Has there been any other Jew besides Jesus who claimed to be divine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MH84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MH84 said:
In Acts, it says that Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. That doesnt mean he recognised Jesus as God.
Click to expand...
Seems that many people believe this, but tell me, was this ever said of Henoch or Elijah or both???
 
MH84 said:
I was thinking about that. I guess what I meant was that they would have expected someone greater than David, and they remembered that God elevated David in such a great way. And probably the Jews of Jesus’ time were imagining the glory of the Davidic kingdom, and the peace they experienced while he was king. They were probably contrasting this with how the Romans (unclean pagans) had now occupied their land.
Click to expand...
King David did not bear a last name such as Blaine!
 
Lapell said:
Seems that many people believe this, but tell me, was this ever said of Henoch or Elijah or both???
Click to expand...
No. You are right in that regard. But does that mean Jesus is God?

Why didnt St. Stephen say that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father, instead of "at the right hand of God? Did Stephen see that Jesus was separate to God? We don’t know.

One could make an argument though I think: As we know, in the Trinitarian belief, all Persons of the Trinity fully possess the nature of God, they do not share it. Each owns that nature fully. Therefore each Person can be called “God”.

So, if the Father is “God”, Stephen could have meant that He saw Jesus (God) at the right hand of the Father (God), and he doesnt call Jesus God so he doesnt confuse the audience. Sorry if Im confusing you. But thats the only way I can see that Luke meant that Stephen saw God at the right hand of God.

I don’t think this is the case though, because throughout the rest of Acts Jesus is not called “God” anywhere else. I could be wrong though, Im no bible expert.

I don’t think Luke knew Jesus was God. I can’t recall any situation in Luke (Gospel) or Acts when he says Jesus is God. In fact, he constantly shows Jesus praying to God.
 
Did anyone mention Thomas calling Jesus “My Lord and My God” and Jesus not correcting him?
 
MH84 said:
No. You are right in that regard. But does that mean Jesus is God?

Why didnt St. Stephen say that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father, instead of "at the right hand of God? Did Stephen see that Jesus was separate to God? We don’t know.

One could make an argument though I think: As we know, in the Trinitarian belief, all Persons of the Trinity fully possess the nature of God, they do not share it. Each owns that nature fully. Therefore each Person can be called “God”.

So, if the Father is “God”, Stephen could have meant that He saw Jesus (God) at the right hand of the Father (God), and he doesnt call Jesus God so he doesnt confuse the audience. Sorry if Im confusing you. But thats the only way I can see that Luke meant that Stephen saw God at the right hand of God.

I don’t think this is the case though, because throughout the rest of Acts Jesus is not called “God” anywhere else. I could be wrong though, Im no bible expert.

I don’t think Luke knew Jesus was God. I can’t recall any situation in Luke (Gospel) or Acts when he says Jesus is God. In fact, he constantly shows Jesus praying to God.
Click to expand...
One thing is clear, though. Whether he is God or not, he IS of God!
Despite the Jewish authorities’ claim that he blasphemed! How could he be at the right hand of God if they were right?
 
Lapell said:
One thing is clear, though. Whether he is God or not, he IS of God!
Despite the Jewish authorities’ claim that he blasphemed! How could he be at the right hand of God if they were right?
Click to expand...
That’s right. However, even the Muslims believe Jesus is of God.
 
Rocky said:
Well, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, at least in most Christian minds. And if the term “Son of Man” only meant that He was “only” human, then it makes no sense for the high priest to have torn his robes and declared blasphemy once He used the term. And while Jesus is fully divine, He is not the Father (Ancient of Days).
Click to expand...
Once he used the term AND mentioned that he would come at the right hand of the Father on a cloud in heaven, quoting the book of Daniel…
 
ralphinal said:
Did anyone mention Thomas calling Jesus “My Lord and My God” and Jesus not correcting him?
Click to expand...
This is good evidence I feel.

The problem is even the JW have come up with another argument I have read.

It goes something like this (if I remember correctly). I think I have heard a couple at least.
  1. Thomas was addressing Jesus and God. i.e. My Lord (Jesus), and my God (God the Father).
  2. When Jesus was at table with His disciples, Philip asked Jesus to “show us the Father and we will be satisfied.” Jesus responded “he who sees me, sees the Father”. Now, one non-Trinitarian argument is that Thomas could see the Father in Jesus after He appeared to them. Finally, Thomas could see the image of the Father in Jesus.
I don’t know what to make of these arguments. They seem forced.
 
40.png
Valke2:
It was never meant to be a mass religion.
Click to expand...
:hmmm: I just wonder … 😃
 
MH84 said:
This is good evidence I feel.

The problem is even the JW have come up with another argument I have read.

