Did Jesus claim to be God?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Not only so, but, as I said, think of the conclusion you'd have to reach: you'd be saying that God was a fool at some point, then, at some other point, God--Whom you claim lacked wisdom, and, so, was a fool--somehow managed to "invent" or "create" wisdom. Foolishness! Don't say that about God!
Last edited:
RedFan
Well-Known Member
There are of course competing perspectives. Here are two, suggesting "created" rather than "possessed."
As to the upshot of Wisdom's creation implying a time when God was unwise, you might enjoy this hypothetical colloquy:
Alexander was the first to rise and address the congregation. “My
brothers, I have here in my hand a letter written to me by Arius several
years ago. And I now call upon him, in front of this sacred assembly, to
acknowledge his words which I now read: that God ‘begat an Only begotten
Son before eternal times, through whom he has made both the
ages and the universe.’ Did you write these words, Arius, and do you
believe them?”
“I did, and I do.”
“And if the Son was begotten before eternal times, before he himself
made the ages, then the Son must likewise be timeless, and therefore
without beginning, must he not?”
“Existing prior to time as mankind reckons time does not render the
Son without a beginning; only begotten outside of time. But prior to his
generation, he did not exist.”
Alexander opened his eyes wide for effect as he stretched out both
arms to the congregation, raising his voice to the point that it reverberated
throughout the hall: “Do you see, my brothers? The man is inconsistent
and illogical, speaking in riddles, as though there could be a ‘prior’ point
in time when there is no time at all! What further proof do we need of his
irrationality?”
“Will you now tear your clothes and play Caiaphas for us so soon,
Alexander?” the bishop of Nicomedia shouted angrily in retort from
across the hall. “For you have misconstrued Arius’s meaning—or rather,
twisted it to your own purposes!”
“What spews forth from this priest’s blasphemous mouth, Eusebius,
is already so twisted as to require straightening; and certainly you are not
competent to make it straight! But let us hear from Arius himself; let him
defend his own contradictions!”
Arius remained calm as he responded. “The Archbishop is correct
that there is no prior time before time itself was created, just as there are
no prior beings before any being existed. But the absolute existence
ascribed to God gives him priority in being, independently of time. His
precedence is ontological, not merely temporal. Wherefore he who is
unbegotten and ingenerate must of necessity precede that which is
begotten and generated, a prior being to the one it begets or generates,
outside of time.”
“You compound the contradiction, Arius,” Alexander rejoined.
“Your use of temporal terms ‘before’ and ‘prior’ in referring to a being
that you say existed outside of time forces that being back into time!
Your declaration that the Son was begotten ‘before eternal times’ is thus
inconsistent.”
“There is no contradiction. Eternity is an unending continuity of
time, past and future, an infinite series of consecutive moments stretching
in an unbroken line in both directions. What comes into being at any
point in the continuum, even if it then endures forever, has a temporal
existence measured by the line snipped off at one end but not at the other.
But the line of time itself, the infinite series of moments, is generated
from without, not within; it had no beginning at the back end, for by
definition there is no back end. God is not dimensional; he is absolutely
timeless, transcending time, standing outside of the line of time and thus
not measured by it. He begot the Son outside of the line of time as well,
and so the Son is likewise not measured by it, having created it from
without. In that sense the Father and the Son are ‘prior’ to time, in the
ontological rather than temporal sense. But in the same sense, the Father
is ‘prior’ to the Son. Eternally generated, because begotten outside of the
continuum of time, the Son may be; but only the unbegotten Father is
inherently eternal.”
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Idk why I can't see the attachments, but, anyhow, I stand by what I said--the Hebrew does not support the the notion that Wisdom/Christ was "created", and a fool cannot create wisdom.
Also, your story didn't answer either of those and was a waste of my time. You probably had that "left over" from a previous conversation, since you had to know it was irrelevant, and you're playing games. Don't play games with God.
They are not equals in any sense….the Father is the God of Jesus, not only while he walked the earth, but also in heaven….
Rev 3:12…
”The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.”
Four times in that one verse Jesus calls his Father “my God”….can God have a God, even in heaven?
