Jesus is God

[God's Truth]

WNT: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father."
NKJV: but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Jesus taking his life back suggest he was the one who did the action of resurrection as the NKJV reads, however, Jesus receiving his lifeagain expresses that someone else has given it back to him. If you "receive" an item from a shop you aren't the one who has given it, someone else has, if you go "take" an item from a shop you are the one who has done the action. To claim I'm assuming anything by the two different translations is absurd.

The absurd thing is you trying to confuse the point. Jesus received a command to raise himself, and he did.

The command the Father gave to Jesus was for him to lay down his life to act as the ransom, it wasn't in regards to him receiving his life again.

What? God commanded that he raise his body again.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

 

[God's Truth]

But you say Jesus is the Father, so how was he speaking to the Father who was in heaven if Jesus who is also the Father is on earth?

God reveals Himself in three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Where!? Where have you ever shown the specific titles "Sovereign Lord" or "Almighty God" being applied to Christ, show me where you have done this or where the bible states such a thing and I swear I will rebuke my God and accept your theology and God.

I am trying to help you to know God better.
The scripture says there is only one Sovereign God, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
You try to separate all those titles, but those titles go together to the one and only, God the Father and Jesus Christ the son. They are one and one means ‘the same’.

You have only ever shown me Isaiah 9:6 in reference to Jesus being which calls Jesus a "Mighty God" which is NOT the same title as "Almighty God" and you did the same with "Sovereign Lord", you tried to use Jesus being called "Lord of Lords" as proof Jesus is called the "Sovereign Lord" despite "lord of Lords" not being the same term as "Sovereign Lord"

I have shown you that the Father is called MIGHTY GOD, and Jesus is called that. I have shown that the Father is called the Almighty God, and Jesus is. I have shown you that God the Father is called the Sovereign Lord, and that Jesus is. I have shown you that God the Father is called the King of kings, and that Jesus is. I have shown you that God the Father is called the Lord of lords, and that Jesus is called that.
Jesus is that one and only Sovereign God, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.
I have proven that with scripture.
Jesus has everything under his control.

What does sovereign in the Bible mean?

Sovereignty of God is the Christian teaching that God is the supreme authority and all things are under His control. ... Easton's Bible Dictionary defines God's Sovereignty as His "absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure."

Ephesians 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
1 Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[God's Truth]

Humble yourself God's Truth and just admit when you are wrong, admit the bible never calls Jesus "Sovereign Lord" or "Almighty God".
God's Truth are you actually being serious?? You've stated numerous times "Jesus has all of God's names", I've denied this and claim and stated Jesus has only some of the Father's names/titles. You keep asserting you've shown me a scripture that states there is only one "King of kings", and only one "Lord of lords", no such verse is in existence, 1 Tim 6:15 does not attribute the "only" to "king of Kings" and "lord of lords", you keep ignoring this.

Bahahahaha
A King of kings MEANS there is only one King of kings, and same with Lord of lords.

No such thing as Kings of kings, and Lords of lords. That doesn't make sense, and it shows that you can't see truth. Just like when I explained a person who obeys Jesus won't pluck out their eye and cut off their hand because THEY DO OBEY and stop sinning with their eye and hand.

 

[7djengo7]

I suggest that Jesus is using the language and ideas of Psalm 8:1-3

Well, you already claimed (in your post, #7062) that Jesus, in Matthew 11:25-26, was "quoting" Psalm 8:1-3. Are you now abandoning this claim in the face of the fact that I indexed, the fact that the Matthew passage and the Psalm passage have not so much as a two-word phrase in common? In your most recent post in reply to me (#7079), you've left off even using the word, "quoting", that you had previously used. Now, however, instead of claiming that Jesus was "quoting" from Psalm 8:1-3, you are saying, "Jesus is using the language and ideas of Psalm 8:1-3".

To what, exactly, are you referring by your phrase, "the language [of Psalm 8:1-3]"? If you're not referring, by it, to some specific word, or phrase, from Psalm 8:1-3, then you have nothing of any substance, here--no point. When you say that Jesus is "using the language [of Psalm 8:1-3]", why can you not quote for us exactly what (if anything) you are referring to by your phrase, "the language [of Psalm 8:1-3]"? To use language is to use a word, or words; no? So, please quote for us exactly what word, or words, from Psalm 8:1-3, you are claiming Jesus was using in Matthew 11:25-26.

and in effect summaries these ideas and applies them to the circumstances he was facing.

To what (if anything) are you referring by your phrase, "these ideas"? Please list what you are calling "these ideas".

This is set in the context of the hardness of the hearts of those of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum,

So far, you've not specified what (if anything) you are referring to by your pronoun, "this", inasmuch as you've not yet specified what (if anything) you are calling "the language [of Psalm 8:1-3]", nor have you specified what (if anything) you are calling "[the] ideas of Psalm 8:1-3".

who he calls “wise and prudent”, but they are the opposite of this. These were in effect becoming the “enemies” of Psalm 8:2 because they now opposed Jesus and his teaching, while earlier they had rejoiced in his healing ministry.

So far, you've not established that there is a link between Matthew 11:25-26 and Psalm 8:1-3, despite the fact that you've said that, in the Matthew passage, "Jesus is using the language and ideas of Psalm 8:1-3".

In contrast to this class, Jesus speaks of a class of persons to whom God, the Father has revealed these things, and he calls them babes. The Psalmist used a similar expression “babes and sucklings”. As far as context goes, Matthew 11:27-30 then goes on to describe how these babes are teachable, and then makes a universal appeal for all to come unto him and learn of him and be coupled with him in the figure of the double yoke used to teach young oxen. So firstly I suggest that there is a strong link between Psalm 8:2 and Matthew 11:25 and the whole context of Matthew 11:25-30.

