Is Jesus God?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

It isn't only about believing that God and Jesus are One and the Same.
For God's own reason, it is important for us too, to see Jesus (being human), as the Son of God. That distinction is also being made clear. Why both? Who can really explain?
We don't know the mind of God.

I appreciate your response and explanation of Psalm 110:1. Yes, from a Trinitarian viewpoint the concept that Jesus is God, and the Son of God, and a human is difficult, and I suggest that it is impossible and incorrect. I have a problem with your explanation of Psalm 110:1 and Acts 2:29-36 as they describe God and Jesus as separate and that God invites Jesus to sit on His right hand and that God has exalted Jesus to be both Lord and Christ.

I'm curious: How would a non-Trinitarian tackle the numerous times Jesus had used the very same title given to God, and vice versa?
Please refer to the thread in Exclusively Theology section - Jesus is God Himself.
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?133025-JESUS-IS-GOD-HIMSELF
Like the very last entry to that thread - can you explain this?
The following are MONOTHEISTIC Statement(s) given by GOD(Old Testament) and JESUS (New Testament), showing that they are One and The Same..
It's about THE SHEPHERD.
Ezekiel 34 God, the True Shepherd
John 10 Jesus the True Shepherd
Both are claiming the title TRUE Shepherd. There can only be one true Shepherd.
If they're not One and the Same - one of them has got to be wrong - and, that poses a huge problem. It directly hits the credibility of the Scriptures.
How can we believe the Bible? Please, give your view on this.

I had a brief glance at the thread, and happy to look at this example on the Shepherd. Firstly Psalm 23 states that Yahweh, God the Father was David’s Shepherd, but David was a shepherd to Israel. David did not supplant God’s role as shepherd to all of Israel. Also the words of Psalm 23 also apply to Jesus during his ministry and suffering, that God the Father was also Jesus’ shepherd. The Bible also clearly reveals that God the Father has entrusted to Jesus the care of all the believers. The believers are Jesus’ brethren and children and he cares for them as a shepherd. Thus God the Father then is the Shepherd and so also is Jesus. Jesus does not supplant the role of God the Father. God the Father is distinct from Jesus, the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

God the Father is distinct from Jesus, the Son of God.

When did God the Father become a father?

 

[NWL]

Baloney!
As far as I know, Isaiah is from the Old Testament!

No such thing as difference between LORD and Lord!

Look at all the "Lord" on this verse below - are they all capitalized? Actually, none of them are!


Furthermore - God also says He is the ONLY SAVIOR!
Well? Isn't "Savior" also the name of Jesus?


Isaiah 45

The Lord, the Only Savior

18 For thus says the Lord,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:
“I am the Lord, and there is no other.

21 Tell and bring forth your case;
Yes, let them take counsel together.
Who has declared this from ancient time?
Who has told it from that time?
Have not I, the Lord?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.


You and others who don't believe God and Jesus are One and the Same - you folks make Jesus look bad. Like, He's a wannabe - equating Himself with God! Really.

You clearly did not understand anything I said, as I said go away and do some research on the usage of "LORD" in a capital letter in the old testament (hebrew scriptures).

It is 100% undisputed by scholars and translators that the term "LORD" in capitals in any writings of the old testament should rather be the name of God, namely YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah.

The passage of scripture you posted in Isaiah 45:18,21 simply has not translated the term "LORD" In capitals letters but the original Hebrew -the thing that always trumps any English translation of the Hebrew or Greek scriptures since its the original language- do not have the term LORD in the places you showed.

Again, here is a translation that reflects the original Hebrew scriptures (old testament):

(Isaiah 45:18) For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

(Isaiah 45:21) Make your report, present your case. Let them consult together in unity. Who foretold this long ago And declared it from times past? Is it not I, Jehovah? There is no other God but me; A righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me.

What I suggest you do is go onto biblehub and onto the "Hebrew" text analysis tab, there you can see a break of the Hebrew of any scripture you type in and search, if you do this you will clearly see what I am saying is true. (https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/45-18.htm)

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Right Divider,

When did God the Father become a father?

