http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Did_Jesus_ever_claim_to_be_God%3F
Please retort.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Did_Jesus_ever_claim_to_be_God%3F
Please retort.[/quote]
You do understand that this exact debate in almost these very words has been going for the better part of a century and especially the last 50 years? To see… again, somebody try to claim John Calvin and A.T. Robertson to support an Arian godhead is simply beyond preposterous.
Here is the very first line from Calvin, who was a colossus of Biblical linguistics, exegesis and exposition, in his commentary on John.
A.T. Robertson, who’s six inch thick grammar I once owned, and who was one of the preeminent New Testament scholars of the 20th century would have an apocalyptic seizure if he knew somebody was attempting to use his work to support the heresy of Arius of Alexandria.
He doesn’t care he can only argue by website . . .
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.
Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.
I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]
Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).
And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:
“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)
Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…
[/quote]
Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.
Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.
I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]
As regards that chapter you quoted (John 8:48-59), it’s actually a good “proof” chapter for denying the trinity (ironically). Here’s a breakdown of what it says:
Jews: You’ve got a demon in you!
Jesus: No I don’t, I value my father…and you’re insulting me. Now I don’t want to bring glory on myself, but there is One (i.e. God) who wants that, and He judges. I guarantee that if you listen to me, you will never die. (because he is the messiah, and faith in him is necessary for eternal life).
Jews: Now we’re sure you’ve got a demon in you! Even the most faithful men (e.g. Abraham) have died, and yet you reckon that those who listen to you will never die?! Do you think you’re better than Abraham and the prophets??? Who do you think you are?!
Jesus: If I “big myself up”, then there’d be no merit in that…but it’s not me who’s trying to “boast”, it’s my Father who’s glorifying me. He’s the father that you reckon is your God, and yet you don’t know Him, whereas I do know Him, and if you say that I don’t then I’d be a liar just like you…but I know Him and I obey Him. Your father Abraham was excited about the promised messiah coming (that is - Jesus Christ), he understood and was glad!
Jews: You’re not even 50 years old, how could you have seen Abraham???
Jesus: This is the truth - I existed even before Abraham was born
Jews started throwing stones and Jesus escapes
It’s obvious that Jesus was trying to tell the Jews that he was the promised messiah (the one through whom to get salvation)…he was in no way trying to convince the Jews that he was God. The part that trinitarians always emphasise is the bit where it says “I AM”:
“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!”
This is a poor translation of Greek/bad grammar. The word “am” (I-mee) in Greek means:
- to be, to exist, to happen, to be present, have been, was
So it should be: “before Abraham was born, I existed”
Where exactly does Jesus give himself the title of God??? The Jews were angry at what they perceived as:
A)Self righteousness
B)Exalting himself
C)For claiming to do what they thought only God had the right to do (but God gave Jesus the power/right)
God gave Jesus glory before his resurrection and before his “second coming” in numerous ways. But Jesus was referring to everything he was able to do with God’s power/approval (resurrect the dead etc)…that’s the sort of glory he was talking about (and the prospect of becoming King). Why would he be talking about God giving him glory, and stress that he wasn’t giving himself glory…if God was him anyway???[/quote]
You might want to read up on what Irishsteel is talking about, because this changes the meaning of your thoughts on the passage.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I Corinthians 11:3 - ok, just for grins and giggles I’ll break my rule and answer a passage outside of my points just to show you that your arguments are not as ironclad as you think:
The whole point of the passage (what is it with you guys and context?) is to show that women should respect their place within the office and order of worship inside the church. Women were breaking the order of worship and speaking with their heads uncovered in the church. Thus the entire premise of the passage is show that there is an order and a propriety to be followed based on office and authority.
It reads as this - A woman should cover her head when in church , because her head is representative of submission to her husband’s office and authority, and a man show worship with his head covered when in church, because a representative for his family he is to show his submission by covering his head because his head is Christ who is the husband of the bride (church), and Christ has already submitted his office as the head of the Church to God.
This office/authority headship is the context of the passage. one office in submission to the next office in submission to the next office in submission to the head office. Not about individuals, but about offices/authority. And just because one office (head of the Church) is subject to another office (Head of all things) does not mean that the same person cannot inhabit both offices. This is an entirely logical framework within our understanding of the nature and relationship of the triune God. No need for polytheism here to understand the passage in its context.
