Is Jesus God?

[Nang]

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: As the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter II, Article III.

I John 5:7
Matthew 28:19
II Corinthians 13:14
John 1:14
John 15:26
Galatians 4:6

 

[JudgeRightly]

God as a Son?

God the Father. You claim Jesus is the Father.

 

[God's Truth]

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: As the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter II, Article III.

I John 5:7
Matthew 28:19
II Corinthians 13:14
John 1:14
John 15:26
Galatians 4:6

The three are one and one even means 'the same'.

God the Father is Spirit, and Jesus is the same Spirit.

God the Father lives in unapproachable light, and His Spirit called the Holy Spirit goes forth from Him, and is also Jesus Christ who went forth as a man.

 

[Nang]

Then why did Jesus, who you claim is God Father, say the following:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, [JESUS]“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.[/JESUS] - Matthew 28:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew28:18&version=NKJV

Yes! This is revelation of Jesus' Sonship. This defines His being the "only begotten" of the Father, in whom all power, truth, and authority exists.

 

[Bright Raven]

I have God's Truth.

:darwinsm: So you have nothing substantial on which to base your theology and beliefs.

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again Bright Raven and betsy123,
Yes, the Word became flesh John 1:14, as Jesus was the “only begotten of the Father”, not Deity God the Son plus flesh. Jesus was a man, not a Deity. The way the Word became flesh is revealed in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where it reveals that God the Father was the father of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit and Mary was his mother. It does not say that God the Son was shrunk into the womb of Mary. The Word in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the wise woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8:27 who was with God in the creation.

Kind regards
Trevor

"The Word in John 1:1 is a personification..."

Here, you're confessing that John, in writing about the Word, was using language such as one would, naturally, and inevitably, use in portraying a person as a person. Yet, by denying that the Word was a person, you're contradicting John, and thus accusing him of being a liar (whereas, on the contrary, you are the liar, not John). That's what you're doing in your claim that John was "personifying" Someone Whom you deny to have been a person.

But now, since you blaspheme God the Word by denying that He is a person, you've put upon yourself a dismal onus to try to say what (if any) thing (that was not a person) John was referring to as "the Word". And, of course, you've no hope of even coming close to discharging that burden. See, among other things, now you have to say whether you think the Word was created (and if so, when it was created), or whether it was eternally co-existent with God the Father. And, you have to explain however it is that some thing that is not a person--which thing you call "the Word"--was caused to go from being not a person to being a person, and just when, exactly, you imagine such a thing to have been effected.

Notice that you did not even try to explain what you imagine it was for what you call "the Word" to "become flesh". You and I both know that you must needs fail embarrassingly in such an attempt. You say "The way the Word became flesh is revealed in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35..." Notice, though, that you gave absolutely no attempt at explaining what (if anything) you think you mean by that. Guess what: you mean absolutely nothing by it--you're simply airing more Christ-hating nonsense.

As a God-hating anti-Christian, you not only deny the personality of God the Spirit (Who is the third person of the Triune God), you deny the personality of God the Word (Who is the second person of the Triune God). If I'm not mistaken, even your fellow God-hating anti-Christians--the Watchtower Society folk--do not even go that far. While they deny that the Word written of in John 1:1 is Jehovah, and is eternal, and uncreated, at least they do not (I think) deny that He is a person, as you do.

 

[Omniskeptical]

According to John 1:1 it is created. dipstick

 

[7djengo7]

What do you think? Present Scripture for your answer whether negative or positive

Yes, Mr. Raven, Jesus is God!!! Thanks for asking, sir. According to John, in his God-breathed Gospel (John 5:18 KJV), Jesus was "making Himself equal with God", which necessitates that Jesus is God, for nothing other than God is equal to God.

 

[7djengo7]

Thank You Trevor, If what you say is true, how do you handle the following Scriptures;

John 1:1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He can't handle John 1:1 KJV. Instead, he makes John to be a liar by claiming that John was "personifying" some non-person, and he refers to this "personified" non-person by the phrase "the Word". Even the JW's, who deny God the Word's deity, eternality, and uncreatedness, as well as the personality, and deity, of God the Holy Spirit (the 3rd person of the Trinity), do not go so far as to deny the personality of God the Word (the 2nd person of the Trinity), but Trevor denies the personality of God the Word.

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 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.

He denies that the Word was a person, and he's completely at a loss as to how to try to explain that something that is not a person can go from being a non-person to being a person.

