that face when someone says Jesus never claimed to be God

>>17845178 (OP)
This is the History & Humanities board. If you want to discuss your fictional character with superpowers I'd suggest >>>/x/

>>17845178 (OP)
You could solve that issue by just posting 1 (one) verse where he does do so, no gish gallop just your best. I'll show you where he specifically denies the accusation.

>>17845405
No, https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17674237/#17674320
>>17845406
and here it is

>>17845412
Kiss my cock femboy.

>>17845421
only feminine faggots beg other men to kiss their cocks

>>17845178 (OP)
>Mfw tranimefats co-opt the Christian movement

>>17845426
It's not gay if a cute femboy kisses my cock.

>>17845441
>atheist subjective morals being used to justify anything again
no you're a sodomite who has nothing else going for him except the delusional fantasies you got from watching degenerate media

If you believe that the New Testament is reliable w/r/t what Jesus claimed you are a rube. The urban and literate Christian tastemakers who say that don't believe it, they're just anxious their society won't last if they don't raise at least one more generation of rubes that credit that ridiculous nonsense. At least Christian nations are 150 years ahead of Muslim ones at critical thinking. God help this planet.

>>17845412
In the screenshot it's only the other people saying that Jesus claims to be God. Jesus himself says he claims to be God's Son, that the Father is in him, and that he is in the Father. But those statuses can supposedly be conveyed to Christians as well, along with maybe the same sort of unity Jesus claims to share with the Father elsewhere in John (See Romans 8:14-16; Ephesians 4:4-6; John 17:20-23). So if Jesus is claiming to be God there, then he's also perhaps claiming that we can be God. But most Christians would consider that to be Satanic blasphemy.

Probably the strongest implict claim Jesus makes to divinity imo is "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." But since Jesus also says things like, "I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me." (John 12:49-50) I wonder if maybe that and similar statements could instead be understood as God the Father speaking through Jesus rather than Jesus actually speaking about himself.

>>17845488
If God is real and created us then why the fuck did he make me crave femboy bussy?

>>17845564
>it's only the other people saying
Yes that's my point I am >>17845406 Jesus does not confirm their accusation he explains to them that in the previous scripture even they are Gods so they shouldn't take it as a literal claim to be the one God even if it were true. Then he points out that he did not in fact blaspheme because he said he's God's son (and there are many other sons of God in the bible) not God himself. He's explicitly denying their claim there. But even if we ignore all that, these people also claimed he does the work of Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24) so their false claims should never be taken at face value. Don't forget they couldn't find anything to actually fault him for so they invented it (Mark 14:55-59)
>I wonder if maybe that and similar statements could instead be understood as God the Father speaking through Jesus rather than Jesus actually speaking about himself.
You don't even have to go there really. There are two common claims linked to that verse. One is that Jesus preexisted and the other is that he is claiming the title of God there. The first is most likely true because the author of John believed the Son was a lesser deity but still the first created being (sort of like what you find in Colossians 1:15-18) but this also isn't problematic because Paul for example believes everyone preexisted in some form before Abraham was sent (Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Timothy 1:9) like as in part of God's plan which is consistent with other parts of the bible (Jeremiah 1:5). And the second is just false because it is not equivalent to the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 which means something along the lines of "I will be what I will be" but also Jesus there was just confirming to be the Messiah and the exact same words are translated differently. For example in John 8:24 "I am he". It's just a means to identify yourself like how Paul uses it Acts 26:29

>>17845566
What is this line of reasoning? I crave real pussy but that doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to commit adultery. You have a mind and free will to be better than your base instincts. You're being tested like the rest of humanity if we'd rather follow our own whims and desires over the commandments of God. If we trust in his wisdom then not only would it be beneficial for us in the afterlife but in this one too. Such as not getting infected with HIV

>>17845648
>Then he points out that he did not in fact blaspheme because he said he's God's son (and there are many other sons of God in the bible) not God himself. He's explicitly denying their claim there.
Ah, I see what you were getting at now. I guess I still haven't fully unlearned the ingrained traditional understanding to be able to see that interpretation.
>Paul for example believes everyone preexisted in some form before Abraham was sent (Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Timothy 1:9)
Another interesting possible interpretation I've overlooked
>And the second is just false because it is not equivalent to the Hebrew
>but also Jesus there was just confirming to be the Messiah
Not totally persuaded by this but I'll look more into it.

>>17845698
There's a lot that's quite off about the traditional understanding. The Pharisees didn't want to kill Jesus because he claimed to be God. They plainly state the reason, they wanted the Romans to keep them in power. And the messiah in the Jewish understanding was a king who would rule over an earthly kingdom and not just a spiritual one. It's a direct threat to the empire, basically a claim to independence. This is why they mocked him as the king of the Jews when he was crucified. Jesus himself didn't have many religious differences with them, he was more opposed to the Sadducees that way. I mean he plainly tells people to listen to everything the Pharisees teach.
>Not totally persuaded by this
understandable, you might want to take a look at this https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john8_58.html he explains it better than I ever could

If I had been God none of this bad stuff would have happened. I wouldnt put my creation through it. There would be no need to because there would be nothing evil to prepare them for. I would have just not made evil, or otherwise I would have contained it entirely in its own space to do as it pleased until it got bored. I would not be throwing my creation in it just because it did something wrong. I would go talk to it, directly and calmly, and simply stop whatever the problems were if any came about. And I would in turn teach that within my creation to go and do the same in each their own places. If I can consider this, and the truth that none of the struggles are needed, and the glory to be found in it ultimately a vanity moreso than exemplification, then what does that say of this place? Why can I consider a mercy greater than what is offered in the absolute? What good would it do for God to make me have such considerations for God to be mad about when God could change everything at any single moment?

