Did Jesus ever say "I am NOT God?"


(Theophilus Book) #1

Yes He did, when he said the following -
God is Spirit. (John 4:24)

Spirit hath not flesh and bone (Luke 4:39-40)

I am flesh and bone (Luke 24:39)

True worshippers worship the Father. (John 4:23)

and again when he said the following:
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

And prophecy backs it up -

Psalm 55:12 For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: 13 But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. 14 We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.

If Jesus was God, why would the prophet have him saying “walked unto the house of God” instead of “Walked into my house?”


(Brad Kramer) #2

(Ryan weatherly) #3

Flesh or spirit ?
His flesh the lineage of Mary , his spirit born of God .
This is my perspective on it …


(Theophilus Book) #4

[quote=“1god, post:3, topic:38581, full:true”]
Flesh or spirit ?
His flesh the lineage of Mary , his spirit born of God .
This is my perspective on it …[/quote]

Mat 1:20 & John 3:6 agrees.


(Christy Hemphill) #5

In general, we like discussion topics to have some relationship to the intersection of faith and science. What relevance does this topic have to the discussion of evolutionary creationism? Why should someone coming from a BioLogos perspective consider this question in the first place?


(Ryan weatherly) #6

I suppose it could be a loose relation to flesh …we are apes in the flesh …??
Christ sent in our likeness , the likeness of ape ?

But it wasn’t my intention to break any rule by answering .if so , my honest mistake .


(Theophilus Book) #7

[quote=“Christy, post:5, topic:38581, full:true”]
In general, we like discussion topics to have some relationship to the intersection of faith and science. What relevance does this topic have to the discussion of evolutionary creationism? Why should someone coming from a BioLogos perspective consider this question in the first place?[/quote]

Because studies by scientists have pondered the “Miraculous” for Generations

The “Source” for Jesus; The testimony of Jesus as to His “causation” and birth; His authority demonstrated through the Miraculous;

Personally, I perceive his whole life and afterlife to be of scientific interest.

When I was much younger, I read many accounts produced by “Scientists” who questioned even the “possibility” of scripture being an accurate account, or whether it was about accurate events.

Many of these accounts are missed in the discussion because the reader does not see the “other side of the issue” existing for discussion

Much of the issue for science has been from the perspective of “You can’t prove Jesus is God.”

Correct, but I can prove he was NOT God. Therefore, a brand new approach from the standpoint of science; proper exegesis of scripture.

When you consider translations accuracy when compared with the original (including the source of the original), and you correct the errors of the translators who translated with an agenda, and get down to the root of what is said, and sort it out from what is not said, there is an entirely different story told by scripture.

But too much of science is involved with proving the unprovable, while ignoring the obvious of the provable.

So I offer much that is provable, while not spending too much time in the realm of the unprovable, like “Hmmm, what was early man thinking about…?”

All the while, I enjoy what I am reading, while I wonder at the expanse of the minds of science. I love it.


(Theophilus Book) #8

[quote=“1god, post:6, topic:38581, full:true”]
I suppose it could be a loose relation to flesh …we are apes in the flesh …??
Christ sent in our likeness , the likeness of ape ?

But it wasn’t my intention to break any rule by answering .if so , my honest mistake .[/quote]

Ape? Nope! Sharing DNA with an animal is not even good evidence, to say nothing of proof.

What was the event revealed on day 3? From a primordial soup of swamp mixture, dry land emerged (was separated from) from water, which while soup, served as a common source for DNA.

The commonality of DNA does not contribute to an ape relationship, but rather provides evidence of activity of a common creator.


(Ryan weatherly) #9

By all physical evidence that I have seen , we are a species of greater ape , 1/5 , we differ via our fused 13th and 14th chromosomes, so scripturally our flesh different from the other apes.

As to " primordial soup " …I’m not a fan of that term …
Abiogenesis via deep sea hydrothermal vents " let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life " …let , to allow the waters bring forth .

Our common ancestors was ape , thus we are ape , evolution occurs within the lineage , bloodline , clade .


(Ryan weatherly) #10

@mods :Again , if I have violated a rule by replying , feel free to delete my responses


(Christy Hemphill) #11

Um… No you can’t. You can point to a Bible verse that you interpret to be Jesus claiming God is only ever spirit. That’s a long way from “proving Jesus was not God.”

Just a reminder that the BioLogos statement of faith affirms the Incarnation of Jesus as fully God and fully man. It’s not really in the interest of the organization to promote arguments to the contrary. This discussion forum is not intended to be a place where any old theology topic can be batted around as long as you have some Bible verses. There is supposed to be some relationship to people understanding the Bible and living out the Christian faith in light of scientific realities.

Yes, one way of rescuing the Bible from science is to deny Jesus’ divinity. It’s not the one we promote here though.


(Theophilus Book) #12

Understood with comprehension. Disagree with understanding!

God either created Man from red Earth, or He did not, and I think He knew the difference. MAN was created on the sixth day, as a separate, special effort to distinguish him from all that went before. Scripture nowhere suggests Man “Evolved on the sixth day.”

Even the soul of man is treated differently form the souls of beasts. I do not perceive that the soul of Man “descended from the Ape.”

Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?


(Ryan weatherly) #13

Apples and oranges …
Flesh and spirit …

Dust + of the earth is what is pumped from the hydrothermal vents .

To get real technical , we are carbon based life , carbon makes up the bulk of organic matter in topsoil as far as my understanding goes .

In context , we are hydrated inflated carbon , or dust of the earth / stardust in the flesh .

It is my opinion , that our spirit is in the image of God , but some may disagree .
That which is born of the flesh is flesh , that which is born
Of the spirit is spirit


#14

We had a variation on this topic just a short while ago, and it went on forever:
“Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?”


#15

Thanks! 


(Ryan weatherly) #16

I’m not sure if that was sarcasm " thanks " or not …if so , it was not my intent to insult our species , perhaps I’m just mud full of hot air …lol


(Ryan weatherly) #17

Oh and to clarify …it is my impression that our " soul" is our consciousness, our natural thinking mind …


#18

Well, saying that we are “hydrated inflated carbon” might sound all sciency, but… Actually, it remind me of Star Trek and all its particles. As in “Captain, I have reconfigured my hair dryer to shoot tachyon particles and save the universe.”


(Ryan weatherly) #19

Lol… I do like the Trek …
At least " hydrated carbon American " isboth confusing and PC enough to not offend anyone :joy:


#20

Jesus never says He isn’t God in those verses. Jesus incarnated Himself from God into a man with flesh (Philippians 2:6-11), and that’s why He had flesh during His earthly life. After His resurrection, He transformed again into an eternal God and was no longer of any flesh or bone.

You quote the Gospel of John to try to claim Jesus didn’t claim to be God, but this is the same Gospel that identifies Jesus as God in its first verse. Likewise, Richard B. Hays has also demonstrated the other Gospels interpreting Jesus as God in the monograph Reading Backwards (2014).