Jesus is God

[For_The_Kingdom]

First of all, I never knew that so many suspected "unbelievers" in the Christian religion were so fascinated about whether or not Jesus is God. If you don't believe in Jesus or God, then why do you care? It blows my mind.

Anyway..

I have a Biblically simplistic way of proving that Jesus is God..

Argument from Perfection: The Bible is clear, Jesus was/is without sin (morally perfect). The argument goes like this..

1. Only God is without sin
2. Jesus is without sin
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

#1 is virtually undisputed. #2 is Biblical based on two immediate Scriptures..

a. 2 Corin 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him".

b. Heb 4:15 "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin".

Now, the idea is; if you replace Jesus' name in #2 with ANY other name in Heaven or on Earth, the proposition becomes false and the entire syllogism is false.

The conclusion is simple; in order to be God, you must be without sin..and to be without sin, you must be God. Jesus meets/met those requirements, therefore, Jesus is God.

Argument from John 14:1-9: Long story short, Jesus was constantly preaching/lecturing about "The Father this, The Father that"...until Philip finally said "Lord, show us the Father, and that will be good enough"...and Jesus said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father".

Jesus is saying that seeing him is the same has seeing the Father...but if the Father is on SUCH A HIGH PEDESTAL and is light years ahead of any other entity in Heaven or on Earth, how dare Jesus say "He who has seen me has seen the Father".

In other words, if the Father took on human form and made his dwelling among us on Earth, his form would be Jesus.

If the Father is God, and Jesus said to see him is to see the Father, then Jesus must also be God. This just follows logically.

Argument from Hebrews 1:3: "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.."

This is the same reasoning applied to Heb 4 (above). If God is the holiest of all holiest, how can any other being come close, must less be the "exact representation" of his being?

How can you be the "exact representation" of someone that is the epitome of holiness/righteousness...unless you yourself is also the epitome of holiness/righteousness?

Actually, you can sum up all three arguments as the "Argument from Perfection"..and of course, there are plenty of other "Trinity proof" Scriptures that I can throw in there, but I wanted to attack this from a different angel.

And lastly, as much as these arguments harmonize, they are all independent...so even if you manage to wiggle your way out of one...you still have to deal with the others.

Actually, there is no way out; Jesus is God, whether we like it or not.

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 265 by For_The_Kingdom]

Here God is; the most Holy of all Holiest, and here you are saying/implying that an angel or human being's moral benevolence is on par with the Most High.

I never said or implied "that an angel or human being's moral benevolence is on par with the Most High." All I said was: "All angels were created perfect, in effect sinless. Even Adam and Eve were created perfect." Does being sinless or perfect make a created being's moral benevolence on par with God? That's a bit of a stretch. Your putting strange words onto my post.

That wasn't even the main premise of your post which was "Only God is without sin" not "No one is on par with the Most High on moral benevolence". If that was your premise then I would have heartily agreed. No one, of course, can be on par with the Most High on moral benevolence - not even Jesus. He (Jesus) has always admitted his inferior position compared to God, some of which verses are (mind you, this is only a shortlist for there are many instances):

• Luke 18:18, 19 KJV And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
  
  Mark 10:17, 18 KJV And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
  
  John 14:28 KJV my Father is greater than I

Were the issue is moral benevolence, then the line of reasoning would have been similar to this:

• 1. No one is on par with God's moral benevolence
  2. Jesus admits he is not on par with God's moral benevolence
  3. Therefore Jesus is not God

There is nothing "wild" about the claim that "no created being, whether in heaven or on earth, can say that they are morally perfect and therefore without sin".

This part of your post has certainly intrigued me and in support you quoted:

As for me, I am just going by what the Bible says..

Rom 3:10-12..

10 As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.�

And also..

Rom 3:23

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Now, I don't know what part of "all" you don't understand. Or maybe you can explain why, if angels aren't included in this "all", they can be the moral equivalence of the Almighty, Most High, God.