It goes something like this (if I remember correctly). I think I have heard a couple at least.
  1. Thomas was addressing Jesus and God. i.e. My Lord (Jesus), and my God (God the Father).
  2. When Jesus was at table with His disciples, Philip asked Jesus to “show us the Father and we will be satisfied.” Jesus responded “he who sees me, sees the Father”. Now, one non-Trinitarian argument is that Thomas could see the Father in Jesus after He appeared to them. Finally, Thomas could see the image of the Father in Jesus.
I don’t know what to make of these arguments. They seem forced.
Click to expand...
Well, the verse says that Thomas answered Jesus with the statement, ruling out #1. #2 simply is silly. Why would he have said that if he did not mean that Jesus was his God? He had asked for proof that he was risen, and he got it. I would probablly have said, “Oh snap, I was WRONG!” unless I thought he was God, then I would have said “Oh snap, God, I am sorry i was WRONG!” He said the latter.
 
ralphinal said:
Well, the verse says that Thomas answered Jesus with the statement, ruling out #1. #2 simply is silly. Why would he have said that if he did not mean that Jesus was his God? He had asked for proof that he was risen, and he got it. I would probablly have said, “Oh snap, I was WRONG!” unless I thought he was God, then I would have said “Oh snap, God, I am sorry i was WRONG!” He said the latter.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with you, like I said the arguments seem to be made up.

However, Jesus never said to Thomas, “Do you now believe that I am God”. He said to Thomas to believe that He has be risen from the dead. That doesnt mean they believed he was God. But, as you say Thomas seems to be calling Jesus “God”.

Also, are you saying that because Jesus rose from the dead He is God? Paul and the apostles say that God raised up Jesus from the dead. Jesus Himself brought two or three people back to life, like Lazarus.
 
MH84 said:
I think I agree with you, like I said the arguments seem to be made up.

However, Jesus never said to Thomas, “Do you now believe that I am God”. He said to Thomas to believe that He has be risen from the dead. That doesnt mean they believed he was God. But, as you say Thomas seems to be calling Jesus “God”.

Also, are you saying that because Jesus rose from the dead He is God? Paul and the apostles say that God raised up Jesus from the dead. Jesus Himself brought two or three people back to life, like Lazarus.
Click to expand...
Jesus made people rise from the dead, but they were not ressurected. Jesus came back with his glorified body, not the mortal one. Those he called back from death would later die again. Jesus will never die again. In fact, he cannot die again.

When it says God raised Jesus, does that imply the Father alone, or the Trinity? Was the Holy Spirit involved? To me, it is one reason I believe Jesus was God, because God not only resurected him but also he now has his eternal Body.
 
ralphinal said:
Jesus made people rise from the dead, but they were not ressurected. Jesus came back with his glorified body, not the mortal one. Those he called back from death would later die again. Jesus will never die again. In fact, he cannot die again.
Click to expand...
These seem to be good points actually.
When it says God raised Jesus, does that imply the Father alone, or the Trinity? Was the Holy Spirit involved? To me, it is one reason I believe Jesus was God, because God not only resurected him but also he now has his eternal Body.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Jesus is called “God” anywhere besides in John. “Trinity” is found nowhere. When Paul is talking about God, he is talking about the Father of Jesus.

I don’t understand this part:
To me, it is one reason I believe Jesus was God, because God not only resurected him but also he now has his eternal Body.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a proof of your belief in Jesus’ divinity is that God raised Him from the dead, and that He has an eternal body?

I can’t see how that would be proof. If Jesus rose by Himself (or said He did), that would be a different story.

How does having an eternal body mean He is God? At the end of time, all those in Heaven will be united to their bodies.
 
MH84 said:
Looking here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrected#Resurrection_of_the_dead

it seems that “resurrection” and raised from the dead has a similar, if not same, meaning.
Click to expand...
This would be accurate if, in fact, Jesus would die again. This is a case where the theology trumps the words involved. Jesus’s case is a unique one. Jesus did not ressurect Lazerus or the girl. He will ressurect all of us on the last day.

On my earlier post, I think that I was saying that if the term was used meaning the Father alone, I see the point about Jesus not being special. If, however, Jesus rose from the dead through the power of the Father by a decision of the Triune God, there is a difference. IN other words, Father, Son and Holy Spirit decided on the course of action to save man. Who did the raising is not as important as the fact that it was done. My post was confusing and made no sense. I hope this one does.
 
MH84 said:
This is good evidence I feel.

The problem is even the JW have come up with another argument I have read.

It goes something like this (if I remember correctly). I think I have heard a couple at least.
  1. Thomas was addressing Jesus and God. i.e. My Lord (Jesus), and my God (God the Father).
  2. When Jesus was at table with His disciples, Philip asked Jesus to “show us the Father and we will be satisfied.” Jesus responded “he who sees me, sees the Father”. Now, one non-Trinitarian argument is that Thomas could see the Father in Jesus after He appeared to them. Finally, Thomas could see the image of the Father in Jesus.
I don’t know what to make of these arguments. They seem forced.
Click to expand...
So they appear to me too
 
MH84 said:
These seem to be good points actually.

I don’t think Jesus is called “God” anywhere besides in John. “Trinity” is found nowhere. When Paul is talking about God, he is talking about the Father of Jesus.

I don’t understand this part:

Are you saying that a proof of your belief in Jesus’ divinity is that God raised Him from the dead, and that He has an eternal body?

I can’t see how that would be proof. If Jesus rose by Himself (or said He did), that would be a different story.

How does having an eternal body mean He is God? At the end of time, all those in Heaven will be united to their bodies.
Click to expand...
You want proof without a shadow of a doubt. That’s not the certitude of the faith. It’s a proof by material standards! Saint Paul says we walk by faith, not by sight. So it seems that the Gospels are designed (by the Holy Spirit, not the sacred writers!) in a way that those who believe will say, “Yes, it is so!” while the unbelievers won’t be able to reach the same conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top