Jesus is not God

[YoursTrue]

There are a couple of points that need to be addressed here.

1) You are referring to the person of Jesus who became human and not what he was before he was in human form (Jesus). As “The Word”, pre-incarnate, he was God.

Hi, Kenny. I can't vouch for that, although I know he--Jesus-- was next to God and had the title of God or god or a god depending on translation but there is not a description in John 1 that says there were three equal godpersons each and all equal to the other and forming one God of sort. And I say 'of sort' because it was God with God before the one also said to be in the category of God came down from heaven to be with man. I'd have to look up more about the use of capital and lower case letters in the early manuscripts.

 

[Kenny]

Hi, Kenny. I can't vouch for that, although I know he--Jesus-- was next to God and had the title of God or god or a god depending on translation but there is not a description in John 1 that says there were three equal godpersons each and all equal to the other and forming one God of sort. And I say 'of sort' because it was God with God before the one also said to be in the category of God came down from heaven to be with man. I'd have to look up more about the use of capital and lower case letters in the early manuscripts.

I accept that there are differences in positions on this subject.

If I am not mistaken, the original Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters.

 

[jimb]

God is an appellation, like man is an appellation or title. Not a name. I don't know anyone who is named at birth 'man'. Maybe there are people named Man or Woman or Boy or Girl or Transvestite. Maybe you know.

I know that you're not making any sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that you're not making any sense.

To you.

 

[jimb]

To you.

Even someone who is totally insane thinks that s/he is making sense. It is the person who receives the information that makes the determination.

Again, you are not making sense, even if you think that you are.

 

[blü 2]

Well , for start it has to do with his literal reading and understanding of the Bible while he was studying it.

How is that a vice? How else is any historian to approach any ancient document?

Yes , for example in his discussion with Peter J Williams he says
"Jesus is not God in the Synoptic Gospels"

Yes, that's correct. There are five versions of Jesus in the NT, and each of them denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

Don't take my word for it. Here yet again are some of the relevant quotes: >Jesus Failed Right?<.

And nowhere does Jesus say, "I am God". Indeed if he were God, his entire ministry as recorded in the NT would be based on a fundamental deceit.

Also, if Jesus is in fact God, then why does he pray to God? Do you think the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, on the cross, cried out, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" Or that in the garden scene in each gospel, Jesus prayed to himself, "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me"?

Jesus doesn't get to be God until the adoption of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century.

 

[YoursTrue]

Even someone who is totally insane thinks that s/he is making sense. It is the person who receives the information that makes the determination.

Again, you are not making sense, even if you think that you are.

so if someone calls you Man, are you a man? Is that your name?

 

[YoursTrue]

I accept that there are differences in positions on this subject.

If I am not mistaken, the original Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters.

Thank you again for your considerate posts. If I recall correctly, yes, I believe the original mss were written in all capital letters. I'll try to do some research on that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I think any attempt on my part to reason with you, is futile.

But here goes….

You are wrong here:

There is no reference to the Father in this verse, only a reference to God and Christ. You presuppose that God means Father only. Here is the verse again:

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

If you’ll recall, I said John 17:1-3… you shouldn’t take verses out of context, you know that. Don’t you?

John 17 begins:
‘Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh, so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”’

So yes, Jesus did mean His Father is “the only true God.”

I never said the Tetragrammaton is found in any extant copies of the NT. But it is found in copies of the OT. Over 6800 times.

Like in Deuteronomy 6:4 (ASV):
4 Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah:

I see you left it out. As do the majority of trinitarian translators, which supports their agenda, doesn’t it?

So….in Joel 2:32, where Joel is quoted in the ASV as writing:
“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered…”

…or Proverbs 18:10 (ASV):
“The name of Jehovah is a strong tower; The righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”

…How will people call on His name, be “safe” and “be delivered”, if they’re not taught it?

This is the One who ‘made Jesus, our Lord and Savior’ (Acts 2:36).

Yahweh / Jehovah is Jesus’ “God” and “Father” (John 20:17), the One who “gave Jesus the name that is above every name…” — Philippians 2:9-11.

And now Jesus has “sat down at the right hand of The Majesty on High” (Hebrews 1:3; note that Jesus isn’t the Majesty), the One who is his “God.” (Jesus speaking at Revelation 3:12 (ASV)…”He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name”)

So I’ll worship Jesus’ God, Yahweh, exclusively… everyone else should, too, since that’s what He requires. (Exodus 20:1-6) And He doesn’t change. — Malachi 3:6.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is mathematically impossible to be both the first and the last.

No it isn’t, come on.

Anything unique, is the first and the last!

It even applies to me: I am the first and the last son of my mother.
I’m her only son.

 

[jimb]

To you.

Of course to me. Do you think I have multiple personalities?

You are making no sense -- again.

 

[jimb]

No it isn’t, come on.

Anything unique, is the first and the last!

It even applies to me: I am the first and the last son of my mother.
I’m her only son.

