If the Bible has any significant flaws..

[Elijah John]

Assuming for this topic that there is a God, some questions for debate :*

1) If the Bible has any significant flaws, could you still believe that Jesus is God?

2) Does your belief that Jesus is God depend entriely on the perfection of the Bible?

3) Beyond the Bible, is there any other reason to believe that Jesus is God?

4) Does the Bible even tell us so, that "Jesus is God"?

--------------

* addressed primarily to those who worship Jesus, but also to those who for the sake of argument at least accept the premise that God exists.

[tigger2]

BJS wrote: "The Epistles come right out and say ['Jesus is God'] directly."

Please list these 'Jesus is God' direct statements.

ANYONE?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 11 by tigger2]

Perhaps Ro. 9:5???

Ro. 9:5 - “ ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.� - KJV.

This is the scripture that A Catholic Dictionary calls

“the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament].�

The Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) renders it, like the equally trinitarian KJV, in such a way as to make Christ appear to be God: “Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.�

And the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, in a note for Ro. 9:5, calls it:
“One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note).�

Highly-regarded trinitarian NT scholar, F. F. Bruce writes concerning Ro. 9:5:

“God who is over all be blessed for ever. The relation of these words to those which precede is disputed. RSV takes them as an independent ascription of praise to God [doxology], prompted by the mention of God’s crowning his many blessings on Israel by sending them the Messiah (similarly NEB, GNB).�

Bruce then gives reasons for and against such an understanding and concludes with:
“It is, on the other hand, impermissible to charge [accuse] those who prefer to treat the words as an independent doxology with Christological unorthodoxy. The words can indeed be so treated, and the decision about their construction involves a delicate assessment of the balance of probability this way and that.� – p. 176, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Revised Ed., Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

However, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even if such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate,
“Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature [see the DEF study.], for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God.� - Vol. 2, p. 80, 1986.

Trinitarian scholar John L. McKenzie also admits:
“Paul’s normal usage is to restrict the noun [‘God’] to designate the Father (cf 1 Co 8:6), and in Rm 9:5 it is very probable that the concluding words are a doxology, ‘Blessed is the God who is above all.’� – p. 318, Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan Publ., 1979 printing.

The trinitarian United Bible Societies (UBS) makes the same admission:
“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him ‘God blessed for ever’.� And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].� - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.
We also find in the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Vol. two, p. 659): “I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at σά�κα
[sarka - ‘flesh’], and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father.�

Even A Catholic Dictionary admits the possibility that the scripture in question is really a doxology directed to God and not to Jesus:
"There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate `God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.' - a doxology suddenly introduced, but quite in St. Paul's manner (Gal. 1:5; cf. Rom. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31)." - p. 815.

And this statement is from the very same trinitarian reference work that calls Ro. 9:5 “the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity� in the entire New Testament!! If this is the “strongest� such statement, where does that put the rest of the trinity “proof�?

Illustrating the high probability that the last part of Romans 9:5 is directed as a doxology to the Father, not to Jesus, are these translations of Ro. 9:5 found in trinitarian Bibles where the statement in question is not directed to Jesus:

The Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1971 ed. - “... of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.� - See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.

The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - “... from them [Israelites] came the Messiah (I speak of his human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over all!�

The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - “[From the Israelites], according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen.�

The New English Bible (NEB), 1961 ed. - “... from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!�

Revised English Bible (REB), 1989 ed. - “... from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!�

An American Translation (AT), 1975 printing - “... and from them physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed for ever!�

Today’s English Version (TEV), 1976 ed. - “Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!�

The Living Bible (LB) - “...Christ was one of you ... he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!� - Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt, 1954 - “[From the Israelites] (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)�

New Life Version (NLV) - “Christ himself was born of flesh from this family and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever.� - Victor Books, 1993.

Not only can Ro. 9:5 be interpreted as having two different statements about two different subjects (1. Jesus came to earth as an Israelite, and, 2. Bless God who is over all.), but that is almost certainly the meaning intended by Paul (compare Ro. 15:5, 6; Ro. 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3-5; Eph. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:16, 17).

Ezra Abbot spent many pages analyzing this scripture:

“The use of the word eulogetos, ‘blessed,’ which never occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If we refer eulogetos to God, our passage [Ro. 9:5] accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; and Eph. i. 3. …. [This] strongly favors the reference of the eulogetos to God. It alone seems to me almost decisive.�

Abbot then discusses several other aspects of this verse and finally concludes that the understanding that the eulogy applies to God alone: "It is absolutely decisive." (p. 363) - Ezra Abbot, pp. 361-363, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. (emphasis added.)

