If Jesus was God, explain this verse...

[allright]

Jesus said "If you ask anything in my name I will do it" Who but God could know what every Christian on earth is praying at every moment and be able to answer every request if he choses to?

 

[Shermana]

Jesus said "If you ask anything in my name I will do it" Who but God could know what every Christian on earth is praying at every moment and be able to answer every request if he choses to?

Now look at the preceding verse:

Young's Literal Translation
and whatever ye may ask in my name, I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;

This can easily be interpreted as Jesus receiving the orders for what to do from God who hears the prayer, as the Second in Command of Heaven.

 

[Shermana]

Those verses only show that Jesus is not the Father.

The distinction between "God" and "The Father" is completely manmade and unscriptural, thus by showing that Jesus is not the being called (THE) "God", then he's not "God".

 

[Shermana]

Hi Aamer, Yeshua was ONLY a man, The Son of Man, as He existed in the flesh...He was not Elohim in the flesh as most traditional christians believe. But here is one thing that you should understand. Yeshua was Yahweh of the OT (John 8:58), and He gave up being Him, to become a man. When He emptied Himself of His diety, He was only a man, and could be tempted:

Php 2:5-11
(5) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Messiah Yeshua,
(6) who, though he was in the form of Elohim, did not count equality with ELohim a thing to be grasped,
(7) but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
(8) And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(9) Therefore Elohim has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
(10) so that at the name of Yeshua every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
(11) and every tongue confess that Messiah Yeshua is Master, to the glory of Elohim the Father.

Now, He was a man who did not have the Spirit of Elohim given to Him with a measure as Elohim does for the rest of us (1 Thess 4:8, 1 John 3:24, Heb 2:4):

Joh 3:34
(34) For he whom Elohim hath sent speaketh the words of Elohim: for Elohim giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

So that is the only difference between Yeshua and other men who had the Spirit, the Spirit was not limited at all with him.

And then you have Yeshua BECOMING the ONLY begotten of the Father, by and through His Resurrection:

Act 13:33
(33) Elohim hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Yeshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

And that makes Him the FIRSTBORN Son:

Rom 8:29
(29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

So, in conclusion, Yahweh, of the OT gave up being Elohim and became a man so that He could be the Firstborn of those who overcame and were raised to life eternal. And in that process, He could be tempted because He was only a man as He was in the flesh. KB

John 8:58 was not Jesus declaring to be YHWH. As I've brought up perhaps a hundred times on this forum alone. He would have to say "My name is I am" or "I am I am" as the name was given in Exodus 3:14, but the name itself is not even "I am" but "I shall be". Cue the Septuagint translation controversy. And what Jesus is actually saying is "I was" or "I have been" as noted Trinitarian professors Moffatt and Goodspeed indicated. The traditional "I AM" interpretation by Trinitarians if anything is more Modalist which was one of their objections.

The Trinity Delusion: John 8:58

Phil 2:6 should read "form of a god" just like how it says "Form of a slave". There is no such thing as "Form of God". What does "Form of God" even mean?

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

If we should decide to translate the second half of this parallel as "form of a slave," then there can be no honest objection on grammatical grounds for translating the first part of this parallel as "form of a god." In fact it would seem more appropriate to translate it this way instead of "form of [the] God."


Ernst Haenchen uses this interpretation in his commentary on the Gospel of John:

"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ" - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus Christ, did not bite on Satan's trick. He was never tempted. Satan tried to tempt him, but he failed to accomplish his goal. If He had jump off the temple He would have been a dead man. He was only a man while on earth, but still had his Godhood powers. Remember when He was arrested He said, He could call out twenty legions of angels to help him. He was here to give His life for the salvation of man. Notice, I said give. They could not take His life if He had not been willing to give it.

He wasn't completely willing. "Take this cup from me if you will" was his way of saying "Get me out of this if you don't mind". He only was willing because God told him to do it. A definite indication that they had completely different minds and wills, in opposition to each other even at times.

