Jesus is not God

[Oeste]

Oeste said:
I'm not sure where you or @cataway got this bizarre notion that Trinitarians know better than God and Jesus. I'm sure one of you can quote a reliable source with your next post.

That’s simple to explain -
We understand God Almighty by what He said of Himself,

Interesting. Who is this "We" besides yourself?

I doubt it includes cataway, as she is a JW, and here understanding of Jesus is distinctly different from your own.

Virtually all Christian groups accept the fact that Jesus is God, they just understand how he is God in different ways. Even Oneness Pentecostals understand Jesus is God, and while neither group accepts the Trinity, they at least accept that.

and likewise, we understand Jesus by what he said about himself and his actions, responses, and reactions when faced with certain situations. Other people may have their takes of God Almighty and His prophet Jesus, BUT, their takes MUST NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty has declared of Himself and what Jesus has said of himself.

Neither must it CONTRADICT Hebrews 1:8. But of course, you throw Paul under the bus and declare scripture a mixture of truth and lies, based on a personal and rather tenuous eisegesis of Jeremiah 8:8 that no major Christian group shares.

If God Almighty has declared Himself, on number of times, that HE IS the ONLY God and Savior, besides Him there’s no God,

Exactly what Trinitarians claim as well.

and Jesus, on many occasions, has distinctly distinguished himself from God, and even told Satan to worship ONLY God, so, when the Trinitarians make the fantastic claim that Jesus is God himself, full God and full man, one has to wonder whether the Trinitarians know something more that even God Almighty Himself and His prophet Jesus are not aware of such thing, simply put, in that context, the Trinitarians seem to know better than God Almighty and His prophet Jesus know themselves.

No, that is simply something you believe you know that Trinitarians do not. God never claimed Jesus was not God, and Jesus never made this claim either.

Also, as I already pointed out, any scripture you quote will be scripture you believe is mixed with truth and lies. In short it's scripture you don't believe in, unless you have some yet to be disclosed method where you separate our bible's scriptural lies from truth.

If you have such a process, I recommend sharing it with readers, so that it can be properly evaluated.

God Almighty DOES NOT beget, humans and animals do!

Ah! And who told you this? The Baháʼu'lláh?

If his words are what you use to process truth from fiction in our bible that you claim is "mixed with truth and lies", why not just say so??

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
The Father is speaking in the first person here. He says the Son is God.

No, He did not say that. Can you show me where in the whole Bible did God say' the Son is God'??

Oeste said:
Then we are right back to where we started, concerning the veracity of Scripture, and whether Hebrews and other books should be ripped from the canon.
"And to the Son..." is located in Hebrews 1:8. It shows the Father addressing someone else besides Himself as God. This God is the Son, and he does not come under condemnation or judgement, so he, the Son, is in fact God.

And we also know that Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation taken from Psalm 45 in which ‘’And to the son….’ was NOT mentioned at all.

As I said before, this is what the authors of the NT normally do – they will quote OT verses, make subtle changes to showcase Jesus as God, and present it in the NT as ‘inspired’ writings!! And the Trinitarians think they have God’s Words with them when the lying pens of the scribes/NT authors have made it a book of truth and lies!

Oeste said:
In any event, the book of John tells us Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. He is the only begotten Son of God, and the begotten is always the same as the begetter. It's the pattern made by our Creator, Jesus Christ:

Well, not really, David was also the ‘begotten son’ of God as we are told in Psalm 2.

- “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” – Psalm 2:7 KJV.

Oeste said:
Since you do not believe Paul, at the very least you may have come to accept and believe in the pattern set by Christ. So I will ask you the same question I asked our Unitarian friends earlier. Perhaps you will have an answer that does not involve a hefty dose of circular logic:
The only begotten Son of Frog is Frog.
The only begotten Son of Dog is Dog.
The only begotten Son of Man is Man.
The only begotten Son of God is ______?
If you can answer this question in a logically consistent manner, without the use of circular logic, or denial that God has a begotten Son, we can proceed with our discussion of whether Jesus is God.
Of course, since we are discussing scripture, readers would only expect your answer to be supported by same.

Again, you are judging God Almighty by human standards when He’s ABOVE all of His Creations and He is beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

Claiming Jesus is God and believing Jesus himself claimed to be God, IS accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

Trinitarians are no different than the Jews who said to Jesus, “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” – John 10:33

Now, if Jesus opposed the Jews for saying that he claimed to be God, why make you think Jesus will not oppose you for saying the same thing???

