The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[Kenny]

The questions most certainly have answers - answers the trinitarian is unable to reconcile.

Not really. Scripturally, you are a trinitarian too.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am tired of nonsense. Your post does absolutely nothing to refute my propositions or invalidate my syllogisms. It is simply a non-response in a logical debate forum.

I respect your attempt to shore up your difficult position, and I also appreciate your posts which illustrate your point of view well.

 

[metis]

Yes, The NWT corrected all the errors translated in by Catholicism--all originals were gone by the time protestants translated--Catholicism translating remained and Hebrew translating. Hebrew translating contradicts Catholicism translating.

Not necessarily because interpretations tend to be variable, plus there is more than one Catholic Bible.

Example--trinity teachers use--I am that I am from the ot to try to say Jesus was claiming to be God by saying -I AM-- But reality--In the real Hebrew

The N.T. did not come form the Hebrew but from Koine Greek.

-Fact--No trinity was taught at the first council of Nicea-325) it was added later at another council--it is not truth.

Yes, but it's important to look at that process, including the timing:

The council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the term "Trinity" (Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) was used in the writings of Origen (185–254) and Tertullian (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362. So the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD,[79] and a final form formulated in 381 AD, primarily crafted by Gregory of Nyssa. -- First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

In Catholicism, it's referred to as "the mystery of the trinity", and "mystery" is there for a reason.

 

[metis]

Most of Hitlers armies were young catholic men

And where did you get this "information" from? Link please.

The unfortunate reality is that it takes--throwing Jesus away to accomplish what Catholicism has done through the centuries--many other religions claiming to be Christian are lost in the same darkness.

Are you aware that those who were drafted had no choice in the matter unless they were willing to go to prison? Are you also aware of the fact that there were quite a few JW's who went into the German army as well, although I'll give the JW's credit in that their numbers proportionally were the lowest of any religious group.

But I can't help but notice that you heap hot coals on Catholics but avoid doing so to the Protestants, and it begs the question as to why your outrage is so selective? And even though you don't see yourselves as JW's as being Protestants, the reality is that you are from the Protestant tradition.

 

[Grumpuss]

Not necessarily because interpretations tend to be variable, plus there is more than one Catholic Bible.

Are you referring to previous translations, or Eastern Orthodox variants?

Matthew 4:24 "So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them."

 

[metis]

Are you referring to previous translations, or Eastern Orthodox variants?

The former. Even though I'm not Catholic, I have two Catholic Bibles, with one of them being the Jerusalem Bible and the other the NAB.

BTW, I also have my maternal grandmother's Lutheran Bible written in Swedish, and it dates back to the 1800's.

 

[Oeste]

I still remember reading the Bible and not absorbing any spiritual information. After the born-again moment, the words came alive.

I liken it to a new language. I understood the world's language because I was born into it but the Heavenly language was foreign to me. Being "born again" caused me to be birthed into His Kingdom and thus His language became alive as a baby naturally learns the language in the nation he/she is birthed into.

Excellent testimony KenS. Once I realized it was Christ and no one or nothing else, not my doctrine, my friends, nor my religion that had died and been raised scripture became something that spoke to me, rather than something I was suppose to read and be able to recite back.

 

[Oeste]

This is something that has always perplexed me about non-Trinitarians Ingeldvsa. Your statement that Jesus is not named Immanuel would be immediately challenged by any Trinitarian, but would be allowed to sit and fester by my non-Trinitarian Christian friends. In other words they would remain quiet even though you attack Jesus...their declared Savior...as fulfillment of Tanakh prophesy.

It's as if these "last day", post Millerite religions have been set up solely to attack the Trinity rather than to defend or reach concordance with New Testament scripture.

As such, when it comes to giving a defense for what they believe:

"...but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear:" (1 Peter 3:15)
they seem to fall down a bit on the job.

But to answer your question:

Jesus did not have to be named Immanuel. "God with us" is a reference to who Jesus is, not to what Jesus is named. It was also prophesied that Jesus would be cal "Wonderful Counselor" and "Mighty God", and if Mary had named him Immanuel I suspect there would be those wondering why she hadn't named him "Wonderful Counselor" instead.

Not correct.

Isn't it interesting that everything is a PROPHECY from God and can't be changed, - until you don't like what it says HE SAID.

