Which text from the Christian Bible uniquely proves that Jesus is Almighty God?

[amazing grace]

Where does scripture say, "ONLY GOD CAN GIVE ETERNAL LIFE"?

John 17:1 Jesus is praying to the Father - "the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you." This is said before Jesus' crucifixion and Jesus is asking his Father to glorify him.
In v. 2 scripture tells us that Jesus was given authority to give eternal life and then in v.3 Jesus claims that his Father is the ONLY TRUE God and that knowing this is eternal life.

Now as we read on, are we expected to believe that Jesus (the Messiah) once had glory, he gave up that glory and was given that glory back? Verse 5 is speaking of the exaltation and glory of the Messiah as predicted in the OT and is presented as Jesus having the "glory before the world existed". Jesus used the past tense because he knew that God had promised the glory he was to be given. In Biblical language predestined things are spoken of as already existing because they are "as good as done" in God's eyes. His glory was not literally given until his death, resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of Almighty God.

Also, further on in this chapter Jesus again uses the language of "giving glory" and "having glory" before literal existence.
John 17:20-22 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you Father are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one." Here Jesus is giving his glory, the glory that is going to be given to him upon his exaltation to God's right hand to all those who will believe in the future, but it is spoken of as already given.

Clearly you do not understand Jesus' status a) before He came to Earth as a human, b) while He was on earth as a human, and c) and when He was resurrected to His former status.

You and others would greatly benefit by reading the Bible and opening your mind to understanding what it says, instead of keeping your mind closed by trying to refute it.

Here your response is not favorable to mine but later . . . .

Yes, Jesus once had glory, gave up that glory, and was given that glory back. You got it, my friend!

Response to the same post!!!!

My stance on John 17:5 - Jesus figuratively had glory, the promise of the glory he would receive through his obedience to his Father (God). When he was exalted and raised to his Father's (God's) right hand is when he literally received the glory he was promised. "Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25,26)

 

[jimb]

Here your response is not favorable to mine but later . . . .

Response to the same post!!!!

My stance on John 17:5 - Jesus figuratively had glory, the promise of the glory he would receive through his obedience to his Father (God). When he was exalted and raised to his Father's (God's) right hand is when he literally received the glory he was promised. "Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke

He never had figurative glory. He had (and has) literal glory.

 

[mangalavara]

So if the Father has authority in a large way over Jesus, please might you kindly explain how that makes the two of them equal? Thanks.

I have not stated that the Father's authority over the Son makes them equal.

The Greek word translated "helper" is Masculine, but he said "who comes from the Father" it does not say "who" but "which" in Neuter, since the spirit that comes out of the Father is not another individual, but the spirit of God.

I agree that a better translation would use the word which. This is because the word πνεῦμα or pneuma, translated as 'Spirit,' is a grammatically neuter word. At the same time, I disagree that the grammatically neuter words in John 15.26 imply that the Spirit is impersonal, that is, lacking personhood. What if the Spirit of Truth is a person without gender?

What if the Spirit of Truth is a person who is female? The Biblical Hebrew word רוח or ruach, also translated as 'spirit,' is feminine. Its cognate in Aramaic is feminine as well. Considering that Jesus very likely spoke in Aramaic to his disciples, when he told them about the Spirit of Truth, he was speaking of something feminine. Aramaic is a language in which a pronoun agrees with the gender of the noun that it modifies. Therefore, he would have used a feminine pronoun when referring to the Spirit in actual speech. What would you think if you were one of Jesus' Aramaic-speaking disciples and heard him use a feminine noun and a feminine pronoun when talking about the Spirit?

The gender of the word for 'spirit' and the correct pronoun will depend on what language is spoken or written. Being neuter or feminine, from my perspective, does not say anything about the Spirit of Truth being personal or impersonal. What indicates to me that Jesus himself believed the Spirit was personal is that in John 15.26, he uses the word Helper or Advocate and the phrase 'testify of.' The idea of an advocate testifying of someone or something strongly sounds like the idea of a personal being.

non-Trinitarians who consider the spirit of God as a part of Him do not have any confusion about it. I am a Jehovah's witness, and I understand the spirit of God exactly like that.

