Is Jesus God?

NWL

New member
What's being a perfect image of God got to do with it?
If Jesus isn't God - it's still idolatry!

Idolatry takes away worship that is due to God and give it to something or someone that does not represent God, Jesus however despite not being the one God the Father represents(Hebrews 1:3) the one God and is his image (col 1:15), Therefore it's not idolatry.

Then, why did Jesus instruct us to do the breaking of the bread as a remembrance of Him?
We worship Christ whenever we sing about Him, or the cross.

Jesus while on earth made it extremely clear that he came to do not his own will but his Fathers and that all the things he spoke were from the Father and not his own words. The Father sent his son into the world so that it could be saved through Jesus sacrifice by means of him the Father. It is Jesus sacrifice that saves, thus it is Jesus sacrifice we must commemorate by breaking and eating of the bread and wine. This is not an act of worship to Jesus and is nowhere spoken as an act of worship to Jesus, it is your assumption this is worshipping Jesus. Jesus made is clear we are to worship the Father (see John 4:23).

(John 5:30) I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

(John 14:10) Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.
 

betsy123

New member
Post #320 doesn't explain much in reagrds to how Jesus is YHWH becsuse he is called "Lord"? How is this evidence?

It isn't the only evidence I gave, right?

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?133025-JESUS-IS-GOD-HIMSELF


You say "How would a non-Trinitarian tackle the numerous times Jesus had used the very same title given to God, and vice versa/". Well I would have to ask you the very same question, what do you do when others are given the same name/ephitets as God and Jesus when you assume Jesus havign the some of the same titles/ephitis as the Father makes him YHWH? (see below comaprisons)

Only one saviour - (Isaiah 43:11) I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”

And yet others are called saviours desptite there only being one - (Judges 3:9) When the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, Jehovah raised up a savior to rescue the Israelites, Othʹniel the son of Keʹnaz, the younger brother of Caʹleb.

(Judges 3:15) Then the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, so Jehovah raised up for them a savior, Eʹhud the son of Geʹra, a Benʹja·min·ite who was left-handed. In time the Israelites sent tribute through him to Egʹlon the king of Moʹab.



Not in the same context. What other saviors died for the sin of man?


What is a Savior, and why do we need a Savior? The Bible tells us that we have all sinned; we have all committed evil acts (Romans 3:10-18). As a result of our sin, we deserve God's anger and judgment. The only just punishment for sins committed against an infinite and eternal God is an infinite punishment (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:11-15). That is why we need a Savior!

Jesus Christ came to earth and died in our place. Jesus' death was an infinite payment for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins (Romans 5:8). Jesus paid the price so that we would not have to. Jesus' resurrection from the dead proved that His death was sufficient to pay the penalty for our sins. That is why Jesus is the one and only Savior (John 14:6; Acts 4:12)! Are you trusting in Jesus as your Savior?
https://www.gotquestions.org/personal-Savior.html





Jesus is called the "King of kings" - (Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”

Others called "Kings of kings" - (Ezra 7:12) “Artaxerxes, the king of kings, to Ezʹra the priest, the copyist of the Law of the God of the heavens: May you have perfect peace. And now

(Ezekiel 26:7) “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Here I am bringing King Nebuchadnezʹzar of Babylon against Tyre from the north; he is a king of kings, with horses, war chariots, cavalrymen, and an army of many soldiers.
So I ask you, does Nebuchadnezʹzar, Artaxerxes, Eʹhud and Othʹni·el having the tiles of Jesus imply that they too are YHWH or Jesus, if not why not?

Please

Rev 17
14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”


1 Tim 6:15
which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,



Compare with the other "king of kings."


(Ezra 7:12) “Artaxerxes, the king of kings, to Ezʹra the priest, the copyist of the Law of the God of the heavens: May you have perfect peace. And now

(Ezekiel 26:7) “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Here I am bringing King Nebuchadnezʹzar of Babylon against Tyre from the north; he is a king of kings, with horses, war chariots, cavalrymen, and an army of many soldiers.


It's not the same.
King of kings (Jesus), is capitalized.


Please refer to my responses above to Trevor.
 

betsy123

New member
Idolatry takes away worship that is due to God and give it to something or someone that does not represent God, Jesus however despite not being the one God the Father represents(Hebrews 1:3) the one God and is his image (col 1:15), Therefore it's not idolatry.

Just like Trevor - you're running into snags here. :)

We should not bow or serve anyone, other than God.
And yet, we are servants of Christ.