I am unique (as is every person), but I am the middle of three siblings.

You are still making no sense.

 

[Oeste]

Of course, Jesus was created by God, that is, by His Will and on His Command - a command which came from God Himself – that’s how God creates anything or anyone, that is, God creates just by uttering a word/command and since the word was uttered by God, we said it’s the Word of God.

That is certainly an aberrant reading of John 1:1!

This appears to be you own, personal reading not shared by any Christian church on the forum.

It is what Psalm 33:9 said – “For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm”.

Jesus is the Word, so this verse is in reference to Jesus.

- God created Jesus WITHOUT the interaction of a man, and
- God created mankind WITH the interaction of a man and a woman

First, you incorrectly claim Jesus was created, and then you incorrectly claim God created mankind WITH the interaction of a man and woman. How and why would God need a man and woman to create mankind if mankind is still awaiting its creation??

That's a new one @JerryMyers! Can you support your claim with evidence? A few scriptures perhaps??

Do you think God is incapable of creating Jesus just by commanding it to be??

Why would God need to create God? There is but one God, not two.

‘All scripture is inspired..’ is directed to the ORIGINAL scripture, NOT to the Bible you have today. The Bible you have today is a copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy …….. of a translated copy of a translated copy ….of the original scripture. By today, the Bible you have is already a mixture of truth and lies. The corruption of the scripture even happened in Jeremiah’s time and this is evidenced when God told Jeremiah to tell his people “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?” – Jeremiah 8:8

Now, why would God has said that if the scribes (inspired??) have NOT mishandled the scripture??

Ah! You do not hold the Old Testament as credible, let alone the New Testament as inspired and/or authentic. That goes a long way toward explaining your prior posts, especially your claims that we should throw Paul and other disciples under the bus.

But here's the rub:

If you don't believe the Old or NT, or if you cannot even hold, for the sake of argument, to their authenticity, then there is little point in debating Christian scripture with you because you would consider any scripture quoted as inherently bogus.

In any event, I appreciate the conversation and the fact you took time to share your perspectives with fellow readers on the forum.

 

[Oeste]

Yes, that's correct. There are five versions of Jesus in the NT, and each of them denies that he's God and never claims to be God.

Don't take my word for it.

I really don't understand the argument. If I ask 5 different people about @blü 2, am I going to get the same stories and recollections from each of them?

Way, way back in the day, when I read Marvel Comics, we got the SAME story as there was only one writer, Stan Lee. When we read scripture, we get different stories and perspectives, as the works of Jesus affected each apostle differently.

This ADDS to the authenticity of the biblical narrative. It does nothing to subtract from it. The apostles wrote about their experiences, they weren't reciting it from a document named Q. You make the same mistake of Ehrman: the accounts are not contradictory, they are complimentary.

Also, if Jesus is in fact God, then why does he pray to God?

My goodness, you appear to raise questions without bothering to read any answers!

I believe the Trinity doctrine states, quite explicitly, that Jesus is man. So tell us why, as the Son of Man, would it be uncommon for Jesus to pray to his Father???

Do you think the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, on the cross, cried out, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?"

This has already been answered on this thread, yet you ask the same question, over and over. The Son of Man died on the cross. The Son of God did not as he cannot die. He doesn't lie either. So when he says he is the truth, the way and the life, he is literally speaking the truth.

Or that in the garden scene in each gospel, Jesus prayed to himself, "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me"?

Why wouldn't he pray to the Father*? We've explained this to you before. Telling or showing that Jesus is a Son of Man does NOTHING to show he was not also God.

And nowhere does Jesus say, "I am God".

And this meant he wasn't God to you?

Well you may be shocked to learn, but it's true:

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am Man".
Tell readers if this means "Jesus is not man" to you.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am a prophet".
Let us know if this means "Jesus is not a prophet" to you.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am Lord".
Tell us if this means "Jesus is not Lord" to you.

Your argument is inconsistent Blu. If you really believed Jesus is not God because Jesus never said he was God, then you should believe Jesus was not man, prophet or Lord for the exact same reason. You certainly wouldn't be showing us scriptures where Jesus is man, because Jesus never said "I am Man!"

Jesus is all these things: God, Man, Prophet and Lord and "NO", he doesn't have to say "I am God" when the Father has already told us Jesus is God:

But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;​

a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.​

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;​

therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions​

by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (Hebrews 1:8-9)​

Since the Father Himself says the Son is God, why would anyone think differently?

*Edit: added "pray to the Father", above.

 

[Oeste]

Question pertaining to the Trinity. Do you think Jesus had a dual nature?

Yes, absolutely!

=========================================================

I think any attempt on my part to reason with you, is futile.

But here goes….

Lol, I was thinking the same of you... all in a good way of course.

But here goes....

If you’ll recall, I said John 17:1-3… you shouldn’t take verses out of context, you know that. Don’t you?

Of course, just as you know the same.

