Is Jesus God?

[Oeste]

A man is not worshipped like God. But some people do. There are many men worshipped as God. All over the world. But that does not make them God. Also, the "Worship" in the bible when referred to men is not "Worship" like worshipping God. Its paying respect. I explained that in an earlier post.

Hi Firedragon:

I think Yoshua has brought up some very good points in his discourse.

As everyone here is aware, there’s a difference between the biblical worship shown to parents or others in authority, and the worship shown to God. But the big difference is that Christians are not instructed to bow before anyone except God, yet they are instructed to bow before Jesus.

I simply find it incredulous that some believe Jesus will receive no more worship than that given our President or other government officials, just as I find it incredulous the Magi would travel hundreds, if not thousands of miles just to tell Jesus “we respect you”.

Satan offered exactly that kind of worldly worship (or respect) during Jesus’ 3rd temptation (even though the world wasn’t his to offer), and Jesus vehemently declined. I don’t understand why folks draw parity between the worship Jehovah grants Jesus and the worship Satan attempted to bequeath.

Perhaps some of you who have come to this conclusion can elaborate.

Fell down and worship does not make a person a God. That is why I said that there were many who were worshipped like that in the bible. Everyone must be God then.

For a Christian to fall down and worship anyone, he would have to be God, otherwise he is not conducting himself as a Christian.

So your point is, again, that Thomas said to Jesus "My God" and that makes Jesus God. Thats an exclamation. A third party exclamation. Your salvation relies on this kind of third party utterences! Bro, speak to a scholar in the NT, they will not use this quote to prove Jesus is God. You will see preachers and layman apologists using this.

God Himself, YHWH himself calls Moses Elohim. Even that doesnt make anyone else God.

God said Moses would be "...like a god to Pharoah", not that he would be god to Pharoah.

And my example was not of Moses, it was Moses's father in law. Moses worships him. Thats how you pay respect. Fell down and worshipped him. That does not make him God.

Correct, and I agree. But if God insturcts everyone to bend the knee to his father in law, it carries a radically different connotation than Moses doing the same out of cultural tradition.

Anyway, on your last point, the new testament does not have any eye witnesses. There are only revelations. Only paul would have been alive during the ministry of Jesus but yet, he never met Jesus. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. No one. No one is clear as to how many authored the Revelations. No one knows who authored the synoptic gospels. In bible study it is common knowledge that Mark was the first Gospel and other had sources, Q, L and M to write their books. John is completely out of the picture. A completely different theology.

There are no eye witnesses brother.

Well if we're to throw out chunks of our gospel I can understand how one arrives at the conclusion Jesus is not God. It's only by viewing the whole of scripture that Jesus is seen to be God.

I don't want to get too far away from thread theme, but once we've thrown out John, Hebrews, Revelation and the synoptic gospels, what parts do you think we should keep?

 

[moorea944]

Hi Firedragon:

I think Yoshua has brought up some very good points in his discourse.

As everyone here is aware, there’s a difference between the biblical worship shown to parents or others in authority, and the worship shown to God. But the big difference is that Christians are not instructed to bow before anyone except God, yet they are instructed to bow before Jesus.

I simply find it incredulous that some believe Jesus will receive no more worship than that given our President or other government officials, just as I find it incredulous the Magi would travel hundreds, if not thousands of miles just to tell Jesus “we respect you”.

Satan offered exactly that kind of worldly worship (or respect) during Jesus’ 3rd temptation (even though the world wasn’t his to offer), and Jesus vehemently declined. I don’t understand why folks draw parity between the worship Jehovah grants Jesus and the worship Satan attempted to bequeath.

Perhaps some of you who have come to this conclusion can elaborate.




For a Christian to fall down and worship anyone, he would have to be God, otherwise he is not conducting himself as a Christian.




God said Moses would be "...like a god to Pharoah", not that he would be god to Pharoah.