Jesus while on earth made it extremely clear that he came to do not his own will but his Fathers

So - it wasn't really voluntary?



and that all the things he spoke were from the Father and not his own words. The Father sent his son into the world so that it could be saved through Jesus sacrifice by means of him the Father. It is Jesus sacrifice that saves, thus it is Jesus sacrifice we must commemorate by breaking and eating of the bread and wine. This is not an act of worship to Jesus and is nowhere spoken as an act of worship to Jesus, it is your assumption this is worshipping Jesus. Jesus made is clear we are to worship the Father (see John 4:23).

(John 5:30) I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

(John 14:10) Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.

It still takes away from God.

You're saying it was God who sent Him (Jesus was just following orders).
Give credit where credit is due, right? to GOD!

So.....why does it matter so much that Jesus was tortured and died for us that we have to commemorate it - glorification, really - when He's simply following orders from God?
If God didn't order it, would Jesus have come to do what He did?

Shouldn't the thanking be directly given to God, after all He was the one who issued the directive to Jesus?

Isaiah 42
8 “I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.



Isaiah 48
10 See, I have refined you, though not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
11
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another.




ALL GLORY TO GOD - and only to GOD ALONE!




Furthermore - you're saying God sacrificed a human, (a practice He abhors and forbid).

See, how your argument runs into serious problems?
 

NWL

New member

I've looked at that thread many times, I did not reply on it because the thread is there for evidence of Jesus being God and not for debating the matter as you asked in your original post.

In the said post you use two scriptures, Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, none of which state Jesus is YHWH, so again I put it to you, how is this evidence that Jesus is YHWH himself?

Not in the same context. What other saviors died for the sin of man?

You miss the point and you also create issues for yourself with what you've said. The Father is a savior and Jesus is a savior, we can both agree on this, but since you're now pulling out the "context card" despite it not being needed here show me where the Father "died for the sin of man"?

Furthermore, Isaiah 43:11 wasn't about Jesus, the Father is the one who was speaking in the verse, he clearly states there is no savior but him. I ask you this, how many saviors are there according to scripture ad Isaiah 43:11?

Rev 17
14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”


1 Tim 6:15
which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,


Compare with the other "king of kings."

(Ezra 7:12) “Artaxerxes, the king of kings, to Ezʹra the priest, the copyist of the Law of the God of the heavens: May you have perfect peace. And now

(Ezekiel 26:7) “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Here I am bringing King Nebuchadnezʹzar of Babylon against Tyre from the north; he is a king of kings, with horses, war chariots, cavalrymen, and an army of many soldiers.


It's not the same.
King of kings (Jesus), is capitalized.
[/COLOR]

Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek did not use capital letters as we do today, they basically didn't even use them, Greek for instance only ever used capital letters when writing. So your point of "King of kings (Jesus), is capitalized" holds no weight in this discussion. Kings of Kings is capitalised in modern English translation as the translators do so to make it clear it's speaking about Jesus. There is absolutely nothing in grammar that suggests the term "Kings of kings" in relation to Jesus should be translated with a capital K according to the Greek. Your point is moot and my points still stand, just because persons share the same title doesn't necessitate that both persons are the same one.
 
Last edited:

NWL

New member
Just like Trevor - you're running into snags here. :)

We should not bow or serve anyone, other than God.
And yet, we are servants of Christ.

I see the error in your understanding. We worship the Father through Jesus. Jesus himself said "No one comes to the Father except through me."(John 14:6). The book of Philippians sums the matter up perfectly, see below.

(Philippians 2:9-11) "..For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

Notice what the verses states, every knee bends to Jesus but it isn't worship to Jesus but rather its "to the glory of God the Father". This is because we don't worship Jesus is in the ultimate sense, we worship the Father in the ultimate sense worshiping him through his son Jesus.

(1 Peter 2:5) "..you yourselves as living stones are being built up into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.."

(Romans 1:8) "..First of all, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ concerning all of you, because your faith is talked about throughout the whole world.."


So - it wasn't really voluntary?

When did I give this impression? Jesus came on his own accord but he did so to do the will of the Father.

It still takes away from God.

You're saying it was God who sent Him (Jesus was just following orders).
Give credit where credit is due, right? to GOD!

So.....why does it matter so much that Jesus was tortured and died for us that we have to commemorate it - glorification, really - when He's simply following orders from God?
If God didn't order it, would Jesus have come to do what He did?

Shouldn't the thanking be directly given to God, after all He was the one who issued the directive to Jesus?

Isaiah 42
8 “I am the Lord; that is my name!
I will not yield my glory to another
or my praise to idols.



Isaiah 48
10 See, I have refined you, though not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
11
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another.




ALL GLORY TO GOD - and only to GOD ALONE!