Why, even the NIVSB, which called Ro. 9:5 “One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT� (see above), also gave the following in a footnote for Ro. 9:5 as proper alternate translations of this verse:

“Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!�

But some trinitarians have, instead, run these two separate statements of Jesus and God together in such a way as to give the impression that they both refer to the same subject: Jesus. The technique is identical with that of the “speaker confusion trick� we have been examining, and neither is acceptable as proper evidence for a “Jesus is God� faith!

Amen: This last word of Rom. 9:5 is a word which is often used in the letters of the NT when the writer has expressed some form of praise to God (doxology).- Ro. 1:25; 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 11 by tigger2]

Perehaps 1 Tim. 3:16??

1 Tim. 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh�)

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.�

Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God� as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he� (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who� (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,� or “which.� Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.� All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort; Nestle; and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who�) here instead of θεὸς (“God�). Why do the best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts ….� – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp. 696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.� And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God�]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who� - masc.] or ὅ [“which� - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [ca. 370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....� - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C� being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S� at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God�) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:
“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.� - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.� - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστή�ιον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.� - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. Wallace's footnote adds:

“In particular, it is impossible to explain the Latin reading of a neuter R[elative] P[ronoun] as deriving from θεὸς, showing that ὃς was quite early. Not one firsthand of any Greek witnesses prior to the 8th century read θεὸς.�

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….� - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; AT; Douay-Rheims; TEV; BBE; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Moffatt; C.B. Williams; William F. Beck; etc.

Some trinitarian paraphrase Bibles are even more certain and clear:
“He (Christ) was shown to us in a human body� - ETRV.
“Christ appeared in human form� - Weymouth.
“Christ came to earth as a man� - NLV.
“Christ, who came to earth as a man� - LB.
“Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human.� – CEV.

There is simply no valid reason to accept 1 Tim 3:16 as an example of Jesus being clearly called 'God' in the Epistles.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 11 by tigger2]

Maybe Heb. 1:8??

Heb. 1:8 in the King James Version (AV or KJV) is rendered:
“But unto the son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.�

Since “he saith� and the second “is� (found after “righteousness�) in the above verse are not actually found in the original manuscripts and have been added by the KJV translators, they are found in italics in most printings of the KJV.

But more importantly (as a quick glance into any interlinear Greek-English New Testament will show) the first “is� (found after “God�) in the above verse is also not in the NT Geek Textbut has been added by some modern translators.

Yes, literally the NT Greek manuscripts read at Heb. 1:8: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age�.

The trinitarian Easy-to-read-Version also says in a footnote for Ps. 45:6 (which is being quoted in Heb. 1:8):
“God .... here the writer might be using the word ‘God’ as a title for the king.� (Cf. NIV Study Bible f.n. for Pss. 45:6 and 82:1, 6.)

(And the revised 1991 ed. of the NAB actually translates Ps. 45:6, 7 as “Your throne, O god.�) The NAB (1970 ed., St. Joseph Edition) goes on to explain in its footnote for Ps. 45, 7, however, that others have translated this verse as, “Your throne is the throne of God� and refers us to 1 Chron. 29:23 “where Solomon’s throne is referred to as the throne of the LORD [Jehovah].�

Now we’re getting close to the most likely intention of Heb. 1:8. There is evidence that the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 (as well as Ps. 45:6) should be “your throne is God forever� or “God is your throne forever.�

Also, if we look at some respected trinitarian authorities, we also see a preference for the “God is thy throne� rendering.

Oxford professor and famed trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.� His Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:

“God is thy throne for ever and ever.�

University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule reluctantly admits that Heb. 1:8 may conceivably be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God� - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....�

And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....�

Noted trinitarian NT scholar Dr. William Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.� But worse yet (for those wanting evidence of a trinity from the Book of Hebrews), Dr. Barclay comments as follows:

“The letter [of Hebrews] was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders.� - p. 6. “Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group [who] ... had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith.� - p. 7.

And just what was this passage that includes Heb. 1:8 (Heb. 1:4-14) intended to prove to this group of long-term dedicated Christian scholars?

“[The author] is concerned to prove [Jesus’] SUPERIORITY OVER THE ANGELS.� - p. 16, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised Edition, 1976, The Westminster Press.

Yes, this world-acclaimed trinitarian scholar has (perhaps inadvertently) illuminated the truth of the doctrine of God which was understood by first-century Christians! They had absolutely no concept of the 3-in-one God idea which was developed in later centuries. IF these learned first century Christians had really considered Jesus “equally God� (as 4th century Christendom began doing), it certainly would have been nonsensical for the writer of Hebrews to attempt to prove that Jesus was superior to all other angels!

