The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[Rick B]

Hey @Ingledsva, my last post was intended to call you out to respond as well since you vehemently denied that The Bible Declares that Jesus is God.

 

[Ingledsva]

This post is intended to put an end to those who assert that the Bible does not claim that Jesus is God. The few Bible translations regarding the three key text should forever silence the naysayers.

Revelation 19:13

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. New American Standard Bible (NASB)

And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His name is called, The Word of God. 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called the Word of God. Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

He wore a robe dyed[a] with blood, and his name was called the Word of God. Common English Bible (CEB)

For Ben Avraham

He was wearing a robe that had been soaked in blood, and the name by which he is called is, “WORD OF GOD.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

And He is robed in a kaftan dipped in dahm, and His Name is called, “The DVAR HASHEM.” [YESHAYAH 63:2, 3] Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. New International Version (NIV)


If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

And if that same Word is God. Jn.1

Then Jesus is God.



John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. New American Standard Bible (NASB)

In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. Amplified Bible (AMP)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Common English Bible (CEB)

For Ben Avraham

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:3], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with, etzel, Mishle 8:30;30:4) Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13 i.e., the Ma’amar Memra] Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God. Contemporary English Version (CEV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. English Standard Version (ESV)

In the beginning [Gen. 1:1] ·there was the Word [the Word already existed; C the Word refers to Christ, God’s revelation of himself]. The Word was ·with [in the presence of; in intimate relationship with] God [C the Father], and the Word was [fully] God. Expanded Bible (EXB)

That Word begotten of God before all worlds, 2 and which was ever with the Father, 14 is made man.  6, 7 For what end John was sent from God. 15 His preaching of Christ’s office. 19, 20 The record that he bare given out unto the Priests. 40 The calling of Andrew, 42 of Peter, 43 Philip, 45 and Nathanael.

1 In [a]the beginning [c]was [d]that Word, and that Word was [e]with God, and that [f] Word was God.

Footnotes:

a. John 1:1 The Son of God is of one, and the selfsame eternity or everlastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature, with the Father.

b. John 1:1 From his beginning, as the Evangelist saith, 1 John 1:1, as though he said, that the world began not then to have his being, when God began to make all that was made: for the word was even then when all things that were made, began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things.

c. John 1:1 Had his being.

d. John 1:1 This word, That, pointeth out unto us a peculiar and choice thing above all other, and putteth a difference between this Word, which is the Son of God, and the Laws of God, which otherwise also are called the word of God.

e. John 1:1 This word (With) putteth out the distinction of persons to us.

f. John 1:1 This word (Word) is the first in order in the sentence, and is that which the learned call (Subjectum and this word (God) is the latter in order, and the same which the learned call (Predicatum.) 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. New International Version (NIV)

In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. New Living Translation (NLT)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Revised Standard Version (RSV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

John 20:28

Thomas answered Him, “My Lord and my God!” Amplified Bible (AMP)

Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Thomas responded and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.

The Lord of me and the God of me.

Enough said.

The context of these verses identify Jesus as the subject.

Therefore:

If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

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

Then Jesus is God.

The Bible declares Jesus is God.

Interesting how you try to make it look like there is a ton of this when in reality you have only three verses there.

And again NONE of them have to be read as saying GOD.

John I can be translated differently - with YHVH's "word" being infleshed in Jesus. Which would make sense - for YHVH to put his "word" in his HUMAN Messiah. It does not make Jesus God.

John 20:28 Theos should have been translated JUDGE. Thayer's Greek tells us Theos is also "likened unto God," "Godlike," "God's representative," a magistrate or judge, etc. This is the doubting Thomas story.

He says he won't believe until he puts his finger in the wounds.

Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Now penitent and seeking forgiveness for being "faithless" Thomas says -

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my Judge/magistrate.

And what is the decree of the Judge to doubting "faithless" Thomas, who just stuck his finger into him?

