Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

a reply to: nenothtu

I would take that to be an individual epiphany, an "AHA!" moment in the life of an individual when they make the connections.

If you are looking at the verse (Titus 2:13) in Bible Hub, you can click on the Comment button on the top of the page, and on the right column under EXEGETICAL, you see, Meyer's NT Commentary.
Bible hub ,makes available commentaries that are in the public domain, so "Meyer" is Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, who lived until 1873.
If you go past half way through the article to where there are numbered notes, at [6], you see the comment, "Heydenreich wrongly supposes that δόξα here is the glory which God and Christ will give to believers."
Where "Heydenreich" apparently is a reference to Karl Heinrich Heydenreich, who lived until 1801.
Meyer says "wrongly" without giving any reason why it is wrong, where he probably expects the reader to figure it out by looking at the explanations that Meyer favors.
I am dragging all this out because I have thought about it since reading that last night, and it makes sense to me.
Why I could think that is because I don't think Titus was written by Paul but by someone who studied Paul. The real Paul makes the cryptic comment, "those he justified, he also glorified", which Paul doesn't really explain, but this Pauline devotee tries to make use of as a source of encouragement, apparently his interpretation of the earlier use.
Meyer's more favored explanations, I think are too tainted by the Arian controversy, something the writer of Titus would not have had in mind.
So, you look at the entire chapter as an exhortation to righteousness (being "justified", in the sense of being made to be in accordance with a standard of "right" behavior) with the incentive for all this hard work of "being good", the epiphany of glory that is of God and our savior, or this promise that the writer accepts as valid by being from the authentic Paul, so is confident in his usage, in his own version of Pauline style preaching.
Ideas of a "second coming" just don't figure into the conversation.

a reply to: AboveThePinnacle01

Even with a simple explanation like this it is difficult to understand. It is rather hard to explain and describe something that the human mind can not fully comprehend no matter how hard you try, we've been trying for thousands of years.

I think that when the Gospel of John was written, what would have been hard to describe, to a non-Jew, was what Prophecy meant to the Hebrew thinking of the Old Testament.
The solution, apparently, was to put it into understandable terms to the Greek mind, which was the philosophical term, the Logos.

Why it seems difficult to understand today is from two factors, 1) the distance we now are as a culture, from the thought processes common in Greek conversation in those long ago days, and 2) the influence of degradation of philosophy that happened when it became cause for war between the competing factions, and the depth of the affects of that war that changed the understanding of verses that could be employed in that war against so-called Arianism.
The major casualty was the prologue to the Gospel of John, to switch the interpretation to be towards the understanding that the Logos was somehow a person, rather than what the Logos was understood to mean in a commonly understood way before this war.

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.

Because they were told so by their family or culture.

When Jesus was asked by many Jews why he dared to blasphemy by calling himself the son of God, he replied that the Old Testament had said "ye are all Gods," implying that all are sons/daughters of Gods.

Jesus was either a wise teacher or maybe even a yogi/avatar/master. But God doesn't need or have sons in my perspective, not literally anyways.

The Muslims are correct: the trinity is a form of polytheism. This is no different from Hinduism, which states that the myriad gods are naught but manifestations and different facets of the unity of one god that transcends all.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Because they were told so by their family or culture.

If you met someone performing miracles like Jesus did, I would say that you would be very tempted to imagine that he was some sort of god.

. . . had said "ye are all Gods," implying that all are sons/daughters of Gods.

It isn't saying that everyone is gods but was a quote that was talking to people in authority who were supposed to be looking after the welfare of the people they were over, making them god-like in that aspect of the definition of a god.

But God doesn't need or have sons in my perspective, not literally anyways.

The gospels say that Joseph was Jesus' father, or parent, depending on which one you are looking at.
He is dependent on that line through Joseph for the claim of being a descendant of David.
The spirit of God making Mary pregnant could have been a spiritual form of artificial insemination, with Joseph being the unknowing donor.

The Muslims are correct: the trinity is a form of polytheism.

All they do is change the terminology to avoid saying "god".

originally posted by: occuluinunc
a reply to: roth1

Read 'The Case For Christ' by Lee Strobel. He was a 'spiritual skeptic' until he started investigating and writing this book which presents evidence of why Jesus was/is God.

There is no "evidence" that Jesus is God. Virtually all such claims come from

1) Circular self-referential hermeneutics, or utilizing passages in the Bible to verify other passages in the Bible. The Council of NIcea specifically canonized those texts that supported a divine Jesus, and deleted those that did not. OF COURSE the Bible appears to show that when they purposefully voted to use texts that were along those lines. Moreover, much is interpretation of orthodoxy over the last 1000 years. IN addition, the Christians try to claim that a bunch of letters in the New Testament and stories of missionary work constitute "the Word of God." I highly doubt that when apostles wrote letters to random churches that this was "the voice of God." That's kinda ridiculous. During the early Church there were a whole range of sects and texts that had completely different views. These were oppressed and banned after the Council. Fact.

