Right Divider
Body part
That is just another example of Jesus claiming to be God.
Jesus is God
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Appeal to the stone.
Address the evidence that was presented.
Address the evidence you were presented with before dismissing it and moving on.
I was attempting to add clarification to your idea that "there is some kind of plurality within the singular God", due to the ambiguity of the term "God".
And Elohim said, Let us make[נעשה] man in our image...
Genesis 1:26
"First person common plural, cohortive if contextual"
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-26.htm
God's Truth
New member
That's because God really did come as a man. Jesus is God come as a man, so who else was going to reveal things to Jesus the man?
I'm not a trinitarian though. I believe Jesus is God come as a son.
genuineoriginal
New member
That is what I said, and everyone but you can plainly see that I never accused Thomas of taking the name of God in vain in that post.
It is 7djengo7 who first accused Thomas of taking the name of God in vain and claimed that I did it.
Only if you don't know the scriptures nor the power of God.
I do know the scripture, so I do know that your made up rule about what is and is not taking God's name in vain is not supported by the Bible itself.
By your standard, Paul committed blasphemy by saying that Jesus is our Lord.
| 1 Corinthians 15:47 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. |
Here is the commandment:
| Exodus 20:7 ASV 7 Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. |
I hope you can see that it is the name YHVH that is specified in the commandment, not the general word "lord" or the general word "god".
If using the general word "lord" is blasphemy, then Jesus blasphemed in the parable of the wise steward.
| Luke 16:5 5 [JESUS]So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?[/JESUS] |
It is shameful to base doctrine on a claim that Jesus did not do what you think Jesus should have done if you were right.
No, what I claim is that Thomas did not blaspheme God with his words.
Thomas did not use the name of God in vain, Thomas did not commit blasphemy, Thomas was not calling Jesus "my god".
Thomas said "My Lord and my God" when he saw that Jesus had truly been raised from the dead.
Thomas was giving credit for Jesus being raised from the dead to the God who raised Jesus from the dead, just like Peter does.
| Acts 4:10 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. |
As far as whether the words of Thomas are to be taken as a claim that Jesus is God, the writer of the Gospel of John concludes the passage by stating plainly:
| John 20:31 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. |
I am sorry that these plain words are incomprehensible to you, but I can see that it does not say, "ye might believe that Jesus is God," but rather it says, "ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;"
genuineoriginal
New member
How bizarre.
I can see that the verse plainly states that Jesus said "[JESUS]I am the Son of God[/JESUS]", but somehow you are unable to see that and instead you think the verse has Jesus saying, "I am God"
| John 10:34-36 34 Jesus answered them, [JESUS]Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[/JESUS] 35 [JESUS]If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;[/JESUS] 36 [JESUS]Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?[/JESUS] |
If He is only the Son of God why did they want to stone Him?
genuineoriginal
New member
I could not find any actual evidence in the spoiler presented.
Don't give me a laundry list of suppositions and innuendos and claim it is evidence.
Show me what could only be true if Jesus was God and not the Messiah.
Show me what could only be true if Jesus was God and not the Son of God.
Show me what could only be true if Jesus was God and was not given authority by God.
Show me what could only be true if Jesus was God and not made higher than the angels by God.
Show me what could only be true if Jesus was God and was not made king of kings and lord of lords by God.
Show me what could only be true if Jesus was God and was not given the power to grant eternal life by God.
If you want me to address Bob Enyart's claims, pick one point out of the spoiler and ask me to address it.
I will address this one:
"And finally, denial of Christ's deity is a central teaching of many of today's cults, including for example the Jehovah's Witnesses." ~ Bob Enyart
I am not a Jehovah's Witness.
I do not deny Christ's deity, and as far as I understand from the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1, neither do they.
| In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) |
I do not know what the Jehovah's Witness teach about the deity of Christ, but it looks like they claim that Jesus is "a god", meaning they affirm the deity of Christ and are not denying the deity of Christ.
My belief comes from reading what the Bible actually states which show that Jesus is deity and His position is just under God and is higher than all the angels.
| 1 Corinthians 15:27 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. |
| 1 Peter 3:22 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. |
Neither of these two verses could be true if Jesus was God instead of being the Son of God.
Here is the spoiler that contains the lack of evidence that was presented as evidence.
Spoiler
genuineoriginal
New member
They were wicked and Jesus was bringing their sins into the light.
Right Divider
Body part
THE Son of God is God.
Heb 1:8 KJV But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
genuineoriginal
New member
Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), which means anointed one.
Who is the God, thy God who anointed Jesus and who are all of the fellows of Jesus that Jesus is above?
| Psalm 45:6-7 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. |
If Jesus is God, why would it matter to God whether Jesus loves righteousness and hates wickedness?
