Does this mean Jesus is God?

[Muffled]

let me go over this again. You are saying the flesh is limited, right? Meaning it can't be everywhere at once. Right?

I believe so. I don't think we have enough evidence to support a multiverse.

 

[YoursTrue]

we are all god per psalms 82.

this would agree with genesis 1, john 1:3, and revelation 22 because self exists inside and not a apart/separate from it

You have to understand the way the word god is used there...

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe so. I don't think we have enough evidence to support a multiverse.

So then, Jesus as God equal to the other 2 persons of the trinity, seems that you are saying that Jesus was trapped as God in his flesh? Just trying to understand your position on this. Two godpersons that have no limitations, is that right? and one godperson that does have limitations because -- his flesh limits his ability, is that right?

 

[Soapy]

we are all god per psalms 82.

this would agree with genesis 1, john 1:3, and revelation 22 because self exists inside and not a apart/separate from it

The ‘Gods’ the verse refers to are those of the congregation of the mighty.

‘God’ is a word used to mean: ‘Mighty one’ (like ‘Hero’) - So, No, ‘we’ are not ‘Gods’.

Angels are softly entitled ‘Gods’ because they are ‘mighty ones’ in the spirit realm and over creation. The world could not be created and overseen by ones who are not ‘mighty ones’. But do not think I am say angels are GOD THE ALMIGHTY!

It is purely a term of reference: ‘God’ is a word with GERMANIC roots……! It is used in the old and New Testament and now in common usage only because the translators CHOSE to use that word instead of the Hebrew original.

And, moreover, ‘God’ is a TITLE laid on a person (or an entity deserving that accolade of being ‘Mighty’: Moses was called ‘God’ because he was a HERO of his time… Satan is called ‘God’ … ‘of this system of things’ because it is certainly a MIGHTY misdeed he has caused to happen in the created world and even among the holy heavenly angels - to his and their detriment!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Not every translation for Acts 20:28 uses those words. For instance,
NET Bible: "Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son."
(not with his own blood)
New Revised Standard Version
Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
(Again, not with his own blood but rather with the blood of his own son)

The word Son is not there to be translated.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The scriptures say that Jesus was a man in whom the Father chose to put His spirit into.

That’s what is shown in the man’s (Jesus) anointing at the river Jordan:

• ‘The Father was pleased that Jesus was filled with the fullness [of His Spirit]’ (paraphrased)

With the spirit of the Father in him this made Jesus’s spirit be in full agreement as that of the Father. This is what it means that Jesus and the Father are ‘ONE’ (are in agreement!)

It is clear that ‘See me’ is to ‘See the Father’ just means that everything Jesus did was just as the Father taught him to do. Jesus even contributed all the things he did TO THE FATHER working in him!
Here’s what Jesus is reputed to have said:

• Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (John 5:19)

If Jesus were ‘God in a human body’ there would be a contradiction in whom is speaking these words and how the Father is showing the Son (but you say the Son is the Father!!) how to do something BEFORE the Son can do it’.

In fact, it shows the man, Jesus, as an independent soul who claims he is FOLLOWING (being led by) the spirit of God (spirit of the Father).

Indeed, a ‘Son’ in scriptural terms, is exactly a person who is ‘Led by the Spirit of God’ and therefore ‘Doing the works of God (the Father)’

Was it agreement when he said Not my will but thine be done? The flesh didn't want to suffer but brought itself under subjection to the will of the Spirit.

You misrepresented what I said - I said the Father is the eternal Spirit and the Son is the fleshly body made to be sacrificed. I never said the Son is the Father.

The Son (the flesh) could do nothing of itself, it took the Spirit of God to work the miracles.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

In regard to the specific post I responded to… yes you were!!

It may have been in your or his mind something different but the reality is that what you both wrote were exactly the same things.

Nah - Sometimes you just don't understand what is meant or being said.

 

[YoursTrue]

The word Son is not there to be translated.

Without going into great detail, the Greek expression could be translated “with the blood of his own” or “with his own blood," so context has to be taken into consideration. A reader of the Greek would logically understand from the context that a noun in the singular number is implied after the expression “his own” and that the noun referred to God’s only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed. Thus as a result, quite a number of scholars and translators acknowledge that the word “son” is to be understood here and thereby render the phrase “with the blood of his own Son.”* If you know this, once you read the scripture there it is clear that the blood of Jesus Christ is what is being referred to. Do you think God, the One Jesus prayed to who was in heaven when Jesus was on the earth, has blood?
*https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/44/20#s=28&study=discover

 

[YoursTrue]

The word Son is not there to be translated.

It is implied and makes more sense from the Greek that it means the Son.

 

[YoursTrue]

Who are you or I, finite creatures, to determine how the infinite Creator God should choose to save the world?
...
Acts 29:28

I am not determining it. God determined it. He sent his Son to die for us. God did not die. God not-in-the-flesh did not die. By that I mean the Father who was in heaven while Jesus, his Son, who came down from heaven, left his heavenly abode, to die. Now we could argue this for a long time, so I'll leave the "God-in-the-flesh," or godman, as simply not "equal" to God not-in-the-flesh. No matter if he's God-in-the-flesh or God-not-in-the-flesh. Either way, not equal. "God" couldn't get out of his flesh could he, if that's what you believe, right?

