Is Jesus really God ?

[Who Says]

No argument here..."Ya gotta walk the talk" for sure....

But yet, there have been a lot of "good", "loving" men who were not Christian.

When one considers the dire warnings given in scripture...well...making sure that we are following the Jesus of the bible becomes of prime importance.

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Whether there have been a lot of "good", "loving" men who were not Christian depends on how one defines good and loving.

I personally define it by what the Bible describes it to be. And I guarantee the Bible does not sanction pressing this issue of Jesus being God Incarnate. If it did it would plainly say so. But instead the entire concept has to be supported by men's so-called intelligent interpretations of the scriptures. That right there ought to serve as a red flag.

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

And that is what you do when you rely on your extraneous writings of men to determine Biblical truth.

 

[Free]

Whether there have been a lot of "good", "loving" men who were not Christian depends on how one defines good and loving.

I personally define it by what the Bible describes it to be. And I guarantee the Bible does not sanction pressing this issue of Jesus being God Incarnate. If it did it would plainly say so. But instaed the entire concept has to be supported by men's so-called intelligent interpretations of the scriptures. That right there ought to serve as a red flag.

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Speaking of which, you continually make such statements but refuse to answer my reasoning on John 1. Why? If it is a "so-called interpretation...that right there ought to serve as a red flag," then please show me where I am wrong. You said it wasn't difficult to understand.

 

[Who Says]

Speaking of which, you continually make such statements but refuse to answer my reasoning on John 1. Why? If it is a "so-called interpretation...that right there ought to serve as a red flag," then please show me where I am wrong. You said it wasn't difficult to understand.

As I have answered it 5,000 times and you yet say I did not, my answering you once more will not help.

End of conversation.

Argue with yourself.

 

[Drew]

It is not speculating if you can show me where the reliable closer to original untampered with text of God's word says such a thing.

The Bible asserts that Jesus is indeed divine through the narrative, even if not through an explicit statement.

For example:

1. There is a clear Old Testament theme where God, yes God, promises to return to the people and the temple He has abandoned. Do you deny this theme is present?

2. In the book of Luke, Jesus, yes Jesus, acts in a way that makes it clear that Jesus thinks He, yes He (Jesus) is the fulfiller of these promise. Do you deny this?

3. If we agree that Jesus is mentally competent, we must conclude that He believes Himself to be God.

This is not rocket science. If some person who goes by the name "God" says "I will do such and such in the future", and then some person who goes by the name "Jesus" later says "I am the person who is fulfilling those promises that God has made", then we must conclude that Jesus is setting Himself in some kind of identity with God.

It is clear who the being is who makes the promises in the Old Testament - it is God.

It is also clear who the being is who fulfills the promises in the New Testament - it is Jesus.

It is therefore clear, Jesus and God are "one and the same" in a certain sense.

 

[Free]

As I have answered it 5,000 times and you yet say I did not, my answering you once more will not help.

End of conversation.

Argue with yourself.

Your second last post in that thread was:

"How about laying them out one at a time? Pick one, present it to me, and I will address it, one at a time.

And as logic is built in chains let's try to present them in that chain order, where possible."

To which I pointed out that my post #429 was laid out in a logical order to make it easy to respond to. Your response to that, which was your last post in that thread was this:

"Not no games.

I told you I am not too brite.

But I just got finished with a real pondering of the earlier posts on this thread and the spirit in me said "You don't really want to get involved with this."

Let's just leave it at I am not brite enough to handle it. That works for me.

:waving"

So, no, you haven't even attempted an answer and yet you continue to say that such an understanding is false and is "man's so-called intelligent interpretation...that right there ought to raise a red flag." Until you can show that it truly "is not difficult to understand," than your statements of "man's so-called intelligent interpretations" will apply only to your interpretation. Fair enough?

 

[Who Says]

Your second last post in that thread was:

"How about laying them out one at a time? Pick one, present it to me, and I will address it, one at a time.

And as logic is built in chains let's try to present them in that chain order, where possible."

To which I pointed out that my post #429 was laid out in a logical order to make it easy to respond to. Your response to that, which was your last post in that thread was this:

"Not no games.

I told you I am not too brite.

But I just got finished with a real pondering of the earlier posts on this thread and the spirit in me said "You don't really want to get involved with this."

