The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[kjw47]

Typical avoidance! Please show the forum how you get, "when we die, we have paid the wage for sin".

Romans 6:23 (ESV Strong's) 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you had an employee--he would get paid wages at the end of the week--nothing more would be owed by you. same with death--death pays your wage of sin. So that in the resurrection( in Gods kingdom on earth, no satan influences for 1000 years) one will get an opportunity to learn and apply--satan will be loosed for a little while so those can be tested. The bible says, some follow satan again- lake of fire= eternal destruction. Gods kingdom in full control forever. We all must choose( Deuteronomy 30:19) by our actions mostly.

 

[Oeste]

I think it's time for me to let @Ingledsva go. Her debate method consists mainly of deny and vilify. There seems to be no rational, scholarly, let alone civil, content to her arguments. She's simply argumentative. I am reminded of Romans 1:18 -32.

Unfortunately I have to agree. With all due respect to @Ingledsva, I noticed her general demeanor was not conducive to civil discussion. Hopefully that will change but even so I’m not seeing her rationale.

Now she wants “proof” when I’m simply not aware of any textual critic that offers any. Any reputable critic is going to use words like “evidence”. They may attach a weight to this evidence but in the case of the Trinity it’s not only ample but persuasive. I think “proof” is the lament of atheists...and this despite the evidence surrounding them.

The Trinity is a doctrine debated and accepted long ago by the church. The onus is on those who do not believe to show why we shouldn't believe as well, not the other way around. Any claim that runs contrary to the Trinity is going to require extraordinary evidence on a scale we've never seen before. But it doesn't end there. We would still need to reconcile any such evidence with the rest of scripture, else we have one jumbled Christology that goes nowhere. Besides, I think it should be pretty clear by now that any new evidence found is going to support the Trinity rather than detract from it...there is simply not enough evidence pointing some other way and we've seen plenty of opinion from the other side whereas you have presented a well-reasoned and documented case for the Trinity.

When Christ's deity is denied He therefore must be a creature as those deniers insist. However no creature, no matter how highly regarded, can pay the sins of another let alone the sins of all God’s elect. To be a substitute for sinful man before the infinite God requires an infinite Redeemer and to be the final representative of God’s chosen people he must be a man. Hence the incarnation of the God-man Jesus Christ. Those who reject the deity and humanity in the one person of Jesus Christ are left with no savior.

Quite correct. I'm not sure what type of creature they think can redeem mankind. It would take God to do that.

"If you believe not that I AM you will die in your sins." John 8:24

Very simple, very direct, very plain if you have an eye to see.

I’m thoroughly enjoying the time and effort you’ve spent here. Thank you!

 

[Oeste]

Agreed! Simply correcting a past error is NOT repentance.

Yes, and trying to date it has been stopped. They corrected the errors. Ones who lie( know its not a truth) yet teach it as truth, do not correct. Ones who have error but are ones seeking truth, correct.
The whole world has witnessed the correction. Making this a reality( Daniel 12:4) and this can be a reality- John 4:22-24-- the bottom line reality of life.

It appears it wasn't the Watchtower but time that actually corrected the Governing Board's teachings.

However, even if they "corrected" a prior teaching there is no indication of "repentance" for the prior error. We both agree that simply correcting a prior error doe NOT mean you repented of that error, so something else must be involved.

What do you think it is?

 

[Oeste]

If you had an employee--he would get paid wages at the end of the week--nothing more would be owed by you. same with death--death pays your wage of sin. So that in the resurrection( in Gods kingdom on earth, no satan influences for 1000 years) one will get an opportunity to learn and apply--satan will be loosed for a little while so those can be tested. The bible says, some follow satan again- lake of fire= eternal destruction. Gods kingdom in full control forever. We all must choose( Deuteronomy 30:19) by our actions mostly.

So since "death pays the wages of sin", God will kill all Jehovah Witnesses at Armageddon so they can pay Him back what they owe? Then what happens? He creates a copy of everyone just killed from memory?

