Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

a reply to: AnuTyr

1 John 1:5-6
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

1 John 2:8
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

Unless you believe Christ when he said God is Light, the vail will remain on your heart:

2 Corinthians 3:14
"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ."

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would any reasonable person believe that was a claim that Jesus meant they were one in the same? Hmn I dunno could be because Jesus says that in john 10:30

That's just dishonest.... He does not say One and the same...

No doubt! In verse 29 just before verse 30 it says "my Father who has given them to me is greater than all" Once again Jesus apparently is giving to himself, and is greater than himself. Ha ha

Well if Jesus is Gods image just like your body is the image of your invisible spirit it would.make sense that Jesus calls god greater than He. Jesus is a part of God that is subservient to a part called the father much in the same way that your body is subservient to your decisions. Nothing is hard to understand about that now it's your turn to explain john 10:33

False. Jesus did not claim to be God, the Jews accused him of such at John 10:33


Once again I will refer to Revelation 1:1. "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him."

Jesus was no longer in the flesh when this was written, so the whole flesh argument is null and void. Did Jesus give the revelation to himself?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would any reasonable person believe that was a claim that Jesus meant they were one in the same? Hmn I dunno could be because Jesus says that in john 10:30

That's just dishonest.... He does not say One and the same...

None of what I said was dishonest john 10:30 is the verse that Jesus says I and the father are one. The word translated one is the Greek word for the number 1 indicating Jesus meant exactly what he said, him and the father are 1 as in one being. We can tell he was making a claim to diety by john 10:33 where the people he was talking to are upset because he claims to be God. You left that part out of your quote though I guess so you could say I was dishonest rather than look at the facts

Its interesting how so many Christians have such reading comprehension issues...

The problem here is you STOPPED reading when you found what you needed to confirm your belief... This is the second time I've explained this in the past few days... sigh

But if I must...

From where you stopped reading....

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.


Notice the QUESTION MARK.... That is there because HE is questioning them.... because HE did not claim to be God... HE claimed to be the son of God...

And... by claiming he said he was God... YOU make him a liar by omission

Good luck with that

a reply to: Akragon

And... by claiming he said he was God... YOU make him a liar by omission

Jesus is saying there are different things that can be defined using the term loosely, god.

The dispute is not over whether Jesus was a god, but if he was equal to God.
Jesus is inferring that he makes no such claim.

Its interesting how so many Christians have such reading comprehension issues...

It isn't that.
I was talking a week ago with my nephew who I don't hardly ever see since he lives far away, so I started right out with him discussing the latest biblical problem I was working on as an example of what I did on the internet.
The next day he has his Bible in hand going over the exact same thing you are talking about, and I had to walk him through it like you are doing, and it is because they are brainwashed by these churches they go to.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I'll give you that... this dispute has been raging since his death

Though I believe IF he was God... HE would have said it specifically... that's not really a detail you leave out of a conversation with those you're trying to teach...

HE did speak in parables, but made it very clear that he was the son of God... which, to the jews means you're making yourself God... and of course they were mistaken about that whole issue

Even to this day they will not even speak the word God or type it for that matter.... basically any relating yourself or anything else to God is considered blasphemy...

But

IF that was the case... and he had no issue claiming to be the son of God... HE wouldn't have had any issue saying I AM GOD... obviously he knew better

The next day he has his Bible in hand going over the exact same thing you are talking about, and I had to walk him through it like you are doing, and it is because they are brainwashed by these churches they go to.

Exactly!

a reply to: roth1

Where did this come from? The church not the bible? Remember the bible says that god said not to worship any before him. Isn't this against the bible? I don't know for sure if this is a conspiracy, but some group propagated this for some intent.

"Some group", Christianity.
Thomas says to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God".
If by "Bible" you mean, the Old Testament, then Mark quotes Malachi as to what John the Baptist was doing out at the Jordan River, making the way smooth for the Lord.
Malachi 3:1
"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.
(2011 NIV)

Interesting thread so far.

There have been a couple references to scriptures not accepted in the standard cannon. To which, the typical response is, that those other apocryphal books were not divinely inspired by God. Likewise, the council that decided what went in, and what was kept out of the Bible is believed to also have been divinely inspired. So my questions are,

1) What proves they were divinely inspired and not just claimed to be so?

