Did Jesus say he was God???

[Nada]

I am not a trinity defender but I think Jesus was begotten not created. He was there before the beginning, did miracles in his name, claimed co-occupancy of God's throne, claimed all things were made through him, etc.... We only have angel, God, mere man, or demon to chose from. Which is best?

Well Robin,If we read the holy scriptures, it says that Jesus was created.In Colossians 1:15 it says," 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. If you notice it says he is the "firstborn over all creation." So,if he is the firstborn over all creation,then, this means he too was created.

This can be confirmed in Proverbs 8:22-31. 22“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old;23 I was formed long ages ago,

When it says that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God,this is implying that God created Jesus personally.All other things were created through Jesus and for him.That means Jesus was created first,and then all other things were created through him by God.That is why it says this in Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?

This can also be confirmed in Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

So,God is the creator,and Jesus is the created.
God is eternal.He was not created or born.Jesus was created and was born first.Hence,firstborn.

 

[JM2C]

hey JM2C,

Matt was out of words about the distress that he found there...
but not really that, but kind of like Paul dictated his memories of these experiences...
And on and On....

You mean that event really took place and Matthew said those words in distress?

Everything written about Jesus was written from memory about what people remember He said.

Actually that is what the Lord Jesus Christ said in,

Jn 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

You cannot make it any clearer than this “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”

Jesus didn't write anything to be read or recited from Jesus' hand.

That was the reason why the apostles wrote them instead because they were with the Lord Jesus Christ while He was here on earth.

The reason why the NT must be written during the first generation of Christianity is to preserve the eyewitnesses.

For example: Luke was not an apostle nor was he an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus Christ, but where did he get all those information that he wrote in the gospel of Luke.

Lk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Lk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Lk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Lk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

It’s like Luke was a detective and that he did not witness the crime at all, so in order for him to find out what happened he needs to ask the eyewitnesses. This is how Luke got all the information when he wrote the gospel of Luke, from eyewitnesses.

Were they divinely inspired as well? Yes!

If you read Matthews’ and compare it to Luke’s and Mark’s they are synoptically the same or they see the same thing together.

Paul dictated most of the contents in the new testament, or highly influenced the writing of these psalms.

That's why I call him, Paul, the anti-Christ.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul never met Jesus and barely knew Petre, named (Simon, or Peter), let alone the rest of the apostles.

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

“And last of all He was seen” by Paul.

But your reciting writings of Matthew doesn't tell the whole story does it ?
Your explanation of what I posted sounds like double talk to me,
maybe it is....who really knows....it must be true...Paul said it was.
~
ok nuff stuff,
'mud

Maybe you did not understand the question.

Let me ask you again, the Gentiles, if one is not a Jew one is a Gentile or a Barbarian, when did they start to appear in the four gospels? Or what is the meaning of,
Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[1robin]

Well Robin,If we read the holy scriptures, it says that Jesus was created.In Colossians 1:15 it says," 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. If you notice it says he is the "firstborn over all creation." So,if he is the firstborn over all creation,then, this means he too was created.

It says above all creation not a creation himself. I will give you the most accepted commentary on that verse in history.

He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

How is anything begotten from all eternity a man?

This can be confirmed in Proverbs 8:22-31. 22“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old;23 I was formed long ages ago,

Jesus is not the object here. BWT note it says Jesus created him. What man can create another from nothing?

When it says that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God,this is implying that God created Jesus personally.All other things were created through Jesus and for him.That means Jesus was created first,and then all other things were created through him by God.That is why it says this in Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?

Begotten means to be formed from the same stuff as the creator. That is what separates it from created.

as proving Christ's filial dignity, transcending the angels in that "he hath inherited a more excellent name than they," i.e. the name of son; and again (Heb 5:5) of God conferring upon Christ the glory of the priestly office
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0001287

This can also be confirmed in Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

That only confirms that Jesus was around and it was through him things were made. It not only does not confirm but clearly proves he is not merely a man. No mere man can have this said about him. What is it your saying? Are you arguing against him being divine or for his being a man?

So,God is the creator,and Jesus is the created. God is eternal.He was not created or born.Jesus was created and was born first.Hence,firstborn.

This created begotten business gets complicated but that is not the issue.

The issue is was Christ merely a mortal man or divine? That is what the Trinity debate is about. Not when, if, or by what means he came into existence in eternity.

 

[Nada]

It says above all creation not a creation himself. I will give you the most accepted commentary on that verse in history.

He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

How is anything begotten from all eternity a man?


Jesus is not the object here. BWT note it says Jesus created him. What man can create another from nothing?

