Jesus is God

[God's Truth]

It's simple... the Bible says that Jesus was the Son BEFORE He came to earth.

Joh 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.​

You have a story that you are forcing on the Bible instead of believing what it says.

It doesn't say 'Son'.
Why did you say it says 'Son'?

 

[God's Truth]

You have a story that you are forcing on the Bible instead of believing what it says.

So Jesus is called EVERY NAME God the Father is called, except 'Father'?

God the Father says He is I AM.

Jesus says he is I AM.

The Bible says there is ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS THE FATHER.

So is Jesus that one and only God or not?

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus says those who overcome he will be their GOD and they will be his CHILDREN.

See Revelation 21:7. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.


If we are Jesus' children, then he is our Father.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You like Clete do not understand the basics.

Says the one who says "roots" are descendants of a plant.

Jesus being the root of David has nothing to do with him being the foundation or the person, namely God, who established David, therefore being the "root" of David.

Which isn't the argument I was making.

What Jesus means is that he's the ANCESTOR of David.

The reason I used the word "foundation" was that the foundation of a plant is the root, and you don't get the rest of the plant before you have a root, just like you don't have descendants until you have ancestors.

Instead, it means that he is the descendant.

Roots are NOT the descendants of plants.

The Hebrew word used for “root” (sheresh) implies a root that remains alive and sends up a shoot or branch; thus, the root of David was a root from which more descendants could come.

Thank you for conceding the point.

Root and offspring are OPPOSITES.

Think of a dead tree where all but one of the roots is maintaining a single branch of a tree, the "root of David" would symbolize the root keeping this living branch alive,

So here's where you seem to confuse things.

David is the BRANCH, not the root.

The ROOT of David (the branch) is the origin of the branch.

any branch or leaves from this root (i.e descendants) can be called the "root of David"

Uh, no, they would be the fruit of the branch, the OFFSPRING.

Did you never take a basic biology course in high school?

Do you not know the different parts of a plant?

(see below picture of a tree with a living branch, the produce of this branch are the "root" of this branch). Scholars understand this metaphor hence why all and even Trinitarians scholars all accept Jesus being the root of David means to be his descendant and not the foregoer.

A branch is not a root.

You are confusing "deferring to an authority on the issue" with me appealing to authority fallacy, which are very different things. An appeal to authority relates to stating something is true as experts on the subject say it' true and using no other supporting evidence, I did not do this as I only used expert opinion as further evidence along with my own.

Also, are you suggesting all scholars, who have put in far more hours of study and actually understand the languages of the Bible, are purposely or mistakingly stating the "root of David" means to be a descendant of David?

Even scholars can be wrong.

Claiming that they are right because they have "far more hours of study and actually understand the languages of the Bible" is called an appeal to authority.

Where is the evidence you have that "root of David" means to be the one who established David?

I never said "established David."

God is the one who made man, and is therefore (to use the analogy of a plant) the root of all men.

That includes David.

God is the root of David, because He made man.

ERGO

Jesus claiming to be the root of David is Jesus claiming to be God.

Does it all boil down to your understanding of the word "root" in English, if it is this is going to be very embarrassing for you.

No, it comes down to the acknowledgment of reality, that a branch is not a root.

I still don't see what point Clete was getting at or the purpose of his question. I see the verses you've posted, please write a sentence of two of the point you're getting at, so far all I see is waffle.

So then just answer the question and move on.

Regarding the verses mentioned, who are they referring to, of the people who were raised to life in the Bible?

My point is this, Trinitarians often say when it states things like "Jesus died" that this was speaking in regards to his humanity, or when he asked for "the cup to pass from him" before his death this was his humanity speaking or where it states he "does not know the day or the hour" but only the Father does it was speaking about his humanity. When a verse states something regarding Jesus which goes contrary to the understanding of Gods attributes Trinitarians pin it on Jesus humanity and say it was Jesus humanity speaking. If a verse was to say "Jesus in his divinity did not know the day or the hour" this would create a problem for Trinitarians as they could no longer say "it's in reference to his humanity". This is exactly what happens with Rev 1:18 if one was to claim the title "first and last" is synonymous with "the alpha and Omega" and refers to the almighty of Rev 1:8, as it, in essence, would be Jesus saying "I am the first and the last, namely the Almighty, and I became dead". The verse would be Jesus speaking in his divinity, hence why he says "I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST" and goes on to say he "BECAME DEAD" which is impossible for the Almighty to do.

Sounds like a complaint you have against someone else's position.

You asked "would you be so kind as to define what you mean by "die" in your statement, "God cannot die"?".

Death is the opposite of life,

Defining something by it's opposite doesn't work. You should try to find a better definition.

to be dead means to have no existence after a period of existence.

Again, defining something by it's opposite doesn't define it at all.

So my question now is, What is life? Since you define "death" as "the opposite of life"

When I state God cannot die I mean God, or any part of him, can go out of existence.

Here's the problem: I don't, nor does Clete, assert that death means non-existence.

I'll let you answer my question to you "what is life?" before I give you the definition we use for death, and no, it has nothing to do with whether one is human or divine.

 

[JudgeRightly]

He was incorrect according to Jesus' standard of good,

So Jesus wasn't good?

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

So Jesus wasn't good?

