Where Does Jesus Say "I am God" in the Bible?

Abdulhakeem · Little Hamster Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Posts: 78

Such a question seems easy to answer. But it opens one's mind to search the scriptures more and more. So let's search answers for these two questions;

Where does Jesus say "I am God" or "worship me" in the Bible?

TwoPutt

james · Bear Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 652

In the book of Acts and in Rev 22:8-9 everytime the people tried to worship Paul, one of the disciples or even an angel (as in Rev) they were forbidden from doing so. And yet when Christ was worshipped He never forbad them for doing so. Even in John when Thomas says My Lord and My God, he was not corrected as if he spoke wrongly. With the woman at the well Jesus professed to be "The Messiah" and any Jew will tell you that their coming Messiah would be God in the flesh.

TwoPutt · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:42 am Post subject:

TwoPutt · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:46 am Post subject:

Colter · Rabid Pit Bull Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 409

He actually says that he is the Son of God.

When Peter publicly states his belief in Jesus as the Son of God Jesus explains that the spirit of the Father revealed that to them. ( Note: the identity of Christ was not revealed to the apostles because of something the OT scriptures but by the spirit of God)

Further, Jesus instructs theses teacher NOT to reveal his identity as The Son of God until after he went back to heaven from which he came.

It was after Jesus left and his spirit was pored out upon all flesh ( and indistinguishable from the Father) that the apostles were more enlightened to Jesus as the Son of God.

The Christian church humbly conceded the mystery of the Trinity. Followers of Jesus believe without the demand to understand as a precursor to that faith. As the Jews stumbled over their over-analysis of faith so have would be believers stumbled over a similar over analysis of the scripture in the modern era.

After the resurrection Jesus begins to speak as one with divine authority and in his own rite.

God is spirit

Colter

kejonn · Show Poodle Joined: 21 Jul 2007 Posts: 251

kejonn · Show Poodle Joined: 21 Jul 2007 Posts: 251

Colter · Rabid Pit Bull Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 409

Kejohnn,

The line you are referring to is understandable retrospective written some 40 years hence. Remember Jesus said "tell no one until I have gone". Also, it was already publicly conceded that Jesus claimed to be divine, an extrapolation from statements he made about himself existing before Abraham, coming down from heaven being one with the Father, and that he would raise himself up from the dead.

With all that said, Jesus still did not say publicly 'I am the son of God". When pressed at his trumped up trial by the stubborn religious people of his day, Jesus had no obligation to defend himself as our Lord and creator brother. They asked him, "Who are you"? to which he replied, "you wouldn't believe me if I told you"! Jesus was not beholden to any so called authority on earth! He allowed himself to be killed as it was the final requirement of his heavenly Father that he should share the death experience with man. It was an act of love as well as the will of the Father that he do such in order to be given unquestioned authority over his co-creation.

You seem at least open to the idea that the NT records were written by humans, for what it's worth I included what the UB has to say about the writing of the gospels.

PREVIOUS WRITTEN RECORDS

As far as possible, consistent with our mandate, we have endeavored to utilize and to some extent co-ordinate the existing records having to do with the life of Jesus on Urantia. Although we have enjoyed access to the lost record of the Apostle Andrew and have benefited from the collaboration of a vast host of celestial beings who were on earth during the times of Michael's bestowal (notably his now Personalized Adjuster), it has been our purpose also to make use of the so-called Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

These New Testament records had their origin in the following circumstances:

1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus' life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter's death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter's memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew's and Matthew's notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master's life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus' life that much which he did was that "it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet." Matthew's Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.

The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew's personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.

Matthew's original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.

Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew's notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark's narrative.

3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master's life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the "grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as "the friend of publicans and sinners." He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul's death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the "Acts of the Apostles."

As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus' life as Paul had related it to him. Luke's Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus' life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark's Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador's narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.

4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus' work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as "First John" was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.

All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul's theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Urantia for almost two thousand years. Urantia Book 1955

Abenadar · Tadpole Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Posts: 16

Nowhere does Jesus state that he is God, nor does he ask anyone to worship him as a god. The messiah is the chosen king of the world, haps all of creation, and being King involves a hierarchy with some reverence involved. If someone bows to Jesus, that's awesome. If someone makes a god of him, however, that's idolatry.

I don't know of any classical jews that would say that God is coming down as the messiah. The prophesies of the messiah in the bible would contradict this. He is to be considered something of an incarnation(jewish sense of the word, mind you) much like Moses.
I have witnessed a few groups and individual jews converted by Trins, and they have a more mainstream god-man concept.

james · Bear Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 652

kejonn,
I ask you this because it seems to me you are quite knowledgeable on the subject of the Jews. If they do not believe that their Messiah would be God manifestied in the flesh, who do they believe their coming Messiah would be?
Who do the Jews believe is prophecied of in Isaiah 9:6 and in Zech 12:10-13:6 ?
Do the Jews accept any of the New Testament?