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father is a Father in a general and unique sense. Jesus addresses God as “Father” in the following:
Matthew 11:25–26 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
God is the Father because he created the heaven and earth and he sustains this creation. The Angels are called the Sons of God because God created them and God is thus their Father. Adam is called the Son of God because God created him and God is thus his Father. These are examples of God being a Father in a general sense.

God is a Father in a unique sense because God is the Father of Jesus in the conception / birth process. God is the Father of Jesus and Mary was his mother:
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Greek: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 3:16 (KJV): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have answered your question, now my question:
When did Jesus become the only begotten Son of God?

Kind regards,
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, I appreciate your response and explanation of Psalm 110:1. Yes, from a Trinitarian viewpoint the concept that Jesus is God, and the Son of God, and a human is difficult, and I suggest that it is impossible and incorrect.

Nothing is impossible with God!
The difficulty is in fully understanding the reason behind some acts of God.

I have a problem with your explanation of Psalm 110:1 and Acts 2:29-36 as they describe God and Jesus as separate and that God invites Jesus to sit on His right hand and that God has exalted Jesus to be both Lord and Christ.

Yes, they are separate (distinction) - Jesus (God), being the HUMAN Messiah.
It's been explained in my previous post. Please, read it again.

I had a brief glance at the thread, and happy to look at this example on the Shepherd. Firstly Psalm 23 states that Yahweh, God the Father was David’s Shepherd, but David was a shepherd to Israel. David did not supplant God’s role as shepherd to all of Israel.

David did not claim to be THE TRUE Shepherd. Jesus did.
Therein lies the difference.

Also the words of Psalm 23 also apply to Jesus during his ministry and suffering, that God the Father was also Jesus’ shepherd.

Psalm 23 does not say God the Father is Jesus' Shepherd.

In fact, Psalm 23 conflates Jesus with God.


Psalm 23
A psalm of David.

1
The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3
he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
for his name’s sake.
4
Even though I walk
through the darkest valley,[a]
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

5
You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6
Surely your goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
forever.


Notice that David uses "The Lord," not "my Lord."
David will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. That refers to the Father.

The Bible also clearly reveals that God the Father has entrusted to Jesus the care of all the believers.

Again, that's the distinction between the Father and the Son.

The believers are Jesus’ brethren and children and he cares for them as a shepherd. Thus God the Father then is the Shepherd and so also is Jesus.

Both - Jesus and God - claim to be THE TRUE Shepherd.

Jesus does not supplant the role of God the Father. God the Father is distinct from Jesus, the Son of God.

If Jesus is not God in human form - then yes, He's been usurping the role, and using the numerous titles of God.

Not only that, He let Thomas think He is actually God!

John 20
7 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Why would Jesus not correct Thomas? Jesus tends to correct His disciples.
To let Thomas think He is God - that's quite serious! - why would He leave it at that?


Instead, what's Jesus' response to Thomas?



False teachings tend to get into conflict with other parts in the Bible.
And clearly, there are a lot of contradictions in the belief that Jesus is not God Himself - it also make Jesus look bad.

How can we preach about Jesus with that belief (that He is not God Himself), when it shows Him to be a usurper, a liar and a false teacher? It renders the New Testament useless!


I do urge you to read all the entries in that thread I gave you.

Blessings.

 

[betsy123]

You clearly did not understand anything I said, as I said go away and do some research on the usage of "LORD" in a capital letter in the old testament (hebrew scriptures).

It is 100% undisputed by scholars and translators that the term "LORD" in capitals in any writings of the old testament should rather be the name of God, namely YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah.

The passage of scripture you posted in Isaiah 45:18,21 simply has not translated the term "LORD" In capitals letters but the original Hebrew -the thing that always trumps any English translation of the Hebrew or Greek scriptures since its the original language- do not have the term LORD in the places you showed.

Again, here is a translation that reflects the original Hebrew scriptures (old testament):

(Isaiah 45:18) For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

(Isaiah 45:21) Make your report, present your case. Let them consult together in unity. Who foretold this long ago And declared it from times past? Is it not I, Jehovah? There is no other God but me; A righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me.