I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly. When Romans 3:10 says: "There is none righteous, no, not one" were you including angels as well? And, also, were you including angels in the "all" of Romans 3:23? If so, this interpretation is fatal to your post for it is universally acknowledged that these verses are with reference to humans only. Due to space restraint, I can only give you one commentary of each for there are tons (Google "Romans 3:10 meaning" and "Romans 3:23 meaning"):

• Romans 3:10: " This passage is a major indictment of mankind" - https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fu ... seID/28002
  
  Romans 3:23: "Every human being who has ever lived - except Christ - has broken God's laws. Therefore, everyone needs to be saved from sin's consequences." - https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fu ... seID/28015

Even the context of Romans 3:10-12 reveals that Paul was referring to Jews and Gentiles - all of mankind, in Jewish parlance. For he said at Romans 3:9: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are under sin;" Were you including angels in "Jews and Gentiles"?

Romans 3:12 was taken from Psalms 14:3 where it says: "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Again the context refers to humans not angels for Psalms 14:2 says: "The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God."

The Scriptures is all about man's redemption not angels. True some angels sinned but there are those who didn't. The Scriptures refer to them as holy angels, angels without sin. Of course none of the holy angels would have a moral benevolence on par with God but hey are nevertheless without sin or they wouldn't be holy.

If there were no holy angels at all then how would this particular prophecy be fulfilled: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy (holy: "spiritually perfect or pure; untainted by evil or sin; sinless" - Webster's New World Dictionary) angels" - Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26 KJV

Does your church (whatever that is) teach that those texts (Romans 3:10-12; 3:23) refer not only to men but to angels as well? If so can you please supply me a link of your church's website that explains that teaching.

You're error stems from believing the Trinity doctrine, which even the preeminent scientist, Isaac Newton rejected. From the Wikipedia article: Religious Views of Isaac Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... aac_Newton) I quote verbatim: "In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ is idolatry, to him the fundamental sin."

When one abandons that teaching, one experiences the truthfulness of Jesus' statement: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" - John 8:32 KJV.

[For_The_Kingdom]

John's Jesus also said

And this is eternal life, that they know you (the Father, not Jesus) the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent

.

Did God send Himself? God is the sender, in John 17.3, not the sendee, which was Jesus.

Ummm, Pilate "sent" Jesus over to be crucified. Pilate was the sender, not the sendee, which was Jesus.

Point?

If Jesus were including himself as "the only true God" he would have said "That they know us the only true God..." and the 2nd part of the statement would have been rendered superfluous it that were the case.

The only true God? Hmm..what does 1 John 5:20 say?

20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Hmmm.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20John%205:20

Also, no one historically was "going around calling themselves God" at not least in first century Palestine. Roman emperors perhaps, but not Jews. Historical context precludes the notion that Jesus claimed to be God.

The Jews were also worshiping golden calfs too. I don't necessarily put too much stock into what any particular person or group did (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't).

I'm just saying, just go by what the Bible says.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 270 by tigger2]

Ahh, yes; the ole "My Greek scholars are better than yours" routine. Look, I have my sources too...and they all say something different; that the indefinite article "a" has no place in that verse.

Since Jehovah's Witnesses are known for flat out butchering the Scriptures, I have no choice but doubt anything that their infamous NWT says.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You started this thread with your way of establishing your claim that Jesus is God.

Yet you didn't include John 1, which you now say "clearly says about Jesus"!

I didn't include it, because quite frankly; it is more fun pointing out those loose facts in the OP, without going straight for the jugular in John 1.

John 1:1-2 is not clear but rather, has spawned differing opinions.

Right, people say one thing, and the Bible says other.

Jesus did not say he was the Father, or equal to Him, or that he was God the Son.

I disagree with the notion that Jesus did not say that he was God (John 8:48-59). Second..

1. If Jesus is/was God, he would have said "I am God".
2. Jesus did not say "I am God".
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Text book example of non sequitur.

Clear verses do not result in controversy.

Clear instructions ("Do not eat fruit of the tree") shouldn't have resulted in controversy either. Catch my drift?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 277 by For_The_Kingdom]

1 Jn 5:20 -
“We are in him that is true [alethinos], even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true [alethinos] God, and eternal life.� - KJV.

