Did Jesus Himself claim to be God?

John Zain · Jul 7, 2011

What Jesus claimed was obvious to the Jews
Jesus, being a Jew, was totally familiar with the Jewish culture and religion.
“Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He
… said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” John 5:18
“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
… ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy,
and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.’ ” John 10:31,33
“Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said.”
… the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy!” Matt. 26:63,64

But, Jesus did not proclaim God’s truths clearly (He taught in parables)
“But without a parable He did not speak to them (the multitudes).
And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.” Mark 4:34
“To you (disciples) it has been given to know the mysteries (secret-hidden
truths) of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables,
that ‘Seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’ ” Luke 8:10

Jesus hinted at His equality with Father God
“I and My Father are one” John 10:30
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father” John 14:9
“… all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father” John 5:23
“And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory
which I had with You before the world was. … We are one” John 17:5,22

Jesus hinted that He was “I AM” (God)
God told Moses that “I AM” was His name “forever” Exodus 3:14-15
“… if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24
“When you lift up (crucify) the Son of Man,
then (at the resurrection) you will know that I AM …” John 8:28
“Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:58
“… when it (His betrayal) does come to pass, you may believe that I AM.” John 13:19
“Now when He said to them, ‘I AM’, they drew back and fell to the ground.” John 18:6
“I have told you that I AM.” John 18:8
“Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you AM.” John 4:26
None of the 7 verses above have “he” after “I AM” in the Greek manuscripts.
Many of the English translations have just inserted the “he” for readability.

Jesus’ weaker hints that He is “I AM” (God)
“I AM the bread of (eternal) life …” John 6:35
“I AM the light of the world …” John 8:12
“I AM the door of the sheep.” John 10:7
“I AM the good shepherd” John 10:11
“I AM the resurrection and the (eternal) life …” John 11:25
“I AM the way, the truth, and the (eternal) life …” John 14:6
“I AM the true vine …” John 15:1
“I AM the Son of God” Matthew 27:43

Jesus claimed to be the Giver of eternal life
“… a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” John 4:14
“… the Son gives (eternal) life to whom He will.” John 5:21
“… everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you …” John 6:27
“And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish …” John 10:28
“No one comes to the Father (gets into heaven) except through Me.” John 14:6
“… You (Father God) have given Him (Jesus) authority over all flesh,
that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given (to) Him.” John 17:2

belantos · Jul 7, 2011

John Zain said:
What Jesus claimed was obvious to the Jews
Jesus, being a Jew, was totally familiar with the Jewish culture and religion.
“Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He
… said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” John 5:18 <=== Incorrect assumption by the Jews: the text makes absolutely no sense because claiming God to be one's Father didn't mean claiming deity
“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
… ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy,
and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.’ ” John 10:31,33 <=== I addressed this verse in another thread. Jesus corrects them, that he only claimed to be the son of God.
“Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said.”
… the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy!” Matt. 26:63,64 <=== claiming to be the Messiah without fulfilling any of the prophecies was blasphemy

But, Jesus did not proclaim God’s truths clearly (He taught in parables) <=== He spoke in parables that generally Jews, but not Gentiles. His disciples were uneducated, they needed explanation.
“But without a parable He did not speak to them (the multitudes).
And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.” Mark 4:34
“To you (disciples) it has been given to know the mysteries (secret-hidden
truths) of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables,
that ‘Seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’ ” Luke 8:10 <=== the Pharisees/Sadducee were self righteous, so the didn't understand how they applied to them, not that they didn't understand them at all

Jesus hinted at His equality with Father God
“I and My Father are one” John 10:30 <=== and he prayed that his disciples should also be one like he was one with the Father - unity in purpose
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father” John 14:9 <=== He radiated the righteousness of the Father - this is what "image of God" means and we should all do that
“… all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father” John 5:23 <=== God's messenger, whom he chosen empowered and authorised should be honoured just the same way as Him
“And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory
which I had with You before the world was. … We are one” John 17:5,22 <=== In God's counsels Messiah was glorified from the foundation of the world. Anything God planned was as good as done.

