Who make Jesus a God?

[Shermana]

Once again, the Alpha and Omega in 1:11 is spurious and doesn't appear in most translations for a reason. I explained in the last post and you had no answer beyond some mere dismissal comparing manuscript versions to archie comics, so it's you who is incorrect. So there goes that.

Constantine:

but you have no latitude to state that Jesus was not the one described as John's interlocutor, otherwise it opens up a new host of questions of which I will undoubtedly wit the use of the scriptures entangle you. End of discussion.

Other than the fact that you want to completely dismiss the fact that 1:11 is overwhelmingly said to contain a spurious Alpha and Omega, by all means feel free to try to "entangle" with these (mis)uses of scriptures, I'd be interested to see if you'll present a single one that I haven't encountered and debunked hundreds of times before already.

 

[Conståntine]

Once again, the Alpha and Omega in 1:11 is spurious and doesn't appear in most translations for a reason. I explained in the last post and you had no answer beyond some mere dismissal comparing manuscript versions to archie comics, so it's you who is incorrect. So there goes that.

I don't like red herrings. But I will indulge you a bit more.

Well let me explain to you that regardless of you deeming these scriptures spurious, and you asserting that it is not included in most translations, the phrase nevertheless occurs in all of the bible translations that I use and in their respective languages. Anyone can say that particular verses of the bible are spurious, or even the entire bible, but I'm not interested in swaying anyone's mind from that opinion. If it were that this phrase only appeared in my Louis Segond or 1611 KJV, and not my other French, Spanish, and other language copies, then I might have given you a sympathetic ear to your claims. But that is not the case. I am more inclined to believe that the scripture is spurious because if it were not, your counterclaim to my assertions would be all the more quicker without merit. Even if you removed the contentious Alpha & Omega part, (1) the saying still resides in verse eight of the first chapter, (2) you are still left with explaining (or trying to 'explain away' in your case) how John's interlocutor in Revelation 1:8-17 is not Jesus, and (3) why the speaker in Revelation 21:6-7 is not the same as John's interlocutor in the former set of scriptures.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other than the fact that you want to completely dismiss the fact that 1:11 is overwhelmingly said to contain a spurious Alpha and Omega, by all means feel free to try to "entangle" with these (mis)uses of scriptures, I'd be interested to see if you'll present a single one that I haven't encountered and debunked hundreds of times before already.

Start by debunking my exegesis with scriptures. Your conjectures about ancient manuscripts as well as your debating exploits of past times are neither here nor there with regard to this discussion.

 

[Shermana]

Constantine:

I don't like red herrings. But I will indulge you a bit more.

Thank you for admitting that you regard manuscript evidence against this is a "red herring"

Well let me explain to you that regardless of you deeming these scriptures spurious,

And they are spurious, even most Trinitarian translations omit it for a reason.

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,
"This wording at the beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994" - HTTP error 404 - document not found

and you asserting that it is not included in most translations, the phrase nevertheless occurs in all of the bible translations that I use and in their respective languages

.

Yes, there are numerous Trinitarian translations that still tenaciously hold on to their fabricated verses to uphold their doctrine. Does your translations also contain the Comma Johhaneum in 1 John 5:7 as well?

There are only three pre-ninth century Greek MSS which attest to this passage [Rev. 1:11], and all three of them omit the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." In addition, many later MSS and versions also omit. Hodges and Farstad's "Majority" text omits, and Robinson and Pierpont's "Byzantine/Majority" text omits. Thus whether one bases one's text largely on pre-ninth century MSS, or whether one bases one's text on the Majority of Greek MSS, either way, this phrase should be omitted."
-Steven Craig Miller - http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19991221/464d6391/attachment.htm

Anyone can say that particular verses of the bible are spurious,

Not really, there needs to be adequate manuscript evidence or scholarly weight to really carry such a position in debate.

or even the entire bible, but I'm not interested in swaying anyone's mind from that opinion. If it were that this phrase only appeared in my Louis Segond or 1611 KJV, and not my other French, Spanish, and other language copies, then I might have given you a sympathetic ear to your claims.

