JESUS IS NOT GOD

[onewithhim]

I would very much like to get opinions on this subject. I'll provide several verses from the King James Version of the Bible, and I ask you to give me feed-back.


Jesus' words:

1) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19)

2) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

3) "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42)

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

5) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say....Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50)

6) To his Father in prayer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

7) "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

To John in the Revelation:
8) "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God..." (Revelation 3:12)



Do these quotations show that Jesus was NOT God?

Do YOU believe that he claimed to be God?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #650]

The new Catholic encyclopedia-1967, Vol XIV, page 299 says-- The trinity god was not assimilated into christian life until near the end of the 4th century. The apostles knew nothing of a trinity. =truth

That is not exactly true. The depth of the doctrine wasn't all fleshed out until the 4th century, but Christians clearly believed it way before that. The early church fathers also speak clearly of Jesus being God.

Here is just one example. I can give MANY more.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch 50-117 AD
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans - Chapter 3 - Link https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

He says it plainly just like this many times. It is said he knew John. He knew Polycarp for sure.

YOu will not be able to bring any early church fathers that said Jesus is not God because they do not exist. You only have later heretics like Arius.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #650]

The new Catholic encyclopedia-1967, Vol XIV, page 299 says-- The trinity god was not assimilated into christian life until near the end of the 4th century. The apostles knew nothing of a trinity. =truth

That is not exactly true. The depth of the doctrine wasn't all fleshed out until the 4th century, but Christians clearly believed it way before that. The early church fathers also speak clearly of Jesus being God.

Here is just one example. I can give MANY more.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch 50-117 AD
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans - Chapter 3 - Link https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

He says it plainly just like this many times. It is said he knew John. He knew Polycarp for sure.

YOu will not be able to bring any early church fathers that said Jesus is not God because they do not exist. You only have later heretics like Arius.

Welcome AquinasForGod,

What about the Apostle Paul who wrote that Jesus Christ was a man:

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Paul is a church father that claims Jesus was a man, and God is not a man.

So at least one church father knew that Jesus was not God.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #650]

The new Catholic encyclopedia-1967, Vol XIV, page 299 says-- The trinity god was not assimilated into christian life until near the end of the 4th century. The apostles knew nothing of a trinity. =truth

That is not exactly true. The depth of the doctrine wasn't all fleshed out until the 4th century, but Christians clearly believed it way before that. The early church fathers also speak clearly of Jesus being God.

Here is just one example. I can give MANY more.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch 50-117 AD
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans - Chapter 3 - Link https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

He says it plainly just like this many times. It is said he knew John. He knew Polycarp for sure.

YOu will not be able to bring any early church fathers that said Jesus is not God because they do not exist. You only have later heretics like Arius.

Welcome AquinasForGod,

What about the Apostle Paul who wrote that Jesus Christ was a man:

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Paul is a church father that claims Jesus was a man, and God is not a man.

So at least one church father knew that Jesus was not God.

That was common for other church fathers as well. Jesus is a man and is God. The one person of Christ has two natures. The Word of God assumed the human nature by uniting with the person of Christ, and because the union was in the person and not in the material, there is one person of Christ, one hypostasis, which has two natures.

Col2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

And thus why the fullness of deity dwells in him bodily. This would not be possible if Jesus were only a man, for the fullness of an infinite God could not dwell in just a human. Paul makes this even more clear in Hebrews.

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

In order to be the exact imprint of God's nature means you must be divine. You cannot be an exact imprint of any nature unless you share that nature.

I am not sure if you have ever read a Catholic reasoning for why Jesus is God, but I highly recommend it. I was blown away. So for example, look at this Isaiah passage.

isa 40:13 Who has measured[a] the Spirit of the Lord, or what man shows him his counsel?

Isaiah is speaking of how God cannot be measured, and because he cannot be measured, who can show him counsel? Paul, being a Jew, knew this kind idea only applies to Yhwh, yet look at what he says in Cor.