John 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

It's one of those verses that can trip people up, if only considering the surface. (I bet Jehovah's Witnesses love the concept that Jesus said He was not good.) Indeed, the Lord Jesus did not say He was not good, at all: He asked why He was called good by the man, ingeniously inserting the God link to good. I've never but seen the verse as a parabolic way of Jesus, quite the opposite, confirming He is God, a remark not simply to that man, but in scripture for all posterity, a dimension of the man's remark pointing out he was seeing the good of God before him, in Jesus. That is, this a more veiled testimony to His deity that, on hindsight, makes complete sense, like many things unclear at that time now make sense, to all.

It's a fascinating verse. I wonder if the Lord Jesus wanted to see how the man would respond, whether he would say something to indicate His deity, as the Lord Jesus here and there commented when somebody said something of the Spirit or of great faith, that He did not necessarily expect to hear.

It's key to the remark the simple fact that Jesus Christ was the spotless, sinless Lamb of God, God in the flesh. It would therefore not be true the Lord Jesus said, in essence, He, being God come down to man, is not good. Common sense that, if this were what the Lord Jesus was saying, it's no different than, therefore, denying His deity, saying He's not God, which we know is not the case, is not true, therefore impossible for God to be saying that He's not good.

 

[7djengo7]

Death is the opposite of life, to be dead means to have no existence after a period of existence. When I state God cannot die I mean God, or any part of him, can go out of existence.

You've just claimed that Christ went out of existence, you Christ-blasphemer.

Oh, and by claiming that "to be dead means to have no existence after a period of existence", you are telling us that corpses in graveyards have no existence. You kind of remind me of the idiot character, "Kevin", on the TV show, "The Office", who did not know that mummies exist.

 

[7djengo7]

Isaiah's 9:6 context shows Jesus is a God but not the "one God", for it states "His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God" and not "His name is the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God". The verse is speaking in a future tense, I cannot say about the Queen of Great Britain "she will be called the Queen of Great Britain" if she already is the Queen of Great Britain, in the same way Jesus is not the "one God" as the context shows he was to become a Mighty God.

You're a clown if you really take yourself seriously when you say, "I cannot say about the Queen of Great Britain "she will be called the Queen of Great Britain" if she already is the Queen of Great Britain". Of course we can say, without any error, about the Queen of Great Britain, in future tense, "she will be called the Queen of Great Britain"; the fact that she's already been the Queen of Great Britain for several decades does not, in the least, contradict that the Queen of Great Britain will be called "the Queen of Great Britain". Elizabeth Tudor, also, will be called "the Queen of England", despite the fact that she died in 1603. In fact, I will call Elizabeth Tudor "the Queen of England", in the immediate future. Here it is: Elizabeth Tudor is the Queen of England who died in 1603.

That the verse speaks in future tense ("his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace") absolutely does not in the least necessitate (as you are Satanically led into wishing it would necessitate) that Jesus was none of those things when Isaiah 9:6 was penned.

 

[NWL]

You aren’t considering carefully enough. Think about it more---we are to only bow to God the Father, but Jesus let people bow to him. An apostle stopped someone from bowing to him, and so did an angel. Jesus didn’t stop anyone from bowing to him. We are only to bow to God.​
​
In that time, the Old Testament times, bowing was about earthly things to earthly people.​
In the New Testament times it is about Jesus and what is spiritual.​
​
We are no longer to do certain things.

​
​
This is pure conjecture. We have two scenarios, on one hand, we have persons doing proskuneo to other humans and on the other hand we have persons doing proskuneo to Jesus. Your claim is that when its done to Jesus its worship and when it's done to people in the OT its not, your evidence of this is in the OT "bowing was about earthly things to earthly people" whereas in the NT "it is about Jesus and what is spiritual", this is pure made-up waffle. Unless there is some scripture that states proskuneo changes meaning from the OT to the NT, which there isn't, then you do not have the authority -and cleary the evidence- to simply wish a different meaning of the word simply because you want it to mean something different when applied to Christ.

You stated "we are to only bow to God the Father", this is untrue, the Father, who I propose is a separate person and the God of Jesus, has ordained that people worship him by worshipping through Jesus, "For this very reason, God exalted himto a superior positionand 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 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.." (Phil 2:9-11). Hebrews 1:6 also states "But when he [God] again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do worship to him". We worship the Father by worshipping through Jesus, this does not mean Jesus himself get worshipped as God since he passes all the glory and worship to the Father who is the one God, hence why Phil 2:11 states that despite every knee bowing to Jesus its"to the glory of God the Father" and NOT "to the glory of Jesus".

​

Jesus conquered because he is God come in the flesh as a man. There is no human who can do what Jesus did, including never sinning. So then, you haven’t disproved what I had said. You haven’t proven your case that Jesus isn’t God.​

"Jesus conquered because he is God come in the flesh as a man" is unbiblical, there is not a single verse that states or even implies such a thing, Jesus conquered because he came to earth and died for us providing a ransom. This is clear by his words at Rev 3:21 "To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conqueredand sat down with my Father on his throne", compare this to Hebrews 10:12 where it correlates Jesus sacrifice with his sitting down at the right hand of God on his throne, "But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:12). Again, the conquering relates to Jesus' sacrifice, NOT the fact that he came down from heaven having prior existed in the form of God.