And I might as well add at this point that the verse is not about a future Jesus.

They were in a war and God gave them a sign, - a MAIDEN would conceive and NAME her child Immanuel, God is with us = in the war going on right then. The sign was for Ahaz and Isaiah, which means it cannot be a far future person. Named Kings would be gone BEFORE the child Knew the difference between Good and Evil. So, again, no future Jesus.

The God prophecy says SHE will name her son Immanuel, Not some future person (a pope I think) saying it is a title, trying to claim Jesus is this child. Mary gave her son the wrong name.

Isa 7:14 Therefore will YHVH himself give you a sign: behold, this (‛almah) young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and she shall call his name ‘Immanu-el, God with us.

Quotes below from http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

"The Southern Kingdom of Judea had its capital in Jerusalem and was ruled by King Ahaz. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria and was ruled by King Pekah. To the north of both these kingdoms was a third, non-Jewish ruler, King Resin of Aram (Syria) whose capital was Damascus.

God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King Rezin They had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.”

"Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because God will be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally, within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse:

“before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15

It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah:

“he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4"

"Eventually the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Aram-Syria are vanquished by the armies of Sennacherib King of Assyria (Babylon) who exiled the northern kingdom:

“The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6

“Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22" (Note here that we have the SON of AHAZ and the war with ASSYRIA together.)

We will let them speak for themselves.

Well this is pretty easy, but I’d like to pose a question to some of our Arian “true-defenders-of-Christianity-before-it-went-poof-and-apostatized-in-the-3rd-or-4th-century-and-lucky-for-you-we-came- along-to-restore-the-original-teachings” friends what they actually think about this before I answer.

Does Ingledsva have a point? She claims the reference to Jesus as “God with us” at Isaiah 7:14 is “not correct”. Perhaps Matthew was incorrect @ 1:23?

Do you have a scriptural response or does the assertion become invisible when it doesn't support the Trinity?

Or worse, do you fade to black hoping there’s a Trinitarian on board around to answer questions like this for you?

Bonus if you can answer the virgin/young woman challenge.

I'll leave the question open for a day or two.

Thanks!

From the ranks of our non-Trinitarian friends...

Any takers?

 

[Oeste]

The questions most certainly have answers - answers the trinitarian is unable to reconcile.

Strange but we seem to be doing a pretty good job of reconciling scripture here. But then Trinitarians have been doing that for thousands of years, haven’t they? In fact, they appear to be the only Christian group willing to go that extra mile to defend and reconcile ALL of scripture, rather than defend or “proof text” selected verses.

Let me explain what I mean.

Earlier another anti-Trinitarian attacked New Testament scripture as “incorrect” when she claimed Jesus was not “God with us” or the promised Messiah. She gave a rather excellent explanation (see post above) of Isaiah 7:14 which EXCLUDED Jesus.

Rather than have Trinitarians rush in and reconcile this with New Testament scripture (as they have a tendency to do) I asked if we could leave the question open and allow our non-Trinitarian friends the opportunity to defend scripture for us.

In other words, we presented a golden opportunity for our Arian styled friends to step in the shoes of the patristic fathers and show us how they would have defended and reconciled scripture against the skeptics and heretics of the first three centuries, yet not one of them stepped forward to answer her question.


Can you imagine the impact if scripture had been left in the hand of these folks during the first few centuries? What do you think would have happened if we had a church so narrowly focused on attacking other Christians that it had no members willing to defend their faith in Christ?

But now, since we are a few posts removed from Ingledsva’s challenge, I see our Arian styled friends slowly creeping back into the discussion again, eager and willing to join in with their non-Trinitarian allies from the ranks of Judaism, Islam, atheism and what have you, perfectly content to let the opportunity of 1 Peter 3:15 pass them by:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,​

I know it’s hard sometimes “to do this with gentleness and respect”. Certainly I have been guilty from time to time. But to offer no defense at all???

These folks, who buzz around like flies when attacking the Trinity, suddenly go dark when defending Christ! They are so busy singing in the anti-Trinitarian chorus that they can’t hear the sledgehammers attacking the foundation of the church!

So before someone else lays another non-specific, rather nebulous charge at the feet of Trinitarians I kindly asked if they could take a moment to defend a serious attack against Christ…the total basis for our belief and faith in scripture, rather than make another quiet fade into the background.