You said above "You're saying it was God who sent Him (Jesus was just following orders)". I'm not saying that no it was Jesus himself who said it along with other scripture, it is clear you do now know the basics of scripture:

(John 5:36) "..But I [Jesus] have the witness greater than that of John, for the very works that my Father assigned me to accomplish, these works that I am doing, bear witness that the Father sent me.."

(John 20:21) "..Jesus said to them again: “May you have peace. Just as the Father has sent me, I also am sending you.”.."

(Isaiah 61:1) "..The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, Because Jehovah anointed me to declare good news to the meek. He sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And the wide opening of the eyes to the prisoner.."


Furthermore - you're saying God sacrificed a human, (a practice He abhors and forbid).

See, how your argument runs into serious problems?

My argument runs into serious problems? ha! You've just done your own legs! Again no I do not say God sacrificed a human, the scriptures make this claim, Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14) and it was Jesus flesh/body that was sacrificed (Hebrews 10:10).

If a human was not sacrificed what was, God? you've already implied it was God that was sacrificed so answer me this, how can God die? And don't you dare say it was Jesus humanity that died since again you've already denied the fact that "God sacrificed a human", so answer me.

Smh, you have the audacity to say I'm in serious problems when you don't even know your own beliefs.
 
Last edited:

TrevorL

New member
Greetings again betsy123 ,
Yes. But it depends though. Not every ACT of God, is FULLY explained.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be many debates between Christians, right? But on this debate we have - your belief is in dire conflict with the Scriptures, and my argument/rebuttals are clearly explained.
The belief that Jesus is God Himself, falls neatly into places. It is consistent with the rest of the Scriptures.
Of course, it's Yahweh. Who else could it be?
According to Jesus, we pray to the Father - that would be another contradiction to His teachings if the Father isn't Yahweh! That makes the Father another mini-god that we'll be praying, too - right? In other words, we'll be commemorating Jesus, and praying to another (The Father).
What happens to the very first Commandment that Jesus says is the most important of all? That makes Jesus contradict Himself! Yahweh, is the Father! See how your arguments are running into serious snags?
I have a different perspective than Trinitarians and I still find it difficult to understand how Trinitarians view the God of the OT. Deuteronomy 6:4 defines the one God of the OT as Yahweh, and we have looked at Psalm 110:1 where you seem to agree that Yahweh is God the Father. The picture is of the One God, Yahweh seated on His Throne and inviting Jesus, David’s Lord to sit at His right hand. But my estimation of the Trinitarian perspective is that there are three that make up this one God, and therefore Yahweh could not be God the Father exclusively. A Trinitarian to be consistent would believe that there is Yahweh the Son and Yahweh the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is also Yahweh! (in the flesh). Because, if He's not - your argument makes Jesus a usurper, a liar and thus - not credible. That's the dilemma of your argument. It's full of contradictions, and it makes Jesus and the Bible, unreliable.
A Trinitarian must believe that Jesus was Yahweh before and after he was in the flesh, but I cannot find this taught. Rather Yahweh is exclusively God the Father only.
We're not talking about David. I'm talking about God and Jesus - both - claiming to be The TRUE Shepherd! Is Jesus competing with God?
No, Jesus is God’s Servant / Son.
WRONG! The title "GOD," isn't given to anyone. Representatives of God are called "gods" in Judges.
John 10: 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside
Psalm 82: 6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’
Not capitalized G. And in quotes, too.
There were no capitals or quotation marks in the Hebrew or the Greek. The OT word is Elohim.
Jews weren't stoning Jesus for claiming to be a god. They say He's claiming to be GOD! That should bust any claims for wrong translation - the Jews understood clearly who He's claiming to be.[
He's claiming to be God Himself! That's why He didn't correct Thomas when Thomas identified Him as God, right? Why didn't he correct Thomas? See how your argument runs into serious problems?
I suggest that you have not yet understood the significance of Jesus’ answer to their false accusation by his reference to the Judges being called Elohim. They were called Elohim because they had the responsibility to judge using God's word as a guide "unto whom the word of God came" John 10:35. BTW Elohim can be singular or plural depending on the context.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Pierac

New member
Greetings again Right Divider,No, Jesus is the Son of God because God is HIS Father in the conception / birth process. Jesus is also revealed as the Son of God because of his perfect moral character, he was full of grace and truth John 1:14, and he is the Son of God because he has been resurrected unto immortality Romans 1:1-4.
The Word pre-existed, and is a personification similar to the Wise Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with God when he created the earth. There is no mention of Jesus in John 1:1. Jesus is the Name of the child born 2000 years ago Matthew 1:20-21.
Yes, God the Father was fully revealed in and through Jesus, the Son of God.
John 14:8-11 (KJV): 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
John 17:6 (KJV): I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.


