Jesus is not God

[Oeste]

Damn, you could fool me there. If you do, you sure are NOT showing any signs of having understood.

Hebrews 1:8 was quoting Psalm 45:6-7, and making slight changes to showcase Jesus as God DO NOT make Jesus God.

Any verse/passage that DO NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty already DECLARED OF HIMSELF, and of what Jesus already said of himself, can be accepted as true.

Are you a scriptwriter?? Hollywood could use your talent!

Don’t kid yourself, buddy.

Am I having a conversation with a kid here???

Show you what?? I think I have shown you everything that needs to be shown but, you keep harping the same old questions over and over again like a broken record. Move on, buddy!

As I said earlier, you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the scripture.

As usual, ‘spitting’ nonsense again!

Yeah, I think we're done.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then please present your non-circular reasoning.

I don't have any reasoning since I did not do the research on how the Bible was compiled.
I rely upon biblical scholars and historians who have done extensive research.

This statement is an unevidenced proclamation that lacks context. Let's give it some.

The apostles I am referring to are the NT apostles, the apostles of Jesus.

Jesus is the Son of God. He is a prophet of God, and as the Son of God, He is God.

A prophet that does not come from God has no authority, and does not need to be recognized by any apostle, any teacher, or any believer of God. That is something 1Corinthians 14:36-38 makes clear. Not all prophets are from God. Some prophets are from God, some simply believe they are, and some prophets come from other sources. The bible refers to these prophets as false prophets, as the only true prophets are from God.

So YES. If the prophet is not from God, they may not voluntarily submit to an apostle who is from God.

And Yes, Paul was not only an apostle, but a prophet as well. ALL apostles are prophets, but not all prophets are apostles, because ALL apostles are called by Jesus, sent by Jesus, and, after his death and resurrection, were guided by the Helper Jesus sent, the Holy Spirit!

The acts of the apostles are recorded in the book of Acts. Paul had several acts recorded there. As for prophets, Ba'al has "prophets", Zeus has "prophets", Jupiter has prophets, but none of them have apostles.

They do, but only if the prophet is also an apostle. There is no instance of a prophet who is not apostle correcting an apostle in the New Testament. But there are instances of apostles correcting other apostles.

Incorrect.

The apostles performed miracles and signs, and they were guided by the Helper, the Holy Spirit. They are apostles and prophets.

You have your beliefs and I have mine.
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe and I am not going to argue about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Proof texts"

I appreciate all the proof text @Trailblazer, but these "proof-texts" were answered previously, If not by me then by others. Unfortunately we do not get much in the way of a response. A little time goes by, we get asked about them again, we answer them again, we get no response, a little time goes by, we get asked about them again, we answer the again....
On and on it goes!

So here are a few I've posted which I'll post again. Find your favorite proof text, and see the rebuttal below. No need for me to repost them again.

However, If there's a verse missing, let me know. If it hasn't been addressed by anyone previously I'll make a reply.

I am not going to argue about verses and what they mean because they mean different things to different people.
As such they are proof of nothing.

If you want to believe that Jesus is God you are welcome to that belief, but I will never share that belief.
I could use the Bible to show why Jesus is not God, but what would be the point? You are going to believe what you believe.

 

[blü 2]

Who do you say, or who do you believe Christians should say Jesus was before "being found in human form”?

As your NT will readily affirm, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John ─ unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke ─ pre-existed in heaven with God and (regardless of what Genesis says) created the material universe. Both Paul and the author of John were influenced by such gnostic ideas.

It might help our readers if you could elaborate a bit more on the proper understanding of who Jesus was according to this particular verse.

Again, as you likely know, this is from the 'kenosis hymn' Philippians 2:5-11, which I read is in poetic form ie conforms to Greek scansion, and has given rise to the hypothesis that Paul is quoting someone else's verse, that of an earlier Christian. As I said above, Paul thought Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God as a favored being, I imagine of rank higher than the angels, and here he 'empties himself' (the kenosis of the title) in order to become an earthling. Paul, like John, never says just how that coming to earth was accomplished, but both leave the little clue that Jesus was descended from David (ie messiah-fit).

Above every name? Now that’s interesting!

That doesn't place Jesus above God. All five versions of Jesus in the NT state that they're not God and never claim to be God. Jesus doesn't become God till the 4th century CE when the Trinity doctrine becomes orthodoxy.

Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear. Isaiah 45:23

That looks like we will give the same worship to Jesus that we give God.

