Is Jesus Christ God?

[Unveiled Artist]

Matthew alone which say Jesus is the son of God
3.17
4.3
4.6
8.29
14.33
16.16
17.5
26.63
27.40
27.43
27.54

All of these give Jesus the honor of being called Son of God. 12 in one chapter.

Of course Jesus is God's Son. What I am saying is Jesus is not God Himself. (Of Course Sam is Carl's Son. I am looking for where it says Sam is Carl himself)

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree with the JW position and understand it fully to know what I studied from the trinitarian view is off (in my opinion) and therefore, I cant understand it. I know "why" trinitarians believe what they do. I just dont see how its possible given it doesnt line with scripture. We can want Jesus to be God but that doesnt make Him God. He's God's Son. They both have the same last name but different first name sense they are two seperate people under "one household." It seems common sense that to say Jesus is God is a total insult to God and Christ.

Not a christian denominations believe Jesus is God, so we cant use "its a christian belief" its just a well accepted belief that I see no scriptural backing to.

I thought that jw position is that jesus is an angel. So, jesus is an angel who's G-ds son??

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I thought that jw position is that jesus is an angel. So, jesus is an angel who's G-ds son??

I think they believe He is Gabriel the Angel. I don't know too much about that part, though. Just their argument and scripture references in regards to Jesus' divinity and how they see it.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think they believe He is Gabriel the Angel. I don't know too much about that part, though. Just their argument and scripture references in regards to Jesus' divinity and how they see it.

Ok, I thought you wrote that you agreed with their position.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't think that ''falsifiable'' is a relevant term in this context. The premise that something is inherently falsifiable is not how we form our beliefs. Its apples and oranges. something could be, proven false to the individual, I suppose; however that is more a matter of consequential circumstances arising either from an effort to examine our beliefs, or 'disprove'' them to ourselves, or simply change our minds. I believe that you are basing your standard of testing on a subjective group of ideas.
ie
''deity or this religious idea is not fact until proven
conversely someone else could say
''non-deity or non- religious idea is not proven

both people here have their own reasons for their already formed 'truths', by which they would compare the proposed beliefs to.

What is important is to believe as many true things as possible and to not believe as many false things as possible. Nor is it the responsibility of anyone to try and disprove whatever assertions someone else makes. If one makes an assertion and wishes others to believe it also, then it is his job to provide the evidence to support the assertion. Absent that, there is no obligation (or reason) for others to think it is true.

When someone does make a positive assertion that a supernatural being does not exist, they would carry the same burden of proof as a theist. Most atheists, however merely reject the claim that one does exist for lack of sufficient evidence. That is not the same as saying there is no supernatural being. nobody can claim without absolute certainty that there is no supernatural being just as one cannot claim that there is not a teapot orbiting some distant sun. But to believe in the absence of sound evidence would leave you open to believing in the teapot as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ok, I thought you wrote that you agreed with their position.

I agree with them in regards to Jesus divinity. Other than that, I don't know too much about Gabriel etc to know if it is a logical belief right or wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

What is important is to believe as many true things as possible and to not believe as many false things as possible. Nor is it the responsibility of anyone to try and disprove whatever assertions someone else makes. If one makes an assertion and wishes others to believe it also, then it is his job to provide the evidence to support the assertion. Absent that, there is no obligation (or reason) for others to think it is true.

When someone does make a positive assertion that a supernatural being does not exist, they would carry the same burden of proof as a theist. Most atheists, however merely reject the claim that one does exist for lack of sufficient evidence. That is not the same as saying there is no supernatural being. nobody can claim without absolute certainty that there is no supernatural being just as one cannot claim that there is not a teapot orbiting some distant sun. But to believe in the absence of sound evidence would leave you open to believing in the teapot as well.

