Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

It would be better if people could stick to the original thread on here, instead of mixing it up with other stuff. It makes for better reading. Thank you.

originally posted by: orangetom1999

Good grief Rex282!! You were doing fine until this point...

It has no bearing on the Truth" which version of the "bible" is the most accurate.The bible is formulated into the doctrines of man in the same fashion as the Talmud

I think this should read.."The Bible is formulated into the doctrines of God....not of man.

Whos's interpretation of the "doctrines of God"or of what was "written…..yours ,Jims, Gail Riplinger's,,etc etc…The conflation is infinite because it is impossible for everyone to be right and nobody be wrong when they are all in confliction.

originally posted by: orangetom1999
Also ..to my limited knowledge...neither Jesus nor any of the prophets taught from the Talmud.

Yes you are correct that Yahoshua never "taught" from the Talmud….nor the old testimony..because he wasn't "teaching" he was "proclaiming" in statements of Truth.This is the core of Christianity.They "believe" Yahoshua was "teaching" them "how" to live to be a better person etc etc…yet he ONLY spoke in parables and he clearly said he did so that those that thought they heard and saw would not hear or see.If he was "teaching that was a very poor method since none (including the disciple) understood wht he meant.

However it was given ONLY to the disciples(and after the fact) to "know" what he said by "revelation" not "teaching from books.The abundance of evidence is that has not changes and that the religious man is even more deaf and blind.They "believe" the doctrines of men(which are legion) which they have extrapolated from the "bible" which was assimilated by "men" in the same "fashion" as the Talmud.

originally posted by: orangetom1999
The Talmud, even before it became written down into a system, is an abomination to God. It is a system of rules which allows one to get around the rules...and without many, not trained in the Talmud, knowing it is happening. The Talmud is a dual system of confusion. Rule keeping.Lots of people out here are Talmudic...dual systems in operation but never identified ..so that most do not know or see it is happening around them. This is of the counterfeiter...the god of this world.

….and that is exactly what many have done with the bible.It is IMPOSSIBLE to know what "all" was written in the scriptures yet many believe they "know"it is "the word of God" so they vivasectioned their bible and created their doctrines of men(and their God).Nothing has changed except there are MANY more people who believe in their doctrines of men and all claiming to "know" the truth because they have the correct translation, they know the correct interpretation, then they teach others to do the same thing.That is exactly what the Pharisees,Saducees and scribes did.That is the definition of insanity ….. doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

The fact is NONE know ALL of what is written in the scriptures because they are "lost" to time.Even when Yahoshua "quoted" from the scriptures he never quoted passages only what was testifying to the Truth he was proclaiming.The scriptures were completely corrupted by then and he knew it.That doesn't mean they didn't testify of the Truth.The majority of all of what now exists of the old testimony is the twisting of the Truth.The Israelites then the Jews saw God as the most evil monstrous being there is.Their" God "commands" them to invade countries and slaughter it's inhabitants in "the name of God".Their revered leaders are the most ruthless people in history yet they are praised for being men after the heart of God (King David).

Did the Israelites and Jews "historicaly do"(real events) what is written?…Yes.they were a ruthless people that justified all they did in the name of their God and it was documented..however they twisted the accountability part onto their "God"..God told us to do it!!Nothing has changed .Christians did and still do the same thing..all in the name of "their" God.They have made the "living word(which is not the bible or even the scriptures) void…meaningless…they have trampled it under foot and made it a perversion.

……and THAT is what the "God" of this world has done…and that God is the religious carnal mind of man…satan…however there is no being "Satan".That Satan is an extrapolation and in the modern sense of the word"scapegoat" for all the evil man does.The most evil thing they do is in the name of "their religion".The religious carnal mind is the seed of all strife of mankind because it is their nature.The religious carnal mind is in complete enmity with the creator God YET believes the opposite!!Their God is precepts from a book and nothing more.There are no "correct translations" or "Interpretations" because those will always only be the doctrines of men.

Yahoshua didn't "teach" those doctrines nor did the apostles.They "proclaimed" statements of truth that was "revealed to them by the creator God the Father.The books are used to justify and agenda ..nothing more.To establish "biblical authority" a man need only say"it is written" then extrapolate their interpretation…because The word of GOD says" Unless you believe blah blah blah….."it is not consider for a nano second what it means only the enforcement" of the doctrine matters.A person only "believes" what they want (will) to believe.That is NOT the Good News.

