Is Jesus really God ?

[mamre]

As Free has pointed out, no one is denying these remarks. You seem to think that, at a conceptual level, one cannot be a person in a "triune God" and be "subservient" to another person within that "triune God". I grant that the very concept of a triune God is tricky, but I suggest that given centuries of the existence of this doctrine, it really hard to believe that its proponents will all slap their foreheads and abandon the Trinity when they discover that they "over-looked" the implications of these 70 sayings.

Surely this is highly implausible - there may be valid reasons to challenge the Trinity on other grounds, but to suggest that the "subservience" issue undoes the Trinity is a real stretch, unless you have a really subtle argument that all these Christian scholars have overlooked.

Now to be fair, I have not read all your posts. But if your argument is "Jesus can't be "god" since He is subservient to the Father", I doubt very much that argument can work. It is "too obvious". Now, of course, you are free to suggest that the Christian church has "refused to see the obvious". This is possible, but it seems rather implausible to me.

Besides, as per arguments that I and others have put forward in this and other threads, it is pretty clear that Jesus saw Himself as the "embodiment" of the Father. I have argued at length from Luke's gospel that Jesus sees Himself as enacting and embodying the Old Testament promise that YHWH would return to His people.

I do not believe you (or anyone else for that matter) has taken that argument seriously and shown where it fails. I suggest you need to this for your position to stand. If you want me to repost, or point you to the argument, I will do so. And please also address my argument about 1 Corinthians 8 (posted earlier today).

Hello,

If Jesus is subservient to God the Most High, then it means that Jesus is a separate God who defers to the Most High God the honor of being the Only God to us. Being subservient fits perfectly in His role as the Son of God. A perfect Son must, of necessity be subservient to His Father. Being subservient is completely incoherent with the concept of the trinity because it places (correctly) Christ in a different level in relation to the Father.

In other words, One is the Father. Father means a being that has begotten, generated, etc. (All of this literally).

The other is the Son. Son means One that has been begotten, has been generated, etc. (All of it literaly)

They are two separated persons in different levels of relationship that can and are One in purpose.

If, however, you say that the Father is literally the same as the Son, then you eliminate the "subservience" relation between them, which effectively renders Christ to the same level as the Father (literally), categorically making them TWO Gods of the same level (two fathers or two sons). Therefore, if you have two Gods of the same level, then you have a polytheistic religion, because you are worshiping TWO Gods as opposed to worshiping ONE God in the name of the other God (the Son).

On the other hand, if trinity insists that even been subservient Jesus is still (literally) the same as God (the father) than it implies that the roles of a "father" and of a "son" are merely stage roles, or appearances. Indicating that God, at one point "pretends" to be 'son' and at another "pretends" to be father, thus creating a sort of theatrical presentation where the members of the so called trinity are nothing but actors. (Thus, Trinity in effect eliminates the reality (literality) of them being Father and Son, making these merely titles, not literal roles.)

Therefore, by being and declaring He is subservient to the Father, the Son shows without any doubt that the Father is literally the ONLY God to be worshiped, to whom everything belongs, including Jesus Christ Himself. That, however, doesn't demean the position of God the Son, which exists because the Father has loved Him so that allowed him to be God based on the his obedience, giving him all power to act in His behalf.

Furthermore there is no reason to doubt that Jesus is not God. Jesus is REALLY God because the Father has made Him God. In Hebrews The Father declares: "Thou art my son, This day I have begotten Thee." God the Father cannot begets anything else other than a God because, of necessity, a God's Son MUST be a God. Similarly, of necessity, a son of a man must be a man (it cannot be anything else).

Where Trinity renders the roles of God the Father and God the Son figuratively only, the Bible states they are literally Father and Son.

The interpretation of 1Cor8:5-6 can only be incorrect if you believe that the Father and the Son are ONLY figurative roles (which they are not), titles only.

So the scriptures are correct: "For us there is only one God, the Father." That is what Paul says in 1Cor 8:5-6.

By declaring His subservience to the Father, Jesus affirm the veracity of that scripture, as His subservience is real (he wouldn't lie about it, or stage it).

