Is Jesus God?

[outhouse]

You do not know their history; because you rely on stories conjectured by skeptics with bias agendas.

unsubstantiated rhetoric

prove all scholars are skeptics and biased

The Holy Bible contains history and you have no proof otherwise.

Yes we have the evidence you do not. You hate education we understand.

Choose your best people and we have our best scholarly resources to match and counteract their theories any day.

The exodus does not describe Israelites origins. have a nice day.

being the head archaeologist means nothing if his reasoning is flawed; there are equal archaeologist who would say otherwise.

Yet you have not shown his reasons are flawed because you don't have the knowledge or education OR EVIDENCE to do so.


EVERY single argument you have amounts to NUH UH .


Thank you have a nice day and if you come back, BRING CREDIBLE SOURCES

 

[outhouse]

They, the Israelites, DID NOT JOIN the Canaanites “after 1200 BC” but were actually the Canaanites themselves.

YOU have no comprehensive skills what so ever.

I stated that very clearly, YOU KNOW what Canaanite origins means??????


I have never once implied Israelites joined anyone. Is English your primary language?

 

[outhouse]

You mean like this FALSE INFO that you posted?
Compare that false info that you posted to your very reliable source of info and see if they harmonize.
“The Patriarchs, Israel ancestor’s, are typically Amorite/Canaanite pastoral nomads, tribally organized.” - Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? –William G. Dever.

.

You have trouble reading English.

I have stated the same exact thing. They evolved from Canaanites for the most part. Dever uses the word typically, not ALL of them. AND he even tells you a Amorite possibility who were Semitic who joined the displaced Cananites.

Good lord, your not capable of debating 1 + 1 = 2 here. You keep changing the numbers.

 

[outhouse]

Compare that false info that you posted to your very reliable source of info and see if they harmonize.

Let break this down.

The Canaanite origins are not up for debate. Correct, no credible person fights this.

Who else joined these people?? what other Semitic people joined them????

The Canaanite origin after 1200 BC is not up for debate. The only thing left to debate is what other Semitic people joined them after 1200 BC.

Well lets look at what DEVER states in his book, that you don't have a clue what he says.

Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? - William G Dever : Eerdmans

According to Dever, the authentic ancestors of the "Israelite peoples" were most likely Canaanites -- together with some pastoral nomads and small groups of Semitic slaves escaping from Egypt

And my statement posed as a question as to what other people joined the Canaanite stands substantiated.

According to Dever pastoral nomads and other Semitic slaves joined the Canaanites

WOW JUST LIKE I STATED, almost verbatim!

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Yahweh did not make any exceptions in those declarations, you are reading into God's commandments.
When it comes to God's Deity as The Almighty God, he reserve that title and glory to himself and He will not share that part of himself with any other including his Son. Why even Jesus taught this truth!
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3) He did NOT say in that verse "Except for my son, I will have this God before me."
"I [am] YAHWEH: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another" (Isaiah 42:8) Insert here ---> Except for my son, I will give my glory as God Almighty.
That sir is a quintessential recipe for polytheism and Scriptural disaster!

You and jw are the one teaching that an “a god” can sit next to “The God” and that is POLYTHEISM. Trinitarians do not teach POLYTHEISM ‘cause only GOD CAN SIT NEXT TO GOD and that is MONOTHEISM. If you and jw teach/preach that the Lord Jesus Christ is lesser than God, like an “a god”, then you are teaching POLYTHEISM.

Why sure a "god" can sit, walk, and talk with YAHWEH, THE GOD ALMIGHTY. Did you forget that Yahweh talked to a "god" name Moses:
"And YAHWEH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (Exodus 7:1)
Is this what Yahweh meant when he said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)? Surely not! Even though Moses was before Yahweh's face!

Even Jesus considered himself a "god" according to Psalm 82:6 when he quoted it before the Pharisees:
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)
"I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High." (Psalms 82:6)
Now was Jesus violating Yahweh's commandment by being a "god" before His face? Absolutely not!

These titles of "gods" were understood and used by Yahweh himself and His Son Jesus Christ to simply designate the powers given to him because of their positions.
Well, men what shall we conclude? Simply this: That when YAHWEH says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." --- He is saying that no one shall represent himself as a god on HIS LEVEL! As HIS EQUAL! Having the same or more powers than the Almighty! Even sharing the same power as the Almighty One of the Heavens and the Earth.

