Jesus never said 'I am God', but a guy who isn't Jesus, did say it in Gen 31:10-13!

  • Thread starter Thread starter logs22
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 33
  • Views Views 7K
John 14:9 Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. That passage equates the 2 doesn't it?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

"Equates" "Equal" "Equivalent"--Here is the problem with using those words. Jesus says numerous times, as I have already quoted in this thread "The father is greater than I am." Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I am an economics grad and I believe algebra tells us that:

Father > son AND,
Father = son CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE.

If you believe in Sola Scriptura and the divinity of our Bible, you've got to drop the "equal" claim, or else you are stuck denying clear statements made by Jesus (pbuh).

Hiroshi,
I think this is one of those areas where Trinitarians and Unitarians differ. They are one in the same as God isn't divided or ascribed partners. You have to remember The Father is God, The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. There is only one God.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

I'm not sure your labels are correct. From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, because I might be), you don't have a monopoly to the label "trinitarian." The claim that the Father and Son are "co-equal" was not original to the doctrine of the Trinity. Tertullian, who coined the term, taught that God (swt) was "He who subjected" and Jesus (pbuh) was "He to whom he [Christ] was subjected" (Ad Praxean, 35). The term "subject" is meant in a monarchical sense, likening God (swt) to the King and Jesus (pbuh) to a prince-regent who temporarily ruled, before handing over the kingdom to God. The idea that the two are "co-equal" was therefore refuted by the man who coined the term "trinity," but was added later by Athanasius. Thus, you are an "athanasian trinitarian." Those who believe in the subordination of the son to the father, however, but believe the three are one, "not in number, but in unity of substance" have a right to claim the title of trinitarian if they so choose. Indeed, they may have more of a right than you do.

Lastly, any claim that Jesus (pbuh) literally meant that he was the image of God must be refuted by the looooong biblical tradition that God (swt) cannot be seen. Even to see God indirectly Moses had to purify himself for months and months, and still he was disfigured by it. Indeed, in this claim Jesus is responding to the skepticism that was inherent in Philip and Man in general--that disbelievers always say they want to see the Father before they will believe, but it is not possible until after the Second Coming and Millennial reign to see God directly.

Salaam Alaikum
 
I do not consider myself a scholar and will not even attempt to reply to to everything Salaam's discussion re Trinity, but as a maths teacher I would point out that at infinity strange things happen and there is infinately small and infinately big. Some scientists say the universe was once infinately small but the same universe is infinately big but it is the same universe. But to be honest i'm just posting this for amusement.

Also I didnt post to prove or disprove the Trinity but rather to deal with the Question does Christ say he is God or not in the bible prove anything.

and to point out that just because a questioner doesnt accept the answer doesn't mean they haven't been answered.

love and respect
 
Also I didnt post to prove or disprove the Trinity but rather to deal with the Question does Christ say he is God or not in the bible prove anything.

and to point out that just because a questioner doesnt accept the answer doesn't mean they haven't been answered.

love and respect to you as well, 3rddec. :~)

The question of whether Jesus (pbuh) says he is God (swt) necessarily requires us to understand what such a statement mechanically involves: what the language implies. Does this mean Jesus (pbuh) = God (swt), or Jesus (pbuh) is of the same substance as as God (swt) [in other words, Jesus < Father)?

This is the language issue that I am responding to. When someone claims Jesus (pbuh) says he is God, the language used to make that statement means to the typical person that Jesus (pbuh) = God (swt). That is why we should avoid using this language. Clearly, the statement cannot mean Jesus (pbuh) = God (swt), because Jesus says so often that Father > Jesus (pbuh). Thus, at best you can argue God = Father + Jesus + Holy Spirit, but even that disproves the claim Jesus (pbuh) = God, because you are missing the Father and the Holy Spirit. So, we obviously need to stop using this language.

Salaam Alaikum
 
"Equates" "Equal" "Equivalent"--Here is the problem with using those words. Jesus says numerous times, as I have already quoted in this thread "The father is greater than I am." Now, I'm not a mathematician, but I am an economics grad and I believe algebra tells us that:

Father > son AND,
Father = son CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE.

If you believe in Sola Scriptura and the divinity of our Bible, you've got to drop the "equal" claim, or else you are stuck denying clear statements made by Jesus (pbuh).


I too am an economics grad AND have a masters in divinity. Your objection is duly noted that both statements cannot be true when we are speaking mathematically. But we aren't. So, your symbols don't represent the essence of the statements that I believe the Bible makes with regard to the relationship between the Father and the Son. What the Bible presents are these statements:

"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." (John 14:28)

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:29-30)


Note that neither of these passages specify in what manner that the Father is greater. Is it in position? authority? state of being? But whatever it is, it does not prevent Jesus from also saying that he and the Father are one. And it does no good to argue that Jesus only means something like one in purpose, for that does not fit with the Greek grammar that was employed by John in writing the passage (linked to another place where the Father is said to be greater), and it does not fit with the response of the Jews who sought to kill him for claiming to be God by such a statement. (Something they have no reason to do if Jesus just meant one in purpose with God's purposes.)

