Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

[Deeje]

It is also worthwhile noting the differences in translation between the NASB and NWT

'For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. '
Colossians 1:16 (NASB)

Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Colossians 1:16 (NWT)

One can note that the word ‘other’, which does not appear in the original Greek has been added to the New World translation with regards to this verse. Now adding words is common practice in English translations to make the reading easier, but it should never change the overall meaning of the passage. If adding in words skews the interpretation towards a particular doctrine, we can say that there is bias in the translation.

In his book "Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament",
by Professor Jason David BeDuhn, we find a comment on Colossians 1 and the use of the word "other".

(Jason David BeDuhn is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the "Best First Book" prize from the American Academy of Religion.)

On pages 83-87 of his book, BeDuhn says,

"Yet in many public forums on Bible translation, the practice of these four [we are showing only two of the four] translations is rarely if ever pointed to or criticized, while the NWT is attacked for adding the innocuous other in a way that clearly indicated its character as an addition of the translators. Why is that so? The reason is that many readers apparently want the passage to mean what the NIV and TEV try to make it mean. That is, they don't want to accept the obvious and clear sense of firstborn of creation as identifying Jesus as of creation. Other is obnoxious to them because it draws attention to the fact that Jesus is of creation and so when Jesus acts with respect to all things he is actually acting with respect to all other things. But the NWT is correct. . . .

It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the added words are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. . . .

The decision whether or not to make something implicit explicit is up to the translators, and cannot be said to be either right or wrong in itself. Accuracy only comes into it when assessing whether something made explicit in the translation really is implied the Greek. If it is, then it is accurate to make it explicit. In Colossians 1:15-20, it is accurate to add other because other is implied in the Greek. (pp. 83-87"

As I said...even if you leave it out, it doesn't alter what the scripture says.....if Jesus is before all things, then nothing came before him, so all "other" things came after him.

Let’s look at some scriptures in Revelations:
'"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." ' Revelation 1:8
'"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." '
Revelation 22:12-13

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” (Revelation 21 Vss. 3, 6, 7) This reference is certainly to Jehovah God, for he is God to the anointed body members of Christ and they are his spiritual sons. They are Christ’s brothers, not sons, so the text is speaking of Jehovah, and it calls him “the Alpha and the Omega”. So when the Alpha and Omega is mentioned again in the very next chapter, why must the term suddenly shift to Christ Jesus instead of Jehovah God? It does not.

The Greek word used for beginning is ‘arche’. It is used to denote a “ruler, source, or origin”. Thus John was writing that Jesus was the source or origin of God’s creation.

According to Strongs....."arche" means "beginning, origin.....the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series....that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause." You seriously want to change the meaning of the word to suit your trinity? Most translations render arche as "beginning"....the pre-human Jesus is the beginning...the first living being brought into existence by the Creator.

So are we not also created in Christ’s image since he was creating alongside the Father?

We are created in the image of God, just as Jesus was. He is the image of God and we are created in God's image too. Not hard to imagine surely?

 

[iam1me]

I think I'm beginning to see where the confusion started. Let's look at the overall narrative here. When you have a human father and a child, what can you say about their relationship?
...
The NT authors used human terms in order that we may understand the relationship between the Father and the Son, but we should not go beyond the application of those terms. Points 7 and 8 are in clear contradiction with each other for the following reason:

A human father cannot create a child, he can beget a child. If the human decides to create something, the end product will always be inferior to that of the designer. (less than human e.g. a table)
Likewise God cannot create a Son of God. He can create angels, He can create humans, but the end-product will never share the core nature of His entity. To call something 'Son of God' would mean it would have to share the core characteristics of the Father which is: omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. If God is eternal, His Son would also have to be eternal, otherwise Jesus would no longer be His Son. If God really created Jesus, the Son would be more like an angel, he could never claim Sonship with Yahweh (As Hebrews 1 clearly explains).

That isn't a problem at all - the scriptures explicitly tel us that not only is the Son the first of creation, he is the only begotten of God.

As for omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence - you falsely describe these as the core nature of God. In the first place, you'll hard pressed to find scriptures that attribute these supposed properties to God - let alone describe them as "core" properties thereof. In fact, you can find scriptures that contradict these notions fairly easily. And you can even more easily find scriptures that contradict this notion regarding the Son (which would be problematic if he is supposed to be God Almighty himself):

Omnipotence and God Almighty - God desires for all to be saved, yet not all will be. The nature of the problem prevents even God Almighty from achieving his desires in full.

1 Timothy 2:4
[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

Omnipotence and the Son - the Son never does anything of himsellf, but only does as the Father shows him. Nor does he use his own power and authority - rather God gives him his power and authority (they are not innate properties as with God)

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth...."​

1 Cor 15:27-28 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.​

Omniscience and God Almighty - God often has to come down and check on us in scripture in order to figure out what is going on, he doesn't automatically know these things. In fact, God often gives us trials to test us and see what we will do, to determine if we will follow his will and do what is good and right - or else take the path of sin. Job, for instance, is one book all about how God allows his faithful servant Job to be persecuted as a test of his character. More generally, freewill and omniscience are incompatible - for God to know everything absolutely would mean that all of our decisions are known ahead of time. This would make a mockery of freewill - and God tells us that we have a choice in doing good or evil, in obeying his will or not, and that we are fully capable of making such decisions (Deuteronomy 30). You can't have both.

Omniscience and the Son - In the New Testament, there are several places where Jesus does not know things. In fact, when speaking of the end times Jesus tells us that he does not know when it will be. Only the Father knows.

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.​

Omnipresence and God Almighty - The scriptures don't declare that God is everywhere at once. To the contrary, the scriptures describe God as removed from creation, residing in an unapproachable light. God cannot stand sin, after all, and for people to be sinful in his direct presence is a death sentence. This is a repeating topic in the scriptures. This is why, for instance, the jews were afraid of Moses after being in God's presence - his skin glowing. He had to put on a veil. Also, scripture often speaks of God coming down and checking on man. Why would he need to come down if he is everywhere constantly?

1 Timothy 6:16 [GOD] alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.​

Omnipresence and the Son - The Son is sent by God down to us. He subsequently tells us that, if we love him, we should rejoice that he is going away - for he gets to return to the Father. This tells us both 1. The Son is not omnipresent and 2. The Father is not omnipresent (else the Son wouldn't need to go anywhere to be with the Father).

John 14:28You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
​

The fact is, the terms omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence are not found in scripture. This all comes from Greek philosophy - which colored a lot of how the Church Fathers approached their understanding to God.

