Is Jesus God?

[james2ko]

Wow, strong words. No one is criticizing your words.

1. Never said you were. I merely stated that "if" you begin to do so, then there is no point in continuing our discussion.

Isa 43 is talking about God, not Jesus. How do you put Jesus in Isa 43? You put him in there because you believe in the pre-existence. What or who is EL to you? In Hebrew, El is the power or strength of God. That's all. Show me something different.

2. Most certainly will. EL means much more than just merely the power and strength of God:

- Original: אל
- Transliteration: 'el
- Phonetic: ale
- Definition:
1. god, God-like one, mighty one
a. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
b. angels
c. god, false God, (demons, imaginations)
d. God, the one true God, Jehovah
2. mighty things in nature
3. strength, power

Let's take a closer look at our passage to see which definition is consistent with its grammar and context.

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God (EL) formed, Nor shall there be after Me.​

It cannot be your definition (2 or 3) because in every instance the term "EL" is translated as power or strength, it is always followed by a prepositional phrase. Not so in this instance. There are also no adjectives in the text to support your interpretation. The text contains only singular personal pronouns which refer back to a self-identified deity.

But more importantly the context also points back to an entity, not a concept . We also know it cant be your definition d because this YHVH/El was created.

It cannot be definition a or c because it would be inconsistent with your interpretation. So we are left with definition 1 and b--The Angel of the LORD--The Holy One of Israel. Who was the Father's first created YHVH/EL (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14). Later to be born as the human Jesus Christ and atone for sins. We should be careful in utilizing a definition out of its context and grammar simply to support our doctrine.

Now let me ask you a question. Why does Jesus have to pre-exist? For what reason? Why cant we just believe he was born, like that bible says....

3. I'm not interested in entertaining philosophical questions about the deity of Christ. Let's focus on the text, shall we?

I'm just saying that the pre-existence of Christ is not found in scripture. The verses you show do not show that at all.

You are having quite a difficult time proving it to me.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

3 things Satan has always tried to accomplish:

To tear down the Creator's Memorial (Sabbath)

Tell that to Jesus, who regularly broke it.

Destroy the Family unit by changing the Parameters of Marriage.

When was this?

Reducing Jesus to a mere creation.

What is Christmas? He was BORN. Duh ....

You don't see because you have been deluded by Watchtower and its so-called governing body.

You are a Jehovah's Witness. You preach another gospel. Your very own Watchtower admits this.

Why not read just your Bible? Try reading the gospel of John through several times, without the help of Watchtower. Let the Holy Spirit alone teach you. You will be surprised at what HE will show you.

Why put your future in the hands of men?

Why not skip John? And Paul? I think you'll see most of your dogmas come from, like, two guys out of all the authors who contributed.

 

[atpollard]

Tell that to Jesus, who regularly broke it.

Just for the record, could you point out a specific example of Jesus breaking the Sabbath Law of God?
If he did it "regularly" then it should be easy to find a clear example.
If Jesus did break the Sabbath Law, then he was not sinless ... which may have disqualified him from being the "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

So I would feel better if you were able to offer some sort of evidence beyond empty rhetoric.
Otherwise, are you just making up lies?

 

[moorea944]

1. Never said you were. I merely stated that "if" you begin to do so, then there is no point in continuing our discussion.



2. Most certainly will. EL means much more than just merely the power and strength of God:

- Original: אל
- Transliteration: 'el
- Phonetic: ale
- Definition:
1. god, God-like one, mighty one
a. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
b. angels
c. god, false God, (demons, imaginations)
d. God, the one true God, Jehovah
2. mighty things in nature
3. strength, power

Let's take a closer look at our passage to see which definition is consistent with its grammar and context.

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God (EL) formed, Nor shall there be after Me.​

It cannot be your definition (2 or 3) because in every instance the term "EL" is translated as power or strength, it is always followed by a prepositional phrase. Not so in this instance. There are also no adjectives in the text to support your interpretation. The text contains only singular personal pronouns which refer back to a self-identified deity.

But more importantly the context also points back to an entity, not a concept . We also know it cant be your definition d because this YHVH/El was created.

It cannot be definition a or c because it would be inconsistent with your interpretation. So we are left with definition 1 and b--The Angel of the LORD--The Holy One of Israel. Who was the Father's first created YHVH/EL (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14). Later to be born as the human Jesus Christ and atone for sins. We should be careful in utilizing a definition out of its context and grammar simply to support our doctrine.



3. I'm not interested in entertaining philosophical questions about the deity of Christ. Let's focus on the text, shall we?



You are having quite a difficult time proving it to me.