2) Why aren't some of the things coming out of the Catholic church these days considered divinely inspired? (e.g. the Pope saying he would baptize extraterrestrials)

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

What proves they were divinely inspired and not just claimed to be so?

Nothing...

they were claimed to be divinely inspired by the ruling class of priests of the time who also claimed to be the only connection to God... which they themselves proved to be a lie by deceit and murder of their opposition... 300 some odd years after the death of the man they were about

a reply to: Akragon

Though I believe IF he was God... HE would have said it specifically... that's not really a detail you leave out of a conversation with those you're trying to teach...

I think that to his core audience, it would have been understood, as he says in the Gospel of John, that he came from heaven, that he was some sort of god-like person who has been there as a sort of divine example of what humans were originally when created.
He sacrificed that thing that he was, to be what man had devolved to through the workings of sin on them for so many generations.

So he is like Melchizedek, who would have seemed like a god to post-flood people, representing what humans were like before the flood.

Jesus sacrificed the body of Christ in that he now has another body that will forever bear the marks of sin on it.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I think that to his core audience, it would have been understood, as he says in the Gospel of John, that he came from heaven, that he was some sort of god-like person who has been there as a sort of divine example of what humans were originally when created.

He also said "No man goes to heaven except those that came from heaven"

Which makes a good portion of us... IF not all of us that same god like person

a reply to: TheChrome

False. Jesus did not claim to be God, the Jews accused him of such at John 10:33

You are completely ignoring proper interpretation of the text. Do you think the Jews misunderstood the sentence that Jesus spoke? Do you think they didn't know the language of their day? If so what evidence do you have of such.

Once again I will refer to Revelation 1:1. "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.

Once again,


Genesis 19:24

24 Then YHWH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHWH out of heaven, Notice the wording here, YHWH rains fire from who? YHWH. 1st and 3rd person. This is exactly the same as what is happening in Revelation 1:1


Amos 4:11

I have wrought destruction among you, as when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; You have become like a brand plucked from burning. Yet you have not turned back to Me- declares YHWH

Here it is again. The first word "I" and last word "YHWH" let us know that YHWH is speaking, but notice who He says destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, God. 1st and 3rd person again. YHWH is the divine name of God, but yet He says God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah.

." Jesus was no longer in the flesh when this was written, so the whole flesh argument is null and void. Did Jesus give the revelation to himself?

What flesh argument? I was using the Human Body and the Human Consciousness as an analogy hoping you would understand that one being can have multiple parts that communicate with each other. That doesnt change that it is one essence. Jesus is the visible part of God. The Father is similar to whatever you and I are only far greater the invisible part of the being that ultimately rules its functions. Jesus doesn't have to be on earth in Human Form for this analogy apply to Him in God. To stick with the analogy does your body ever tell you what decision to make? No, because You are greater than your body even though you are both the same being. Just like The father is greater than The Son even though they are both the same being. The thing is you have to understand that God isn't exactly like us. The two parts of Him are able to communicate on a much higher level although I am sure we have only seen the tip of the ice berg.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

None of what I said was dishonest john 10:30 is the verse that Jesus says I and the father are one. The word translated one is the Greek word for the number 1 indicating Jesus meant exactly what he said, him and the father are 1 as in one being. We can tell he was making a claim to diety by john 10:33 where the people he was talking to are upset because he claims to be God. You left that part out of your quote though I guess so you could say I was dishonest rather than look at the facts

I don't think you're being dishonest, but perhaps not careful enough with translation and analysis.

The precise verse, in Greek, is:

30 εγω και ο πατηρ εν εσμεν John 10:30 (Textus Receptus (1550/1894))

The word you are pointing out, "εν" is "en", most commonly meaning "in" - but with other nuances. The entire verse, literally translated is "I - and - the - father - in - being" ("ego - kai - ho - pater - en - esmen").

My wife and I are one in being - we "be" together. We are not, however, the same person. The meaning of the verse MUST be colored with the surrounding text - it does not stand alone. The discussion in general hinge on the people around him wishing to know if he is the Messiah, which he has already affirmed to be so. the question is NOT whether or not he thinks he is God. In the same passage, Jesus says such things as " The work that I am doing in my Father's name", "What my Father has entrusted to me", "I have done before your eyes many good actions, inspired by the Father; for which of them would you stone me?", "Do you say of one whom the Father has consecrated and sent as his Messenger to the world 'You are blaspheming,' because I said 'I am God's Son'? " (which is the biggie - he specifies right here who he is actually claiming to be), "If I am not doing the work that my Father is doing", and "the Father is in union with me, and I with the Father."