No it doesn't. We don't place equal value on ''unknowns'', or rather unknowns at best, in your position, and unprovable in my position. However, they equalize at merely unprovable, as you assert yourself. The teapot analogy is terrible, inferring that it would be logical to assume that migrating birds winter on Mars. That isn't how we discern our beliefs, or shouldn't be. You also presume lack of sound evidence, again, your mistake. I don't have to present you ''evidence'', to disprove, that would be the same as discounting anything that we are ignorant of, which is nonsensical. The fact that you aren't aware of the evidence is not my problem.

 

[InChrist]

Of course Jesus is God's Son. What I am saying is Jesus is not God Himself. (Of Course Sam is Carl's Son. I am looking for where it says Sam is Carl himself)

When you say that Jesus is not God Himself, maybe what you mean that Jesus is not the Father. The scripture clearly does make a distinction between the Son and the Father. How could God the Father have a Son who is anything other than God in nature and essence? Jesus demonstrated all the qualities and power of God.
In the book of Hebrews (1:8-9) God the Father addresses His Son and calls Jesus God ...

But to the Son He says:


“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When you say that Jesus is not God Himself, maybe what you mean that Jesus is not the Father. The scripture clearly does make a distinction between the Son and the Father. How could God the Father have a Son who is anything other than God in nature and essence? Jesus demonstrated all the qualities and power of God.
In the book of Hebrews (1:8-9) God the Father addresses His Son and calls Jesus God ...

But to the Son He says:


“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions

When I say Jesus has the same nature as God (as you state), I am refering to the Father God. Like Sam and Carl who have the same blood, so do Father "and" Son. I have the impression that christians believe Jesus Is the Father which would mean He would be both Father and Son. Scripture doesnt state that. I would say the word God is a noun for traits such as perfection, truth, love, passion and Not a being or person. Rather, each person-Father 'and' So share the same nature (sum the traits=God). Some Christians actually do believe Jesus is the Father. He (both Jesua and His Father) makes a clear distinction between the two.

I just find it odd to say just because they share the same nature (God) they are one and the same person (singular). That makes no sense and I do t find that in scripture.

Does this makes sense?

 

[McBell]

actually it is quite clear to those who can open their eyes and look without all the confusion spread by the churches.

And yet you failed to clarify it.

Over simplify, yes.
Clarify, no.

 

[NathanShepard8888]

The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ holds an exclusive unparallel position. It is imperative that our worship of Him be directed towards that position. God is before everything.

 

[NathanShepard8888]

When I say Jesus has the same nature as God (as you state), I am refering to the Father God. Like Sam and Carl who have the same blood, so do Father "and" Son. I have the impression that christians believe Jesus Is the Father which would mean He would be both Father and Son. Scripture doesnt state that. I would say the word God is a noun for traits such as perfection, truth, love, passion and Not a being or person. Rather, each person-Father 'and' So share the same nature (sum the traits=God). Some Christians actually do believe Jesus is the Father. He (both Jesua and His Father) makes a clear distinction between the two.

I just find it odd to say just because they share the same nature (God) they are one and the same person (singular). That makes no sense and I do t find that in scripture.

Does this makes sense?

Yes. but God is the Most High. A being that knows everything, hears everything, and can see everything.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. but God is the Most High. A being that knows everything, hears everything, and can see everything.

I understand. This doesn't negate that Jesus "shares" in the same nature as His Father thereby having the same inner traits as His Father. To assume He is God the Father is like my saying I Am my mother. I am not. We share the same traits: geneology, some anger streaks, blood, and physical appearance "and" we don't share the spirit behind what makes us individual persons. Hence the reason why she is called "mother" and I am her "daughter".

Imagine that my mother is God (has the traits of perfection, love, and all the above) and she has a daughter with the same traits as she. Why would my brother and any family member even stranger for that matter, confuse me for being my mother just because we have something in common based on our "relation'ship" with each other?