Try to give a logical and rational response.

Oeste said:
I don't want you to think I am ignoring what you've posted, so I will give some brief answers:
You’re missing the point here…God making this happen is a lot to get excited about! Without His willingness, we and creation would be nothing. At that point there’ nothing to be excited about because we’re not there.

But then again, you don’t believe God created Jesus, or to put it in other words, you don’t believe God Almighty is capable of creating Jesus, although you believe God created Adam and Eve but somehow, He is incapable of creating Jesus, right?

Oeste said:
C'mon @JerryMyers, let's give our Unitarian friends a bit more credit than that.
Take a walk into any Kingdom Hall or invite a JW to a "bible" study. They may smile and say your view is "interesting", but I don't think they'll run it up the chain of command with a suggestion it be implemented by their Governing Board. Ditto for any other Unitarian Church. And while you will be free to bring up your own personal beliefs at study, they'll expect any such belief to be over and done with by the time you get baptized.
Failing that, a warning rather than an endorsement will be given to the Congregation.
I'm not picking on them. This will be true for virtually any Christian church you come into.

C’mon @Oeste, JW, Unitarian, and Muslims all rejected the trinity/Jesus is God – that’s the primary, their rendering of certain Biblical verses is secondary.
When God Almighty Himself has declared clearly who He is, and Jesus himself has denied he’s God, then, the Trinitarians ‘justifications’ for claiming Jesus is God are just noises, just like the Jews who accused Jesus of blasphemy – just noises.

Oeste said:
This has yet to be explained by you. Can you elaborate?

I don’t quite get you here – are you saying you don’t believe God created mankind??
And you still have not answered me – “Do you think God is incapable of creating Jesus by just commanding and willing it to exist?

Oeste said:
Here you claim that nothing in scripture can be trusted because we don't have the "ORIGINAL" or autographs. This tosses out both Old and New Testaments.

You still CANNOT understand the phrase ‘a mixture of truth and lies’. You seemed to understand ‘a mixture of truth and lies’ to mean ‘100% lies’ which is NOT what I am saying.

Oeste said:
Do you understand why scripture needed to be copied and recopied? Are you aware of the mechanics in place to assure it was copied correctly?

Well, why don’t you tell me …... and let’s see how well you understand that.

Oeste said:
Here's a good example. Please explain, if our bible cannot be trusted, and since this is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, the process you used to determine this was a "true" verse from our bible, and not a "false" verse by some scribe playing a prank?
Don't worry about what I think about this verse. I happen to think it's true. What I don't think is our bible is corrupted. A corrupted bible is something YOU believe in. The odds that our scriptures have been corrupted by scribes since the time of Jeremiah are about nil. So, since you believe our bible corrupted, tell us how you were able to ascertain this particular verse from Jeremiah was a "true" verse and not one of the lying verses you've warned us about? I'm sure you've researched the matter.

‘A copy of a copy of a copy…. ‘ is NOT a process I use to determine what is true and what is false in the Bible - are you crazy?! ….. and I have told you how I determine what is true and what could be false, misinterpreted, mistranslated, or fabricated, in the context of who God Almighty is and who Jesus is ... Don’t you ever read what I wrote? No wonder, you keep repeating the same question over and over again when that has been responded to.

Oeste said:
Read what the biblical text says more closely. This is a great example of eisegesis, where you insert your own meaning into the text.

Do you mean like what the writer of Hebrews 1:8 did with Psalm 45 by inserting “ .. and to the Son ..” which is NOT in Psalm 45? Maybe it’s you who should read the biblical texts more closely, ya?

Oeste said:
Very good @JerryMyers. Now tell us, was this the scribes only role, or did they perform other services as well?
I think once you understand the role of the scribes, you will understand why Jesus railed against them. You'll also understand why it was necessary for Jesus to confirm that scripture was not and cannot be broken.

Very good, @Oeste. Now tell us have Jesus ever quoted any passage from the NT as the Trinitarians always do??
As I said before, Jesus NEVER knew the NT so, he cannot be confirming the NT scripture. In other words, the one you heavily rely upon to ‘support’ your belief, IS NOT confirmed by Jesus.

Oeste said:
I've already told you I believe Jeremiah 8:8. I just don't believe anything you've told us about it.
Again, show us where in Jeremiah 8:8 does it tell us our bible is corrupt and cannot be trusted. I think you've somehow conflated the "lying pen of the scribes" with "the Word of God" or the inspired text, which is nonsense.

