Jesus is God !

Lon

Well-known member
IS JESUS CHRIST GOD?

Is Jesus God? There are actually two answers to this question. One is most definitely yes! The other answer is no. And you answer depends upon what you mean by "God". Confused? There's no need to be! You see, the word "God" in the Bible refers to two things. In one instance it refers to the 'Sovereign of the universe', the 'only true God.' And in another instance it refers to the divine nature, the 'God nature' and the 'name of God'. So I will show you that while Jesus is FULLY divine and is FULLY God by nature (being begotten of the Father from eternity, Micah 5:2, Proverbs 8:22-30), and possessing the Father's own name, he is not the 'sovereign of the universe', the 'only true God' as that is His Father alone.

"The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, BUT NOT IN PERSONALITY."

In other words, Christ IS God in respect of being divine and eternal. But in His distinctive character and person, He is NOT the 'only true God', He is the SON OF the only true God - His Father!

Quick Note: Jesus is NEVER called 'God the Son' in the Bible. He is always called the 'Son OF GOD'.
It is 'one' way to reconcile the difference, but is it accurate to scripture? As far as I grasp scriptures, no. You are confusing a proper Noun with an adjective: God vs godly. The scripture presents Jesus as "God" a noun John 20:28 For the most part, those without grammar educations make these kinds of mistakes.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Sometimes the discussions on TOL make me want to dye my hair blond and go to work at Walmart! No human can comprehend God nor can anyone discern His thoughts. To discuss what God or Jesus is strikes me as close to delusion. Many have debated for over thousands of years the words recorded in Scripture. That accomplishes nothing except maybe to start a few wars. I say unto you that you will find what you seek. You may seek the esteem of others for your impressive knowledge of Scriptures or you may seek God. It is your choice.
Yeah, I agree with you, or lack thereof, but He is worthy of our correct apprehension of Him and He certainly has written to us a text that we can depend on. If one grasps the text, then one can grasp what it says rightly. In some ways, I'm glad of the discussion but those who have studied AND apprehend the rules of language fair better than those who haven't. So while I don't seek esteem, I do seek another's education and His honor and esteem. Very glad to hear you are seeking Him. I haven't seen statements from you like this over the years here on TOL, so am encouraged very much. In Him -Lon
 

Lon

Well-known member
The 'quick note' isn't correct though one wiki article agrees with you (that article is also incorrect): Galatians 2:20 is one example: τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ the case endings are the same given as identical thus Son of God/ God the Son. "Of" has a Greek equivalent thus 'of' in English as translation is okay but not something for one to get hung up on for Arian/Unitarian claims. The Greek preposition would have been included if 'of' was specifically the meaning, thus God the Son/Son the God/the Son the God are the literal rendering. The caution is to not export English back into one's theology concepts. This often does lead to Unitarian/Arian thought. Remember scholars who gave English Bibles are/were Trinitarian. Greek has rules that preside in clarity where English can obscure.
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
The 'quick note' isn't correct though one wiki article agrees with you (that article is also incorrect): Galatians 2:20 is one example: τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ the case endings are the same given as identical thus Son of God/ God the Son. "Of" has a Greek equivalent thus 'of' in English as translation is okay but not something for one to get hung up on for Arian/Unitarian claims. The Greek preposition would have been included if 'of' was specifically the meaning, thus God the Son/Son the God/the Son the God are the literal rendering. The caution is to not export English back into one's theology concepts. This often does lead to Unitarian/Arian thought. Remember scholars who gave English Bibles are/were Trinitarian. Greek has rules that preside in clarity where English can obscure.
Absolutely backward. of a son a god is not a good rendering of the Greek. Of a son of a God or of the son of God would render it much better.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Absolutely backward. of a son a god is not a good rendering of the Greek. Of a son of a God or of the son of God would render it much better.

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. - Galatians 2:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:20&version=NKJV

There is no word "a" before God in that phrase.

What Lon said is correct.

