Jesus ain't God.

[nothead]

It means that unlike some who profess Xianity, I believe the New Covenant is a continuation of the Old Covenant, not a "replacement". I don't argue with people about this, however I view the Covenant as one thing, not two.

The New was because we could not do the Mosaic Covenant, Shema.

Notice Jesus gives Law far beyond and MORE impossible to do than the Pharisees. We can wash our hands 20 times a day.

But turning the other cheek, putting God above parents sisters and brothers, HATING them for God's sake even, walking the extra mile, plucking out the eye especially literally...

...wow son you got a lot of hay to bale alrighty.

So then these being derivative OF Shema, means Shema was never abrogated, rather FULFILLED in Christ. And that the New Covenant in this sense is an extension of the Old.

 

[Nada]

nothead
This message is hidden because nothead is on your ignore list.

 

[nothead]

nothead
This message is hidden because nothead is on your ignore list.

Ooooo. Touchy.

 

[nothead]

I'm not sure what 'word' means in the Scripture. Fact is, I don't need to. Since G-d manifested through the Spirit unto Mary, fortunately we don't have to 'guess' who Jesus was in Spirit, He was G-d. As man or 'part man', He had man aspect as well, that's why throughout Scripture we get the confusing, 'Jesus is man, as well as Jesus is G-d, references.

Jesus is God Theology COMES from Word or Logos Theology in Jn 1, sir.

So then not knowing what "logos" means in Jn's Prologue is not behoovin' sir.

We be behoovin' to be groovin' sir. Reminder.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Adam and Eve were perfect and they were not God.Although the holy scriptures calls Jesus God or Mighty God,it never calls him Almighty God.

Where does it say that A and E were perfect or made perfect? Did they not sin? it calls him God in Hebrews.. 'ho theos' the same as the Father is called

 

[Shuttlecraft]

If Jesus was God, I'm Mary Poppins

 

[Robert.Evans]

You are spot on, bro. The Elohim Theology of nothead is much behoovin'.

Behoovin' to be groovin' that is.

Elohim Theology: "God" was said to be "elohim" mostly in the Hebrew mother tongue. This word encompasses 5-6 ontologies at least in the Bible, in the GOOD sense as opposed to false "gods" or elohim.

Now we can see where the confusion lies. THEOS is a direct translation of "elohim" and mostly means the One True God. But in reference to Jesus, no.

Now you know the REST of the story, groovin'. Remember we be behoovin' to be groovin', groovin'.

I doubt if I am spot on, but thank you anyway.

Even if the NT renders elohiym as 'ho theos' God, it is still the same in Greek. We should ask why that is. It is still scripture. Why in the book of Hebrews NT, does it call him ho theos unless he is ho theos. Yet he could not have been as a man, as man is man and not spirit.

And if he was made 'perfect' or 'complete', is that not a definition of God? How can one be more 'perfect'?

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Hebrew word ʼelo·him′ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·him′ is the plural of ʼeloh′ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·him′ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

It could also be that it does not refer so much to 'majesty' but rather to its true form, the plural elohiym: 'gods'. That means that the 'gods' created the heavens and earth (land). And who was it that was also called elohiym? Was that nor Yisrael? Is that not man? So what then?

 

[Robert.Evans]

First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God.

Wow this is a lot of writing.
Just because something is with something, does not mean it is not part of the same thing. I can tip a glass of water into a container, and then another glass of water into the same container. The second is 'with' the first... but you tell me where they are and what the difference is.

(Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os&#8242 in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os′] and [ho the·os′] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os′]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28).

I agree that he is not in that verse 'ho theos' he is 'theos'. Thus he is divine.

But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os′] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579.


Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

What then of Hebrews 1.8? He is called ho theos.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

▪ Put simply, the answer is yes. The custom of being called by more than one name is common in many cultures. The same situation occurs with names in the Bible. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also named Israel. (Genesis 35:10) The apostle Peter is named in five different ways—Symeon, Simon, Peter, Cephas, and Simon Peter. (Matthew 10:2; 16:16; John 1:42; Acts 15:7, 14) How can we be sure that Michael is another name for Jesus? Consider the following Scriptural evidence.

The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel. At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the prince of you people.” Next, at Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.”

A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7, which describes “Michael and his angels” as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven.

Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God’s people, even confronting Jehovah’s greatest enemy, Satan.

Jude verse 9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible. The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.

In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?”) and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”)—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”
It is important to note that the human birth of Jesus was not the beginning of his life. Before Jesus was born, Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would conceive a child by means of holy spirit and that she should name the child Jesus. (Luke 1:31) During his ministry, Jesus often spoke of his prehuman existence.—John 3:13; 8:23, 58.

So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.


http://http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250?q=Jesus+Michael+the+Archangel&p=par

He cannot specifically be Michael as Hebrews says he gave no such authority to angels. He can be a reflection of him, but not him

 

[Robert.Evans]

It means that unlike some who profess Xianity, I believe the New Covenant is a continuation of the Old Covenant, not a "replacement". I don't argue with people about this, however I view the Covenant as one thing, not two.

In real life that means adherence to some of the OT 'laws' as well. Personal choices as to what laws are adhered to is ones own prerogative, since technically Jesus already saved us.