You stated, "You haven’t proven your case that Jesus isn’t God", once again I do not deny Jesus isn't a God/god, I deny he is the one God, there is a huge difference as there are "many gods" (see 1 Cor 8:5) but only one true God in a specific unique sense, namely the Father (see 1 Cor 8:4-6).
​

Jesus is God the Father with a body; same one and only Spirit.​
​
Same body, same Person, same Spirit.​
​
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;​

I fail to see how Eph 4:4 is expressing "Jesus is God the Father with a body; same one and only Spirit", you are reading this idea into the text as there is nothing suggesting that Jesus is being spoken of here at all, this is not evidence for Jesus being the Father as it relies on one assuming modalism in the first place and imagining Jesus into the text.
​
​

Do you believe the saved receive the Holy Spirit to live in them when they are saved?​
Do you believe God the Father lives in the saved?​
Do you believe Jesus lives in the saved?​
​
Do you understand that we are only given one Spirit when we are saved?​
​
You say Jesus is not God---so then, how does Jesus live in all the saved at the same time with the Father if he is not God?​

Your issue lies in you thinking the Father or Jesus living in his followers literally means a part of them literally lives in us, this is not what is trying to be expressed at all. God speaks to us in anthropomorphic terms, meaning he speaks of his unimaginable ways in human terms so we can better understand him. Jesus and the Father living in us relates to the same things as when a loved one might say to another "I'll always be with you" despite neither party being in the vicinity of each other. Again, the expression of Jesus, God or the spirit being in us relates to them being in union with us.
​
If the oneness that they share implies Jesus is God then we to are God according to your principle as we are in God in the same oneness, the reasoning is not consistent.

(John 17:21) "..that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.."
​

God is invisible and lives in unapproachable light, and He made Himself a body, and then came to earth as a man, then went back to heaven to the same place and body he had before coming to earth.​

You have a habit of claiming things without using any type of verse to back up your claim. Where is the scripture that states God made himself a body, then came to earth as a man, then he went back to heaven to the same place and body. There are no scriptures that say any of the points you just made, what you'll find yourself doing is assuming modalism, that Jesus is the Father, read the verses about the said points that refer to Jesus and then claim God made himself a body, God came to earth as a man, and God went back to heaven to the same place and body, when the verses never state God did those things, but rather Jesus did. Again, for your belief to make sense one needs to assume modalism prior to reading the texts you paraphrased for modalism to be true.
​

​There is NOTHING in the bible that suggest God had to be the ransom, there is nothing in the bible that states that there needed to be anything other than a perfect human life that needed to act as a ransom to save mankind.

No such human, except God come as a son in the flesh.

I do not see any reasoning against my point so can only assume you cannot refute my point. Again, there is NOTHING in the bible that suggest God had to be the ransom, there is nothing in the bible that states that there needed to be anything other than a perfect human life that needed to act as a ransom to save mankind. You simply stating "No such human, except God come as a son in the flesh" does not refute why the ransom had to be God or why it couldn't simply be a perfect human that acted as the ransom.

 

[NWL]

There is something you are forgetting, and that is that there is only one God Almighty, only one Everlasting Father, and only one Counselor.

There is only one of those, and, it is only said to God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are one, and one means ‘the same’.

You said above "that there is only one God Almighty" and applies to Jesus according to Isaiah 9:6, this is UNTRUE, Isaiah 9:6 states "mighty God" and not "almighty God", there is a huge difference between mighty and almighty my friend. You are correct in saying there is only one almighty God, but you are incorrect in assuming there is only one Everlasting Father, and only one Counselor, the verse does not state there is only one of these so it is wrong of you to assume there is only one person referred to as those titles.

In John 8:39 the Jews say to Jesus “Our father is Abraham”, then two verses later in v41 they state to Jesus "We were not born from immorality; we have one Father, God". Did the Jews think Abraham was their God, no. They used the word Father within a matter of seconds in two completely different senses, what's more the Jews had more than two fathers, they had three, namely, God, Abraham, and their own biological father. The first man Adam could also be referred to our Father, or grandest-father since all mankind came from him, this parallels why the Jews called Abraham their Father as all Jews descend from Abraham. As we know Adam led man into sin and death, Jesus, however, took Adam place and sacrificed his life in behalf of what Adam lost, Jesus thus became Adam's replacement, hence why the bible states that Jesus is the "last Adam" (see 1 Cor 15:45). As Adam is the Father of mankind (in the same way Abraham are all Jews Father as they all descend from him) and Jesus has now taken his place, lives eternally, being referred to as the "last Adam", Jesus is our "eternal Father". This is why Isaiah 9 uses future tense words, "he will be called eternal Father" because at that time he had not come to earth and died for us replacing Adam as the "last Adam".

You completely ignored my last point, the verse is speaking of Jesus, no doubt, but it uses future tense words"Jesus will be called Eternal Father"and not "Jesus is called eternal Father". Jesus was NOT the "eternal Father" at the time of Isaiah 9:6 being written, the context is clear, you can't just ignore it and claim something the verse clearly isn't expressing. Take scripture for what it says and not for what you want it to say. Deal with my point or admit you can't, don't just throw more scriptures into the mix as that doesn't explain the issue I've raised.

You are confused, for I know the scriptures say there are ‘gods’.

So try again.

lol I'm confused, you are the confused one my friend. Neither Ancient Hebrew nor ancient Greek uses capitalization as it does in English, there is no distinction between God and god in the manuscripts, it is only when the texts are translated into English that translators use capitalization at their discretion to show when and who they think is being spoken about. Generally, when they believe the "God of the bible" is being spoken about they use a capital G, God. But again, there is no such distinction in the original texts, 2 Cor 4:4 called Satan "THE GOD" in exactly the same way John 20:28 calls Jesus "THE GOD", there is no grammatical difference whatsoever, the only difference is translators seeing 2 Cor 4:4 referring to Satan and them thinking "we need to show a difference when calling Satan God, I know let's use a lower case g instead of a capital G". I'm not claiming that translators are wrong, I'm simply saying there is no difference according to the text.

