Did Jesus teach he was GOD himself?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
why would you even think that I think that YESHUA did anything wrong.. I at least have His Real True Hebrew Name.... you should go back to your homosexual and pedophilic RCC edited... His Real true Name is Yeshua!!!

Why on God's green earth would anyone care that Jesus' "Real True Hebrew Name" is Yeshua? Such is true and irrelevant to our lives today. John and Matthew, both disciples, along with James and Jude, his literal brothers, wrote NT books and called him Ἰησοῦ. If they had no problem translating his name into Greek, why should we care if it was translated again into English as Jesus. Yes, his disciples likely called him Yeshua, so I have His Real True Hebrew Name too. I'm simply don't care enough to only use it, and it seems the writers of the NT agree with me.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
He never called Himself GOD at all, so if that is true where is the passage, show us your passage where He is supposed to have done this, eg' " I am God! " no, no such verse or passages ? The Jews ( leaders also ) were full of hypocrisy .

"He never called Himself GOD at all". And? What is the functional difference between calling yourself God and "making yourself out to be God"? Functionally, there is no difference. On the other hand, he called himself "the Lord of the Sabbath". I do believe every thinking person would say God is the Lord of the Sabbath given that God literally established the Sabbath by writing it onto stone tablets himself. And, you have all the passages where his disciples teach that he is God in the NT. Frankly, that you use this trope—Jesus needs to have said "I am God" or else he can't be God—as evidence undermines any credibility you have as a thoughtful person who's opinions are worthy of consideration. A better approach would be saying that you just can't get past the idea that Jesus never said something like "I am God".

Also, statements like "The Jews ( leaders also ) were full of hypocrisy ." are equally problematic. You are shutting down the conversation before considering the merits of the argument being presented. For example in John 5:18, the speaker isn't the Jews. v18 is commentary added by the author, John, to explain why the Jew were upset. John says the Jews were upset because Jesus "was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." In other words, John's opinion of what Jesus did to piss off the Jews was that Jesus "was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John didn't say the Jews thought "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John says the Jews were upset because Jesus "was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.". Maybe, you shouldn't shut down the conversation before interacting with the passages in question.

Now, you might say that you've had tons of these conversations before and have already found them to be in error or weak, but the way you responded says you've never seriously interacted with any of these passages. In John 12:41, John even says Isaiah saw Jesus' Glory in Isaiah 6. You know when Isaiah said "In the year that King Uzziah died I tsaw the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple...." Whenever, you want to interact with the NT in a serious way, have at it. Blowing off verses like you did above will get you nowhere.

30 I and the Father are one." lol your suppositions are at it again..

A vacuous response that only shows contempt for those who take Scripture seriously.

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever. Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.. are we calling ourselves God too ?

Non-Sequitur. How does Jesus talking about sending the HS to dwell in Christians have anything to do with us calling ourselves God too? A Christian indwelt by the HS can't say "I and the Father are one." as Jesus did in John 10:30.

In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you ?
I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.


This passage has a radically different context from John 10. Are you trying to tell me that you don't read things in context? Wow. John 10 is about the Father and the Son being one in the act of securing salvation for Christians. John 17 is prayer of Jesus to the Father for communal unity among Christians. These contexts couldn't be further apart. Talk about presenting nonsense,

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you..

Okay, how is this passage relevant? This passage simply says if the HS dwells in you, then you will be resurrected to glory. No meaningful application here.

I really think you need to slow down and think through what we are saying so that you can make meaningful statements.


God Bless
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
He never called Himself GOD at all, so if that is true where is the passage, show us your passage where He is supposed to have done this, eg' " I am God! " no, no such verse or passages ? The Jews ( leaders also ) were full of hypocrisy .

Why do you reject the rest of the Bible?
Why do you not care that Peter, Paul, Thomas, John, and Luke call Him "God" in inspired Scripture?

30 I and the Father are one." lol your suppositions are at it again..
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever.

Why did the Jews try to stone Jesus in John 10:31-33?:

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

The Jews knew what Jesus was claiming, even if you don't.
 

rossh

Well-known member
"He never called Himself GOD at all". And? What is the functional difference between calling yourself God and "making yourself out to be God"? Functionally, there is no difference. On the other hand, he called himself "the Lord of the Sabbath". I do believe every thinking person would say God is the Lord of the Sabbath given that God literally established the Sabbath by writing it onto stone tablets himself. And, you have all the passages where his disciples teach that he is God in the NT. Frankly, that you use this trope—Jesus needs to have said "I am God" or else he can't be God—as evidence undermines any credibility you have as a thoughtful person who's opinions are worthy of consideration. A better approach would be saying that you just can't get past the idea that Jesus never said something like "I am God".

Also, statements like "The Jews ( leaders also ) were full of hypocrisy ." are equally problematic. You are shutting down the conversation before considering the merits of the argument being presented. For example in John 5:18, the speaker isn't the Jews. v18 is commentary added by the author, John, to explain why the Jew were upset. John says the Jews were upset because Jesus "was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." In other words, John's opinion of what Jesus did to piss off the Jews was that Jesus "was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John didn't say the Jews thought "he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John says the Jews were upset because Jesus "was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.". Maybe, you shouldn't shut down the conversation before interacting with the passages in question.

