Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

[Masrur Fanalis]

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

This is one of my favorite topics in the bible. Well, here it goes...

When Jesus claimed to be God incarnate, either:

1. He was telling the truth. 2. He was lying -- He wasn't God and knew it. 3. He was a lunatic -- He wasn't God but thought He was.

You chose to believe it or not.

I'm not gonna quote all those verses.
But in respect to the passaged from John; couldn't those be saying that the Christ, the Divine Nature of God, is what Jesus was representing and showing to the people? When he said for when you see me you see God, couldn't that mean "the healing that I do is the work of God, not of me"?
So Jesus was never saying that he was God Incarnate but only showing the power of God to men. The same as when he said "I and the Father are one." If all humans are the children of God, then aren't we all one with God in the same way Jesus was? It's just that Jesus demonstrated the power of God, the Christ nature, better than anyone else in human history?
In respect to Revelations:
Revelations is the only book in the Bible that I feel has no credit. It's not "historical" like the rest of the Bible, it's a vision, or a prophecy of sorts. When John was exiled, he could have gone loony and just wrote down his hallucinations.
So all I'm saying is that, Revelations, basically means diddly squat for me as a Christian compared to the rest of the Bible. I feel like it's give or take, you either believe it or don't.

If we were "one" with God, we wouldn't be able to sin. Yet we do. And God cannot sin.
Of course Jesus gave God-The Father credit because he was a man at that time. God-The father was above him. If you consider the Bible historical, why won't you claim Revelation to be? Isn't that basically doubting it will happen? If you doubt anything in the Bible, why not doubt the whole thing?

Other prophecies came true in the bible, why won't that?

[Xiam]

I think even Jesus claiming to be the son of God is inaccurate. It seems to me that he probably meant it as much as any of the rest of us are "children" of God.

Remember, the New Testament was all written much longer after he'd already died. Anything he "said" there can easily have been up to the interpretation of the writer or writers. Also notice that the later that a Gospel was written, the more "godlike" Jesus became.

[Christien Chalfant]

Ameixah

Depending on how you interpret:

"I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12:29

One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:5-6

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. John 14:10

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:20

Jesus pretty much inherited everything His father has, so it is understood that he is part of the God Head. There are three separate beings in the Godhead, but they are addressed as one God.

I addressed the "I and Father are one." earlier in another post. So that's that.
Is the Ephesians to say that the Lord and God are separate? That it's not Lord God, but two separate things?
When he says "the Father is in me? The words that I say...the Father who dwells in me does his works." doesn't that mean that he is doing healing through faith in God and understanding God, the Divine Nature, of God. He's not saying that God dwells in him, or that he dwells in the Father, but that the Christ, the Divine Nature, dwells within God and everyone.
Jesus said he was the Son of God when asked, but that does not inherently mean that he is the only son, let alone the only child. If we are all God's children, then what separates Jesus as a son from the rest of men and/or women? It says "...has come and given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; as we are in him who is true" which would mean that Jesus demonstrated the healing power of God, the Christ nature.
It's contradictory to say that the Son of God has come, and then within the same context to say that the Son of God is God, which would also be the Father. It seems false and sacrilegious to say that a human was God. So I stand firm, was Jesus just not the human vehicle used to demonstrate the healing power of God and Christ, that Jesus himself, the human, was not God or Christ, but that he understood both more than anyone else.
The godhead is the trinity, yes? But then who is to say that God is the father, The Holy Ghost is the message or word, and Jesus, the human, is the son? If it really was a godhead, wouldn't it be Christ as the son? Not jesus, a human?

[Ameixah7]

Christien Chalfant

Jesus said he was the Son of God when asked, but that does not inherently mean that he is the only son, let alone the only child. If we are all God's children, then what separates Jesus as a son from the rest of men and/or women?

Jesus's divine birth, separates His birth from the ordinary human. Mary conceived without a man's sperm, or sexual intercourse; therefore, making His birth a "virgin birth". He is God's divine son. We are all His (God the Father's) children. 3nodding Jesus is like our big brother. The angels were also called the "sons of God" too; but Jesus is The Son, He is above angels. He is the only being of His kind.

Quote:

It says "...has come and given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; as we are in him who is true" which would mean that Jesus demonstrated the healing power of God, the Christ nature. It's contradictory to say that the Son of God has come, and then within the same context to say that the Son of God is God, which would also be the Father.