Begotten means to be formed from the same stuff as the creator. That is what separates it from created.

as proving Christ's filial dignity, transcending the angels in that "he hath inherited a more excellent name than they," i.e. the name of son; and again (Heb 5:5) of God conferring upon Christ the glory of the priestly office
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0001287


That only confirms that Jesus was around and it was through him things were made. It not only does not confirm but clearly proves he is not merely a man. No mere man can have this said about him. What is it your saying? Are you arguing against him being divine or for his being a man?

This created begotten business gets complicated but that is not the issue.

The issue is was Christ merely a mortal man or divine? That is what the Trinity debate is about. Not when, if, or by what means he came into existence in eternity.

It does say Jesus was created.You just cant comprehend what is being said because of what you already believe.It says, ".. the firstborn over all creation." This means Jesus was born first before all other creations.He did not have a mother who conceived him in heaven.God created him a spirit first.Jehovah God is his Father and creator.After Jesus was made, then all other things came into existence.

Jesus did not always exist.He was not eternal.God created him.The reason Jesus is called only begotten Son,like I explained numerous times before.is because God made him personally.Only Jesus was made specifically by God for the purpose of being His Son.Everything other than Jesus after Jesus was created was made through Jesus and for Jesus.Thats why all others are called sons of God, but only Jesus is called the only begotten Son.


The reason you do not understand Proverbs 8:1-36 is because you believe when it says “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works," that "The Lord" is referring to Jesus.Jesus is not God Robin.When it says that in the scripture it is Jesus speaking about God bringing him forth.Thats where you get confused.Jesus is what is being spoken of in Proverbs 8.Since you think Jesus is God and that there is a Trinity,thats why you cannot understand the truth of what is being said.Man made doctrines that have no biblical backing have your mind twisted and confused.Because of this you will never be able to fully comprehend the truth in Gods Word.



You do not understand what begotten means.



Jesus was not always a man.You need to understand this.Flesh cannot dwell in heaven.If Jesus was in heaven in the beginning then obviously he was in spirit form right? Jesus was not always Jesus.He became Jesus only when he became flesh on earth.He was a spirit with a different name.He then became Jesus on earth.When Jesus died and was resurrected,he then ascended back to heaven.Not a s flesh but in spirit form.


The begotten business thing is not complicated.If you truly try to understand without clouding your mind with what you already think you know,then it becomes clear.

 

[Nada]

Trinity

Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

 

[1robin]

Trinity

Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.

How is it not biblical? My argument is not for the Trinity but is a claim that suggesting Christ was a mere man is unjustifiable in totality. I am neutral on the doctrine because whatever the case I must do the same exact thing to be saved. Interesting but not personally relevant.

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

How is an encyclopedia a biblical authority?

Use Augustine, Luther, Aquinas or someone with credibility here.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

I hold no firm Trinitarian belief.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

Why is a person called bible student using secular sources as authoritative.

I have no set position on the Trinity but I do know about Nicea. It was not a Trinity council. It was only about what Jesus was. Constantine invited 1800 bishops to settle what Jesus "essence" was. He did not suggest what should be concluded. I don't think he cared. He only wanted unity and he got it. I believe there was a grand total of 2 bishops who did not agree he was divine or not merely man.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

I need not defend that which I did not claim. I claim only Christ was not merely man. I have yet to see even a hint at why that would be wrong.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

I do not care about the Trinity but not finding a demanded word in the bible or finding terribly inaccurate parallels from other times is a poor argument. Countless Christina doctrines are logical deductions and not emphatically stated in any arbitrary format.


Let's back up here. I think there are only 4 choices for Christ.

1. Man.
2. God.
3. Angel.
4. Demon.

My argument is that 1 and or 4 are the worst possible deductions, not that 2 is a certainty. Do you have a 5th choice? If not, which of the 4 do you defend?

 

[1robin]

It does say Jesus was created.You just cant comprehend what is being said because of what you already believe.It says, ".. the firstborn over all creation." This means Jesus was born first before all other creations.He did not have a mother who conceived him in heaven.God created him a spirit first.Jehovah God is his Father and creator.After Jesus was made, then all other things came into existence.

The only thing required to justify my position is that he was not "born" as all he other creations. He was not born as we are and therefore is not identical to us. You seem to think I have to stand by his being fully God if I deny he is fully human. I do not. There is no justification to claiming he was merely a man like us.

Jesus did not always exist.He was not eternal.God created him.The reason Jesus is called only begotten Son,like I explained numerous times before.is because God made him personally.Only Jesus was made specifically by God for the purpose of being His Son.Everything other than Jesus after Jesus was created was made through Jesus and for Jesus.Thats why all others are called sons of God, but only Jesus is called the only begotten Son.

