Question: If Jesus was the son of God, why did he wait to do his miracles?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus IS God. He claimed that title many many times.

Lies...

He never claimed that a single time in the entire bible...

And you telling others that he did is simply a lie...

edit on 3-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Look up how many times Jesus said I AM. Why do you think the pharisees killed him? You need to open your bible and read what is written for ALL to see friend.

Originally posted by ZakAndDali
Jesus was just prophet... black one(negro if U like)... "they" just use his name cos he was known and accepted by a lot of people in his time in mid. east... he never did any miracles... miracles made by him are stories made by humans who want control other humans... most of the stories in the bible about Jesus are writen many years after his death... why? if U are not stupid U will figure it out***

Jesus was Galilean, who spoke aramaic and they were most certainly not black people.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You wrote:

["Look up how many times Jesus said I AM."]

And this semanticism is expected to demonstrate what......?

I, Bogomil, also AM in a lot of ways. In my own little tunnel-reality, I'm quite sure, that I AM;.....in the greater tunnel-reality of Cartesian navel-gazing I also AM, because I think;...... in the system of finding order in cosmos (science/logic) I AM, because I can be measured. And as a pastafarian I most defintitely AM, because of my ritualized ownership of a spaghetti-strainer.

Now you may have some meaning of 'AM'-ing different from those above. Please feel free to present it, and if you feel like it, referring to 'miracles' etc. as part of this thread.

reply to post by bogomil


"Cogito ergo sum"

For all you who think Jesus is not God you are clearly NOT reading the messages contained in the scripture. Many people in that time believed he was. Even John the Baptist said this "in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" He further explains this by stating that Jesus was the bible made flesh, the living Word so in effect what we have is this "in the beginning there was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. Is it not true that Jesus said his Father sent him? John the Baptist was saying the Jesus and the Father were one. This is why were are called baptists, because we believe John the Baptist was testifying to the truth on pain of death.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Many Christians preach a a trinity;-

"The father, the son and the holy ghost."

It's not clear what is meant by this as it seems all three encompass the thing they call "GOD".

It's all very wishy-washy.

Originally posted by NeverForget
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Many Christians preach a a trinity;-

"The father, the son and the holy ghost."

It's not clear what is meant by this as it seems all three encompass the thing they call "GOD".

It's all very wishy-washy.

All the Trinity is, is Body, Spirit and Soul. God made us in His Image. This did not mean that we look like him, but that he gave us the 3 parts to himself that HE has. He is not 3 seperate beings. He is ONE being because there is only One True God. Jesus sits on the white throne of judgement, because it is HIS throne, not the Father.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

All the Trinity is, is Body, Spirit and Soul.

Is this your interpretation, or are you parrotting the words of preachers?

Cite a verse from the "Holy" bible that alludes to your definition of the trinity.

God made us in His Image.

As we are a product of reality, he also made monkeys, apes, sea creatures in "his image". But their brains havn't evolved as ours have. God didn't make us in "his image" as our ancestors has lesser developed brains, and were closer to other animals than what we now know as "humans", with our developed consciousness. Religion came about when we began to question our own existence, and our purpose.

Jesus sits on the white throne of judgement, because it is HIS throne, not the Father.

Yes, and much of Jesus preaching can be considered reprehensible. His preaching wasn't perfect, and the alledged words of Jesus were written years later, and we know not the intentions of the scribes/creators of the biblical documents.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You wrote:

["For all you who think Jesus is not God you are clearly NOT reading the messages contained in the scripture."]

In the Sovjet period, there was a lot of people, NOT reading the 'PRAVDA' and consequently not becoming commies either.

Quote: ["Many people in that time believed he was."]

And so I should run my life on lines of what some people believed 2.000 years ago.

Quote: ["Even John the Baptist said this "in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" He further explains this by stating that Jesus was the bible made flesh, the living Word so in effect what we have is this "in the beginning there was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God."]

That's fine for people putting their trust in the pauline bible-version of the character John the baptist. There are however at least some 5 billion people NOT doing so, so your circle-argument has only limited value and scope (truth is in any case not part of public voting).

Quote: ["Is it not true that Jesus said his Father sent him?"]

One of the 'napkins' ("what's written here on this napkin, is true, because it's written here, that it's true) can most likely be interpretated this way. Non-napkinists care less about that part than on the social impact of napkinism.