What I suggest you do is go onto biblehub and onto the "Hebrew" text analysis tab, there you can see a break of the Hebrew of any scripture you type in and search, if you do this you will clearly see what I am saying is true. (https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/45-18.htm)

Please refer to my post #320. It explains.

 

[betsy123]

Jesus is the perfect image of God so it certainly isn't idolatry,

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

however, you are robbing the one God, namely the Father (1 Cor 8:4-6) of worship since you're meant to be directing your worship to him and him alone (John 4:24)

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

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

Nothing is impossible with God! The difficulty is in fully understanding the reason behind some acts of God.

The Trinity turns what is simple and clear into something that is difficult or impossible.

Yes, they are separate (distinction) - Jesus (God), being the HUMAN Messiah. It's been explained in my previous post. Please, read it again.

Yes I have read it again, but the article does not define that the One God, Yahweh is the Father. While the Adoni is not God, but he is David’s Lord, the Messiah, the Son of God. Psalm 110:1 does not teach the Trinity as it views God the Father seated upon the Throne of the One God, while Jesus is invited to sit next to God. There is no view of God the Father and God the Son sitting in the one throne of one God, nor is there any view of God the Holy Spirit.

David did not claim to be THE TRUE Shepherd. Jesus did. Therein lies the difference.

But David is not the false shepherd. David adequately fulfilled the shepherd role during his lifetime, while Jesus fulfilled the Shepherd role completely. Jesus did not supplant God the Father who is the complete Shepherd. Jesus represents God the Father in all God the Father’s roles. He is God's Servant Isaiah 42:1, 52:13.He does not supplant God.

Psalm 23 does not say God the Father is Jesus' Shepherd.

Many or most of the Psalms are more representative of the thoughts, feelings and experiences of Jesus than they are of David who spoke and wrote the Psalms. Psalm 23 speaks of Jesus' suffering, death and exaltation.

Notice that David uses "The Lord," not "my Lord."
David will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. That refers to the Father.

Yes Yahweh is God the Father, and this is another Scripture that is similar to Psalm 110:1, where Yahweh is not Jesus.

If Jesus is not God in human form - then yes, He's been usurping the role, and using the numerous titles of God.
Not only that, He let Thomas think He is actually God!
John 20: 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Why would Jesus not correct Thomas? Jesus tends to correct His disciples.To let Thomas think He is God - that's quite serious! - why would He leave it at that?

The title “God” does not always refer to the One God, but is also used for Angels Psalm 8:5-6 and Judges John 10:30-36. Those that represented God were called “God”, Hebrew “Elohim”.

I do urge you to read all the entries in that thread I gave you.

I have not considered all of them, but they seem to be fairly standard Trinitarian deductions. I will discuss the above first. Did you want me to answer some of the aspects in the other thread location, as this thread here has run its course?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider, The One God, Yahweh, God the Father is a Father in a general and unique sense. Jesus addresses God as “Father” in the following:
Matthew 11:25–26 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
God is the Father because he created the heaven and earth and he sustains this creation. The Angels are called the Sons of God because God created them and God is thus their Father. Adam is called the Son of God because God created him and God is thus his Father. These are examples of God being a Father in a general sense.

God is a Father in a unique sense because God is the Father of Jesus in the conception / birth process. God is the Father of Jesus and Mary was his mother:
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Greek: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 3:16 (KJV): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have answered your question, now my question:
When did Jesus become the only begotten Son of God?

Kind regards,
Trevor

Those make for a cute sideshow.

Jesus called God HIS Father... this was clearly understood as a claim to BE God.

Jesus was God from all eternity per John 1:1 and 1:14

Jesus was and is God in the flesh.

1Ti 3:16 KJV And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

 

[Banini]

I like it soo much


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Right Divider,

Those make for a cute sideshow. Jesus called God HIS Father... this was clearly understood as a claim to BE God.

