Jesus is not God

[URAVIP2ME]

Thanks for engaging my post! I'm curious, what do you think is the distinction between being divine and being "the Almighty?" The passage I quoted seemed to imply that Jesus was eternally preexistent... Peace

Yes, there is a distinction between being: The Almighty and being Mighty
God/god is a title and Not a personal name
Jesus is titled as Mighty God at Isaiah 9:6, but Not as Almighty ( after all No one can see God - John 1:18 - but people saw Jesus )
God Almighty is the God of Genesis 17:1. God can Not die - Psalm 90:2 - existing from and to everlasting
Jesus spoke of his Father as the only true God and who to worship at John 17:3; John 4:23-24
Jesus gives credit to his God as being THE Creator - Rev. 4:11
As Creator we find pre-human heavenly Jesus as the first or the beginning of God's creation at Revelation 3:14 B

 

[walt]

What is your objective?

Harmony of Jesus words, The voice from heaven, The Apostles, The Angels and every other scripture in the Bible.

My objective is for people to understand by Jesus words alone we can form our foundation of beliefs, Just by letting Jesus do all the talking!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Interesting,.....................................So here's an interesting thought--in Matthew 16, Jesus promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. This is in a private conversation with His disciples..............................

Peter is speaking at Matthew 16:16, then Jesus is speaking next at verses 17-18
Jesus says that Peter is Peter. Apparently the word 'this' is Jesus referring to himself as the Rock
Please see Peter's words at 1st Peter 2:6-8 because Peter says Jesus is THE cornerstone, THE chief cornerstone
This is also the case at Ephesians 2:20 with Jesus being the foundation cornerstone
1st Corinthians 3:11 informs us that No one can lay any other foundation.....
Jesus being the Rock at 1st Corinthians 10:4 B

 

[TheFragranceOfHoliness]

Harmony of Jesus words, The voice from heaven, The Apostles, The Angels and every other scripture in the Bible.

My objective is for people to understand by Jesus words alone we can form our foundation of beliefs, Just by letting Jesus do all the talking!

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law.

 

[walt]

The Bible makes this fact clear, God is invisible, God is a spirit.

When Jesus was on earth was he invisible? God told Moses You cannot see my face and live, so many saw Jesus face.

 

[Oeste]

1) "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" John 14:13
2) "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate [the Holy Spirit] to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him[including YOU!]. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:16-17
3) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
4) "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3 and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1
5) "I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

I agree with every one of the scriptures you have been talking about.

Excellent @walt!
As Christians we should accept what Jesus says. But rather than simply "proof-text", let's add one more verse with a question.

I try not to form my beliefs from good ideas, or something in the Bible that disagrees with another scripture, I look for harmony with Jesus words, the Apostles words, the Angels words, Moses words and a Voice from heaven, or the burning bush that spoke to Moses.

Harmonization! This is even better!!

God did not send but one prophet, He sent several, and we should not silence one prophet in favor of another when all speak the word of God. I realize you may disagree, but this is my objection to "red letter only" Christians.

But let's add one more scripture because I think it crucial to any harmonization:


Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:18-19)

Now, had Jesus simply blurted "No one is good except the Father alone", that might have been the end of the Trinity (and also the end of any talk about Jesus as our Savior), but that's not what Jesus said.

Rather than answer this ruler's question, Jesus interrogates him. Why? Because it's possible this ruler recognizes Jesus for who He is.

But my question is not why this verse shows Jesus is God. I believe it most certainly does. My question to you, and for our Arian and Oneness friends on this forum, is this:

If you cannot call Jesus good, just how "no good" do you claim our spotless, unblemished Savior really is?​

Is Jesus "kind of good", perhaps "sort of good", but not "good enough" to be good?
Maybe "kind of bad", but not "bad enough" to be called bad?

Perhaps good doesn't really mean "good" and evil doesn't really mean "evil" and the whole good-bad shebang is relative, like a sliding scale?

Good​	Kind of Good​	Kind of Bad​	Very bad​
0------------------------------------	25-----------------------------------	50-----------------------------------	75------------------------------100

Here are some other things to consider:


Some here state Jesus is not God, but a "manifestation of God".

So if God is good but Jesus is not (something Arians allege, but Jesus never states), then how good is the "manifestation"?