Therefore, if Jesus, as He declares (He doesn't lie), is truly and literally, subservient to the Father, it implies exclusively that Trinity is a false doctrine, because Christ Himself renders preeminence to the Father as the ONLY God to us.

mamre

 

[Free]

If Jesus is subservient to God the Most High, then it means that Jesus is a separate God who defers to the Most High God the honor of being the Only God to us.

No, it does not mean that. I have pointed out to you on more than one occasion that that is polytheism and have shown that to be false using Scripture, which you have yet to address.

Being subservient fits perfectly in His role as the Son of God. A perfect Son must, of necessity be subservient to His Father. Being subservient is completely incoherent with the concept of the trinity because it places (correctly) Christ in a different level in relation to the Father.

Again, this has been addressed before. An appearance of being subservient does not mean that one is greater than another. However, we must be careful and clarify the difference between the Economic Trinity and the Ontological Trinity, which neither you nor anyone else has bothered to address.

In other words, One is the Father. Father means a being that has begotten, generated, etc. (All of this literally).

The other is the Son. Son means One that has been begotten, has been generated, etc. (All of it literaly)

As the Creeds state, Christ is eternally begotten. If by literally, you mean physically or that Christ was at some point created, then absolutely not.

If, however, you say that the Father is literally the same as the Son, then you eliminate the "subservience" relation between them, which effectively renders Christ to the same level as the Father (literally), categorically making them TWO Gods of the same level (two fathers or two sons). Therefore, if you have two Gods of the same level, then you have a polytheistic religion, because you are worshiping TWO Gods as opposed to worshiping ONE God in the name of the other God (the Son).

Whether or not one's gods are on the same level, it is polytheism to believe in more than one God, as you have continually admitted to believing in.

On the other hand, if trinity insists that even been subservient Jesus is still (literally) the same as God (the father) than it implies that the roles of a "father" and of a "son" are merely stage roles, or appearances. Indicating that God, at one point "pretends" to be 'son' and at another "pretends" to be father, thus creating a sort of theatrical presentation where the members of the so called trinity are nothing but actors. (Thus, Trinity in effect eliminates the reality (literality) of them being Father and Son, making these merely titles, not literal roles.)

That is Oneness, modalism, not trinitarianism.

Therefore, by being and declaring He is subservient to the Father, the Son shows without any doubt that the Father is literally the ONLY God to be worshiped, to whom everything belongs, including Jesus Christ Himself. That, however, doesn't demean the position of God the Son, which exists because the Father has loved Him so that allowed him to be God based on the his obedience, giving him all power to act in His behalf.

And yet Christ received worship from others without saying a word about it. They worshiped him as truly God.

Furthermore there is no reason to doubt that Jesus is not God. Jesus is REALLY God because the Father has made Him God. In Hebrews The Father declares: "Thou art my son, This day I have begotten Thee." God the Father cannot begets anything else other than a God because, of necessity, a God's Son MUST be a God. Similarly, of necessity, a son of a man must be a man (it cannot be anything else).

God cannot create another God. One of the necessary attributes of being God is that he has always existed; he is a necessary being. Therefore, any being that is created cannot, by definition, be God.

Where Trinity renders the roles of God the Father and God the Son figuratively only, the Bible states they are literally Father and Son.

The interpretation of 1Cor8:5-6 can only be incorrect if you believe that the Father and the Son are ONLY figurative roles (which they are not), titles only.

So the scriptures are correct: "For us there is only one God, the Father." That is what Paul says in 1Cor 8:5-6.

By declaring His subservience to the Father, Jesus affirm the veracity of that scripture, as His subservience is real (he wouldn't lie about it, or stage it).

A deeper meaning of this text has been addressed already. Please address the points made in that post.

Therefore, if Jesus, as He declares (He doesn't lie), is truly and literally, subservient to the Father, it implies exclusively that Trinity is a false doctrine, because Christ Himself renders preeminence to the Father as the ONLY God to us.

Again, all of this has been dealt with. Please address people's points rather than just continually posting this stuff.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jesus is God because of His Authority over Death !

Notice lk 7:

12Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

13And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.

14And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.