Notice how, after I had shined light on the fact that you have absolutely no basis for your original claim that, in Matthew 11:25-26, Jesus was "quoting and alluding to Psalm 8:1-3", you abandoned that claim, and then you tried, in vain, to take refuge in the elastic fuzziness of another expression of yours ("Jesus is using the language and ideas of Psalm 8:1-3"). Now, you've tried even to top that fuzziness by means of your further phrase, "a strong link between Psalm 8:2 and Matthew 11:25 and the whole context of Matthew 11:25-30".

Your deliberations regarding Matthew 11:25-26 and Psalm 8:1-3 are a failure, and I'm not going to pretend, against my reason, to think that you are not attempting obfuscation, therein.

Coming to your main questions,

Here, again, you are practicing your practice of trying to be as vague as you possibly can be. You have not courtesy enough even to specify to which (if any) of my questions you are referring as, "your main questions". To which (if any) of my questions are you referring, here?

David in Psalm 8:1,3 addresses God as “Yahweh our Lord” and then describes the excellence of God’s Name as revealed in the creation of the earth and heaven, while Jesus addresses God as “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth”, a beautiful summary of Psalm 8:1,3.

Again: nowhere, in Matthew 11:25-26, does Jesus quote from Psalm 8:1-3. What (if anything) do you mean when you call Jesus' words ("O Father, Lord of heaven and earth") a "summary" of Psalm 8:1,3? Also, do not summaries, as summaries, leave out some information--some truth? We see that you've decided, here, to say Jesus' words are, somehow, specifically a summary of Psalm 8:1,3 (rather than of Psalm 8:1-3), to the exclusion of v. 2. But, even then, by calling Jesus' words ("O Father, Lord of heaven and earth") a "summary" of Psalm 8:1,3, are you not saying that Jesus was stating some truth contained in those two verses (as being of importance, and summary-worthy), to the exclusion of some other truth also contained in those two verses (as being of not as much importance, and not summary-worthy)?

So, in this "summary" of your chosen pair of non-adjacent verses (Psalm 8:1 and Psalm 8:3), which you imagine Jesus to have been delivering,

• What truth(s) from Psalm 8:1 and 8:3 are you saying Jesus was expressing in His words, "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth"?
• What truth(s) from Psalm 8:1 and 8:3 are you saying Jesus was choosing to not express in His words, "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth"?

Psalm 8 depicts the ultimate purpose of creation accomplished in Jesus, the Son of Man, made lower than the angels for the suffering of death, and then glorified, and assuming the role of Lord over God’s creation. Matthew 11:25-30 gives a personal perspective and call to those who are teachable and will share with Jesus in this new creation.

Ah, trying to get all flowery and fuzzy on me, again, since you failed by your false claim that Jesus, in Matthew 11:25-26, was quoting Psalm 8:1-3. Trying to distract and derail me, eh?

Psalm 110:1 reveals the invitation of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father to Jesus, David’s Lord to sit at God’s right hand. No hint of the Trinity here.

But David's Lord is YHWH.

I agree, but you consider God here to be two persons. I read the term "God", and this is only the One God, God the Father.

Jesus, God the Son, is also the same God that God the Father is.

What's that? You want to complain that the phrase, "God the Son", is not in the Bible? Look to the hypocrisy in your complaint, then, when I ask you where, in the Bible, we find your phrase, "the One God". For, we nowhere, of course, find your phrase, "the One God", in the Bible.

Interesting phrase of yours, in your reference to Psalm 110:1: "David's Lord". By that phrase, are you referring to Him to Whom David, in 2 Samuel 7:18, 20, is referring by his phrase, "Lord GOD"?

David is addressing Yahweh, God the Father as Lord (Adonai) GOD (Yahweh).

Of course, we do not, in 2 Samuel 7:18, 20, find David specifying (let alone exclusively specifying) God the Father. We do not even find the word, 'Father', anywhere in the chapter. Solely because of your assumption of the extra-Biblical, false proposition of unitarianism, you are motivated, here, to claim that "David is addressing" specifically, and exclusively, God the Father, in his use of the phrase, "Lord GOD". So, of course, you fail there, too, because those of us who are Christians, and who love the Bible, are not going to accept your extra-Biblical, non-Christian, unitarian assumption.

You refer to Adonai the Son as "David's Lord", while you apparently disdain referring to Adonai the Father as "David's Lord". Downright insane of you to refer to Jesus, Whom you consider to be far inferior to God the Father, as "David's Lord", while refusing to refer to God the Father as "David's Lord"!

This special sequence of God’s Name and title

By "special", here, you advertise your intention to try to hide your dilemma by attempts at special pleading.

speaks of God’s overriding care and control of circumstances, especially when we are in difficult circumstances. This sequence Lord GOD is similar in concept to Psalm 8:1 where David addresses God the Father as “LORD our Lord”. Yahweh, God the Father, who is Lord of heaven and earth.

Here, when you say "David addresses God the Father as...", what you, being an unitarian, mean is that "David EXCLUSIVELY addresses God the Father as...", and that "David DOES NOT address Jesus as..." But that's simply you speaking in accordance with your assumption of the extra-Biblical, false proposition of unitarianism.

I asked you:

• Is Jesus your Lord?
• Is God the Father your Lord?

Yes to both.

And, since you deny that Jesus is one and the same Lord as the Father, claiming that you call one thing both "Jesus" and "Lord", and another thing both "God the Father" and "Lord", you are telling us that to you (unlike to Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6) there are at least two lords--that to you, there are "lords many".

So, Trevor, which of these two things that you call "Lord" do you love/hold to, and which of these two things that you call "Lord" do you hate/despise? Do you love the thing you call both "Jesus" and "Lord", and hate the thing you call both "God the Father" and "Lord", or is it the other way around?

God the Father is the Supreme Being

Of course, we do not find your phrase, "the Supreme Being", in Scripture, so it would be meaningless to say, "According to Scripture, who or what is the Supreme Being?"