Don't forget that Ye are gods also comes from the Psalms, and doesn't refer to Jesus or to the Father.
| John 10:34-36 34 Jesus answered them, [JESUS]Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[/JESUS] 35 [JESUS]If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;[/JESUS] 36 [JESUS]Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?[/JESUS] |
"God" is ambiguous, as is the phrase "Son of God". "God" can refer to a single being or a plurality of beings. From the context "Son of God" means someone like King David.
Hebrews 1:5 draws from Psalms 2:7:
I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psalms 2:7
Hebrews 1:6, which draws from Psalm 148:2, is different:
Praise ye YHWH. Praise ye YHWH from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
Psalm 148:1-2
Hebrews 1:8 draws from Psalm 45:6:
Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.
Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Psalm 45:6
The English translation of Psalm 45:7 is misleading, since the two instances of "God" are translations of different Hebrew words, one plural, one singular.
אהבת צדק ותשנא רשע על כן משחך אלהים אלהיך שמן ששון מחבריך
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Psalm 45:7
The phrase occurs one other time in the Psalms.
<A Psalm of Asaph.> The mighty God, [even] the LORD[אל אלהים יהוה], hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.
Psalm 50:1, KJV
שמעה עמי ואדברה ישראל ואעידה בך אלהים אלהיך אנכי
Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I [am] God, [even] thy God.
Psalm 50:7
God's Truth
New member
God came as a man. What else would he be called but a son? God really came as a man.
God's Truth
New member
genuineoriginal
When a saved person receives the Holy Spirit, they receive the Father and Jesus. So if Jesus isn't God, how do you have Jesus himself living in you when you receive the Holy Spirit?
We are only given one Spirit.
When a saved person receives the Holy Spirit, they receive the Father and Jesus. So if Jesus isn't God, how do you have Jesus himself living in you when you receive the Holy Spirit?
We are only given one Spirit.
genuineoriginal
New member
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to provide scripture that says that God came as a man, instead of merely repeating the extra-Biblical doctrines that the church teaches.
genuineoriginal
New member
Jesus said both Jesus and the Father would make their abode with man, but never tells how they would do it.
| John 14:23 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.[/JESUS] |
You seem quite sure of that, do you have any verses to back that statement up?
"God" is ambiguous, but this might be relevant:
And YHWH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee Elohim to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Exodus 7:1
I have said, Ye are Elohim; and all of you are children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Psalm 82:6-7
NWL
Active member
It very embarrassing when someone has the internet at their fingertips and still gets the definition of words wrong. Ad hominem doesn't only or typically, as you stated, relate to when someone makes a claim that the other party position is false based on his stupidity. I maintain and still express that you are using your shock and mocks to attack my character, wittingly or unwittingly it doesn't matter, instead of dealing with the argument I laid out as you were unable to answer my previous question.
Google - dictionary
Ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Wikipedia
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,
Cambridge Dictionary
Ad hominem - (of a criticism, etc.) directed against a person, rather than against what that person says
Dictonary.com
Ad hominem - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Maintain I'm the smartest person in the room? I've never stated or have implied this. You are the one that should learn the basic meaning of words or a least do your homework if you attempt to try and pull someone up on the dentition of something and you yourself get it wrong.
You have above claimed my positions pre-supposed hence why you won't answer my question because it lies on a false premise, I will show how this is wrong and it's just you being in denial about what scripture plainly states and you being unable to answer the question that has demolished your understanding of the identity of the A&O in one swoop.
I've made an observation about scripture, namely the A&O in Rev 1:8 also has the title "the one who is, was, and is coming", this is clearly not pre-supposed as Rev 1:8 clearly states "“I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”
I've made another observation, namely, an Angel sends blessing to John and others in Rev 1,4,5 and states who the blessing are from saying "John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,”and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ".
It is John who mentions "the one who is, was and is coming" and separate from "Jesus Christ", please show me how this is PRE-SUPPOSED for you to claim I have pre-supposed my premise? I am the one taking the context of Rev 1:4,5 which precedes Rev 1:8 and applying to the context to Rev 1:8. If John writes that "the one who is, was and is coming" as separate from "Jesus Christ" in v4,5 and then I read v8, one can only use the context of v4,5 to understand who or who is NOT speaking in v8. You, on the other hand, are reading v8 apart from v4,5, then ignore what it says and claim I'm presupposing something despite it clearly being written. You are simply making up excuses as you are unable to deal with the question, you are blinding yourself from the truth, you are hardening your own heart.
