The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[Kenny]

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.)

I would have to disagree, respectfully. There are multiple times, illustrated in the Bible, where words were made flesh and became into being for life as well as for death. The greatest of them all is when "God said" and Creation began.

Interestingly enough, science has found that all matter consists of waves lengths which both light and words have.

Matter Waves (not that this is the site where I read it but at the least it shows association.

 

[Rick B]

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

Look again at post #179

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

God originally chose the nation of Isreal as His people. Later He sent Jesus so that non-isrealites could have a way to gain His blessings.

 

[Rick B]

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.

*

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.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think "Declare" is appropriate.

Miriam Webster's dictionary definition for declare: "to make known formally, officially, or explicitly" which is not what Jesus does. He specifically avoids saying who or what he is on multiple occasions, so it matters that he does not make a declaration and instead asks other people "Who do you say that I am?"

 

[Oeste]

nteresting 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.

Well if Rick B. and the others don't mind, I'd like to take a look under the hood.

You state John 1 can be translated as “enflesh”:

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.

Here’s the definition:

From the initial start of this thread the argument has been put forth that the Word was made flesh and the Word was God. So I don't understand how this helps your assertion except to say it certainly supports ours.

Secondly, you state Theos can have different meanings, and from word associations using Thayer you arrive at “judge”. So now we have Thomas exclaiming at John 20:28: “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my Judge/magistrate”

This appears, however wrongly, to be an exercise in “spin the meaning" hermeneutics. All we are doing is taking a word and applying different meanings based solely on word association.

Granted, this is the age of the Internet and everyone can role out there own bible, replete with bona fide, pre-approved, and "corrected" word meanings but I believe it's a horrible method of biblical exegesis.

The problem with this approach is the extreme ease anyone with a study tool can elevate themselves to the role of "translator" and toss the author’s intended meaning out the window. In other words, if a certain word has 10 different meanings, then we only have a 1 in 10 chance of arriving at the authors intended meaning but always a 100% chance of arriving at our own. We simply select the synonym most closely aligned with our "preferred" meaning from the list.

It's in our best interest to apply consistent, stringent and credible method(s) and/or discipline(s) for textual criticism. Christian hermeneutics is a robust, developed, well defined and accepted field of study. Their are excellent books on the subject. You don't have to agree with the author's interpretations or conclusions, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue with the methodologies presented.

If anything, it gives the reader an appreciation of hermeneutics as a whole and why any serious student would avoid biblical translations based simply on a study tool and word association.

 

[Rick B]

Miriam Webster's dictionary definition for declare: "to make known formally, officially, or explicitly" which is not what Jesus does. He specifically avoids saying who or what he is on multiple occasions, so it matters that he does not make a declaration and instead asks other people "Who do you say that I am?"

OK. I applied the more extensive applications to word stating that the Bible Declares that Jesus is God.

I'll address the 2nd half tomorrow.

 

[metis]

my wife thinks I'm handsome

Is she the one with the white cane?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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
Then the Bible declares that Jesus is God

If I worship Rick B and no one complains, does that prove Rick B is God?

 

[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

Well, tge abstract says it all: the problem of how these two natures could function, still exists. I take it as a "I don't know".

Which is a fine answer to my question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

If I worship Rick B and no one complains, does that prove Rick B is God?

No... it proves that he is your god. But he will be the first to let you know that he can't help you... only point the way.

 

[Kenny]

Well, tge abstract says it all: the problem of how these two natures could function, still exists. I take it as a "I don't know".

Which is a fine answer to my question.

Ciao

- viole

It isn't that hard. If there is a spiritual side to you (as well as a natural) there is a place where they function together.

 

[Kenny]

Is she the one with the white cane?

LOL... watch out for that cane. It is her weapon. A Mrs America with a weapon.

 

[viole]

It isn't that hard. If there is a spiritual side to you (as well as a natural) there is a place where they function together.

Yes, but I am not God, am I? When they say the problem is unsolved, they mean the problem of being God and not God at the same time.

But between us. Don't you see how all that is a mega hyper complicated rationalization of an idea logically ill conceived from the start?

Look at my solution: that makes no sense. Nothing of what has been claimed ever happened.

Doesn't it sound simpler? A bit like removing the hypothesis of the luminiforous ether in physics. People were complicating things beyond necessity to still make sense of it, until someone said it does not exist.