The scriptures were "written" for one purpose only..to be a testimony (witness) that testifies of Yahoshua(Yahweh the creator God is deliverance).That testimony has testified and been established however NOT by Christianity or ANY Christian believer all they can do is believe the doctrines of men..The TRUTH can only be established BY the creator God.For those that "hear" the Good News it brings great joy that ALL of mankind will be delivered from hades…the realm of the death and imperception through the Son of the creator God who is the SEED of the Father.THAT and only that is the Good News the crux of EVERYTHING Yahoshua the Son of the creator God(the seed) said and did.

edit on 7-8-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Rex282

(Luke 4:16-21) 16 He then went to Naz′a·reth, where he had been brought up, and according to his custom on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and stood up to read. 17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.”


Who says Jesus didn't use the scrolls/O.T. in his teaching?
X

originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
a reply to: Rex282

(Luke 4:16-21) 16 He then went to Naz′a·reth, where he had been brought up, and according to his custom on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and stood up to read. 17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.”


Who says Jesus didn't use the scrolls/O.T. in his teaching?
X

In the very scripture he was quoting it clearly states he came to "preach(proclaim the statement of truth) of what his purposes was.He was not teaching.He read the scripture and said it had been fulfilled(summed like an equation).He clearly stated after the parable of the sower of the seed when his disciples asked "why don't you speak "plainly" he said I speak in parables so those(everybody) that THINK they can hear won't hear .The fact is he was NEVER teaching he only proclaimed Truth he heard from the Father not from reading and studying the scripture.That is as true today as the day he spoke it.

a reply to: Rex282

He was not teaching.

Below are samples of the many verses saying that Jesus was teaching.

Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
Matthew 5:2
and he began to teach them. He said:
Matthew 7:29
because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
Mark 2:13
. . . A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them.
Mark 10:1
. . . Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
Mark 12:35
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts . . .
Mark 12:38
As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for . . .
Luke 11:1
. . . one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
Luke 13:22
Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem.
John 7:14
. . . did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach.
John 18:20
. . . Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple . . .

HELPS Word-studies
In the NT, 1321 /didáskō ("teach") nearly always refers to teaching the Scriptures (the written Word of God).

exactly Jim..all you can see are the words ....not what they mean.

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
a reply to: Rex282

(Luke 4:16-21) 16 He then went to Naz′a·reth, where he had been brought up, and according to his custom on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and stood up to read. 17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.”


Who says Jesus didn't use the scrolls/O.T. in his teaching?
X

In the very scripture he was quoting it clearly states he came to "preach(proclaim the statement of truth) of what his purposes was.He was not teaching.He read the scripture and said it had been fulfilled(summed like an equation).He clearly stated after the parable of the sower of the seed when his disciples asked "why don't you speak "plainly" he said I speak in parables so those(everybody) that THINK they can hear won't hear .The fact is he was NEVER teaching he only proclaimed Truth he heard from the Father not from reading and studying the scripture.That is as true today as the day he spoke it.

Yes he did speak in parables. Those who did not understand, it was not their time to be saved by the Messiah.

Not everyone gets to come in contact with a perfect Master. You have to earn that privilege i.e. its only someone with good karma that is drawn to a Master.


I would have to agree that Jesus was a teacher, like all mystics before him have come to show the way to god realization. A better word for it is ‘master’. A student of the martial arts has a teacher who is also his master. How could it be any other way. Jesus had his own teacher, did he not?

Mani a Persian Mystic taught that Jesus, Buddha and Zarathushtra had all been saviours or perfect Masters of their time, but that the way to God lay through a living teacher

exact representation..having everything to do with eternal life

1 Corinthians 12:3
no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Revelation 12:5 and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever.

originally posted by: orangetom1999

Did not Jesus accept worship??

Something to think about.

Not that I am aware of - perhaps you could point out something I've missed.

originally posted by: chiram

According to the classification of the emotions, we have five negative one’s which we should always try to control, Anger is a NEGATIVE EMOTION. Of the five positives, Love is a POSITIVE EMOTION and is therefore beneficial. I think you are getting your emotions a little mixed up.

Emotions are emotions, and all have their place if properly managed - none are "negative" of themselves, they just "are". Any "negativity" associated with them is manufactured, and negativity can be and is associated with any of them. You classify "love" as "positive", yet I have seen it frequently used as a weapon, which I would classify as "negative".

I can't see that there ARE any "negative" or "positive" emotions, but I CAN see both negative and positive uses for every single one of them.

I would like to point something out about Anger, it’s classified as a disease of the mind. Let me tell you how this disease manifests by a set of symptoms:

1. Thinking ill of others.
2. Taking offence easily.
3. Criticising the actions of others.
4. Lecturing or discoursing on the mistakes of others, either to the person himself, or to others about him.
5. Chronic fault-finding or pointing out the defects of character or conduct of others, making them out to be really bad.