If you read the Bible with a presupposition that Jesus was created, that's what you are going to get at the end: a presupposition. If you read the Bible without any implanted doctrines, read the verses in context, and understand the narrative, it becomes clear what to think of Jesus.
...

I think the Jewish authors in the New Testament knew exactly whom Jesus was referring to Himself as. Hence the opening statement in the first chapter of John. You might say that the term 'God' is used loosely throughout the Bible, but I think context is everything. What was John really trying to say? I think he was trying to assert the divinity of Jesus Christ and his equal standing with the Father.

You are cherry-picking verses to give the appearance of a particular vantage point. However, you are forced to ignore the plethora of verses which explicitly distinguish the Son from God and even subjugate Jesus to God. Since your interpretation relies upon ignoring such verses - it is clearly inferior to an interpretation like my own that is able to legitimately accept all of these verses without contradiction. Jesus being called God by scripture is not a problem for my position - for many are called God who are not literally God themselves in scripture.

 

[Thinking Homer]

was raised in Christendom so, yes, I once believed what you believe.....but I found out that what I was taught all my life was nothing but a bunch of lies.
I found out the origins of these doctrines and was horrified and disgusted that the churches know the truth about them and yet, still cling to them. We are not supposed to "touch" pagan teachings that are spiritually "unclean" in God's eyes. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
If that offends you then perhaps it is you who should stop reading.

I am well aware of JW teachings and doctrines, so none of this offends me. I also know that the Watchtower teaches its members that everybody who disagree with them are mortal enemies who will be destroyed by Jehovah at the great battle of Armageddon, which is to come.

When Daniel prophesied that a "cleansing, whitening and refining" was to take place among God's people "in the time of the end", (Daniel 12:9-10) he was telling us what had to happen to rid Christianity of the things that made it unacceptable to its founder. The wicked were going to going to carry on, granted no insight.....business as usual. I believe that it is these whom Christ addresses in Matthew 7:21-23.

Just ask yourself where you got that interpretation. Is that a conclusion you came to on your own, or something that was taught?

The angels do not "worship" Jesus. The writer of Hebrews is here quoting from Psalm 97:7, which reads (in part): “Bow down to him, all you gods.” The Greek word is "pro·sky·ne΄o" and it is rendered as "worship" to Jehovah alone, but it becomes "obeisance" when rendered to anyone else. It is an act of bowing down in respect. It is what the magi did to Jesus.....not as an act of worship but as an act of respect for a royal child. They wanted to give their gifts to "the one born king of the Jews"....not to God incarnate.

'I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, "Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God." ' Revelation 22:8-9

Do you see the low threshold of what constitutes as worship in the Bible? Just bowing down to an angel counts as worship. The entity itself doesn't matter. You can worship a human being, idol, God whatever. Also note the following verse:

'And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, " and let all the angels of God worship Him ."' Hebrews 1:6

Now it becomes clear that Yahweh allowed for angels to worship Jesus. The term 'firstborn' has been used as a Messianic reference which was clearly understood by the Jewish writers. It also says that 'firstborn' will be brought again into the world, which tells of his Second Coming (which I believe has not happened yet).

It is ironic that the translation of Colossians 1:15-20 that has received the most criticism is the one where the added words are fully justified by what is implied in the Greek. . . .

The words 'other' does not even appear in the Greek so how can he say it is implied in the Greek? How much is the organization paying this guy? Can we not hide behind degrees and use our own logic, seeing as we are both intelligent people? Please check out what the original Greek says for yourself.

Colossians 1 Interlinear Bible

As I said...even if you leave it out, it doesn't alter what the scripture says.....if Jesus is before all things, then nothing came before him, so all "other" things came after him.

Of course it alters the meaning. It fits in perfectly with JW doctrine that says Jesus was the first created being, and all other things were created by him. If you leave out the word 'other', you are effectively making Jesus the sole Creator, which is only reserved for Yahweh.

So when the Alpha and Omega is mentioned again in the very next chapter, why must the term suddenly shift to Christ Jesus instead of Jehovah God? It does not.

Read the verse again:
'"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." ' Revelation 22:12-13

Who is speaking? Yahweh? It cannot be, since the person in question is claiming to John that He is coming quickly. This is obviously Jesus referring to His second coming.

According to Strongs....."arche" means "beginning, origin.....the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series....that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause." You seriously want to change the meaning of the word to suit your trinity? Most translations render arche as "beginning"....the pre-human Jesus is the beginning...the first living being brought into existence by the Creator.

I may be changing the meaning to suit my doctrine, but are you not doing the same thing? I take the meaning to be origin, whereas you take the meaning to be sequential.

We are created in the image of God, just as Jesus was. He is the image of God and we are created in God's image too. Not hard to imagine surely?

Still not answering the question, read what the verse says:

'Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ' Genesis 1:26

Our image? Our likeness? That is surely plural.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not sinning is not the opposite of humility. The opposite of humility is pride, arrogance, and the like. You can be humble regardless of sin, and one can be prideful and arrogant regardless of sin.



The scriptures say something very different. According to Christ himself he is the Son of God. And a father must always proceed a son in time, and the latter is - generally - subordinate to the prior. In fact, scripture repeatedly declares that God is greater than the Son. You can choose to ignore these things - but if you do then your position can't be considered intellectually honest.

Yes, which is why I wrote the sin of pride. The prideful ought to and shall be humbled. Since Jesus was not proud to begin, He humbled Himself by divinity becoming flesh, not sinful pride being laid low in humility.

Jesus is the Son of Man, Son of God, morning star, lion, lamb and many other things, as well as--just as you wrote--subordinate to the Father. The scripture declares that the Father is above the Son in position, but I don't think you can quote a verse that "God is greater than the Son of God". I've read the Bible multiple times and seen no such verse, rather, I've seen "I am a great God and Savior, there is no other" showing the Savior is God, and so forth.

Disbelieving Jesus or the Spirit to be God has been a heresy for millennia.

 

[iam1me]

Yes, which is why I wrote the sin of pride. The prideful ought to and shall be humbled. Since Jesus was not proud to begin, He humbled Himself by divinity becoming flesh, not sinful pride being laid low in humility.

Jesus is the Son of Man, Son of God, morning star, lion, lamb and many other things, as well as--just as you wrote--subordinate to the Father. The scripture declares that the Father is above the Son in position, but I don't think you can quote a verse that "God is greater than the Son of God". I've read the Bible multiple times and seen no such verse, rather, I've seen "I am a great God and Savior, there is no other" showing the Savior is God, and so forth.

Disbelieving Jesus or the Spirit to be God has been a heresy for millennia.

If the Son is subordinate to God - that means he is both distinct and lesser than God.