 

[Rick B]

Unfortunately I have to agree. With all due respect to @Ingledsva, I noticed her general demeanor was not conducive to civil discussion. Hopefully that will change but even so I’m not seeing her rationale.

Now she wants “proof” when I’m simply not aware of any textual critic that offers any. Any reputable critic is going to use words like “evidence”. They may attach a weight to this evidence but in the case of the Trinity it’s not only ample but persuasive. I think “proof” is the lament of atheists...and this despite the evidence surrounding them.

The Trinity is a doctrine debated and accepted long ago by the church. The onus is on those who do not believe to show why we shouldn't believe as well, not the other way around. Any claim that runs contrary to the Trinity is going to require extraordinary evidence on a scale we've never seen before. But it doesn't end there. We would still need to reconcile any such evidence with the rest of scripture, else we have one jumbled Christology that goes nowhere. Besides, I think it should be pretty clear by now that any new evidence found is going to support the Trinity rather than detract from it...there is simply not enough evidence pointing some other way and we've seen plenty of opinion from the other side whereas you have presented a well-reasoned and documented case for the Trinity.



Quite correct. I'm not sure what type of creature they think can redeem mankind. It would take God to do that.



Very simple, very direct, very plain if you have an eye to see.

I’m thoroughly enjoying the time and effort you’ve spent here. Thank you!

Thank you for your support and you've done quite well yourself.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

If you had an employee--he would get paid wages at the end of the week--nothing more would be owed by you. same with death--death pays your wage of sin.

That would be all well and dandy, if we paid the WAGE of sin, but the verse says, "the WAGE SIN PAYS" is death, you EARN the wage of death for sinning. Just like you doing what your employer says to do, your employer pays the wage, you don't pay the wage for working, or maybe YOU do I don't know.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

If you had an employee--he would get paid wages at the end of the week--nothing more would be owed by you.

Correct, but it would be "ME" who pays his wage, not him! Consider sin as the employer, you do what sin says, sin pays you the wage of death, you don't pay the wage!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

If the religion he began stands in these last days', then the gates of hell did not prevail.

Avoiding the truth again I see. The point was that, the "Rock" Jesus was to build His church was NOT Peter, but the statement that Peter made, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" that is the Rock on what Jesus built His church!

John 8:24 (ESV Strong's) 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”

Mark 12:10 (ESV Strong's) 10 Have you not read this Scripture: “‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;

 

[kjw47]

So since "death pays the wages of sin", God will kill all Jehovah Witnesses at Armageddon so they can pay Him back what they owe? Then what happens? He creates a copy of everyone just killed from memory?

The ones brought through Har-mageddon, have washed their robes white( not in perfection) to the utmost of their abilities say-NO to sin everytime they can. But have stopped doing these-1Cor 6:9-11, Gal 5:17-19

These are who Jesus covers over their sin. They will never taste death.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

The ones brought through Har-mageddon, have washed their robes white( not in perfection) to the utmost of their abilities say-NO to sin everytime they can. But have stopped doing these-1Cor 6:9-11, Gal 5:17-19

These are who Jesus covers over their sin. They will never taste death.

What about these?

John 3:3-6 (ESV Strong's) 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[JJ50]

I am of the opinion that Jesus was a very human guy and far from perfect just like the rest of us. I think the gospel writers, who wrote about his life years after he died either exaggerated his deeds or made them up, a lot of what he is supposed to have is just not credible.

 

[Ingledsva]

Not all of the Tanakh, is the Torah.

Good grief!

Torah is included in Tanakh.

We have been asked by some of our Jewish members - to use Tanakh - instead of the erroneous term OT - as it obviously is a current, live, religion, - not a dusty unused old testament.

*

 

[kjw47]

That would be all well and dandy, if we paid the WAGE of sin, but the verse says, "the WAGE SIN PAYS" is death, you EARN the wage of death for sinning. Just like you doing what your employer says to do, your employer pays the wage, you don't pay the wage for working, or maybe YOU do I don't know.

gtell

What about these?