Now, you might say that you've had tons of these conversations before and have already found them to be in error or weak, but the way you responded says you've never seriously interacted with any of these passages. In John 12:41, John even says Isaiah saw Jesus' Glory in Isaiah 6. You know when Isaiah said "In the year that King Uzziah died I tsaw the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple...." Whenever, you want to interact with the NT in a serious way, have at it. Blowing off verses like you did above will get you nowhere.



A vacuous response that only shows contempt for those who take Scripture seriously.



Non-Sequitur. How does Jesus talking about sending the HS to dwell in Christians have anything to do with us calling ourselves God too? A Christian indwelt by the HS can't say
"I and the Father are one." as Jesus did in John 10:30.




This passage has a radically different context from John 10. Are you trying to tell me that you don't read things in context? Wow. John 10 is about the Father and the Son being one in the act of securing salvation for Christians. John 17 is prayer of Jesus to the Father for communal
unity among Christians. These contexts couldn't be further apart. Talk about presenting nonsense,



Okay, how is this passage relevant? This passage simply says if the HS dwells in you, then you will be resurrected to glory. No meaningful application here.

I really think you need to slow down and think through what we are saying so that you can make meaningful statements.


God Bless
by that question, do you mean, " why do I NOT quote the entire Scriptures in my reply post/s ? " I am sure that even YOU can understand why, I could try though but would it make aby difference to your thoughts about the Bible as YOU see it ?.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
he called himself "the Lord of the Sabbath". I do believe every thinking person would say God is the Lord of the Sabbath given that God literally established the Sabbath by writing it onto stone tablets himself.
Except that Jesus points out that "The Sabbath was made for MAN...etc." who is lord over the Sabbath, rather than the Sabbath being lorded over man.
you just can't get past the idea that Jesus never said something like "I am God".
It does seem to follow if one is God. Why not point it out if it's truly important for anyone to know?
Non-Sequitur. How does Jesus talking about sending the HS to dwell in Christians have anything to do with us calling ourselves God too? A Christian indwelt by the HS can't say "I and the Father are one." as Jesus did in John 10:30.
Jesus points out that just as the father is in the son, and he in the father (which is exactly why he's considered God), so too shall his followers be in him, and he in them. So when you have seen the son, you've seen the father, and when you've seen a follower of Christ, you've seen Christ. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Many have noted that Jesus condescended to enter into human form to draw us into union with him and the Father through the Spirit allowing us to share in his divinity. So yeah, that makes all who are in Christ divine.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
by that question, do you mean, " why do I NOT quote the entire Scriptures in my reply post/s ? " I am sure that even YOU can understand why, I could try though but would it make aby difference to your thoughts about the Bible as YOU see it ?.

You clearly didn't read a single thing I wrote. Your arguments stink, and everyone knows it. Whenever, you want to interact with the NT in a serious way, have at it. Blowing off verses like you did above will get you nowhere.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
he called himself "the Lord of the Sabbath". I do believe every thinking person would say God is the Lord of the Sabbath given that God literally established the Sabbath by writing it onto stone tablets himself.
Except that Jesus points out that "The Sabbath was made for MAN...etc." who is lord over the Sabbath, rather than the Sabbath being lorded over man.

How is "The Sabbath was made for MAN..." applicable at all? The sabbath was established by YHWH on mount Sinai, therefore YHWH is the Lord of the Sabbath; but, Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, Jesus must be YHWH, This is a simple straight forward logical argument. Pointing out that the sabbath was made for man's benefit doesn't change anything. It simply points out why Jesus established the sabbath.

BTW, interpreting Mark 2:27 to mean the sabbath was made for the man Jesus to lord over as opposed to the sabbath being made to lord over Jesus is outrageous. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." means the purpose of the Sabbath was to be for humanities benefit as opposed to being an onerous rule God arbitrarily placed on Israel to simply follow.

you just can't get past the idea that Jesus never said something like "I am God".
It does seem to follow if one is God. Why not point it out if it's truly important for anyone to know?

That's easy. It does not seem to follow if one is God in a Trinitarian framework. Statements like "I am God" could lead credence to Modalism. Saying things like Jesus is "the Lord of the Sabbath" makes Jesus God without unnecessarily confusing the reader. So, it's important to know, but it's equally important not to have other errant perspectives. In Scripture, the Father is God; the Son is Lord. YHWH's two most prolific titles used almost exclusively in Scripture to designate each as YHWH while distinguishing between them. It's almost like Scripture was trying to teach Trinitarianism.

Non-Sequitur. How does Jesus talking about sending the HS to dwell in Christians have anything to do with us calling ourselves God too? A Christian indwelt by the HS can't say "I and the Father are one." as Jesus did in John 10:30.
Jesus points out that just as the father is in the son, and he in the father (which is exactly why he's considered God), so too shall his followers be in him, and he in them. So when you have seen the son, you've seen the father, and when you've seen a follower of Christ, you've seen Christ. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Many have noted that Jesus condescended to enter into human form to draw us into union with him and the Father through the Spirit allowing us to share in his divinity. So yeah, that makes all who are in Christ divine.