John 13:16
Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

John 14:28
You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

1 Cor 15:27-28
For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

And Jesus only ever asserted himself to be the Son of God - which Trinitarians effectively reject. They reject when the scriptures say that Jesus is Son, Only Begotten, and Firstborn of Creation. They must writhe and wriggle to deny what the scriptures plainly declare.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Omnipotence and God Almighty - God desires for all to be saved, yet not all will be. The nature of the problem prevents even God Almighty from achieving his desires in full.

1 Timothy 2:4
[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Note that there are some things that God cannot do:
1. He cannot lie
2. He cannot force people to follow Him (because he gave us free will)
3. God cannot contradict His own Word

Omnipotence and the Son - the Son never does anything of himsellf, but only does as the Father shows him. Nor does he use his own power and authority - rather God gives him his power and authority (they are not innate properties as with God)

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth...."
1 Cor 15:27-28 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Let's read some scriptures again:
'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ' Philippians 2:5-11

What is Paul describing here? He is describing the transition of the logos (Word), from existing in the form of God, to giving up equality and becoming a human being. Hebrews 2:9 states: "Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus". But what happens afterwards? God exalts Him to His rightful place, in a place of worship and adoration by both angelic beings and humans. This was what Jesus meant when he said:

'Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. ' John 17:5

The book of revelation makes it clear where the place of the Lamb is:
'for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes." ' Revelation 7:17

Where is Jesus sitting? He is sitting on the throne. He is not the Father, but is God.

[/INDENT]Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.[/INDENT]

As you mentioned before, Jesus only spoke what was revealed to him by the Father. Again being subservient did not mean he was inferior in nature, only in purpose. It was clearly not the Father's intention to let us know when the exact date of the final judgement would be, and so Jesus did not reveal it to us. Does Jesus know when the Last days will be now? Of course, Yahweh declared Him to be the Last Judge.

Omnipresence and God Almighty - The scriptures don't declare that God is everywhere at once. To the contrary, the scriptures describe God as removed from creation, residing in an unapproachable light. God cannot stand sin, after all, and for people to be sinful in his direct presence is a death sentence. This is a repeating topic in the scriptures. This is why, for instance, the jews were afraid of Moses after being in God's presence - his skin glowing. He had to put on a veil. Also, scripture often speaks of God coming down and checking on man. Why would he need to come down if he is everywhere constantly?

1 Timothy 6:16 [GOD] alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

This is quite a difficult topic to discuss but the scriptures are quite clear that God is omnipresent:
'"Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the Lord . "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the Lord . ' Jeremiah 23:24

'Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, "Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night," Even the darkness is not dark to You, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You.' Psalms 139:7-12

I have thought about what you are asking me before, but I didn't really do much research into it. If you come across something let me know

Omnipresence and the Son - The Son is sent by God down to us. He subsequently tells us that, if we love him, we should rejoice that he is going away - for he gets to return to the Father. This tells us both 1. The Son is not omnipresent and 2. The Father is not omnipresent (else the Son wouldn't need to go anywhere to be with the Father).

John 14:28You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

I'm not going to say much here, but notice the transition from the Earthly Jesus to the Heavenly Jesus. If you read through the book of Revelation, you will notice that Jesus takes on a completely different character, and wherever the Father is, the Lamb is there also.

The fact is, the terms omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence are not found in scripture. This all comes from Greek philosophy - which colored a lot of how the Church Fathers approached their understanding to God.

Let me ask you then. How do you define the entity known as God? I don't want a superficial answer like God is God or Yahweh is Almighty. I want you to clearly define a boundary around Yahweh so you can determine whether Jesus falls inside or outside this boundary. The 3 O's are all scriptural and has been used to define this entity known as God. Both angels and humans fall outside this boundary for that reason.

You are cherry-picking verses to give the appearance of a particular vantage point. However, you are forced to ignore the plethora of verses which explicitly distinguish the Son from God and even subjugate Jesus to God. Since your interpretation relies upon ignoring such verses - it is clearly inferior to an interpretation like my own that is able to legitimately accept all of these verses without contradiction. Jesus being called God by scripture is not a problem for my position - for many are called God who are not literally God themselves in scripture.

Cherry picking? Can you name me any other character in the Bible that shares as many titles with Yahweh as Jesus? Actually, is there anything Yahweh did that Jesus couldn't?
1) The logos was there in the beginning, and created the heavens, the earth, and humans in His image
2) Jesus could control nature
3) Jesus could forgive sins
4) Jesus could heal the sick and had authority over spirits
5) Jesus could alter the laws of physics
6) Jesus could raise the dead
7) Jesus could read the hearts of others
8) Jesus is the final Judge

If you are going to tell me that Yahweh gave the authority for Jesus to do all these things, then I agree completely with you. But the entirety of His authority? Sure, God gave authority to many other humans in the Bible, and called them God, but they were never up to this extent. And that is the whole point. 'For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, ' Colossians 2:9. The entirety of Yahweh dwelled in the person called Jesus Christ. Why did God have to come down in the form of a human being? Because God cannot die, and death was essential for our atonement of sins. That is why the entity of Jesus is a miracle, and we should give Christ the position which he deserves, as the Lamb of God who sits on the throne.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Disbelieving Jesus or the Spirit to be God has been a heresy for millennia.

Exactly, the entity known as the Watchtower is nothing knew. That is why the early Church fathers wrote the creeds. I think it is sad that fellow Christians try to bring down the deity of Christ, through whatever doctrine they have been ingrained to believe.

 

[iam1me]

Note that there are some things that God cannot do:
Let's read some scriptures again:
'Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ' Philippians 2:5-11

What is Paul describing here? He is describing the transition of the logos (Word), from existing in the form of God, to giving up equality and becoming a human being. Hebrews 2:9 states: "Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus". But what happens afterwards? God exalts Him to His rightful place, in a place of worship and adoration by both angelic beings and humans. This was what Jesus meant when he said:

'Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. ' John 17:5

The book of revelations makes it clear where the place of the Lamb is:
'for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes." ' Revelation 7:17

Where is Jesus sitting? He is sitting on the throne. He is not the Father, but is God.

First off, Phil 2:5-11 never says that Jesus was equal to the God. It says Jesus did not consider equality something to be grasped. You are reading what you want into the verse. And, if there were any doubt, the rest of the New Testament is very explicit that he is NOT equal to God - but subordinate to him.

Furthermore, Phil 2:5-11 itself clearly distinguishes and subordinates Christ. "God highly exalted him" means 1. that Jesus is not God, 2. Jesus is less than God.

As for Jesus' relative position to God, as Paul states in 1 Cor 15:20-28, the Son will be subjected to God. God has given him power and authority, but in doing so he is further distinguished from and subjected to God.

