This is the perfect sort of post when dealing with cult members. It shows their falsehoods without engaging them on premises which only grants them the intellectual ground that they haven't earned.
Jesus is God
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
This is the perfect sort of post when dealing with cult members. It shows their falsehoods without engaging them on premises which only grants them the intellectual ground that they haven't earned.
Just so you're aware, AMR passed away several months ago.
There's a thread if you search for it.
God's Truth
New member
You aren't comprehending. I said only Jesus has all of God's names.
Some of God's names are the Almighty, Mighty God, Everlasting, Shepherd, Lord of lords, King of kings, I AM, the Savior, Redeemer, the Holy One, the Rock, the Alpha and the Omega, and more;yet, you compare that to some other men that were called savior, or king, or god. No one has the names of God except Jesus Christ.
You say a man here and there is called 'god', or another one a king, and another a savior. But what don't you get that only Jesus has ALL of God's names?
No one is called the Savior of all men except God and Jesus.
Jesus died on the cross and lived in his Spirit.
God's Truth
New member
I didn’t quote anything incorrectly. It is called a typo with a 7.
No, go study it some more. It is about Jesus.
It is about Jesus. Jesus is the one who is and who was and who is coming. It is God’s throne and Jesus’ throne.
Revelation 1:7-8 KJV
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Did you read that the one they pierced? Jesus is the one they pierced.
Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Jesus is the one coming with the reward. The one coming with the reward is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Here Paul says 'God' the ONLY 'King of kings'.
1 Timothy 6:15
which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
Here the scripture says JESUS is the King of kings.
Revelation 17:14
They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”
Revelation 19:16
On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: King of kings and lord of lords.
Paul says God the blessed and ONLY King of kings. Jesus is the King of kings.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not. Isaiah scripture is about when Jesus does come.
Jesus is called the Alpha and the Omega.
Jesus Is called the King of kings and the Bible says there is only one called that and it is God.
Jesus has every name above all. He has every name that God has.
Again, Jesus is called more than just god or savior. He is the Shepherd, the Redeemer, and you can’t claim that about Satan. You should shudder for trying to use Satan to prove Jesus is just a god and not the God Almighty come in the flesh.
I give a lot of evidence, but you refuse.
They have more than one name the same. They have all the same names.
God's Truth
New member
There is nothing from silence. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. His Spirit is his Father's and he has his earthly side from his mother.
No angel could do what Jesus did. Jesus is at the same place he was BEFORE coming to earth.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Do you think some angel can say that?
I am not a modalist and don't have the same beliefs.
No mere human is sinless. It could not have been anyone to do what Jesus did. You are disrespectful and worse.
Even angels are capable of sinning.
I understand what you are saying.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus SAYS he himself will live in the saved. And, Jesus is the Spirit.
Read the scriptures and believe them. The scriptures plainly say Jesus will live in the saved.
Of course the scriptures prove you are incorrect.
Jesus says: I myself will live in the saved.
You say: No, just symbolically.
Nowhere anywhere does Jesus say what you say.
Show me where Jesus says he will not really live in the saved, but will symbolically live with the saved.
That is a lie.
Using what Paul a man says is not the same. You go against the Truth.
God's Truth
New member
I never said that. You should pay more attention.
God said not to call each other father because they are brothers. It is spiritual not biological.
Jesus says not to call each other 'father' because they are brothers in Christ.
It is not right to call your brother 'father'.
Matthew 23: 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Read more carefully. Where did I ever say the Bible doesn't say Jacob bowed to his brother?
In the Old Testament times, bowing was to earthly people.
In the New Testament times it is about Jesus and what is spiritual.
We are no longer to do certain things.
The Bible plainly says don’t bow to men and angles. We are to bow only to God when it comes to that which is spiritual.
You are "funny", you claim everything God said or did before your IMAGINARY BATHING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST is null and void.
The only thing that means anything to you is YOUR IMAGINARY BATHING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
You have missed the point of Christ.
Christ is the FULFILLMENT not the obliteration.
You can think of Fulfillment as paying off the Mortgage on your house.
Do you then destroy your house?
Or do you spend the money no longer going into the Mortgage payments to Remodel an enlarge your house?
For that matter you could could buy 2 new cars and put someone through college once you have FULFILLED your mortgage payment.
You think once my Mortgage payment is FULFILLED I should Burn down or Bull Doze MY house,
You are mistaken.
Hell, I got enough credit to buy 2 MORE HOUSES, both with Mortgages that WILL BE FULFILLED.