So again, if you want to claim Jesus is called "ho theos" (the God) in John 20:28 that he is the "one God" then you MUST be consistent and also admit Satan being called "ho theos" in 2 Cor 4:4 that he too is also the "one God". The identity of the "one God" isn't simply reliant on who is called God and who isn't, there is more to it than that, this is why 1 Cor 8:6, at least to me, is so clear as there are many persons/beings called God in scripture, Satan (2 Cor 4:4), Moses (Exo 7:1), Men (John 10:34), Angels (Psalms 8:5), Jesus (John 20:28) amoung other accounts, 1 Cor 8:4-6 sums up who is the "one God" despite these other Gods existing.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) "..there is no God but one. For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him.."

Despite there being "many Gods", there is one God the Father.

There is only one God who is called God the Almighty, the Redeemer, the Holy One, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the King of kings.

Only God the Father is called those things, and Jesus Christ.

Some of the titles you used above are not used solely towards Jesus and the Father. Just because the Father and Jesus have some of the same titles does not mean they are the same person, as I will demonstrate. Remember the rule, unless your argument is consistent it is neither credible or convincing.

(Ezra 7:12) “..Artaxerxʹes, the king of kings.."
(Ezekiel 26:7) “..For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘..Nebuchadnezʹzar...he is a king of kings.."

You claim that since both Jesus and the Father are the "king of kings" that they are the same person, let's apply that consistency to the two above verses, Artaxerxʹes and Nebuchadnezʹzar according to your understanding are also God too! Or maybe the title "king of kings" isn't a title reserved for one individual but instead simply refers to anyone who is a king over kings. Jesus, as appointed by the Father, is a king of kings because the Father has given him that position. The Father as the "one God" and sovereign is a King of kings as he is the God of Jesus and source of all life.

I could use the same argument over and over, in regards to God and Jesus being referred to as saviour and there only being "one saviour" (Isa 43:11) despite others being called saviour (see Judges 3:15, judges 3:9 where Ehud and Othenial are referred to as saviours), where there is only "one God" (Deut 4:35) despite many others being called God such as Satan (2 Cor 4:4). I could even show you where Jesus is Gods "anointed one" (Acts 4:26) and also claim King Cyrus is Jesus because he too is Gods anointed one, "This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus" (Isaiah 45:1). Again, JUST because Jesus has some titles the Father does, doesn't imply he is the Father any more than the above examples show any of the persons mentioned are Jesus or the Father. Your arguments MUST be consistent, you can't have a rule that is only true to Jesus and the Father and not others simply because you don't want it to.

The Bible never applies the term God to the apostles so no, I would not refer to them as Gods, nor myself.

So then your argument is false.

How? What's the point in disagreeing if you don't bother explaining why.

So you see your argument against Jesus being the one and only God the Father coming as a son in the flesh is not consistent. You can’t have it both ways---if you can say other men who are ‘gods’ and that Jesus is just one of those, then you have to prove all the other ‘gods’ can do what Jesus did and does.

My argument is consistent as I do not claim that when beings are called Gods/gods that they are the same type of Gods as you infer I do. Jesus being called God is completely different to satan being called a God and Moses being called a God or the Jews being called gods. As 1 Cor 8:4-6 says, "there are many gods" and NOT "there are many of the same gods".

Don’t use the argument that there are other gods if you can’t apply your argument to all the other gods. How do you ever get that you can say but there are other gods, but then say you can't apply the 'God' scriptures to them?

I do not understand how you think I'm being inconsistent. Firstly, [1] please explain why I have to "prove all the other ‘gods’ can do what Jesus did and does" if Jesus is a God and not the "one God" as you said in your first post. [2] Secondly, please explain in more detail what you meant by your above last reply, what do you mean by "How do you ever get that you can say but there are other gods, but then say you can't apply the 'God' scriptures to them?", what argument of mine, what God scripture? Please better explain your position so I can understand what you're trying too get at.

God came as a man and died in the flesh for us. Spirits don’t die, not even spirits of men. Jesus is God the Father come in the flesh and lived in the Spirit.

Your point of "God came as a man" is pre-supposed in relation to the discussion, Jesus came as a man NOT as a spirit. You also say "spirits don't die" when the bible never states this, if it does show me where it does. You said "Jesus is God the Father come in the flesh and lived in the Spirit", again, the bible never states this, this is a pre-supposed position.

You claim Jesus was God, if Jesus was God and came to earth as Man and he died, then God died. To simply say "spirits don't die" does not explain how Jesus as a man and God was able to die.

 

[NWL]

Jesus being the root of David has nothing to do with him being the foundation or the person, namely God, who established David, therefore being the "root" of David.
Which isn't the argument I was making.

What Jesus means is that he's the ANCESTOR of David.