Quote: ["This is why were are called baptists, because we believe John the Baptist was testifying to the truth on pain of death"]

A public forum isn't primarily a pulpit, and while you are free to preach unopposed to your heart's desire home in the congregation, you only have freedom of speech here, which is a two-way process. So to make it short: The pauline John is just another propaganda inclusion.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

He further explains this by stating that Jesus was the bible made flesh, the living Word so in effect what we have is this "in the beginning there was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

That's an interpretation that someone could come to by ignoring the context and jumping through the chapter in a zigzag fashion, leaving big gaps and ignoring the meaning in the original Greek.
Looking at this sentence I quoted, you see this part "Bible made flesh" where in the actual verse, John 1:14, the Greek word being translated "made" is used to describe a situation coming about, and not for describing something literally being make as in changed from being one thing into another thing. The situation coming about is the word dwelling among us.
When you look at the word translated as "word" you see it combined with another noun, in this case, "flesh", so in this situation, you understand the word being a message to whatever that noun is. Flesh is usually meant to convey the idea of humanity in general.
So, from me just looking at how the sentence is constructed in the Greek, a better interpretation would be, "A situation came about to where God's message to mankind dwelt among us."
Bible makers freely add their interpretation to scripture, especially when it makes it seem to support accepted doctrine. You can find out about that by reading translator's notes which I always do. It is circular logic to where when there is a question of which way to translate a verse, they choose the one that fits accepted doctrine, and so perpetuates ideas people already have.

reply to post by bogomil


This semanticism seems to be in a large part the nature of the bible... Depending on the semantics you choose to believe there are many different interpretations of the bible, which leads to the conflict we see between various Abrahamic religions.

Here is an argument for the semantic interpretation that is being referred to in relation to the "I AM" being one of the analogies for the name of God.

The words "I am"

"... understand that anyone can say the words "I am" and it does not mean that he is claiming to be God. Someone could say, "I am over here." That is not claiming the divine name. Likewise, someone could say, "I am hungry," or "I am sick." Neither example is claiming divinity, because the use of the term "I am" in context clearly shows us that is not what is occurring. But, in John 8:58 when Jesus said "before Abraham was born, I am," the Jews knew exactly what he was saying. Notice that he says before Abraham was born (using the past tense) and then he switches to the present tense when he says "I am." Jesus switches tenses of the verbs on purpose so that when he does so in the context of referencing Abraham, Jesus is clearly drawing the Jews' attention to the Old Testament Scriptures and then using a present tense form of the verb "to be" by saying "I AM". Someone who says "I am hungry" is not drawing attention to the Old Testament Scriptures for context.

Jesus was clearly causing the Jews to reflect upon the divine name "I am" that Jesus used for himself. We know that they understood this because as is said above, they said, "You, being a man, make yourself out to be God," (John 10:33).

Source
... and some others discussing the subject...
www.allaboutjesuschrist.org...
answering-islam.org...
www.crivoice.org...

... so while Jesus never actually says directly "I am God", it is heavily suggested by his words in scripture, and believed by certain groups.

The issue then is, did he actually say this, or is it merely another interpretation made by the writers of the bible of Jesus's original messages. The "I AM" in this instance may have just been a literary mechanism used by John, since the "I AM's" mainly appear in his book, and not elsewhere throughout the bible.

So the argument here is over an interpretation of an interpretation, which highlights even more why taking the bible literally is fraught with issues.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

People never take into account that Jesus's own brothers affirmed and worshiped Him as Lord also. And not when He was alive, but Jude and James became believers after the resurrection.

According to the pauline version. As you may remember, a lot of people don't accept the premises you use.

According to the Pauline version? Interesting, what exactly did Paul have to do with James and Jude?

reply to post by puzzlesphere


You wrote:

["So the argument here is over an interpretation of an interpretation, which highlights even more why taking the bible literally is fraught with issues."]

A main-point with me concerning the interpretation-options of the bible(s). It's not that I am or want to be in a position of dictating any 'proper' bible-interpretation methodology, but the apparant element of open 'authority' saturating some kinds of christianity makes this 'authority' more than an intern christian problem.

It (the habit of 'authority') manifests clearly also when such christianities have external contacts, and that makes it a problem of all mankind. This authority-reliance is so deep-rooted, that I believe that many christians don't even see it, but take their own perspectives for something so granted, that opposition is unthinkable.

I am not using you as a stepping-stone for these thoughts, they are my own and don't implicate you.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

People never take into account that Jesus's own brothers affirmed and worshiped Him as Lord also. And not when He was alive, but Jude and James became believers after the resurrection.

According to the pauline version. As you may remember, a lot of people don't accept the premises you use.

According to the Pauline version? Interesting, what exactly did Paul have to do with James and Jude?