I'm getting different definitions than you. But no problem. What books are you using?

I'm not interested in entertaining philosophical questions about the deity of Christ. Let's focus on the text, shall we?

Why, what are you afraid of?

So what is your point of Isa 43? I'm still not understanding you. Are you saying that it is talking about Jesus pre-existing? I hope not. Because it is talking about God and Israel. How do you get Jesus in those verses?

Who was the Father's first created YHVH/EL (Col 1:15;

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creation". This is talking about Jesus who is the first born of creation. But which creation? Paul says it's the second creaiton.

Later to be born as the human Jesus Christ and atone for sins. We should be careful in utilizing a definition out of its context and grammar simply to support our doctrine.

Later to be born? What does mean? If he didnt pre-exist, that doesn even make sense. You mean he was born. And yes, we should be careful in utilizing a definition out of it's context. I see that all of the time.

Question to you... again.....

So many times angels and prophets had opportunities to explain a trinity and pre-existence of Jesus and nothing was ever said. 2 Sam 7 to David..... Nothing.. Luke 1 to Mary, nothing. Etc, etc.....

No God the son and no pre-existence. Jesus was born a man like us, yes, God was his father and Mary was his mother. That is when our Lord came into existence. Very simple.

 

[moorea944]

Just for the record, could you point out a specific example of Jesus breaking the Sabbath Law of God?
If he did it "regularly" then it should be easy to find a clear example.
If Jesus did break the Sabbath Law, then he was not sinless ... which may have disqualified him from being the "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

So I would feel better if you were able to offer some sort of evidence beyond empty rhetoric.
Otherwise, are you just making up lies?

Just for the record, could you point out a specific example of Jesus breaking the Sabbath Law of God?

I would like to answer this one if I may.

There is a new covenant with Christ. He's showing them, us, that now, in him, you can do certain things, like, healing on the Sabbath or doing things that the "law" said not to do. A great book to read up on that is Hebrews, it explains this topic with great detail.. The law was not meant to save, it was to bring us to Christ. So he did not break the law, because the law or covenant was changed.

This is just one of the reasons that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus and the apostles.

 

[atpollard]

I would like to answer this one if I may.

There is a new covenant with Christ. He's showing them, us, that now, in him, you can do certain things, like, healing on the Sabbath or doing things that the "law" said not to do. A great book to read up on that is Hebrews, it explains this topic with great detail.. The law was not meant to save, it was to bring us to Christ. So he did not break the law, because the law or covenant was changed.

This is just one of the reasons that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus and the apostles.

If we are really going to charge the Christ (Messiah) with violating the Sabbath Law, I think that we owe it to Jesus to be very specific. I have no objection if you answer, but the standard that I would like to see is a specific action documented in a Gospel (since this is the best data that we have on what he did) and a specific verse in the Old Testement Law that he is violating.

I suspect that Kelly is slinging mud without any justification.
If the sinless Christ sinned ... It is a huge deal.
That big of a deal deserves more than an unchallenged snarky statement.

 

[james2ko]

I'm getting different definitions than you. But no problem. What books are you using?

1. BDB-Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon. But you don't even need BDB's definitions. Just read every instance where the term is used and the context will confirm all of the definitions that were posted .

Why, what are you afraid of?

2. Of you straying from the all important text and focusing on the philosophy behind the deity of Christ, which compared to the text, means nothing.

So what is your point of Isa 43? I'm still not understanding you. Are you saying that it is talking about Jesus pre-existing? I hope not. Because it is talking about God and Israel. How do you get Jesus in those verses?

3. Are you saying it is talking about the "uncreated" God? I sure hope not. How do you get The Father in those verses?

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creation". This is talking about Jesus who is the first born of creation. But which creation? Paul says it's the second creation.

4. What second creation?

Later to be born? What does mean? If he didnt pre-exist, that doesn even make sense.

5.Since you are struggling to prove to me from Isa 43:10 He did not pre-exist, it makes perfect sense.

You mean he was born. And yes, we should be careful in utilizing a definition out of it's context [and grammar]. I see that all of the time.

6. You left out the term "grammar" from my reply. I filled it in for you. I guess grammar is not in your exegetical repertoire. That is the missing link in your misunderstanding of Christ's deity.

So many times angels and prophets had opportunities to explain a trinity and pre-existence of Jesus and nothing was ever said. 2 Sam 7 to David..... Nothing.. Luke 1 to Mary, nothing. Etc, etc...

7. That's because there is no trinity. But Isaiah did record the words of a created YHVH, who is Israel's Savior (Isa 43:10-11), who can be none other than the pre-existent Christ.

