The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

Perhaps he did Not mean all Catholics worked for Hitler, but those pictured in this link apparently did:

Nazi photos showing Christian influence

 

[Rick B]

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)

If you are certain that "it is not what a book says" and "The 'Bible' is a book and it was NOT sent by God." Then why do you go to that book - the inspired Bible to try to support your assertions.

Well I know. It is because you would know virtually nothing about Jesus and absolutely nothing about Luke or Peter or John or Paul or Matthew or the devil but for God "giving" us this book. A book whose spiritual truths are closed to those who will not be governed by it.

This is a glaring inconsistency. And inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

 

[Rick B]

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.



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.



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



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

What is it?



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?

Exactly. A glaring inconsistency. And inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Is Jesus God?
Well . . . .
To whom did he pray?
Who resurrected Jesus? Or, are you saying he did not really die? . . .
On the subject of sacrifice:
What parent would not willingly sacrifice himself or herself in order to spare the child? This is the essence of Jesus' sacrifice and further proof of his identity separate from his father.

In the model prayer I find Jesus said to pray to his Father located in Heaven.
I find at 1 Kings 8:30,32, 34, 36, 39, 45, 49 that God's location or home dwelling place is: Heaven.
Jesus also placed his Father as being located heavenly at Luke 11:13, 2.

As to who resurrected the dead Jesus out of hell it was his God according to Acts of the Apostles 2:32; 3:15; 5:30; Colossians 2:12.
Since the resurrected Jesus has to keys to unlock temporary biblical hell (grave) according to Revelation 1:18, then Jesus will become ' Everlasting Father ' (life giver) to resurrected ones - Isaiah 9:6. So, through Jesus' death he willingly sacrificed himself to spare us as a loving parent would.

 

[Oeste]

Perhaps he did Not mean all Catholics worked for Hitler, but those pictured in this link apparently did:

Nazi photos showing Christian influence

Do you seriously believe there is a comparison to be made between Hitler and Jesus because they both carried a whip?

Also, can you point out the Catholics from the Lutherans, the Lutherans from the Baptists, the Baptists from the Methodists, the Methodists from the atheists, and the atheists from the Jehovah Witnesses in these pictures?

Are you aware that the German Nazi party had completely taken over the church, including most formal offices by the time most of these pictures were taken?

Also, can you tell us how many of the priests in these pictures ended up in the concentration camps by the time the war started?

Can you tell us who in the pictures hid Jews, which ones pointed them out, and which ones ignored the atrocities committed by the Nazis altogether?

Can you tell us how many clergy shown here were beaten in the streets, shot in a church while protecting a member of their flock, thrown off a steeple or murdered in their homes?

I think if you can do this, we can make real progress in showing Christian "influence" over Nazism.

But again, your link points to nobeliefs.com, an anti-faith, anti-religion site which believes any religious belief is irrational. Obviously they don't believe in Jesus/God, let alone the Trinity.

Yet here, once again, we see anti-Trinitarians like Uraviptome willing to entertain a spot in their choir whilst they sneak out back and attack our whole basis and belief in Christ.

Lots of swords. Little of armor.

It as perplexing as it is amazing.

 

[Kenny]

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.

I think this is a little dramatic...

God sent His words through His prophets and told them to write it down so that people could rehearse it. It doesn't change our belief in God but it does tell us what God said so that one could believe in Him.

To say that we don't hinge our belief on what it says, is to say that when one leaves one's last Will and Testament one does not put their faith in what it says... only on what the person said who isn't around to tell them what he wants.

 

[Ingledsva]

What about:
The Great Commission
Matthew 28:16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Well, first , these were written by people after Jesus was dead. We don't know that any of this was actually said.

And with that. - In Mat 28:17. The disciples did not "worship him - that would have been a sin. The word is proskuneō, and should here have been translated - prostrated - themselves in homage/reverence.

Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him, did (in reverence)prostrate themselves:but some doubted.

Here is another where they mistranslate it - as obviously Cornelius is not going to - worship - Peter, - again, that would be a sin against God.

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet in prostration (homage)

*

 

[Ingledsva]

What, apparently, escaped your notice is every one of the small number of Bible translations I presented explicitly support the same English translation that I used. And that dating back centuries. For you to insist that the translators should have translated the Greek words differently and Theos should have been translated "judge" is quite self-aggrandizing. On a similar note the Nicene Creed 325 AD was ratified to reject Arianism and it's stepchildren. Immediately jumping to these other texts that are not contextually relevant are merely rabbit trails. Especially when the multitude of Bible translations and Church History are contrary to your assertion: "And again NONE of them have to be read as saying GOD." It is simply silly to say that "Theos should have been translated JUDGE." and that Thomas was really saying "My Lord and my Judge/magistrate." contrary to any Bible translation. Why not have Thomas say for Theos/God, "Rock", "Savior", "Door", "Gate", "Shepherd", "Creator"? Why not? Because Theos, in these Greek syntax constructions, is the English word God.

