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.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 218 by tigger2]

Christians were still considered members of Judaism and in most cases still attended synagogues until 135 A.D. at least.

Yep, and people don't ordinarily think of Judaism as being all that proactive, but Jewish synagogues were all over the place, and Christians were able to take advantage of the diaspora which enabled this sect of Judaism to grow even faster. However, it also lumped them in with Jews who were seen as a problem by the gentile population. Jewish persecution became Christian persecution; simply because they were still very Jewish.

Bar Kochba and the Christians

If the trinity (or just the deity of Jesus) had really been taught (or believed) by the first Christians, the schism between the Jews (who considered such a teaching "an unpardonable offense") and Christians would have been immediate, irrevocable, and incredibly intense.

I seriously doubt it, and there are plenty of Jewish scholars, theologians, rabbis, etc. who disagree with this idea.

But that is not what caused the greatest and final split between the sect of the first Christians and the Jews. Nor is it what what caused Christians after 135 A.D. to rid themselves of "Jewish" aspects of the new religion (probably including the use of the Divine Name).

Including use of the divine name? They didn't start using it, so I don't know what you're talking about here. They took the commandment just as seriously as observant Jews. They would have undoubtedly continued to use "Hashem", or at least some Greek or Latin equivalent, e.g. God, etc.

"The Jewish belief that the parting of the ways came not at Stephen’s martyrdom but after Bar Kochba’s war against Hadrian [132-135 A. D.] is now gaining ground. Previously there had been no event sufficiently striking to sever the ties. Christians frequented the synagogues: they were still a Jewish sect.

This is quite evident in the Acts of the Apostles, and even in Paul's writings, but for some unknown reason, modern day Christians insist that the church needn't keep the Sabbath, Jehovah's feast days, his dietary laws, etc. Go figure. Obviously, they kept them because they believed Christ's instructions to keep God's commandments. There were no doctrines suggesting otherwise.

"Another Christian apologist, Justin [Martyr], tells how ... Bar Kochba, the leader of the insurrection, ordered Christians alone to be executed if they would not deny and curse Jesus the Messiah." - Ibid.
"After the war the Jerusalem church, once Jewish, consisted only of Gentiles." - Ibid.

This is especially evident in John's gospel. John is the most anti semitic of the four gospels, and repeatedly says things like "the Jew's feast days" etc.

Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum asserts that the "rift caused by the destruction of Jerusalem [70 C.E.] proved to be a temporary one, and a partial reconciliation did come about despite Hebrew Christian opposition to the new Judaism of the rabbis." p. 41, HEBREW CHRISTIANITY, Its Theology, History and Philosophy.
He also says that 132-135 C.E. was a key period, the 2nd Jewish revolt against Rome under Bar Kochba. When the revolt broke out, the Jewish Believers joined the revolt with their rabbinic brothers. However, Rabbi Akiva made the sad error of declaring Bar Kochba to be the Jewish Messiah. This is where the real rift occured. If anyone can be accused of turning Christianity into a Gentile religion, it is not Paul, nor the church leaders in Asia Minor, but rather Bar Kochba, according to Fruchtenbaum.

I find this odd considering that so many scholars and historians document the events of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem spotlighing the fact that the Christians left before the final onslaught occurred. They seem to have taken Christ's advice and left without coat, not looking back. Given their good fortune in abandoning all those loyal to defending the temple, it doesn't seem likely that any Jew would be interested in associating with them. The descriptions historians present of the destruction are extremely horrific and ghastly.

This is also the time when Christians began copying the Septuagint for their own OT use (and probably removing the name of the 'Jewish' God from its earlier Jewish-originated and Jewish-copied Mss.). At the same time they would likely also have removed the only personal name of God (Ps. 83:18, KJV) from the NT scriptures.

I have yet to see any evidence of this.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I see. And a promise is a promise, even one given by an anonymity. Muhammad promised us that the Koran is the word of God, not just inspired teachings. Billions of people - and growing - believe him. But they don't believe Jesus was God, just a prophet in a long line of prophets, Muhammad being the last. The best we can say of theological card players is that one holds a king and someone else holds a king.

Lets just save ourselves time and assume that Christianity is true, and Islam is false...and keep it moving, shall we?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 208 by For_The_Kingdom]

Please type out specific examples of where only YHWH is referred to with one word for the translation of "proskyneo" and Jesus is referred to with another word for "proskyneo."

Specific examples? Just look in your own Bible. JW's have access to Greek interlinears, don't they? Just look where YHWH is worshiped in the Bible...when "proskyneo" is used in reference to YHWH, it is rendered to "worship". But when the same word "proskyneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is rendered to "obeisance".

