Freethought & Rationalism Archive

iPodAddict181 · 03-22-2009, 01:57 AM

Did Jesus ever state that he was God/the son of God? I have researched this and my conclusion has come to no, he never stated this, it was implied. Tell me if I am wrong, and if so, give me a verse.

IamJoseph · 03-22-2009, 02:01 AM

No. That would have been total and absolute blasphemy of the Mosaic laws - aka a totally false belief. This was said later - by Europeans, who already worshipped Roman Emperors. Europe had no such law or belief which forbid divine humans - that is why none even questioned it, or demanded proof.

jon-eli · 03-22-2009, 03:10 AM

Definitely the whole "Jesus as God" thing seems to be inferred, rather than stated. I'm not aware of any clear-cut examples of Jesus claiming supreme divinity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

No. That would have been total and absolute blasphemy of the Mosaic laws - aka a totally false belief.

Just because it was blasphemy, doesn't mean he didn't say it. And blasphemy does not mean "a totally false belief."

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

This was said later - by Europeans, who already worshipped Roman Emperors.

Rubbish.

Julio · 03-22-2009, 03:26 AM

Jesus himself denies that.
First at the so-called “Temptation” when he himself is telling the story to his disciples – since there were none with him at the occasion – where the Devil calls him “Son of God”, where Jesus had the very first REAL opportunity to state his deity and Godhead, but declined.
That to me, strictly within the canonical text [and theologically], is enough proof of his non-deity.
The church, of course, appears here with all its HYPOCRISY to offer another angle to the imponderable and quandary. But Jesus himself accepted that he was only the son!
Another flagrant opportunity was when he said “I and the Father are one.”
ONE WHAT??!!!…
What a magnificent occasion to add the little word at the end of the sentend: “GOD”!
“I and the Father are one God, for goodness’ sake!”
He didn’t; the “inspirer” of text didn’t; John the writer didn’t; the later copyists didn’t, and all four witnesses were happy with the sentence WITHOUT the word “God”.
Again, wait for the pope and his agents to appear here in their droves to ADD [their Continuous Revelation in Tradition] the word “God” to the sentence!
Just watch.

jon-eli · 03-22-2009, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Jesus himself denies that.
[...] where Jesus had the very first REAL opportunity to state his deity and Godhead, but declined.

In fact, from what I can figure, he says the exact opposite. Satan demands that Jesus worship him, and Jesus retorts that only God is to be worshiped. The way it is said, Jesus seems to imply that his loyalty resides elsewhere. If that is the intended implication, then Jesus is not God, but rather he worships God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

That to me, strictly within the canonical text [and theologically], is enough proof of his non-deity.
The church, of course, appears here with all its HYPOCRISY to offer another angle to the imponderable and quandary. But Jesus himself accepted that he was only the son!

Theology is complicated, and not so easily dismissed as all that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Another flagrant opportunity was when he said “I and the Father are one.”
ONE WHAT??!!!…

You're right. It's very vague.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

He didn’t; the “inspirer” of text didn’t; John the writer didn’t; the later copyists didn’t, and all four witnesses were happy with the sentence WITHOUT the word “God”.

That doesn't mean they didn't believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Again, wait for the pope and his agents to appear here in their droves to ADD [their Continuous Revelation in Tradition] the word “God” to the sentence!
Just watch.

Now you're just spooking me out. "OMG! The Vatican is coming for you!"

I'll be sleeping underneath my bed tonight.

Julio · 03-22-2009, 04:22 AM

We also have enough and valid “internal evidence” in 1 John [1:7, etc.], when he refuses to call Jesus God, but the Son of God.
That was, within the conservative chronology of Scofield, SIXTY YEARS after Pentecost.
But, again, be on the lookout for the Vatican and its agents arriving here in disguise to enforce upon us their God called Jesus Christ [who, after all, was only a local messiah of a couple of Hebrew tribes].
That messiah FAILED them!

aa5874 · 03-22-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

We also have enough and valid “internal evidence” in 1 John [1:7, etc.], when he refuses to call Jesus God, but the Son of God.
That was, within the conservative chronology of Scofield, SIXTY YEARS after Pentecost.
But, again, be on the lookout for the Vatican and its agents arriving here in disguise to enforce upon us their God called Jesus Christ [who, after all, was only a local messiah of a couple of Hebrew tribes].
That messiah FAILED them!

So, are you implying that Peter, Paul, the disiples and all his followers in Judaea knew that Jesus was just human and that he was executed for blasphemy yet they continued to make false claims about Jesus and were executed for those false claims.

Jesus never failed.

Well, I am wrong.

Jesus failed to live.

Jesus was just a story believed to be true by believers.

Julio · 03-22-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

We also have enough and valid “internal evidence” in 1 John [1:7, etc.], when he refuses to call Jesus God, but the Son of God.
That was, within the conservative chronology of Scofield, SIXTY YEARS after Pentecost.
But, again, be on the lookout for the Vatican and its agents arriving here in disguise to enforce upon us their God called Jesus Christ [who, after all, was only a local messiah of a couple of Hebrew tribes].
That messiah FAILED them!