You did not respond to my question directly: I said:
“I have answered your question, now my question: When did Jesus become the only begotten Son of God?”.
What I was really wanting you to answer: If Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, then when was he begotten. In other words, please explain the meaning of the word "begotten" and the phrase “Only Begotten Son” in John 3:16.

Kind regards
Trevor

Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People (western civilization) have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus’. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said: "The Son is of the same substance as the Father."

It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was not included in the formula. It was included fifty-six years later at another council.

Let’s see what this title really means:

Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God’s first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel’s representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).
"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman’s contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.
For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son’s solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God"(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God’s anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:
"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation: Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man applies to Mark’s gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."

Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:
"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."

This is the meaning of the title "Son of God." Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let’s take a look at some verses to confirm this.

"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"… "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"… "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).

Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.

"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"…"Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).

John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.

Hope this helps,
Paul
 

Pierac

New member
Greetings again betsy123 ,I have a different perspective than Trinitarians and I still find it difficult to understand how Trinitarians view the God of the OT. Deuteronomy 6:4 defines the one God of the OT as Yahweh, and we have looked at Psalm 110:1 where you seem to agree that Yahweh is God the Father. The picture is of the One God, Yahweh seated on His Throne and inviting Jesus, David’s Lord to sit at His right hand. But my estimation of the Trinitarian perspective is that there are three that make up this one God, and therefore Yahweh could not be God the Father exclusively. A Trinitarian to be consistent would believe that there is Yahweh the Son and Yahweh the Holy Spirit.
A Trinitarian must believe that Jesus was Yahweh before and after he was in the flesh, but I cannot find this taught. Rather Yahweh is exclusively God the Father only.
No, Jesus is God’s Servant / Son.
There were no capitals or quotation marks in the Hebrew or the Greek. The OT word is Elohim.
I suggest that you have not yet understood the significance of Jesus’ answer to their false accusation by his reference to the Judges being called Elohim. They were called Elohim because they had the responsibility to judge using God's word as a guide "unto whom the word of God came" John 10:35. BTW Elohim can be singular or plural depending on the context.

Kind regards
Trevor

Psalms 110:1

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It’s importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.
Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh” (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.
He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’”
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.”

Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states…
“The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).”

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.” from Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord” of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,” kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

Hope this helps your point of view,
Paul
 

Pierac

New member
OK then, weasel. Here's your opportunity to come clean on the question. Answer this question:

Was Wisdom (talked about in Proverbs 8) God? Yes or No?

Until you answer "Yes" to this question, you will have, indeed, been denying that WISDOM WAS GOD.



What you wrote, here, is mumbo-jumbo, since your use of your pet word, "personification", is meaningless.



John 1:1 is a Bible verse. It's this one: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So, naturally, I have no clue what (if anything) you mean when you say "John 1:1 is The Word, not Jesus". You deliberately practice to obfuscate.

Really concentrate, and just consider how asininely stupid what you wrote looks and sounds. You are saying "John 1:1 is...not Jesus." Who said that the Bible verse, John 1:1, is Jesus? I certainly didn't. I have said, and will continue to say, the truth: viz., that the Word (written about in the Bible verse, John 1:1) IS Jesus. But I have never said that the Bible verse, John 1:1, itself, IS Jesus.



What I wrote, just now, regarding your clowning regarding the Bible verse, John 1:1, applies just the same (with the details changed appropriately) to your clowing, here, regarding the Bible verse, Proverbs 8. I never said that the Bible verse, Proverbs 8, IS Jesus. Who did? So, to what (if any) purpose are you saying "Proverbs 8 is...not Jesus", as though you imagine someone had first said, "Proverbs 8 IS Jesus", and that they needed a retort from you?

Quit your clowning.



How is it abusive to call someone a fool who acts like a fool, or to call someone a weasel who acts like a weasel?



Look, weasel: Which question that I asked you is your "Yes", here, supposed to be in response to? Your playing all nebulous and fuzzy and Jell-O-like is morally disgusting. It's what makes you the weasel that you are. Indicate, by quotation of my own words, exactly which question it is that I asked you, to which you imagine your "Yes Jesus was The Son of God when conceived...." is an answer. I NEVER asked you, "Was Jesus The Son of God when conceived and born?"

