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?

[JehovahsWitness]

God's word in Phil 2:6 is so enough for me.

So you reject Colossians?

COLOSSIANS 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God,

Jesus is the counterpart of God Almighty in Col 1:15.

I cannot see the words "counterpart of God Almighty" in the scripture. That seems like changing scripture. I am a disciple of Christ not ..."clark"

That's how Clark explains the verse.

I am not interested in HUMAN interpretation. I do not agree with Clark.

[Capbook]

God's word in Phil 2:6 is so enough for me.

So you reject Colossians?

COLOSSIANS 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God,

Jesus is the counterpart of God Almighty in Col 1:15.

I cannot see the words "counterpart of God Almighty" in the scripture. That seems like changing scripture. I am a disciple of Christ not ..."clark"

That's how Clark explains the verse.

I am not interested in HUMAN interpretation. I do not agree with Clark.

What our understanding of the text is our interpretation, and it mostly differs just like yours and Clarke.

[JehovahsWitness]

What our understanding of the text is our interpretation, and it mostly differs just like yours and Clarke.

But where in the Bible that says that? The verse doesn't even say "counterpart of God Almighty"

[onewithhim]

Jesus isn't the only son. Revelation 21:7 says I am the son of God and Matthew 12:40 says I am the son of man since I experienced the overcoming/victory.

Jesus is the same one. He said he was the Son of God and also Son of man.

Yes, Jesus is man. (in human nature)
Yes, there's only one God.
But Jesus is also God even called real God.

1Jn 5:20 We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we know the real God. We are in the one who is real, his Son Jesus Christ. This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life. (GOD's WORD Translation)

Your translation is unlike any other. None other version says that "Jesus Christ is the real God." The scripture is referring to the Father, as can plainly be seen. He is "the true God."

"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him [the Father/God] who is true; and we are in Him [the Father] who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (I John 5:20, NASB)

Can you see the difference in the two versions? It is Christ's Father who is the true God. (See also Young's Literal Translation; the New American Bible; the KJV; the Revised Standard Version; the New International Version.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Capbook in post #1682]
Colossians 1:15 doesn't give any credence to the idea that God's counterpart is His Son. I simply says that Jesus is the image of God. The image of something is not the thing that it is imaging. A reflection or representation is not the thing that it reflects or represents.

"And he [Jesus] is the radiance of His [God's] glory and the exact representation of His [God's] nature, and upholds all things by the word of his power. When he [Jesus] had made purification of sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [God]." (Hebrews 1:3, NASB)

[Capbook]

What our understanding of the text is our interpretation, and it mostly differs just like yours and Clarke.

But where in the Bible that says that? The verse doesn't even say "counterpart of God Almighty"

That's Clarke interpretation of the verse, just like yours in Revelations that almost are symbolic where the word does not found in the verse.

[Capbook]

Jesus isn't the only son. Revelation 21:7 says I am the son of God and Matthew 12:40 says I am the son of man since I experienced the overcoming/victory.

Jesus is the same one. He said he was the Son of God and also Son of man.

Yes, Jesus is man. (in human nature)
Yes, there's only one God.
But Jesus is also God even called real God.

1Jn 5:20 We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we know the real God. We are in the one who is real, his Son Jesus Christ. This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life. (GOD's WORD Translation)

Your translation is unlike any other. None other version says that "Jesus Christ is the real God." The scripture is referring to the Father, as can plainly be seen. He is "the true God."

"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him [the Father/God] who is true; and we are in Him [the Father] who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (I John 5:20, NASB)

Can you see the difference in the two versions? It is Christ's Father who is the true God. (See also Young's Literal Translation; the New American Bible; the KJV; the Revised Standard Version; the New International Version.

To whom we are in? In His Son Jesus Christ. Do you see now the difference. It agrees to the GOD'S WORD translation.

"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him [the Father/God] who is true; and we are in Him [Jesus] who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (I John 5:20, NASB)

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #1682]
Colossians 1:15 doesn't give any credence to the idea that God's counterpart is His Son. I simply says that Jesus is the image of God. The image of something is not the thing that it is imaging. A reflection or representation is not the thing that it reflects or represents.

"And he [Jesus] is the radiance of His [God's] glory and the exact representation of His [God's] nature, and upholds all things by the word of his power. When he [Jesus] had made purification of sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [God]." (Hebrews 1:3, NASB)

Barne's explains the phase, "Who being the brightness of his glory", as it refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as divine.

Who being the brightness of his glory - This verse is designed to state the dignity and exalted rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly important with reference to a correct view of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great importance, and should be clearly understood in order to a correct apprehension of the passage. First, in what manner does it refer to the Redeemer? To his divine nature? To the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he appeared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it referred to his divine dignity before he became incarnate, and proceed to argue on that supposition on the mode of the divine existence. The true solution seems to me to be, that it refers to him as incarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate “Son of God.” It refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as divine - thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of God. (Barne's)

[JehovahsWitness]

What our understanding of the text is our interpretation, and it mostly differs just like yours and Clarke.

But where in the Bible that says that? The verse doesn't even say "counterpart of God Almighty"

That's Clarke interpretation of the verse...

Well I don't agree with his interpretation of the verse.

[onewithhim]

What our understanding of the text is our interpretation, and it mostly differs just like yours and Clarke.

But where in the Bible that says that? The verse doesn't even say "counterpart of God Almighty"

That's Clarke interpretation of the verse, just like yours in Revelations that almost are symbolic where the word does not found in the verse.

The word IS found in the verse (Revelation 1:1), in one version "symbols" and in other versions "signify." "Signify" means "to show in symbols."

"This is the revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show his slaves what must soon occur. He sent it by means of symbols through his angel, to his slave John." (21st Century New Testament)

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly some to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." (King James Version)