Jesus never said he was God Almighty

[APAK]

Alpha and Omega are Greek words.

Alpha and Omega are the words Aleph and Tav in Hebrew.

Alpha and Omega in English are the letters A and Z.

Throughout the Old Testament are 2 Hebrew letters, the Aleph and the Tav, back to back and since they aren't words, translators took them out.

Example, Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning God AZ created the heavens and the earth.

Revelation 22:13, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Jesus wasn't saying He was the alphabet.

Colossians 1:16, 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.

It is always about Jesus. Jesus is God.

Revelation 1:8, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

What all Unitarians need is an apokalupsis, Greek for revelation. The Book of Revelation shines the light on Jesus.

Galatians 1:12, I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Revealing hit-and-run comments by Armadillo….

I never said Jesus or God was the Alpha and Omega as titles. You misunderstand what these expressions are used for, completely. These 3 expressions used in Revelation pertain to Jesus and God Almighty. They represent their unique capabilities and their works, and not their titles. Maybe you do understand this although I could tell by your cryptic correspondence.

They represent the specific and unique things they are responsible for and have done or are doing today, as I already spoke of in post #186.

I also would like to comment on two scriptures you posted: Col 1:16 and Gal 1:12

(Col 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
(Col 1:16) For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
(Col 1:17) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(Col 1:18) And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (ESV)

This verse 16 is about Jesus creating and ordering of the ages after his ascension in heaven. Controlling the power and rulers on the earth. He has the authority of God to do this. This verse has nothing to do with Jesus creating the world, materials, elements, rocks, soil, sand water air, space etc., back in time.

Vere 15 says that Jesus in the image of God as we are the image of Christ. Jesus is the first of ‘all’ the new creation, not as the first pre-existent being at the being of time. We are destined to follow Jesus as the rest of this new creation.

Verse 17 and 18 gives us more of a clue that the use of creation is all about the creative things since Jesus’ ascension. Jesus oversees all things on heaven and earth and especially as the head of his body here on earth.

Galatians….

(Gal 1:11) For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.
(Gal 1:12) For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ

In Galatians 1 :11-12 Paul is defense as his audience are hesitant if he knows and can be an authentic preacher of the gospel since he did not walk with Jesus. He emphatically says he got it from Jesus directly.

Yes, just as Paul knows the gospel I too know a little about scripture and its meaning. I do have the spirit of Christ, how about you?

If you have something on you mind spill it out, without throwing conversational grenades at me to attack my character.

APAK

 

[Armadillo]

If you have something on you mind spill it out,

You asked for it, you got it and you aren't going to like it! As I see it, you have a zeal for God but lack the knowledge of salvation and with that, you have my compassion.

What are your thoughts on the Aleph and the Tav?

 

[APAK]

You asked for it, you got it and you aren't going to like it! As I see it, you have a zeal for God but lack the knowledge of salvation and with that, you have my compassion.

What are your thoughts on the Aleph and the Tav?

The Hebrew symbols of Aleph and the Tav…conveying the new message and meaning of Jesus in the OT

The Messianic Jew works…from the Tanakh

Well at this point I look at this subject as a powerful virus or disease, in a closed, isolated, hermetic and sealed room. It may be inserted corruption and not a genuine revelation. I’m not ready to greet it with open arms as true revelation of the spirit of God.

I will stick to the F and L …A to T …and B and E as what both Jesus and God are uniquely qualified or known for based on existing scripture. I will play this one very safe.

These symbols are supposedly intermixed throughout the OT (over a couple of thousand) and can be manipulated to serve an agenda -more mistranslated maybe the result. We don’t need more confusion

Jury is still out on this one Armadillo..still too hot to handle ..I still have reservations about the authenticity of the Tanakh itself…

Bless you,

APAK

 

[Armadillo]

ok

 

[bbyrd009]

In the beginning God AZ created the heavens and the earth.

nice, looks like maybe even "...created Elohim AZ the heavens and AZ the earth"

 

[bbyrd009]

except for the "vav" before the earth one,
"The meaning of this letter is to add or secure. This letter is frequently used as a prefix to words to mean "and" in the ..."

