Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

[Ingledsva]

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

Good grief. Men are not being called Gods in those verses. A wrong translation is being used, - and causing confusion.

*

 

[iam1me]

Hello again.

As shown, the word being translated as God, is only translated as God when meaning the ONE God YHVH.

It's other translations - such as Judge, etc., are used when meaning humans.

*

And that's why the New Testament authors used the Greek word for Judge when they translated it over - Θεοί. Oh, wait... no that's "gods."

John 10:34 Greek Text Analysis

 

[Thinking Homer]

This is not true.
You have access to NWT. Not every place where worship occurs, does it apply to Jehovah, and not every place where do obeisance occurs, does it apply to Jesus.
However, you are correct that I trust the GB of JWs, because I don't believe they try to support an unscriptural doctrine, by twisting words or texts to support such doctrines.

So far, I don't see any reason why I should think they are deceptive.
If you can give me one good reason, I would surely consider it with you.

There are so many scriptures that the teaching of the trinity contradict, it seems clear to me that supporters of it, are the ones that are twisting the texts.
For example...
Every translation says the same here.
1 Corinthians 15:25-28 English Standard Version (ESV)
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

It seem clear from this text, that Christ was subject to - not equal to - God, and will continue to be, for eternity.
So when one says that Jesus is equal to the father, is that not a lie - false?

I have explained this so many times. Trinitarians still believe that Jesus is subservient to the Father, as He always has been. But just because you are subservient to someone does not make you inferior in nature. I gave the analogy between the human father and son, husband and wife etc... Subservient in purpose, not inferior in nature

Actually while we're here on this verse, can you explain the last part to me, "that God may be all in all", what does that mean?

 

[Thinking Homer]

Do you see Jews prostrating themselves? I see Muslims doing so, but on what basis? Who would Christ's first disciples have been emulating? They were all Jewish originally.

'Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. "I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, ' Genesis 17:1-3

'But the Lord , who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, Him you shall fear, and to Him you shall bow yourselves down, and to Him you shall sacrifice. ' 2 Kings 17:36

'"And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the Lord .' Isaiah 66:23

'I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.' Psalms 138:2

Jews still worship and pray to God by facing in the direction of Jerusalem. God's presence was manifested on Mount Sinai, the tabernacle, the temple etc. so the Jews worshiped Him in this manner.

The devil can perform tricks too, as it is clearly stated by Jesus in his final judgment on false Christians.....

This is also what Jesus said:
'If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." ' John 10:37-38

The NWT will never translate the Greek word 'ἐν' as 'in', but 'union'.

John 1:1 is undone by John 1:18.

This is not how you interpret scripture. One verse does not cancel out another.

1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

How does Christ have a "head" if he is God?

Again I have explained this many times. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is subservient to the Father, as he always has been. But being subservient in purpose does not mean inferiority in nature.

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

For this verse we need to see what Paul meant when He addressed Jesus as 'Lord'. He uses the word 'kurios' many times in this Epistles to denote deity. Note that when Paul addresses Jesus as Lord in the following scriptures, he is in fact making a reference in the Old Testament where Yahweh is being addressed as Lord.

'for " whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved ." ' Romans 10:13

Who is Paul referring to here? It is obviously Jesus since it says in Acts 4:11-12
'He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders , but which became the chief corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." ' Acts 4:11-12

But Romans 10:13 is a reference to Joel 2:32 which is speaking about Yahweh
'"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the Lord has said, Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.' Joel 2:32

Paul also quotes:
Jeremiah 9:24 in 1 Corinthians 1:31
Isaiah 40:13 in 1 Corinthians 2:16
Psalm 24:1 in 1 Corinthians 10:26
Jeremiah 9:24 in 2 Corinthians 10:17

In all the above instances where the OT verses refers to Yahweh as Lord, Paul uses the exact phrasing on Jesus to refer Him as Lord as well. So yes, we have One God and One Lord, but Paul's use of the word 'kurios' has a very strong emphasis on deity when it refers to Jesus.

