Does this mean Jesus is God?

[Soapy]

Jesus now has great power and authority.
Anyone or anything can become a deity, depending on the power he has, or how people view him. Jesus was given authority by his Father in heaven. Jesus knew there is only one true God. He wasn't talking about himself. The point you're raising is an interesting one and it is necessary to understand the context and we can go into that perhaps another time about the resurrection. Matthew 28:18 speaks that all authority was given to Jesus. "Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." Since it was given to him by the Father the Bible later speaks of the time that Jesus will hand back to the Father everything.
Just touching on this point, however, and you might want to check it out--
"Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection."
Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11" Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org)
The subject can be complex but with proper understanding and help from God, can be understood.

You are right to put forward the fact that the power and authority does not belong to Jesus. The previous responder seemed reluctant to state this fact almost as if they desired the scriptures to stop at that point.

There are several examples throughout the scriptures of ‘All power and authority’ being given to someone BY THE OWNER. The greatest of these are obviously Joseph in Egypt BY PHAROAH and MORDECIAH in Persia by KING XERXES.

In both these scenarios the receivers wielded all power and authority AS IF they were the giver - but at all times the absolute OWNERSHIP still remained with the giver. And, after the time and performance they were given the power and authority to oversee they HANDED BACK the power and authority the giver….

The same is with Jesus: He HANDED BACK the power and authority to Him that gave it to him in the first place.

So, clearly, whatever these persons are labelled WHILE they held temporarily the power and authority, what are they to be labelled AFTER they hand back the power and authority?

Those who cannot stomach the idea that power and authority did not remain with Jesus will never properly engage in the ‘afterwards’ (nor indeed the ‘before’ they were given power and authority) since it would destroy their argument…. Is that not a deceitful way to claim a truth of an ideology?

And as for Jesus ‘Raising up’ something. It had nothing to do with Jesus’ body. Jesus was referring to the Congregation of believers (now called ‘Church’): The temple was a place where WORSHIP of the true God was carried out… the new ‘church’ of the people (rather than a physical building) is to be the place of worship: ‘The time is now and TRUE WORSHIP is in SPIRIT AND TRUTH’.
In spirit and truth… not in a physical building!

Tear down the fledgling church that Jesus was forming by his death and on his rising up it will be reformed. Indeed, as Jesus went to trial and death on the cross, the belief in him and his quest diminished rapidly… the ‘temple’ of the people was being torn down: The believers scattered and lost faith … those who thought, if he was truly sent by God how could he die!! The Fairweather believers.

And so it was. Then, three days later Jesus us risen… he did not raise himself from the dead!!! Jesus never said he would do that. The dead have no action in the living world. GOD ALMIGHTY: The Father, raised up Jesus Christ … just as He said He would. In the garden the night before Jesus was to die, Jesus agonised about being raised up again that he sweated blood - a very real phenomena!! He indeed wondered if the FATHER indeed COULD RAISE HIM UP AGAIN…. And what did that lead Jesus into doing??? Did Jesus not slip and say, ‘FATHER.. if there could be another way …..!’
What did that mean? I’m sure it is clear.
But Jesus held his nerve and gave way to the Will of the Father: ‘But not my Will but Yours!’

Trinitarians keep on pushing the ‘Jesus raised himself from the dead’ fallacy despite reading the many verses that state that Jesus was raised up by the spirit of God … and that the Father raised up the Son…. How devilish is that? Is Jesus the Holy Spirit of God; is Jesus the Father? Where is their logic going?!

But overall, nowhere in any scriptures or prophesies in scriptures does it say or even insinuate that the Son will raise himself from the dead:

• “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life…” (John 5:21)
• “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.” (Romans 8:11)
• “But God raised him from the dead” (Acts 2:24)
• “….That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 1:19-20)

How many verses does it take to show that Jesus did not ‘raise himself’ from the dead?

Who is really teaching a ‘self-raising’ Christ against the truth in scriptures…. For sure it is not scriptures fighting against itself but ideology of man fighting true theology of God!!

 

[TreeOfLife]

You are right to put forward the fact that the power and authority does not belong to Jesus. The previous responder seemed reluctant to state this fact almost as if they desired the scriptures to stop at that point.


There are several examples throughout the scriptures of ‘All power and authority’ being given to someone BY THE OWNER. The greatest of these are obviously Joseph in Egypt BY PHAROAH and MORDECIAH in Persia by KING XERXES.

In both these scenarios the receivers wielded all power and authority AS IF they were the giver - but at all times the absolute OWNERSHIP still remained with the giver. And, after the time and performance they were given the power and authority to oversee they HANDED BACK the power and authority the giver….

The same is with Jesus: He HANDED BACK the power and authority to Him that gave it to him in the first place.