No God the son and no pre-existence. Jesus was born a man like us, yes, God was his father and Mary was his mother. That is when our Lord came into existence. Very simple.

8. I agree. It is very simple to belt out unsubstantiated claims. But it seems to be very difficult for you to prove your claims from the syntax and context of the passage. Are you going to address the syntax of Isa 43:10? I really need you to explain why the Father is claiming He was created by a third person.

 

[moorea944]

1. BDB-Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon. But you don't even need BDB's definitions. Just read every instance where the term is used and the context will confirm all of the definitions that were posted .



2. Of you straying from the all important text and focusing on the philosophy behind the deity of Christ, which compared to the text, means nothing.



3. Are you saying it is talking about the "uncreated" God? I sure hope not. How do you get The Father in those verses?



4. What second creation?



5.Since you are struggling to prove to me from Isa 43:10 He did not pre-exist, it makes perfect sense.



6. You left out the term "grammar" from my reply. I filled it in for you. I guess grammar is not in your exegetical repertoire. That is the missing link in your misunderstanding of Christ's deity.



7. That's because there is no trinity. But Isaiah did record the words of a created YHVH, who is Israel's Savior (Isa 43:10-11), who can be none other than the pre-existent Christ.



8. I agree. It is very simple to belt out unsubstantiated claims. But it seems to be very difficult for you to prove your claims from the syntax and context of the passage. Are you going to address the syntax of Isa 43:10? I really need you to explain why the Father is claiming He was created by a third person.

You left out the term "grammar" from my reply. I filled it in for you. I guess grammar is not in your exegetical repertoire. That is the missing link in your misunderstanding of Christ's deity.

I agree. It is very simple to belt out unsubstantiated claims. But it seems to be very difficult for you to prove your claims from the syntax and context of the passage. Are you going to address the syntax of Isa 43:10? I really need you to explain why the Father is claiming He was created by a third person.

First of all, you dont need to use a Thesaurus when you talk to me. Use it for someone else who might be impressed by that. Not me.
I have no misunderstanding who Christ is at all. I dont take verses out of context to fit my beliefs. But anyhow....

I really need you to explain why the Father is claiming He was created by a third person.

That's easy to answer. He's not. Your reading the verses wrong..... again. Your going into the bible already thinking that Christ pre-existed. Read it again with an open mind. Let the scriptures speak for it self. What is Isa 43 about? It's God and Israel. God is their King. Israel is God's witnesses. How do you put Christ in there? You have to read the whole chapter, not just a few verses.

Plus, you didnt answer my question. So many times angels and prophets had opportunities to explain a trinity and pre-existence of Jesus and nothing was ever said. 2 Sam 7 to David..... Nothing.. Luke 1 to Mary, nothing. Etc, etc..... Why?

 

[james2ko]

First of all, you dont need to use a Thesaurus when you talk to me. Use it for someone else who might be impressed by that. Not me.

1. Thesaurus? I think you mean Lexicon. Anyway..I am not trying to impress anyone. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I am only trying to gain knowledge of the deity of Christ at my level of understanding, which involves syntax and grammar. Neither of which you seem to be familiar.

I have no misunderstanding who Christ is at all.

2. Wow. Kudos to you. That makes you a more knowledgeable disciple than the apostle Paul, who admitted that his knowledge about God was vaguely understood (1 Co 13:9,12).

I dont take verses out of context to fit my beliefs. But anyhow....

3. And you certainly don't take grammar into consideration to confirm or deny them either.

That's easy to answer. He's not. Your reading the verses wrong..... again.

4. And again. You are not giving me any credible scriptural evidence why I should read them any other way.

Your going into the bible already thinking that Christ pre-existed. Read it again with an open mind. Let the scriptures speak for it self. What is Isa 43 about? It's God and Israel. God is their King. Israel is God's witnesses. How do you put Christ in there? You have to read the whole chapter, not just a few verses.

5. I read the whole chapter and the context fits my interpretation. Isa 43 is about Israel's created YHVH/God, who was their Mighty Savior of the OT and later became their human Savior. The parallel makes sense. I have no presuppositions. I was once a Trinitarian. I learned some Hebrew and Greek grammar and my beliefs changed.

The passage states this EL/God was created sometime in the past [yatzar-perfect-nifal stem], Yet you insist it is referring to an uncreated God. And you accuse me of incorrectly reading the verses?? It is painfully obvious your predisposition to radical unitarianism is severely hindering your interpretation of the passage.

