Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

[jack0076970]

Ariathanx

I don't remember the part where jesus wrote the bible. I'd like to say that the words of many a smart man have been written by someone else who'd embellish on the truth in varying degrees.

Ariathanx

They've found documents linking certain stories to specific places, and current scientific evidence believes that there might have been a man who they can say was jesus, but from what I've seen it looks like a lot of grasping at straws, and every book in the new testament was written atleast 100 years after the supposed death of the guy, which before-hand were only spoken oral traditions, which as any history major will tell you, is the most horribly inaccurate transfer of knowledge. A big ball of bullocks to the bible.

Jesus didn't personally write any of the bible.
The bible embellished? Take 5 minutes to read it & you'll see you get the good and the bad.
The new testament books of the bible were written between roughly 55 to 90AD - no more than 60 years after Jesus' death... and not taken from old wives tales as you presuppose.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

saint dreya

I can't recall the exact phrasing, but doesn't Jesus say something to the effect that the only way to YHVH was through him? In which case, if he weren't on par with the Father, why would he need to be path one needed to tread to reach heaven? Otherwise, he's a glorified secretary.

The Bible might say that (depending on the interpretation of it), but its rather inconclusive. This is just speculation that Jesus is on par with God the Father.

For instance, Jesus is known to be the mediator between God and Man by some. This doesn't mean that Jesus is more godlike, but rather has a role in support of God. It was only because of Jesus (or so they say), that we can communicate with God the Father. He is important, but is still different from God. Comparing the two is rather hard in terms of importance.

I don't understand the logic you are using. If Jesus is not as like God (in power or whatever), then he's a glorified tool? Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Ariathanx

They've found documents linking certain stories to specific places, and current scientific evidence believes that there might have been a man who they can say was jesus, but from what I've seen it looks like a lot of grasping at straws

I don't see anything wrong with the content of this. Although, I wouldn't call it "scientific evidence". Evidence also cannot actually "believe" in anything. Historical evidence may suggest that Jesus did exist or not exist, but evidence cannot believe, think or feel.

The point of religion is not to prove that the figures existed before worship. Its rather unreasonable to think that some Jewish rabbi actually would have been recorded by the Jews or Romans for a number of reasons (Many Jews didn't like him or regard him as "special", and the Romans didn't necessarily like the Jews either). "Grasping at straws" doesn't accurately show the many problems wrong with the lack-of-evidence in this case.

Quote:

and every book in the new testament was written atleast 100 years after the supposed death of the guy, which before-hand were only spoken oral traditions, which as any history major will tell you, is the most horribly inaccurate transfer of knowledge. A big ball of bullocks to the bible.

No it wasn't. There is no conclusive evidence on the exact date of these books. Many, if not all of these books, were written before that 100 year mark (as taught by historians for various reasons). The Gospel of Mark was probably the first gospel written. Mathew and Luke are synoptic, meaning that they followed closely after Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70, well before the "100 years after death" time.

If Jesus died in 30AD, then we are looking at 20-40 years after his death before the authors starting writing.

Some of it was spoken in Oral Traditions, yes. But you missed the concept that I just explained above. Many think that the authors of these gospels, went directly TO the people who knew Christ. It wasn't just orally passed, but was a combination most likely.

Oral Tradition isn't so "inaccurate" as you claim. Although the details may not be precise, the actual content isn't doomed to be inaccurate. Especially given that it only lasted for a few years, versus a thousand years.

Lastly, I believe that you are mistaken about the "most horribly inaccurate transfer of knowledge". There are plenty of other ways to transfer knowledge in less efficient ways. For instance, if one is unable to speak a mutual language with another, the knowledge transfer rate is probably going to be less efficient. Therefor, either "all history majors" are idiots, or you are exaggerating the facts.

[jack0076970]

Pseudo-Onkelos

jack0076970

So who is right, you or the bible?
The bible says that the Word was with God - you add in His foreknowledge

The bible says (in the Greek) the Word was God - you add the Word was of God

According to John, yes, the word was with God. It was foreknown, else Peter would not have said so.