 

[Helen]

This will be the Last time posting in this topic. the OP requested me not to post to his topic anymore.

No, this is not the same body, only the images of the body of the nail and spear prints are visible.

and here's why it's not the SAME body. this body walks through the walls, could the body that came out of Mary walk through walls NO. this body appears and disappears at will in nature, can the body that came out of Mary do that NO. so no, this is not the same body in substance.

PCY.

if you want to continue this conversation, I'll be posting to the topic "Diversified Oneness".

PCY

I am sure APAK was NOT saying to not post in THIS thread, but just don't post "to him". This is a public Forum , therefore public.
See APAK's post #189 He says as much there. Don't drop your conversation with Stranger.

Anyway...I hear you in your above post...but if everyone believes that Jesus is still as He was when He was here...what was the glorification?
He was raised and glorified.

I have always believed that after he ascended to the Father...He appearance is as shown in Rev. 1
14 "His head and His hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And He had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and His countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength."

Iv'e always believed that He took back the glory that He laid down to come as a man.

Bless you...H

 

[lforrest]

Iv'e always believed that He took back the glory that He laid down to come as a man.

Bless you...H

And what was the transfiguration, but I believe a display of that glory. Hence he displayed his glory before he was glorified? Yes I believe that, and chronology goes out the window due to his eternal nature.

 

[Naomi25]

A short list of scripture verses to show that there is only one God and one Jesus, the Christ and they are different.
...

Bless you,

APAK

APAK, this thread is about such an important and weighty matter. I am sure you know this. That is why I try one last time to make my point. Read back over the last 11 pages. You may believe you have given convincing evidence against the bible verses people have given you, but every single time, you have waved your hand and said, "well actually, it doesn't mean that."


Someone pointed out that John outright tells us that the Jews were trying to stone Jesus because the claims he was making made him 'God'. (John 10:33). In response to that very clear verse you said: "You and the Pharisees think alike......as Jesus never meant he was saying he was God Almighty".
You basically called them a Pharisee, which might have been a tad hurtful. But then you backed it up with nothing but opinion again. Against John's very clear wording. Now...we might say that the Jews and Pharisees could have been mistaken about what Jesus was claiming, but we have too many bible verses that say otherwise...but...you like to explain those away too.

When someone posted John 8:58, Jesus saying "I AM", a repeat of God's statement to Moses, you said: "More cherry-picking"....and, "Now the Pharisees recognized the common expression of I AM (he/she) that Jesus used. It means that I AM he in the most definite and prejudice way possible. The Hebrew have it as meaning ‘I will be what/who I will be.’ It has NOTHING to do with Divinity or God Almighty."
Basically you said that Jesus saying that was equivalent to today's "s'up?" A vernacular that everyone used all the time and had no extraordinary meaning. And yet...how do you know that? Where is your proof? Biblical, or historical, or anything other than just your opinion? We have Moses' writing telling us that God said it. And we have John's writing telling us Jesus said it. And we also know thanks to John that the Jews found it offensive enough to stone Jesus. So...ordinary, I think not. Your evidence is lacking....especially when we combine it with John 10:33.

There's more. Next you were pointed to Titus 2:13-14. "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works."
You explain this one away by saying that the passage only refers to Jesus being God's "glory". But it clearly doesn't say that! It is wishful thinking or just plain desperation to suggest it does. It is talking of the return of Jesus, of his appearing. Of HIS glory, of HIM who gave himself for us to redeem us. This is talking of Jesus...God and Savior. And accusing people of cherry-picking doesn't really give any evidence that makes your point valid.

Then John 1:1-18! The Word, who IS God and became flesh! You say it: "has no foundation for the non-revisionist meaning. The early writers just made Jesus = word without any foundation."
But where is your foundation? You say it's all based on a lie! But that is your opinion...where is your proof of text tampering? Because as it reads, it is very clear!
v1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
v2: He was in the beginning with God.
v3: All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
v14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
v18: No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Come on! In the beginning Jesus was WITH God (he was eternal and separate to God), but also God (Trinity doctrine). All things made through him (so clearly he had to BE before his birth), then he became flesh (implying he existed before he took on flesh), and the ONLY God, who was at the Father's side (One God, Two persons).