In saying that the Spirit of God is a part of him, would you also say that his Spirit is of the same essence or being as him?

The Father is the Possessor of His own spirit, and He brings it forth whenever He wills. He does not bring it forth once as if it were finished; He extends it and uses it and invests it in generating His productions infinitely, for it is not a person but His inner force and it is infinite.

As God's inner force, and being infinite rather than finite, you believe that his Spirit is ontologically the same as him, yes?

 

[cataway]

Clearly you do not understand the tripartite God, a.k.a the Trinity. It is not an easy concept to understand. You and others try to apply standard thinking to understand a very different concept, which clearly doesn't work.

Instead of trying to prove myself and others wrong, why not try to expand your thinking?

that's an easy one . I have the things that are written in the Bible . you have a pagan concept of God that others like yourself 'want' to be true. the Trinity did not come from the Bible , it's a false doctrine . some one used to duped you . likely it was the great dupper . done to disguise himself to appear as a angel of light.

 

[Eli G]

I have not stated that the Father's authority over the Son makes them equal.

You need to focus on one thing at a time: the Son, or the spirit of God.

Now consider this: When Jesus was baptized by John, he was anointed with holy spirit (Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:14-21). Was he anointed with a person? And if so, when did that person leave his side, that he needed to receive more "holy spirit" when he returned to heaven (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33)?

On the other hand, if that supposed person was already with Jesus, why does John 7:39 say that his disciples had not yet received it?

I agree that a better translation would use the word which. This is because the word πνεῦμα or pneuma, translated as 'Spirit,' is a grammatically neuter word. At the same time, I disagree that the grammatically neuter words in John 15.26 imply that the Spirit is impersonal, that is, lacking personhood. What if the Spirit of Truth is a person without gender?

What if the Spirit of Truth is a person who is female? The Biblical Hebrew word רוח or ruach, also translated as 'spirit,' is feminine. Its cognate in Aramaic is feminine as well. Considering that Jesus very likely spoke in Aramaic to his disciples, when he told them about the Spirit of Truth, he was speaking of something feminine. Aramaic is a language in which a pronoun agrees with the gender of the noun that it modifies. Therefore, he would have used a feminine pronoun when referring to the Spirit in actual speech. What would you think if you were one of Jesus' Aramaic-speaking disciples and heard him use a feminine noun and a feminine pronoun when talking about the Spirit?

The gender of the word for 'spirit' and the correct pronoun will depend on what language is spoken or written. Being neuter or feminine, from my perspective, does not say anything about the Spirit of Truth being personal or impersonal. What indicates to me that Jesus himself believed the Spirit was personal is that in John 15.26, he uses the word Helper or Advocate and the phrase 'testify of.' The idea of an advocate testifying of someone or something strongly sounds like the idea of a personal being.

As I explained to you before: the Bible describes the spirit of God as a force that comes directly from Him, because in Him is the source of the energy with which the entire universe was created.

A person is not "poured out" on other people, nor is someone "filled" with another person. The Israelites and the Christians after them never considered the spirit of God as a person. It is a post-Christian aberration that seems to come from Gnosticism.

In saying that the Spirit of God is a part of him, would you also say that his Spirit is of the same essence or being as him?


As God's inner force, and being infinite rather than finite, you believe that his Spirit is ontologically the same as him, yes?

"Essence", "ontologically"... do you think that Israelites or Christians needed those words to understand what the spirit of Jehovah is?

 

[mangalavara]

What makes you think I don’t understand @jimb belief?

The next quote of yours demonstrates why I think you don't understand @jimb or Trinitarian theology.

So, @jimb seems to be ‘mentally-challenge’ when it comes to accepting the fact that Jesus is not God as the sender and the one being sent cannot be the one and same person. Surely, the act of one sending another involves 2 individuals.

Neither jimb nor any other Trinitarian believes that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. A modalist, on the other hand, would believe it. Modalists actually believe that there is only one divine person and that that divine person has three modes or roles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That particular doctrine is not the same as Trinitarianism.

