Jesus presents Himself as God

jmdewey60
reply to post by UnaChispa

 

t is actually WIDELY accepted that Paul wrote that letter while he was in prison in Rome (about 62 AD.) He wrote Ephesians and Philippians around the same time.

As far as numbers of people in general, but not as a majority view by New Testament biblical scholars.
The Prison Thing as a theory of what happened to Paul was supported by the book of Acts which was not written until around 150 AD.

Oh I see... So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria and Eusebius are just your average laymen.

Where is your source that the 'majority of New Testament biblical scholars' have that view?

ETA: Now Acts is written in 150 AD!?!?! More like in the 60s.

reply to post by UnaChispa

Oh I see... So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria and Eusebius are just your average laymen.

Who were all writing after 150 AD.

Where is your source that the 'majority of New Testament biblical scholars' have that view?

It's in all the "sources" that I read that are scholarly academic books on the New Testament.
Popular books for the average churchgoer may say something else.

All of us are God, we just don't remember who we are. Seek the light inside of you, don't see God as some being far away. God is within you.






I believe that is what caused all the trouble in the first place

jmdewey60
reply to post by UnaChispa

 

Oh I see... So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria and Eusebius are just your average laymen.

Who were all writing after 150 AD.

Where is your source that the 'majority of New Testament biblical scholars' have that view?

It's in all the "sources" that I read that are scholarly academic books on the New Testament.
Popular books for the average churchgoer may say something else.

All I claimed was that Acts was written by Luke in the 60s.
"Scholarly Academic", huh? You should be able to produce an online source that would agree with your books. Or is it hidden knowledge, too good for the average churchgoer?

reply to post by UnaChispa


60s is a bit early... and in fact there isn't any original texts from within the first century.... Only copies of texts...

Stevan Davies writes (Jesus the Healer, p. 174): "Luke wrote at least sixty years after Pentecost and perhaps closer to a century after that event. Scholarship on the subject presently vacillates between a late first century and an early to mid-second century date for Luke's writings." I would throw my lot in with those who favor a late first century date. If the Acts of the Apostles were written in the mid second century, it is hard to understand why there would be no mention or even cognizance of the epistles of Paul, which were being quoted as authoritative by writers before that time, especially since Acts has thousands of words devoted to recording things about the life of Paul, unlike Justin Martyr (whose apologies don't quote Paul). The idea that Acts didn't mention the letters of Paul because they were in Marcionite use (as is plausible for Justin) founders on the unity of the Luke-Acts composition. And, of course, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul, it is improbable to place it very long after the turn of the century, even if St. Luke lived to the ripe old age of eighty-four in Boeotia as the Anti-Marcionite Prologue avers. I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

reply to post by UnaChispa

You're right, he didn't. But he did claim to be God.

No. He claimed to have been the "son of God" and the "son of man", but he never claimed to be the father god.

And the Bible says there is only one God.

But there are many sons.

God the Father is not God the Son. There are three separate persons within the Trinity. God is Triune; not triplex.

Not really Biblical. The trinity actually has some pretty ancient and pagan roots.

In John 10:34, Jesus is quoting Psalm 82 (you didn't quote the rest of the verse). In Psalm 82, the men were claiming themselves gods, but in the psalm, it says that they are not gods, but that they will die like the men that they are.

A Plea for Justice

A Psalm of Asaph.

82 God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
2 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.

One could argue that "GOD" sent Jesus down to earth to suffer and die as a man because he failed to heed the order of "The Most High" and help guide and take care of down trodden. Maybe he was given the task of preaching charity and forgiveness as a means to redeem himself and the people that "The Most High" had previously appointed to him, that he failed.

"...before Abraham was, I AM." - Jesus (New Testament)
"Tell them that I AM has sent you" - God (Old Testament)

So? Jesus was saying that "I Am" sent him. The teachings of Jesus confirm the pre-existence of the soul.

Not the old heresy of Arius again, I thought all this was sorted out way back in 325?

reply to post by windword

One could argue that "GOD" sent Jesus down to earth to suffer and die as a man because he failed to heed the order of "The Most High" and help guide and take care of down trodden.

How would someone argue that?
Jesus was using that psalm as an example of how the name god could be applied, not that it was about him, but to people who were entrusted with the leadership of God's people.

Lets go biblical

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


Hope this helps

reply to post by UnaChispa


Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

The Elohim is Father, Mother and Son. The first born is the Son. The Elohim is complete in this configuration of all three. This is the nature of the Son of God, but Adam was formed. Jesus was born. He is the firstfruits of those to come. We, today, are the body (one loaf). Christ is the head and is currently a Spirit. The body of Christ is comprised of all Christians. We know this from 1 Corinthians. We are all ONE loaf. From ONE soul.

1 Corinthians 10

17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

Christ is the HEAD.