Here’s an analogy; It would be the same a staff Sgt. who has command of a combat platoon - he as ranking NCO is still subject to the Platoon Commander, even though the same person inhabits both roles.
Now, I probably should have stuck to my guns and not addressed any of your points until you disprove my five as false - but this one was so easy I just had to let out a little steam waiting for you guys to step up to the challenge.[/quote]
Irish, that explanation and analogy does not even come close to explaining or being similar to 1 Corinthians 11:3. First, the verse is talking about individuals not positions in an office or combat platoon where your analogy may apply. Nor is the verse referring to a group that Jesus is head of such as a combat platoon. Finding an example of how a position within the Armed Forces where a position has two roles is hardly proof that this is the same with God and Jesus. Show me a scripture in the Bible that clearly shows this is the case. I too can think of an example and apply it to show how God is head of Jesus and not the same being but unlike your analogy I can show many scriptures to support my analogy.
Here’s an analogy; The President and the Vice President are two different people. The Vice President is second in power and authority to the president so the president is head of the vice president.
See how easy that was. Now let me show you scriptures to support this analogy.
Jesus himself said at Matthew 26:64 that he will “sitting and the right hand of power.” If you look up the word “power” one of the definitions is: “the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy.” One of the synonyms is “sovereignty.” So Jesus is saying he will at the “right hand,” which denotes second in command, to God’s sovereignty, command or authority.
Acts 2:33, Act 7:55, Romans 8:34, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 10:12 are just 6 of the 12 scriptures that state Jesus is at God’s right hand which denotes a second in command position. Acts 3:26 states in regard to Jesus that God raised up his servant which of course means that he is in subjection to God. Jesus being at God’s right hand or second in command and being called his servant is exactly what God being head of Jesus means at
1 Corinthians 11:3.
Irish I have to say my bad because I see that I did not answer all of you points. I missed ONE. You said that since Joel 2:32 states that “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved” means that Jesus is God because at Act 4:10-12 Luke tells the Jews that there is not salvation in any other name under heaven given among men by which one can be saved. Irish, Irish, Irish again this inference in no way means that Jesus is God. Let me explain why.
In the Hebrews scriptures the Messiah had not yet been produced so Jehovah was the only name that one could be called on and be saved. He was the savior of Israel time and again and he did this a number of ways. He did this by helping them defeat enemies or releasing them from captivity or he raised men up such as the Judges of Israel to be their saviors. So the Israelite already knew to call on the name of Jehovah to be saved. Now please pay attention to this part. It was prophesied that the Jews would reject Jesus and as you know that’s exactly what they did as a nation. Remember, at Matthew 10:6 Jesus told his disciples to go to the lost sheep of Israel and at Acts 3:26 shows that the Israelites were preached to first. So at Acts 4:10-12 the apostles are explaining to the Israelites that putting faith in the person who they rejected and killed is the only way they could have salvation. Irish look closely at the wording of the passage. Acts 4:10-14:
“let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that BY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, . . . by Him this man stands here before you whole. . . . Nor IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER, for there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given among men BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED.”
Can you see it? The passage says NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN which means no other name on [i[earth[/i], GIVEN TO MEN BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED. The passage does not say no other name in heaven and under heaven, if that were the case then what you said above would apply. That passage is saying that there is not salvation in any other man on earth except Jesus. I’m sure you can understand why this would need to be emphasized to the Jews who had rejected and killed Jesus. Without the Jews understanding that it was Jesus’ sacrifice who enables man to have their sins forgiven and without them putting faith in Jesus sacrifice there is no chance for them to have salvation. This is why the apostles said this to the Israelites. It was not to teach or imply to the Israelites that Jesus and God are the same being.
Now when the apostles and disciples start to preach to the other nations they have a different challenge. They are preaching to people who do not know Jehovah God the God of the Israelites because these people worshiped pagan gods. Again Irish look closely at the whole context of the passage as you like to say. Romans 10:12-14 states:
"12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?"
The questions that Paul ask in the passage shows that the other nations do not know or have faith in Jehovah God so they will not be able to call on Jehovah to be saved.
So no you linking Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:13 and then to Acts 4:10-12 does not show Jesus and God are the same being.
I’m sure you won’t agree with anything I said above and you will probably say that I still didn’t address your points.