It's downright insane of you to claim that one thing you call "my Lord" is supreme above another thing you call "my Lord": "My Lord is supreme above my Lord", "David's Lord is supreme above David's Lord". That's what you're saying, though. How irrational it is to say such things! Why not leave off calling "Lord" that which you claim to be inferior to another thing you call "Lord"?

and He has exalted Jesus to be Lord Acts 2:36 and Jesus will soon return to sit upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years..

God the Father has declared Jesus to be Lord (Acts 2:36), but, of course, we do not find it stated anywhere that God the Father has caused Jesus to become Lord; we do not find that God the Father has caused Jesus to go from not being Lord to being Lord. Jesus has been Lord as long as God the Father has been Lord.

Since you claim that whatever it is you call both "Lord" and "Jesus" is not the same Lord that God the Father is, I got news for you: whatever it is you call "Jesus" is not Jesus--not the Jesus of the Bible, Who is the Son of God--and whatever it is you presently call "Jesus" will never be sitting upon the throne of David. Rather, it is Jesus Christ--the Jesus of the Bible, the Son of God--Who will be reigning from the throne of David. No figment of your imagination that you call "Jesus" will ever reign from the throne of David.

By your refusal to acknowledge that Jesus and God the Father are one and the same Lord, you manifest that you reject both Jesus and God the Father--that you actually consider neither Jesus, nor God the Father, to be your Lord. And you have replaced them with figments of your imagination, which figments you call "Lord".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

So far, you've not established that there is a link between Matthew 11:25-26 and Psalm 8:1-3, despite the fact that you've said that, in the Matthew passage, "Jesus is using the language and ideas of Psalm 8:1-3".

I was surprised by your lengthy response. Even if my explanation is not altogether clear, I suggest that I have supplied sufficient information. I am happy with my understanding of Psalm 8 and Matthew 11, but confused as to your perspective on these. I was also surprised and even amused by your discussion or logic on Lord.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, I was surprised by your lengthy response. Even if my explanation is not altogether clear, I suggest that I have supplied sufficient information. I am happy with my understanding of Psalm 8 and Matthew 11, but confused as to your perspective on these. I was also surprised and even amused by your discussion or logic on Lord.

​

​

​

"I am happy with my understanding of Psalm 8 and Matthew 11"

You obviously have no understanding of Psalm 8:1-3, nor of Matthew 11:25-26 (which, remember, were the specific passages you initially brought up, rather than the entirety of Psalm 8 and the entirety of Matthew 11, though we see you here trying to change the subject again).​

So far, you've failed to address any of the objections I've leveled against your confused sayings about Psalm 8:1-3 and Matthew 11:25-26; instead of answering the questions I've asked you, you've just handed me a mass of nonsense and falsehood. If you're happy in your failure, therein, what's that to me?​

I called you out on your lie that, in Matthew 11:25-26, Jesus was (as you said) "quoting" Psalm 8:1-3. You know, as well as I know, that it is patently false that Jesus, in the Matthew passage, was quoting the Psalms passage. Of course, since I shed light on this fact, you've gone silent regarding that claim of yours; you've tried to quietly slink away from that failure of a claim of yours. Moreover, you've not had the humility to own that you spoke falsehood by your claim.​

"I suggest that I have supplied sufficient information"

You, indeed, have supplied sufficient information to allow us to see that the entirety of your ravings regarding Matthew 11:25-26 and Psalm 8:1-3 is a sham and a failure.​

"Even if my explanation is not altogether clear"

You've given no explanation, whatsoever.​

Also note that you've failed to address my questions regarding your claim that Jesus' words, "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth", is a (as you said) "summary" of Psalm 8:1,3.

It's back to the drawing board, for you, to try to come up with some other way to attack the Bible truth of the Trinity using Matthew 11:25-26 and Psalm 8:1-3, since your present attempt at using those passages to attack the Trinity has failed miserably.​

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

You obviously have no understanding of Psalm 8:1-3, nor of Matthew 11:25-26.

In conclusion and summary Psalm 8:1-3 and Matthew 11:25-26 clearly teach that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This is also the clear teaching of Psalm 110:1 and its numerous expositions in the NT, and the following is a sample of the NT exposition of Psalm 110:1
Acts 2:34–36 (KJV): 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Matthew 22:41–46 (KJV): 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
Revelation 3:21 (KJV): To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, In conclusion and summary Psalm 8:1-3 and Matthew 11:25-26 clearly teach that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

How is any of what you just wrote an objection against the Trinity? Indeed, you have failed to bring an objection against the Trinity.

There is, indeed, one God. (Notice, too, that there is absolutely no reason to capitalize the word, 'one', as you have done, here, and elsewhere--and, of course, you'll not find, in the Bible,any precedence for such a pointlessly eccentric practice as you've chosen to engage in.)

YHWH is, indeed, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.

So far, you've failed miserably. You've not even tried to deal with the objections I've leveled against the stupidities you've written about Psalm 8:1-3 and Matthew 11:25-26, because, as you and I both know, you have no hope of saving face for yourself, in light of the garbage you've already poured out in your last three or four posts that you've addressed to me.

Why did it seem like a good idea to you to lie by saying that Jesus, in Matthew 11:25-26, was (to use your own word) "quoting" Psalm 8:1-3, when it is patently false that Jesus was doing so?

​

The following speaks of Yahweh, God the Father as the Lord of heaven and earth. In Psalm 8 David addresses Yahweh as “our Lord” and Jesus is speaking to God, His Father when quoting and alluding to Psalm 8:1-3:​

Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;​

Matthew 11:25–26 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.​

​

​

​

See there: your word, "quoting", highlighted. You were lying about that. Anybody can read Matthew 11:25-26, and Psalm 8:1-3, and with even scant attention to detail, immediately recognize that Jesus is clearly NOT quoting what you have falsely claimed Jesus is quoting.