No, Jesus is the Son of God because God is HIS Father in the conception / birth process. Jesus is also revealed as the Son of God because of his perfect moral character, he was full of grace and truth John 1:14, and he is the Son of God because he has been resurrected unto immortality Romans 1:1-4.

Jesus was God from all eternity per John 1:1 and 1:14

The Word pre-existed, and is a personification similar to the Wise Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with God when he created the earth. There is no mention of Jesus in John 1:1. Jesus is the Name of the child born 2000 years ago Matthew 1:20-21.

Jesus was and is God in the flesh.

1Ti 3:16 KJV And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

Yes, God the Father was fully revealed in and through Jesus, the Son of God.
John 14:8-11 (KJV): 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
John 17:6 (KJV): I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

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

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

Peter made it clear that Jesus is not God, but rather a man approved of God, in Acts 2[sic]

When you say "Peter made it clear that Jesus is not God", are you referring, by the word 'God', to God the Father? Yes or No?

These are the only possible answers to my question:

1. Yes, I am referring to God the Father.
2. No, I am not referring to God the Father.

Of course, you and I both know that you're not going to answer my question at all; you're going to stonewall against it, instead. Here's why:

If you want to choose 1 and answer in the affirmative ("Yes, I'm referring to God the Father"), then, in doing so, you'll have admitted to us that, when you say "Peter made it clear that Jesus is not God", all you're doing is telling us that "Peter made it clear that Jesus is not God the Father". No Christian believes that Jesus is God the Father; every Christian believes that Jesus is not God the Father. Even many anti-Christians such as yourself believe that Jesus is not God the Father. What would be your point in telling Christians--that is to say, Trinitarians--that Jesus is not God the Father, or that Peter made it clear that Jesus is not God the Father?? So, obviously, you're going to stonewall against answering "Yes" to my question.

If, instead, you want to choose 2 and answer in the negative ("No, I'm not referring to God the Father"), then, in doing so, you've now created for yourself the embarrassing problem of having to say to whom, or to what (that is not God the Father) you are referring by the word 'God' when you say "Peter made it clear that Jesus is not God". Not a fun problem for a unitarian such as yourself to be put to. So, obviously, you're going to stonewall against answering "No" to my question, also.

To answer neither "Yes" nor "No" to the question I asked you is to fail to answer the question I asked you.

 

[7djengo7]

The Word pre-existed, and is a personification similar to the Wise Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with God when he created the earth.

John says that the Word not only was WITH God, but that the Word WAS God. You admit that Wisdom, as per Proverbs 8, was WITH God, and yet you deny that that same Wisdom WAS God. And, since you deny that that Wisdom was God, you blaspheme God by making Him dependent, in His purpose to create the heaven and the earth, upon something (Wisdom) that you say is not God. You make God to be under a necessity of outsourcing in order to execute His purpose.

 

[7djengo7]

God being called LORD (capitals) in the old testament is different from Jesus calling himself Lord (un-capitalized) in the new testament. "LORD" in the OT refers to the name YHWH/Yahweh, whereas "Lord" in the new testament simply means Lord and does not refer to the divine name YHWH.

Thus your question you ask "Why would Jesus identify Himself as Lord, if God says there is no other Lord but Him" doesn't make any sense since Jesus never identified himself as LORD/YHWH (capitals) but rather simply a lord.
(Isaiah 45:5-7) I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me.

(Isaiah 45:5-7) "..I am YHWH/Yahweh, and there is no one else. There is no God except me.."

(Ephesians 1:3) "..Praised be the God and Father of our Lord(Kyriou) Jesus Christ.."

Kyriou = "Lord" in Greek
YHWH = Gods name in Hebrew, YHWH does not mean "LORD" in any sense.

LORD in capitals should not be in any translations as it confuses people and is not a translation for God name, it was put in place to hide the name of almighty God YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah.

...you folks make Jesus look bad.

No way. Impossible. (And, alluding to our other discussion, I'm curious if you, betsy123, would be willing to say that it is possible for Jesus/God to "make Jesus look bad".) They--unitarians--make themselves to be fools.