Learn how to write, in English, weasel. Don't write crap like what you wrote:

"Yes Jesus was The Son of God when conceived and born Luke 1:34-35."​

Rather, write correctly. Use punctuation where it is necessary, as follows:

"Yes. Jesus was The Son of God when conceived and born (Luke 1:34-35)."​

I've not the slightest inclination to chalk up your systematic, wanton disregard for trying to make your thoughts verbally precise and clear, to mere stupidity, or to juvenile delinquency. You're a hardened, Christ-hating heretic, and I definitely do not put it past you to employ any artifice you might fancy in your attempt to justify yourself in your readers' eyes. It's always stupid to war against truth, as you do. But I do NOT fall for the idea that you are stupid in the sense that craftiness is out of reach to you as an element of your M.O. Rather, over some time, I've observed, in detail, many of your ridiculous posts enough to be well aware that you, Lo and behold!, seem almost miraculously unable to ever get clearer, or more precise, in your use of the English language. Your consistently crappy handling of English--IN THE ARENA OF A WRITTEN DEBATE FORUM, no less--I take to be a subterfuge on your part, frankly.

Somewhere, I saw you claim that you are a draftsman. If you apply the same abysmally low, crappy standards of precision to draftsmanship as you do TO YOUR REAL INTEREST (viz., promulgating your Christ-hating doctrines via written text in forums), I'd be amazed if you've ever gotten paid to draft!



As an anti-Christ, you, here, blaspheme Jesus, once again, by saying that He started out less morally good than He ended up, later.



Brilliant observation!



You take that from John 1:14 too? Oh, man, and here I thought I was probably the only one who had ever gleaned that from the text!



Please try to explain how (if at all) you imagine it is better to say "moral glory", as YOU say, than it is to say "glory", as John said, in his Gospel.



You're a masterful Bible expositor, no doubt! I just don't see how I could ever have learned that Jesus was full of grace and truth simply by reading the text of John 1:14, without the aid of your illuminating gloss on it!



Since all you mean when you say "Jesus was the only begotten of the Father" is that the Father CREATED Jesus, just as the Father created every other man and woman, you've got zero cause to claim that the one creature you blasphemously call "Jesus" has any more glory on account of being created than does any other creature.



You've zero cause to say that the one creature, Adam, had any less glory than any other creature.



Spare me.

John 1:1

I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?

It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde
was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and
with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the
worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and
without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men


Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was
God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and
without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word
was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and
without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the
word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and
apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it !
The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to.
In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the
beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought
all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.

There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already
misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the
world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard,what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.

who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God.
Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word(logos) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Jesus is not our Judge, but our savior!

Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the
world might be saved through Him.

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to
men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He( God) has fixed a day in
which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has
appointed
,having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom
of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an
external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New
American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).

According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:

Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"

"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:

"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( I]logos[/I]) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!

1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--

What does scripture teach you about... What was from the beginning?

Pay attention as we need to get a little deeper comparing both John 1:1 with 1 John 1:1

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word." 1 John 1:1 – "What was from the beginning, what we have heard."

Notice that in John what is from the beginning is the word, and in 1 John what is from the beginning is something that they heard (a message) .

Look closely...

1 John 2:7 - "Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard."

In 1 John 1:1 what was from the beginning is something that they heard, here in 1 John 2:7 the old commandment is what they have had from the beginning, (sound familiar?) and the old commandment is the "WORD" that they what? Heard! The same as in 1 John 1:1.

So, What commandment is John speaking about?

John is speaking about what Jesus called the greatest commandment, ( Mark 12:29-30 ) the commandment of love which God gave the Hebrews from the beginning. The message of love that the proclamation of the Kingdom of God brings with it.

How do we know for sure that this is the message and/or the commandment that they heard from the beginning? Because John tells you so in 1 John 3:11 and 1 John 3:23:

"For this is the message you have HEARD from the BEGINNING: we should love one another."

"And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another."

Loving one another is how the world will know that we are followers of God’s Christ.

John 13:30 – "This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

According to Paul (Romans 13:9), the law of love is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and it is the Law in the coming Kingdom of God which the Messiah has come to proclaim. These are Jesus’ own words.

John is talking about the message or Logos (known by you as “word”!)

By making John 1 a Trinity support verse, you lose so much truth!

:poly::sherlock:
Paul
 

TrevorL

New member
Greetings Paul (Pierac),
Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People (western civilization) have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus’.
John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.
I appreciate your very informative three Posts on the Son of God, Lord and the Word. There is much to consider and I agree with much of what you state and reference. I would disagree with one aspect of what you state in your first Post, quoted above. Despite also the various meanings attached to “Son of God”, I also believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, because God the Father was the father of Jesus in the conception / birth process.

Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Gr. begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke 1:34-35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Kind regards
Trevor
 

7djengo7

New member
"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.