Let's just leave it at I am not brite enough to handle it. That works for me.

:waving"

So, no, you haven't even attempted an answer and yet you continue to say that such an understanding is false and is "man's so-called intelligent interpretation...that right there ought to raise a red flag." Until you can show that it truly "is not difficult to understand," than your statements of "man's so-called intelligent interpretations" will apply only to your interpretation. Fair enough?

I was told that is trolling and I did not even use it to create a false or misrepresentitive context.

Imagine that.

Have at it friend.

 

[mcgyver]

Whether there have been a lot of "good", "loving" men who were not Christian depends on how one defines good and loving.

I personally define it by what the Bible describes it to be. And I guarantee the Bible does not sanction pressing this issue of Jesus being God Incarnate. If it did it would plainly say so. But instead the entire concept has to be supported by men's so-called intelligent interpretations of the scriptures. That right there ought to serve as a red flag.

Let me ask you a question...just to ponder.

If in fact the bible does not press the issue of the divinity of Christ, then consider:

The Mormons will tell you in a heartbeat that Jesus is the son of God. Yet in their theology Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and simply one of an uncounted number of "spirit children" of "Elohim".

Are they going to heaven then?

The JW's will tell you that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and was raised as a "spirit creature".

Are they going to heaven then?

What makes the Mormons wrong and the JW's right, or vice versus? Are they both right? both wrong?

What is the standard then?

 

[Free]

I was told that is trolling and I did not even use it to create a false or misrepresentitive context.

Imagine that.

Have at it friend.

Firstly, no, it isn't trolling. Secondly, I have not misrepresented anything. It's all here: http://www.christianforums.net/f17/trinitarianism-what-non-trinitarians-believe-34014/index30.html beginning with post #429 and ending with #436. If I have misrepresented what you said, then please show me and I will apologize.

My two points right now are this: 1. You did not answer my points regarding John 1 despite your claim you did so 5000 times already, and 2. that until you show me where such an interpretation and reasoning are false, your claims that they are false will be taken as false.

Again, you said it was easy to understand. Based on that, I just want you to show me where I have gone wrong.

Where is the harm in that?

 

[Who Says]

Firstly, no, it isn't trolling. Secondly, I have not misrepresented anything. It's all here: http://www.christianforums.net/f17/trinitarianism-what-non-trinitarians-believe-34014/index30.html beginning with post #429 and ending with #436. If I have misrepresented what you said, then please show me and I will apologize.

My two points right now are this: 1. You did not answer my points regarding John 1 despite your claim you did so 5000 times already, and 2. that until you show me where such an interpretation and reasoning are false, your claims that they are false will be taken as false.

Again, you said it was easy to understand. Based on that, I just want you to show me where I have gone wrong.

Where is the harm in that?

Well, I also appologize for calling you on your post. This life is not easy for any of us. We stand and look at ourselves in the mirror and what we really see is a man who does not really even know himself let alone anyone else. Yet we know basically what the child is thinking when it looks at us with lips tight, chin wrinkled, and eyes cross. And that is not clairvoyant mind reading but quite natural to us. And we know words paint a picture. Yet some will conveniently condemn us as clairvoyant mind readers when it suits their need to ignore what we say to them.

All we have is faith. Faith is all we have. And everyone struggles to believe what they need to believe to cope with the uncertainty they feel deep inside. And to make matters worse we add to that struggle for others by our judgments.

The Atheist sees this and then also sees our preaching of a hope of faith and at the same time observes us dicing up each other because we cannot even agree on the hope that we preach.

There is no way anyone can tell me that when Able, Noah, Abraham and Job did not so much as even need a Bible to believe in God that this is what God gave us the Bible to do.

And I think that is where all of our conversation needs to begin. Because I am certain in me that the quid pro quo is wickedness.

 

[Eventide]

There is no way anyone can tell me that when Able, Noah, Abraham and Job did not so much as even need a Bible to believe in God that this is what God gave us the Bible to do.

They didn't need a bible because God spoke audibly to them.. and now Peter tells us (believers, not unbelievers) that we have a MORE SURE WORD of prophecy.. more sure than God's audible voice.. the holy scriptures.

The very word which you deny.

And thank God for this because if that wasn't the case then every Tom Dick and Harry would be telling us that God told them this and that.. etc etc etc..