 

[Shermana]

Your statement is a little perplexing to me, since I believe they are not the same entity, there is the Father and there is the Son. This is the best I got,. 1 John chapter 2 verse 23, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father,the one who confesses the Son has the Father also".

That verse is about denying the Son in terms of his message and belief. He who denies the Son denies the One who sent him. That's all that verse means. Trinitarians warp and twist 1 John 2:22-23 like few others. Context be darned. Let's just twist it so we can call anyone who denies the Trinity an antichrist. (And conveniently, get out of the fact that it's actually saying anyone who denies the teachings of the Christ and is denying the Father is an antichrist, because that would kinda being calling 99.999% of Christians antichrist....we can't have that, so let's change the context! Who cares about the preceding verses?)

 

[allright]

Now look at the preceding verse:



This can easily be interpreted as Jesus receiving the orders for what to do from God who hears the prayer, as the Second in Command of Heaven.

hogwash

 

[roger1440]

You're conveniently forgetting that Jesus, while being fully God, was also fully human. And part of being human is being subject to temptation.

You are close.

 

[roger1440]

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

If Jesus was God, why was he tempted by the Devil? Can God be tempted by the Devil, his own creation?

Granted, he passed the test. But if he was God... Why was there a test in the first place? Does God need to test himself?

Are God and Jesus really one in the same? Please answer logically how this is possible given the verse above.

Nowhere in the Gospel of Matthew does it say Jesus is God.

 

[Ken Brown]

John 8:58 was not Jesus declaring to be YHWH. As I've brought up perhaps a hundred times on this forum alone. He would have to say "My name is I am" or "I am I am" as the name was given in Exodus 3:14, but the name itself is not even "I am" but "I shall be". Cue the Septuagint translation controversy. And what Jesus is actually saying is "I was" or "I have been" as noted Trinitarian professors Moffatt and Goodspeed indicated. The traditional "I AM" interpretation by Trinitarians if anything is more Modalist which was one of their objections.

The Trinity Delusion: John 8:58

Phil 2:6 should read "form of a god" just like how it says "Form of a slave". There is no such thing as "Form of God". What does "Form of God" even mean?

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

Hi Shermana, I need to ask you several questions. When Moses spoke of the Rock in this verse:

Deu 32:3-4
(3) "For I proclaim the name of YAHWEH; Ascribe greatness to our Elohim!
(4) "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; An Elohim of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

Was he not referring to Yahweh as The Rock?

Then, is the Apostle Paul incorrect in assessing that Yeshua was The Rock which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness:

1Co 10:1-4
(1) For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
(3) and all ate the same spiritual food;
(4) and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Messiah.

And finally, how is it that the Psalmist declares that The Word is magnified above ALL of Elohim's names:

Psa 138:2
(2) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Php 2:9
(9) Wherefore Elohim also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Rev 19:13
(13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of Elohim.

Joh 1:14
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So in conclusion Shermana, Yeshua IS The Word of Elohim, and He was the Rock which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness as Yahweh, and He emptied Himself, being made FLESH, so that he could be tempted and tried as a man, showing us The Way in which we could attain to Life Eternal.

The Father IS the collective group of ALL of the pre-existing Ones who agreed to the conception of this PLAN, and even though Messiah Yeshua is the preiminate Head of those pre-existing Ones, He is not greater than the whole collective group of the Elohim (The Father), thus the Father is greater than Yeshua Himself. KB

P.S. Your first link had this to say:

Jesus is the Word become flesh, the same Word which was with God in the beginning. This Word existed before Abraham. Once the Word became flesh, henceforth and thereafter that flesh named Jesus could then say that he existed before Abraham because the Word which has existed before Abraham had become that flesh named Jesus. In other words, when Jesus made this statement, the Word which had existed before Abraham had become an equivalent thing to the man Jesus. Whatever had been true of the Word is now true of Jesus.

What kind of double talk is this? And this article does not address John 1:1 where the Word was WITH Elohim, and the Word WAS Elohim. Not only that, Gen 2 states that Yahweh made ALL things, yet, according to John 1:3, The Word made all things. Yahweh and The Word are One in the Same Being.