Jesus hinted that He was “I AM” (God) <=== The Greek term "ego eimi" is used by others in the NT - do they all claim deity?
God told Moses that “I AM” was His name “forever” Exodus 3:14-15
“… if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24
“When you lift up (crucify) the Son of Man,
then (at the resurrection) you will know that I AM …” John 8:28
“Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:58 <=== Messiah, along with all the righteous pre-existed from the foundation of the world in the counsels of God
“… when it (His betrayal) does come to pass, you may believe that I AM.” John 13:19
“Now when He said to them, ‘I AM’, they drew back and fell to the ground.” John 18:6
“I have told you that I AM.” John 18:8
“Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you AM.” John 4:26
None of the 7 verses above have “he” after “I AM” in the Greek manuscripts.
Many of the English translations have just inserted the “he” for readability. <=== Maybe that is how the Greek, like many other languages, functions. There is no need to add "him", but it is implied.

Jesus’ weaker hints that He is “I AM” (God)
“I AM the bread of (eternal) life …” John 6:35 <=== Terms like "bread" that came down from heaven (manna), "truth", "word of God", "life", "light", "way", etc are terms used in relation to the Torah. The righteous will be risen and inherit the Kingdom.
“I AM the light of the world …” John 8:12
“I AM the door of the sheep.” John 10:7
“I AM the good shepherd” John 10:11
“I AM the resurrection and the (eternal) life …” John 11:25
“I AM the way, the truth, and the (eternal) life …” John 14:6
“I AM the true vine …” John 15:1
“I AM the Son of God” Matthew 27:43

Jesus claimed to be the Giver of eternal life
“… a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” John 4:14 <=== And his disciples are also called to be fountains of living water (ie teachers of righteousness) that lead one into life pertaining to the age (Kingdom) - as "everlasting" is incorrect translation
“… the Son gives (eternal) life to whom He will.” John 5:21 <=== But he can do nothing apart from the Father
“… everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you …” John 6:27 <=== The only true God of Jesus (Jn 17:3) authorised him to do so
“And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish …” John 10:28
“No one comes to the Father (gets into heaven) except through Me.” John 14:6 <=== (gets into heaven) is not in the text. One draws near to God by immersing himself into the life of faithfulness to the point of death of the Messiah
“… You (Father God) have given Him (Jesus) authority over all flesh,
that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given (to) Him.” John 17:2 <=== The giver of that authority is greater than the receiver of that authority, and He is the one Jesus calls "only true God" (Jn 17:3). What do you call the Father?

FHII · Jul 7, 2011

I call this the other and more important John 3:16

1 John 3:15 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us:and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

It's not the main point of this verse, but it says that God died for us. The Father didn't die, but Jesus did, and Jesus was thus God. Nuff said.

belantos · Jul 8, 2011

FHII said:
I call this the other and more important John 3:16

1 John 3:15 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us:and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

It's not the main point of this verse, but it says that God died for us. The Father didn't die, but Jesus did, and Jesus was thus God. Nuff said.

1 John 3:
16 We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.(NRSV)
16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.(NASB)
16 ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν· καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι. (NA27)

The "of God" is only present in very late manuscripts and in those translations that depend on them. This is a spurious addition, no modern textual scholar accepts it today outside the KJV Only camp.

FHII · Jul 8, 2011

belantos said:
1 John 3:
16 We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.(NRSV)
16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.(NASB)
16 ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν· καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι. (NA27)

The "of God" is only present in very late manuscripts and in those translations that depend on them. This is a spurious addition, no modern textual scholar accepts it today outside the KJV Only camp.

I suppose you think this is the only verse I could produce? Blelantos, I have little regard for what you say in that you don't believe in grace through faith, nor do I believe you believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I don't believe you follow the Bible, but several versions of such. And which one you follow at the specific time depends on your (not God's) opinion. Yes, that is my opinion, but here's my request.... Bother me no more... What you say matters nothing to me because you don't believe the Gospel of Grace.

