Tell me where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God

[sojourner]

I think the point of the OP is to show that Jesus(pbuh) never claimed to be God even in the Bible as it exists today (regardless of whether it is authentic or not).

Jesus was not explicitly portrayed as making that claim by the authors of the canon texts. so what? As I've already said, the bible is not the sole ground of our religious experience or revelation -- never has been.

 

[loverOfTruth]

"'Mistakes' of the earlier prophets' stories????" Inconsistencies and contradictions =/= "mistakes. They do = "how the bible was compiled and edited."

Ok, my bad on that ... took a short cut in my statement.

Muhammad's(pbuh) followers learnt from the mistakes of the followers of Moses(pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh) in how the Scripture was not preserved properly. That's why Muslims took great care in preserving the Qur'an so God's word is not mixed up with other human writings.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Jesus was not explicitly portrayed as making that claim by the authors of the canon texts. so what? As I've already said, the bible is not the sole ground of our religious experience or revelation -- never has been.

So do you still receive revelation from God Almighty as to what to do to achieve eternal salvation ?

 

[nazz]

Ok, my bad on that ... took a short cut in my statement.

Muhammad's(pbuh) followers learnt from the mistakes of the followers of Moses(pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh) in how the Scripture was not preserved properly. That's why Muslims took great care in preserving the Qur'an so God's word is not mixed up with other human writings.

Not really fair to even compare the two books. The Qur'an is the record of one man's words recorded over a relatively short period of time. The Bible is the record of many authors over many centuries.

The Qur'an claims to be the Word of God. It also claims the previous scriptures are as well. But the Bible never claims to be the Word of God.

But as for preservation nothing so far indicates the Bible was not well preserved. What little evidence we do have, such as from the DSS, suggests it was.

 

[Animevox]

I never claimed that there is such a verse. You made that claim, and then put it off on me. I'm not arguing any such supernatural claims about either the bible or the Quran. You're the one chasing your tail here.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/images/professional/editor/separator.gif

So what if there's no bible verse? Do you think that every theological idea must be explicitly stated in the bible? No wonder you're so disillusioned.

That's the whole point of this post. Show me a verse where Jesus claims divinity. That's what I want. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't exist in the Bible.

As for theology, yes, I do believe that if someone is supposedly divine in ANY way, then it should be mentioned.

If you actually read your Bible without bias, you would realize that Jesus is often referred to as the "Son of Man". Never God.

 

[nazz]

That's the whole point of this post. Show me a verse where Jesus claims divinity. That's what I want. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't exist in the Bible.

As for theology, yes, I do believe that if someone is supposedly divine in ANY way, then it should be mentioned.

If you actually read your Bible without bias, you would realize that Jesus is often referred to as the "Son of Man". Never God.

Wait, I thought we were talking about Jesus' own words? Because there are definitely places in the Bible where Jesus' divinity is referred to. And Jesus did say things about himself that ordinary people would not say about themselves.

 

[sojourner]

Ok, my bad on that ... took a short cut in my statement.

Muhammad's(pbuh) followers learnt from the mistakes of the followers of Moses(pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh) in how the Scripture was not preserved properly. That's why Muslims took great care in preserving the Qur'an so God's word is not mixed up with other human writings.

but the bible is not -- and never was -- "God's words." There were no "mistakes" in preservation. The reason why there are inconsistencies and contradictions is precisely because all of the tradition -- even accounts where differences occur -- was preserved. The bible was a living document until its canonization. Most of its contents were transmitted orally for a long, long time before being written down. I simply don't understand why this seems to be such a problem for Muslims. We don't have a problem with it -- I fail to see why you should -- especially when it's not even your holy book!

 

[sojourner]

So do you still receive revelation from God Almighty as to what to do to achieve eternal salvation ?

Here's where your grasp of Xy fails miserably. We, as Xtians, don't have to "achieve" salvation. In fact, we cannot "achieve" salvation. Salvation is gifted to us by God through Jesus. By God's very Incarnation as a fully human person, the reconciliation of humanity to God was achieved. We don't need the bible for that. Xy did just fine without a bible for the first 400 years of its existence.

 

[sojourner]

Show me a verse where Jesus claims divinity. That's what I want. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't exist in the Bible.

Why is that "unfortunate" for me? Or did you fail to actually read all of my post where I said that the bible is not the only purveyor of revelation?
It doesn't have to be "explicitly in the bible" in order for it to be true.

As for theology, yes, I do believe that if someone is supposedly divine in ANY way, then it should be mentioned.

yeah, but, you're not a biblical author, so what you "believe" should be in there doesn't count for much.

If you actually read your Bible without bias, you would realize that Jesus is often referred to as the "Son of Man". Never God.

If you actually read the bible without bias, you would realize that you can't twist the bible into some "be-all-end-all" repository of spiritual information. It was never intended to be such.
Your OP is an epic fail, because it demands things of the bible that simply are not reality.

 

[Animevox]

Jesus was not explicitly portrayed as making that claim by the authors of the canon texts. so what? As I've already said, the bible is not the sole ground of our religious experience or revelation -- never has been.

If theology doesn't have to be mentioned in the Bible then by what account are you taking Jesus for God?

Why is Jesus God if he never said he was? You're making zero sense right now.

I do not think that arguing from silence would make Jesus God. It is clear that to affirm Jesus is God involves logical self-contradiction, it involves contradiction with the divine scriptures, and it involves also a religious problem.

 

[Animevox]

Wait, I thought we were talking about Jesus' own words? Because there are definitely places in the Bible where Jesus' divinity is referred to. And Jesus did say things about himself that ordinary people would not say about themselves.