Last edited:
And then He rose again 3 days later.
Um, are you stupid?
Christ was crucified around AD 30. Which means he was crucified only 1990 years ago...
Well, no, it's not the thread. Were you even paying attention to what I said to Sevens?
NWL
Active member
I am fully comprehending what you're saying hence why I've previously addressed your point. Jesus does NOT have all of the Fathers names.
How can you say "No one has the names of God except Jesus Christ" in reference to saviour, king of kings or God when others are clearly called those things. You cannot have two statements that are both true yet contradict each other, you cannot say "only Jesus Christ has the names of God, such as savior, King of kings and God" and it be true and then say the "Bible calls men, savior, king of kings and God". The fact that men are called it does not matter, tell me why it does, just because you say it does doesn't make it so. As I've said many times now Jesus having some of the same names of God is not evidence he is that one. The same way two earthly kings/people can be called "king of kings", "lord of lords", "president", "Priminister" is the same way both the Father and his Son can be referred by the same titles.
Why does that matter, the Bible doesn't state "there is only one Savior of all men", it states "there is only one savior". The Bible is clear though that others can be saviours. The same way "Jehovah raised up for them a savior [Ehud]" (Judges 3:15) and Ehud can rightly be called a savior despite "their only being one savior" is the same way Jesus is savior as it was God who "sent" Jesus. Both the Father and Jesus are saviors, the Father saves all mankind through his son since it was him who sent him. We can see this principle elsewhere in the Bible, for example, James 4:12 states "there is only one lawgiver and judge [God]", people such as yourself would jump on this and think its proof Jesus is God as elsewhere it states 'Jesus is judge', this type of reasoning is elementary however as it ignores the potential that God simply acts as a Judge through another, as the bible clearly shows "Because he [God] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed". As the verse shows, God judges through Jesus. Likewise, The Father is saviour and saves mankind through Jesus, thus Jesus too becomes a savior.
I understand you believe Jesus lived in his spirit, what I'm trying to ask is, is it correct in saying "only Jesus humanity died" when it states he died?
NWL
Active member
I'm aware it was a type hence why I said "I think you were meant to quote Rev 1:8", I was only trying to help others in case they read it and looked up the verse. I know its easy to be defensive in this type of setting but believe it or not, I'm not trying to use every opportunity to put you down as many have the custom in this forum friend.
I see a common theme starting with you GT. You make a claim and attempt to show supporting scripture regarding the said claim, I make counter-arguments against your claim, you then do not address my counter-arguments and simply repeat in the same or different way why your claim is correct. I made two points as to why Jesus cannot be the one who sits on the throne, namely:
- Jesus is the lamb who takes the scroll from the A&O who is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" and who sits on the throne when comparing Rev 1:4, Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, If Jesus takes the scroll from the one who sits on the throne then he cannot possibly be that one. You have completely ignored this point despite it clearly contradicting your understanding.
- The A&O is the same person as the "one who is, who was, and is coming" according to Rev 1:8, Jesus is clearly mentioned as separate from this one when reading Rev 1:4,5. If Jesus is mentioned as separate from him then he clearly is not that one or the one speaking in Rev 1:8. You have completely ignored this point despite it clearly contradicting your understanding.
Does Jesus take the scroll from the one "sitting on the throne" according to Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, if you answer is yes (and it can only be a yes unless you want to deny scripture) then how do you say Jesus is the one "sitting on the throne"?
Jesus is the one coming with the reward. The one coming with the reward is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
SO WHAT! Again, Jesus is a King of kings and the Father is also a King of kings, the Father is a King over Jesus and all other kings and Jesus is king over all kings of the earth. The same way there can be two kings in earth and they can both be called King of kings is the same way both Jesus and the Father are kings of kings without one needing to assume they are the same person. As you keep ignoring my point I will pose it in a question so you stop ignoring my points over and over. Also, the Father isn't called the only king of kings, he's called the "only ruler", compare other translations and you will see the "only" is referring to God's sovereignty by the verse.
Answer me please, can two human kings on earth both simultaneously be called "king of kings" without the need to assume they are the same person?