Many translations follow suit with the KJV version if they are basing it on later-era Church manuscripts. The verse simply doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts and overwhelmingly appears to be a deliberate addition which many 'traditionalist" translations simply run with to placate their market share. Simply put, it was added in later by church authorities along with 1 John 5:7's comma Johanneum to support the Trinity doctrine. However since you don't seem to be too interested in manuscript evidence discussion, we'll just have to agree to disagree until you're ready to discuss the specifics.

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Revelation 1

Verse 11." I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and
"This whole clause is wanting in ABC, thirty-one others; some editions; the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Arethas, Andreas, and Primasius. Griesbach has left it out of the text."

But that is not the case. I am more inclined to believe that the scripture is spurious because if it were not, your counterclaim to my assertions would be all the more quicker without merit.

?

Even if you removed the contentious Alpha & Omega part, (1) the saying still resides in verse eight of the first chapter, (2) you are still left with explaining (or trying to 'explain away' in your case) how John's interlocutor in Revelation 1:8-17 is not Jesus, and (3) why the speaker in Revelation 21:6-7 is not the same as John's interlocutor in the former set of scriptures.

That's easy, the speaker in Revelation 1:1-8 is God, the Father, not Jesus.

Even top Trinitarian commentators acknowledge this:

Revelation 1:8 Bible Commentary

For example, Barnes says:

As there is, however, a difference of reading in this place in the Greek text, and as it can. not be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here, this cannot be adduced with propriety as a proof-text to demonstrate his divinity. Many mss., instead of "Lord," κυρίος kurios, read "God," Θεὸς Theos and this reading is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn, and is now regarded as the correct reading. There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such, since the introduction of a reference to him would not be inappropriate to his manifest design. Besides, a portion of the language used here, "which is, and was, and is to come," is what would more naturally suggest a reference to God as such, than to the Lord Jesus Christ.

4John,

To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spiritsa before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.
So shall it be! Amen.
8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Nowhere is Jesus ever referred to as "The Lord God" for one thing. (Not even in John 20:28 which was known as a "Statement of Exclamation" or OMG since the Dark ages and before that). Besides, Jesus starts speaking at 1:11 as a different person entirely. Again, I invite you to read the issue of the Speaker Confusion trick. Perhaps you'll actually take a look this time.

Examining the Trinity: AO - Speaker Confusion

Start by debunking my exegesis with scriptures.

What exegesis? I must have missed it.

Your conjectures about ancient manuscripts as well as your debating exploits of past times are neither here nor there with regard to this discussion.

How so? Could it be because I disagree with your interpretation and you don't like the links I use because they agree?

 

[Conståntine]

Constantine:



Thank you for admitting that you regard manuscript evidence against this is a "red herring"



And they are spurious, even most Trinitarian translations omit it for a reason.





.

Yes, there are numerous Trinitarian translations that still tenaciously hold on to their fabricated verses to uphold their doctrine. Does your translations also contain the Comma Johhaneum in 1 John 5:7 as well?





Not really, there needs to be adequate manuscript evidence or scholarly weight to really carry such a position in debate.




Many translations follow suit with the KJV version if they are basing it on later-era Church manuscripts. The verse simply doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts and overwhelmingly appears to be a deliberate addition which many 'traditionalist" translations simply run with to placate their market share. Simply put, it was added in later by church authorities along with 1 John 5:7's comma Johanneum to support the Trinity doctrine. However since you don't seem to be too interested in manuscript evidence discussion, we'll just have to agree to disagree until you're ready to discuss the specifics.

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Revelation 1







?



That's easy, the speaker in Revelation 1:1-8 is God, the Father, not Jesus.

Even top Trinitarian commentators acknowledge this:

Revelation 1:8 Bible Commentary

For example, Barnes says:







Nowhere is Jesus ever referred to as "The Lord God" for one thing. (Not even in John 20:28 which was known as a "Statement of Exclamation" or OMG since the Dark ages and before that). Besides, Jesus starts speaking at 1:11 as a different person entirely. Again, I invite you to read the issue of the Speaker Confusion trick. Perhaps you'll actually take a look this time.

Examining the Trinity: AO - Speaker Confusion






What exegesis? I must have missed it.