I set out here >Jesus Failed Right?< some of the denials by Jesus that he's God. And I set out some of the problems with the later Trinity doctrine here >Why So Much Trinity Bashing?<.

"Before" means Jesus is eternal and not created. By him all things consist: He is our Maker.

Only the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe. For their version of God, God is exquisitely pure spirit, who'd never sully [him]self with materiality, so it falls to the demiurge (>Demiurge - Wikipedia<) to do so instead, This links with the idea also found in John that God being so staggeringly remote from us, we need an intermediary who is Jesus. The synoptic Jesuses have no such problem, of course and I take it their followers continued to pray to God directly in the Jewish manner.

What "fulness?" you might ask. This would be the fullness of deity, just as scripture says:
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9

Yes, the King is present in the form of [his] envoy.

This is important! Note Jesus specifically refers to himself as the Son of man here, and not Son of God.

As you know, in the NT just who is the 'Son of Man' is ambiguous. Sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to himself, and sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to someone else, depending on which of the five versions of Jesus it is.

The Son of man is fully man and has to be given authority to forgive. After all, Jesus, as son of man, is only man, and man cannot forgive his own sins.

As the Son of God, he's always had that authority.

He is of course the son of God in three distinct senses in the NT. Paul's and John's Jesuses were created by God in heaven as I said. Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses were the result of God's insemination of a virgin, whereby Jesus acquired his Y-chromosome. But Mark's Jesus, the gospel's prototype, is just an ordinary Jewish male until his baptism by JtB, at which point the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son in the same manner as [he] had earlier adopted David as his son (Psalm 2:7, affirmed Acts 13:33).

One more point: Jesus has full authority to forgive sins. It's not the Father forgiving sins "through" Jesus but Jesus forgiving those he wishes to forgive. There is no "In the name of the Lord" prefix that Jesus has to use here, but it all to the glory of the Father because it was the Father who sent him.

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.

John 14:6 “No one comes to the Father but by me.” (Incompatible with triune concept,)

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

Of course! When you see Jesus you have seen the Father. (See John 14:9)
Again, is Jesus Lord, an is he the "one", or do we have two separate and distinct Lords?
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

You stopped reading too soon. John 17 explains this idea more fully ─ that gnostic touch I mentioned of God being so remote from the material world that an intermediary is required.

Please elaborate and tell us why you believe Jesus is no good, and just where he admits to being no good in this verse.

Luke's Jesus is admonishing the speaker for assuming that Jesus is good, whereas God, says Luke's Jesus, is the only one who's good. You have Jesus' word for it, not mine.

If you disagree, please quote me Paul saying Jesus is God, the Jesus of Mark saying "I am God", the Jesus of Matthew saying "I am God", the Jesus of Luke saying "I am God", and the Jesus of John saying "I am God". (And skip the "Before Abraham was, I am" nonsense ─ that's John's Jesus, who pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe, so of course he was around long before Abraham. Read the context of his statement too, and the express denials such as I've mentioned above.)

If your premise is correct, the verse should read “No one is good but the Father alone.”

The God of the NT doesn't become "God the Father" until the adoption of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century. Until then [he]'s the only God, just like the Jewish God. There is of course no hint of Trinitarian theology in the NT, where as I tire of pointing out to you, Jesus is merely God's envoy.

The relevant texts read

Mark 10:18 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός

Luke 18:19 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός​

where as you doubtless know εἷς means one, singly, only, alone.

 

[BrokenBread]

God, who cannot lie says that He will not share His glory with anyone.

Isaiah 48:11
"For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another."

But the Lord Jesus has declared that He shared the Glory of God The Father in eternity past prior to becoming flesh .

John 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

This leaves only three possible options, either Jesus is God , or God is liar, or Jesus is liar .

For me . I will trust in Jesus and in the Father.

 

[JerryMyers]

Yeah, I think we're done.

Yeah, you ARE done, NOT me!

So, you can expect me to continue to comment on some of your nonsensical responses, if not to me, to the other posters here.

 

[Oeste]

As your NT will readily affirm, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John ─ unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke ─ pre-existed in heaven with God and (regardless of what Genesis says) created the material universe.

Yes, the preexistence of Jesus is certainly affirmed in the New Testament, and God created, as affirmed in Genesis, created our material universe.

Both Paul and the author of John were influenced by such gnostic ideas.

I've heard this before as has the historic church, but I see both Paul and John arguing against Gnosticism, warning believers of its potential impact on the church. In fact, Irenaeus (170 AD), argued extensively against Gnosticism using quotations from both Paul and John ("Against the Heresies").