In John 10, Jesus did not point out "that just as the father is in the son, and he in the father which is exactly why he's considered God". Why are you pulling from John 14 as to interact with a verse from ch10? BTW, no Trinitarian I know would say Jesus is considered God because "the father is in the son, and he in the father" because as you say that would make us God too given John 14's context. John 14:20 is all about the unity we have with Christ and the Father. There are no ontological implications that can be drawn from such. John 10:30 teaches that Jesus is God by nature because contextually Jesus is saying that he is one with the Father in the act of securing salvation for Christians:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
This is why I said this argument was a non-sequitur. Drawing acontextual implications from other passages to refute a contextually derived argument without justifying anything along the way isn't rational. The logic simply doesn't follow. There is no reason to interpret John 14 as saying God = Jesus, Jesus = Christians, and so Christians are God. All one has to do is not misinterpret John 14, and your argument has been completely refuted. Why don't we interpret John 10:30 as we interpret John 14:20? Because they have different contexts. This means each verse should be interpreted independently from each other. Given this, your whole argument has been gutted of any significance.

FYI, never use divine without defining what you mean. The clause
"that makes all who are in Christ divine." doesn't communicate anything to the reader without a clarification on what divine means. Orthodox Christians talk about becoming divine all the time, but what they mean is equivalent to what Protestants like me call sanctification. While Protestants like me practically only use divine as applying to the only true God. In really, any Christian who talks about sharing divinity is not talking about becoming actually God like Jesus is God. Therefore, this line of reasoning is empty as well.

God Bless
 
G

guest1

Guest
How is "The Sabbath was made for MAN..." applicable at all? The sabbath was established by YHWH on mount Sinai, therefore YHWH is the Lord of the Sabbath; but, Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, Jesus must be YHWH, This is a simple straight forward logical argument. Pointing out that the sabbath was made for man's benefit doesn't change anything. It simply points out why Jesus established the sabbath.

BTW, interpreting Mark 2:27 to mean the sabbath was made for the man Jesus to lord over as opposed to the sabbath being made to lord over Jesus is outrageous. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." means the purpose of the Sabbath was to be for humanities benefit as opposed to being an onerous rule God arbitrarily placed on Israel to simply follow.



That's easy. It does not seem to follow if one is God in a Trinitarian framework. Statements like "I am God" could lead credence to Modalism. Saying things like Jesus is "the Lord of the Sabbath" makes Jesus God without unnecessarily confusing the reader. So, it's important to know, but it's equally important not to have other errant perspectives. In Scripture, the Father is God; the Son is Lord. YHWH's two most prolific titles used almost exclusively in Scripture to designate each as YHWH while distinguishing between them. It's almost like Scripture was trying to teach Trinitarianism.



In John 10, Jesus did not point out "that just as the father is in the son, and he in the father which is exactly why he's considered God". Why are you pulling from John 14 as to interact with a verse from ch10? BTW, no Trinitarian I know would say Jesus is considered God because "the father is in the son, and he in the father" because as you say that would make us God too given John 14's context. John 14:20 is all about the unity we have with Christ and the Father. There are no ontological implications that can be drawn from such. John 10:30 teaches that Jesus is God by nature because contextually Jesus is saying that he is one with the Father in the act of securing salvation for Christians:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
This is why I said this argument was a non-sequitur. Drawing acontextual implications from other passages to refute a contextually derived argument without justifying anything along the way isn't rational. The logic simply doesn't follow. There is no reason to interpret John 14 as saying God = Jesus, Jesus = Christians, and so Christians are God. All one has to do is not misinterpret John 14, and your argument has been completely refuted. Why don't we interpret John 10:30 as we interpret John 14:20? Because they have different contexts. This means each verse should be interpreted independently from each other. Given this, your whole argument has been gutted of any significance.

FYI, never use divine without defining what you mean. The clause
"that makes all who are in Christ divine." doesn't communicate anything to the reader without a clarification on what divine means. Orthodox Christians talk about becoming divine all the time, but what they mean is equivalent to what Protestants like me call sanctification. While Protestants like me practically only use divine as applying to the only true God. In really, any Christian who talks about sharing divinity is not talking about becoming actually God like Jesus is God. Therefore, this line of reasoning is empty as well.