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Sounds like Thomas is in deep you-know-what with his lord and Judge.

Rev 19:13. Read 19 from the beginning. You will find that GOD is already sitting on his throne in - Rev 19:4 - and preparations are being made for the marriage party. THEN the white horse appears with the Lord of Lords, word of GOD. He is NOT God. He is not called God. God is on his throne.

John 5:30 I can do nothing by myself; but as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just; for I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

When they say he is good, he says only GOD is good.

Mark 10:18 And he Jesus said to him: why me call good? None/Not even one is good; not one but the Deity.

He tells us bluntly in Matthew that - it is NOT his to give, - it is given by the Father.

Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.

mark 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord OUR God, the Lord is ONE.

*

 

[Oeste]

The info specifically dealing with the verse we were discussing.

You must be joking.

I'm not about to go through 5800 manuscripts, parse the ones that addressed John 1:18, and then post them here so we "can see for ourselves".

Immanuel is Isaiah's son, named Immanuel by his mother, and called Mahershalalhashbaz by his father.

Immanuel God with Us, is a sign for Ahaz, and Isaiah who is with him in this war, - and thus cannot be a future Jesus.

Isa 7:10 Moreover YHVH spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of YHVH thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

THE SIGN IS --

Isa 7:14 Therefore YHVH himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 8:3 And I (Isaiah) went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said YHVH to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.


Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isa 7:17 YHVH shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.


Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Almah = young woman/maiden, “bethulah” for a true definite virgin.

There are three other places in Tanakh where Christians have mistranslated this as virgin. For instance SOS 6:8. And here is the correct "maiden" translation from a Jewish site which also has the Hebrew.

6:8 here are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and innumerable maidens Shir Hashirim - Song of Songs - Chapter 6

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isaiah 7:16 tells us ABSOLUTELY that this takes place THEN. The two kings are mentioned in the earlier verses, and are the ones they are fighting RIGHT THEN. If the two Kings Ahaz and Isaiah are fighting - are gone - before Immanuel understands good and evil, - then OBVIOUSLY Immanuel can NOT be a future Jesus. Read the whole thing in context.

Thanks Ingledsva, but if I'm not mistaken this thread was brimming with Arians circling the Trinitarian wagon, all hoping to swoop in for a kill, and all claiming they would have done a much better job defending New Testament scripture than the traditional church.

You stated Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus, so this is a marvelous opportunity for these Non-Trinitarians to defend the New Testament, much like the early Christian church had to defend itself against heresies, "doubting Thomas's", paganism and the like.

Again, my Arian friends...is Ingledsva correct or no? She presents a golden opportunity to defend your belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah and walk the shoes of a Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian or any patristic theologian you choose.

As stalwart defenders of the faith, show us all how the early church SHOULD have done it before it became "apostatized".

Hello??????

 

[Oeste]

ROFL...

Metis, you don't know how I hope we can have a cup of coffee together before we leave this earth !!!!

That would be great, however my wife would kill me as she's deathly afraid of internet contacts as she had two cousins who left their wives to meet and eventually marry internet friends that became more than just friends.

Therefore, I'm afraid you'd maybe be far too good looking for me to resist.

I enjoy your posts as always, but lol, you two are funny.

Sometimes a little humor is just what the doctor ordered.

 

[Muffled]

"God" is made up of "the Father" and "the Son". The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. Both make up God. It is just like if there is a man whose last name is Jones and he has a son whose last mane is also Jones. They are two separate people but they are both Jones. God is like a last name. Father and Son are both God but are separate persons.

I believe "made up" is incorrect. "consists" would work.

I believe this is a misnomer. It only works as an ecclesiastical definition of person. I t doesn't work for any of the usual definitions.

I believe "people" pretty much means humans and the Father is Spirit not human.

I believe this is correct.

