Is Jesus really God? Did he actually claim to be God?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:57 am

Starboard Tack wrote: If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

earl · Post by **earl** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:16 pm

I can't dissagree more,arian.
If what John said is true ,"there are 3 that bare witness ..and the 3 are 1 then the 3 obviously have names that fill these 3 positions and qualify as omnipresent,omnipotent and omniscicent so they are God as God(Father) ,Word as God(not to be confused with Jesus because the Word was God before Jesus was begotten),Spirit as God(Jesus said God is Spirit),(not to be confused with the holy spirit).
These three are all "actually"omnipresent,omnipotent and omniscient and possesses the voice of God which Jesus does not.
'Spiritually' God and the Father are one in spirit.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:05 pm

earl wrote:I can't dissagree more,arian.
If what John said is true ,"there are 3 that bare witness ..and the 3 are 1 then the 3 obviously have names that fill these 3 positions and qualify as omnipresent,omnipotent and omniscicent so they are God as God(Father) ,Word as God(not to be confused with Jesus because the Word was God before Jesus was begotten),Spirit as God(Jesus said God is Spirit),(not to be confused with the holy spirit).
These three are all "actually"omnipresent,omnipotent and omniscient and possesses the voice of God which Jesus does not.
'Spiritually' God and the Father are one in spirit.

The part you are referring to in 1 John 5:7 is nearly unanimously considered a later interpolation that does not appear in any Greek manuscript until much later.

teddy_trueblood · Post by **teddy_trueblood** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:11 pm

arian,

I think you misunderstand, my friend. Of course you can choose to believe that God explained his name as I Am.

But the word ehyeh is believed to be the first person (I) future tense (Will, Shall) of the Be verbs. And is overwhelmingly used in that sense in the OT.

I am, instead, is commonly worded as Ani hu (I He) or just Ani (I) in the OT scriptures).

So in explaining the meaning of his Name (YHWH - third person (He) and Be verb or He will Be), God said to Moses, I will be [ehyeh] whatever I will be [ehyeh].

This does not mean that He will come into existence in the future (obviously) nor that He will become God to various people in the future. It means that He will be whatever he needs or wishes to be (or do) whenever He wishes.

Both the Hebrew New Testament by Franz Delitzsch, the famous Lutheran Bible scholar, published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977 ed., and the Hebrew New Testament by the equally trinitarian United Bible Societies, 1983, use two Hebrew pronouns instead of the word ehyeh in translating John 8:58.

So, instead of Before Abraham was, ehyeh, they both have Before Abraham was, ani hu. Ani means I, and hu means he. (Just as hu can sometimes include an implied be verb such as is or was - see Gesenius, p. 218 - so ani can also include an implied verb such as am or was or have been.)

John 8:58 in these two trinitarian translations, then, may be interpreted I [am] he or I [was] he, etc.

Therefore, these two trinitarian translations, written by scholars who are truly experts in both Biblical Greek and Hebrew (like the Hebrew scholars who wrote the ancient Septuagint), make no attempt to correlate John 8:58 (ani hu) with Exodus 3:14 (ehyeh). This shows they recognize the impossibility of the ehyeh/ego eimi argument used by some trinitarians.

Furthermore they have both translated the NT I will be (esomai) as ehyeh: John 8:55 (esomai/ehyeh); 1 Cor. 14:11 (esomai/ehyeh); Heb. 1:5 (esomai/ehyeh); Rev. 21:7(esomai/ehyeh).

He DID NOT say: I will be the God of Agraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob "

I already showed you all the uses of ehyeh in Moses writings. So what we have at Exodus 3:6 does not use ehyeh. In fact it says:

Then he said I (form of ani) God of father of you .

Find as many I ams as you wish in Moses writings. I bet you will not find ehyeh there.

Exodus really says: God said to Moses, I will be whatever I will be; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I will be has sent me to you.' "

BryanBADD · Post by **BryanBADD** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:05 pm

Shermana wrote:

So explain John 17:21, "let them be one as we are one". Are the disciples G-d too?
In the verse you reference, Jesus was talking about those that were being sent out being of one voice and one heart so as no to diminish the message. The question asked by the OP was Did Jesus ever claim to be God

What's clear is that those who use this verse haven't read John 17:21.

Also, in John 14:9 9 Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father?
Quote the rest of the passage, you'll see Yashua is saying not quite what you think. He is the representative of the Father.

PS If Jesus even was saying he's the Father, that would specifically go against the Classical definnition of the Trinity, and would be Modalism, which most Trinitarian argument tends to fall under.

"The Son is not the Father"

BryanBADD · Post by **BryanBADD** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:18 pm

So explain John 17:21, "let them be one as we are one". Are the disciples G-d too?

Jesus was talking about the disciples and all who would believe being of one heart and voice. No contradiction, so that the message of Jesus would no be diminished. He wasn't talking about the disciples or anyone else being God.

What's clear is that those who use this verse haven't read John 17:21

Untrue, too many people try to interpret the Bible and derive meaning. We should not be interpreting the Bible. Jesus' words, or any other in the Bible, have only one meaning. The difference comes in the application of the meaning. You have taken John 17:21 and given it a meaning contrary to what Jesus I believe that Jesus meant.

Additionally, the OP asked if Jesus had ever claimed to be God. Obviously he did in the first verse I mentioned.[/code]

BryanBADD · Post by **BryanBADD** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:27 pm

arian wrote:
BryanBADD wrote:
arian wrote: Did Jesus claim to be God?