God Bless
Ditto well said
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
How is "The Sabbath was made for MAN..." applicable at all?
Because it explicitly states that it was made FOR all of humanity. We are all lord of the Sabbath.
The sabbath was established by YHWH on mount Sinai,
YHWH created the Sabbath on the seventh day of creation FOR humanity to rest.
therefore YHWH is the Lord of the Sabbath;
Non Sequitur. Here's what the text actually states: " The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is LORD also of the sabbath." In case you weren't aware, we're all sons of men.
but, Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath.
He also explicitly points out that the Sabbath was made FOR all men.
Therefore, Jesus must be YHWH,
Fallacy of the Non Sequitur.
This is a simple straight forward logical argument.
It's a simple straightforward logical fallacy.
Pointing out that the sabbath was made for man's benefit doesn't change anything.
It points out explicitly what the purpose of the Sabbath is, i.e. FOR MAN who is lord of the Sabbath rather than the Sabbath being lorded over man.
It simply points out why Jesus established the sabbath.
Jesus didn't establish the Sabbath.
BTW, interpreting Mark 2:27 to mean the sabbath was made for the man Jesus to lord over as opposed to the sabbath being made to lord over Jesus is outrageous.
I agree. I never made that claim either.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." means the purpose of the Sabbath was to be for humanities benefit as opposed to being an onerous rule God arbitrarily placed on Israel to simply follow.
Again, couldn't agree more.
That's easy. It does not seem to follow if one is God in a Trinitarian framework. Statements like "I am God" could lead credence to Modalism.
This is just as true without those statements though, especially given that you're effectively saying that he has claimed to be God.
Saying things like Jesus is "the Lord of the Sabbath" makes Jesus God
Nope. This is also a Non Sequitur. I can say that I am lord of the Sabbath, and it certainly doesn't suggest that I'm God.
YHWH's two most prolific titles used almost exclusively in Scripture to designate each as YHWH
Titles should never be conflated with what or who they represent. In other words, the title is not YHWH, but YHWH's title. The same holds true for God's image who is Christ.
It's almost like Scripture was trying to teach Trinitarianism.
Almost isn't.
In John 10, Jesus did not point out "that just as the father is in the son, and he in the father which is exactly why he's considered God".
It's used quite frequently to support the doctrine of the Trinity.
Why are you pulling from John 14 as to interact with a verse from ch10?
Why not? It fits quite well.
BTW, no Trinitarian I know would say Jesus is considered God because "the father is in the son, and he in the father"
It's where the creed comes up with the doctrine, e.g. "one in being with the father" That's an integral feature of the doctrine, and used by quite a few Trinitarian Christians.
because as you say that would make us God
Agreed. Glad you are finally using some logic.
John 14:20 is all about the unity we have with Christ and the Father. There are no ontological implications that can be drawn from such.
Why would you say that? Is the baby stirring within its mother's womb less of a human being than its mother?
John 10:30 teaches that Jesus is God by nature because contextually Jesus is saying that he is one with the Father in the act of securing salvation for Christians:
There are plenty who have spent their lives securing salvation for others. That doesn't make them ontologically God. The same holds true for Christ.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
This is why I said this argument was a non-sequitur.
I'm not sure why you're quoting that passage.
There is no reason to interpret John 14 as saying God = Jesus, Jesus = Christians, and so Christians are God.
I'm not actually saying that. I'm pointing out exactly what Jesus is pointing out which is that just as the Father is in Christ, and Christ in the father, so too are Christ's followers in Christ and he in them. It necessarily follows that if you have seen a follower of Christ, you have seen Christ who is the image of God himself!
All one has to do is not misinterpret John 14,
Fallacy of Begging the Question.

Why don't we interpret John 10:30 as we interpret John 14:20? Because they have different contexts. This means each verse should be interpreted independently from each other.
No. The biblical authors point out that one needs to "rightly divide the word", and the words of John 10:30 do not occur in a vacuum.
FYI, never use divine without defining what you mean.
Never assume that I am using terms outside of their commonly known definitions.
The clause "that makes all who are in Christ divine." doesn't communicate anything to the reader
without a clarification on what divine means.
Again, I'm not making up definitions for words. Those who don't know the definitions of words can look them up for themselves.
Orthodox Christians talk about becoming divine all the time, but what they mean is equivalent to what Protestants like me call sanctification. While Protestants like me practically only use divine as applying to the only true God. In really, any Christian who talks about sharing divinity is not talking about becoming actually God like Jesus is God. Therefore, this line of reasoning is empty as well.
True, but only if I believed that Jesus claimed to be God. Given that he never does, my point stands.
God Bless
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Because it explicitly states that it was made FOR all of humanity. We are all lord of the Sabbath.

YHWH created the Sabbath on the seventh day of creation FOR humanity to rest.

Non Sequitur. Here's what the text actually states: " The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is LORD also of the sabbath." In case you weren't aware, we're all sons of men.

He also explicitly points out that the Sabbath was made FOR all men.

Fallacy of the Non Sequitur.

It's a simple straightforward logical fallacy.

It points out explicitly what the purpose of the Sabbath is, i.e. FOR MAN who is lord of the Sabbath rather than the Sabbath being lorded over man.

Jesus didn't establish the Sabbath.

I agree. I never made that claim either.

Again, couldn't agree more.

This is just as true without those statements though, especially given that you're effectively saying that he has claimed to be God.

Nope. This is also a Non Sequitur. I can say that I am lord of the Sabbath, and it certainly doesn't suggest that I'm God.

Titles should never be conflated with what or who they represent. In other words, the title is not YHWH, but YHWH's title. The same holds true for God's image who is Christ.

Almost isn't.