Never in the Bible does the Father refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.” There is no threesome. It is "one God, the Father" as the apostle Paul plainly states. Why do you ignore all this?

Notice how your wording has been changing. First it was "show me where it says Jesus is God" and now "show me where the Father calls Jesus God". It says right there in Hebrews 1:8. And with regards to the Holy Spirit, I think you are mistaking His nature. It is simply the Spirit of God.

'Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. ' 2 Corinthians 3:17
'God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” ' John 4:24

Also look at the following verse:
'But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.' John 16:13-15

Even if you don't believe in the Trinity, Jesus is making quite a bold claim by stating that all that belongs to the Father are his.

Oh please.....if Jesus was God, he did not need to pray at all. Who was he praying to? And if he was God why did he need angels to minister to him? How could Jesus' will be subject to his Father's will if there was equality in someone whom the churches state was "fully God and fully man"? Unless a person is fully indoctrinated, blind Freddy can see the glaring flaws in this doctrine.

What you don't seem to understand about the Trinity is that it's a relationship within God Himself. If you say that's absurd, how do you explain 1 John 4:8 where it says "God is love"? Love cannot be generated by one person. Note that it says "God is love", not "God loves us" in this particular verse.

I'm sorry, but that is just lame. It is sin that divides man from God.....what divides us from Christ if he is also God? Think about it.

What divides us from Christ is our refusal to acknowledge that He is God incarnate. As did the Israelites refused to acknowledge Yahweh as their God.

Read the words again..."All things have been handed over to Me by My Father"...If Jesus is God then why does he need one part of himself to "hand over" anything to the other? What could Jesus receive that was not already his?

Philippians 2:7 makes it clear that Jesus chose to empty himself of his own accord. But in John 16:15, Jesus mentions that everything that belongs to the Father was in fact his in the first place.

'All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” ' John 16:15

Well actually, because this is a belief and not a doctrine, we are happy to wait and see. It matters little in the big scheme of things. The clear truth to us is that Jesus is NOT God and shares no equality with him at all.
If God has to speak with an Archangel's voice then what is that telling you?

It is not a belief and not a doctrine? Please elaborate further what the difference is between the two.
Jesus is not the Father, I agree with that much. But I believe they both encompass the entity known as "God".

irst of all, the pre-human Jesus is anything but just an angel. He is the only direct creation of his Father. He existed before all things, probably for eons of time before God created anything else.

"All things", including the angels were created "through" the son. (Colossians 1:15-17) His position in heaven is second only to his Father.

The title "LOGOS" means "Word"...another way of saying that he spoke God's words...acted as his representative and spokesman from the beginning.

In the Bible angels are called God's "sons" and even Adam is called a "son of God" because they are all direct creations, the result of the exercise of God's power. (his holy spirit) The same spirit that empowered Christ at his baptism.

Humans are called "son of man" and Jesus was referred to by this designation as well.

It says in John 1:2 - 'He was in the beginning with God. ' If the Logos was in the beginning with God, it would mean that the Logos would have to have been created before time began. But in order to create something, you need to be in a realm where there is time and space, otherwise you will be creating nothing.

It says in Micah 5:2
'"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."' Micah 5:2

There was never a time when Jesus never existed. Therefore he could not have been created, otherwise he would have had a clear starting point.

And who was Adam created through? The Logos correct? How can you say that the creation and the creator share the same being?

You ignored everything I said. The ransom has been paid by one who was the exact equivalent of Adam. You clearly do not understand the reason why Jesus had to be born as a human and offer his life. God paying the price would have been 'overkill' to the max. A billion cans of insect spray for one mosquito! Seriously....your doctrine has blinded you to an obvious truth.

God would never incarnate himself any more than a human would choose to incarnate as an amoeba.

I am not going to continue this revolving conversation because I believe it has all been said. Make of it what you will...believe whatever you wish because you will anyway.....but you will never be able to say that no one told you otherwise....will you?