15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

To Lazarus He said come forth Jn 11:


43And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

The Great Prophets had to wait for instruction from Heaven, but the Son quickenth who He will Jn 5:


21For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.​

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jesus is God because He assumes authority over demons

He cast out demons with His word ! Matt 8:


16When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

In these instances it was not power given to Him, that should be remembered, for many of them He manifested His own Glory by His miracles Jn 2:


11This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Even when He raised Lazarus from the dead, " Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life"

 

[xounstaer]

jesus christ is a / was a human being in flesh and blood who lived about 2000 years ago. he raised though, but that does not make him god.


i am not even gonna read all the messages i just got irritated by the question and wanted to give my viuew. and that is

NO! jesus is not god. NO jeus christ is really NOT god!

for the rest i could lay down some argument why it would bother me a lot emotionaly but no less..
but just by saying i am protestant should do.

 

[Alabaster]

jesus christ is a / was a human being in flesh and blood who lived about 2000 years ago. he raised though, but that does not make him god.


i am not even gonna read all the messages i just got irritated by the question and wanted to give my viuew. and that is

NO! jesus is not god. NO jeus christ is really NOT god!

for the rest i could lay down some argument why it would bother me a lot emotionaly but no less..
but just by saying i am protestant should do.

Jesus is indeed God. God says so.

Hebrews 1:8-12--God speaking about Jesus (as God!)
8 But to the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
You rule with a scepter of justice.
9 You love justice and hate evil.
Therefore, O God, your God has anointed you,
pouring out the oil of joy on you more than on anyone else.”
10 He also says to the Son,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth
and made the heavens with your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain forever.
They will wear out like old clothing.
12 You will fold them up like a cloak
and discard them like old clothing.
But you are always the same;
you will live forever.”


Psalm 110:1 NLT David speaking about what God utters about Jesus...
The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies,
making them a footstool under your feet.”

 

[MarkT]

Paul tells us Jesus was the Word of God. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand anything. The LORD said God is not man that he should lie or a son of man that he needs to repent. Do you believe the LORD? You have to take Jesus at his word. Jesus said he was a man who proceeded from God. Would God say he was a man? Would God say he proceeded from God? Jesus said he was the Son of man. Would God say he was a son of man? If Jesus was God incarnate, then what the LORD said would be false. But if Jesus was the LORD, the one who said God is not man or a son of man, then his word would be true. You have to take Jesus at his word - He said, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." John 5:26 There's the suggestion there that at some point Jesus didn't have life in himself, and that God granted him life in himself.

A series of events took place before the words ‘My Lord and my God’ came out of Thomas’ mouth. But the Trinity concept doesn’t take the events or the order in which those events took place into account. If you accept the Trinity, then the second person was divine and a man, which doesn’t make sense. Essentially it puts man into a Godhead equal to God. Jesus was a man according to his own words. So if the Trinity is accepted, then man is part of the Godhead.

This explains the curious belief that Mary was the Mother of God and even co-equal with God. Man is essentially part of the Godhead.

Obviously the Trinity concept needs improvement. You can’t make man equal to God. If you do, you’re falling for Satan’s oldest line all over again. And your house is built on sand and great will be your fall.

 

[Free]

Paul tells us Jesus was the Word of God.

He does, no one is denying that, but he also says much more than that and puts Jesus on equal footing with God the Father.

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand anything. The LORD said God is not man that he should lie or a son of man that he needs to repent. Do you believe the LORD?

Of course, who doesn't?

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (ESV)

Two points need to be made: 1. the point of this verse is that God does not lie as men do, and 2. nowhere is it even implied that he could not become a man.

You have to take Jesus at his word. Jesus said he was a man who proceeded from God. Would God say he was a man? Would God say he proceeded from God? Jesus said he was the Son of man. Would God say he was a son of man? If Jesus was God incarnate, then what the LORD said would be false. But if Jesus was the LORD, the one who said God is not man or a son of man, then his word would be true.

And what does it mean that Jesus "was a man who proceeded from God?" What does it mean to call him the Son of man? Who is the LORD?