Never. He did mention that it is written that we are all gods, for we were created in Gods image;

Being created in His image does not mean that we will become a god. A picture of a car is not a car despite being the image of one.

Yes, ... as we too shall, or are to become one with GOD, through Jesus.
Please show me where you see this in scripture.

Do you believe that you must be born again, or in no ways will you enter that Eternal Kingdom?
Yes, Jesus says just that.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:30 pm

BryanBADD wrote:
So explain John 17:21, "let them be one as we are one". Are the disciples G-d too?
Jesus was talking about the disciples and all who would believe being of one heart and voice. No contradiction, so that the message of Jesus would no be diminished. He wasn't talking about the disciples or anyone else being God.

Since the writer of the Gospel of Johne was using the same language, in context, could it be that he was using the same symbology for God and Jesusf, therefore NOT claiming Jesus was God? That to me seems that most likely case.

What's clear is that those who use this verse haven't read John 17:21
Untrue, too many people try to interpret the Bible and derive meaning. We should not be interpreting the Bible. Jesus' words, or any other in the Bible, have only one meaning. The difference comes in the application of the meaning. You have taken John 17:21 and given it a meaning contrary to what Jesus I believe that Jesus meant.

Additionally, the OP asked if Jesus had ever claimed to be God. Obviously he did in the first verse I mentioned.[/code]

I disagree. It is using the same language in the same way. John 17:21 is an example where 'being one with the father' is not a claim of Godhood. It is perfectly reasonable to extend that to the earlier quote too.

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:35 pm

Jesus was talking about the disciples and all who would believe being of one heart and voice. No contradiction, so that the message of Jesus would no be diminished. He wasn't talking about the disciples or anyone else being God.

So then, if he says "Let them be one AS, key word AS, "we are one", that means that the same concept of he and the Father being one, extends to the Disciples. Thus, it's not about them being the same being. He is not saying "I and the Father are the same being", he means in purpose. Like, "We, the football team, are ONE". Like the US Army motto: An army of ONE.

Untrue, too many people try to interpret the Bible and derive meaning. We should not be interpreting the Bible. Jesus' words, or any other in the Bible, have only one meaning. The difference comes in the application of the meaning. You have taken John 17:21 and given it a meaning contrary to what Jesus I believe that Jesus meant.

And I say the same for your interpretation of John 10:30. Because Jesus said "As" "We are one". So thus, it's the same concept of them being "one" for the disciples. No difference. "As we are one".

Additionally, the OP asked if Jesus had ever claimed to be God. Obviously he did in the first verse I mentioned.

Are you referring to John 8:58? Let me go back and check. Me and Teddy have already dealt with this one, the name itself is "I shall be" in the future tense, and many prominent Trinitarian translators like Moffatt and Goodspeed (both head professors) translate the infamous "I AM" into "I have been". If you're referring to John 14:9, I have dealt with that one too, you have to look at the other verses in context. In addition, as I said, saying that the Son is the Father breaks the classical Trinity formula and goes into Modalism, are you prepared to accept that?

14:10

"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."

14:11

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Now here's the kicker:

14:12

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Oh he's GOING TO the Father. So thus, anyone can see what Jesus was saying. The Father may "dwell within" Jesus, that does not mean Jesus is the Father himself.

teddy_trueblood · Post by **teddy_trueblood** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:56 pm

Catalyst wrote:

I just wanted to touch on one thing here.

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh is actually I am THAT I am.

Asher actually can be translated into English in many ways including "what," "that," "who," "whatever," etc.

The NASB, for example, translates it as "whatever" in 4 places in Genesis alone:

Gen. 32:23; 34:11; 39:23; 41:55.

catalyst · Post by **catalyst** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:05 am

teddy_trueblood wrote:Catalyst wrote:

I just wanted to touch on one thing here.

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh is actually I am THAT I am.
Asher actually can be translated into English in many ways including "what," "that," "who," "whatever," etc.

The NASB, for example, translates it as "whatever" in 4 places in Genesis alone:

Gen. 32:23; 34:11; 39:23; 41:55.

Yeah, I go with the Hebrew meaning and actual intent, not the also ran "interpret ation"... to make it "fit". It's like the whole "virgin" thing. Sorry if I appear to be a purist when it comes to this but if I want to know what a word means in its original language, I refer to those who SPEAK it. Jews I have asked have told me it means THAT and ONLY "THAT" when translated to English, directly from Hebrew. The fact that English speakers choose to change the meaning is another thing. You also have to appreciate just how many "hands" (languages) it passed through in its ride.

Whether you like it or not, the Torah is wholly untranslatable, so you showing me what the NASB says, re Genesis, means diddly. All hermeneutics and exegesis based on a "Bible" in translation must be delusion based on initial gross, often intentional, misunderstanding therefore obvious mistranslation.. It is most likely that any translations based on translations (translations of "the Bible" from Greek or Latin) will go yet further afield and one will be led into the sphere of hallucination based on said delusion. Any conclusions drawn from hermeneutics and exegesis based on the Greek translation will be without foundation, while conclusions drawn from hermeneutics and exegesis based on translations of translations cannot but be insanity or at the very least, ludicrous.

To put it simply, all christians are relying on "chinese whispers". The whole Christian Bible is nothing more than "purple monkey dishwasher".

Catalyst.