MachineGod

BTW…Ty,

This verse…

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us."

Was not presented in reference to who God was talking to.
Both verses of scripture were presented together.
To show that the words that Jesus spoke were God’s words. (Breath/Holy Spirit/The Word…Get it!?)


Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us.

-DM-

You did claim to know what Jesus never said. You also claimed to know that Jesus claimed to be God. You also stated what you believed that Jesus believed.

Then your posting misled numerous people for the reason that you have not said what you mean, nor meant what you said, given:

You could have saved yourself and all of us a good deal of confusion--and effort--had you more carefully worded your original statements.

-Don-

TySixtus

Gee, that's clever. Couldn't think of your own insult, had to borrow mine? For the record, you still haven't refuted anything I said in the other forum, let alone this one. Anyway, I made my point (thanks to your ad hom, in fact) so I'll leave off there.

Have fun deluding yourself!

Ty

TySixtus

P.S
You haven't said anything here. A whole bunch of lines of nothing. Good job.

Oh wait, I see what you did here. You took them out of context. You used an OT quote, and a NT quote, and since they both deal with a central character addressing someone else besides themself, they must both be god. I mean, the chances of two beings using first person narrative to talk to a third party is certainly Godlike! You've proven the Trinity! And you've proven that Jesus never said he was god!

*yawn*

I'm going to bed.

Ty

Sven

[emphasis mine]
Can you back this up in any way? Or is this just hyperbole?
How many prophets were killed/crucified because the "Pharisees [...] had some malicious feeling over [them]"? And were can I read this up?

Not_Registered

Not quite what I was saying CX. It's all true except for one word. I was saying If Jesus did not claim to be God and He was crucified for claiming to be God, we should expect to see Him denying that He ever claimed to be God. We do not see Him denying that he claimed to be God therefore He must have [Wrong -->] claimed to be God. I never said, and the issue wasn't that I was trying to prove that He claimed to be God, but instead that He believed Himself to be God. Whether He claimed this or people just pulled this belief out of the air is of no real concern in the issue I bring up. I am just posing the scenario that if Jesus didn't deny that "false" accusation in order to save His life then He must have believed it to be true.
Well, in Matthew 26 verses 63-65 a dialogue occurs that leads to the priest believing that Jesus commited blasphemy. Whether Jesus ever really ment to convey the idea that He was the "Son of God" doesn't matter is will always be up for debate, but in the end the priest believed He committed blasphemy and wanted Him dead for it. For someone to honestly say that the people back then thinking that Jesus believed Himself to be God had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Jesus' death is a little bit foolish and naive. But that can always be up for debate as well.
To -DM- , what is your reason for clinging on tightly to the belief that I "claimed" to know what Jesus ever said. I never did in the first place and even if I had it wouldn't matter because now I'm saying I never did. If someone said they were right or you thought they said they were right about an issue and they were really wrong, but then they ADMIT they were wrong it doesn't matter if they ever said they were right. I never did say I claimed anything, but even if I did I'm saying I don't know and didn't mean to so it doesn't matter. Let it go man. Quit latching on to one thing which has little influence on the actual topic and trying to belittle me with it. How about this, you're right -DM-....and I'm wrong. Can you sleep better now?

Sven

And the problem is (as has been pointed out): Even if he was indeed accused of this and even if he indeed denied the accusation (some would add an "Even if he existed" in front of this) - certainly none of the gospel writers would have included this denial since it would have undermined their preaching.

So we can conclude exactly nothing from the absence of this denial from the gospels. Your question is pointless.

Not_Registered

Your point (and that word is used loosely) is absolutely foolish. So you say that because the Gospels don't show Jesus' denial and because it would hurt their cause that means it happend and they just didn't include it. Come on man, you can say that about anything. My question isn't at all pointless just because the Gospels don't talk about Jesus' denial of the accusation. Maybe, just maybe it never really happened. I don't know. I was posing a scenario. By your logic (once again that term is used loosely) the Earth could have at one point been invaded every 2005 years by martians who came to introduce new species of animal to the Earth every 2005 years and took away old species. BUT!.......BUT!.....Because it would hurt evolutionist theory and they don't talk about it means it probably happend. You know what, I can't wait till 2005 to see the martians come down and see what new species they have for us this time. I'm just ecstatic. The anticipation is overwhelming me. Think about it Sven. You must not be able to trust anybody EVER, by your view. Because if anyone every proves something to you the fact that they left out some evidence that might overturn their proof leads you to believe they were lying. By your logic, you've got to be the most suspicious, doubtful, unbelieving, skeptical person in the history of the world....But you're probably doubtful of that.

Sven

What? Where did I say this?

Please read again: "So we can conclude exactly nothing from the absence of this denial from the gospels."

What exactly was hard to understand of this sentence?

So what??? Even if he denied the accusation, why on earth do you think the gospel writers would have included it? What exactly is so hard to comprehend about this point?

To phrase it another way: If Jesus didn't deny the accusation, his denial would not have been included in the gospels. If Jesus did deny the accusation, his denial would not have been included in the gospels.
"So we can conclude exactly nothing from the absence of this denial from the gospels."

[snipped rest based on misunderstanding]

Oh, and I have to add an "even if the gospel writers knew about the denial" in my chain of if's.

Not_Registered

Nothing is hard to understand about your sentence; it's just deleted . Your defending it is even more ridiculous. It is an "apply to all situation" sayings. It's a saying someone says when they don't want to admit something. By your reasoning ALL criminals would be free or their cases would remain open FOREVER. If a criminal commits a crime and the police interrogate him and, of course he committed the crime, so he doesn't deny it, well all the defense attorney would have to say (even though most of the evidence proves that the criminal is guilty) is "well I don't think the police would admit it even if he denied the crime anyways; so we can conclude nothing from the absence of his denial and he should be free to go" All I'm saying is yeah I see your deleted point, but it applies to EVERYTHING deleted. You've never heard me say I hate people from Australia so maybe I do. To phrase it in another way: If I never have said I hate people from Australia you wouldn't and couldn't hear me say that. If I ever did say I hate people from Australia I wouldn't let you find out about it (i.e. "his denial would not have been included in the gospels"). So we can conclude nothing about the absence of a statement where I say I hate people from Australia. See how deleted that sounds for that to be your solid rock argument your standing on. If you want to make that statement, okay whatever....deleted, but its just a single statement. But your defending this "logic" as if it's sound reasoning.