Is Jesus God?

[Muffled]

The answer to this question is sort of Yes but not really. See, the thing is.... Jesus is referred to as "a god" in the bible (John 1:1) but never is Jesus referred to as Almighty God anywhere in the bible- Almighty God/God Almighty (however you want to say it) is One and One alone, and that is none other than Jehovah. (Revelation 15:3)

Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus is Almighty God, nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus is equal to God, nowhere in the bible does it say that God is three persons that make up one God. It's also worth mentioning that the word trinity is not even in the bible. Jesus is simply the son of God Almighty (Mark 5:7, Psalms 83:18) Jesus is the 1st thing/creature that was created by Jehovah God (Colossians 1:15)

If any of these scriptures are not right please feel free to correct me, all thoughts and opinions are welcome. I will not talk down on anyone who expresses views/opinions that differ from my own. Let us discuss....

Welcome to RF. I hope you learn a great many things.

I believe this is not exactly true. God is the Word and the Word became flesh (Jesus). The idea that Jesus is a god is a pagan concept and falls far short of the glory of God. Also He is called Almighty in Isaiah and although the word God is left out anyone with a lick of sense knows there is only one Almighty and that is God.

I believe you have oversimplified it which I suppose makes you a fundamentalist.

I believe that is a misinterpretation.

 

[james2ko]

I believe the text does not say that.but this is all it says: Ph.2:7 but emptied himself,

I believe I do not find this in the text at all. In fact Jesus displays the power of God throughout His ministry.

I don't see any evidence of that.

I believe you are in error God can do what He wishes.

Jesus is not a god He is God and could never be anything but God.

I believe however it would not have been consistent with His purpose which was to replicate Himself in believers.

You are quick to point out someone's error but no sound collective biblical, synctactical, and / or grammatical evidence as to why. That tactic does very little to convict anyone your view is correct and theirs wrong.

 

[JehovahIsGodAlmighty]

I believe God the Father did not promise God the father did. God the Father is the Father of Jesus. God the father is the father of all.

I believe you should remember that you asked. Receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you will be a Son of God also. You will never be God the Son because Jesus is the only one.

by your logic, Jesus is God and the Son of God at the same time which makes absolutely no sense at all. The bible isn't even needed to show how bizarre that is.

Welcome to RF. I hope you learn a great many things.

I believe this is not exactly true. God is the Word and the Word became flesh (Jesus). The idea that Jesus is a god is a pagan concept and falls far short of the glory of God. Also He is called Almighty in Isaiah and although the word God is left out anyone with a lick of sense knows there is only one Almighty and that is God.

I believe you have oversimplified it which I suppose makes you a fundamentalist.

I believe that is a misinterpretation.

That was hilarious. Jesus is NEVER called Almighty in Isaiah or in any scripture in any bible translation, that was an outright lie. Jehovah is referred to as The Most High and Almighty God (see Psalms 83:18, Genesis 17:1 etc.). Jesus is referred to as The Son of The Most high, Son of God (see John 20:31, Mark 5:7 etc.)

How can Jesus be God and the Son of God?

In John 20:17 Why did Jesus clearly say that he has a God and Father which is the same as our God and Father?

Why did Jesus get baptized? Who did he dedicate his life to, himself? - Matthew 3:16

Why was Jesus always praying, and to whom was he praying to? Luke 6:12,13

If Jesus is God, Why was he created? Colossians 1:15

Why do people teach and/or believe the trinity if the bible says to us there is "ONE God, the Father"? 1 Corinthians 8:6

If Jesus is God or somehow equal to God, then why did he say "the Father is greater than I am? John 14:28

Why does John 4:23 say "the TRUE WORSHIPPERS will worship THE FATHER", If Jesus was God shouldn't it say true worshippers will worship Jesus or the Son?

After Jesus was resurrected why does Romans 8:34 say he was at the "Right hand of God"? If Jesus was God shouldn't it say he was resurrected as God?

I really could go on for days but i'll let you answer these questions first. I always wondered why everyone was confused over to trinity doctrine and why nobody ever could explain it to me when I asked, in addition I always wondered why the word trinity never occurs in the bible but now I see it's because it's a made up doctrine that many accept as truth.(Mark 7:7) Oh and please use scriptures in your answers don't just say something is true or untrue just because. Thanks ☺

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Great questions, but please go gently. I agree with you regarding Jesus. And you are using Scripture to support that view, which is excellent. But we should keep in mind Paul's counsel at 2 Timothy 2:24-25!