Plus, you didnt answer my question. So many times angels and prophets had opportunities to explain a trinity and pre-existence of Jesus and nothing was ever said. 2 Sam 7 to David..... Nothing.. Luke 1 to Mary, nothing. Etc, etc..... Why?

6. I answered your question. I'll repeat it and expand it from my last reply. The prophets/angels spoke of no trinity because it doesn't exist. An angel identified Himself as Israel's created YHVH/God/EL and Savior in Isa 43:10-11.

 

[moorea944]

1. Thesaurus? I think you mean Lexicon. Anyway..I am not trying to impress anyone. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I am only trying to gain knowledge of the deity of Christ at my level of understanding, which involves syntax and grammar. Neither of which you seem to be familiar.



2. Wow. Kudos to you. That makes you a more knowledgeable disciple than the apostle Paul, who admitted that his knowledge about God was vaguely understood (1 Co 13:9,12).



3. And you certainly don't take grammar into consideration to confirm or deny them either.



4. And again. You are not giving me any credible scriptural evidence why I should read them any other way.



5. I read the whole chapter and the context fits my interpretation. Isa 43 is about Israel's created YHVH/God, who was their Mighty Savior of the OT and later became their human Savior. The parallel makes sense. I have no presuppositions. I was once a Trinitarian. I learned some Hebrew and Greek grammar and my beliefs changed.

The passage states this EL/God was created sometime in the past [yatzar-perfect-nifal stem], Yet you insist it is referring to an uncreated God. And you accuse me of incorrectly reading the verses?? It is painfully obvious your predisposition to radical unitarianism is severely hindering your interpretation of the passage.



6. I answered your question. I'll repeat it and expand it from my last reply. The prophets/angels spoke of no trinity because it doesn't exist. An angel identified Himself as Israel's created YHVH/God/EL and Savior in Isa 43:10-11.

Thesaurus? I think you mean Lexicon..

No, I meant Thesaurus,

Wow. Kudos to you. That makes you a more knowledgeable disciple than the apostle Paul.

Now were just talking stupid.

He even admitted that his knowledge about God was vaguely understood (1 Co 13:9,12).

I wasnt talking about God, I was talking about Jesus. They are not the same.... I thought you said your werent trinitarian.....

I read the whole chapter and the context fits my interpretation. Isa 43 is about Israel's created YHVH/God, who was their Mighty Savior of the OT and later became their human Savior.

Unbelievable!!! Let me get this straight...... Isa 43 is about a "created" God? Who then changed into a human Savior? I can tell you right now, this is not Isa 43 and this does not fit your interpretation. Wow. Oh, well, good luck with your studies.....

 

[james2ko]

I wasnt talking about God, I was talking about Jesus. They are not the same.... I thought you said your werent trinitarian.....

I guess I should have been more precise. Paul claims he did not fully understand the things of God, which would include Christ.

Unbelievable!!! Let me get this straight...... Isa 43 is about a "created" God? Who then changed into a human Savior?

That is what the text and its syntax reflects.

I can tell you right now, this is not Isa 43 and this does not fit your interpretation. Wow. Oh, well, good luck with your studies.....

You have no problem throwing out exclamatory terms and telling me Isa 43 does not fit my interpretation, but proving it to me from the text has been fleeting.

Now were just talking stupid.

Not really. It is truth. You are claiming full understanding of a topic. Something Paul himself would not claim. But let us not forget the context of Paul's claim. Love toward each other is more important than any knowledge about God and His Son.

Well wishes with your studies as well.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I, of course, used to be a Catholic, even a devout one. I really believed in the Trinity. It's a beautiful way of looking at God. However, it honestly doesn't make a bit of sense when you think about it too much. No one really understands the Trinity, and it's not because it's some incomprehensible mystery that's far above the understanding of finite minds - it's because it just doesn't make any sense. It would be one thing if it was described as God manifesting in three aspects. Okay, I can understand that. But, no. It's Three Persons. That's something entirely else and what is is not clearly defined. It's crouched in a bunch of ivory tower philosophical jargon that the average person cannot hope to understand. Thank the Greeks for that mess. So it's their own fault that people reject the Trinity for being an incoherent nonsense. It even took the theologians centuries to hammer out the dogma of it.

I really cannot comprehend the idea of the infinite God incarnating into a body of flesh. Plus, it's inherently anthropomorphic because how are humans so special, above all other species including possible ETs, that God would take on our form and only our form for eternity?

Personally, I think Islam's view of God is much more satisfying. Imo, it's more intellectually coherent and intuitive.

So, no - i don't believe Jesus is God. No human is God and God is no human.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus not God or son of God...........

