Jesus is God?

[Ben Masada]

Start by cleaning your own house.

Where is your evidence for this? I have never seen Jesus refer to anything pagan pertaining to Himself. It is absolutely impossible to prove that New Testament scripture was influenced by pagan beliefs. Perhaps one could find a congruity but that may simply be that some pagan beliefs are not incongruous with truth.

You say above that "It is absolutely impossible to prove that the NT scripture was influenced by pagan beliefs." You said, "absolutely impossible." Where did the NT take the idea of a man being born of God with a woman, from Judaism or from the pagan beliefs of Greek Mythology? I am gonna be polite enough to let yourself correct your "absolutely impossible to prove," because I have just proved that in Judaism there is no such a pagan doctrine.
Ben

 

[Muffled]

You say above that "It is absolutely impossible to prove that the NT scripture was influenced by pagan beliefs." You said, "absolutely impossible." Where did the NT take the idea of a man being born of God with a woman, from Judaism or from the pagan beliefs of Greek Mythology? I am gonna be polite enough to let yourself correct your "absolutely impossible to prove," because I have just proved that in Judaism there is no such a pagan doctrine.
Ben

Saying that you have proven something is not the same thing as proving it.

Again you speculate on whether an idea has a source. In this case the source is the event itself although it is likely that God prohesied of these things in the OT. This what Jesus said about it: Luke 24:25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Obviously what is now Judaism departs from scripture a great deal, so it is hardly a measure of OT truth.

 

[paolops181]

Jesus is God(YHWH). It seems to me that we are worshipping the same deity. Am I correct? Why or why not?

For me the Lord Jesus is the son of God but not God the son or what other people claim that he's God. Jesus said that the Lord God is one (mark12:29). That one Lord God is his God & his Father (john20:17). Jesus said that his Father is the only true God (john17:3). Jesus never commited sin that means he never lied (1peter2:21-22).
Jesus said that he's a man & he's tellin the truth (john8:40, 45).
Moses said the Lord God is one (Deut.6:4). God said that he's the only God (ex.20:2)(Is.45:5-6)(Is.44:8)(Is.43:10).
The God in the old testament is the Father (Is.63:16)(Is.64:8)(mal.2:10).
Paul says that we have one God who is the Father (1cor.8:6).

 

[Muffled]

For me the Lord Jesus is the son of God but not God the son or what other people claim that he's God. Jesus said that the Lord God is one (mark12:29). That one Lord God is his God & his Father (john20:17). Jesus said that his Father is the only true God (john17:3). Jesus never commited sin that means he never lied (1peter2:21-22).
Jesus said that he's a man & he's tellin the truth (john8:40, 45).
Moses said the Lord God is one (Deut.6:4). God said that he's the only God (ex.20:2)(Is.45:5-6)(Is.44:8)(Is.43:10).
The God in the old testament is the Father (Is.63:16)(Is.64:8)(mal.2:10).
Paul says that we have one God who is the Father (1cor.8:6).

None of this proves that Jesus isn't God only that the Father is.

 

[Ben Masada]

Saying that you have proven something is not the same thing as proving it.

Again you speculate on whether an idea has a source. In this case the source is the event itself although it is likely that God prohesied of these things in the OT. This what Jesus said about it: Luke 24:25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Obviously what is now Judaism departs from scripture a great deal, so it is hardly a measure of OT truth.

Prove it with quotations from the only Scriptures Jesus considered he Word of God, that there is anything from Moses and all the Prophets about Jesus? As long as your proofs are not based on pre-conceived Christian notions, I am ready to accept as genuine.

 

[Muffled]

Prove it with quotations from the only Scriptures Jesus considered he Word of God, that there is anything from Moses and all the Prophets about Jesus? As long as your proofs are not based on pre-conceived Christian notions, I am ready to accept as genuine.

You are in error on this Jesus considered His own wrods the Word of God: Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works.

Zech 9:9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, even upon a colt the foal of an ***.

Mat 21:6 And the disciples went, and did even as Jesus appointed them, 7 and brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon.

So what kind of pre-conceived notion do you think is taking place here? Zechariah said that it would happen and it did.

 

[Ben Masada]

Saying that you have proven something is not the same thing as proving it.

Again you speculate on whether an idea has a source. In this case the source is the event itself although it is likely that God prohesied of these things in the OT. This what Jesus said about it: Luke 24:25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Obviously what is now Judaism departs from scripture a great deal, so it is hardly a measure of OT truth.

You are a Christian, aren't you? Okay, I promise you to become one as you are if you show me in the Scriptures, beginning from Moses and from all the prophets anything about Jesus without Christian pre-conceived assumptions. Jesus was not a fool to speak like that about what he went through as prophesied in the Scriptures when he was but one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans in the very same manner. That never happened but in the antisemitic minds of the Hellenist Gentiles who wrote the gospels about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

The preponderance of the evidence is what people should pay attention to, and the unanimous verdict of the Gospels is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead.

All 3 books of the LOTRO say Gandalf is a wizard,
therefore
Gandalf REALLY is a real historical wizard.

In fact -
the Gospels are religious mythology.