"this logos becomes personal"

What (if anything) are you trying to say? Are you claiming that something was, at one time, not a person, but then, at a later time, became a person?

When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who”

Are you claiming that something was, at one time, not a "who", but merely an "it", but then, later, that "it" became a "who"?

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God.
Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

Are you claiming that the Logos had at one time been a non-person, and then, later, became a person, and then, later still (at whatever time Revelation 20:4 is a reference to), became, once again, a non-person?

Please show, in Scripture, where you think it is declared that the Logos ceased being a person, if you want to try to even begin to try to justify your sordid gloss on Revelation 20:4.

What's especially astounding is that you shamelessly deny the Bible truth that God became flesh, while you (apparently in all seriousness) claim that something you say was not a person, later became a person, and then, later still, left off being a person.
 

7djengo7

New member
"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God.
Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word(logos) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Since, according to you, "for their testimony to Jesus AND for the word of God" means that Jesus is NOT the word of God, I suppose that you take it that "what to say AND what to speak" means that "what to say" is NOT "what to speak".
 

betsy123

New member
I've looked at that thread many times, I did not reply on it because the thread is there for evidence of Jesus being God and not for debating the matter as you asked in your original post.

Yes, thank you. I also use it for reference - saves time gathering them. :)



In the said post you use two scriptures, Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, none of which state Jesus is YHWH, so again I put it to you, how is this evidence that Jesus is YHWH himself?

It doesn't declare straight out like, "....therefore, Jesus is God."
We have to use logic.

Who is God, which is stated in both?
Who came as human and dwelt among us?



You also don't just rely on that single given evidence alone.
ALL THE EVIDENCES GIVEN in that thread, are .....CUMULATIVE evidences.


Cumulative Evidence

Facts or information that proves what has previously been established by other information concerning the same issue.

Cumulative evidence is synonymous with corroborative evidence.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cumulative+Evidence


Be familiar with that term - cumulative!
I find the Bible give so many cumulative evidences in pointing out important issues.


Those evidences are not separate, or "compartmentalized." They are all to be considered as a "package deal."

All of them REINFORCE each other.




You miss the point and you also create issues for yourself with what you've said. The Father is a savior and Jesus is a savior, we can both agree on this, but since you're now pulling out the "context card" despite it not being needed here

I think it's you who misses the point.

Of course, I'll point out to context. You brought up to compare other men that were "saviors of Israel!"




show me where the Father "died for the sin of man"?

How can you not see something so clear? Just look how everything jive so well.

Isaiah 45:21-22
"Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.


Isaiah talks about turning to The Lord, and UNIVERSAL salvation - not only Jews!
The New Testament refers to Jesus as The Lord.



Acts 9:35
And all who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.



Acts 11:21
And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.


Acts 15:19
"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,




This one below supports my argument that if you don't believe in the Triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit in ONE).....you commit idolatry.



1 Thessalonians 1:9
For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God,



As Christians, we are servants of Jesus, which means - we serve Him!


1 Corinthians 4:1
Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.


What "mysteries" would those be, I wonder? And if God is not Jesus - why do we serve Jesus Christ?




Don't you see how intricately so many verses are all inter-connected - all, giving evidence that Jesus is God Himself on earth as man!

Thus I say, you cannot compartmentalize and deal with each evidence separately because, that's just like dealing with one puzzle piece falling neatly into place.
You've got to see the whole picture.



My evidences are all consistent with the Scriptures, whereas all your arguments get into conflict with the Bible.

The consistency of the Bible - from beginning to end - is one of its powerful
evidence as the Word of God.

God will never contradict any of His declarations.
 

betsy123

New member
Greetings again betsy123 ,I have a different perspective than Trinitarians and I still find it difficult to understand how Trinitarians view the God of the OT. Deuteronomy 6:4 defines the one God of the OT as Yahweh, and we have looked at Psalm 110:1 where you seem to agree that Yahweh is God the Father. The picture is of the One God, Yahweh seated on His Throne and inviting Jesus, David’s Lord to sit at His right hand. But my estimation of the Trinitarian perspective is that there are three that make up this one God, and therefore Yahweh could not be God the Father exclusively. A Trinitarian to be consistent would believe that there is Yahweh the Son and Yahweh the Holy Spirit.
A Trinitarian must believe that Jesus was Yahweh before and after he was in the flesh, but I cannot find this taught. Rather Yahweh is exclusively God the Father only.
No, Jesus is God’s Servant / Son.
There were no capitals or quotation marks in the Hebrew or the Greek. The OT word is Elohim.
I suggest that you have not yet understood the significance of Jesus’ answer to their false accusation by his reference to the Judges being called Elohim. They were called Elohim because they had the responsibility to judge using God's word as a guide "unto whom the word of God came" John 10:35. BTW Elohim can be singular or plural depending on the context.