Colossians 1

18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Additionally, read 1 Corinthians 15 again.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Who is Christ in relation to God? Who hands the authority to whom? There are TWO!

John 14:28

"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Why did he continually state that the FATHER is the one he was pointing to? Scripture is clear on this issue.

reply to post by UnaChispa

All I claimed was that Acts was written by Luke in the 60s.

I was responding to your statement that Colossians and Ephesians were written while Paul was in prison.

"Scholarly Academic", huh? You should be able to produce an online source that would agree with your books. Or is it hidden knowledge, too good for the average churchgoer?

You could go on Amazon and look at Bart Ehrman's book, Forged, and click on the picture of the cook cover to "Look Inside" and read the bottom of page 22 and onto page 23.

reply to post by jmdewey60

How would someone argue that?

One could argue that through Deuteronomy 32:8, from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance."

fuzzyquark.comxa.com...

Maybe Jesus was one of the sons of El Elyon...........Some Christians are claiming that Jesus is Yahweh. Yahweh was a pretty bad dude! Yahweh should be punished!

I prefer to think of Jesus as an incarnation of Krishna, not Yahweh, who was to unite all the Brahmanic (Abrahamic included) religions of the Middle East, Mediterranean and Asia. Thus, you have rumors of Jesus or one of his apostles in India.

reply to post by windword

Maybe Jesus was one of the sons of El Elyon...........Some Christians are claiming that Jesus is Yahweh.

I would not be one of them.
I think those people who say that are trying to be liked by the Jews, which is a waste of time, in my opinion.
I think that Jesus used the Old Testament any way that was to his advantage but did not support its theology except in the most basic sort of way, such as caring about other people, which is fundamental to Christianity.

reply to post by Akragon


Reasons for an early date, before 70 A.D. and possibly no later than 62 A.D.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly. 'Firstborn' does not mean first created. 'Firstborn' is a title of Preeminence or Superiority. Take this for example: David was the youngest of his brothers, but in Psalm 82:20,27, he is given the title 'firstborn' because he is in a position of superiority. Scripture is best interpreted by scripture.

What are you saying exactly?

reply to post by Unachispa


Well I could say "most" bible scholars are in favor of a later date then an earlier... but that really proves nothing....

Perhaps you should look into the parallels between Luke and Josephus...

Conclusion

Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd.

www.infidels.org...

windword
reply to post by UnaChispa

 

You're right, he didn't. But he did claim to be God.

No. He claimed to have been the "son of God" and the "son of man", but he never claimed to be the father god.

And the Bible says there is only one God.

But there are many sons.

God the Father is not God the Son. There are three separate persons within the Trinity. God is Triune; not triplex.

Not really Biblical. The trinity actually has some pretty ancient and pagan roots.

In John 10:34, Jesus is quoting Psalm 82 (you didn't quote the rest of the verse). In Psalm 82, the men were claiming themselves gods, but in the psalm, it says that they are not gods, but that they will die like the men that they are.

A Plea for Justice

A Psalm of Asaph.

82 God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
2 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.

One could argue that "GOD" sent Jesus down to earth to suffer and die as a man because he failed to heed the order of "The Most High" and help guide and take care of down trodden. Maybe he was given the task of preaching charity and forgiveness as a means to redeem himself and the people that "The Most High" had previously appointed to him, that he failed.

"...before Abraham was, I AM." - Jesus (New Testament)
"Tell them that I AM has sent you" - God (Old Testament)

So? Jesus was saying that "I Am" sent him. The teachings of Jesus confirm the pre-existence of the soul.

edit on 5-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

So, if Jesus claimed to be Son of Man, that would make him a man. And if he claimed to be Son of God, that would make him....? God.


Pagans have incorporated multiple gods at some level in their beliefs, but none of them hold that there is One God in three separate persons like the Christian position holds. And it also doesn't prove that the Trinity has pagan roots.

No, that is not what Exodus 3:14 is about. Moses was asking God what His name was, in case the children of Israel would ask Moses what God's name was.
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

Read Exodus 3:14, then go to John 8:58. Jesus understood exactly what he was claiming; so did the Jews, that's why they tried to stone him, because he was claiming to be God.

reply to post by Akragon


Lol yeah, we could go back and forth all night with this one.

I will look into it.

ETA: Although, infidels.org doesn't sound like a credible site, I'll read it anyways

reply to post by Unachispa


I have no pony in this race either way... I was just following along with the conversation...

Acts is useless to myself... so when it was written is irrelevant

Read Exodus 3:14, then go to John 8:58. Jesus understood exactly what he was claiming; so did the Jews, that's why they tried to stone him, because he was claiming to be God.

You hold onto one sentence and ignore an entire lecture.

39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did,

40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Jesus makes it clear that he a "man" sent from God, who is speaking what God told him. He also makes it clear that there are others that are of God, because they can "hear" his words.

Jesus never claimed to be "GOD".