In other words, I’m simply asking our New Testament, non-Trinitarian believers to show us how it’s done.

Excuse me (my bad), how “they did it” before the church became “apostatized”.

 

[Ndoki53]

This post is intended to address a subject which has been argued a number of times. I have read some and briefly engaged some of those who reject the deity of Christ because they say that the Bible does not state the words “Jesus is God”. I believe this argument is fallacious, violating the word-concept fallacy. Also it demonstrates a presupposed bias when so many Scriptures identify Christ as divine, attributing to Him many of the divine names given to God. I do not intend to deal with the many New Testament texts ascribing Old Testament references of Jehovah to Jesus Christ. Nor the many references equating Him as Lord in the N.T. with Kurios (Lord) in the Septuagint. I will only use the Apostle John in this post in whose writings reveal the Deity of Christ.

Revelation 19:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

This section in Revelation is dealing with the coming of Christ. The Apostle John assigns a descriptive name to Jesus “The Word of God” (Gr. ho logos ho theos). This identifying Christ as “Logos”, the “Word”, is also used by John in the Prologue to his Gospel: John 1:1-18

John 1:1-18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Witness John

6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Word Made Flesh

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Note verse 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi). The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. “and the Word was with God…the Logos has been in communion and communication with God for eternity as well. The verb is the same as the first clause, and the preposition pros (“with”) pictures for us face-to-face communication. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. We have the same situation in 1.1c.The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase “and God was the Word” for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term “God” is the predicate nominative, the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term “God” by placing it first in the clause – this is not just a “divine nature” as in something like the angels have – rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as “Deity”). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity.”

What he wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from “God” (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa – there are two persons under discussion here.

John 1:1 tells us some extremely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John’s mind – the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God.

John goes on to gives to Jesus another descriptive name: “The Light”, the “True Light”, the “Light of the world”.

Verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The Word did not eternally exist in the form of flesh; rather, at a particular point in time He became flesh. This is the incarnation.

Verse 18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB

He first asserts that no one has “seen God at any time.” Now, the Old Testament tells us that men have indeed seen God in the past – Isaiah saw God on His throne in Isaiah 6; Abraham walked with Yahweh in Genesis 18. So what does John mean? He defines for us that the one he is speaking of here is the Father – that is, no one has seen the Father at any time. OK, then who was it that was seen by Isaiah or by Abraham?

John tells us – the unique God. Here the phrase is monogenes theos. There is a textual variant here. Many manuscripts have monogenes huios (unique Son) – and the KJV follows this tradition. But the strongest reading is “unique God.” How are we to understand this?

The term “monogenes” is used only of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Jesus is here described as the “unique God” – John is not asserting a separate deity from the Father. Rather, this ‘unique God” is the one who is eternally in fellowship with the Father. Even when discussing the “separateness” of the Father and the Son as persons, John is quick to emphasize the unity of the divine Persons in their eternal fellowship together. Here John teaches, again, the eternal and central fact of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The unique God makes the Father known – He “explains’ Him. What we know of the Father we know because of the revelation of the Son. We know what the Father is like because we know what Jesus Is like. Here the Son’s function as the revelator of the Father is clearly set forth, and this is directly in line with the usage of the term Logos in the Prologue. Other New Testament writers use the same theme – for Paul Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” and for the writer of Hebrews Jesus is ‘the express image of His (the Father’s) person…” Both writers (or maybe just one writer if Paul indeed wrote Hebrews) are emphasizing the role of Jesus as the revealer of the Father. In the same way, this answers the above question regarding who it was, in John’s opinion, that was seen of Abraham and Isaiah. We have already had occasion to note that John will directly assert that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in the person of Yahweh (12:39ff), and could it be that this is the explanation for Jesus’ statement in John 8:56? Did Abraham “see the day of Jesus” when he walked with Him by the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1)?

The conclusion is obvious throughout these few verses:

If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

And if that same Word is God. Jn.1:1-18

Then Jesus is God.

Special thanks to James R White

 

[Ndoki53]

It is NOT what a "book" says is what we hinge our belief and faith in. The "Bible" is a book and it was NOT sent by God. What should be tantamount to all claiming to be a worshiper of the One True God and a follower of His Son, should be what GOD HIMSELF says about Jesus and what JESUS HIMSELF says about himself.