Either God is not good, which is impossible, or there is a problem with this "manifestation". Was the mirror used to reflect God's attributes insufficient? A bit cloudy?

Look, I am sure I'm not the first to ask these questions. You probably, at some point, asked them yourselves. If so, please do our readers a favor and share them!

In the Trinity doctrine, Jesus is good because only God is good and Jesus is God (but not the Father). But with Arianism, Jesus is not "so good" because "only God is good" and Jesus is not God. So another question, which I'm sure many of you have answered previously, and I simply missed, is this:

How does a no good Jesus redeem or atone for anybody?

I suspect that's not a problem for the Bahai. They're not a Christians denomination and while they may claim Jesus is our savior, you may get nine different answers on exactly what he saves.

And of course, it's not a problem for our resident skeptics. They will tell you Jesus, if he existed, might have been a nice guy, but all this talk about sin, repentance, atonement, and an unblemished lamb was just a local superstition that got out of hand.

The real problem, as I see it, is for our Christian friends waving Luke 18:18-19 as if Jesus was claiming he wasn't good when of course he had to be, if he was THE begotten and not simply "A" Son of God.

Many of the verses used to show "Jesus ain't God" can actually be used to show he is. He is, after all, the only begotten Son of God. Others verses will simply show he's the Son of Man, something Arians and Trinitarians already agree on.

@walt states the harmonization of scripture is important to him. When I was younger and studying with Arians, I was never able to harmonize Luke 18:18-19. Instead, I would remember Jesus' words as a statement "Don't call me good." when he was simply asking a question "Why do you call me good?".

But rather than answer (let alone resolve) these questions, I strongly suspect our Arian friends will be silent and not respond at all, as any response will likely contradict a "truth" they've told us before. Personally, if I were Arian, I'd go for the sliding scale.

 

[walt]

Excellent @walt!
As Christians we should accept what Jesus says. But rather than simply "proof-text", let's add one more verse with a question.



Harmonization! This is even better!!

God did not send but one prophet, He sent several, and we should not silence one prophet in favor of another when all speak the word of God. I realize you may disagree, but this is my objection to "red letter only" Christians.

But let's add one more scripture because I think it crucial to any harmonization:


Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:18-19)

Now, had Jesus simply blurted "No one is good except the Father alone", that might have been the end of the Trinity (and also the end of any talk about Jesus as our Savior), but that's not what Jesus said.

Rather than answer this ruler's question, Jesus interrogates him. Why? Because it's possible this ruler recognizes Jesus for who He is.

But my question is not why this verse shows Jesus is God. I believe it most certainly does. My question to you, and for our Arian and Oneness friends on this forum, is this:

If you cannot call Jesus good, just how "no good" do you claim our spotless, unblemished Savior really is?​

Is Jesus "kind of good", perhaps "sort of good", but not "good enough" to be good?
Maybe "kind of bad", but not "bad enough" to be called bad?

Perhaps good doesn't really mean "good" and evil doesn't really mean "evil" and the whole good-bad shebang is relative, like a sliding scale?

Good​	Kind of Good​	Kind of Bad​	Very bad​
0------------------------------------	25-----------------------------------	50-----------------------------------	75------------------------------100

Here are some other things to consider:


Some here state Jesus is not God, but a "manifestation of God".

So if God is good but Jesus is not (something Arians allege, but Jesus never states), then how good is the "manifestation"?

Either God is not good, which is impossible, or there is a problem with this "manifestation". Was the mirror used to reflect God's attributes insufficient? A bit cloudy?

Look, I am sure I'm not the first to ask these questions. You probably, at some point, asked them yourselves. If so, please do our readers a favor and share them!

In the Trinity doctrine, Jesus is good because only God is good and Jesus is God (but not the Father). But with Arianism, Jesus is not "so good" because "only God is good" and Jesus is not God. So another question, which I'm sure many of you have answered previously, and I simply missed, is this:

How does a no good Jesus redeem or atone for anybody?

I suspect that's not a problem for the Bahai. They're not a Christians denomination and while they may claim Jesus is our savior, you may get nine different answers on exactly what he saves.

And of course, it's not a problem for our resident skeptics. They will tell you Jesus, if he existed, might have been a nice guy, but all this talk about sin, repentance, atonement, and an unblemished lamb was just a local superstition that got out of hand.