James epistle.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

People never take into account that Jesus's own brothers affirmed and worshiped Him as Lord also. And not when He was alive, but Jude and James became believers after the resurrection.

According to the pauline version. As you may remember, a lot of people don't accept the premises you use.

According to the Pauline version? Interesting, what exactly did Paul have to do with James and Jude?

James epistle.

And what did Paul have to do with James's epistle? James wrote his epistle before the two Jerusalem councils and before Paul wrote Thessalonians. So what exactly did Paul have to do with James and his epistle?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus IS God. He claimed that title many many times.

Lies...

He never claimed that a single time in the entire bible...

And you telling others that he did is simply a lie...

edit on 3-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Look up how many times Jesus said I AM. Why do you think the pharisees killed him? You need to open your bible and read what is written for ALL to see friend.

I don't really want to get into this... but if we must...

Moses was God too according to your logic...

And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD's.

14I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.

Don't forget the lord our God Joshua

10And now, behold, the LORD hath kept me alive, as he said, these forty and five years, even since the LORD spake this word unto Moses, while the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness: and now, lo, I am this day fourscore and five years old.

As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses sent me: as my strength was then, even so is my strength now, for war, both to go out, and to come in.

And the children of Joseph of course.... All Gods... Oh wait theres only one God, so they must be a part of a group of Gods that are actually one...right

And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me hitherto?

And Gideon... of course

15And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house.

And did you not know Ruth was also God?

And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.

Also the unnamed man... chatting with Eli... just happened to be God too

And the man said unto Eli, I am he that came out of the army, and I fled to day out of the army. And he said, What is there done, my son?

and Ezra lets not forget the holy one Ezra... also God

And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens
----------------------------------

I could continue but it would take pages and pages. And besides that i think i made my point. Your simple semantics don't compare with simple logic...


And BTW... I've studied the bible for many years...why do you think i can correct you so easily?

Don't tell me i need to read the bible. Unlike you i do understand it, and though i do believe the words of God can be found in the bible, they were not spoken by God. Only one "sent" by God...

But wait, Jesus was different because they capitolized the letters in I AM right?

So just for fun i will also restate what led me to this post...

Saying Jesus claimed to be God many times is a blatant lie.... But feel free to teach your lies to others, like your church does. Free will...

Perhaps you might take your own advice though

reply to post by Akragon


Akragon, "I AM" was simply a title God used to describe Himself. Paralleling His statements that He's the "God who was, who is, and who is yet to come". His eternal nature. Moses never claimed to be the great "I AM". Jesus however, refered to Himself as the Great I AM, and said He pre-existed Abraham. Jesus also calls Himself the Great I AM, the Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last, the Almighty in Revelation.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Akragon, "I AM" was simply a title God used to describe Himself. Paralleling His statements that He's the "God who was, who is, and who is yet to come". His eternal nature. Moses never claimed to be the great "I AM". Jesus however, refered to Himself as the Great I AM, and said He pre-existed Abraham. Jesus also calls Himself the Great I AM, the Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last, the Almighty in Revelation.

Alright, fine me those quotes.... Leave revelations out of it because it has no relevents to the subject. Theres no possible way to prove John was spoken to by Jesus the spirit. The book reads nothing like how Jesus spoke. Sounds nothing like how he spoke... And the fact is after all this I AM nonsence, the bottom line is Jesus never claimed to be God. Others did but he did not...ever.

So, find me those passages and we'll go from there

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Btw just to add to my last post...

I also believe you, myself...and everyone also existed before now. The spirit is eternal, we've all been here many times before... So IMHO the fact that Jesus existed before Abraham is also irelevant...

Though i do believe Jesus actually remembered being with God, and existing before he lived.... that is what is special about him... Unlike everyone else, he remembered being a spirit.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

People never take into account that Jesus's own brothers affirmed and worshiped Him as Lord also. And not when He was alive, but Jude and James became believers after the resurrection.

According to the pauline version. As you may remember, a lot of people don't accept the premises you use.

According to the Pauline version? Interesting, what exactly did Paul have to do with James and Jude?

James epistle.

And what did Paul have to do with James's epistle? James wrote his epistle before the two Jerusalem councils and before Paul wrote Thessalonians. So what exactly did Paul have to do with James and his epistle?

The ideological issues, which I believe the average reader will be able to grasp for him/herself. If the bible needs expert elitists, secret codes, signs and wonders, hermeneutic semantics and whatever to be 'understood', it is as I often claim (in parts) a religion so saturated with self-proclaimed authority, that this scares any individual with independent thinking away.