I will admit I know very little concerning the Jews, the only thing I can say I even truely and firmly believe concerning them, is they do believe their prophets.

Colter · Rabid Pit Bull Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 409

Urantia Book 1955

CONCEPTS OF THE EXPECTED MESSIAH

The Jews entertained many ideas about the expected deliverer, and each of these different schools of Messianic teaching was able to point to statements in the Hebrew scriptures as proof of their contentions. In a general way, the Jews regarded their national history as beginning with Abraham and culminating in the Messiah and the new age of the kingdom of God. In earlier times they had envisaged this deliverer as "the servant of the Lord," then as "the Son of Man," while latterly some even went so far as to refer to the Messiah as the "Son of God." But no matter whether he was called the "seed of Abraham" or "the son of David," all were agreed that he was to be the Messiah, the "anointed one." Thus did the concept evolve from the "servant of the Lord" to the "son of David," "Son of Man," and "Son of God."

In the days of John and Jesus the more learned Jews had developed an idea of the coming Messiah as the perfected and representative Israelite, combining in himself as the "servant of the Lord" the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king.

The Jews devoutly believed that, as Moses had delivered their fathers from Egyptian bondage by miraculous wonders, so would the coming Messiah deliver the Jewish people from Roman domination by even greater miracles of power and marvels of racial triumph. The rabbis had gathered together almost five hundred passages from the Scriptures which, notwithstanding their apparent contradictions,
they averred were prophetic of the coming Messiah. And amidst all these details of time, technique, and function, they almost completely lost sight of the personality of the promised Messiah. They were looking for a restoration of Jewish national glory--Israel's temporal exaltation--rather than for the salvation of the world. It therefore becomes evident that Jesus of Nazareth could never satisfy this materialistic Messianic concept of the Jewish mind. Many of their reputed Messianic predictions, had they but viewed these prophetic utterances in a different light, would have very naturally prepared their minds for a recognition of Jesus as the terminator of one age and the inaugurator of a new and better dispensation of mercy and salvation for all nations.

The Jews had been brought up to believe in the doctrine of the Shekinah. But this reputed symbol of the Divine Presence was not to be seen in the temple. They believed that the coming of the Messiah would effect its restoration. They held confusing ideas about racial sin and the supposed evil nature of man. Some taught that Adam's sin had cursed the human race, and that the Messiah would remove this curse and restore man to divine favor. Others taught that God, in creating man, had put into his being both good and evil natures; that when he observed the outworking of this arrangement, he was greatly disappointed, and that "He repented that he had thus made man." And those who taught this believed that the Messiah was to come in order to redeem man from this inherent evil nature.

The majority of the Jews believed that they continued to languish under Roman rule because of their national sins and because of the halfheartedness of the gentile proselytes. The Jewish nation had not wholeheartedly repented; therefore did the Messiah delay his coming. There was much talk about repentance; wherefore the mighty and immediate appeal of John's preaching, "Repent and be baptized, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And the kingdom of heaven could mean only one thing to any devout Jew: The coming of the Messiah.

There was one feature of the bestowal of Michael which was utterly foreign to the Jewish conception of the Messiah, and that was the union of the two natures, the human and the divine. The Jews had variously conceived of the Messiah as perfected human, superhuman, and even as divine, but they never entertained the concept of the union of the human and the divine. And this was the great stumbling block of Jesus' early disciples. They grasped the human concept of the Messiah as the son of David, as presented by the earlier prophets; as the Son of Man, the superhuman idea of Daniel and some of the later prophets; and even as the Son of God, as depicted by the author of the Book of Enoch and by certain of his contemporaries; but never had they for a single moment entertained the true concept of the union in one earth personality of the two natures, the human and the divine. The incarnation of the Creator in the form of the creature had not been revealed beforehand. It was revealed only in Jesus; the world knew nothing of such things until the Creator Son was made flesh and dwelt among the mortals of the realm.

Colter

FFT · Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject:

Steven3 · Lion King Joined: 10 Jul 2007 Posts: 1205 Location: UK

Hi Abdulhakkem

james · Bear Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 652

Colter you answer was very informative thank you.

FFT, I probably should have started earlier in Zach 12, my main point in asking was concerning this passage I believe it is Jesus revealing Himself to Israel as their crucified Messiah. I would like to hear other interpretation of what this scripture is proclaiming if you have an idea.