"to my God and your God”

“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

This isn't some mysterious riddle or a cryptic message laden with hidden symbols. Rather, its a simple and direct statement that shows exactly where Jesus stood in relation to God and people.

Jesus says his Father is Father to the people as well, and also that his God is also the God of the people. I wish I could expand on this further, but this simple statement speaks volumes for itself.

When we have such resoundingly clear statements from Jesus, that he himself prayed to God, why do Christians insist that Jesus is actually the God he was talking about? Its like me telling a coworker "my boss is your boss" and he interprets that as "I am your boss".

Now I know Christians will start pulling out verses to demonstrate how Jesus is actually God.
Please don't waste your time... instead focus on the statement "my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" and explain how you interpret it as meaning Jesus is God.

Do you interpret those words as meaning Jesus said "I am your Father and I am your God" or "my Father and your Father, who is actually me.... my God and your God, who is actually me"?

I don't believe that Jesus is God, not because I have something against Jesus... but only because of Jesus' own statements that his God is my God too.

Discuss.

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." -Colossians 1:15
He's the spitting image of his dad, I wonder if anybody has ever heard that expression before?

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" -Revelation 3:14

Those that believe in the Trinity point at John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" But it's not the first time in the Scriptures that type of saying is used. Gen. 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" Not literally the same person. Is that how John understands the meaning? You only have to go to John 17 to find out as he repeatedly uses it about Jesus being one with the congregation, as he is one with God, that they may all be one and so and and so forth "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." -verse 21

I'm no expert in languages, but I have seen complex arguments against John 1:1 even being worded the way it is based on the 'singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb' making it a complete tossup if he was God or a god. It's up to the translator...how can something that comes down to translators choice be considered proof on anything?

And don't get me started on the verse that says, "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
All that does is list three names, so Manny, Jeff, and Harry play baseball, where are the other 8 hitters in the lineup?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Dear sk0rpi0n,

If God is the totality of existence, the all, then he can express himself in any part he wishes. In the Old Testament they were told that nobody had an excuse for saying they were not aware of God because he could be seen in all things as all were expressions of himself. Why should it be so hard to understand that he could express himself as a man? You don't have to believe he did; but, why should he be prevented from doing such a thing, after all he is God.

reply to post by AQuestion

Why should it be so hard to understand that he could express himself as a man?... why should he be prevented from doing such a thing, after all he is God.

If Jesus is God or fully man/fully God, why didn't Jesus just say so. Its a pretty big deal don't you think?
What prevented him from doing such a thing?

Secondly, if Jesus was God, why did he say "my God and your God"? Why not "I am your God"?

reply to post by The_Phantom


Those other verses don't change the meaning of the verse that the OP is about.
Please tell me how you interpret Jesus statement that his God is our God and that his Father is our Father.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

Those other verses don't change the meaning of the verse that the OP is about.
Please tell me how you interpret Jesus statement that his God is our God and that his Father is our Father.

Ummm...

I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you.

Wouldn't it be great if that all powerful god could come to us in these uncertain times and just: "Tell us that himself"? Of course it would...but he doesn't exist, otherwise he would have. An all powerful god would not of left the entire population of humanity hanging in the wind.

YOUR RELIGION IS BULL# ....DEAL WITH IT.

reply to post by The_Phantom


whoops. My mistake. Sorry. I should have read your post more carefully, before typing my reply.

the problem we run into is this is interpretation of a disagreement that has lasted
for thousands of years, to me the stark reality of Judaism and their claims contradicts
the new testament time and again, Judaism still exists because they did not accept
Jesus as the son of god, they believed he was a false prophet.

The evidence of this is in the bible itself, god claims to be unchanging and yet changes
from the old to new testament, why would this be? well because Judaism was a
harsh religion, god was spiteful, wrathful and just plain mean, Jesus was added
as a way to tone it down and make it appealing to more people, the irony is it left
this huge contradiction in the bible, people gloss over this as if somehow Judaism
actually accepted Jesus but the truth is they still believe him to be a false prophet.