John 3:3-6 (ESV Strong's) 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Mo post was about those who are born again--The ONLY way one gets born again= Ephesians 4:22-24-- Strip off the old personality( practice of sin) and put on the new personality--Righteousness( saying no to sin to the best of ones ability) this is washing ones robe white--the only ones who are actually born again. One is not--born again because they say 3 lines of prayer and a mortal tells them they are born again--it is not truth. Then they ask for( demand) the tithe.

 

[Ingledsva]

You most certainly reneged. And "Bull" is not a rational defense.

Bull - is to what you keep repeating over-and-over without proof, - not a defense.

You have committed a non sequitur. Jesus is the Word and the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Scriptures, neither here nor anywhere else hint at Jesus losing His deity at the incarnation.

Obviously you haven't actually read all that has been presented to you.

Again - John 1 does not have to be TRANSLATED that way.

AND - the word logos was around before Jesus's time and we know the meaning. No being involved. Christians later altered it to included a being.

The article tells you that when John was written they understood the ORIGINAL meaning, - then LATER Christians added to it.

Rather than going to a secular source advancing a Philosophical explanation it is better to go to a scholarly Theological work for Theological discussions.

"Second, the reading μονογενὴς θεός is not an anti-Arian polemic. Arians did not balk at giving the title θεός to Jesus.78 In fact, Arius supports the reading θεός here (according to Epiphanius)79 and even called Jesus “God” in a letter he wrote to Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, “But what do we say and think? What have we taught and what do we teach? That the Son is not unbegotten or a portion of the unbegotten in any manner or from any substratum, but that by the will and counsel of the Father he subsisted before times and ages, full of grace and truth, God, only-begotten, unchangeable.”80 If this is true, it throws into doubt that an orthodox scribe would change the text away from Arius if θεός bolsters the complete deity of Christ. Even if the reverse is true (Epiphanius’s testimony is wrong and/or Arius never wrote that letter), one would have to assume that each scribe that changed υἱός to θεός knew about the Arian controversy and knew how to change the text to the higher Christology (which would be many given the MS evidence listed above). Even then, the evidence shows inconsistency in their alleged corruption(s) given John 1.1 and 20.28. On top of all that, it would also have to be shown that all the textual evidence originated during or subsequent to this Arian controversy (which it does not). One might still argue, though, that there only needed to be one extremely early scribe who generated θεός. The real question would then become, “How early?” To answer this objection, the evidence reveals that earlier MSS (in fact, the earliest) attest to θεός (and well before the Arian controversy). This indicates that the objection would remain highly speculative and against the clearer testimony of earlier and better MSS. In other words, the earliest and best MSS heighten the argument away from the allegation that this is an orthodox corruption (as well as the fact that both sides of this Christological controversy use/quote θεός).81

In response, the offense of using θεός probably drove a scribe to the less offensive Christology of υἱός, which comports well with the scribal tendency to simplify the text (substituting “God” for “Son” is highly improbable, perhaps best explaining the absence of θεός in later Greek MSS). Even more, μονογενὴς θεός is never used elsewhere.85 One must ask, then, why here and only here do we have the textual variant μονογενὴς θεός (with or without the article)? My answer, given this scenario alone, is that θεός best explains the rise of the other variants.

Another internal argument sometimes given, a scribe could have easily erred since only one Greek majuscule letter differentiates “Son” from “God”: =u=-s or =q=-s. One problem with this option, however, is that υἱός was not one of the original (or earliest) nomina sacra.87 At the same time, though, θεός (q=-s) was one of the four earliest (i.e., Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός, κύριος, and θεός) and most consistently rendered nomina sacra from the second century onward.88 To state this differently, although this option is not impossible, it is highly improbable given the transmissional evidence we have."
Jesus as Θεός (God): A Textual Examination Daniel Wallace

First - an invested source. Wallace is a Christian, trained in Christian Theological schools, - thus the agenda to prove Jesus is God.

Second - AGAIN - there is no actual proof in the quote!

We have, "If this is true" - "Even if the reverse is true" - " it throws into doubt" - "one would have to assume" - etc.