1 Cor 2:16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

I used to be very anti Trinity, Anti-Catholic, and very against the idea of Jesus being God. In fact, I once made a huge study guide to go along with a CD that went verse after verse why I thought Jesus wasn't God. Many Muslims bought that CD on Ebay. But once I looked at what the Catholics actually teach, and their understanding of the bible, I have never looked at the bible the same.

Look at this.

isa 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

At first you think, yeah, so what? God created and stretched out the heavens by himself, alone, no one else helped him. He did not do it through some other being. Paul would have known this passage, yet he says,

1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Paul's worship, and the disciples' worship, their prayer gathering was centered around Jesus, which would be idolatry had they not understood the incarnation.

1 Cor5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,

But even you have to believe that Jesus incarnated because John says he is the word made flesh, and of course Paul agrees.

1 Corinthians 15:47, "The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven."

[myth-one.com]

Jesus is a man and is God.

There are two type of bodies -- natural and spiritual:

I Corinthians 15:44
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Each of these body types requires a separate and different birth:

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus was born of the flesh by His mother Mary. So Jesus is a natural bodied man.

<================================>

The spiritual bodied being named the Word is immortal and existed separately during the lifetime of Jesus.

The one person of Christ has two natures.

But whether He is or is not a man depends on His birth -- NOT HIS NATURE.

And He was born of the flesh as a man.

That is the only way He could become our Savior!

[AquinasForGod]

Jesus is a man and is God.

There are two type of bodies -- natural and spiritual:

I Corinthians 15:44
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Each of these body types requires a separate and different birth:

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus was born of the flesh by His mother Mary. So Jesus is a natural bodied man.

<================================>

The spiritual bodied being named the Word is immortal and existed separately during the lifetime of Jesus.

The one person of Christ has two natures.

But whether He is or is not a man depends on His birth -- NOT HIS NATURE.

And He was born of the flesh as a man.

That is the only way He could become our Savior!

I am confused as to why you think the church disagrees. The church teaches that Jesus was born of Mary and assumed fully the human nature. The body was fully human with a human soul. Nothing about the body was divine. The church rejected such heresies like Docetism, which stated that Jesus only appeared to be a human but was not. This was a gnostic position. The church rejected the heresy of monophysitism, which stated that in Christ there was only one nature, the humine, which was a fusion of the divine and human natures. They rejected the heresy that Christ was two persons each with their own natures, as so on.

They also rejected the heresy that Jesus was ONLY a human.

[myth-one.com]

Jesus is a man and is God.

There are two type of bodies -- natural and spiritual:

I Corinthians 15:44
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Each of these body types requires a separate and different birth:

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus was born of the flesh by His mother Mary. So Jesus is a natural bodied man.

<================================>

The spiritual bodied being named the Word is immortal and existed separately during the lifetime of Jesus.

The one person of Christ has two natures.

But whether He is or is not a man depends on His birth -- NOT HIS NATURE.

And He was born of the flesh as a man.

That is the only way He could become our Savior!

I am confused as to why you think the church disagrees.

I'm questioning your statement that "Jesus is a man and is God." If some church believes your statement, then I suppose I am questioning them also.

Jesus is a man -- Not a man and God.

Gods cannot die. Jesus Christ was made flesh for the purpose of dying!

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

In the beginning, the Word created the heavens and the earth. The man Jesus did not exist at that time.

<=================================>

Jesus was born as a human on the earth as a Jewish man under the Old Testament Covenant. Under that Covenant, the only path to everlasting life was to never sin -- as the wages of sin is death.

But there was a fault in that original testament as all mankind sinned. Thus, no one had ever gained everlasting life under that Covenant.

Jesus' mission was to live a sinless human life and earn an inheritance of everlasting spiritual life under that first covenant between God and mankind. He would then be allowed to offer His inheritance of everlasting life as a gift to those humans who believe in Him as their Savior under the New Testament Covenant. So that mankind is no longer under the law, but under the grace of God for their salvation. Thus everlasting life became a gift from God through Jesus Christ.