Doubtlessly so classified by those who have been too often on the receiving end of an anger they don't know how to cope with, and therefore must classify it as a "disease of the mind" in order to try and demonize it, which is their only defense. Perhaps their time might be better used in finding out WHY they inspire such anger, rather than running away from it.

"Anger" is a survival trait, as all emotions are - but they are all also subject to misuse. There is no "negativity" or "positivity" inherent in any of them.

originally posted by: orangetom1999

I don't worry to much about the classification of emotions...but rather the fruit they produce.
Notice something here..

15 KJV So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

Notice this is a proof text that God Hates....also is angered.

I know nothing of "proof texts", but I do know that it is also written that "God loved Jacob, but hated Esau" in Malachi 1:3 and Romans 9:13.

So much for the "God loves everyone" school of thought.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: orangetom1999

Did not Jesus accept worship??

Something to think about.

Not that I am aware of - perhaps you could point out something I've missed.

Actually he did, but that does not make him God... Only Gods son as he said...

Through out the gospels people came to worship him... not as God but as messiah...

Although I could use more verses, the main verses that show a relationship is 1 Corinthians 15:

22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Christ was Adam. He is the first (Aleph) and the last (Tav), meaning he is the first human born and the last human born. As the verse set points out, he is the first fruits of those who are reborn again after the first century. Rebirth is here on Earth until the seventh day is complete once again. Job 19 points out the fact that Adam was the root of the trouble, and also the future Redeemer.

Job 19

25 I know that my redeemer[c] lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.[d]
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet[e] in[f] my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

28 “If you say, ‘How we will hound him,
since the root of the trouble lies in him,[g]’
29 you should fear the sword yourselves;
for wrath will bring punishment by the sword,
and then you will know that there is judgment.

If you hound him for his earlier sin, you miss the work he did to come back to the Father by the end.

The entire story is about Adam. We, who are many, are ONE loaf of bread.

1 Cor 10

17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

We are all part of that loaf as the seed of the Son. Adam is the first Son. Luke 3 tells you this. Where did Adam come from in Luke 3? Check the last verses of Luke 3.

What is bread made from? Seed. Ears of grain must open on new soil for the next season of growth. Adam is the process, just like plants basking in the light of the sun, drinking in the water that allows the plant to thrive. The mother is the cup, or water of creation. Mater is the Latin word mother. She is the matrix. The father is Aleph Bet, or letters (like DNA) of creation. Aleph Bet is the word Abba in Hebrew. Mother is the word Aleph Mem, or strong water. Son is the Bet Nun, or house of seed.

originally posted by: roth1
Jesus never in the bible said he was god. He always claimed to be the son of god. If the had claimed to be god gov would have killed him much sooner. The Jews would not have had to beg to have him executed. 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.

originally posted by: chiram

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Beware of the Bible translations since the King James Version. These false texts have taken out scriptural truths. There is a lot of information about this on the internet, so no need repeating it all here. Here's a good starting place: www.bibleprobe.com...

People who dismiss the KJV Bible version have no clue as to how perfect it was done, or the extremely highly qualified and numerous scholars used. For example, one was fluent in 15 languages, as well as a specialist in the original languages of the Bible. The only translation you can trust in English is the KJV. I do not mean the New KJV, or any other version of the KJV.

And the KJV and Bibleprobe.com shall set you free hahaha. It’s real purpose is a propaganda and hate site, anti-muslims, anti-freemasons, anti-bible unless its KJV of course, anti-u-name-it. Gimme a break, this websites been promoted on ATS for many years and seeks to stir up people. Did anyone check their domain, its operating on a proxy, now I wonder why???

I believe you are right here, Chiram! I read through that entire dismal webpage linked, looking for a "smoking gun", and could not find a single reference on it that would point to a doctrinal controversy. It looks as if someone made a webpage solely to stand against something, and entirely failed to find any support for their stance out of the Bible (or the alleged "changes"), and so had to make things up out of whole cloth.

An example is the place where it said the NIV claimed "Jesus SINNED!" - but, when reading the actual references in the NIV, it says no such thing - probably why they only included references rather than actual quotes, since the actual quotes do not support their contention. My guess is that they were "preaching to the choir", buttressing their beliefs, and hoping that no one would actually look up their "references".

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: orangetom1999

Did not Jesus accept worship??

Something to think about.

Not that I am aware of - perhaps you could point out something I've missed.

Actually he did, but that does not make him God... Only Gods son as he said...

Through out the gospels people came to worship him... not as God but as messiah...

