Is Jesus God?

[Muffled]

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

Please excuse me for missing that. Does that mean that you have reconciled your misconceptions or just decided to ignore them?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please excuse me for missing that. Does that mean that you have reconciled your misconceptions or just decided to ignore them?

It's not something I'm worrying about at the moment.

 

[moorea944]

I believe there is nothing factual in your statement.

That's because you believe in the trinity.

Let's just look at Heb 1. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," Just in this verse, if Jesus pre-existed, why is God talking through prophets and not through His son? Then it says, then in the last days, he spoke onto us by his son..... Shouldnt these verses say that God always spoke through his son even at the beginning of time? It doesnt say that.. Think about it..... And that is just one of many verses....

 

[james2ko]

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

That would be a hasty conclusion because the text also states there was "a" YHVH/EL/God that was created/formed:

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 formed [yatsar], Nor shall there be after Me.
​

The verb yatzar is in the nifal stem, third person, which equates to this particular YHVH (vs 11) making the claim He was created by a third person--The Father.

 

[moorea944]

That would be a hasty conclusion because the text also states there was "a" YHVH/EL/God that was created/formed:

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 formed [yatsar], Nor shall there be after Me.
​

The verb yatzar is in the nifal stem, third person, which equates to this particular YHVH (vs 11) making the claim He was created by a third person--The Father.

That would be a hasty conclusion because the text also states there was "a" YHVH/EL/God that was created/formed:

His conclusion is not hasty at all. I think your creating something that is not. Isa 43 is talking about Israel and their God. God is saying that he is the only God, their are no other "real" God's anywhere. Every other God is false.

The verb yatzar is in the nifal stem, third person, which equates to this particular YHVH (vs 11) making the claim He was created by a third person--The Father.

Absolutely not. YHWH was not created and to even think that our creator was created by someone or something else is awful.

 

[james2ko]

Shouldnt these verses say that God always spoke through his son even at the beginning of time? It doesnt say that.. Think about it..... And that is just one of many verses....

That would be an argument from silence. Meaning you are making conclusions based on what the text doesn't say instead of basing them on what it does say.

That's because you believe in the trinity. Let's just look at Heb 1. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," Just in this verse, if Jesus pre-existed, why is God talking through prophets and not through His son? Then it says, then in the last days, he spoke onto us by his son.....

Christ was not yet considered God's son in the OT. In the OT, it seems Christ was the angel of YHVH/LOGOS who was Israel's protector and savior. It was by this angel through whom God spoke in divers manners "unto the fathers by the prophets". He became God's only begotten son (only begotten in the sense he was the only angel born of a woman to become fully human) and Israel's spiritual protector and savior when He was incarnated, crucified, and resurrected.

His conclusion is not hasty at all. I think your creating something that is not. Isa 43 is talking about Israel and their God. God is saying that he is the only God, their are no other "real" God's anywhere. Every other God is false.

Not at all. You are ignoring the very important syntax. You say this EL is comparing himself to other Gods. Then why are the pronouns reflexive (pointing to the individual YHVH speaking), first person, and singular? That's because this EL is referring to Himself as being the subject of the verb "yatzar". The verb's grammar indicates this EL was created by a third person, which you completely ignore in all of your replies. One can only wonder why.

He is not comparing Himself to other gods, He is actually asserting his role as Israel's only created God. Meaning no other God like Him has been or will be created [yatzar].

Absolutely not. YHWH was not created and to even think that our creator was created by someone or something else is awful.

Your opinion is respected but lacks solid reasoning and textual support.

 

[moorea944]

That would be an argument from silence. Meaning you are making conclusions on what the text doesn't say instead of basing them on what it does say.



Christ was not yet considered God's son in the OT. In the OT, it seems Christ was the angel of YHVH/LOGOS who was Israel's protector and savior. It was by this angel through whom God spoke in divers manners "unto the fathers by the prophets". He became God's only begotten son (only begotten in the sense he was the only angel born of a woman to become fully human) and Israel's spiritual protector and savior when He was incarnated, crucified, and resurrected.