Correct, and I agree. But if God insturcts everyone to bend the knee to his father in law, it carries a radically different connotation than Moses doing the same out of cultural tradition.




Well if we're to throw out chunks of our gospel I can understand how one arrives at the conclusion Jesus is not God. It's only by viewing the whole of scripture that Jesus is seen to be God.

I don't want to get too far away from thread theme, but once we've thrown out John, Hebrews, Revelation and the synoptic gospels, what parts do you think we should keep?

Well if we're to throw out chunks of our gospel I can understand how one arrives at the conclusion Jesus is not God. It's only by viewing the whole of scripture that Jesus is seen to be God.

Actually, it's the opposite. When you read the whole of scripture or even alittle bit of it, we learn about God manifestation. God working through His son. We understand that Jesus is the son of God, not God the son. We read when someone worshiped Jesus, it was to the glory of the father. No one, ever, worshiped Jesus as God. Ever. That would totally degrade our Creator!! No one is equal to our God.

 

[firedragon]

Hi Firedragon:

I think Yoshua has brought up some very good points in his discourse.

As everyone here is aware, there’s a difference between the biblical worship shown to parents or others in authority, and the worship shown to God. But the big difference is that Christians are not instructed to bow before anyone except God, yet they are instructed to bow before Jesus.

I simply find it incredulous that some believe Jesus will receive no more worship than that given our President or other government officials, just as I find it incredulous the Magi would travel hundreds, if not thousands of miles just to tell Jesus “we respect you”.

Satan offered exactly that kind of worldly worship (or respect) during Jesus’ 3rd temptation (even though the world wasn’t his to offer), and Jesus vehemently declined. I don’t understand why folks draw parity between the worship Jehovah grants Jesus and the worship Satan attempted to bequeath.

Perhaps some of you who have come to this conclusion can elaborate.




For a Christian to fall down and worship anyone, he would have to be God, otherwise he is not conducting himself as a Christian.




God said Moses would be "...like a god to Pharoah", not that he would be god to Pharoah.



Correct, and I agree. But if God insturcts everyone to bend the knee to his father in law, it carries a radically different connotation than Moses doing the same out of cultural tradition.




Well if we're to throw out chunks of our gospel I can understand how one arrives at the conclusion Jesus is not God. It's only by viewing the whole of scripture that Jesus is seen to be God.

I don't want to get too far away from thread theme, but once we've thrown out John, Hebrews, Revelation and the synoptic gospels, what parts do you think we should keep?

I will only say two things brother because this is your theology and I do not wish to attack that. I only use the bible for study.

1. Moses was sent as God. Not like God. The scripture does not say that. The thing is you must understand the language. The book does not say "Like God". But God does not always mean the Almighty God or YHWH.
2. I dont say you must throw everything out. But you must know and acknowledge the facts. Dont throw them away.

Peace.

 

[Oeste]

Ok, sorry, my fault then. Well, I'll tell you one thing though. I'm not sure about the different modes, I wouldnt say it like that, but scripture does tell us that God manifests Himself into individauls or multitudes. That is why I say that. I just wouldnt use the language of "modes".

That's fine...I won't use it either then, but it sounds to me like you believe Jesus was an Avatar, housing deity in a man's body.

Avatar: a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.

Well, we know that Jesus is not the creator, because our God is. We know that Jesus is NOT God or the creator. All through the OT, it is YAHWEH or GOD that has created everything. Jesus wasnt born yet. John 1v3 is talking about God, not Jesus. Read Isaiah 43 & 45, plus, there are a ton of psalms too on this subject. We only have one creator, that is our God. Again, Jesus wasnt born yet....

How can John 1:3 be talking about the Father when John 1:10 says the WORD was made flesh and this very same Word dwelt among us?

