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 Gods 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.

[JJ50]

Jesus was an ordinary human, far from perfect like the rest of us who was the figurehead for the gospel fairy tales, written long after he was dead.

[myth-one.com]

Jesus was an ordinary human, far from perfect like the rest of us who was the figurehead for the gospel fairy tales, written long after he was dead.

And yet, the terms "before Christ" (BC) and "anno Domini" (AD) are used to differentiate years in our calendars.

The term anno Domini is taken from the full original phrase "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi", which translates as "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ".

So we presently live in the 2019th year of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There must have been something extraordinary about Him.

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 90 by myth-one.com]

That guy probably had a charismatic personality like many humans do who attract followers. That is probably why the gospel writers used him as the figurehead for their idea of a messiah. Most Jews didn't recognise him as such, nor apparently did his own family who knew him best.

[myth-one.com]

That guy probably had a charismatic personality like many humans do who attract followers.

Charismatic?

Probably not:

2 . . . he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

God is concerned more with character -- not charisma.

[JJ50]

That guy probably had a charismatic personality like many humans do who attract followers.

Charismatic?

Probably not:

2 . . . he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

God is concerned more with character -- not charisma.

A statement with no evidence to support it, the Bible is NOT evidence, as it can't be substantiated.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No - but for a different reason than you are thinking.

Because the Son is Holy, the Father is elevated to the MOST Holy.

That is an unnecessary distinction if both the Father and Son are without sin. They are on equal playing field at that point; unless you can tell me the intrinsic significance in the distinction.

I'm listening.

Just as a human son may bring even greater honor to his father (or family) because his honor reflects well upon his father.

Funny you mention "honor", considering Jesus said "...23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. (John 5:23)

So we are to give the Son the same honor that we give the Almighty?? Hmm.

The glory of Christ is to the credit and increasing glory of the Father (who taught His Son and gave His Son life, to begin with).

If that is what you believe, cool. But what ain't cool, is that is not what the Bible says. But hey.

Scripture supports this as well.

Christ is the Holy One. His Father (God Most High) is the MOST Holy One.

I still need the explanation for the distinction, considering the fact that both the Holy One/ Most Holy One are without sin.

Scripture demonstrates this in the example given to us by the design of the Temple, and of course Christ confirms this when He says that His Father is greater than Him.

And both of those cases are speaking just in terms of rank/position...and Phil 2:5-9 states that Jesus had no problem taking a "backseat" to the Father, despite being EQUALLY God, WITH the Father.

That is a testament to the humbleness of Jesus, no doubt. So when Jesus took a "backseat" and submitted himself to the Father (according to Phil 2:5-9), that is when the Father became GREATER than Jesus.

In the Temple there was the room called the Most Holy Place and there was the room called the Holy Place. One had to pass through the Holy Place in order to come to the Most Holy Place.


The Holy Place represents Christ (the Holy One).

The MOST Holy Place represents God (the MOST Holy One).

Still waiting on the distinction..

No one ccould come into the MOST Holy except through the Holy. Just as Christ said of Himself and of His Father (God):

"No one comes to the Father except through the Son."

Sure, after the evens of Phil 2:5-9.

I had thought that what is so great about God, that his ways are wayyyy higher than our ways and no matter how hard we try, we will never amount to such greatness, not just in terms of morality, but in terms of ANYTHING.

God having such high ways is one thing that is great about God, of course. But that should not have the qualifier that we are not great, as if God is only great because we are not.

To compare man's greatness to God's greatness...smh. You just don't get it, do you?

God is awesome for the love that He is, and for the love that He shows. Enough love (and power) for Him to have brought forth life, beginning with His Son, and then through His Son, bringing forth creation and the rest of life. His mercy, His love, His justice, His Truth, His promises and patience and plan and wisdom.

No arguments from me there..

I am not speaking about 'mere created beings' or 'man'.

Christ is the Son of God. He is no mere created being, and He is no mere man (though He came in the form of a man for a short period of time).

He is the Son of God. This is what He says about Himself.

So you can skip the theatrics, FTK. How can a person blaspheme by believing what Christ said about Himself?

Oh, the belief is certainly there...it is the interpretation; that is where the meat and potatoes are

B - Christ did not place Himself on the same pedestal as His Father. He said the exact opposite:


I don't think that reasoning is going to work out for you. Christ made all of His statements (in the NT) after the events of Phil 2:5-9. Including the statement that to see Him is to see His Father.