Let me ask you – when Jesus mentioned ‘My Father’ like ‘My Father sent me…’, who do you think he was referring to as ‘My Father’? I will be shocked if you do not say ‘God’.

It is clear that when Jesus says 'My Father,' he refers to someone called God.

Sure, @jimb or any Trinitarian have not stated that Jesus sent himself, but rational and logical thinking will tell you if @jimb believes Jesus is God, then, when Jesus said “My Father (God) sent me..’, it’s only common sense to think Jesus is saying he (if one believes he’s God) is sending himself, even if @jimb has never state Jesus sent himself - he does not have to.

This is where the misunderstanding is found.

It is not really a matter of rational or logical thinking as it is semantics. When Trinitarians say 'Jesus is God,' they don't mean 'Jesus is God the Father.' What they mean is 'Jesus (or the Son) is of the same essence as God the Father.'

There is an analogy that supports the view that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. The natural child of a human being must be of the same essence as his/her parents: human. Also, the natural child of a feline must be of the same essence as his/her parents: feline. Similarly, in Trinitarian theology, the Son must be of the same essence as the Father: divine. So, when Trinitarians say 'The Son is God,' they mean 'The Son is divine.' It is not the same as 'The Son is the Father,' just as I and my father are not the same person though we are both human.

If a non-Trinitarian understands that what I have written above is what Trinitarianism actually is, then continuing to say something like, 'Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Father and he sent himself' would be dishonest on the part of the non-Trinitarian. A better approach would be to start out like this: 'Let me tell you why the Son cannot be of the same essence as God the Father...'

In all sincerity, I hope that my reply is clear to you, enlightening, and helpful.

 

[Eli G]

It is true that the Bible uses the word "god" in several different senses. For example, when Jesus explains to the Jews that God had called "gods" judges appointed by Him who had become unjust (John 10:34, 35; Ps. 82:6). Also, when Jehovah is called "God of gods" it is recognized that there are other powerful beings considered real "gods" over whom He Himself has absolute dominion, as expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 8:5. Also Peter says (2 Pet. 1:3,4) that the anointed ones will share the "divine nature" when they are in heaven with Jesus. So, as you can see, "essence" is not the only criteria to call somebody "a god", but authority or power is another criteria. Actually, the Hebrew word for God is closely related with "powerful".

BUT when we talk about GOD, we can't think on more than one person, because that would be the Supreme, the Most High, the Omnipotent, the Almighty, the Majesty, or the God of gods. That is why every time Jehovah speaks through any means in the history of Israel, He very specifically warns Israel that there is no "a god" like Him, that there is no one who can save from His hand, that He is the true Creator. He also demands exclusive devotion.

So in this sense, which is very specific and absolute, there can only be one God: Jehovah, the Father. Actually, this is Jesus' God and all Jesus' followers must know who this God is. Do they?

 

[jimb]

that's an easy one . I have the things that are written in the Bible . you have a pagan concept of God that others like yourself 'want' to be true. the Trinity did not come from the Bible , it's a false doctrine . some one used to duped you . likely it was the great dupper . done to disguise himself to appear as a angel of light.

LOL!

I have "a pagan concept of God"? You couldn't be more wrong if you tried (which I'm sure you will).

I know God and God knows me.

The trinity is clearly stated in the Bible, but it seems that you're incapable of realizing it. Despite your denial, it is there.

BTW, who is "the great dupper"? Is that the spirit that is deceiving you?

 

[jimb]

The next quote of yours demonstrates why I think you don't understand @jimb or Trinitarian theology.



Neither jimb nor any other Trinitarian believes that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. A modalist, on the other hand, would believe it. Modalists actually believe that there is only one divine person and that that divine person has three modes or roles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That particular doctrine is not the same as Trinitarianism.



It is clear that when Jesus says 'My Father,' he refers to someone called God.



This is where the misunderstanding is found.

It is not really a matter of rational or logical thinking as it is semantics. When Trinitarians say 'Jesus is God,' they don't mean 'Jesus is God the Father.' What they mean is 'Jesus (or the Son) is of the same essence as God the Father.'

