Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No the conclusion is that the resurrected ANOINTED ONE OF GOD cause Thomas to call Him (Jesus) O THEOS MOU . . . THE GOD of me. Nuff said. You can argue with John . . .I think your missing the point....brother..... the conclusion to the matter is that Jesus is the anointed one of God and son of God....
Trinitarians just don't get the point!!!!!
There is no one quite like you... but I can claim to be equal to you!!!
"God," in this time period, referred to the father, as you affirm it still only does. If Jesus had said "I am God," he would have said he was the father, which is wrong by all accounts, trinitarian and non-trinitarian. You expect him to say it if you are to accept the trinity, but if He did say, it, it would disprove the trinity and prove modalism. He couldn't have said anything short, concise, and pithy to explain the nature of the Godhead, because technical language had not yet been created to destcribe it. Accordingly, all we have are statements that seem to conflict, like "The father is greater than I" and "I and the father are one," which do the job that we would use more technical language for."I am God was never said by Christ."
No the conclusion is that the resurrected ANOINTED ONE OF GOD cause Thomas to call Him (Jesus) O THEOS MOU . . . THE GOD of me. Nuff said. You can argue with John . . .
Thomas knew full well that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and he knew full well, just like all the disciples that Jesus was not God!!!Are you getting the point? The objection is that Thomas called him his God. Jesus being the Messiah of God does not explain why Thomas can call him "God."
Are you getting the point? The objection is that Thomas called him his God. Jesus being the Messiah of God does not explain why Thomas can call him "God."
Well no, the OP does not assume the account true. That's why they are basically asking, how do Christians come to that conclusion. The name of the thread is Did Jesus claim divinity, which is not a claim, it's a question and their follow on threads take issue with the claim. So no, they are not assuming the account true either.My point is that you don't believe the Scriptures anyway . . . so why then are you arguing in an OP that ASSUMES THE ACCOUNT IS TRUE?
The OP is taking for granted that the text is NOT in error . . . and trying to argue some other interpretation while still seeing the text as TRUE.
Don't know what you mean by "compatible" but the John Gospel lays out a complete different Jesus then the others. That is why even Theological seminary school academics seperate the other three Gospels from John. That is why they are considered "Synoptic" as in a similar Jesus. That is my point so I guess all those devout Christians who understand the vast difference in Jesus from the synoptics to John are disengenuous too.YOU don't even see the text as true because of your presuppositions about cultural inventions . . . (hence "higher Jesus" vs "synoptic Jesus" . . . which BTW is such a false dichotomy . . . Johannine Christology and the Christ in Mat, Mark and Luke are quite compatible). That is disengenuous.
I have. I have said it is not a direct claim and stated why it is not a direct claim.At least argue whatever it is you want to argue assuming the truth of the passage . . . as everyone else has been doing (at least at the time that I had made the comment . . . seems things have derailed).
No....it's not. A play on words used indirectly is a claim given the iterature, but it is still an inference claim. On it's face it's an odd claim. It requires the antagonist to infer the "I AM" statement is in reference to the "I AM THAT I AM" from Exodus, and needs the reaction of the antagonists to make the inference known. These three aspects to decifer a claim is by no means a direct claim.For all the knowledge you have about certain circles of literary criticisms . . . it seems that they never informed you about literary apparati. A play on words is still a direct claim . . . THAT IS THE POINT OF THE PLAY. The point was QUITE clear . . . hence the pharissess dont ask for clarification.
You know, I did not say that Jesus said I am God word for word. I said that he said 'I am' which is what I was asking you to explain.Oh dear... The words, "I am" and "God" were never put together in a sentence by Jesus.
Hence, Jesus never said the sentence "I AM GOD."
Then you just admitted that Jesus thought He was God. Thus, Jesus' 'I am' statements mean the same thing as 'I am God' given their cultural reference and Scriptural reference to Exodus where God tells Moses 'I AM'. Please be more consistent in your posts, you might confuse people.The Jews' wanted to stone Jesus for making himself equal to God!
Sorry, but I do not see any sources or anything to back your claims. I therefore, being a critical thinker, must reject them.Thomas knew full well that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and he knew full well, just like all the disciples that Jesus was not God!!!
All the words that Thomas had spoken were recorded . But what was not recorded was the scene setting and the physical actions.
Thomas said to Jesus, My Lord Then he raised his arms and eyes to the heavens and said, My God
At that moment he was thanking God, who he knew had raised Jesus His Son, back to life.
Well, it's useless to refer to non christian books....
The Father is the almighty God...... He is the only one.....right????
Hm... That was the exact point - to demonstrate for you that not ONLY Christians made the claim that Jesus was divine - but EVEN non-Christians have observed and reached that conclusion: that early Christians looked upon Jesus as divine...
I'm sorry to see that you find my provision of evidence as "useless". You should instead be grateful that I care to back up my claims by providing not only Biblical evidence, but also historical one - which being non-Christian can not be thought to contain bias of any Christian theological party.
Pliny was simply not a Christian and he watched the Christians of his time and wrote down what he saw them do (no doubt he considered Christians and their likes as simple scum).
Yes, the Father is the allmighty God, and above I gave evidence from non-Christian sources to back up what the Bible already has spoken about several times.
Best,
Disippelen
Well brother, I don't see anything wrong with what you posted today.
You cannot expect anyone to take you seriously if you do not do your homework to back your claims. I thank God for critical thinking more than I do free will.LOL... accept... reject... Thank God for free will.
Why would I expect someone with an opposing opinion to take me seriously?You cannot expect anyone to take you seriously if you do not do your homework to back your claims. I thank God for critical thinking more than I do free will.
Why would I expect someone with an opposing opinion to take me seriously?
After all, I don't take you seriously, but I don't carp on about it as you do!
Take a chill pill.
If I was not taking you seriously I would not have the decency to point out the flaws in your arguments and claims. If I was not taking you seriously, I would do you disrespect and simply laugh at them, mock them, ignore them, or start attacking your character- all of which are immature choices. What is your choice?Why would I expect someone with an opposing opinion to take me seriously?
After all, I don't take you seriously, but I don't carp on about it as you do!
Take a chill pill.
If I was not taking you seriously I would not have the decency to point out the flaws in your arguments and claims. If I was not taking you seriously, I would do you disrespect and simply laugh at them, mock them, ignore them, or start attacking your character- all of which are immature choices. What is your choice?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?