 

[Notaclue]

Hi Jeh,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

Yes. I know about the "gods" that you are referring to and familiar with it. But have you consider "and God was the Word" in Greek versus the reason of lack of article to conclude that He is a god for the sake of translating it in English?

I know you believed that there is one God, but based on the belief of JW's, Jesus is a mighty God and the Father is God Almighty. Now, may I ask you how many God therein if you have an Almighty and Mighty god?

Thanks

Jn.1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was(the) God.


What was the Word before the Beginning?


Peace.

 

[Oeste]

1. Really? Can you point out where I attempted to show they (eternal and everlasting) were interchangeable using synonyms? All along I've been claiming the Greek definition should be used to assign an English translation. It is you that insists an English synonym has two distinct definitions not reflected in the Greek tern they are translating.

Sure, not a problem. See post #1757:

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.

1.. I'm afraid "equivalent" is yet another synonym for the term "synonym". source

And of course, I wouldn't want to forget your challenge in post 1711:

Care to demonstrate from scripture how these smarter people are wrong about the Greek terms for eternal and everlasting life being synonymous ?

And then there was post 1727:

I provided two contextual example scriptures supporting the fact they are synonymous.

Is this sufficient?

​

I do not understand how scripture can "correctly reflect" “eternal” and “everlasting” as interchangeable when the New Testament is written in Koine Greek and not English.

2. Based on some philosophical theory, not fact. The fact is you are ignoring the definition of an inspired Greek term (aion-os), while biasedly injecting the theoretical definition of two uninspired English terms. That is not how to rightly divide God's word

No, not "based on some philosophical theory" but on a standard English dictionary, just like I stated numerous times before. "Eternal" and "Everlasting" are English words, not Greek, so English definitions will apply. Neither word is redefined by the Greek. The translator's job is to find an applicable word in the target language, based on the context and usage in the source. That's it. The translator doesn't redefine English when he translates. . If the English word or words had multiple definitions before the translation, they will still have multiple definitions after.

I don't know anyone who breaks open a bible (in Koine Greek no less) to define English words like "everlasting" or "eternal". What other words must be defined in Greek before they can be rendered in English???

3. And I don't know of anyone, desiring to rightly divide God's word, who elevates an arguable definition of two English synonyms over the original Greek definition of the word it is translating.

Let's recap here James, because I sense the goal posts changing.

I was talking about Hebrew, not Greek scripture, Isaiah 9:6 to be exact, with Moorea944 when you first brought your objection about the definition of Everlasting and Eternal. I'll address this later in my post.

However, this is not a question of "elevating" one language over the other. It's simply a matter of best practice in translation.

If a source and target language have a singular etymology for a word, that's great! But if the source word has one word that can be defined variably in the target, that does not mean the source language gets to redefine the target. While there is certainly inspired scripture, there is no "inspired language" that takes precedence over other languages, which appears to be what you're arguing for here.

I don't know anyone who breaks open a bible (in Koine Greek no less) to define English words like "everlasting" or "eternal". What other words must be defined in Greek before they can be rendered in English???

4. I would hope all of them.

Okay then....so do the Jews need to redefine their lexicons to fit the Greek, or should the Greeks have defined theirs to fit the Hebrew? And what happens to our English lexicon once the dust settles?

How does this help your argument? We're not talking about the Greek definition of "aionios". We're talking about the English definition of "eternal" and "everlasting". Eternal and everlasting do not mean the same, as I illustrated, graphically, on another post.

5. Yes we are. Aionos is the Greek term used for everlasting and eternal. Eternal and everlasting are mere translations that do not accurately reflect the Greek definition of aionos. Hence their interchangeability in the English translations.

No we're not. We were talking about "Eternal" and "Everlasting" The context was in Hebrew, not Greek:

I made this post in 1631 and Moorea944 responded in 1632:

Or Isaiah 9:6:
"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."

Might God.... bad translation? In Hebrew it is the power of God. The mighty El. And yes, Jesus is the power of God. But that does not make him his father or Creator. This is a future prophecy of when he's here at his second coming, not his first. The government will rest upon his shoulders. Second coming.

I then responded to Moore944 in post 1662, and you first responded to me on post 1674 :

Okay, so Jesus is the "power of God". How is he the “Eternal Father” is you claim he was created? How can something created be “Eternal”? If a manifestation is created, it can’t be eternal, since by definition something eternal has no beginning.