 

[Free]

Well, I also appologize for calling you on your post. This life is not easy for any of us. We stand and look at ourselves in the mirror and what we really see is a man who does not really even know himself let alone anyone else. Yet we know basically what the child is thinking when it looks at us with lips tight, chin wrinkled, and eyes cross. And that is not clairvoyant mind reading but quite natural to us. And we know words paint a picture. Yet some will conveniently condemn us as clairvoyant mind readers when it suits their need to ignore what we say to them.

All we have is faith. Faith is all we have. And everyone struggles to believe what they need to believe to cope with the uncertainty they feel deep inside. And to make matters worse we add to that struggle for others by our judgments.

Agreed.

The Atheist sees this and then also sees our preaching of a hope of faith and at the same time observes us dicing up each other because we cannot even agree on the hope that we preach.

Dicing each other up is not good, I agree, and it certainly plays a part even in why the atheist is an atheist. But if we do it with a loving attitude, what I hope the atheist would at least see is that 1. we have a rational basis for our beliefs, and 2. that we can have rational discussions where we have differences, even if we agree to disagree. What I can tell you is that atheists often say that when they ask Christians certain questions, they often get the response of "I just believe," or "God did it," or something of the sort, and then think that our religion, our faith, is baseless. This is why providing proof of claims is so important.

If we make a claim we need to back it up or really, it becomes useless as a claim and one should rightly question why they ought to believe someone's claim if that person can give no reason for it. I know I have changed a couple of my doctrinal views based on debates here simply because I was presented with a stronger, better argument.

Besides, rigorous debate, done with the proper attitude, sharpens the mind and helps one to get better at thinking critically and reasonably, and learn to put together stronger, substantial arguments.

There is no way anyone can tell me that when Able, Noah, Abraham and Job did not so much as even need a Bible to believe in God that this is what God gave us the Bible to do.

I understand what you are saying but I would respectfully disagree, to a point. We should not use Scripture to "bite and devour" on another, however, I do believe one of the reasons we have it is to help us tell true doctrine from false. In fact, we are commanded to judge whether a teaching is true or false. We can still disagree and keep a civil debate as to why we disagree.

And I think that is where all of our conversation needs to begin. Because I am certain in me that the quid pro quo is wickedness.

Perhaps, especially if done with a wrong attitude.

 

[Who Says]

Agreed.


Dicing each other up is not good, I agree, and it certainly plays a part even in why the atheist is an atheist. But if we do it with a loving attitude, what I hope the atheist would at least see is that 1. we have a rational basis for our beliefs, and 2. that we can have rational discussions where we have differences, even if we agree to disagree. What I can tell you is that atheists often say that when they ask Christians certain questions, they often get the response of "I just believe," or "God did it," or something of the sort, and then think that our religion, our faith, is baseless. This is why providing proof of claims is so important.

If we make a claim we need to back it up or really, it becomes useless as a claim and one should rightly question why they ought to believe someone's claim if that person can give no reason for it. I know I have changed a couple of my doctrinal views based on debates here simply because I was presented with a stronger, better argument.

Besides, rigorous debate, done with the proper attitude, sharpens the mind and helps one to get better at thinking critically and reasonably, and learn to put together stronger, substantial arguments.


I understand what you are saying but I would respectfully disagree, to a point. We should not use Scripture to "bite and devour" on another, however, I do believe one of the reasons we have it is to help us tell true doctrine from false. In fact, we are commanded to judge whether a teaching is true or false. We can still disagree and keep a civil debate as to why we disagree.


Perhaps, especially if done with a wrong attitude.

Amen.

The Bible is not the problem. I stand by its every word. The problem is in the interpreters of what it says. I believe it is flawless and perfect as originally written. But that is not the impression we have conveyed to the world. On one hand we tell the world that it is the perfect word of God. On the other hand we bicker and fight about it to the point of hating each other who believe in it.

What do we expect the world to conclude?

And I KNOW (yes capitalized on purpose) I KNOW it is that we have taken the simple and turned to the complex by intermingling it with our own wisdom.

 

[Who Says]

They didn't need a bible because God spoke audibly to them.. and now Peter tells us (believers, not unbelievers) that we have a MORE SURE WORD of prophecy.. more sure than God's audible voice.. the holy scriptures.