Um, tam...I am not talking about the events of the book being written, I am talking about the context of Phil 2:5-9 and what Paul is telling us actually OCCURRED.

Second, in a school system, the principal is "greater" than the teacher. In the military, the "Sgt" is greater than the "PVT". In the Christian household, the husband is "greater" than the wife.

But in either case, the "greater" person isn't necessarily the "better" person. "Greater" is just in terms of position/rank/role. It says nothing about essence/nature/divinity.

Sure, but that does not work out for the trinity does it? Because the trinity states that the Father and Son and "Holy Spirit" are all co-equal. Yet here the Son is saying that the Father is greater than Him.

Again, greater in terms of POSITION, not greater in terms of DIVINITY. That is a big distinction that you are seem to be failing to either comprehend and/or acknowledge (with all due respect).

But He just finished saying that His Father is greater than Him, did He not? He did not say that He and His Father are equal.

And Christ committed no blasphemy.

I can say that my boss is greater than me in the workplace, while at the same time being equal with my boss in terms of humanity.

Except He did not give Himself equality with the Father; He said that the Father is greater than Him.

"To see me is to see the Father". It really doesn't get any more "equal" than that.

I gave you His words, FTK, not my own. So who are you really arguing with? [/quote]

I gave you His words, too. And Paul's, and His Fathers.

Yes, God created all things through Christ (who is the Son of God). This is described also in Proverbs 8:22-31.

All religion has some truth, FTK, and some falsehood. You can't dismiss something just because a particular religion happens to teach it.

I completely agree with you and your point is noted.

I mean, you can do as you choose, but that is not a good reason to decide something is untrue. To do the opposite - accept a religion simply because it has some true teachings- is equally unwise.

Again, I agree. However, to say Proverbs 8:22-31 is speaking about Christ; that is just simply not true...and that is regardless of what religious group/denomination you represent.

I digress.

Proverbs 8 is about Christ. Christ is Wisdom.

So, God (Yahweh/The Father) is not wisdom?

Does Christ not speak what is true (verses 6 and 7)?

Does Christ not call out to all mankind (verses 4)?

Is Christ not our Teacher, our instructor (verse 10, and throughout)?


Do kings not reign by Him (verse 15, 16... compare to Rev 5:9,10; 3:21; 20:4-6)?

Do we not find Christ if we seek Him (verse 17)?

Is not His fruit (fruits of the spirit, fruit of the tree of Life aka Christ) better than gold (verse 18)?

Are we not blessed if we listen to Him (verse 33)?

Can all of that stuff equally apply to Yahweh/The Father/God? Yes or no?

I did not learn this from the WTS.


My Lord is the one who opened these scriptures to me.

Hmm. Ok.

Just as a point of fact, there is no word "Lord" in that verse. This verse actually reads:

You shall fear only JAHVEH your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name.

"The LORD" has been inserted there over "YHWH".

So, to save us (particularly me) time, are you willing to grant that Jehovah was called "Lord" in the old testament, yes or no?

When God says this about His Son, it is more in the following sense (from another post on another thread):

"Because even being called god and savior, this would not mean that Christ is being called the Most Holy One of Israel (God Most High; JAH). Christ is the Son of God, as He consistently says.

Take the following for example:

"[Jesus] answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, you are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came"and the Scripture cannot be broken" then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?" John 10:34-36


And the reference to this is at Psalm 82:6,

"I have said, "You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High."


Being the Son of the Most High (JAHVEH) does not make that person (even Christ) out to be JAH, Himself."

viewtopic.php?p=954932#954932

Yeah, but lets make a distinction here; in Ps 82:6...were those that are called "gods", were they meant to be worshipped, despite them having the "g" title? Obviously not, because Jesus said..

Luke 4:8 "Worship the Lord your God and serve him only" (quoting Deut 6:13).

Yet, Jesus himself was and accepted worship (Matt 14:33)..and other places in the Gospels.

So why is Jesus accepting worship from his follows when Scripture CLEARLY states that only God is to be worshipped?

Hmm. So, that is the distinction right there, between others being called "god" along with Jesus. My response is; well, were those same people also worshiped?

Because Jesus sure as heck was.

[JJ50]

No one, including any god, should expect to be worshipped. They have far too high an opinion of themselves if they do.