NWL (New World Liar) is programmed, by his programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society, to be a hypocrite. Programmed by hypocrites to be a hypocrite.

In light of what NWL has lisped out in the quote above, you should ask him where his programmers/handlers get the word, 'Jehovah', in the New Testament. The truth is, the word 'Jehovah' is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. But NWL's NWT ("New World Translation" (which is imposed upon NWL by his Bible-despising Watchtower Society programmers/handlers) which is not a translation either of the Old Testament, nor of the New Testament, at all) patches in the word 'Jehovah' at various places in the part of their NWT which they pretend is the New Testament. Look, for instance, at Mark 12:29 KJV. Here it is, in a Bible:

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord

Now, here's what New World Liar's Watchtower Society programmers/handlers call "Mark 12:29" in their non-Bible:

Jesus answered: "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah

These NWT liars have not translated the Greek word, Κύριος (kurios), into English. Instead, they've left it untranslated, excluded it from their fake New Testament, and they have simply imposed, in place of it, the word 'Jehovah'.

New World Liar says that, in the Old Testament, the word 'LORD' "was put in place to hide the name of almighty God YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah." His hypocrite programmers/handlers from the Watchtower Society put the word 'Jehovah' in place, in their fake New Testament, to hide the word, Κύριος, which is the Greek word for 'lord'. The word, 'Jehovah', is not anywhere to be found in the New Testament. Why? Because Jehovah did not put it there. His Christ-blaspheming--that is to say, Jehovah-blaspheming--enemies from the Watchtower Society want to confuse the unwary, and so they put the word 'Jehovah' in that scrap of trash they created, and miscall "the New Testament".

Obviously, New World Liar and his Watchtower Society programmers/handlers (against reality) desire Mark 12:29 to NOT say "The Lord our God is one Lord", since, being anti-Christs, they deny that Jesus--Who (according to Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV) is "our one Lord"--is Jehovah.

You want to watch a pathetic clown act, and a shameless repudiation of rationality? Just prod New World Liar about which is his one Lord: Jesus or Jehovah. See, Christians are not burdened by the embarrassment to which New World Liar has committed himself, since Christians know that Jesus IS Jehovah. Since Jesus IS Jehovah, Jesus IS, indeed, that one Lord; Jehovah IS, indeed, that one Lord.

 

[7djengo7]

Jesus is also revealed as the Son of God because of his perfect moral character, he was full of grace and truth John 1:14

Jesus IS the Son of God. Now, is Jesus the Son of God BECAUSE He is full of grace and truth? No. Obviously, that Jesus IS the Son of God is NOT CAUSED by His being full of grace and truth. If being full of grace and truth CAUSED someone to be the Son of God, then God the Father would ALSO, Himself, be the Son of God. God the Father's being full of grace and truth would CAUSE God the Father to be the Son of God, in such case.

"Jesus is also revealed as...."

That's just more vacuous crap that you concocted out of your heretic, anti-Bible, anti-Christ, vain imagination. What you wrote does not even begin to resemble, or relate to, what John wrote in John 1:14 KJV.

Why are you so addicted to your clowning?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

John says that the Word not only was WITH God, but that the Word WAS God. You admit that Wisdom, as per Proverbs 8, was WITH God, and yet you deny that that same Wisdom WAS God. And, since you deny that that Wisdom was God, you blaspheme God by making Him dependent, in His purpose to create the heaven and the earth, upon something (Wisdom) that you say is not God. You make God to be under a necessity of outsourcing in order to execute His purpose.

I did not deny that WISDOM WAS GOD. I simply made a comparison to the personification in both passages. What I stated is that John 1:1 is The Word, not Jesus. Also Proverbs 8 is the Wise Woman Wisdom, not Jesus.