But having people come to worship him is not the same thing as accepting that worship. He seems to have been pretty clear on where he thought worship ought to be directed - at least the way I'm reading it. No reason to presume that he accepted or promoted the worship of the masses directed at himself.

I reckon it may be one of those things where interpretation is everything - the same verses where I point out that he said "there is none good except my Father in heaven" and "it is written thou shalt worship only God" will be used by the Jesus-was-God proponents to make the claim that he was saying that he WAS God in those same places.

They are welcome to their interpretation of those events, and I will retain mine - in the end, I guess we'll figure out which is the correct one.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: orangetom1999

Did not Jesus accept worship??

Something to think about.

Not that I am aware of - perhaps you could point out something I've missed.

Actually he did, but that does not make him God... Only Gods son as he said...

Through out the gospels people came to worship him... not as God but as messiah...

But having people come to worship him is not the same thing as accepting that worship. He seems to have been pretty clear on where he thought worship ought to be directed - at least the way I'm reading it. No reason to presume that he accepted or promoted the worship of the masses directed at himself.

I reckon it may be one of those things where interpretation is everything - the same verses where I point out that he said "there is none good except my Father in heaven" and "it is written thou shalt worship only God" will be used by the Jesus-was-God proponents to make the claim that he was saying that he WAS God in those same places.

They are welcome to their interpretation of those events, and I will retain mine - in the end, I guess we'll figure out which is the correct one.

it seem the verses most commonly used are ones where Thomas says "my lord and my God"... I am more of the opinion that when Thomas said that (IF he actually did) he was referring to both Jesus and God... Not just Jesus himself

Backed of course by... "IF you've seen me you've seen the Father" which also is not a direct reference to him being God... More like the essence of God... the Personality of God...

OR... "I and my Father are one"... of course this doesn't mean One and the same... He meant one in essence

Those who are of the opinion that Jesus was God overlook one thing... HE did not ever say I AM GOD... this is something that John brought into the mix, yet was never uttered by Jesus

Not something HE would leave out of his teaching if he actually thought that he was God... therefore Saying Jesus called himself God inadvertently makes him a liar by omission

originally posted by: Akragon

it seem the verses most commonly used are ones where Thomas says "my lord and my God"... I am more of the opinion that when Thomas said that (IF he actually did) he was referring to both Jesus and God... Not just Jesus himself

I'm with you on that one - it makes no sense to me that Thomas would have to call on Jesus TWICE in the same sentence to get his attention.

Backed of course by... "IF you've seen me you've seen the Father" which also is not a direct reference to him being God... More like the essence of God... the Personality of God...

My take as well. I have a window here, and when I look out that window, I see a tree - but I realize that the tree I see is NOT the windowe (had to add the "e", to keep ATS from doing funky things - has M$ infiltrated ATS?) ... it's a tree. Likewise the window is NOT the tree... it's a windowe. If I see that window, I see the tree - but they are NOT the same thing just because I see both of them.

OR... "I and my Father are one"... of course this doesn't mean One and the same... He meant one in essence

Aye. I and my dad are "one" as well - my mom, to this day, still occasionally says "you're just like your dad!" - yet we are not one and the same, nor the same person... but there are those around who, looking at me, can still see him.

Those who are of the opinion that Jesus was God overlook one thing... HE did not ever say I AM GOD... this is something that John brought into the mix, yet was never uttered by Jesus

Not something HE would leave out of his teaching if he actually thought that he was God... therefore Saying Jesus called himself God inadvertently makes him a liar by omission

Exactly! It seems that, if one were making the claim to be someone, one of the more important aspects of that would be.... to make that claim! One of the least important aspects of making that claim would be to continually make the distinction between your self and the other you were claiming to be, and Jesus made that distinction pretty often.

Wouldn't that be counter-productive to validating a claimant?

a reply to: nenothtu

I find it rather obvious that Jesus did not say he was God... He did say he is the son of God...

Christians tend to go though this sort of verbal gymnastics in order to prove their claim... where as I don't find it necessary...

I think the reasoning behind it is that Christians can claim "our God walked among us" so our doctrine is correct...

Each Christian denomination claims their doctrine is correct... Yet none of them focus purely on his words...

Christianity is more like Paulianity... with a hint of Jesus in the mix

a reply to: Akragon

it seem the verses most commonly used are ones where Thomas says "my lord and my God"... I am more of the opinion that when Thomas said that (IF he actually did) he was referring to both Jesus and God... Not just Jesus himself

Thomas said this "to him", so both titles were directed to Jesus, as not just his Lord, but as his God.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Perhaps...

its still a rather impossible leap... going from not even believing he returned to suddenly claiming he is God, when no one before that moment even thought about it