But Paul says we are still not innocent, so we answer for those we do not keep.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Jesus did exist before everything else.Colossians 1:15,16.
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.16 for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him.

If Jesus did not exist in a pre human existence, then, you think that everything came into existence when Jesus came to earth?

If he is the IMAGE of God then he is God is he not? If i look in the mirror and see me and that 'me' walks out of the mirror into the room, I don't see someone else, i see me. So the Image of God is the IMAGE of God, not an angel.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No references at all that Jesus was God, unless you got JisG lens. On your glasses, bud.

Jesus cannot be God since now God has two minds...wills...self-awarenesses...i.e. IDENTITIES. Not kosher sir. But then again maybe you diss the Judaic world-view. Which is actually the historical context of the Christ, sir.

But Yahshuah is the Image of God... not a separate one. So one consciousness one spirit, One Existence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If Jesus was God, I'm Mary Poppins

Do you own an umbrella... haha. What about at sometime later that he was God?

 

[Nada]

Where does it say that A and E were perfect or made perfect? Did they not sin? it calls him God in Hebrews.. 'ho theos' the same as the Father is called

It says,"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:26 “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,

They were without sin and had everlasting life.When the fall occurred this is when they disobeyed God and were cursed to die.They sinned and because of this were sentenced to die.They were no longer perfect.Now all of the offspring from Adam and Eve would inherit death by way of Sin.

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Jesus came to earth to redeem us from Adamic sin.Adam and Eve were perfect so It had to be a perfect sacrifice.Jesus was perfect without sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.

1 John 3:5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.

So we can see that Jesus was without sin.He had to be the perfect sacrifice to erase what Adam and Eve did.Now we have a clean slate through Jesus Christ since he shed his perfect blood.If Adam and Eve were not perfect then it could have been anybody to be the sacrifice.

Just because you are perfect does not mean you cannot sin.Perfection just means you are made without sin.One that is perfect can still sin because we are not robots.Man was made with free will as were the angels.Thats why satan rebelled.He made a choice.


Yes Jesus is also called Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6 but he is not the Almighty God.Jesus said this,John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?

 

[Nada]

If he is the IMAGE of God then he is God is he not? If i look in the mirror and see me and that 'me' walks out of the mirror into the room, I don't see someone else, i see me. So the Image of God is the IMAGE of God, not an angel.

Image does not mean literal.It speaks of possessing Gods attributes.His qualities.
These are:Love,Wisdom,Justice and Power.

Hebrews 1:3 He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being, and he holds everything together by his powerful word. After he had provided a cleansing from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Highest Majesty

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Likeness:the fact or quality of being alike; resemblance:

Representation: the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented:

God is a spirit form and has no literal image like humans do.He is invisible.

Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

So when it says that the Son is the image of the invisible God,it is not saying that Jesus looks like God.It means Jesus is the likeness of His being meaning His qualities.

Just as Adam and Eve were made in the Image and likeness of God.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Also notice God was speaking to someone in the garden of Eden when He said, "Let us.." It was Jesus in his prehuman existence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Image does not mean literal.It speaks of possessing Gods attributes.His qualities.
These are:Love,Wisdom,Justice and Power.

Hebrews 1:3 He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being, and he holds everything together by his powerful word. After he had provided a cleansing from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Highest Majesty

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Likeness:the fact or quality of being alike; resemblance:

Representation: the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented:

God is a spirit form and has no literal image like humans do.He is invisible.

Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

So when it says that the Son is the image of the invisible God,it is not saying that Jesus looks like God.It means Jesus is the likeness of His being meaning His qualities.

Just as Adam and Eve were made in the Image and likeness of God.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Also notice God was speaking to someone in the garden of Eden when He said, "Let us.." It was Jesus in his prehuman existence.

However you cut it, if you are an Image of something, you would expect it to be looking the same. And the 'us' is the plural elohiym, is it the 'gods' the powers within the One. Gods are the many Image forms of the One God. All is reflective and fractal.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You even give the example that he is the EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING. What do you think that means? That he is nothing like him, or something like him, an angel? None of that makes sense He is exact. There is then only one answer.

 

[Nada]

However you cut it, if you are an Image of something, you would expect it to be looking the same. And the 'us' is the plural elohiym, is it the 'gods' the powers within the One. Gods are the many Image forms of the One God. All is reflective and fractal.

What you understand image to be is not the same as what is meant in the NT.The NT was written in all Koine Greek.If you go to the original language it was spoken and written in you can see the difference in the wording.The Emphatic Diaglott is a superb source for Greek translation

Impress:make a mark or design on (an object) using a stamp or seal;

Substance:the most important or essential part of something; the real or essential meaning.


So we can see clearly that it is referring to Gods attributes,His qualities,not His literal image.



To see it in the actual scripture in Hebrews 1:3,in the Emphatic Diaglott, click this link and read it in Greek and English translation.

https://archive.org/stream/emphaticdiaglott00wils#page/n685/mode/2up

 

[Nada]

You even give the example that he is the EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING. What do you think that means? That he is nothing like him, or something like him, an angel? None of that makes sense He is exact. There is then only one answer.

You are using human wisdom to try to understand godly wisdom brother.