And I have told you that your Bible is a copy of a copy of a copy….. of the original manuscript. What became corrupted are the copies made by the scribes, NOT the original manuscript before it was copied, which is the Law of God.

Oeste said:
Lying pen of the scribes = Word of God is simply not found in scripture. True, we find it in your commentary, but nowhere do we find where these lying pens were ever mixed or comingled into scripture. That is simply another fantastic claim I suspect is heavily endorsed by non-believers.

I don’t quite follow you here – is it not that anything God says IS the Word of God as it was God who said it???

Oeste said:
Your rendering of John 1:1 is still aberrant. The Word does not have to "become" anything to create anything. The Word of God predates creation, so the Word does not need to become a man to create man into existence. Neither does it have to become light in order for light to exist. Ditto for squirrels and gnats. The Word does not become these things to create these things.

There is The Creator and there is the created result. In the context of John 1:1, the Word of God is the Command/Word which was uttered by The Creator and that Command/Word becomes a man, which is the result of that Command/Word which The Creator uttered.
Why is that so difficult to understand??

Oeste said:
"LET" not "CREATE". God did not have to create light because He IS the light.

Well, that’s because God Creates by just uttering a word/the Word of God, unlike how humans create anything. Are you questioning God on how He should Create anything/anyone???

Oeste said:
Not at all.

Hmmm, you did say God IS the Light (literally!), now you don’t think God meant to say “Let there be God” when God says “Let there be Light”??
So, what do you think “God is the Light” really mean??

Oeste said:
Well, simply show us where God or Jesus states scripture is a mixture of truth and lies. You keep pointing to Jeremiah, forgetting that Jesus had already affirmed scripture cannot be broken, and this long after Jeremiah was written.
Also, you may want to quote exactly where in scripture God says Jesus is the only prophet to be believed.

When did I ever say or imply Jesus is the only prophet to be believed???

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
Interesting. Who is this "We" besides yourself?
I doubt it includes cataway, as she is a JW, and here understanding of Jesus is distinctly different from your own.
Virtually all Christian groups accept the fact that Jesus is God, they just understand how he is God in different ways. Even Oneness Pentecostals understand Jesus is God, and while neither group accepts the Trinity, they at least accept that.

“We” would refer to all of us who know God Almighty by what He has declared of Himself, and Jesus by what he has said of himself, and by his actions, by his reactions when faced with certain situations. (I thought I did tell you that)

“Us” might exclude those who understand God and Jesus NOT by God’s Words, and Jesus' words, BUT, they know God and Jesus by what they have been told by other people. Is that clear enough?

Oeste said:
Neither must it CONTRADICT Hebrews 1:8. But of course, you throw Paul under the bus and declare scripture a mixture of truth and lies, based on a personal and rather tenuous eisegesis of Jeremiah 8:8 that no major Christian group shares.

Think you got that WRONG. That's like saying God Almighty must not contradict Paul/Hebrews 1:8 when it should be Paul/Hebrews 1:8 that MUST NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty already DECLARED OF HIMSELF.

Oeste said:
Exactly what Trinitarians claim as well.

WELL, It may be what the Trinitarians claimed (God Almighty IS the ONLY ONE God and Savior, besides Him there’s no God), BUT it’s NOT what the Trinitarians believe and preach.

Oeste said:
No, that is simply something you believe you know that Trinitarians do not. God never claimed Jesus was not God, and Jesus never made this claim either.

Can you quote the verse from the scripture where God Almighty said or implied Jesus is God??

Oeste said:
Also, as I already pointed out, any scripture you quote will be scripture you believe is mixed with truth and lies. In short it's scripture you don't believe in, unless you have some yet to be disclosed method where you separate our bible's scriptural lies from truth.
If you have such a process, I recommend sharing it with readers, so that it can be properly evaluated.

I have told you many times, Biblical verses that DID NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty already DECLARED OF HIMSELF, and what Jesus already said of himself, can be accepted as true. Hebrews 1:8 surely contradicted what God Almighty already declared of Himself.

Oeste said:
Ah! And who told you this? The Baháʼu'lláh?
If his words are what you use to process truth from fiction in our bible that you claim is "mixed with truth and lies", why not just say so??