And the other link from the JW's point of view, changes Phil 2's statement. Phil 2 never states that Yeshua was equal with the Father, that is something they are assuming that Paul was saying. The equality that Paul was speaking about was that Yeshua, in His prior form, before He emptied Himself and took on the form of man, was that He existed IN and WITH the Elohim as an equal to ALL of the Elohim. Elohim is PLURAL (now man has become as one of US-Elohim Gen 3:22), and The Word which was Yahweh, considered equality with the Elohim something that did not need to be grasped, but the whole collection of the Elohim IS the Father, ALL of them together is the ALL in ALL-The Father (1 Cor 15:28).

In all seriousness, you should go and learn what Isa 30:26 means.

 

[Muffled]

people all have their own interpretations of jesus and his message, but essentially jesus was both man and God...it can be reasoned that Christ is God, and Jesus was just a body and mind.

I don't believe one can reason this but I would like to see one try.

 

[Muffled]

Hi Aamer, Yeshua was ONLY a man, The Son of Man, as He existed in the flesh...He was not Elohim in the flesh as most traditional christians believe. But here is one thing that you should understand. Yeshua was Yahweh of the OT (John 8:58), and He gave up being Him, to become a man. When He emptied Himself of His diety, He was only a man, and could be tempted:

Php 2:5-11
(5) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Messiah Yeshua,
(6) who, though he was in the form of Elohim, did not count equality with ELohim a thing to be grasped,
(7) but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
(8) And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(9) Therefore Elohim has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
(10) so that at the name of Yeshua every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
(11) and every tongue confess that Messiah Yeshua is Master, to the glory of Elohim the Father.

Now, He was a man who did not have the Spirit of Elohim given to Him with a measure as Elohim does for the rest of us (1 Thess 4:8, 1 John 3:24, Heb 2:4):

Joh 3:34
(34) For he whom Elohim hath sent speaketh the words of Elohim: for Elohim giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

So that is the only difference between Yeshua and other men who had the Spirit, the Spirit was not limited at all with him.

And then you have Yeshua BECOMING the ONLY begotten of the Father, by and through His Resurrection:

Act 13:33
(33) Elohim hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Yeshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

And that makes Him the FIRSTBORN Son:

Rom 8:29
(29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

So, in conclusion, Yahweh, of the OT gave up being Elohim and became a man so that He could be the Firstborn of those who overcame and were raised to life eternal. And in that process, He could be tempted because He was only a man as He was in the flesh. KB

I believe you are in error on this. God can never become not God. I suppose you are referring to this phrase which requires context to understand. The phrase "taking the form of a servant" shows with what God emptied Himself. He denied Himself the power to judge the wicked. That doesn't mean that He didn't have that power but simply that He had decided not to use it for the period of time that He was still on earth. However He takes up that power upon His return.

I beleive there is a parallell in my life. When I was young I heard God speak to me but God was not in me. When I received Jesus as Lord and Savior, Jesus entered into me and I become God in the flesh as long as He is in control.
However the Spirit is still limited in me because theoretically I still have the option to take control of my life when I want.

I believe that is a misinterpretation. The text does not say that.

I believe since your premises are in error your conclusion is also in error.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus Christ, did not bite on Satan's trick. He was never tempted. Satan tried to tempt him, but he failed to accomplish his goal. If He had jump off the temple He would have been a dead man. He was only a man while on earth, but still had his Godhood powers. Remember when He was arrested He said, He could call out twenty legions of angels to help him. He was here to give His life for the salvation of man. Notice, I said give. They could not take His life if He had not been willing to give it.

No doubt Jesus could have turned the stones into bread. He could have jumped off the temple and not been injured. He could have ruled the world. The devil was tempting Jesus to change His plans to save the world by dieing on a cross by getting Him to focus on other things such as worldly things.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The distinction between "God" and "The Father" is completely manmade and unscriptural, thus by showing that Jesus is not the being called (THE) "God", then he's not "God".

If you say so.