Sorry, no. Philippians 2 tells us quite the opposite….
Correctly translated it reads….
”Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God.”
He was “existing in God’s form”……so, what form does God have? John tells us that he is “a spirit”…(an intangible, invisible living being. John 4:24) and that his angels are also spirits. (Heb 1:14)
The realm where they dwell is also an invisible one….unseen to human eyes, except for the small portals opened up to God’s ancient prophets in visions.
Jesus said that he was created….
Rev 3:14…
”These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:”
If Paul said the Christ was “the firstborn of ALL creation”, then he is part of that creation.
Exactly…as the agency “through whom” all creation came, he is not the Creator, but the facilitator of creation. Not the architect who designed all things, but the builder…the one who acted to bring the raw materials together and to fashion them into what his Father willed….his “master workman”.
Wisdom is only of benefit when it is put to use. Jesus exemplified God’s wisdom In all his ways.
1 Cor 1:24…
“However, to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
The son embodied the wisdom of his God and Father.
No….I am saying that God‘s wisdom was expressed originally in the creation of his “firstborn”.
What use was God’s wisdom to him before he became a Creator?
Like his cardinal quality of “love” was pretty much useless until it was directed towards others and reciprocated.
“Firstborn” and “only begotten“ refer to one whose existence was created. A father brings forth a son, which is “begetting“…..and “monogenes” refers to an “only child”……how is Jesus unique among God’s many “sons”? He is the “firstborn”…the only direct creation of his Father.
Christ never took any credit for creation…..he gave all glory and credit to his Father, as it says in Phil 2:11….
”and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”
Who said we needed to be theologians….? I would count that as a hinderance rather than an asset.
Theologians are big on church doctrine, but way short on scriptural knowledge and correct interpretation and application.
Where have I added anything? And please tell me how Eve was supposed to eat of the fruit without touching it? Perhaps it was Adam who told her not to touch it? Does the Bible say it was all Eve’s idea to add to God’s command?
Jesus words at John 17:3 were….”This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
He tells us that our “everlasting life” is dependent of “knowing God”, not just knowing “about” him…..and fully understanding the role that “Jesus Christ” himself plays in our salvation…..”sent“ by ”the only true God.
You are free to believe as you wish, but decisions have to be made before the judge arrives to give us his verdict as to whether we are….”sheep” or “goats”? We may well be fooling ourselves….(Matt 7:21-23)
I like Arius’ line of thought…very logical and well expressed, but not popular because it clearly tells us how Christ is the created son of his Father…….going against the tide was always difficult as Jesus and his apostles experienced at the hands of their accusers…..But Jehovah‘s servants have never been mainstream because the majority have always belonged to the devil who has the ability to “blind the minds” of those who choose not to believe the truth….sadly, they find it easier to accept the convenient lies rather than to entertain an uncomfortable truth. (2 Cor 4:3-4)
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Well, take it up with John, who says that Isaiah's vision of "God" was Jesus.
Also, while God was "husband" to His people, Israel, Jesus is "husband" to God's people, believers (the Church)--you have a big problem on that one, and your overly simplistic explanations do nothing to resolve them.
We're going to have to disagree: though Christ was the form of God, and sharing an equality with God, He did not cling to that state of exaltation, but humbled Himself.
The message is: If Christ could humble Himself, though having been so highly exalted, then how much more should you?
Well, it was through Him that all things were made, so, no, He's not part of creation.
Already answered "firstborn of creation".
Meaning that the Creator created nothing apart from Christ--rather, "through Him all things were made".
God used His speech. "Let there be light."
Apart from His activity, nothing came into being--He is co-Creator.
And? Isn't that a problem for your view?
If God is alone, your complaint may have substance, but if He is never alone, as we say, the complaint is empty.
If Jesus is Wisdom, He is uncreated.
God possessed the Word.
This makes a lot more sense of the evidence.
God has "thoughts" and the Word is the expression of those "thoughts".
As if God needs to tell us what good His wisdom was?
Who are you?