Really? Who's definition determines something eternal has no beginning? We were created (had a beginning) and will be made eternal.

At this point we were talking about Eternal as used in Isaiah 9:6, and not "aionios". In fact, "aionios" wasn't mentioned until I brought it up, in a much later post:

I believe the thrust of your argument is how “aionios” was used interchangeably to convey different concepts by the Greeks. But how “aion” or “aionios” was defined or used by the ancient Greeks is a separate issue from how “eternal” and “everlasting” is defined or used in English. Theologically, I believe the only being with eternal life is God, regardless of how the Greeks (or our translators) use the term. Lexicologically, the words are different in English.

You've made every effort to change this to a discussion of "aionios", and then to champion Greek language definitions above all others. I just don't see why. I don't know of any scholar that takes your approach to translation, and if we ever did restrict English to its ancient Greek counterpart, I think our language would shortly be as dead as Kione Greek and Latin.

 

[Oeste]

The NT was originally written in Greek and Aramaic, not English. When scripture is translated, the original Greek term's definition is considered before assigning an English term. A step you want to ignore in order to "squeeze" your Philosopher's theoretical English definition into your interpretation. Theories are nice. I like facts better.

It doesn't matter if the English words have an equivalent word in modern, Kione, or Classical Greek. English words are first and foremost defined in English. Neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are Greek words.

Also, I think the only thing being “squeezed” here is the term “philosopher”, a line of attack I find interesting since no “philosophical” definition was given. So here’s my question: What if he wasn’t a credentialed theologian with a degree in philosophy but a credentialed theologian with a degree in hospitality? Would your argument be that it’s just “… a hotel clerk’s theoretical English definition”?

Also, why do you consider his definition “theoretical” when our lexicon defines eternal and everlasting definitively? Did he postulate another definition outside the scope of it's normal, conventional English usage? The only thing necessary to prove his definitions are "fact" rather than "theory" is an English dictionary. If you don't accept English dictionaries as factual definitions of English words, I really don't know what to say.

If you want a definition of an English word, go to an English dictionary. If you want a definition of a Greek word like "aionios" then go to Kione Greek dictionary. There's no need to mix the two and claim the Greek superior to the English.

Once you find word definitions in both dictionaries look at the context. If they agree, there's a high probability of a match.

7. The ultimate goal of each English translator is to find the nearest equivalent English term. Neither eternal or everlasting accurately depict the term they are translating (aionos). Hence their interchangeability.

That would simply make "aionios" interchangeable with "eternal" and "everlasting". It does not make the English words "eternal" and "everlasting" interchangeable. That's a huge leap in logic.

Look, “gay” has two meanings in English, the first referring to sexual identity, the other to mood, such as “happy”. When translated in Swahili, it’s “mahoga” and “furaha” respectively. That does not mean “mahoga” and furaha are now interchangeable in Swahili.

That's right. The English language "invented" the distinction between eternal and everlasting that doesn't exist in the Greek term aionos. Yet you are attempting to inject that derived distinction into the original meaning.

There was no "invention" because English is not a language derived from Kione Greek. The "original meaning" of "eternal" and "everlasting" are derived from Latin, not Greek.

That's going to be difficult, since "eternal" and "everlasting" are English words that to my knowledge have never been found, much less defined, in Koine Greek.

9. Earning them the right to be interchangeable.

Okay, so let's examine this interchangeability again. Earlier I mentioned that a translator could take a word like πάγος and translate it in some places to "ice" , in another place "snow" and yet another as "crystal". Is it your contention that since πάγος is found in the Hebrew Scriptures, that ice, snow and crystal are now interchangeable in English, or are you saying only if it's found in the Greek?

True, but neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are derived from Koine Greek. At best, they would be derived from Latin.

11. If you agree that we are suppose to derive our theology from the lexicological use of the original language and not the English, why do you insist on inserting a theoretical definition of two English words, derived from Latin, into the Greek text??

But I'm not stating we should insert "eternal" or "everlasting" into Greek scripture. I'm stating the English words eternal and everlasting are similar but not equivalent.

We are not discussing how aionios was used by ancient Greeks but whether the English words eternal and everlasting are fully interchangeable...which they are not.

12. Yes but both English terms are used to translate the same Greek term--aion, aionos. Making the English terms interchangeable.

Your assertion, at best, would make the Greek aionios nterchangeable with two English words. It does not make the two English words interchangeable. That's how advertisers get in trouble. See above on "gay".