You refusing to accept the general understanding of "root of David" despite me clearly explaining it shows you are in denial of plain truth. You claiming the meaning of "root of David" refer to Jesus being David ancestor is like claiming the metaphor in English that someone is "the chip of the old block" means the person who is the "chip" is the same person as the "block itself", any English person, as well as linguistics, would tell you the "chip" in the phrase "chip of the old block" refers to the descendant of someone, typically their father. Any idiot can claim the "chip", since it literally came from the "block", simply has to be the same person as the "block" itself, as I said, any idiot. Likewise, people who have studied ancient Hebrew their whole lives are telling you the phrase to be the "root of" (root of David) someone means to be their descendant and specifically NOT the person whom the other sprang, namely David from Jesus. You are outright refusing to believe this as you are applying the English understanding of "root" over the "Hebrew" one. Your evidence? "Scholars can be wrong"

Also, are you suggesting all scholars, who have put in far more hours of study and actually understand the languages of the Bible, are purposely or mistakingly stating the "root of David" means to be a descendant of David.

Even scholars can be wrong.

You state "Even scholars can be wrong" what every single one of them!? Are you actually serious right now, there isn't a church, scholar or theologian that I've seen that claims that "root of David" means David came from Jesus, to the contrary, it means Jesus is a descendant of David they say. How do you ever pick up a Bible and trust what it says if you don't trust the people who wrote it knew what they were translating, it makes no sense, you trust them enough with their Hebrew and Greek to English but not enough to believe they understand the cultural metaphorical language when used.

You are correct, scholars can be wrong, but what's more likely, possibly every single scholar in existence, who have put countless hours of study in the original languages and who are all in the agreement to what the phrase means are wrong, and you right, or that you, who doesn't understand how to read any of the original languages are correct and every single scholar is wrong, let's be realistic now.

I can make up tonnes of different claims about the Bible, unless it's convincing what is the point, what is the point in trying to claim "root of David" means what you claim it means when your points are laughable in light of the evidence. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who's willing to read the English translation of a Bible and trust what it says but not trust the scholars who wrote it enough to tell you what the metaphors and idioms means. If you're willing to stoop so low in an attempt to prove a tiny point then what's the point in talking to you, you're willing to accept any amount of rubbish, no doubt why you believe in the trinity, as despite the scarce and poor evidence for it and evidence against it you still believe in it.

Sounds like a complaint you have against someone else's position.

Oh, so you don't believe when Jesus is the called the First and the last its in relation to him being the Alpha and Omega in Rev 1:8?

You asked "would you be so kind as to define what you mean by "die" in your statement, "God cannot die"?".

Death is the opposite of life,

Defining something by it's opposite doesn't work. You should try to find a better definition.

So my question now is, What is life? Since you define "death" as "the opposite of life"

I didn't, hence why you had to leave half of my sentence out to try and make what I said seem stupid, my full sentence explained my understanding and definition, namely "Death is the opposite of life, to be dead means to have no existence after a period of existence". Moreover, you can define words by the opposite, especially when the subject is black and white (no pun intended), to be cold means to lack heat for example, to be dry means you are not wet and free from moisture, there is no in-between or middle ground with these subjects.

Life is what separates us from inorganic matter such as a rock, life has the ability to grow, reproduce, and replicate among other things. Life is not the opposite of death as death relates to an already living thing going out of existence, I would still claim however that death is that opposite of life, death technically doesn't exist and only become potentially real upon a living thing existing. The same way cold doesn't exist, cold is simply "the lack of heat", heat has no maximum temperature, it could theoretically rise to infinity, whereas the cold does (absolute zero), why, because cold is simply an expression of the lack of heat. Likewise, death is simply and expression of life and infers the lack of it.

Here's the problem: I don't, nor does Clete, assert that death means non-existence.

I'll let you answer my question to you "what is life?" before I give you the definition we use for death, and no, it has nothing to do with whether one is human or divine.

Please give your understanding of life. And remember it does not really matter what your definition of death or life is, what matters is the bibles definition, and the Bible is clear death means a state of unconsciousness where one has the inability to do anything even likening it to sleep.

Jesus likened death to sleep, "..After he said these things, he added: “Lazʹa·rus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him. The disciples then said to him: “Lord, if he is sleeping, he will get well. Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep.." (John 11:11,13)

A Psalmist stated that upon dying one's thoughts perish "His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish." (Psalm 146:4)

The dead are spoken of as knowing nothing and that their love, hate, and jealousy as gone, "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.."(Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6)

So Jesus wasn't good?

There are many people that are good, Mary was good, Moses was good, Abraham was good, the point Jesus was making wasn't that he was or wasn't good, the point he was making was that the Father is the ultimate standard of good. It like if someone was to call another man smart, that man could say "why do you call me smart, only God is smart", by this the man would be expressing that since God created man along with mans brain and gave him the capacity to think and set limits to how smart any single man could become that it is not him who is smart but rather God who is the smart one. Likewise, the man approached Jesus and called him Good, Jesus questioned the man asking him why he called him good and went on to say that only God is good, again, this was referring to God being the ultimate standard of good which Jesus wasn't, since as he clearly stated he learned everything he knew from the father (John 5:19).

 

[Clete]

Please give your understanding of life. And remember it does not really matter what your definition of death or life is, what matters is the bibles definition, and the Bible is clear death means a state of unconsciousness where one has [sic] the inability to do anything even likening it to sleep.

:rotfl:

If this were true then sleep would be death. Every time anyone had surgery and was put under anesthesia, they dead. Every time anyone was knocked unconscious by any means would be another death!

:rotfl:

This is why I refuse to debate cultists. I mean, there isn't any way this fool actually believe this stupidity. He's lying or else just flying by the seat of his pants making this nonsense up as he goes along scrambling to find something he can say that allows him to hold to his mindless doctrines and failed arguments.