In regards to what you said about Matthew 16:27 and the reward the A&O has and the reward Jesus gives. The Greek word for "reward" in the translation you used of Matthew 16:27 is apodōsei, this relates to paying back of something, in the case of Rev 22:12 and Matt 16:27 it's in reference to paying back by means of judging, other transactions render it by such things as repay, judge, recompense, render and requite. Jesus was appointed as judge by God, "the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22) -this verse alone contradicts that Jesus and the Father are one and the same but let me continue with what I'm saying- God in turn judges mankind through Jesus who he set up as judge, I alluded to this earlier, "[God] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (Acts 17:21). Therefore the A&O stating "My reward/judgement is with me", and Jesus, who the Father judges through, when spoken about giving his "reward/judgment" does not prove they are the same person, since they both judge/reward/payback.
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
You said "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not" say who, you? Of course you're going to say that, you NEED Jesus to be those things for your doctrine to make any sense, but just because you in your head think "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not" does not prove what you're saying is correct. You still miss the point, you say "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not", he wasn't called those things, hence why the verse says "he will be called", he was only called those things when upon coming to earth, dying for us, and being given all authority by the Father who is not Jesus. When you say "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not" you're imagining and presupposing the things he was called, for example, "mighty God" and "eternal Father" are the very and only titles of the Father when they are not. Anyone can be called Father of something if they are the founders of something. Who is the "father of the lie", Jesus said it was Satan, again, Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45), "Adam" was our first Father but of course, fell into sin, Jesus replaced Adam and took away Adamic sin, Jesus became the Father Adam was meant to be, since Jesus also lives forever he is called the "Eternal Father". You assume Jesus being the "eternal Father" means he is the Father, this cannot be true since again, at the time of Isaiah writing Isaiah 9:6 he was not the "eternal Father" hence the reason why Isaiah wrote "he will be called the eternal Father" and not "he is the eternal Father", no one called Jesus the Father when Jesus was on earth, he WAS called the "last Adam" though.
God's Truth said:
If what you say above is true then why are Ar·ta·xerxʹes and Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar called kings if there is only one King of kings, an answer of "because they are on the earth" will not suffice as the Bible makes no such distinction. The Bible doesn't say "there is only one king of kings in heaven", therefore to claim anything otherwise is an assumption. Deal with the question, if there is only one king of kings why does the Bible state there are more?
Your evidence is riddled in assumptions. Jesus is called many things the Father is called yes, this is because Jesus acts on behalf of the Father with all the things the Father wants. Imagine, the Father see's the world and wants to save manking, Jesus seeing this offers to do the Fathers bidding and saves mankind on behalf of the Father, both the Father is savior and Jesus is savior despite their being only one source of the salvation, only one savior, God.
The Father wants to judge the world, instead of doing it himself directly he ordains Jesus to do it on his behalf, God, in turn, is judging the world through Jesus, Jesus and the Father both then act as judge. "[God] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (Acts 17:21)
The Father wants to send a message, instead of giving it directly he gets Jesus to deliver the message verbally himself, both the Father is the one giving the message and Jesus is the one giving the message, I could go on and on. ".For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49)
The Father wants to create the universe, instead of doing it himself he gets Jesus to do it, thereby creating the world through Jesus, both Jesus can state he created the world as can the Father. "..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things areand we through him.." (1 Corinthians 8:6)
Do you seriously think its a massive coincidence that everything Jesus is, the message he preached, him being savior, judge, redeemer and everything else is always as described as the Father being the source of it all and always speaks in a sense which any everyday reader would interpret as the Father and Jesus being separate people without having to play lingual gymnastics?
NWL
Active member
I'm sorry, but to say "no other god has done what Jesus has done therefore he is God" is an argument from silence, it's like me saying, "I haven't died yet, therefore I'm eternal", just because I haven't died is not proof I can't die, likewise just because "no one did what Jesus did" is not prove that Jesus is God. It is pure stupidly to claim otherwise.
You say "No angel could do what Jesus did", why not? Simply stating "No angel could do what Jesus did" is not proof no angel could do what Jesus did, where are the scriptural passages that support your claim?
You said above "It could not have been anyone to do what Jesus did", WHY NOT? Where is your scriptural reasoning to support your statement? Again my point is this "it was the perfect man Adam that led us into sin and death, Adam tipped the scales, so to speak and made them uneven, ONLY an equivalent sacrifice could re-balance the scales. My point is that it could have been anyone who died for us, the only requirement is that the person was without sin the same way Adam was without sin. It did not have to be the person Jesus who came down to die for us, it could have been anyone of God's spirit sons in heaven". Not that there were any perfect humans on earth, but please show me where in the Bible it states it could not have been a sinless man (by means of an spirit son of God taking on human form like Jesus) who died for us, where does it state it HAD to be Jesus, where is this idea expressed for you to claim it to be true?