2) Random personal testimonials.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Because they were told so by their family or culture.

If you met someone performing miracles like Jesus did, I would say that you would be very tempted to imagine that he was some sort of god.

Um, those stories follow common man-god myths of the Mediterranean and near-East during the time period, and closely parallel such mythological figures as Apollonius or Mithra. Please explain how the stories of their miracle work and mystical nature are not also evidence of god-hood?

. . . had said "ye are all Gods," implying that all are sons/daughters of Gods.

It isn't saying that everyone is gods but was a quote that was talking to people in authority who were supposed to be looking after the welfare of the people they were over, making them god-like in that aspect of the definition of a god.


That is your interpretation. Jesus said that precisely in response to a charge of heresy for saying he was a "son of god." He cited the Old Testament quote that all are "sons of god," implying that not only he but all were. We are all children of God.

But God doesn't need or have sons in my perspective, not literally anyways.

The gospels say that Joseph was Jesus' father, or parent, depending on which one you are looking at.
He is dependent on that line through Joseph for the claim of being a descendant of David.
The spirit of God making Mary pregnant could have been a spiritual form of artificial insemination, with Joseph being the unknowing donor.

The Muslims are correct: the trinity is a form of polytheism.

All they do is change the terminology to avoid saying "god".

I have to be honest, nothing you say has any evidence excepting circular self-referential Biblical texts, and two the orthodoxy framework downloaded into your mind. There are not only countless interpretation of said texts but also extremely strong critiques of the claim of inerrancy in the Bible. Once you realize the text is not pure nor likely to be so, all of these textual arguments disappear.

a reply to: jmdewey60

I respect your opinion , however I disagree.

I think Jesus being killed was for sins, and it says so in the New Testament, especially in the Letter to the Hebrews.

The very act of killing its self is sinful. It does not make sense to me that god would use sin to forgive sin....

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
a reply to: jmdewey60

I respect your opinion , however I disagree.

I think Jesus being killed was for sins, and it says so in the New Testament, especially in the Letter to the Hebrews.

The very act of killing its self is sinful. It does not make sense to me that god would use sin to forgive sin....

The Romans were the ones doing the killing, not God... and then they compounded the sin by trying to make Jesus a god, like any common emperor, by vote no less.

Oh, those wacky Romans!

BTW - "killing" is in itself not a sin - murder is, but not mere killing.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Um, those stories follow common man-god myths of the Mediterranean and near-East during the time period, and closely parallel such mythological figures as Apollonius or Mithra.

Who were considered gods, if you would think about what you just wrote.

That is your interpretation. Jesus said that precisely in response to a charge of heresy for saying he was a "son of god." He cited the Old Testament quote that all are "sons of god," implying that not only he but all were. We are all children of God.

I don't think you even bothered to look up the verses.
You aren't even quoting it correctly.

I have to be honest, nothing you say has any evidence excepting circular self-referential Biblical texts

I'm not trying to convert atheists.
I'm talking to people who are believers, and if you choose not to, then what I am saying is irrelevant and can be just ignored, and you can move on to the next poster.

Once you realize the text is not pure nor likely to be so, all of these textual arguments disappear.

Even people like Bart Ehrman who is critical of the NT text as a professional, admits that the variations in texts are minor to the basic understanding of the NT.

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

The very act of killing its self is sinful. It does not make sense to me that god would use sin to forgive sin....

It was necessary as a judgment of sin, in order to condemn it, that it would be so evil that once it got its hands on this holy person, it killed him.
That is to me the major point of the gospels, to explain why it was that this whole great thing (the temple system as it had been corrupted down to) that was sacrificing him out of pure self preservation, was itself destroyed within a generation later.
Sin is the great enemy and Paul references this way of looking at it when he describes how God gave His son over to the forces of evil.
We need to fully appreciate how bad sin really is.

a reply to: roth1

Well I don't believe in God or the Bible so I definitely don't think Jesus was God.


Now I think that there might be some truth in the bible but it's been rewritten soooo many times it's hard to tell what is truth and what isn't. Also so many things have been left out! Another thing I have a hard time believe when it comes to the bible and what it states is that the Earth was created in the last 6000yrs or so, which is load of crap. Now that way that I see that is that the way Earth is NOW was created 6000 yrs ago, meaning that civilization started over possibly? IDK I find the bible hard to read and interpret.