Furthermore, Jesus himself plainly states that he will be at the right hand of God - again distinguishing himself from and subordinating him to God Almighty.

Matthew 26:64
Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 16:19
So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

Acts 5:31
He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 7:55
But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;

Romans 8:34
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Colossians 3:1
[ Put On the New Self ] Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.


Hebrews 1:3
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

The scriptural testimony is clear: Jesus is at the right hand of God. And note that these verses say God - not Father. So you can't pretend that it is only speaking about part of God that he is at the right hand of.

As you mentioned before, Jesus only spoke what was revealed to him by the Father. Again being subservient did not mean he was inferior in nature, only in purpose. It was clearly not the Father's intention to let us know when the exact date of the final judgement would be, and so Jesus did not reveal it to us. Does Jesus know when the Last days will be now? Of course, Yahweh declared Him to be the Last Judge.

You continue to add extra-biblical commentary to try to explain away what the scriptures declare to be the case. If Jesus is God Almighty, and omniscience is a core property thereof - as you have asserted - then Jesus must be omniscient as well. However is clearly is NOT. If it was simply against his will to reveal such information - Jesus would have simply said that it is not for you all to know. Instead he declares that he does not know.

Also, just because God made him Judge does not mean he now knows when it will be. It means that when the time comes, he will fulfill that role. You keep adding things to the scriptures.

This is quite a difficult topic to discuss but the scriptures are quite clear that God is omnipresent:
'"Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the Lord . "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the Lord . ' Jeremiah 23:24

'Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will lead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, "Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night," Even the darkness is not dark to You, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to You.' Psalms 139:7-12

I have thought about what you are asking me before, but I didn't really do much research into it. If you come across something let me know

I suppose there's some scripture to support omnipresence, though there is also scripture to reject the notion such as what I provided. Personally, however, I interpret this in terms of agency. God, as Timothy declares, is in an unapproachable light. However, by means of the Holy Spirit, the angels, etc. he is effectively everywhere. I think this is the best understanding when taking all scripture into account - but I can understand where you are coming from here.

I'm not going to say much here, but notice the transition from the Earthly Jesus to the Heavenly Jesus. If you read through the book of Revelation, you will notice that Jesus takes on a completely different character, and wherever the Father is, the Lamb is there also.

As scripture say - Jesus was given power and authority after his resurrection, exalted to the right hand of God. So of course he is presented with far more power and authority in heaven vs his humble earthly state. However, to assert that he is suddenly now omnipresent is to read what you want into the scriptures - it isn't something the scriptures teach.

Let me ask you then. How do you define the entity known as God? I don't want a superficial answer like God is God or Yahweh is Almighty. I want you to clearly define a boundary around Yahweh so you can determine whether Jesus falls inside or outside this boundary. The 3 O's are all scriptural and has been used to define this entity known as God. Both angels and humans fall outside this boundary for that reason.

How do you define the entity known as "you" such that you can determine whether or not someone else falls inside or outside this boundary? Perhaps "I think therefore I am" is sufficient here, both for God and for us as individual entities.

The three Os are not scriptural - as I have pointed out. You yourself admit that there are things that God cannot do - ruling out omnipotence. There are things that God does not know - such as our freewill decisions - ruling out omniscience (which you left out a reply to, by the way). The best case can be made for Omnipresence, but not when you take all of scripture into account. Hence Jesus says that if his disciples loved him, they would rejoice that he gets to return to the Father and why Timothy tells us God resides in an unapproachable light.

Cherry picking? Can you name me any other character in the Bible that shares as many titles with Yahweh as Jesus? Actually, is there anything Yahweh did that Jesus couldn't?
1) The logos was there in the beginning, and created the heavens, the earth, and humans in His image
2) Jesus could control nature
3) Jesus could forgive sins
4) Jesus could heal the sick and had authority over spirits
5) Jesus could alter the laws of physics
6) Jesus could raise the dead
7) Jesus could read the hearts of others
8) Jesus is the final Judge

If you are going to tell me that Yahweh gave the authority for Jesus to do all these things, then I agree completely with you. But the entirety of His authority? Sure, God gave authority to many other humans in the Bible, and called them God, but they were never up to this extent. And that is the whole point. 'For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, ' Colossians 2:9. The entirety of Yahweh dwelled in the person called Jesus Christ. Why did God have to come down in the form of a human being? Because God cannot die, and death was essential for our atonement of sins. That is why the entity of Jesus is a miracle, and we should give Christ the position which he deserves, as the Lamb of God who sits on the throne.

Others have performed miracles and even been given the authority to forgive sins. The scripture even says that we will judge the angels.

This is all easily addressed by the fact that scripture tells us that God has put everything under Christ's feet - everything excepting God himself, whom Christ is subjugated to.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Here are some claims from the Watchtower:
"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely that they can interpret the Bible" (Watchtower, Oct 1, 1967, p 587)

The Watchtower organization is the guide, the teacher, and the expounder of correct doctrine.

The Watch tower organization believe that it alone is God's organization for the earth and mankind; not the Church.

"Those who have been taught by Christendom believe the God-dishonoring doctrine of a fiery hell of tormenting conscious human souls eternally" - Let God Be true, p88

To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it. (Watchtower, February 15, 1983:12)

One needs to ask oneself, can an organizational entity make such claims for itself? Does the truth not belong to God? Is it not the Holy Spirit who reveals the truth to us, not men? (John 16:13) When a religious group invades so deep into your personal life, so that you cannot even celebrate your birthday with your friends, are they really acting in your best interest?

Salvation lies solely with God, Forgiveness lies solely with God, the Truth lies solely with God.

 

[iam1me]

Here are some claims from the Watchtower:....

Just to be clear: I am not, nor have I ever been a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Matthew 26:64
Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 16:19
So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

Acts 5:31
He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 7:55
But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;

Romans 8:34
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Colossians 3:1
[ Put On the New Self ] Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.


Hebrews 1:3
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

The scriptural testimony is clear: Jesus is at the right hand of God. And note that these verses say God - not Father. So you can't pretend that it is only speaking about part of God that he is at the right hand of.

But what have you actually proven with these verses? Christ sitting at the right hand of God just furthers the point that Jesus shares in God's glory. Actually this is what it says in Revelation:
'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. ' Revelation 3:21

This is not the only verse. As you read through the entirety of the Book of Revelation, the line between God and the Son becomes very hazy and unclear. Sometimes God refers to Himself as the Alpha and Omega, and sometimes the Son refers to himself this way. Sometimes when the author writes Him, He or His, it becomes hard to differentiate whether it's God speaking, or the Son. I believe the Apostle John wrote it this way intentionally.