Kind regards
Trevor

Hi Trevor,

Just like NWL - you're compartmentalizing and dealing with verses separately.
It doesn't work that way with this issue.

All the the evidences given in that thread in Exclusively Theology are what is called,
CUMULATIVE evidences. They all reinforce each other.

Like I've explained to NWL - the verses are all intricately inter-connected.
You have to deal with all of them as a whole.

You can't pick and choose.


As an example:
you seem to ignore the point I make with Thomas!
I asked you - why would Jesus let Thomas believe He (Jesus) is God?
Why would He leave it at that?

Letting Thomas think He is God was out of Jesus' character (who tend to correct His disciples) - but it's also downright vainly usurping God!

Furthermore - to reinforce that - the Jews understood perfectly well what they say Jesus was claiming about Himself. They spoke the same language - used the same lingo.
They were not stoning Him for blasphemy - but for claiming He is God!

So - you've got a huge conflict on your hands if you don't believe Jesus and God are One and the same. Your belief makes Jesus into a false teacher and a hypocrite......among other things.

Your argument makes Him demonic...confusing and deceitfully misleading followers!

How can you believe Him when your argument takes His credibility away?

Please refer to my post #353.
 

betsy123

New member
I see the error in your understanding. We worship the Father through Jesus. Jesus himself said "No one comes to the Father except through me."(John 14:6). The book of Philippians sums the matter up perfectly, see below.


If that's the case.....shouldn't you question your belief that the Father, Jesus and Yahweh are not One?

Why should we worship the Father if the Father and Yahweh are not One and the same?
That's committing idolatry!



You are contradicting Jesus Christ.
 

TrevorL

New member
Greetings again betsy123,
As an example: you seem to ignore the point I make with Thomas! I asked you - why would Jesus let Thomas believe He (Jesus) is God? Why would He leave it at that? Letting Thomas think He is God was out of Jesus' character (who tend to correct His disciples) - but it's also downright vainly usurping God!
The OT word usually translated God is also used for the Angels and Judges who represented God. Thomas knew this language and this concept as Jesus had explained this in John 10:30-38 which you refer to next.
Furthermore - to reinforce that - the Jews understood perfectly well what they say Jesus was claiming about Himself. They spoke the same language - used the same lingo. They were not stoning Him for blasphemy - but for claiming He is God! So - you've got a huge conflict on your hands if you don't believe Jesus and God are One and the same.
John 10:30–38 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 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? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 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.
The Jews accused Jesus in verse 34: “thou, being a man, makest thyself God” and then Jesus answers them by various aspects in verses 34-38 and thus Jesus rejects their accusation. An important part of his answer is that Jesus gives the example of the Judges being called Elohim. Jesus does not say that he is God but in verse 36 “I said, I am the Son of God”. Jesus equates verse 30 “I and my Father are one”with verse 36 “I said, I am the Son of God”. These expressions are the same concept in different words. You have aligned yourself with the Jews’ false accusation which Jesus thoroughly rejects and refutes.

John also understood what Thomas was saying in John 20:28, as immediately after recording what Thomas says, John summarises the purpose of the Gospel Record of John in the following terms:
John 20:28–31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
In this context the phrase “the Son of God” is greater than the two titles that Thomas used because both Angels and Judges are also called Elohim, but Jesus is The Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

NWL

New member
If that's the case.....shouldn't you question your belief that the Father, Jesus and Yahweh are not One?

Why should we worship the Father if the Father and Yahweh are not One and the same?
That's committing idolatry!



You are contradicting Jesus Christ.

Why would worshiping the Father through Jesus imply that the Father his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one, that seems like a giant leap to me. People often buy a house through a mortgage lender, that mortgage lender then pays the money to the person selling the house. Would a person naturally assume that since we people pay for homes through a mortgage lender that the mortgage lender and the seller are one in any sense? No, that is a massive leap to make and has no evidence to support such an idea.

Likewise, why would worshiping the Father through Jesus imply that the Father, Son and HS are one being???? The very notion that we worship THE FATHER through Jesus implies that Jesus isn't the one receiving worship ultimately but rather its the Father who is, that is the logical conclusion to make.

If we worship the Father through Jesus who is receiving that worship ultimately, Jesus or the Father?

Who's glory is it to that we bend the knee to Jesus according to Phil 2:8-11, the Fathers or Jesus?