John 17 begins:
‘Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh, so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”’

Excellent verse!

So yes, Jesus did mean His Father is “the only true God.”

Yes, he did, and the one whom He sent, Jesus Christ.

The Trinity doesn't claim the Father is one God while Jesus is another. Both Jesus and the Father are truly God, just as the Spirit is truly God.

I know you disagree, but, just for the sake of argument, let's all assume you are correct, and the Father is "the only true God" and not the one whom he had sent

Now we go to John 1:1. Here I quote from the New World Translation:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.​

The WT tells us "a god" is Jesus Christ. If the Father is the only true God and Jesus is a God, then Jesus is a False God because only the Father is a true God. (There were no capital letters in either Hebrew or Greek at the time)

Any interpretation that implies the Father is the only "true" God unfairly places Jesus as a false God, as any God not true is false. I would also remind you that Jesus is God according to the Watchtower, in fact, a "Mighty God", just as scripture declares. The argument is still on their website, and "Jesus is a Mighty God" is a difficult argument to reconcile with the JW's on this forum who argue he's not God at all.

This is not to mention that Christians have one God, but never a so-called God (1 Cor 8:5). Lastly, I've already pointed out that even the Father says Jesus is God at Hebrews 1:8. In short, given that the Father, the WT, and scripture state Jesus is God, the only way "the Father alone" is the only true God is if Jesus is false God.

 

[jimb]

I really don't understand the argument. If I ask 5 different people about @blü 2, am I going to get the same stories and recollections from each of them?

Way, way back in the day, when I read Marvel Comics, we got the SAME story as there was only one writer, Stan Lee. When we read scripture, we get different stories and perspectives, as the works of Jesus affected each apostle differently.

This ADDS to the authenticity of the biblical narrative. It does nothing to subtract from it. The apostles wrote about their experiences, they weren't reciting it from a document named Q. You make the same mistake of Ehrman: the accounts are not contradictory, they are complimentary.



My goodness, you appear to raise questions without bothering to read any answers!

I believe the Trinity doctrine states, quite explicitly, that Jesus is man. So tell us why, as the Son of Man, would it be uncommon for Jesus to pray to his Father???



This has already been answered on this thread, yet you ask the same question, over and over. The Son of Man died on the cross. The Son of God did not as he cannot die. He doesn't lie either. So when he says he is the truth, the way and the life, he is literally speaking the truth.


Why wouldn't he? We've explained this to you before. Telling or showing that Jesus is a Son of Man does NOTHING to show he was not also God.



And this meant he wasn't God to you?

Well you may be shocked to learn, but it's true:

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am Man".
Tell readers if this means "Jesus is not man" to you.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am a prophet".
Let us know if this means "Jesus is not a prophet" to you.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am Lord".
Tell us if this means "Jesus is not Lord" to you.

Your argument is inconsistent Blu. If you really believed Jesus is not God because Jesus never said he was God, then you should believe Jesus was not man, prophet or Lord for the exact same reason. You certainly wouldn't be showing us scriptures where Jesus is man, because Jesus never said "I am Man!"

Jesus is all these things: God, Man, Prophet and Lord and "NO", he doesn't have to say "I am God" when the Father has already told us Jesus is God:

But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;​

a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.​

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;​

therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions​

by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (Hebrews 1:8-9)​

Since the Father Himself says the Son is God, why would anyone think differently?

I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to understand this simple fact: Jesus was God; Jesus became human and was sacrificed; Jesus became God again.

It's not that complicated.

 

[jimb]

Here is a quote from Augustine's "Tractates on the Gospel of John" that is truly excellent...

"In coming to the world, Christ came forth in such a sense from the Father that he did not leave the Father behind. And when he leaves the world, he goes to the Father in such a sense that he does not forsake the world. For he came forth from the Father because he is of the Father. And he came into the world in showing to the world his bodily form that he had received from the Virgin. He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, he proceeded to the Father by his ascension as man, but he did not forsake the world in the ruling activity of his presence."

 

[Balthazzar]

Here is a quote from Augustine's "Tractates on the Gospel of John" that is truly excellent...

"In coming to the world, Christ came forth in such a sense from the Father that he did not leave the Father behind. And when he leaves the world, he goes to the Father in such a sense that he does not forsake the world. For he came forth from the Father because he is of the Father. And he came into the world in showing to the world his bodily form that he had received from the Virgin. He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, he proceeded to the Father by his ascension as man, but he did not forsake the world in the ruling activity of his presence."

A day in the life of a living soul, the life and birth of two souls in one, from before birth to after death, and "whose" contributions to the world remain, as an active presence in the lives of those on similar journeys.

??

 

[jimb]

A day in the life of a living soul, the life and birth of two souls in one, from before birth to after death, and who's contributions to the world remain, as an active presence in the lives of those on similar journeys.

??

"who's" is grammatically wrong. It should be "whose".

 

[Balthazzar]

Edited ...