As scripture say - Jesus was given power and authority after his resurrection, exalted to the right hand of God. So of course he is presented with far more power and authority in heaven vs his humble earthly state. However, to assert that he is suddenly now omnipresent is to read what you want into the scriptures - it isn't something the scriptures teach.

Is there a straight forward scripture for every single doctrine? If only life was so simple lol... But there are some verses that talk about the resurrected body, so you can make your own conclusion based on that.

'So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. ' 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

'So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." ' John 20:19

'Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. ' Luke 24:31

If you want to go deeper into this topic, we will also have to discuss the Holy Spirit, but I feel that the discussion is strictly on "Jesus is not God Almighty". Omnipresence is not an easy topic to discuss.

Perhaps "I think therefore I am" is sufficient here, both for God and for us as individual entities.

Let's not go into ancient Greek philosophy that makes no sense.

The three Os are not scriptural - as I have pointed out. You yourself admit that there are things that God cannot do - ruling out omnipotence. There are things that God does not know - such as our freewill decisions - ruling out omniscience (which you left out a reply to, by the way). The best case can be made for Omnipresence, but not when you take all of scripture into account. Hence Jesus says that if his disciples loved him, they would rejoice that he gets to return to the Father and why Timothy tells us God resides in an unapproachable light.

Scriptural basis for omnipotence:
'"I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.' Job 42:2

I think it's important that we do not fall into any contradictions in this aspect. If God prophesized the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Messiah, and it came true, that would demonstrate God's power correct? Now are you going to tell me that God is not omnipotent in this regard because He could not lie about the prophecies? Which demonstrates more power, fulfilled prophecies, or unfulfilled ones? Clearly it's the former.

If we start discussing free will that is a topic on its own.

Scriptural basis for omniscience:
'in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. ' 1 John 3:20

I understand why you would say I am making extra-biblical commentaries, but neither of us can say at this point what Jesus knows and what He doesn't. My proposition is that He knows when He is coming since that is His job.

given the authority to forgive sins

Who exactly are you referring to? I'm not aware of any other characters who could forgive sins. Actually the scriptures say:
'"Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" ' Mark 2:7

This is all easily addressed by the fact that scripture tells us that God has put everything under Christ's feet - everything excepting God himself, whom Christ is subjugated to.

Again, we need to define how far this boundary called "God" extends to. I never rejected the notion that Christ is subservient to the Father, and that the Son is separate from the Father. Here is a verse I've quoted before:

'But of the Son He says, " your throne , o God , is forever and ever , and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom . " you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness ; therefore God , your God , has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions ."' Hebrews 1:8-9

Honestly for me, the way that Yahweh addresses the Son as God in this particular verse, and the way He addresses His throne is very peculiar for me. For me this entity known as "God' extends beyond Yahweh and onto the Son.

 

[nPeace]

There are quite a few.
Hebrews 1:8
Matthew 13:41
Luke 3:3-6
Romans 2:7-17

I don't find that the scriptures contradict each other. I find that it is doctrines of men are what contradict scripture.
One who holds on to false doctrines, will search the scriptures to find texts that they feel can be used to support their doctrines. This is similar to what apostle Peter said. (2 Peter 3:16) . . .However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
So apparently they run into problems they can't rectify, and so they turn to blaming the Bible, by saying it contradicts itself.

Hebrews 1:8
I, as well as million of others see no problems with this text, as it is in harmony with the context and all the other scriptures.

Read for example Hebrews 1:9, and see how that harmonizes with Revelation 3:12, 13

Hebrews 1:9
King James Bible
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
What is verse 9 saying to you?

Then also consider the Greek text of Hebrews 1:8
Hebrews 1:8 Interlinear: and unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy reign;
Hebrews 1 — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
8 πρὸς toward δὲ but τὸν the υἱόν Son Ὁ The θρόνος throne σου of you ὁ the θεὸς God εἰς into τὸν the αἰῶνα age τοῦ of the αἰῶνος, age, καὶ and ἡ the ῥάβδος staff τῆς of the εὐθύτητος straightness ῥάβδος staff τῆς of the βασιλείας kingdom αὐτοῦ. of him. 9 ἠγάπησας You loved δικαιοσύνην righteousness καὶ and ἐμίσησας you hated ἀνομίαν· lawlessness; διὰ through τοῦτο this ἔχρισέν anointed σε you ὁ the θεός, God, ὁ the θεός God σου, of you, ἔλαιον oil ἀγαλλιάσεως of exultation παρὰ beside τοὺς the μετόχους partners σου· of you;

I also found this article quite informative:
Hebrews 1:8
[ Excerpts ]
The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between “God” and “god.” Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is “GOD.” Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts “uncials,” and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books.

The Semitic languages, and both the Latin and Greek spoken by the early Christians, used the word “God” with a broader meaning than we do today. “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including great people, rulers and people acting with God’s authority. In John 10:33, when the Jews challenged Jesus and said he was claiming to be “a god” (mistranslated in most versions as “God”; see our note on that verse), he answered them by asking them if they had read in the Old Testament that people to whom the Word of God came were called “GODS” (and we use all caps here because the earliest texts did. It is hard to escape the modern notion that “God” refers to the True God and “gods” referred to lesser deities).

Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings. It is the context that determines whether “God” or a great person is being referred to. This is actually a cause of occasional disagreement between translators, and they sometimes argue about whether “GOD” refers to God, the Father, or to a powerful person or representative of God.

Matthew 13:41
Luke 3:3-6
Romans 2:7-17
I don't see the complaint with these verses, so you will have to explain to me what you are having difficulty with.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Just to be clear: I am not, nor have I ever been a Jehovah's Witness.

So what are you then? Clearly you've been studying the Bible extensively...

 

[iam1me]

But what have you actually proven with these verses? Christ sitting at the right hand of God just furthers the point that Jesus shares in God's glory. Actually this is what it says in Revelation:
'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. ' Revelation 3:21

This is not the only verse. As you read through the entirety of the Book of Revelation, the line between God and the Son becomes very hazy and unclear. Sometimes God refers to Himself as the Alpha and Omega, and sometimes the Son refers to himself this way. Sometimes when the author writes Him, He or His, it becomes hard to differentiate whether it's God speaking, or the Son. I believe the Apostle John wrote it this way intentionally.

What I have show, repeatedly, with such verses is that Jesus is distinguished from GOD (not just "Father" - but "God" explicitly) and subordinate to him. Citing a couple verses in Revelations doesn't due away with the testimony of the rest of the scriptures.