Ah! So, you believe God Almighty begets! Can you show me which part of the scripture you think clearly said or implied God begets??

Do you know most of today's English-translated Bibles, have all removed the word ‘begotten’ in their versions of John 3:16?? I think only the KJV still has the word 'begotten' while the rest had removed the word 'begotten' from their John 3:16 versions. I wonder why?

 

[Soapy]

Oeste said:
Interesting. Who is this "We" besides yourself?
I doubt it includes cataway, as she is a JW, and here understanding of Jesus is distinctly different from your own.
Virtually all Christian groups accept the fact that Jesus is God, they just understand how he is God in different ways. Even Oneness Pentecostals understand Jesus is God, and while neither group accepts the Trinity, they at least accept that.

“We” would refer to all of us who know God Almighty by what He has declared of Himself, and Jesus by what he has said of himself, and by his actions, by his reactions when faced with certain situations. (I thought I did tell you that)

“Us” might exclude those who understand God and Jesus NOT by God’s Words, and Jesus' words, BUT, they know God and Jesus by what they have been told by other people. Is that clear enough?

Oeste said:
Neither must it CONTRADICT Hebrews 1:8. But of course, you throw Paul under the bus and declare scripture a mixture of truth and lies, based on a personal and rather tenuous eisegesis of Jeremiah 8:8 that no major Christian group shares.

Think you got that WRONG. That's like saying God Almighty must not contradict Paul/Hebrews 1:8 when it should be Paul/Hebrews 1:8 that MUST NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty already DECLARED OF HIMSELF.

Oeste said:
Exactly what Trinitarians claim as well.

WELL, It may be what the Trinitarians claimed (God Almighty IS the ONLY ONE God and Savior, besides Him there’s no God), BUT it’s NOT what the Trinitarians believe and preach.

Oeste said:
No, that is simply something you believe you know that Trinitarians do not. God never claimed Jesus was not God, and Jesus never made this claim either.

Can you quote the verse from the scripture where God Almighty said or implied Jesus is God??

Oeste said:
Also, as I already pointed out, any scripture you quote will be scripture you believe is mixed with truth and lies. In short it's scripture you don't believe in, unless you have some yet to be disclosed method where you separate our bible's scriptural lies from truth.
If you have such a process, I recommend sharing it with readers, so that it can be properly evaluated.

I have told you many times, Biblical verses that DID NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty already DECLARED OF HIMSELF, and what Jesus already said of himself, can be accepted as true. Hebrews 1:8 surely contradicted what God Almighty already declared of Himself.

Oeste said:
Ah! And who told you this? The Baháʼu'lláh?
If his words are what you use to process truth from fiction in our bible that you claim is "mixed with truth and lies", why not just say so??

Ah! So, you believe God Almighty begets! Can you show me which part of the scripture you think clearly said or implied God begets??

Do you know most of today's English-translated Bibles, have all removed the word ‘begotten’ in their versions of John 3:16?? I think only the KJV still has the word 'begotten' while the rest had removed the word 'begotten' from their John 3:16 versions. I wonder why?

I think the word. ‘Begotten’ means like, ‘Taken Up’, ‘Adopted’, ‘Set Aside for Greatness above others’.

Jesus Christ, says scriptures, was ‘Set aside’ by being Anointed by Almighty God.
For 30 years, Jesus was being taught by Almighty God all that was to be presented to the Jews (and ultimately to all tribes and nations) - The Testimony of God… as Jesus Christ, himself, says: ‘For this purpose I was sent’:

• “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God [to the other towns also], because that is why I was sent.” (Luke 4:43)
• “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37)

Here is something interesting:

1 John 5:4 says:

• “…For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1 John 5:4)

The word, ‘Born’, here and elsewhere in context, ALSO MEANS ‘BEGOTTEN’.

Obviously, the translator dictates which word he chooses but the meaning is still the same:

• Whoever is ‘ADOPTED, TAKEN UP, ANOINTED’ by God …over comes the world’.

And we know that when Jesus Christ was on Earth, he was THE ONLY MAN WHOM GOD HIMSELF HAD TAKEN UP, ADOPTED, ANOINTED, for Kingship and Priesthood - which validates the scriptures which claims:

• ‘Jesus Christ… the only begotten Son of God’

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said:
The Father is speaking in the first person here. He says the Son is God.

No, He did not say that. Can you show me where in the whole Bible did God say' the Son is God'??