The resurrection is a religious belief, not a historical event.


Iasion

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Gday
In fact -
the Gospels are religious mythology.
The resurrection is a religious belief, not a historical event.
Iasion

But, the resurrection 'will be' an historical event.
Acts [24v15] says: 'there will be a resurrection.....' [future tense]

Just because you have not seen that happen yet, does not mean it will not happen.

We also have not yet seen the political/military world turn on the religious world, but that does not mean it will not happen.

In the past God used such forces as the Roman armies in the year 70 to get rid of those playing false to him, so it should come as no surprise that God will once again use the political/military world [UN] to go against those playing false to God and his Word.

Once that happens, then we know it is time for God to get rid of those ruining the earth [ Rev 11v18 B], and time for Jesus to usher in Peace on Earth toward men of good will, and the resurrection during Jesus millennial reign over earth.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

But, the resurrection 'will be' an historical event.
Acts [24v15] says: 'there will be a resurrection.....' [future tense]

Ah OK,
so you AGREE with me - that the resurrection was NOT a historical event that happened in the past.


Iasion

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ah OK,
so you AGREE with me - that the resurrection was NOT a historical event that happened in the past.
Iasion

The ^above^ with reference to a LARGE or GRAND scale.
The few resurrections Jesus performed on a small scale was just a sample of what he will do on a global scale during his 1000-year reign over earth.

 

[Iasion]

Well,
you guys have been promising that for 2 THOUSAND years !

It's getting old...


Iasion

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well,
you guys have been promising that for 2 THOUSAND years !
It's getting old...
Iasion

Old in our way of looking at time.
In God's eyes a thousand years is as a day.
So in God's time frame we are talking about 2 days.

Because world conditions are what they are is showing the curtain is soon to fall on the final act. Have you noticed that the world's religious sector is troublesome to the political world? That is not going to change. What is going to change is that the political world will turn on the religious world that has run afoul playing false to God and his Golden Rule.

How much longer do you think the political world will put up with all the trouble the world's religions are causing?

 

[Muffled]

You are a Christian, aren't you? Okay, I promise you to become one as you are if you show me in the Scriptures, beginning from Moses and from all the prophets anything about Jesus without Christian pre-conceived assumptions. Jesus was not a fool to speak like that about what he went through as prophesied in the Scriptures when he was but one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans in the very same manner. That never happened but in the antisemitic minds of the Hellenist Gentiles who wrote the gospels about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

Joh 14:2 ... if it were not so, I would have told you; ...

 

[Muffled]

Gday,



All 3 books of the LOTRO say Gandalf is a wizard,
therefore
Gandalf REALLY is a real historical wizard.

In fact -
the Gospels are religious mythology.

The resurrection is a religious belief, not a historical event.


Iasion

LOTR is not inspired by God. Granted that LOTR is based on mythology but I couldn't verify whether Gandolf is a mythological person or a fictional character.

The Gospels are history. The difference is whether there is any evidence that such things happened. Mythology usually lacks corroborating evidence. However mythology is not equivalent to fiction or falsehood. Some historical writings are actually fiction because the author wished to glorify a historical person.

Tacitus seems to ring true becasue his account of Claudius shows him with all his warts. When I read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, the author often stated that the historical authors fluffed up their account of the emperors.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

LOTR is not inspired by God.

Really?
How do you know that?
Seriously - tell us why you believe that.

You obviously believe the Gospels ARE 'inspired by God'.
Why do you believe that?
Don't bother quoting Timothy 3:16 - it does NOT say what you think it does.

Anyway -
'inspired by God' is a claim of FAITH - it has nothing to do with history. No historian claims books are 'inspired by God'.

The Gospels are history.

No they aren't.
Historians and librarians do NOT place the Gospels among the books of history like Gibbon - they are placed among the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

The difference is whether there is any evidence that such things happened.

The Gospels are religious books written by unknown people who never met Jesus - they include religious claims and magical events and miracles and spiritual beings and supernatural happenings and divine interventions....

There is NO evidence these things actually happened - just religious BELIEFS that they happened.

Mythology usually lacks corroborating evidence.

Correct. That is why the Gospels are obviously religious mythology. Because there is NO corroborating evidence.

All you have is beliefs and claims from anonymius person from long after the alleged events - NOT evdience.

Tacitus seems to ring true becasue his account of Claudius shows him with all his warts. When I read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, the author often stated that the historical authors fluffed up their account of the emperors.

Tacitus repeats Christians beliefs from the 2nd century - he got Pilate's title WRONG ! Did you know that? He used the wrong title from the 2nd century, NOT the correct title from the 1st century - this shows Tacitus was merely repeating 2nd century Christian beliefs.

So what?
We know Christians existed and believed in Jesus in the 2nd century.


Iasion

 

[Muffled]

Gday,
Really?
How do you know that?
Seriously - tell us why you believe that.

You obviously believe the Gospels ARE 'inspired by God'.
Why do you believe that?
Don't bother quoting Timothy 3:16 - it does NOT say what you think it does.

Anyway -
'inspired by God' is a claim of FAITH - it has nothing to do with history. No historian claims books are 'inspired by God'.

