Who identified Jesus for us?

[marco]

Many believe Jesus was chosen by God to wander around and say nice things. Many believe Jesus was God himself. The question is, on whose authority do people take Jesus to be anything other than a bachelor who lived till he as thirty, with his parents, then spouted the Scripture he'd been fed on?

Who says Jesus was special and what is their qualification for saying so?

And who said Jesus is God and on what basis did they make this claim? In this case, why didn't the claimants explain the problem of two Gods rolled into one?

[marco]

Wouldn't Peters statement support the conclusion that Jesus is the the son of God?

But Christ's indignant denial that he was God would have helped a lot. If the words mean no more than man is of course a son of God then Christ's exuberant reaction:
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven"
is inexplicable. We need no God to communicate platitudes.

Was Christ being the joker once again playing with ambiguities, sowing confusion?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, that brings up the issue of the co-equal trinity, which mainline Christianity believes, and which I have no desire to enter into a debate on.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

That's a good point. I was simply pointing out that Christians believe that it is an extraordinary claim that Jesus is fully God (and also fully man).

[marco]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

That's a good point. I was simply pointing out that Christians believe that it is an extraordinary claim that Jesus is fully God (and also fully man).

He realised pretty late in life he was a god. He spent thirty years in the shade and then one day took a walk, spilled out the scripture he'd ingested and when he said in his figurative fashion he could make the deaf hear and the blind to see the simpletons he associated with took him literally. His family chased after him in an attempt to get him certified but he was having none of it. "I don't know these folk!"

Thirty years later when people wanted a Cause and a God to rival the Roman Emperor, Christ's name came out of the hat and they resurrected him. The rest is church history.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, that brings up the issue of the co-equal trinity, which mainline Christianity believes, and which I have no desire to enter into a debate on.

.

What "brings up the issue of the co-equal trinity" ? A scripture where Jesus didn't mention co-equality, the word trinity or being God? Is this like telling someone you are a cook "raises the issue" as to whether you are an airline pilot? Well like I say, you can take the boy out of the church but you can never take the church out of the boy so I'll leave others to argue how Jesus not saying anything about being God "raises the issue" that he was in fact saying he was... well... God.

Maybe a Pope had something enlightening to say on the subject, at the very least we can look forward to some Latin and a reference to the blessed holy mother church that we must trust to tell us what to think ...



JW

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 2 by marco]

As an ex Christian, I can tell you that Jesus himself claimed to be God, making himself the only authority needed. According to the book of John, while speaking to the Jews in the temple, he made the statement that before Abraham was born he existed and he used the words "I am." These are the same words used by God when he spoke to Moses. In the following passage, after Jesus spoke those words the Jews took up stones to stone him because he claimed to be God.

Jhn 8:56

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

This "I am" thing in John's gospel has been blown way out of proportion to its real meaning.

First of all, when God spoke to Moses and said tell them "I am" sent you, God was speaking in Hebrew.
When Jesus was speaking to the Jews in John 8:58, he was speaking in Aramaic, the language of the people.
When John's gospel was written, it was written in Greek.
And we are reading a fourth generation translation in English.
And who knows if the RCC Trinitarian Monks of the early centuries didn't Monkey with the text?

In Greek, the words Jesus uses which are translated "I am" are "ego eimi".
In John 9:9, the man healed of blindness uses the same words, "ego eimi".
""Others were saying, "This is he," still others were saying, "No, but he is like him." He kept saying, "I am the one."""

Of course, the translators can't have the man healed of blindness saying, "I am", because then he would be saying he was God. So they translate it as ""I am the one"". So why at John 8:58 doesn't Jesus say """I am the one""? Because that wouldn't make the Trinitarians happy. Poof there goes their best proof text.

[Red Wolf]

How is it then, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all missed such an important claim? (or more accurately, how did their sources miss the claim?)

Actually they didn't. Peter confessed that Jesus was the son of God. Matt. 16:16

Emphasis MINE

Wouldn't Peters statement support the conclusion that Jesus is the the son of God?

Son of God????????
Adam was a Son of God and he was not a God.
Luke 3:38King James Version (KJV)
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Israel was a Son of God and he was not a God.
Exodus 4:22-23King James Version (KJV)
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
Deuteronomy 14:1-2King James Version (KJV)
14 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Solomon was a Son of God and he was not a God.
1 Chronicles 22:9-10King James Version (KJV)
9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
1 Chronicles 28:6King James Version (KJV)
6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.



Isaiah 64:8
But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.


0 Bible results for “"God the Son".�

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, that brings up the issue of the co-equal trinity, which mainline Christianity believes, and which I have no desire to enter into a debate on.

.

What "brings up the issue of the co-equal trinity" ?

You stated: "Wouldn't Peters statement support the conclusion that Jesus is the the son of God?"

My answer to your question should have been a simple yes. But I wonder why you asked the question in the first place.

Elijah John said: "How is it then, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all missed such an important claim?" I answered that actually they had not missed it and quoted Peter's statement as recorded in Matt. 16:16 as evidence that it was not missed.

But when you asked the question I was puzzled and thought you might be attempting to bring up the issue of "son of God" as opposed to the "second member of the Trinity." I hope this makes sense to you. Evidently we've had a simple misunderstanding. But I would be interested to hear your reply. Have a great day!

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

That's a good point. I was simply pointing out that Christians believe that it is an extraordinary claim that Jesus is fully God (and also fully man).

He realised pretty late in life he was a god.

Actually, there's the little incident of the boy Jesus missing the bus home when he lingered behind in the Temple intelligently discussing the scriptures with the Rabbis. You will recall that when his family found and questioned him he explained that he was, of course, going about his Father's business.
So perhaps Jesus knew all along who he was but the time wasn't right to reveal it.

...when he said in his figurative fashion he could make the deaf hear and the blind to see the simpletons he associated with took him literally.

From what I recall of the Gospels there was nothing figurative about Jesus' miracles. There were done in public before many witnesses.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 2 by marco]

As an ex Christian, I can tell you that Jesus himself claimed to be God, making himself the only authority needed. According to the book of John, while speaking to the Jews in the temple, he made the statement that before Abraham was born he existed and he used the words "I am." These are the same words used by God when he spoke to Moses. In the following passage, after Jesus spoke those words the Jews took up stones to stone him because he claimed to be God.

Jhn 8:56

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

This "I am" thing in John's gospel has been blown way out of proportion to its real meaning.

First of all, when God spoke to Moses and said tell them "I am" sent you, God was speaking in Hebrew.
When Jesus was speaking to the Jews in John 8:58, he was speaking in Aramaic, the language of the people.
When John's gospel was written, it was written in Greek.
And we are reading a fourth generation translation in English.
And who knows if the RCC Trinitarian Monks of the early centuries didn't Monkey with the text?

Perhaps. But there are also Bible scholars who do make a big deal of the "I Am" thing. And probably even more who believe that their God has preserved his word throughout the generations. So where is the truth? ( I must note here that this is not currently my personal belief, I'm simply presenting what I was taught and read as a Christian for 15 years).

Of course, the translators can't have the man healed of blindness saying, "I am", because then he would be saying he was God. So they translate it as ""I am the one"". So why at John 8:58 doesn't Jesus say """I am the one""? Because that wouldn't make the Trinitarians happy. Poof there goes their best proof text.

I'm not convinced the translators had a conspiracy going. Have a great day!