That's just page 1 of this thread, and a small handful of verses...there are so many more! And not a shred of evidence or proof from you apart from opinion! I think everyone here is trying to tell you that our evidence is both scripture and the weight of Orthodox understanding. Scripture helps interpret scripture. And while you may have plenty of verses that say "God is One", we are saying that there are plenty that tell us that Jesus is God. So you are left with twisting scripture to explain it away as you are, or you accept that the Trinity is true...One Godhead, three persons.

 

[APAK]

@Naomi25

Let me just answer the first paragraph for now of John 10:33-36. It will be enough to chew on, believe me.

Unfortunately, Naomi, we do have to look at the translation of verse John 10:33 into English, carefully.

We cannot get around it. Translators made a big mistake here. It will alter what you believe the verse means, and apparently today you believe what is translated here. The translators did do a great job on verses 34 -36, and not verse 33.

You do understand you have to read verses 34-26 with verse 33 to get the entire meaning? Because what I’ve already said about verse 33 already makes perfect sense when you read verses 34-36 with it. Verse 34-36 make no sense when you view it as it is translated in most Bibles.

(Joh 10:33) The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
(Joh 10:34) Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
(Joh 10:35) If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
(Joh 10:36) do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ALL ESV)

The KEY word in verse 33 that is not correct is the uppercase ‘God.’ The use of Theos/theos in verses 34-36 were translated CORRECTLY.

(Joh 10:33) Απεκρίθησαν προς αυτόν οι Ιουδαίοι, λέγοντες· Περί καλού έργου δεν σε λιθοβολούμεν, αλλά περί βλασφημίας, και διότι συ άνθρωπος ων κάμνεις σεαυτόν Θεόν. (modern Greek)

Even though this modern Greek version of verse 33 had a capitalized Theos it has no definite article before it (English ‘the’) which would make it ‘God.’ THIS IS A BLATENT MISTRANSLATION.

Since it does not, it should be a lower cased Theos or theos or ‘god.’

In John 1:1 we have the definite article (Greek ‘he/hay’) and it is translated correctly as ‘the Theos’ or ‘God.’ And not theos or ‘god’.

(Joh 1:1) Εν αρχή ήτο ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήτο παρά τω Θεώ, και Θεός ήτο ο Λόγος. (modern Greek)

Two NT examples of where they used ‘god’ correctly instead of God.

(Act 12:22) And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!”
(Act 12:22) Ο δε λαός επεφώνει· Θεού φωνή και ουχί ανθρώπου.
(Act 28:6) They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.
(Act 28:6) εκείνοι δε επρόσμενον ότι έμελλε να πρησθή ή εξαίφνης να πέση κάτω νεκρός. Αφού όμως επρόσμενον πολλήν ώραν και έβλεπον ότι ουδέν κακόν εγίνετο εις αυτόν, μεταβαλόντες στοχασμόν έλεγον ότι είναι Θεός. (Modern Greek)

John 10:33 should have been translated as ‘a god’ or ‘god.’

Now what did Jesus immediately say to the Pharisees once he knew they called him ‘a god?’ , “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Jesus was lecturing them of being hypocrites and taking the easy way out. He said in the OT, prophets and other in the service of God Almighty were called ‘gods’ and they have no problem believing that, because it was in scripture. So Jesus, already knowing the answer, said to them, are you then blaspheming me because I say I'm the son of God Almighty, higher than the prophets that were called 'gods?' The Pharisees knew they were doing just that....

Naomi, the Pharisees NEVER considered him God Almighty in this passage of text. It is crystal clear. They understood what Jesus was saying to them, do you?

You must read all the verses collectively to know what is being said here. You cannot discard any of them and hone in on ONE mistranslated word and say eureka this is the only meaning here and then the erroneous snowball effect soon ensues.

It would make NO SENSE if the Pharisees called him the God Almighty with Jesus’ reply. Jesus’ response was a reflect of what others in the OT were called. If we are to have break thought in understanding here Naomi, you have to at least consider what I’m saying here.