NWL
Active member
As I said many post ago you above points are made up waffle.
You say "We are no longer to do certain things", according to who? You? Show me the verse that supports this statement that no one can bow to anyone other than God, not simply in the worship form of bowing but in any form.
You said "The Bible plainly says don’t bow to men and angles. We are to bow only to God when it comes to that which is spiritual", let me remind you of what I said to this already, "You misunderstand the occurrences angels and when people such as Peter told others not to bow to them. The angel told John in Revelation not to bow as John was giving the Angel an act of worship, Peter told Cornelius not to bow to him out of humility, there is NOTHING in the Bible that states we cannot bow to another man to show respect and honour, bowing out of respect is completely different to bowing in an act of worship, this is the very reason why the Bible has multiple accounts of faithful servant bowing to others with no backlash, as it isn't a sin." To show me how I'm incorrect you would need to reference the passages you refer to and show me how I'm wrong.
NWL
Active member
NWL said:
I highlight that your previous response did nothing in explaining how the 11 verses you quoted meant anything other than Jesus and God "being with us" either in a symbolic sense or by the giving of the HS, your response to this? You again regurgitate the same point of "Jesus SAYS he himself will live in the saved. And, Jesus is the Spirit" without any explanation as to why the 11 verses you quoted showed anything other than Jesus and God "being with us" either in a symbolic sense. You're running around in circles my friend, surely this is clear evidence you cannot prove what you claim in this matter.
You truly are mad if you believe Jesus himself is living inside of you right now my friend. Again, Jesus may be with you symbolically the same way "Paul was with the Corinthians" (1 Cor 5:4) symbolically and not literally with the corinthians, but he is not inside of you literally.
Believe it or not but Jesus stated many things that weren't meant to be taken literally. When Jesus said “you must eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53) was he being literal? No, it was symbolic. When he said “pluck out your eye or cut off you hand if it makes you stumble” (Matt 5:30) was Jesus being literal? No, it was figurative. When Jesus said to Peter “"Get behind me, Satan!” (Matt 16:23)was he literally claiming Peter was Satan? No, it was figurative.
Likewise, when Jesus said he was in and with people he wasn't literally in or with them in some symbiotic manner, rather Jesus was simply with his followers figuratively.
NWL said:
You have much to learn, do not deny something just for the sake of denying it. The Bible tells us, “The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.” (Jeremiah 17:9) Jesus himself said, “From inside, out of the heart of men, injurious reasonings issue forth: fornications, thieveries, murders, adulteries, covetings, acts of wickedness.” (Mark 7:20-22). The heart many times in the Bible refers to what I said it does "the inner person, the source of a person’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings" as the two listed verses show. When it states God or Jesus is with, in, or in our hearts it's speaking in a figurative sense, not literal.
Why? Because you say it's not the same? Again, your word does not equate truth. Take scripture for what it says, not for what you want it to say, there is no verse that states "Paul's being with people despite him not being there is different when Jesus says it", therefore how can you simply claim it's different just on a whim, unless you show me otherwise using the Bible my point stands.
NWL
Active member
Oh so when you say the WT changed the Bible you don't mean changing the manuscripts that English translations of the Bible are translated from, what you mean is that you don't agree with the translation the WT have made of the Bible. The WT haven't changed John 1:1, for John 1:1 states Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. The NWT version of John 1:1 is a grammatically correct translation of the text, even Trinitarian scholars admit this.
"a god was the Word" - W. E. Vine - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.
"The Word was a god" C. H. Dodd - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.
"the Word was a god" Murray J. Harris - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
"and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" Robert Young - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.
“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)
“and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808).
“and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek (1958)
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz (1975)
“and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider (1978)
"As to the translation of John 1:1,"and the Word was a god" is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured." Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College
"Although it has to be acknowledged that [theos hn ho logos] could be translated The Word was a god, there is no doubt whatever, according to the rules of Greek grammar, that the phrase can also mean The Word was(the)God."-Introduction to New Testament Greek Using John's Gospel, 1999 Hodder and Stoughton publishers, "Lesson 3," p.23
Have all these people "changed the Bible" by translating a verse in a grammatically possible manner? I think not. The WT have not changed anything in John 1:1, just because you favour a translation over how other scholars translate John 1:1 isn't proof that WT has changed anything.
NWL
Active member
It also a great way of showing you and Bright Ravens ignorance.