Prophet jesus or isa are normal human,messenger and prophet.........and like other prophet, they have supernatural power

all prophet from adam,noah,moses,solomon,jesus to Muhammad.........all of them have supernatural power

nothing special

trinity is false idea created by human not from The Creator

God Is One.........He Is One

I believe you are very gullible to believe whatever is taught you without investigating the facts. The facts reveal that Jesus is God in the flesh.

I believe this is correct as Jesus said "I and the Father are one."

 

[Muffled]

Not at all, scripture doesnt tell us that. Jesus was born was the first time he came into existence. He didnt pre-exist. He WAS here before time, but only in the mind of God, his Father. God even told Jeremiah that He knew him before he was born.

I believe there is nothing factual in your statement.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I believe you are very gullible to believe whatever is taught you without investigating the facts. The facts reveal that Jesus is God in the flesh.

I believe this is correct as Jesus said "I and the Father are one."

He is as much a child of God as we all are. Bible says that too.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I, of course, used to be a Catholic, even a devout one. I really believed in the Trinity. It's a beautiful way of looking at God. However, it honestly doesn't make a bit of sense when you think about it too much. No one really understands the Trinity, and it's not because it's some incomprehensible mystery that's far above the understanding of finite minds - it's because it just doesn't make any sense. It would be one thing if it was described as God manifesting in three aspects. Okay, I can understand that. But, no. It's Three Persons. That's something entirely else and what is is not clearly defined. It's crouched in a bunch of ivory tower philosophical jargon that the average person cannot hope to understand. Thank the Greeks for that mess. So it's their own fault that people reject the Trinity for being an incoherent nonsense. It even took the theologians centuries to hammer out the dogma of it.

I really cannot comprehend the idea of the infinite God incarnating into a body of flesh. Plus, it's inherently anthropomorphic because how are humans so special, above all other species including possible ETs, that God would take on our form and only our form for eternity?

Personally, I think Islam's view of God is much more satisfying. Imo, it's more intellectually coherent and intuitive.

So, no - i don't believe Jesus is God. No human is God and God is no human.

Disregard this post.

 

[Muffled]

I, of course, used to be a Catholic, even a devout one. I really believed in the Trinity. It's a beautiful way of looking at God. However, it honestly doesn't make a bit of sense when you think about it too much. No one really understands the Trinity, and it's not because it's some incomprehensible mystery that's far above the understanding of finite minds - it's because it just doesn't make any sense. It would be one thing if it was described as God manifesting in three aspects. Okay, I can understand that. But, no. It's Three Persons. That's something entirely else and what is is not clearly defined. It's crouched in a bunch of ivory tower philosophical jargon that the average person cannot hope to understand. Thank the Greeks for that mess. So it's their own fault that people reject the Trinity for being an incoherent nonsense. It even took the theologians centuries to hammer out the dogma of it.

I really cannot comprehend the idea of the infinite God incarnating into a body of flesh. Plus, it's inherently anthropomorphic because how are humans so special, above all other species including possible ETs, that God would take on our form and only our form for eternity?

Personally, I think Islam's view of God is much more satisfying. Imo, it's more intellectually coherent and intuitive.

So, no - i don't believe Jesus is God. No human is God and God is no human.

I believe this appears to be a correct view although it smacks of a piecemeal God and that is not the case. It is so difficult to put this concept in correct terms.

I don't know how Catholics define this but in the SBC it is defined in ecclesiastical terms that have nothing to do with the meaning of "person" in commonly understood English.

I don't believe you need to. All you need to do is accept that fact that God finds it comprehensible.

I believe the text does not support this concept.

I believe God says so.

I don't believe accepting a false concept just because you like it better will ever get you to the truth.

I believe your conclusion is false because your premises are false.

 

[Muffled]

He is as much a child of God as we all are. Bible says that too.

I believe there are two different concepts of what a child of God is in the Bible. He qualifies for the first one but not the second one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I believe this appears to be a correct view although it smacks of a piecemeal God and that is not the case. It is so difficult to put this concept in correct terms.

I don't know how Catholics define this but in the SBC it is defined in ecclesiastical terms that have nothing to do with the meaning of "person" in commonly understood English.

I don't believe you need to. All you need to do is accept that fact that God finds it comprehensible.

I believe the text does not support this concept.

I believe God says so.

I don't believe accepting a false concept just because you like it better will ever get you to the truth.

I believe your conclusion is false because your premises are false.

I said to disregard that post, because I've come back to Catholicism. I didn't say reply to it!

 

[Muffled]

He was created as an eternal being so He is eternal in the sense He will live forever.

I believe the text says that the Logos is God so that would mean that He is not created.