 

[InChrist]

I am not determining it. God determined it. He sent his Son to die for us. God did not die. God not-in-the-flesh did not die. By that I mean the Father who was in heaven while Jesus, his Son, who came down from heaven, left his heavenly abode, to die. Now we could argue this for a long time, so I'll leave the "God-in-the-flesh," or godman, as simply not "equal" to God not-in-the-flesh. No matter if he's God-in-the-flesh or God-not-in-the-flesh. Either way, not equal. "God" couldn't get out of his flesh could he, if that's what you believe, right?

I believe the Son (as God) could have gotten out of the flesh at any moment, but since His purpose and mission in becoming human was to pay the penalty for humanity’s sins and offer eternal life... He deliberately chose to remain in the flesh and go to the cross, then rise in victory over death for our sake.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe the Son (as God) could have gotten out of the flesh at any moment, but since His purpose and mission in becoming human was to pay the penalty for humanity’s sins and offer eternal life... He deliberately chose to remain in the flesh and go to the cross, then rise in victory over death for our sake.

Let me ask you this: if Jesus had not been killed, and he got out of his flesh before that, just wondering what you think would have happened to his flesh, would it (skin, internal organs) be dead?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Without going into great detail, the Greek expression could be translated “with the blood of his own” or “with his own blood," so context has to be taken into consideration. A reader of the Greek would logically understand from the context that a noun in the singular number is implied after the expression “his own” and that the noun referred to God’s only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed. Thus as a result, quite a number of scholars and translators acknowledge that the word “son” is to be understood here and thereby render the phrase “with the blood of his own Son.”* If you know this, once you read the scripture there it is clear that the blood of Jesus Christ is what is being referred to. Do you think God, the One Jesus prayed to who was in heaven when Jesus was on the earth, has blood?
*https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/44/20#s=28&study=discover

Like I said "son" isn't there. But to match up with our doctrine and belief in multiple persons - alla kazam we will just add it.

Having blood to shed was the reason God made the body to dwell in and sacrifice for sin to begin with.

Also God is everywhere. His Spirit fills the heaven and the earth.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is implied and makes more sense from the Greek that it means the Son.

You are having to add in extra words that aren't there to maintain your doctrine.

Is the Son the Saviour? Because YHWH said there was no Saviour beside him - Isaiah 43:11 and Hosea 13:4

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour ...
Who gave himself for us ... Titus 2:13-14

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is the Son the Saviour? Isaiah 43:11

Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and NOT the Christian "Saviour".
That is what the Sanhedrin accused him of before he was put on a cross.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and NOT the Christian "Saviour".
That is what the Sanhedrin accused him of before he was put on a cross.

The scriptures clearly teach he was the Saviour. But it is true he was the Jewish Messiah.

 

[YoursTrue]

Like I said "son" isn't there. But to match up with our doctrine and belief in multiple persons - alla kazam we will just add it.

Having blood to shed was the reason God made the body to dwell in and sacrifice for sin to begin with.

Also God is everywhere. His Spirit fills the heaven and the earth.

Sorry, but you're wrong about the idea of "God's" flesh dying and yet as if the three so-called equal persons are each god equal to the others, etc. Here's a few reasons why (again, and remember to have a good day, please, because please do not expect me to keep going over this to you):
Greek and English have different inflections and shadings of words. There are more than one translation that adds the word Son to the reflexive word from the Greek so readers can understand the context and what it really means from Greek to English.
Regardless, I see you're fixed on your belief because you either did not understand the reasoning behind the translations, or you don't want to, and that's ok as far as I'm concerned, your heart and choice are involved. But I will say that there's far more to life than sticking to the idea that there are three godpersons in one god, one that had flesh and blood that died. No, sorry, looking at it even without the addition for comprehension of the word 'son' there, you're saying only one of those godpersons had blood. (Makes that person not equal anyway in any case.) I'll leave the rest up to you, and have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are having to add in extra words that aren't there to maintain your doctrine.

Is the Son the Saviour? Because YHWH said there was no Saviour beside him - Isaiah 43:11 and Hosea 13:4

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour ...
Who gave himself for us ... Titus 2:13-14

TB37, if you can't understand or want to see why some translators use the word 'son' there at Acts 20:28, and frankly, you're saying they are all wrong, there is no use to go into the other scriptures with you now. Have a good day.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry, but you're wrong about the idea of "God's" flesh dying and yet as if the three so-called equal persons are each god equal to the others, etc. Here's a few reasons why (again, and remember to have a good day, please, because please do not expect me to keep going over this to you):
Greek and English have different inflections and shadings of words. There are more than one translation that adds the word Son to the reflexive word from the Greek so readers can understand the context and what it really means from Greek to English.
Regardless, I see you're fixed on your belief because you either did not understand the reasoning behind the translations, or you don't want to, and that's ok as far as I'm concerned, your heart and choice are involved. But I will say that there's far more to life than sticking to the idea that there are three godpersons in one god, one that had flesh and blood that died. No, sorry, looking at it even without the addition for comprehension of the word 'son' there, you're saying only one of those godpersons had blood. (Makes that person not equal anyway in any case.) I'll leave the rest up to you, and have a good day.

Evidently you are unable to understand what I said, because I don't believe in a Trinity. There are not 3 persons in the Godhead. So it's just another strawman post from you portraying me as believing something I don't.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

TB37, if you can't understand or want to see why some translators use the word 'son' there at Acts 20:28, and frankly, you're saying they are all wrong, there is no use to go into the other scriptures with you now. Have a good day.

It's only SOME translators that translate it that way. So how can you say I am saying they are all wrong?

And please do explain the other scriptures I mentioned in post #254, because when taken together they clearly show who the Savior has to be.