So, you've shown your colors by lying about what Jesus said, and by not fessing up to your lie, though you've been called out on it.

Obviously, Jesus, in Matthew 11:25-26, was not quoting Psalm 8:1-3. You shot yourself down.​

 

[NWL]

No one else is called the First and the Last but God the Father and Jesus.

The scriptures aren’t going to give a name known to God and then give it to Jesus with a completely different meaning.

Your premise here, which is false, is based on what you clearly said "The scriptures aren’t going to give a name known to God and then give it to Jesus with a completely different meaning", who says a title can't have a different meaning, you? Do you speak for the bible or does the bible speak for itself? The bible is the one that speaks for itself and as the context shows Jesus being called the first and the last relates to his death and resurrection, this is undeniable. What's more we constantly see terms and even actions applied to God applied to others without it necessitating that God are those persons. Men and angels are called Gods/Elohim throughout the scriptures, a term that only should apply to God, men are called the anointed one, men are called saviors and king of kings, these terms that typically are only applied to God are applied to others with a different meaning. How is it you say that a title applied to Christ HAS to mean EXACTLY the same thing as when it is applied to Christ, you ignore the language of the bible. You can't make up a rule simply to justify your belief system, it is clear the bible applies titles of God to others in the bible, this is irrefutable.

Again I ask, was Satan the first adversary of God?

Will satan be the last adversary of God?

Since you equate Gods glory as ONLY belonging to God please explain how this angel isn't God, or explain why the glory of God shone as soon as the Angel appeared?

[YT]God doesn’t share His glory with another is about no one else is worshiped as God but Him[/YT], and of course, Jesus Christ. That proves they are one and the same.

Nowhere does the bible ever equate glory to meaning worship as you claim, please demonstrate where the bible does if I'm mistaken. Jesus is never worshipped as God as you also state, if you make these claim please use scripture to support such a claim, it just prolongs things. Nowhere have you actually answered my question above, are you actually ever going to answering it or are you going to keep skipping around?

The Bible says we are being built in Him. So the city is God and all the saved.

Not that the bible does or does not say what you have claimed but where is your supporting scripture? am I simply meant to take your word on it? You also said "So the city is God", how could you come to such a conclusion when the verse states "he showed me [John] the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God11 and having the glory of God", how is the city God himself when it comes down out of heaven from him? it would seem the scriptures do not express the same thing you are stating they say.

You need to use the quote feature so I can see if I said something exactly as you claim I did, and so I can see it in the context that I said it.
I have asked you to do that many times now. So next time you say I said something and ask me to explain it, make sure it is quoted with the quote feature so I can see exactly what I said and where.
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
That is about God not making someone else God as He is.
Only Jesus is God as He is, because Jesus is God come as a man.

How can you not even recall the things you have written, it's not my job to source out all the quotes when I use them, if we were speaking face to face and I quoted your verbal words would you ask for evidence that said them or instead would you use you memory to try and recall the things you have said.

On page 472 post #7066 you stated in reference to God "He will not give glory to another". So back to my question, as you can clearly see from you post an as I correctly quoted you said God "will not give glory to another", NOW you are saying "We can only have glory through Jesus" are you now claiming and can you confirm it is possible for others to have God's glory?

You also said in post #7058 pg 741 "Do you want to explain who the Father shares His glory with, Jesus? That is more proof Jesus is God", you clearly used reasoning to show that sharing glory in your understanding equates "being God" hence the reason you said "the Father shares His glory with, Jesus? That is more proof Jesus is God", YET now you're saying "We can only have glory through Jesus", you stated this in reply to when I used John 17:22 that states "I have given them the glory that you [God] have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one" in post #7068 pg 472. So does sharing glory equate one to being God, yes or no, if you're answer is no then how is it proof Jesus is God as you earlier stated, if you're answer is yes then you're implying Christ-followers who share God's glory -as you have admitted- must be God too. Your reasoning is notconsistent, surely you can see this.

So then, why are you acting like God gives away His glory to others as an excuse to why Jesus has God’s glory?
Jesus having God’s glory the way he has it is proof he is God.
God isn’t going to give His glory to another that is what He says; He is the only one, and Jesus Christ. That proves Jesus is God.

So before Jesus simply possessing God's glory was proof enough "he is God", now you're saying "Jesus having God’s glory the way he has it is proof he is God", oh, so it's not simply him having God's glory -as you've obviously seen how others too have God's glory and realized your error- but the way Jesus has God's glory. The only issue is 2 Thess 2:14 states "He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the gloryof our Lord Jesus Christ." The scriptures make no differentiation between the glory Jesus has compared to the Father, hence the reason why Jesus himself said "I have given them the glory that you [God] have given me", Jesus gave the glory that he had been given by the Father to his followers. Again, your reasoning is NOT consistent. Jesus having glory is NOT proof he is God any more than his followers having THE SAME GLORY proves they are God. Remember my rule, unless reasoning is consistent is it neither believable or true.

You said "Jesus having God’s glory the way he has it is proof he is God", please show me where such a thought is expressed in scripture, what is the way Jesus has glory different to than of his followers, explain without contradicting 2 Thess 2:14 or John 17:22.

Jesus is that one and only Sovereign God, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.
I have proven that with scripture.
Jesus has everything under his control.
What does sovereign in the Bible mean?
Sovereignty of God is the Christian teaching that God is the supreme authority and all things are under His control. ... Easton's Bible Dictionary defines God's Sovereignty as His "absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure."

Ephesians 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
1 Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

As you have asked me to show you your quotes prove to me your own lies. Show me where you have "proven that with scripture" in regards to where Jesus is called the "only Sovereign God" show me where you have proven Jesus is called the "Sovereign God" or "Sovereign Lord", link it or tell me the post number where you have proven such a thing.

