Had Jesus been around, traveling from village to village declaring “I am God, and I am human”, I would still wonder about this passage:
Matthew 27:46 King James Version “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sebachthani? that is to say My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?”
That doesn’t make any sense, as if God disconnected from himself for some reason? Considering Jesus felt neglected, would God do that to himself? Perhaps God wanted to disassociate himself to experience differently in human fashion, yet I’m not sure if Jesus really thought he was God:
John 34:35-38 King James Version “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, yet why not state he was God in person instead? It is possible he meant God was connected to him spiritually. If only it said “the Father is me, and I him.”
John 8:54-58 King James Version “Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
Jesus never clearly stated he was God here either, yet was with “him.” Had Jesus been alive before Abraham was born, is what his point was, that he was the Son of God back then as well? Being with the Father doesn’t necessarily imply he is the same person as the Father.
It king of implies that Jesus was supposed to be God here:
Philippians 2:5-11 King James Version “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
However, why suggest that he was equal with God, rather than being God “himself”? It does state Jesus is Lord, yet does that mean God, the Father? Or just a Lord, implying King? If the passage stated “Jesus came as the Son who is the same as God”, then I would still inquire about the issue of Jesus talking to himself, as the Father.
Moreover, assuming God came down to experience human form, why did he have to talk to himself, especially as a completely separate entity?
1 Timothy 3:16 King James Version “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.“
It does sound like the writer is saying God is Jesus here, and many Christians feel God came came down in human form. And, it is possible God sent “himself” down in that manner, yet “he” implied “his” role is to keep the earth afloat.