This is one of many many question people are unable to answer, there is no list I keep, it's just in normal conversation I pose questions in relation to what the topic is, people such as yourself realize the conundrum they're in and do their best to make an excuse to not answer the question. You, for example, are claiming I've pre-supposed something despite it clearly being written and therefore refuse to deal with the question, you think throwing more and more evidence into the mix will somehow detangles the contradiction when it does not.
What does our topic of the idenitity of Rev 1:8 and the A&O have anything to do with the trinity? There is nothing I've said which has seemed to show a lack of understanding of the trinity nor does the topic in hand rely on it. I see this as nothing more than a smokescreen attempt to either deflect and change topic or you finding an excuse to get out of talking to me without losing face. I will play along with your game nonetheless.
The Trinity doctrine teaches there is one God who is three-person, namely the Father, Son and HS. These three persons are three distinct persons all of them forming the one God having a single divine nature. All three persons are co-equal, co-eternal one in essence, nature, power, action and will. I keep a picture of the below in my bible as I often have to teach trinitarians what they themselves are meant to believe about the trinity.
NWL said:
Clete said:
Then explain why in the following "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,”and from the seven spirits that are before his throne,and from Jesus Christ" its says "and from Jesus" if Jesus is the “the One who is and who was and who is coming”?
1) Nothing, hence why I said it proves nothing and stated if you think it does explain how and I give a reply.
2) Why do you believe the root of David has to refer to God? Where are your scriptural reasons as to why it has to refer to God.
3) Jesus is the root of David, to be the "root" of someone relates to being their offspring, this is especially clear in the case of Jesus as Rev 22:16 has Jesus himself stating "I am the root and the descendant of David and the bright morning star". What you are doing is presupposing Jesus is the one God and then claiming God is the root of David. I do not deny Jesus is the root of David I deny he is the one God.
NWL said:
Clete said:
I don't get why you made this comment. Jesus is the root of David, this is clear from the bible, you yourself accept this. Furthermore, you're correct, just because I said "Jesus being the root of David doesn't prove the trinity, he's the one God or A&O" doesn't make it so just because I said it, hence why I asked you to show how it does, you have given no explanation as to how it does so can only presume it does not. Your statement was pointless.
You have a clear misunderstanding of the understanding of being root of someone. There isn't a scholar, church or theologian today that writings I have read or know of that understands "root of David", "root of Jesse" or root of anyone to mean anything other than being a descendant of someone. Notice what all of these esteemed Trinitarians scholars say regarding Jesus being the root of David and Jesse:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
A root of Jesse.—Strictly, the root, or, root-shoot of Jesse, as in Proverbs 5:5—i.e,. the expected descendant of Jesse’s line, which, to bring out its intimate connection with the founder of the line, and to distinguish it from all other collateral branches, is identified with the very root, or first shoot, of the line itself.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Jesus the Root of David - Not the Root of David in the sense that David sprung from him as a tree does from a root, but in the sense that he himself was a "root-shoot" or sprout from David, and had sprung from him as a shoot or sprout springs up from a decayed and fallen tree
There shall be a root - A descendant, or one that should proceed from him when he was dead.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
root of Jesse—meaning, not "He from whom Jesse sprang," but "He that is sprung from Jesse" (that is, Jesse's son David)—see Re 22:16.
root … offspring of David—appropriate title here where assuring His Church of "the sure mercies of David," secured to Israel first, and through Israel to the Gentiles. Root of David, as being Jehovah; the offspring of David as man.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
""and there shall be a root of Jesse"; the meaning is, , "which goes out from the root of Jesse", according to Isaiah 11:1, for "Jesse" is the root
Meyer's NT Commentary
He is the root-shoot of Jesse, because Jesse is the root from which He springs
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
[the root and the offspring of David] He bears the former title in Revelation 5:5, where see note. The latter is substantially the same as the familiar one, “the Son of David.”
Jesus as the root of David means he is the descendant of David and does not that he was the One God who preceded and established David, you do not understand basic bible language, no wonder I was perplexed at your reasoning of Jesus being God because he was the "root of David".
How can you insist on getting a direct answer when you don't answer mine?
You asked "Who else in the bible was raised from the dead besides Jesus", as you stated there were a number of people that were, you gave the number 10 and trust you know that much about the bible for that to be correct. However, I do not understand your point or where you're going with this so please elaborate, what does the number of people being resurrected have to do with anything we are talking about?
You once stated I "resorted to condescension and stupidity rather than anything honest or even rationally coherent", so far you've been the only one whose shown a stupid attitude, been condescending and ignore rational argument (Rev 1:4,5 and my argument), you are the person you described me to be. Nonetheless, let me continue.