 

[NWL]

WNT: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father."
NKJV: but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Jesus taking his life back suggest he was the one who did the action of resurrection as the NKJV reads, however, Jesus receiving his lifeagain expresses that someone else has given it back to him. If you "receive" an item from a shop you aren't the one who has given it, someone else has, if you go "take" an item from a shop you are the one who has done the action. To claim I'm assuming anything by the two different translations is absurd.

The absurd thing is you trying to confuse the point. Jesus received a command to raise himself, and he did.

You are ignoring the other translations above, again for the third time, John 10:18 does not express Jesus "received a command to raise himself", this would only be correct to some of the translations that render it in a way that expresses he raised himself, other translations render it in a way suggest he received his life back, suggesting someone raised him. The "command" mentioned in John 10:18 was in relation to Jesus sacrificing his life, you assume the command was in relation to him raising himself, it was not.

We can agree to disagree on the two different variations of translation, but to keep ignoring that a different understanding is read from the translations I have shown shows your true colours, you are unreasonable and stubborn to admit what is plain to see.

What? God commanded that he raise his body again.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Recognise the other way it can be translated, stop ignoring this and repeating the same stuff, WNT: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father." the command Jesus was given was in relation him laying down his life, "I am authorized to lay it down".

(Acts 2:23, 24) "..This man, who was handed over by the determined will and foreknowledge of God, you fastened to a stake by the hand of lawless men, and you did away with him. 24 But God resurrected him by releasing him from the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held fast by it." It was God's will for Jesus to be the ransom and it was this command that God gave to Jesus. Jesus asked the Father to "remove this cup from me", Jesus asked God for God to remove the cup, the manner in which he died from him, it was God who had instructed him how he was to die, this is the command Jesus was given and what the command refers to in John 10:18, Jesus was resurrected by the Father.

 

[NWL]

God reveals Himself in three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I'm aware of what you believe in this regards, hence the reason why I know you cannot answer the question properly. You don't believe God is three separate persons who is one, you believe God reveals God reveals Himself in three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is why I ask the question "how was he speaking to the Father who was in heaven if Jesus who is also the Father is on earth?", if you believe there are not three separate persons then WHO was Jesus speaking to, stating "God reveals Himself in three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" doesn't answer my question ofwho Jesus was speaking to if there was no father in heaven as the father came to earth as Jesus. ANSWER the question and DO NOT make a statement of faith, how was Jesus speaking to the Father if Jesus is the Father as Jesus on earth?

If you truly think you have answered the question then explain how your answer of "God reveals Himself in three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" answers my question "how Jesus was speaking to the Father who was in heaven if Jesus, who is also the Father, is on earth"

I am trying to help you to know God better.
The scripture says there is only one Sovereign God, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
You try to separate all those titles, but those titles go together to the one and only, God the Father and Jesus Christ the son. They are one and one means ‘the same’.

Well, you're doing a terrible job at it as you ignore so many obvious things. AS I HAVE CLEARY SHOW and AS YOU HAVE CLEARY IGNORED the verse does not state what you claim. Look at scholars commentaies of 1 Tim 6:15, NONE of them group all three titles as referring to the "only" in the verse, this is because it isn't the "only" refers only to the expression of "sovereign/ruler". Notice how the Gods word translation renders the verse "At the right time God will make this known. God is the blessed and only ruler. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords", the translators show the word "only" was NOT in reference to the other titles. This is not to say that all the other translations translators that do not place a period are trying to show the word "only" applying to all the other epithets but simply that "only" according to the text doesn't have to apply all the terms. Notice the others translations (the list is not exhaustive):

^CJB: His appearing will be brought about in its own time by the blessed and sole Sovereign, who is King of kings and Lord of lords,
^DB: which in its own time the blessed and only Ruler shall shew, the King of those that reign, and Lord of those that exercise lordship;
DLNT: which in His^[a] own times, the blessed and only Ruler will show^[b]— the King of the ones being-kings^[c] and Lord of the ones being-lords
ERV: God will make that happen at the right time. God is the blessed and only Ruler. He is the King of all kings and the Lord of all lords.
GNV: Which in due time he shall show, that is ^[a] blessed and Prince only, the King of kings and Lord of lords
ICB: God will make that happen at the right time. He is the blessed and only Ruler. He is the King of all kings and the Lord of all lords.
NOG: At the right time God will make this known. God is the blessed and only ruler. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords.

You incorrectly apply the word "only" when this is not what the written language was expressing.

I have shown you that the Father is called MIGHTY GOD, and Jesus is called that. I have shown that the Father is called the Almighty God, and Jesus is. I have shown you that God the Father is called the Sovereign Lord, and that Jesus is. I have shown you that God the Father is called the King of kings, and that Jesus is. I have shown you that God the Father is called the Lord of lords, and that Jesus is called that.
Jesus is that one and only Sovereign God, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.
I have proven that with scripture.
Jesus has everything under his control.

What does sovereign in the Bible mean?

Sovereignty of God is the Christian teaching that God is the supreme authority and all things are under His control. ... Easton's Bible Dictionary defines God's Sovereignty as His "absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure."

Ephesians 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
1 Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

I asked "does Jesus have the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?"was your answer of Jesus being a "Mighty God" your proof that he is called "Almighty God", yes or no?

I asked "does Jesus have the title "Almighty God" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?", was your answer that Jesus was a "lord of lord" your proof Jesus is called the "Sovereign Lord", yes or no?

