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.

[brianbbs67]

Logos is translated as "rational speech" most of the time. That doesn't imply Godly or even correct, but rational. Its subjective. Wise could be an adjective to describe it but does not define it. It's simply rational. "makes sense" "sounds right" John 1:1 takes a new meaning with this thought.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

Note on 1000 Jesuses as much as 1000 John Doe people, Jesus and John Doe being common names. 1000 Jesus people by The 100% True Bible, uncorrupted Holy Book.

Supported by Earth and human kind as creation of God. We are all sons and daughters of God. Thus, primary message of the New Testament, "it was cruel to crucify the 1000 Jesus people and being a true Christian believer, one Jesus person, makes you able to win over death!"

Note 2: uncorrupted as in scoring 100% on OR gate test, Quantum Computer testing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

Quite simple, actually tam. I mean after all, if BOTH are without sin, how can one be "more" holy than the other?

And are not the elect also called holy ones?

Sure, but I don't view those holy ones as "morally perfect". But you apparently do, which scripture doesn't support.

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

Well let me ask you this, tam...if Jesus (or any arbitrary being who you believe is/was sinless) was without sin...and God (the Father) is also without sin...how does God (the Father) get the prestigious title of "Most Holy", while Christ only gets the "lesser" title of just "Holy".

If they are both without sin, shouldn't they both be awarded "Most Holy"? That is the fundamental question I ask of you.

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.

Focusing too much on sin? Wait a minute, isn't that what it is all about? Sin/Sinless? Good vs Evil? Righteous & Unrighteous?

Isn't the path before us sin/non-sin? Isn't that what decides whether or God considers us holy?

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).

Ok, so lets break down Phil 2:5-9 slowly. Please give me your full interpretation of this..

Phil 2:6-7...

"Christ Jesus, Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."

Please explain.

Of Jaheshua, yes, agreed. That even though He was 'in the form of' God (just as He later took on 'the form of' man)

Wait a minute, not so fast there. Was or was NOT Jesus a man? Wasn't he an actual man? Yes, he was (v.8)...so if being in the "form" of a man made him a man...then being in the "form" of God made him God.

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.

See, that is true deception right there...mixing falsehood with a little bit of truth in there LOL.

That is how most people are being deceived.

Christ did not teach this.

Christ didn't teach that he was created, either...yet you believe that, don't 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.

Hmm, Paul said let God be the truth and all man liars (Rom 3:4). So I guess I agree with Paul; man's greatness has NOTHING on the greatness of God.

Okay then.

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

With all due respect, tam; that is about as unscriptural as one can possibly get right there.

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.

Added? Again, John 1:1-3 is as plain as day...so the concept of the Trinity was there from the beginning, and if one simply read the words with no presuppositions, one will comprehend correctly the point that the author was attempting to get across.

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.

Right, just as Jesus is seated at the RIGHT HAND of God, which in ITSELF a testament to Jesus being a subordinate to the Father, but still no less of a God than the Father.

Just like I can be seated at the right hand of my Father at the dinner table..my father has a higher position than I in the household, but he is no more of a man and/or human than I.

Same thing with the "Godhead".

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.)

Oh, I grant ALL of that...but I can grant all of that while maintaining my position, as demonstrated above.

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?

Bingo, amigo!!! That is exactly what I am saying. Just as the Principal/Teacher/Student are all equal in terms of humanity, but not in terms of position/rank in the school system.

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.

Well, in comparison 'divinity' and 'royalty' is not the same. Royalty would more mirror the principal/teacher/student thing. Divinity would mirror the nature/essence/human thing.

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.

Figurative, not literal.

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).

Yet, we are told to honor the Son as we honor the Father (John 5:23). If I am to give the same level of honor to both, then both must be equal in some way, correct?

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.

I guess the author of John's Gospel felt differently than you..as I keep stressing..John 1:1-2

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

Now, who should I believe; John, or tam (with all due respect)?

(Earlier you mentioned something about honoring the son just as one honors the father... and that is true.

Well, just going by what Christ said...and if that is wrong, I don't want to be right.

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'.)

I figured you would go that route, any my response to that is simple; if I am to honor the Son as I honor the Father...what if I decide to "honor" the Father by giving him praise and worship? Well, if I am to honor the Son just as I'd honor the Father, then that would mean that I am to also give the Son praise and worship just as I'd give the Father.

The problem with that is; we are commanded to only WORSHIP God (no need to provide scripture, as it is a known Biblical fact).

Hmmm. Really no way out of that one, tam.

Are you sure you gave me His words... and without adding man's interpretation to them?

My own interpretation of what was said works just fine. Plus, it lines up with other scriptures as well.