Some trinitarians actually insist that the word “this� (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, “[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.�

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible shows only 5 places where "the true God" is used in the entire Bible: (1) 2 Chron. 15:3; (2) Jer. 10:10; (3) 1 Thess. 1:9; (4) 1 John 5:20; and (5) John 17:3.

Even though all other uses of 'the true God' in Scripture are clearly referring to YHWH, the Father, it is obvious that grammatically the word “this� (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or “the true One�) has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV; GNB; and the footnote in the NIV Study Bible) makes it highly probable that “this is the true God� refers to the Father, not Jesus.

The respected trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:

“Although it is certainly possible that outos [‘this’] refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to ‘the true one,’ God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter.� - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here also. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!

So this single “proof� that the “true God� is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father.

“We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life.� - NJB.

“We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life.� - TEV.

“And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding so that we can know the true God. And now we live in fellowship with the true God because we live in fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only true God, and he is eternal life.� - New Living Translation.

So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. If we include the context of all the other uses of the ‘true God,’ it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is YHWH - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 270 by tigger2]

Ahh, yes; the ole "My Greek scholars are better than yours" routine. Look, I have my sources too...and they all say something different; that the indefinite article "a" has no place in that verse.

Since Jehovah's Witnesses are known for flat out butchering the Scriptures, I have no choice but doubt anything that their infamous NWT says.

This is my own personal study of the grammar of John (and the other Gospel writers) over the years. It has little to do with "my scholars." I have used only the grammars of noted Trinitarian NT Grammarians! And then used those grammatical facts they have noted to do my own study.

If someone were truly interested in truth, they would check out every step I have taken to come to the honest meaning intended by John at John 1:1c. It is clear that you have not even made an attempt.

To just shrug off my hundreds of hours of study (and scores of books bought and borrowed) as just my opinion versus others who have not done the required study is exceedingly poor.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 281 by tigger2]

FTK wrote:

" 1. We should believe what the Bible clearly says

2. The Bible clearly says; Jesus is God (John 1:1-2 followed by John 1:14).

3. Therefore, we should believe what the Bible clearly says about Jesus being God (John 1:1-2 followed by John 1:14).

So don't take issues with me and what I said; take issues with the author of John's Gospel and what he said."

.....................................

1. Yes, we should believe what the Bible clearly says. And the New Testament Bible is what the ancient Greek NT text clearly says (not what any translator may say). The NT Greek text for all John's writings (and all other Gospel writers, also) clearly uses the definite article (ho in the Greek manuscripts and 'the' in English translation) whenever he intends "God" (ho theos) in English translation. And yet he does not use ho with theos in John 1:1c! (Prove me wrong with a little study with an interlinear at least!)

Furthermore, John (and the other Gospel writers) intended an indefinite noun when an unmodified nominative count noun did not have the definite article (like 'man,' prophet,' 'god,' etc.). Since NT Greek did not have an indefinite article, English translators add the English indefinite article at these places: 'a man' (John 1:6; 3:4, 27; 10:33), 'a prophet' (John 4:19), 'a devil' (John 6:70), etc. And even though the only place most translators ignore this truth is 'a god,' (John 1:1c,), But this is what John clearly wrote! Translators often ignore this truth when it adversely affects their doctrine. (Prove me wrong with a little study with an interlinear at least. Show at least one error!)

2. The Bible clearly says; the Word is a god.

3. Therefore, we should believe what the Bible clearly says about the Word being a god and the Father being the ONLY true God.

My personal study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... r_21.html (Try a little honest study of your own.)

[Checkpoint]

You started this thread with your way of establishing your claim that Jesus is God.

Yet you didn't include John 1, which you now say "clearly says about Jesus"!

I didn't include it, because quite frankly; it is more fun pointing out those loose facts in the OP, without going straight for the jugular in John 1.

John 1:1-2 is not clear but rather, has spawned differing opinions.

Right, people say one thing, and the Bible says other.