These Scriptures state that Jesus is God.

Yes, indeed, they do.

 

[7djengo7]

The Apostle Peter, and the Apostle John were both real Christians and they believed Jesus was the Son of God, and not God himself. Maybe that’s because Jesus agreed with them, and they were standing right there when God told them that.

Since the Bible never says that Jesus is not God, why do you say that Jesus is not God?

Since the Bible never says that Peter and John believed that Jesus is not God, why do you say that they believed that?

We'll all be standing right here when you (embarrassingly fail in an attempt to) tell us where, in the Bible, it is written that God told Peter and John that Jesus is not God.

 

[7djengo7]

Also note that John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh. It does not say that God the Son added flesh to His existing Divinity, making him a God-man. All that the Word was became focused and complete in Jesus the Son of God. There is One God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Since you deny that the Word was a person, all you have to offer concerning John 1 and the Word being made flesh is sheer gobbledygook. Also note that you fail to even begin to explain what (if anything) you imagine it would be for a non-person to be made flesh.

"All that the Word was became focused and complete in Jesus the Son of God."​

Not only is what you wrote, here, not even remotely similar to anything written in Scripture, but, in writing it, you are claiming that whatever it is you call "the Word" pre-existed whoever it is you call "Jesus the Son of God". Would you say that whatever it is you call "the Word" had a beginning? Was it created? Was it eternally co-existent with God the Father?

Also, you are claiming that there was a time when whatever it is you call "the Word" was (to its dishonor, it would seem) not focused, and was incomplete, and, since you are not a Christian, it is not surprising to find you giving glory to mankind by saying that whatever it is you call "the Word" was in need of becoming somehow associated with mankind in order to become "focused and complete".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

"The Word in John 1:1 is a personification..."
Here, you're confessing that John, in writing about the Word, was using language such as one would, naturally, and inevitably, use in portraying a person as a person.

Since you deny that the Word was a person, all you have to offer concerning John 1 and the Word being made flesh is sheer gobbledygook. .

You have extensively replied to this, another one of my posts by the above two posts which I have extensively clipped because of your many extreme statements. You have not replied to my Post #122 mainly on Luke 1:34-35 and perhaps you do not have a plausible response. If you cannot understand Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 then you cannot understand John 1:1,14.

Yes, I believe that John 1:1 “The Word” is a personification. Wisdom is depicted in Proverbs 8 as a Wise Woman called “Wisdom” and Wisdom was with God the Father, Yahweh in the creation.
Proverbs 8:22–31 (KJV): 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Who is this Wise Woman?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

It is impossible for God to know it because it is false.

The point wasn't that God couldn't discern between what is true and what is false, but that God could not know what a triangle with more than or less than three sides would look like, because of this:

First...
How can a triangle have more or less than three sides when the very definition of what a triangle is having three sides/three points? If it's not fitting the definition of a triangle - it's not a triangle!

God is smart enough to know that.

Second....God being all-knowing.....
Surely, God would know even before it occurs to anyone to even think of giving a false proposition! God knows what we'll be thinking before we even do it.

It's not that it's IMPOSSIBLE for God - nor, could He not know - what does not exist.........this gives me the visual of God rolling His eyes at this!


The poster's argument is based on a false premise - that a four-sided triangle is even conceivable!


Why are we even discussing this?



Anyway, my point is:
we're comparing apples with oranges.
We don't understand God's mind -
His mind isn't like ours.
They're not comparable!

 

[7djengo7]

How can a triangle have more or less than three sides when the very definition of what a triangle is having three sides/three points?

VERSUS​

Nothing is impossible with God.

I, for one, say that no triangle can have more or less than three sides; it's impossible "with man" for a triangle to have more or less than three sides, and, just the same, it is impossible "with God" for a triangle to have more or less than three sides. Also, I like that you called the triangle's vertices "points", though, technically, a triangle has a few more points than just three (in case you did not mean the vertices).

If it's not fitting the definition of a triangle - it's not a triangle!

I, for one, say that it is impossible--even "with God"--for something that is "not fitting the definition of a triangle" to be a triangle.

God being all-knowing.....

Now, that 'all' (in 'all-knowing') cannot rationally be taken as inclusive of absolutely every thing, since there are some things God cannot know, such as the false proposition, 'Some triangles are quadrilateral'.

The poster's argument is based on a false premise - that a four-sided triangle is even conceivable!