Firstly, we do not worship a book that man arrogated himself to give name to; to make holy; to blasphemously call "The Word of God," and to authorize. We worship "The Father" in heaven.

Secondly, God did NOT send into the world a book. He sent his son and he COMMANDED at Luke 9:35 that we listen to that son. In fact, in that same scripture, God identifies Jesus as "His Son."

Thirdly, at Jesus' baptism, a voice out of heaven said, "This my Son ..."

Fourthly, when questioning his chosen and closest companions, the Apostles, Jesus ask them, "Who do you say the son of man is?" How did Peter answer? Did Peter say God? No, Peter and the other Apostles knew who Jesus was. Peter answered, "You are the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:13-17) Notice two people are mentioned here: A son and his God.

Fifthly, the Apostle Paul wrote at 1 Cor 8:6 that there is only ONE GOD and he is the "Father.

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Sixth, the Apostle John at John 20:31 said that all that he wrote down in his book was for one purpose" That people would believe that Jesus is the SON OF GOD. (Not God).

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Seventh, even at Jesus' temptation by the Devil, the Devil correctly identified Jesus. Read Matthew 4:5-6.

Jesus prophesied that many would claim they know him, but he would declare to them, "I never knew you." (Matthew 7:21-23)

If one is truly a disciple (student) of Christ (teachings), they would would know who he is: The Son of God. They would unhesitatingly God dishonoring and blasphemous teachings that elevate a book above the person of Jesus Christ as if IT (the book) is the teacher and dishonoring the ONE TRUE GOD by making the one he created God and equal to him.

These persons forget that Jesus' kingdom is no part of THIS WORLD, the very world that has created this lie that Jesus (the Son of God) is ALSO God.

They cling to a teaching and doctrine of THIS WORLD.

The TRUTH that Jesus is the Son of God is from above. (Matthew 16:17). The LIE he is God is from below (This world, in which Satan is its god).

Remember, Satan offered Jesus ALL of the kingdoms of this world. Satan would not have offered them if they were not his. (Matthew 4:8 and 2 Cor 4:4)

This post is intended to address a subject which has been argued a number of times. I have read some and briefly engaged some of those who reject the deity of Christ because they say that the Bible does not state the words “Jesus is God”. I believe this argument is fallacious, violating the word-concept fallacy. Also it demonstrates a presupposed bias when so many Scriptures identify Christ as divine, attributing to Him many of the divine names given to God. I do not intend to deal with the many New Testament texts ascribing Old Testament references of Jehovah to Jesus Christ. Nor the many references equating Him as Lord in the N.T. with Kurios (Lord) in the Septuagint. I will only use the Apostle John in this post in whose writings reveal the Deity of Christ.

Revelation 19:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

This section in Revelation is dealing with the coming of Christ. The Apostle John assigns a descriptive name to Jesus “The Word of God” (Gr. ho logos ho theos). This identifying Christ as “Logos”, the “Word”, is also used by John in the Prologue to his Gospel: John 1:1-18

John 1:1-18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Witness John

6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Word Made Flesh

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Note verse 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi). The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. “and the Word was with God…the Logos has been in communion and communication with God for eternity as well. The verb is the same as the first clause, and the preposition pros (“with”) pictures for us face-to-face communication. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. We have the same situation in 1.1c.The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase “and God was the Word” for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term “God” is the predicate nominative, the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term “God” by placing it first in the clause – this is not just a “divine nature” as in something like the angels have – rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as “Deity”). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity.”

What he wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from “God” (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa – there are two persons under discussion here.

John 1:1 tells us some extremely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John’s mind – the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God.

John goes on to gives to Jesus another descriptive name: “The Light”, the “True Light”, the “Light of the world”.

Verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The Word did not eternally exist in the form of flesh; rather, at a particular point in time He became flesh. This is the incarnation.

Verse 18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB

He first asserts that no one has “seen God at any time.” Now, the Old Testament tells us that men have indeed seen God in the past – Isaiah saw God on His throne in Isaiah 6; Abraham walked with Yahweh in Genesis 18. So what does John mean? He defines for us that the one he is speaking of here is the Father – that is, no one has seen the Father at any time. OK, then who was it that was seen by Isaiah or by Abraham?

