Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

Er, the virgin birth thing enters the tradition late in the 1st century. Paul was unaware of it; he says simply that Jesus was born of a woman (i.e. like everybody else). The virgin thing seems to rely on a particular understanding of Isaiah that requires that it be translated into Greek first, as in the Septuagint. It then got incorporated into the Gospels as one of the various miracles associated with him, in keeping with that genre of literature.

We have as much reason to believe that Alexander the Great was fathered by a serpent as we do to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I believe assumng that Paul didnt know about the virgin birth is not justified from his statement about the birth of Jesus.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I believe assumng that Paul didnt know about the virgin birth is not justified from his statement about the birth of Jesus.

There are times when an argument from silence has no merit, and then there are times when the silence screams. It is inconceivable that Paul would have been silent on this point if he'd known about it. The way he appears to talk around it, he would have to be deliberately avoiding the point. Note also that it's absent from Mark. It's not until Matthew (c. 85 CE) that the virgin birth business first shows up. Everything before that is curiously silent on that point.

Luke recapitulates it, but it's worth noting that Matthew and Luke give wholly different sets of miraculous/allusive occurrences around Jesus's birth. The virgin birth is therefore set among the events that were introduced into the narrative in order to hearken back to things in the Hebrew Bible, as well as to further the divine kingship narrative that both of those Gospel authors were working on, albeit in different ways.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, one thing is for sure, if Jesus isn't God then there are A LOT of people out there breaking the first couple of commandments. Just sayin'.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Well, one thing is for sure, if Jesus isn't God then there are A LOT of people out there breaking the first couple of commandments. Just sayin'.

Only if they're Jews. Those commandments don't apply to anyone else.

But of course the early Christians were Jews, and for that reason it would have been bizarre for them to posit that Jesus was directly equivalent to God—as opposed to someone with a mystical connection to God, or a manifestation of God's immanence in the world, or any number of other concepts that would be compatible with Judaic thought and the statements in early Christian literature. The orthodox Trinitarian paradigm is utterly alien to Judaic thought, however.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Only if they're Jews. Those commandments don't apply to anyone else.

Well... my post obviously took a lot for granted, however most all Christians would be breaking the commandments themselves if A) God exists, B) Jesus existed, C) Jesus is not God. Take those 3 things as "truths" and BAM!!! - false idol (Jesus that is) being worshiped all over the place. I understand that Christianity assumes that God and Jesus are the same being, therefore they would, in theory, still be worshiping "God" - so it would probably be a forgivable offense in God's eyes, for the most part. But God would certainly know who Jesus was, and if that point "C" were part of "truth" (that Jesus is not God, I mean), then God would surely at least be rolling His eyes quite a lot and saying "I can't believe you thought that guy was me. I know what he told you but..."

 

[outhouse]

breaking the commandments

Means nothing in that context.

Israelites used Canaanite gods.

Israelites worshipped a family of gods.

Jews combined 2 gods into 1.

Christians gave god a son

 

[outhouse]

then God would surely at least be rolling His eyes

Which god would be doing that?

 

[Vishvavajra]

Christians gave god a son

A little more complicated than that. While there are certainly some casual Christians who don't really think about what words mean and think "Son of God" literally means "fruit of God's loins," that's never what it actually meant, myths about virgin births notwithstanding.

"Son of God" is a Judaic title. What Christians invented was "God the Son"--i.e. an aspect of God that is understood in terms of God's interaction with creation. That by itself isn't so bizarre. But then the orthodox Trinitarian view came to insist that the Son had to be a coeternal and independent person and thus precede creation, which rendered the whole thing nonsensical.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Means nothing in that context.

Israelites used Canaanite gods.

Israelites worshipped a family of gods.

Jews combined 2 gods into 1.

Christians gave god a son

You don't have to do this, you know... pick apart everything and imply that it makes everything "wrong" about a particular post or reply. In the end, I couldn't care much less if I am wrong about any of it. It is ridiculously likely that none of it is "correct" anyway to start with.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Which god would be doing that?

Again here, just don't bother replying. You very much make me roll my eyes.

 

[outhouse]

A little more complicated than that. While there are certainly some casual Christians who don't really think about what words mean and think "Son of God" literally means "fruit of God's loins," that's never what it actually meant, myths about virgin births notwithstanding.

"Son of God" is a Judaic title. What Christians invented was "God the Son"--i.e. an aspect of God that is understood in terms of God's interaction with creation. That by itself isn't so bizarre. But then the orthodox Trinitarian view came to insist that the Son had to be a coeternal and independent person and thus precede creation, which rendered the whole thing nonsensical.

Its my opinion its a direct parallel to the first son of god the living Emperor.

But I don't think there is any getting around Hellenist creating deity using combinations of plagiarized Judaism and Hellenism.

 

[outhouse]

Again here, just don't bother replying. You very much make me roll my eyes.

There were two early deities in Judaism, El and Yahweh that were combined into one deity.

There was also Baal and Asherah

So I ask which one?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There were two early deities in Judaism, El and Yahweh that were combined into one deity.

There was also Baal and Asherah

So I ask which one?

You can keep asking if you like. I will no longer be replying.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Its my opinion its a direct parallel to the first son of god the living Emperor.

The Roman emperor was not the "first" son of a god by any stretch of the imagination, even in Greco-Roman culture. You might as well look back to Gilgamesh, although that's surely just an early attested example. But the point is that the Judaic concept didn't evolve out of Greco-Roman culture but in its own context. The problem is a lot of people have forgotten that context and don't understand what "Son of God" actually means there.

Augustus used the title divi filius for a time, but there's no indication that Jews made any sort of connection or had any opinion about that. The phrases mean very different things in the respective cultural contexts, despite the similarity in literal denotation.