Famed trinitarian (Southern Baptist) New Testament Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson acknowledges that either “Thy throne, O God� or “God is thy throne� may be proper renderings: “Either makes good sense.� - p. 339. He also tells us that the inspired Letter to the Hebrews was written to a church of Jewish Christians whose Jewish neighbors

“... have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism.... These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. [The writer of Hebrews] turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed.� - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, pp. 331, 339.

Again, it would have been absolutely absurd for the inspired writer of Hebrews to devote this entire, long letter to proving that Jesus is superior to Moses and the angels if the intended readers, as the spirit-born Christians they were, had already accepted Jesus as God Almighty! And even if they had originally believed that Jesus was God, but were now in doubt, the Bible writer certainly wouldn’t waste any time trying to prove Jesus’ superiority to Moses (or the angels). He would have dedicated the entire letter to proving absolutely that Jesus is God (if he had really believed such a thing himself)!

The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided honest alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne�).

Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the noted trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ....’�

Quoted From Ps. 45

In addition to these admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8 itself, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that Paul was quoting when he wrote Heb. 1:8.

The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne� and a footnote provides these alternate readings: “Or your throne is a throne of God, or Thy throne, O God.’�

The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.�

The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.�

The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.�

The Message has: "Your throne is God's throne, ever and always.�

The Good News Bible (GNB), Bible, renders it: “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.� - ABS, 1976.

The Good News Translation (GNT): “The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever.� – ABS, 1992.

The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.�

The NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.�

We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:

“45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’� - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible. [Also see footnote in the NAB, St. Joseph ed. quoted above.]

In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by one of the greatest scholars of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.�

Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is in the NWT makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!

However, there is more evidence, evidence which shows not only that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,� but, indeed, should be so translated!

Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite king, it says:

“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.� - RSV.

Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, HIS God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows! Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God!

The trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:

“The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (‘thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...’) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (‘God is Thy throne,’ or ‘Thy throne is God...’), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (‘Therefore God, even Thy God...’) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: ‘God is thy throne’ (or, ‘Thy throne is God’), that is, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’� - The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

Again, this "proof" of Heb. 1:8 is uncertain and disputed (even by trinitarian scholars).

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Assuming for this topic that there is a God, some questions for debate :*

1) If the Bible has any significant flaws, could you still believe that Jesus is God?

I would need to know what a "significant flaw" is. There are mere historical inaccuracies, and major historical inaccuracies. If the author of the fourth gospel truly believed (but how could this be demonstrated?) that Jesus disrupted the temple early on in his ministry, while the synoptic authors believed it occurred just prior to his death, and that only one of them could be right--knowing that one of them is wrong does not by itself discredit Christianity. It may discredit certain doctrine of Christianity, like "innerrancy", but those doctrine are late developments of the religious tradition.

Now if it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth, so that the entire New Testament is written on an historical falsehood, then yes, I would abandon the Christian faith.

2) Does your belief that Jesus is God depend entriely on the perfection of the Bible?

First of all, I should say these are very good questions.

Second: we need to be a little clearer on what we mean by God. In my encounters with JWs, God = the Father. On that definition Christians and Jehovah Witnesses will always be at cross purposes. I suggest that the definition of 'God' should be limited to attributes: primarily one: eternality (as opposed to created). 'God' is therefore something 'not made'; there is no "beginning point" with his existence. The question thus is, was there anything in Jesus' makeup that did not begin to exist; was there something about him that was as old as God?

Next, no. I think there are some errors in Bible: by which I mean that authors wrote thinking one thing was true, when the truth was something else. But none of this contributes to my belief that something of Jesus was co-eternal with God.

3) Beyond the Bible, is there any other reason to believe that Jesus is God?

I am not sure what the question means. Beyond the Bible? Beyond the Bible we have a few references to Jesus, as in Josephus and a Roman Historian or two. Neither were likely to delve into the theological significance of Jesus.

4) Does the Bible even tell us so, that "Jesus is God"?

This is the quintessential maneuver of JWs. It is claimed that because the words "Ego Eimi Theos" do not appear on the lips of Jesus in any of the gospels, therefore nothing of Trinitarian doctrine can be true. I will be bold and say I think this is a display of lazy linguistic work, even a cop out. It is like a lawyer arguing that it cannot be shown that it was raining on a certain day because the only written comment was, "It was raining cats and dogs".

