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 225 by For_The_Kingdom]

"8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the [c]cool of the day.."

Hmm. Sounds like the Creator found a way to "exist" in the created world, as difficult of a task it must have been for the Almighty.

And God called out to Adam, "Where are you?", and God asked, "Who told you, you were naked"? Considering God is the one who told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, God seems to be quite dense and even a bit forgetful.

Um, no. One can simply ask a question from which the answer is already known. I can know that my son skipped school, and once he comes home still ask him "Hello son, how was school today"? Or "Hello son, what did you learn in school today"?

It happens all the time, and no one who does this is accused of being "dense and even a bit forgetful."

[For_The_Kingdom]

I was just going to ask you, "If the Father came to Earth as a person, who would he be besides Jesus".

Where does the bible make this claim?

That is the implication of Jesus saying "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father". Otherwise, explain to me what Jesus meant when he said that.

Again, it was suggested that Jesus show them the Father..and Jesus said; if you see me, you see the Father.

Please tell me what Jesus meant when he said that.

But since you are under the wrong impression that the Father is somehow forbidden from manifesting himself on Earth as a human, I guess it is a question that doesn't need to be asked.

Since you can't come up with an argument, much less anything other than conjecture and irrelevant assertions, there's no point in answering needless questions.

Not only was the argument made, but even after conversing with you; the argument still stands.

This false idea that God can't come on Earth, manifested as human is just simply ridiculous...the idea that the ALMIGHTY can create humans ON EARTH, but himself cannot come on Earth as he so desires..you know, with his omnipotence and all...is quite utterly ridiculous.

I'm simply pointing out that the bible makes it explicitly clear that God is incomparable, and human beings are easily compared to other human beings, but they can't be compared to God without violating God's commandment against imagining what God is like.

Funny, God is "incomparable", so incomparable that a mere created being said that when you see him, you've seen that who is incomparable (relative to the actual incomparable [the Father]).

Makes no sense.

Of course it is. A perfect reflection is still a reflection. A perfect mirror produces a perfect reflection, but a mirror is still just a mirror, and it will never be anything it reflects. Look, I have a perfect mirror, and when I stand in front of it, I see a perfect representation of me. According to your logic, that mirror is a human being.

The problem is, that is what the Scriptures say...that Jesus is the EXACT representation of the Father...and if he was anything less than the "exact", then he wouldn't be the "exact", would he?

Look up the definition of "representation", "representative" etc.. You're simply redefining words to suit your doctrine. For some reason, you've got this notion that an exact representation is something more than an exact representation. You seem to be under the impression that exact representations of things are the things they represent. This is blatanly false. There is no example anywhere to support your claim. It is illogical. It is a contradiction in terms.

With 3D printing today we can get an almost exact representation of just about anybody. It won't be long before we can get an exact representation of anybody. Does that mean that the exact representation is who they represent? Of course not. It can't be the person represented unless the person jumps into the 3d printer and then jumps out without making a copy. See the difference? By definition, a copy is not the original; it's a copy.

You are erroneously comprehending the verse . Philip wasn't asking for an image/or representation of the Father. He was asking Jesus for the "real thing".

He wanted Jesus to show them the Father; not the image of the Father. Not a representative of the Father. But, the actual FATHER.

So anything less than the actual FATHER would not be what Philip asked for. Jesus told Philip that if you've seen him, you've seen the Father...which implies that Jesus' presence with them is JUST AS GOOD AS THE FATHER'S PRESENCE would have been, should the Father had come on earth an made his dwelling among them.

The Father and Son are a literal 1/1 swipe, what you get with one is what you get with the other. There is nothing that Jesus did do or didn't do that the Father would have done or wouldn't do, should the Father had been in Jesus' place.

Therefore, Jesus was able to follow the Father's laws PERFECTLY, unlike any other created being on heaven/earth...and only God can follow his own laws perfectly, something that no other created being can do...which is why God is God, and we are not God.