 

[NWL]

:rotfl:

If this were true then sleep would be death. Every time anyone had surgery and was put under anesthesia, they dead. Every time anyone was knocked unconscious by any means would be another death!

I never compared sleep to death my friend, Jesus and the Bible does!

(Psalm 13:3) "..Consider and answer me, O LORD my God; light up my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.."
(Jeremiah 51:57) "..I will make her princes and her wise men drunk, Her governors and her deputy rulers and her warriors, And they will sleep a lasting sleep, From which they will not wake up,” declares the King, whose name is Jehovah of armies.."
(Job 14:10-15) "..But a man dies and lies powerless; When a human expires, where is he? 11 Waters disappear from the sea, And a river drains away and dries up.  Man also lies down and does not get up. Until heaven is no more, they will not wake up, Nor will they be aroused from their sleep. ."
(1 Thessalonians 4:14) "..For if we have faith that Jesus died and rose again, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.."
(2 Peter 3:4) "..Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning..”
(John 11:11,13) "..After he said these things, he added: “Lazʹa·rus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him...Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep.."

These are some of many verses that compare death to sleep, as I said to Judge Rightly, this is the definition the Bible gives not me, so when you laugh you're laughing at the word of God, not me. And no, it would be stupid of someone to believe that by what I said "every time anyone had surgery and was put under anesthesia, they dead", again, death is like sleep in the sense you are unconscious and unaware of anything, this is not to say being asleep is like being dead but rather being dead is like being asleep, in a sense, again that sense being, you are not conscious and know nothing and can do nothing.

What you are doing it taking something I have compared death to and claiming the comparison is literally the thing I've compared it to. It like me saying "this kangaroo I'm eating taste like chicken", it would be stupid for someone to say "he thinks the meat he's eating is kangaroo" since that's not the point being made. Likewise, if I say "death is compared and likened to sleep in the sense that you are conscious of nothing" it would be both foolish and stupid to claim I was claiming or unwittingly implying that sleeping was death.

This is why I refuse to debate cultists. I mean, there isn't any way this fool actually believe this stupidity. He's lying or else just flying by the seat of his pants making this nonsense up as he goes along scrambling to find something he can say that allows him to hold to his mindless doctrines and failed arguments.

Jesus was a cultist by your own and today's standard, you are ignorant of much, I've said this before.

You refuse to debate me because you can't, you do not have the knowledge or the doctrine to be able to, you're fooling no one but yourself. Once again you use ad hominem to try and excuse yourself from not debating me, no amount of name-calling or false assertions that what I'm saying is absurd actually makes what I'm saying is absurd. Everything I say I use scripture to back up my claim, all you do is assert things with no evidence.

Come back to me when and if you wake up.

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

Points I have made that are too difficult for you to handle and which I have refuted:

1) Jesus is not the one speaking in Rev 1:8 as the context shows he is separate from that one by Rev 1:4,5 this is irrefutable, no amount of evidence to the contrary that seems to show Jesus as "the one coming" or as the A&O will unwrite John written words in Rev 1:4,5. One has to tackle the contradiction head on to deal with it. You haven't even given an answer to this question but claim its pre-supposed and yet are unable to explain why its pre-supposed, you simply cannot explain why Jesus is separate from "the one who is, was and is coming" as you want and need him to be "the one who is, was and is coming"

2) You believe "root of David" somehow proves Jesus is God as you wrongly believe the word "root" has something to Jesus being the beginning of David line (I'm not even sure what you believe the root symbolizes as you don't even explain you positions but rather leave it to me to guess them) or the start of his house as its "roots". As I've said before, anyone with a good and basic understanding of the bible knows the expression of Jesus being the "root of David" has nothing to do with David coming from Jesus, but much to the contrary, is an expression that Jesus is David's descendant. Even on the first googled result on a credible trinitarian website they give the following definition, "Root here means stock, family, descendant, hence, "the Root of David" is that which descended from David, not that from which David descended. Jesus Christ in His human nature and family connections was a descendant of David, a member of his family."(https://www.biblestudytools.com/dict...david-root-of/). The only place I have seen people claim "root of David" shows Jesus is God are from non-scholarly self-made websites or blogs where the people like yourself have no clue what the biblical language and metaphorical language means but read it on face-value.

3) The one who is was and is to come judges (Rev 16:5) thus Jesus is that one according to John 5:21,22. This was a fallacious argument that relied on the ignorance of believing the judging in Rev 16:5 and John 5:21 refer to the same judgment when they do not. Even if the "one who is, was and is coming" judges it still doesn't refer to Jesus and can still refer to the Father as the Father is the ultimate judge despite appointing Jesus as a judge, as it is the Father who judges through his son, this is clear according to Acts 17:31, "..Because he [the Father] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed".

4) The title "first and last" (F&L) and the title "Alpha and Omega" (A&O) are not synonymous. The F&L relate to Jesus death and resurrection, this is clear by the context both times the phrase F&L is used. The A&O relates to God having no beginning and end and being the only God. It contradicts God character of the title F&L was the same as A&O and if Jesus is the one God as it would, in essence, be saying Jesus as God in his divine nature as the Almighty said "I became dead" according to Rev 1:18, this is impossible as God cannot die and the verse is clearly talking about God in his highest non-human form, since, the man part of Jesus is not the A&O or Almighty, its only his divinity that is the A&O and Almighty, thus him saying "I BECAME DEAD" is the ALMIGHTY speaking in his divinity which is a contradiction of his eternality. Simply put the "first and last" and "alpha and Omega" cannot be in reference to the same thing otherwise God will have had to have died.