God the Father in scripture is the Most High. Jesus shares in His Father's nature; hence, He is the Most High Priest (in New Testament, Acts I believe) and prophet (in NT). He shares in His Father's eternal nature and His divinity (as all Christians do once born again) but He does profoundly differientate Himself from His Father "and" still evangalizes His "relationship" with His Father. (Relationship is between two people or more not one or oneself)

It is such a simple concept that a five year old can understand. The five year old may see her daddy and her brother side by side. She knows that she is part of the family as so are they. She also knows they have different roles based on how she is treated by each. She knows how she is related to both father and brother. However, this five year old knows that her father is not her brother and visa versa.

I honestly believe that if trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is human they will think He is not perfect, love, most high, and so forth. In scripture, that is not true. Why question who God shares His nature with even if that person He shares it with is one hundred percent human?

Why question God based on what "we" (pretending I am part of this) want to believe or feel comfortable? I understand that many Christians look down on humanity given the sinful nature or temptation to sin. That is completely depressing and I feel that a Christian will understand Jesus' role as God's Son more if they see humans as God's creation and if they see All Christians share in the divinity of the Father through the Son. As long as they feel humans are sinful and need reptentence rather than blesse and need a friend, they will always deify Jesus. I feel that is wrong, not just because of my opinion, but what I know from scripture.

There is no other way I can really say it. This is all my personal opinion, experience, and study. It is not meant to impune on another person's belief that Christ is God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When you say that Jesus is not God Himself, maybe what you mean that Jesus is not the Father. The scripture clearly does make a distinction between the Son and the Father. How could God the Father have a Son who is anything other than God in nature and essence? Jesus demonstrated all the qualities and power of God.
In the book of Hebrews (1:8-9) God the Father addresses His Son and calls Jesus God ...

But to the Son He says:


“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions

I think we are saying the same thing. I am refering to God the Father. I would call the "same essense" God. If that be the case, yes, Jesus is God (shares in the same essense of His Father). However, my point is that although they are both God, they are not each other as they both make clear the differences between the themselves with each other.

"Behold, my Son..." rather than "Beyond, this is me.." or "Your thrown, your God has anointed you"..who is speaking? Christ? If it is Christ, He would say "I am anointing you" if He were the Father. Since He is not, He is refering to His Father who does everything through His Son. His Father is doing the annointing.

Same thing when it comes to healing the sick. He says He can do nothing of his own will. He told His disiciples if they Had faith in His Words (not Him), aka, His Father's Words, and that comes with faith, they too can heal the sick.

This is an extra post. I was rereading what you posted. I just don't understand how scripture can be taken any other way without finding extra context to which is not there.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

People have a way of believing what they have heard all their lives or what they make up their minds to believe without checking all the facts. The idea of God as a family is so simple anyone can see it if they just open their eyes. All members of the Jones family are Jones. All members of the God family are God even though they are separate parts of the family. There is only one God (family). God (family) consists of more than one person.

 

[b.finton]

The beauty of English is its ability to specify, whereas the tragedy of English translation, generally, is that the language's potential for clarification is seldom used. Importantly, all Hebrew Names within scripture ought to be rendered in translation as common English words or phrases; because the meaning of scriptural Names is key to its robust subtexts. The Hebrew and Greek scriptures address difficult matters; therefore, grace has provided John 5:39, the translation of which brings us to the point: the meaning, in that verse, of the word, "me."

The double-Dalet known as the Shield of David is a pictogram of the union of two paleo Dalets. A Dalet symbolizes the door of a tent; a heart, also, and the Shield, depicts a conjunction of two doors-- of two hearts-- a merging of essences.

The name, "Jesus," is a catchall translation. It's an English jumble of Latin, Greek and Hebrew roots. It caught on in the 1600's or earlier, and it's hard to pin down it's meaning. Most think of it as a sound, often a mantra leading to an unknown goal. The name lacks specificity. It has the weight of a nickname, and establishes a focus in the aural, to the exclusion of the conceptual. The familiar translation compares spiritual to carnal, rather than spiritual to spiritual.