Oops, again, that's only a problem on your view, but we say God was never alone, so...
God is speaking to us using human terms, but I don't gather from that that I can understand precisely what He's describing--just as the Law had shadows of things to come, referring to far greater realities, with which they have some corresponding attributes. Was there an "afterbirth"? LOL Was Wisdom's "skull" soft in one place? It's just picture language--"If I speak to you of earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" It's earthly picture language of the heavenly reality.
It glorifies God because it says "God is true".
The Spirit of Christ inspired the writing of John, so, yes, Christ, speaking God's truth, testifies truly about Himself as having co-created all things.
You're saying we have to be theologians to know God when you say that we have to know all of this special knowledge to have life, whereas God says it's because He's merciful.
You're "adding" because you said "unless we know WHO the true God is", not that "to know the only true God"--you're trying to read our conversation, a question of God's "identity", into the text there, and basically saying anyone who doesn't agree with you can't have eternal life. That is despicable of you to say.
Don't try to threaten me for disagreeing with your empty position that can't answer the big problems. That's the nonsense you live under because you are being deceived. You don't comprehend God's character or Word or will.
That way of thinking is illogical since you can't deduce one thing from the other.
If I say someone: I am since before your father was ... Am I saying that I am eternal?
Those who heard Jesus knew that he was not talking about eternity, but about age. When he said that he saw Abraham doing something (John 8:56), they asked him “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?”, and it was at that moment he told them that he existed since before Abraham was born, Jesus didn't say
The harsh reality is that many inventors/believers of erroneous doctrines do not have much mental capacity to reason logically, and that leads them to assume nonsenses as true, seeing meaningless things in arguments that do not lead to or imply those conclusions at all.
The Bible describes this lack of logical reasoning as "mentally in darkness" (Eph. 4:18). A person with a healthy clear mind realizes that a father and a son are not the same age, that one is not three, that being dead is not living somewhere else, that firstborn doesn't mean chief, etc.
An honest person spends time reasoning rationally and do not allow himself to be fooled by absurd ideas. To deceive others in this way, those who have their minds in darkness tell others that
RedFan
Well-Known Member
Maybe I have unwittingly exceeded a size limits on attachments. I'll try sending one at a time. Here is Mitchell Dahood's "PROVERBS 8,22-31 TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY" published in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, October 1968, Vol. 30, No. 4,pp. 512-521.
I am not a Hebrew scholar (if you are, please tell me), so I tend to rely on peer-reviewed published academic articles for translation perspectives, rather than something found online. Whether to translate the Hebrew in Proverbs 8:22 as "created" or "possessed" is about equally attested in the journals I have consulted, and the Hebrew will support either one. I am not saying your reading is wrong, of course. I am just gently suggesting that there are two ways to go here. The English, French and German translations which opt for "created" here were each the product of a team of scholars, and it would be wrong to pooh-pooh them all -- as it would be wrong to pooh-pooh the Nicene Creed's formulation "eternally begotten of the Father."
The notion of "eternally begotten" needs some discussion. To go from theological to philosophical for a moment, time is a measure of change. If there were no change, if all were static, sentient beings in that state would have no concept of time. THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY QUOTE. So your notion that "you'd be saying that God was a fool at some point, then, at some other point, God--Whom you claim lacked wisdom, and, so, was a fool--somehow managed to "invent" or "create" wisdom" isn't really accurate. Origen's De Principiis has a modified form of your position, yet concludes that Wisdom was indeed generated:
“And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts
or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God
the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without
having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say
either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He
produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her
who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power
indeed, but— what cannot be said of God without impiety—
was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is
patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount
to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability
to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He
concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom.
Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His
only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives
from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only
such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even
that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or
behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the
understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom
was generated before any beginning that can be either
comprehended or expressed.”
We probably should discuss the twenty fourth chapter of Sirach, which states that Wisdom ‘came forth from the mouth of the Most High,’ but then recites that ‘the Creator of all things gave me a command, and my Creator chose the place for my tent,’ and also ‘Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me, and for all the ages I shall not cease to be.’ Do you want to, respectfully? Or am I just a "fool" who should be ignored?