Jesus IS the Son of God. Now, is Jesus the Son of God BECAUSE He is full of grace and truth? No. Obviously, that Jesus IS the Son of God is NOT CAUSED by His being full of grace and truth. If being full of grace and truth CAUSED someone to be the Son of God, then God the Father would ALSO, Himself, be the Son of God. God the Father's being full of grace and truth would CAUSE God the Father to be the Son of God, in such case.
"Jesus is also revealed as...."
That's just more vacuous crap that you concocted out of your heretic, anti-Bible, anti-Christ, vain imagination. What you wrote does not even begin to resemble, or relate to, what John wrote in John 1:14 KJV. Why are you so addicted to your clowning?

Another 7djengo style response, slightly (to say the least) abusive, but not much substance. Yes Jesus was The Son of God when conceived and born Luke 1:34-35. His moral character developed from childhood, and up until his ministry and during his ministry Luke 2:40,52. John in John 1:14 records what he beheld. He beheld His glory, his moral glory, that Jesus was full of grace and truth. He attributes this glory to the fact that Jesus was the only begotten of the Father, in other words Jesus is the Son of God. Adam was the Son of God, but he did not reveal this moral glory, as he was not full of grace and truth.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, I did not deny that WISDOM WAS GOD.

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

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

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

I simply made a comparison to the personification in both passages.

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

What I stated is that John 1:1 is The Word, not Jesus.

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

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

Also Proverbs 8 is the Wise Woman Wisdom, not Jesus.

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

Quit your clowning.

Another 7djengo style response, slightly (to say the least) abusive, but not much substance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His moral character developed from childhood, and up until his ministry and during his ministry Luke 2:40,52.

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

John in John 1:14 records what he beheld.

Brilliant observation!

He beheld His glory,

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

his moral glory,

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

that Jesus was full of grace and truth.

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

He attributes this glory to the fact that Jesus was the only begotten of the Father, in other words Jesus is the Son of God.

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

Adam was the Son of God, but he did not reveal this moral glory, as he was not full of grace and truth.

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

Kind regards
Trevor

Spare me.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

OK then, weasel. Here's your opportunity to come clean on the question. Answer this question:
Was Wisdom (talked about in Proverbs 8) God? Yes or No?
Until you answer "Yes" to this question, you will have, indeed, been denying that WISDOM WAS GOD.

Yes, the Wisdom was God.

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

You may not like the word “personification”, but who do you think is the Wise Woman Wisdom?

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

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

Change the tense if you like, but the Word in John 1:1 is a personification, similar to Wisdom in Proverbs. Jesus is the Name of the child born to Mary.

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

See above.

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

No further comment on this.

Look, weasel: Which question that I asked you is your "Yes", here, supposed to be in response to? Your playing all nebulous and fuzzy and Jell-O-like is morally disgusting. It's what makes you the weasel that you are. Indicate, by quotation of my own words, exactly which question it is that I asked you, to which you imagine your "Yes Jesus was The Son of God when conceived...." is an answer. I NEVER asked you, "Was Jesus The Son of God when conceived and born?"
Learn how to write, in English, weasel. Don't write crap like what you wrote:

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

I assess that you do not agree with the teaching of Luke 1:34-35 where it states that Jesus is the Son of God and that this is because God the Father was his father.

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

To be more precise, electrical drafting, mainly circuit diagrams for a power station. This type of work is interesting and enjoyable. Many different drawings from many different manufacturers but they all contributed to a successful power station.

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

Did Jesus grow in wisdom Luke 2:40,52?

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

His physical glory was revealed in the Transfiguration, not during His ministry.

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

I equate “only begotten” to the conception birth process Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where God the Father is the father of Jesus.

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

Adam did not reveal the glory that was revealed in Jesus as witnessed by John as he records in John 1:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, The Trinity turns what is simple and clear into something that is difficult or impossible.

Yes. But it depends though. Not every ACT of God, is FULLY explained.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be many debates between Christians, right?

But on this debate we have - your belief is in dire conflict with the Scriptures, and my argument/rebuttals are clearly explained.

The belief that Jesus is God Himself, falls neatly into places.
It is consistent with the rest of the Scriptures.

Yes I have read it again, but the article does not define that the One God, Yahweh is the Father.