And this, yet again, harmonizes with Jesus being the exact/perfect image of the Father, as Paul enlightened us that he was (Heb 1:3).

No, he didn't. He never implied any such thing. You're just reading something into the text that simply isn't there at all.

John 1:1-2..

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God.

No, I am not "reading something into the text that simply isn't there at all". I am going by what the Bible is clearly saying.

Now, if your Bible says something different in those two verses, then it goes back to "my Greek scholars are better than yours", and I just simply disagree with you there.

If we rely upon implication, then we can use the entire bible, and it wouldn't make any difference. How about coming up with an actual statement instead of reading your own ideas into the texts?

I am reading John's ideas into the text. He said it, not me. We are supposed to be going by what the Bible says, right? Well..

1. We are supposed to go by what the Bible says
2. John said in the Bible that Jesus is God (John 1:1-2)
3. Therefore, we are supposed to go by what John said in the Bible that Jesus is God

Works for me.

For example, I have taken Paul's actual words, and proven that he never thought of Christ as God at all. Paul knows the difference between an Icon and an Idol. Do you? Idols are worshipped as gods, and Paul never uses the term "idol" to describe Christ. Nuff said.

My Greek scholars who are Trinitarians disagree with your Greek scholars. Nuff said.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 225 by For_The_Kingdom]

if "the image is not what it reflects" as you state...then what does it mean to be the "perfect/exact" image of something?

It means exactly what is says. Images are not what they reflect.

LOL. "Images are not what they reflect". That is funny. Ok, then perhaps that would have been the perfect response from Philip to Jesus..

"You are just an image of God, you are not the real thing; and I asked for the real thing. Mere images are not what they reflect".

Go ahead, Philip, tell'em. Tell Jesus how you really feel. LOL

[For_The_Kingdom]

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


There are many objections to this syllogism. You say (1) is "virtually" undisputed. I'm afraid the word "virtually" renders the premise suspect. We can accept, possibly, that God is without sin. I wonder why we cannot accept that one of his archangels, or God's Secretary of State is sinless.

Ok, marco. So, those who are without sin don't need "Lords and Saviors", do they? Yes, or no?

Now if we accept this "only" modification, and Paul says that Jesus is without sin, then we meet a contradiction, since we introduce another being who is without sin. So either the first premise is wrong or Paul is wrong.

If now, to get over this problem, we make Jesus and God separate persons but one God then we introduce an incomprehensible mystery. If we are willing to admit mysteries that would normally be inadmissible in human logic, then we place our syllogism beyond the scope of human reason.

Not at all. If Jesus is God (one of your alternatives), then your entire objection is a dead issue, isn't it? That is the point; Jesus is God.

Essentially much depends on how infallible we think Paul is. If we believe he's not God and can therefore sin, we can assume he makes mistakes. His suggestion that Jesus is Yahweh can be regarded as a human error, given that Paul isn't God.

We must go back to the drawing board to prove Jesus is God.

I see nothing from Paul which says or implies that Jesus isn't God.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So I take it that you have looked up all instances where the word for "worship" or "obeisance" refers to Jehovah and Jesus. Is that so?

No I didn't. But you see, onewithhim; there are dozens upon dozens of "Anti-JW-Theology" websites..So, unlike you and Jehovah's Witnesses (who act like JW.ORG is their "second" Bible and refuses to look anywhere else for Biblical truth-value), I have many sources of whom I can appeal to for this fact, as it relates to this subject.

These sources are from folks who've already done the dirty work for people like me...and these are independent sources who all looked into this stuff and draw the same conclusion; the whole obeisance thing by JW's is just one of many complete distortions of the Holy Scriptures.

[myth-one.com]

John said in the Bible that Jesus is God (John 1:1-2)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

You are confusing the Word with Jesus.

Jesus was not the Word.

Jesus was the Word made flesh:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

The Word was God.

But there really are things which God cannot do.

One of those things is die.