Not at all. You are ignoring the very important syntax. You say this EL is comparing himself to other Gods. Then why are the pronouns reflexive (pointing to the individual YHVH speaking), first person, and singular? That's because this EL is referring to Himself as being the subject of the verb "yatzar". The verb's grammar indicates this EL was created by a third person, which you completely ignore in all of your replies. One can only wonder why.

He is not comparing Himself to other gods, He is actually asserting his role as Israel's only created God. Meaning no other God like Him has been or will be created [yatzar].



Your opinion is respected but lacks solid reasoning and textual support.

Christ was not yet considered God's son in the OT.

Christ was God's son in plan and purpose in the OT. Though he wasnt born yet and never pre-existed.

In the OT, it seems Christ was the angel of YHVH/LOGOS who was Israel's protector and savior. It was by this angel through whom God spoke in divers manners "unto the fathers by the prophets". He became God's only begotten son (only begotten in the sense he was the only angel born of a woman to become fully human) and Israel's spiritual protector and savior when He was incarnated, crucified, and resurrected.

Scripture doesnt even say that. Christ was an angel? Can you show us a verse on that one? Hebrews tell us that he didnt take on the form of angels, but the seed of David.
And "incarnated"? Jesus was incarnated? Incarnated from what? Can you give us a verse on that one? Wow..... What is the word "incarnated" mean for you?

Not at all. You are ignoring the very important syntax. You say this EL is comparing himself to other Gods. Then why are the pronouns reflexive (pointing to the individual YHVH speaking), first person, and singular? That's because this EL is referring to Himself as being the subject of the verb "yatzar". The verb's grammar indicates this EL was created by a third person, which you completely ignore in all of your replies. One can only wonder why.

lol lol If you say so.....

Your opinion is respected but lacks solid reasoning and textual support.

Actually it doesnt. Maybe your really not fully understanding it's meaning and content?...... Your understanding of our Creator and it's messiah is alittle differnt from the "whole" bible. But anyhow.....

 

[james2ko]

Christ was God's son in plan and purpose in the OT. Though he wasnt born yet and never pre-existed.

Claims without solid textual support and reasoning do not hold much weight in my book.

Scripture doesnt even say that. Christ was an angel? Can you show us a verse on that one? Hebrews tell us that he didnt take on the form of angels, but the seed of David. And "incarnated"? Jesus was incarnated? Incarnated from what? Can you give us a verse on that one? Wow..... What is the word "incarnated" mean for you?

Not explicitly. Just as no where does it explicitly state He did not pre-exist. My position is strongly supported by Isa 43:10-11. For which you have yet to provide an exegesis that supports the text.

lol lol If you say so.....

This is a fallacy dubbed, "appeal to ridicule", which means nothing and proves you really have no legitimate rebuttal to my interpretation. BTW. Once again, you have managed to ignore/dodge a rebuttal on the verb "yatzar" in Isa 43:10.

Actually it doesnt. Maybe your really not fully understanding it's meaning and content?...... Your understanding of our Creator and it's messiah is alittle differnt from the "whole" bible. But anyhow.....

But you have yet to prove my faulty understanding from the text. Your faulty logic isn't helping your claim much either.

 

[moorea944]

Claims without solid textual support and reasoning do not hold much weight in my book.



Not explicitly. Just as no where does it explicitly state He did not pre-exist. My position is strongly supported by Isa 43:10-11. For which you have yet to provide an exegesis that supports the text.



This is a fallacy dubbed, "appeal to ridicule", which means nothing and proves you really have no legitimate rebuttal to my interpretation. BTW. Once again, you have managed to ignore/dodge a rebuttal on the verb "yatzar" in Isa 43:10.



But you have yet to prove my faulty understanding from the text. Your faulty logic isn't helping your claim much either.

Not explicitly. Just as no where does it explicitly state He did not pre-exist.

So then why believe in it? If the bible does not say something, why put it in your religion...

This is a fallacy dubbed, "appeal to ridicule", which means nothing and proves you really have no legitimate rebuttal to my interpretation. BTW. Once again, you have managed to ignore/dodge a rebuttal on the verb "yatzar" in Isa 43:10.