How so? Could it be because I disagree with your interpretation and you don't like the links I use because they agree?

May I remind you that this discussion between yourself and I began with your protestations that Jesus was not the speaker quoted in Revelation 21:6-7. You claimed that it was not Jesus speaking, but rather the Father. I reverted back to Revelation 1:8-17 to show that the person who bore the title Alpha & Omega was the same person who bore such a title in Revelation 21:6-7. I pointed out that the bible states that John saw one like unto the Son of Man, whom even claimed that he had died. You claim that the use of the title Alpha & Omega in Revelation 1:11 is spurious. Fine, I will now give you the benefit of the doubt. The title still appears in Revelation 1:8 in any event. I am still waiting for you to prove my original contention wrong. I am not interested in what top Trinitarian speakers, the Dalai Lama, or any other commentators have to say on the subject. I am interested in you giving me SPECIFIC SCRIPTURES - BOOKS, CHAPTERS, AND VERSES - that support your claims. Anything else is of no use to me. Imagine if Barnes, Steve Craig Miller, Bruce Metzger, any other commentator, or internet links weren't around. I said Revelation 1:8 is speaking of Jesus. I showed scriptural evidence. Make your case.

 

[Shermana]

May I remind you that this discussion between yourself and I began with your protestations that Jesus was not the speaker quoted in Revelation 21:6-7.

May I remind you that Jesus is not the one speaking in Revelation 21 but the Father is?

You claimed that it was not Jesus speaking, but rather the Father. I reverted back to Revelation 1:8-17 to show that the person who bore the title Alpha & Omega was the same person who bore such a title in Revelation 21:6-7.

Which is why I showed you that Jesus does not bear the title Alpha and Omega and the argument over verse 1:11 which contains the spurious reference.

I pointed out that the bible states that John saw one like unto the Son of Man, whom even claimed that he had died. You claim that the use of the title Alpha & Omega in Revelation 1:11 is spurious. Fine, I will now give you the benefit of the doubt. The title still appears in Revelation 1:8 in any event.

If you're going to just ignore what I said that Rev 1:8 is the Father speaking and not Jesus and ignore what I say about it, what's the use of even debating?

I am still waiting for you to prove my original contention wrong.

Considering that you won't accept what I showed or the links I provided, by all means explain what evidence you'd actually accept for you to accept that your contention is wrong.

I am not interested in what top Trinitarian speakers, the Dalai Lama, or any other commentators have to say on the subject.

So who ARE you interested in? Only people whose interpretation you agree with?

I am interested in you giving me SPECIFIC SCRIPTURES - BOOKS, CHAPTERS, AND VERSES -

Do you not understand that those same chapters and books and verses are up to dispute as to how to interpret them? How am I supposed to prove to you that your interpretation is wrong exactly when you refuse to accept other people's interpretations?

that support your claims. Anything else is of no use to me. Imagine if Barnes, Steve Craig Miller, Bruce Metzger, any other commentator, or internet links weren't around. I said Revelation 1:8 is speaking of Jesus. I showed scriptural evidence. Make your case.

And I said Revelation 1:1-8 is about the Father. You're basically just showing that you refuse to accept anyone else's opinion and that you want scripture to show you how to interpret the same verse in question. Meanwhile, you have NOT demonstrated that 1:8 is referring to Jesus instead of the Father.

Why don't you start by showing that 1:8 is Jesus and not the Father speaking if you're going to just dismiss and deny all the claims that say otherwise.

 

[Conståntine]

May I remind you that Jesus is not the one speaking in Revelation 21 but the Father is?

Walk us through the scriptures and show us how.

Which is why I showed you that Jesus does not bear the title Alpha and Omega and the argument over verse 1:11 which contains the spurious reference.

Again, forget about verse 11. I already gave you the benefit of the doubt. There is Revelation 1:8. Explain that - WITH SCRIPTURES.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're going to just ignore what I said that Rev 1:8 is the Father speaking and not Jesus and ignore what I say about it, what's the use of even debating?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering that you won't accept what I showed or the links I provided, by all means explain what evidence you'd actually accept for you to accept that your contention is wrong.