 

[Oeste]

Hello, Brother.

May we talk about the crucifixtion of Jesus, or more like crucifiction?
Hehe.

Crucifiction???

Isn't that like someone claiming Mohammed made a mountain out of a mole hill?

If Jesus is god, then how did he die on the cross, was he not divine?

A strange question coming from a professed believer in Islam!

What does Islam teach..that you cease to exist upon death??? That's a teaching of godless atheism, is it not?

Doesn't Islam teach you continue? So if man continues after death, what problem do you see with God doing the same?

 

[Oeste]

by your logic, Jesus is God and the Son of God at the same time which makes absolutely no sense at all. The bible isn't even eeded to show how bizarre that is.

Of course it is. That'a a lot like one of us claiming he is man and the son of man at the same time. it's just bizarre.

 

[Oeste]

2. Can you name the Christian denomination (I'm sure you're aware there are thousands) who has Christ's absolute, doctrinal truth?

Christianity shares fundamental truths...that Jesus was the son of God, that he died for our sins, that on the third day he rose from the grave, so that all who believe in him might be saved.

Christians believe they have the truth, which is Christ, in them. They believe in certain doctrines, but they don't hold the doctrines out as truth but as something they believe is true.

Christians hold out Christ as absolute truth. For denominations that hold their doctrines as truth you generally have to speak to the cults. It's been my experience that when a Christian say "I have the truth" they are talking about Christ, but when a cultist says the same they are generally talking about doctrine.

It's late...2:20 in the morning, I have to work tomorrow, but I wanted to give Yoshua a break (I don't know him but I like his responses) and respond to some posts. Sorry I haven't been able to participate in the discussions more, but I appreciate everyone's contribution...even those I disagree with. After all, they're the most interesting.

 

[Jabar]

Crucifiction???

Isn't that like someone claiming Mohammed made a mountain out of a mole hill?



A strange question coming from a professed believer in Islam!

What does Islam teach..that you cease to exist upon death??? That's a teaching of godless atheism, is it not?

Doesn't Islam teach you continue? So if man continues after death, what problem do you see with God doing the same?

No, i am afraid your knowledge on Islam is very weak, much less Christianity.

There is an afterlife and you are judged accordingly. Those who are good in deeds get their reward, Paradise, Heaven, whatever you wanna call it.

Those who are bad, go to Hell, punishment.

I advise you to go and acquire some more knowledge on scriptures.

 

[Oeste]

There is literally countless gods out there. Some people choose to worship man made statues as their god, some people worship God's son Jesus as their god, so there's a lot of gods. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) Remember too, Jesus called others "gods" in John 10:34. Let's also not forget that even Satan is referred to as "the god of this system" in 2 Corinthians 4:4. My point is there's many gods but there is only ONE who alone is God Almighty. The bible tells us that Jehovah alone is God Almighty.

Hi JIGA,

You stated your belief that “There is literally countless gods out there” but for Christianity there are not countless gods, but one God and one God only. There are no other gods.

Christianity is a monotheistic (mono = one, theism = deity) religion. In other words, Christians believe there is one deity, not many deities. It

If you believe there are many deities, your religion is polytheistic (poly= many, theism = deity), not monotheistic.

If you believe in many deities but worship one God, then your religion is still polytheistic but monolatric (mono = one, latreia = worship) in practice. Hinduism is a good example of this…they believe there are many gods but worship only one…some individuals worshiping Shiva, others Vishnu, and still others Ganesha. In other words, there were many gods, but they choose to worship only one. The idea of individuals worshiping many gods (polylatrism) is extremely rare. Perhaps the Celts engaged in this, but I don’t really know.

The Greeks and Romans were similar. They had many gods, didn’t particularly care which one you worshiped as long as you acknowledged the other gods were there. The Romans didn’t really care if Christians worshiped a God called Yahweh any more than they were concerned about Greeks worshiping a god called Zeus instead of Jupiter. It was the refusal of early Christians to acknowledge the State’s gods as existing that got the Romans worked up in a frenzy, even to the point of labeling early Christians as “atheists”.

When Justin Martyr (~100-165 AD) defended Christianity before Julius Caesar he wrote:

“Hence, are we (Christians) called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from impurity” (First Apology of Justin).

Justin Martyr, a first century Christian, believed in no other Gods or gods but one. Even the Jews, who were arguably monolatric in their early history were strictly monotheistic by the time of Christ’s arrival. Quite frankly, if their are other gods existing out there, they had a chance to prove themselves at Mount Carmel.