In short, yes: in so far as a man who says, "it was raining cats and dogs" means "it was raining water pretty heavy", the Bible says, "There was something in Jesus' makeup that was eternal, never created".

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 15 by liamconnor]

How can anyone who sees the numerous times God is clearly called Jehovah (ASV) and God is called the Father, and Jesus is called the Christ actually believe that no one (especially Jesus himself) ever clearly calls Jesus God in the Bible? What could be more important?

How can anyone who sees that the word 'one' is frequently used for God, but that the number 'three' (or 'two') is NEVER used in describing Him believe God is a trinity (or Binity)?

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]



How about the writer if Mathew saying a prophecy was fulfilled when Mary, jiseoh and Jesus came back from Jesus. He quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures : Out Of Egypt I called My Son. He takes this from the book of Hosea. An annotated Christ and bible footnotes this coaim saying it is a FULFILLNENT of a prohecy in chapter 11 of Hosea.

Thennnn.....you go check and you find out it's about the Exodus from Egypt during the days of the pharoah. That's the first lie
Second line:. It's not even a prophecy

Now what? I brace for your manipulation if the text. Saying there's a double meaning or its a"forshadowing" of Jesus.
Christianity CAN NOT use any text and stick to the words and message it conveys. If they do then they can't prove their religious true. They MUST manipulate it is massage it for it to fit.
Like forcing a jigsaw puzzle piece to fit the picture.you want it to be look like. If Christians are forced to stick to what it says then it fails.
Christians MUST turn the truth into a lie for their lie to be true. The truth can not do that and still be true. Truth stands on truth.

Anyway.... Defend the writer of Mathews claim about this supposed FULFILLNENT of prophecy. How is it a full filet? Show me where it was foretold about Mary, Joseph and Jesus coming back from Egypt.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]



How about the writer if Mathew saying a prophecy was fulfilled when Mary, jiseoh and Jesus came back from Jesus. He quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures : Out Of Egypt I called My Son. He takes this from the book of Hosea. An annotated Christ and bible footnotes this coaim saying it is a FULFILLNENT of a prohecy in chapter 11 of Hosea.

Thennnn.....you go check and you find out it's about the Exodus from Egypt during the days of the pharoah. That's the first lie
Second line:. It's not even a prophecy

Now what? I brace for your manipulation if the text. Saying there's a double meaning or its a"forshadowing" of Jesus.
Christianity CAN NOT use any text and stick to the words and message it conveys. If they do then they can't prove their religious true. They MUST manipulate it is massage it for it to fit.
Like forcing a jigsaw puzzle piece to fit the picture.you want it to be look like. If Christians are forced to stick to what it says then it fails.
Christians MUST turn the truth into a lie for their lie to be true. The truth can not do that and still be true. Truth stands on truth.

Anyway.... Defend the writer of Mathews claim about this supposed FULFILLNENT of prophecy. How is it a full filet? Show me where it was foretold about Mary, Joseph and Jesus coming back from Egypt.

[1213]

...
4) Does the Bible even tell us so, that "Jesus is God"?
...

Bible tells there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

The confusion comes because people don’t seem to understand that God has given his authority (“name�) to Jesus. Jesus is like God’s ambassador who acts in the name of God and so represents God on earth. This could be compared to president of a country. President can make deals in the name of his country. He is not the country, but he acts in countrys name as he would be the country. Same is with Jesus, he acted in the name of God and made a deal in the name of God with those who received him.

Jesus himself says his message is not his, but his who sent him.

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.
John 7:16

Everyone who receives Jesus, receives also God who sent Jesus. It doesn’t mean Jesus is the one and only true God. But because he represents God on earth, people called him God.

Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me."
John 13:20

That means, if I ma sent by Jesus and you receive me, you receive also God. But it doesn’t mean I am the one and only true God.

It is sad that many “Christians� don’t really believe what Jesus said.

[Avoice]

I tell ya'....I can hardly believe what I read in this thread. People want Jesus so bad that their testament could be so flawed that it doesn't matter. Jesus could say he isn't God and they still wouldn't believe it. It would just be a way to weed out the unbelievers. OMG

This was a great question. The answers have weeded out people who is willing to turn the truth of God into a lie so they may worship the creature God created. These people talk of a godhead but the truth is they only love one head - Jesus. The 'father' is merely part of it to give it the look of monotheism. It is a pagan religion and constructed in such a way that they hide that fact from thenselves.

If the father and holy ghost were severed from the head would they still worship Jesus?: The answer is yes. Christianity is a pagan religions