By the way Irish, you should really do some research regarding why the name of God which I’m sure you know is Jehovah, is removed from most Bibles. Because you seem to be confused by when God’s name should be used but instead the title “LORD” is used. You say that you know the Hebrew and Greek words to different passages in the Bible but It would benefit you more if you knew when God’s name was actually used instead of the title “LORD”. For example Joel 2:32(NIV) says “everyone who calls on the name of the LORD,” when it should read that “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah.” Understanding this may help you to better understand that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God’s son and is called a servant of God who is at the right hand of God’s power.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mse2us - onto point # 2 I’m not going to respond to the majority of your comments for brevity’s sake, I will just place the nail in the coffin on this one really quickly.
You agreed that “At Joel 2:32 the verse uses the name Jehovah and at Romans 10:13 the verse uses the name Jehovah in regards to calling on his name to be saved.” You went on to say that “So the proof that can’t be ignored is not proof because in both account use Jehovah’s name.”
The point is that you have to call on Jehovah to be saved, and ONLY by calling on HIS NAME can you be saved.
And now I will direct your attention to Acts 4:10-12 which plainly states:
“let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that BY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, . . . by Him this man stands here before you whole. . . . Nor IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER, for there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given among men BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED.”
You’ve already agreed that calling on Jehovah is the only name by which we can be saved, and Acts says Jesus’ name is the only name by which we can be saved - so either the Bible is not true, or Jesus and Jehovah are the same person.
Here’s a few others Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah) and beside me there is no SAVIOUR” linked to the angelic witness of Jesus’s birth in Luke 2:11 "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a SAVIOUR which is CHRIST (MESSIAH) the LORD (JEHOVAH).
There you have it as plain as can be:
One name for salvation - Jehovah and Jesus - have to be the same
One Saviour - Jehovah and Jesus - have to be the same
no inference - just plain statements
And to your comments about Jesus being a lesser God, let me direct you back to Isaiah 43 and verse 10:
“ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
sorry, my friend - someone has been feeding you some bad biblical teaching[/quote]
Irish I have to say my bad because I see that I did not answer all of you points. I missed ONE. You said that since Joel 2:32 states that “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved” means that Jesus is God because at Act 4:10-12 Luke tells the Jews that there is not salvation in any other name under heaven given among men by which one can be saved. Irish, Irish, Irish again this inference in no way means that Jesus is God. Let me explain why.
In the Hebrews scriptures the Messiah had not yet been produced so Jehovah was the only name that one could be called on and be saved. He was the savior of Israel time and again and he did this a number of ways. He did this by helping them defeat enemies or releasing them from captivity or he raised men up such as the Judges of Israel to be their saviors. So the Israelite already knew to call on the name of Jehovah to be saved. Now please pay attention to this part. It was prophesied that the Jews would reject Jesus and as you know that’s exactly what they did as a nation. Remember, at Matthew 10:6 Jesus told his disciples to go to the lost sheep of Israel and at Acts 3:26 shows that the Israelites were preached to first. So at Acts 4:10-12 the apostles are explaining to the Israelites that putting faith in the person who they rejected and killed is the only way they could have salvation. Irish look closely at the wording of the passage. Acts 4:10-14:
“let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that BY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, . . . by Him this man stands here before you whole. . . . Nor IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER, for there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given among men BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED.”
Can you see it? The passage says NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN which means no other name on [i[earth[/i], GIVEN TO MEN BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED. The passage does not say no other name in heaven and under heaven, if that were the case then what you said above would apply. That passage is saying that there is not salvation in any other man on earth except Jesus. I’m sure you can understand why this would need to be emphasized to the Jews who had rejected and killed Jesus. Without the Jews understanding that it was Jesus’ sacrifice who enables man to have their sins forgiven and without them putting faith in Jesus sacrifice there is no chance for them to have salvation. This is why the apostles said this to the Israelites. It was not to teach or imply to the Israelites that Jesus and God are the same being.
Now when the apostles and disciples start to preach to the other nations they have a different challenge. They are preaching to people who do not know Jehovah God the God of the Israelites because these people worshiped pagan gods. Again Irish look closely at the whole context of the passage as you like to say. Romans 10:12-14 states:
"12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?"
The questions that Paul ask in the passage shows that the other nations do not know or have faith in Jehovah God so they will not be able to call on Jehovah to be saved.
So no you linking Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:13 and then to Acts 4:10-12 does not show Jesus and God are the same being.
I’m sure you won’t agree with anything I said above and you will probably say that I still didn’t address your points.