We've already discussed this. It's right there in Hebrews 1:8:

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.​

And we also know that Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation taken from Psalm 45 in which ‘’And to the son….’ was NOT mentioned at all.

Sorry, but Hebrew 1:8 is no more and no less inspired than Psalm 45.

As I said before, this is what the authors of the NT normally do – they will quote OT verses, make subtle changes to showcase Jesus as God, and present it in the NT as ‘inspired’ writings!!

Then we are right back to your disbelief in the New Testament. It's not only the scribes who you allege somehow managed to push their "lying pens" into scripture, but the authors of the New Testament as well!

At this point, we are too divergent @JerryMyers. You no more believe in the writings of the New Testament than I believe in the gleanings of the Baháʼu'lláh.

Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments. You believe the New Testament writers made "subtle changes to showcase Jesus as God".

I am glad you realize that our New Testament writers believed Jesus was God, even if you do not. I am not here to convince you, the Bahais, or unbelievers otherwise, and since the vast majority of Christians already know Jesus is God, I'm pretty happy this fact is the status quo.

However I'm sure some readers here would be interested on how you determined the New Testament writers made these subtle changes to show Jesus is God. Which verses were changed, and do you have any manuscript evidence? Perhaps you, your church or organization has a "true" or "original" manuscript that wasn't changed? One that is not a "copy of a copy"?

And the Trinitarians think they have God’s Words with them when the lying pens of the scribes/NT authors have made it a book of truth and lies!

​

Well, so you say.​

​

Fantastic claims require even more fantastic evidence @JerryMyers. You present no more supposed evidence that the NT authors made a book of truth and lies than the forum's usual cohort of unbelievers and skeptics.​

​

"Jesus is not God" because the original authors made it a book of truth and lies is certainly not an argument Christians haven't heard before. From my perspective, you either believe the testimony of the NT authors or you don't.​

​

In any event, it has been nice talking with you.​

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said:
Since you do not believe Paul, at the very least you may have come to accept and believe in the pattern set by Christ. So I will ask you the same question I asked our Unitarian friends earlier. Perhaps you will have an answer that does not involve a hefty dose of circular logic:
The only begotten Son of Frog is Frog.
The only begotten Son of Dog is Dog.
The only begotten Son of Man is Man.
The only begotten Son of God is ______?
If you can answer this question in a logically consistent manner, without the use of circular logic, or denial that God has a begotten Son, we can proceed with our discussion of whether Jesus is God.
Of course, since we are discussing scripture, readers would only expect your answer to be supported by same.

Again, you are judging God Almighty by human standards when He’s ABOVE all of His Creations and He is beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

Your response is illogical.

NOWHERE is "God Almighty" mentioned here, let alone any "judging". You assured us the Son of God is not God, remember? So this should be very easy to complete:

1. The only begotten Son of Frog is Frog.
2. The only begotten Son of Dog is Dog.
3. The only begotten Son of Man is Man.
4. The only begotten Son of God is ______?

Your response that God Almighty is somehow being judged here begs the question:

WHERE did you see "God Almighty" being judged here? Was it at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th sentence?

Please be explicit in your answer.

Claiming Jesus is God and believing Jesus himself claimed to be God, IS accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

Well, the Jews certainly thought so, that's why they accused Jesus of blasphemy. They were wrong of course. In fact, Jesus points out that if God can call the corrupt judges of Israel "Gods", then they should have no problem when he, whom they admit had no corruption, calls himself God.

Trinitarians are no different than the Jews who said to Jesus, “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” – John 10:33

I'm sorry, but when did Trinitarians ever allege that Jesus' claiming to be God was a "blasphemy"???

Isn't that YOUR claim @JerryMyers??? Here, let's post it again:

Claiming Jesus is God and believing Jesus himself claimed to be God, IS accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

Trinitarians are fine and dandy with Jesus declaring himself God. It was the Jews (and YOU) who claim it a "blasphemy"!

The only thing Trinitarians would have done to Jesus' claim to be God would have been to role out the red carpet, invite him into temple or their homes, and maybe host a banquet or two. It's the non-trinitarians who would have picked up stones, so your claim that Trinitarians would have been no different than the Jews at that time is outlandish.