Now go on and have your fit about how right you are and how I've missed judged you and how you think you are here to help the world.... Then curse me for thinking I'm damned and don't believe your truth... but then, leave me alone.

Yea... I know that's too much to ask.

belantos · Jul 8, 2011

FHII said:
I suppose you think this is the only verse I could produce? Blelantos, I have little regard for what you say in that you don't believe in grace through faith, nor do I believe you believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I don't believe you follow the Bible, but several versions of such. And which one you follow at the specific time depends on your (not God's) opinion. Yes, that is my opinion, but here's my request.... Bother me no more... What you say matters nothing to me because you don't believe the Gospel of Grace.

Now go on and have your fit about how right you are and how I've missed judged you and how you think you are here to help the world.... Then curse me for thinking I'm damned and don't believe your truth... but then, leave me alone.

Yea... I know that's too much to ask.

1. I do believe the bible, but I don't believe the Hellenistic interpretation of it.
2. I do believe the scriptures are inspired and were error free in the originals which we don't have.
3. I do believe in the resurrection, else how was all authority given to Jesus to fulfil Daniel's prophecy regarding the son of man coming to the Ancient of Days.
4. There is not a single verse in the entire bible that lends support to trinitarian doctrine except when applying Hellenistic ideas to them
5. It is not I that curse people, I simply interpret passages people quote. The trinitarians are the ones that cannot behave and call me by names and send me to hell. I also nee to remind you to watch your language, if you don't know why, read the relevant biblical passages.

FHII said:
What you say matters nothing to me because you don't believe the Gospel of Grace.

There is no such a thing as the gospel of grace. There is only one gospel and it was preached from John to Jesus to the apostles. It is the gospel of the Kingdom, "repent for the Kingdom of God is near".

Duckybill · Jul 8, 2011

belantos said:
1. I do believe the bible, but I don't believe the Hellenistic interpretation of it.

You have been proven wrong over and over.

You wrote:

"The bible is NOT the word of God, that is an external definition."

belantos · Jul 8, 2011

Duckybill said:
You have been proven wrong over and over.

You wrote:

"The bible is NOT the word of God, that is an external definition."

The term "word of God" whenever you read it IN THE BIBLE it refers to the Torah.

Other than that, I don't really care what you call the printed book. In the church you can call the bible the word of God. I just don't want you to read this external definition into the scriptures.

Duckybill · Jul 8, 2011

belantos said:
The term "word of God" whenever you read it IN THE BIBLE it refers to the Torah.

Other than that, I don't really care what you call the printed book. In the church you can call the bible the word of God. I just don't want you to read this external definition into the scriptures.

So you're saying that the NT is not Scripture?

You say you believe the Torah but also that "The bible is NOT the word of God". Which is it?

You wrote:

"The bible is NOT the word of God, that is an external definition."

"The term "word of God" whenever you read it IN THE BIBLE it refers to the Torah."

John Zain · Jul 8, 2011

belantos said:
1 John 3:
16 We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.(NRSV)
16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.(NASB)
16 ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν· καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι. (NA27)
The "of God" is only present in very late manuscripts and in those translations that depend on them.
This is a spurious addition, no modern textual scholar accepts it today outside the KJV Only camp.

The NKJV does not have "of God" ... I believe this is the work of an over-zealous copiest (copier?).

Miss Hepburn · Jul 8, 2011

Wow, John, your orig post is excellent - thank you.
Why is it that Jesus talked in parables to the multitudes, do you think? I don't get it exactly?

I do love the pregnant quote at the last supper of all places -after 3 yrs with his disciples -There is so much I want to tell you
but you can not bear it now. What? This is an amazing statement.

Why confuse the simple peasants with complicated parables?
I mean I know there was a reason and I respect Jesus' reason - whatever it is - I just don't know it! Ha!

Miss Hepburn

(Hi,aspen.)