The very word which you deny.

And thank God for this because if that wasn't the case then every Tom Dick and Harry would be telling us that God told them this and that.. etc etc etc..

I have to leave out for a while but would you do me a favor whilst I am gone and look up the correct spelling of kukle-burr for me?

Thank you. I appreciate that.

 

[Alabaster]

No man has seen God at anytime.

Apart from God man has no light.

God sent light to us as Jesus.

Jesus is therefore the only light we have of God.

Therefore Jesus can be nothing other than the light of all men.

He is the torch of all torches. No torch is lit but through him.

That is not difficult to understand.

Jesus is more than a mere torch. He is the Light. Period! He is God come in the flesh--Emmanuel--God with us!

 

[sdktlk]

Is Jesus God? Read the testimony entitled "The Gadarene."

 

[Alabaster]

Is Jesus God? Read the testimony entitled "The Gadarene."

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jesus is God -



Because He says to Paul of a severe affliction, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness." 2 Cor. 12:9.

Who but the all-sufficient God would presume to use such language! Says the Psalmist, "God is the strength of my heart." Psa. 73:26.

When, therefore, Jesus says, "I can of Mine own self do nothing," He does not mean to deny His claim to omnipotence and Deity, but to deny all separate interest from the Father, and to declare His essential oneness with Him; or, we may consider Him as speaking of Himself in the humble form of a servant which He assumed; in both respects the assertion is obviously true and in perfect harmony with His claims, as God, to omnipotence.

 

[Who Says]

Jesus is more than a mere torch. He is the Light. Period! He is God come in the flesh--Emmanuel--God with us!

Then stop manifesting insecurity by having to argue with everyone about it trying to force your belief on them. By arguing about it you present to the world that this was God's purpose in giving us his knowledge. But that is in fact how the knowledge of the tree of knowledge works its evil. It becomes nothing but knowledge to hate with.

I have seen everything you tell me many times before and do not agree with it. I can see and have said that it matters not whether that second god in John 1:1 is "God" or "a god". It yet says the same thing to me either way. And i know that neither side that argues about it can see how I am able to say that because both sides have their minds in a prison.

So get off this wicked hating and lying against others. Be it you or anyone are wrong that this has anything to do with whether one is an antichrist. And be it you or anyone are wicked in making such hateful claims. And God is going to punish both sides of this argument for using his word to hate each other and making him look bad in the world.

Get hate out of your constitution.

 

[Sam21]

Then stop manifesting insecurity by having to argue with everyone about it trying to force your belief on them. By arguing about it you present to the world that this was God's purpose in giving us his knowledge. But that is in fact how the knowledge of the tree of knowledge works its evil. It becomes nothing but knowledge to hate with.

I have seen everything you tell me many times before and do not agree with it. I can see and have said that it matters not whether that second god in John 1:1 is "God" or "a god". It yet says the same thing to me either way. And i know that neither side that argues about it can see how I am able to say that because both sides have their minds in a prison.

So get oof this wicked hating and lying against others. You are wrong that this has anything to do with whether one is an antichrist. And you are wicked in making such hateful claims. And God is going to punish both sides of this argument for using his word to hate each other and making him look bad in the world.

A question,since you know that it is a fundamental doctrine of the christian faith that Jesus is God, and there are various places in the bible that seem to support this belief, then WHY is it that you are so opposed to this idea? If you say because the bible does not support the idea then a half dozen christians can quote scripture to you that certainly seems to support the idea, so why are you so adamant about this particular area. You speak of not wanting to argue,however your position causes argument.

 

[Who Says]

A question,since you know that it is a fundamental doctrine of the christian faith that Jesus is God, and there are various places in the bible that seem to support this belief, then WHY is it that you are so opposed to this idea? If you say because the bible does not support the idea then a half dozen christians can quote scripture to you that certainly seems to support the idea, so why are you so adamant about this particular area. You speak of not wanting to argue,however your position causes argument.

It is you that insist on making it a fundamental doctrine. It is men that have insisted on making it fundamental. Men who insist this must be a fundamental doctrine have killed each other over this issue, subjecting those that disagreed with them to hideous torturous types of death. History is full of examples.

If you cannot even keep peace in this world there is no way Christ will let you rule with him in the next.

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.