The real problem, as I see it, is for our Christian friends waving Luke 18:18-19 as if Jesus was claiming he wasn't good when of course he had to be, if he was THE begotten and not simply "A" Son of God.

Many of the verses used to show "Jesus ain't God" can actually be used to show he is. He is, after all, the only begotten Son of God. Others verses will simply show he's the Son of Man, something Arians and Trinitarians already agree on.

@walt states the harmonization of scripture is important to him. When I was younger and studying with Arians, I was never able to harmonize Luke 18:18-19. Instead, I would remember Jesus' words as a statement "Don't call me good." when he was simply asking a question "Why do you call me good?".

But rather than answer (let alone resolve) these questions, I strongly suspect our Arian friends will be silent and not respond at all, as any response will likely contradict a "truth" they've told us before. Personally, if I were Arian, I'd go for the sliding scale.

Then a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, my Chosen One. Listen to him.” -Luke 9:35 New Living Translation

I believe we should let Jesus do all the talking: John 17:3, John 20:17, John 3:16 Jesus Words Alone!
And another conversation in private with the disciples, This is what the disciples and Jesus have to say:

Matthew 16:13-17​

I and the Father are one, can be understood as perfect unity. If we listen to Jesus advice -John 17:23

How many different ways can you interpret John 17:3?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why don’t Jehovahs believe Jesus was God in the flesh?

I’ve debated (with myself) as to whether I should reply to you or not.

You calling us “Jehovahs” seems a little antagonistic — “Jehovah” is English for God’s name “Yahweh” (Psalm 83:18, KJV), who was Jesus’ God & Father. (That’s who Jesus worshipped. - John 20:17)

But I’m going to assume that you did not mean it that way…. So I’ll explain it:

There is only one God
We believe as did Paul, who said @ 1 Corinthians 8:6: “there is actually to us one God, the Father, out of whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we though him.”

Jesus called his Father, “the only true God”, @ John 17:3.

You say “God in the flesh”; that phrase isn’t found in Scripture. That actually contradicts John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God.” Thousands saw Jesus.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Excellent @walt!
As Christians we should accept what Jesus says. But rather than simply "proof-text", let's add one more verse with a question.



Harmonization! This is even better!!

God did not send but one prophet, He sent several, and we should not silence one prophet in favor of another when all speak the word of God. I realize you may disagree, but this is my objection to "red letter only" Christians.

But let's add one more scripture because I think it crucial to any harmonization:


Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:18-19)

Now, had Jesus simply blurted "No one is good except the Father alone", that might have been the end of the Trinity (and also the end of any talk about Jesus as our Savior), but that's not what Jesus said.

Rather than answer this ruler's question, Jesus interrogates him. Why? Because it's possible this ruler recognizes Jesus for who He is.

But my question is not why this verse shows Jesus is God. I believe it most certainly does. My question to you, and for our Arian and Oneness friends on this forum, is this:

If you cannot call Jesus good, just how "no good" do you claim our spotless, unblemished Savior really is?​

Is Jesus "kind of good", perhaps "sort of good", but not "good enough" to be good?
Maybe "kind of bad", but not "bad enough" to be called bad?

Perhaps good doesn't really mean "good" and evil doesn't really mean "evil" and the whole good-bad shebang is relative, like a sliding scale?

Good​	Kind of Good​	Kind of Bad​	Very bad​
0------------------------------------	25-----------------------------------	50-----------------------------------	75------------------------------100

Here are some other things to consider:


Some here state Jesus is not God, but a "manifestation of God".

So if God is good but Jesus is not (something Arians allege, but Jesus never states), then how good is the "manifestation"?

Either God is not good, which is impossible, or there is a problem with this "manifestation". Was the mirror used to reflect God's attributes insufficient? A bit cloudy?

Look, I am sure I'm not the first to ask these questions. You probably, at some point, asked them yourselves. If so, please do our readers a favor and share them!

In the Trinity doctrine, Jesus is good because only God is good and Jesus is God (but not the Father). But with Arianism, Jesus is not "so good" because "only God is good" and Jesus is not God. So another question, which I'm sure many of you have answered previously, and I simply missed, is this:

How does a no good Jesus redeem or atone for anybody?

I suspect that's not a problem for the Bahai. They're not a Christians denomination and while they may claim Jesus is our savior, you may get nine different answers on exactly what he saves.

