Karma2Grace
Member
DivineNames said:
why not ? you think that Jesus never made a claim that He is God and He is the only way , Can you sustain that claim?
Christian Forums
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Focus on the Family
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Old Lie of the Serpent !
- Thread starter Karma2Grace
- Start date
why not ? you think that Jesus never made a claim that He is God and He is the only way , Can you sustain that claim?
A
AHIMSA
Guest
Can you show me Jesus' claim to be God outside the gospel of John? The gospel of John was a radical motion in Christian theology, and many christians at the time it was composed did not accept its authority.
Think about it, John was writeen between 90 and 120 CE, and every one of Jesus' "I am" statements are found in that book alone. In fact, John himself puts forth the theology that forms the very core of modern Christian theology. The question is, why do these important 'claims of Jesus' appear only in one of the four gospels? Why didn't Mark, Matthew or Luke feel them to be as important as you, yourself Karma2Grace, feel them to be?
Why should we trust John, when he is in such obvious conflict with the other gospels? For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all portray Jesus' cleasning of the Temple as the act which instigates his crucifixion. John however, disagrees, and places the cleasning in the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. To John, Jesus is crucified for raising Lazarus, an event unique to John's gospel.
Or why is that John portrays a divine Jesus, when the other gospels give us human portraits? The humanity of Jesus is very clear in the other gospels, where Jesus is working on God's authority, for the "people praised the Lord that God had given such authority to men.", as said in Matthew. In Luke Jesus is so distraught about dying that he sweats blood and cries out on the cross, "My God! Why have you forsaken me!"....yet the Jesus of John doesn't overtly use the term death. The Jesus of John is very much beyond notions of death, and avoids that term. When he dies he says 'it is finished'. He does not feel abandonded as the other gospels suggest.
And nearly every single gospel disagrees about when Jesus himself took upon the authority of God:
- Paul believes that Jesus became the messiah after his death, as he says of Jesus: "Who, through the spirit of holiness, was declared with power to be the son of God by his ressurection"
-The gospels disagree, and Jesus' sonship is proclained in Peter's confession of the Christ, whereas to Paul, this was a post-ressurection event.
- note that to Paul, the pre-ressurected Jesus is virtually absent. He is concerned with the risen Christ alone, for to him, this is when Jesus became the Christ. Paul wrote these letters in the 50's to early 60's
- Mark, written in 69-70 CE feels that Jesus recieved his sonship at his baptism (Mark begins with the baptism)
- Matthew and Luke (80-90 CE) believe that Jesus was born with it (Both begin with a birth narrative)
- Finally, John (90-120 CE) feels that Jesus always was (...In the beginning the word was with God)
See the progression of theology? Why should we trust the gospels as reporting history, when each author obviously had an agenda: to portray Christ in a certain manner. Again, this is typical of the ancient world, but by modern standards of history, the gospel don't match up.
Also, even early orthodox Christians had interesting feelings about the Gospel of John: Origen, an early Egyptian father of the Church states that "John doesn't tell the truth literally, he tells it spiritually"
Think about it, John was writeen between 90 and 120 CE, and every one of Jesus' "I am" statements are found in that book alone. In fact, John himself puts forth the theology that forms the very core of modern Christian theology. The question is, why do these important 'claims of Jesus' appear only in one of the four gospels? Why didn't Mark, Matthew or Luke feel them to be as important as you, yourself Karma2Grace, feel them to be?
Why should we trust John, when he is in such obvious conflict with the other gospels? For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all portray Jesus' cleasning of the Temple as the act which instigates his crucifixion. John however, disagrees, and places the cleasning in the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. To John, Jesus is crucified for raising Lazarus, an event unique to John's gospel.
Or why is that John portrays a divine Jesus, when the other gospels give us human portraits? The humanity of Jesus is very clear in the other gospels, where Jesus is working on God's authority, for the "people praised the Lord that God had given such authority to men.", as said in Matthew. In Luke Jesus is so distraught about dying that he sweats blood and cries out on the cross, "My God! Why have you forsaken me!"....yet the Jesus of John doesn't overtly use the term death. The Jesus of John is very much beyond notions of death, and avoids that term. When he dies he says 'it is finished'. He does not feel abandonded as the other gospels suggest.
And nearly every single gospel disagrees about when Jesus himself took upon the authority of God:
- Paul believes that Jesus became the messiah after his death, as he says of Jesus: "Who, through the spirit of holiness, was declared with power to be the son of God by his ressurection"
-The gospels disagree, and Jesus' sonship is proclained in Peter's confession of the Christ, whereas to Paul, this was a post-ressurection event.
- note that to Paul, the pre-ressurected Jesus is virtually absent. He is concerned with the risen Christ alone, for to him, this is when Jesus became the Christ. Paul wrote these letters in the 50's to early 60's
- Mark, written in 69-70 CE feels that Jesus recieved his sonship at his baptism (Mark begins with the baptism)
- Matthew and Luke (80-90 CE) believe that Jesus was born with it (Both begin with a birth narrative)
- Finally, John (90-120 CE) feels that Jesus always was (...In the beginning the word was with God)
See the progression of theology? Why should we trust the gospels as reporting history, when each author obviously had an agenda: to portray Christ in a certain manner. Again, this is typical of the ancient world, but by modern standards of history, the gospel don't match up.