So, clearly, whatever these persons are labelled WHILE they held temporarily the power and authority, what are they to be labelled AFTER they hand back the power and authority?

Those who cannot stomach the idea that power and authority did not remain with Jesus will never properly engage in the ‘afterwards’ (nor indeed the ‘before’ they were given power and authority) since it would destroy their argument…. Is that not a deceitful way to claim a truth of an ideology?

And as for Jesus ‘Raising up’ something. It had nothing to do with Jesus’ body. Jesus was referring to the Congregation of believers (now called ‘Church’): The temple was a place where WORSHIP of the true God was carried out… the new ‘church’ of the people (rather than a physical building) is to be the place of worship: ‘The time is now and TRUE WORSHIP is in SPIRIT AND TRUTH’.
In spirit and truth… not in a physical building!

Tear down the fledgling church that Jesus was forming by his death and on his rising up it will be reformed. Indeed, as Jesus went to trial and death on the cross, the belief in him and his quest diminished rapidly… the ‘temple’ of the people was being torn down: The believers scattered and lost faith … those who thought, if he was truly sent by God how could he die!! The Fairweather believers.

And so it was. Then, three days later Jesus us risen… he did not raise himself from the dead!!! Jesus never said he would do that. The dead have no action in the living world. GOD ALMIGHTY: The Father, raised up Jesus Christ … just as He said He would. In the garden the night before Jesus was to die, Jesus agonised about being raised up again that he sweated blood - a very real phenomena!! He indeed wondered if the FATHER indeed COULD RAISE HIM UP AGAIN…. And what did that lead Jesus into doing??? Did Jesus not slip and say, ‘FATHER.. if there could be another way …..!’
What did that mean? I’m sure it is clear.
But Jesus held his nerve and gave way to the Will of the Father: ‘But not my Will but Yours!’

Trinitarians keep on pushing the ‘Jesus raised himself from the dead’ fallacy despite reading the many verses that state that Jesus was raised up by the spirit of God … and that the Father raised up the Son…. How devilish is that? Is Jesus the Holy Spirit of God; is Jesus the Father? Where is their logic going?!

But overall, nowhere in any scriptures or prophesies in scriptures does it say or even insinuate that the Son will raise himself from the dead:

• “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life…” (John 5:21)
• “And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.” (Romans 8:11)
• “But God raised him from the dead” (Acts 2:24)
• “….That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 1:19-20)

How many verses does it take to show that Jesus did not ‘raise himself’ from the dead?

Who is really teaching a ‘self-raising’ Christ against the truth in scriptures…. For sure it is not scriptures fighting against itself but ideology of man fighting true theology of God!!

I basically agree with a lot of what you state. But here are my thoughts

First thing I must say. As man we have continued for at least 2000yrs to make God into our image. Wrong. Psalms 82,6. We are made in the image of Him. With that said. Why can't God have a son???? What man can tell God anything. Jesus himself States that he gave the book of revelations to the revelations to the apostle John. So so in revelation 3.14 Jesus himself calls him self the 1st creation of God. Again we have made God in our image God can have a son.

Next in Matt 28:18 Jesus States all power in heaven and Earth is given to him. So at this point he has become deity and is a true heir to the throne of God. So he is not given back any power but received even more after the resurrection.

And Jesus did raise himself up as in John 2.19 and John 10:18.

And we have Been given the same measure of faith as Jesus Christ. In Romans 12.3 you and I have been given the same measure of faith as Christ.

So let's all please remember who we are. We are made in the literal image of God psalms 82:6.

We have been given the same measure of faith as Christ..

In John 10:31-36. Jesus himself says the scriptures cannot be broken to whom the word came are the sons of God.

And then in Romans 1018 we are joint heirs with Jesus Christ. He is stated himself that we will be sitting in glory with him. As in many mansions.

Please brother take charge of who God says you are.Even Jesus says in John14:12 we will do more works than him.

Only believe believe that Jesus has empowered us as in John 14:20 to to do the works of the kingdom of God here on Earth.

 

[TreeOfLife]

Thank you for your comment.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

But then you have to realize that Joshua means the same thing. (God -- or phonetically, Yeshua --saves.) And of course, we know Joshua was not God.
From Strong's Concordance:
Strong's Concordance
Iésous: Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. Strong's Greek: 2424. Ἰησοῦς (Iésous) -- Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. (biblehub.com)

Actually his name is YHWSH and it means YHWH saves. Because he was YHWH manifest in the flesh.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

‘A body YOU made for me!’

So who are you saying was the me the body was made for? You have said before that he was a man. So are you now saying he existed before he was born?

I think it is saying You prepared me as a body.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually his name is YHWSH and it means YHWH saves. Because he was YHWH manifest in the flesh.