Also, you ignored my question I posed to you in relation to Jesus sacrifice:

If a human was not sacrificed what was, God? You've already implied it was God that was sacrificed so answer me this, how can God die? And don't you dare say it was Jesus humanity that died since again you've already denied the fact that "God sacrificed a human", so answer me.
 
Last edited:

NWL

New member
Hi Trevor,

Just like NWL - you're compartmentalizing and dealing with verses separately.
It doesn't work that way with this issue.

All the the evidences given in that thread in Exclusively Theology are what is called,
CUMULATIVE evidences. They all reinforce each other.

Like I've explained to NWL - the verses are all intricately inter-connected.
You have to deal with all of them as a whole.

You can't pick and choose.


As an example:
you seem to ignore the point I make with Thomas!
I asked you - why would Jesus let Thomas believe He (Jesus) is God?
Why would He leave it at that?

Letting Thomas think He is God was out of Jesus' character (who tend to correct His disciples) - but it's also downright vainly usurping God!

Furthermore - to reinforce that - the Jews understood perfectly well what they say Jesus was claiming about Himself. They spoke the same language - used the same lingo.
They were not stoning Him for blasphemy - but for claiming He is God!

So - you've got a huge conflict on your hands if you don't believe Jesus and God are One and the same. Your belief makes Jesus into a false teacher and a hypocrite......among other things.

Your argument makes Him demonic...confusing and deceitfully misleading followers!

How can you believe Him when your argument takes His credibility away?

Please refer to my post #353.

Is Satan God almighty according to 2 Cor 4:4, if not then why not since he was called "ho theos"?

(2 Corinthians 4:4) "..among whom the god (ho thoes) of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.."
 

betsy123

New member
John 10:30–38 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 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? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 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.

The Jews accused Jesus in verse 34: “thou, being a man, makest thyself God” and then Jesus answers them by various aspects in verses 34-38 and thus Jesus rejects their accusation. An important part of his answer is that Jesus gives the example of the Judges being called Elohim. Jesus does not say that he is God but in verse 36 “I said, I am the Son of God”. Jesus equates verse 30 “I and my Father are one”with verse 36 “I said, I am the Son of God”. These expressions are the same concept in different words. You have aligned yourself with the Jews’ false accusation which Jesus thoroughly rejects and refutes.


Corrections when I said "not for blasphemy."
Yes, they said it was for blasphemy - that He claim to be God.

He did not refute it. In fact, He reiterated the very same claim that they want to stone Him for.



John 10

30 I and the Father are one.”


38 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.




The Jews knew and understood what He was claiming to be!


Here is:

Acts 20
25 “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.
26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you.
27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the
whole will of God.

28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.
Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.


GOD HIMSELF ((as man), DIED ON THE CROSS FOR US!
Jesus is God!


Thanks for that - another to add as evidence. I'm burying you with evidence.




John also understood what Thomas was saying in John 20:28, as immediately after recording what Thomas says, John summarises the purpose of the Gospel Record of John in the following terms:
John 20:28–31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
In this context the phrase “the Son of God” is greater than the two titles that Thomas used because both Angels and Judges are also called Elohim, but Jesus is The Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor


We're talking about Thomas' exclamation, "My Lord and my God!"

There is only ONE GOD!
Being the "Son of God" does not qualify Jesus to be called GOD!




The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that, if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). A created being, which Jesus would be if He were not God, could not pay the infinite penalty required for sin against an infinite God. Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected, proving His victory over sin and death.
https://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html


It's quite clear, Trevor. I'm not going to keep arguing about this - my explanations and the evidences given are clear.
They reinforce one another - and they are all consistent.

Your argument is in conflict with a lot of verses in the Scriptures.
It's up to you if you insist to believe what you want to believe, despite the explanation that your argument shows the fallacy of your belief, and it makes Jesus a false prophet (at the very least).

If it gets into conflict with the Bible - it's false teaching.



The truth is in the Scriptures - and I've been merely quoting from the Scriptures.
 

TrevorL

New member
Greetings again betsy123,
Corrections when I said "not for blasphemy." Yes, they said it was for blasphemy - that He claim to be God.
He did not refute it. In fact, He reiterated the very same claim that they want to stone Him for.
John 10 30 I and the Father are one. 38 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.
The Jews knew and understood what He was claiming to be!
You are aligning yourself again with their false accusation. Jesus applies the same language to us:
John 17:11,21-23 (KJV): 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
We're talking about Thomas' exclamation, "My Lord and my God!"
There is only ONE GOD!
Being the "Son of God" does not qualify Jesus to be called GOD!
Please reconsider John 10:30-36 and especially John 10:30 and John 10:36 where Jesus equates these two phrases. You have not understood why the Judges were called Elohim.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Top