 

[Ken Brown]

I believe you are in error on this. God can never become not God. I suppose you are referring to this phrase which requires context to understand. The phrase "taking the form of a servant" shows with what God emptied Himself. He denied Himself the power to judge the wicked. That doesn't mean that He didn't have that power but simply that He had decided not to use it for the period of time that He was still on earth. However He takes up that power upon His return.

I beleive there is a parallell in my life. When I was young I heard God speak to me but God was not in me. When I received Jesus as Lord and Savior, Jesus entered into me and I become God in the flesh as long as He is in control.
However the Spirit is still limited in me because theoretically I still have the option to take control of my life when I want.

I believe that is a misinterpretation. The text does not say that.

I believe since your premises are in error your conclusion is also in error.

Hi Muffled, I would hope I am not in error. Those who propose that "Jesus" held onto his divinity, as he sojourned in the flesh, basically have to consign him to being a schizophrenic, or have multiple personality disorder.

There are very difficult Scriptures to explain for those who propose that he was both fully human AND fully "God." Here are several of them:

1. Elohim cannot be tempted (James 1:13, Matt 4:1) so is the explanation that ONLY his human side was tempted??, again schizophrenic??.

2. It states that he INCREASED in wisdom (Luke 2:52), so again, was it only his human side that grew in wisdom?? or did he just have a problem in communicating with himself?

3. How is it that the Son of Man can be blasphemed and forgiveness given, but if the Spirit is blasphemed, there will never be forgiveness (Mat 12:31-32)? Is it that those who blaspheme the Son of Man are only blaspheming his human side and not his divine side??

4. In Acts 2:22-24, why did Peter call him a "man," and not Elohim, and why did Peter say that Elohim RAISED him from the dead, instead of saying that he raised himself??

5. How is it that those who BELIEVE in Yeshua will do GREATER works than He did (John 14:12)? Is it because those who believe in Yeshua are also both fully man and Elohim?

6. How is it that His Disciples will be ONE with the Father as He is ONE with the Father (John 17:21-23)?? Were they also "God" in the flesh?

Muffled, the error is caused by not believing the Scriptures. The Scriptures state that Yeshua EMPTIED Himself to become a man (Phil 2), and I believe the Scriptures...do you? KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, I need to ask you several questions. When Moses spoke of the Rock in this verse:

Deu 32:3-4
(3) "For I proclaim the name of YAHWEH; Ascribe greatness to our Elohim!
(4) "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; An Elohim of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

Was he not referring to Yahweh as The Rock?

I am well familiar with this attempt to correlate the "Rock" in two different concepts, as if the same word "Rock" correspond to the Rock which caused water to pour.

Then, is the Apostle Paul incorrect in assessing that Yeshua was The Rock which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness:

No, it is you and other Trinitarians who are incorrect in assessing what Paul meant by "Rock". He was referring to the Watering Rock, and the correlation is the exact same one that Philo made that the Rock was representative of and the action of the Personified Wisdom of God. but not God Himself:

And the rock was Christ: that is, it signified Christ, it was a type of him. So the Jews (q) say, that the Shekinah is called , "the holy rock"; and Philo the Jew says (r) of this rock, that the broken rock is , "the wisdom of God".

- Gills (Arch Trinitarian scholar)

I suggest you and every other Trinitarian familiarize yourself with Philo's Logos Theology.

1Co 10:1-4
(1) For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
(3) and all ate the same spiritual food;
(4) and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Messiah.

Even Trinitarian scholars admit that these two are not the same rocks. If anything this lends credence to the Targum concept that the Logos (Word) was the one doing the Will of God as the vehicle of His agency on Earth.

1 Corinthians 10:4 Commentaries: and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

And finally, how is it that the Psalmist declares that The Word is magnified above ALL of Elohim's names:

Psa 138:2
(2) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

This begins a question of what exactly "Thy word" means exactly. The Targumic idea is that the Logos, the Word is indeed the Highest of His creation and serves as His intervening vehicle, the highest of the angels, the firstborn of Creation (corresponding to Colossians 1:15-16), but I fail to see why you'd think it somehow supports your own view.