[polonius]

Did Jesus ever say specifically that he was God?

Keep in mind that the "Messiah" is never said to be divine. He is a man, not God!

[polonius]

Did Jesus ever say specifically that he was God?

Keep in mind that the "Messiah" in the Old Testament and in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,is never said to be divine. He is a man, not God!

[tam]

Peace to you,

No - but for a different reason than you are thinking.

Because the Son is Holy, the Father is elevated to the MOST Holy.

That is an unnecessary distinction if both the Father and Son are without sin.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't think this is correct, FTK. What does being without sin have to do with their 'level' (for lack of a better word) of holiness?


And are not the elect also called holy ones?


Regardless, a distinction between Holy and MOST Holy exists. I did not invent it. Do you think God gave us an unnecessary distinction?

They are on equal playing field at that point; unless you can tell me the intrinsic significance in the distinction.

I'm listening.

I do not understand your objection.

One is the Holy. One is the MOST Holy.


I think perhaps you are focusing too much on sin, and not enough on the power of God. God is the Creator, bringing creation and life (including the Life: His Son, the firstborn) into being.

and Phil 2:5-9 states that Jesus had no problem taking a "backseat" to the Father, despite being EQUALLY God, WITH the Father.

Phil 2:5-9 does not say that Christ is equally God with the Father. There is no mention of different persons in "God"; there is no mention of "the Father" in that verse either (except of course that God IS the Father, and God is mentioned in that verse).

That is a testament to the humbleness of Jesus, no doubt.

Of Jaheshua, yes, agreed. That even though He was 'in the form of' God (just as He later took on 'the form of' man) and even though He is the Son of God and God created everything for Him, He submits to His Father (who is God) out of love.

So when Jesus took a "backseat" and submitted himself to the Father (according to Phil 2:5-9), that is when the Father became GREATER than Jesus.

Christ did not teach this.

I had thought that what is so great about God, that his ways are wayyyy higher than our ways and no matter how hard we try, we will never amount to such greatness, not just in terms of morality, but in terms of ANYTHING.

God having such high ways is one thing that is great about God, of course. But that should not have the qualifier that we are not great, as if God is only great because we are not.

To compare man's greatness to God's greatness...smh. You just don't get it, do you?

I am not comparing man to God. That is what it seemed you did. Please note the emphasis I have placed on my quote, with the bold and underline. This is what I was arguing against.

God is awesome for the love that He is, and for the love that He shows. Enough love (and power) for Him to have brought forth life, beginning with His Son, and then through His Son, bringing forth creation and the rest of life. His mercy, His love, His justice, His Truth, His promises and patience and plan and wisdom.

No arguments from me there..

Okay then.

Note that God has brought forth life, beginning with His Son. The Son did not bring forth God.

I am not speaking about 'mere created beings' or 'man'.

Christ is the Son of God. He is no mere created being, and He is no mere man (though He came in the form of a man for a short period of time).

He is the Son of God. This is what He says about Himself.

So you can skip the theatrics, FTK. How can a person blaspheme by believing what Christ said about Himself?

Oh, the belief is certainly there...it is the interpretation; that is where the meat and potatoes are

I'm not the one doing the interpreting. I am listening to what Christ said, exactly. I am not adding to it. The men who invented the 'trinity doctrine' are the ones adding to what He said.

B - Christ did not place Himself on the same pedestal as His Father. He said the exact opposite:


I don't think that reasoning is going to work out for you. Christ made all of His statements (in the NT) after the events of Phil 2:5-9. Including the statement that to see Him is to see His Father.

Um, tam...I am not talking about the events of the book being written, I am talking about the context of Phil 2:5-9 and what Paul is telling us actually OCCURRED.

As am I.


To this line of reasoning though, you will note that in Revelation, after Christ has returned to heaven, He still refers to His Father as God, and speaks of God as HIS God. Rather than speaking of God as Himself.

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.


(Notice also that He says that He will write on them the name of His God, as well as His own new name. And later in chapter 14 verse 1, the 144 000 have His name and His Father's name written upon their foreheads. God is the Father.)

Second, in a school system, the principal is "greater" than the teacher. In the military, the "Sgt" is greater than the "PVT". In the Christian household, the husband is "greater" than the wife.

But in either case, the "greater" person isn't necessarily the "better" person. "Greater" is just in terms of position/rank/role. It says nothing about essence/nature/divinity.