I'll leave you with one verse then, and how much I value the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as God's Son:

'But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. ' Titus 3:4-7

 

[Faithofchristian]

Here is the wiki for you on Canaan.

Canaan (son of Ham) - Wikipedia

As to the rest, you are not understanding what I have been saying. First - this is a story to explain good and evil.

Think about the story they are telling us in that light.

YHVH creates man and woman in his image = special. They have two sons both special. One does what he is expected to do, and the other gets angry and chooses evil.

It tells us Cain/fallen one went off to form pagan cities.

Seth replaces Abel as the good line.

Then after the flood (destroying evil) we get Ham doing wrong, and his son Canaan gives us the Canaanites.

The old stories say Ham's wife was a descendent of Cain, - and that is how the fallen line continued through the flood to become the pagan tribes and Canaanites - whom we are told are the Nephilim fallen ones, mighty warriors.

*

Let's for say, that if you were to look around in the world to day, would you know who the children of Cain are ?

What are the children of Cain's called, by what name ?

So now the question is, how did the Nephilim get from the other side of the flood of Noah's, to this side of the flood of Noah's?

 

[Desert Snake]

The scriptural references are only obscure because the churches don't touch on them at all - you'll only learn about such passages via personal study and debates like this. That doesn't undermine their legitimacy - but rather the legitimacy of doctrines upheld by ignoring such scriptures.

At any rate, it is obvious from the context that Christ is not literally God Almighty in the New Testament as well. There are innumerable passages that clearly set out a distinction between Jesus and God (not just "Father") and subordinate Jesus to God. Trinitarians have been indoctrinated to explain away what the scriptures say - like that Jesus is the Son of God, Only Begotten, First of Creation, etc. - rather than to accept what the scriptures say. When you approach the scriptures objectively to see what they say, these things will pop out at you left and right.

☆Actually, in the New Testament, Jesus is called God.
In other words, if you are trying to present an argument that Jesus isn't called God, it's wrong.
This leaves, what is your argument. You haven't presented an argument, that would make Jesus, not God.

I mean, it's a really bad argument. That is why I said that what you wrote was obscure.
•another issue is that although you argue that the word, god , is vague, you do not use it in that manner, making your comments, in general, vague. If 'god' is vague, then we don't know who you are talking about.
•
These things in your argument, need to be explained, before arguing further, about god names, God as a name, so forth.

☆ Colossians 3:17
The name God, used separately, from the Abba, for example.

 

[nPeace]

I think you could have answered my question and then asked me this in response, as opposed to avoiding the question and leaving this as your response.

[USER=58562]

The need appeared once you split proskuneo into "obeisance" and "worship".

[USER=58562]

You explained this already. Let’s do a recap. I’m going back to your post #230 where you posted [B]terms and defintions:[/B]


[INDENT][B]worship[/B]
[I]verb[/I]
Love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol
(religion) [B]show devotion to (a deity[/B])

[B]obeisance[/B]
[I]noun[/I]
Bending the head or body or knee as a sign of reverence or submission or shame or greeting
The act of obeying; dutiful or submissive behavior [B]with[/B] [B]respect[/B] [B]to another person[/B]
deferential respect - a gesture expressing deferential respect, such as a bow or curtsy[/INDENT]


Do you see the difference Npeace? It comes from your definitions, the one you gave. Obeisance is behavior [B]with respect to[/B] [B][U]another person[/U][/B]. It is [B]NOT[/B] behavior with respect to another deity.

That’s what makes this proskuneo [B]secular.[/B] “Worldly” is the term I think Jehovah Witnesses like to use. It is of this planet, born of culture and tradition and not of heaven.

Now, take a look at your preferred definition of worship. Here we see it shows devotions to a [B]deity[/B]. Yes, that deity can be an object or another person but that person MUST BE DEITY, or perceived to be DEITY, in order for worship to take place. Otherwise any veneration, any reverence taking place is simply an engagement in obeisance.

That’s what makes this [B]worship[/B] (proskuneo) [B][I]spiritual[/I][/B]. Spiritual is not worldly but of God. It is something that matters to God or deity.