On the one hand you are arguing that Jesus is not God incarnate but on the other hand you say that "if Jesus was the LORD, the one who said God is not man or a son of man, then his word would be true," which makes Jesus the God of the OT, or, God Incarnate.

You have to take Jesus at his word - He said, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." John 5:26 There's the suggestion there that at some point Jesus didn't have life in himself, and that God granted him life in himself.

Or rather that as God Incarnate, as the Son who in humility emptied himself and took on the form of a servant, submitting himself to the Father, was granted life in himself.

It is very interesting to note the two verses immediately before and after verse 26:

Joh 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Joh 5:27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. (ESV)

Again, I ask you to define "Son of Man," and now also "Son of God."

A series of events took place before the words ‘My Lord and my God’ came out of Thomas’ mouth. But the Trinity concept doesn’t take the events or the order in which those events took place into account. If you accept the Trinity, then the second person was divine and a man, which doesn’t make sense. Essentially it puts man into a Godhead equal to God. Jesus was a man according to his own words. So if the Trinity is accepted, then man is part of the Godhead.

As I have pointed out, Jesus not only refers to himself as the Son of Man, but the Son of God. If you want to argue that "Son of Man" is the equivalent of Jesus claiming to be a man, then, using that reasoning, what does he mean when he calls himself the "Son of God?"

I am curious, other than claiming to be the Son of Man, does Jesus ever actually say the he is a man, as you have claimed? I actually am curious. I cannot recall a verse where does.

It is essential to note that your concept of the Trinity does not seem to be accurate. That it is beyond our comprehension that the second person of the Trinity was divine (God in nature) and became a man, in no way means it is false. It also in no way means that "Essentially it puts man into a Godhead equal to God," or that "man is part of the Godhead."

It must be understood that the pre-incarnate Christ was God and is now the God-man. This does not put any other man on equal footing with God, if that is what you are saying, nor does it mean that a mere man, Jesus, became equal to God and became a part of the Godhead.

This explains the curious belief that Mary was the Mother of God and even co-equal with God. Man is essentially part of the Godhead.

Obviously the Trinity concept needs improvement. You can’t make man equal to God. If you do, you’re falling for Satan’s oldest line all over again. And your house is built on sand and great will be your fall.

Again, the Trinity does not make man, or a man, equal to God. It is clear that Christ existed eternally before his physical birth as a man, which has no other possible explanation other than he is God. He always was God and always will be the God-man. This neither diminishes his humanity nor his deity.

 

[Alabaster]

Paul tells us Jesus was the Word of God. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand anything.

John tells us even more:

John 1:1 NLT
In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.



I believe God's word.

You can’t make man equal to God. If you do, you’re falling for Satan’s oldest line all over again. And your house is built on sand and great will be your fall.

That has nothing to do with the Trinity.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Because of Job's Testimony !



We know Jesus is God because of Job's expectation of seeing his Redeemer in the Last Job 19:

25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

26And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

This points to Christ, who is His Redeemer, as Being God, who else shall stand at the latter day upon the Earth ?

 

[savedbygrace57]

We know from scripture that Jesus is God because:

The apostles wrought miracles in the Name of Christ, thereby acknowledging that their authority and power to suspend the laws of nature were derived from Him, as the God of Nature. His Name, through Faith in His Name, hath made this man strong acts 3:

16 And his name through faith in his name[Power] hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Also acts 9:

34And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately.

Christ wrought Miracles with His own Power, according to Hiw own Will, for His own Glory, with His own Authority, and so commissioned His apostles to work them in His Name..

 

[xounstaer]

i dont get it why it is evena topic of discussion...

gat the bible.. anybody who says jesus did not come/came as human is an antichrist.

surely there's quotes saying jesus is god, so are there quotes saying he's not.
like anything in the bible.

so you could basicly just throw it away (which i wont).

but let me put it this way: what is god'to you?

 

[Free]

i dont get it why it is evena topic of discussion...

gat the bible.. anybody who says jesus did not come/came as human is an antichrist.

surely there's quotes saying jesus is god, so are there quotes saying he's not.
like anything in the bible.

so you could basicly just throw it away (which i wont).

but let me put it this way: what is god'to you?