Foreigner · Jul 8, 2011

It is really much simply than all that.

Jesus said, "Go in peace, your sins are forgiven."

Who other than God can forgive sins against God?

belantos · Jul 8, 2011

Duckybill said:
So you're saying that the NT is not Scripture?

You say you believe the Torah but also that "The bible is NOT the word of God". Which is it?

You wrote:

"The bible is NOT the word of God, that is an external definition."

"The term "word of God" whenever you read it IN THE BIBLE it refers to the Torah."

It seems to me that you don't really understand the meanings of terms.

1. I believe that the holy scriptures are inspires in the originals (which we don't have, trying to reconstruct the originals is the task of the textual critics)
2. When you read the bible and you notice terms like "word" of God, "word of truth", "word of life", "light" (used in a spiritual sense), "track" / "path" or "ways" of righteousness, "living water" these always relate to the Torah of God or to its application or the righteous life it produces in the obedient.

It is incorrect to think that whenever the bible mentions the "word" of God it refers to the bible. It is not. Fundamentalist KJV Onlyist people believe that when the bible says:

Psalm 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

it is a promise to preserve the bible. It is not.

Miss Hepburn said:
Wow, John, your orig post is excellent - thank you.
Why is it that Jesus talked in parables to the multitudes, do you think? I don't get it exactly?

I do love the pregnant quote at the last supper of all places -after 3 yrs with his disciples -There is so much I want to tell you
but you can not bear it now. What? This is an amazing statement.

Why confuse the simple peasants with complicated parables?
I mean I know there was a reason and I respect Jesus' reason - whatever it is - I just don't know it! Ha!
Miss Hepburn

(Hi,aspen.)

Parables were readily understood by the religious leaders because it was their very tool of religious discourse. The common, uneducated people, like Jesus' disciples did not have the skills to understand them.

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. <=== ie they understood the meaning, but did not take them to heart - proof below

Matthew 21:45
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.

Because through the parables Jesus exposed these religious elite to their self-righteousness and inadequacy, they hated him for that. So the parables just made them more stubborn.

Foreigner said:
It is really much simply than all that.

Jesus said, "Go in peace, your sins are forgiven."

Who other than God can forgive sins against God?

Matt. 9:

1 Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the sea and came to His own city.
2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” 4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? 5 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He *said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” 7 And he got up and went home. 8 But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Why is it that you don't understand this simple truth?

Forgiving in words is one thing, it is easy. If you cannot prove that you have such an authority from God, you blaspheme. But if you are able to perform a special miracle, such as healing a paralytic, that God alone is able to go, you prove that you are empowered by God and are given authority to forgive.

belantos · Jul 8, 2011

John Zain said:
The NKJV does not have "of God" ... I believe this is the work of an over-zealous copiest (copier?).

It is in a few translations - KJV, 21st Century KJV, Douay-Rheims, Wycliffe, all those that utilise the so-called "Textus Receptus", for example, the Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894 has it.

The NKJV might have dropped this because those who worked on it recognised it was spurious.

John Zain · Jul 8, 2011

belantos said:
It is in a few translations - KJV, 21st Century KJV, Douay-Rheims, Wycliffe, all those that utilise
the so-called "Textus Receptus", for example, the Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894 has it.
The NKJV might have dropped this because those who worked on it recognised it was spurious.

I've noticed in the NKJV a few corrections of errors in the KJV.

This one I actually remember, but maybe it's not technically an error:
Matthew 24:
[sup]25 [/sup]Behold, I have told you before. KJV
[sup]25[/sup] See, I have told you beforehand. NKJV
Yeah, it's an error.
Jesus never told them this in the past; He wasn't repeating it.
He was warning them about the future Great Tribulation.

And, there is a real bad one somewhere in Isaiah 40 or 48.

belantos · Jul 8, 2011

John Zain said:
I've noticed in the NKJV a few corrections of errors in the KJV.