By the way Irish, you should really do some research regarding why the name of God which I’m sure you know is Jehovah, is removed from most Bibles. Because you seem to be confused by when God’s name should be used but instead the title “LORD” is used. You say that you know the Hebrew and Greek words to different passages in the Bible but It would benefit you more if you knew when God’s name was actually used instead of the title “LORD”. For example Joel 2:32(NIV) says “everyone who calls on the name of the LORD,” when it should read that “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah.” Understanding this may help you to better understand that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God’s son and is called a servant of God who is at the right hand of God’s power.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
He doesn’t care he can only argue by website . . .[/quote]
No. I absolutely refuse to trade scripture, the accuracy and/or correct interpretation of, neither of us is capable. Period.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@ its_just_me:
Total sidetrack. I’m gonna guess you put on at least 40 solid pounds or so assuming the legs have some meat on em too. Very good. I mean that. It also reminds me that I still have to get some pix up.[/quote]
Thanks! That means a lot to me:)
I’ve put on ~ 50+ solid pounds; the first 30 or so wasn’t too difficult since I was underweight to start with…and I just needed to stop starving myself!
The only reason why I put progress pics up in the first place was because I was constantly getting called out LOL
/hijack
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.
Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.
I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]
Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).
And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:
“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)
Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…
[/quote]
Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]
My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?
The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.
Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).
mse2us . . . I’m not going into any further discussion on 1 Cor 11 - You provided your interpretation based on your polytheism, I provided my based on my monotheism - my only point was to show that there is a logical explanation that does not require your version of multiple gods.
So you have answered all my points?
- Did you provide a passage that proves the Messiah was not Divine? No, you agreed He was Divine.
2A. Did you provide a passage that proves that either Jehovah or Jesus is the name to call on for salvation? No, you agreed that you can call on the name of Jehovah and the name of Jesus for salvation
2B. Did you provide a passage that proves that either Jehovah or Jesus is our Savior? No, you agreed that Jesus and Jehovah are both our salvation.
-
Did you provide a passage that proves that Jesus does not possess the incommunicable traits of God? No, you agreed that he does possess the incommunicable traits of God.
-
Did you provide a passage that proves that Jesus does not do the actions of God? No, you agreed that jesus does the Works of God.
-
Did you provide a passage that proves that Jesus is not worshiped? No, you agreed that Jesus is worshipped.
You had provided nothing that changes any of the 5 basic points that prove that Jesus is God, you only change the definition of what “is God” is and turn it into polytheism . . . sorry, but you guys are really failing on this one.
Are these the best arguments you have? That you agree with all of the 5 basic points, but disgree on the conclusion?
What is it that you think you have that changes any conlusion of mine regarding the triune nature of God? I haven’t seen anything yet that requires your polytheistic version of God. Are you guys holding back or something? You leave my five points standing and expect what?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Honest, I’d like to continue this conversation, but I’m not going to be at my desk for a few days.[/quote]
Very convenient, because I am going out of town leaving today for the weekend. Just waiting for my chinese learning software to come from ups, then i can leave. Hurry up UPS! shakes fist[/quote]
I take it you got your software? Enjoy your weekend?
We left off with you telling me that all 144,000 already know they are chosen and since this is between them and Jehovah, no one else knows who any of the chosen are. Correct? Are all the 144,000 Jehovah’s Witness?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.
Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.
I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]
As regards that chapter you quoted (John 8:48-59), it’s actually a good “proof” chapter for denying the trinity (ironically). Here’s a breakdown of what it says:
Jews: You’ve got a demon in you!
Jesus: No I don’t, I value my father…and you’re insulting me. Now I don’t want to bring glory on myself, but there is One (i.e. God) who wants that, and He judges. I guarantee that if you listen to me, you will never die. (because he is the messiah, and faith in him is necessary for eternal life).
Jews: Now we’re sure you’ve got a demon in you! Even the most faithful men (e.g. Abraham) have died, and yet you reckon that those who listen to you will never die?! Do you think you’re better than Abraham and the prophets??? Who do you think you are?!
Jesus: If I “big myself up”, then there’d be no merit in that…but it’s not me who’s trying to “boast”, it’s my Father who’s glorifying me. He’s the father that you reckon is your God, and yet you don’t know Him, whereas I do know Him, and if you say that I don’t then I’d be a liar just like you…but I know Him and I obey Him. Your father Abraham was excited about the promised messiah coming (that is - Jesus Christ), he understood and was glad!