The son is not the father, the father is not the son; they are two separate beings. This chart might help.

Quote:

It seems false and sacrilegious to say that a human was God. So I stand firm, was Jesus just not the human vehicle used to demonstrate the healing power of God and Christ, that Jesus himself, the human, was not God or Christ, but that he understood both more than anyone else.
The godhead is the trinity, yes? But then who is to say that God is the father, The Holy Ghost is the message or word, and Jesus, the human, is the son? If it really was a godhead, wouldn't it be Christ as the son? Not jesus, a human?

Jesus is not fully human, he was part divine while he was on earth. He is the Son in the trinity/Godhead. (The Son of The Father) Christ is just a Greek inspired term for the word messiah, Jesus Christ is one name/person. Jesus is the Messiah.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Matthew 27:43

The focus here is Jesus having claimed to have said, "I am the son of God". It has been accepted by Christians for a long time now that one who is a "son of God" in the Tanakh is an angel. In Job 1:6, it says,

"Now there was a day when the sons of 'Elohim came to present themselves before Yahweh, and the adversary also came among them."

The reason why the sons of God are interpreted to be angels and not actual minor gods is because Judaism became a monotheistic religion. Christianity followed this view. After all, if we look at Deuteronomy 32:8, it says,

"When 'El 'Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of 'Elohim."

In the Septuagint, "sons of 'Elohim" is replaced with αγγελων θεου (angelōn theou), "angels of God". The Dead Sea Scrolls, being the oldest, go with "sons of God", and it is agreed that this is the original and correct translation. This does not refer to angels, however.

If we did entertain that "son of God" or "sons of God" referred to angels, then why not say of Jesus that he is also an angel? Well, it later becomes apparent from the Epistle of Hebrews does not indicate that Jesus was an angel at all.

Of course, the next possibility is to say that Jesus is a minor god, just as the "sons of God" were understood during the time of the ancient Israelites. This would mean that there is more than one god, which would seem to be contrary to Christianity's supposed monotheism.

Philo of Alexandria spoke of a concept known as δευτερος θεος (deuteros theos), a second god. According to Kari Kloos,

"Philo does not attribute the Logos a distinct personality or incarnation. He maintains that there is no God besides the Most High, conceiving of the Logos as a principle divine creature who emanates from the Most High God and who contains the forms of the intelligible world. As a creature with divine power emanating from God, the Logos is able to mediate for God in the mutable world. Thus his view of a second power in heaven does not go so far as to claim a distinct divine hypostasis worth of worship." (Christ, Creation, and the Vision of God, p. 29)

So, with that in mind, one could believe Jesus is a god, but not the God and it would be possible for Christianity to still be monotheistic, just as for Philo, his belief was monotheistic. Let's take a different approach. In Luke 3:38, it says,

"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

The important thing here I hope anyone will see is that Adam is "the son of God". You might wish to protest against this concept, but logically it holds true if Enos is the son of Seth and if Seth is the son of Adam. So whose father is Adam's? Considering Adam didn't have parents, God must be Adam's father.

What this shows is that if we are to believe that "the son of God" means that Jesus is of the same substance as God, then it must also follow that Adam is of the same substance as God. Otherwise, what we have here is Adam simply being "the son of God" just in the same was as Jesus is "the son of God". In other words, Adam and Jesus are "the son of God" because neither had a father and were miraculously created.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

John 10:30

This seems to be a favorite of trinitarians. It is said that because son and father are one, that it must mean they are one in substance. However, there is no hint of this at all. It assumes that being "one" means one in substance. Why not one identity? Why not one purpose? Where is the evidence that it is one substance? Where is the evidence Jesus even was aware of such concept?

Oddly enough, Jesus uses this way of speaking again elsewhere. He says,

"Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one." (John 17:11b)

What does Jesus mean? Surely, he can't mean that his disciples are also of the same substance. That would be silly to trinitarians. I'm positive a special pleading will be made to make it so that John 10:30 will still be applicable as proof of Jesus' deity, but the language is quite clear and similar to the verse in question.

Even Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:8,

"He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor."

This would appear to me that this oneness is not of substance, but of purpose. I trust the true meaning of Jesus' words, "I and the Father are one" is about purpose, which Jesus makes clear in several places when he speaks of how he does as his father commands and instructs him, and how his father has given him authority.