This one I actually remember, but maybe it's not technically an error:
Matthew 24:
[sup]25 [/sup]Behold, I have told you before. KJV
[sup]25[/sup] See, I have told you beforehand. NKJV
Yeah, it's an error.
Jesus never told them this in the past; He wasn't repeating it.
He was warning them about the future Great Tribulation.

And, there is a real bad one somewhere in Isaiah 40 or 48.

I used to use the NKJV when I attended a fundamentalist KJV Onlyist church in the past. However, once I disagreed with them that the TR was the only good text and the KJV the only inspired translation for the English speaking world (hey, even Moses was reading the KJV), I left that movement. I think the NA27 is quite good, but textual scholars give too much weight to the Greek manuscripts and not enough to other ancient translations. Their theory is that the NT was written in Greek, but there is a growing number of scholars who believe most of it was written in Hebrew because the leaders of Gentile churches were initially Jews and was translated to Greek by them.

These guys (ancienthebreworg) have some excellent videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ancienthebreworg?blend=8&ob=5

John Zain · Jul 9, 2011

belantos said:
I used to use the NKJV when I attended a fundamentalist KJV Onlyist church in the past. However, once I disagreed with them that the TR was the only good text and the KJV the only inspired translation for the English speaking world (hey, even Moses was reading the KJV), I left that movement. I think the NA27 is quite good, but textual scholars give too much weight to the Greek manuscripts and not enough to other ancient translations. Their theory is that the NT was written in Greek, but there is a growing number of scholars who believe most of it was written in Hebrew because the leaders of Gentile churches were initially Jews and was translated to Greek by them.

Appreciate your reply, thanks.
May I share what the Lord told me some years ago? ...
... He told me to run away from the "What's the best version?" debate
because it wasn't important and it's a waste of time.
So, I have done that.
But, Muslims are really hung up on it as an excuse to reject Christianity.
I preach to Muslims that ALL of God's important major doctrines are in ALL Bibles,
except those of the cults/sects.
Another excuse Muslims have to reject Christianity is the Trinity.
But, I prove to them that the Trinity is NOT part of Jesus' simple gospel.
.

veteran · Jul 9, 2011

belantos said:
It seems to me that you don't really understand the meanings of terms.

1. I believe that the holy scriptures are inspires in the originals (which we don't have, trying to reconstruct the originals is the task of the textual critics)
2. When you read the bible and you notice terms like "word" of God, "word of truth", "word of life", "light" (used in a spiritual sense), "track" / "path" or "ways" of righteousness, "living water" these always relate to the Torah of God or to its application or the righteous life it produces in the obedient.

It is incorrect to think that whenever the bible mentions the "word" of God it refers to the bible. It is not. Fundamentalist KJV Onlyist people believe that when the bible says:

Psalm 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

it is a promise to preserve the bible. It is not.

Most of those assumptions are a crock; a huge one at that. It is not the job of textual critics to determine for those in Christ Jesus what is God's Word, and what is not. Only The Holy Spirit can do that. Lot of textual critics themselves DO NOT BELIEVE ON JESUS CHRIST AS GOD'S PROMISED SAVIOUR. So there is a separation line that must exist between those in Christ Jesus studying God's Word, The Bible, and textual critics that don't even believe what their translating. Those unbelieving textual critics remind me of Bill Clinton's words on the witness stand, "Well it depends on what the word 'is' means". Right, like God's people should listen to them in their 'supposed' authority.

Parables were readily understood by the religious leaders because it was their very tool of religious discourse. The common, uneducated people, like Jesus' disciples did not have the skills to understand them.

The blind priests, scribes, and Pharisees of the Jews understood only enough to know that Jesus was referring to them negatively. It doesn't mean they well understood the full meaning of His parables. But Christ's disciples did understand, because Jesus revealed His parables to them, explaining them (Matt.13). To THIS DAY the unbelieving Jews still do not understand Jesus' parables.

John 3:1-3
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him, "Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with him."
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
(KJV)

John 3:9-12
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto Him, "How can these things be?"
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
(KJV)

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. <=== ie they understood the meaning, but did not take them to heart - proof below

Matthew 21:45
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.

