Is Jesus God?

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson;5665350:

Matthew 24:16-17

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

What disciples, those who said that the resurrection was an idle tale?
**(Luke 24:11) **

Was Matthew one of the eleven? Yes. He was one of the eleven who saw Jesus after the resurrection and recorded this in his Gospel.

AFTER the resurrection is not AT the resurrection. To see someone after the alleged fact constitutes no eyewitness. Ask any Lawyer.

Mark 16:14
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

Again, after he had risen is not the same as at his being raised. I asked for an eyewitness. As I can see, you are not good enough to make a Catholic out of a Jew.

Mark was written under the tutelage of Peter. Was Peter one of the eleven? Yes. He was one of the eleven who saw Jesus after the resurrection and conveyed this to Mark who recorded this in his Gospel.

Peter was a Jewish man. Jews don’t write about Greek Mythology in Judaism. He knew there is no such a thing in Judaism.

John 20:3-8
So Peter and the other disciple [this is John who modestly declines to name himself in his own Gospel] started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

They saw and believed. Naivete is the last thing to leave the heart of the superstitious. They believed in the resurrection because they saw linen left behind. They were unable to think how anxious were Joseph and his men to get Jesus out of that tomb without attracting the eyes of curiosity.

Was John one of the two who entered the empty tomb? Yes, though he modestly declined to name himself throughout his own Gospel. John saw that the tomb was empty and believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Jesus was not raised from the dead. Jesus was reaised from the tomb.
That’s quite different. The real John knew that, but the guy who wrote under his name was too stupid to consider any other option.

For further evidence that John and Peter saw Jesus after the resurrection, read ALL of John 21 which records Jesus talking and walking with them on the beach after breakfast.

"After breakfast!" Yes, now I remember that Luke had said that among
Jesus’ convincing proofs that he was alive, was to eat and drink with his disciples. So, after the resurrection one still eats, drinks and defecates? What is the difference from before? If we are to continue biologically to live as before, thank you but no thanks. I prefer to stay in the dust, where at least there is no pain.

Ben-

As usual, all you have offered are your own assertions. Actually, I don’t think that they are your own…I suspect that you’re simply parroting things you have read elsewhere and that none of this is your own original thought.

However, I will comment on your last point regarding Jesus eating a piece of fish or “having breakfast”. The purpose of this action was not because Jesus was hungry…after all, His body was now glorified…the reason He asked the disciples to put their hands into the nail holes and His side or to witness Him eating was to demonstrate that He was physically real and not a ghost.

Luke 24:37-43

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Since there are numerous passages that give evidence for His glorified body, I think it is entirely reasonable for Him to provide such proof to the disciples.

 

[NotWorthy]

**If after reading these two verses in the fourth gospel, you still believe that John, the Apostle was the author of the fourth gospel, you are what your name says.**I am, and always will be, NOT WORTHY. John wrote the first 20 chapters, and then a disciple of his finished it up.

**What you have given me is an extra evidence that the guys who wrote the gospels were not Jews, much less in the quality of Jesus’ Apostles. **You’ve confused me on this one.

So, the guy who wrote the gospel of John says that John is one of the eyewitnesses. Of what if I may ask, of the resurrection? That’s what I want to know and the text just does not say that.

Ah, so you want witnesses to the actual event. I don’t think anyone claims to have witnessed the event, although those two guys in white robes probably did. When you get to heaven, you can ask them!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben-

As usual, all you have offered are your own assertions. Actually, I don’t think that they are your own…I suspect that you’re simply parroting things you have read elsewhere and that none of this is your own original thought.

However, I will comment on your last point regarding Jesus eating a piece of fish or “having breakfast”. The purpose of this action was not because Jesus was hungry…after all, His body was now glorified…the reason He asked the disciples to put their hands into the nail holes and His side or to witness Him eating was to demonstrate that He was physically real and not a ghost.

Luke 24:37-43

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Since there are numerous passages that give evidence for His glorified body, I think it is entirely reasonable for Him to provide such proof to the disciples.