I think it best to stop here as you appear to be getting your groups confused and/or creating your own biblical and historical narratives. This is just my opinion, and only my opinion, that while some parts of the Christology you presented have been interesting, other parts appear to have been manufactured on the fly or from whole cloth, meant to be argumentative but wholly unsubstantiated by scripture or any Christian group. That, with your prior assertion the NT authors mixed truth with lies does not leave me with the impression that we can engage in a meaningful or fruitful dialogue or discussion.

Again, you are entitled to your personal opinion as I am mine, and while I encourage you to discuss and explore them on the forums, I do not feel under a compulsion to engage or change personal opinions. I suspect we will have plenty of topics and doctrines to discuss.

In the interim, I wish you well as you seek your spiritual path, and thank you for the conversation.

 

[Soapy]

Your response is illogical.

NOWHERE is "God Almighty" mentioned here, let alone any "judging". You assured us the Son of God is not God, remember? So this should be very easy to complete:

1. The only begotten Son of Frog is Frog.
2. The only begotten Son of Dog is Dog.
3. The only begotten Son of Man is Man.
4. The only begotten Son of God is ______?

Your response that God Almighty is somehow being judged here begs the question:

WHERE did you see "God Almighty" being judged here? Was it at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th sentence?

Please be explicit in your answer.



Well, the Jews certainly thought so, that's why they accused Jesus of blasphemy. They were wrong of course. In fact, Jesus points out that if God can call the corrupt judges of Israel "Gods", then they should have no problem when he, whom they admit had no corruption, calls himself God.


I'm sorry, but when did Trinitarians ever allege that Jesus' claiming to be God was a "blasphemy"???

Isn't that YOUR claim @JerryMyers??? Here, let's post it again:



Trinitarians are fine and dandy with Jesus declaring himself God. It was the Jews (and YOU) who claim it a "blasphemy"!

The only thing Trinitarians would have done to Jesus' claim to be God would have been to role out the red carpet, invite him into temple or their homes, and maybe host a banquet or two. It's the non-trinitarians who would have picked up stones, so your claim that Trinitarians would have been no different than the Jews at that time is outlandish.

I think it best to stop here as you appear to be getting your groups confused and/or creating your own biblical and historical narratives. This is just my opinion, and only my opinion, that while some parts of the Christology you presented have been interesting, other parts appear to have been manufactured on the fly or from whole cloth, meant to be argumentative but wholly unsubstantiated by scripture or any Christian group. That, with your prior assertion the NT authors mixed truth with lies does not leave me with the impression that we can engage in a meaningful or fruitful dialogue or discussion.

Again, you are entitled to your personal opinion as I am mine, and while I encourage you to discuss and explore them on the forums, I do not feel under a compulsion to engage or change personal opinions. I suspect we will have plenty of topics and doctrines to discuss.

In the interim, I wish you well as you seek your spiritual path, and thank you for the conversation.

Is it a blasphemy for one who is not The Almighty God to declare themselves as The Almighty God?

Did The Father declare Himself as The Almighty God, the one true God of the Jews: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Where did Jesus Christ declare himself as The Almighty God (as described above)?

And where did the third, so-called ‘Person of the trinity’, call himself ‘The Almighty God’, as described above?

I’m guessing you have no responses to the questions above that are in keeping with the scriptural truths so I will also ask what you think the meaning of ‘GOD’ is such that it gives full meaning to:

• ‘Our God is God of all whom are called Gods’

and:

• ‘The word [of God] is God’ (“God’s word is God”)

What would you say the differences are between the title, ‘God’, and the TERM ‘God’?

These questions are extremely important in understanding the scriptures so please answer me honestly and with as Godly intent as you can muster. Thanks.

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
We've already discussed this. It's right there in Hebrews 1:8:
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.
Sorry, but Hebrew 1:8 is no more and no less inspired than Psalm 45.

You know you would have a great case, in fact I would even say an iron-clad case, BUT if ONLY Psalm 45 was written AFTER Hebrews 1:8, and Psalm 45 was quoting Hebrews 1:8 instead the other way round. Then we can say the author of Psalm 45 removed “.. about the Son he says …. “ in Psalm 45 as that phrase was in Hebrews 1.. BUT that’s not what happened, is it? What happened was Psalm 45 was written much, much earlier than Hebrews 1, and the phrase “….. about the Son he says ….” Does NOT EXIST in Psalm 45 .,,, and in case you have forgotten, Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45, NOT Psalm 45 quoting Hebrews 1.

So why would you quote something from a passage written so much earlier, and then add something of your own to the passage you are quoting from?? Does not make sense unless you have a hidden agenda for doing so. And whether you want to admit it or not, we know what the agenda is - to showcase Jesus as God!