The Word was made flesh for the purpose of tasting death for all mankind:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

At present, no man can know how this switching was performed -- as it involves things in the spiritual world.

That is, the Word was alive throughout the entire process, being immortal.

And Jesus was a separate human being for 33 years.

Perhaps intertwined somehow mentally with the Word?

Who knows. But if that is the case, was He a true man?

There was some obvious links between Jesus and Heaven -- such as His knowing what He was supposed to do at age twelve.

But different body types for sure between the Word and Jesus -- as spiritual beings like the Word cannot taste death.

Whatever, John 1:1-2 does not prove that Jesus was God.

If anything it proves the reverse.

The Word was a God and Jesus was flesh.

Those are opposing body types.

God is a Spirit:

God is a Spirit:

Jesus was a man:

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Not the same!

[For_The_Kingdom]

LOL. Yep, and God doesn't submit to any authority. Submission isn't a characteristic of God. Thanks for proving my points for me.

But he can if he chooses to. I can think of many scenarios at which God can submit to authority to accomplish his divine will..while at the same time being no less or more than "God" than before he decided to do so.

Um, nowhere does anyone ever claim that God is or was the word. See the difference? No, here's why. John's introduction doesn't begin with, "in the beginning was God" because existence is eternal, and has no beginning, but God is not a characteristic of reality. God is the origin of being. Coincidently, non-existence also has no beginning or end. The most accurate way to say it would be by pointing out that nothing doesn't exist eternally.

Again, saying stuff like "God is not a characteristic of reality" (if I understand you correctly) is just something that I cannot rock with.

I am not going to waste my time trying to dive into this (respectfully)...because it take the convo too far left-field...I am all for "one conversation leading to another"...however, not in this case.

[elijahpne]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

The proof necessary for the wild claim at the beginning, i.e., that God is the only one without sin, was never given. The "burden of proof" is on For_The_Kingdom - as you would probably agree.

He merely requires, from the drift of the article, that everyone accepts that premise - no questions asked. That, I can say, is his "simplistic way of proving a point".

Argument theory requires that the "burden of proof" must, first, be lifted to create a "burden of a rejoinder" (See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory, otherwise, no valid conclusion can be made. Garbage In Garbage Out.

Jesus is not God but the Son of God. No Trinity for me.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

The proof necessary for the wild claim at the beginning, i.e., that God is the only one without sin, was never given. The "burden of proof" is on For_The_Kingdom - as you would probably agree.

He merely requires, from the drift of the article, that everyone accepts that premise - no questions asked. That, I can say, is his "simplistic way of proving a point".

Argument theory requires that the "burden of proof" must, first, be lifted to create a "burden of a rejoinder" (See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory, otherwise, no valid conclusion can be made. Garbage In Garbage Out.

Jesus is not God but the Son of God. No Trinity for me.

Yes, I would probably agree!

Any "biblically simplistic way" is, by definition, already contrary to scripture, for there is no such thing.

Scripture never says "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit", but it does say a number of times, "God the Father".

It also never says God is a Trinity, but man says it is so anyway.

Jesus said, in prayer to the Father, that he was addressing "the only true God".

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

The proof necessary for the wild claim at the beginning, i.e., that God is the only one without sin, was never given.

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".

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.

That, is what is "wild".

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.

The "burden of proof" is on For_The_Kingdom - as you would probably agree.

He merely requires, from the drift of the article, that everyone accepts that premise - no questions asked. That, I can say, is his "simplistic way of proving a point".

By simplistic, I meant "it ain't complicated at all". All it takes is a little logic and reasoning, that is all.

That can't be asking for too much; for one to conclude that "perfect milk cannot spoil".

To me, the rationale of that is simple...but I can only speak for me, though. Can't speak for others.

Jesus is not God but the Son of God. No Trinity for me.

That is fine. You continue believing what you believe, and I will continue going by what the Bible clearly says..

John 1:1-2.