Also, that verse you are citing also says: "I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne." You want to equate Jesus with God Almighty. So that means his throne is the throne of God Almighty. So we will get to sit down with Jesus on the throne of God Almighty. Are we therefore God Almighty???? Of course not - so you can't use that verse to say that because Jesus sat down with the Father at his throne that therefore he is God Almighty.

Is there a straight forward scripture for every single doctrine? If only life was so simple lol... But there are some verses that talk about the resurrected body, so you can make your own conclusion based on that.
...
If you want to go deeper into this topic, we will also have to discuss the Holy Spirit, but I feel that the discussion is strictly on "Jesus is not God Almighty". Omnipresence is not an easy topic to discuss.

For the most important and central tenants of Christianity - yes they are very plainly laid out in scripture. The less important a matter is, in terms of what God would have us know, the less time scripture spends on it. There are thus many things that the scriptures don't teach us that would be interesting to know - but which aren't really important for us to know. In some cases the knowledge is explicitly hidden from us - because it is actual important that we don't know it at this time.

Also, none of those scriptures on resurrected bodies suggest that Jesus would be omnipresent in his exalted state. I do primarily want to focus on Jesus in this thread - but if you feel going into more details on the HS would be helpful in making your case then feel free.

Let's not go into ancient Greek philosophy that makes no sense.

And why do you feel that "I think therefore I am" makes no sense? Seems fairly straight forward to me.

Scriptural basis for omnipotence:
'"I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.' Job 42:2

I think it's important that we do not fall into any contradictions in this aspect. If God prophesized the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Messiah, and it came true, that would demonstrate God's power correct? Now are you going to tell me that God is not omnipotent in this regard because He could not lie about the prophecies? Which demonstrates more power, fulfilled prophecies, or unfulfilled ones? Clearly it's the former.

First off, you yourself have already admitted that there are things that God cannot do. We must, therefore, take Job's comment with a grain of salt - for it is evident that there are some limitations on God. This is why God desires all to be saved - yet not all are saved.

As for prophecy - I don't view prophecy as a prediction so much as God telling us he is going to bring something to pass. He is able to do this because of his power and wisdom. While fulfilling prophecies is certainly a testament of God's power - it does not establish omnipotence.

If we start discussing free will that is a topic on its own.

Scriptural basis for omniscience:
'in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. ' 1 John 3:20

We don't need to dig deep into free will to understand that free will is incompatible with omniscience. If God knows all of our decision before we are even born - then those decisions are predetermined before we even have an opportunity to consider them. Since we can't do anything other than what God knows will be the case - freewill would thus be nothing more than an illusion.

God certainly knows all that can be known - but when something isn't yet determined, as with free-will decisions, then it isn't something that one can have knowledge of.

This is similar to when scripture says that God put everything under Christ. Paul points out that *obviously* this excludes God Almighty himself. God knows all things - but obviously this excludes things which are indeterminate.

I understand why you would say I am making extra-biblical commentaries, but neither of us can say at this point what Jesus knows and what He doesn't. My proposition is that He knows when He is coming since that is His job.

Jesus tells us explicitly that he does not know. The only reasonable, scriptural position to take is to accept what Jesus said and not try to second guess him. Nothing in scripture gives us any reason to suspect this fact changed.

Who exactly are you referring to? I'm not aware of any other characters who could forgive sins. Actually the scriptures say:
'"Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" ' Mark 2:7

John 20:19-23 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, "Peace be with you.” 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”​

Again, we need to define how far this boundary called "God" extends to. I never rejected the notion that Christ is subservient to the Father, and that the Son is separate from the Father. Here is a verse I've quoted before:

'But of the Son He says, " your throne , o God , is forever and ever , and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom . " you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness ; therefore God , your God , has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions ."' Hebrews 1:8-9

Honestly for me, the way that Yahweh addresses the Son as God in this particular verse, and the way He addresses His throne is very peculiar for me. For me this entity known as "God' extends beyond Yahweh and onto the Son.

First off, the verses in question don't just distinguish the Son from the "Father" - they distinguish Jesus from "God" explicitly. So you can't fall back on the false idea that Jesus is only distinguished from different personages within God (though scripture teaches no such thing to begin with).

Secondly, as I've pointed out before, while calling Jesus "God" the above verse simultaneously refers to Jesus's God. "Therefore God, YOUR God." This distinguishes Jesus from God Almighty. This of course just goes back to my OP: "God" is applied to angels, to Moses, and to the Jewish people. There is lots of precedent for the term being applied to those who are clearly not God Almighty. Jesus is just one more person in scripture to have the term applied to him even though scripture is also quite clear that he is not God Almighty himself.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't find that the scriptures contradict each other.

Your methodology is contradictory, because not only is Jesus called God, He has authority over angels, and it is called His Kingdom, so forth. The verses are contextual, to how Jesus is described. In other words, the Bible contradicts your argument, even using your methodology of how you read the word god.

I find that it is doctrines of men are what contradict scripture.
One who holds on to false doctrines, will search the scriptures to find texts that they feel can be used to support their doctrines. This is similar to what apostle Peter said. (2 Peter 3:16)

'Search the texts'? The verses there, are in the text, and that's just a few.

. . .However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
So apparently they run into problems they can't rectify, and so they turn to blaming the Bible, by saying it contradicts itself.

Whether the bible contradicts itself, is another argument. You are contradicting yourself.

Read for example Hebrews 1:9, and see how that harmonizes with Revelation 3:12, 13

Hebrews 1:9
King James Bible
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
What is verse 9 saying to you?

Then also consider the Greek text of Hebrews 1:8
Hebrews 1:8 Interlinear: and unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, is to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy reign;
Hebrews 1 — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
8 πρὸς toward δὲ but τὸν the υἱόν Son Ὁ The θρόνος throne σου of you ὁ the θεὸς God εἰς into τὸν the αἰῶνα age τοῦ of the αἰῶνος, age, καὶ and ἡ the ῥάβδος staff τῆς of the εὐθύτητος straightness ῥάβδος staff τῆς of the βασιλείας kingdom αὐτοῦ. of him. 9 ἠγάπησας You loved δικαιοσύνην righteousness καὶ and ἐμίσησας you hated ἀνομίαν· lawlessness; διὰ through τοῦτο this ἔχρισέν anointed σε you ὁ the θεός, God, ὁ the θεός God σου, of you, ἔλαιον oil ἀγαλλιάσεως of exultation παρὰ beside τοὺς the μετόχους partners σου· of you;

I also found this article quite informative:
Hebrews 1:8
[ Excerpts ]
The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between “God” and “god.” Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is “GOD.” Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts “uncials,” and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books.

