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.
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 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
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...
My brother Kevin, is five years younger than me...
Before Kevin, I am...
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!
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.
Wrong... no one claimed Jesus to be God... But even if they did they would be wrong.[quoteThe fact that other people claim that Jesus claimed to be God, shown to you at least twice, casts doubt on your 'proven' claim.
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.
See what I mean.... You don't even seem capable of quoting what I stated.You just contradicted yourself. You cannot be equal yet not equal. It is illogical and impossible.
Here we go again.... Let me add another word to see if it helps you...Equal to God and being God are the same thing.
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.
I'm beginning to think you're funning me...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.
A is equal to B.... A cannot be equal to A.... Just like you cannot be equal to yourself.... Maybe you're tired!!!
Please try to follow what I stated.... What you claim I implied is in you head... not mine.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.
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.You keep claiming he is not God, yet you keep capitalizing 'He'. Usually people do that when they are referring to God.
Proof is something that has to be accepted through personal understanding from one own logic.And anyhow, you still have not proven your claim of him not being God.
That is what you have accepted through your 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.
Presenting scripture does not furnish me with how you interpret that scripture.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.
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.
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!
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").
Of course he lost, he's going against an omnipotent God. This is also a ridiculous concept.Satan once tried to depose God from his throne, but he lost and was thrown out of heaven (Rev12 etc).
How do you fool God? Do you see how offering the world to the Creator of the world is a silly proposition?Why wouldn't he try to fool the incarnated one?
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.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.
Wrong... no one claimed Jesus to be God... But even if they did they would be 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.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.
Cut the personal attacks.See what I mean.... You don't even seem capable of quoting what I stated.
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?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.
I asked a question. I did not jump on anything.But do try to grasp, this is about what the Jews thought, that is why you jumped on my butt.
I am trying to have a civilized conversation. This means that I am not joking around.I'm beginning to think you're funning me...
This is illogical. You are claiming that something is not itself.A is equal to B.... A cannot be equal to A.... Just like you cannot be equal to yourself.... Maybe you're tired!!!
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.Please try to follow what I stated.... What you claim I implied is in you head... not mine.
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.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.
Look it up in Webster's. Your definition does not align with any dictionary.Proof is something that has to be accepted through personal understanding from one own 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.That is what you have accepted through your logic.
Neither does presenting claims furnish proof for those claims.Presenting scripture does not furnish me with how you interpret that scripture.
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.
You say it is in conflict, but answer me this: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.
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.
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.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 . . .
More of the same....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.
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?