No, one cannot "basically just throw it away." Who Jesus is is absolutely central to salvation, so it is very important to come to an understanding of who he is. There are passages which both explicitly and implicitly state that Jesus is God. Those must take precedence over any others which may seem to imply that he is not God.

Any Christology must take into account all that is said of Jesus and be coherent and consistent.

 

[MarkT]

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (ESV)

Two points need to be made: 1. the point of this verse is that God does not lie as men do, and 2. nowhere is it even implied that he could not become a man.

Yeah. He also calls man a liar who goes back on his word. It should be common knowledge, at least to us, that man is evil, only God is good. Take Jesus at his word. Furthermore, the LORD is not comparing God and man. He is simply stating a fact - God is not man that he should lie. That men lie is implied. But the fact that God is not man or a son of man is not something you can ignore. God is not man or a son of man is the basic truth. God would not lie. He is not man. Why isn’t this basic truth in the Trinity concept?

Notice also the LORD is talking about God. He doesn’t say, ‘I’ would not lie. He says, God would not lie. He refers to God as he. If Jesus was the LORD, then the words make sense.

And what does it mean that Jesus "was a man who proceeded from God?" What does it mean to call him the Son of man? Who is the LORD?

Jesus said he was a man sent by God. He was from above, from heaven. In the sense he was the Word of God, he was a man who proceeded from God.

The Son of man was Jesus. The Son of God is the Christ. The Son of man means Jesus was a man - but not of this world. According to the parable, the Son of man is the one who sowed the good seed. The Son of God means he was the only begotten Son, the Lamb of God, and the heir of all things.

The LORD said , “I am God and henceforth I am he.” Here’s the problem. I can’t say you are wrong. The LORD was the God of Israel. The LORD said, “I am the LORD your God.” But if Jesus was the LORD, then he was also not the true God, because Jesus said he was the Son of God and the Father is the true God.

The mistake you're making is in thinking the LORD is the true God. But what if God spoke to the LORD and the LORD spoke to the prophets in the O.T. It’s in the New Testament that God spoke to us by a Son. Hebrews 1:2 So it follows that God spoke to the prophets by the LORD.

So the LORD would be the way in which God interacted with his creation - through his Word. This agrees with Jesus who said he was the way.

On the one hand you are arguing that Jesus is not God incarnate but on the other hand you say that "if Jesus was the LORD, the one who said God is not man or a son of man, then his word would be true," which makes Jesus the God of the OT, or, God Incarnate.

In a sense yes. He was the LORD, but he was not the true God. God spoke to the LORD and the LORD spoke to man and the words were carried by the sons of man, the prophets. A son of man is a prophet.

David inspired by the Spirit calls the Christ 'my Lord' saying, "the Lord said to my Lord". That is, God spoke to the Christ.

Or rather that as God Incarnate, as the Son who in humility emptied himself and took on the form of a servant, submitting himself to the Father, was granted life in himself.

It is very interesting to note the two verses immediately before and after verse 26:

Joh 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Joh 5:27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. (ESV)

Again, I ask you to define "Son of Man," and now also "Son of God."

Yes. Jesus experienced this life and death so he knows what suffering is. The Lord Jesus is the Son of man.

As I have pointed out, Jesus not only refers to himself as the Son of Man, but the Son of God. If you want to argue that "Son of Man" is the equivalent of Jesus claiming to be a man, then, using that reasoning, what does he mean when he calls himself the "Son of God?"

I am curious, other than claiming to be the Son of Man, does Jesus ever actually say the he is a man, as you have claimed? I actually am curious. I cannot recall a verse where does.

John 8:40 RSV
but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.

It is essential to note that your concept of the Trinity does not seem to be accurate. That it is beyond our comprehension that the second person of the Trinity was divine (God in nature) and became a man, in no way means it is false. It also in no way means that "Essentially it puts man into a Godhead equal to God," or that "man is part of the Godhead."

It must be understood that the pre-incarnate Christ was God and is now the God-man. This does not put any other man on equal footing with God, if that is what you are saying, nor does it mean that a mere man, Jesus, became equal to God and became a part of the Godhead.