Jesus did not say he was the Father, or equal to Him, or that he was God the Son.

I disagree with the notion that Jesus did not say that he was God (John 8:48-59). Second..

1. If Jesus is/was God, he would have said "I am God".
2. Jesus did not say "I am God".
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Text book example of non sequitur.

Clear verses do not result in controversy.

Clear instructions ("Do not eat fruit of the tree") shouldn't have resulted in controversy either. Catch my drift?

Jesus did not say or indicate in that John 8 passage that he was God.

Those instructions were quite clear; there is no controversy among believers on that one.

[onewithhim]

You started this thread with your way of establishing your claim that Jesus is God.

Yet you didn't include John 1, which you now say "clearly says about Jesus"!

I didn't include it, because quite frankly; it is more fun pointing out those loose facts in the OP, without going straight for the jugular in John 1.

John 1:1-2 is not clear but rather, has spawned differing opinions.

Right, people say one thing, and the Bible says other.

Jesus did not say he was the Father, or equal to Him, or that he was God the Son.

I disagree with the notion that Jesus did not say that he was God (John 8:48-59).

Why? Translators followed the rules of grammar in every other instance where anyone says "I am" except at John 8:58. Why? Because someone noticed that ego eimi in this sentence looks a lot like what God said to Moses at Exodus 3:14.

1) To present what Jesus says---a common phrase (ego eimi)---as comparable to "'I Am' has sent you," as spoken to Moses---means that we forget all rules of translation from one language to another and offer a pathetically mangled word order.

2) If John 8:58 shows that Jesus is God because he said "ego eimi," then the example of "ego eimi" found a few verses later at John 9:9 must show that the blind man is also God.

3) Exodus 3:14 doesn't even necessarily translate as "I Am." Some translators render it as:

"I Shall Prove To Be What I Shall Prove To Be" (NWT)

"I Will Be That I Will Be" (Leeser)

"I Will Become Whatsoever I Please" (Rotherham)

"I Will Be There Howsoever I Will Be There" (Everett Fox)


So how do these translations line up with John 8:58? They don't necessarily say "I Am" at all. It could be translated as "I will." So we can't really compare John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14.

Therefore, the reasonable translation of John 8:58 would be: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." No proclamation of Jesus being God, only that he existed before Abraham.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I never said or implied "that an angel or human being's moral benevolence is on par with the Most High." All I said was: "All angels were created perfect, in effect sinless. Even Adam and Eve were created perfect." Does being sinless or perfect make a created being's moral benevolence on par with God? That's a bit of a stretch. Your putting strange words onto my post.

You set your own self up with that one. First off, no where in the Bible does it say or imply that angels/humans were created "perfect". It simply doesn't say that. It states that things were created "good" (read the creation account).

And "good" is not "perfect".

Second, if you currently believe that angels are sinless, then you are in fact implying that angels have a benevolence that is on par with God, considering the fact that God is sinless.

If angels are sinless, and God is sinless, then what does this mean? It means that the moral character of a "sinless" angel is on par with the moral "character" of God.

If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't be saying that angels are sinless, because there are certain implications that comes with such a statement.

That wasn't even the main premise of your post which was "Only God is without sin" not "No one is on par with the Most High on moral benevolence".

Um, to be on par with the Most High on moral benevolence is to BE WITHOUT SIN; just like the Most High is without sin.

If that was your premise then I would have heartily agreed. No one, of course, can be on par with the Most High on moral benevolence - not even Jesus.

You are contradicting scripture. Scripture clearly states that Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father (Heb 1:3).

If Jesus wasn't on par with the Most high on moral benevolence, then he wouldn't be the "perfect representation of God", as scripture clearly states.

So again, there is what you say; "No one, of course, can be on par with the Most High on moral benevolence - not even Jesus".

and there is what the Bible say; "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being". (Heb 1:3).

Instead of going by what you say, I will just simply go by what the Bible say on this matter.