There is an analogy that supports the view that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. The natural child of a human being must be of the same essence as his/her parents: human. Also, the natural child of a feline must be of the same essence as his/her parents: feline. Similarly, in Trinitarian theology, the Son must be of the same essence as the Father: divine. So, when Trinitarians say 'The Son is God,' they mean 'The Son is divine.' It is not the same as 'The Son is the Father,' just as I and my father are not the same person though we are both human.

If a non-Trinitarian understands that what I have written above is what Trinitarianism actually is, then continuing to say something like, 'Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Father and he sent himself' would be dishonest on the part of the non-Trinitarian. A better approach would be to start out like this: 'Let me tell you why the Son cannot be of the same essence as God the Father...'

In all sincerity, I hope that my reply is clear to you, enlightening, and helpful.

Your post is clear, enlightening, and helpful.

 

[mangalavara]

So even within the doctrine itself, there’s division.

It is not so much that there is division within the doctrine as there is division among two major church communions due to additions made to the doctrine of the Trinity by the Latin West. One of the Latin West's additions, by the way, is the idea of double procession. The Roman Church taught (I don't remember if they still do) that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source. It would be like saying that one stream of water somehow flows out of two faucets that are side-by-side and both pointed straight down. The Byzantine East, on the other hand, insists that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as mentioned in John 15.26.

This is the West. (Well, most of us here.)
Are you from the Eastern Europe area?

I understand that Western Trinitarianism is what is commonplace in the Western world. Naturally, that is the form of Trinitarianism familiar to people in the Western world.

Regarding where I'm from, I'm from the US. My family has nothing to do with Eastern Christianity, by the way.

But really, Jesus and the HS are described as lesser gods? Why would you want to worship “lesser gods”?

I have not described them as lesser gods.

In Trinitarian theology, the Son and the Spirit have the same divine essence as God the Father. The reason that this does not make them lesser or separate deities is that the divine essence is indivisible, for it is not a physical or created essence. Moreover, if they were lesser gods, they would not even have the exact same essence as God the Father.

Anyway that’s not what Jehovah God in Exodus 20:2-6, the 1st of the Ten Commandments (quite important, eh?)

It is important in Judaism, Christianity, and other Abrahamic religions that count the Torah as sacred scripture. It is not of any relevance to me though. I'm just a Hindu who knows much about Christianity.

commands us to do.

Commands a people who were brought out of Egypt.

 

[Eli G]

It is important in Judaism, Christianity, and other Abrahamic religions that count the Torah as sacred scripture. It is not of any relevance to me though. I'm just a Hindu who knows much about Christianity.

And it is important for you to know with complete clarity that Trinitarian Christendom does not worship the God of the Bible, but another who comes from some philosophical-religious current of a Gnostic/mystical character.

What the Bible really teaches should be of vital importance to true Christians. According to Jesus, everlasting life can only be acquired if one truly knows "the true God" and his envoy to earth, his Son Jesus (John 17:3). Jesus also says that his followers can only be sanctified by means of the truth (John 17:17), which is what frees them from the vanities of this world that is separated from the Creator (John 8:32).

One cannot obtain the favor of the living and true God by believing falsehoods.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have not stated that the Father's authority over the Son makes them equal.

Alright, but doesn't the trinity doctrine say that all three godpersons are equal?

 

[walt]

..

Is it true in your faith, Jesus lived on Earth over 100 years and never died?

 

[walt]

..

In your faith who is Jesus and how old did he live on Earth?

 

[mangalavara]

You need to focus on one thing at a time: the Son, or the spirit of God.

Ok, Dad.

Now consider this: When Jesus was baptized by John, he was anointed with holy spirit (Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:14-21). Was he anointed with a person? And if so, when did that person leave his side, that he needed to receive more "holy spirit" when he returned to heaven (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:33)?

If the Spirit of God is a person, then yes, Jesus was anointed with a person, figuratively speaking.

I don't see anything in Luke 24.49 that says or implies that the Holy Spirit left Jesus.