I don't have time to bore people with countless links, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. I give them scriptures. When Paul argued, he used scriptures and not internet links. When Jesus rebuffed the advances of Satan in the gospels, he used scriptures as opposed to sending Satan off to google some commentator. You can do the same - I have faith in you

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who ARE you interested in? Only people whose interpretation you agree with?

I'm interested in scriptures ONLY.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you not understand that those same chapters and books and verses are up to dispute as to how to interpret them? How am I supposed to prove to you that your interpretation is wrong exactly when you refuse to accept other people's interpretations?

Actually, other people's interpretations aren't all that important - only God's.

II Peter 1:20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I said Revelation 1:1-8 is about the Father. You're basically just showing that you refuse to accept anyone else's opinion and that you want scripture to show you how to interpret the same verse in question.

Yes, I'm not interested in anyone else's opinions. Only scriptures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, you have NOT demonstrated that 1:8 is referring to Jesus instead of the Father.

Why don't you start by showing that 1:8 is Jesus and not the Father speaking if you're going to just dismiss and deny all the claims that say otherwise.

I DID do so - I posted the part of the chapter which dealt with the person who John was speaking with. The same Alpha and Omega, First and the Last was he who was DEAD (a.k.a - cross, burial, resurrection) and alive evermore. If that isn't Jesus, then I guess it's Jay Leno.

 

[Shermana]

Walk us through the scriptures and show us how.

Sure:

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

5He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

6He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

So by all means please prove that it's Jesus who is seated on the throne and not the Father. Especially considering it earlier says its the Father who is seated on the Throne.

Again, forget about verse 11. I already gave you the benefit of the doubt. There is Revelation 1:8. Explain that - WITH SCRIPTURES.

Again, you completely ignore what I said about Revelation 1:8 that it's clearly the Father and not Jesus, and you have refused to show that it's Jesus. If you're going to just ignore what I say, stick to the DIRs. I said it says "The Lord God" here and that Jesus doesn't start talking until 1:11. I'll post it for you again, but I have a feeling you'll ignore it again. Funny how The Lord is "jesus's God". So God has a god?

4John,

To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spiritsa before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.
So shall it be! Amen.
8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have time to bore people with countless links, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. I give them scriptures. When Paul argued, he used scriptures and not internet links. When Jesus rebuffed the advances of Satan in the gospels, he used scriptures as opposed to sending Satan off to google some commentator. You can do the same - I have faith in you

You mean you don't have time to back up your claims, thanks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm interested in scriptures ONLY.

I gave scriptures. I think what you're interested in is your interpretation only.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, other people's interpretations aren't all that important - only God's.

II Peter 1:20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

So who's interpretation is private exactly? Why isn't yours the private one?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I'm not interested in anyone else's opinions. Only scriptures.

Right, thank you for admitting that you're only interested in your opinion of what the scriptures say. I really think you want to stick to the DIRs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I DID do so - I posted the part of the chapter which dealt with the person who John was speaking with. The same Alpha and Omega, First and the Last was he who was DEAD (a.k.a - cross, burial, resurrection) and alive evermore. If that isn't Jesus, then I guess it's Jay Leno

Again, you're relying on the spurious Alpha and Omega in 1:11, and the First and the Last I already showed you is not exclusive to God, since Jesus is the "Firstborn of Creation" and "Last Adam", as well as "Firstborn of the Dead".

You simply are saying you refuse to listen to anyone else's opinions, which is fine and dandy, but this is a debate board.

 

[Conståntine]

So by all means please prove that it's Jesus who is seated on the throne and not the Father. Especially considering it earlier says its the Father who is seated on the Throne.

Jesus is not taking God's place on the throne. They share the same throne. That because they are one in the same person.

Read the rest of the book:

Revelation of John 3:21: To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you completely ignore what I said about Revelation 1:8 that it's clearly the Father and not Jesus

SHOW ME WHY!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, thank you for admitting that you're only interested in your opinion of what the scriptures say. I really think you want to stick to the DIRs.

If you say so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you're relying on the spurious Alpha and Omega in 1:11, and the First and the Last I already showed you is not exclusive to God, since Jesus is the "Firstborn of Creation" and "Last Adam", as well as "Firstborn of the Dead".