In short, I am not arguing your definition of obeisance or worship. [B]I am accepting the definition that you posted. [/B]I want to work with these definitions so we can have common ground as we take our walk together. We can then attentively listen and discuss your rationale. I just don’t understand how a JW can be confused and question attaching “secular” or “spiritual” to proskuneo, yet have no problem attaching terms like “true” or “false” to worship. Perhaps you can explain how that one works for me.

Obeisance is given the person, worship is given the deity. We are working with your definitions…refer to them with any questions.

We are now the long way back to my original questions. I’ve made some slight alterations in the hope of making them easier to answer:


[INDENT]1. We know the Magi came to worship Jesus. Did they come to render the same [I]secular proskuneo[/I] (obeisance) we might give an earthly magistrate, or did they come to give the [I]spiritual proskuneo[/I] (worship) that one gives Deity?

2. If the Magi came to give obeisance, what activity did Jesus engage in to earn this secular or worldly honor? Was he born to it in the manner of a king or prince? Was it conferred on him by the Jews, Romans or Jehovah?

3. How does your answer tie into Hockey Cowboy's statement that Christ had to be [B]given [/B]his kingship? Were the Magi "jumping the gun" by giving him "obeisance"? Were the gifts an early mistake?

One [I]bonus[/I] question, if it can be answered:

4. You allege the angels “proskuneo” Jesus ([URL='https://www.religiousforums.com/bible/hebrews/1:6/']Hebrews 1:6[/URL]) in the form of "obeisance", correct? It's the same deference and honor we give the President or judge who enters the court room. But we also know that in heaven, God is the King and God is the judge, so why would the angels follow earthly traditions and render secular, worldly obeisance to Jesus?[/INDENT]
[/user][/user]

Like I said here, I don't believe the problem is with the word, but with a personal leaning toward an unscriptural doctrine.
If for example, the Greek word was translated worship in every place, why would a person equate that worship to the kind of worship given to God, unless trying to support a teaching that is not scriptural?
The scriptures teach worship of the father, not the son. Matthew 4:10; John 4:24; Revelation 19:10.

This is why I wanted to know why there was a need to try to break down the words, as though... it seems to me an ongoing agreement over words. Interestingly this is something the apostles dealt with from those intent on deviating from truth.
2 Timothy 2:14-18
14 Keep reminding them of these things, instructing them before God not to fight about words, something of no usefulness at all because it harms those listening. 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth. . .

It seems to me, there is no need to fight about words, when we can simply take the word and prove the truth.
So the important questions to be answered, have already been answered.

Is Jesus Almighty God? The scriptures answer No.
Is Jesus equal to Almighty God. The scriptures answer No.
Is Jesus part of a Trinity? The scriptures answer No.

Why is there a need to debate this further?

 

[nPeace]

I have explained this so many times. Trinitarians still believe that Jesus is subservient to the Father, as He always has been. But just because you are subservient to someone does not make you inferior in nature. I gave the analogy between the human father and son, husband and wife etc... Subservient in purpose, not inferior in nature

Actually while we're here on this verse, can you explain the last part to me, "that God may be all in all", what does that mean?

Yes. we are still at this verse.
So do you agree that Jesus is not equal to Almighty God, nor is he God?
If you say he is God, please explain in what sense.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace

Lol yes, good avatar, huh. Heres a new one, though

I liked the other one better. I think it suits you better. Just saying.

 

[nPeace]

Just saying what...

That could mean different things.

Yeah? I don't know that.
Just saying ! liked the other one better.
What different things could it mean?

 

[GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER]

Jesus' relationship to God has always been a highly controversial and complex topic, so much so that most just throw their hands up in the air and claim that it is beyond our ability to comprehend (while simultaneously insisting their unintelligible view is correct). I am of the mind that much of this confusion stems from an attempt to interpret those passages that call Jesus God, in some sense, in the most literal of ways. In fact, there is plenty of precedent in scripture for those who are clearly not God himself being addressed as God or as "gods." And they insist upon this literal interpretation despite the abundance of scriptures which clearly differentiate Jesus from God.