Looking at Acts 2:33, I don't think it means that the Spirit had been taken away from Jesus and then given back to him in promise. Rather, when he received the promise of the Holy Spirit, it means that Jesus would at last be permitted by the Father to send the Spirit, the Advocate to his apostles all the way from Heaven.

On the other hand, if that supposed person was already with Jesus, why does John 7:39 say that his disciples had not yet received it?

John 7.39 states that believers had not yet received the Spirit because Jesus was not yet glorified. I don't see how that would refute the personhood of the Spirit.

As I explained to you before: the Bible describes the spirit of God as a force that comes directly from Him, because in Him is the source of the energy with which the entire universe was created.

Does the Bible literally use the word force to describe the Spirit of God? You don't have to answer to that question, by the way.

A person is not "poured out" on other people, nor is someone "filled" with another person.

A person can be poured out on other people, figuratively speaking.

Even Paul of Tarsus says in 2 Timothy 4.6, For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. (NKJV)

The Israelites and the Christians after them never considered the spirit of God as a person.

I don't know what exactly the Israelites believed about the Spirit of God, if there was even one particular belief that they all had.

As to Christians, Paul of Tarsus sounds like he believes the Spirit is a person in Romans 8.26-27. What but a person groans and makes intercessions?

"Essence", "ontologically"... do you think that Israelites or Christians needed those words to understand what the spirit of Jehovah is?

No, I don't think Israelites or early Christians needed those particular terms in order to understand the Spirit of God. The apostles verbally said about the Spirit whatever they said about the Spirit to their followers. Moreover, many early Christians might have attained a deeper understanding of the Spirit of God through prayer, adoration, and meditation. Nonetheless, using theological terms in Greek, Syriac, Aramaic, Latin, or whatever can be helpful for making clear to others what one already knows.

 

[walt]

..

Hello, do you have any Unitarian Bibles you can recommend? I also Believe God is one and God is one person.

 

[Eli G]

Did you know that Israelites knew what the spirit of God is long before Christians could experience the effects of being anointed with it many centuries later?

Jehovah, the God of the Israelites who is also the God of Jesus and the real Christians, never said that his spirit is another person... to anyone in any epoch or place. The holy spirit is called in the Bible "the spirit of God" and "the spirit of Jehovah", no "the other God-person".

Whatever Trinitarians believe about the Holy Spirit, or what Gnostics believe about some incognito god that covers everything, has no relationship to what the Bible describes as the Spirit of God.

Since my hope of eternal life is in the provisions of the God whom the Bible describes as the Creator and Father of Jesus Christ, I teach things that the Bible teaches, not religious traditions, gnostic mysteries, or theological imagery. In this way I give my interlocutors an idea of what they can expect if they decide to worship the same God that I serve. There is no other god who can offer the same things.

 

[mangalavara]

And it is important for you to know with complete clarity that Trinitarian Christendom does not worship the God of the Bible, but another who comes from some philosophical-religious current of a Gnostic/mystical character.

That's your perspective, definitely not mine.

What the Bible really teaches should be of vital importance to true Christians. According to Jesus, everlasting life can only be acquired if one truly knows "the true God" and his envoy to earth, his Son Jesus (John 17:3). Jesus also says that his followers can only be sanctified from the truth (John 17:17), which is what frees them from the vanities of this world that is separated from the Creator (John 8:32).

If your one time chance of salvation depends on getting all the details correct, I suppose that the Bible would indeed be of vital importance.

 

[walt]

Does

In your faith who is Jesus and how old did he live on Earth?

 

[Eli G]

Although religious debates in forums like this give a distorted and confusing idea about the reality of God, we are not talking about theories or theologies. It is not about comparing religions or seeing how human beings supposedly became religious after having been apes (as some teach).

In reality it is about knowing who really created the Universe, keeps it alive, and offers to fix what someone messed up along the way. There is a real story behind why humanity suffers, and we have an Almighty Being who created us, who loves us and is willing to give us much more than what we now live.

The issue is whether each one of us is willing to support his purpose or not. No matter what we do, his purpose will be fulfilled.