(I am not referring to Paul, I am referring to men who came afterward and added their interpretations).

Gotcha. Of course.

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).

But the Bible does. Are we looking at the Bible as a whole, or nit picking certain things? And besides, Jesus did say he was God...what do you think John 8:48-59 was all about?

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.

His Father also called him God, too. Right back to Hebrews 1:8.

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

I give props when its due.

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

Because if you read the entire context of what was being said, you will realize that it couldn't possibly be about Christ...and unless you have the NWT of the scriptures, I don't know where you are getting this from.

Notice the feminine pronouns used throughout the chapter!! Couldn't possibly be talking about Jesus.

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.

Unbiblical.

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)?

All three does, in the triune Godhead.

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.

Um, tam..again, the pronoun used to describe "wisdom" is feminine. It is wisdom personified. In the same way if your car won't start, you may say "She just won't start this morning".

We do that all the time, as it is a common literary device that apparently wasn't uncommon to Solomon at the time.

“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).

Question; how much are you influenced by JW theology?

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.

But if the Father is also called "Lord", how is there only one Lord, who is Christ?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Those arguments are not decisive as they are interpretations, applications, conclusions about the contested meanings of scriptures.

What there is no way out of are these plain statements of Jesus, which are uncontested scriptures.

These specifically spell out his position, which is decisive, whether we like it or not.

John 17:

1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.
2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

3 Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent."

John 20:17

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ �

[myth-one.com]

Jesus was the Word made flesh:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us... (John 1:14)

For the purpose of dying!

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. (Hebrews 2:9)

Jesus Christ was made exactly as man was made:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? ...For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, (Psalm 8:4-5)

He was a special man, and a man knowing His mission, but still a man.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

If Jesus was God, then He could not have fulfilled His mission, and we would have no Savior!

Point Blank, DOUBLE PERIOD!

[onewithhim]

Ooops, forgive me, I didn't get this far when I said you didn't comment on my posts.

Its all gravy, baby.

You say that somehow "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) means that everyone but God has sinned. No. It is referring to HUMANS, after Adam rebelled. He was not saying that the angels sinned, because he knew they did not. Only fallen humans. Jesus, as the Son of God, was sinless also, and he was not God.

Simple yes/no question: Do angels have free will?

Yes, I get instruction from the Faithful and Wise Servant---the Watchtower's faithful Governing Body.

And where in the Bible does it state that the Governing Body of the WTS is the "Faithful and Wise Servant" and should be followed?

But here is the difference: They are telling the truth.

Were they telling the truth when the prophesized that the end of the world would come in 1975? And how would you know if what they are saying is true, if you are forbidden/discouraged to do any research outside of the organization?

If you were being told the truth, you would see that Paul was talking about all humans on Earth that inherited sin and death from Adam. The faithful angels did not get involved with the fall of mankind. They remain sinless.

I ask again; where in the Bible does it say that angels are sinless?

You seem unaccustomed to the fact that a created being can be sinless.

Because, since God is sinless, I don't put the morality of mankind on the same pedestal as I put the benevolence of the Almighty.

Tell me this, please: Don't you believe that when God creates, he creates perfectly? Why would God make something that isn't perfect.... something that is flawed? Why would anybody assume such a thing? When he made Adam and Eve, they were perfect.

I will answer your question, but first; let me ask you a question; what is your favorite sport (pick a sport you most enjoy). You will see my point once you answer.

They lost perfection when the rebelled. The angels were created perfect also. The majority of angels who did not go with Satan are STILL perfect.

Non scriptural.

Jesus has always been perfect, and he wasn't touched by the fall of mankind. He did not inherit sin and death. So it's easy to see that Jesus doesn't have to be God to be sinless.

Hmm. I don't recall Satan inheriting sin/death or being "touched" by the fall of mankind..and none of that preventing him from sinning, did it?

Hmm.

([Moses said of God:

"The Rock, PERFECT is his activity..." (Deuteronomy 32:4) ]


For the Kingdom, I think it is incumbent upon YOU to show from the Scriptures that the faithful angels are NOT perfect and are NOT sinless.

God has no equals. To say that angels are sinless and "perfect", while maintaining that God is sinless and perfect...is to say that angels are equal with God.

Blasphemous.

To be sinless does not make a person on a level with God. I don't think there is anything in the Bible that would support that.

Well, what would you call it, then? If God is sinless, and angels are sinless..how are angels not equal with God?

Huh?

I'll start at the top.

1) YES angels have free will. All of God's intelligent creations have free will.