So, are you implying that Peter, Paul, the disiples and all his followers in Judaea knew that Jesus was just human and that he was executed for blasphemy yet they continued to make false claims about Jesus and were executed for those false claims.

Jesus never failed.

Well, I am wrong.

Jesus failed to live.

Jesus was just a story believed to be true by believers.

I have no respect for any of the so-called “apostles” for, as the text elucidates, all of them ran away when they saw their hero being crucified naked. Peter, the worst case, had said that he would even die with Jesus, but was all a cynical bluff, as he was together with the others a liar and a coward. That is my conclusion as I read the so-called “Passion Account” [perhaps the biggest farce ever told in the universe!]. Don’t blame me for this honest and factual conclusion.

Sign Related · 03-22-2009, 09:42 AM

The written speaking implications have what to call "in truth", but the names (Jesus, Satan, etc.) and the titles (Lord, God, Father, etc.) are other types of referrences. Figure each of the referrences alone. Each have a difference in weight.

Weight beats height.

The mystery of God is "God" been a star title. Implying, whichever God neither actual outside only a star title.

Each person an own doing. No God ever been making each person.

The Beyond have each person freely enter how favor from a store with free selection of free selection. Each person now never been under a must to become any manning man. But the which wanted force freely freely then become existence.

Certain persons are no existence, though temporarily seem existence. Existence be set for the great tribulation only. Different than existence? Plus Teleportation, one of a certain may only say. It means the person such certainly beyond, say, existence's troublesome hold.

Julio · 03-22-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sign Related

The written speaking implications have what to call "in truth", but the names (Jesus, Satan, etc.) and the titles (Lord, God, Father, etc.) are other types of referrences. Figure each of the referrences alone. Each have a difference in weight.

Weight beats height.

The mystery of God is "God" been a star title. Implying, whichever God neither actual outside only a star title.

Each person an own doing. No God ever been making each person.

The Beyond have each person freely enter how favor from a store with free selection of free selection. Each person now never been under a must to become any manning man. But the which wanted force freely freely then become existence.

Certain persons are no existence, though temporarily seem existence. Existence be set for the great tribulation only. Different than existence? Plus Teleportation, one of a certain may only say. It means the person such certainly beyond, say, existence's troublesome hold.

OK.

03-22-2009, 01:57 AM	#1
iPodAddict181 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 44	Did Jesus ever state that he was God? Did Jesus ever state that he was God/the son of God? I have researched this and my conclusion has come to no, he never stated this, it was implied. Tell me if I am wrong, and if so, give me a verse.

03-22-2009, 03:26 AM	#4
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Jesus himself denies that Jesus himself denies that. First at the so-called “Temptation” when he himself is telling the story to his disciples – since there were none with him at the occasion – where the Devil calls him “Son of God”, where Jesus had the very first REAL opportunity to state his deity and Godhead, but declined. That to me, strictly within the canonical text [and theologically], is enough proof of his non-deity. The church, of course, appears here with all its HYPOCRISY to offer another angle to the imponderable and quandary. But Jesus himself accepted that he was only the son! Another flagrant opportunity was when he said “I and the Father are one.” ONE WHAT??!!!… What a magnificent occasion to add the little word at the end of the sentend: “GOD”! “I and the Father are one God, for goodness’ sake!” He didn’t; the “inspirer” of text didn’t; John the writer didn’t; the later copyists didn’t, and all four witnesses were happy with the sentence WITHOUT the word “God”. Again, wait for the pope and his agents to appear here in their droves to ADD [their Continuous Revelation in Tradition] the word “God” to the sentence! Just watch.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2009, 02:01 AM	#2
IamJoseph Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: AUSTRALIA Posts: 2,265	No. That would have been total and absolute blasphemy of the Mosaic laws - aka a totally false belief. This was said later - by Europeans, who already worshipped Roman Emperors. Europe had no such law or belief which forbid divine humans - that is why none even questioned it, or demanded proof.

03-22-2009, 04:22 AM	#6
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	We also have enough and valid “internal evidence” in 1 John [1:7, etc.], when he refuses to call Jesus God, but the Son of God. That was, within the conservative chronology of Scofield, SIXTY YEARS after Pentecost. But, again, be on the lookout for the Vatican and its agents arriving here in disguise to enforce upon us their God called Jesus Christ [who, after all, was only a local messiah of a couple of Hebrew tribes]. That messiah FAILED them!

03-22-2009, 09:42 AM	#9
Sign Related Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Detroit Posts: 780	The written speaking implications have what to call "in truth", but the names (Jesus, Satan, etc.) and the titles (Lord, God, Father, etc.) are other types of referrences. Figure each of the referrences alone. Each have a difference in weight. Weight beats height. The mystery of God is "God" been a star title. Implying, whichever God neither actual outside only a star title. Each person an own doing. No God ever been making each person. The Beyond have each person freely enter how favor from a store with free selection of free selection. Each person now never been under a must to become any manning man. But the which wanted force freely freely then become existence. Certain persons are no existence, though temporarily seem existence. Existence be set for the great tribulation only. Different than existence? Plus Teleportation, one of a certain may only say. It means the person such certainly beyond, say, existence's troublesome hold.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.