In all of those other statements, Jesus specifies that he is NOT God, and that they are separate entities. Those have to be taken into account if the meaning of the specific verse you mentioned is to be understood properly. They cannot be ignored in favor of that single verse.

Some of the other verses, in combination with the one you cite, clearly (to me at least) spell out the relationship between Jesus and God very clearly. Jesus himself says they are separate, but "in union". They are separate, but in union, working towards the same goal ("doing the work that my Father is doing"), which Jesus says was set by God (the work that I am doing in my Father's name"), and that Jesus was consecrated by the Father, sent as the Father's messenger to the world, and is "God's Son".

They are in union, working towards the same goals, "be"ing together, but are without a doubt separate - else the distinctions Jesus makes here (as well as in many other places in the gospels) would be not only unnecessary, but lies.

When the crowd says he is blaspheming by, being only a man, making himself out to be God, he responds by asking if it's really blasphemy to claim to be the son of God, especially doing the work a son of God would be doing, clarifying what he actually said even further.

a reply to: nenothtu

The word you are pointing out, "εν" is "en", most commonly meaning "in" - but with other nuances. The entire verse, literally translated is "I - and - the - father - in - being" ("ego - kai - ho - pater - en - esmen").

Diacritical marks on Greek letters can change the meanings of the word.
In this case, even if it has the letters epsilon and nu, with the marks, it changes it from "en" to "heis", which is an adjective that means, one.

The word, "esmin", is the first person plural form of the verb, "eimi", which means to be.

It is about as straightforward a translation as you can get.

I and the Father are one. or literally, I and the Father one are.

Jesus is saying that those who are God's to keep, He hands to Jesus, who is basically the hand of God, metaphorically, able to keep them himself because God decrees for him to do so.

originally posted by: jmdewey60

Diacritical marks on Greek letters can change the meanings of the word.
In this case, even if it has the letters epsilon and nu, with the marks, it changes it from "en" to "heis", which is an adjective that means, one.

I posted the precise passage, in Greek. I double checked it after you brought this up. MY eyes are old. I couldn't find the diacritical markings you are referring to.

Check it again, and tell me exactly what diacritical markings you are referring to.

The words of the scriptures do not need to be vivisectioned to state what Yahoshua meant.He stated (more than once in the scriptures) ..he was the Son of the creator God.The Jews could only see it in the light of their 'interpretation of the Torah" the doctrines of men.Yahoshua stated that the "Torah" did not provide evidence of "who is who" Yahoshua said look at the things I am DOING and base the evidence on that not what you "believe" your doctrines of men say.

Yahoshua not only said he was the Son of the creator God he "did" things that were evidence that he was.There belief of religious doctrines didn't matter one bit especially if they couldn't even believe what they just witnessed.

Yahoshua IS the Son of the Father God…i.e. the SEED of the Father.The son of a man is the fathers "seed".The Son of the creator God is the seed of the creator God .Yahoshua NEVER said he was the creator God.He said the Father and "I" are "ONE". Yahoshua "proceeded" from the creator God the Father as the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON…the SEED…The race of Adamah (anthropos..humankind) is not the ONLY begotten.They were born of a completely different seed and a "different life".It was "breathed" into them as the "carnal" physical life that WILL die.

The only begotten Son IS Life…christ..because Yahoshua is "THE christ" the POWER of the LIFE(spirit) of the creator God.That is the SON of the creator God.That "seed" was SOWN in a the physical realm(the womb) into a physical carnal body of the "man"(the son of Adamah) Yahoshua of Nazareth.His "death" was as the SEED of life.He clearly stated unless a seed(himself) is sown and dies it can produce no fruit but when it does it produces LIFE abundantly(infinite).

No other pertinent information of the hows and whys of the intricacies of the "process" are given because it is impossible to perceive. Religion calls this "death" a sacrifice of Jesus "dieing for mans sin" to "forgive them.Which is true HOWEVER sin simply means … falling short and missing the mark of perfection(being born a carnal man that WILL die) and forgiveness means freed from bondage….that bondage is from hades…the realm of death and imperception. e.g..Yahoshua "died" to free mankind from the bondage of hades…the realm of death by CAUSING new life.