Oeste said:
Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments. You believe the New Testament writers made "subtle changes to showcase Jesus as God".

If you do really believe in the OT, then, you would also believe that God Almighty has already declared Himself as the One and Only God, and besides Him, there is no God ….. and, if you do really believe in the Words of God Almighty in the OT, then you can see ‘the subtle changes’ in the NT. Problem is - Trinitarians believe and rely more on the NT than they did with the OT.

Oeste said:
I am glad you realize that our New Testament writers believed Jesus was God, even if you do not. I am not here to convince you, the Bahais, or unbelievers otherwise, and since the vast majority of Christians already know Jesus is God, I'm pretty happy this fact is the status quo.

You being glad that the NT writers believed Jesus is God DON’T MAKE JESUS GOD…. unless you think the NT writers are all God Almighty themselves.

Oeste said:
However I'm sure some readers here would be interested on how you determined the New Testament writers made these subtle changes to show Jesus is God. Which verses were changed, and do you have any manuscript evidence? Perhaps you, your church or organization has a "true" or "original" manuscript that wasn't changed? One that is not a "copy of a copy"?

I have told you many times, and you keep repeating the same question, maybe in a different way, but still the same question. Ok, for the last time - here’s how I suspect the NT writers made subtle changes –

If God Almighty has declared Himself, on number of times, that HE IS the ONLY God and Savior, besides Him there’s no God, then, any writings that CONTRADICT who God Almighty has declared of Himself is SUSPECTED. A good example is Hebrews 1:8.

Oeste said:
Fantastic claims require even more fantastic evidence @JerryMyers. You present no more supposed evidence that the NT authors made a book of truth and lies than the forum's usual cohort of unbelievers and skeptics.
"Jesus is not God" because the original authors made it a book of truth and lies is certainly not an argument Christians haven't heard before. From my perspective, you either believe the testimony of the NT authors or you don't.

In any event, it has been nice talking with you.

Claiming Jesus is God like the Jews in Jesus' times did IS a FANTASTIC CLAIM, don’t you think so?? Now, prove that God Almighty or/and His prophet Jesus has said or implied so…. And please don’t give me contradictory words (to the Words of God Almighty and His prophet Jesus) of Paul and/or other people as it means nothing if those words are contradictory. If their words are not contradictory, then yes, quote them.

And yup, nice talking to you too.

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
Your response is illogical.
NOWHERE is "God Almighty" mentioned here, let alone any "judging". You assured us the Son of God is not God, remember? So this should be very easy to complete:
1. The only begotten Son of Frog is Frog.
2. The only begotten Son of Dog is Dog.
3. The only begotten Son of Man is Man.
4. The only begotten Son of God is ______?
Your response that God Almighty is somehow being judged here begs the question:
WHERE did you see "God Almighty" being judged here? Was it at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th sentence?
Please be explicit in your answer.

Speaking of illogical response, your response here is not only illogical, but also void of rational thinking.

Frog, dog, man are all creations of God Almighty, so of course a frog, a dog and a man will beget their own kind, if not, how will they reproduce and multiply???

So, let me remind you again – GOD ALMIGHTY DOES NOT BEGET, so your questions are irrelevant to begin with.

Here’s the thing - If God beget, then He’s NOT God. Why?? Because if God beget, then He will be comparable to His own creations, and God Almighty is incomparable to anything -

“To whom will you compare Me? Or who is My equal?” says the Holy One.” – Isaiah 40:25

Indeed, who are you comparing God to?? A frog? A man? Or who do you say is God’s equal? Jesus??

Well, you can answer that to God Almighty Himself when you meet Him on Judgment Day.

Tell me, when are you going to decide to THINK instead of asking me ‘godless questions’??

Oeste said:
Well, the Jews certainly thought so, that's why they accused Jesus of blasphemy. They were wrong of course. In fact, Jesus points out that if God can call the corrupt judges of Israel "Gods", then they should have no problem when he, whom they admit had no corruption, calls himself God.
I'm sorry, but when did Trinitarians ever allege that Jesus' claiming to be God was a "blasphemy"???
Isn't that YOUR claim @JerryMyers??? Here, let's post it again:
Trinitarians are fine and dandy with Jesus declaring himself God. It was the Jews (and YOU) who claim it a "blasphemy"!