Let us start by considering others who have been addressed as God/god: angels, such as the angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3), Moses (Exodus 7:1), and more generally the Jewish People (John 10:34). In none of these cases do we interpret these individuals as either literally being God or blasphemous. Rather, these are God's agents, his mediators, his people. Jesus, as the sole mediator between men and God under the New Covenant, as the one who has perfectly followed God's will, may thus appropriately be addressed as God in the same sense as others in the scripture without any need for a literal interpretation.

In fact, if we look at passages like Hebrews 1:8-9, while Jesus is addressed as God here, it simultaneously makes reference to Jesus' God (does God have a God?).

And if we look at passages like 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul makes clear that Jesus is both distinct and lesser than God:


1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent established by scripture with others who have been addressed as God.

You are preaching a false Jesus.

Jesus' relationship to God has always been a highly controversial and complex topic, so much so that most just throw their hands up in the air and claim that it is beyond our ability to comprehend (while simultaneously insisting their unintelligible view is correct). I am of the mind that much of this confusion stems from an attempt to interpret those passages that call Jesus God, in some sense, in the most literal of ways. In fact, there is plenty of precedent in scripture for those who are clearly not God himself being addressed as God or as "gods." And they insist upon this literal interpretation despite the abundance of scriptures which clearly differentiate Jesus from God.

Let us start by considering others who have been addressed as God/god: angels, such as the angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3), Moses (Exodus 7:1), and more generally the Jewish People (John 10:34). In none of these cases do we interpret these individuals as either literally being God or blasphemous. Rather, these are God's agents, his mediators, his people. Jesus, as the sole mediator between men and God under the New Covenant, as the one who has perfectly followed God's will, may thus appropriately be addressed as God in the same sense as others in the scripture without any need for a literal interpretation.

In fact, if we look at passages like Hebrews 1:8-9, while Jesus is addressed as God here, it simultaneously makes reference to Jesus' God (does God have a God?).

And if we look at passages like 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul makes clear that Jesus is both distinct and lesser than God:


1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent established by scripture with others who have been addressed as God.

The scriptures teach that God will judge at the great white throne, and we read that the judge is Christ. " I saw the dead small and great standing before God" we also read in the scripture that "the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son"

 

[iam1me]

☆Actually, in the New Testament, Jesus is called God.
In other words, if you are trying to present an argument that Jesus isn't called God, it's wrong.
This leaves, what is your argument. You haven't presented an argument, that would make Jesus, not God.

I mean, it's a really bad argument. That is why I said that what you wrote was obscure.
•another issue is that although you argue that the word, god , is vague, you do not use it in that manner, making your comments, in general, vague. If 'god' is vague, then we don't know who you are talking about.
•
These things in your argument, need to be explained, before arguing further, about god names, God as a name, so forth.

☆ Colossians 3:17
The name God, used separately, from the Abba, for example.

Incorrect - I fully accept that Jesus is addressed as God - just as angels, Moses, and the Jewish People have been called God and gods. In all these cases it is clear from the context that it is not literally God Almighty.

This position disarms many/most Trinitarian arguments - since they like to think all they have to do is show that Jesus is called God. This can be quite convincing - if you aren't familiar with the scriptures.

 

[iam1me]

You are preaching a false Jesus.

Jesus never taught the Trinity or claimed to be anything other than the Son of God - which Trinitarians reject.

The scriptures teach that God will judge at the great white throne, and we read that the judge is Christ. " I saw the dead small and great standing before God" we also read in the scripture that "the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son"

John 5:22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son

God has entrusted Christ with this role. We too shall participate in some fashion, for scripture declares we will judge the angels.