Now verse 36 is correctly translated as the son of the God with a definite article in front of Theos.

(Joh 10:36) εκείνον, τον οποίον ο Πατήρ ηγίασε και απέστειλεν εις τον κόσμον, σεις λέγετε ότι βλασφημείς, διότι είπον, Υιός του Θεού είμαι; (Modern Greek)

There was no waving done here, or just my own opinion voiced here. It is what scripture says to me.

Naomi, I cannot make my case any clearer for you regarding John 10:33

Bless you,

APAK

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Jesus did say that He was and is God Almighty when you consider that was why He was crucified for.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

So if you consider those other times when Jews sought to end the life of Jesus, it was because of His identity with deity as deity.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 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. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 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.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Naomi, the Pharisees NEVER considered him God Almighty in this passage of text. It is crystal clear. They understood what Jesus was saying to them, do you?

Of course, the Pharisees did not consider Jesus as God Almighty in spite of what Jesus had said, and that is why they had crucified Him for it.

 

[bbyrd009]

in spite of what Jesus had said

in keeping with what Scripture says, was the point there.
If you want to rely on what Jesus said, "Son of Man" would be your goto i guess

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

in keeping with what Scripture says, was the point there.
If you want to rely on what Jesus said, "Son of Man" would be your goto i guess

Feel free to explain their reaction to wanting to end Jesus then. Reads as a very serious disagreement with Him being of the Godhead.

 

[bbyrd009]

Feel free to explain their reaction to wanting to end Jesus then. Reads as a very serious disagreement with Him being of the Godhead.

it can be read that way, yes, but as APAK noted you have to warp Scripture first, admittedly just a little bit, but nonetheless. You are called to be a god too, and to pick up your cross and follow also.

Feel free to explain their reaction to wanting to end Jesus then.

for that i would suggest that that is where our perspective is drawn, when it might be better to reflect upon

but he escaped out of their hand

but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

and contrast these with other times Christ "hid Himself" maybe. A few directions we could go here, but obviously Jesus would not even care about getting stoned if He were God, right. So imo deliberate inconsistencies are being introduced to force a personal dilemma there. God is the head of Christ, though, so i don't mean to go too far here either. So, even though this is reflecting on a different passage, imo it maybe has some application here,

"
As told by Luke, those present at the synagogue didn't like Jesus' swing on things very much and proceeded to pummel Him up the hill in order to shove Him off, and that by itself is a huge clue as to what is going on. If these people were pure Mosaic Jews, they would have stoned Jesus, not throw Him off a cliff. Throwing unwanted elements off mountains was a Roman and Greek habit (see Taygetus and the Tarpeian Rock, for instance. A mass execution by this means is told of in 2 Chronicles 25:12), and Luke's report of the Jews transporting Jesus up the mountain only to see Him pass through their midst and go back down again is a rather blatant wink to the famous story of Sisyphus, who achieved immortality via a scam, and as eternal punishment had to roll a huge stone up a mountain, only to see it roll back down again each time he came near the top.

The Jews who rejected Jesus weren't observant Jews, they were a Hellenized Judaic hobby club. News about Jesus' teachings fanned all over Galilee and He was praised by all (Luke 4:14-15). But before the advent of Facebook, people didn't know what a famous person would look like, and the Jews of Nazareth were pleasantly surprised when their own homeboy appeared to be the famous teacher everybody was talking about (4:22). Their amusement came to a quick halt when Jesus basically called them a bunch of widows and lepers (4:25-27)..." The amazing name Nazareth: meaning and etymology

and also we might note that no one was interested in stoning Him when He manifested miracles, etc, right
the point being that their motivations really aren't even relevant, perhaps

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

it can be read that way, yes, but as APAK noted you have to warp Scripture first, admittedly just a little bit, but nonetheless. You are called to be a god too, and to pick up your cross and follow also.

for that i would suggest that that is where our perspective is drawn, when it might be better to reflect upon

and contrast these with other times Christ "hid Himself" maybe. A few directions we could go here, but obviously Jesus would not even care about getting stoned if He were God, right. So imo deliberate inconsistencies are being introduced to force a personal dilemma there. God is the head of Christ, though, so i don't mean to go too far here either. So, even though this is reflecting on a different passage, imo it maybe has some application here,