He quotes Acts 2: 36 "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah" emphasizing Peter preached one God who is the Creator, countering the Gnostic notion of a lesser, flawed demiurge as the creator of our material world. With John, he cites John 1:14 ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"), to refute the Gnostic claim that Christ only appeared to take on flesh (Docetism, see my prior post #2511 here), arguing that John, as an eyewitness, testifies to the full humanity and divinity of Christ, which is essential for the redemption of humanity.

Again, as you likely know, this is from the 'kenosis hymn' Philippians 2:5-11, which I read is in poetic form ie conforms to Greek scansion, and has given rise to the hypothesis that Paul is quoting someone else's verse, that of an earlier Christian. As I said above, Paul thought Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God as a favored being, I imagine of rank higher than the angels, and here he 'empties himself' (the kenosis of the title) in order to become an earthling. Paul, like John, never says just how that coming to earth was accomplished, but both leave the little clue that Jesus was descended from David (ie messiah-fit).

Good insight as to how you understand and interpret our biblical text.

Above every name? Now that’s interesting!

That doesn't place Jesus above God.

Let's look at the verse:

Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"​

You are correct. This doesn't place Jesus's name above God's name, but neither is it placed below it. It simply means his name is equivalent to the name of God. So Jesus is not above, below, but as the Son of God he is God (To see him is to see the Father). He is also below God, as the Son of Man ("The Father is greater than I"). In short, Jesus has a dual nature.

This does not mean Jesus is the Father, as each is readily distinguishable from the other, but it's pretty clear that Jesus is God, and as we all know, there is but one God.

Jesus doesn't become God till the 4th century CE when the Trinity doctrine becomes orthodoxy.

Jesus has always been God, and not just since the 4th century CE. Any notion Jesus "became" God has been dispelled by archeological evidence. Note the 3rd century Meggido mosaic discovered here:

This authenticated mosaic is on display in Washington DC whereupon it will be returned to Israel.

I set out here >Jesus Failed Right?< some of the denials by Jesus that he's God. And I set out some of the problems with the later Trinity doctrine here >Why So Much Trinity Bashing?<.

No worries, when I get some time I'll post answers to any "proof-text" not previously answered here.

Only the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe.

Two who testify??? That is sufficient.

What "fulness?" you might ask. This would be the fullness of deity, just as scripture says:
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9

Yes, the King is present in the form of [his] envoy.

I've heard of envoys who have the full authority of the King, but never the full body of the King.

Besides, the verse doesn't state Jesus has the fullness of the Godhead's envoy, but the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
In short, the verse simply means Jesus is God, and is better translated as "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". As seen above, that is the way the early church understood it.

This is important! Note Jesus specifically refers to himself as the Son of man here, and not Son of God.

As you know, in the NT just who is the 'Son of Man' is ambiguous. Sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to himself, and sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to someone else, depending on which of the five versions of Jesus it is.

Jesus has a dual nature, the first and original as the Son of God, and the second as God incarnate, the Son of Man. He if fully man and fully God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "5 versions" of Christ. I suspect you mean the "5 versions" I would get if I asked 5 different people about you. It's expected and not anything to be alarmed about.

You stopped reading too soon. John 17 explains this idea more fully ─ that gnostic touch I mentioned of God being so remote from the material world that an intermediary is required.

No Gnostic touch here. God came Himself, personally and in the flesh, an idea repugnant to Gnostics but fully accepted by the early church.

If you disagree, please quote me Paul saying Jesus is God, the Jesus of Mark saying "I am God", the Jesus of Matthew saying "I am God", the Jesus of Luke saying "I am God", and the Jesus of John saying "I am God".

Talk to 5 different people about Moses and you will get 5 different things. Testimonies about Jesus will be as different as they are for you and me and no two will ever be the same. Are remembrances are unique, and we perceive and interact with each other in different ways.

The God of the NT doesn't become "God the Father" until the adoption of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century.

Not quite, see Meggido Mosaic, above.

The relevant texts read

Mark 10:18

Luke 18:19
where as you doubtless know εἷς means one, singly, only, alone.

And as you doubtless know, both state God (Θεός, Theos) and not the Father ( Πατὴρ, Patér), alone.

 

[Oeste]

Just as a follow up, because it's not clear from the link, the Meggido Mosaic has an inscription dedicating the table where communion was held to "God Jesus Christ".