<=================================>

The Covenant is between man and God. If Jesus is a man and God, which side of the Covenant would apply to Him?

If Jesus is a God, He cannot die, and it was all for naught.

The only way that God's plan to fix the fault in the original covenant can work is that Jesus had to be a human, and only a human, under the Old Testament Covenant!

So was Jesus a man, or the fictional man/God.

One works -- and one doesn't.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #656]

Anything you can possibly ask or any point you can make on this topic, the church has most likely already addressed it. They have been doing this a long time.

Jesus is a man -- Not a man and God.

So you claim. If by Jesus you mean the person, the hypostasis, then yes, Jesus was both God and man. If you mean the nature, then no. Jesus was a man.

Gods cannot die. Jesus Christ was made flesh for the purpose of dying!

Gods have died. I think you mean the eternal God cannot die, which is true, but that doesn't mean he cannot experience death. If God assumes a human nature, that human nature can indeed die and rise again. Jesus said he would raise himself, but he could not raise himself unless he was divine.

Jesus speaking of his body said

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19)

Not that God would do it but that he would do it.

Also, if you have not already, you should go to the Jesus is God thread and see the posts I made showing Jesus is God.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Yes, the man Jesus was made lower than the angels, but he was God in his divine nature as the same author tells us in Hebrews.

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

In the beginning, the Word created the heavens and the earth. The man Jesus did not exist at that time.

Yes, correct. The man Jesus did not exist for the Word had not incarnated, which means the Word had not assumed the human nature.

The Covenant is between man and God. If Jesus is a man and God, which side of the Covenant would apply to Him?

This shows me that you do not understand the hypostatic union. There are no sides of Jesus. Christ came to fulfill the law as he said. You fulfill prophecies and not laws. This is why Jesus said he is the Lord of the Sabbath, yet only God could claim that.

The only way that God's plan to fix the fault in the original covenant can work is that Jesus had to be a human, and only a human, under the Old Testament Covenant!

I completely disagree. A man could never do anything but try to obey the law. He could not say things like, you heard Moses tell you such and such, but I say unto you. He could not change and correct the law. A man, no matter how well he kept the law could not do away with sacrifices. If Jesus was just a man, then the Abrahamic faith is false. A man messiah had a chance to come and never came. It would make Isaiah a false prophet because he said the time was close. God himself had to come to correct Judaism and be the spiritual messsiah.

[myth-one.com]

The only way that God's plan to fix the fault in the original covenant can work is that Jesus had to be a human, and only a human, under the Old Testament Covenant!

I completely disagree. A man could never do anything but try to obey the law.

What? That's interesting.

Sin is the transgression of God's laws, or commandments:

I John 3:4
For sin is the transgression of the law.

However, to commit a sin, one must first recognize that the act is a sin:

James 4:17
To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

If all Jesus could do was no different than any other man, then when did He ever have a sin imputed against Him?

<==================================>

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you saying Jesus had to be God because He never sinned? Because all men sin?

[kjw47]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #650]

The new Catholic encyclopedia-1967, Vol XIV, page 299 says-- The trinity god was not assimilated into christian life until near the end of the 4th century. The apostles knew nothing of a trinity. =truth

That is not exactly true. The depth of the doctrine wasn't all fleshed out until the 4th century, but Christians clearly believed it way before that. The early church fathers also speak clearly of Jesus being God.

Here is just one example. I can give MANY more.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch 50-117 AD
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans - Chapter 3 - Link https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

He says it plainly just like this many times. It is said he knew John. He knew Polycarp for sure.

YOu will not be able to bring any early church fathers that said Jesus is not God because they do not exist. You only have later heretics like Arius.

He may have talked of a trinity, as did Tertullian, but the Abrahamic God served by all true followers is a single being God named-YHWH(Jehovah) Jesus tells all THE ONLY TRUE GOD = the Father. John 17:3

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #648]

I would point out that what should matter is what Christ says.

