Did Jesus claim Divinity?

[Mathetes the kerux]

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.

I am tempted to rep you for the simple hilarity of the ridiculous posturing!

Gransville Sharp and Antecedant . . . not to mention the declinsions which seal the deal . . . the declinsion of the first "my" and "lord" are the same as the second "my" and "god" . . . sorry . . . he is speaking to the same person, namely CHRIST.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

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.

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. I have. I have said it is not a direct claim and stated why it is not a direct claim.

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.

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

I will stick with this as to not detract from the topic . . .

the reaction of the pharisees is NOT EVEN NEEDED. That is the point. The tense of eimi over against that of genesthai is ALL THAT IS NEEDED. Even if we never have the response of the pharisees this is STILL TRUE. Abraham was brought into creation (ie generated) and Christ's statement of eimi stresses NON GENERATION . . . IE I have not come into existence, I have always BEEN.

This "word-play" is NOT dependant upon the response of the Pharisees . . . it would still stand to a Greek reader whether the response given by the Pharisees is there or not.

The response simply supports the statement . . . it does not determine it.

Jesus' statement is understood as a claim to the same essence of YHWH. And this claim remains regardless of the response of the pharisees.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Those that believe Jesus is God cling to the "I am" quote with such desperation.

Jesus did not claim to be God... He did not say "I am God", as you admit. So in a desperate search thought scripture you find the "I am" line and interpret incorectly to fit your false belief.

"Before Abraham I am"... Jesus was God's first thought... Jesus was God's first creation. Jesus was before Abraham!

Jesus is God's only begotten Son... BEGOTTEN.


I don't think so... so show me where.

No, it means you don't understand!

My brother Kevin, is five years younger than me...

Before Kevin, I am...

1st Begotten (monogenes) means more appropriately UNQIUE . . . as the term is applied to David and he is CERTAINLY not the only son of Jesse.

2nd, had Jesus wanted to state simply this:

My brother Kevin, is five years younger than me...

Before Kevin, I am...

kind of a thought, He could have used the imperfect "emen" instead of the present tense "eimi" to communicate quite clearly that He had simply existed before Abraham (which would render the passage "before Abraham was I was) . . . or had He desired to commmunicate that He had come into existence before Abraham (vs simple statement OF pre-existence but a generation INTO existence prior to Abraham) He could have used the first person aortist "egonenomen" to say "before Abraham came into existence I came into existence" . . . but this is NOT what He says.

Ergo, you and your brother Kevin have no correlation to the passage of John 8:58

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Where did you get that idea? That is really quite ridiculous.... Was it so common to go around claiming to be God, that it was given the name blasphemy?

Pleaseeee..... Blasphemy takes many forms...

The Pharisees thought Jesus was claiming to be equal to God... not God...

If they thought He was claiming to be God, they would have thought Him insane!

They did . . . which is why they said He had a Samaritan Demon.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I've always been curious how Trinitarians explain Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Satan tries to tempt Jesus by offering him the world. This makes absolutely no sense if Jesus is the Creator of the universe. A created being offering God the world is a ridiculous concept...unless I'm missing something.

Being that Satan is NOT omniscient . . . there is no way he could have known that Jesus was anything but a simple man anointed to be Christ (hence the sayings of the demons "you are the holy one of God").

Satan also did not know that by murdering the Son, he was also sealing his own doom (Col 2) . . . so there are many things that Satan did not know (Eph 2) that the church is called to proclaim to the demonic realm. Add to this the deity of Christ in the man Jesus of Nazareth.

Not really a problem . . .

 

[zon3d]

Yes, Jesus many times said he was God. That is in fact why he died, for the charge of blasphemy.

 

[Gary51]

[quoteThe fact that other people claim that Jesus claimed to be God, shown to you at least twice, casts doubt on your 'proven' claim.

Wrong... no one claimed Jesus to be God... But even if they did they would be wrong.

Again, you try to go off the topic of what the Jews thought... You were the one that jumped on my case about why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. Now you are getting yourself bent out of shape again over the word equal.

You just contradicted yourself. You cannot be equal yet not equal. It is illogical and impossible.

See what I mean.... You don't even seem capable of quoting what I stated.

Equal to God and being God are the same thing.

Here we go again.... Let me add another word to see if it helps you...

The Jews wanted to stone Jesus, because they thought he was making Himself equal to God in authority.

And indeed Jesus was equal to God in that sense, as God has given Him authority.

Was Jesus equal to God, well according to Jesus, no. He said the Father is greater than Him.

But do try to grasp, this is about what the Jews thought, that is why you jumped on my butt.

They are still the same two things, not two separate and different things. They are the same. If A is equal to A, it cannot be B, so to speak.

I'm beginning to think you're funning me...

A is equal to B.... A cannot be equal to A.... Just like you cannot be equal to yourself.... Maybe you're tired!!!

So now you are implying that a crowd of Jews was crazy and were hearing things when they heard what Jesus said? Very unlikely, given that they are backed by the writings of Paul, seen in my last post.

Please try to follow what I stated.... What you claim I implied is in you head... not mine.

You keep claiming he is not God, yet you keep capitalizing 'He'. Usually people do that when they are referring to God.

Of course... He is the Son of God... and indeed we are all son's of God... But He is the only begotten Son of God.

And anyhow, you still have not proven your claim of him not being God.

Proof is something that has to be accepted through personal understanding from one own logic.

That is a different member of the Trinity. All parts of the Trinity are God, but not all parts are Jesus. Or the Father.

That is what you have accepted through your logic.

I do not get bent out of shape when people argue illogically. I do debate them and argue logically in return. Before you respond to this, you might want to add up just the Scripture that has been presented.

Presenting scripture does not furnish me with how you interpret that scripture.

 

[Disippelen]

The only way Satan can "own" the earth is if God gives it to him - unless you believe in a God who is not omnipotent. Otherwise, it is God who allows Satan to operate on the earth. So, again, Satan offering the Creator of the universe possession of his own world is ridiculous. Not only this, Satan thinks it a possiblity that Jesus (God) will worship him. LOL. This makes no sense.

Why are you making a ridicule of this serious question?

Satan once tried to depose God from his throne, but he lost and was thrown out of heaven (Rev12 etc). Why wouldn't he try to fool the incarnated one? Don't you understand what would have happened had Jesus failed? Satan would then have attained worship from God... Which would dramatically overturn the existance of the universe. Well, we can't really know what would've happened, but it's clear that Satan wanted to receive worship from Christ...

If Satan once thought it possible (or at least was driven by a hunger for power) to depose God from his throne in heaven - why shouldn't he try do more mischief?

 

[Gary51]

LOL.... Here come all the trinnies with their understandings of scripture, majority rule...

It would of course be easier to join you... but I see it differently.... sorry!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

LOL.... Here come all the trinnies with their understandings of scripture, majority rule...

It would of course be easier to join you... but I see it differently.... sorry!

Hah .. .

The Greek is the Greek Gary.

Perhaps some classes in Greek would help you . . . (I mean this will all sincerity) . . . at least then you could have some more refined arguements if your view still does not change.

I mean this with all due respect . . .

 

[Milk]

Being that Satan is NOT omniscient . . . there is no way he could have known that Jesus was anything but a simple man anointed to be Christ (hence the sayings of the demons "you are the holy one of God").

This is interesting. I haven't heard this position before. With all the amazing supernatural powers Satan has, I would think he would know that Jesus was God - especially if many mere mortals understood that Jesus was God. I would also assume that Satan was fairly familiar with Jesus - seeing that he was with him (the triune God) in heaven and tried to overthrow him. Wouldn't he be familiar with Jesus?
So, if we assume Satan didn't know who Jesus really was, you would agree that tempting Jesus (God) is a ridiculous concept? It was simply a misunderstanding on Satan's part.

 

[Milk]

Disippelen -

Satan once tried to depose God from his throne, but he lost and was thrown out of heaven (Rev12 etc).

Of course he lost, he's going against an omnipotent God. This is also a ridiculous concept.

Why wouldn't he try to fool the incarnated one?

How do you fool God? Do you see how offering the world to the Creator of the world is a silly proposition?

 

[Zebra1552]

The only way Satan can "own" the earth is if God gives it to him - unless you believe in a God who is not omnipotent. Otherwise, it is God who allows Satan to operate on the earth. So, again, Satan offering the Creator of the universe possession of his own world is ridiculous. Not only this, Satan thinks it a possiblity that Jesus (God) will worship him. LOL. This makes no sense.


You speak as if Jesus and God are two seperate beings.

I speak as if there are one in three persons of the Trinity. Argue with Scripture, not me. I did not imply that Satan is the God of this age, I pointed to where it says it in Scripture.

 

[Zebra1552]

Wrong... no one claimed Jesus to be God... But even if they did they would be wrong.

Php 2:5-7 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."

Joh 10:29-33 "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. The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

So John, Paul, the Jews, and Jesus are all wrong?

Again, you try to go off the topic of what the Jews thought... You were the one that jumped on my case about why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. Now you are getting yourself bent out of shape again over the word equal.

Do not put words in my mouth and make straw men arguments. We were talking about what the Jews thought all this time, so it is perfectly on topic, and I am not getting bent out of shape. I will not ask you again to stop making that accusation.

See what I mean.... You don't even seem capable of quoting what I stated.

Cut the personal attacks.

Here we go again.... Let me add another word to see if it helps you...

The Jews wanted to stone Jesus, because they thought he was making Himself equal to God in authority.