And of course, it's not a problem for our resident skeptics. They will tell you Jesus, if he existed, might have been a nice guy, but all this talk about sin, repentance, atonement, and an unblemished lamb was just a local superstition that got out of hand.

The real problem, as I see it, is for our Christian friends waving Luke 18:18-19 as if Jesus was claiming he wasn't good when of course he had to be, if he was THE begotten and not simply "A" Son of God.

Many of the verses used to show "Jesus ain't God" can actually be used to show he is. He is, after all, the only begotten Son of God. Others verses will simply show he's the Son of Man, something Arians and Trinitarians already agree on.

@walt states the harmonization of scripture is important to him. When I was younger and studying with Arians, I was never able to harmonize Luke 18:18-19. Instead, I would remember Jesus' words as a statement "Don't call me good." when he was simply asking a question "Why do you call me good?".

But rather than answer (let alone resolve) these questions, I strongly suspect our Arian friends will be silent and not respond at all, as any response will likely contradict a "truth" they've told us before. Personally, if I were Arian, I'd go for the sliding scale.

This is ridiculous reasoning imo.

With this concept, then, since “nobody is good, except one”, and this is Jesus, then his Father isn’t good. Just Jesus.

As @walt pointed out, Jesus & his Father (known as Yahweh) are two totally different people, whose oneness, as Jesus specifically stated, is in unity and purpose.

As Hebrews 1:3 states,
Jesus has “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

But if it’s just one, then Jesus is sitting on himself.

2 Corinthians 13:14 is a great Scripture to show that Jesus & the Holy Spirit are not God.
It says,
“The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you.”

Now if Paul had said “the love of the Father”, trinitarians could use this.
They could say ‘Jesus & the Father & the Holy Spirit’. But it doesn’t!

It says Jesus & God & the Holy Spirit!

I had a trinitarian try to use this on me years ago, but it backfired on him when I pointed out the difference.

Maybe this will reach some hearts.

 

[Eli G]

This is ridiculous reasoning imo.

Not serious at all.

The only thing it shows is how little understanding a person can have who is willing to purposely complicate even the simplest things in Jesus' words, in order to defend his own belief.

Evidently Jesus does not want any human being to attribute to him the honor that only belongs to God.

Is Jesus good? Yes, but he says he is not good to the same degree that God, his Father, is good. That was not the only time he talked about it.

Luke 6:35 ... continue to love your enemies and to do good and to lend without hoping for anything back; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind toward the unthankful and wicked. 36 Continue being merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Matt. 5:44 ... Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Jesus' words indicate his admiration and respect for his own God and Father.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That verse above does not say that people will be raised from the dead and have everlasting life on earth.
Spiritual death will be no more, but physical death will always exist, because God created humans with mortal bodies.

Ok, we’re going ‘round & ‘round on this, but that’s ok… I’m sorry it takes me awhile to respond.

If “physical death will always exist”, then people would still be “mourning”, and have “outcry” & “pain”. In fact, death is the source of the most mourning. But those things are gone too!

Why did Adam & his descendants - up to 9 generations later - live so long? Because they were genetically closest to Adam’s pre-sin condition of perfection! And gradually, human lifespans shortened.
**The following is off-topic**
And drastically so, after the Flood. You know why? Because the Bible describes ‘waters above the earth’ as existing prior to the Flood; those waters, suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere, acted as a filter to the Sun’s rays, diluting the potency of the radiation hitting Earth’s surface.
But Jehovah used those waters for part of the Flood, effectively removing it.
This water canopy also would affect C-14 dating, prior to the Flood. And this is what we see.

If physical death was no more, how could any more people be born? How could the earth sustain the overpopulation, let alone all the people that you believe will be raised from their graves to live forever on earth? Do you even bother to think or do you just believe what the JW church tells you?

Didn’t i explain this to you?
When ‘the deserts will blossom as the saffron and in the wilderness regions waters will burst forth” (Isaiah 35:1-4), what will this mean?

When the Bible says “on the top of the mountains, there will be abundant grain” (Psalm 72:16), what would this mean?
Do you know how much land would then become habitable?

There are other possibilities, too.
With Jehovah’s blessing, a lot of beneficial things could happen! Technology could advance, under His guidance.

But you’re right, eventually the Earth would be filled to capacity. (Because, for me, it’s difficult to imagine a world without children.) Who is to say what happens after that? The Bible does tell us that “scrolls”, ie., new information, will become available.