The original church dates back to 230 AD, was located under a prison in northern Israel, shows the relative importance of women in the church, features two fish rather prominently, and is the earliest Christian church to be discovered by archeologists.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, the preexistence of Jesus is certainly affirmed in the New Testament, and God created, as affirmed in Genesis, created our material universe.

The NT has five models of Jesus, each of which disagrees at key points with the other four. The trap about trying to invent a single Jesus by picking and choosing the characteristics you like is that all you end up with is a sixth model that disagrees with the other five.

I've heard this before as has the historic church, but I see both Paul and John arguing against Gnosticism, warning believers of its potential impact on the church. In fact, Irenaeus (170 AD), argued extensively against Gnosticism using quotations from both Paul and John ("Against the Heresies").

That doesn't alter the coincidence of ideas from Gnosticism and ideas found in Paul and John, Jesus as pre-existing in heaven with God, Jesus as maker of the material universe, Jesus as intermediary between man and very distant God.

Good insight as to how you understand and interpret our biblical text.

I read what it says, as I'd read any other historical document. I have no personal interest in or desire for it to say any particular thing, any more than I wish Caesar's Gallic Wars to say any particular thing.

What I observe with believers, though, is that they constantly wish 'interpretations' on it that comply with their particular take on Christianity, much of which, I'd say, is what they were taught attending church. That the NT supports the later Trinity Doctrine ─ not adopted till the 4th century ─ is one of many egregious examples.

Let's look at the verse:

Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"​

No, before we get bogged in the details again, first quote me Paul saying "Jesus is God", and the Jesus of Mark saying "I am God" and the Jesus of Matthew saying "I am God" and the Jesus of Luke saying "I am God" and the Jesus of John saying "I am God".

Out loud and proud, of course, not playing around with other words like "Lord" (which Paul clearly distinguishes from "God").

As I said, all that gets you is the Jesus of Mark and the Jesus of Matthew saying, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" and all four gospel Jesuses saying, "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me."

And for the reasons I provided previously, the Trinity doctrine itself is not only incoherent, a nonsense, but admitted out loud to be so, albeit by using the euphemism "a mystery in the strict sense".

Jesus has always been God, and not just since the 4th century CE. Any notion Jesus "became" God has been dispelled by archeological evidence. Note the 3rd century Meggido mosaic discovered here:

Unsurprisingly there was a push on to give Jesus god-status from as early as the 2nd century. Indeed the author of John is setting a course to distinguish the God of his Jesus from the Jewish God. (Paul had already done an analogous thing when he abandoned the covenant of circumcision.) However, as I keep pointing out to you, the claim that Jesus is God is mentioned nowhere in the NT, wasn't made official until the 4th century, and in its adopted form is incoherent, for the reasons I linked you and no doubt more.

Two who testify??? That is sufficient.

Nope, they're a minority ─ only two of the five versions.

Jesus has a dual nature, the first and original as the Son of God, and the second as God incarnate, the Son of Man. He if fully man and fully God.

Sure, churches are free to believe what they want. Jesus can have a magic pet dog named Benson, if that's what you want. I won't argue.

That is, unless you claim that the NT supports the view that Jesus had a magic pet dog named Benson. The NT doesn't support the (incoherent) Trinity notion, and equally it doesn't support the Benson notion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "5 versions" of Christ.

As with Benson, I have no problem with people who want to call Jesus 'the anointed one'. But I point out that nowhere in the NT does the Jewish priesthood anoint Jesus, so it's not unlike me styling myself "Nobel Prize Winner blü 2" ─ which I don't because I know full well I'm not a Nobel Prize winner. Anyway, to address your question ─

1. Paul's version of Jesus
2. Mark's version of Jesus
3. Matthew's version of Jesus
4. Luke's version of Jesus
5. John's version of Jesus​

 

[Eli G]

Jesus was a historical figure who lived in the first century and was a teacher to numerous followers. Many individuals either knew him directly or heard of him during his lifetime, and after his passing, through those who had known him.

The authors of what we refer to as the New Testament were either close to him (Matthew, John, Peter) , family (James, Jude), or had strong connections with those who knew him (Mark, Luke, Paul). While the details in various Christian texts may differ, suggesting there are "different versions of Jesus" is absurd, since all of them spoke about the same historical person.

It is clear that those who aim to portray the information about Jesus in the New Testament in such a manner ("versions") seek to mock the Christian Scriptures and cast doubt on Jesus' strong personality, teachings, and character during his human life.