John tells us – the unique God. Here the phrase is monogenes theos. There is a textual variant here. Many manuscripts have monogenes huios (unique Son) – and the KJV follows this tradition. But the strongest reading is “unique God.” How are we to understand this?

The term “monogenes” is used only of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Jesus is here described as the “unique God” – John is not asserting a separate deity from the Father. Rather, this ‘unique God” is the one who is eternally in fellowship with the Father. Even when discussing the “separateness” of the Father and the Son as persons, John is quick to emphasize the unity of the divine Persons in their eternal fellowship together. Here John teaches, again, the eternal and central fact of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The unique God makes the Father known – He “explains’ Him. What we know of the Father we know because of the revelation of the Son. We know what the Father is like because we know what Jesus Is like. Here the Son’s function as the revelator of the Father is clearly set forth, and this is directly in line with the usage of the term Logos in the Prologue. Other New Testament writers use the same theme – for Paul Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” and for the writer of Hebrews Jesus is ‘the express image of His (the Father’s) person…” Both writers (or maybe just one writer if Paul indeed wrote Hebrews) are emphasizing the role of Jesus as the revealer of the Father. In the same way, this answers the above question regarding who it was, in John’s opinion, that was seen of Abraham and Isaiah. We have already had occasion to note that John will directly assert that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in the person of Yahweh (12:39ff), and could it be that this is the explanation for Jesus’ statement in John 8:56? Did Abraham “see the day of Jesus” when he walked with Him by the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1)?

The conclusion is obvious throughout these few verses:

If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

And if that same Word is God. Jn.1:1-18

Then Jesus is God.

Special thanks to James R White

 

[kjw47]

sure--Jesus

So when you're at a Kingdom Hall or Assembly, do you separate German Witnesses from the rest of the congregation?

Let's correct your next post then, shall we?:



I hear Costa Rica has never been in a war so Witnesses from there must proudly hold their heads over others in your congregation, especially the Germans. Is this true?

Or do you still hold them accountable for your Organization's actions, like the "Declaration of Facts" which for all practical purposes threw the Jews under the bus?

Look, we all know the urge for religious bigotry runs strong and deep in your Organization kjw, but let's try to stick with thread theme.

For example, tell us again how we can quickly determine God from god through the use of capital letters.

Ones repented past does not count to God, he does not hold it against them, neither do his followers, hold ones past against them if repentant.
The false religions on this earth--do not repent--they lie and say its Gods will. If Germany rose up today with naziism and war-- All would see who listens to Jesus and who does not.

You have failed to understand--If the false religions claiming to serve Jesus told the young men--do NOT kill for Adolf Hitler--no ww2--55million of our human family members would have lived. They threw Jesus away to accomplish ww2.

 

[kjw47]

Nicea specifically dealt with the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ against Arianism and also affirmed the Trinity against Monarchianism. It went through some revisions concluding, I believe, with the Council of Constantinople 381 AD.
Which is commonly referred to as the Nicean Creed.

Later in 451 the council of Chalcedon rejected the heresies of Apollinaris and Nestorius. The council anethematized the who taught that Jesus had only one nature and those who taught that His two natures were mixed. It went on to describe the Hypostatic union.

The councils were held because they did not know truth. A pagan false god worshipping king resided over the councils. Guess who had the final say???? The greeks outright refused to go to a new religion that had only a single God--thus the trinity was born.

 

[kjw47]

Not necessarily because interpretations tend to be variable, plus there is more than one Catholic Bible.

The N.T. did not come form the Hebrew but from Koine Greek.

Yes, but it's important to look at that process, including the timing:

The council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ. Over a century earlier the term "Trinity" (Τριάς in Greek; trinitas in Latin) was used in the writings of Origen (185–254) and Tertullian (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son was settled around the year 362. So the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD,[79] and a final form formulated in 381 AD, primarily crafted by Gregory of Nyssa. -- First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

In Catholicism, it's referred to as "the mystery of the trinity", and "mystery" is there for a reason.

Its a mystery because they don't have a clue.
It was the OT--where--I am that I am was put into translation =error.
Yes satan didn't wait to screw it all up--as soon as Jesus died error teachings started getting in--in Peters book--super apostles teaching fornication was acceptable--Peter corrected them. Titus had to be left behind to correct error teachings that got in. Paul had to correct Peter on one occasion.
Satan does not stop--thus--error teachings get in--The wise look, make correction--The unwise think they already are standing strong.