Now if that weren't bad enough there is the issue of the disagreement and
interpretation required to decide which laws god now wants us to follow,
most people in modern times believe that god wanted us to follow the ten
commandments, well they don't really specify which of the two sets of 10
commandments we are to follow, Jesus, if he existed and if he
actually even said any of this stuff did not say we no longer had to follow
the other 603 commandments, he only said to no longer follow the
sacrificial commandments. so that means we have 613 to follow.

What this all leads to is such a jumble of confusion and lack of knowledge
that i would posit it is impossible to know how one would "become saved"
and hence both religions are rendered worthless and not only that but
dangerous as they are left wide open for any to interpret them as saying
anything at all they want it to.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I honestly think Jesus was simply deified to the level of a god. For instance, the vizier Imhotep was deified to a god. So what if normal human beings were simply elevated to the status of godhood?

If we apply rationalism to this situation, then it seems likely that Jesus was simply deified for his "good deeds".

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Dear sk0rpi0n,

Well, you didn't answer my question; but, I will answer yours anyways.

If Jesus is God or fully man/fully God, why didn't Jesus just say so. Its a pretty big deal don't you think? What prevented him from doing such a thing? Secondly, if Jesus was God, why did he say "my God and your God"? Why not "I am your God"?

Lets start with this, the Jews understood what he was saying and killed him for it. The Apostles thought when Jesus entered Jerusalem that he would be immediately made king and he was not, at least not in the manner they expected. He was given a crown (of thorns) and a sign that called him the king of the Jews. Jesus came to die for us after having experienced life as one of us.

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." That verse is from Philippians 2:5-7.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Dear sk0rpi0n,

Well, you didn't answer my question; but, I will answer yours anyways.

If Jesus is God or fully man/fully God, why didn't Jesus just say so. Its a pretty big deal don't you think? What prevented him from doing such a thing? Secondly, if Jesus was God, why did he say "my God and your God"? Why not "I am your God"?

Lets start with this, the Jews understood what he was saying and killed him for it. The Apostles thought when Jesus entered Jerusalem that he would be immediately made king and he was not, at least not in the manner they expected. He was given a crown (of thorns) and a sign that called him the king of the Jews. Jesus came to die for us after having experienced life as one of us.

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." That verse is from Philippians 2:5-7.

I thought the New International Version read the same way, until I saw the footnote..."in the form of" instead of "being in the very nature" Because that can take on a whole new meaning, especially if he is God's son, the spitting image of his father. Once again, how can translator's choice be considred 'proof' of anything?
www.biblegateway.com...

reply to post by The_Phantom


Dear The_Phantom,

What the different translations are really discussing would be what we call essence. People are made in the image of God, Jesus was born with his essence.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

Dear The_Phantom,

What the different translations are really discussing would be what we call essence. People are made in the image of God, Jesus was born with his essence.

You say that people are made in the image of God but Jesus was born with his essence...except for one small problem, "He is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation." Your got the second part of that verse, he was born, but you seem to be changing the first part of that verse to something else entirely with a word that I don't remember ever seeing in the scriptures. Essence, it almost sounds like that might not be in the scriptures at all.

reply to post by The_Phantom


Dear The_Phantom

THE MEANING OF MORFH IN PHILIPPIANS 2:6–7

The link will take you to a pretty good article that examines the possible meanings of the Greek word which is being translated. One also has to consider the part where it says he emptied himself and came here. If one is an Atheist then none of it matters.

On a side note, when I am being notified that someone responded to me, I am not getting the link. Is this happening to others?

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

Dear The_Phantom

THE MEANING OF MORFH IN PHILIPPIANS 2:6–7

The link will take you to a pretty good article that examines the possible meanings of the Greek word which is being translated. One also has to consider the part where it says he emptied himself and came here. If one is an Atheist then none of it matters.

On a side note, when I am being notified that someone responded to me, I am not getting the link. Is this happening to others?