Have a good day.

 

[walt]

• Do we put faith in all Jesus words or just favorite words? John 8:28, John, John 5:30, John 4:34, John 6:38, Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36
• Jesus is a perfect example of goodness!
• He lived a sinless life on earth!
• But still Jesus gives all the credit to God.
• I follow Jesus lead and give the Father all the credit.

 

[Eli G]

Trinitarians focus on the good-bad duality when they read Jesus saying that “Nobody is good except one, God” (Luke 18:19). But that is not the meaning of Jesus’ words; the correct understanding is from the good-just duality. Justice sometimes demands that a person not be “good.”

For example, when someone commits a crime, justice demands punishment, but goodness provides forgiveness. When a person has a need “at the wrong time,” only a good person helps him meet it; a just person forces him to wait until the right time. A just person is not the same as a good and merciful person.

We can think of Jesus as a person who is more just than good, but of his Father, our God, as a person who is more merciful.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok, we’re going ‘round & ‘round on this, but that’s ok… I’m sorry it takes me awhile to respond.

If “physical death will always exist”, then people would still be “mourning”, and have “outcry” & “pain”. In fact, death is the source of the most mourning. But those things are gone too!

Rev. 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.

Mourning and outcry and pain will not be anymore, but not because there will be no more physical death.
Physical death will always exist because the human body was created as mortal.

Why did Adam & his descendants - up to 9 generations later - live so long? Because they were genetically closest to Adam’s pre-sin condition of perfection! And gradually, human lifespans shortened.
**The following is off-topic**
And drastically so, after the Flood. You know why? Because the Bible describes ‘waters above the earth’ as existing prior to the Flood; those waters, suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere, acted as a filter to the Sun’s rays, diluting the potency of the radiation hitting Earth’s surface.
But Jehovah used those waters for part of the Flood, effectively removing it.
This water canopy also would affect C-14 dating, prior to the Flood. And this is what we see.

Sorry, I do not know the Bible well enough to discuss this intelligently.

Didn’t i explain this to you?
When ‘the deserts will blossom as the saffron and in the wilderness regions waters will burst forth” (Isaiah 35:1-4), what will this mean?

As I have explained to @URAVIP2ME many, many times, Isaiah 35 is not about a coming beautiful paradisaical world.
It is about what we will see after the return of Christ.

Isaiah prophesied that the Plain of Sharon and the holy mountain, Carmel, would both be centers for the light and presence of the ‘Glory of the Lord’ in the last days. All these prophecies were fulfilled after Christ returned with a new name which I believe was Baha'u'llah.

Isaiah 35 King James Version (KJV)

35 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. 2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.

Above Haifa, Israel, stands Mt. Carmel, proclaiming the Glory of the Lord has come.

When the Bible says “on the top of the mountains, there will be abundant grain” (Psalm 72:16), what would this mean?
Do you know how much land would then become habitable?

You need to read Psalm 72:16 in context in order to understand what it means.
This chapter is referring to a man (he) who will do all these things.

When he comes there shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains; the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon: and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth.

2 He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment.
3 The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness.
4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.
5 They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.
6 He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth.
7 In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

12 For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper.
13 He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy.
14 He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight.
15 And he shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba: prayer also shall be made for him continually; and daily shall he be praised.
16 There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains; the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon: and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth.
17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

I believe that the he in this chapter is the messiah of the latter days that the Jews have so long awaited.
Psalm 72:16 means that there will be abundant food so there will be no more starvation after he comes and ushers in a new age in which is the kingdom of God will be established on earth, which is the new earth referred to in the Book of Revelation.

There are other possibilities, too.
With Jehovah’s blessing, a lot of beneficial things could happen! Technology could advance, under His guidance.

Humans are going to have to cause these beneficial things to happen with God's assistance and guidance.

But you’re right, eventually the Earth would be filled to capacity. (Because, for me, it’s difficult to imagine a world without children.) Who is to say what happens after that? The Bible does tell us that “scrolls”, ie., new information, will become available.

The issue here is that there is no reason to believe that people are going to be raised from their graves to live on Earth forever because that belief is not supported by the Bible.

 

[Eli G]

I wonder how a person who says "I do not know the Bible well enough" can say at the same time "that belief is not supported by the Bible".

John 5:28 Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.