**Yes, I think you must be right. I must have read somewhere that Jesus spent 40 days after his resurrection giving convincing proofs that he was alive by eating and drinking with his disciples. Oh! yes, I remember from Acts 1:1-3. Right, that’s where I read about this. Now, I don’t think someone needs to be a Doctor to understand the process of digestion of food.

You speak above about glorified bodies after resurrection. And that’s why to calm the disciples down, who were thinking Jesus was a ghost, he ate and drank with them during 40 days. It’s only obvious that Jesus had to go to the restroom. Now, tell me what difference was there between before and after resurrection? Can’t you see here an evidence that he had survived the cross and was only trying to establish the Sect of the Nazarenes before he left?

I think that the problem is that you guys are unable to separate the man Jesus of Nazareth who became the pivot to a Jewish Sect in Israel from the Christ of Paul 30 years
later with all the supernatural paraphernalia which Paul needed to impersonate his Christ with Jesus, by giving to his Cause the semblance of reality.**

 

[NotWorthy]

**Yes, I think you must be right. I must have read somewhere that Jesus spent 40 days after his resurrection giving convincing proofs that he was alive by eating and drinking with his disciples. Oh! yes, I remember from Acts 1:1-3. Right, that’s where I read about this. Now, I don’t think someone needs to be a Doctor to understand the process of digestion of food.

You speak above about glorified bodies after resurrection. And that’s why to calm the disciples down, who were thinking Jesus was a ghost, he ate and drank with them during 40 days. It’s only obvious that Jesus had to go to the restroom. Now, tell me what difference was there between before and after resurrection? Can’t you see here an evidence that he had survived the cross and was only trying to establish the Sect of the Nazarenes before he left?

I think that the problem is that you guys are unable to separate the man Jesus of Nazareth who became the pivot to a Jewish Sect in Israel from the Christ of Paul 30 years
later with all the supernatural paraphernalia which Paul needed to impersonate his Christ with Jesus, by giving to his Cause the semblance of reality.**

It’s interesting that you use Acts for your argument, and then ignore Acts when it disagrees with your argument.

You say Paul invented the “Super Jesus”? What about Peter after the Pentecost, mere days later.

Then Peter, filled with the holy Spirit, answered them, “Leaders of the people and elders: 9 If we are being examined today about a good deed done to a cripple, namely, by what means he was saved, 10 then all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed. 11 He is ‘the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.’ 12 There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”

Its clear that the Apostles believed Jesus died, was raised from the dead, and then witnessed his Ascension.

 

[Ben_Masada]

It’s interesting that you use Acts for your argument, and then ignore Acts when it disagrees with your argument.

You say Paul invented the “Super Jesus”? What about Peter after the Pentecost, mere days later.

Its clear that the Apostles believed Jesus died, was raised from the dead, and then witnessed his Ascension.

**That I am able to use Acts when it agrees with me and to ignore it when it disagrees with me, it is an evidence of contradictions. The book contradicts itself almost in every page.

Yes, I believe that Paul invented the super Jesus. Logic tells me so, when I see the local Jews chasing him to arrest him and to bring him to trial, because he was preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. How about the Apostles about 30 years headquartered in Jerusalem and coexisting peacefully with mainstream Judaism? Only those who are blindly faithful can’t see the obvious. (Acts 9:31)

Peter, mere days after Pentecost! That was not Peter. Read Acts 2:14. A Jew would not introduce himself to an audience of Jews with the words, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem, listen to what I have to say.” That’s a Gentile, probably Luke who wrote that speech, which was never delivered. Besides, as a Jew, Peter would never accuse his fellow Jews with having crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) Sometimes the use of Logic helps understand how and why the NT was written.

There is nothing clear about Jesus in the NT, because besides the fact that it was written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone, it was written by Hellenistic Gentiles. **

 

[cheeto1]

**Who can fight faith? It’s like striking the air with one’s sword. **

It is you who have said it.