 

[GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER]

Jesus' relationship to God has always been a highly controversial and complex topic, so much so that most just throw their hands up in the air and claim that it is beyond our ability to comprehend (while simultaneously insisting their unintelligible view is correct). I am of the mind that much of this confusion stems from an attempt to interpret those passages that call Jesus God, in some sense, in the most literal of ways. In fact, there is plenty of precedent in scripture for those who are clearly not God himself being addressed as God or as "gods." And they insist upon this literal interpretation despite the abundance of scriptures which clearly differentiate Jesus from God.

Let us start by considering others who have been addressed as God/god: angels, such as the angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3), Moses (Exodus 7:1), and more generally the Jewish People (John 10:34). In none of these cases do we interpret these individuals as either literally being God or blasphemous. Rather, these are God's agents, his mediators, his people. Jesus, as the sole mediator between men and God under the New Covenant, as the one who has perfectly followed God's will, may thus appropriately be addressed as God in the same sense as others in the scripture without any need for a literal interpretation.

In fact, if we look at passages like Hebrews 1:8-9, while Jesus is addressed as God here, it simultaneously makes reference to Jesus' God (does God have a God?).

And if we look at passages like 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul makes clear that Jesus is both distinct and lesser than God:


1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent established by scripture with others who have been addressed as God.

Saul "compelled Christians to blaspheme" obviously as a strict Jew he was not compelling them to blaspheme the father but the Son. Saul did this before he became Paul the Apostle. you can only blaspheme God.
Acts 26:11 "And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."
It is basic Elementary teaching of the scripture that Jesus is co-equal and Co Eternal with the father.

 

[Desert Snake]

Incorrect - I fully accept that Jesus is addressed as God - just as angels, Moses, and the Jewish People have been called God and gods. In all these cases, it is clear from the context that it is not literally God Almighty.

The name, and word, it's both, God, is contextual, to descriptor. In other words, you can't use examples from Judaism, or Hebrew, to prove your argument. ☆The name, God, is contextual, to itself.


☆ anytime it is used, cross languages

 

[nPeace]

Saul "compelled Christians to blaspheme" obviously as a strict Jew he was not compelling them to blaspheme the father but the Son. Saul did this before he became Paul the Apostle. you can only blaspheme God.
Acts 26:11 "And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."
It is basic Elementary teaching of the scripture that Jesus is co-equal and Co Eternal with the father.

How can Jesus be co-equal and Co Eternal with the father, when Jesus did not always exist, and came into being?

 

[Thinking Homer]

Yes. we are still at this verse.
So do you agree that Jesus is not equal to Almighty God, nor is he God?
If you say he is God, please explain in what sense.

This is what Trinitarians believe:
Jesus is God
Father is God
Holy Spirit is God

But Jesus is not the Father, nor is the Father the Holy Spirit. They are three separate persons, but within one entity known as God.

I define God the following way:
1) A being that is not bound by the laws of physics
2) A being that has authority over all creation

 

[GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER]

How can Jesus be co-equal and Co Eternal with the father, when Jesus did not always exist, and came into being?

Christ is not mutable, the scripture makes it abundantly clear that he is immutable.
Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." If Christ was mutable what you are saying would be absolutely true, it was Jesus who said "before Abraham was I am"

 

[nPeace]

This is what Trinitarians believe:
Jesus is God
Father is God
Holy Spirit is God

But Jesus is not the Father, nor is the Father the Holy Spirit. They are three separate persons, but within one entity known as God.

I define God the following way:
1) A being that is not bound by the laws of physics
2) A being that has authority over all creation

Does the scriptures define God in the way you do, because the angels are not bound by the laws of physics. So are they God?
What do you mean by

authority over all creation

 

[GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER]