And everything became crystal clear. And much simpler.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Oeste]

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
Then the Bible declares that Jesus is God

If I worship Rick B and no one complains, does that prove Rick B is God?

No... it proves that he is your god. But he will be the first to let you know that he can't help you... only point the way.

Agreed @KenS and @Rick B.

Before any Christian bows down to worship anyone they should ask if there is any biblical admonishment (as Rick B has pointed out) against doing so. Secondly, they should ask themselves if there is godly approval (again, as Rick B pointed out in his post).

 

[Oeste]

Yes, but I am not God, am I? When they say the problem is unsolved, they mean the problem of being God and not God at the same time.

But between us. Don't you see how all that is a mega hyper complicated rationalization of an idea logically ill conceived from the start?

Look at my solution: that makes no sense. Nothing of what has been claimed ever happened.

Doesn't it sound simpler? A bit like removing the hypothesis of the luminiforous ether in physics. People were complicating things beyond necessity to still make sense of it, until someone said it does not exist.

And everything became crystal clear. And much simpler.

Ciao

- viole

Aaaah. I think I understand what you're looking for now...simplicity.

If you want a simplistic God then you only need to create one in your own image. There are many gods like that out there, like Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, or even the Arian God. They tend to keep their Gods very simple and easy to understand.

Trinitarian Christians do not have a created God made in their own image. Instead, Trinitarians believe we are made in the image of God. As such, it would be far easier to explain why we file tax returns or the theory behind the Alternative Minimum Tax to an amoeba than fully explain the creator of the universe to a man.

In other words, you will never walk out of a Trinitarian church believing you fully understand God. You will however, walk out knowing God fully understands you. As for the pagans and Arians, your results with them may vary.

I understand that some folks are going to be extremely uneasy and dissatisfied with a simple God they can't fully comprehend, explain or understand, yet this is where scripture points us.

 

[viole]

Aaaah. I think I understand what you're looking for now...simplicity.

If you want a simplistic God then you only need to create one in your own image. There are many gods like that out there, like Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, or even the Arian God. They tend to keep their Gods very simple and easy to understand.

Trinitarian Christians do not have a created God made in their own image. Instead, Trinitarians believe we are made in the image of God. As such, it would be far easier to explain why we file tax returns or the theory behind the Alternative Minimum Tax to an amoeba than fully explain the creator of the universe to a man.

In other words, you will never walk out of a Trinitarian church believing you fully understand God. You will however, walk out knowing God fully understands you. As for the pagans and Arians, your results with them may vary.

I understand that some folks are going to be extremely uneasy and dissatisfied with a simple God they can't fully comprehend, explain or understand, yet this is where scripture points us.

Yes, but there is a clear and present danger that Scripture is made up. After all, anybody can write things and declare them as "Scripture".

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- ciole

 

[Ben Avraham]

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.”

It is not verified at all that the "Great Commission" was delivered by Jesus. Considering that the gospel of Matthew was authored by a Hellenist former disciple of Paul's, it is quite obvious that Jesus did not have any thing to do with the NT. (Mat. 9:9) This quote is an evidence that Jesus' Apostle known by the name of Matthew never wrote that gospel. Besides, if you read Mat. 10:5,6, Jesus did not like Gentiles, especially if they were of the Samaritan kind.

 

[kjw47]

Actually, a statement of opinion doesn't make it true.

I find that in the Greek, angels as well as mortals worshipped Jesus.

In trinity translations you find that. Catholicism errors are found in every trinity translation on earth.

 

[kjw47]

The adamant rejection of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ was the driving factor of the organization your yoked to produce it's own, unique bible.

FYI The Greek magiscules have all capital letters. No spaces. No punctuations.

Yes, The NWT corrected all the errors translated in by Catholicism--all originals were gone by the time protestants translated--Catholicism translating remained and Hebrew translating. Hebrew translating contradicts Catholicism translating.
Example--trinity teachers use--I am that I am from the ot to try to say Jesus was claiming to be God by saying -I AM-- But reality--In the real Hebrew--I will be what I will be is the correct translation of that Hebrew statement---many things like this to try and prove a council made up trinity God---Fact--No trinity was taught at the first council of Nicea-325) it was added later at another council--it is not truth.