Oh my!

Theos has multiple meanings. This verse can be translated several ways. The church translates it to fit its wants.

JESUS said he was the awaited Jewish Messiah - a human. He did not say he was a God, or part of any trinity.

And THAT is why I know the "chosen" translation is wrong.

For his disciples to have called him GOD, would have been a sin.

12 Him that overcometh will I (Jesus) make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

If NO man has seen God - at ANY time - than Jesus obviously isn't God.

*

 

[Rick B]

Well, first , these were written by people after Jesus was dead. We don't know that any of this was actually said.

And with that. - In Mat 28:17. The disciples did not "worship him - that would have been a sin. The word is proskuneō, and should here have been translated - prostrated - themselves in homage/reverence.

Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him, did (in reverence)prostrate themselves:but some doubted.

Here is another where they mistranslate it - as obviously Cornelius is not going to - worship - Peter, - again, that would be a sin against God.

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet in prostration (homage)

*

More glaring inconsistency.

"We don't know any of this was actually said". Yet you confidently quote those same Scriptures to try to bolster your position. Of course you must retranslate them to fit your presuppositions.

Failed argument.

 

[Rick B]

Oh my!

Theos has multiple meanings. This verse can be translated several ways. The church translates it to fit its wants.

JESUS said he was the awaited Jewish Messiah - a human. He did not say he was a God, or part of any trinity.

And THAT is why I know the "chosen" translation is wrong.

For his disciples to have called him GOD, would have been a sin.

12 Him that overcometh will I (Jesus) make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

If NO man has seen God - at ANY time - than Jesus obviously isn't God.

*

Regarding "No man has seen God at any time." John 1:18, and your conclusion.

How, then, do you explain the many times that state that several people see the Lord, the God of Israel?

Hagar, though a woman, Genesis 16:13-14
Abraham Genesis 18:1
Jacob Genesis 32:24-30
Moses Exodus 33:21-23
Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu and the 70 Elders of Israel Exodus 24:9-11
Isaiah, Isaiah 6:1
Micaiah 1Kings 22:19, 2 Chronicles 18:18
Philip, the disciples, anyone who has ever or will see Jesus:
John 14:8-9 - "...he who has seen Me has seen the Father...".
Revelation 1:7 BEHOLD HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

 

[Ingledsva]

More glaring inconsistency.

"We don't know any of this was actually said". Yet you confidently quote those same Scriptures to try to bolster your position. Of course you must retranslate them to fit your presuppositions.

Failed argument.

LOL! Failed argument? Inconsistencies? LOL!

I do not have to believe in a book to debate the translation. Thus no inconsistencies. That is ridiculous.

I was raised Christian, took Comparative Religion, and special religious courses.

I have multiple translations on my computer, - as well as the Greek and Hebrew, and all of my saved research material from those courses, for my use.

I'm interested in philosophy, religion, and myth, and their spread in the ancient past.

So, you will be seeing me continue to debate and question here.

Don't continue to post crap like you did here.

*

 

[MJFlores]

Now someone is claiming to be God. Totally unbelievable.

That is the result of a false religion, it breeds more falsehood.

The Lord Jesus never lied when he said that he is a MAN. It is people who like him to be god, when he really isn't - and that is wrong. The doctrine that Jesus is god was manufactured in Niceae, Turkey in 325 A.D. - more than 200 years after the last apostle died.

Jesus is god doctrine is one of the deceptions of the devil and people should wake up to the reality and the truth found in the Bible. The Jews of his time, asked

John 8:25-45 New International Version (NIV)

“Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” Even as he spoke, many believed in him.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

“Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

Your salvation rest on what you believe.

 

[Oeste]

More glaring inconsistency.

"We don't know any of this was actually said". Yet you confidently quote those same Scriptures to try to bolster your position. Of course you must retranslate them to fit your presuppositions.

Failed argument.

LOL! Failed argument? Inconsistencies? LOL!

I do not have to believe in a book to debate the translation. Thus no inconsistencies. That is ridiculous.

No, it was accurate.

Rick B. was not attacking your translation but your logic Ingledsva.

Ndoki53 made a similar argument in post 251. He claimed the bible was not from God. Then he bases an assertion on the very same bible he tells us we should have no faith in. It was illogical because he pulled the rug out from the very same book he later claims authoritative for his argument.

You did the same thing here. You claim we can't trust New Testament scripture as accurate because it was "written by people after Jesus was dead":

Well, first , these were written by people after Jesus was dead. We don't know that any of this was actually said.