It must be that the word is of God, as it is called "the word of God", which is to say the word from God. The way you read John 1:1 is through a trinitarian lens. It reads like so:

"In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father."

This is modalistic, not trinitarian, unless you honestly believe that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, and that "Father" and "Son" are nominal. Even if you strip away these words, you still treat God's word as a person, not as a personification. Odd, considering the Prologue is poetic and it's not the first time God's word was ever personified.

Acts 2:23 merely talks about God's plan of redemption and foreknowledge of Jesus' crucifixtion and stretches your intention for it a little out of context.

To be honest your position is not one that I've come across before - the argument against a "trinity" is usually (always until now) used to do away with the suggestion of the Holy Spirit, not Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm reading but you are saying that Jesus was not a person but rather a personification of God's word? That He (Jesus) as a living breathing entity if you will, did not exist until He was born in Bethlehem? If so, does it follow then according to your understanding that He ceased to exist as an entity when He died?

[jack0076970]

No offence intended and no, not much point discussing it further. Appreciate the spirit of the discussion.

[Christien Chalfant]

It's always funny when the Atheists come out to tell Christians on their beliefs lol.

[Frequent Flatulence]

Christien Chalfant

It's always funny when the Atheists come out to tell Christians on their beliefs lol.

Truth knows no religion, or political stance, or ideology. It just is. If what you said is to knock off atheists for being atheists, then you have committed an ad hominem.

[Christien Chalfant]

Stahlherz

Christien Chalfant

It's always funny when the Atheists come out to tell Christians on their beliefs lol.

Truth knows no religion, or political stance, or ideology. It just is. If what you said is to knock off atheists for being atheists, then you have committed an ad hominem.

You're being way too serious buddy. I'm merely stating that all the Atheists I've encountered love to tell people what their beliefs actually are when they are not participating in that belief.
For instance, a Marxist in my Sociology class the other day generalized all of Christianity into a couple beliefs and then told everyone what Christians believed in and how they were all blasphemous. It's funny because the guy isn't a Christian, doesn't participate in anything that relates to a Christian belief, but proceed to tell everyone what they believed in. Even funnier considering the vast variety amongst Christians and the different denominations that have different beliefs.
I know what Ad Hominem is and I'm not dumb enough to do it. I wasn't attacking a person. Merely stating an observation and my reflection on it.

[Frequent Flatulence]

Christien Chalfant

Stahlherz

Christien Chalfant

It's always funny when the Atheists come out to tell Christians on their beliefs lol.

Truth knows no religion, or political stance, or ideology. It just is. If what you said is to knock off atheists for being atheists, then you have committed an ad hominem.

You're being way too serious buddy. I'm merely stating that all the Atheists I've encountered love to tell people what their beliefs actually are when they are not participating in that belief.
For instance, a Marxist in my Sociology class the other day generalized all of Christianity into a couple beliefs and then told everyone what Christians believed in and how they were all blasphemous. It's funny because the guy isn't a Christian, doesn't participate in anything that relates to a Christian belief, but proceed to tell everyone what they believed in. Even funnier considering the vast variety amongst Christians and the different denominations that have different beliefs.
I know what Ad Hominem is and I'm not dumb enough to do it. I wasn't attacking a person. Merely stating an observation and my reflection on it.

They don't have to participate in such belief to say or even correct what someone believes in. You don't have to attack a person to commit an ad hominem. Attacking a group also falls in that fallacy.

[stealthmongoose]

Christien Chalfant

Stahlherz

Christien Chalfant

It's always funny when the Atheists come out to tell Christians on their beliefs lol.

Truth knows no religion, or political stance, or ideology. It just is. If what you said is to knock off atheists for being atheists, then you have committed an ad hominem.