[JediDillon]

Is there any scripture in the Bible where Jesus outright or explicitly says that he is God? To worship Jesus as if he were God?
I've always been under the impression that Jesus and Christ were separate. Jesus was the human man and Christ was the Divine Nature that he was teaching and spreading. That Christ was the power and Jesus was only the vehicle.
I've met a lot of Christians who will tell me that Jesus is God.
But then, if Jesus is God, isn't that the same as worshipping a man?

I think Howard Storm who is a former atheist could explain it best:

[JediDillon]

Ameixah

Christien Chalfant

Jesus said he was the Son of God when asked, but that does not inherently mean that he is the only son, let alone the only child. If we are all God's children, then what separates Jesus as a son from the rest of men and/or women?

Jesus's divine birth, separates His birth from the ordinary human. Mary conceived without a man's sperm, or sexual intercourse; therefore, making His birth a "virgin birth". He is God's divine son. We are all His (God the Father's) children. 3nodding Jesus is like our big brother. The angels were also called the "sons of God" too; but Jesus is The Son, He is above angels. He is the only being of His kind.

Quote:

It says "...has come and given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; as we are in him who is true" which would mean that Jesus demonstrated the healing power of God, the Christ nature. It's contradictory to say that the Son of God has come, and then within the same context to say that the Son of God is God, which would also be the Father.

The son is not the father, the father is not the son; they are two separate beings. This chart might help.

Quote:

It seems false and sacrilegious to say that a human was God. So I stand firm, was Jesus just not the human vehicle used to demonstrate the healing power of God and Christ, that Jesus himself, the human, was not God or Christ, but that he understood both more than anyone else.
The godhead is the trinity, yes? But then who is to say that God is the father, The Holy Ghost is the message or word, and Jesus, the human, is the son? If it really was a godhead, wouldn't it be Christ as the son? Not jesus, a human?

Jesus is not fully human, he was part divine while he was on earth. He is the Son in the trinity/Godhead. (The Son of The Father) Christ is just a Greek inspired term for the word messiah, Jesus Christ is one name/person. Jesus is the Messiah.

The greek for Jesus or Messiah was originally translated from Jesus's Hebrew name which was Yeshua which means God is Salvation.

[stealthmongoose]

Interesting. If Christians do not worship Jesus, then they must hold him in the same regard as they do the Virgin Mary, or some other mythological being proposed by the faith. They consider this person divine and above humanity, yet they do not attribute them as a deity.

Thus, i suppose the Catholics have a head start by counting Mary and Jesus as equal figures of worship.

[Ameixah7]

JediDillon

Ameixah

Christien Chalfant

Jesus said he was the Son of God when asked, but that does not inherently mean that he is the only son, let alone the only child. If we are all God's children, then what separates Jesus as a son from the rest of men and/or women?

Jesus's divine birth, separates His birth from the ordinary human. Mary conceived without a man's sperm, or sexual intercourse; therefore, making His birth a "virgin birth". He is God's divine son. We are all His (God the Father's) children. 3nodding Jesus is like our big brother. The angels were also called the "sons of God" too; but Jesus is The Son, He is above angels. He is the only being of His kind.

Quote:

It says "...has come and given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; as we are in him who is true" which would mean that Jesus demonstrated the healing power of God, the Christ nature. It's contradictory to say that the Son of God has come, and then within the same context to say that the Son of God is God, which would also be the Father.

The son is not the father, the father is not the son; they are two separate beings. This chart might help.

Quote:

It seems false and sacrilegious to say that a human was God. So I stand firm, was Jesus just not the human vehicle used to demonstrate the healing power of God and Christ, that Jesus himself, the human, was not God or Christ, but that he understood both more than anyone else.
The godhead is the trinity, yes? But then who is to say that God is the father, The Holy Ghost is the message or word, and Jesus, the human, is the son? If it really was a godhead, wouldn't it be Christ as the son? Not jesus, a human?

Jesus is not fully human, he was part divine while he was on earth. He is the Son in the trinity/Godhead. (The Son of The Father) Christ is just a Greek inspired term for the word messiah, Jesus Christ is one name/person. Jesus is the Messiah.

The greek for Jesus or Messiah was originally translated from Jesus's Hebrew name which was Yeshua which means God is Salvation.