Not according to esteemed bible commentators who explain that Joshua, or Yeshua are the same names. Yeshua and Joshua mean the same. If you can't agree or understand that the names Joshua and Jesus have the same meaning, we really can't have a discussion. So ... take it as you will. Also, I will mention that there are more than one person called Jesus in the Bible.
Iésous: Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. (Strong's Greek: 2424. Ἰησοῦς (Iésous) -- Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. (biblehub.com))

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Not according to esteemed bible commentators who explain that Joshua, or Yeshua are the same names. Yeshua and Joshua mean the same. If you can't agree or understand that the names Joshua and Jesus have the same meaning, we really can't have a discussion. So ... take it as you will. Also, I will mention that there are more than one person called Jesus in the Bible.
Iésous: Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. (Strong's Greek: 2424. Ἰησοῦς (Iésous) -- Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. (biblehub.com))

Joshua the successor to Moses had the same name as the Messiah. They both have the name YHWSH. You need to check it out better before being so quick to disagree. (The name Jesus doesn't mean the same thing. It simply means he saves or savior.)

 

[Soapy]

So who are you saying was the me the body was made for? You have said before that he was a man. So are you now saying he existed before he was born?

I think it is saying You prepared me as a body.

I’m not saying anything of the sort. I was disputing the previous poster who said that Jesus is God and came to earth. My point was that if God made a body for Jesus how is Jesus God… wouldn’t Jesus have made a body for himself instead of another doing it for him… indeed, since God is one there need not be any of them that made a body for another since all are one!

Basically, I’m saying that all the trinitarian crap is just that: crap! Or let’s say, ‘misguided loyalty to fallacious pagan belief’.

So, no. And why did you misunderstand what I wrote? Did you not see the point?

 

[Soapy]

Not according to esteemed bible commentators who explain that Joshua, or Yeshua are the same names. Yeshua and Joshua mean the same. If you can't agree or understand that the names Joshua and Jesus have the same meaning, we really can't have a discussion. So ... take it as you will. Also, I will mention that there are more than one person called Jesus in the Bible.
Iésous: Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. (Strong's Greek: 2424. Ἰησοῦς (Iésous) -- Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr. (biblehub.com))

Joshua and Jesus ARE the same name and therefore are the same meaning.

It is only when written and spoken through the Greek translation that they appear different since the Bible translators wanted to make an explicit differentiation for ‘the Christ’ - the anointed Joshua. This is similar to other Jewish names changed to Greek names (E.g. Cephas —> Peter)

You may have considered why there is a story about Zachariah being made mute for arguing with the Angel Gabriel about calling his to-be-born son, ‘John’.

Zachariah refused saying that there had not been anyone in his ancestry with that name. And that, indeed, was the tradition: Male children had at least one of their names from an ancestor. It was unheard of not to name a male child thus. Zachariah argued do vehemently that the Angel, in order to fulfil the command God gave him to give to Zachariah, used his power to shut Zachariah up until Zachariah agreed to name the son the name God ordered for the child.

Again, there was no ‘John’ in zachriah’s lineage.

So, what’s the point?

Well, was there a ‘Jesus’ in Mary’s lineage?

No! There was no ‘JESUS’ in any Jewish lineage….

So how is it that Mary accepted the name of ‘Jesus’ for her son-to-be-born when there had been no such name prior?

Im sure by now you know the answer! But I’m going to say it anyway: Because the name Gabriel told Mary to call her son to be born was ‘Iousus’: ‘Joshua’. Therefore there was no remonstrating since there indeed is a ‘Iousus’ in the lineage of Mary.

A point to note is that in the New Testament there is no mention of anyone explicitly called ‘Joshua’. But we do have other with the name, ‘Jesus’! Thus, ‘Jesus’ was not a unique name for the ‘Christ’. The Bible translators made it seem so for the purpose of venerating the Christ. I can see why they would want to do that and I can see that it’s not a bad reason BUT it is worth knowing the background truth, in any case!

It is also fascinating to look at seemingly isolated scriptural themes only to later realise that they are actually upholding some other seemingly isolated events. For instance, the fact that it was mentioned that John the Baptist is six months older than Jesus…. Why? What point is there to knowing that? It is even pointed out that John did not know Jesus except by divine revelation despite them being cousins!! Well, the linking point is that that John, though being called ‘Great’, said there was coming one greater than he…. Hmmm… What was the event in which Jesus was asked about ‘greater’? Jesus answered that though Abraham was great even he acknowledged AND WAS GLAD that one greater than he was to come - and from his own loins!!!

Obviously Trinitarians cannot allow this fact to be aired and therefore they demand that Jesus saying, ‘Before Abraham, I am’ is (ridiculously) professing that Jesus is saying that he is God!!!!!?