It's used quite frequently to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

Why not? It fits quite well.

It's where the creed comes up with the doctrine, e.g. "one in being with the father" That's an integral feature of the doctrine, and used by quite a few Trinitarian Christians.

Agreed. Glad you are finally using some logic.

Why would you say that? Is the baby stirring within its mother's womb less of a human being than its mother?

There are plenty who have spent their lives securing salvation for others. That doesn't make them ontologically God. The same holds true for Christ.

I'm not sure why you're quoting that passage.

I'm not actually saying that. I'm pointing out exactly what Jesus is pointing out which is that just as the Father is in Christ, and Christ in the father, so too are Christ's followers in Christ and he in them. It necessarily follows that if you have seen a follower of Christ, you have seen Christ who is the image of God himself!

Fallacy of Begging the Question.



No. The biblical authors point out that one needs to "rightly divide the word", and the words of John 10:30 do not occur in a vacuum.

Never assume that I am using terms outside of their commonly known definitions.


Again, I'm not making up definitions for words. Those who don't know the definitions of words can look them up for themselves.

True, but only if I believed that Jesus claimed to be God. Given that he never does, my point stands.
God ALONE is The Lord of the Sabbath.
Asserting all men are lords of the Sabbath is asinine nonsense.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Because it explicitly states that it was made FOR all of humanity. We are all lord of the Sabbath.

We all being Lord of the Sabbath does not follow from Scripture.

Non Sequitur. Here's what the text actually states: " The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is LORD also of the sabbath." In case you weren't aware, we're all sons of men.

My conclusion is based upon what YHWH did in Exodus. Myopically refusing to follow what I'm saying doesn't prove my reasoning was faulty. Mark 2:20 does not teach all men are lords of the Sabbath. You are simply interpreting the verse incorrectly. Besides, we are talking about "the Son of Man", not sons of men. We are talking about the Lord of the Sabbath, not lords of the sabbath. Can you make a larger category error?

Fallacy of the Non Sequitur.

Given that YHWH is the Lord of the Sabbath has been established by Exodus and Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath established by his own words in Luke 6:5, and the logic of A = B and B = C then A = C, this argument is valid. You can disagree with my interpretation of these texts, but the logic is clearly sound.

It points out explicitly what the purpose of the Sabbath is, i.e. FOR MAN who is lord of the Sabbath rather than the Sabbath being lorded over man.

It points out that the Sabbath is for man; it does not point out that every man is Lord of the Sabbath. Stop misinterpreting Scripture.

Again, couldn't agree more.

Then, why are you adding to this that all men are lords of the Sabbath? If "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." means the purpose of the Sabbath was to be for humanities benefit as opposed to being an onerous rule God arbitrarily placed on Israel to simply follow, then it doesn't teach that Jesus' title as Lord of the Sabbath can be applied to all men.

This is just as true without those statements though, especially given that you're effectively saying that he has claimed to be God.

That men can twist any verse into heresy doesn't mean it's illegitimate for Jesus to carefully pick his words as to minimize such.

Nope. This is also a Non Sequitur. I can say that I am lord of the Sabbath, and it certainly doesn't suggest that I'm God.

You cannot legitimately says "I am lord of the Sabbath." Stop blaspheming God based upon misinterpreting Mark 2:20.

Titles should never be conflated with what or who they represent. In other words, the title is not YHWH, but YHWH's title. The same holds true for God's image who is Christ.

An empty assertion given to ignore the potency of what Scripture says.

It's used quite frequently to support the doctrine of the Trinity.

Irrelevant. You made a false claim to justify your heresies. Your guilt or innocence is not based upon what others supposedly do.

Why not? It fits quite well.

Why not? Because, that's eisegesis, reading thing into the text as opposed to getting your ideas from the text, aka abusing the text.

BTW, no Trinitarian I know would say Jesus is considered God because "the father is in the son, and he in the father"
It's where the creed comes up with the doctrine, e.g. "one in being with the father" That's an integral feature of the doctrine, and used by quite a few Trinitarian Christians.

You are factually wrong at this point. Perhaps, you should pay closer attention to what Trinitarians say.

Why would you say that? Is the baby stirring within its mother's womb less of a human being than its mother?

That's not the unity the text is talking about. Therefore, your interpretive skills fail you again.

There are plenty who have spent their lives securing salvation for others. That doesn't make them ontologically God. The same holds true for Christ.

As if there is any meaningful comparison between what humans do here on earth and what is described in John 10.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

This is why I said this argument was a non-sequitur.

I'm not sure why you're quoting that passage.

And, that's your problem. You've been to busy trying to refute me that you failed to pay attention to what I'm actually arguing.

I'm not actually saying that. I'm pointing out exactly what Jesus is pointing out which is that just as the Father is in Christ, and Christ in the father, so too are Christ's followers in Christ and he in them. It necessarily follows that if you have seen a follower of Christ, you have seen Christ who is the image of God himself!

Then why did you say "If A = B, and B = C, then A = C." right after you said the above last time. Those are your words. Perhaps, you should reread the context of what I'm replying to before responding.