You would be correct in saying that some of us teaches polytheism; however, we are not. We know that the word "god" used in context of John 10:34, Psalm 82:6, and Exodus 7:1 is not talking about a real "god" but someone with some supernatural powers. We know that there is really only one GOD, TON THEON, YAHWEH ALMIGHTY, EL SHADDAI.

 

[outhouse]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)

When exactly do you think this was written, and by whom?

 

[outhouse]

We know that there is really only one GOD

Yet ancient culture created thousands of them.

You are you to tell them they are not correct?

What evidence do you possess? as far as I know, you don't have any.

 

[outhouse]

EL SHADDAI

Is a different god then Yahweh

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god,

 

[OneThatGotAway]

John would teach polytheism? No. You and jw are teaching POLYTHEISM. Moses was a Trinitarian. The bible does not teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is “The God” if you read and understand John 1:1-b “and the Word was with God”

Way to push your mistranslation on John! As though he wrote his original letter in English! No, my sarcastic friend, the Greeks translated John 1:1 correctly. I'll remind you again: Some of the English translators mistranslated some of the Greek words of John 1:1 and forced the square peg of Polytheism into the round hole of monotheism. All of the original Greek New Testament wrote that TON THEON (The God) referred ONLY to Yahweh and never to Jesus Christ.

 

[lovemuffin]

Neither erasers nor crayons in the world will be able to remove the Greek word TON THEON and THEOS from John 1:1. clearly anyone with eyes can see two different gods written here based on their spellings.

I'm not sure, but do you realize that it's the same word twice (Theos)? It's merely inflected differently because of the two distinct grammatical usages. It is normal that when we refer generically to a greek word that we tend to refer to it using the nominative case, which is why in english we would tend to just say we're talking about the word "theos". "Ton" is the article and is also simply presented in the same case as the noun that it's modifying.

Θεός (Theos) - 2nd declension nominative (the subject of a clause)
Θεόν (Theon) - 2nd declension accusative (the direct object of a clause)

See for example Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension - Wiktionary

Or, for another example, It's still the same word in verse 6 which says Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ ("There was a man sent from God"), where it's now in the genitive case (Θεοῦ) because that's the normal case used for an object of the preposition "from" (παρα). Or in John 9:24 when the religious leaders are questioning the man healed of blindness, and say that he should give glory "to God" (Δὸς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ). Here Theos is in the dative case, as the object of the preposition "to". It's all the same word, and the way the root changes based on the grammatical case does not reflect any particular semantic difference as far as there being "two different Gods". Not as a matter of grammar. Note also that it's not a question of the presence or absence of the article determining the semantic meaning either, since you will agree 1:6 is not referring to Jesus or the Logos but to the Father, and does not include the article. "para theou" and not "para tou theou".

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Ge 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
From the very beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation we read the Trinity.

Genesis 1:1 is referring to one individual--- Yahweh. Not three individuals.
Genesis 1:2 is referring to Yahweh's spirit; no more than we referring to our spirits. But you don't see any of us giving our spirits personal names or referring to our spirits as a separate person. Does the word schizophrenia come to mind?
Revelations 22:13 is obviously referring to God's son, Yahushuo the Messiah. Because Jesus Christ has a beginning and an end in his works regarding mankind's redemption. Yahweh God Almighty (on the other hand) have neither a beginning nor an end. Yahweh is I AM THAT I AM.

 

[atpollard]

Not wishing to interrupt the 'discussion' on Canaanites or whose hermeneutical d*ck is bigger, I just wanted to offer an interesting insight into the triune nature of God from chemistry that I recently read.

Consider the nitrate ion. One nitrogen atom and three oxygen atom joined together with one spare electron thrown in for good measure. We know that the nitrogen atom will form a double bond with one of the oxygen atoms and a single bond with each of the other two. However, the double bond can be with any of the oxygen atoms.

When you measure the bond between the nitrogen and any specific oxygen ... you detect neither 1 electron bond, nor 2 electron bonds, but 1 and 1/3 bonds. However 1.33 electron pair bonds are impossible ... Electrons are indivisible.