Moshiach or Ha Mashiach = Messiah (Hebrew)
Yeshua = Joshua (Hebrew) The Jesus is a Greek version of Joshua.

[Christien Chalfant]

IVovacane

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

This is one of my favorite topics in the bible. Well, here it goes...

When Jesus claimed to be God incarnate, either:

1. He was telling the truth. 2. He was lying -- He wasn't God and knew it. 3. He was a lunatic -- He wasn't God but thought He was.

You chose to believe it or not.

I'm not gonna quote all those verses.
But in respect to the passaged from John; couldn't those be saying that the Christ, the Divine Nature of God, is what Jesus was representing and showing to the people? When he said for when you see me you see God, couldn't that mean "the healing that I do is the work of God, not of me"?
So Jesus was never saying that he was God Incarnate but only showing the power of God to men. The same as when he said "I and the Father are one." If all humans are the children of God, then aren't we all one with God in the same way Jesus was? It's just that Jesus demonstrated the power of God, the Christ nature, better than anyone else in human history?
In respect to Revelations:
Revelations is the only book in the Bible that I feel has no credit. It's not "historical" like the rest of the Bible, it's a vision, or a prophecy of sorts. When John was exiled, he could have gone loony and just wrote down his hallucinations.
So all I'm saying is that, Revelations, basically means diddly squat for me as a Christian compared to the rest of the Bible. I feel like it's give or take, you either believe it or don't.

If we were "one" with God, we wouldn't be able to sin. Yet we do. And God cannot sin.
Of course Jesus gave God-The Father credit because he was a man at that time. God-The father was above him. If you consider the Bible historical, why won't you claim Revelation to be? Isn't that basically doubting it will happen? If you doubt anything in the Bible, why not doubt the whole thing?

Other prophecies came true in the bible, why won't that?

Because the rest of the Bible is a documentation of events, an inclusion of prophecies that came true. There could've been many other said prophecies that were never included because they didn't happen.
Eh. I don't believe in sin. Evil is nonexistent for me. I believe in it's nothingness. That fear tries to control the human, but if the human stays in the proper spiritual sense then the human is fine.
But I believe in three separate realms. The Spiritual, The Human, and the Material. The human is not bad nor is it good. It just depends whether the human lowers or raises themself based upon their fear or their spiritual awareness.
Because Revelation is a prophecy with no conclusion to it. The others had conclusion, correct?

[Christien Chalfant]

Ameixah

Christien Chalfant

Jesus said he was the Son of God when asked, but that does not inherently mean that he is the only son, let alone the only child. If we are all God's children, then what separates Jesus as a son from the rest of men and/or women?

Jesus's divine birth, separates His birth from the ordinary human. Mary conceived without a man's sperm, or sexual intercourse; therefore, making His birth a "virgin birth". He is God's divine son. We are all His (God the Father's) children. 3nodding Jesus is like our big brother. The angels were also called the "sons of God" too; but Jesus is The Son, He is above angels. He is the only being of His kind.

Quote:

It says "...has come and given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; as we are in him who is true" which would mean that Jesus demonstrated the healing power of God, the Christ nature. It's contradictory to say that the Son of God has come, and then within the same context to say that the Son of God is God, which would also be the Father.

The son is not the father, the father is not the son; they are two separate beings. This chart might help.

Quote:

It seems false and sacrilegious to say that a human was God. So I stand firm, was Jesus just not the human vehicle used to demonstrate the healing power of God and Christ, that Jesus himself, the human, was not God or Christ, but that he understood both more than anyone else.
The godhead is the trinity, yes? But then who is to say that God is the father, The Holy Ghost is the message or word, and Jesus, the human, is the son? If it really was a godhead, wouldn't it be Christ as the son? Not jesus, a human?

Jesus is not fully human, he was part divine while he was on earth. He is the Son in the trinity/Godhead. (The Son of The Father) Christ is just a Greek inspired term for the word messiah, Jesus Christ is one name/person. Jesus is the Messiah.

SO then what is the basis for this godhead? What makes it so that the godhead trinity is true?
That chart says that the three are separate, yet all are God. That's contradictory. If the son is god, the father is god, and the holy spirit god. Then the father would also be the son and the holy spirit, etcetera.