 

[Muffled]

There are times when an argument from silence has no merit, and then there are times when the silence screams. It is inconceivable that Paul would have been silent on this point if he'd known about it. The way he appears to talk around it, he would have to be deliberately avoiding the point. Note also that it's absent from Mark. It's not until Matthew (c. 85 CE) that the virgin birth business first shows up. Everything before that is curiously silent on that point.

Luke recapitulates it, but it's worth noting that Matthew and Luke give wholly different sets of miraculous/allusive occurrences around Jesus's birth. The virgin birth is therefore set among the events that were introduced into the narrative in order to hearken back to things in the Hebrew Bible, as well as to further the divine kingship narrative that both of those Gospel authors were working on, albeit in different ways.

I believe the burden of proof remains on you to show that Paul should have said something about it since this is basicly the null hypothesis.

I believe this is not so strange since it is most likely Peter giving the information and he starts with Jesus long after his birth. The birth of Jesus is not mentioned at all in Mark.

I believe one could say that of Matthew but not of Luke. Also it is the Holy Spirit that guides writing because all writing took place after the Holy Spirit came.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I believe the burden of proof remains on you to show that Paul should have said something about it since this is basicly the null hypothesis.

You can say that, but it's a case of using what is normally a good principle to produce an absurd result. If I'm specifically talking about a thing and fail to mention some rather important aspect, it wouldn't be amiss to take that omission as significant. In that case it's not an argument from a lack of evidence, but the omission where you would expect something to be there is itself evidence. In other words, context matters.

I believe this is not so strange since it is most likely Peter giving the information and he starts with Jesus long after his birth. The birth of Jesus is not mentioned at all in Mark

.

Where's that concern for the burden of proof now? The idea that Peter is the source of Mark is something that has no evidentiary basis and is in fact completely isolated in the world of scholarly opinion, which dates Mark to the ninth decade of the Common Era, long after any of the original disciples were dead.

I believe one could say that of Matthew but not of Luke. Also it is the Holy Spirit that guides writing because all writing took place after the Holy Spirit came.

Why not of Luke? Its author engages in this kind of midrashic intertextuality with no less frequency than the rest. As for the Holy Spirit, that doesn't have anything to do with the authorship of the texts. Whether the authors wrote under the influence of the Spirit is something the readers must decide, but the fact remains that men wrote the texts, using human knowledge and human language.

 

[Greatest I am]

Question for all.

Jesus said to seek God.

If he was God, would he not have been more correct in saying, seek me?

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Note that in this quote, Jesus is definitely saying he is not the Father. He shows that the Fathers love and his are different.

Regards
DL

 

[Muffled]

Question for all.

Jesus said to seek God.

If he was God, would he not have been more correct in saying, seek me?

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Note that in this quote, Jesus is definitely saying he is not the Father. He shows that the Fathers love and his are different.

Regards
DL

I believe Jesus knows whether a person viewed Him as God or not and would not have said seek me unless He knew the person believed Him to be God. However He did say: John 7:17 If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.

I believe you will not be able to reason from the verse to this conclusion.

I believe the passage does not talk about the love of Jesus so there can be no comparison derived.

 

[Muffled]

You can say that, but it's a case of using what is normally a good principle to produce an absurd result. If I'm specifically talking about a thing and fail to mention some rather important aspect, it wouldn't be amiss to take that omission as significant. In that case it's not an argument from a lack of evidence, but the omission where you would expect something to be there is itself evidence. In other words, context matters.

I beleive the context is not that there is a full explanation of the birth of Jesus but simply an appiication of an aspect of His birth to the theology that he was expounding.

Where's that concern for the burden of proof now? The idea that Peter is the source of Mark is something that has no evidentiary basis and is in fact completely isolated in the world of scholarly opinion, which dates Mark to the ninth decade of the Common Era, long after any of the original disciples were dead.

I believe that is what my Pastor said and He certainly has studied to be a Pastor. I didn't say that Peter wrote it but that Peter was the source that Mark used to write his gospel. Mark was young enough to still be alive in the nonth decade.


Why not of Luke? Its author engages in this kind of midrashic intertextuality with no less frequency than the rest. As for the Holy Spirit, that doesn't have anything to do with the authorship of the texts. Whether the authors wrote under the influence of the Spirit is something the readers must decide, but the fact remains that men wrote the texts, using human knowledge and human language.

I believe the Holy Spirit is the guide to what the authors write. I can say that by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Brian Stoin]

I am new to this Forum, but not new to the experience. A lot has been said in this thread, but I would like to give evidence from the Bible and other sources that conclusively prove that Jesus and His Father (God/Yahweh/Jehovah) are not the same being.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this, but I will only give a couple.
I hope that I am not repeating what others have said earlier in this thread.

First of all, Jesus' disciples never concluded nor did they imagine that Jesus was the almighty creator of the universe, Yahweh (or Jehovah if you prefer).

The teaching of the Trinity did not get fully accepted into the "church" until the council of Nicea many years after much apostasy had crept into the congregations.

If we analyze the vision that John had in Revelation chapters 4-6 we read that John saw someone seated on the throne. We know that this refers to God (chapter 4:11 lets us know that this is Yahweh/Jehovah). During this vision, he sees other spirit creatures around this throne (24 elders seated upon thrones, four living creatures, many angels, etc).
Noteworthy is the fact that in chapter 5 verse 5 a description of someone else who is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David and has conquered. Later in the same vision he is referred to as The Lamb.
It is obvious that this "Lamb" refers to Jesus.
So the question is: if God is on the throne and "The Lamb" is in the midst of the throne and all the other spirit creatures, how is it that they can be confused for the same person? It is obvious that they are two separate and distinct beings with two separate and distinct roles in heaven.