It is called a Resonance. The nitrate molecule exists in all three possible resonance configurations at the same time. Three different forms, but only 1 molecule all coexisting at the same time. Things happen at the sub-molecular scale that are incomprehensible and impossible at the basic human scale which we experience.

Godhead (three persons, one being) is not like a nitrate ion.
I would not want you to jump to a wrong conclusion.
However, if we can know that incomprehensible shifts in the rules occur at the infinitely small scale, it it not plausible that other, equally incomprehensible rules apply at the infinitely large scale ... like beyond time and space.
Perhaps even a triune being ... Three persons (the quality or essence that makes someone who his is) in one being (the quality or essence that makes something what it is).

I am one being (a human being) that is one distinct person (Arthur).
God is one being (God) that is three distinct persons (Father, Son, Spirit).
YMMV - but it helped me.

 

[outhouse]

Not wishing to interrupt the 'discussion' on Canaanites or whose hermeneutical d*ck is bigger

There is no contest here. Just people that effuse to accept what is known.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

What part of John 1:1 is the "TON THEON"?

Koine Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Greek transliteration: En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.
Greek to English: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word.
Sahidic Coptic to English: In the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word
Jubilee Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

You see, other scholarly Christians have translated the Greek language of John 1:1 correctly because they see the words "τὸν θεόν," with their own unbiased eyes.
How can the Sahidic Coptic and Jubilee Bible translators be wrong?
Like I said, so easy even a cave man can read it.

 

[Tumah]

Is Jesus God?

Nope.
Did I win?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

OneThatGotAway said: You do not know their history; because you rely on stories conjectured by skeptics with bias agendas.

unsubstantiated rhetoric prove all scholars are skeptics and biased

I got a better idea: You prove that all scholars are skeptics and biased; because I did not say all. In fact, how about you prove that the Biblical history according to Biblical scholars is false.

OneThatGotAway: The Holy Bible contains history and you have no proof otherwise.

Yes we have the evidence you do not. You hate education we understand.

Simply saying that you have evidence does not make it appear. I embraced education more than you care to know; you hate education that goes against your bias agenda.

OneThatGotAway: Choose your best people and we have our best scholarly resources to match and counteract their theories any day.

The exodus does not describe Israelites origins. have a nice day.

I never said it did; you're obviously confusing me with someone else. The origins of Yishrael will forever be a mystery to you with your line of thinking.

OneThatGotAway: being the head archaeologist means nothing if his reasoning is flawed; there are equal archaeologist who would say otherwise.

Yet you have not shown his reasons are flawed because you don't have the knowledge or education OR EVIDENCE to do so.
EVERY single argument you have amounts to NUH UH . Thank you have a nice day and if you come back, BRING CREDIBLE SOURCES

As if you have any knowledge or education of the subject; you continue to blow smoke and then hope someone else will do the research for you.
Naaaw! I said you put your hands to plow and produce some fruits of evidence to show that your high school education paid off.
So right back at you -- Every word you type is empty, incorrect, BS at best. You respond a lot of trolling crap to others but that's about it.
You have nothing to back up what you say except your "precious" opinions; in which you think is on the par with real scholars.

Oh, my days are nice because of God (All praises to YAHWEH our Creator);
And when you come back, be sure to have some evidence to show instead of your "remarkable" opinions. I mean, they;re really a-dime a-dozen. LOL.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

When exactly do you think this was written, and by whom?

Why does it matter to you? You don't believe that God exists to impart knowledge and guide his people into truth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see good points for both sides. I dont see a difference in who side I take. I know what makes sense. Though, thats not my question.

What is the difference if Jesus is God or not? It doesnt change the story either way.

You have to understand that it’s really not up to us on whether the Lord Jesus Christ is God or an “a god”. If we read John 1:1 in its entirety and exegetically, and not just the 3rd clause where jw altered it to “and the Word was a god”, one should be able to find out whether the Lord Jesus Christ is God or an “a god”. Until now they/jw cannot make a good argument on how they/jw came up with their alteration of John 1:1c without falling apart. They/jw will just insist that John 1:1c is an “a god” without any explanation at all. The question is, should we just believe on anything they say? The answer is NO.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Yet ancient culture created thousands of them. You are you to tell them they are not correct? What evidence do you possess? as far as I know, you don't have any.