This is a sermon i wrote two years ago maybe it will help.
TITLE: The ONLY one true Jesus &
gospel declared.
SCRIPTURE: 2 Corinthians 11:4 "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
1 Corinthians 15:1"I declare unto you the gospel..."
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
PROPOSITION: to use these texts and others to show who the one true Jesus is, and what the one true gospel is. and to show that a counterfeit Jesus and gospel can never save. and also to show that anyone can be saved through the one true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ no matter how many sins they may have committed, because through the gospel Christ became a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind by answering God's just demands in an irrefutable way. In the words "it is finished" we see Justice satisfied, and the sin debt paid.
1.Who is the one true Jesus?
A. The one true Jesus is 100% man without the sin nature, he had no earthly father, but was"made of a woman made under the law" he was of the actual seed of Abraham, born of a virgin.
Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall CONCEIVE, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
B.The one true Jesus is referred to as the "man child" and and he referred to himself as the "Son of man". the scripture declares that there is only one kind of flesh for men and the one true Jesus "became flesh and dwelt among us".
Revelation 12:5 "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne..."
1 Corinthians 15:39 "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
C. The one true Jesus is also 100% God, Christ said "before Abraham was I Am" he is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. He is "the same yesterday, today and forever". he "was with God and was God" and is the creator of all things.
John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made."
D. The one true Jesus is worshiped by angles and men as He should be. Christ never refused this homage because of his worthiness.
Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
Matthew 8:2 "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean."
2.) Why did the one true Jesus have to be 100% God and 100% man at the same time to be a saviour for sinners?
A. In order to fulfill scripture the seed of the woman must bruise the serpents head, and the only way this could happen is if God became a man. Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
B. Because the law was given to men and as sinners all mankind are under the curse of it, It was necessary that the Savior be a man and be placed under the law so that he might fulfill the law and provide a righteousness for those he would purchase through his blood.
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Galatians 4:4-5 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, MADE OF A WOMEN, MADE UNDER THE LAW, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."
C. Because Christ is God and holy by nature he is separate from all that is common or unclean, he is also positively pure having a perfect love for God and man. Only the perfect God man could make the statement that "he always did those things which please the father", and only the perfect God man could challenge his hearers in asking "which one of you convinces me of sin". The Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who could have offered himself for sinners "as a lamb without blemish and without spot" to the glory of God the Father.
3.) Why do some religionists preach a counterfeit Jesus?
A. The scripture makes it very clear that anyone who teaches that Jesus was not "made of a woman" and of the actual seed of Abraham is "a deciever and an antichrist." 2 John 1:7 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
B. The scripture also makes it clear that Christ is God and the creator of all things, anyone who would deny this is just as much a minister of Satan as those who would deny Jesus his humanity.
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
Titus 1:16 "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
4.) What is the only one true gospel?
A. The only one true gospel is that the one true Jesus "died for our sins". When the scripture says Christ died for our sins it means that Christ made a full payment for our sins, he vindicated the glory, majesty and the law of God through his infinite but temporal suffering.
1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."
B. The only one true Gospel is that the one true Jesus "was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"
This was a bodily resurrection, the tomb was empty the disciples felt the nail scars in his hands, and also felt the scar in his side. Christ's resurrection demonstrated that he was all that he claimed to be, and that his power, and might were infinite.
John 10:17-18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
C.The only one true gospel is that Christ is the ONLY Saviour and that our character, religious affections, and righteousness cannot save us, only damn us. in short, sinners cannot be their own saviour, or in anyway help Christ save them.
Romans 11:6 "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
D. The only one true gospel is that even though we deserve God's infinite displeasure because of our iniquity, God through the ONLY one true Jesus has "abolished death and brought life and immortality through the gospel."
2 Timothy 1:9-10 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"
Question: Have you received a counterfeit Christ? Have you embraced a counterfeit gospel of self effort? Have you put all your trust in the ONLY one true Jesus? If you are not trusting Christ ALONE, than you have never repented of your sins and if you die in this state of death you will know eternal death and perfect despair, your "worm shall not die neither shall your fire be quenched"
Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
CONCLUSION: Counterfeiters only counterfeit that which has great worth they never counterfeit trash, but the counterfeit is always trash. Satan is the great counterfeiter, and he would love to offer you a counterfeit Christ, a counterfeit Spirit, and a counterfeit gospel of works salvation, don't fall for the trash he offers! Repent of your sins and receive the Only one true Christ and gospel today!
Mark 1:15 "And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."