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.

[myth-one.com]

Take Satan for example. Satan, or the devil, is the only being which the Bible states will be tormented day and night for ever and ever in the lake of fire!

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:7-10)

Umm, Matt 25:41 Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. says the goats, the people on the left, ie, Satan's angels, will end in the lake of fire also...

There are two groups of humanity, believers and nonbelievers.

Believers shall gain everlasting spiritual life while nonbelievers will perish:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Following judgment of those resurrected at the second resurrection, those whose names are not written in the book of life (the nonbelievers) are cast into the lake of fire and quickly perish:

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The punishment of nonbelievers is an everlasting punishment. The wages of sin is death, and death lasts forever. They will never live again.

Angels other than the devil will also be punished, but only the devil's punishment is said to be for all eternity.

Actually, some angels are in "prison" now, awaiting their judgment:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)

[For_The_Kingdom]

It seems as though debates on the Trinity have always gone down to dissecting the ancient Greek grammar. This is typically where non-Trinitarians make their arguments from.

I agree, to a certain extent. That is why you (apologists) have to thread the needle to make our case...by using arguments (in this case) which involves very little controversy, in Greek grammar or otherwise.

After reading Revelation I do more firmly believe that Jesus is God.

Revelation 1:7
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, [d]the Beginning and the End,� says the [e]Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.�

------

When Jesus is in His true form, this is how He speaks. I believe He is God.

Rev 1:7 is actually a great "Trinity Proof" scripture. However, it sounds like you adopt a modalistic view of the Trinity, which is a view that I oppose.

But I confess the Trinity is still a mystery to me. The Father is the God of Jesus, but yet they are both the one and the same God? The best I can think of it is that God takes on multiple expressions or representations as Hebrews 1:3 put it. He expresses Himself as the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit to accomplish different goals.

Again, this is a modalistic view of the Trinity. I can't necessarily refute such a view, because it would certainly be within God's omnipotence to manifest himself into whatever he pleases. However, that is not how the scriptures read to me as I read it.

But to respond directly to your question: think of it this way...you, your mother, and your father share one nature: HUMAN.

Yet...you, your mother, and your father are three distinct persons, who share one nature...HUMAN.

One nature; Human. 3 persons.

Now, apply this same concept with God.

The Father, Son, Holy Spirit share one nature: GOD/DIVINITY

Yet, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

One nature: Divine. 3 persons.

But it's still beyond me to really understand this and I feel like I'm guessing a lot on how the triune nature of the Trinity is all still 1 God. How do you make sense of it?

Did I explain it well enough for you? Let me know, perhaps I can clarify more.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I thought the truth was Spiritually discerned? How is it that Christianity gets to claim the title of new covenant and the Holy Spirit but doesn't display any supernatural evidence that would testify to the truth of that claim?

Through the sincerity of your heart, comprehensive Bible studies, and the Holy Spirit...that is how you will get closer and closer to Jesus Christ, who IS the Truth.

Everything I'm witnessing is common to all humanity and its institutions and nothing more.

Jesus Christ is the truth, anything outside of him is suspect.

[tam]

Peace to you FTK,

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

I think this might be a little circular.

I mean, the logic seems sound, but I am not sure that premise "1" is proven. I do not question that God is without sin. But if Christ is without sin, then you have two possibilities, not just one:

1 - God AND Christ are BOTH without sin (so that there are two who are without sin)


OR

2 - Christ is God.



You are only considering the one.

#1 is virtually undisputed.

If Christ is not God, and if Christ is without sin, then there are TWO who are without sin.

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.

He is simply stating that He is the image of God (who is His Father). He speaks as his Father has taught Him; He is the One who reveals His Father to us as His Father truly is. (Just as a man might have a son in his image - a son who thinks and does and feels just as his father does).


That does not mean that He IS His Father.


In fact, if I am understanding the trinity doctrine correctly, it explicitly states that Christ is not the Father. From that little circle diagram chart that says: the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Son, but all three are God.

So it is not consistent to state that this verse reveals that Christ IS the Father; when the trinity doctrine explicitly states that Christ is NOT the Father.

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?

Same reasoning: by being just as His Father is. Just as a man could have a son who represents him (perhaps not as perfectly as Christ represents His Father; but then man is not as perfect as God and His Son). I do not think that is a difficult concept to understand.


**

We can also look to the Temple design, because it is given in a specific way so as to help us see the spiritual reality.

In the physical temple there was both a Holy place and a Most Holy place. The Holy place represents Christ (the Holy One), and the Most Holy Place represents God (the Most Holy One).