Then you start citing New Testament scripture as if it were accurate:

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

If NO man has seen God - at ANY time - than Jesus obviously isn't God.

Why are you basing your assertion on a source you initially claimed can't be trusted? Are we to believe this is an accurate statement of John 1:18 states because you say so? In other words, are you quoting from the same "dubious" source everyone else has, or are you claiming yours is the only "accurate" source, like the Jehovah Witnesses?

Also, what is the problem with writing something after the event an event has passed? Are you asserting the Tanakh was written in real time?

I was raised Christian, took Comparative Religion, and special religious courses.

I have multiple translations on my computer, - as well as the Greek and Hebrew, and all of my saved research material from those courses, for my use.

I'm interested in philosophy, religion, and myth, and their spread in the ancient past.

So, you will be seeing me continue to debate and question here.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. He wasn't attacking you, he was attacking your argument, and it wouldn't matter if you were a home schooled bible student or held a graduate degree in Theology. Each argument stands or falls on its own.

Don't continue to post crap like you did here.

Anyone can label someone else's assertion "crap". It's the easy way out designed to promote more heat than discussion. Show us why an argument fails before you label it "crap". Rick B. states your argument failed and gave a reasonable basis for it, but I noticed he never took the low road and labeled your assertion "crap".

 

[Ingledsva]

Regarding "No man has seen God at any time." John 1:18, and your conclusion.

How, then, do you explain the many times that state that several people see the Lord, the God of Israel?

Hagar, though a woman, Genesis 16:13-14

Context - Through his angel!!!

Gen 16:11 And the angel of YHVH said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because YHVH hath heard thy affliction.

Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Gen 16:13 And she called the name of YHVH that spake unto her, Thou Almighty seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
Gen 16:13 And she proclaimed/cried-out the name of YHVH whom had answered concerning her, "The Almighty seest me." For she said, "have I not also/likewise seeked after him that seeth/seekith me?

Abraham Genesis 18:1

Why are you posting Tanakh verses - when we are discussing a Christian text (those people whom changed Hebrew texts.)

Specifically that one where your Apostle says NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD.

However here is your list, - none of them are people actually seeing God.

Gen 18:1 And YHVH râ'âh looked-upon/considered him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

YHVH considers him and sends three men - Angels? YHVH just speaks in this verse. He is not there, - as AFTER this all takes place - Gen 18:21 says YHVH THEN says he will go down!

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Jacob Genesis 32:24-30

They left off Elohiym - for YHVH, in Gen 2. He wrestled with elohiym messengers/angels etc. It says he wrestled an iysh/man.

Moses Exodus 33:21-23

'âchôr - is also afterward. Makes sense that since YHVH has hidden him in a cliff so he can pass by - and that AFTERWARD he will see again. Nothing to do with seeing God's Butt.

Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu and the 70 Elders of Israel Exodus 24:9-11

They went up to the mountain of YHVH, it doesn't actually say they saw him, - which is obvious by what they tell us they perceived.

Exo 24:16 And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

Exo 24:17 And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

It also tells us this splendor/glory of God is ABOVE the mountain. This makes sense with the other verses as YHVH is a SUN God and the sky would be the Blue under his feet. Also explains why Moses got Sunburned.

Isaiah, Isaiah 6:1

Good grief - It tells us these are visions.

Micaiah ,

Vision again!

Mic 1:1 The dâbâr oracle/message of YHVH that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

1Kings 22:19

Good grief you are trying to turn every vision/prophecy verse into actually seeing God. Won't work. This whole book is about a vision of Micaiah.

Ki 22:7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?

1Ki 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.
1Ki 22:18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?

1Ki 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. (A prophetic Vision)

2 Chronicles 18:18

More about Micaiah's prophetic vision. He Didn't actually see God.

2Ch 18:7 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son of Imla. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.

2Ch 18:17 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would not prophesy good unto me, but evil?

2Ch 18:18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

Philip, the disciples, anyone who has ever or will see Jesus: John 14:8-9 - "...he who has seen Me has seen the Father...".

Jesus is not God - nor does it say he is. He says the FATHER is in him. What he teaches shows the Father.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray to the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Joh 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

Revelation 1:7 BEHOLD HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

At the END, - and this is a Messiah Jesus vision, - not YHVH. The Messiah is the Judge of all in Sheol.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

No, it was accurate.

Rick B. was not attacking your translation but your logic Ingledsva.

Ndoki53 made a similar argument in post 251. He claimed the bible was not from God. Then he bases an assertion on the very same bible he tells us we should have no faith in. It was illogical because he pulled the rug out from the very same book he later claims authoritative for his argument.