To answer your question though, I have One God and One God only, and that is the one and only Almighty God, Jehovah

It is not the worship of one God, but the belief in the existence of only one God or god that separates monotheistic religions (like Christianity and Islam) from their pagan counterparts.

 

[Oeste]

No, i am afraid your knowledge on Islam is very weak, much less Christianity.

You are an astute individual and absolutely correct on both counts.

There is an afterlife and you are judged accordingly. Those who are good in deeds get their reward, Paradise, Heaven, whatever you wanna call it.

Those who are bad, go to Hell, punishment.

Excellent! Christianity believes there is a heaven and hell too, although I’m sure you can find many churches who will argue against one or the other.

I’m trying to find out why you asked the question “If Jesus is god, then how did he die on the cross, was he not divine?” especially since we both agree death is not the end of our existence.

In other words, what is it about Jesus’ divinity that makes you believe his flesh and blood being should have been incapable of dying?

I advise you to go and acquire some more knowledge on scriptures.

Why should I go? Is this the wrong place for it? .

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Jn.1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was(the) God.


What was the Word before the Beginning?


Peace.

Jn.1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was(the) God.

???
No, no.
This was written in Greek, and there is no definite article after the second "god", plus the predicate noun (god) comes before the subject (the Word), and those two facts make all the difference!

Notice what renowned scholar and Roman Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, in his "Dictionary of the Bible," (New York,1965), p. 317, says: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" --- (Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.)

Here are examples of other Translations rendering it as such:

"The Bible -- An American Translation," by Smith and Goodspeed, reads: "the Word was divine."
"2001 Translation," an online Bible, renders it: "the Word was a Powerful One."
"A New Translation of the Bible," by James Moffatt, says: "the Logos was divine."
"The New Testament in an Improved Version," published in London, reads: "the word was a god."
"New World Translation" reads the same.

Why would these translations render it this way? Because of Koine Greek grammar.

Koine Greek grammar being what it was, it did not have the indefinite articles that we in English use (= a, an). All they had was the definite article, 'the.' With that in mind, translating John 1:1 word for word, it says this: " in beginning (notice, not even THE beginning) was THE word. And THE word was with THE god, and god (notice, not THE God) was THE word." See? 'The god' and 'god' are different. (If John had meant Jesus was God Almighty, he would've said, "....and THE god was THE word." But John did not write that. Besides, that would have contradicted the context ("the Word was with God"; and especially vs.18....... "No man has seen God at ANY TIME" . People saw Jesus). So, clearly, that is NOT what he was saying.

If John had believed and meant that Jesus was God, he would not have written something so ambiguous; this would only have served to confuse his readers!

Considering that many Christians were former Jews, who worshiped Yahweh alone....if God had changed, had included Jesus as part of a Trinity, those Christian Bible writers would have bent over backward, clearly stating throughout that Jesus was God. But they never did! They kept writing about Jesus' Lordship, about how "God" (rarely saying "the Father") accomplished things through Jesus. Never about Jesus' Godship!

At John 20:17, John quoted Jesus as saying to Mary: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to MY GOD and YOUR GOD."

Yes, Jesus had a God he worshiped: Martha's God, Yahweh / Jehovah, was Jesus' God. As Christians instructed to 'follow Jesus' steps closely (1 Peter 2:21)', this should be our God!

 

[Jabar]

Jesus Never Claim divinity. Just some things to point out to people who think he did.

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. (as a prophet)

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.

For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

“...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22).

“God has raised this Jesus...” (Acts 2:32)
In Acts 4:24 we are told that the believers prayed to God saying: “...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.’”

“...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.” (Acts 4:27).

There is not a single unequovical or unambiguous statement in the complete Bible where Jesus himself said ´´I am God´´ or ´´Worship me´´

Quite the contrary.

 

[Jabar]

Jn.1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was(the) God.


What was the Word before the Beginning?


Peace.

John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Anyhow, in future verses, He was with God in the beginning, ever since he was alive. (Jesus)

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.This is describing the one true God, YAWH, that you Christians believe, i believe the correct name is Allah though.