You are piecing together different titles and assuming they are the same, I can understand why you think I'm stupid as it's your misuse and ignorance of the text and my difference of opinion that is leading you to believe my points don't make sense, let me make myself clear and expand on where we went wrong.
You believe the titles "first and last" and "alpha and Omega" are synonymous, they are not, when Jesus is called "the first and last" the context of the title is about is death and resurrection, both Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8 state:
(Revelation 1:18) “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever.
(Revelation 2:8) “And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again:
If the F&L is synonymous with Jesus being the almighty and A&O its no doubt Jesus speaking in regards to his divine nature, would it not, if this is the case and the F&L is synonymous with the A&O of Rev 1:8 then Almighty God in his divine nature is saying "I BECAME DEAD", yet the almighty CANNOT die, how absurd. You cannot claim Jesus is speaking in is human nature because he clearly calls himself the F&L, which to you is synonymous with him being the A&O and the almighty. Jesus being the F&L has to mean something different than the title of A&O, and again it is clear it does as the context of him being the first and him being the last has something to do with his death and his resurrection. Coincidently, Jesus is the only person and the first person in the ENTIRE bible to be resurrected by the Father directly, and he is also the last person to be resurrected by the Father directly, it is in this sense he is the first and the last, the title has nothing to do with the title of Alpha and Omega.
The evidence is that Rev 1:11 where it mentions the A&O and F&L is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts and is classed as spurious. It is NOT a repeat of v8 as it inserts the title F&L and implies the F&L and the A&O are the same people despite literally no other text doing this.
Your case does not rest on one verse as your understanding contradicts Jesus being separate from the person speaking in v8, you have said next to nothing in regards to this so your case is hardly rested.
You keep quoting scripture and leave it up to me to discern your position, stop doing this. Quote verses and also explain your position. From the above, I've gathered because Rev 16:5,6 mentions the "one who is, who was and is coming" and speaks of him judging and John 5:21 states God entrusted all judging to Jesus, that Jesus must be the one being spoken of in Rev 16:5,6 because it states he is judging and Jesus now judges all.
Firstly, the judging in John 5:21,22 is in relation to the judging of the dead pertaining to the resurrection, this is clear by such passages as 2 Tim 4:1 that say "Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead", the "judging" isn't in relation to general good judgment of any matter but the judging of the dead. Revelation 16:5 is about God's judgment on pouring the seven bowls on the earth, thus the judgments being mentioned are not referring to the same judging but two different types of judgment. So your attempt to link them by saying "hey look Jesus now does all the judging of the dead" and "hey look the one who is who was and is coming has good judgment because he chose to pour out the seven bowls" is not evidence they are the same person.
Moreover, even if a verse stated the "one who is was and is coming judged someone" this still isn't evidence they are the same person, this is because despite the Father entrusting all the judging to Jesus HE STILL IS THE JUDGE, he simply judges through Jesus as HE is the one who has appointed him, this is scriptural and irrefutable:
"..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, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead.”(Acts 17:31)
The Father judges the earth through his son whom he appointed as judge, so again even if the "one who is was and is coming" is stated as judging it doesn't prove that one is Jesus, since both the Father and "the person whom the father appointed" as judge, are judges and do judge.
Last edited:
Because roots are the foundation, so to speak, of a plant.
The seeds are the offspring.
Two completely different parts.
Sorry, I hate to break it to you but... Seeds don't come from the roots.
"Root" and "Descendant" are mutually exclusive terms here. The fact that Jesus uses BOTH to describe Himself show that He is God.
In terms of family trees, roots are typically associated with ancestors of those depicted on the branches.
Jesus is claiming to be the root AND the fruit hanging on the branches, with David being somewhere in between, which is not possible for any normal person.
He's basically claiming to be His own ancestor, though instead of being a human ancestor, He's making the claim of being the CREATOR who made man.
That's ironic....
Appeal to authority.
Except that's NOT what it means.
It means ANCESTOR, NOT DESCENDANT.
Anyone who knows how a family tree works knows that the lower on the tree you go, you go further BACK in the family's ancestry. Move higher, and you move towards the more recent offspring.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Of the people who were raised back to life, who are these verses talking about?:
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, - Revelation 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5&version=NKJV
[JESUS]I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.[/JESUS] - Revelation 1:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV
[JESUS]“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:[/JESUS] - Revelation 2:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV
That's how the question Clete asked is relevant.
Clete tagging you here so you don't have to wade through his post.
@NWL In other words, your argument boils down to this:
"Because God cannot die, therefore Christ is not God, because Christ died."
Did I get that right?
If so, would you be so kind as to define what you mean by "die" in your statement, "God cannot die"?