Is Jesus really God ?

[zionwarrior]

Unless you respond to arguments that you have been repeatedly reminded about, I will no longer interact with you.

No worries ...

 

[zionwarrior]

We Know Jesus Christ is God by John writes again !



We Know Jesus Christ is God by John writes again in rev 5:

11And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

12Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

Now what more can be ascribed to God ??

And if this be not Supreme Worship, what is ?

It all comes down to translation once again. Have a look at this article which explains it quite well.
Jesus Received Worship

 

[zionwarrior]

I proposed, some while ago, that we hold a proper debate on this most vital subject.There are, as we can see, vigorous champions of both sides making vigorous claims.Drew is here, if I read him correctly, wishing that it was a proper debate so that ZW could be censured fairly. I personally wish that it was a proper debate on the lines that I proposed.Here we have every Tom, Dick and Harry leaping forth against one - and confusion, cantankerousness, and cussedness rearing their ugly heads.SO I CALL ON BOTH SIDES TO DEBATE PROPERLY, AND TO SET IT UP PROPERLY. That way we shall see some progress in forming our understanding of THIS MOST VITAL SUBJECT.Whichever side is correct, neither the Father nor the Son can be pleased with the other.It is in all our interests to do this properly so that the correct conclusion may be drawn, and that the open-minded may be instructed.

Sorry Asyncritus, With people like 'FREE' and 'DREW' it has to come down to a long winded debate on Theology. I would rather discuss at a level that people can understand. When Jesus taught, he taught in simple tearms.

 

[Free]

I proposed, some while ago, that we hold a proper debate on this most vital subject.There are, as we can see, vigorous champions of both sides making vigorous claims.Drew is here, if I read him correctly, wishing that it was a proper debate so that ZW could be censured fairly. I personally wish that it was a proper debate on the lines that I proposed.Here we have every Tom, Dick and Harry leaping forth against one - and confusion, cantankerousness, and cussedness rearing their ugly heads.SO I CALL ON BOTH SIDES TO DEBATE PROPERLY, AND TO SET IT UP PROPERLY. That way we shall see some progress in forming our understanding of THIS MOST VITAL SUBJECT.Whichever side is correct, neither the Father nor the Son can be pleased with the other.It is in all our interests to do this properly so that the correct conclusion may be drawn, and that the open-minded may be instructed.

There is a one-on-one debate forum where two people can discuss. I don't think it will even work two-on-two since there is just too much that can be said with many different ways of going about it.

With people like 'FREE' and 'DREW' it has to come down to a long winded debate on Theology. I would rather discuss at a level that people can understand. When Jesus taught, he taught in simple tearms.

Firstly, you're not Jesus. Secondly, we aren't in first century Jerusalem, which brings up the difficulties of language and context. Thirdly, anyone can understand any argument that has been put forward so far. Fourthly, most theological topics, particularly more difficult ones such as this, require "long winded" debates. If you think that it is all a matter of posting the top three arguments for each side to see who, somehow, comes out the winner, than you really don't know what theology is about or what this topic is really about.

Volumes have been written on Christology by numerous scholars, and by extension the Trinity, so if you think we can just have a nice, simple little chat and solve everything, you are greatly mistaken.

 

[zionwarrior]

There is a one-on-one debate forum where two people can discuss. I don't think it will even work two-on-two since there is just too much that can be said with many different ways of going about it.



Firstly, you're not Jesus. Secondly, we aren't in first century Jerusalem, which brings up the difficulties of language and context. Thirdly, anyone can understand any argument that has been put forward so far. Fourthly, most theological topics, particularly more difficult ones such as this, require "long winded" debates. If you think that it is all a matter of posting the top three arguments for each side to see who, somehow, comes out the winner, than you really don't know what theology is about or what this topic is really about.

Volumes have been written on Christology by numerous scholars, and by extension the Trinity, so if you think we can just have a nice, simple little chat and solve everything, you are greatly mistaken.

Ah yes, and what did Jesus say about the 'so called' wise ...

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.â€

 

[savedbygrace57]

We Know Jesus Christ is God by John writes again !



We Know Jesus Christ is God by John writes again in rev 5:

11And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

12Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

Now what more can be ascribed to God ??

And if this be not Supreme Worship, what is ?

Now that we have seen the Things ascribed to the Lamb in rev 5 :12 its seven items :

1.Power

2.Riches

3. Wisdom

4.Strength

5.Honour

6. Glory

7. Blessing

Lets now look at the seven Items ascribed to God in rev 7:

11And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

12Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

1. Blessing

2.Glory

3.Wisdom

4.Thanksgiving

5. Honour

6. Power

7.Might

I see no significant difference, If Jesus be not God, He receives the same Praise and Adoration as God...

No other Being could receive this High Praise and it not be Idolatry..

 

[Pizzaguy]

Sorry Asyncritus, With people like 'FREE' and 'DREW' it has to come down to a long winded debate on Theology. I would rather discuss at a level that people can understand. When Jesus taught, he taught in simple terms.

Jesus' only agenda was love. He was not burdened with an ego or the desire to sound intellectual or superior, therefore He could speak in simple terms.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I see no significant difference, If Jesus be not God, He receives the same Praise and Adoration as God...

No other Being could receive this High Praise and it not be Idolatry..

How could there be a better, and more simple answer, to the question: "Is Jesus really God?"?

This might be the best post I've read by you, savedbygrace.
I will try to remember it the next time we disagree.



Pizzaguy
(Did I use the two question marks together, in the proper way?)