No. The biblical authors point out that one needs to "rightly divide the word", and the words of John 10:30 do not occur in a vacuum.

Yes, we need to "rightly divide the word". But, immediate context always trumps passages that are in a different area talking about a different topic. The immediate context of each passage says these verses are talking about different things. One cannot rightly divide the word if one ignores such.

True, but only if I believed that Jesus claimed to be God. Given that he never does, my point stands.

Only if you twist every single passage that teaches otherwise:

John: "and the Word was God" (John 1:1);
Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58);
Thomas calling Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28);
Paul: "the church of God, which He bought with His own blood" (Acts 20:28);
Paul: "the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." (Rom. 9:5);
Paul: "the kingdom of the Christ and God" (Eph. 5:5);
Paul: "[Christ Jesus] though He was in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6);
Paul: "in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9);
Paul: "our God and Lord, Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 1:12);
Paul: "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13);
Hebrews: "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God" (Heb. 1:8);
Peter: "the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1);
Credit to this list goes to Theo1689. I must admit I was to lazy to recreate one of my own.

God Bless
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Only if you twist every single passage that teaches otherwise:

John: "and the Word was God" (John 1:1);
Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58);
Thomas calling Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28);
Paul: "the church of God, which He bought with His own blood" (Acts 20:28);
Paul: "the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." (Rom. 9:5);
Paul: "the kingdom of the Christ and God" (Eph. 5:5);
Paul: "[Christ Jesus] though He was in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6);
Paul: "in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9);
Paul: "our God and Lord, Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 1:12);
Paul: "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13);
Hebrews: "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God" (Heb. 1:8);
Peter: "the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1);
Credit to this list goes to Theo1689. I must admit I was to lazy to recreate one of my own.

God Bless

In all fairness, formatting the different colours as you've done is time-consuming (at least it is for me).
 

rossh

Well-known member
You clearly didn't read a single thing I wrote. Your arguments stink, and everyone knows it. Whenever, you want to interact with the NT in a serious way, have at it. Blowing off verses like you did above will get you nowhere.

God Bless
Yes you are correct, I never read fiction in a religious website debating room.. Your breath stinks too but, I would never say that..
Then again, you have the nerve to say that I never quote/use/cite Scripture ???????
How does one " interact " with the New Testament " that is Gods Word not the word of men.. ( yes I know, that it has in many parts, recorded what men have said ) we are to either believe ALL of the OT and NT and act upon ALL or nothing at all.. How do you intend to continue ? Here is a good idea for you, debate Gods Word with God why don't you ?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
We all being Lord of the Sabbath does not follow from Scripture.
It not only follows from scripture, it necessarily follows logically. Again, "The Sabbath was made FOR MAN...etc"
You cannot legitimately says "I am lord of the Sabbath."
I most certainly can due to the fact that the Sabbath was made FOR human beings. It was made for my benefit just as much as anyone else who chooses to take advantage of this blessing from God.
Stop blaspheming God based upon misinterpreting Mark 2:20.
Your Ad Hominem is noted, and Ignored.
John: "and the Word was God" (John 1:1);
But he never says that God was the word. God is manifested in, with, and through Christ, yet John was probably familiar with 1 Corinthians 8: 6 which clearly distinguishes between God and Christ. Q.E.D.
Jesus: "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58);
Existence should never be conflated with origin. Again, see 1 Cor.8:6
Thomas calling Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28);
Debunked so many times, those who continue to post this are simply engaging in blatant deception.
Paul: "the church of God, which He bought with His own blood" (Acts 20:28);
This doesn't prove squat, and you know it.
Paul: "the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." (Rom. 9:5)
"Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
Paul: "the kingdom of the Christ and God" (Eph. 5:5);
The kingdom of Christ, and God.
Paul: "[Christ Jesus] though He was in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6);
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(6) Being in the form of God.—(1) The word “being” is here the more emphatic of the two words so translated, which lays stress on the reality of existence (as in Acts 16:20; Acts 17:28; 1Corinthians 11:7; Galatians 2:14). Hence it calls attention to the essential being of Christ, corresponding to the idea embodied in the name Jehovah, and thus implying what is more fully expressed in John 1:1. (2) The word “form” (which, except for a casual use in Mark 16:12, is found only in this passage of the New Testament) is to be carefully distinguished from “fashion.” There can be no doubt that in classical Greek it describes the actual specific character, which (like the structure of a material substance) makes each being what it is; and this same idea is always conveyed in the New Testament by the compound words in which the root “form” is found (Romans 8:29; Romans 12:2; 2Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 4:19). (3) On the other hand, the word “fashion,” as in 1Corinthians 7:31 (“the fashion of this world passeth away”), denotes the mere outward appearance (which we frequently designate as “form”), as will be seen also in its compounds (2Corinthians 11:13-14; 1Peter 1:14). The two words are seen in juxtaposition in Romans 12:2; Philippians 3:21 (where see Notes). Hence, in this passage the “being in the form of God,” describes our Lord’s essential, and therefore eternal, being in the true nature of God; while the “taking on Him the form of a servant” similarly refers to His voluntary assumption of the true nature of man.