There are some things that Jesus claims that he shares with the Father, and one of them is the Father's glory: "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (John 17:5). This not only speaks of Jesus' glorification, but that he had it BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.

As far as equality with God, that is in scripture:
Philippians 2


5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
The pre-incarnate Christ had it, he just didn't grasp it, but in coming to earth emptied himself of it in order to live as a man and in his incarnation possessed our nature. But that didn't mean the other was no longer true of him, only that he did not exercise his divine nature while on earth. Still, one has to take seriously the final exaltation that is described, especially when it is read in light of Isaiah 45.

Isaiah 45 was understood by the 1st century Jew as a passage with spoke of the oneness and the sovereignty of God. In it is repeated the idea “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5, see also vs. 6, 14, 18, 21, & 22). Of God and God alone, the Holy One of Israel, is it to be true "Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear" (Isaiah 45:23).

Such things are not said lightly, for God himself declares: “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8). Yet, here we see that God has given Jesus this name (LORD) that is his own name and is above every other, and he has indeed shared his glory with Jesus.

Now, since Philippians was written by Paul, and there are a lot of Paul-haters here, I expect to here how this is Paul once again corrupting the truth. But it isn't just Paul, in fact, consider what else is included in the passage that Paul quotes from:

Isaiah 42

5 This is what God the LORD says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:
6 “I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
7 to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
8 “I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.
9 See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you.”

So it is God, the creator, who is announces in this passage what he will one day do. And when do we hear of these things next occuring? On the very lips of Jesus. And I don't mean just when he read from scroll of Isaiah and pronounced that the prophecy had been fulfilled in the hearing of those there that day, though that should be enough to see what it was that Jesus was claiming. But consider his response to John the Baptist's question:
Luke 7

20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’”
21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”



Lastly, any claim that Jesus (pbuh) literally meant that he was the image of God must be refuted by the looooong biblical tradition that God (swt) cannot be seen. Even to see God indirectly Moses had to purify himself for months and months, and still he was disfigured by it. Indeed, in this claim Jesus is responding to the skepticism that was inherent in Philip and Man in general--that disbelievers always say they want to see the Father before they will believe, but it is not possible until after the Second Coming and Millennial reign to see God directly.

Salaam Alaikum

What do you mean by literal? What do you mean by image?

The scriptures record that mankind was made in the image of God. Is that to be understood to be literally true or something else? Well, I suggest to you that it is indeed to be understood as literally true, but not physically true.

I believe that we are created spiritually in the image of God, because the Bible says that we are created in God's image. But I don't believe it refers to a physical image as though created in God's image, God created us physically both male and female. If we were to be a physical rendering of the image of God, then we would all have the same physical image. So, I either reject the text as false, or consider the posibility that the text remains true, but that I need to understand it in some way other than a physical image. When we later learn that God is spirit, and realizing that God breathed life into us, we can see that perhaps the image of God that we possess is not a physical image but a spiritual one. This also makes sense out of the Biblical injunction not to make any graven image of God, for the highest form of any image of God is that which God himself created, humanity. We are to bear that image of God into the world. (Though it wasn't long before we messed that up.) But, I believe that the principle ministry of Jesus among us, was to reconcile humanity to God so that we could once again be his image bearers: "just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man [i.e., Jesus]" (1 Corinthians 15:47). Christ is himself the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4), and we who are in Christ can expect to "put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (Colossians 3:10).
 
I wasnt seriously using the maths in the discussion lol it was l little side issue.

Love and Respect
 
Many like to dispute that Jesus was ever worshipped by the disciples or the early church. Now there are multiple places that give evidence of Jesus being worshipped in the Gospels (Matthew 2:11, 14:33, 28:9; Luke 24:52; John 9:38, and John 20:28), but those who resist this idea like to claim that these are little more than acts of obescience, not actual worship.


So, let us turn to the early church as recorded in the book of acts. Here too we find Jesus being worshipped. In particular I am interested in how those who do not believe the early church worshipped Jesus understand Acts 13:2 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'.”? Already the term "Lord" has been applied to Jesus, and clearly this is not obescience since Jesus is not physically present. So, to what does this passage refer when it says of the church in Antioch, "they were worshipping the Lord"?
 
Last edited:
In particular I am interested in how those who do not believe the early church worshipped Jesus understand Acts 13:2 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'.”? Already the term "Lord" has been applied to Jesus, and clearly this is not obescience since Jesus is not physically present. So, to what does this passage refer when it says of the church in Antioch, "they were worshipping the Lord"?

Secondly, the word Lord is historically the name of the Father, and also is given to the son. Now, I'm not concluding this doesn't refer to the son, but on what basis are you making that conclusion? Could it not also refer to the Father?