Actually, it's the opposite. When you read the whole of scripture or even alittle bit of it, we learn about God manifestation. God working through His son. We understand that Jesus is the son of God, not God the son. We read when someone worshiped Jesus, it was to the glory of the father. No one, ever, worshiped Jesus as God. Ever. That would totally degrade our Creator!! No one is equal to our God.

Trinitarian agree...no one is equal to God! Only God is equal to God.

But first, can you answer the question asked above about John 1:3 and John 1:10? Also, can you answer the question Yoshua asked you earlier about Philippians 2:6?

"...who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," (KJV)​

OR

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" (NIV)​

How can Jesus think it wasn't robbery or equality to be equal with God, if he's just a man? What man would even consider himself equal to God when you yourself state: No one is equal to our God? What man can say "I will not rob God by being equal with him?". Why would a man of God who is just a man make claim to the possibility?

Also, I would be interested in hearing from others regarding this question.

 

[Oeste]

I will only say two things brother because this is your theology and I do not wish to attack that. I only use the bible for study.

LOL, don't worry, I don't take biblical criticisms personally. I look at it as an opportunity to strengthen my love and respect for scripture. Quite simply, if scripture cannot withstand criticism, then it's really not worth the paper it's written on and my faith is in vain.

I think as long as folks attack the argument rather than the poster we'll all be fine. We have a tremendous opportunity to share and learn from each other.

I also understand your dilemma as a Muslim wishing to engage Christians in discussion on a predominately Christian board. You would like to raise issues without offending the people you're talking with. It can be a difficult road to navigate, but don't worry about that with me. I can't speak for everyone, but we have a pretty diverse group here, and no one seems ready to fly off the handle.

1. Moses was sent as God. Not like God. The scripture does not say that.

Then we'll save that for the translators, since many translations say exactly that.

The thing is you must understand the language. The book does not say "Like God". But God does not always mean the Almighty God or YHWH.

So if Moses is made "as god" to Pharaoh, is he truly Pharaoh's God? Did God raise Moses to be a new god for the Egyptians? And was Moses to take the place of their present gods, or to be considered another god alongside them?

If you look at the actual plagues that struck Egypt, and the gods Egypt served at the time, you'll see the capacity in which Moses was "as" or "like" god to Pharaoh.

2. I dont say you must throw everything out. But you must know and acknowledge the facts. Dont throw them away.

I understand being Muslim why you might prefer single source, but to me the authenticity of the bible is proven through the harmonious testimony of the prophets over the centuries. While single source authorship can be harmonious, achieving the same with multiple authors over time can be nothing short of inspired.

 

[firedragon]

I sincerely respect your thoughts and humility.

But I would like to correct one thing. I am not evading hurting your feelings or your theology because this is a predominantly a Christian forum. After so many years in this academic circle you kind of lose that.

Theology and scriptural criticism are two completely different subjects when delved deep into. Though you study both and the courses will be called Phd in theology, the higher you go, the more you realise that they are two subjects. Thats why I said what I said. I do not wish to attack your theology, I am only using the bible to study.

Then we'll save that for the translators, since many translations say exactly that.

The like translation not right brother. If you say "as" thats correct. You send your employee as a a messenger.

God, Elohim or Aleim, or theos in Greek does not mean you are the God the creator, not always. This is how the language works.

So if Moses is made "as god" to Pharaoh, is he truly Pharaoh's God? Did God raise Moses to be a new god for the Egyptians? And was Moses to take the place of their present gods, or to be considered another god alongside them?

If you look at the actual plagues that struck Egypt, and the gods Egypt served at the time, you'll see the capacity in which Moses was "as" or "like" god to Pharaoh.

No, it does not make Moses God.

I understand being Muslim why you might prefer single source, but to me the authenticity of the bible is proven through the harmonious testimony of the prophets over the centuries. While single source authorship can be harmonious, achieving the same with multiple authors over time can be nothing short of inspired.

See I understand what you say. This is your theology.

But when you study the bible and its historical validity, there are many problems.

