So Jesus is not God?

[IndigoChild5559]

God is not a man that lies. God doesn't lie. Jesus never lied.

Jesus is the "Word made flesh". That's the thing. He can't lie. Impossible.

No, it does not say tat God is not a "man that lies." It says he is not a man that he should lie or change his mind. BIG difference.

I don't believe for a second that Jesus was anything more than an ordinary human being. Remember I'm Jewish.

 

[Iymus]

1. The way Numbers 23:19 is translated in English it comes off as a figure as speech. However, not only is it a figure of speech but it is also literal.

2. With God being our Heavenly Father "Joh 17:3 & Joh 20:17", Jesus also said God is not a man in "Mat 23:9".

3. Jesus did not come to destroy the law or wisdom given by the prophets but fulfil. "Mat 5:17 "

4. With Jesus mentioning The Heavenly Father as being the only true God and also mentioning call no man our Heavenly Father upon the earth; Jesus did say God is not a Man.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. The way Numbers 23:19 is translated in English it comes off as a figure as speech. However, not only is it a figure of speech but it is also literal.

2. With God being our Heavenly Father "Joh 17:3 & Joh 20:17", Jesus also said God is not a man in "Mat 23:9".

3. Jesus did not come to destroy the law or wisdom given by the prophets but fulfil. "Mat 5:17 "

4. With Jesus mentioning The Heavenly Father as being the only true God and also mentioning call no man our Heavenly Father upon the earth; Jesus did say God is not a Man.

You are using only the NT. The Tanakh teaches that God judges us by our obedience. the NT teaches that God's standard is our faith/belief in Jesus. Throw it out.

We all agree that the Tanakh is the word of God. Since it is the first to be written, it is the Reed by which future texts are measured. If the book of Mormon contradicts it, you toss the BOM. If the Quran contradicts it, you toss the Quran. If the NT contradicts it, you toss the NT.

Now the Tanakh clearly teaches a God who has no body, no form. The NT contradicts this. Throw it out.

 

[Iymus]

You are using only the NT. The Tanakh teaches that God judges us by our obedience. the NT teaches that God's standard is our faith/belief in Jesus. Throw it out.

We all agree that the Tanakh is the word of God. Since it is the first to be written, it is the Reed by which future texts are measured. If the book of Mormon contradicts it, you toss the BOM. If the Quran contradicts it, you toss the Quran. If the NT contradicts it, you toss the NT.

Now the Tanakh clearly teaches a God who has no body, no form. The NT contradicts this. Throw it out.

I don't use the NT to contradict the Tanakh and I dont believe it does. However if it is interpreted to contradict the Tanakh then I suspect that it should be thrown out as you say.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't use the NT to contradict the Tanakh and I dont believe it does. However if it is interpreted to contradict the Tanakh then I suspect that it should be thrown out as you say.

Here is but one of a great many contradictions.
In Deuteronomy 6:13 God commands Israel to swear in his name:
“You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.”

But Jesus say not to swear by anything in a long passage. Here is the essence of the passage.
“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” – Matthew 5:37

Toss it.

 

[Iymus]

Here is but one of a great many contradictions.
In Deuteronomy 6:13 God commands Israel to swear in his name:
“You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.”

But Jesus say not to swear by anything in a long passage. Here is the essence of the passage.
“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” – Matthew 5:37

Toss it.

Jesus said not to swear in our own names or by our own head. He is not contradicting "Deuteronomy 6:13" in the verses you mentioned.

Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Also

Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

Pro 17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus said not to swear in our own names or by our own head. He is not contradicting "Deuteronomy 6:13" in the verses you mentioned.

Jesus said, according to this verse:
“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” – Matthew 5:37

That means no swearing AT ALL. Any swearing at all is more than a yes or no, and therefore from the evil one. Uhhhh that would include swearing by God, and THAT contradicts Deuteronomy.

 

[74x12]

Now the Tanakh clearly teaches a God who has no body, no form. The NT contradicts this. Throw it out.

Don't be so sure about that. No form? Then why did God make humans in His image? THerefore, God has an image.

Who did Ezekiel see? (Ezekiel 1:26-27)
Or Daniel (Daniel 7:9)

And there are many others that "saw" God. That is they saw a form of God. Not that they saw all of God or the glory of God. But they saw God in a certain form.

This form was always humanoid as far as I can see.

Here is but one of a great many contradictions.
In Deuteronomy 6:13 God commands Israel to swear in his name:
“You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.”

But Jesus say not to swear by anything in a long passage. Here is the essence of the passage.
“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” – Matthew 5:37

Toss it.

Deuteronomy is part of a legal code. In those days they always made oaths as standard for legal cases. Similar to how in modern times they make you take an oath on the Bible or whatever. (at least in America)

Jesus is saying not to promise things such as when they swore not to marry their daughters to the tribe of Benjamin (which they regretted) or when Jephthah vowed to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house if he was victorious. So they were foolish promises that shouldn't have been made.

