wy do people think jesus was god - Page 16

JohnOneOne · 12-02-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

If Jesus did not say He was God, on what grounds did the Sanhedrin accuse him of blasphemy?

As was often the case with the Sanhedrin, they regularly accused Jesus of things of which he was not guilty.

With respect to their view that Jesus was claiming to be God (and/or equal to God - and this, because He said that God was His Father; John 5:18), this principally stemmed from the results of their own false humility.

They had the view that, by identifying Abraham as their Father (John 8:39, 53), this should, in turn, have caused Jesus (and the others listening on) to see them as being on an equality with Abraham - one deservng of equal respect and honor. This became evident with their response to Jesus' statement that God was His Father (John 5:18).

In other words, when Jesus said that God was his Father, it was then that their own hypocrisy was revealed, that is, by wrongly concluding that Jesus was also, by way of His own words, claiming an equality with God when, in fact, He was not. This would, no doubt, explain the many times at which Jesus spoke of His dependence upon His God and Father. For a few of the many examples, see: John 5:30; 7:28, 29; 8:28, 29; 8:42. Compare also: John 20:17; Revelation 3:2, 12.

Keep in mind, this kind of exposing of their hypocrisy was a regular consequence of their efforts to entrap Him - this point is often missed.

Just one more thing: Their hypocracy is further evident from the fact that, whereas they had such a problem with Jesus' statement that God was his Father, on the other hand, they too made the very same claim for themselves at John 8:41.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
john1one@earthlink.net
www dot goodcompanionbooks dot com

China Cat Sunflower · 12-02-2006, 05:39 PM

It's hard not to split hairs on this because, after all, it's all about semantical hairsplitting and selective anthropomorphisation. God, ultimately, is an unfathomable mystery. We can subdivide God in any number of ways, but those are all our constructs, so I don't think we should turn it around and say that God, of Itself, conforms to our construct.

In the beginning was the expressed concept, the master plan. The Logos isn't a person, it's an all encompassing set of impulsive energies carrying vital instructions within their vibrance that animate and sustain all creation. In the beginning the Logos was posessed by, and was God. John is saying that the Logos was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. This is how Jesus gets to be the "only begotten son", which is to say that he's the only one who got squirted out of a human woman's womb. It doesn't imply that he existed as a specific personality at the time of the beginning, but rather that the Word was made flesh, and he was that flesh.

2c

Chris

Quahom1 · 12-02-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It's hard not to split hairs on this because, after all, it's all about semantical hairsplitting and selective anthropomorphisation. God, ultimately, is an unfathomable mystery. We can subdivide God in any number of ways, but those are all our constructs, so I don't think we should turn it around and say that God, of Itself, conforms to our construct.

In the beginning was the expressed concept, the master plan. The Logos isn't a person, it's an all encompassing set of impulsive energies carrying vital instructions within their vibrance that animate and sustain all creation. In the beginning the Logos was posessed by, and was God. John is saying that the Logos was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. This is how Jesus gets to be the "only begotten son", which is to say that he's the only one who got squirted out of a human woman's womb. It doesn't imply that he existed as a specific personality at the time of the beginning, but rather that the Word was made flesh, and he was that flesh.

2c

Chris

When Henry Ford came up with his idea of the "assembly line", there was a point in time that he had to express sentiments to the public. He already was there, and the gearing was already in place, but what he said to the media was "We begin".

Chris. You know. I understand you speak your mind. I appreciate that. I respect you for your heartfelt thoughts and wish to understand where life is heading.

I don't appreciate the concept of "MY God" being "squirted out of the womb" (and all that insinuates). I really, really take offense to that (more than you know).

You need to learn to express yourself in a more genteel manner. Some one might file a complaint for you being a jerk...

v/r

Joshua

China Cat Sunflower · 12-02-2006, 06:41 PM

Sorry for causing offense Joshua. Poor folks have poor ways.