 

[kjw47]

And where did you get this "information" from? Link please.

Are you aware that those who were drafted had no choice in the matter unless they were willing to go to prison? Are you also aware of the fact that there were quite a few JW's who went into the German army as well, although I'll give the JW's credit in that their numbers proportionally were the lowest of any religious group.

But I can't help but notice that you heap hot coals on Catholics but avoid doing so to the Protestants, and it begs the question as to why your outrage is so selective? And even though you don't see yourselves as JW's as being Protestants, the reality is that you are from the Protestant tradition.

Oh but they did have a choice---Listen to Jesus or let corrupt govts( 2Peter 2:19) rule your life. Most JW,s walked into the concentration camps, and to prisions in other countries--branded as cowards by the those lost in the darkness for listening to and applying Jesus first. Jesus taught---Love, peace, unity---- War is the exact opposite--out of hearts ruled by the antichrist.
Every mortal on earth that knows Jesus knows 100%--God sees one human family, as does Jesus. So why does anyone want to kill a family member??? because that member is lost to the darkness? Because this govt hates that govt and think their form of govt is the best---well not one form on this earth is acceptable to God or his son( Dan 2:44) Jesus will crush everyone of them out of existence when he returns to earth. God allows them so that total anarchy isn't ruling the earth. Rev 16 clearly shows who runs the govts of men. Especially it shows everyone of them will be mislead to stand in opposition to Gods king upon his arrival to the earth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Orthodox Christian doctrine defines God succinctly as: Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the Son, also called the Word (Rev.19:13; the Word was God Jn.1:1) the doctrine of the incarnation describes that event when the eternal Word (the pre-incarnate Christ) took on human nature, sin excepted, (Jn.1:14). Further describing this event Theologians teach the hypostatic union - an attempt to explain the divine nature and human nature coming together in the one person of the God-man Jesus Christ. Jesus will forever possess these two inseparable yet distinct, unmixed, undiluted, natures uniquely qualifying Him as the Mediator between God and man. This also explains those references which refer to Christ as divine or human for He is both.

In eternity past the Persons of the One Being of God covenanted that the Father would send and give a people to the Son, the Son willingly would go and accomplish their redemption, and the Holy Spirit would empower Jesus and apply His redeeming work to a particular people. (Ps.2; Isa.53:10-12)

Jesus' physical death on the cross accomplished the propitiatory (satisfaction) sacrifice in behalf of the elect, paying the penalty of all their sins. Being fully God and having no sin of His own death could not hold Him in punishment. Therefore God, being satisfied with the full payment of His broken law (Heb.2:17; Rom.6:23), God raised Him from the dead (Acts 13:22-41). Because of who He is and what He has done we have the "Carmen Christi":

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in the appearance of a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him a name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus 'Every knee will bow', of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil.2:5-11

Reminiscent of Isaiah 45:23: Almighty God speaking in the Old Testament says: "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me, every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance."

Honestly, I think you're mixing up very important things.

1. God the Father
2. Jesus the Son
3. Message of salvation
4. Holy Spirit or Spirit of Christ's Passion

I see this mixed up often; and, I actually don't know the difference of whether jesus is god or not would matter in the scheme of things, though from scripture, I read he is not. Doesn't matter. But here are my thoughts logically speaking.

You have the Father and son. Two separate people, joined together as one family by Spirit.

Then you have the son

In the middle. The Son was with the father when he was born, during his childhood, and his son kept in touch with his father as an adult.

The connection is that the traditions of this family came down from the father through the Messages (or stories). These stories or messages relay how the family should be, act, different virtues and values that the family holds, and how the family is like all other families receive the love and kindness from their parents.

The son grows older with the message of his father. It's an important message.

It is The Word of his father. Saying Word means the message has authority. The source of that authority is not from the son but from the father.

Through transition of the child's birth, that message or Word goes to the son. The son keeps in touch with his father and teaches the word (family values) to those who wish to here it. He is proud of what his father taught.

He is a physical image of his father's words. When his father passes away (in human time), he becomes the Word. Hence the word incarnation rather than exact nature.

Incarnation does not mean you are the person you have incarnated from. Image of and likeness of does not mean "is".