So there is a big difference between a voluntary promise and an oath to be honest in a court of law setting.

Besides, Jesus point is that if everyone always was honest then they wouldn't even need to swear. Because their yes would be yes and their no would be no.

So, Deuteronomy saying that you shall take oaths in His name is because if they didn't then they would take oaths in some other god's name. That's the real point of Deut 6:13. It's not really a commandment "you must take oaths". More like when you do take oaths(because you will) then take them in His name. So God didn't want them to swear by names of foreign gods.

But we would all be better off without making promises we may not be able to keep or may regret later. When we do this; we're probably being challenged by satan to make this oath. It's root is pride or guilt. People make promises to God because they're proud and think they can do it; or else they're feeling guilty about something.

But faith is better because it means you just trust God not yourself. Promising God you'll do better or you'll do this or that is self reliance. That's why it's from satan. For example Jephthah could have just prayed and asked God to give him the victory. No promise to sacrifice anything was required to have faith in God.

Just remember that Satan is a challenger. When he sees someone trying to be righteous he will challenge them because he wants them to become proud or self reliant. But if we're humble we will not accept the challenge.

Ecclesiastes 5:1-3
5 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. 2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Don't be so sure about that. No form? Then why did God make humans in His image? THerefore, God has an image.

Who did Ezekiel see? (Ezekiel 1:26-27)
Or Daniel (Daniel 7:9)

And there are many others that "saw" God. That is they saw a form of God. Not that they saw all of God or the glory of God. But they saw God in a certain form.

This form was always humanoid as far as I can see.

"The image of God" does not refer to a humanoid form. It refers to attributes of God, such as the ability to freely choose, reason, etc.

Visions are symbolic, like dreams. We give form and substance to abstractions in our visions and dreams. It does not mean these forms are literally true.

Deuteronomy is part of a legal code. In those days they always made oaths as standard for legal cases. Similar to how in modern times they make you take an oath on the Bible or whatever. (at least in America)

You are inserting something into Deuteronomy that is not there.

Further, it looks to me like Jesus is forbidding legal oath taking -- there is no mention of exceptions.

 

[Iymus]

1. Oaths are not a common occurrence and are a serious matter. When oaths are deemed as required or necessary it should be in accordance with Deuteronomy 6:13.

2. When oaths are not required or deemed neccessary then Mat 5:36-37 should apply.

3. Taking an oath when the life of someone is directly affected by your words vs saying yes or no if you agree to take out the trash instead of taking an oath.

4. But not to take away from the main topic of "So is Jesus not God?". He is not the only true God, neither God of the Hebrews , so therefore he is not God.

 

[Muffled]

All this confusion is because people do not understand about the distinction between the flesh and the Spirit.

God is a Spirit. He didn't have blood to shed for man's sins. So he overshadowed the virgin Mary, and made himself a fleshly body (which he called the Son) to dwell in, and sacrifice for sins. The Spirit of God can't die, but the fleshly body he was dwelling in could die.

The flesh had weaknesses just like we do, so he prayed and cried out to the Spirit for strength just like we have to do. But it wasn't another person in the Godhead. It was just the Spirit of God dwelling in a fleshly body. The Messiah said, I and my Father are one, and if you have seen me you have seen the Father. He was both Father and Son - flesh and Spirit.

I believe the Father is God outside of any body and the Son is God inside the body of Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

It is almost impossible to answer unless their is some kind of common understanding.

5 + 5 = 10
5 * 5
however
5+ 5 * 5 = either 30 or 50.

Now if we both can agree on what is expedient " most important", what is the foundation, what is the law then we can both discern what the answer is.

granted we read from left to right in the English language however when it comes to the culture of numbers they have their own foundations and laws which takes precedent. We must multiply before we add. If we cannot agree then one of us will always get the answer 30 while the other 50.

now if someone wants to boast against the natural branches "proper order", oracles of God, and foundation of the bible they will skip the first basic step and be unable to discern the solution or answer.

The Divinity of God is a commandment of God, The Trinitarian Doctrine/ Creed is a creed of man.[/QUOTE]

I believe the Trinity is the Word of God.

 

[Muffled]

Doesn’t matter. The resurrection was written from a particular theological foundation. The concept exists, even if the facts do not. And that concept is included in the Bible. And that concept points implicitly to Jesus’ Divinity.

I believe a resurrection is not proof of divinity because Lazarus was resurrected and wasn't divine. I believe it is more likely the statement by jesus that He has the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. Only God has the power to resurrect.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. Oaths are not a common occurrence and are a serious matter.

I don't know about that. I do hear people saying things like, I swear to God that... or I swear on my mother's grave that... in order to be believed.