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

 

[NWL]

...

 

[God's Truth]

​This is pure conjecture.

No, it is your mere denial of the truth.

​

We have two scenarios, on one hand, we have persons doing proskuneo to other humans and on the other hand we have persons doing proskuneo to Jesus. Your claim is that when its done to Jesus its worship and when it's done to people in the OT its not, your evidence of this is in the OT "bowing was about earthly things to earthly people" whereas in the NT "it is about Jesus and what is spiritual", this is pure made-up waffle.

You are wrong.

Abraham is called ‘father’; but now in Christ, we are not to call each other ‘father’, for we are all brothers and sisters.


Matthew 23: 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.


Not only that, you were given scriptures that say do not bow to angels and men:


Revelation 22:8-9 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”
Acts 10:25-26 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

How many times and ways do you have to be told 'DO NOT"?


Angel says: Do not bow to me only to God.

You say: Jacob bowed to his brother, etc.


Peter says: Do not bow to men.

You say: But Jacob bowed to his brother.


You don't see you are a defiant sinner?

 

[God's Truth]

​
You stated, "You haven’t proven your case that Jesus isn’t God", once again I do not deny Jesus isn't a God/god, I deny he is the one God, there is a huge difference as there are "many gods" (see 1 Cor 8:5) but only one true God in a specific unique sense, namely the Father (see 1 Cor 8:4-6).

No other ‘god’s’ can do what Jesus did.

Did the other god’s come from God in heaven? No.
Did the other god’s blood take away the sins of the world? No.
Did the other god’s remain sinless their whole lives? No.

Your argument that there are others god’s does NOT prove Jesus isn’t the one and only God come in the flesh.
​

​
I fail to see how Eph 4:4 is expressing "Jesus is God the Father with a body; same one and only Spirit",

A person is their spirit with a body.
The scriptures say one body and one Spirit.
Jesus’ spirit is the Spirit of God come with a flesh body, and God even made Himself a body before the creation of anything, and then made everything through that body, who is Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Hebrews 1:2 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

[God's Truth]

​
Your issue lies in you thinking the Father or Jesus living in his followers literally means a part of them literally lives in us, this is not what is trying to be expressed at all. God speaks to us in anthropomorphic terms, meaning he speaks of his unimaginable ways in human terms so we can better understand him. Jesus and the Father living in us relates to the same things as when a loved one might say to another "I'll always be with you" despite neither party being in the vicinity of each other. Again, the expression of Jesus, God or the spirit being in us relates to them being in union with us.

You are going against the truth that God’s Spirit lives in the saved.


John 17:26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. John 14:23

so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. Ephesians 3:17


And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. Romans 8:9


2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?


1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

John 14:17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Acts 5:32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

John 1:33
I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 1:14
Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

 

[God's Truth]

​
If the oneness that they share implies Jesus is God then we to are God according to your principle as we are in God in the same oneness, the reasoning is not consistent.

I already proved to you that it does NOT make us God.

You didn’t come from heaven. You were not sinless your whole life. Your blood doesn’t take away the sins of the world. Forgiveness of sin isn’t through your name.

​

You have a habit of claiming things without using any type of verse to back up your claim.

That is not true. I give scriptures, and, sometimes I speak of scriptures one would think you know since you are trying to be a teacher. If you want a scripture, just ask. No need for your untruthful spin on me.

​

Where is the scripture that states God made himself a body, then came to earth as a man, then he went back to heaven to the same place and body. There are no scriptures that say any of the points you just made, what you'll find yourself doing is assuming modalism, that Jesus is the Father, read the verses about the said points that refer to Jesus and then claim God made himself a body, God came to earth as a man, and God went back to heaven to the same place and body, when the verses never state God did those things, but rather Jesus did. Again, for your belief to make sense one needs to assume modalism prior to reading the texts you paraphrased for modalism to be true.

Stop trying to put a label on it. Go by the scriptures. You can’t or you wouldn’t resort to just saying no that is modalism
​

​
Originally posted by NWL
​There is NOTHING in the bible that suggest God had to be the ransom, there is nothing in the bible that states that there needed to be anything other than a perfect human life that needed to act as a ransom to save mankind.

You are just going against the scriptures denying that Jesus had to die and that it was God’s plan.

God didn’t come to earth to be a son of Mary’s and get married and have children a home and a nice job.

Jesus came to show us the way then make a covenant that reconciles us to God, and then he did the greatest love ever known, he died for us.

​
I do not see any reasoning against my point so can only assume you cannot refute my point. Again, there is NOTHING in the bible that suggest God had to be the ransom, there is nothing in the bible that states that there needed to be anything other than a perfect human life that needed to act as a ransom to save mankind. You simply stating "No such human, except God come as a son in the flesh" does not refute why the ransom had to be God or why it couldn't simply be a perfect human that acted as the ransom.

The sacrifice of animals and using them and their blood and having a high priest, etc. are all a teaching tool about what was coming, Jesus Christ.
You disrespect the Bible and the words of God.

Why are you trying to act like a Christian when you don't believe that Bible?

You don't even know that the Spirit of God lives in the saved. You go against that!

 

[God's Truth]

You said above "that there is only one God Almighty" and applies to Jesus according to Isaiah 9:6, this is UNTRUE, Isaiah 9:6 states "mighty God" and not "almighty God", there is a huge difference between mighty and almighty my friend. You are correct in saying there is only one almighty God, but you are incorrect in assuming there is only one Everlasting Father, and only one Counselor, the verse does not state there is only one of these so it is wrong of you to assume there is only one person referred to as those titles.

