, glad we have that established.
So you believe that all believers become God in the flesh, got it. You want to talk about "standard errors" that "have no evidence" some more?
Okay, that doesn't really explain how you derive that from what I said according to what I said. Not even by your own understanding would this make sense of what I said.
Okay, and I believe "oneness" simply means being in harmony and unison in thought and deed. There's a reason you can't find a good analogy, the concept you present is not tenable.
As if there's evidence for yours?
Okay, so you believe you are God in the flesh, glad we have that established.
So you believe that all believers become God in the flesh, got it. You want to talk about "standard errors" that "have no evidence" some more?