Without a vision the people perish. The name "Jesus" lacks vision, unless it is as seen as transitional to "just us," which some might see as "justice." No wonder we've got trouble!

To my understanding, the superior English translation "Y'Shua" signifies the firstborn Son of Man, not the Son of God. The true and faithful Y'Shua was not as great as his Lord, but was as his Lord: he positioned himself perfectly with his Lord's covering/authority. Y'Shua walked as a door, having established a perfect union with a greater Door.

The Name of this greater Door can be magnified in English translation as "Yahushua," the "Salvation of Yah." It is therefore written of the man, Y'Shua-- whoever he might have been-- that in him was seen the fullness of the godhead, bodily-- that is to say, that Yahushua occupied the mercy seat within the heart/doorway of Y'Shua's soul: the virgin/Dalet within the unknown teacher's mortal soul gave birth to the spiritual man who walked and taught in the name "Y'Shua." He came to spiritual birth, becoming the firstborn of mortal brethren (acknowledged and unacknowledged) to put on immortality: Sons of Man all, they truly live their lives fully invested in the Spirit of HaShem. At the end of ages, the full numbering of them shall comprise the spiritual nation Yisrael. In all things, these compare spiritual with spiritual.

"Yahushua" means the "Salvation of YH," Literally, the Name signifies Yah's outpouring/Waw of Wisdom/Shin and Understanding/Ayin. The scripture is specific: YH is the Savior; YH is the King; YH is the active force of YHWH. The glory of YH is given to none other because none other is capable of its demands. As humans, we understand that it's enough that a servant be as his Lord, both capable of perfect alignment with the Spirit of YH and faithful to the demands of service. The footsteps Y'Shua included processes of overcoming wilderness trials to walk in humble submission to the Spirit of HaShem during his earthly interaction with others. It's the path of the cross, the double dalet.

Father YH is a spirit no man has seen at any time. The Salvation of YH is approached by the spiritual Name, Yahushua. "The Salvation of Yah" is the Name given to YH's projection into and beyond celestial and terrestrial realms. This word, "Projection," is another sense of the English word, "Son." Yahushua, not Y'Shua, is the "Son/Projection/Word/Work of G-d." The "Saviour," therefore, is the Projection/Son/Essence of YH into created realms within the realms of the Limitless/Ain Soph. YH is the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world. YH is the Living Word, the Divine Utterance. YH humbled himself to service within a void, that eternity might be filled with the meekness of joy.

We shall be satisfied with (His) goodness, when YHWH brings about the return to Tsion.

YHWH blesses you and keeps you
YHWH makes (His) faces to shine upon you, and is gracious unto you.
YHWH lifts up (His) expressions withing you, and gives you peace.

b.

 

[Norman]

Aren't all stories about deities fictional? Who gets to say what the correct interpretation is???

Norman: Hi Milton Platt, I would say the person reading whatever it is that moves them spiritually, it is all self evident.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People have a way of believing what they have heard all their lives or what they make up their minds to believe without checking all the facts. The idea of God as a family is so simple anyone can see it if they just open their eyes. All members of the Jones family are Jones. All members of the God family are God even though they are separate parts of the family. There is only one God (family). God (family) consists of more than one person.

Hmmm. Thats a different take on what Im used to. I refer to God as the Father. If it means family, than in that context only, I stand corrected.


Go figure.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I think this is a mistake many people make. They use the word God to refer to the Father but God is the group of beings that include the Father and the Son and if you believe in the trinity, then the Holy Spirit. That is why they are confused about there being only one God but they think of the different parts of God as meaning more than one God. It is so much easier to think of only one God but made up of more than one person.

 

[Sundance]

As for me, I think both sides make convincing cases based on Scripture, but as a Rasta, I follow what Emperor Haile Selassie I believed and taught. In this case, the Trinity. Bless up, Jah Ras Tafari!