Yes, but most of Paul's letters were written before the gospels were written, so they are extremely important to understand what early Christians believed.

Assuming that one correctly understands the words in those letters.

But how does that change the fact that what matters is what Christ says?

Christ is the Truth, the One who has the words of eternal life; the One to whom God SAID to listen.

Hold all things up against Christ (the Light); test all things against Him (the Truth). That includes things that are written, and it certainly includes teachings and claims from men and religion.

ou cannot be (first)born if you always were.

I don't see why you think "firstborn" is problematic.

It is only problematic for someone who thinks Christ was not born.

Firstborn simply means to be the first born among creation, that is to raise in a glorified body.

Christ is (and is called) the firstborn before being raised in a glorified body.

Christ is also Wisdom, from Proverbs 8.

The second person was Mother Mary. This is why Catholicism is so great. The doctrine explains every verse, whereas other doctrines do not.

Catholicism is not the only religion that has an explanation and doctrine for every verse. But that is meaningless if those explanations are not true; if those explanations do not hold up against the Light (Christ).

And there is no verse speaking of any resurrection of Mary; there is no reason to think that she would have received a resurrection before the rest of the Body of Christ, something that does not occur until Christ returns.


For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 1 Corinth 15:23

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1 Corinth 15:51-52

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Matt 24:30, 31

The first and second resurrections are also spoken of in Revelation. The first resurrection for those who have died in Christ (those who are yet alive on the earth will be raised up and changed at this time); the second resurrection for the rest of the dead (occurs a thousand years after the first resurrection), some of these ones being resurrected to life and some to judgment and the second death, depending upon the deeds as recorded in their individual scrolls (Rev 20).

Genesis describes the act of bringing forth the Light (see also John 3:19; 12:35), and then the rest of creation, does it not? God said, "Let there be light", and there was Light. First came the act, and then the Light was born.

You cannot be before all creation unless you are uncreated and thus eternal. Otherwise, you would have to claim that he a creation was somehow created through himself before he even existed.

He was BORN (directly from God).

I do not know why you cannot see that He can be before all things (other than His Father). Why could He not? His Father is eternal; His Father brought Him (Christ) forth, and then through Christ, the Father created the world and all in the world. See quotes directly below in green:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, [Jesus] Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist. 1 Corinth 8:6

On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. 2But in these last days He {God} has spoken to us by His Son, whom He {God} appointed heir of all things, and through whom He {God}made the universe.

The same problem as above. You cannot be through whom ALL things came unless you are before all things. And if we exist through Christ, if Christ is how we have existence, that is Christ is our existential intertia, then Christ subsists in himself.

See above.

Notice that God and the Son through whom God made the universe are spoken of as two beings.

I cannot notice something that is not there.

It is there in numerous occasions; otherwise there would have been no reason for a religion to come up with a doctrine (or two or three) because of their own lack of understanding, explaining how there can be two (or three) 'persons', but just one "God".

Christ is one being. He is the Son of God. He is the Chosen One of God. He is the Holy One of God. He has His own name. He sits at the right hand of God.

God (who is the Father) is one being. He is the Father. He is the MOST Holy One. He is the One who brought forth His Son (the Light), He is the One who gives His Son all authority and power. He has His own name as well.

God and the Lamb are frequent descriptions of them (them = more than one). God being one. The lamb (who is Christ) being two. They each have their OWN names.

Christ speaks to His Father, He prays to His Father, He gives thanks to His Father, He is the True and Faithful Witness (of His Father), He bears witness to His Father as His Father truly is; He was sent BY His Father.

Did Christ ever teach that He was the same being as His Father? Of course not. That is something that men erroneously read INTO His words; but that is not something that He ever taught.

Rev 3:18 speaks of eye salve that we can buy - not from men or religion - but from Christ, so that we can see.

I am more interested in what Christ teaches. He is the One to whom God told us to listen; the one who is and who speaks truth. He would know who He is more than anyone else (other than His Father of course).