You're late for Sunday School: The people of Yishrael battled abominable nations and their false gods. We teach about these things almost every week on the Sabbath day. What evidence do you possess? So far all of your posts are coming up empty handed. "Give me, give me" is all I see and you provide opinions and half-truths like someone I know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm. Thank you for not going around the question, which I see a lot. Here are my thoughts...

If Jesus was a God (as in one among many) then most of the teachings in the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an are false ... all claim monotheism.

How so? If Jesus was a god, He can still die for other peoples sins no matter if it contradict other faiths.

If Jesus was something great, but less than God ... like a super-angel ... then much of what he says in the Gospels and what the later writings (like Romans) says about him is either a lie or so metaphorical that we actually have no real hope in his promises. (Which could also be purely metaphorical).

(I indented the points)

This one, I'm NT non-gospel illiterate. Since Jesus was a spirit (as we all are spirits) was born human--hence He was human, did not started His ministry until He was baptized by John, and Baptized by His Father (the Dove), I don't see the contradiction that He could not do the same thing Jesus as God can do. The difference is a human, just like us, is dying for Christians sins.

It is more of a calling that Jesus received from His Father to die for others which, I know as a human, He was pretty conflicted about it (the pleading while praying in the desert and crying out while on the cross)​

Knowing that, I can't see how Jesus being God would make scripture metaphorical or out of context to its purpose.​

If Jesus was God, then what he said is completely reliable. His promises are true and reliable. He was and is both qualified and capable of reclaiming what was His before the foundation of the world and perfecting it for His purpose and glory. That God would sacrifice everything for us raises the bar on his love, demonstrates a transformational truth and makes us 'constrained by love' to strive to follow his example.

(I indented the points)

Here is the thing, if Jesus was not God He would still have the perfection of His Father, the calling for ministry, and dying on the cross, and just as we are spirits, His spirit and body will still rise back to His Father again.

(Saying He can't be just a human is taking away God's ability to make a perfect Human die for others; thought God could do anything?)​

The only problem I see for "Jesus is God" Christians is that since God is of love, it would be very great in deed for a parent to humble Himself down to a Christian's level, walk among them, say that He died for them, and go back to heaven to turn back into His Father again. Just having a human to do so (relating it to the Buddha, Muhammad, etc. would not be enough, I guess)

Who wouldn't want an all powerful God to know what being a human is like to mirror us in order to save us?​

--
In my humble opinion, what I get from scripture, and what would be more powerful to me is that

1. Jesus is a human and because He is He just like the rest of us (no special abilities whatsoever). He was in perfect accord with His Father (as Christians try to be with Jesus and Jews and Muslims to the Father) or in other words, be One with His Father.

2. He had the perfect calling to show others that "I have been sent by the Father" as the Word to die for you so that you can have life.

3. He had a perfect ministry to spread His Father's Words, not His Own (that is in scripture repeatedly), and everything He (and Moses and Abraham) did was through the Father.

Example: The nation of Israel was from Abraham's bosom. The salvation of humanity, from Jesus. (Kinda get the pattern?)

--

Jesus could still be God and do all these things. I don't believe He did a good job in saying that He is since all of His references and miracles were either implied or explicitly said was from His Father's works not His own.

Anyway, you know my side... but sorry, derailed.

If Jesus was not God, He could save humanity because His calling, miracles, promises, and Words are from His Father...and the only way to get to His Father is through Jesus. Jesus is acting as a intermediary between the person and God. You can't be a medium if you are the person you are mediating between.​

On the other hand, if Jesus was God, (from a Christian's rather God's point of view) a Christian can identify themselves with God by doing it through Jesus. If He were a mere Human, it would make their worship false and idolistic.​

I personally find it weird, and I'm sure other monotheistic faiths feel the same, that a Christian needs Christ to be One with God. If I believed in God, I can talk directly to Him. Likewise, anti-catholics say Catholics talk to the priest as if they are God rather than going to God; and other monotheistic faiths are saying why are you going through Jesus, why can't you go to God.

Same thing. I understand both sides. The former (talking to Christ directly), I have no personal experience to back it up. The latter (Priest falsely accused as being Christ's medium), I do have experience; and, it is false.

Anyway, I hope the indented points made the rest make more sense just in case you didn't read it all.

Kinda understand where I'm coming from?