"thought it not a prize to be grasped at to be equal with God," is somehow ignored by those who would rather grasp at it for him.
Paul: "in [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9);
Note the preposition "en" which denotes within, and should never be conflated with the form itself. You're conflating the contents with the container.
Paul: "our God and Lord, Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 1:12);
Our God, and Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul: "the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Tit. 2:13);
The glory of our great God, and Savior Jesus Christ. This example as well as the rest are all due to how one chooses to add their own punctuation which in many cases depends upon their preconceived ideas of the Trinity.
Hebrews: "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God" (Heb. 1:8);
Peter: "the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1);
The righteousness of our God, and Savior Jesus Christ.
"But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER,"

It doesn't get more straightforward than that. How many Gods? ONE. Who is God? THE FATHER.

"...OF whom are all things,"

Denoting the ORIGIN of everything.

".. and we in him;"

By YOUR logic, this makes us God as well!!!!

"... and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we BY him.” 1 Cor.8:6

Denoting the MEANS by which everything comes into existence.

By your logic, we can just as easily conflate origin and means as well as the father and son. You don't do this so you are being inconsistent in your logic.

Your snide remarks and Ad Hominem are becoming too tiresome for me to bother with any further. I don't see that you're here to engage in an honest discussion so may you go with God. Be blessed.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It not only follows from scripture, it necessarily follows logically. Again, "The Sabbath was made FOR MAN...etc"

I most certainly can due to the fact that the Sabbath was made FOR human beings.

The Sabbath being made for human beings is NOT the same as you being "Lord" of it.

But he never says that God was the word. God is manifested in, with, and through Christ, yet John was probably familiar with 1 Corinthians 8: 6 which clearly distinguishes between God and Christ. Q.E.D.

Wrong.
1 Cor. 8:6 distinguishes between the Father and Christ, not "God" and Christ.

1 Cor. 8:6 is an EXPANSION of the Sh'ma (Deut 6:4-5), where Paul is identifying both the Father and the Son as the one true God of Deut. 6. You may not be aware that the term, "LORD" (Hebrew, "Adonai") was used by the Jews to replace the name of God, so that they would never take His name in vain. So to a Jew, calling someone "LORD" meant they were claiming to be God.

Debunked so many times, those who continue to post this are simply engaging in blatant deception.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a "blatant deception".

For someone who whines at personal attacks, maybe you should stop giving them out? (Just sayin'.)

The kingdom of Christ, and God.

Nope.

The kingdom of THE CHRIST AND GOD.

Our God, and Lord Jesus Christ.

Nope again.
"our God and Lord, Jesus Christ".

The glory of our great God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

Wrong again.
It's "our great God and Saviour", Jesus Christ.

This example as well as the rest are all due to how one chooses to add their own punctuation which in many cases depends upon their preconceived ideas of the Trinity.

And this is where you demonstrate your ignorance of Koine Greek. It's not merely about "adding their own punctuation" (which you are in fact guilty of), it's a matter of a grammatical construct called "TSKS", or Granville Sharp's Rule.

It is a generic rule which applies in all kinds of different contexts, and you presumably accept it in ALL instances, EXCEPT when it identifies Christ as God, showing YOUR bias.

Your snide remarks and Ad Hominem

You mean like "blatant deception"?
Oops!
That was YOU, wasn't it? ;)

are becoming too tiresome for me to bother with any further.

Great.
We'll look forward to you no longer spewing any nonsense here.

I don't see that you're here to engage in an honest discussion

More personal insults by you.
Good riddance.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Exactly!
Who cares what you say, when Scripture teaches, in MANY many places, that Jesus is God?
So what? For the scripture also teaches that the devil is called the god of this world and God himself also called his own servants by his own title of "elohim" god and this is found in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 and is translated "jugdes" in the KJV and it is also found in Psalm 82:1 and 6 and which Jesus himself even quoted to the Jews who falsely accused him of calling himself God and which by the way, he never did.

Therefore, the real issue isn't about whether or not Jesus was called god, for God even called many of his way lesser servants by this title also but the real issue is that he was never called Yahweh God and neither is he ever called "The Only True God", not by his disciples nor by himself either.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
For the scripture also teaches that the devil is called the god of this world

No it doesn't...

and God himself also called his own servants by his own title of "elohim" god and this is found in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9

Yes, the term "god" can sometimes be used loosely...

Therefore, the real issue isn't about whether or not Jesus was called god, for God even called many of his way lesser servants by this title also but the real issue is that he was never called Yahweh God and neither is he every called "The Only True God" either, not by his disciples nor by himself either.

Well, He is called "god" in Rom. 9:5, 2 Thess. 1:12, Tit. 2:13, and 2 Pet. 1:1, in passages where the term "God" is used with most people understanding that to mean the one true God of creation.

It seems incredibly biased to come with the a priori belief that, "Any time Jesus is referred to as God, it can't mean the real God".
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
No it doesn't...

2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age (the Devil) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

This is a very important verse also, for it reveals the real reason why men and women do not know the truth and the real problem has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of intelligence or in academic Bible training, but it is a spiritual problem having to do with the Devil blinding their eye.