 

[NotWorthy]

**That I am able to use Acts when it agrees with me and to ignore it when it disagrees with me, it is an evidence of contradictions. The book contradicts itself almost in every page.**Which, in my mind, proves that it sprouted from Jewish roots. The Jews in the Old Testament were full of the exact same contradictions as (you claim) the New Testament has.

**Yes, I believe that Paul invented the super Jesus. Logic tells me so, when I see the local Jews chasing him to arrest him and to bring him to trial, because he was preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. How about the Apostles about 30 years headquartered in Jerusalem and coexisting peacefully with mainstream Judaism? Only those who are blindly faithful can’t see the obvious. (Acts 9:31)**Except maybe your zealot Jews finally gave up on persecuting the new Church. They realized that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the new Church (someone should coin that phrase!). Not everyone was as blindly ambitious as Saul, except for those 30 or so fools who made a nazirite vow to kill Paul before they ate again. That movement couldn’t have lasted for more than a few weeks! :whacky:

**Peter, mere days after Pentecost! That was not Peter. Read Acts 2:14. A Jew would not introduce himself to an audience of Jews with the words, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem, listen to what I have to say.” That’s a Gentile, probably Luke who wrote that speech, which was never delivered. Besides, as a Jew, Peter would never accuse his fellow Jews with having crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) Sometimes the use of Logic helps understand how and why the NT was written.**Why wouldn’t Peter say that? It was the Jews who had saw to Jesus’ crucifixion. They didn’t hammer the nails, but they were certainly the root cause.

**There is nothing clear about Jesus in the NT, because besides the fact that it was written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone, it was written by Hellenistic Gentiles. **

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Ben. You crack me up!

 

[Canto]

Besides, as a Jew, Peter would never accuse his fellow Jews with having crucified Jesus.

Peter was actually Catholic, the first Pope!
Ben Masada;5673160:

There is nothing clear about Jesus in the NT, because besides the fact that it was written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone, it was written by Hellenistic Gentiles.

And how long after the Exodus was the Book of Exodus written?

Second Samuel (1:13-14) says Saul was slain by an Amalekite. Later in Second Samuel (21:12) we read that Saul was hanged by the Philistines on Gilboa.

The Book of Numbers (33:38) tells us that Aaron died on Mt. Hor, and the Book of Deuteronomy (10:6) tells us that Aaron died in Mosera.

Is this considered clear?

And what’s wrong with Gentiles recording sacred tradition?

 

[humble_maid]

in a word YES, Jesus Christ is God. Read the Gospels.

BTW, this should be posted in the ‘non Christian religions’ forum.

Good day Ignatius,

It is so good to hear from my brethren in Christ. You are absolutely right in mentioning that this should be posted in the ‘non Christian religions’. Please pray for us all to be united in the One Spirit of Christ our Lord and God.

 

[LionHeart777]

How about the Apostles about 30 years headquartered in Jerusalem and coexisting peacefully with mainstream Judaism?

Ben, how does James the Righteous being thrown from the parapet and clubbed to death sound peaceful. I’m not saying that there wasn’t better relations in that time than others as things did arguably get worse but…even the crucifixion shows that the relations between the Sadducees and Pharisees (in general; not every member of each as some were converted from each i believe) and those of “the Way” were not that grea from the get go.

Peter, mere days after Pentecost! That was not Peter. Read Acts 2:14. A Jew would not introduce himself to an audience of Jews with the words, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem, listen to what I have to say.” That’s a Gentile, probably Luke who wrote that speech, which was never delivered. Besides, as a Jew, Peter would never accuse his fellow Jews with having crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) Sometimes the use of Logic helps understand how and why the NT was written.

Ben, this is not a strong argument IMO, no matter how logical it seems to you or anyone else. That Peter said those words is a historical fact. Perhaps you misunderstand why he says “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem…”?

Have you ever heard of the archaeologist who tried to discredit Luke as a historian only to end up being a convert himself? (I believe that is the case; if you want a reference let me know.)