 

[BrightShadow]

Jesus was obviously not God. He claimed to be a prophet, a messenger, a servant of God!
He prayed to God. Even in isolation he prayed to God - so, that takes away any doubt that Jesus was God because he had a God.
Jesus said God sent him and said the only true God is in the heavens. Jesus didn't know "the hour". Bible said no man can see God and live!
Despite of all that - if Jesus was still indeed a God then it could only prove two things.

1) Jesus didn't know he was God
or
2) Jesus tried to hide he was God (incarnate or partially god or 1/3 god or whatever)

If it was number 2 -then Jesus must have a good reason to hide it.
So, why try to out-smart Jesus? Why not go along with what Jesus actually said? He said - he was a messenger!

Even ChatGPT knows Jesus didn't claim to be God in the Bible.
check out the videos...

 

[JerryMyers]

I am not sure what you're trying to prove, but in any case, you're wrong.

1) The Gospels all state that Jesus died a "humiliating death". Jesus never claimed that he was not killed and/or crucified. He reappeared after His death and resurrection several times.

2) You are the one who is accusing the Bible of telling lies. Your absurd statement that "it’s the Early Church who mishandled the Scriptures and lied to the Christians, and over time, those lies were taken as the truth" has no basis.

• The Gospels (plus Acts) were written between AD 40s–60s (Synoptics 40s–60s; Acts 60s–70s; John in the 90s)
• The Pauline Epistles were written between AD 48–61
• The General Epistles (plus Revelation)were written between AD 40s–90s

3) If there is any truth to your statement that the Early Church "mishandled the Scriptures and lied to the Christians, and over time, those lies were taken as the truth", produce the evidence. Otherwise, it's just your (clearly biased) opinion.

4) Jesus is the Son of God. That is what the New Testament clearly says!

Ok, let’s go through your comments…



You said -
“I am not sure what you're trying to prove, but in any case, you're wrong.
1) The Gospels all state that Jesus died a "humiliating death". Jesus never claimed that he was not killed and/or crucified. He reappeared after His death and resurrection several times.”

LOL… I never claim I am the King of England either, so, does that mean I AM the King of England??

Whose words do you believe and whose words do you think are more reliable – Jesus’ words or the scribes/translators/preachers’ words?

Jesus might not have said directly he did not die nor crucified, but he did give some clues that he was not killed nor crucified. Then again, we know Jesus seldom spoke directly but more often than not, in parables and gave clues – you need to read your Bible with an open mind, not with a preconceived mindset that Jesus is God – he’s NOT.

You said –
“2) You are the one who is accusing the Bible of telling lies. Your absurd statement that "it’s the Early Church who mishandled the Scriptures and lied to the Christians, and over time, those lies were taken as the truth" has no basis.

• The Gospels (plus Acts) were written between AD 40s–60s (Synoptics 40s–60s; Acts 60s–70s; John in the 90s)
• The Pauline Epistles were written between AD 48–61
• The General Epistles (plus Revelation)were written between AD 40s–90s”.

You do know the prefix ‘AD’ means its after Christ has departed, right?? So, all those writings (Acts, Epistles) are written 40 to 90 years AFTER Jesus was no longer around and by someone who NEVER meet Jesus in person, and you want to take those writings as the ultimate truth?? You should study Jesus’ words first, and then read the writings/sayings of others and see whether it’s in sync with the words/sayings of Jesus… if they are not, then, you should not bother with those writings or sayings.

You said –
“3) If there is any truth to your statement that the Early Church "mishandled the Scriptures and lied to the Christians, and over time, those lies were taken as the truth", produce the evidence. Otherwise, it's just your (clearly biased) opinion.”

Well, we know in Jeremiah 8:8, God told Jeremiah to ask 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?’. If the lying pen of the scribes has handled the scripture falsely even in Jeremiah’s time, what makes you think the scripture cannot be handled falsely by the scribes AFTER Jesus has departed ??

“4) Jesus is the Son of God. That is what the New Testament clearly says!”

‘Son of God’ is a reference to those who are holy, righteous and are guided by the Spirit of God, and Jesus is such a man. Anyone who are holy, righteous and guided by the Spirit of God are called the son of God. Even Paul acknowledged that – “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” – Romans 8:14.