You did the same thing here. You claim we can't trust New Testament scripture as accurate because it was "written by people after Jesus was dead":

Pure bull, as stated I do not have to believe in a text to challenge a translation. We are discussing if it was translated accurately, or not, by later groups.

Then you start citing New Testament scripture as if it were accurate:

Obviously I have shown many verses to be inaccurate. If I use one as is - it is because I have looked it up, - and it is close enough in meaning.

Why are you basing your assertion on a source you initially claimed can't be trusted? Are we to believe this is an accurate statement of John 1:18 states because you say so? In other words, are you quoting from the same "dubious" source everyone else has, or are you claiming yours is the only "accurate" source, like the Jehovah Witnesses?

We are talking about TRANSLATIONS. Many of them are inaccurate. All you have to do is go back to the earliest source you can find in the original language.

Also, what is the problem with writing something after the event an event has passed? Are you asserting the Tanakh was written in real time?

No - but Christianity is a secondary - later - religion - taking Tanakh texts and mistranslating, - misunderstanding them, - and then claiming they are correct and the owners are wrong.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. He wasn't attacking you, he was attacking your argument, and it wouldn't matter if you were a home schooled bible student or held a graduate degree in Theology. Each argument stands or falls on its own.

He said, - "...Of course you must retranslate them to fit your presuppositions."

This is BULL. I was raised and educated in Christianity. This is pertinent to what he is claiming.

Anyone can label someone else's assertion "crap". It's the easy way out designed to promote more heat than discussion. Show us why an argument fails before you label it "crap". Rick B. states your argument failed and gave a reasonable basis for it, but I noticed he never took the low road and labeled your assertion "crap".

Baloney, it is crap! He sidestepped the debate to make assertions against me. Stick to the debate.

RICK said "Of course you must retranslate them to fit your presuppositions." This is the same as calling me a liar.

*

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Further consideration needs to be given to the fact that at no point does Jesus claim to be God.

At what point did Jesus ever DENY being God?

We then have the apostle Paul's confirmation in Colossians 1:15-16 that Jesus is...."the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him." So Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" or as John wrote in Revelation 3:14.....Jesus is "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."

Your opinion can't be true, if those verses are referring to JESUS, then creation didn't BEGIN until JESUS was born of Mary, because JESUS didn't exist until He was born, and we know that isn't true.

Further to this is John 1:18 which clearly states that "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

Genesis 32:30 (ESV Strong's) 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
Exodus 24:9-10 (ESV Strong's) 9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel.
Exodus 24:11 (ESV Strong's) 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.
Judges 13:22 (ESV Strong's) 22 And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”

 

[Kenny]

The church translates it to fit its wants.

JESUS said he was the awaited Jewish Messiah - a human. He did not say he was a God, or part of any trinity.



*

Personally, I don't agree. To make a statement "church translates it to fit its wants" could be said of the same for anyone. (Including you and me).

Jesus didn't come to announce that he was God but there is ample scriptures to support that position by inference and by statements made. IMV. But to take all of this in context of his life on earth; he didn't come to be crowned, he came to die; he didn't come to proclaim that he was God but to fulfill that he was the Lamb of God; he didn't come to be exalted but to be abased; he didn't come with pomp and fanfare but came in a manger and thus one must view with a little more scrutiny about when He made inference that He was The Eternal Word and when scriptures does say He was The Word (God) in the flesh..

Upon his resurrection He did, however, open up the scriptures for understanding and the disciples did proclaim his position as part of the Godhead.

 

[kjw47]

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.

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.

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.

There is no discussion if one knows Jesus.

The spirit of Jesus( in the mortal heart)= LOVE,PEACE,UNITY--Love your enemies, return evil for evil to no one--If your enemy is hungry-feed him, if thirsty-give him a drink-- vengeance is mine said the Lord.

Spirit of Antichrist( in the mortal heart) Hate, fear, anger,calamity,division--- Hearts fills with fear, turns to anger then hate, takes vengeance for pride and self even as far as kill your enemy.


Not so easy following Jesus in a satan ruled world. Few know him.

 

[kjw47]

At what point did Jesus ever DENY being God?



Your opinion can't be true, if those verses are referring to JESUS, then creation didn't BEGIN until JESUS was born of Mary, because JESUS didn't exist until He was born, and we know that isn't true.



Genesis 32:30 (ESV Strong's) 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
Exodus 24:9-10 (ESV Strong's) 9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel.
Exodus 24:11 (ESV Strong's) 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.
Judges 13:22 (ESV Strong's) 22 And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”

Jesus brought truth--John 20:17, Rev 3:12

Exodus next paragraph--They saw a vision--not the real McCoy

 

[McBell]

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

That is an awfully long OP given it does not support the claim of the Title....