Not sure which poster, or which argument, you are referring to, here. But (so long as I've got my thinking cap on) you'll never find me (for one) saying something like "a four-sided triangle is conceivable", since, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase, 'four-sided triangle', is without a referent--meaningless. The phrase, "A four-sided triangle is conceivable", is not only not a false premise, but it's not even a premise, at all. It is neither true nor false; it is meaningless. Now, a phrase I did use, which is perfectly meaningful, is the phrase, "the false proposition that some triangles have more than three sides". That phrase is the name of a particular false proposition, which particular false proposition is that phrase's referent.

Here are some things that are conceivable:

• the phrase, 'four-sided triangle'*
• the phrase, 'three-sided triangle'
• the word, 'triangle'
• a three-sided triangle
• a triangle with no more than three sides
• a triangle

*Note that, in this list, I wrote "the phrase, 'four-sided triangle'", and that I very deliberately did not write "a four-sided triangle". The phrase, 'three-sided triangle', is the name of a thing: namely, a three-sided triangle (a.k.a. a triangle). The phrase, itself, is just as conceivable as the thing named by it. Now, a phrase like 'four-sided triangle', which is not the name of any thing, is just as conceivable as a phrase like 'three-sided triangle', which is the name of some thing.

Anyway, my point is:
we're comparing apples with oranges.
We don't understand God's mind -
His mind isn't like ours.
They're not comparable!

1. Apples are like oranges. For one thing, both are fruits. Also, both are foods. Also, both have flavor. Etc.
2. Apples are, indeed, comparable to oranges--that's why your saying, "we're comparing apples with oranges", is not meaningless.
3. God's mind isn't like ours? Let's see, then: our mind is rational, so that must mean that God's mind is irrational?? Frightening thought!
4. We don't understand God's mind? After what you already said, are you saying it is impossible for us to understand God's mind?

Nothing is impossible with God.

One thing I take to be NOT impossible with God is for God to get us to understand His mind. Of course, it would be quite silly (and, perhaps, somewhat blasphemous) to say that we could (ever!) comprehensively understand God's mind in all the humanly-unfathomable vastness of its entirety. However, if it's impossible for any man or woman to understand God's mind to any degree, whatsoever, then what is the point of the Bible, God's written Word? And, if it is impossible to understand God's mind to any degree, then all our theological discourse in forums, etc., is dismally pathetic in its uselessness.

Without God's mind being, to some degree, in some way(s) like our mind, we are left in a hopelessly deplorable plight. The fact that He was able to write something that we can read alone annihilates the falsehood that God's mind is not like our mind.

 

[advenureside]

A very interesting topic.

I have studied this subject for many years and have found some things in the Trinitarian Translation to be changed, added and deleted from concerning what the original manuscripts plainly say.

Ph2:6 - is saying that Yahoshua -- WAS IN the Form / { Morphe " Greek ] - of God, AND Yahoshua ... governed, commanded and ruled no robbery / PLUNDER and RAPE - FORCE = Greek / - to be equally God.. - equally is the Greek word - G2470 " Meaning = EQUAL = OR THE SAME EXACT - as GOD } - it says nothing about being equal " WITH " GOD " the " word " with is not even in the manuscripts. The Trinitarian Translators are going through the entire Bible adding words to codify, mold and formulate their personal reflections about what they feel it should say. It says, equally God Himself. There was judged no - no robbery / no PLUNDER and RAPE - no FORCE = / - to be equally God.

The Trinitarian Translators again added words into the Bible to say that Yahoshua was Equal " WITH " GOD, and the manuscripts says nothing about being EQUAL " WITH " GOD " - they say EQUALLY GOD " - The same - EQUALLY = OR THE SAME EXACT GOD - But ( JESUS } made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form / MORPH - Greek ] of a servant . This Greek is - - morphe ; / mor-fay' - Meaning = The adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively moving , changing nature: - form. - He Is Yahoshua, The Father morphed - ; - morphe - but as the manuscripts say- IN - An adjusted of changing parts); shapes; moving its form - MORPH.