In a vain attempt, you try and use syntax as evidence that Jesus is God by using the definition of the Eastins bible dictionary. As I have shown in the past Jesus DOES NOT have absolute right to rule, you have ignored this over and over. You showed Ephesians in an attempt to show that Jesus is the soverign rulers according to the Eastons Bibles defntion of sovereign, notice how the bible disagrees with you friend "For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him." (1 Corinthians 15:27). It was the Father who subjected all things to Jesus, this though did not include the Father who is the ONLY person described as sovereign and remains as sovereign and above Jesus according to 1 Cor 15:27, your reasoning again is not consistent with scripture. If Jesus is above then why does it states "Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet..". Jesus hands everything back to his God and Father and rules as king "until God has put all enemies under his feet". Jesus is clearly NOT the sovereign, the Father is.

 

[NWL]

Bahahahaha
A King of kings MEANS there is only one King of kings, and same with Lord of lords.

No such thing as Kings of kings, and Lords of lords. That doesn't make sense, and it shows that you can't see truth. Just like when I explained a person who obeys Jesus won't pluck out their eye and cut off their hand because THEY DO OBEY and stop sinning with their eye and hand.

No, a king of kings is simply a title given to someone who is a king over other kings. Show me any definition that states a king of king means there is only one king of kings? As I've said and asked before, is it possible that there are two human kings that are both called King of kings simultaneously who are kings over other kings in two different kingdoms? Yes or no?

 

[God's Truth]

No, a king of kings is simply a title given to someone who is a king over other kings. Show me any definition that states a king of king means there is only one king of kings? As I've said and asked before, is it possible that there are two human kings that are both called King of kings simultaneously who are kings over other kings in two different kingdoms? Yes or no?

A King of kings is ONE KING above all kings. There is ONLY ONE KING of kings. There is only one King above all kings, or it doesn't make sense to say King of kings.
The Father and Jesus are not of separate kingdoms.

 

[God's Truth]

Your premise here, which is false, is based on what you clearly said "The scriptures aren’t going to give a name known to God and then give it to Jesus with a completely different meaning", who says a title can't have a different meaning, you? Do you speak for the bible or does the bible speak for itself? The bible is the one that speaks for itself and as the context shows Jesus being called the first and the last relates to his death and resurrection, this is undeniable.

God the Father is called the First and the Last. That is about Jesus who is God.

What's more we constantly see terms and even actions applied to God applied to others without it necessitating that God are those persons. Men and angels are called Gods/Elohim throughout the scriptures, a term that only should apply to God, men are called the anointed one, men are called saviors and king of kings, these terms that typically are only applied to God are applied to others with a different meaning. How is it you say that a title applied to Christ HAS to mean EXACTLY the same thing as when it is applied to Christ, you ignore the language of the bible. You can't make up a rule simply to justify your belief system, it is clear the bible applies titles of God to others in the bible, this is irrefutable.

There are scriptures that are a prophecy of Jesus. There are anti types of Jesus. For instance,all the names of the prophets are anti types of Jesus; Israel is God's first born an anti type; the Jordan is too, and the bronze snake, the rock in the desert, a lamb, circumcision, external washings, special days, sacrifices, all anti types of Jesus.

Again I ask, was Satan the first adversary of God?

Will satan be the last adversary of God?

The Bible does not say what you say, so I don't.

Nowhere does the bible ever equate glory to meaning worship as you claim,

please demonstrate where the bible does if I'm mistaken.

Here are some scriptures that might help you:

NIV Galatians 1:24 And they praised God because of me.

King James Bible And they glorified God in me.

Jesus is never worshipped as God as you also state, if you make these claim please use scripture to support such a claim, it just prolongs things. Nowhere have you actually answered my question above, are you actually ever going to answering it or are you going to keep skipping around?

You just don't believe what God says. You have no reasoning skills and revelations.

The New Testament clearly teaches us not to bow to any man of God, and not any angel of God, BUT ONLY TO GOD ALONE should we bow.

That is scripture.

However, Jesus let people bow to him, because he is God.

Not that the bible does or does not say what you have claimed but where is your supporting scripture?

Shame on you; I give scriptures all the time to support what I say.

am I simply meant to take your word on it? You also said "So the city is God",

That isn't the exact quote.
I gave you the scriptures about the New Jerusalem and what it looks like and our being built up in it.

how could you come to such a conclusion when the verse states "he showed me [John] the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God11 and having the glory of God", how is the city God himself when it comes down out of heaven from him? it would seem the scriptures do not express the same thing you are stating they say.

How can you not even recall the things you have written, it's not my job to source out all the quotes when I use them,

Quote what I say as I just did for you. You don't even always quote exactly.

if we were speaking face to face and I quoted your verbal words would you ask for evidence that said them or instead would you use you memory to try and recall the things you have said.

On page 472 post #7066 you stated in reference to God "He will not give glory to another".

I gave you scripture that says that.

So back to my question, as you can clearly see from you post an as I correctly quoted you said God "will not give glory to another", NOW you are saying "We can only have glory through Jesus"

are you now claiming and can you confirm it is possible for others to have God's glory?

No one is worshiped as God except God and Jesus Christ who is God.

You also said in post #7058 pg 741 "Do you want to explain who the Father shares His glory with, Jesus? That is more proof Jesus is God", you clearly used reasoning to show that sharing glory in your understanding equates "being God" hence the reason you said "the Father shares His glory with, Jesus?

God says He doesn't share His glory with another, yet Jesus has the glory of God, which prove he is God.

That is more proof Jesus is God"

, YET now you're saying "We can only have glory through Jesus", you stated this in reply to when I used John 17:22 that states "I have given them the glory that you [God] have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one" in post #7068 pg 472. So does sharing glory equate one to being God, yes or no, if you're answer is no then how is it proof Jesus is God as you earlier stated, if you're answer is yes then you're implying Christ-followers who share God's glory -as you have admitted- must be God too. Your reasoning is notconsistent, surely you can see this.