One could not enter into the Most Holy unless one first passed through the Holy Place. Just as no one comes to the Father (the Most Holy ONE), except through the Son (the Holy One).



**



For me (and what others do is between them and their Lord), it comes down to who I am going to listen TO. I choose to listen to Christ, the One to whom God told us to listen, the One who is the Truth.


He does not teach that He is God (the Most Holy One of Israel). He tells us that God is His Father, that He is the Son of God. I take Him at His word.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

It seems as though debates on the Trinity have always gone down to dissecting the ancient Greek grammar. This is typically where non-Trinitarians make their arguments from.

After reading Revelation I do more firmly believe that Jesus is God.

Revelation 1:7
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, [d]the Beginning and the End,� says the [e]Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.�

This is revelation 1:8, but it is not Christ speaking. This is God - the Almighty- speaking.


Look back up to verse 5/6 in the same chapter:

"... To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (so this is referring to Christ), and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve His God and Father..."

Even here, Christ is being distinguished from His God (and Father).


NIV states this:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega", says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Instance in the book of Revelation (in any bible version) that states "Lord God" are referring to God (not to Christ), as is the reference "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty".

For some examples, see here (Rev 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 16:7, 16:14, 19:6, 21:22):

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3841&t=NIV



Hope that helps.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[For_The_Kingdom]

Peace to you FTK,

What up doe, tam.

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

I think this might be a little circular.

I mean, the logic seems sound, but I am not sure that premise "1" is proven. I do not question that God is without sin. But if Christ is without sin, then you have two possibilities, not just one:

1 - God AND Christ are BOTH without sin (so that there are two who are without sin)


OR

2 - Christ is God.



You are only considering the one.

That is the point, you cannot be without sin and not BE God. If you are without sin and you AREN'T God, then that is to say that your degree of holiness is on the same level as God's holiness, and no created being can be on the same level as God (on any level).

The Scriptures are clear, God has NO equals (on any level)...and if we can find one that IS equal, then it follows that the "equal" must be of the same essence as God..and the Scriptures I laid out is clear...

Jesus said to see him is to see the Father (John 14:9)

and..

Jesus is the perfect representation of God (Heb 1:3)

and also..

Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15)..which implies that God is invisible, but should God make himself VISIBLE in human form, he would be Jesus.

And this only harmonizes with John 1:1-14. But Scripture is clear, it is the acceptance that makes things a little tough.

#1 is virtually undisputed.

If Christ is not God, and if Christ is without sin, then there are TWO who are without sin.

When you start giving God "equal's" among his alleged "creation", you run into a lot of problems. According to my understanding of the Scriptures, God has NO equals.

He is simply stating that He is the image of God (who is His Father). He speaks as his Father has taught Him; He is the One who reveals His Father to us as His Father truly is. (Just as a man might have a son in his image - a son who thinks and does and feels just as his father does).

That's strange..because after all, Scripture clearly states that we are made in God's image (Gen 1:26-27). But despite this, no one is worthy enough to go around saying "To see me is to see God/The Father".

Yet, those were PRECISELY Jesus' words. Hmm.

That does not mean that He IS His Father.

And who said that Jesus IS his Father? Actually, someone on here did. But as I explained to him, that isn't what the Orthodox Trinity doctrine is.

To say that Jesus is God is NOT the same as saying that Jesus is the Father.

In fact, if I am understanding the trinity doctrine correctly, it explicitly states that Christ is not the Father. From that little circle diagram chart that says: the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Son, but all three are God.

So it is not consistent to state that this verse reveals that Christ IS the Father; when the trinity doctrine explicitly states that Christ is NOT the Father.

But, it is not my position to state that Christ is the Father.

We can also look to the Temple design, because it is given in a specific way so as to help us see the spiritual reality.

In the physical temple there was both a Holy place and a Most Holy place. The Holy place represents Christ (the Holy One), and the Most Holy Place represents God (the Most Holy One).

One could not enter into the Most Holy unless one first passed through the Holy Place. Just as no one comes to the Father (the Most Holy ONE), except through the Son (the Holy One).

Sounds like you are still attacking a position that I never held...

For me (and what others do is between them and their Lord), it comes down to who I am going to listen TO. I choose to listen to Christ, the One to whom God told us to listen, the One who is the Truth.

May I ask you, tam; are you a Jehovah's Witness?

He does not teach that He is God (the Most Holy One of Israel). He tells us that God is His Father, that He is the Son of God. I take Him at His word.