Isaiah 43:10
HEB: לְפָנַי֙ לֹא־ נ֣וֹצַר אֵ֔ל וְאַחֲרַ֖י
NAS: God formed, And there will be none
KJV: me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after
INT: Before no formed God after

I think your reading this wrong because you want it to fit your beliefs. God or Yahweh, was not formed or created. Scripture tells us that he has always existed, he has always had immortality. To believe in something else, like you do, is wrong.

And no one is dodging your comments, it's just your beliefs are very strange and none biblical. You talk about incarnation and God being formed... Who's telling you this? Your church? I hope not....

 

[james2ko]

So then why believe in it? If the bible does not say something, why put it in your religion...

No where does the bible explicitly state He did not pre-exist. So I guess I can ask the same of your belief about Him not pre-existing--"So then why believe in it? If the bible does not say something, why put it in your religion.."

Isaiah 43:10
HEB: לְפָנַי֙ לֹא־ נ֣וֹצַר אֵ֔ל וְאַחֲרַ֖י
NAS: God formed, And there will be none
KJV: me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after
INT: Before no formed God after

I think your reading this wrong because you want it to fit your beliefs. God or Yahweh, was not formed or created. Scripture tells us that he has always existed, he has always had immortality. To believe in something else, like you do, is wrong.

My interpretation is based on the original language's syntax and grammar. You quote various translations and have the gall to tell me I'm reading the inferior (compared to the Hebrew) translations wrong? Now that deserves one of your WOW's

And no one is dodging your comments, it's just your beliefs are very strange and none biblical. You talk about incarnation and God being formed...

So then parse the verb yatzar and explain its action in reference to its subject "YHVH/EL" in Isa 43:10-11.

Who's telling you this? Your church? I hope not....

Nope. The scriptures. In particular Isaiah 43:10-11. For which I still await a textually supportive interpretation.

 

[moorea944]

No where does the bible explicitly state He did not pre-exist. So I guess I can ask the same of your belief about Him not pre-existing--"So then why believe in it? If the bible does not say something, why put it in your religion.."



My interpretation is based on the original language's syntax and grammar. You quote various translations and have the gall to tell me I'm reading the inferior (compared to the Hebrew) translations wrong? Now that deserves one of your WOW's



So then parse the verb yatzar and explain its action in reference to its subject "YHVH/EL" in Isa 43:10-11.



Nope. The scriptures. In particular Isaiah 43:10-11. For which I still await a textually supportive interpretation.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Just by reading this, I dont see your point and meaning at all. Again.... your taking this out of context. Look at what it is saying... Read it again. Your putting in all of your words into what it is saying. Read the whole chapter.

 

[james2ko]

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

Just by reading this, I dont see your point and meaning at all. Again.... your taking this out of context. Look at what it is saying... Read it again. Your putting in all of your words into what it is saying. Read the whole chapter.

Since you are depending on an English translation and not considering the passage's Hebrew syntax, I'm afraid your understanding of the passage is clearly the one in question. The context of the chapter and syntax of the passage reflects this EL/YHVH/God reassuring Israel, who at the time was in Babylonian captivity (vs 14), of His created [yatzar] existence and role as their "only" redeemer and savior (vs 10-11). The only EL they have ever witnessed who had and could deliver them. It's pretty straight forward when the Hebrew is considered and our preconceived ideas are put aside.

BTW. You simply claiming I'm reading the English passages wrong is not a rebuttal. You parsing and describing to me how the Hebrew verb yatzar relates to its subject (YHVH/EL) would be.

 

[Stan Hallett]

God is not a Trinity or Triune God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say so. In fact the Bible is very clear in the there is but One God. There is none else.

There are not three persons in the Godhead. God is not a person, but a Spirit. This is Bible as well. Jesus was the only person, because He dwelt among us in the flesh of a man. This was for one purpose only, that he came manifested in the flesh to die for our sins as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was God robed in flesh and God called that flesh His Son. He was both God and man. When he when back to the Father it was not to sit next to him on some heavenly throne. He went back to Spirit that is God. The Holy Spirit is not some third person of a Godhead. That is man's invention because of his lack of understanding of Spiritual things. The Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of God, of Jesus if you like as manifested to man. We can feel Him and He can speak to us.

Someone already posted John 1:1 which says; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

But then it says in John 1:14 that; "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."