My bad, I meant his own words.

 

[sojourner]

If theology doesn't have to be mentioned in the Bible then by what account are you taking Jesus for God?

The bible is part of the transmitted Tradition of the church, just as encyclicals and word-of-mouth are. The Tradition says "Trinity" -- even if the bible does not specifically use that terminology. That's how we've always understood God, since nearly the beginning.
Once again: See my post above -- the bible is not the only source of revelation.

Why is Jesus God if he never said he was?

Because (once again) his Divinity is implied -- even in the texts.

It is clear that to affirm Jesus is God involves logical self-contradiction, it involves contradiction with the divine scriptures, and it involves also a religious problem.

It may be "clear" to a not-Christian, but I can assure you that it is clear for millions of Christians for about 2000 years now.

Give it up!

 

[Animevox]

Why is that "unfortunate" for me? Or did you fail to actually read all of my post where I said that the bible is not the only purveyor of revelation?
It doesn't have to be "explicitly in the bible" in order for it to be true.

yeah, but, you're not a biblical author, so what you "believe" should be in there doesn't count for much.

If you actually read the bible without bias, you would realize that you can't twist the bible into some "be-all-end-all" repository of spiritual information. It was never intended to be such.
Your OP is an epic fail, because it demands things of the bible that simply are not reality.

So Jesus not claiming to be God isn't reality? Seems legit.

 

[Animevox]

The bible is part of the transmitted Tradition of the church, just as encyclicals and word-of-mouth are. The Tradition says "Trinity" -- even if the bible does not specifically use that terminology. That's how we've always understood God, since nearly the beginning.
Once again: See my post above -- the bible is not the only source of revelation.

Because (once again) his Divinity is implied -- even in the texts.

It may be "clear" to a not-Christian, but I can assure you that it is clear for millions of Christians for about 2000 years now.

Give it up!

God is One throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. The trinitarian concept has no solid ground to solidify itself as fact. It was simply an idea that developed out of early Christianity and was agreed upon the Council of Nicene in the 4th century. It was basically just a later idea that people arrived at.

The trinity has nothing to do with God's holy bible. Jesus or his apostles did not teach the trinity and neither did Jesus say "I am God".

 

[Animevox]

The bible is part of the transmitted Tradition of the church, just as encyclicals and word-of-mouth are. The Tradition says "Trinity" -- even if the bible does not specifically use that terminology. That's how we've always understood God, since nearly the beginning.
Once again: See my post above -- the bible is not the only source of revelation.

Because (once again) his Divinity is implied -- even in the texts.

It may be "clear" to a not-Christian, but I can assure you that it is clear for millions of Christians for about 2000 years now.

Give it up!

When we look at the gospels, we see that Jesus throughout was referring to himself as the Son of Man, which means a human being, that he had human limitations, he did not know everything.

He said "I cannot my own self do nothing", "I do only as the father has commanded me". Throughout, Jesus is deferring to God, and in fact, he falls on his face and he prays to God.

 

[Animevox]

The bible is part of the transmitted Tradition of the church, just as encyclicals and word-of-mouth are. The Tradition says "Trinity" -- even if the bible does not specifically use that terminology. That's how we've always understood God, since nearly the beginning.
Once again: See my post above -- the bible is not the only source of revelation.

Because (once again) his Divinity is implied -- even in the texts.

It may be "clear" to a not-Christian, but I can assure you that it is clear for millions of Christians for about 2000 years now.

Give it up!

The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was lifted up to heaven.

Throughout this period they never refer to Jesus as God.

They continually and consistently use the title "God" to refer to someone else other than Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

So Jesus not claiming to be God isn't reality? Seems legit.

that's not what I said. I said that twisting the bible into something it was never intended to be isn't reality. Here, you hope to make the bible into the definitive statement about everything that has to do with God or Jesus. That simply isn't the case. That's why the OP is a failure.

 

[Animevox]

Becausse (once again) his Divinity is implied -- even in the texts.

Sure, there may be some implicit statements that Jesus was trying to claim some divinity.

But I also know from doing psychology and a little bit of law that an implicit statement can never override an explicit statement.

An explicit statement always takes precedence. So if Jesus said "God is one" and he allegorically may have alluded to God being more than one, than the clear statement overrides that each and every single time.

 

[Animevox]

that's not what I said. I said that twisting the bible into something it was never intended to be isn't reality. Here, you hope to make the bible into the definitive statement about everything that has to do with God or Jesus. That simply isn't the case. That's why the OP is a failure.

Can you please stop calling me names? Let's just stick to this debate. Thank you!

 

[sojourner]

God is One throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. The trinitarian concept has no solid ground to solidify itself as fact. It was simply an idea that developed out of early Christianity and was agreed upon the Council of Nicene in the 4th century. It was basically just a later idea that people arrived at.

The trinity has nothing to do with God's holy bible. Jesus or his apostles did not teach the trinity and neither did Jesus say "I am God".

1) Even according to the Trinity doctrine, God is still one. Now you're twisting the Trinity doctrine into saying something it does not say.
2) The Trinitarian concept is based upon both biblical and cultural tenet. That seems to be solid enough grounds for any other theological construction. Why do you hold the Trinity doctrine to higher standards?
3) It was not a "later idea." While it was not fully developed, there was always some idea that Jesus was -- in some way -- Divine, if for no other reason than Luke's birth narrative, which mirrors that of Augustus in nearly every way (who was seen as a god by Roman Gentiles).
4) It isn't "God's" holy bible. It is our holy bible. Once again:
a) The bible isn't the sole method of revelation
b) Teachings don't have to be explicit; they can be implicit, which is the case here.