"
As told by Luke, those present at the synagogue didn't like Jesus' swing on things very much and proceeded to pummel Him up the hill in order to shove Him off, and that by itself is a huge clue as to what is going on. If these people were pure Mosaic Jews, they would have stoned Jesus, not throw Him off a cliff. Throwing unwanted elements off mountains was a Roman and Greek habit (see Taygetus and the Tarpeian Rock, for instance. A mass execution by this means is told of in 2 Chronicles 25:12), and Luke's report of the Jews transporting Jesus up the mountain only to see Him pass through their midst and go back down again is a rather blatant wink to the famous story of Sisyphus, who achieved immortality via a scam, and as eternal punishment had to roll a huge stone up a mountain, only to see it roll back down again each time he came near the top.

The Jews who rejected Jesus weren't observant Jews, they were a Hellenized Judaic hobby club. News about Jesus' teachings fanned all over Galilee and He was praised by all (Luke 4:14-15). But before the advent of Facebook, people didn't know what a famous person would look like, and the Jews of Nazareth were pleasantly surprised when their own homeboy appeared to be the famous teacher everybody was talking about (4:22). Their amusement came to a quick halt when Jesus basically called them a bunch of widows and lepers (4:25-27)..." The amazing name Nazareth: meaning and etymology

Per your take on that one incident and thus based on assumptions in forming your conclusion, you are forgetting the time when they actually did try to stone Jesus ( John 8:54-58 ) and not to mention the reason for His crucifixion.

Jews are not limited to stoning in putting anyone to death in their service to God under the Old Covenant. Stoning is the usual & traditional way but Jews are to put violaters to death. If no stones were available in the immediate moment, the cliff may have been their only choice. Under Roman law, the crucifixion was the other choice for the "perceived & yet understood blasphemy of His claim to deity" .

 

[bbyrd009]

Per your take on that one incident and thus based on assumptions in forming your conclusion, you are forgetting the time when they actually did try to stone Jesus ( John 8:54-58 ) and not to mention the reason for His crucifixion.

Jews are not limited to stoning in putting anyone to death in their service to God under the Old Covenant. Stoning is the usual & traditional way but Jews are to put violaters to death. If no stones were available in the immediate moment, the cliff may have been their only choice. Under Roman law, the crucifixion was the other choice for the "perceived & yet understood blasphemy of His claim to deity" .

yet under their Law stoning was the only commandment for blasphemy, not any Roman crucifixion. So we have the conundrum that the Jews could not carry out the sentence prescribed for blasphemy, and at the same time the "Roman" sentence--crucifixion here, not throwing ppl off of cliffs, also Roman--was specifically deemed as not applying, by the Romans, see; they gave a verdict of "not guilty."

 

[Phoneman777]

kind of interesting that you misquoted a passage that actually makes the opposite point there 101

John 5:39 Lexicon: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
John 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Hi, "You search the Scriptures..." is based on the "Critical Text", which renders it a mere observation of Jesus, while the "Textus Receptus" is translated "Search the Scriptures..." which makes it a command from Jesus (the latter I think is correct).

 

[bbyrd009]

Hi, "You search the Scriptures..." is based on the "Critical Text", which renders it a mere observation of Jesus, while the "Textus Receptus" is translated "Search the Scriptures..." which makes it a command from Jesus (the latter I think is correct).

i'm seeing this now, ya, but imo the next v is the point regardless i guess. Seems to imply a "you" in the preceding v anyway.
guess it's wrong to say it is a misquote per se tho, ya

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

yet under their Law stoning was the only commandment for blasphemy, not any Roman crucifixion. So we have the conundrum that the Jews could not carry out the sentence prescribed for blasphemy, and at the same time the "Roman" sentence--crucifixion here, not throwing ppl off of cliffs, also Roman--was specifically deemed as not applying, by the Romans, see; they gave a verdict of "not guilty."

And yet somehow, Jesus was still crucified.