Php 2:9
(9) Wherefore Elohim also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

This means he's still a separate being who's been given a name higher than the names given to others. By the logic I think you're trying to use, this would mean his name is higher than YHWH itself?

Rev 19:13
(13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of Elohim.

I'm not sure you even understand what your point of being "the word" actually entails.

Joh 1:14
(14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Yes, the Logos was made flesh.

So in conclusion Shermana, Yeshua IS The Word of Elohim,

I don't recall ever saying differently. Why would you think I did?

and He was the Rock which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness as Yahweh,

Wrong, the rock was the actual rock they drank from. This is a complicated interpretation issue, which you can see on the commentary page is far from as cut and dry as you think.

and He emptied Himself, being made FLESH, so that he could be tempted and tried as a man, showing us The Way in which we could attain to Life Eternal.

Emptied himself of what exactly? He was "a god". He took on the form of "a god". You ignored the whole point of what does "Form of God" even mean?

The Father IS the collective group of ALL of the pre-existing Ones who agreed to the conception of this PLAN,

That has absolutely no scriptural basis, and not even Classical Trinitarians would accept that as anything but heretical.

and even though Messiah Yeshua is the preiminate Head of those pre-existing Ones,

I'll agree with you there that Yeshua was the highest of the Pre-existing ones, as the First Created of them.

He is not greater than the whole collective group of the Elohim (The Father), thus the Father is greater than Yeshua Himself. KB

P.S. Your first link had this to say:

What kind of double talk is this?

Define "Double talk".

And this article does not address John 1:1 where the Word was WITH Elohim, and the Word WAS Elohim.

That's because there's another article which deals with the classic misinterpretation of John 1:1 (which even many ardent Trinitarians deny by saying it should be "Divine" as in "A divine being"), which should in fact read as "Word was a god".

The Trinity Delusion: John 1:1

It focuses on one convoluted, misinterpreted passage at a time.

Not only that, Gen 2 states that Yahweh made ALL things, yet, according to John 1:3, The Word made all things. Yahweh and The Word are One in the Same Being.

Proverbs 8 says that Wisdom incarnated was the Vehicle of which all things were made. God was the director.

And the other link from the JW's point of view, changes Phil 2's statement.

As if you know what Phil 2's intended statement means. Do you mean the traditional Trinitarian interpretation of Phil 2's statement? Do you know basic Greek well enough to disagree or are you just handwaving the article altogether without addressing the very detailed scholarly analysis?

Phil 2 never states that Yeshua was equal with the Father, that is something they are assuming that Paul was saying.

Did you even read the article? I don't think so.

The equality that Paul was speaking about was that Yeshua, in His prior form, before He emptied Himself and took on the form of man, was that He existed IN and WITH the Elohim as an equal to ALL of the Elohim.

Got a link to match your view?

Elohim is PLURAL (now man has become as one of US-Elohim Gen 3:22),

The issue of Elohim being a complete plural or a singular plural (since it often uses a singular verb) and its "Majestic plural" usage is a long debated issue that's not been satisfactorily answered. You should look this stuff up before replying.

and The Word which was Yahweh, considered equality with the Elohim something that did not need to be grasped,

The exact meaning of what was intended by "Grasped" is a key issue here.

but the whole collection of the Elohim IS the Father, ALL of them together is the ALL in ALL-The Father (1 Cor 15:28).

That's not what 1 Cor 15:28 says whatsoever. You're coming up with interpretations that are even more fringe than mine.

In all seriousness, you should go and learn what Isa 30:26 means.

In all seriousness, you should get off your high horse and go learn that your interpretations are fringe and that you have in no way demonstrated the error of my link. I'd like to know how you think Isaiah 30:26 applies to your abysmally ignorant interpretations.

 

[Shermana]

hogwash

About the only counter-argument a Trintarian can make I suppose. But I appreciate your expression of disapproval.

 

[Ken Brown]

In all seriousness, you should get off your high horse and go learn that your interpretations are fringe and that you have in no way demonstrated the error of my link. I'd like to know how you think Isaiah 30:26 applies to your abysmally ignorant interpretations.