The word you translate as "worshiping" should not be translated and used in the way you are translating and using it. The greek word, "leitourgeó," referred originally to serving in a public office of the state. The word distinctly refers to serving in a general sense, as opposed to simply bowing or prostrating yourself. It means doing the will of your King/master--carrying out his will through work. There is nothing wrong with applying this word to Christ, because Christ is to become the ruler of this earth for 1000 years, before he hands the kingdom over to God the father and subjects himself to the Father.

Salaam,
Bob
 
Many like to dispute that Jesus was ever worshipped by the disciples or the early church. Now there are multiple places that give evidence of Jesus being worshipped in the Gospels (Matthew 2:11, 14:33, 28:9; Luke 24:52; John 9:38, and John 20:28), but those who resist this idea like to claim that these are little more than acts of obescience, not actual worship.


So, let us turn to the early church as recorded in the book of acts. Here too we find Jesus being worshipped. In particular I am interested in how those who do not believe the early church worshipped Jesus understand Acts 13:2 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'.”? Already the term "Lord" has been applied to Jesus, and clearly this is not obescience since Jesus is not physically present. So, to what does this passage refer when it says of the church in Antioch, "they were worshipping the Lord"?

In the Greek Septuagint the word "Lord" is used as an equivalent for the Hebrew name of God: Jehovah. And the same is true in the New Testament. For example Luke 4:18-19 quotes Isaiah 61:1-2 and reads: "Lord" in Greek where the name "Jehovah" appears in the Hebrew. So while the NT frequently uses "Lord" to refer to the Lord Jesus, it also uses the word to represent Jehovah.

Now I have two different translations of the NT into Hebrew and they both read "Jehovah" for "Lord" at Acts 13:2. I know also that there are many other such translations that do the same. The general view of this verse therefore seems to be that it is referring to God the Father rather than Jesus.
 
Most certainly the language used to describe Moses' encounter on Mount Sinai could lead someone to suppose that he was literally face to face with God. But there is also Acts 7:38 to consider. There we are told that it was an angel that spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Good point. Doesn't Moses speak with God multiple times?

Is not with all my respect; that wasn`t an Angel (peace be upon them all) that was Allah Al Mighty speaking my respected brother... "And Messengers We have mentioned to you before, and Messengers We have not mentioned to you, - and to Musa (Moses) Allah spoke directly. (164)" Surat Annisaa"

Good point. But is this verse not also in the Qu'ran?

Shakir:
"And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then you will see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain he made it crumble and Musa fell down into a swoon" Sura Al-Araf, 143.

So maybe, once again, the disagreement is not in our scriptures, but in our interpretations of them? And if a bush can be rightly considered "angelos," perhaps also a mountain could be considered "angelos," and would jive also with the description in Exodus? And perhaps the point when God talks directly to Moses is later, from within the Ark?

Well, whichever of us is right, let God be proven true and every man be proven false.

Peace
 
Good point. But is this verse not also in the Qu'ran? Shakir: "And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then you will see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain he made it crumble and Musa fell down into a swoon" Sura Al-Araf, 143.



God spoke directly to Musa (pbuh) meaning there was no angel intermediatery, and God spoke directly does not mean "face to face"

For example at this right moment, I am speaking with you directly, no messenger, via the internet medium.
 
God spoke directly to Musa (pbuh) meaning there was no angel intermediatery, and God spoke directly does not mean "face to face"

I am not trying to prove the Qu'ran wrong. My point is simply that God speaks to Moses (pbuh) numerous times, and that if only one of those is directly, it fulfills the Qu'ran's verse. Also, I am pointing out that this verse of the Qu'ran corroborates with the story of Exodus in the Taurat, which describes this time as a continuous build-up until Moses is able to be in God's presence.

Salaam
 
none of the prophets and messengers of Allah(peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all) saw Allah, never..and that never happened and won`t ever happen in this worldly life but it will be for those who will enter the Paradise ; Allah The Exalted will bless them with seeing His Al Mighty Face as a reward for being true slaves and servants of Allah Who Has no sons or relatives; The Only True God Who deserves to be worshipped alone with no partners or fales gods ....

My Lord! Show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me

here when Moses (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ask Allah to show him HimSelf; Allah said: you can not see me; cause Allah The One Who has the knowledge of everything and of the unseen knew that Moses won`t be able to bear seeing Him Al Mighty so, to make him believe ; Allah told him:" but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then you will see Me" then what happened?

the mountain which is stronger in its nature than Moses (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) couldn`t bear the manifestation of Allah so it is collapsed to dust; then how would Moses (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) bear it who the scene of the mountain turning to dust made him fell down unconscious?

the nature of our bodies in this worldy life is not prepared to bear Allah`s appearance but in the Hereafter; the nature of our bodies will be changed whether for who will enter Paradise or who will enter Hellfire...

and when the prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had been asked:did you see Thy Lord?, he said: " I saw light" and in another narration:" He is a light; now could I see Him?".

and Mother of the believers; Aisha(May Allah be pleased with her) the wife of the prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)said:" whoever said that Muhammad saw His Lord is lair".

and again none saw Allah in this worldy life and none will; no matter what...and Allah knows the best...
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top