He (Jesus) has always admitted his inferior position compared to God

You are in an inferior position relative to Queen Elizabeth. Does that mean that Queen Elizabeth is a better person than you, based on your inferior position to her? No, it doesn't.

Well, if you can understand that, you should also be able to understand how The Father can be in a superior "position" over the Son, while not being a better "person" than the Son.

, some of which verses are (mind you, this is only a shortlist for there are many instances):

• Luke 18:18, 19 KJV And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
  
  Mark 10:17, 18 KJV And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

You have numerous problems here. Jesus' own words would contradict literally everything in the NT about him, which would of course include the very Scripture I gave you above (Heb 1:3).

So, let me just ask you; based on Heb 1:3, was Paul contradicting Jesus' words that he (Jesus) is not good?

Yes or no. Because either this is an obvious CONTRADICTION, or you are simply misinterpreting what Jesus said. I think it is more of the latter.

John 14:28 KJV my Father is greater than I[/list]
Were the issue is moral benevolence, then the line of reasoning would have been similar to this:

• 1. No one is on par with God's moral benevolence
  2. Jesus admits he is not on par with God's moral benevolence
  3. Therefore Jesus is not God

Premise 2 is blatantly false. Jesus was not talking about moral benevolence, he was talking about "greater" roles/position.

Just as I demonstrated above with the Queen Elizabeth analogy. Someone can be "greater" than you by position/role...but inferior to you in terms of character/benevolence.

I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly. When Romans 3:10 says: "There is none righteous, no, not one" were you including angels as well? And, also, were you including angels in the "all" of Romans 3:23? If so, this interpretation is fatal to your post for it is universally acknowledged that these verses are with reference to humans only.

Yes I am including angels as well. And don't get me wrong; I agree with you that the verse is in fact universally acknowledged as a reference to humans ONLY..but I don't think that angels are excluded.

This would be similar to me saying to a group of people "Every single one of you have a right to vote". Even though I am speaking specifically to this group of people, that doesn't mean that individuals who are not apart of this group are excluded.

The criteria to vote isn't that "you have to belong to this group". In the same way, the criteria to be "unrighteous" isn't just reserved for humans only. No. Anyone with free will have the "right" to be unrighteous.

And scripture is clear; angels have free will to become unrighteous...because if they didn't, there would be no "Satan", would there?

Due to space restraint, I can only give you one commentary of each for there are tons (Google "Romans 3:10 meaning" and "Romans 3:23 meaning"):

• Romans 3:10: " This passage is a major indictment of mankind" - https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fu ... seID/28002
  
  Romans 3:23: "Every human being who has ever lived - except Christ - has broken God's laws. Therefore, everyone needs to be saved from sin's consequences." - https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fu ... seID/28015

Even the context of Romans 3:10-12 reveals that Paul was referring to Jews and Gentiles - all of mankind, in Jewish parlance. For he said at Romans 3:9: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are under sin;" Were you including angels in "Jews and Gentiles"?

Romans 3:12 was taken from Psalms 14:3 where it says: "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Again the context refers to humans not angels for Psalms 14:2 says: "The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God."

The Scriptures is all about man's redemption not angels. True some angels sinned but there are those who didn't. The Scriptures refer to them as holy angels, angels without sin. Of course none of the holy angels would have a moral benevolence on par with God but hey are nevertheless without sin or they wouldn't be holy.

If there were no holy angels at all then how would this particular prophecy be fulfilled: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy (holy: "spiritually perfect or pure; untainted by evil or sin; sinless" - Webster's New World Dictionary) angels" - Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26 KJV

Does your church (whatever that is) teach that those texts (Romans 3:10-12; 3:23) refer not only to men but to angels as well? If so can you please supply me a link of your church's website that explains that teaching.

You're error stems from believing the Trinity doctrine, which even the preeminent scientist, Isaac Newton rejected. From the Wikipedia article: Religious Views of Isaac Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... aac_Newton) I quote verbatim: "In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ is idolatry, to him the fundamental sin."

When one abandons that teaching, one experiences the truthfulness of Jesus' statement: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" - John 8:32 KJV.

I think I explained my position well. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.