Chris

Quahom1 · 12-02-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Sorry for causing offense Joshua. Poor folks have poor ways.

Chris

no excuse for smart intelligent people...

pattimax · 12-02-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

When Henry Ford came up with his idea of the "assembly line", there was a point in time that he had to express sentiments to the public. He already was there, and the gearing was already in place, but what he said to the media was "We begin".

v/r

Joshua

I am looking at the NWT and it refers to my Lord as a righteous sprout.
Where can I file a complaint?

Quahom1 · 12-02-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattimax

I am looking at the NWT and it refers to my Lord as a righteous sprout.
Where can I file a complaint?

You can't. NWT is a publication, and the guys that wrote it are dead by almost 100 years.

Who is going to pull a publication that 6,000,000 have bought? Call it false? Prove it. That is the problem. Today's society does not discern between what was written 2000 years ago, and what was written 90 years ago...such a shame.

v/r

Joshua

China Cat Sunflower · 12-02-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattimax

I am looking at the NWT and it refers to my Lord as a righteous sprout.
Where can I file a complaint?

Talk to the green giant.

Chris

pattimax · 12-02-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You can't. NWT is a publication, and the guys that wrote it are dead by almost 100 years.

Who is going to pull a publication that 6,000,000 have bought? Call it false? Prove it. That is the problem. Today's society does not discern between what was written 2000 years ago, and what was written 90 years ago...such a shame.

v/r

Joshua

I was kidding, but yes it IS a shame. I think Ben Franklin said something about common sense not being all that common.

pattimax · 12-02-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Talk to the green giant.

Chris

I'll do that.

China Cat Sunflower · 12-02-2006, 08:43 PM

Let me ask a serious question: What practical difference does it make if Jesus is a created divine being and God is the most high God, versus the trinitarian construct? What does it change in the overall scheme of salvation?

Like this: "Jesus has to be co-equal with the Father because...", or "Jesus cannot be co-equal with Jehovah because...". But not because "it says so", I'm interested in the actual mechanics of salvation. Anyone want to tackle that one?

Chris

pattimax · 12-02-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Let me ask a serious question: What practical difference does it make if Jesus is a created divine being and God is the most high God, versus the trinitarian construct? What does it change in the overall scheme of salvation?

Like this: "Jesus has to be co-equal with the Father because...", or "Jesus cannot be co-equal with Jehovah because...". But not because "it says so", I'm interested in the actual mechanics of salvation. Anyone want to tackle that one?

Chris

The fact that God created us and we want to glorify only him. Not dissect and pull apart His Holy Spirit. (mechanization of salvation?)

China Cat Sunflower · 12-02-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattimax

The fact that God created us and we want to glorify only him. Not dissect and pull apart His Holy Spirit. (mechanization of salvation?)

Well, we're already dividing God up into three co-equal parts, so I'm asking what the practical ramifications of having Jesus be a slightly junior partner would be. Can Jesus not save unless he's fully co-equal? Why? Or, from the non-trinitarian perspective, is there a practical difference in how salvation happens if Jesus is a created being rather than a co-equal? Does salvation itself collapse one way or the other? Why?

Chris

BlaznFattyz · 12-02-2006, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

is there a practical difference in how salvation happens if Jesus is a created being rather than a co-equal? Does salvation itself collapse one way or the other? Why?

if jesus was a created being then he would be apart from god, but because jesus was the word of god and god, and because only god can forgive and save and give life which jesus does as well, he is god.

Quahom1 · 12-02-2006, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, we're already dividing God up into three co-equal parts, so I'm asking what the practical ramifications of having Jesus be a slightly junior partner would be. Can Jesus not save unless he's fully co-equal? Why? Or, from the non-trinitarian perspective, is there a practical difference in how salvation happens if Jesus is a created being rather than a co-equal? Does salvation itself collapse one way or the other? Why?

Chris

Simple questions, complex answers.