The father sense his word through his son. The Son becomes the Word/the message of his father incarnated into a human being. The purpose of this is to share the salvation by jesus' Passion which is not the teachings of jesus but the teachings of his father.

So you have

1. God the Father: The source. The origin. The Word Itself.

2. Jesus the Son: The Word incarnated. Image of. Which means the Word isn't the Son. You're confusing incarnation/image of with the verb To Be. All trinitarians do it. Don't know why. Catholic teaching so others took from that. It's not a Jewish teaching, so....

3. Message of salvation: The word incarnated is jesus christ. Jesus christ himself as a human salvation. His life, death, and resurrection is salvation. Anyone can experience the passion and save humanity. It's not because of the gender but because christ is flesh. Flesh lives, dies, and is born again. That is the message of god the father not Christ.

4. Holy Spirit or Spirit of Christ's Passion

When Christ was baptized, that is when god blessed him (not before) for his mission to save the Jews and Gentiles. When he was crucified and resurrected, his spirit returned to god.

In Acts, the Apostles was filled with the spirit of christ not a holy spirit (that's redundant). The spirit of christ (the Word of Salvation: which is of god the father) is salvation.

What trinity christians are doing is mistaking christ for his father because they feel the incarnation makes christ his father thereby making christ owner of the message of salvation.

It also makes christians think that when god the father said his son is the word, the incarnation/image of the word makes the son himself. Image of does is not a To Be verb.

Image of

Incarnation

Likeness

Two are one

Are all expressing two separate ideas, people, and spirits in one nature. But they retain their own nature one as the father and the other as the human son.

I had scriptures backing all of this up in detail but no trinity christian thinks about it really. I honestly don't' know why. It doesn't invalidate christ. It just means you should put all ownership of salvation

to god the father; the creator

and no one else.

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." Jesus

I don't know how clearer this can get.

 

[Oeste]

It is NOT what a "book" says is what we hinge our belief and faith in. The "Bible" is a book and it was NOT sent by God.

This might explain why so many feel they can have a go and change it. In any event, while I believe your theory would be widely accepted in Muslim, atheist or New Age communities, I don't think it would be accepted in a Christian one.

What should be tantamount to all claiming to be a worshiper of the One True God and a follower of His Son, should be what GOD HIMSELF says about Jesus and what JESUS HIMSELF says about himself.

Firstly, we do not worship a book that man arrogated himself to give name to; to make holy; to blasphemously call "The Word of God," and to authorize. We worship "The Father" in heaven.

Secondly, God did NOT send into the world a book. He sent his son and he COMMANDED at Luke 9:35 that we listen to that son. In fact, in that same scripture, God identifies Jesus as "His Son."

Thirdly, at Jesus' baptism, a voice out of heaven said, "This my Son ..."

Fourthly, when questioning his chosen and closest companions, the Apostles, Jesus ask them, "Who do you say the son of man is?" How did Peter answer? Did Peter say God? No, Peter and the other Apostles knew who Jesus was. Peter answered, "You are the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:13-17) Notice two people are mentioned here: A son and his God.

Fifthly, the Apostle Paul wrote at 1 Cor 8:6 that there is only ONE GOD and he is the "Father.

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Sixth, the Apostle John at John 20:31 said that all that he wrote down in his book was for one purpose" That people would believe that Jesus is the SON OF GOD. (Not God).

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Seventh, even at Jesus' temptation by the Devil, the Devil correctly identified Jesus. Read Matthew 4:5-6.

Wait a minute...I'm having a bit of difficulty following your logic here.

You already told us our books of scripture were NOT sent by God and it is NOT a book we should hinge our belief on.

Then you go on to quote the EXACT SAME RESOURCE and say we should believe you and not the bible. If we toss our bibles as unrealiable, how on earth are we suppose to know what did and did not come from God? Should Christians look to you, or did you have someone or something else in mind?

Somehow I just don't see First or Second Century Christians developing your line of reasoning in order to defend their faith in Christ. First, by undermining any belief in scripture and secondly, by telling them we must now believe what was in the scripture that we've already told them is nothing to hinge or put any faith in.