The closest sentences we have - in your quotes - are -

"One might still argue, though, that there only needed to be one extremely early scribe who generated θεός. The real question would then become, “How early?” To answer this objection, the evidence reveals that earlier MSS (in fact, the earliest) attest to θεός (and well before the Arian controversy). This indicates that the objection would remain highly speculative and against the clearer testimony of earlier and better MSS. In other words, the earliest and best MSS heighten the argument away from the allegation that this is an orthodox corruption (as well as the fact that both sides of this Christological controversy use/quote θεός)."

And of course that is opinion, and a statement without evidence backing it, - NOT PROOF.

What is that earliest manuscript? Where is the photocopy so we can read the text for ourselves?

No actual proof has been given in any of the material you have posted so far.

Finally I must point out what I described earlier as an issue you have when confronted with evidence contrary to your viewpoints. And you have demonstrated it clearly again with your reference above in which you supposed confirmed your argument.

Your whole argument against the deity of Christ boils down to your repeated belief that "the logos is the revelation that Jesus proclaims."
That is all your Confirmation Bias will allow you to see. This condition of Selective Reasoning blinds you to what was actually said in that very source you relied upon.

"The Evangelist (John) interprets the logos as inseparable from the person of Jesus and does not simply imply that the logos is the revelation that Jesus proclaims."

The author is against your conclusion as the words "does not simply imply" bears witness.

WOW! You are wrong.

You need to slow down and read things a little closer.

Keep the sentences in context.

"The author of The Gospel According to John used this philosophical expression, which easily would be recognizable to readers in the Hellenistic (Greek cultural) world, to emphasize the redemptive character of the person of Christ, whom the author describes as “the way, and the truth, and the life.” Just as the Jews had viewed the Torah (the Law) as preexistent with God, so also the author of John viewed Jesus, but Jesus came to be regarded as the personified source of life and illumination of mankind. The Evangelist interprets the logos as inseparable from the person of Jesus and does not simply imply that the logos is the revelation that Jesus proclaims."

The - evangelist - in the quote IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE AUTHOR OF JOHN, as it says.

AND - it tells us the original meaning at the writing - was changed, = "came to be regarded as!"

 

[Desert Snake]

Good grief!

Torah is included in Tanakh.



*

Torah, and tanakh, are not interchangeable words. When you state that the torah, is the only divine text, that is not the same statement, as the tanakh is the only divine text. Your statement wasn' even clarified as is, much less a statement that the tanakh matches your description, or whatever, and where in the tanakh it states that /which you also didn't provide. Your theoretical second statement is more problematic than your theoretical first statement.

 

[Ingledsva]

Unfortunately I have to agree. With all due respect to @Ingledsva, I noticed her general demeanor was not conducive to civil discussion. Hopefully that will change but even so I’m not seeing her rationale.

Now she wants “proof” when I’m simply not aware of any textual critic that offers any. Any reputable critic is going to use words like “evidence”. They may attach a weight to this evidence but in the case of the Trinity it’s not only ample but persuasive. I think “proof” is the lament of atheists...and this despite the evidence surrounding them. ...

We are not talking about Gods here, - which can't be proven. We are talking about texts, - and if he says he has evidence/proof of such - then there has to be real solid proof in the form of the scroll with the text, and a photocopy which we can read for the facts.

No actual PROOF - has been shown in this case.

In fact no real evidence has been given what-so-ever. A Christian author flinging around Theos in other unrelated verses does not prove Son should be Theos instead.

That is just a fact.

Stating such is not being uncivil in the discussion.

By the way, - I'm sorry if my debate style appears that way to you.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Torah, and tanakh, are not interchangeable words. When you state that the torah, is the only divine text, that is not the same statement, as the tanakh is the only divine text. Your statement wasn' even clarified as is, much less a statement that the tanakh matches your description, or whatever, and where in the tanakh it states that /which you also didn't provide. Your theoretical second statement is more problematic than your theoretical first statement.

What are you talking about?

No one said they were interchangeable. Nor did I say it was the only Divine text. I suggest you go back several pages and read ALL the sentence in which I use both - correctly.