Do I believe in a God? Well in a sense but not the God from the Bible. I believe in a higher power and that God is everything and everything and in everyone. I dont see God as an individual being or person.

IF you ask me how we came to be? I say someone created us and not the God in the bible but say maybe "aliens" aka beings from another planet or galaxy. Why not? I mean if the bible story is so believable why not this?

Anyway....nice can of worms as the first reply states.
Have fun.

originally posted by: mblahnikluver

Another thing I have a hard time believe when it comes to the bible and what it states is that the Earth was created in the last 6000yrs or so, which is load of crap.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. Nowhere.

Bishop Usher said that, not the Bible.

Hang that one on Bishop Usher's door.

originally posted by: ParasuvO


When are you going to finally tire of the LARGEST LIE EVER, that Gods ways are not understandable, completely above in a way we cannot understand.

This program, of futility, WE, will DESTROY IT.

Who is "WE"?

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: mblahnikluver

Another thing I have a hard time believe when it comes to the bible and what it states is that the Earth was created in the last 6000yrs or so, which is load of crap.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. Nowhere.

Bishop Usher said that, not the Bible.

Hang that one on Bishop Usher's door.

Who is that??

I know many people who believe this and it disturbs me A LOT.

a reply to: mblahnikluver

Bishop James Usher, the guy who came up with that nonsense about the Earth being created the night before Sunday, 23 October 4004 B.C. My calculations would put that as Saturday night, 22 October 4004 B.C.

See, it wasn't just "6000 years ago", the sucker pinpointed it to a date and time! That would make the world around 6017 years old, with a birthday coming up in October.

Problem is, that's nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere at all. It all came from the fevered brain of a bishop in Ireland in the mid-1600's. While the Irish ARE famous for drinking, you'd think a bishop would try to hold it down a bit better.

It's not in the Bible, and those folks who claim it is don't bother fact checking or probably even reading the thing. You shouldn't let it disturb you - it's on them, not you, to get their facts straight before getting egg on their face. Next time one of your acquaintances comes up with that mess, simply meekly insist on them showing you WHERE it says that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in the bible... it will either shut them up, or drive them crazy trying to find it, and keep 'em busy for a while.

Either way, it's out of your hair then.

a reply to: nenothtu

Well if they come here i'll save them some time...

The idea comes from the geneology from Adam to christ...

But its still nonsense

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: nenothtu

Well if they come here i'll save them some time...

The idea comes from the geneology from Adam to christ...

But its still nonsense

Yup, that's where he got the idea, but the problem is that there are at least two separate genealogies, and neither of them is complete or have the birth and death dates of each person listed. Add to that that Usher didn't really know Christ's birthday, and that it isn't really specified how long after "creation" Adam came about (it's not really specified which creation of humanity Adam even belonged to - there are two of them listed), and it just spirals farther and farther off the rails.

It's a pretty good example of how people can roll right off the cliff when they try to tease meaningless information out of the bible that really isn't there at all to begin with.

Yup, "meaningless". Who really cares when it was created? Do they think the invoice is past due or something?

a reply to: nenothtu

I think its because they believe if they can pin point the beginning... They can also figure out the end...

All while disregarding the fact that Jesus said only God knows

a reply to: Akragon


I know there are a lot pf people obsessing over the end, and I've never figured out why they do that.

To my mind, neither the beginning nor the end are the least bit important - what matters is how we live in the middle, between beginning and end. If we can't get that right, the end might be be bad.... for us. Not so much for them that got their mess together while they could. Maybe that's why they do it - worried about coming to a bad end. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth".

I personally think they ought to get themselves on track NOW, and then they won't have to worry about the end, because "the end" comes every single day, for someone. While they're busy obsessing over "THE end", their own end is chugging right along, creeping right up on them!

a reply to: nenothtu

AHHH thanks!

Funny thing is when I do call these people out on their claims they get all tongue tied. It's funny.

I went to church in high school. I tried it out. I wanted to see if it was for me and it turned out it clearly wasn't. They did NOT like me questioning anything in the bible and never gave me an answer just "because the bible says so or that is how god wanted it" and many other lines along those.

I find religion interesting from a research point of view. I personally prefer the spiritual side of "religion." I like the whole be one with yourself and the earth.

I was watching some youtube video today. It was actually just playing random vids from youtube on my Roku while I was cleaning and one was about the Bible and stuff like this. It too touched on the Earth is only 6000 years old thing but they said it was also crap basically.

I think this was it based on my viewing history.

I tried reading the bible back when I was curious but I found it hard to read, much like translating Shakespeare lol only harder and not as fun for me. I have asked my very religious friends if there is like an idiots guide and they tell me to just stick with the actual bible. So I just gave up.

Thanks for that info