It was all Greek to me, but I would agree that it does seem to examine the possible meanings of the Greek word as you said. And at the end it seems to conclude that that it means 'in the form of" as I have already said. And the vese says that Christ has both a divine and human nature. I agree, 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 say that "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”) yet for us there is but one God, the Father

reply to post by The_Phantom


Dear The_Phantom,

I am not quite sure how to reply to you. You asked me a question and I gave you a link to someone who could fully explain the meaning and you didn't bother taking the time to understand it.

It was all Greek to me, but I would agree that it does seem to examine the possible meanings of the Greek word as you said. But at the end it concludes that the Greek word ultimately means 'in the form of" as I have already stated. I didn't see anything that changed belief.

I will attempt to simplify it. The word refers to being similar to, you wish to call it form, essence, nature, whatever, similar to, having something in common. The second part where it references how God emptied himself to express himself as Jesus is equally important and helps us to understand the first part. Jesus was completely God and somehow gave up an aspect of that. Which aspect was kept and which was given up. Well, we are told that nobody has seen God, that is a good starting point. He gave up his holy image and became man. He did not give up his divinity and that is what the article explains.

What makes you you? It is not your physical body, that changes overtime and starts making lots of creaky sounds. What makes you, you is your personality, your choices, your essence, your soul, that does not change over time. No matter where you go, there you are. You may learn new things, make better choices; but, the one making those choices remains you. Peace.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

Dear The_Phantom,

I am not quite sure how to reply to you. You asked me a question and I gave you a link to someone who could fully explain the meaning and you didn't bother taking the time to understand it.

It was all Greek to me, but I would agree that it does seem to examine the possible meanings of the Greek word as you said. But at the end it concludes that the Greek word ultimately means 'in the form of" as I have already stated. I didn't see anything that changed belief.

I will attempt to simplify it. The word refers to being similar to, you wish to call it form, essence, nature, whatever, similar to, having something in common. The second part where it references how God emptied himself to express himself as Jesus is equally important and helps us to understand the first part. Jesus was completely God and somehow gave up an aspect of that. Which aspect was kept and which was given up. Well, we are told that nobody has seen God, that is a good starting point. He gave up his holy image and became man. He did not give up his divinity and that is what the article explains.

What makes you you? It is not your physical body, that changes overtime and starts making lots of creaky sounds. What makes you, you is your personality, your choices, your essence, your soul, that does not change over time. No matter where you go, there you are. You may learn new things, make better choices; but, the one making those choices remains you. Peace.

"having something in common" I won't argue with that, they do have something in common.

Are you talking about the part on on page 744 The evidence of the Pe#ta the second argument, where it says, "this would not
necessarily indicate that, in their opinion, morfhv must in every case signify
something less substantial than ou˚sÇa. For the Pe#ta translators render
e√k∫n in Heb 10:1 as aMwoQ, or “substance.”

I admit that I don't understand the Greek words, but the words I can read say, "not necessarily" and "in their opinion"

reply to post by The_Phantom


Dear The_Phantom,

You can do better than that can't you? I began by saying how the article showed the different possible meanings. You are now asking me about where it said that it could mean different things? Huh? Please at least make an attempt to answer the questions I asked you. Firstly, what aspect of him was of God and what did he give up? You do not have to understand Greek to answer me; but, if you wish to drill down into the article, then understand what it did say rather than cherry pick sentences out of context from it.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by The_Phantom

 

Dear The_Phantom,

You can do better than that can't you? I began by saying how the article showed the different possible meanings. You are now asking me about where it said that it could mean different things? Huh? Please at least make an attempt to answer the questions I asked you. Firstly, what aspect of him was of God and what did he give up? You do not have to understand Greek to answer me; but, if you wish to drill down into the article, then understand what it did say rather than cherry pick sentences out of context from it.

Nope, I can't do better than that, That is in fact the point I always intended to make...that 'proof' scriptures can't be based on translators choice and opinion.

He was the Son of God, he was a spirit being like God is, and he gave that up to be a man.