This is an obvious known fact as far as JW's and the NWT is concerned. If the word "means the same thing" as you claimed, then why is it rendered differently in Egnlish as it relates to Jesus, then?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 223 by onewithhim]

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people “worship before thy feet.� - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV adds this footnote: “The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator.�

We can see the same thing at Is. 45:14. Here God, speaking to his faithful human followers of the last days, says:

“and they [the rest of surviving mankind] ... shall fall down [shachah - ‘worship’] unto thee, they shall make supplication [palal - ‘pray’: see The Jerusalem Bible and AT] unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee [see IN/WITH study]; and there is none else.� - KJV, ASV. - cf. Is. 49:23.

Even the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, says at Is. 45:14 -
“and they ... shall [proskuneo - ‘worship’] thee and make supplication [proseuchomai - ‘pray’] to thee: because God is in thee; and there is no God beside thee, O Lord.� (Notice all the trinitarian-type “evidence� here that could “prove� these men are “equally God�!) - The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Greek and English, Zondervan Ed., 1970.

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab “worships� ‘my Lord’ (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as “worship� is here translated “did obeisance� in the RSV. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is proskuneo. So, in spite of their both sharing the same fleshly human nature, one gave the other proskuneo or shachah!

1 Chron. 29:20 tells us, “And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshiped [shachah] Jehovah AND the king [David].� - ASV - cf. Septuagint (proskuneo). The highest position of authority, of course, is that occupied by God (the Father, Jehovah, who alone is Most High - Ps. 83:18 - and who alone deserves worship [in the most high sense of that word].)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 212 by tigger2]

Another fancy explanation which does nothing to negate my point. The same word is used, yet it is applied differently as it relates to two different individuals (Father/Son). And there is no reason as to why this is the case, unless your theology doesn't allow Jesus to be worshiped, so you apply the word differently.

I asked you to type out specific instances of this. Show us exactly where the word "proskyneo" is applied differently to God and to Jesus.

Tigger's and JehovahsWitness' and my "fancy explanations" would be acceptable, I'm sure, to anybody else. Why you want to "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" I don't know. (Matthew 23:24) The word "proskyneo" means both "worship" and "obeisance" and they both mean the honoring of a person in authority.

[polonius]

For the Kingdom posted:

Lets just save ourselves time and assume that Christianity is true, and Islam is false...and keep it moving, shall we?

RESPONSE: You know what happens when you "assume, don't you?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 225 by For_The_Kingdom]

it is impossible for salvation to be dependent upon one's free will. Free will has nothing to do with salvation. This is why Paul says, "not by will or effort" Rom.9:16.

Straw man. No one said anything about about salvation (as it relates to your quote of me).

Perhaps you might want to actually look at the context of the discussion before claiming others are presenting strawman arguments.

Here's what you actually posted:

Now, I am in no way saying that I know of any "atonement" arrangements that God has/had with the angels.

There is no salvation without atonement. Then there's my response to this:

You cannot have "free will" and not be without sin..because eventually, you will make a bad decision.

That is what I was responding to so let's put the pieces together. Salvation cannot be dependant upon one's free will because the decisions anyone makes cannot insure success. Their efforts cannot insure success, and Paul points out that we have the entire old testament as a witness to this empirical fact. However, when one has been foreordained and predestined to conformity in Christ by God's promise, then they no longer sin. If this isn't true, then God's will and promises can be thwarted. We know this isn't the case because Paul plainly points out that what God knows beforehand, is predestined to happen. (See Romans chapters 8 and 9 for a more detailed explanation.)

So, do those who are conformed to the perfection of Christ have free will or not? If they do, then your claim, e.g. "you cannot have 'free will' and not be without sin.." is false. Obviously those who are conformed to the image of Christ are without sin. Do they have free will, or not? Are they brought into perfection against their will? Are they to spend eternity in heaven against their will?
The point here is that it isn't that we don't have free will, but that it is irrelevant. One cannot choose what they don't know, and Jesus points out that one has to search for the truth. Searching necessarily points out that one doesn't have the truth because you don't search for what you already have.

Then there's this gem:

Yet, Paul said we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23).

Let's look at the greater context:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a PROPITIATION THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of SINS THAT ARE PAST, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Clearly this has everything to do with salvation as well as pointing out that when sins go into remission, they are dead just like cancer goes into remission when it dies off. Paul is explicitly pointing out that we all sin, yet Christ's sacrifice covers the sins of our fallen sinful nature, and leaves them in the past. Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover present sin because the new creature in Christ doesn't sin. There can be no sin in Christ. Those who continue to sin must rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover their sins until they receive a regenerated heart to keep God's commandments.