We now know that the Father is God over all - the head of the LORD, who said he was God and he would be he, the Christ, and therefore the head of Christ, who is Jesus, our Lord, who is the head of man.

When you say God-man, aren't you elevating man to a position of importance equal to God? But man is a creature, and he owes his existence to his Creator. Don't go elevating yourselves. Take Jesus at his word - Matthew 3:9 RSV
"and do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham."

As long as your hypothesis is improvable, then it is O.K. But if it is not improvable, then it becomes a log in your eye.

 

[Free]

Yeah. He also calls man a liar who goes back on his word. It should be common knowledge, at least to us, that man is evil, only God is good. Take Jesus at his word. Furthermore, the LORD is not comparing God and man. He is simply stating a fact - God is not man that he should lie. That men lie is implied. But the fact that God is not man or a son of man is not something you can ignore. God is not man or a son of man is the basic truth. God would not lie. He is not man. Why isn’t this basic truth in the Trinity concept?

No one is ignoring the statement that God is not man or a son of man. That really has nothing to do with the Trinity. Again, there is not even the implication that God couldn't become a man.

Notice also the LORD is talking about God. He doesn’t say, ‘I’ would not lie. He says, God would not lie. He refers to God as he. If Jesus was the LORD, then the words make sense.

Well, that depends. The use of the English LORD in the OT is used only in the place of the Hebrew YHWH. The "LORD" is the personal name of God. If you want argue as you have done, that " If Jesus was the LORD, then the words make sense," it only makes sense from a trinitarian understanding. Either that or you are now espousing polytheism.

Jesus said he was a man sent by God. He was from above, from heaven. In the sense he was the Word of God, he was a man who proceeded from God.

Where does He say that "he was a man sent by God?" What do you understand his being from heaven to mean? Surely if he means he was literally from heaven, then he is not a mere man like you and I. What do you mean by "he was a man who proceeded from God?"

The Son of man was Jesus. The Son of God is the Christ. The Son of man means Jesus was a man - but not of this world. According to the parable, the Son of man is the one who sowed the good seed. The Son of God means he was the only begotten Son, the Lamb of God, and the heir of all things.

But men are from earth. If Son of Man means that he was a man, then that part of him must be from this world as there are no men anywhere else.

The LORD said , “I am God and henceforth I am he.” Here’s the problem. I can’t say you are wrong. The LORD was the God of Israel. The LORD said, “I am the LORD your God.” But if Jesus was the LORD, then he was also not the true God, because Jesus said he was the Son of God and the Father is the true God.

If Jesus was the LORD, then he is the true God. There is no other use of YHWH (LORD) in the OT. This is precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to make sense of. It is precisely because we have this overlap of Jesus and God, and Jesus and man.

The mistake you're making is in thinking the LORD is the true God. But what if God spoke to the LORD and the LORD spoke to the prophets in the O.T. It’s in the New Testament that God spoke to us by a Son. Hebrews 1:2 So it follows that God spoke to the prophets by the LORD.

So the LORD would be the way in which God interacted with his creation - through his Word. This agrees with Jesus who said he was the way.

As I have stated, the LORD always is used in place of YHWH and therefore is always a reference to the true God. To say that there is God and another who is LORD, is to promote polytheism since the LORD is clearly the God of the Israelites. This is a mistake that Mormon theology also makes.

In a sense yes. He was the LORD, but he was not the true God. God spoke to the LORD and the LORD spoke to man and the words were carried by the sons of man, the prophets. A son of man is a prophet.

David inspired by the Spirit calls the Christ 'my Lord' saying, "the Lord said to my Lord". That is, God spoke to the Christ.

But this goes directly against what you have been arguing and supports what I have been saying:

Ps 110:1, 1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (ESV)

If, as you are saying, God spoke to the Christ, then LORD cannot refer to Christ, since here it clearly refers to God.

Yes. Jesus experienced this life and death so he knows what suffering is. The Lord Jesus is the Son of man.

I think you would agree that there is much more to it than this. But this still doesn't answer my point: define "Son of God." If Son of Man means he was a man, what does Son of God mean?

We now know that the Father is God over all - the head of the LORD, who said he was God and he would be he, the Christ, and therefore the head of Christ, who is Jesus, our Lord, who is the head of man.