>>17845564
See the following:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God."
- John 1:1-2

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
- John 17:5

It's pretty unambiguous. He also accepts worship all over the Gospels, but clearly said in Matthew and Luke that one must render worship to the Lord thy God only. He never stopped anyone from worshipping Him. And there are all of those statements that imply His omniscience when Jesus responds to people's thoughts without them even speaking. And the miracles like calming the storm are directly connected to God's power in Old Testament passages (see Psalm 147:18 for example). There is just no way to miss this unless you are trying to be willfully ignorant, or haven't actually read the Bible.

>>17845648
>but this also isn't problematic because Paul for example believes everyone preexisted in some form before Abraham was sent (Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Timothy 1:9)
Those passages don't imply that we actually existed back then, just that we were ideas in God's mind. It's totally different with the Word, who is identified with the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son. There are all these passages clearly indicating His eternal pre-existence. These are in both Testaments, for instance Isaiah 63:16 and Micah 5:2 (KJV). In John 17:24, Jesus said, "thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." And you have many more passages that emphasize this, like John 1:15, Hebrews 13:8, Revelation 1:11 and 3:14, and so on. In Acts 20:28 it literally says that God paid for the church with "his own blood."

>For example in John 8:24 "I am he".
Jesus literally said: "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." He says if they don't believe in His divinity, they will die in their sins. It's not the same as what Paul says.

>>17845730
>The Pharisees didn't want to kill Jesus because he claimed to be God.
See the following:

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
(John 5:18)

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause."
(John 15:22-25)

"And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
But neither so did their witness agree together.
And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."
(Mark 14:55-64)

>>17845178 (OP)
>"Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." (Mark 10:18)
Anyone with common sense knows what this means

>>17845178 (OP)
Jesus being god is only clear in john; one of yhe later and more divergent gospels from the other three; there is good reason to believe jesus never actually claimed to bs equal with god

>>17845981
he claims to be the son of God in all the other, something which muslims reject as well

>>17846243
We don't reject it in the sense Jesus could have used it, it's simply obsolete terminology that has been abrogated. This shouldn't be unfamiliar to you since the same happened in the bible.

>>17845858
>just that we were ideas in God's mind
Yes and in the exact same sense Jesus was, all of your verses can be understood in the same way such as when he was loved before the foundation of the world. Anyway preexistence before Abraham does not make you God, even the arch angels satisfy that requirement. You haven't addressed where he is called creation. The author of John believes in logos theology, the Son is the mediator between the most high God and the rest of us. It's very gnostic-like and you can find the same type of language used by Philo
>In Acts 20:28 it literally says that God paid for the church with "his own blood."
"Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his own Son" - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:28&version=NIV
>He says if they don't believe in His divinity, they will die in their sins.
That's you inserting your theology into the text. Read https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208%3A21-30&version=NIV There's nothing there where he claims to be God. Read a bit further "then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me". Can God do nothing on his own? Is God taught? Just saying ego eimi is not a claim to divinity and that's exactly why Paul can use it without you praying to him.
>>17845868
>John 5:18
Claiming to be God's son does not make you equal to God himself. "John" there is doing the same thing Jesus criticized here >>17845412 Is Israel equal to God?
>John 15:22-25
That doesn't say anything again about him being God, the Son is not the Father he's just a representative, a prophet like in Exodus 7:1, 4:16. It clearly says they hated him without a cause.
>Mark 14:55-64
I quoted that already. It specifies that they did not find anyone that claimed he was blaspheming and they literally made up false charges against him.

>>17845858
>And there are all of those statements that imply His omniscience when Jesus responds to people's thoughts without them even speaking.
Why can't God reveal those things to him? He makes many statements where his ignorance is also demonstrated such as when telling us only the Father knows the hour. And no it isn't the declare cope you find in modern apologetics, I can show you church Fathers understanding it like I do. "The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge" - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103228.htm But anyway take for example pic rel, it was so problematic that in the other gospel they had to remove the part where it clearly shows his ignorance. You can't be omniscient and lack knowledge on anything

In the NT, normal people call Jesus "Lord", not "God".
Only Jesus says "Lord" meaning "God"

>>17847662
john 20:28 doe

>>17845406
>You could solve that issue by just posting 1 (one) verse where he does do so,
John 1:1. Have fun burning!

>>17846540
>>17846580
You're wasting everyone's time. You don't believe the Bible anyway, so why even go to such effort as all of this? And of course you have to rely on corrupt versions to get anywhere, don't think I didn't notice.

>You can't be omniscient and lack knowledge on anything
Hypostatic union, anon. This is basic stuff. Jesus is fully God and fully man.

>>17848692
>And of course you have to rely on corrupt versions to get anywhere
He's not using the KJV though
>This is basic stuff.
nta but it clearly isn't if it took over a century of highly learned theologians to finally agree on a general formula for each other to hold to, and still have a large amount of people disagree.

>>17849042
>And of course you have to rely on corrupt versions to get anywhere
>He's not using the KJV though
You're so fucked.

Its a disingenuous argument purveyed by the enemies of God. If he had claimed to be God, then his enemies would have called him a liar.

The proof is in the pudding, so they say. Judge by the fruit, etc.

>>17850470
You're pretty dumb.

>>17845178 (OP)
>that face when someone says Jesus never claimed to be God
You make no sense. Israel jews land fight