Because through the parables Jesus exposed these religious elite to their self-righteousness and inadequacy, they hated him for that. So the parables just made them more stubborn.

The blind priests, scribes, and Pharisees indeed perceived that Christ spoke of them, but they didn't exactly understand how He meant His parables. Christ's parables had a dual purpose. Slighting the blind religious hypocrites was only one purpose. The other purpose is only for His believers involving deeper Truths, and even prophecy.

veteran · Jul 9, 2011

Here's one the unbelieving Jews still... struggle with today...

Matt 22:42-45
42 Saying, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?" They say unto Him, "The Son of David."
43 He saith unto them, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?'
45 If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?
(KJV)

The LORD (Father) said unto my Lord (Jesus)... per David in Ps.110.

They still struggle with this too...

Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
(KJV)

And especially this...

Isa 7:13-14
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
(KJV)

And because they REFUSE to understand that, which is FROM their Hebrew manuscripts the scribes, priests, and Pharisees all had access to, they try to assign the following as Hellenist teaching...

Matt 1:22-23
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 'Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel', which being interpreted is, 'God with us'.
(KJV)

The Christ IS God per the Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts. And Jesus of Nazareth IS The Christ, Immanuel which means 'God with us'.

It's time for those who claim to be God's people to wake up to that Truth of God's Word. It CANNOT be taken out of the Hebrew manuscripts of God's Word. It's been there all along that He Who would fulfill that Child being born of a virgin is the very Christ God's prophets were given to write about. Trying to assign Christ (Messiah) outside The Triune Godhead as Hellenist teaching is about as ignorant as saying that prophecy in Isaiah never existed!

belantos · Jul 9, 2011

veteran said:
Most of those assumptions are a crock; a huge one at that. It is not the job of textual critics to determine for those in Christ Jesus what is God's Word, and what is not. Only The Holy Spirit can do that. Lot of textual critics themselves DO NOT BELIEVE ON JESUS CHRIST AS GOD'S PROMISED SAVIOUR. So there is a separation line that must exist between those in Christ Jesus studying God's Word, The Bible, and textual critics that don't even believe what their translating. Those unbelieving textual critics remind me of Bill Clinton's words on the witness stand, "Well it depends on what the word 'is' means". Right, like God's people should listen to them in their 'supposed' authority.

So who put the Greek text together for you? For there is not a single complete perfect manuscript out there. Those that are found differ in reading in many places. You don't seem to have any knowledge about the process. On the top of that these scholars don't interpret, nor translate the text. They only assemble it from myriad of sources.

veteran said:
The blind priests, scribes, and Pharisees of the Jews understood only enough to know that Jesus was referring to them negatively. It doesn't mean they well understood the full meaning of His parables. But Christ's disciples did understand, because Jesus revealed His parables to them, explaining them (Matt.13). To THIS DAY the unbelieving Jews still do not understand Jesus' parables.

The actually do understand them, much better than most Christians, even if they don't believe them.

veteran said:
John 3:1-3
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him, "Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with him."
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
(KJV)

John 3:9-12
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto Him, "How can these things be?"
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
(KJV)

The blind priests, scribes, and Pharisees indeed perceived that Christ spoke of them, but they didn't exactly understand how He meant His parables. Christ's parables had a dual purpose. Slighting the blind religious hypocrites was only one purpose. The other purpose is only for His believers involving deeper Truths, and even prophecy.

Jesus didn't talk about some kind of "born again" experience that Christians fabricated, but one that existed in Judaism. Jesus was talking about repentance, and Nicodemus, along with the rest of the Pharisees, though he was right with God. This is why Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus was talking about.

Then you have Christians reading a foreign meaning into the passage, that supposedly took place only after Pentecost, but Jesus tells Nicodemus he should have known about it and should have been born again.

Did Jesus Himself claim to be God?

Newbie trainee

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Newbie trainee

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Newbie trainee

New Member

Newbie trainee

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads