Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

So the OT God, the great I Am is not God either ... well who is He then?

I would say either a creation of men with agenda's... or a False god... Perhaps a "fallen angel" if such things exist...

I would even vote for an extra-terrestrial before "the Father of creation"

He couldn't even get his commandments straight... I mean give me a break

Man did not know God until Jesus arrived...

Without the shepherd the sheep are lost...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Elijah did not raise any. He asked God to do it. Jesus said HE will do it.

1Ki 17:21
Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the LORD, “LORD my God, let this boy’s life return to him!”

That shows where the ultimate power and authority came from, just as it shows the same in verses like "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.", Matthew 28:18. Note well that one does not give things to himself, someone else give thing to him. That is specified in John 12:49 with the words “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak”.

Jesus does not do it on his own authority, either, but rather on delegated authority. From God.

How about this verse?

Jhn 8:57
“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
Jhn 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
(refer to Exo 3:14)

Well, I'm a bit over 50 years old, but I tell you right now that before Abraham was born, I Am. Think, if you want to, on the notion that I said "I AM", not "I WAS", for it has a bearing on the entire thought, as much bearing as specifying before Abraham was born.

That does not make me either God or Messiah. It makes me somewhat mystic and perhaps cryptic at times in my speech, though, as was John, and even Jesus upon occasion. Some things may not be meant for plain sight, even when they slap you in the face. Let him who has eyes see.

a reply to: nenothtu

Hilarious how you just side step everything. With Elijah God did the resurrecting, because He is the only one with authority as you admit. So if Jesus does it, and Jesus has the authority .. that makes Jesus God.

As far the I Am part ... I can tell you are not biblically ignorant, so you simply chose to ignore what you don't like. I Am is a name for God.

Exo 3:14
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.fn This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’

originally posted by: Akragon

I would like to see one person come up with a verse that has Jesus saying "this was my will"... not my Father's

Poor guy couldn't even beg "the Father" to spare him...

The only way to do that and leave it at that is dishonestly, by ignoring the myriad other places that specify where the authority REALLY comes from, and how Jesus got it, in His OWN words.

I seem to recall a particular place where He said "Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done".

a reply to: nenothtu

Maybe rather than Red Herrings you can address the verses I post, where you tiptoe and dance around without answering. I Am is a name for God, it is nothing mystic or cryptic.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't mean He is God...

It means Before Abraham he existed... Just as Abraham "lived" to see his day...

Just as WE existed before this incarnation...

You mean the whole "first among brethren" thing? Don't be confusing folk with fact - you'll get accused of "sidestepping".

a reply to: nenothtu

I don't recall him saying... My will be done on earth, as it is in heaven either

Perhaps I missed that part in sunday school

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't recall him saying... My will be done on earth, as it is in heaven either

Perhaps I missed that part in sunday school

Red Herring. Does not invalidate the Trinity. Does not invalidate the numerous verses I posted. You simply think God is not God, so not much more I can say to that.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't mean He is God...

It means Before Abraham he existed... Just as Abraham "lived" to see his day...

Just as WE existed before this incarnation...

Ummm no. Perhaps you should look up and see what I Am is a reference to and get back to me.

"I AM" is a statement, and assertion of factual existence.

It is not a name, even capitalized.

It is an attribute descriptive of the state of Being.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't recall him saying... My will be done on earth, as it is in heaven either

Perhaps I missed that part in sunday school

Red Herring. Does not invalidate the Trinity. Does not invalidate the numerous verses I posted. You simply think God is not God, so not much more I can say to that.

I didn't say it invalidated the trinity... the bible does a great Job at that

What it does show is that Jesus was subordinate to his Father... Which invalidates the creeds of the church which say he is equal... which he clearly said he was not

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That doesn't mean He is God...

It means Before Abraham he existed... Just as Abraham "lived" to see his day...

Just as WE existed before this incarnation...

Ummm no. Perhaps you should look up and see what I Am is a reference to and get back to me.

"I AM" is a statement, and assertion of factual existence.

It is not a name, even capitalized.

It is an attribute descriptive of the state of Being.

Completely false. I posted the verse in Exodus proving it false. "I Am has sent me". I Am is a name in that sentenced. You have no explanation so you ignore it.

People wanting to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God.
Jhn 10:33
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Completely and utterly false.

Oh.

Do tell.

How much Greek have you studied again?

First, it's hagiazo in that verse, not hagios.

Wrong.

It's "hagiastai" ("to make holy", the action of making holy) in the first two instances, and "hagia" ("holy, pure, morally blameless, consecrated", a state of being) in the last.

it.

Means.

HOLY.

Second, one of the definitions is to separate, or set apart.

Maybe I better check again - "set apart" wasn't in the definitions...

Usually it would be in reference to setting apart for God. Since that would then make the person a believer, not an unbeliever, that can not be the case. What is being said is that the non-believer of the believing spouse is different due to the daily influence their spouse exerts on them bringing God into their life even though they themselves reject God.

It.

Means.

HOLY.

One may be (and indeed really ought to be) "set apart" to one's spouse - but one will never be HOLY to one's spouse! How much "differentness" can a spouse bring to an individual to make them holy, do you think?

Sanctified is sanctified.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't recall him saying... My will be done on earth, as it is in heaven either

Perhaps I missed that part in sunday school

Red Herring. Does not invalidate the Trinity. Does not invalidate the numerous verses I posted. You simply think God is not God, so not much more I can say to that.

