Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

The preceding thread is kind of deeply nested, so I started a new one.

Where in the gospels does Jesus say that he is god?

Here he says pretty plainly that he isn't god:

John 14:28, 31
You heard me say to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I...but I do as the Father has commanded me.

This doesn't sound like a guy who thinks he's god:

Mark 10:17-18
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Dan


Dan, you are not understanding the method of discourse, and the implication of certain statements in that culture. When Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good?', He wasn't denying that He is good, or that He is God. He is asking a rhetorical question to draw the young man's attention to what his statement meant.

As far as claiming to be God, consider the following:

John 8:58-59
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. (NIV)

John 8:58

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, [prin (NT:4250) Abraam (NT:11) genesthai (NT:1096) - 'Before Abraham came into existence'] I am, [egoo (NT:1473) eimi (NT:1510)]. The difference between the two verbs applied to Abraham and Himself, in this great saying, is to be carefully observed. 'Before Abraham was brought into being, I exist. The statement, therefore, is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did-as Arians affirm is the meaning: it is that he never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; which, of course, was as much as to say that He existed before all creation, or from eternity, as in John 1:1. In that sense, beyond all doubt, the Jews understood Him, as will appear from what follows.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (NIV)

Mark 2:7

Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? In this second question they expressed a great truth. (See Isa 43:25; Mic 7:18; Ex 34:6-7, etc.) Nor was their first question altogether unnatural, though in our Lord's sole case it was unfounded. That a man, to all appearance like one of themselves, should claim authority and power to forgive sins, they could not, on the first blush of it, but regard as in the last degree startling; nor were they entitled even to weigh such a claim, as worthy of a hearing, except on supposition of resistless evidence afforded by Him in support of the claim. Accordingly, our Lord deals with them as men entitled to such evidence, and supplies it; at the same time chiding them for rashness, in drawing harsh conclusions regarding Himself.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

John 20:28-29

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (NIV)

I'm sure you can figure out what the commentary will say about this verse. Notice that Jesus doesn't tell Thomas that he's blasphemed, but simply comments on Thomas's belief.

I could cite many more examples, but these three should suffice. Yes, Jesus did say that His Father is greater than He. That is why we say 'God the Father' and 'God the Son'. We don't mean two or three gods, we mean three persons in one triune God. That conclusion is dictated by passages like those described above.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

In reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

John, in general, and the 'I am' selections specificaly are generaly regarded as not historical. There is a lot of discussion of this at the link I gave you earlier. Didn't you ever notice that Jesus is completely different in John then he is in the synoptics? In them he is seen as very much downplaying his own status. He says not to tell anyone he is the messiah. He does not tell the priests from where his authority comes. Compare Mark 11:27-33 with John 8:13-17. They hardly sound like the same person.

And as to Mark, who has apparently invoked the common fictional style of knowing the unspoken thoughts of his characters, Jesus does not say that he has forgiven the invalid's sins. He says that they are forgiven. This was the phrase used by priests in just such situations. The priests are cheezed off, if Mark's is reading their minds correctly, because he claimed a priestly ability that they did not believe he had right to claim.

Dan

Collapse -
Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

In reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

The Jewish listeners would have understood. God always refers to himself as "I am".

Exodus 3:6 - And he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Notice the name of the website

In reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity - This site presents the "fruits" of my intellectual journey from being a believing Christian into a convinced atheist.

The Jews knew that I am doesn't refer to angels or prophets but to God.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Collapse -
Re: Notice the name of the website

In reply to: Notice the name of the website

You know that how? The skeptic notes a source for his statement.

Dan

Collapse -
ROTFL - That's one GIANT leap of faith.

In reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

Did I get that abbrev. right?

'are generaly regarded as not historical'

Really? I just quoted 'Jamieson, Faucett, Brown', a respected commentary and they clearly think it is historical. I could just as easily quote a dozen more commentaries which would say the same thing. So, who is the 'generally regarded' that you claim?

That's certainly one way to deal with Jesus. Claim that He didn't exist (that doesn't work too well), or that He didn't say what is attributed to Him. All that is done without a shred of evidence. Or, the text is misunderstood. It was common to use the 'I am' phrase. Well, His Jewish listeners certainly understood.

Modern criticism has concluded that we do have essentially what was written in the first century. There is very little scholarly doubt regarding that question. That's not very much time to come up with large fabrications which the authors died to uphold. It's not very convincing to now 'take a vote' on whether Jesus said it or not. Further, if He didn't say it, who did? The teachings are so profound that we should worship the anonymous source, except that source would have sought to mislead us.

You can always choose to ignore the ultimate questions about who Jesus was, and disbelieve. You should, however, be aware of the shaky ground on which you stand.