 

[moorea944]

God is not a Trinity or Triune God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say so. In fact the Bible is very clear in the there is but One God. There is none else.

There are not three persons in the Godhead. God is not a person, but a Spirit. This is Bible as well. Jesus was the only person, because He dwelt among us in the flesh of a man. This was for one purpose only, that he came manifested in the flesh to die for our sins as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was God robed in flesh and God called that flesh His Son. He was both God and man. When he when back to the Father it was not to sit next to him on some heavenly throne. He went back to Spirit that is God. The Holy Spirit is not some third person of a Godhead. That is man's invention because of his lack of understanding of Spiritual things. The Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of God, of Jesus if you like as manifested to man. We can feel Him and He can speak to us.

Someone already posted John 1:1 which says; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

But then it says in John 1:14 that; "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."

How true. Plus, 1 Cor 11v3 tells us what the Godhead is. It tells us that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Col 1 tells us that God is the God and father of Jesus.

Jesus is the son of God. Not God the son.

 

[moorea944]

Since you are depending on an English translation and not considering the passage's Hebrew syntax, I'm afraid your understanding of the passage is clearly the one in question. The context of the chapter and syntax of the passage reflects this EL/YHVH/God reassuring Israel, who at the time was in Babylonian captivity (vs 14), of His created [yatzar] existence and role as their "only" redeemer and savior (vs 10-11). The only EL they have ever witnessed who had and could deliver them. It's pretty straight forward when the Hebrew is considered and our preconceived ideas are put aside.

BTW. You simply claiming I'm reading the English passages wrong is not a rebuttal. You parsing and describing to me how the Hebrew verb yatzar relates to its subject (YHVH/EL) would be.

Again.... maybe it's you with the misunderstanding. Your talking about a created God. I"m not. Our creator was not created. Dont you think your using words in a wrong sense? Look at the consistency of scripture about our God. Your saying he was created? Scripture knows nothing of that.

 

[james2ko]

Again.... maybe it's you with the misunderstanding. Your talking about a created God. I"m not. Our creator was not created.

That's because you are overlooking the textual evidence created angels in the OT were also addressed as YHVH. Not that they were the One True YHVH, but merely took on the family name (Eph 3:14-15) in the 1st person. This was the status of the created [yatzar] EL referring to himself by the family name--YHVH-- in Isa 43:10-11.

Dont you think your using words in a wrong sense?Look at the consistency of scripture about our God. Your saying he was created? Scripture knows nothing of that.

Maybe I am utilizing the terms incorrectly (this is something your pride and preconceived beliefs will not allow you to admit). However, you are not providing any textual evidence to support your position or refute mine. Simply claiming I'm reading the inferior English translations "wrong" or asserting He was not created is not evidence.

How true. Plus, 1 Cor 11v3 tells us what the Godhead is. It tells us that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Col 1 tells us that God is the God and father of Jesus. Jesus is the son of God. Not God the son.

In 1 Co 11:3, Paul reveals to us a symbolic reference of the creative order that suggests Christ was the first created Being.

1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ​

You speak of consistency. Well take note of the logical consistency employed in the creative order. Verse 3 states the head of every woman is the man, why?-- Because verse 8 suggests the first woman was created, brought forth, or produced from man. The head of every man is Christ, why?—Gen 1:26; Isa 45:12; Joh 1:3 suggests the first man was created or formed from the One by whom "all things" were created--Christ. The head of Christ is God The Father, why? –Isa 43:10-11 Col 1:15; Rev 3:14 and other passages indicate Christ was the first spirit being brought forth, formed, created by The Father!

The evidence is there moorea, just put your pride and preconceived dogma aside and let it in.

 

[moorea944]

That's because you are overlooking the textual evidence created angels in the OT were also addressed as YHVH. Not that they were the One True YHVH, but merely took on the family name (Eph 3:14-15) in the 1st person. This was the status of the created [yatzar] EL referring to himself by the family name--YHVH-- in Isa 43:10-11.



Maybe I am utilizing the terms incorrectly (this is something your pride and preconceived beliefs will not allow you to admit). However, you are not providing any textual evidence to support your position or refute mine. Simply claiming I'm reading the inferior English translations "wrong" or asserting He was not created is not evidence.



