Do you believe that Jesus is the Word?

[Trackdayguy]

the Father gave birth to the Son. the Son is the word/everything. so the Son, who walked the earth as Jesus, is God.

Please refer to the Standard Answer Post.

 

[syo]

Please refer to the Standard Answer Post.

what's a standard answer post?

EDIT i found it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Accalimed by who? Perhaps also by the Watchtower?

Google is your friend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are a host of "acclaimed Bible scholar" who will attest that Jesus is God including the Pope. Finding someone of opposing view isn't difficult. They had those of opposing viewpoints and they crucified Jesus and then the Christians.

You know, that’s an interesting aspect you pointed out: that “those of opposing viewpoints” actually killed others.
Apparently, you think those who approve of killing the innocent, would not have God’s spirit on them? (And you need God’s spirit to accurately understand the Scriptures.)

I believe the same.

Yet, I know many religious organizations, who teach that Jesus is God, that have supported conflicts such as WWI, WWII, etc.,
Protestants killing Protestants, Catholics killing Catholics, valuing their national brothers over their spiritual brothers. Disobeying Jesus himself at John 13:34-35. He even said to ‘love your enemy’!
The words of Titus 1:16 applies to them.

That’s one reason I know their teachings are wrong.

 

[paarsurrey]

syncretic said: ↑
Jesus and the Father are both 'God'.

You're entitled to your view, but as I keep quoting to you, it's not a view Jesus shares.

I agree with one. Jesus did not believe such things and did not even imply to say them, in my opinion. It is the Church who is forcing to put things in Jesus' mouth, I believe.
Regards

 

[blü 2]

First off, Jesus 's name literally means JHVH with us.

Not so. It's from Hebrew Yehoshu'a (Joshua / Yeshua / Iesous / Iesus) meaning "Yahweh is salvation". (I suspect you're thinking of Immanuel, 'God is with us'.)

The verses that you have presented do not demonstrate that Jesus is not God, they illustrate, at least some of them, the nature of the Godhood, Elohim.

Talk me through, say, 'thee, the only true god, and Jesus Christ who thou hast sent'. That distinguishes without any ambiguity between Yahweh, the Father, the one god of the Jews, as the only true god, on the one hand, and Jesus, who has been sent as Yahweh's emissary.

Because Jesus does call Himself God, as in John 8:58.

In John 8:58 Jesus says, Before Abraham was, I am. That's consistent with Jesus' other mentions of being in Heaven with Yahweh before coming to earth. It does nothing to displace Jesus' repeated statements that he is not god, that Yahweh is (as every Jew knows) the only true god, that he Jesus worships Yahweh, that he has only such powers as Yahweh sees fit to let him have ... and so on and so on and so on.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the trinity doctrine, instead of explaining, or refuting, my statements regarding the Godhood, and how it is understood.

With all due respect, that's nonsense. I've refuted your statements 'regarding the Godhood' again and again, explaining the Greek from which the word Godhead is translated in the KJV, and addressing the central issue with words attributed to Jesus in direct speech.

I've also directed your attention to the history of the Trinity doctrine, which does NOT have its 1+1+1=1 shape before the 4th century CE, and to the incoherence of 1+1+1=1, a matter freely admitted by the RCC and Anglos / Piscos.

By all means hold incoherent notions dear, think Jesus is God, whatever pleases you. Just don't assert that they have biblical backing, or that the Tanakh supports a triune god or mentions Jesus at any point, or that Jesus fits the description of a Tanakh messiah. That's an abusive reading of ancient documents and treads on history's toe.

 

[Kenny]

Google is your friend.

You quoted it

 

[Kenny]

You know, that’s an interesting aspect you pointed out: that “those of opposing viewpoints” actually killed others.
Apparently, you think those who approve of killing the innocent, would not have God’s spirit on them? (And you need God’s spirit to accurately understand the Scriptures.)

I believe the same.

Yet, I know many religious organizations, who teach that Jesus is God, that have supported conflicts such as WWI, WWII, etc.,
Protestants killing Protestants, Catholics killing Catholics, valuing their national brothers over their spiritual brothers. Disobeying Jesus himself at John 13:34-35. He even said to ‘love your enemy’!
The words of Titus 1:16 applies to them.

That’s one reason I know their teachings are wrong.

Strawman.

 

[Desert Snake]

Note that you only have John saying this? The bible doesn't agree with him.

The Book of John is in the Bible.

So, the Bible does agree, with John.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not so. It's from Hebrew Yehoshu'a (Joshua / Yeshua / Iesous / Iesus) meaning "Yahweh is salvation". (I suspect you're thinking of Immanuel, 'God is with us'.)

Wrong.

Talk me through, say, 'thee, the only true god, and Jesus Christ who thou hast sent'. That distinguishes without any ambiguity between Yahweh, the Father, the one god of the Jews, as the only true god, on the one hand, and Jesus, who has been sent as Yahweh's emissary.
In John 8:58 Jesus says, Before Abraham was, I am. That's consistent with Jesus' other mentions of being in Heaven with Yahweh before coming to earth. It does nothing to displace Jesus' repeated statements that he is not god, that Yahweh is (as every Jew knows) the only true god, that he Jesus worships Yahweh, that he has only such powers as Yahweh sees fit to let him have ... and so on and so on and so on.
With all due respect, that's nonsense. I've refuted your statements 'regarding the Godhood' again and again, explaining the Greek from which the word Godhead is translated in the KJV, and addressing the central issue with words attributed to Jesus in direct speech.