Hi Shermana, you would be astonished by the view one can attain too from a high horse.

First, I would like to let you know that I oppose the doctrine of the Trinity and believe it to be a false doctrine as many doctrines are within traditional christianity.

Concerning your link on Phil 2, the bottom line statement they make is this:

When all is examined, Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father!

As I said, I am in full agreement with this statement, but this statement does not agree with what Paul was saying. Paul stated that Yeshua did not need to grasp at equality with "God," and it is a wrong assumption on their part to assume that Paul meant The Father. They are in error.

Then, my "abysmally ignorant interpretations" which you look upon as lacking any credibility, let me expound a little to you about Isa 30:26.

Isa 30:26
(26) The light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven days, on the day Yahweh binds up the fracture of His people and heals the bruise He has inflicted.

Please consider that the Moon is a shadow or picture of Elohim's people. In considering this, you must first consider that our physical sun is a picture or shadow of Elohim. Our physical sun is what gives life to this world through the process of photosynthesis, and also does give warmth to this planet. Elohim, in giving life to all, does so by sending His Light (Messiah Yeshua) to this dark world, and those who receive His Light, can then reflect it back to this world as does the Moon to the earth. When you consider Isa 30:26, the Moon (Elohim's People) will be as bright as He is (Phil 3:21, 1 Cor 15:49, Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 3:18, 1 John 3:2), and He will become 7 times brighter as He receives into Himself the Righteous Ones from the 7000 years (7 days) (Hag 2:7, John 17:22). Is that hard for you to comprehend?

Shermana, our difference is in how we view Yeshua. As I have stated, Trintiarians are deceived and truly know nothing. Yeshua is the Head or Supreme Diety of the Godhead (Col 2:9), but He did not attain to this status while He was dwelling in the flesh, but it was after His suffering and resurrection that He became the RESTORED Yahweh Elohim. Needless to say, Yeshua was THE Yahweh of the OT, and He emptied Himself of His Diety, and became a man, so that He would show us The Way. I am a carpenter, and in my career of carpentry there has been times when I had to give up being the foreman or leader, and humbled myself to just carrying lumber to show those under me that they should become as me in working hard and doing their work. This is all Yahweh did, and He did this to show us how to succeed in overcoming sin and death.

Now, Yahweh, in planning this, spoke about Himself in this Scripture:

Jer 23:5-6
(5) "Behold, the days are coming," declares Yahweh, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land.
(6) "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'Yahweh our righteousness.'

Yahweh KNEW He would be the One who would fulfill this Prophecy, as He humbled Himself and became a man. As He was a man, He was ONLY a man, and NOT Elohim in the flesh. But when His plan worked, and He was RAISED back to LIFE, He became the RESTORED Yahweh Elohim, and the Disciples KNEW this, and this is why Thomas states the following:

Joh 20:28
(28) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Yahweh and my Elohim!"

And then you have the Disciples WORSHIPING Yeshua:

Luk 24:52
(52) And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

Isn't that strictly forbidding in the Torah to WORSHIP no one else BUT Elohim:

Exo 34:14
(14) For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous Elohim:

After Yeshua's resurrection AS the RESTORED Yahweh Elohim, He was WORSHIPED, and that is why His Disciples were not in error by worshiping Him. Please Shermana, look at this evidence and do not doubt. KB

 

[psychoslice]

Jesus as the man represented god, he realized his true inner SELF, when one has this realization one then truly realizes that we are all ONE in Consciousness, or God, but he was still a man, and this part was what was being tempted by the ego.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
If Jesus was God, why was he tempted by the Devil? Can God be tempted by the Devil, his own creation?

In Matt 4:1 Jesus was showing us how to respond to temptation.

Granted, he passed the test. But if he was God... Why was there a test in the first place? Does God need to test himself?

God was not testing "himself". Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and as mentioned above, he was showing us how to respond to temptation.

Are God and Jesus really one in the same? Please answer logically how this is possible given the verse above.

Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons, but both share the title of "God", meaning they are both past eternal...they are both omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.