There is more than one scripture that says Jesus is the almighty God.

Revelation 7:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

In John 8:39 the Jews say to Jesus “Our father is Abraham”, then two verses later in v41 they state to Jesus "We were not born from immorality; we have one Father, God". Did the Jews think Abraham was their God, no. They used the word Father within a matter of seconds in two completely different senses, what's more the Jews had more than two fathers, they had three, namely, God, Abraham, and their own biological father. The first man Adam could also be referred to our Father, or grandest-father since all mankind came from him, this parallels why the Jews called Abraham their Father as all Jews descend from Abraham. As we know Adam led man into sin and death, Jesus, however, took Adam place and sacrificed his life in behalf of what Adam lost, Jesus thus became Adam's replacement, hence why the bible states that Jesus is the "last Adam" (see 1 Cor 15:45). As Adam is the Father of mankind (in the same way Abraham are all Jews Father as they all descend from him) and Jesus has now taken his place, lives eternally, being referred to as the "last Adam", Jesus is our "eternal Father". This is why Isaiah 9 uses future tense words, "he will be called eternal Father" because at that time he had not come to earth and died for us replacing Adam as the "last Adam".

There is only one everlasting Father.
It is ignorant to claim Isaiah says Jesus will be called God, and Father, and Counselor, but not the same names that are about God the Father. Jesus has other names of God the Father too, such as the Alpha and the Omega.

lol I'm confused, you are the confused one my friend. Neither Ancient Hebrew nor ancient Greek uses capitalization as it does in English, there is no distinction between God and god in the manuscripts, it is only when the texts are translated into English that translators use capitalization at their discretion to show when and who they think is being spoken about. Generally, when they believe the "God of the bible" is being spoken about they use a capital G, God. But again, there is no such distinction in the original texts, 2 Cor 4:4 called Satan "THE GOD" in exactly the same way John 20:28 calls Jesus "THE GOD", there is no grammatical difference whatsoever, the only difference is translators seeing 2 Cor 4:4 referring to Satan and them thinking "we need to show a difference when calling Satan God, I know let's use a lower case g instead of a capital G". I'm not claiming that translators are wrong, I'm simply saying there is no difference according to the text.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said.

So again, if you want to claim Jesus is called "ho theos" (the God) in John 20:28 that he is the "one God" then you MUST be consistent and also admit Satan being called "ho theos" in 2 Cor 4:4 that he too is also the "one God".
The identity of the "one God" isn't simply reliant on who is called God and who isn't, there is more to it than that, this is why 1 Cor 8:6, at least to me, is so clear as there are many persons/beings called God in scripture, Satan (2 Cor 4:4), Moses (Exo 7:1), Men (John 10:34), Angels (Psalms 8:5), Jesus (John 20:28) amoung other accounts, 1 Cor 8:4-6 sums up who is the "one God" despite these other Gods existing.

Satan is NOT called the Alpha and the Omega, or the Savior, or the Redeemer, or the Everlasting Father, or the Almighty God. You need to stop yourself.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) "..there is no God but one. For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him.."

Despite there being "many Gods", there is one God the Father.

That one God the Father is Jesus come in the flesh as a man.

Some of the titles you used above are not used solely towards Jesus and the Father. Just because the Father and Jesus have some of the same titles does not mean they are the same person, as I will demonstrate. Remember the rule, unless your argument is consistent it is neither credible or convincing.

(Ezra 7:12) “..Artaxerxʹes, the king of kings.."
(Ezekiel 26:7) “..For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘..Nebuchadnezʹzar...he is a king of kings.."

You try, but you can’t distort the truth and fool me.
Jesus is called the King of kings OF THE MEN OF THE EARTH.
So then, your reasoning is showed to be just more defiance from you of the Truth.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, andthe ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

Did you read that? Jesus is the RULER over the KINGS OF THE EARTH. He is the King of kings.

Now you should stop talking about Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar

 

[God's Truth]

I could use the same argument over and over, in regards to God and Jesus being referred to as saviour and there only being "one saviour" (Isa 43:11) despite others being called saviour (see Judges 3:15, judges 3:9 where Ehud and Othenial are referred to as saviours), where there is only "one God" (Deut 4:35) despite many others being called God such as Satan (2 Cor 4:4). I could even show you where Jesus is Gods "anointed one" (Acts 4:26) and also claim King Cyrus is Jesus because he too is Gods anointed one, "This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus" (Isaiah 45:1). Again, JUST because Jesus has some titles the Father does, doesn't imply he is the Father any more than the above examples show any of the persons mentioned are Jesus or the Father. Your arguments MUST be consistent, you can't have a rule that is only true to Jesus and the Father and not others simply because you don't want it to.

Your argument is embarrassingly bad.


Philippians 29 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

Only God the Father and Jesus Christ are called God, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Holy One, the Everlasting Father, the King of kings.

You are disgraceful to bring up a scripture of a mere man here and their being called a king and another savior and use it to speak against Jesus Christ.

You claim Jesus was God, if Jesus was God and came to earth as Man and he died, then God died. To simply say "spirits don't die" does not explain how Jesus as a man and God was able to die.

God the Father is Spirit. God’s Spirit didn’t die. God the Father lives in unapproachable light, AND He came as a son in the flesh to die for us. There is no time God stopped being God.