The Semitic languages, and both the Latin and Greek spoken by the early Christians, used the word “God” with a broader meaning than we do today. “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including great people, rulers and people acting with God’s authority. In John 10:33, when the Jews challenged Jesus and said he was claiming to be “a god” (mistranslated in most versions as “God”; see our note on that verse), he answered them by asking them if they had read in the Old Testament that people to whom the Word of God came were called “GODS” (and we use all caps here because the earliest texts did. It is hard to escape the modern notion that “God” refers to the True God and “gods” referred to lesser deities).

Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings. It is the context that determines whether “God” or a great person is being referred to. This is actually a cause of occasional disagreement between translators, and they sometimes argue about whether “GOD” refers to God, the Father, or to a powerful person or representative of God.

Matthew 13:41
Luke 3:3-6
Romans 2:7-17
I don't see the complaint with these verses, so you will have to explain to me what you are having difficulty with.

You aren't making sense. You are saying that Jesus isn't God, yet you must admit, or accept, that Jesus is called God. Therefore, Jesus is called God, and is God. What aren't you understanding.
You are saying that Jesus is a 'false god', presumably.

Contextually, Jesus is called God.

If 'god', can mean anything, even out of context, which is your argument, then why are you saying that Jesus, isn't God? Why are you using a vague word to describe your specific deity, when your argument, is that it is a vague, name, and word?

 

[iam1me]

So what are you then? Clearly you've been studying the Bible extensively...

Thanks

I don't currently associate with any particular denomination. I spent the most time with the Church of the Nazarene growing up. In fact, about 14 years ago or so, back when I was in high school, my theology would have been nearly identical to your own now. That was when I was just starting to get into really studying and debating theology. I started off defending the Trinity. However, it didn't take me long to realize that I wasn't really equipped to defend the Trinity to even myself - let alone others. Thus I began to study everything pro-Trinity I could find to make sense of it and the scriptural arguments in support of it. After a significant period of study and debate I eventually had to admit to myself that the scriptural evidence for the Trinity is - at best - lacking, and at worse all of these churches are just flat out wrong. At the time the latter might have seemed improbable - but one of the sad truths of the modern church is that virtually no one studies these matters beyond learning proof texts to defend their preconceived views.

Then I turned my attention to the study of the Church Fathers. Everyone always insisted that the Church has always, since its inception, been Trinitarian. I figured that even if I didn't see it taught in scripture, if the Church Fathers all testified to it - then that maybe a sufficient witness to defend it. I bought myself the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series and spent many years reading through the writings of these Church Fathers. However, what I found is that the Church Fathers were anything but Trinitarians. Even the earliest Trinitarians, like Tertullian, maintained that Jesus was begotten - that there was a time when the Son did not exist, when God was not the Father. And if you look at earlier influential Church Fathers like Justin Martyr - he explicitly says that Jesus is a second, lesser god.

As such, finding no basis for the Trinity in scripture or in history, I rejected the Trinity. Then began the on-going process of re-evaluating the scripture under this new light.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

This is basically the _core_ belief of Christianity. What makes one Christian at all.

I disagree. I think the Way is the core. Arguing about what color sweater God was wearing is how I feel about the Trinity and other such dogmas that are completely irrelevant to the Way, which is about how we interact with ourselves and others.

I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior. Isaiah 34:11

But this is false, because the bible itself talks of many messiahs. Even a Persian king could be considered one. We have to remember not to take claims at face value. They must be supported and many simply aren't.

Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me.Isaiah 45:21

Historically this is inaccurate. Hebrews were at least henotheistic, having sprung from Canaanites and their pantheon. I feel monotheism is a power grab, nothing more, by prophets/priests. We see this in Egypt and Ankhenaton. It's never about the reality of one god over many. It's about making sure the temple for YOURS gets all the tithes.

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2:13-14

A savior is one who saves. A firefighter who pulls you from a burning building is your savior, but still not a deity.

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us

Except in at least one version, Jesus didn't WANT to do this. He resigned himself to it, but that's not the same thing as jumping excitedly over to the Romans saying KILL ME NOW FOR EVERYONE'S SINS.

Jesus was executed by the Romans for essentially being a religious terrorist, causing problems. That's it.

Small "g" gods...as in not the one and only real Creator God.

And which one was that? El? Yah(weh)? Baal? If you trace the backstories, it gets more complicated.

In Judaism, one common interpretation is that the others were the angels, for instance.

And even that ignores the most likely historical reality, that Judaism was not always monotheistic. It meant the gods of the pantheon the authors tried to ignore.

Clearly, not all Jews disbelieved the Messiah would be God incarnate, since all the first Christians were Jews

By Jesus' time, Hellenization was a major issue in Judaism.

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus is not shown to be humble to a fault by any stretch of the imagination. Plus, this is like trusting Darth Vader after he kills Palpatine: "Oh, you just said something nice after disbelieving? We're good, then."

Or it's like people going "OMG". Does that make the target of such an exclamation an actual deity? No.

The scriptures definitely support the notion that there are many gods, in some sense of the word. Understanding what is meant by there being many gods, however, requires more than grammar - ti requires studying the usage of the term in the scriptures.

I would also include things like archaeology. We can't trust the authors to be accurate in their reporting. They are like the Fox News of the place and time.

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.” Psalm 82:6-7

This most likely refers to the fight between Baal Hadad and Yah(weh), who constantly tried to kill each other for rule over the pantheon.

In the Baal Cycle, the fight is won (eventually) by Baal Hadad. In the bible, Yah(weh) wins. Funny how that works.

If you ask a Jew if God can be a human, they will say that that this is a blasphemous concept according to the scripture.

It was eventually. However, older traces of the polytheistic views can still be seen. God sure was afraid the people created IN HIS IMAGE could eat some fruit or build a multi-story building and BE A THREAT TO HIM. The conclusion I draw from this is that God (Yah or whatever god is actually meant in the story) was once just a human and got superpowers and didn't want to share.

Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee who used to Torah

Paul is willing to throw his Jewishness under the bus REAL quick and prioritize his Roman citizenship when faced with arrest.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Another point is that Jews completely reject the idea that God can be a man or a man can be God in the flesh.

Which is weird because we are made in God's image. That's why "ye are gods". It is a common literary trope to create something and then fear the implications that now you're not special like you thought you were. See the bible, Frankenstein, and Terminator.

For a fun list of biblical tropes, see here: The Bible

Christianity is a monotheistic religion

Claiming to be and is are two different things.

The Trinity was therefore an obvious solution to this problem, which the Jewish Christians realized from the very beginning (Hence the Gospel of John was written).

That just handwaves away the problem. The problem remains.