Sure, but that does not work out for the trinity does it? Because the trinity states that the Father and Son and "Holy Spirit" are all co-equal. Yet here the Son is saying that the Father is greater than Him.

Again, greater in terms of POSITION, not greater in terms of DIVINITY. That is a big distinction that you are seem to be failing to either comprehend and/or acknowledge (with all due respect).

Are you saying that the trinity states there are three people, and that those three people are equal in "divinity", but those three people are not equal in rank?



Might you then be using the word 'divinity' in the same way we might use the word 'royalty', to describe a king and his son/prince/heir? Because that might give us more of a sense of their relationship: both a king and his son are royal. One is greater in rank than the other. More than that though, the son - and everything that son has learned and been given - came from his father (the king). In human fathers and sons, all of that is not necessarily true, but with God and His Son, that is true.


The Son honors His Father in all things (submits to him, obeys him, carries out His Father's will and desires, even though they are both divine). He does this out of love for his Father, just as a human son might do the same for the father that he loves. In the same way, the Father created all things for His Son, gives all things to His Son, out of love for His Son.



There is no need for some kind of trinity invention here; there is no need for any kind of doctrine to help explain the relationship between a father and his son.


God is the Father (of Christ).
Christ is the Son (of God).

(Earlier you mentioned something about honoring the son just as one honors the father... and that is true. That is true of any father who sends his son as his representative... 'listen to my son as you would listen to me; give my son the same respect and honor that you would give to me'.)

Except He did not give Himself equality with the Father; He said that the Father is greater than Him.

"To see me is to see the Father". It really doesn't get any more "equal" than that.

I gave you His words, FTK, not my own. So who are you really arguing with?

I gave you His words, too. And Paul's, and His Fathers.

Are you sure you gave me His words... and without adding man's interpretation to them? (I am not referring to Paul, I am referring to men who came afterward and added their interpretations).

Because Christ states that He is the Son of God. He does not state that He is God, Himself (the Most Holy One of Israel). He does not ever state that He is part of a trinity (or words to that effect). He also states that His Father is the one true God.

Yes, God created all things through Christ (who is the Son of God). This is described also in Proverbs 8:22-31.

All religion has some truth, FTK, and some falsehood. You can't dismiss something just because a particular religion happens to teach it.

I completely agree with you and your point is noted.

I'd use a thumbs up emoji here if I could.

I mean, you can do as you choose, but that is not a good reason to decide something is untrue. To do the opposite - accept a religion simply because it has some true teachings- is equally unwise.

Again, I agree. However, to say Proverbs 8:22-31 is speaking about Christ; that is just simply not true...and that is regardless of what religious group/denomination you represent.

How do you know that what you are saying here is true, FTK?

I digress.

Proverbs 8 is about Christ. Christ is Wisdom.

So, God (Yahweh/The Father) is not wisdom?

Christ is Wisdom (Christ is also the image of God). Christ came from God (who is the Father). God is the One from whom Christ learned.

Does Christ not speak what is true (verses 6 and 7)?

Does Christ not call out to all mankind (verses 4)?

Is Christ not our Teacher, our instructor (verse 10, and throughout)?


Do kings not reign by Him (verse 15, 16... compare to Rev 5:9,10; 3:21; 20:4-6)?

Do we not find Christ if we seek Him (verse 17)?

Is not His fruit (fruits of the spirit, fruit of the tree of Life aka Christ) better than gold (verse 18)?

Are we not blessed if we listen to Him (verse 33)?

Can all of that stuff equally apply to Yahweh/The Father/God? Yes or no?

These verses cannot be referring to the Father (to God). You only need to read verses 22-31 to know that Proverbs is not referring to God (Jahveh/the Father). Even just verse 22 should do it.

JAHVEH brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old"



This cannot be referring to God (YHWH). But we do know who is the firstborn over all creation (Colossians 1:15).

Just as a point of fact, there is no word "Lord" in that verse. This verse actually reads:

You shall fear only JAHVEH your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name.

"The LORD" has been inserted there over "YHWH".

So, to save us (particularly me) time, are you willing to grant that Jehovah was called "Lord" in the old testament, yes or no?

Yes (though "Jehovah" is a mistranslation). But Paul, speaking of both Christ and the Father, made a specific distinction between the two of them. Paul says that for us there is ONE God: the Father. He is very specific about that. And that for us there is one Lord: Christ.



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