In fact, I believe this just goes to the point I was making earlier. That when it comes to attacking the Trinity, our non-Trinitarians have great swords. But when it comes to defending the basis of our faith in Christ, or the reliability of scripture, they have no breastplate, no shield, and virtually no armor in which to assert any sort of defense. The apparent argument here is that we should throw all that away.

Jesus prophesied that many would claim they know him, but he would declare to them, "I never knew you." (Matthew 7:21-23)

Again, I think this is coming from a book you told us we should hinge no belief in.

If one is truly a disciple (student) of Christ (teachings), they would would know who he is: The Son of God. They would unhesitatingly God dishonoring and blasphemous teachings that elevate a book above the person of Jesus Christ as if IT (the book) is the teacher and dishonoring the ONE TRUE GOD by making the one he created God and equal to him.

These persons forget that Jesus' kingdom is no part of THIS WORLD, the very world that has created this lie that Jesus (the Son of God) is ALSO God.

They cling to a teaching and doctrine of THIS WORLD.

Well, if we can't believe our bibles, you must have some other source in mind.

What is it?

The TRUTH that Jesus is the Son of God is from above. (Matthew 16:17). The LIE he is God is from below (This world, in which Satan is its god).

Remember, Satan offered Jesus ALL of the kingdoms of this world. Satan would not have offered them if they were not his. (Matthew 4:8 and 2 Cor 4:4)

So we are to look for truth in the words of Satan, the Father of Lies?

Is this something the bible (which is a book you say we are not to put any credence in) "truly teaches", or does this stem from some other source?

 

[metis]

It was the OT--where--I am that I am was put into translation =error.

And using the name "Jehovah" also is in error as there's no "J" sound in Hebrew. Instead, it would be pronounced starting with a "Y". The name "God" comes from the German language. And, if my memory is correct, there are 17 names for God found in the Tanakh, so it appears that God ain't that picky about which name He should be called by.

Satan does not stop--thus--error teachings get in--The wise look, make correction--The unwise think they already are standing strong.

I don't believe in Satan, but there's a lot of other things I don't believe in either as I'm not polytheistic.

Most JW,s walked into the concentration camps, and to prisions

I believe about 80% of the JW's refused to serve in the military in Germany in the WWII period, which is quite commendable as compared to other groups, thus leaving 20% that did.

This issue could and should be discussed more because it's not as cut & dry as you're assuming. As I believe I mentioned before, the pre-Constantine church really struggled with this, and even an intellect like Augustine had difficulty making up his own mind. Maybe we can discuss this on another thread.

 

[Oeste]

sure--Jesus

Ones repented past does not count to God, he does not hold it against them, neither do his followers, hold ones past against them if repentant.

Great, so while we're all in a forgiving mood, why not point us to some of your religion's past statement of heartfelt repentance...especially since it was you who first brought the accusation.

The false religions on this earth--do not repent--they lie and say its Gods will.

I see. So these "false religions" say it is God's will that they not repent and this is a lie.

Can you point us to your source please? I'm simply not aware of any main stream Christian religion that claims they should not repent.

However I can think of one that never has repented, and has never apologized for anything, but I'm waiting for you to show that link of heartfelt repentance your Organization published first.

If Germany rose up today with naziism and war-- All would see who listens to Jesus and who does not.

Nazism is rising up all the time. Christians oppose it. You will always find others willing to look the other way. Some may be closer than you think.

You have failed to understand--If the false religions claiming to serve Jesus told the young men--do NOT kill for Adolf Hitler--no ww2--55million of our human family members would have lived. They threw Jesus away to accomplish ww2.

Here we are, just what? 4 DAYS from MEMORIAL DAY, where tens of thousand of Catholics died opposing Hitler so each and every religion would have a full opportunity to heap even the vilest of accusation against them...and you gleefully take the opportunity in hand by claiming they all worked for Adolf Hitler.

Honestly kjw, I really think it would benefit you greatly to go to the library and pick up any secular book on US or international history.

BTW, as Metis has already alluded, there were some 25-30,000 Jehovah Witnesses in Germany when Hitler went to war. Only 5,000 went into the camps. They should be proud of those 5,000, and rightly so. But where do we find your Organization's repentance for the balance?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In response to post # 258

In the Hebrew there is No letter ' J ' for Jesus or Jeremiah (Yirmeyah'), but in English translations we use the letter ' J '.
I find www.jw.org explains more about the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in connection to God's name.