Collapse -
Questioning is less of a leap than unquestioning belief

In reply to: ROTFL - That's one GIANT leap of faith.

If you claim the bible to be a book of faith then that's fine that it goes unquestioned. If you claim that the bible is a book of historical fact that's a different matter. This opens up many questions.

Of course you could quote endless sources claiming the bible to be historical. The reasons for this are ridiculously obvious. But more independent, scholarly research is being carried out and it cannot be discounted.

I'm sure you've heard of The Jesus Seminars.

During the second phase of the Jesus Seminar, which lasted from 1991 to 1996, the Fellows examined 387 reports of 176 events, in most of which Jesus is the principal actor, although occasionally John the Baptist, Simon Peter, or Judas is featured. Of the 176 events, only ten were given a red rating (red indicates that the Fellows had a relatively high level of confidence that the event actually took place). An additional nineteen were colored pink (pink suggests that the event probably occurred). The combined number of red and pink events (29) amounts to 16% of the total (176). That is slightly lower than the 18% of the sayings?primarily parables and aphorisms?assigned to the red and pink categories in The Five Gospels.

For those who believe the Bible to be the word of God a 16% historical accuracy rate may seem ridiculously low. Why did the Seminar end up with so many black (largely or entirely fictive) and gray (possible but unreliable) reports? The results should not be surprising to critical scholars?those whose evaluations are not predetermined by theological considerations. Nevertheless, it is important to both the general reader and the scholars who participated in the Seminar to be as clear as possible about the reasons for this result.


I'm not claiming that I stand on bedrock and I examine my footings regularly. I suggest you look at the questions being raised, the answers being found. Your beliefs are your own, but you should decide if they are based on faith or fact. Either is fine, but the latter requires an awareness of sources, verifiability, and consistancy.

Dan

Collapse -
Re: Questioning is less of a leap than unquestioning belief

In reply to: Questioning is less of a leap than unquestioning belief

Collapse -
Brilliant! !

In reply to: Re: Questioning is less of a leap than unquestioning belief

What an enlightened individual.

Dan

Collapse -
Re: It is, it isn't, it is... but what does the Bible say?

In reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is, He did, he didn't - continued

I know of about two dozen passages in the Bible that have been used to support the three-in-one doctrine. I know of none that stands up to serious scrutiny. Rather than get into nesting and verbose commentaries, I like to use the Bible to teach the Bible. Please consider these questions:

1) Per 2 Tim 3:16,17 and 2 Pe 1:21, among many others, the Bible is God's book about himself. Don't you find it significant that the word "trinity" appears not once in its 1500-some pages?

2) Joh 17:3. Who is the "only true" God, and by whose authority do we know this?

3) I think you and I agree that Revelation is about the writer John's future, and our present. In that case, who is the God whom Jesus now worships, at Rev 3:12?

4) Rev 14:14-16. Who is the one 'seated on a cloud,' and from whom does he take his orders?

5) At Gen 18:12 in your Bible, Sarah uses the phrase "my lord." At verse 13 we read, "Then the LORD said to Abraham ..." Are these the same lord? Is the typography significant? Same questions; Ps 110:1a; see Mark 12:35-37 and Mt 22:41-45.

6) Again in your Bible, please tell me where you find that phrase you used, 'God the Son.'

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
You forgot a few.

In reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is... but what does the Bible say?

John 1:1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. NIV

John 1:14-18
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'" 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. NIV

Who is God the One and Only who is at the Father's side? Answer: Jesus otherwise known as God the Son.

John 20:27-29
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." NIV

Did Jesus rebuke Thomas for calling him God ('ho The

Collapse -
Now for a few of yours. The night is late.

In reply to: You forgot a few.

Gen 18:12 Sarah uses the word translated 'lord' (wa'doniy) to refer to Abraham while the word translated LORD (Yahweh) refers to God. The typography is simply the standard way of noting that the word Yahwey is being used. Notice that God has more than one name. In Exod 3:13, Moses asks God for His name. God replies:

Ex 3:14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,'I AM has sent me to you.'" NKJV

In other words, one of God's names is 'I AM'. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagent), which Jesus used, 'I AM' is translated as 'ego

Collapse -
Mt 24:14

In reply to: Now for a few of yours. The night is late.

You wrote, "word translated LORD (Yahweh) refers to God". Actually, Jehovah (the more commonly-used English translation) is God's personal name. If you count the occurrences of LORD in your Bible, you'll learn this from the contexts - almost 7,000 times! Who gave your Bible's translators the authority to remove God's name from God's book?