Here's why:

Screenshot_20210215-054751.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Omniskeptical

Active member
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. - Galatians 2:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:20&version=NKJV

There is no word "a" before God in that phrase.

What Lon said is correct.

Here's why:
The Greek article can be used indefinitely, but this is beside the point. ΤΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ does not mean of God the son, but rather of the son of God, and the interlinear agrees.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The Greek article can be used indefinitely, but this is beside the point. ΤΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ does not mean of God the son, but rather of the son of God, and the interlinear agrees.

Why do you think I would disagree with that?
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Jesus is God when we consider this:

Compare Isa 40:3

3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord[Jehovah], make straight in the desert a highway for our God[elohim].

Fulfilled with Jesus Christ here Mk 1:1-3

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord[kyrios] make his paths straight.

Clearly the Lord Jehovah is Isa 40:3 is the Lord Jesus Christ in Mk 1:3 John the Baptist is the one with the voice crying in the wilderness, hes the forerunner of the Lord !
 
Last edited:

beloved57

Well-known member
Jesus is God when we consider this:

Compare Isa 40:3

3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord[Jehovah], make straight in the desert a highway for our God[elohim].

Fulfilled with Jesus Christ here Mk 1:1-3

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord[kyrios] make his paths straight.

Clearly the Lord Jehovah is Isa 40:3 is the Lord Jesus Christ in Mk 1:3 John the Baptist is the one with the voice crying in the wilderness, hes the forerunner of the Lord !
Jesus being identified as elohim in Isa 40:3 means that He is Elohim in Gen 1:1

In the beginning God[elohim] created the heaven and the earth.

Thats why John said of Jesus the word Jn 1:1-3


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
And Acts 20:28

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Come to think of it, this verse is also consistent with the Trinity, since the Holy Spirit, God the Father (since all Nontrinitarians accept that "God" is "the Father"), and Christ (it was His blood) are all mentioned together in one sentence.
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
And Acts 20:28

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Come to think of it, this verse is also consistent with the Trinity, since the Holy Spirit, God the Father (since all Nontrinitarians accept that "God" is "the Father"), and Christ (it was His blood) are all mentioned together in one sentence.
But notice the Father is again the Holy Ghost. And his blood is not divine, but the work of the messiah. Can you prove the HS and the Father are distinct?
 

Right Divider

Body part
But notice the Father is again the Holy Ghost.
No, the Father is not the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:19 KJV Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
And his blood is not divine, but the work of the messiah.
Scripture says otherwise. Acts 20:28
Can you prove the HS and the Father are distinct?
See Matthew 28:19
 

Omniskeptical

Active member
No, the Father is not the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:19 KJV Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Scripture says otherwise. Acts 20:28

See Matthew 28:19
There are three different names there even in the English, and the names are the reputations of the different objects. The name/reputation of the beast Herod was 666 because that is how much money he had. The name of the father is God, and of the son, Yeshu, and of the HS, Yahweh.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

We have a scripture which says the HS's blood was spilt, since God is the father, you have no recourse to deny the truth.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
There are three different names there even in the English, and the names are the reputations of the different objects.

"Name" is singular in both the greek and the english.

There is only ONE name being invoked ("in the name of" is a call of authority) in Matthew 28:19.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
But all three items are in the genitive case in both Greek and English.

So what?

There is only one "name" referenced.

Sorry, but being immersed into the names is not a call of authority.

"In the name of" is indeed an invocation of authority.

 

Omniskeptical

Active member
So what?

There is only one "name" referenced.
With 3 possessives, that is just not the case.
"In the name of" is indeed an invocation of authority.

But εἰς τὸ ὄνομα means "into the name", not "in the name". [This is what the Greek says]. So what does baptize/immerse into the name of such a thing and of such a thing and of such a thing mean?

Strong's G1519 - eis

εἰς eis, ice; a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases:—(abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), …ward, (where-)fore, with.
 
Last edited:
Top