 

[sojourner]

I believe a resurrection is not proof of divinity because Lazarus was resurrected and wasn't divine. I believe it is more likely the statement by jesus that He has the power to lay down His life and the power to take it up again. Only God has the power to resurrect.

No, that’s not what I was getting at. You missed the point. For ancient Jews, monotheism was paramount. That’s why there is, for the ancient Jews, no real dealings with an afterlife. The dead were viewed as very powerful — almost as gods. any dealings with the dead and their powers would open the way to idolatry. Remember: the gospels were written after Jesus’ resurrection was a “thing,” from the POV of people who already believed in a resurrection. Lazarus came out of that tradition.

 

[Oeste]

"Son of X" can be figurative. Israel is God's firstborn son. David is a son of God. In both cases it is figurative.

"Son of X" can be figurative, but not if that Son is begotten.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

[Oeste]

John 3:16...(Notice, it doesn’t say “the Father”, as if needing to differentiate. It says “God”.)
Did Jesus send himself?

I am Trinitarian. We do not believe Jesus is the Father.

Jesus, being Jehovah God’s firstborn, is more precious to Him than anyone else...so it was showing a lot of love, to let His Son die for us. Is it any wonder that the Earth quaked, and the skies grew dark, when His son died?

Who shows greater love? The one that dies for another, or the one that sends?

 

[Oeste]

1. The (begotten) son of Frog is Frog.
2. The (begotten) son of Dog is Dog.
3. The (begotten) son of Man is Man.
4. The (begotten) son of God is ____?
Same argument as before, just a bit more clear.

If anyone here understands that the only begotten son of Frog is NOT Frog, please explain.

First and foremost a Son proceeds forth and comes from a Father. The Son of God is The Son of God our Father.

Okay, so let's take your example. The Son of Frog proceeds forth and comes from a Father. Is this Son a Frog, Dog, Man or God?

 

[Iymus]

Okay, so let's take your example. The Son of Frog proceeds forth and comes from a Father. Is this Son a Frog, Dog, Man or God?

1. If I believe in a specific Frog and the Prophets of That Specific Frog. And if The Specific Frog says thru his prophet "Before Me there there was no Frog formed, neither shall there be after me."

The Son of that Specific Frog is not that Specific Frog, because that Specific Frog said so and is The Specific Frog for a reason.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

2. Life originates with God our Heavenly Father

Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

3. Many are called god or lord but we have a specific God that is Lord of Heaven and Earth and greater than all "Lord God our Father".

1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

4. One should not use the begotten to deny the one who begat.

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

 

[Oeste]

Okay, so let's take your example. The Son of Frog proceeds forth and comes from a Father. Is this Son a Frog, Dog, Man or God?

1. If I believe in a specific Frog and the Prophets of That Specific Frog. And if The Specific Frog says thru his prophet "Before Me there there was no Frog formed, neither shall there be after me."

The Son of that Specific Frog is not that Specific Frog, because that Specific Frog said so and is The Specific Frog for a reason.

But the Son is in fact Frog, is he not? Or are you saying the Son of Frog is not Frog?

I believe what you’re trying to tell me is that the Son of Frog is not the same specific Frog that he is Son of, is that correct? In other words, the Son if not the Father.

I have no problem with that, but that was not my question.

The question is not WHO but WHAT is the Son of Frog. Is he Frog, Dog, Man or God?

2. Life originates with God our Heavenly Father

I agree that life originates with God but I’m not sure how this affects the question. For the sake of argument (and to eliminate any possible confusion) all parties whether begetter or begotten are presumed alive.

In other words, you might find the answer to my question a bit tricky but the question itself is not.

3. Many are called god or lord but we have a specific God that is Lord of Heaven and Earth and greater than all "Lord God our Father".

I am not referring to those Sons “called” but only those “begat” by Frog, of which there is only one. Is the only begotten “Son of Frog”:

1. Frog

2. Dog

3. Man or

4. God?​

Look, if you or anyone has a logically consistent argument that the Son of Frog is none of these then please…present it here. I'm all ears.

Likewise, if anyone feels the question too complex or that there is insufficient information to draw a reasonable conclusion please feel free to express their basis here. Perhaps we can thresh this out together.(Isaiah 43:26)

However, once we figure out the sticky problem of whether the Son of Frog is Frog I think we'll be able to move on to Dog, Man and God pretty quickly.

Remember, we are not referring to any adopted sons, and all parties have life. All begetters have announced they have ONE, and only one "begotten" son. We can presume this to be true because the Frog has never lied before. We do not need to know WHO this son of Frog is. In fact we don't even have to give this son a name. We are only looking to find out WHAT this son is.

So here it is again.

Is the only begotten Son of Frog

1. Frog
2. Dog
3. Man or
4. God?

Has anyone figured out an answer?​