At John 17:3, Jesus (one person) addresses his Father (another person) in prayer (an act of worship), and calls him "the only true God." He says you and I need to learn about those two people (not three) in order to get God's highest reward for doing what he requires of us. Your opinion is that his plain language disguises some sort of mystery in which Jesus IS Almighty God, and that he is actually talking to himself. I choose to believe Jesus rather than you. BTW, I think if you look carefully at your application of John 17:11 you'll want to withdraw it.

It's clear that your leaders have sent you to teach the trinity, which "name" for God you never showed me in your own Bible (although Jehovah's name is in your Bible - disguised by the translators, but it's there).

I've been sent by my leader to teach the good news of his father's kingdom, and what it will mean to all of us. Would you like to learn more about Jehovah's kingdom under his appointed king, Christ Jesus?

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Excuse me? Although you, as a Jehovah's Witness,

In reply to: Mt 24:14

may be sent by your leader to convert us, I have not been sent by any 'leader' unless, perhaps, you are referring to Jesus Christ. I try to think through my own beliefs, and am quite willing to discuss those.

As I recall, one of your challenges was to find the phrase 'God the Son' in the Bible. When I quoted:

Matt 14:32-33 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." NIV

you ignore it along with several other testimonies to the Deity of Jesus Christ. Why is that? It would help if you would respond to the points made in the discussion rather than bringing up new ones. I suggest you explain the 'I AM' (which is also God's name BTW as is made clear in Exodus) usage by Jesus, and Thomas's affirmation that Jesus is God.

With regard to the use of the word LORD, the point is that people understand what the translated text is saying. Some english translations use Jehovah while others use LORD. My guess is that French or Arabic translations would use different words. The LORD translation appears to follow the Septuagent which translates Yahweh as 'Kurios' which means Lord. I can give you a more detailed reference and explanation if you wish. Obviously, neither Jehovah or Lord are God's name. The actual name is an 'unpronounceable tetragrammaton YHWH' (from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)

With regard to John 13:3, you are absolutely correct. Jesus IS praying to another person; His Father. Yet, He says They are equal and One. He doesn't mean they are the same person, He means they are united in the Godhead. That is there are three persons, but one God. The Holy Spirit is, of course, the third member of the trinity. It is quite true that the Bible does not use the term trinity. It does, however, teach the concepts entailed by the term. The term simply refers to the concept which is taught by the Bible. For example:

Phil 2:5-9
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! (NIV)

is one of many references to the deity of Christ.

Collapse -
My last Q.: Would you like to learn more about the Kingdom?

In reply to: Excuse me? Although you, as a Jehovah's Witness,

I'll take your reply as a "no."

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Only if you are willing to enter into dialogue. I don't need

In reply to: My last Q.: Would you like to learn more about the Kingdom?

a guru to lead me to enlightenment. I value the ability to reason and understand that is part of what God gave me when he created me in His image.

Collapse -
Re: *YAWWWWNNNNNNNN*

In reply to: Re: It is, it isn't, it is... but what does the Bible say?

read the hebrew.....

Adoni/Adon-ee = Master or My Lord (as in lord and slave/serf)
Adonai/Adon-aye= My God

the 'extra Yod' (eye/I in english) or 'Hey' (aitch/H in english) is for emphasis and is the 'i have seen/been touched by god like' extension , i.e. Avram became Avraham

*whatever....*

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Interesting anyway to those of us who don't speak Hebre

In reply to: Re: *YAWWWWNNNNNNNN*

Collapse -
No more boring than a DLL is to a programmer :)

In reply to: Re: *YAWWWWNNNNNNNN*

My reason for using those two verses is to clarify an important point of translation. (BTW, it applies even if the Bible is fiction, which many today believe.)

Sarah's Lord is indeed the TITLE adonai, meaning her husband.

The second LORD translates an entirely different word, the NAME Jehovah (as it's commonly written in many modern languages). Once we know this we can use the name, or the title, each appropriately, and not confuse the two where that will muddy the clear teaching.

In mixed company the authority I use for this is the redoubtable James Strong, with lots of letters after his name, a mainstream religious if ever there was one. In his famous Concordance, he identifies Lord as #113, while LORD is #3068; the two are not related in entymology. You can also refer to the American Standard Version of the Bible of about 100 years ago, and its foreword. An older authority is the medieval Hebrew Masoretic text of the "Old Testament;" older still is the Dead Sea scroll collection.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Actually, Strong says 113 is :)

In reply to: No more boring than a DLL is to a programmer :)

OT:113
'adown (aw-done'); or (shortened) 'adon (aw-done'); from an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, i.e. controller (human or divine):

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GRAMMYS 2019

Here's Everything to Know About the 2019 Grammys

Find out how to watch the Grammy Awards if you don't have cable and more.