You simply are saying you refuse to listen to anyone else's opinions, which is fine and dandy, but this is a debate board.

AGAIN, FORGET ABOUT Revelation 1:11. I've moved past that. You're still stuck on that for whatever reason.

And also, I agree about the titles. And I agree about this too:

John 10:30: I and my Father are one.
John 10:31: Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32: Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33: The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus and God are one. They are the same person.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You stated that the scriptures before Revelation 1:8 were referring to the father.

Revelation of John 1:7: Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Explain the red highlighted part. is that a reference to the father? If so, then how?

 

[Shermana]

Jesus is not taking God's place on the throne. They share the same throne. That because they are one in the same person.

In your Trinitarian presumption. But how does Jesus have a god then?

Read the rest of the book:

Revelation of John 3:21: To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

He's not seated in the throne at the time of Rev 21:6. Do you think Jesus has two thrones? Otherwise, every believer is God since they will be seated in "his throne".


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHOW ME WHY!

I DID! You simply refuse to accept the context that it specifically says "LORD GOD" there and that Jesus is a different speaker in 1:11, and you go by your Trinitarian presumption.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you say so.

Indeed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGAIN, FORGET ABOUT Revelation 1:11. I've moved past that. You're still stuck on that for whatever reason.

Because you still were using it as a basis of your argument.

John 10:30: I and my Father are one.
John 10:31: Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32: Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33: The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

As I often bring up with John 10:33, like with John 1:1c, the Anarthrous Theon should read "a god", not "God".

The Trinity Delusion: John 10:33

Even Trinitarians often understand this.

"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.

Jesus and God are one. They are the same person.

No, Jesus says "Let them be one as we are one" regarding the Disciples. Does that mean the Disciples are invited to become God as well? I understand you admitted you aren't going to discuss other people's opinions and commentary, but even Trinitarians understand this.

Examining the Trinity: ONE - John 10:30

As you can see, there are many scholars of the Trinitarian persuasion who firmly disagree with your interpretation. You may want to research them. I told you, I've seen EVERY single one of the "proof texts" that are attempted to be used on this.

Commenting on John 10:30, J. H. Bernard, D.D. says in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John:

“A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel..., and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of ousia [Greek for ‘substance,’ ‘essence’], is to introduce thoughts that were not present to the theologians of the first century."[1]

Even the very trinitarian New Testament Greek scholar W. E. Vine when discussing the Greek word for “one” says: “(b) metaphorically [figuratively], union and concord, e.g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22....” - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809.

Trinitarian Professor William Barclay writing in his popular Daily Study Bible Series, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, The Westminster Press, 1975, pp. 74, 75, 76 says:

“Now we come to the supreme claim [of John 10:30]. ‘I and the Father are one,’ said Jesus. What did he mean? Is it absolute mystery, or can we understand at least a little of it? Are we driven to interpret it in terms of essence and hypostasis and all the rest of the metaphysical and philosophic notions about which the makers of creeds fought and argued? Has one to be a theologian and a philosopher to grasp even a fragment of the meaning of this tremendous statement?

“If we go to the Bible itself for the interpretation,” continues Barclay, “we find that it is in fact so simple that the simplest mind can grasp it. Let us turn to the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel, which tells of the prayer of Jesus for his followers before he went to his death: ‘Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:11). Jesus conceived of the unity of Christian with Christian as the same as his unity with God.”

“Here is the essence of the matter”, says Barclay. “The bond of unity is love; the proof of love is obedience. Christians are one with each other when they are bound by love, and obey the words of Christ. Jesus is one with God, because as no other ever did, he obeyed and loved him. His unity with God is a unity of perfect love, issuing in perfect obedience.[2]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You stated that the scriptures before Revelation 1:8 were referring to the father.

I sure did.

Revelation of John 1:7: Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Explain the red highlighted part. is that a reference to the father? If so, then how?

Simply put, verse 1:7 is not the same subject as who the speaker is in 1:8.

Do you see how it says Amen at the end of 1:7? That's the closing of the introduction. Then it says that the Lord GOD is the one speaking. Context of 1:7 reveals that it's the one coming to serve HIS God. How can Jesus be God when he has a god? God has a god? Didn't I ask that last time?