I dont understand the reason you said why being a Muslim I will prefer single source. That is not relevant brother. As a Muslim I will prefer God alone as the source. But just because I am a Muslim, that should not interrupt bible study. I do it as a passion, academic orientation and a self contained practice.
I shall stop at that.

Peace and thank you.

 

[james2ko]

Eternal and everlasting are not synonymous. Are they similar? Yes. Are they synonymous? No.

Not sure what the difference is between being "synonymous" and being "similar". The thesaurus I checked online has synonym and similar listed as, well, synonyms. I am a believer in the bible interpreting itself. I provided two contextual example scriptures supporting the fact they are synonymous. Translators were not needed, as the context spoke for itself. Perhaps I missed something, which is why I am asking for you to provide two contextual scriptural examples of how they are not synonymous.

 

[Xenosaga Dragonzord]

jesus son of mary just prophet and messenger......like other prophet

 

[Oeste]

Not sure what the difference is between being "synonymous" and being "similar". The thesaurus I checked online has synonym and similar listed as, well, synonyms.

Ok, that’s a fair criticism of my response James2k. By not being synonymous I am referring to the degree of equivalency. So while eternal and everlasting are similar, they are not equivalent and should not be used interchangeably. So it would be better to say eternal and everlasting are similar, but not equivalent. So while something eternal is certainly everlasting, something everlasting is not necessarily eternal.

I am a believer in the bible interpreting itself. I provided two contextual example scriptures supporting the fact they are synonymous.

Didn’t URAVIPTOME provide two contextual example scriptures supporting the fact they weren’t?

Translators were not needed, as the context spoke for itself.

I’m glad you mention that, because the context does speak for itself. There is only one who has eternal life, and that is God. The context at Matthew 19:16 is clearly talking about everlasting, not eternal life.

Mormons would use the NKJV version to show we can all obtain godhood. How would you explain the context to them?

Perhaps I missed something, which is why I am asking for you to provide two contextual scriptural examples of how they are not synonymous.

I think what you missed is that translators translate rather than define words, but here’s a site that will explain the theological difference between eternal and everlasting. I’ll put their summary here:

1.According to the English language, “eternal” means “without beginning or end, always existing, lasting forever”; whereas “everlasting” means “lasting forever, lasting for a very long time, for an indefinitely long time.”​

2.Theologically, “eternal” means “not within any time limit, outside of time and existing without a beginning or end, like spirit”; whereas “everlasting” means “the life which did not always exist but was granted to God and it was forever, running within time, or something similar, which has a beginning but no end.​

 

[Katzpur]

Mormons would use the NKJV version to show we can all obtain godhood. How would you explain the context to them?

Actually, Mormons use the KJV, not the NKJV, and there are plenty of other passages we could point to in backing up our belief in man's potential to become like God.

 

[moorea944]

That's fine...I won't use it either then, but it sounds to me like you believe Jesus was an Avatar, housing deity in a man's body.

Avatar: a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.



How can John 1:3 be talking about the Father when John 1:10 says the WORD was made flesh and this very same Word dwelt among us?




Trinitarian agree...no one is equal to God! Only God is equal to God.

But first, can you answer the question asked above about John 1:3 and John 1:10? Also, can you answer the question Yoshua asked you earlier about Philippians 2:6?

"...who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," (KJV)​

OR

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" (NIV)​

How can Jesus think it wasn't robbery or equality to be equal with God, if he's just a man? What man would even consider himself equal to God when you yourself state: No one is equal to our God? What man can say "I will not rob God by being equal with him?". Why would a man of God who is just a man make claim to the possibility?

Also, I would be interested in hearing from others regarding this question.

That's fine...I won't use it either then, but it sounds to me like you believe Jesus was an Avatar, housing deity in a man's body.
Avatar: a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.