2) Matthew 24:45 asks: "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave [or, as the KJV puts it, 'the faithful and wise servant'] whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?" This undoubtedly would be a
composite servant, particularly in the light of God calling ancient Israel his "servant," as at Isaiah 43:10. The entire nation was his "servant." So now God has another "nation" that is his servant, as Peter explained at IPeter 2:9,10. This relatively small nation is made up of the remnant of the 144,000 that are still here on Earth, and they see to it that all of Christ's disciples are given spiritual food to keep them satisfied and healthy. There is no other group of people on the earth that are doing the job as organized and thorough as the men of the WTS.

3) They did not "prophesy" that the end of the world would come in 1975. Prophesying is different from giving an educated guess. They have never claimed to be prophesying. They said that "it stands to reason," or, "it is most likely" that the end of Satan's world would come in 1975 (because that was the 6,000th year since Adam was created), and they were just trying to figure it all out, just like every other religion in Christendom. The popes had their ideas, so did the Methodists and many others. It's just human to want to figure out when the end will come. When it didn't, they realized that they hadn't taken into consideration the creation of Eve. Beyond that, they were absolutely correct in their assessment of the "times of the Gentiles" coming to an end. (Luke 21:24) No other church picked up on that, to my knowledge, even though Hollywood writers and producers did! Watch the silent movie "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" and you can see, back in 1920, that they understood that 1914 was a significant year, and the 4 horsemen of Rev. chapter 6 had begun riding. They did better than the religious leaders, who knew nothing about 1914 being a significant year.

4) We are not forbidden to do research outside the organization. We keep up on all the latest news, scientific advancements, etc., and we are encouraged to compare versions of the Bible, using Interlinear Scriptures and checking out what other scholars say about various versions.

5) I have explained how we know that the angels are sinless. God does not create inferior things. He started out with a perfect, sinless creation, and sin entered into the human race only after Adam exercised his free will and chose to rebel against Jehovah.

6) My favorite sport is baseball, and I've always loved the Yankees.

7) What YOU are setting forth is non-scriptural. You tell ME where it tells us in the Bible that angels are sinful.

8) You're right, of course. Satan had free will and he decided to rebel against God and thus became a sinful individual. Before he turned against Jehovah he was not sinful. Then he led the human race into sin and death.

9) No, to say that angels are perfect and sinless is NOT to say that they are equal to God. Adam and Eve were perfect before they sinned. They were never equal to God. How can the thing made be equal to the one who made it?

[onewithhim]

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

I don't understand why people say this.

Why wouldn't our God expect to be worshipped---to be lauded as higher than any other Being in the universe? He made all things! He knows what is best for us and what will make us happy and content. He wants us to be benefited and find joy in life. Look what has happened to this planet and everything in it since the first humans told Jehovah to take a hike. They wanted their independence and God gave it to them. Big mistake on their part, no?

Jehovah knows that when humans listen to him, they have peace and everything they need, and (when this system is replaced by Christ's reign) also everything they WANT.

Only Jehovah has the power to make everything peaceful and harmonious, and he will bring an end to the mess the world is in, in his due time.

"Jehovah is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and great in loving kindness. Jehovah is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works....You, Jehovah, are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing." (Psalm 145:8,9,16)

[onewithhim]

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!

No, Jesus NEVER said that he is God. Contrarily, he kept saying that he is God's Son, and that whatever he knows he learned from the Father (John 5:19). He also said that the Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3) and that the Father is even HIS God (John 20:17). HE worships the Father as God---his God. If Jesus were God, how can he also HAVE a God?

Yes, the Messiah is never said to be God. You are right about that.

[Checkpoint]

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!

No, Jesus NEVER said that he is God. Contrarily, he kept saying that he is God's Son, and that whatever he knows he learned from the Father (John 5:19). He also said that the Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3) and that the Father is even HIS God (John 20:17). HE worships the Father as God---his God. If Jesus were God, how can he also HAVE a God?

Yes, the Messiah is never said to be God. You are right about that.

Has anyone directly attempted to contest these truths?

Not to my knowledge; it is easier to completely ignore them.

[onewithhim]

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!

No, Jesus NEVER said that he is God. Contrarily, he kept saying that he is God's Son, and that whatever he knows he learned from the Father (John 5:19). He also said that the Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3) and that the Father is even HIS God (John 20:17). HE worships the Father as God---his God. If Jesus were God, how can he also HAVE a God?

Yes, the Messiah is never said to be God. You are right about that.

Has anyone directly attempted to contest these truths?

Not to my knowledge; it is easier to completely ignore them.

Yes, I find that to be true also. I have asked probably a thousand times for someone to contradict or explain:
John 5:19;
John 6:38;
John 8:28,29;
John 12:49,50;
John 14:24,28;
John 17:3;
John 20:17

to name just a few.....but no one has done it yet. No one has taken each verse and explained it. They either ignore them or completely change the subject.