I am going to stop here because we are wasting a lot of time. I am not arguing Christ is God. I believe that but do not believe it or consider it important enough to argue about. I claim he was not a man like we are. He was created before the universe, he is immortal, he is perfect, he did things in his own name, he forgave sin by his own authority. Since he was not a man like us what was he IYO? Until we can get what I claim straight I feel like I'm spinning my wheels.

 

[Nada]

How is it not biblical? My argument is not for the Trinity but is a claim that suggesting Christ was a mere man is unjustifiable in totality. I am neutral on the doctrine because whatever the case I must do the same exact thing to be saved. Interesting but not personally relevant.

How is an encyclopedia a biblical authority?

Use Augustine, Luther, Aquinas or someone with credibility here.

I hold no firm Trinitarian belief.

Why is a person called bible student using secular sources as authoritative.

I have no set position on the Trinity but I do know about Nicea. It was not a Trinity council. It was only about what Jesus was. Constantine invited 1800 bishops to settle what Jesus "essence" was. He did not suggest what should be concluded. I don't think he cared. He only wanted unity and he got it. I believe there was a grand total of 2 bishops who did not agree he was divine or not merely man.

I need not defend that which I did not claim. I claim only Christ was not merely man. I have yet to see even a hint at why that would be wrong.

I do not care about the Trinity but not finding a demanded word in the bible or finding terribly inaccurate parallels from other times is a poor argument. Countless Christina doctrines are logical deductions and not emphatically stated in any arbitrary format.


Let's back up here. I think there are only 4 choices for Christ.

1. Man.
2. God.
3. Angel.
4. Demon.

My argument is that 1 and or 4 are the worst possible deductions, not that 2 is a certainty. Do you have a 5th choice? If not, which of the 4 do you defend?

How is it not biblical you ask? Well Robin, go to the holy scriptures and try to find the word Trinity in it. It does not exist in the holy scriptures.It is a man made word and belief.Just like Eucharist and Transubstantiation are too.So is Easter and Christmas.

Jesus was a man like us.Except he was made perfect like Adam and Eve.Jesus had the choice to sin like us.He bled like us.He also died like we do.God cannot die and God cannot sin.Jesus was a man.This man died and was risen to everlasting life.

 

[Nada]

How is it not biblical you ask? Well Robin, go to the holy scriptures and try to find the word Trinity in it. It does not exist in the holy scriptures.It is a man made word and belief.Just like Eucharist and Transubstantiation are too.So is Easter and Christmas.

Jesus was a man like us.Except he was made perfect like Adam and Eve.Jesus had the choice to sin like us.He bled like us.He also died like we do.God cannot die and God cannot sin.Jesus was a man.This man died and was risen to everlasting life.

I no longer wish to speak to you anymore either.I did not like how you put demon as choice #4 for Jesus.How could you? Wow!

You stated, "Let's back up here. I think there are only 4 choices for Christ.

1. Man.
2. God.
3. Angel.
4. Demon.

My argument is that 1 and or 4 are the worst possible deductions, not that 2 is a certainty. Do you have a 5th choice? If not, which of the 4 do you defend?"

 

[1robin]

How is it not biblical you ask? Well Robin, go to the holy scriptures and try to find the word Trinity in it. It does not exist in the holy scriptures.It is a man made word and belief.Just like Eucharist and Transubstantiation are too.So is Easter and Christmas.

Jesus was a man like us.Except he was made perfect like Adam and Eve.Jesus had the choice to sin like us.He bled like us.He also died like we do.God cannot die and God cannot sin.Jesus was a man.This man died and was risen to everlasting life.

Look at yourself and see if the word human is tattooed on you anywhere. Does that make you in-human. Everyone in history has, is, and always will identify things by what they do and are. That is called the principle of identity and is a deep philosophical topic. Trinity is a modern English word that represents a concept found in a hundred scriptures. It is not Aramaic, not Hebrew, and not Koine Greek. I can't find bicycle or train in the bible either. Do they not exist?


Jesus was not a man like us.

1. I can't eternally forgive sin.
2. I will not co-occupy the throne of God.
3. I can't turn water into wine.
4. I can't resurrect the dead in my own name.
5. I did not exist before the foundations of the universe.
6. I did not defeat Satan.
7. I don't have the keys to Hell.
8. I am not the judge of the universe.
9. I was not born of a virgin.
10. I and the father are related but we are not one.
11. If you see me you have seen only the palest reflections of the father not he himself.


I can do this all day.

I do not know if the Trinity is true but I do know Jesus was never ever a man like us.

 

[1robin]

I no longer wish to speak to you anymore either.I did not like how you put demon as choice #4 for Jesus.How could you? Wow!