God didn't give away His glory. We are not now God because of Jesus putting us in him. Jesus has the glory of God that he had before the creation of the world. Jesus has the same glory as God's since before the creation of anything. We bow to Jesus, we have to go through Jesus, we have forgiveness from Jesus, Jesus is the one who saves, all those things are ONLY what God the Father did, and now it is through Jesus. God did not give His glory away, because Jesus is God.


Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

So before Jesus simply possessing God's glory was proof enough "he is God", now you're saying "Jesus having God’s glory the way he has it is proof he is God", oh, so it's not simply him having God's glory -as you've obviously seen how others too have God's glory and realized your error- but the way Jesus has God's glory.

You are the one with the error. God says He will not give His glory to another, yet we know we have to go though Jesus. We don't go through you, or anyone but Jesus.

The only issue is 2 Thess 2:14 states "He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the gloryof our Lord Jesus Christ." The scriptures make no differentiation between the glory Jesus has compared to the Father, hence the reason why Jesus himself said "I have given them the glory that you [God] have given me", Jesus gave the glory that he had been given by the Father to his followers. Again, your reasoning is NOT consistent. Jesus having glory is NOT proof he is God any more than his followers having THE SAME GLORY proves they are God. Remember my rule, unless reasoning is consistent is it neither believable or true.
You said "Jesus having God’s glory the way he has it is proof he is God", please show me where such a thought is expressed in scripture, what is the way Jesus has glory different to than of his followers, explain without contradicting 2 Thess 2:14 or John 17:22.

You have a hard time with reasoning. Again, Jesus has the same glory as God. We can't put people in us, but Jesus can put people in him.

 

[7djengo7]

No, a king of kings is simply a title given to someone who is a king over other kings. Show me any definition that states a king of king means there is only one king of kings? As I've said and asked before, is it possible that there are two human kings that are both called King of kings simultaneously who are kings over other kings in two different kingdoms? Yes or no?

Please specify which (if any) king(s) you are claiming that Jesus is not "a king over".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

Please specify which (if any) king(s) you are claiming that Jesus is not "a king over".

This is partly relevant to your question, but also follows on from our discussion on the distinction between the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God as evident from Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8:1-3 and Matthew 11:25-30. I thought of your question in our Bible Class tonight when we considered Isaiah 50. Within this chapter, verses 4-9 is the 3rd Servant Song, and The Servant who is ultimately Jesus, in prophecy through the words of Isaiah, speaks of Yahweh His God, as the Lord Yahweh in verses 4,5,7 and 9. These verses depict his sufferings, and in his trouble he trusts in God His Father, because Yahweh is Lord of the circumstances which he faced in his trial and crucifixion. In verses 7 and 9 Jesus in prophecy says the Lord Yahweh will help me, showing that Jesus was nor "a king over" these circumstances. Jesus could trust in the Father’s care and hence God the Father was Lord, God the Father was in control, and would care for Jesus in his suffering. Jesus here was not Lord of all that was happening, but Jesus was the suffering servant who trusted in His Master, King, Lord.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[NWL]

God the Father is called the First and the Last. That is about Jesus who is God.

Nope, Jesus is a person from the Father, both Jesus and the Father are called the first and the last but with different meanings. I've showed you the context of all the passages of F&L and you have chosen to ignore it.

There are scriptures that are a prophecy of Jesus. There are anti types of Jesus. For instance,all the names of the prophets are anti types of Jesus; Israel is God's first born an anti type; the Jordan is too, and the bronze snake, the rock in the desert, a lamb, circumcision, external washings, special days, sacrifices, all anti types of Jesus.

If you're suggesting Satan being called "the God" (2 Cor 4:4), Angels being called Gods/Elohim (Psalms 82:1, Ps 8:5) and other occurrences where others are called Gods/Elohim are anti-types of Jesus then you are very very wrong. As I stated titles of God are not always reserved for God alone, only titles such as "Almighty", the "One God", "Sovereign" are reserved for God alone, namely the Father. Your previous statement of "The scriptures aren’t going to give a name known to God and then give it to Jesus with a completely different meaning" (post #7089) is false as we clearly see titles that are explicitly reserved for God, "only one God, only one Savior", applied to others, you choose to close your eyes and ignore this. Titles that God is called CAN and DO have different meanings when applied to others, thus Jesus being called the F&L doesn't necessitate Jesus is the F&L in the same sense as the Father.

Again I ask, was Satan the first adversary of God?

Will satan be the last adversary of God?

The Bible does not say what you say, so I don't.

I'm not stating the bible does or anything else, I'm asking YOU the questions so answer the questions.

Who is the first adversary of God?

Who is the last adversary of God?

Someone once said "everyone wants the truth, but no one wants to be honest", you claim to be a seeker of truth yet you will refuse to answer truthfully as you know by answering truthfully you will debunk yourself, you are meant to be a Christian, act like one and show humility.

Here are some scriptures that might help you:

NIV Galatians 1:24 And they praised God because of me.

King James Bible And they glorified God in me.

Where does it equate glory with worship in Gal 1:24? Simply quoting the verse that does not specifically state what you claimed is proof of nothing.

You just don't believe what God says. You have no reasoning skills and revelations.

The New Testament clearly teaches us not to bow to any man of God, and not any angel of God, BUT ONLY TO GOD ALONE should we bow.

That is scripture.

However, Jesus let people bow to him, because he is God.

You really make me laugh sometimes, the irony. It was the Father who appointed Jesus above all ( see 1 Cor 15:27), it was the Father that said "let all of God’s angels worship to [Jesus]", it was to the Fathers and NOT Jesus glory that every knee bends, "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend...and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:10,11), AND it was Jesus himself who said "No one comes to the Father except through me". To do anything to the Father we must do it THROUGH Jesus, thus any glory, praise, and worship give, we do it through Jesus, Jesus in turns passes this to the Father, hence why it states "every knee bends to Jesus but it's to the glory of the Father" and NOT Jesus glory.