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
1. To this or that degree, "eternal regeneration", etc, is speculation, and your god would have to have been a fool before somehow managing to "create" wisdom--unlike God, Who was and is and always will be the only wise King.
2. I will choose scholarship proving my view of Qanah, you will choose others proving your view of it, so that won't be resolved, but, if you are honest, when you place the evidence for the opposite side of the argument (1. God was "husband" to His people before, and Jesus is "husband" to God's people today; 2. John says when Isaiah saw God, that was Jesus he saw) on the other side of scale, it isn't as simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
LOL can't stand the heat, get outIf you say so…..you can’t say “no one told me”….
Shaking the dust off….
Your view has gaping holes.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
~
I think it safe to assume that most people in the free world have known
since childhood that the cosmos-- all its forms of life, matter, and energy
--was spoken into existence per Gen 1:1-3.
I've pretty much always known that the speaker was a divine being, but I
haven't always known that the speaker's utterances themselves were a
divine being too till someone introduced me to John 1:1-3 which says:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
The divine being herein identified as the Word has been tasked-- apparently
for reasons of privacy --to do God's talking for Him, and it is this self-same
divine being, herein identified as the Word, who came into the world as the
most famous theophany ever.
● John 1:14 . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
The Word's existence as flesh was given the name Jesus.
● John 1:18 . . No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.
● 1John 1:1-3 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, concerning the Word of life --the life was manifested,
and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life
which was with the Father and was manifested to us --that which we have
seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with
us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.
This is all a bit too complicated for my limited IQ to handle. I cannot fathom
how utterances fit the description of a person, nor how it's possible for
utterances to be made a fully functioning h.sapiens complete with a bona
fides ancestry stretching all the way back to Adam, and from thence to the
very dust with which Adam was constructed.
* The Word is described in 1John 1:1-3 as "the eternal life" so it was
impossible for him to lose his spirit existence when he came into the world
as a material existence. And besides; were the Word to be shut down, who
would take his place as God's utterances?
_
I think it safe to assume that most people in the free world have known
since childhood that the cosmos-- all its forms of life, matter, and energy
--was spoken into existence per Gen 1:1-3.
I've pretty much always known that the speaker was a divine being, but I
haven't always known that the speaker's utterances themselves were a
divine being too till someone introduced me to John 1:1-3 which says:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
The divine being herein identified as the Word has been tasked-- apparently
for reasons of privacy --to do God's talking for Him, and it is this self-same
divine being, herein identified as the Word, who came into the world as the
most famous theophany ever.
● John 1:14 . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
The Word's existence as flesh was given the name Jesus.
● John 1:18 . . No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.
● 1John 1:1-3 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, concerning the Word of life --the life was manifested,
and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life
which was with the Father and was manifested to us --that which we have
seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with
us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.
This is all a bit too complicated for my limited IQ to handle. I cannot fathom
how utterances fit the description of a person, nor how it's possible for
utterances to be made a fully functioning h.sapiens complete with a bona
fides ancestry stretching all the way back to Adam, and from thence to the
very dust with which Adam was constructed.
* The Word is described in 1John 1:1-3 as "the eternal life" so it was
impossible for him to lose his spirit existence when he came into the world
as a material existence. And besides; were the Word to be shut down, who
would take his place as God's utterances?
_
You should re-read my post. I don't think you understood what I said. But it doesn't matter as you reject our Lord and God. You need to get straight Who Jesus is.
To cut to the chase, Jesus claimed present pre-existance to Abraham, a total time bender. Only an eternal being can say such a thing, Before he existed then, I do exist now.
Your response concerned what is and isnt' God's Name, I'm giving an argument that Jesus claimed pre-existance in a present tense.
I won't respond more than this.
Much love!
RedFan
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's simplistic at all. Quite the opposite. It's nuanced to the hilt. The word "proving" doesn't fit here. But if you have some "scholarship" please share.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
So you acknowledge that God was husband to His people before, and, today, Christ is husband to God's people?
- Status
Similar threads