When you say God-man, aren't you elevating man to a position of importance equal to God? But man is a creature, and he owes his existence to his Creator. Don't go elevating yourselves. Take Jesus at his word - Matthew 3:9 RSV
"and do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham."

As long as your hypothesis is improvable, then it is O.K. But if it is not improvable, then it becomes a log in your eye.

Jesus is the only God-man since he is God Incarnate. This is no way elevates man to a status equal to God. It just speaks to both his humanness and his divinity.

 

[montanaviking]

God, stated that there is only one God. God commanded that only he be served and worshipped. Yet, Jesus is served and worshipped. Either he is assuming a position that God would not allow or, He is God. "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." WOW! How dare he! God is a jealous God and here is someone who thought it not robbery to be equal with him. Thomas called Jesus Lord and God. Thomas should have been condemned then and there by Christ for making a statement such as that. Unless Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God. John said the word is God and was made flesh and dwelt among them. John is blaspheming God with that statement unless Jesus was God. No, my friends Jesus was God and was made flesh, a man in order to provide salvation for us all. Praise Jesus the Lord and God of us all!

 

[MarkT]

No one is ignoring the statement that God is not man or a son of man. That really has nothing to do with the Trinity. Again, there is not even the implication that God couldn't become a man.

If God became a man, it would make the LORD a liar. If the LORD said God is not man, then he is not man. Likewise, if I said I am not a bird that I can fly, you would agree. I am not a bird. You would agree. I can not fly. But then if I became a bird, my original statement would become false. God doesn't make false statements.

Well, that depends. The use of the English LORD in the OT is used only in the place of the Hebrew YHWH. The "LORD" is the personal name of God. If you want argue as you have done, that " If Jesus was the LORD, then the words make sense," it only makes sense from a trinitarian understanding. Either that or you are now espousing polytheism.

No. Not from a Trinitarian understanding. You keep saying Jesus was God incarnate. I say, if Jesus was the LORD, it follows from that that the LORD did not have life in himself, as God has life in himself, before he was born into the world. You have to agree, at some point, before he was conceived, that Jesus, the Son of God, did not have life in himself. He told us, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. John 5:26 The Father granted the Son to have life in himself.

If Jesus was the LORD, and the LORD was God, then the LORD was God in name only, not the true God, as I have said and as Jesus said. ‘And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.“ John 17:3

Jesus told us the Father is the only true God. Why doesn’t the doctrine of the Trinity say that? Where is the truth in the Trinity?

Where does He say that "he was a man sent by God?" What do you understand his being from heaven to mean? Surely if he means he was literally from heaven, then he is not a mere man like you and I. What do you mean by "he was a man who proceeded from God?"

I just told you. Jesus said, “but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” John 8:40 - 42

Jesus was not of this world. He was from above. We are from below. Obviously he wasn’t a man like you and me. Paul wrote, “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. Cor. 15:47- 49

But men are from earth. If Son of Man means that he was a man, then that part of him must be from this world as there are no men anywhere else.

We are from the earth because we are descended from Adam. Adam was the first man, the man of dust. The second man, Jesus, was from heaven. Jesus told us he proceeded and came forth from God. Take him at his word. If you don’t understand proceeded then let’s just say he came forth from God.

If Jesus was the LORD, then he is the true God. There is no other use of YHWH (LORD) in the OT. This is precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity attempts to make sense of. It is precisely because we have this overlap of Jesus and God, and Jesus and man.

There’s no overlap. If you only knew. Jesus said he was the Son of God. That means he was born in the likeness of the Father, besides a whole lot of other things, such as being the heir which Son-ship implies. He told us the Father was the only true God. What is so difficult to understand here?

As I have stated, the LORD always is used in place of YHWH and therefore is always a reference to the true God. To say that there is God and another who is LORD, is to promote polytheism since the LORD is clearly the God of the Israelites. This is a mistake that Mormon theology also makes.