Do Trinitarians have no idea who God is. ? " Meaning = EQUAL = OR - THE SAME EXACT GOD = And this word = ; - ι?´σος / isos - G2470 " Meaning = EQUAL = OR THE SAME EXACT -

this word is found in all of these verses -

Mar 14:56 and 59 The witness accusations accusing Yahoshua were not " the same. "

This verse in Mar 14:59 - is also changed in the Trinitarian Translation - The Translators altered and changed the Greek word - { - G2470 " Meaning = EQUAl = OR THE SAME EXACT } concerning the - accusations against Yahoshua " and they changed it from what the manuscripts say " into the word " agreement " of testimonies or agreement of witnesses against Yahoshua = But the manuscripts say that that - the witnesses stories were not " EQUAl = OR THE SAME EXACT STORY. " But - Their accusative accusations were very much in agreement and unity to the fact that they believed Yahoshua was evil for claiming to be - God The Father. - but they were not all accusing Him of the Same exact " - EQUAL = OR THE SAME EXACT accusation in their witness experience.

Therefore: 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
The high priest had no single, simple unanimous accusation from the witnesses " instead they had a many accusations and could not focus in on a single one of them to judge Yahoshua with :62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. :63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? :64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

He was not angering the Jewish priests for claiming that " He was to come to sit out of the right " HAND " of power. But he was guilty of saying that He would be sitting - from / out of - the - " RIGHT " - of the power of God. The Trinitarians also added the word " hand " into their translation.

This Greek word - - G2470 " Meaning = EQUAl = OR THE SAME EXACT } - is also used in all of these following verses.

Also - Luk 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive ; - EQUAl = OR THE SAME EXACT THING - return... Also - Rev 21:16 Holy Jerusalem, - The city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. ; - EQUAl = OR THE SAME EXACT measurement in height.

Also - Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath but said also that God was his Father, making himself = - G2470 " Meaning = EQUAl = OR THE SAME EXACT } - to God. Also - Mat 20:12 ( the workers said ) These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast given them = an equal ; - " = EQUAl = OR THE SAME = payment as we ? Also - Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the same / equal ; = EQUAl = OR THE SAME - gift, as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. { the Holy Ghost. }

Php 2:6 ( Yahoshua ) Who, being in the form / morph of God, judged no robbery or force to be equally God: :7 But ( Yahoshua ) himself of none effect, void and vain, took the form of a servant, in the likeness of men: :8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Yahoshua judged that nothing was stolen, robbed, plundered or forced or raped or taken - to be equally God, but yet himself { as God Himself " Equal to God. } was made of none effect, void and vain, took the form of a servant, in the likeness of men: Yahoshua was the very one who is being sent as the manifestation of The Holy Spirit / Comforter - He says - - I Will Come To You. The Comforter, Holy Spirit is being sent in the name Of Yahoshua and HE Personally is saying - He is the one who is coming as the Holy Spirit.

If Trinitarians are correct in their translation. Why would Yahoshua have to LOWER Himself and take on the role or morph or form of a MAN or LOWER HIMSELF to be a servant of God - IF THAT WAS WHAT or who HE ALREADY WAS and always will be ? Was he equal with God - or equally God Himself, manifesting the Father in flesh. ? . Where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua existed before he was to sit in the right of God and where do Trinitarians believe that Yahoshua will sit or exist after his enemies are a footstool ? I believe that Trinitarians delete all of this data in their translation.

One of the ways it was done was by adding the word " Hand " to where it says Yahoshua dwells in the right of God. They added the word right " HAND " to the translation. Does it not seem tta Trinitarians forever leave Yahoshua sitting at the right hand of God. Pretending this is where he always existed and will eternally exist.

 

[keypurr]

Sight your reference for the 2nd paragraph and quote it. I did not see one in the Aramaic-English New Testament.

Of course not, you can not see it with clossed eyes and heart.

 

[keypurr]

Read Genesis 1: 1-3, and John 1: 1-3. Backtrack and read my post connecting the two.

In Gen 1, WHO or WHAT is the spirit of God?

John 1:1-3 is not about a man named Jesus. Its about the express image of YHWH.

 

[keypurr]

We can't really fully describe the Trinity.

I don't think THE WORD is a SEPARATE PERSON - even if they are all in One - otherwise, we're worshipping two or three separate Gods.

Lets see now...
we have the Father, YHWH
his Son Jesus.
What is the name of the Holy Spirit????

 

[keypurr]

Greetings again betsy123, I appreciate your three replies, but I cannot accept the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

Silly they are. They have a God that died.

 

[keypurr]

Jesus was with God in the beginning and is God.
The Word was God and became flesh.

Jesus was a MAN born to Mary.