Jews: You’re not even 50 years old, how could you have seen Abraham???
Jesus: This is the truth - I existed even before Abraham was born
Jews started throwing stones and Jesus escapes
It’s obvious that Jesus was trying to tell the Jews that he was the promised messiah (the one through whom to get salvation)…he was in no way trying to convince the Jews that he was God. The part that trinitarians always emphasise is the bit where it says “I AM”:
“Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!”
This is a poor translation of Greek/bad grammar. The word “am” (I-mee) in Greek means:
- to be, to exist, to happen, to be present, have been, was
So it should be: “before Abraham was born, I existed”
Where exactly does Jesus give himself the title of God??? The Jews were angry at what they perceived as:
A)Self righteousness
B)Exalting himself
C)For claiming to do what they thought only God had the right to do (but God gave Jesus the power/right)
God gave Jesus glory before his resurrection and before his “second coming” in numerous ways. But Jesus was referring to everything he was able to do with God’s power/approval (resurrect the dead etc)…that’s the sort of glory he was talking about (and the prospect of becoming King). Why would he be talking about God giving him glory, and stress that he wasn’t giving himself glory…if God was him anyway???[/quote]
You might want to read up on what Irishsteel is talking about, because this changes the meaning of your thoughts on the passage.[/quote]
Sorry, I haven’t seen Irish address the I AM part?
This is my opinion of those verses and I doubt they could be portrayed in any other way to be honest: It’s quite simple and context is everything.
Jesus makes clear that he and his Father are separate: I give honor to my father (v.49), I don’t want to glorify myself but God does (v.50)
Jesus hints that he is the Messiah (v.51) but Jews are angry that he’s “bragging” and they ask about his age and how he claimed to have seen Abraham (v.57)
Here’s the important bit, in reply to them asking about how he’d seen Abraham and his age, Jesus replied that he was around even before Abraham was born. Verse 58 has got nothing to do with saying WHO he was, Jesus was answering a question about age/existence.
So to illustrate:
Joe: You don’t even look 50 years old, how come you know so much about the 60’s???
Bob: I assure you, even before you were born, I was alive then.
To a trinitarian, that conversation would have went something like this:
Joe: You don’t even look 50 years old, how come you know so much about the 60’s???
Bob: I assure you, even before you were born, I AM GOD!
Makes perfect sense LOL
If anyone buys into that as a “trinity” scripture, you’d have to believe every other account in the bible where an author writes “I am” (ego eimi) is refering to themselves as God.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
By the way Irish, you should really do some research regarding why the name of God which I’m sure you know is Jehovah, is removed from most Bibles. Because you seem to be confused by when God’s name should be used but instead the title “LORD” is used. You say that you know the Hebrew and Greek words to different passages in the Bible but It would benefit you more if you knew when God’s name was actually used instead of the title “LORD”. For example Joel 2:32(NIV) says “everyone who calls on the name of the LORD,” when it should read that “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah.” Understanding this may help you to better understand that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God’s son and is called a servant of God who is at the right hand of God’s power.[/quote]
I do believe, if you go back and look, that I have been using passages with the correct name inserted instead of LORD and Lord - are you seriously not paying attention to my posts that you would miss something as basic as this? Sorry, I passed elementary biblical interpretation when I was 7 . . .got a few years under my belt since I learned the differences in the Names of God
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.
Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.
I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]
Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).
And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:
“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)
Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…
[/quote]
Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]
My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?
The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.
Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).[/quote]
Are you guys not understanding that Jesus is fully human also. Because he is human, and since he humbled himself wouldn’t he want to give glory to God? And in giving glory to God he also gives glory to himself.
When you look at Jesus being nothing more than an angel I can see why you guys understand the scriptures the way you do. The difference is that when you see Jesus as fully human and fully God you will not even admit you can understand why Christians would interpret the scriptures as we do. You might want to think about this.
If you read the Bible with the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is also God, you will never again need the WT to help you out. Christians beleive that the Holy Spirit is also God. What is yalls explanation of Jehovah’s Active Force? Is he another “a god,” or is he something else?
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.
Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.
I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]
Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).
And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:
“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)
Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…
[/quote]
Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]
My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?
The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.
Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).[/quote]
Exactly! That is why this was not taught nor believed by the Christians during the time of the apostles. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia that stated that the apostles did not believe that Jesus was God and the teaching was not developed until the fourth century. When one reads scriptures such as John 21:31 that state the book of John was written so that the reader may believe that Jesus is the son of God and by believing this fact one may have life by means of his name. The only conclusion that one would come to is that Jesus is in a position of that of a father and son meaning they are two different beings. Also, if Jesus was really fully God instead of God’s son as John wants readers to believe and put faith in, then this would undermine the point of John writing this gospel. How so? Because if John has it wrong and Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers to put faith in something that is not true and if this is the case then the whole gospel of John is undermined because he states that the reason he wrote the gospel is so people believe and put faith in the fact that Jesus is God’s son. Also, if Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life. John says that once one believes Jesus is God’s son then one may have life when he believes in Jesus name. But again if John is wrong and Jesus is really fully God then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life and again this would undermine the whole book of John and John as a Bible writer.
Can you see how the trinity doctrine confuses and undermines the clearly stated teaching in the Bible that Jesus is the son of God, at the right hand of God’s power and is in subjection to God?
What is the purpose of the name Jehovah, and why do you all exclude the other names of God from your Bible? God and the people of Israel have referred to God with many different names, i.e. Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, Addonai, El Shaddai, and many others. One of the names God utters himself is I AM.
In the story about the burning bush God says to Moses that his name is I AM. Moses asks the question who should I tell them sent me? God say, “I AM has sent you.” This is where I pull the story of Jesus stating that name.
Jesus says, I AM more than once, and never says that I AM sent me. When the people and the spiritual leaders ask who he is, all Jesus says is I AM. He says it in a couple of places in the New Testament, and both times he says it and the people want to kill him. I guess I do not understand why you choose not to see this link. Pretty straight forward and literal interpretation to me and every other beleiving Christian.
I have also mentioned that the name Jesus has the same Hebrew root as Jehovah. Jesus is the name that God gives Jesus. Who cares if it was a common name in that time period. Jehovah gives the name Jehovah to Jesus. Go figure.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mse2us . . . I’m not going into any further discussion on 1 Cor 11 - You provided your interpretation based on your polytheism, I provided my based on my monotheism - my only point was to show that there is a logical explanation that does not require your version of multiple gods.
So you have answered all my points?
- Did you provide a passage that proves the Messiah was not Divine? No, you agreed He was Divine.
2A. Did you provide a passage that proves that either Jehovah or Jesus is the name to call on for salvation? No, you agreed that you can call on the name of Jehovah and the name of Jesus for salvation
2B. Did you provide a passage that proves that either Jehovah or Jesus is our Savior? No, you agreed that Jesus and Jehovah are both our salvation.
-
Did you provide a passage that proves that Jesus does not possess the incommunicable traits of God? No, you agreed that he does possess the incommunicable traits of God.
-
Did you provide a passage that proves that Jesus does not do the actions of God? No, you agreed that jesus does the Works of God.
-
Did you provide a passage that proves that Jesus is not worshiped? No, you agreed that Jesus is worshipped.
You had provided nothing that changes any of the 5 basic points that prove that Jesus is God, you only change the definition of what “is God” is and turn it into polytheism . . . sorry, but you guys are really failing on this one.
Are these the best arguments you have? That you agree with all of the 5 basic points, but disgree on the conclusion?
What is it that you think you have that changes any conlusion of mine regarding the triune nature of God? I haven’t seen anything yet that requires your polytheistic version of God. Are you guys holding back or something? You leave my five points standing and expect what?[/quote]
LOL! That is exactly what I thought you would say and everyone reading our post can see that I’m answering all of your points in detail with scriptures and all you can say is “no your not, no your not.”
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Exactly! That is why this was not taught nor believed by the Christians during the time of the apostles. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia that stated that the apostles did not believe that Jesus was God and the teaching was not developed until the fourth century. [/quote]
Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about Jesus’ 2nd coming, “Look for him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible”. In a letter to Polycarp he states “Jesus is God”, “God incarnate,” and to the Ephesians he writes, “…God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life.” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)
Clement of Rome in 96 A. D. also taught Jesusâ?? divinity, saying, â??We ought to think of Jesus Christ as of God.â?? (2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)
facts are so stubborn . . .
[quote]mse2us wrote:
LOL! That is exactly what I thought you would say and everyone reading our post can see that I’m answering all of your points in detail with scriptures and all you can say is “no your not, no your not.”[/quote]
No, I said you agreed, not that you did not agree . . .
All you are answering with is: “yes, that is true, but it doesn’t mean what you say it means”
Am I wrong?