Ok, when you say deity, are saying that Jesus is God? Not sure what your saying here. But this is what I believe in because I actually read this in scripture. Jesus was born a man. I'm not saying that Jesus was a mere man, he wasnt. God was his father and he was also born of a woman. God was working and manifesting Himself through his son. He had the same nature as us which had to be destroyed through death.
I dont believe that Jesus was deity (God), only because scripture doesnt tell us that at all. God gave his son everything. Jesus couldnt do anything without the help of his father. I also dont believe that Jesus is incarnate of the father. "incarnate" is not in the bible, but manifest is. The bible is quite clear that Jesus was a man.

How can John 1:3 be talking about the Father when John 1:10 says the WORD was made flesh and this very same Word dwelt among us?

The first few verses are about God and his plans, his ideas. The word (logos) or his plans, reasons, thoughts, ideas were with God in the beginning. And then in verse 14 his plans and ideas become real or flesh. Jesus was in the mind of God before world began. Scripture even tells us that. Same with us. So the word "word" in John is NOT just Jesus, which most people think. It is God's plans, his spoken word, let there be light.

How can Jesus think it wasn't robbery or equality to be equal with God, if he's just a man?

He didnt think he was ever equal with his father. Ever. You have to remember that we are reading English bibles that have been translated from Hebrew and Greek in English. There are translation errors in scripture, not be God but by the translators. Jesus never was equal with our Creator.

What man would even consider himself equal to God when you yourself state: No one is equal to our God? What man can say "I will not rob God by being equal with him?". Why would a man of God who is just a man make claim to the possibility?

No one would. No one is equal with God. Plus, didnt Paul say in the next verse, "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"? Paul is saying that Jesus never made himself equal with is father.

Trinitarian agree...no one is equal to God! Only God is equal to God.

I dont think that's true. Trinitarians believe Jesus is God and that he is equal. Three people in one, yet three, yet one........

 

[Notaclue]

Ok, when you say deity, are saying that Jesus is God? Not sure what your saying here. But this is what I believe in because I actually read this in scripture. Jesus was born a man. I'm not saying that Jesus was a mere man, he wasnt. God was his father and he was also born of a woman. God was working and manifesting Himself through his son. He had the same nature as us which had to be destroyed through death.
I dont believe that Jesus was deity (God), only because scripture doesnt tell us that at all. God gave his son everything. Jesus couldnt do anything without the help of his father. I also dont believe that Jesus is incarnate of the father. "incarnate" is not in the bible, but manifest is. The bible is quite clear that Jesus was a man.


The first few verses are about God and his plans, his ideas. The word (logos) or his plans, reasons, thoughts, ideas were with God in the beginning. And then in verse 14 his plans and ideas become real or flesh. Jesus was in the mind of God before world began. Scripture even tells us that. Same with us. So the word "word" in John is NOT just Jesus, which most people think. It is God's plans, his spoken word, let there be light.



He didnt think he was ever equal with his father. Ever. You have to remember that we are reading English bibles that have been translated from Hebrew and Greek in English. There are translation errors in scripture, not be God but by the translators. Jesus never was equal with our Creator.

No one would. No one is equal with God. Plus, didnt Paul say in the next verse, "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"? Paul is saying that Jesus never made himself equal with is father.

I dont think that's true. Trinitarians believe Jesus is God and that he is equal. Three people in one, yet three, yet one........[/QUOTE


Phil.2:5. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,b being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,


6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,


9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,


and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,


Jesus Christ 'never' gave it a thought on being equal with the Father.

God 'gave' him the 'Name' above every name, "Lord".


Acts2:36. Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified

God has "made" him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus.


Peace.