I've also directed your attention to the history of the Trinity doctrine, which does NOT have its 1+1+1=1 shape before the 4th century CE, and to the incoherence of 1+1+1=1, a matter freely admitted by the RCC and Anglos / Piscos.

By all means hold incoherent notions dear, think Jesus is God, whatever pleases you. Just don't assert that they have biblical backing, or that the Tanakh supports a triune god or mentions Jesus at any point, or that Jesus fits the description of a Tanakh messiah. That's an abusive reading of ancient documents and treads on history's toe.

Lol

 

[blü 2]

Wrong.

Look up authority for the meaning of the names Joshua / Jesus, and Immanuel.

That's what I did. If you still wish to disagree, please refer me to your source.

Lol

You've given up on argument reasoned from evidence, then.

Well, if that's your preference, I leave you to it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Look up authority for the meaning of the names Joshua / Jesus, and Immanuel.

That's what I did. If you still wish to disagree, please refer me to your source.

Your authority concerning the name of Jesus, isn't my problem.

You've given up on argument reasoned from evidence, then.

Well, if that's your preference, I leave you to it.

Your arguments are switching from non-religionist, to religionist. It's a mess, and isn't working.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Book of John is in the Bible.

John is an overrated hack. Neither his stuff nor Revelation should be included.

 

[blü 2]

Your authority concerning the name of Jesus, isn't my problem.

If you want to know what 'Jesus' means, check >here< and >here< and >here< (and there are more out there if you need them.

Your arguments are switching from non-religionist, to religionist. It's a mess, and isn't working.

My arguments have been the same all along: does the NT support the Trinity doctrine? (clearly not, many many examples). Is the Trinity doctrine coherent? (clearly not, and the RCC and Anglos say so).

Simple as that. No switching, no tricks, just straight down the middle.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you want to know what 'Jesus' means, check >here< and >here< and >here< (and there are more out there if you need them.
My arguments have been the same all along: does the NT support the Trinity doctrine? (clearly not, many many examples). Is the Trinity doctrine coherent? (clearly not, and the RCC and Anglos say so).

Simple as that. No switching, no tricks, just straight down the middle.

Worse than that, Trinitarians are disobeying the 1st of the Ten Commandments, where God states “I am Jehovah (Yahweh) thy God ....Thou shalt not have any other gods against my face.” — Exodus 20:1-5
Exodus 20:2 biblehub

(What a shame, removing God’s Own Name from His own book! That was a masterstroke by the Deceiver, to hide some of the Truth. At least a few Bibles have restored it!)

(Google ‘steeples origin’; how could something so nasty, get to be so ubiquitous in Christendom, were it not for an intelligent force promoting it? Sick! — 2 Corinthians 11:14-15.)

 

[Desert Snake]

If you want to know what 'Jesus' means, check >here< and >here< and >here< (and there are more out there if you need them.

You already gave your argument concerning the meaning of the name Jesus, and it's wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

My arguments have been the same all along: does the NT support the Trinity doctrine? (clearly not, many many examples). Is the Trinity doctrine coherent? (clearly not, and the RCC and Anglos say so).

Simple as that. No switching, no tricks, just straight down the middle.

...

Hence, the church credited with inventing the trinity, doesn't even understand it, nor claims to understand it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Worse than that, Trinitarians are disobeying the 1st of the Ten Commandments, where God states “I am Jehovah (Yahweh) thy God ....Thou shalt not have any other gods against my face.” — Exodus 20:1-5
Exodus 20:2 biblehub

That's because Jesus isn't another God. He is an aspect of the same, in other words, God.

(What a shame, removing God’s Own Name from His own book! That was a masterstroke by the Deceiver, to hide some of the Truth. At least a few Bibles have restored it!)

Huh? Loll

(Google ‘steeples origin’; how could something so nasty, get to be so ubiquitous in Christendom, were it not for an intelligent force promoting it? Sick! — 2 Corinthians 11:14-15.)

...

 

[blü 2]

You already gave your argument concerning the meaning of the name Jesus, and it's wrong.

Really? On what basis do you say my three sources are wrong? Do you have evidence, or are you just reluctant to concede the point?

Hence, the church credited with inventing the trinity, doesn't even understand it, nor claims to understand it.

I take it, then, that you understand the Trinity doctrine? Please explain it clearly to me, then.

For example, in your view, does it say that 1+1+1=1? Or does it say that Yahweh, Jesus, and Ghost are each one-third of God? Or does it say there are three gods?

And does it agree with Jesus' statement that Yahweh / the Father is 'the only true god' and the god Jesus worships?

 

[Desert Snake]

Really? On what basis do you say my four sources are wrong? Do you have evidence, or are you just reluctant to concede the point?

You can't argue sources, as your argument becomes multi-faceted, from extensive , or even revised etc, sources.
Your argument is that Jesus is from Yoheshua, and I'm saying it isn't.
I don't have to provide an argument to refute your theory, because Yoheshua literally isn't, the name of Jesus, in the Bible. Neither is it the same name, nor has the same meaning.

I take it, then, that you understand the Trinity doctrine? Please explain it clearly to me, then.

Understanding the trinity, and understanding the doctrine, are different things

For example, in your view, does it say that 1+1+1=1? Or does it say that Yahweh, Jesus, and Ghost are each one-third of God? Or does it say there are three gods?

It is one God, with more than one aspect, or person.

And does it agree with Jesus' statement that Yahweh / the Father is 'the only true god' and the god Jesus worships?

False argument. Note that Jesus literally never says this, in the Bible.