Straw man

[For_The_Kingdom]

Revelation 1:7
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, [d]the Beginning and the End,� says the [e]Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.�



This is revelation 1:8, but it is not Christ speaking. This is God - the Almighty- speaking.


Look back up to verse 5/6 in the same chapter:

"... To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (so this is referring to Christ), and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve His God and Father..."

Even here, Christ is being distinguished from His God (and Father).

Trinitarians make that distinction, too.

NIV states this:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega", says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Instance in the book of Revelation (in any bible version) that states "Lord God" are referring to God (not to Christ), as is the reference "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty".

For some examples, see here (Rev 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 16:7, 16:14, 19:6, 21:22):

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3841&t=NIV



Hope that helps.

It didn't help

It is clear that verses 5-8 (Rev 1), the context of all four verses are referring to the same person. The same person is the person of interest in all four verses. And that person is Jesus Christ.

v.5: It specifically mentions "Jesus Christ" as the person of interest.

v.6: Is a continuation of verse 5

v.7: Speaks of Jesus coming in the clouds (prophecy of Daniel 7:13), and mentions the piercing of Jesus (harmonizing with John 19:34).

v.8: Obviously talking about Christ, because Christ is the one "who is, who was, and who is to come". Just look back at verse 7 because again, Jesus is "coming in the clouds". The same guy "who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" is the same guy who is "coming" in the clouds (v.7)

That, followed by Revelations 22:12-13..

"12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

v.12-13 is Jesus talking..which is followed by, lastly, v.22..

"Come, Lord Jesus".

As I said, tam...it is a "Trinity Proof" text.

[tam]

Peace to you FTK,


I could be mistaken, but I think at least some of the problem is coming from the following:

He is simply stating that He is the image of God (who is His Father). He speaks as his Father has taught Him; He is the One who reveals His Father to us as His Father truly is. (Just as a man might have a son in his image - a son who thinks and does and feels just as his father does).

That's strange..because after all, Scripture clearly states that we are made in God's image (Gen 1:26-27). But despite this, no one is worthy enough to go around saying "To see me is to see God/The Father".

Yet, those were PRECISELY Jesus' words. Hmm.

There is a reason we cannot say that to see us is to see God. Because we are not the image of God.

Man WAS made in the image of God. ADAM was made in the image of God.

We, however, are born in the image of Adam AFTER Adam sinned. (see also Genesis 5:3)


We are CURRENTLY being made over INTO the image of Christ - who is Himself the image of God.


For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8:29


And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:18


If we are being transformed/conformed into the image of Christ, then we are obviously not already IN the image of Christ (who is Himself the image of God).


I think you must also agree that us being made over into the image of Christ does not mean that when we are in the image of Christ, that we will be Christ (or God). So if it does not mean that for us, why should it mean that for Christ?

That does not mean that He IS His Father.

And who said that Jesus IS his Father? Actually, someone on here did. But as I explained to him, that isn't what the Orthodox Trinity doctrine is.

To say that Jesus is God is NOT the same as saying that Jesus is the Father.

Yes, I understand what the doctrine states.

But the verse you are using as support is from Christ saying, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."


If that verse does not mean that Christ IS the Father, then it also does not mean that Christ IS God.

How can you use that verse to state that Christ is God, without also stating that Christ is the Father? Since the Father is the One that Christ is saying we have seen, if we have seen Christ?

For me (and what others do is between them and their Lord), it comes down to who I am going to listen TO. I choose to listen to Christ, the One to whom God told us to listen, the One who is the Truth.

May I ask you, tam; are you a Jehovah's Witness?

I am not.

He does not teach that He is God (the Most Holy One of Israel). He tells us that God is His Father, that He is the Son of God. I take Him at His word.

Straw man

How so?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 42 by For_The_Kingdom]

Thank you for the nice explanation. Yes, your explanation is clear and quite frankly makes much more sense with respect to reasoning (the modalistic view is way more abstract).

So the view I believe in (for now) is called the modalistic view. What is the name of the view you believe in? Incidentally, I used to believe in that view, and it's possible I could go back to it again.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 45 by tam]

Thank you tam for you explanation. As I've read throughout the NT, there is a common theme among the translations. Typically, wherever the KJV/NKJV is trinitarian, the other versions omit or change the wording in such a way that it's non-trinitarian.

For now, I need to learn more about the source manuscripts as this is the cause of the differences in translation. Needless to say, these differences can be dramatic, and it's quite frustrating to me that they exist. I must suspend any further debate on this topic because too much is up in the air for me. Peace of the Lord to you!