 

[Muffled]

I think that you are overstating by saying the Bible declares it. There would have to be a direct quote. For example "Glory to God in the heavens and on Earth, peace, good will towards men" is a declaration. Instead what you have are possible inferences, and they can all be explained by saying Jesus believes that God dwells in people. The lack of a declaration is significant.

I believe that is like saying "there goes a hook and ladder" is not a declaration of a firetruck and somehow that is significant. I believe the statements of Jesus are more than inferences, that He is saying it in a different way.

I have never seen any reference to this except in reference to Jesus by Paul. God dwelling in us has to be prayed for by Jesus because it happens so rarely. Now I don't doubt that God dwells with us when we receive Him as Lord and Savior.

 

[Muffled]

@Carlita By the way the text says plainly "The Word became flesh" not Christ became the word as you said.

I have to laugh at this one. I believe it is clearly metaphoric. Words do not become flesh. What I believe is that the "Word" which is God took on flesh so now the flesh speaks the "Word" as it enters the fleshly mind from the Spirit. (That is the way it works for me except that the Spirit does not always control my mind but in Jesus I would venture that it did.)

 

[viole]

The result of the premises, which you have apparently missed, is that the Bible Declares Jesus is God. This is what this thread is all about. So if you're not interested maybe you should find another that you can run afoul in.

Ok, the premise is that Jesus is God. Since it is rational to assume that the Father is God, too, then it comes natural to ask about the consequences of this premise. If the consequence does not contradict the premise, then it is acceptable. If not, then we have to review the premises. This is just basic logic.

So, if Jesus (and the Father) are God, does that entail that they both share the same knowledge? For instance, are they both all knowing, if God entails omniscience in its definition?

I wonder why you guys are so reluctant to answer such a simple and innocent question in a clear cut way.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe the statements of Jesus are more than inferences, that He is saying it in a different way.

It is a different way than a declaration. The OP contends a declaration where there is none.

I have never seen any reference to this except in reference to Jesus by Paul. God dwelling in us has to be prayed for by Jesus because it happens so rarely.

The explanation remains, while the declaration remains nonexistent. If the declaration existed, then the explanation could not.

God dwelling in us has to be prayed for by Jesus because it happens so rarely.

Even if Jesus makes this prayer God does not have to do what Jesus says or agree with his requests, at least not before Jesus death. After his death what does he pray for that God does not already want? So his intercession is really with us not with God. God does not need to change. People need to change.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It still goes back to the idea of looking at "God" as you would look at a family. The husband is a completely independent person with his own thoughts and ideas. The wife is also a completely independent person. Each child is also independent. And yet there is only one "family". The Father and the Son are completely separate "persons" but they are one "God". If you use the word "God" to mean the Father then it leads to confusion. There is no such person as "God". There is the Father and the Son. They together are God.

 

[Kenny]

I enjoy your posts as always, but lol, you two are funny.

Sometimes a little humor is just what the doctor ordered.

You just want a cup of coffee!

 

[Kenny]

That would be great, however my wife would kill me as she's deathly afraid of internet contacts as she had two cousins who left their wives to meet and eventually marry internet friends that became more than just friends.

Therefore, I'm afraid you'd maybe be far too good looking for me to resist.

ROFL

You mean you want to adopt my 3 children and 10 grandchildren and all their expenses! WOOHOOO!!

 

[metis]

ROFL

You mean you want to adopt my 3 children and 10 grandchildren and all their expenses! WOOHOOO!!

As long as they don't look like this as I found your self-portrait on the internet:

 

[Ben Avraham]

For Ben Avraham. If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13 And if that same Word is God. Jn.1 Then Jesus is God.

Well, how about asking Jesus himself? Once, as Jesus was praying for his disciples, he asked the Lord to sanctify them by God's Truth as God's Word is the Truth. (John 17:17) Besides being the Word of God the Truth, the Psalmist said that, "Thy Word is a Lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalm 119:105) Now, the bottom line is to figure who has the Truth aka the Word of God. If you read Psalm 147:19,20, the truth is that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on the planet.