Csn it be imagined that almighty God creator of heaven and earth, humanity and all things is having to justify himself to his own creation!!!

No! Surely the Messiah is greater than Abraham just as The messiah is greater than John the Baptist!

• “Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;” (Matt 1:11)
• “He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.” (John 1:27)

Though John was great, the one coming after him is greater!!

• And God said to Abraham “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.” (Gen 12:2)

Though Abraham was great (greatest revered among the Jews), the one coming after him is greater!!

Jesus justifies himself to be a man who testified to what he has heard from God. He does not testify of himself:

• “As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.” (John 8 40)

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not an expert either, but I believe you are correct that the early manuscripts did not differentiate between upper and lower case. Nevertheless, I do think the scriptures always made a distinction between the One True God and false gods. Any god other than the true Creator God is classified by the Bible as a false god.

You are familiar with the expression God of gods and Lord.of lords? Jesus prayed to HIS God, no other, he rightly called him the one true God.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think I may have said it in a previous post somewhere, but the Son of God purposefully lowered and humbled Himself when He became flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. In other words, He chose to put limitations upon Himself while living a human life. So how does that negate His equality with His Father? Especially, if it was a mutual decision and part of the plan and mission to offer salvation to mankind?

Jesus obviously agreed with the Father when he left heaven. You ask how that negates equality with what, the so-called other two persons of the Trinity? Let's let Jesus answer. John 14:28.

 

[YoursTrue]

That’s okay, we’ll have to just disagree on this subject then. From my perspective and what I see in the Bible there is only One who is capable of saving humanity from its fallen, sinful condition and that is God Himself. So if Jesus was not God we have no hope. Just my thoughts and view. Have a good night.

To be the last Adam doesn't mean he was equal to God. Think about it.

 

[Muffled]

From my understanding of the scriptures, Jesus died. Then he was resurrected.

I believe the apostle reported that He died because the appearance was that He did. If the body dies doesn't that mean that Jesus is dead also?

 

[Muffled]

Jesus obviously agreed with the Father when he left heaven. You ask how that negates equality with what, the so-called other two persons of the Trinity? Let's let Jesus answer. John 14:28.

I believe God is always equal with Himself. The difference that makes the Father greater is the limitations of the body.

 

[Muffled]

He could not go back to heaven until he died and was raised in a different form. So it makes sense that his lifeforce was transferred first from heaven, given life as a human. He was no longer a powerful spirit person in heaven. He had the limitations of the flesh and God's holy spirit enabled him to perform miracles demonstrating he was the Messiah. Interestingly, the only way he could go back to heaven is if he died, so thank you for the discussion. In his human flesh, he could not enter heaven. And so he pleads for those who have faith in him and who are his disciples.

I believe there is only one Spirit of God but He is omnipresent. That means He can be in the flesh (The Son) and outside the flesh (The Father) at the same time.

I believe the idea that God resides in Heaven is more conceptual than real since He is everywhere.

I believe Jesus did not visit Heaven per se but having returned to the purely Spiritual state He is no longer distinguishable from the Father except by concept.

 

[InChrist]

To be the last Adam doesn't mean he was equal to God. Think about it.

Oh yes it does, from my perspective while studying the scriptures. A human man like Adam could never pay for all the sins of the world which have taken place throughout history and into the future... only the infinite God has the ability do so on our behalf, as the last Adam ( fully human/ fully God).

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh yes it does, from my perspective while studying the scriptures. A human man like Adam could never pay for all the sins of the world which have taken place throughout history and into the future... only the infinite God has the ability do so on our behalf, as the last Adam ( fully human/ fully God).

So are you saying that Adam was not without sin when he was created? Adam didn't need to pay for the sins of the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe there is only one Spirit of God but He is omnipresent. That means He can be in the flesh (The Son) and outside the flesh (The Father) at the same time.

I believe the idea that God resides in Heaven is more conceptual than real since He is everywhere.

I believe Jesus did not visit Heaven per se but having returned to the purely Spiritual state He is no longer distinguishable from the Father except by concept.

The Bible doesn't bear that out, that God is omnipresent. Anyway, have a good day/evening/whatever comes.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe God is always equal with Himself. The difference that makes the Father greater is the limitations of the body.

Yes, so Jesus was limited. That shouldn't be hard to figure. Once again, have a good one.

 

[InChrist]

So are you saying that Adam was not without sin when he was created? Adam didn't need to pay for the sins of the world.

Adam was without sin when he was created. Of course Adam didn’t need to pay for the sins of the world. He couldn’t anyway, nor could any human being. No human could live a sinless life, either. Only Jesus could on behalf of humanity because He was fully human and fully God.