 

[Drew]

I proposed, some while ago, that we hold a proper debate on this most vital subject.There are, as we can see, vigorous champions of both sides making vigorous claims.Drew is here, if I read him correctly, wishing that it was a proper debate so that ZW could be censured fairly.

Indeed - it is beyond dispute that ZW simply ignores certain arguments that challenge his/her position. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. And in a proper debate, at least as I understand it, a participant is simply not allowed to refuse to engage the arguments that a counterpart puts forward.

However, and I am very sympathetic to the moderators here, there are any of a number of reasons why such "rules" probably cannot be enforced. First, this would be simply too much work for the moderators, who are already taxed dealing with all the name-calling and demonization going on here. Second, it would be difficult for a moderator, who almost certainly has an opinion on this issue, to be seen as being objective.

However I do indeed wish that all parties in this debate would commit to the simple responsibility of actually addressing the arguments that opponents put forward. I am about to post another detailed argument for the divinity of Jesus, and I absolutely guarantee that ZW will not engage it. However, other people may find it helpful.

 

[Drew]

Sorry Asyncritus, With people like 'FREE' and 'DREW' it has to come down to a long winded debate on Theology. I would rather discuss at a level that people can understand. When Jesus taught, he taught in simple tearms.

Code for: I cannot critique Drew's argument, so I will spin it as "abstract, irrelevant theology".

Listen - my arguments are somewhat long. But I politely suggest that they are clear enough to be understood by all. And when someone simply refuses to deal with them, well that silence speaks loudly indeed.

I am not sure why people expect Christian "theology" to be simple. I think that life in general teaches us that the greatest rewards are those requiring struggle and effort to achieve.

 

[Drew]

Ah yes, and what did Jesus say about the 'so called' wise ...

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.â€

I suggest that this statement is one that follows a familiar pattern - when a person is confronted with an argument they cannot actually counter, the person in question will play the "human wisdom" card - dismissing the trouble-some argument and thereby conveniently justify not dealing with it.

What most readers will probably realize, though, is that every argument, whether from ZW or Drew, are necessarily and unavoidably articulated using human wisdom.

What wisdom is ZW using? Is he not human? ZW, are you using Martian wisdom, rather than human wisdom? The point is this - every position is someone's interpretation. No one escapes this. ZW, you are as much engaged in acts of interpretatoin, logical reasoning, and synthesis as anyone else. In short, you too use the very tools of human wisdom that you want to dismiss when others use them.

 

[zionwarrior]

Jesus never made any claims to be Yahweh. He claimed Yahweh as his God and Father, the one who sent him, anointed him, and gave him his authority. The holy spirit reveals through the scriptures that Yahweh (Jehovah) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Yahweh (Jehovah) is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has one who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience.

2 Corinthians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.

 

[Drew]

Another argument for Jesus' divinity for ZW to ignore. It may be helpful to the rest of you.

Some assert that the principle of “monotheism†rules out the possibility of a divine Messiah, presumably because then one would have at least two gods. While I would agree that the Old Testament concept of Messiahship does not clearly entail divinity, I would suggest that the Old Testament does indeed allow for the possibility of a divine Messiah.

Consider this from Daniel 7:

As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

Note the plurality - more than one throne is set in place and "God the Father" (using the Christian terminology) takes one place. Then not what happens next:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

I suggest that the rather obvious implication is that "the son of man" takes the other throne - effectively establishing his divinity by establishing His equality with "God the Father".

Now I am not saying that this is a slam-dunk argument for the possibililty of a divine Messiah. But it shows that the Old Testament is at least open to this possibility.

 

[Sam21]

I see two errors, one is that Jesus and the Father are one and the same Person,much like superman and Clark Kent, superman IS Clark Kent just in a different covering, Jesus was not the Father just dressed in human form, They are two distinct Individuals.
The other error is to reject the teaching that Jesus was in fact God, Jesus was indeed God, not God the Father but God the Son...but still God.

 

[zionwarrior]

Ok, so how could he be equal if he is 'Given' authority. If he was equal, he would already posess such authority.

 

[Sam21]

Ok, so how could he be equal if he is 'Given' authority. If he was equal, he would already posess such authority.

Jesus is equal with God in the sense that He is also God,however Jesus clearly stated that His Father was greater than He was. A human father and son can be equal in the sense that the son came from the father and is like him, however the father can still be greater than his son.

 

[Drew]

Ok, so how could he be equal if he is 'Given' authority. If he was equal, he would already posess such authority.

Let me first thank you for actually engaging an argument of mine. You raise a good question, but I do not have time right now. I will get back to you, and if I don't, please feel free to remind me.

 

[zionwarrior]

So you are saying Jesus is a lesser god ?

 

[Sam21]

Jesus is God, no "lesser" to it. The slain Lamb had seven horns which are the seven Spirits of God. Jesus was before all things and was with God before all things and was God.

 

[Drew]

Ok, so how could he be equal if he is 'Given' authority. If he was equal, he would already posess such authority.

I suspect you will not like this answer, but I see no problem with notions of three distinct persons who are all a single God in substance. Now I admit that I have not studied the technicalities of the different views on the Trinity.

But, in a sense, it is not that important. What is important is that, in a series of posts, I believe I have shown that there is every reason to understand Jesus as seeing Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

And, to be frank, you have entirely ignored most of those arguments. And even though you did engage the last argument, you really ignored the main thrust of the argument.

In Daniel 7, we have a "son of man" character who sits on a throne next to the "Ancient of Days". It seems a little hard to see how someone who "shares thrones" with God the Father should not be understood as being Himself God in "substance".