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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 280 by tigger2]

Hey man, any time you wanna throw those fanciful posts with all of the Greek grammatical stuff at me, I will simply say; me and my Greek scholars disagree with you are your Greek scholars.

Plain and simple.

[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.

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.

That is all fine and dandy. Either way, my sources tell me that the indefinite article has no place in the verse. Plain and simple.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.)

Bruh, I ain't knocking you for your study. I am just saying; my sources draw a different conclusion. So feel free to do a Google search and scrounge up all of the dozen upon dozens of Trinitarian (Greek) interpretation/commentaries of John 1:1-2, and have fun debunking them all, based on your own personal knowledge and studies.

I will leave you to it. Have fun.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Well, the Jews that were about to kill Jesus on the spot based on their interpretation of what he said; those Jews felt quite differently than you.

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

The conversation between Satan and Eve; sounded like there was some controversy to me.

[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).

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.

I didn't know this forum was filled with so many ancient Greek scholars.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 288 by For_The_Kingdom]

My philosophy professor got the whole class in a huge argument about a ship sailing around the world and being repaired in each port along the way. By the time it reached its home port, everything about the ship was new, including captain and crew. The professor asked us if it was still the same ship which had left port.

We argued heatedly with each other for the rest of the period. The next day he told us how ridiculous we had been. He said we had all the facts, and all we were arguing about was the meaning of the word 'same.' The lesson was, if you can look up all the facts, it is senseless to argue about it.

Or, you can lead a donkey to water, but...

If you are so unable or unwilling to even look for a single use of theos without the definite article in John's writings as I asked, then you are the donkey.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 288 by For_The_Kingdom]

My philosophy professor got the whole class in a huge argument about a ship sailing around the world and being repaired in each port along the way. By the time it reached its home port, everything about the ship was new, including captain and crew. The professor asked us if it was still the same ship which had left port.

We argued heatedly with each other for the rest of the period. The next day he told us how ridiculous we had been. He said we had all the facts, and all we were arguing about was the meaning of the word 'same.' The lesson was, if you can look up all the facts, it is senseless to argue about it.

Or, you can lead a donkey to water, but...

If you are so unable or unwilling to even look for a single use of theos without the definite article in John's writings as I asked, then you are the donkey.

RESPONSE: On the other hand, maybe John is. He has Jesus crucified a day sooner then Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and has no Eucharist consecrated at the last supper.

The writer of John wrote in 95 AD, 60 - 65 years after the death of Jesus and he or she evidently didn't copy from Mark's account nor were they a witness as demonstrated by the date he claims and lack of a Eucharist.

[Checkpoint]

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

Well, the Jews that were about to kill Jesus on the spot based on their interpretation of what he said; those Jews felt quite differently than you.

Whew! I'm glad they were different from me.

Jesus said they had the devil as their father, not God.

They got their interpretation wrong, and it wasn't the only time they did.

Jesus did not agree with them on this point.

John 10:

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?�

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,� they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.�

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods� ’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

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

The conversation between Satan and Eve; sounded like there was some controversy to me.

[elijahpne]

[Replying to post 285 by For_The_Kingdom]

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).

I've got good news for you: The creation account is not the whole Bible - in case you are not yet aware. The other parts of it may surprise you like the following verses:

• Deut 32:4 KJV says of God: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect."
  Psalm 18:30 KJV says as well: "As for God, his way is perfect."

As God's work and ways are all perfect, the obvious conclusion then is: Angels and humans were created perfect, and as I said before in #197 entry of this post: "For why will God, whom Deuteronomy 32:4 refers to as "The Rock, his work is perfect" (KJV), create a thinking being anything less than 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. 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.

Sinless means "without sin; innocent" - Webster's New World Dictionary. It does not imply a benevolence that is on par with God. Where in the world did you get such an idea? As you are fond of saying "no where in the Bible does it say or imply" permit me to give you a dose of your own medicine - "no where in the Bible does it say or imply that being sinless means being benevolent on par with God." It appears that you have your own definition of sinless - from your own dictionary that is unique in the universe.

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

Perfect representation, yes, but still only a representation, an image - not God himself. Can't you see the difference? Luke 18:18, 19 and Mark 10:17, 18 do not contradict Heb. 1:3. They complement it. It is your interpretation that contradicts the clear and simple message of those scriptures.

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.

You're basically admitting that the Father is in superior position over the Son. Is God then a better "person" than the Son? Let Jesus answer that for you. He said at Luke 18:19 (KJV): "none is good, save one, that is, God." So, only God is "good." Isn't that a tacit admission from Jesus himself that God is a better person than him?

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.

Please read this aloud to yourself: "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."
You admitted it and then you disavowed on the same breath. Let this forum judge you on this backtracking.

[polonius]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke's gospels were written between 70 and 85 AD. In any of these, did Jesus say he was God?

Or was it after this that the Jewish-Christians who remained true to the Jewish Law broke with the Law and began to claim that Jesus was divine (about 97 AD)?

Doesn't John agree that the Jewish Christians were drive from the Jesish synanogues following this?