He would know, which is why he did not correct Thomas when he said "My Lord and my God" or when the apostles said to Jesus, "You know all things."

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God."

And yes, Church doctrine explains when Jesus said only the father knows the day and hour, which does not contradict Jesus knowing all things as the disciples said more than once.

Thomas was not calling Christ... the Most Holy One of Israel (YHWH).

And you said it yourself, there is one thing that the Father knew that Christ did not know (at least not at that time).

And there is no problem with Christ knowing all things, as the disciples said, because He learned all things from His Father who taught Him.

The honoring is not about identifying Christ as God (His Father). It is about SHOWING the same honor (love, respect, obedience) to the Son (whom God SENT) as one would show God.

And that would be idolatry if Jesus were not God.

How so and says who? Did you look at the parable of the tenants and the vineyard?

Or He chooses to do so, out of love and obedience for His Father, and because He is the perfect representation OF His Father who came to reveal His Father as His Father truly is, and because this is the WORK that His Father SENT Him to do.

He does not lack freewill. He just puts the Father's will FIRST (out of love).

To do this as a choice would not be possible because you would have to know the infinite mind of God in order to do everything he does. It is not like God is some dude in the sky you can watch and imitate, unless of course, we mean Jesus, the body of God.

God is the FATHER that Christ can/did watch and imitate and learn all things from, knowing all the things that His Father desires, so that He always does what pleases His Father.

Who says only God can forgive sins? God is the One who gave that authority to His Son, again out of love for His Son. Not because they are the same person.

Suppose I grant that as possible, how does Christ sustain the world?

Are you referring to the verse which speaks of sustaining all things with His word?

[Jesus] answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

Yes, human nature and divine nature in the hypostatic union. This verse is not an issue.

Two witnesses; two people. That was the point.

Just because a religion created a doctrine in answer to a question they might have had does not make that doctrine true. Many religions have done this, such as the Catholic religion and the JW religion (since those are the two most prominent in this thread).

He was not claiming to be God Himself. Or it would have made no sense to give the people an example of men who were also called gods, without that being considered blasphemy. He is showing them that their blasphemy charge has no basis.

Not at all. He is saying calling myself son of God is less than you being called elohim, so why do you claim saying the lesser is blaspheme? But when Jesus does claim to be God, and it is how they understood it, they spoke plainly, this man makes himself God.

Except He did not claim to be God. He claimed to be the SON OF God.

Christ is the IMAGE of His Father; the perfect representation of His Father. Christ IS as His Father IS. Hence, Christ reveals His Father as His Father truly is. To know Christ is to know God. To see Christ is to see God (not the physical appearance of course, because the flesh counts for nothing). Not because they are the same person, but because Christ perfectly reflects His Father.

That doesn't make sense because the created, which be nature is imperfect, cannot perfectly reflect that which is perfect. God is perfect, and something imperfect like a created being cannot perfectly reflect God.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. Regardless, Christ is the Son. Christ was BORN. He was certainly not born imperfect or with any kind of sin.

The people you quoted have to change the verse to make it say something different. Not because that is how the verse reads; but just to make it fit into their doctrine.

I looked it up, but not a single translation writes it the way your commentaries suggest it should be understood. See for yourself.

https://biblehub.com/john/17-3.htm

Saint Augustine knew Greek and thus he could speak on it. But we do not need to know Greek to understand that is what the verse is saying. He just showed the order differently to better expose the actual meaning. We might miss the meaning only do the ordering of the phrases, but the meaning is the same. Jesus Christ and the Father are the true God.

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, [Jesus] Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

This only helps Saint Augustine for God and Lord are the same.

Just saying they are the same does not make them the same.

Paul is specifically pointing out that there are many (so-called) gods and many lords. But for us there is one God: the Father. (Note that ONLY the Father is mentioned here). And there is one Lord: Christ (the Son). Paul distinguishes between the two.



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