No they aren't.
Historians and librarians do NOT place the Gospels among the books of history like Gibbon - they are placed among the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

The Gospels are religious books written by unknown people who never met Jesus - they include religious claims and magical events and miracles and spiritual beings and supernatural happenings and divine interventions....

There is NO evidence these things actually happened - just religious BELIEFS that they happened.

Correct. That is why the Gospels are obviously religious mythology. Because there is NO corroborating evidence.

All you have is beliefs and claims from anonymius person from long after the alleged events - NOT evdience.

Tacitus repeats Christians beliefs from the 2nd century - he got Pilate's title WRONG ! Did you know that? He used the wrong title from the 2nd century, NOT the correct title from the 1st century - this shows Tacitus was merely repeating 2nd century Christian beliefs.

So what?
We know Christians existed and believed in Jesus in the 2nd century.

Iasion

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

A book inspired by God has more value than a history book because it is guaranteed to be true to the extent God requires it to be whereas a history book may contain many falsehoods.

The classification does not alter the significance. It just recognizes that the Gospels are more valuable as Religion than they are as History. The same is true for Gibbons who wrote about Roman religion but his work is seen as more significant as history than as religion.

I don't know what criteria you are using for "unkown persons" not that it matters since they were inspired by God. Any spuernatural claims that God makes are valid because He is all powerful.

This isn't exactly true. However it is often the case that historical events don't have any supporting evidence as well.

Incorrect. The one who corroborates is God. That takes it out of mythology and into the realm of fact.

 

[Muffled]

For me the Lord Jesus is the son of God but not God the son or what other people claim that he's God. Jesus said that the Lord God is one (mark12:29). That one Lord God is his God & his Father (john20:17). Jesus said that his Father is the only true God (john17:3). Jesus never commited sin that means he never lied (1peter2:21-22).
Jesus said that he's a man & he's tellin the truth (john8:40, 45).
Moses said the Lord God is one (Deut.6:4). God said that he's the only God (ex.20:2)(Is.45:5-6)(Is.44:8)(Is.43:10).
The God in the old testament is the Father (Is.63:16)(Is.64:8)(mal.2:10).
Paul says that we have one God who is the Father (1cor.8:6).

You have not proven anything by the previous verses and jesus trumps it by saying:
John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You have not proven anything by the previous verses and jesus trumps it by saying:
John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.

...and how is Jesus and his Father one?
In Jesus prayer of John chapter 17 Jesus prays that his followers be one just as he and his Father are one. Surely Jesus was not praying they all be God.
-John 17vs11,21-23.
But they all could be one in purpose, goal, faith, objective, unity, etc.

How could Jesus be God according to Revelation 3v14 B; 3v12; 2v18

'Show' can carry the meaning of 'reveal'. Reveal the Father.
1st John 4v12; Exodus 33v20 No man can see God and live.
People saw Jesus and lived.

Before John 14v7-9 at John 12 vs44,45 Jesus already said: who see Jesus sees the one that sent Jesus. So 'behold' Jesus, and 'behold' the Father. Not with literal seeing but with revealing. In verse 49 Jesus says he has not spoken of himself [not of his own initiative] but of the Father that sent Jesus.
So, before God sent his heavenly firstborn [Col 1vs15,16] to earth,
Jesus was given specific instruction about what to teach us.
Jesus was qualified to teach us because his training came from the highest source in the universe. God gave Jesus that teaching power or authority.
-Matthew 28vs18-20

 

[Muffled]

...and how is Jesus and his Father one?
In Jesus prayer of John chapter 17 Jesus prays that his followers be one just as he and his Father are one. Surely Jesus was not praying they all be God.
-John 17vs11,21-23.
But they all could be one in purpose, goal, faith, objective, unity, etc.

How could Jesus be God according to Revelation 3v14 B; 3v12; 2v18

'Show' can carry the meaning of 'reveal'. Reveal the Father.
1st John 4v12; Exodus 33v20 No man can see God and live.
People saw Jesus and lived.

Before John 14v7-9 at John 12 vs44,45 Jesus already said: who see Jesus sees the one that sent Jesus. So 'behold' Jesus, and 'behold' the Father. Not with literal seeing but with revealing. In verse 49 Jesus says he has not spoken of himself [not of his own initiative] but of the Father that sent Jesus.
So, before God sent his heavenly firstborn [Col 1vs15,16] to earth,
Jesus was given specific instruction about what to teach us.
Jesus was qualified to teach us because his training came from the highest source in the universe. God gave Jesus that teaching power or authority.
-Matthew 28vs18-20

You are aware of the meaning of the word "one" ae you not? One does not mean two.

Yes, He is praying for that exactly.

All of those add-ons are speculative and not the true meaning of the text although they can be inferred from the fact that those attributes accompany the Holy Spirit.

That is because you do not see all of God when you see Jesus. To see all of God you would have to be spread out throughout the whole universe and there is no way you could do that and live. However God is God wherever He is.

A lot of what you say I can't respond to because you don't use logic to come to your conclusions. All you do is jump to your conclusions.