Who is Jesus? Son of God or God?

Originally posted by Akragon
Whos denying his divinity...

So what is your beef with anything that I've said in this thread? You say that you agree that he is divine, so what did I say that set you off?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
Whos denying his divinity...

So what is your beef with anything that I've said in this thread? You say that you agree that he is divine, so what did I say that set you off?

set me off?

What im not allowed to post a reply without people assuming its an attack?

It must be the grin...

I just made a comment about how different versions of the bible say completely different things...

reply to post by Akragon


No, what you said was that

I've found most Christians tend to see what they want to regardless of what is actually said...

and I asked for examples in scripture where Paul directly contradicts Christ.

Still waiting for one.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

No, what you said was that

I've found most Christians tend to see what they want to regardless of what is actually said...

and I asked for examples in scripture where Paul directly contradicts Christ.

Still waiting for one.

O i c...

I guess we could start with the example i already gave...

Philippians 2:6

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Yet...

John 10
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.


John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


Equal indeed... says paul...

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Paul claimed Jesus was equal to God...

Jesus said no such thing...

Just had to add that one... kinda important piece of info...

Don't forget Peter, John, James and Jude..

None of which matter either way.... He did not ever claim equality to God...

Even within the gospels that line is used in Narration... Jesus never said it, same as he didn't claim to be God...

You got it all figured out bro. That info would have saved 10 of His disciples and two of His brothers pretty horrendous deaths.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Nah... even if they claimed him to be the son of God they still would have been executed...

Any reference giving yourself or others divinity is blasphemy in judaic law

which is why they do the G-d thing... they can't even type it... lol

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Nah... even if they claimed him to be the son of God they still would have been executed...

Any reference giving yourself or others divinity is blasphemy in judaic law

which is why they do the G-d thing... they can't even type it... lol

edit on 4-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

They were executed for refusing to worship Caesar as god, they worshipped Christ as God. All they had to do was worship Caesar. Read Fox's Book of Martyrs.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I have a few times actually... Even have a thread on it... which you replied to...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Either way... they would have died... that was my point

reply to post by Akragon


That may be your point, but mine remains. They all worshipped Christ as the Lord and died horrible deaths for doing so. What would it take for your brothers and mother to worship you as God in the flesh?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It would take a serious misunderstanding... You might notice Jesus was always saying things like "why don't you guys get it?"

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It would take a serious misunderstanding... You might notice Jesus was always saying things like "why don't you guys get it?"

They were Hebrews. They were well aware of the Hebraisms He used. The same ones you refuse to learn about. Why did Jesus let numerous people worship Him? The same Jesus who rebuked the devil telling him man is to worship God alone? Another misunderstanding?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Unfortunatly we can only know the mind of Jesus through his own words... I don't know why he let others worship him... perhaps because he was the son of God? The same guy who apparently sits at the "right hand of God"... he performed miracles. He knew God personally unlike anyone else... And he always had the right answer... So i can understand the confusion...

But...

I will not "assume" he let them because he was "God in the flesh"... Especially since he clearly said he was not... he wouldn't even let people call him Good... let alone God in the flesh... The one instance he was actually called God by Thomas... i would personally say it was because Thomas finally figured out something close to what he was saying... He was called "doubting Thomas" was he not?

but he did say he was "the son of God".... Of that there is no doubt.

reply to post by Akragon


He said He was not the Father, no one is saying He was. But we are a long way from my point. Peter, John, James and Jude all called Him the Lord and worshipped Him. All the apostles agreed, so you cant say it was Paul. Paul jumped on board to something the others already believed and were teaching.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I wasn't pointing a finger at paul...

adjensen wanted to see a contradiction between paul and Jesus... so i gave him (her?) one...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I wasn't pointing a finger at paul...

adjensen wanted to see a contradiction between paul and Jesus... so i gave him (her?) one...

I believe you mentioned that it was Paul who made Jesus divine. And Paul didn't contradict Jesus. Paul's epistles begin during the covenant of grace after the birth of the church at Pentecost. Christ taught under the law, His death being the fulfillment of it. At the time Christ spoke the gospel message wasn't really offered to gentiles outside the law. Historical context must be a factor here.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wouldn't say that is a contradiction?

John actually said the same thing... which was also a contradiction, but like i said it was narration not the words of Jesus...

Greater then is not equal to my friend...

Even i know that, and i hate math...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You wouldn't say that is a contradiction?

John actually said the same thing... which was also a contradiction, but like i said it was narration not the words of Jesus...

Greater then is not equal to my friend...

Even i know that, and i hate math...

When He said that He had already taken on flesh. The same Greek word for "greater than" Jesus used to describe John the Baptist when he said no other man born of a woman was greater than him. Since the same Greek word is used would you conclude Jesus was saying all other men were less human than John? Christ was not denying His divinity, He was displaying His humility. He emptied Himself and took on the form of a man. He worked miracles by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

And what "contradiction"? I just said Christ taught under the law to Jews under the covenant of the law. Paul wrote to Gentiles after the law was fulfilled and the covenant of grace was established. That's why I said historical context must be considered.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


luke solves that situation for you... greater prophet bro... Not all men are prophets...

Luke 7:28
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

And what "contradiction"?

how do you not see the contradiction...?

reply to post by Akragon


I see no contradiction because I am applying historical context, something I have suggested you also do twice now. You're talking about two covenants separated by a cross and condemning the latter for not being identical to the former when the former was fulfilled at the cross. And I wasn't talking about John's anointing but his nature as a human.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What is your definition of 'anointing' or 'anointment'?