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

So, are you saying we all are in God? No. The language is different. He created mankind and life basically.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. *This is the same way the Qur´an describes it as*

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

People say that this means Jesus is God in flesh. However, look at what it is saying. The Word, does not mean God in this context. The Word is what he was spreading, Jesus the prophet. Which is why it says full of grace and truth and that he came from the Father. Notice how this is not what Jesus is saying, so they easily could have made people make misconceptions. Not that Jesus was a God, but a great prophet.

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

• Watch the translations, they trick people. He was not God, it cannot just say No man has seen God at any time, then say only Jesus, it is illogical. It is saying Jesus is sent down.
• But he is close to God as a prophet.

Future verses:
I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One." Not God, he was chosen.
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

Crucifiction, it was fiction. Jesus never claimed divinity more verses:

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.
that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him."
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.
Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful.
SEE:
Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet.

"Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

Then Jesus declared, "I, the one speaking to you--I am he."

"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

I can go on and on.

 

[Jabar]

More proof:

John 5:37-5:38

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
John 5:41-5:47
"I do not accept glory from human beings, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.

I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.

How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? John 5:44

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hi JIGA,

You stated your belief that “There is literally countless gods out there” but for Christianity there are not countless gods, but one God and one God only. There are no other gods.

Christianity is a monotheistic (mono = one, theism = deity) religion. In other words, Christians believe there is one deity, not many deities. It

If you believe there are many deities, your religion is polytheistic (poly= many, theism = deity), not monotheistic.

If you believe in many deities but worship one God, then your religion is still polytheistic but monolatric (mono = one, latreia = worship) in practice. Hinduism is a good example of this…they believe there are many gods but worship only one…some individuals worshiping Shiva, others Vishnu, and still others Ganesha. In other words, there were many gods, but they choose to worship only one. The idea of individuals worshiping many gods (polylatrism) is extremely rare. Perhaps the Celts engaged in this, but I don’t really know.

The Greeks and Romans were similar. They had many gods, didn’t particularly care which one you worshiped as long as you acknowledged the other gods were there. The Romans didn’t really care if Christians worshiped a God called Yahweh any more than they were concerned about Greeks worshiping a god called Zeus instead of Jupiter. It was the refusal of early Christians to acknowledge the State’s gods as existing that got the Romans worked up in a frenzy, even to the point of labeling early Christians as “atheists”.

When Justin Martyr (~100-165 AD) defended Christianity before Julius Caesar he wrote:

“Hence, are we (Christians) called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from impurity” (First Apology of Justin).

Justin Martyr, a first century Christian, believed in no other Gods or gods but one. Even the Jews, who were arguably monolatric in their early history were strictly monotheistic by the time of Christ’s arrival. Quite frankly, if their are other gods existing out there, they had a chance to prove themselves at Mount Carmel.


It is not the worship of one God, but the belief in the existence of only one God or god that separates monotheistic religions (like Christianity and Islam) from their pagan counterparts.

Paul spoke for Christians, when he wrote 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. So there are other gods....anything can be made a god! Satan is called the "god of this world." -- 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Even you stated that the 'Greeks had other gods.' So you believe that they had gods. Maybe a better term is 'recognize' .....I think this is really what the other poster meant.

 

[Yoshua]

Yes.

If Jesus is god, then how did he die on the cross, was he not divine?

Hi Jabar,

Jesus is truly divine. He possessed all attributes of God. He died on the cross to save us from our sins, and to be with Him eternally. It is the plan of God to save us from sin through Christ Jesus.

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.


1 Peter 2:24
and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

2. You misundertand the question and are missing the point. I initially stated all denominations have some truth but not one denomination has the full truth. I then asked you to name the one denomination that has Christ's absolute truth and you named five of them?? So I ask again, what one denomination has Christ's full, absolute, and exact truth?

Hi James,

If there is no full truth, what makes us holding and keeping our faith in Christ?

What do you think are not the truth (lacking)?

The denomination that has Christ’s absolute truth is the belief that follows, and in accordance with the Christ’ teachings down to us. We can see it through their Statement of Faith.

Now, if you are asking what one denomination has Christ’s full truth, absolute, and exact truth; it is Christianity. But Christianity is too broad. I personally would say it is the evangelical faith that accepts Christ, received his words and having a personal relationship with Him.

3. Huh??? I actually agree with Daniel Wallace's assessment of Php 2:5-6. Based on your interpretation of these verses, it is you who disagree with his belief.

I believed we are cleared and agreed already with Phil. 2:5-6. Just to clarify something, it shows that you agree with Daniel B. Wallace, but do you agree also in his belief as a Trinitarian evangelical?

Thanks