Let's say your kid has orange dusted hands and claims two other kids ate your Cheetos, not him. Let's also imagine these aren't imaginary friends but classmates or something. Do you count all three as one person? After all, only your kid has the evidence of your missing Cheetos. The other kids don't even live on your street. It's irrational to claim your kid is equal to the other kids just because your kid said so.

My question is why would Jesus find it important to baptize any believer through all three persons and not only God the Father?

How do we know he did? Does he actually baptize anyone? I don't remember him doing so.

For example the human child is subservient to their parents, but that does not make the child any less human than their mother or father.

They are also not their parents, though.

What is Paul saying? He is saying that though Jesus was the very incarnation of God, he chose to revoke any godly privileges and humbled himself as a human being.

When did Jesus tell him this?

But it does establish that the Son is on the same level as the Father.

I thought he was supposed to sit at God's right hand. That's not sitting on the same throne.

But Jesus did on multiple occasions (which many people in this thread have already quoted)

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

How is this any different from people calling Moses God? After all, Jesus never says it. Thomas does.

It is clear throughout the Gospels that Jesus makes no distinction between Son of God or God, because he believed it to be the same thing.

We're all children of God. That makes Jesus no more special than we are.

If you claim that they are different, you need to explain to me how that is not idolatry, because Yahweh clearly expected exclusive worship as a Jealous God.

Can't be jealous of non-existent gods.

Time and time again, Jesus conflicted and corrected the Pharisees and Sadduces that confronted him. He often rebuked them. They clearly weren't as knowledgeable as you like to think.

He also thought the disciples didn't understand him, and yet we are to trust everything they say.

Those who believe in the Trinity believe that they are separate persons as well. The Athanasian creed sums this up well.

So, it comes from some 5th century guy, not anyone who wrote the bible?

Why would Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, create a god and tell people to worship it in the New testament? Please answer this question.

God is not shown to be very much of a long-term Guy. This is the same God who can plant a tree in front of people literally born yesterday (sorta) and expect them to avoid it. This is the same God who hires a jerk to be the first king hoping the people will stop wanting anything but a theocracy run by some crazy guy with long hair, but they never return to an era where the nation is run by a single prophet, because despite God's irritation, Israel under God's "direct" rule was really no better than nothing at all. They are constantly under attack by other nations. What's the point? God wants His people to remain useless and ignorant and then complains when His people are upset they can't compete with or defeat other people.

The temple is destroyed during their lifetimes.

And cows everywhere rejoiced. They were being BBQ'd every waking day.

Many things are not defined in the gospels, and Jesus is quoted in the gospels to say he is not teaching his disciples everything they need to know, that they must wait for the holy spirit.

So, he's useless. Many people suffer and die waiting on Jesus.

To be fair, the entirety of the New testament were written by Jewish people

I thought Luke was Greek. And they all wrote in Greek. And Greek beliefs permeate the entire thing, though historically this becomes an issue well before Jesus. And most of the NT is by Paul, who happily ditched his Jewishness (if he had any) for Roman identity.

Why does Jesus never deny himself to be God when the disciples addressed him as such?

This is someone who as a kid never apologized for disobeying his parents, which could lead to death per Mosaic law. Humility is not one of his strong points.

An apostle of Christ wrote these instructions.

A person calling himself one wrote those instructions.

1) The child is subservient to the father (father is greater than the son)
2) The child listens to everything the father tells him to do
3) The child came after the father
4) Both the child and the father are human

1) Debatable.
2)Not really.
3)True.
4)So what? "Human" is a species. Is "God" a species?

6) The Son obeys the Father's will

He broke many rules INCLUDING from the Top Ten.

He cannot lie

On the day you eateth of it, you shall surely die.

*they live to be nearly a thousand years old*

Unless they ate it on the day they died, God lied.

He cannot force people to follow Him

LOL. Doesn't stop Him from trying, though, bless His little heart.

God cannot contradict His own Word

If God can only do what the bible says, Who is really wearing the pants in the relationship?

Can you name me any other character in the Bible that shares as many titles with Yahweh as Jesus?

Egyptian Pharaohs had lots of titles behind their names. So what?

Actually, is there anything Yahweh did that Jesus couldn't?

Create things? Jesus walked on water. Yay. God MADE it.

The logos was there in the beginning, and created the heavens, the earth, and humans in His image

Not established in Genesis.

Jesus could control nature

God made it.

Jesus could forgive sins

Anyone who can string words together can.

Jesus could heal the sick and had authority over spirits

So did other prophets and anyone in the healthcare field.

Jesus could alter the laws of physics

Who wrote them?

Jesus could raise the dead

So could other prophets and anyone in the healthcare field.

Jesus could read the hearts of others

Since when? Judas' plot comes out of the blue. Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, so to speak, despite having called him "Satan" and Peter being characterized as an arrogant coward in canon AND non-canon texts. The only one who thinks Peter is a great guy is Peter.

Jesus is the final Judge

The Son doesn't have to defer to the Father? Even in the parable where the son of the landowner goes to collect the rent or whatever, it's on behalf of the landowner. The kid ain't going to keep those funds at all. The money goes to daddy.

'"I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

And thus, Jesus healed John the Baptist. Oh, no, wait ....

Let's not go into ancient Greek philosophy that makes no sense.

Greek philosophy is important as historical context in a heavily Hellenized society.

'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. ' Revelation 3:21

So, anyone Jesus likes can sit on his throne, which is the throne God sits on. So, since anyone can sit there, the throne is rather irrelevant.

 

[nPeace]

Your methodology is contradictory, because not only is Jesus called God, He has authority over angels, and it is called His Kingdom, so forth. The verses are contextual, to how Jesus is described. In other words, the Bible contradicts your argument, even using your methodology of how you read the word god.

'Search the texts'? The verses there, are in the text, and that's just a few.


Whether the bible contradicts itself, is another argument. You are contradicting yourself.



You aren't making sense. You are saying that Jesus isn't God, yet you must admit, or accept, that Jesus is called God. Therefore, Jesus is called God, and is God. What aren't you understanding.
You are saying that Jesus is a 'false god', presumably.

Contextually, Jesus is called God.

If 'god', can mean anything, even out of context, which is your argument, then why are you saying that Jesus, isn't God? Why are you using a vague word to describe your specific deity, when your argument, is that it is a vague, name, and word?

Did you read the article? Men are called God. Does this mean they are God almighty?

 

[nPeace]

But this is false, because the bible itself talks of many messiahs. Even a Persian king could be considered one. We have to remember not to take claims at face value. They must be supported and many simply aren't.

A savior is one who saves. A firefighter who pulls you from a burning building is your savior, but still not a deity.

God is the only savior, because he alone has the power to save from Adamic death. Christ the true Messiah - was anointed by God to deliver mankind from this death.