 

[InChrist]

I believe that only God could pay the infinite penalty His justice demands for sin. The penalty for our sins is infinite because God and His justice are infinite. A finite human being could not pay that infinite penalty. All through the Old Testament, Yahweh declares that He is the only Savior (Is 43:3,11; 45:15,21; 49:26; Hos 13:4,etc.). Thus Jesus had to be Yahweh, but also a man. When the Son became a man He did not and could not cease to be God. Jesus was both God and man. The Father didn’t become man, nor did the Holy Spirit. This is only possible through the Trinity because of the triune nature of God, which I believe the scriptures reveal God to be.The biblical God is love in Himself, manifesting plurality in the Godhead: ..the Father loves the Son (John 5:20) God must be one; but He must comprise both singularity and plurality to have expressed love from eternity within Himself.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tm 3:16)

 

[InChrist]

Actually, Mormons use the KJV, not the NKJV, and there are plenty of other passages we could point to in backing up our belief in man's potential to become like God.

Do you see any difference between "becoming like God" or "becoming God"? Do you believe a human has the potential to have all the characteristics, attributes, abilities, and nature or essence of God?

 

[Jane.Doe]

Do you see any difference between "becoming like God" or "becoming God"?

Mormons do not believe that we will become God, as in replacing Him-- such is ridiculous. But rather, we have the potential to become like God, as in a child becoming like it's parent.

Do you believe a human has the potential to have all the characteristics, attributes, abilities, and nature or essence of God?

Of course- through the power of God, all things are possible and we become new.

 

[Katzpur]

Do you see any difference between "becoming like God" or "becoming God"?

Yes, I do. Since I believe that God already exists as a being fully distinct from me, I don't believe I can become Him. I also don't believe I can ever become His equal. He will always be my God and there will never come a time when I do not worship Him as such.

Do you believe a human has the potential to have all the characteristics, attributes, abilities, and nature or essence of God?

I do believe that, over who knows how many billions of years, I may have developed the same godly characteristics He has. But even this I could never hope for unless it was His will that I attain it.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I do. Since I believe that God already exists as a being fully distinct from me, I don't believe I can become Him. I also don't believe I can ever become His equal. He will always be my God and there will never come a time when I do not worship Him as such.

I do believe that, over who knows how many billions of years, I may have developed the same godly characteristics He has. But even this I could never hope for unless it was His will that I attain it.

What are the Godly characteristics a human can develop into?

 

[Yoshua]

1. He was son of man
2. He was son of God
3. He was God the creator

So Jesus himself is 3 in one.

No. He was also the Messiah. Thus, he is 4 in one.

Messiah or Masaha is a representative of God. I wonder how you can be a representative of a person, and be that person at the same time. Oh but thats the wonder of Jesus that we dont understand because we are limited, the typical answer brother. I personally say that your knowledge is narrowed down to proving Jesus is all of the above but still God.

Hi firedragon,

Kindly take note of this:
God exists in three persons. One God (Father) exists in the person of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
It is not 3 in one. We don’t believe in three Gods (Tritheism), that is idolatry.

Jesus prayed to the Father. If Jesus is the Father, why Jesus prayed to the Father? Isn’t it?

Your point is
Jesus did not claim to be God, others did. Jesus claims again and again that he Son of Man, but you equate it to your words that he is Son of God.

Yes, because it is written in the Bible, we believed it is inspired and the truth.

Adam is also Son of God. God has so many sons. Not only Jesus. (No not sons like Adam and Seth)

Oh. I think you should not tell me that God had many sons and make Adam as Son of God because as you have said that you are not equating Moses to Jesus, so you may do the same with Adam. Believers are also called as children of God but not to equate them as Son of God like Jesus.

What do you think Son of Man means? How do you understand it?

A God-sent Messiah, and a man in nature who is begotten (as He is truly in human likeness).

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html

Whats your idea of Messiah? How do you understand it?

A deliverer chosen by God, an anointed one.

http://www.gotquestions.org/what-does-Messiah-mean.html

Jesus vs Paul

• God speaks to Jesus who you claim to be God says "Unless you exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the pharisees, you shall not enter heaven".
• God speaks to Jesus who you claim to be God tells us "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

Now

• Paul, "Claims" to see Jesus "in a vision", and says "faith alone as necessary for salvation"

You do not follow Jesus, you follow paul, and you contradict Jesus.