 

[LionHeart777]

My answer to the title ? of the thread is:

YES!

 

[JesuisSean]

Again, see outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2.htm to answer your question.

Click on the little speaker http://www.outersecrets.com/real/image/speakyes.gif
to receive verbal assistance.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Which, in my mind, proves that it sprouted from Jewish roots. The Jews in the Old Testament were full of the exact same contradictions as (you claim) the New Testament has.

Except maybe your zealot Jews finally gave up on persecuting the new Church. They realized that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the new Church (someone should coin that phrase!). Not everyone was as blindly ambitious as Saul, except for those 30 or so fools who made a nazirite vow to kill Paul before they ate again. That movement couldn’t have lasted for more than a few weeks! :whacky:

Why wouldn’t Peter say that? It was the Jews who had saw to Jesus’ crucifixion. They didn’t hammer the nails, but they were certainly the root cause.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Ben. You crack me up!

**When I expose to you the contradictions of the NT, you don’t understand that by doing the same to me about the Tanach, you are only aknowledging to me that the contradictions of the NT are true.

The Jews never persecuted the Church. They did want to arrest Paul and bring him to trial but because he was preaching apostasy in Jerusalem by claiming that the man Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected.

If you do believe that the Jews were the root cause for the crucifixion of Jesus, you must explain the contradiction that Jesus came to confirm the most important thing in the life of a Jew, which is God’s Law, and the Jews paid back by asking the enemies of Israel to crucify him. It makes no sense. That’s a contradiction. If you can’t explain, you are admitting it.**

 

[LionHeart777]

Ben,

have you ever read “Dialogue With Trypho”, by St. Justin Martyr written in the 2nd Century A.D.?

newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm

It is a back and fourth between a 2nd century Jew and Catholic. It might be worth your while to read if not for anything else than to better understand Catholic arguments.

 

[NotWorthy]

**When I expose to you the contradictions of the NT, you don’t understand that by doing the same to me about the Tanach, you are only aknowledging to me that the contradictions of the NT are true.**No, I’m just wondering if you are the pot? Or the kettle?

I don’t see the contradictions. You see, you sit on your mountaintop and say, “No real Jew would do this…” or “No real Jew would say that…”. You Jews have a history full of actions that “No real Jew would do”.

So its just quite ironic to read your posts that quip, “Peter couldn’t have said that, because…”.

**The Jews never persecuted the Church. They did want to arrest Paul and bring him to trial but because he was preaching apostasy in Jerusalem by claiming that the man Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected.**Now you are full of contradictions. Paul admitted to persecuting the Way. Your good Anias seemed to think that the bishop of Jerusalem needed to be thrown off the temple.

** If you do believe that the Jews were the root cause for the crucifixion of Jesus, you must explain the contradiction that Jesus came to confirm the most important thing in the life of a Jew, which is God’s Law, and the Jews paid back by asking the enemies of Israel to crucify him. It makes no sense. That’s a contradiction. If you can’t explain, you are admitting it.**

No, the Jews that refused to see that the Kingdom was here were the ones who persecuted Jesus. They thought they were doing the right thing. Jeroboam seems to be a wonderful illustration of Jews thinking they are right, while all along they are wrong. (But don’t worry, my Hebrew brothers don’t have a monopoly of this bad habit).

As for the Jews being the root cause, I certainly don’t see Pilate waking up one morning and thinking, “Hey, this Jesus guy… His Crucifixion would make a great way to open up the Passover Weekend!”.

 

[FatTire]

If you do believe that the Jews were the root cause for the crucifixion of Jesus, you must explain the contradiction that Jesus came to confirm the most important thing in the life of a Jew, which is God’s Law, and the Jews paid back by asking the enemies of Israel to crucify him. It makes no sense. That’s a contradiction. If you can’t explain, you are admitting it.