 

[Ben Avraham]

If you were actually paying attention, instead of feigning umbrage, you couldn't have missed the references.

What references are you talking about, can you be a little more specific?

 

[Rick B]

Ok, the premise is that Jesus is God. Since it is rational to assume that the Father is God, too, then it comes natural to ask about the consequences of this premise. If the consequence does not contradict the premise, then it is acceptable. If not, then we have to review the premises. This is just basic logic.

So, if Jesus (and the Father) are God, does that entail that they both share the same knowledge? For instance, are they both all knowing, if God entails omniscience in its definition?

I wonder why you guys are so reluctant to answer such a simple and innocent question in a clear cut way.

Ciao

- viole

Actually the first premises are:
If Jesus is the Word Rev.19:13
And if that same Word is God John 1:1-18

The second set of premises are:
If God alone is to be worshipped Matthew 4:8-10
And if Jesus receives and accepts worship without any Biblical admonishment but with full approval John 9:35-38; Rev. 22:1-3

The the "consequence" or better "conclusion" is the same in both propositions that is:
Then The Bible Declares That Jesus is God.

It is your duty, if you disagree, to demonstrate that the premises and/or the conclusion is invalid. The subject of the Trinity is another issue. The ball, here, is in your court to demonstrate their invalidity.

As for the second part of your post,the reason for a non-response on this was the unreasonable "yes or no" restriction you imposed to answer such a profound subject. I am fully aware of the trap you were setting by the question and hand-cuffed answer desired. But since you a asking a legitimate question as any reasonable inquiring mind would and have asked, I point you to an article that I believe gives a Biblical and rational explanation, of which I pointed out in earlier posts, theological scholars refer to as The Hypostatic Union of the two natures of Christ. If a real answer is what you are looking for.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1993-4_311.pdf

 

[Rick B]

Well, how about asking Jesus himself? Once, as Jesus was praying for his disciples, he asked the Lord to sanctify them by God's Truth as God's Word is the Truth. (John 17:17) Besides being the Word of God the Truth, the Psalmist said that, "Thy Word is a Lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalm 119:105) Now, the bottom line is to figure who has the Truth aka the Word of God. If you read Psalm 147:19,20, the truth is that the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on the planet.

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.”

 

[Kenny]

As long as they don't look like this as I found your self-portrait on the internet:

my wife thinks I'm handsome

 

[Rick B]

I have to laugh at this one. I believe it is clearly metaphoric. Words do not become flesh. What I believe is that the "Word" which is God took on flesh so now the flesh speaks the "Word" as it enters the fleshly mind from the Spirit. (That is the way it works for me except that the Spirit does not always control my mind but in Jesus I would venture that it did.)

Well whatever works for you must explain all universal truths.

 

[Rick B]

It is a different way than a declaration. The OP contends a declaration where there is none.

The explanation remains, while the declaration remains nonexistent. If the declaration existed, then the explanation could not.

Even if Jesus makes this prayer God does not have to do what Jesus says or agree with his requests, at least not before Jesus death. After his death what does he pray for that God does not already want? So his intercession is really with us not with God. God does not need to change. People need to change.

"The explanation remains, while the declaration remains nonexistent. If the declaration existed, then the explanation could not."
While the second sentence is irrational - you cannot have a declaration and explanation existing together? I offer support for using that word if you insist.

"Declare" from Thesaurus.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Thesaurus.com
affirm assert
verb. declare the truth of something

• asseverate

• attest

• aver

• avouch

• avow

• certify

• cinch

• clinch
• confirm
• cross heart
• declare
• guarantee
• have a lock on
• ice
• insist

• lock up
• maintain
• nail down
• okay
• predicate
• profess
• pronounce
• put on ice

• ratify
• repeat
• rubber-stamp
• say so
• set
• state
• swear
• swear on bible

• swear up and down
• testify
• vouch
• witness

I think "Declare" is appropriate.