Angels too are called “the sons of God” (Job 38:7). Adam, the first man, being a direct creation of God, is called “the son of God” (Luke 3:38). In John 1:12-13, we read about believing Jews who became “the children of God…children born out of God”.

Looks like it’s YOU who says ‘Jesus is God the Son’, not the Bible.

 

[JerryMyers]

Your post starts with the words "I don't believe". So? That doesn't mean a thing except that you, like everyone else, has an opinion. If you read the Bible with an open mind you may discover that you are wrong.

The doctrine of the Trinity is stated clearly in the Bible. If you don't understand it, that doesn't make it untrue.

And what is this stuff about "... any words of the Trinity from the Church connected to the Roman Empire in the 4th century"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about explaining why you disagree with these verses...

1) "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" John 14:13
2) "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate [the Holy Spirit] to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him[including YOU!]. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:16-17
3) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
4) "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3 and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1
5) "I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

You said –

“Your post starts with the words "I don't believe". So? That doesn't mean a thing except that you, like everyone else, has an opinion. If you read the Bible with an open mind you may discover that you are wrong.”

You should heed your own advice, and that is, if YOU read the Bible with an open mind you WILL discover that Jesus is NOT God and the trinity is a man-made doctrine and that’s why Jesus NEVER preaches it.


You said -
“The doctrine of the Trinity is stated clearly in the Bible. If you don't understand it, that doesn't make it untrue.”

Really ?? Then show me the verses from the Bible that you think clearly support the trinity….. and let’s see whether you truly understand those verses or not.

You said -
How about explaining why you disagree with these verses...

“1) "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" John 14:13”

So what??? That only shows that Jesus is NOT God but, in Jesus’ time, Jesus was the intermediator between his people and God.

You said -
"2) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate [the Holy Spirit] to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him[including YOU!]. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:16-17"

Another proof that Jesus is NOT God, and that’s why he has to ask the only true God to give another advocate.

By the way, this ‘’another advocate’ is not the Holy Spirit but a man with the Holy Spirit within him (just like Jesus) and who is yet to come when Jesus spoke those words. There’s no such thing as ANOTHER Holy Spirit as there’s only one Holy Spirit and it has been around since the beginning of time. You think there are two Holy Spirits??

You said -
“3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

“4)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3 and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1”

John 1 tells you how God creates and he creates just by uttering a word/command and since the word was uttered by God, we said it’s the Word of God.

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

The ‘Word’ in John 1 was translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’ which is a masculine noun (yes, the Greek language has masculine and feminine nouns), and that’s why at times, the ‘logos’ is referred to as a ‘he’ or ‘him’, which Trinitarians mistook it as a person/Jesus.

If Trinitarians can remove their preconceived mindset that Jesus is God, then, they can understand John 1:1-3 as it was meant to be understood - ‘In the beginning was the Word (of God), and the Word (of God) was with God (of course), and the Word was God (that is, the Word was divine, meaning it was uttered by God Himself, not by any Tom, Dick or Harry). He (representative of the masculine noun ‘logos’, that is, God spoken Word/Command) was with God in the beginning (of course). Through him (again, representative of the masculine noun ‘logos’, that is, God spoken Word/Command) all things were made, without him (representative of the masculine noun ‘logos’, that is, without God’s commanding it through a Word He uttered) nothing was made that has been made.

Clearly, everything was NOT created by or through Jesus, but, everything was created by the One and Only God by uttering a Word/Command, and without Him uttering that Word/Command, nothing gets created – “O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures” – Psalm 104:24

- “My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth” – Psalm 121:2

- Know that the Lord, He is God! It is He who made us, and we are His; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture – Psalm 100:3

You said -
”5) I and the Father are one.” John 10:30”

So, John 10:30 makes Jesus God??!
How logical is that when 7 chapters later in John 17:20-23, Jesus prayed to God to make his disciples be one as he and God are one, which is a direct reference to his words in John 10:30 ! So, was Jesus praying to God to make his disciples Gods too??

 

[walt]

..

In the last few days I have given evidence of why I believe the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God.

Could you please provide your list of evidence, why you believe your Holy Scriptures are inspired by God?

There is 10,000 different religions in the world, I really don't think the evidence stacks up the same for each one of them, do you?

 

[jimb]

If the Spirit of God is within a man,
and the man is within God,
is he a supreme being?

What motivates you to ask something like this? Are you intentionally trying to twist Christian doctrine?