I follow Paul and Jesus because they are both say “Faith saves.”

Luke 7:50
50. And He (Jesus) said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Luke 17:6
6. And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, `Be uprooted and be planted in the sea'; and it would obey you.

1. When did the government rest on the shoulders of Jesus?

He is the King and the Ruler. It will be when Jesus rule the earth as King of Kings and the Lord of Lords in the future.

Zech. 14:9
9. And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.

2. How did Jesus every be called "Wonderful Counselor". Yowes Pele. So are you saying Jesus is Yowes Pele. Where in the NT did anyone call him by that name?

Jesus gives counsel. He reveals the mind of God. In the New Testament, you will see Jesus function as a Counselor. He counsels us and guides us.

Rom. 11:27-36
"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
27. "And this is My covenant with them,
28. From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29. for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,
31. so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.
32. For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.
33. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!
34. For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?
35. Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again?
36. For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

1 Peter 1:10-11
10. As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry,
11. seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.

 

[Yoshua]

3. Mighty God. Gibbor. There are many Gods then. Including Moses, the Judges, Psalm 82:6 'You are "gods" you are all sons of the Most High.

This “Mighty God” refers to a Mighty King, a strong one wherein the Jews viewed the coming Messiah—a strong leader like Moses, Abraham or David.

Cant you see that they dont have any relationship to Jesus.

No. It has. Can you read who is the child to be born?

Isaiah 9:6
6. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

7. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.

In New Testament,
Matt. 1:23
23. "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."

Brother, if there is a scholar, he would not say Lord of me and God of me. Thats word for word, it renders My lord and my God. Thats the way Greek is written. Many other languages in the world are written like that. Nevertheless thats not relevant, its just grammer.

Oh. Come On. Even if you insist that it is My Lord and My God, does it change the meaning? Of course, not. Don’t take it lightly if we are checking the grammar, that is a very important one.

And I dont need to reconcile third party exclamations.

Have you ever though of who wrote the Gospel of John?
If this is the story of Jesus, why did not the synoptic gospels narrate the same story? None of them.

Because they have different authors and they have a different angle of views. If you would carefully study the synoptic gospels, you can see their consistency. It is like five people who looks to an object on the table, and they wrote something about that object based upon their observation and facts. But the object is still the object of focus.

Why do you, if you look back quote John most extensively regarding Jesus's divinity?

Yes, John’s gospel focused on the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

How many people do you think wrote the Gospel of John?

John, and other one of verse 21:24 which another person is responsible for the gospel in its final form.

How many people do you think wrote the Gospel of John?

Probable date A.D. 90-95

Who is this John? Who named it John? When did they name it? Where did he find the information to write the Gospel because this is 7 or more decades later.

John does not use the sources Q, L or M. Its its own source. How come? Was John Inspired? Then do you say the others were not? Because they contradict eachother.

For me, they do not.

Thanks

 

[firedragon]

This “Mighty God” refers to a Mighty King, a strong one wherein the Jews viewed the coming Messiah—a strong leader like Moses, Abraham or David.

No. It has. Can you read who is the child to be born?

Isaiah 9:6
6. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

7. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.

In New Testament,
Matt. 1:23
23. "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."

Oh. Come On. Even if you insist that it is My Lord and My God, does it change the meaning? Of course, not. Don’t take it lightly if we are checking the grammar, that is a very important one.

Because they have different authors and they have a different angle of views. If you would carefully study the synoptic gospels, you can see their consistency. It is like five people who looks to an object on the table, and they wrote something about that object based upon their observation and facts. But the object is still the object of focus.

Yes, John’s gospel focused on the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

John, and other one of verse 21:24 which another person is responsible for the gospel in its final form.

Probable date A.D. 90-95

For me, they do not.

Thanks

Peace Bro.