No trinity, sorry.

Matthew 24:36

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Trinity can never reconcile that one, and there isn't even a mention of the holy ghost in that perfectly chronological list of things that are from last created to greatest of all........ man angels Son Father.....nope no holy ghost

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

People wanting to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God.
Jhn 10:33
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Keep reading...

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.


Notice the question mark?

Is there because he's questioning them... because HE never claimed to be God

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Completely and utterly false.

Oh.

Do tell.

How much Greek have you studied again?

First, it's hagiazo in that verse, not hagios.

Wrong.

It's "hagiastai" ("to make holy", the action of making holy) in the first two instances, and "hagia" ("holy, pure, morally blameless, consecrated", a state of being) in the last.

it.

Means.

HOLY.

Second, one of the definitions is to separate, or set apart.

Maybe I better check again - "set apart" wasn't in the definitions...

Usually it would be in reference to setting apart for God. Since that would then make the person a believer, not an unbeliever, that can not be the case. What is being said is that the non-believer of the believing spouse is different due to the daily influence their spouse exerts on them bringing God into their life even though they themselves reject God.

It.

Means.

HOLY.

One may be (and indeed really ought to be) "set apart" to one's spouse - but one will never be HOLY to one's spouse! How much "differentness" can a spouse bring to an individual to make them holy, do you think?

Sanctified is sanctified.

Well this is why we can't get anywhere. You are just wrong and won't admit it after I prove it.
It is the perfect tense for hagiazo.

hagiazō

www.biblestudytools.com...

www.blueletterbible.org...
www.blueletterbible.org...=t_conc_1069014

Oh and as for set apart ...

to separate from profane things and dedicate to God

As I said. It's to separate, set apart, normally it would be for God, which would then mean they are not an unbeliever .. since they are ... the meaning is obviously slightly different. They are still set apart, just not in the same way, as I explained.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nenothtu

Hilarious how you just side step everything. With Elijah God did the resurrecting, because He is the only one with authority as you admit. So if Jesus does it, and Jesus has the authority .. that makes Jesus God.

I have the authority to fire people. That does not mean I own the company.

Or it might.

What it DOES mean for sure is that if I fire them, they're fired - and that's all they really need to worry about. They're a lot more likely to get fired if they just sit around trying to figure out who owns the company instead of getting their work done.

Hey, just because you can'[t see what I leave laying around in plain sight doesn't mean that I'm side-stepping anything, or that I didn't leave it there for you to find if you look. That looking part is on YOU, not me.

As far the I Am part ... I can tell you are not biblically ignorant, so you simply chose to ignore what you don't like. I Am is a name for God.

Exo 3:14
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.fn This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’

Aye. Read that again. "I AM WHO I AM" is the full sentence. Ponder that for a bit, and maybe get back to me on that whole "name" assertion, where the name really IS there...

Maybe we can revisit that whole "simply chose to ignore what you don't like" concept as well.

And no, I'm not biblically ignorant - you could fairly say that I've been reading it so long that it has been so absorbed into my Being that It's become a part of me - the whole thing, not just the parts I might like - t least well enough to know that it has to be "rightly divided", and that one must make all of the parts accountable to (and agreeably harmonious with) all the other parts, or the whole thing just collapses and I no longer Am.

Can't just pick and choose, ignore that "I have not spoken on My own authority" in favor of "I and My Father are One". They work together, or they don't work at all.

originally posted by: nenothtu

Aye. Read that again. "I AM WHO I AM" is the full sentence. Ponder that for a bit, and maybe get back to me on that whole "name" assertion, where the name really IS there...

Maybe we can revisit that whole "simply chose to ignore what you don't like" concept as well.

No, it's not the full sentence. The full sentence includes everything, including "I Am has sent me"

I am is a name for God. It can not be any more clear.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nenothtu

Maybe rather than Red Herrings you can address the verses I post, where you tiptoe and dance around without answering. I Am is a name for God, it is nothing mystic or cryptic.

I did answer. Clearly. It's up to you to either accept or reject that answer, not up to me to force it on you.

"I Am" is not a name, it's a factual statement of a state of being.

Neither mystic or cryptic unless YOU force it to be so in your own mind and overcomplicate it, It Is.

It Is.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nenothtu

Maybe rather than Red Herrings you can address the verses I post, where you tiptoe and dance around without answering. I Am is a name for God, it is nothing mystic or cryptic.

I did answer. Clearly. It's up to you to either accept or reject that answer, not up to me to force it on you.

"I Am" is not a name, it's a factual statement of a state of being.

Neither mystic or cryptic unless YOU force it to be so in your own mind and overcomplicate it, It Is.

It Is.

No, you did not.
"I Am has sent me".
Jake has sent me.
Martha has sent me.
state of being has sent me.

One of these is not like the rest.

Jhn 10:33
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

a reply to: Akragon

Well, a lot of folks seem to have trouble distinguishing "thees", "thys" and "thous"... but I don't think they can easily be confused with "MINE MINE MINE" in any event.

Jesus had it straight himself, gave it us straight, and some of us just choose to make it cryptic and complicated in our own minds... usually by ignoring the straight talk.

I bet you already know that Koine is the simplest form of Greek there is, "the People's Greek", and there was a reason that was used to write the New Testament, eh?

Damned Latin!