Jesus is God and Why !

[Brightfame52]

Matt 19:16-26

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


This passage actually is teaching the Truth that Jesus is God ! Notice vs 17 As the young man had addressed Jesus as good, and Jesus responded accordingly, why callest thou me good, for none is good but ONE, that One Being God

Now , notice Jesus did not say, none is good but One and that is my Father, but He said that One, Being God !

Now if Jesus by this is not insinuating that He is God, then the alternative is that He was not good, seeing He just said only ONE, not Two, but ONLY ONE is good.

Now, if Jesus was not good, being that He was not the Only One Good God, then His commanding him, the young ruler, in order to be perfect, that he must go sell all his possessions, then give to the poor, and follow Him; Such an commandment exposed that the young man loved his possessions above God, which was a violation of the very first commandment, now if Jesus was not God, then the young mans refusal to obey and follow Jesus, could not be a proper standard to gauge his Love to God !

For there could not have been nothing amiss about not making such a great sacrifice as that Jesus told him, and then following Him if the One speaking was not the One God, who Only was good !

[Miles]

Just to let you know: I won't answer you any more. I have not more time for your games.
I am really busy with more important things to do. Sorry, and good bye.

Thought the pot-kettle remark might send you scampering.

But have a good day, friend.

.

[1213]

Yet we read:

1 John 5:20
....He [Jesus] is the true God and eternal life."

Why do you add the word Jesus in there where it is not? I think it is wrong.

Words put in brackets within a quote aren't meant to "add" to the quote itself, but serve an explanatory function.....

Why do you think the scripture is speaking of Jesus in that? I think it is about God, not about Jesus.

[Brightfame52]

Jesus is God by Authority of Apostolic Testimony !5

Now who is the The THIS here ? 1 Jn 5:20

20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Well if we go by the immediate antecedent, it is the Son who is the THIS is the TRUE GOD, which would make Johns inspired Apostolic Testimony declaring the Son as the True God, and to make it even more certain its the Son, he adds that He[The Son] is that Eternal Life. For John had written earlier in his Epistle that the Son was that Eternal Life 1 Jn 1:2

2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)

This complements what he wrote in his Gospel also Jn 1:1-3 ! Hence its no doubt that the Apostolic Testimony of 1 Jn 5:20 is that the Son is the True God, along with the Father Jn 17:3 which definitely indicates the Trinity or the Plurality of the Godhead ! We reject this at our eternal peril !

[Miles]

Yet we read:

1 John 5:20
....He [Jesus] is the true God and eternal life."

Why do you add the word Jesus in there where it is not? I think it is wrong.

Words put in brackets within a quote aren't meant to "add" to the quote itself, but serve an explanatory function.....

Why do you think the scripture is speaking of Jesus in that? I think it is about God, not about Jesus.

Because the subject of verse is Jesus the Son, not God.

1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God [which would be Jesus] has come and has given us understanding. [All of which is an introduction to the subject that follows] So now we can know the one who is true [which again, would be Jesus], and we live in that true God. We are in his Son [Jesus], Jesus Christ. He [who is being talked about here? It's Jesus. The "He" referring directly to the preceding subject: "Jesus Christ."] is the true God, and he is eternal life."

This all pretty much basic sentence unity.

.

[1213]

Yet we read:

1 John 5:20
....He [Jesus] is the true God and eternal life."

Why do you add the word Jesus in there where it is not? I think it is wrong.

Words put in brackets within a quote aren't meant to "add" to the quote itself, but serve an explanatory function.....

Why do you think the scripture is speaking of Jesus in that? I think it is about God, not about Jesus.

Because the subject of verse is Jesus the Son, not God.

1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God [which would be Jesus] has come and has given us understanding. [All of which is an introduction to the subject that follows] So now we can know the one who is true [which again, would be Jesus], and we live in that true God. We are in his Son [Jesus], Jesus Christ. He [who is being talked about here? It's Jesus. The "He" referring directly to the preceding subject: "Jesus Christ."] is the true God, and he is eternal life."

This all pretty much basic sentence unity.

.

I think you understand it incorrectly. It tells Son has given us understanding so that we can know the one who is true, which means God. God is the true one as also Jesus tells here:

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

And in Jesus we are in that one true God. But, it does not mean that Jesus himself is the one and only true God, only that through Jesus we are in God.

[Brightfame52]

Isaiah once again testifies that Jesus Christ is God, Jehovah of Hosts or the Lord of Hosts. Lets look a Isa 8:13-15

13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.


14 And he[The Lord of Hosts] shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.


15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Now clearly the prophet is saying that He [The Lord of Host] shall be to both of the houses of Israel, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence !

Now again Isaiah speaks again of the same stone of stumbling in Isa 28:16

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Now this is still the same stone of stumbling, but now being referenced as a foundation stone/cornerstone, this refers to the same Lord of Host/ Jesus Christ.

Now in 1 Peter the Spirit of God uses that from Isa 8 and 28 here 1 Peter 2:6-8

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he[Jesus or The Lord of Hosts] is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 108

[Brightfame52]

Another scripture wherein Paul confesses Jesus as God Titus 2:13

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Paul describes Jesus Christ at His appearing the Great God and Our Saviour !
128

[JehovahsWitness]

Another scripture wherein Paul confesses Jesus as God Titus 2:13

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Paul describes Jesus Christ at His appearing the Great God and Our Saviour !
128

No he doesnt. He calls God great and Jesus our saviour.




JW

Does Paul call Jesus God in Titus 2:13 ? (tigger)
viewtopic.php?p=1115284&hilit=Titus+2%3A13#p1115284

Does Paul call Jesus God in Titus 2:13 ? (JW)
viewtopic.php?p=1115120#p1115120

[Difflugia]

No he doesnt.

This is at best a "perhaps not" and even then, it requires some judicious squinting. You're the thief arguing that the hand in the photograph of the cookie jar is definitely not his own, your Honor.

He calls God great and Jesus our saviour.

Perhaps. Probably not, but perhaps. The fact that you have to "clarify" the construction yourself is strong evidence that the "trinitarians" are correct about what the pseudepigraphical author of Titus meant. The construction has the same ambiguity in English as in Greek and for the same reason. Granville Sharp's "rule" is a thing in the first place because competent authors avoid exactly this kind of ambiguity when possible. An absolutely accurate translation that retains the same amount of ambiguity as the original is "our great god and savior Christ Jesus." "Our god" could refer to somebody other than Jesus (like Yahweh), but that's definitely not how an English reader would read it. The only reason I can see for the alternate reading is a theological ax to grind. The fact that Sharp even thought that his "rule" was actually a grammatical rule is strong evidence that classical Greeks would read the construction the same way as an English reader. Whether or not the rule is strictly grammatical, it's difficult enough to find examples where the author obviously intended an implied article that Sharp treated it that way. That itself shows that Greek readers didn't read it that way then any more than English readers do now.

[Brightfame52]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #258]

Unfortunately I cant make you believe the truth.