Just as important is the fact that the good shepherd doesn't ask the cast sheep if it wants to return to the sheepfold. The cast sheep has no choice in the matter. It can't return of its own free will because it is a cast sheep, and cast sheep can do nothing but lay there and struggle to death. Just as important is the fact that "we are bought with a price" as Paul says, and Christ owns his sheep. They are his, therefore it matters not a bit what anybody else wants. The father draws, even drags those He has chosen to Christ, and Christ receives them because they are his.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 225 by For_The_Kingdom]

The context of the discussion here is about whether or not angels "sin" or are "sinful"...and I maintain that as long as they have free will, they cannot be considered "sinless" because Scripture is clear that only God is without sin...

Scripture is clear that all who "walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh". Christ says that those who love him keep his commandments. To keep God's commandments is to be sinless. The new covenant is explicitly stated to be for the sole purpose of keeping God's commandments. Again, to keep God's commandments is to be sinless. Sin, by definition, is the transgression of God's law. See the difference?

and to call any other being "sinless" is to imply that this "sinless" being is on the same level as God when it comes to moral perfection, which is blasphemous...

Nonsense. God calls his chosen people to be a holy priesthood. Paul points out that the church is called to be a chaste bride. Christ says "be perfect like your father in heaven is perfect". He says, "my yoke is easy, my burden light". He uses the Pharisees as an example of the level of perfection that is required to enter into the kingdom. They are keeping God's commandments and a whole lot more, but even they will not enter into the kingdom because the only way that can happen is if God gives them a heart to keep his commandments. In other words, they can keep God's commandments, but to do it as a consequence of one's free will decision and effort is to justify oneself, and only Christ's work can justify anyone, and only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit allows one to keep God's commandment perfectly. Under the old covenant, the law was kept because it was the right thing to do, and we should all do the right thing; it is a benefit to those who keep it. Under the new covenant, the law is kept because that is what the new creature was created for. They keep the law because they are a holy people, not to become a holy people.

because no created being can equal God's benevolence.

Sorry, but God's new covenant explicitly states that those he gives a new heart to will keep his commandments. {See Jeremiah 31:33;Ezekiel 11:19;36:26;Hebrews 8:9,10). This is all accomplished in, with, and through the faith of Christ's spirit indwelling in the new creature, by the will of the Father.

The angelic host of heaven had a choice, and those who remained obedient to God will never sin. They effectively have no choice. It's what we call "a no brainer". They don't have to think about it.

Unbiblical.

Sorry, but it's right out of the bible. There are those rebellious angels and there are those who didn't rebel. This is irrefutable. There is no mention of God's loyal obedient angels ever rebelling later. Those that don't rebel, don't sin. It doesn't matter if they have the ability to sin. The fact is that they don't sin. They made their choice, and the right choice is sinless obedience.

If God will never sin, and these angels also will never sin; are you saying these angels level of benevolence is on par with God's? Does God have equal's when it comes to holiness?

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that there can be no sin in Christ. It is the holiness of God that allows those God sanctifies to remain sinless. Sanctification means to make holy, or set aside for holy purpose. God makes people and spirits holy, but making them holy doesn't make them God.

The holy of holies contained God's holy presence, but God's presence isn't God. Again, we have the entire old testament as a witness to this fact. Sin means simply to transgress God's law. It means to "miss the mark". God calls those he has chosen to holiness, and that can only come from God. Only God can make anyone or anything holy. The texts plainly point out that it is God who does this so while whatever God makes holy, isn't God, it is still holy. Regardless, none of your diversion into equality has anything to do with being sinless. Being sinless doesn't necessitate equality with God. God makes his people holy and sinless, and nowhere do any of the texts suggest that anyone is becoming God in the process.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 225 by For_The_Kingdom]

shnarkle wrote:
No, we will eventually never make bad decisions again

And we also won't have free will, either.

Why do you say that? Again, this is why Paul's doctrine of election is so useful in refuting your claims. Free will is irrelevant. It doesn't matter because it isn't about one's will at all, "but God who shows mercy". God's mercy trumps free will. It isn't that we don't have free will, but that our will is brought into alligment with God's. Again, it's what is known as a "no-brainer". This can only happen when the truth is revealed. Until that happens, you simply can't choose what you have no ability to see in the first place. Those who sin have no clue of the gravity of what they are doing. To sin is to die.

Fallen angels have sinned, and continue to sin, but those who remain obedient will never sin.


Wow. That seems like an uphill battle for imperfect beings.

What's your point? There is no battle for Seraphim when they are completely absorbed in the glory of God. Isaiah sees them bearing witness to the fact that the entire universe is filled with God's glory. It's all they see. They can't see any of the corruption and depravity that exists in the heart of Satan or the heart of fallen humanity. They are incapable of even seeing sin, much less committing sin. It isn't a struggle or battle at all.