Also, even early orthodox Christians had interesting feelings about the Gospel of John: Origen, an early Egyptian father of the Church states that "John doesn't tell the truth literally, he tells it spiritually"
Karma2Grace
Member
AHIMSA said:Can you show me Jesus' claim to be God outside the gospel of John? The gospel of John was a radical motion in Christian theology, and many christians at the time it was composed did not accept its authority.
Think about it, John was writeen between 90 and 120 CE, and every one of Jesus' "I am" statements are found in that book alone. In fact, John himself puts forth the theology that forms the very core of modern Christian theology. The question is, why do these important 'claims of Jesus' appear only in one of the four gospels? Why didn't Mark, Matthew or Luke feel them to be as important as you, yourself Karma2Grace, feel them to be?
Why should we trust John, when he is in such obvious conflict with the other gospels? For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all portray Jesus' cleasning of the Temple as the act which instigates his crucifixion. John however, disagrees, and places the cleasning in the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. To John, Jesus is crucified for raising Lazarus, an event unique to John's gospel.
Or why is that John portrays a divine Jesus, when the other gospels give us human portraits? The humanity of Jesus is very clear in the other gospels, where Jesus is working on God's authority, for the "people praised the Lord that God had given such authority to men.", as said in Matthew. In Luke Jesus is so distraught about dying that he sweats blood and cries out on the cross, "My God! Why have you forsaken me!"....yet the Jesus of John doesn't overtly use the term death. The Jesus of John is very much beyond notions of death, and avoids that term. When he dies he says 'it is finished'. He does not feel abandonded as the other gospels suggest.
And nearly every single gospel disagrees about when Jesus himself took upon the authority of God:
- Paul believes that Jesus became the messiah after his death, as he says of Jesus: "Who, through the spirit of holiness, was declared with power to be the son of God by his ressurection"
-The gospels disagree, and Jesus' sonship is proclained in Peter's confession of the Christ, whereas to Paul, this was a post-ressurection event.
- note that to Paul, the pre-ressurected Jesus is virtually absent. He is concerned with the risen Christ alone, for to him, this is when Jesus became the Christ. Paul wrote these letters in the 50's to early 60's
- Mark, written in 69-70 CE feels that Jesus recieved his sonship at his baptism (Mark begins with the baptism)
- Matthew and Luke (80-90 CE) believe that Jesus was born with it (Both begin with a birth narrative)
- Finally, John (90-120 CE) feels that Jesus always was (...In the beginning the word was with God)
See the progression of theology? Why should we trust the gospels as reporting history, when each author obviously had an agenda: to portray Christ in a certain manner. Again, this is typical of the ancient world, but by modern standards of history, the gospel don't match up.
Also, even early orthodox Christians had interesting feelings about the Gospel of John: Origen, an early Egyptian father of the Church states that "John doesn't tell the truth literally, he tells it spiritually"
Well you have slapped lot of so called 'Gurus' trying to take the quote from John and make cults, why do they do if John was wrong?
I will take this as a challenge, I can prove from other passages (apart from John's Gospel, Letters and Revelation) that Jesus is God and divine, would you accept that as authentic? And drop all the garbage you said about Jesus?
D
DivineNames
Guest
Karma2Grace said:DivineNames said:Karma2Grace said:In other words CS Lewis was a fool and didn't understand the bible as you does right?
The issue is not directly related to "understanding the Bible".
why not ?
Because the criticism of the argument that I gave relates to the question of the reliability of the Bible, not what the Bible says.
Karma2Grace said:you think that Jesus never made a claim that He is God and He is the only way , Can you sustain that claim?
Where did I say this?
B
bibleberean
Guest
Jesus is God...
Paul states:
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The Father calls Jesus God...
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The OT calls God the "first and the last" the NT does the same.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Jesus is the "king of Glory" in the OT and NT a title that belongs to God alone.
Psalms 24:7-8 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.
1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Paul states:
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The Father calls Jesus God...
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The OT calls God the "first and the last" the NT does the same.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Jesus is the "king of Glory" in the OT and NT a title that belongs to God alone.
Psalms 24:7-8 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.
1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Karma2Grace
Member
OK , Why do you think Gnostic Gospels or Gita/Vedas are reliable but not bible?DivineNames said:Karma2Grace said:DivineNames said:Karma2Grace said:In other words CS Lewis was a fool and didn't understand the bible as you does right?
The issue is not directly related to "understanding the Bible".
why not ?
Because the criticism of the argument that I gave relates to the question of the reliability of the Bible, not what the Bible says.
How do you decide the reliability of any scripture or historical document?
DivineNames said:Karma2Grace said:you think that Jesus never made a claim that He is God and He is the only way , Can you sustain that claim?
Where did I say this?
You did say that in the below quote...
DivineNames said:C.S. Lewis may have had a point if people really did say, "I don’t accept His claim to be God". What such people probably actually say, is that they don't think he did claim to be God.
D
DivineNames
Guest
Karma2Grace said:You did say that in the below quote...
DivineNames said:C.S. Lewis may have had a point if people really did say, "I don’t accept His claim to be God". What such people probably actually say, is that they don't think he did claim to be God.
The quote does not support your claim. It does not say anything about what I myself think on the issue.
"you think that Jesus never made a claim..."
D
DivineNames
Guest
Karma2Grace said:OK , Why do you think Gnostic Gospels or Gita/Vedas are reliable but not bible?
Where did I say that I believed the "Gnostic Gospels" or "Gita/Vedas" to be reliable?