Let me correct you there – Jesus NEVER DECLARE NOR CLAIM HE’S GOD!

It’s the Jews (who are plotting to kill Jesus) who claimed Jesus had claimed he’s God! Anyone can claim Jesus said this or claimed that, BUT that does not make it true!! Can I claim that you have claimed you have an affair with your boss - does that mean it’s true because I claimed that you claimed so when you yourself never make such claim??

Your rendition of John 10:30-36 that <quote> ‘the Jews certainly thought so, that's why they accused Jesus of blasphemy. They were wrong of course. In fact, Jesus points out that if God can call the corrupt judges of Israel "Gods", then they should have no problem when he, whom they admit had no corruption, calls himself God.’ is a clear evidence that Trinitarians like you will bend themselves into pretzels just to tailor-fit your man-made doctrine into the scripture!

The context of that passage (John 10:30-36) is that the Jews were accusing Jesus of blasphemy that is, they said Jesus claimed to be God (the Son) because he said he is the son of God. So, Jesus, in defending himself against their lies, was asking them back why was it NOT a blasphemy to them when in their own Law it was said they are all gods and they all knew they are not truly Gods, but when he say he’s the son of God, it’s blasphemy when he too is NOT truly God but he was just doing the works of God and yet they don’t believe him. So, who said this passage was about Jesus claiming to be God (the Son??

Let’s expand further on this and determine from the scripture whether ‘son of God’, when applied to Jesus, means God the Son –

if you studied the usage of phrases used to refer to Jesus and God in the NT carefully, you will find the phrase ‘son of God’, as applied to Jesus, is very common, BUT the phrase ‘God the Son’ was NEVER applied to Jesus, in fact, the phrase ‘God the Son’ NEVER appeared in the Bible!! In contrast, phrase like “God the Father” occur many times.​

Why is that the Bible is so clear of who the Father is when it identifies the Father as ‘God the Father’ but never referred to Jesus as ‘God the Son’?? Are we to believe that Jesus is God the Son just as God is the Father, when in the Bible, God is called “God the Father” many times and yet Jesus is NOT even once called “God the Son”? The only logical explanation to that is - Jesus is NOT God the Son, he is called ‘son of God’ just like any other holy, righteous men who are guided by the Spirit of God. Don’t be fooled by the usage of CAPITAL letter ‘S’ for ‘Son of God’ when referring to Jesus in the NT as in Greek Latin/Hebrew, the original language which the English-translated Bible was translated from, have no distinction between UPPERCASE and lowercase letters. It’s up to the discretion of the translators/church of the English-translated Bible to capitalize the alphabet ‘s’, as according to their understanding of the scripture.​

Then again, you don’t listen to logic and rationale, you just listen to conjectures and assumptions as told by other people.​

Oeste said:
The only thing Trinitarians would have done to Jesus' claim to be God would have been to role out the red carpet, invite him into temple or their homes, and maybe host a banquet or two. It's the non-trinitarians who would have picked up stones, so your claim that Trinitarians would have been no different than the Jews at that time is outlandish.

As I said before, Jesus NEVER claim to be God, it’s the Jews who made that claim, and now you too are saying Jesus claims to be God - so what’s the difference between the Jews of that time and you?? No different at all as far claiming Jesus is God is concerned!!

And saying the Trinitarians will roll out the red carpet for someone who you are told is God but not, is what will make Satan very happy. Ask me why and I will tell you.

Oeste said:
I think it best to stop here as you appear to be getting your groups confused and/or creating your own biblical and historical narratives. This is just my opinion, and only my opinion, that while some parts of the Christology you presented have been interesting, other parts appear to have been manufactured on the fly or from whole cloth, meant to be argumentative but wholly unsubstantiated by scripture or any Christian group. That, with your prior assertion the NT authors mixed truth with lies does not leave me with the impression that we can engage in a meaningful or fruitful dialogue or discussion.

I would have agreed to that too if only you have said “I think it best to stop here as we are not getting anywhere, your words are not going to change me and my words are not going to change you….” – now, that would be a nice way to end a ‘hot’ debate, BUT no, you have to continue to ‘downplay’ me, even when you want to stop, by saying, “…as you appear to be getting your groups confused and/or creating your own biblical and historical narratives”.

AND you should stop commenting further (if you want to stop) as when you comment, especially comments that beg to be responded to, I WILL RESPOND!

So, tell you what - we are NOT going to stop here!