You stated, "Let's back up here. I think there are only 4 choices for Christ.

1. Man.
2. God.
3. Angel.
4. Demon.

My argument is that 1 and or 4 are the worst possible deductions, not that 2 is a certainty. Do you have a 5th choice? If not, which of the 4 do you defend?"

Because it is a possibility and if you understood philosophy, comparative religion, or moral theory you would know that. I said specifically it was the worst possible choice and I obviously believe the exact opposite so cut the "offended victim" garbage out. I am the one defending his being God. Others are the ones lowering his status. Theologians who sit on college boards use similar arguments. Heck similar things are in eh bible. Give me a break. This feigned wounded sensibility stuff is pathetic. This is among the worst cop out excuses I have ever seen and it is shameful that it came from Christians.

 

[JM2C]

If Jesus was created as is spoken of in Colossians 1:15,and God the Almighty is eternal, as is spoken of in Revelation 1:8, then, Jesus cannot be God.

You are right the one in Revelation 1:8 is God.

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Who is this Alpha and the Omega in Rev 22:13?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ ..the bright morning star...aka Lucifer to the Romans...

 

[JM2C]

^ ..the bright morning star...aka Lucifer to the Romans...

Morning star only without the "bright" AKA the sons of God before the fall of Satan or any angels. The Bright Morning Star is the Lord Jesus Christ in Rev 22:16.

 

[Nada]

You are right the one in Revelation 1:8 is God.

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Who is this Alpha and the Omega in Rev 22:13?

The same as in Revelation 1:8. There is only one God the Almighty.

Alpha and Omega. Names of the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet; they are used together three times in Revelation as a title for God. In these contexts this expression means the same as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end.”—Re 1:8; 21:6; 22:13.

 

[Nada]

The Bright Morning star,Son of Dawn,Lucifer, mentioned in Isaiah 14:12, is not Satan the devil.

 

[Muffled]

A tricky question for the 'Jesus was God' brigade:-
If Jesus was God, did he pray to himself?

"Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed" (Luke 5:16)

I believe He did and there is nothing special about it but a trickier question is why did He pray.

 

[Muffled]

If Jesus was created as is spoken of in Colossians 1:15,and God the Almighty is eternal,as is spoken of in Revelation 1:8,then,Jesus cannot be God.

Matthew 24:36 says only the Father knows the appointed time of the end.Not the angels nor the Son.If Jesus was God ,then he should have known.

In Matthew 26:39 Jesus is praying to God on his face and asking God to remove the cup from him.First,God does not pray to anyone.Second,God does not have to ask anyone for permission to do anything.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 clearly shows that Jesus is in subjection to God,His Father,and God is in control of everything.

There are many other scriptures that prove Jesus is not God.

I believe the Body of Jesus is not God and is temporal but the everlasting Spirit of God resides in Jesus and becomes the identifying person in Jesus.

I believe He does know but He is speaking of experiencing which He will not. For instance I know my wife because I experience her but if someone had just told me about her I would have known her only by the telling. (This was the case when I first met her someone else told me where to find her and what her name was.)

I believe God can pray to Himself and I should know but you have no evidence to the contrary.

I believe secondly Jesus is not just God but also flesh with a mind of flesh which can ask to be delivered because the flesh does not like to die or be in pain. In the end the Spirit of God will overrule the flesh and say Thy will be done.

I believe ther are things that people believe prove that but they actually don't.

I believe it is quite appropriate for God to view the flesh as in subjection but that does not mean that God is any less God for doing so.

 

[Muffled]

I am not a trinity defender but I think Jesus was begotten not created. He was there before the beginning, did miracles in his name, claimed co-occupancy of God's throne, claimed all things were made through him, etc.... We only have angel, God, mere man, or demon to chose from. Which is best?

I believe He is both begotten and created. He is begotten of Mary and of God so He is the begotten of God. However God did not have sex with Mary and neither did a man so Jesus was created partially and partially desccended from Mary.

I believe this refers to the Spirit of God in Jesus not to the body so it isn't actually Jesus at the time

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Originally Posted by Shuttlecraft
A tricky question for the 'Jesus was God' brigade:-
If Jesus was God, did he pray to himself?
"Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed" (Luke 5:16)

I believe He did and there is nothing special about it but a trickier question is why did He pray.

You think Jesus prayed to himself? Please tell us you're joking!
Obviously he prayed to God to open a communication link with him-
Jesus said- "I say nothing of my own accord, i only say what my father tells me to say.." (John 12:49)

And to get a power download-
"After Jesus spent the night in prayer, everybody tried to touch him because power was coming from him" (Luke 6:12-19)