Yeah. A lot of people think they know what they are talking about, but they don’t know the Father or his Son. If Jesus was the LORD, then the LORD of the O.T. had no life in himself. As I said, and as Jesus said - the Father granted the Son to have life in himself, as God has life in himself. I think it follows that before the Son was begotten, he did not have life in himself as the Father has life in himself.

But you’re right. The O.T. isn’t easy to read. But as long as you remember God is speaking to the LORD and the LORD is speaking to man. It’s not always that simple. The LORD is God’s name. So you can refer to God as the LORD as well - as long as you don’t confuse his name and his being. Most of the time, when they are talking about God, they say the LORD is this or that. And even the LORD has a lot to say about God. But when the God says something, it is by and through his name - the LORD.

The LORD was not the true God. He was the appearance of the true God. Had Sar’ai really seen God and lived? One way of looking at this is that he was the light, the image of the invisible God, as Paul said. No one has actually seen God. Only the Son has seen him.

The LORD was whatever or whoever God wanted him to be. He was the God of Israel or the appearance of God to the Israelites. He was the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire who led them out of Egypt. He was the burning bush. He was the appearance of God to Abraham and to Sa’rai and to Moses.

But this goes directly against what you have been arguing and supports what I have been saying:

Ps 110:1, 1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (ESV)

If, as you are saying, God spoke to the Christ, then LORD cannot refer to Christ, since here it clearly refers to God.

I agree it’s a little tricky when the Son bears the Father’s name. However, in Acts 2, it says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand.” This is easier to see ‘my Lord’ is our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think you would agree that there is much more to it than this. But this still doesn't answer my point: define "Son of God." If Son of Man means he was a man, what does Son of God mean?

One definition that might fit is Christ was born in the likeness of man. That would make Jesus, the Son of man. He wasn't from this world, but he had an earthly mother and an earthly father. But if he was born in the likeness of man, he was also born in the likeness of God. God was his Father. That would make him the Son of God. So he was like man in appearance and he was like God in appearance.

Jesus said God was his master and a servant is not greater than his master. It is enough for a servant to be like his master. In speech and manner Jesus was like God. But he could also lose his temper and feel sorrow and anguish like a man. He could also die. God can not die.

I think I will let Peter speak now. Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says concerning him, 'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; 26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope. 27 For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence.' 29 "Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35 till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.' 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

 

[Alabaster]

Anyone who rejects that Jesus is God has yet to meet or know Him. It is one of those serious errors made about the very basics of our faith to not only deny Jesus' deity, but to defy it as well.

 

[Who Says]

Anyone who rejects that Jesus is God has yet to meet or know Him. It is one of those serious errors made about the very basics of our faith to not only deny Jesus' deity, but to defy it as well.

It is one of those basics of modern faith determined by the Nicene Counsel presided over by Constantine who as Emperor was viewed as a Supreme God and who wore the symbol of a pagan worship on the front of his uniform. Who was not even baptized until unconscious upon his death bed by those desirous to make his interference appear divinely sanctioned.

Sleep on. There is clearly evidence that 2 Thess 2 had begun being fulfilled and the Strong Delusion was well under way.

Ignore what you want. You don't need my permission.

If you do not wish to hear such things then don't dog others for having a different opinion than yours.

You say they have yet to meet or know God if they do not agree with you. And the scriptures themselves do not make issue of that subject yet you call it a basic doctrine.

What is that?

 

[Alabaster]

It is one of those basics of modern faith determined by the Nicene Counsel presided over by Constantine who as Emperor was viewed as a Supreme God and who wore the symbol of a pagan worship on the front of his uniform. Who was not even baptized until unconscious upon his death bed by those desirous to make his interference appear divinely sanctioned.

Sleep on. There is clearly evidence that 2 Thess 2 had begun being fulfilled and the Strong Delusion was well under way.

Ignore what you want. You don't need my permission.

If you do not wish to hear such things then don't dog others for having a different opinion than yours.

You say they have yet to meet or know God if they do not agree with you. And the scriptures themselves do not make issue of that subject yet you call it a basic doctrine.

What is that?

Wake up. You're dreaming. If you are presumptuous enough to teach that Jesus is not God, then you need to be avoided, according to God's instruction to us in the Bible.

Romans 16:17 NLT
And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them.