Of course, it's Yahweh. Who else could it be?
According to Jesus, we pray to the Father - that would be another contradiction to His teachings if the Father isn't Yahweh! That makes the Father another mini-god that we'll be praying, too - right? In other words, we'll be commemorating Jesus, and praying to another (The Father).
What happens to the very first Commandment that Jesus says is the most important of all?

That makes Jesus contradict Himself! Yahweh, is the Father!

See how your arguments are running into serious snags?

While the Adoni is not God, but he is David’s Lord, the Messiah, the Son of God. Psalm 110:1 does not teach the Trinity as it views God the Father seated upon the Throne of the One God, while Jesus is invited to sit next to God. There is no view of God the Father and God the Son sitting in the one throne of one God, nor is there any view of God the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is also Yahweh! (in the flesh).
Because, if He's not - your argument makes Jesus a usurper, a liar and thus -
not credible.
That's the dilemma of your argument.
It's full of contradictions, and it makes Jesus and the Bible, unreliable.

Some have argued that the Divine Name, YHWH (Yahweh, or Jehovah), is the name of the Father. This name, however, is not exclusively the Father's name. It is the name of the Triune God as a whole. The Father is called YHWH in places like Psalm 110:1

"The LORD [YHWH] says to my Lord [Adoni]: 'Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.'"

Hebrews 1:13 explains this verse as the Father (the LORD, or YHWH) speaking to the Son (the Lord, Adoni, or master). So the author of Hebrews plainly identifies the Father as YHWH. Yet, when Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102:25-27, it says the Psalm is talking about Jesus. The Psalm is clearly talking about YHWH. Jesus, therefore, is also YHWH. Hebrews 10:15-16 quotes Jeremiah 31:33 as being a direct quote from the Holy Spirit. It is, in fact, a direct quote from YHWH. So the Holy Spirit is also YHWH. Just looking at the book of Hebrews alone, we can see that YHWH is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Thus, YHWH is the name of the Triune God.

In the end, there is one God who exists in three persons, and those three persons share the one divine name of YHWH. That is the name of the Father, but it is also the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Three persons, but one God with one Holy Name. The Father, therefore, is not given a separate personal name.

https://carm.org/what-is-the-name-of-god-the-father

But David is not the false shepherd. David adequately fulfilled the shepherd role during his lifetime, while Jesus fulfilled the Shepherd role completely. Jesus did not supplant God the Father who is the complete Shepherd. Jesus represents God the Father in all God the Father’s roles. He is God's Servant Isaiah 42:1, 52:13.He does not supplant God.
Many or most of the Psalms are more representative of the thoughts, feelings and experiences of Jesus than they are of David who spoke and wrote the Psalms. Psalm 23 speaks of Jesus' suffering, death and exaltation. Yes Yahweh is God the Father, and this is another Scripture that is similar to Psalm 110:1, where Yahweh is not Jesus.

We're not talking about David. I'm talking about God and Jesus - both - claiming to be The TRUE Shepherd!

Is Jesus competing with God?

The title “God” does not always refer to the One God, but is also used for Angels Psalm 8:5-6 and Judges John 10:30-36. Those that represented God were called “God”, Hebrew “Elohim”.
I have not considered all of them, but they seem to be fairly standard Trinitarian deductions. I will discuss the above first. Did you want me to answer some of the aspects in the other thread location, as this thread here has run its course?

WRONG! The title "GOD," isn't given to anyone.

Representatives of God are called "gods" in Judges.

John 10
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”


34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside


Psalm 82
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’

Not capitalized G.
And in quotes, too.


Jews weren't stoning Jesus for claiming to be a god.
They say He's claiming to be GOD! That should bust any claims for wrong translation - the Jews understood clearly who He's claiming to be.
He's claiming to be God Himself!

That's why He didn't correct Thomas when Thomas identified Him as God, right?
Why didn't he correct Thomas?

See how your argument runs into serious problems?

 

[NWL]

Please refer to my post #320. It explains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I ask you, does Nebuchadnezʹzar, Artaxerxes, Eʹhud and Othʹni·el having the tiles of Jesus imply that they too are YHWH or Jesus, if not why not?