Now, I am in no way saying that I know of any "atonement" arrangements that God has/had with the angels....I was also talking about the obedient angels.

Why would God provide atoement for angels that are obedient? You are explicitly stating that you are referring to obedient angels, but obedient angels don't sin. Atonement is only for dealing with disobedience. You're going to have to elaborate a bit on that one because it makes no sense whatsoever.

So, at any given moment in time, the "faithful angelic host of heaven" cannot freely choose to disobey God..given their free will?

You make it sound like once one makes a decision, it really isn't a decision at all. How does one freely choose to be obedient without actually being obedient? Christ points out that there was a rebellion in heaven, but I have nothing in my bible suggesting that God's loyal, obedient angels rebel as well. That would make them part of the rebellion. Where do any of the texts suggest that the celestial host of heaven loyal to God end up rebelling against God?

Just as important is to remember that just because one has the ability to sin, doesn't mean they will sin. You have the ability to poke out your eyes with an ice pick. Do you see that as an option? Perhaps you find the idea quite tempting, but just because this is something you might do someday, doesn't then mean most people will find this an entertaining idea. In fact, it will undoubtedly never enter most people's minds. The same holds true for the celestial host of heaven. Those who do disobey have no chance for atonement. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. Here's another example. The Mosaic law forbids yoking an ox with a jackass. For some people this is tempting, perhaps even imperative. For someone like me it requires that I search out and locate an ox, a jackass, a yoke, a field to plow, buy or rent any or all of them, and then plow the field with the ox and the jackass. Perhaps you may see that this is much more work than it's worth. Perhaps you may not even find this remotely tempting. This doesn't negate the fact that you have the choice to yoke an ox with a jackass, but just how likely is that to happen? It may very well verge on impossible. it's just too much work to accomplish in the first place. Well, it's no different with some people when it comes to things like necrophilia, bestiality, adultery, fornication, theft, bearing false witness, etc. With the angelic host of heaven, Satan played his cards, and the angels who remained obedient, made their choice. For them it would have been no different than going out of their way to do something they didn't ever want to do in the first place. Having the choice doesn't mean they will make that choice. They cannot be held accountable for sins they will never commit.

Hmm. What is stopping them?

There choice to remain obedient. Christ points out that it is the spirit that is willing while the flesh is weak. See the difference? The celestial host of heaven isn't weak in the flesh. They are not created in the flesh at all. They are not weak willed. They are not tempted like humanity. Those who rebelled are not offered reconciliation. They are eternally damned. So God's obedient angels aren't going to look at the prospects of their disobedient rebellious brethren as even remotely attractive. Many of them are already in chains awaiting their final destruction. That doesn't even sound attractive to me, and I'm not anywhere as aware of what they know firsthand.

shnarkle wrote:
You're not rightly dividing the word. Pay attention to the context as well as the fact that while everyone is born in sin, those who are begotten in spirit cannot sin. This is why the curse of the law becomes redundant. There is no need to rely upon the sacrifice of Christ when one no longer sins anymore. Paul is clear: "Those who walk after the Spirit do NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh".

Paul is talking about habitual sin, obviously.

There's nothing obvious about habitual sin in anything he says in Galatians 5:16, or Romans 8:1 In fact he is explicilty stating "walk after the Spirit". Walking after the Spirit has nothing to do with sin, habitual or otherwise. The "fulfilling" of the flesh is in the aorist tense which has no reference to duration. Fail. Care to try again?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 225 by For_The_Kingdom]

In both cases, it is clear who has the authority. Jesus even admits that Pilate's authority in condemning him is according to God's will.

And Jesus submitted to that authority, didn't he?

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

And yet you aren't advancing your argument here. Nothing you just posted provides any evidence to refute the fact that an icon can never be what or who they represent. The word becomes flesh, not God.

Um, the beginning of the entire chapter starts off by stating that the word was GOD (John 1:1)...so the word was God, and THEN the word that was God became flesh (verse 14).

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, 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between God and Christ, and the Father is explicitly stated to be God, but even more importantly, God is the origin of everything while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence. Everything comes into existence in, with, and through "the word". Therefore John begins by pointing out that it is the eternal word that is with God and through whom God exists. This doesn't negate the fact that the origin of existence cannot exist without paradoxically negating itself into existence, which is a logical contradiction.

Put another way, only things exist, and existence is not any thing. Coincidently, the origin of existence is not any thing either. Even grammatically, the reality is being pointed out as the word "exist" is an intransitive verb and governs no object. Objects exist by means of existence. Without existence (or Being) nothing can exist.