So it doesn't matter therefore how intelligent they might be or how much academic Bible training they might gain, for if God doesn't reveal the truth unto them, none of that will make any difference at all, for they will continue to remain blind despite all of that.
Yes, the term "god" can sometimes be used loosely...
The fact is, if God called his own leaders who were sinners "gods", then certainly Jesus could be called by this Title and it wouldn't me he is Yahweh God any more than it would for those leaders who were sinners either.
Well, He is called "god" in Rom. 9:5, 2 Thess. 1:12, Tit. 2:13, and 2 Pet. 1:1, in passages where the term "God" is used with most people understanding that to mean the one true God of creation.

Nope, for starting with Romans 9:5 all that is Paul is stating here is that Jesus was over all blessed by God forever.

Then in 2 Thessalonians 1:12, not when you have the word "and" or "kai" in between the words "the grace of our God and Jesus Christ", for it is clear enough here that two persons are being spoken of and not one or one being either.

Then in Titus 2:13, no but instead Jesus is being called "the glory of our Great God and Savior" and who will appear at the end of the age and this is because God's glory is manifested in Jesus, for as Paul said in another Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God".


Then in 2 Peter 1:1, instead Peter is calling Jesus "the righteousness of our God and Savior" because it is through Jesus that God's righteousness was manifested for us.

Unfortunately for Trins and oneness, at the end of this age, you are going to come the hard facts that all of your rules that you want to apply to scriptures were meaningless regarding the truth and that is because once again, the problem is not academic but spiritual and having to do with the Devil blinding the eyes of men and women and that blindness only being removed in each person if God wills it to be.



Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.


It seems incredibly biased to come with the a priori belief that, "Any time Jesus is referred to as God, it can't mean the real God".

Ah but the fact is, that most of the scriptures where you believe he was being called god, he actually wasn't at all anyhow and I just revealed this about the ones you posted above from Romans 9:5 and 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and once again, He was never called Yahweh God or The Only True God either and period.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age (the Devil) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Sorry, the verse does NOT have "the Devil" in the text.
And there's no reason to think it isn't about the God of Abraham.

Here's something you would do well to read:


Nope, for starting with Romans 9:5 all that is Paul is stating here is that Jesus was over all blessed by God forever.

Wrong again.

Rom. 9:5 ... is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. (ESV).
Rom. 9:5 ... the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! (NET)
Rom. 9:5 ... the Messiah, who is God over all, praised forever. (HCSB)

Then in 2 Thessalonians 1:12, not when you have the word "and" or "kai" in between the words "the grace of our God and Jesus Christ", for it is clear enough here that two persons are being spoken of and not one or one being either.

Sorry, you clearly don't understand Sharp's Rule.
You would have "God and Father" (Rom. 15:6) refer to two different people (because of the "kai").
You would have "Lord and Savior" (2Pet 1:1) refer to two different people (because of the "kai").
You would have "my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier" refer to three different people (because of the "kai").

Nope, sorry... That's not how it works.

When we have two singular personal nouns, of the same case, connected by "kai", and only the first one has the article, both nouns refer to the same person.

So "our God and Lord" (2 Thess. 1:12) refers to ONE person, Jesus Christ.

Then in Titus 2:13, no but instead Jesus is being called "the glory of our Great God and Savior" and who will appear at the end of the age.

Nope, Jesus is being called "our great God and Saviour", whose glory we will see (since it is Christ who will be appearing, not the Father).

Then in 2 Peter 1:1, instead Peter is calling Jesus "the righteousness of our God and Savior" because it is through Jesus that God's righteousness was manifested for us.

Nope.
According to Sharp's rule, "God and Saviour" both refer to Jesus.

Ah but the fact is, that most of the scriptures where you believe he was being called god, he actually wasn't at all anyhow and I just revealed this about the ones you posted above from Romans 9:5 and 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1

You're simply in denial because you don't know the underlying Greek, and your theological bias is blinding you.
 

Tanachreader

Well-known member
So what? For the scripture also teaches that the devil is called the god of this world and God himself also called his own servants by his own title of "elohim" god and this is found in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 and is translated "jugdes" in the KJV and it is also found in Psalm 82:1 and 6 and which Jesus himself even quoted to the Jews who falsely accused him of calling himself God and which by the way, he never did.

Therefore, the real issue isn't about whether or not Jesus was called god, for God even called many of his way lesser servants by this title also but the real issue is that he was never called Yahweh God and neither is he ever called "The Only True God", not by his disciples nor by himself either.
it is clear reading Isaiah and Revelation that God is the first and the last and He is Jesus .

Isa 41:4
Who has performed this and carried it out, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD--the first and the last--I am He."

Isa 44:6
This is what the LORD, Israel's king, says, their protector, the LORD who commands armies: "I am the first and I am the last, there is no God but me.

Revelation 1:17
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. But He placed His right hand on me and said, "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last,

Revelation 2:8
To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of the First and the Last, who died and returned to life.

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
 
Top