[Ameixah7]

Christien Chalfant

Ameixah

Christien Chalfant

Jesus said he was the Son of God when asked, but that does not inherently mean that he is the only son, let alone the only child. If we are all God's children, then what separates Jesus as a son from the rest of men and/or women?

Jesus's divine birth, separates His birth from the ordinary human. Mary conceived without a man's sperm, or sexual intercourse; therefore, making His birth a "virgin birth". He is God's divine son. We are all His (God the Father's) children. 3nodding Jesus is like our big brother. The angels were also called the "sons of God" too; but Jesus is The Son, He is above angels. He is the only being of His kind.

Quote:

It says "...has come and given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; as we are in him who is true" which would mean that Jesus demonstrated the healing power of God, the Christ nature. It's contradictory to say that the Son of God has come, and then within the same context to say that the Son of God is God, which would also be the Father.

The son is not the father, the father is not the son; they are two separate beings. This chart might help.

Quote:

It seems false and sacrilegious to say that a human was God. So I stand firm, was Jesus just not the human vehicle used to demonstrate the healing power of God and Christ, that Jesus himself, the human, was not God or Christ, but that he understood both more than anyone else.
The godhead is the trinity, yes? But then who is to say that God is the father, The Holy Ghost is the message or word, and Jesus, the human, is the son? If it really was a godhead, wouldn't it be Christ as the son? Not jesus, a human?

Jesus is not fully human, he was part divine while he was on earth. He is the Son in the trinity/Godhead. (The Son of The Father) Christ is just a Greek inspired term for the word messiah, Jesus Christ is one name/person. Jesus is the Messiah.

SO then what is the basis for this godhead? What makes it so that the godhead trinity is true?
That chart says that the three are separate, yet all are God. That's contradictory. If the son is god, the father is god, and the holy spirit god. Then the father would also be the son and the holy spirit, etcetera.

So why can't they be one, and the father not the son?

[Christien Chalfant]

stealthmongoose

Interesting. If Christians do not worship Jesus, then they must hold him in the same regard as they do the Virgin Mary, or some other mythological being proposed by the faith. They consider this person divine and above humanity, yet they do not attribute them as a deity.

Thus, i suppose the Catholics have a head start by counting Mary and Jesus as equal figures of worship.

I just have trouble believing in a God who is human. Therefore I don't. Man is not God. A man cannot be God. I'm assuming that God would never lower himself to the level of Human instead of remaining spiritual either.

[Christien Chalfant]

Ameixah

Christien Chalfant

Ameixah

Christien Chalfant

Jesus said he was the Son of God when asked, but that does not inherently mean that he is the only son, let alone the only child. If we are all God's children, then what separates Jesus as a son from the rest of men and/or women?

Jesus's divine birth, separates His birth from the ordinary human. Mary conceived without a man's sperm, or sexual intercourse; therefore, making His birth a "virgin birth". He is God's divine son. We are all His (God the Father's) children. 3nodding Jesus is like our big brother. The angels were also called the "sons of God" too; but Jesus is The Son, He is above angels. He is the only being of His kind.

Quote:

It says "...has come and given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; as we are in him who is true" which would mean that Jesus demonstrated the healing power of God, the Christ nature. It's contradictory to say that the Son of God has come, and then within the same context to say that the Son of God is God, which would also be the Father.

The son is not the father, the father is not the son; they are two separate beings. This chart might help.

Quote:

It seems false and sacrilegious to say that a human was God. So I stand firm, was Jesus just not the human vehicle used to demonstrate the healing power of God and Christ, that Jesus himself, the human, was not God or Christ, but that he understood both more than anyone else.
The godhead is the trinity, yes? But then who is to say that God is the father, The Holy Ghost is the message or word, and Jesus, the human, is the son? If it really was a godhead, wouldn't it be Christ as the son? Not jesus, a human?

Jesus is not fully human, he was part divine while he was on earth. He is the Son in the trinity/Godhead. (The Son of The Father) Christ is just a Greek inspired term for the word messiah, Jesus Christ is one name/person. Jesus is the Messiah.

SO then what is the basis for this godhead? What makes it so that the godhead trinity is true?
That chart says that the three are separate, yet all are God. That's contradictory. If the son is god, the father is god, and the holy spirit god. Then the father would also be the son and the holy spirit, etcetera.

So why can't they be one, and the father not the son?

what? the father can't be the son. For the same reason that the mother can't be the daughter.