"Jesus was a Jew teaching Tanakh, and as a Jew, - that trinity God idea would have been sin." 368

" As to John 1. Logos was not related to a second being in the Greek. Logos is Gods reason - law - order, etc.

In Tanakh it is equivalent to God and his Torah. Not another being." Referring to the original quote on Logos. 374

"Tanakh specifically says God is ONE God. The only thing with him is his Torah =Divine will/wisdom. No other God." 375

"Good grief!

Torah is included in Tanakh." 392

SO, - Where's the beef???

*

 

[Desert Snake]

What are you talking about?

No one said they were interchangeable. Nor did I say it was the only Divine text. I suggest you go back several pages and read ALL the sentence in which I use both - correctly.

"Jesus was a Jew teaching Tanakh, and as a Jew, - that trinity God idea would have been sin." 368

" As to John 1. Logos was not related to a second being in the Greek. Logos is Gods reason - law - order, etc.

In Tanakh it is equivalent to God and his Torah. Not another being." Referring to the original quote on Logos. 374

"Tanakh specifically says God is ONE God. The only thing with him is his Torah =Divine will/wisdom. No other God." 375

"Good grief!

Torah is included in Tanakh." 392

SO, - Where's the beef???

*

The tanakh /Judaism usage, isn't the the same as the Christian usage of the OT.
You can't reference the "tanakh", (judaism), for the "Old Testament" (christianity),
when using verses in the religious context. You can compare interpretation, however that distinction has to be made.

 

[Ingledsva]

The tanakh /Judaism usage, isn't the the same as the Christian usage of the OT.
You can't reference the "tanakh", (judaism), for the "Old Testament" (christianity),
when using verses in the religious context. You can compare interpretation, however that distinction has to be made.

LOLOLOLO! Sorry - couldn't resist.

What you are calling "OT" is Tanakh. Christians don't have the right to twist the meaning of verses in the JEWISH Tanakh.

It is kind of like saying, - I like the Vedas, - so I'm going to write something else - and attach it to the Vedas, - then mistranslate and twist the original texts, then say that is what it actually means, and claim you have a right to do so, and that you are correct, and know better then the people whom wrote it, and the people it was written for.

*

 

[Rick B]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

"It is not in Greek philosophical usage, however, that the background of John's thought and language should be sought. Yet, because of that usage, logos constituted a bridge-word by which people brought up in Greek philosophy, like Justin Martyr in the second century, found their way to Johannine Christianity.
The true background to John's thought and language is found not in Greek philosophy but in Hebrew revelation. The 'word of God' in the Old Testament denotes God in action, especially in creation, revelation and deliverance...The personal status which he ascribes to the Word is a matter of real existence; the relation which the Word bears to God is a personal relation; 'the Word was with God'...The Word of God is distinguished from God Himself, and yet exists in a close personal relation with him; moreover, the Word shares the very nature of God, for 'the Word was God'...('John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse.The deeds and the words of Jesus are the deeds and the words of God; if this be not true, the book is blasphemous'. C. K. Barrett)" F.F. Bruce The Gospel and Epistles of John pp 28-31

“And the Word was with God.” The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already “was,” “was” also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a seperate being from God: “And the Word was” –still the eternal “was” –“God.” In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is “with,” He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate “God” occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase “with God,” as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God’s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God’s self." B.B. Warfield The Person and Work of Christ

"A similar ascription is more common in the Johannine writings, and for the most part incontestable. Jn. 1:1 says of the Pre-existent: kai theos en ho logos…The lack of the article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine “I” (Jn. 9:38f). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers. Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol 3:105-106.

"And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, pp. 4-5.

"A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. “The Word was God.” It both God and Word were articular, they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God. As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really “God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father” (1:18 correct text)". A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) pp. 67-68.

"To summarize: The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as “and the Word was God.” (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible. (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll) Colwell’s rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as “god-like.”
Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God. Anything less departs from the teaching of John, and is not Biblical." James R. White John 1:1 Meaning and Translation – Vintage