You're being way too serious buddy. I'm merely stating that all the Atheists I've encountered love to tell people what their beliefs actually are when they are not participating in that belief.
For instance, a Marxist in my Sociology class the other day generalized all of Christianity into a couple beliefs and then told everyone what Christians believed in and how they were all blasphemous. It's funny because the guy isn't a Christian, doesn't participate in anything that relates to a Christian belief, but proceed to tell everyone what they believed in. Even funnier considering the vast variety amongst Christians and the different denominations that have different beliefs.
I know what Ad Hominem is and I'm not dumb enough to do it. I wasn't attacking a person. Merely stating an observation and my reflection on it.

Your argument authority falls flat when you fail to realize that a belief based upon written ideas has a definite set of precepts and rules which can be referenced at any time by anyone, believer or otherwise.

Barring a lack of understanding in the language in which the book is printed in, anyone can understand the message of the Bible and by that virtue the standards by which Christianity binds itself.

The day Christians as a whole or a majority denounce the Bible as their authority and instruction as to God's will is the day they can claim that only Christians can understand the Christian perspective.

Until then, you're making a No True Scottsman fallacy on top of your Ad Hominem in relevance to what can or cannot be comprehended about a set of beliefs or an established faith system/institution.

[MitzieMadLove]

No. Jesus is not God. He is the son of God, the Messiah (Christ.)
I've never seen him say in the Bible that he is God. He's our savior, our King.

[Christien Chalfant]

stealthmongoose

Your argument authority falls flat when you fail to realize that a belief based upon written ideas has a definite set of precepts and rules which can be referenced at any time by anyone, believer or otherwise.

Barring a lack of understanding in the language in which the book is printed in, anyone can understand the message of the Bible and by that virtue the standards by which Christianity binds itself.

The day Christians as a whole or a majority denounce the Bible as their authority and instruction as to God's will is the day they can claim that only Christians can understand the Christian perspective.

Until then, you're making a No True Scottsman fallacy on top of your Ad Hominem in relevance to what can or cannot be comprehended about a set of beliefs or an established faith system/institution.

Not quite, there is not a definite set of precepts and rules that are written that apply to all of Christians that the Atheists I've met address. Sure there is One God, Jesus as the Messiah, Ten Commandments, Beatitudes, things like that, but these militant Atheists don't address those. They address specific beliefs that belong to one denomination and try to adhere them to all denominations. It's fallacious.
I would disagree that anyone can understand the message of the Bible. It's disputed among Christians which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical, which parts are completely prophetic, and what the actual historical context of the passages were at the time they were written. For instance the famed part of the Bible that says a man shall not lie with a man is more referencing temple prostitution and not romantic relationships or marriage at all. So my point is that if it's disputed among Christians, then it cannot be blatantly obvious for people who are non-Christian to understand it so clearly, unless this person or persons is somewhat brilliant beyond capacity.
I am a Christian of a lesser known denomination and we do not use the Bible as our only authority. Yeah we think the Bible is important, but we use another book as our main authority. I would also argue that Christians who take the Bible explicitly as God's will are ignoring the fact that if they believe that God can communicate with humans, then it's more proper to take God's direct instruction than the Bible's (whose context and interpretation is disputed among Christians as I said.)
Eh no not really. I have not attacked Atheists because of their belief, I simply think and said that it's funny when Atheists want to tell Christians what they believe in. It's not really No True Scotsman either because Christian is a broad term and I acknowledge that there is variance within the religion into multitudinous denominations. If it was No True Scotsman then I would be picking which denominations and such, I'm not doing that. I didn't say that Atheists can't comprehend Christian belief(s), just that it's funny when the Atheists want to tell the Christians what they believe in when they have never been a practicing Christian.
As a Christian I think it's wrong for me to go to a Muslim and tell them what they believe in, a Buddhist and tell them what they believe in, any other belief is the same way. I still won't go to an Atheist and tell them what they believe in either, because I'm not a practicing Atheist (or is that a non-practicer. Is there a better title for that?) nor do I know anything related to Atheist non-belief or partial belief of any sort.
The Atheists that I speak of are militant, aggressive, and not knowledgeable on Christianity and it's variable. I did not attack them. Merely spoke truths. If they are militant, I can't help that, if they're speaking on a topic they have no theological or intellectual knowledge on, it's funny and silly.