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?

[onewithhim]

Christ is indeed clear about the nature of God in John chapter 13-17, if we'd just give them a good read. Jesus states unequivocally in John 17 that the Father is the only true God. That is, aside from any involvement with Jesus Christ. Jesus does not count himself in on the fact that there is one God and only one God and that is the Father. Period. Not three Persons. Just one.


The Father is greater than Jesus.....John 14:28

The Father is still greater, even after Jesus went back to heaven.....I Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 3:12



.

[PinSeeker]

Christ is indeed clear about the nature of God in John chapter 13-17, if we'd just give them a good read.

Yes, I agree. I would implore you to do just that.

Jesus states unequivocally in John 17 that the Father is the only true God.
That is, aside from any involvement with Jesus Christ.

No, that is surely not the case, as is clearly indicated by the word "and" in this very verse (3). And we cannot ignore -- as Jehovah's Witnesses seem wont to do -- verse 5, as I have said, where Jesus is very clear that He possessed the same glory with the Father even in eternity past. And considering Hebrews 13:8, where we read that Jesus is the same from eternity past to eternity future -- which Jehovah's Witnesses seem wont to apply only when it suits their narrative -- this was, is, and forever will be the case.

Jesus does not count himself in on the fact that there is one God and only one God and that is the Father. Period. Not three Persons. Just one.

As a man, and thus our model -- and God, but having lain aside His status as God for our sake -- this is true.

The Father is greater than Jesus.....John 14:28

And here again, Jehovah's Witnesses are wont to take this completely out of context. The father as the one who sends and commands is "greater" (in authority or leadership) than the Son. However, this does not mean that Jesus is inferior in His being and essence to the Father.

The Father is still greater, even after Jesus went back to heaven.....I Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 3:12

Same thing; this statement is taking Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Christ's Himself in Revelation 3:12 completely out of context. What is indicated here is that within the triune Jehovah, the Father has a role of authority or leadership with respect to the Son, though they are equal in deity and attributes. Paul applies this truth about the Trinity in 1 Corinthians 11 to the relationship of husband and wife. In marriage, as in the Trinity, there is equality in being and value but difference in roles, as we see very clearly in Ephesians 5:22-33, also written by Paul.

The context is the same in Revelation 3. In verse 12, Jesus does say, "my God," referring to the Father. But later in the same address to the church in Laodicea, He also says, "If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with Me on My throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." Of course, the implication in this last sentence is, some will not hear, and that's unfortunate.

Grace and peace to you.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #142]
I don't see that Jesus had the SAME glory as the Father in times past. He is asking, at John 17:5, that God give him the glory that he had previously, alongside his Father. It doesn't say that his glory equaled the Father's glory. (You add a lot to a verse.)

.

[PinSeeker]

Here's the interlinear for that :

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-58.htm

You could see just looking at the words what the reaction would be. Does it mean he claimed to be God? Maybe, but since every where else he says otherwise, I believe it to be wordplay to irritate the audience.

So you think He lied for shock value? Wow.

Okay, well, grace and peace to you, Brian.

[Leonardo Betetto]

Clearly, Father is God, and Jesus is a Celestial Being, a god, an archangel.

https://leonardobetetto.com/en/God-and- ... y-Watcher/

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #142]
I don't see that Jesus had the SAME glory as the Father in times past. He is asking, at John 17:5, that God give him the glory that he had previously, alongside his Father. It doesn't say that his glory equaled the Father's glory. (You add a lot to a verse.)

It doesn't say otherwise, either.

You're right, you can add a lot to a verse, but of course to do so is heretical.

Having said that, though, Jesus does in fact acknowledge the glory He had with the Father from eternity past. That word 'with' is very important. It seems infinitely more likely that if the glory He had with the Father was inferior to that of the Father, Jesus would have been explicit in saying so. Rather, the word 'with' there very strongly signifies equality and sameness of glory.

Grace and peace to all.

[brianbbs67]

Here's the interlinear for that :

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-58.htm

You could see just looking at the words what the reaction would be. Does it mean he claimed to be God? Maybe, but since every where else he says otherwise, I believe it to be wordplay to irritate the audience.

So you think He lied for shock value? Wow.

Okay, well, grace and peace to you, Brian.

I didn't say lie. YHVH was introduced again to the newly formed Israel as Ehyeh Asshur Ehyeh. "I am that which I will be" or I am for short. It was a very important phrase to the Hebrews. He used it to pluck at them for affect.

[onewithhim]

Here's the interlinear for that :

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/8-58.htm

You could see just looking at the words what the reaction would be. Does it mean he claimed to be God? Maybe, but since every where else he says otherwise, I believe it to be wordplay to irritate the audience.

So you think He lied for shock value? Wow.

Okay, well, grace and peace to you, Brian.

I didn't say lie. YHVH was introduced again to the newly formed Israel as Ehyeh Asshur Ehyeh. "I am that which I will be" or I am for short. It was a very important phrase to the Hebrews. He used it to pluck at them for affect.

Not necessarily "I Am," but "I Will Be." Exodus 3:14 doesn't really match what Jesus said at John 8:58, if one will do a little research. God clearly states his name in the next verse in Exodus, verse 15. He said that Moses should tell Israel that YHWH (commonly translated as Jehovah) has sent him. This would be His name throughout eternity. That name is found 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.


.

[brianbbs67]

I didn't just say "Iam". I am that which I will be is the most correct. Even the RCC admits its probably Yahweh and they invented Yehovah in the 1200s. But, really doesn't matter which language we call His name in. What does matter is claiming one is better when no man alive knows or is saying today.

[tigger 2]

"YHVH was introduced again to the newly formed Israel as Ehyeh Asshur Ehyeh. "I am that which I will be" or I am for short. It was a very important phrase to the Hebrews."

Ehyeh as used everywhere else in the writings of Moses means "I will be." So ehyeh asher ehyeh meant "I will be whatever I will be." Tell them "I will be" has sent me to you. This provides a meaning for the third person name YHWH ("He will be") which is proclaimed in the next verse as His name (Compare Ps. 83:18, KJV).

This was not an especially meaningful phrase to the Hebrews; It is found only at this verse. Whereas YHWH is found as His personal name many thousands of times.