Thus, 1:8 is the LORD GOD speaking with a new paragraph after the "Amen" closes the introduction, not the one in 1:7 who is being spoken about who is there to serve HIS GOD who is the subject of 1:8. Simple.

 

[rusra02]

Since Jesus didn’t say even one time clearly in the bible “I am a God”, then who makes him a God?

If he is a God or Son, why he started his ministry when he was about 30 years old only? Why he appeared only 2012 years back, why not 200000 years back? Why jesus said "Why do you call me good,No one is good--except God alone.(Mark 10:18)

Jesus was one ring in a long chain of prophets and messengers sent by God to people and when people make him a god or a son, God sent his messenger Mohamed to correct the way with a book called Quran in which not even one letter changed on it since more than 1400 years not like the bible with different versions.

The question is who makes Jesus a god?

I think you are correct that Jesus never claimed to be God, but rather God's Son.
Still, the Bible shows that Christ is central to God's purpose and our salvation. "There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we might get saved." (Acts 4:12) The Bible has not changed. I believe God sent his Son and has now appointed him Lord over all. Much that is taught about Christ in the churches is not true. We need to read the Bible to find the truth about him.

 

[idav]

Christianity isn't for everyone.

Making an idol of a human isn't for everyone either.

 

[loverOfTruth]

No-one made Jesus God. He is God by His nature.

I believe it was planning. He could have started when He was 80 if He wished.

I believe as my pastor taught that God has a plan for progressive revelation. I believe 200,000 years ago may have been a diffeent cycle entirely. I believe Jesus fulfilled prophecy of His coming at the very time that it was prophesied that He would come.

Because He was revealing that He is God.

I believe this concept is false; God does not contradict Himself.

This does not alter the efficacy of the Bible.

I believe God does.

God is All Knowing at All Time About Everything - no knowledge is beyond Him.

But Jesus(pbuh) didn't know about the Day of Judgement according to Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father."

So Jesus(pbuh) being NOT 'All Knowing' could not be God - as simple as that.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I find it particularly irritating that this bit of disinformation is constantly promulgated. This should put this to rest (from a biblical point of view):

Revelation of John 21:6: And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Revelation of John 21:7: He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.






I would say himself. He never required elections.

Note Revelation 1:6 which states "... has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father " . It would certainly not say His God if it was talking about Him(Jesus).

So if anything that contradicts Revelation 1:8 and makes it more ambiguous as to who this Lord refers to. Moreover, God Almighty has no Beginning and no End.

So once again none of those are clear and unambiguous statements of Jesus stating He is God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Making an idol of a human isn't for everyone either.

So I take it you frown upon the crucifix? I don't

 

[idav]

So I take it you frown upon the crucifix? I don't

No I don't mind it. Just that a man made thing can't be a representation of god and certainly not god dying.

 

[Desert Snake]

No I don't mind it. Just that a ma made thing can't be a representation

The crucifix is a representation.......

 

[idav]

The crucifix is a representation.......

Only if you think Jesus is literally The God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Only if you think Jesus is literally The God.

Huh? What are talking about? Many Christians view Jesus as man+God, divine but not God, the Son of God, or even man who obtained divinity, as expressed on these forums.

 

[Desert Snake]

Since Jesus didn’t say even one time clearly in the bible “I am a God”, then who makes him a God?

If he is a God or Son, why he started his ministry when he was about 30 years old only? Why he appeared only 2012 years back, why not 200000 years back? Why jesus said "Why do you call me good,No one is good--except God alone.(Mark 10:18)

Jesus was one ring in a long chain of prophets and messengers sent by God to people and when people make him a god or a son, God sent his messenger Mohamed to correct the way with a book called Quran in which not even one letter changed on it since more than 1400 years not like the bible with different versions.

The question is who makes Jesus a god?

Jesus is the Son of God, not sure what Bible you're reading

 

[idav]

Huh? What are talking about? Many Christians view Jesus as man+God, divine but not God, the Son of God, or even man who obtained divinity, as expressed on these forums.

Many christains worship Jesus which means worshipping a man + God.