And indeed Jesus was equal to God in that sense, as God has given Him authority.

Was Jesus equal to God, well according to Jesus, no. He said the Father is greater than Him.

The Father is not the same as saying God is greater than Him. And under trinitarian doctrine, Jesus is both fully God and fully man. So why is it implausible to say that the man said that God is greater than man? Why is it implausible to even consider this matter under trinitarian thinking?

But do try to grasp, this is about what the Jews thought, that is why you jumped on my butt.

I asked a question. I did not jump on anything.

I'm beginning to think you're funning me...

I am trying to have a civilized conversation. This means that I am not joking around.

A is equal to B.... A cannot be equal to A.... Just like you cannot be equal to yourself.... Maybe you're tired!!!

This is illogical. You are claiming that something is not itself.

Please try to follow what I stated.... What you claim I implied is in you head... not mine.

It is in writing on this thread, not in my head. I simply read what you wrote and commented on how most people use a capital H in Him in Christian circles.

Of course... He is the Son of God... and indeed we are all son's of God... But He is the only begotten Son of God.

Hang on a minute. This is not about us being sons of God, this is about Jesus being God. Do not accuse me of getting off topic then do it yourself, that is hypocritical and unfair debate tactics.

Proof is something that has to be accepted through personal understanding from one own logic.

Look it up in Webster's. Your definition does not align with any dictionary.

That is what you have accepted through your logic.

No, I have allowed the text to speak for itself rather than trying to speak for it. My opinions have nothing to do with it.

Presenting scripture does not furnish me with how you interpret that scripture.

Neither does presenting claims furnish proof for those claims.

 

[Milk]

I speak as if there are one in three persons of the Trinity. Argue with Scripture, not me. I did not imply that Satan is the God of this age, I pointed to where it says it in Scripture.

I am arguing with your interpretation of scripture. The whole point is that the "temptation" narrative is in conflict with your understanding of Jesus as Yahweh, the one God of Israel.

 

[Zebra1552]

I am arguing with your interpretation of scripture. The whole point is that the "temptation" narrative is in conflict with your understanding of Jesus as Yahweh, the one God of Israel.

You say it is in conflict, but answer me this:
What is my understanding of it? Tell me in your own words without quoting me at all.

 

[Milk]

You say it is in conflict, but answer me this:
What is my understanding of it? Tell me in your own words without quoting me at all.

We could save a little time if you would just explain how offering the world to the creator of the world is a logical proposition. But, from what I've gathered so far, you believe that Jesus, even though he is also God, was tempted to take the world back from Satan sooner than did God the Father. I'm curious do Trinitarians believe that God has 2 or 3 wills?

 

[Epiphoskei]

We could save a little time if you would just explain how offering the world to the creator of the world is a logical proposition.

It isn't a logical proposition. Who said temptation was logical? It appeals to the "lust of the flesh," not the "reason of the mind."

But remember, there is a difference between economic and ontological nature. Ontologically, all three persons are equal. Economically, Jesus is the son and heir. It isn't rational to offer an heir his own kingdom if you sit down and think about it, but many a prince has killed his father to achieve precicely that throughout history.

 

[Gary51]

Hah .. .

The Greek is the Greek Gary.

Perhaps some classes in Greek would help you . . . (I mean this will all sincerity) . . . at least then you could have some more refined arguements if your view still does not change.

I mean this with all due respect . . .

I wondered when you'd get round to the Greek... I doubt it would make much difference to my beliefs, but thanks for the tip.

 

[Gary51]

Php 2:5-7 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."

Joh 10:29-33 "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. The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

So John, Paul, the Jews, and Jesus are all wrong?

Do not put words in my mouth and make straw men arguments. We were talking about what the Jews thought all this time, so it is perfectly on topic, and I am not getting bent out of shape. I will not ask you again to stop making that accusation.

Cut the personal attacks.

The Father is not the same as saying God is greater than Him. And under trinitarian doctrine, Jesus is both fully God and fully man. So why is it implausible to say that the man said that God is greater than man? Why is it implausible to even consider this matter under trinitarian thinking?

I asked a question. I did not jump on anything.

I am trying to have a civilized conversation. This means that I am not joking around.
This is illogical. You are claiming that something is not itself.

It is in writing on this thread, not in my head. I simply read what you wrote and commented on how most people use a capital H in Him in Christian circles.

Hang on a minute. This is not about us being sons of God, this is about Jesus being God. Do not accuse me of getting off topic then do it yourself, that is hypocritical and unfair debate tactics.
Look it up in Webster's. Your definition does not align with any dictionary.


No, I have allowed the text to speak for itself rather than trying to speak for it. My opinions have nothing to do with it.



Neither does presenting claims furnish proof for those claims.

More of the same....

Hey Milk... good luck with this guy... but I see you're already having trouble getting through.