The creator God is "conceiving "children" and this is the process not some whacky religious theology about magical, mystic spirituality based on the exegesis of words in a book.The basis of how it works is essentially the same as human conception.The Father sows his seed in the womb and it impregnates "marries"the egg(called a zygote).The egg divides cells and grows as an embryo into a fetus and then is "born" into the "physical realm".

Mankind is being conceived and will be "born" into the Kingdom of God realm.It is all a process that all started with a "seed".The 2nd Adam is Yahoshua the Son of the creator God.It is all very simple and infinitely complex and the reality is....it doesn't matter one bit whether ANYONE believes it or not to make it happen because it WILL happen regardless. All of mans "religion' and mysticism and spirituality etc etc mean nothing because they are not true.

All anyone can know is the basic process(as told by Yahoshua) and that it WILL happen.That is ALL Yahoshua ever proclaimed.The coming of the Kingdom of the creator God BY Yahoshua….The Son of the creator God.

a reply to: Akragon

Text He also said "No man goes to heaven except those that came from heaven" Which makes a good portion of us... IF not all of us that same god like person

Could you show us where that scripture is?

John_3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Up to the time that Jesus said this, what He was saying was that the kingdom of heaven had not been established as yet and that no one of flesh had as yet been in heaven except Himself. That is my understanding but not as you have understood whatever you have read.

a reply to: nenothtu

. . . the diacritical markings you are referring to.

You can read up on it at en.wikipedia.org...

The epsilon has over it a "rough" mark, and an "accent" mark that basically changes the value of the vowel, making it a different word from the same spelling, but with the "smooth" mark.

I know this because I was going over the exact same thing (heis and eis, one an adjective, and the other a preposition) two weeks ago on my biblical Greek blog where I am making pages for individual words and realized I was putting some verses on the wrong page because I wasn't looking at them close enough.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I was digging around to satisfy my own mind in the matter this morning, and found that my text has none of the diacriticals, not just for this example, so I stand corrected.

The addition of the diacriticals changes "εν", "en" i.e the preposition "in" to "ἓν", "(h)en", the neuter singular nominative numeral. Declining that to the masculine singular nominative is where they get "εἷς", "(h)eis", "one".

So lets run with that, and ignore the gender change it brings about.

There are 67 such occurrences of "ἓν" for "εἷς" in the New Testament. that's too many to treat here. It probably needs to be winnowed down for comparative purposes to similar usage (i.e singularity being applied to a plurality), to passages like :

John 11:52,

John 17:11,

John 17:21,22,23,

Romans 12:5,

1 Corinthians 3:8,

1 Corinthians 6:16, 17,

1Corinthians 10:17,

and

1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, 14.

So then is it your contention that in all of these case, "one from many" means the welding together into an indivisible organic singularity, and the necessary concurrent loss of individuality attendant upon that new singularity? I.e. you ARE the church, since you believe Jesus IS God?

We can also discuss the places where "one and the same" is specified, in the Greek ( like 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:11) if you would like, so that I can get your take on why "one and the same" can be specified in those instances, but why "one and the same" can't be specified in the other instances to which it is being applied by people, like in trinitarian doctrine. I.e., why Jesus used the form he did rather than specifying "one and the same", when it clearly could have been specified.

Context can be a treacherous thing.

ETA:

It is actually even more complicated since "eis" in this form is the same as "en".

Not exactly the same, but close enough. The difference is gender - masculine eis vs neuter en.

Anybody with half a brain that understands the bible, not just 'read' it understands Jesus is part of the holy trinity, God, Jesus, & the Holy Spirit.

a reply to: LandoTX

There used to be a book entitled "Know Why You Believe". The general idea of it was to know why you believed something so that you were capable of explaining that belief to others. That precluded simply labeling others as "having half a brain" or less, while at the same time being unable to explain YOUR OWN thoughts in the matter.

You see, when others can explain their beliefs at length, and all you've got in response is "well that's only half a brain", without being able to supply the thoughts present in the other "half of the brain", the one they don't have in your estimation, it tends to call into question your own intellectual prowess.