The Father ordained Jesus to be above everything apart from him himself, it was the Father who gave the command to "let" the angels worship Jesus, and it was the Father who ordained, and as Jesus said, that we can only do things to the Father through Jesus, Jesus DID not let people worship him because he is God, he allows it because we worship through Jesus, Jesus isn't the ultimate receiver of worship, the Father is. Jesus himself said "the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him", Jesus made no mention of himself, he ONLY mentioned the Father as the receiver of worship.


You claim I lack reasoning skill, if this is the case you should be able to prove my above reasoning to be false, let's see if you can.

Not that the bible does or does not say what you have claimed but where is your supporting scripture?

Shame on you; I give scriptures all the time to support what I say.

How could anyone take what I said to mean "you never provide scripture to back up your claim", to me, this is another clear example of you avoiding to properly explain yourself and instead create strawmen arguments.

Quote what I say as I just did for you. You don't even always quote exactly.

Now you're just being petty by demanding I quote you in full, I didn't even need to quote you, I could've just posed the question without using any of your quotes, but for some reason because I haven't used your full quote -like it even changes the meaning of what you said- you won't answer my question, its pitiful. In my post of #7089 I quoted in full and replied futher to each part of your quote, so to claim I did not quote you in full is a lie.

For the second time, you said "The Bible says we are being built in Him. So the city is God and all the saved", how could you come to such a conclusion when the verse states "he showed me [John] the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God11 and having the glory of God", how is the city God when it comes down out of heaven from him?

as you can clearly see from you post an as I correctly quoted you said God "will not give glory to another", NOW you are saying "We can only have glory through Jesus" are you now claiming and can you confirm it is possible for others to have God's glory?

No one is worshiped as God except God and Jesus Christ who is God.

You are not stupid, you know your answer in no way answers my question, how does your answer, "No one is worshiped as God except God and Jesus Christ who is God" answer my question", answer my question, "as you stated ""We can only have glory through Jesus" are you now claiming and can you confirm it is possible for others to have God's glory?" ????

Answer the question, I'm not asking WHO is worshipped, I'm asking that since you said "We can only have glory through Jesus" are you now claiming and can you confirm it is possible for others to have God's glory?

My question is about others having God's glory, it has nothing to do with worship, deal with the question or admit you can't.

God says He doesn't share His glory with another, yet Jesus has the glory of God, which prove he is God.

Thanks for re-confirming this, since you've also admitted "We can only have glory through Jesus" as we have previously talked then you unwittingly imply by your reasoning that followers of Christ are also God as they have God's glory just as Jesus does.

God didn't give away His glory. We are not now God because of Jesus putting us in him. Jesus has the glory of God that he had before the creation of the world. Jesus has the same glory as God's since before the creation of anything. We bow to Jesus, we have to go through Jesus, we have forgiveness from Jesus, Jesus is the one who saves, all those things are ONLY what God the Father did, and now it is through Jesus. God did not give His glory away, because Jesus is God.

You are the one with the error. God says He will not give His glory to another, yet we know we have to go though Jesus. We don't go through you, or anyone but Jesus.

You have a hard time with reasoning. Again, Jesus has the same glory as God. We can't put people in us, but Jesus can put people in him.

You've made multiple claims in the above, you said "God didn't give away His glory", "God says He will not give His glory to another", yet as I showed before scripture states "I have given them the glory that you [God] have given me"and"He called you to this through our gospel,that you might share in the gloryof our Lord Jesus Christ".

You stated "God didn't give away His glory", Did Jesus give his followers glory according to John 17:22?

You stated "God says He doesn't share His glory with another", do followers of Christ share his glory according to 2 Thess 2:14?

 

[NWL]

A King of kings is ONE KING above all kings. There is ONLY ONE KING of kings. There is only one King above all kings, or it doesn't make sense to say King of kings.
The Father and Jesus are not of separate kingdoms.

You really do make yourself look stupid, find me a single dictionary, biblical dictionary, scholars claim or strongs reference that has the same definition of "king of Kings" of you. A king of kings is simply a title of a King who rules over lesser kings. You can have a King who rules over other kings in Asia, whilst have another king who rules over other kings in Africa, to claim there can be only one King of kings in existence at any one time is to butcher the English original languages detention of the word.

God is the one who sets up kingship, "Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God (Romans 13:1)", It was king Nebuchadnezʹzar the prophet Daniel said "you, O king—the king of kings to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, the strength, and the glory, (Dan 2:37). Nebuchadnezʹzar was a King of kings, yet you say "A King of kings is ONE KING above all kings...There is only one King above all kings", so was Nebuchadnezʹzar above God in heaven who was also King of Kings, was Nebuchadnezʹzar the "only one" King of kings and not God? Or can there be two "king of kings" simultaneously?

----------------------------------------------------

I asked "does Jesus have the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?", was your answer of Jesus being a "Mighty God" your proof that he is called "Almighty God", yes or no?

I asked "does Jesus have the title "Almighty God" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?", was your answer that Jesus was a "lord of lord" your proof Jesus is called the "Sovereign Lord", yes or no?

 

[Trump Gurl]

It is crazy that this thread is 474 pages long. How many things can you guys cover?

Since God is Trinity then of course Jesus must be God. If the Son is not God then God cannot be Trinity.
.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth​

There it is, nice and simple. God the Word became flesh, Jesus Christ, Jesus is the Word that God had to say to the Universe. The Word of God IS God.

 

[Right Divider]

It is crazy that this thread is 474 pages long. How many things can you guys cover?

Since God is Trinity then of course Jesus must be God. If the Son is not God then God cannot be Trinity.
.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth​

There it is, nice and simple. God the Word became flesh, Jesus Christ, Jesus is the Word that God had to say to the Universe. The Word of God IS God.

Did you read the entire thread?

We know that John 1:1 is clear. But unbelievers don't want to believe it.