In 1 Co 11:3, Paul reveals to us a symbolic reference of the creative order that suggests Christ was the first created Being.

1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ​

You speak of consistency. Well take note of the logical consistency employed in the creative order. Verse 3 states the head of every woman is the man, why?-- Because verse 8 suggests the first woman was created, brought forth, or produced from man. The head of every man is Christ, why?—Gen 1:26; Isa 45:12; Joh 1:3 suggests the first man was created or formed from the One by whom "all things" were created--Christ. The head of Christ is God The Father, why? –Isa 43:10-11 Col 1:15; Rev 3:14 and other passages indicate Christ was the first spirit being brought forth, formed, created by The Father!

The evidence is there moorea, just put your pride and preconceived dogma aside and let it in.

Maybe I am utilizing the terms incorrectly....

Yes, you are. Wow, now we totally agree on something!!!

However, you are not providing any textual evidence to support your position or refute mine.

Actually I am. I'm quoting scripture which you take out of context to fit your beliefs.

In 1 Co 11:3, Paul reveals to us a symbolic reference of the creative order that suggests Christ was the first created Being.

No it doesnt. Your saying that because that's what your religion teaches you. Adams was created first.

The head of every man is Christ, why?—Gen 1:26; Isa 45:12; Joh 1:3 suggests the first man was created or formed from the One by whom "all things" were created--Christ.

Are you saying Christ created everything?

The evidence is there moorea, just put your pride and preconceived dogma aside and let it in.

I"m sorry, shouldnt I be saying that to you?......

 

[james2ko]

Yes, you are. Wow, now we totally agree on something!!!

1. We absolutely do agree on something. You do realize by that comment you agree that your pride and preconceived ideas are preventing you from understanding the passage.

No it doesnt. Your saying that because that's what your religion teaches you. Adams was created first.

2. Perhaps you are disagreeing because that is what your religion teaches you.

Are you saying Christ created everything?

3. He was the agent through whom all things were created.

Actually I am. I'm quoting scripture which you take out of context to fit your beliefs.

4. Your exegesis is totally dependent on the inferior English translations. You haven't the foggiest what it says in the Hebrew. Mix this with fallacious reasoning and it suggests an erred interpretation.

I"m sorry, shouldnt I be saying that to you?......

5. No you shouldn't because I admit I could be wrong. But other than unsubstantiated, fallacious claims, you have yet to present evidence from the Hebrew or English text of Isa 43:10-11 that I am wrong. You are the one who claims to fully understand the deity of Christ, with no understanding of the original language and thought process. An understanding the Hebrew speaking apostle Paul himself admitted he did not have. So you tell me which one of us is bursting at the seams with pride?

I recommend you learn some Hebrew grammar then come back and parse the verb "yatzar" and demonstrate to me how it applies to its singular subject (EL/YHVH) and finally correct what you claim to be my false interpretation of Isa 43:10.

 

[Muffled]

That would be a hasty conclusion because the text also states there was "a" YHVH/EL/God that was created/formed:

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 formed [yatsar], Nor shall there be after Me.
​

The verb yatzar is in the nifal stem, third person, which equates to this particular YHVH (vs 11) making the claim He was created by a third person--The Father.

I believe you are being illogical: "no god formed" does not equate to "God formed."

 

[Muffled]

God is not a Trinity or Triune God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say so. In fact the Bible is very clear in the there is but One God. There is none else.

There are not three persons in the Godhead. God is not a person, but a Spirit. This is Bible as well. Jesus was the only person, because He dwelt among us in the flesh of a man. This was for one purpose only, that he came manifested in the flesh to die for our sins as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was God robed in flesh and God called that flesh His Son. He was both God and man. When he when back to the Father it was not to sit next to him on some heavenly throne. He went back to Spirit that is God. The Holy Spirit is not some third person of a Godhead. That is man's invention because of his lack of understanding of Spiritual things. The Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of God, of Jesus if you like as manifested to man. We can feel Him and He can speak to us.

Someone already posted John 1:1 which says; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

But then it says in John 1:14 that; "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."

I believe I agree with most of that but the Holy Spirit is another term for the Paraclete which is God in believers not just the spirit Himself which would be the Father, Son and Paraclete.