Really easy, Jesus was a threat to the Temple system and to the teachings of cleanliness and God’s forgiveness. Plenty of times Jesus and the High Priests clashed on these important issues. Jesus’ fulfillment of these laws was not narrow minded like the Jewish priestly class, it encompassed all men, clean and unclean, Jew and Gentile. That’s why the Jews demanded he be crucified (and no I don’t mean every single Jew including you were there calling for His blood to be upon your head and the head of your children, don’t misconstrue it). Only a handful of influential Jews in high places close to Rome set the events in motion leading to the crucifixion.

 

[mary1173]

If he is the Alpha and the Omega the begining and the end then why does he tell people to Pray to the Father and why does he say through himself he can do nothing, only what the Father allows, and he siad Abba Father why have you forsaken me why would he say into your hands I commend my spirit, Yes I’ve heard of the trinity and the mystery of God, but many people claim Jesus and a prophet, who is healing the hindu, the muslim, the buddist, the atheist when they get sick?

Ok, first thing…God is three beings in one God. The Father knowledge] and mind all knowing, the Son, [heart] all loving all feeling, and the Holy Spirit, [the soul] essence of a person. When Christ was healing, he was working miracles in the hopes that the people would see and believe in God. God the Son, [Christ], came to earth, and was born into humanity to suffer our inequities, bodily imperfections, and even our psychological doubts. Through his sufferings, being beaten at the pillar, crowned with thorns, he went through physical pain. In the garden his mind was racing as he had to contemplate that he would die for everyone else, [he doubted too, he took human form, doubt and all] and had a moment of doubt when asking God the Father, " Why have you foresaken me?" Christ was human while he lived with our ancestors on this planet back then.
And you may say, " well, why didn’t he just make it easy on himself and not allow himself to die?" right? It was to prove his LOVE for us in showing us that he would give his very life to save ours.

I hope I explained it clearly enough. God Bless…

 

[ready]

Jesus is God because he said he was (I AM), and if you don’t believe God, you won’t believe anyone else on this forum who tries to argue Jesus is God. You first have to give an assent to believe Jesus is God for your understanding to follow, as St. Augustine would argue. I know that from personal experience, too. Arguing all day will get the atheist absolutely nowhere. I’ll pray for you atheists, though.

 

[Cashue]

If he is the Alpha and the Omega the begining and the end then why does he tell people to Pray to the Father and why does he say through himself he can do nothing, only what the Father allows, and he siad Abba Father why have you forsaken me why would he say into your hands I commend my spirit, Yes I’ve heard of the trinity and the mystery of God, but many people claim Jesus and a prophet, who is healing the hindu, the muslim, the buddist, the atheist when they get sick?

Yes, he is God, this is proved in the bible when he said he was God’s son, this meant that he was god. Jesus couldn’t actually say the words “I am God” because the Jews would have killed him so what he said is that he was God’s son (he was afraid to actually say I am God). In code, every time Jesus used the term “to be” (whenever he said I AM, for example when he said I AM hungry, or I AM travelling to Jerusalem,) he was in fact saying he was God.

 

[Steven_John]

Yes, he is God, this is proved in the bible when he said he was God’s son, this meant that he was god.

Did nt he say he was the son of man so they would know who he was?

Jesus couldn’t actually say the words “I am God” because the Jews would have killed him so what he said is that he was God’s son (he was afraid to actually say I am God)

.

With respect to this does not give me any confidence in your argument. I would actually take as my God one who is afraid of men? come on my God fears no one.
And lets look at Yahooshus (pbwh) hardly a scaredy character either he was very brave and could have easily said on the cross “i am God” rather than why have you leaft me God?
He was being killed.

In code, every time Jesus used the term “to be” (whenever he said I AM, for example when he said I AM hungry, or I AM travelling to Jerusalem,) he was in fact saying he was God.

I doubt you got this “code key” from the bible, at a guess a human has taught you this then you have read and said yes that fits.

If this is the case how do you know the human is not blind? even satan can appear as an angel of the light.

B blessed B guided