Is Jesus really God ?

[MarkT]

Not wishing to get involved in this, but didn't the same thing happen to Philip in Acts 8?

Could be. And Paul said something about a man being caught up to the third heaven Cor. !2:3 He didn't know whether he was in the body or out of the body.

Having said what I said about the resurrection, I also believe in a physical resurrection, otherwise the spirits who are awaiting judgment would not be judged, and the wicked would have nothing to fear.

 

[MarkT]

If God made Jesus, then by definition, Jesus cannot be God.

That’s your definition. I believe even created beings like ourselves can partake of the divine nature. We don’t have to be uncreated to be the sons of God.

 

[Eventide]

That's right. But Jesus was the Word of God, so elementally his flesh and bones were not perishable. He couldn't be held down by death. And neither can we if we believe.

Elementally his flesh and bones were not perishable..? Could you elaborate on this..

But the problem with the Trinitarians is they love their humanity too much to ever believe man is only temporary.

Now that's funny..

I can say that because it says so in the Bible.

'And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.' Luke 24:31 RSV

So regardless of the fact that the Lord just told them that HE DID have flesh and bone.. you're denying that His resurrected body was physical and real so to speak..?

 

[savedbygrace57]

asy:

Dear me. Try reading that again sbg57.

Maybe you need to read it again.

 

[Drew]

Consider this text, extracted from a prayer King Hezekiah makes in the book of Isaiah:

14Then Hezekiah took the letter from the hand of the messengers and read it, and he went up to the house of the LORD and spread it out before the LORD. 15Hezekiah prayed to the LORD saying, 16"O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth You have made heaven and earth.

The house of the Lord is the temple and the two cherubim are part of the “furniture†of the inner room. What is between the cherubim? The ark of covenant which holds the very presence of the living God.

Now consider this scene from the resurrection morning:

But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; 12and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." 14When she had said this, she turned around and (T)saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.

This is, I suggest, no co-incidence. In the temple we have the two cherubim with God’s presence “between†them. In the tomb we have two angels, with the “bed†where Jesus lay between them. Through these clear structural parallels, John is clearly saying this Jesus is the very embodiment of the presence of God.

The structural parallels are too close for this to be co-incidence – John is literally begging us to see the tomb as a temple model – the two cherubim in the temple flank the place where God’s very presence dwelt. In the tomb, we get the same set-up, two angels flanking the resting place of Jesus. How can it possibly be the case that John is not intending to tell us the following: Jesus, the very embodiment of the living God, is no longer confined to the temple as God was in the Old Testament, but is now “set loose in the worldâ€.

With all due respect, this is where the opponents of the “Jesus is God†position are in big trouble. They are forced to ignore this and a whole raft of other example of how the narrative itself, with its rich parallels and allusions, drive us to understand that Jesus is the very embodiment of God.

They have to ignore that in returning to Jerusalem and to the temple, Jesus sets Himself in the role of God (who promised that He would do these things).

They have to ignore that in setting Himself in the role of a mother hen desiring to protect Jews under her wings , Jesus sets Himself in the role of God (who refers to Himself in the Old Testament using this exact same image).

And I fully expect this “temple to tomb†similarity will be dismissed and / or ignored as well.

 

[Drew]

Drew

I have asked several times, myself, how people like yourself understand such very clear verses as the following - and as yet you, Free, sbg57 et al have said simply nothing.

I'll list them again, and hope you will engage with them directly and in response to this post:

1 John 14.28: 'For my Father is greater than I'

2 20.17 "I ascend to My Father and your Father; and to my God and your God"

3 Rev 1.6 "...and he [Jesus] made us kings and priests unto his [Jesus'] God and his [Jesus'] Father"

etc.

Many of the arguments against the divinity of Jesus have a common feature – they appeal to apparent concept-level contradictions. So, for example, we have this argument:

1. God is, of course, “divineâ€;
2. Jesus repeatedly declares that God is “greater than Iâ€;
3. That which is “less†than divine cannot itself be divine;
4. Therefore, Jesus cannot be divine.

And there are many other similar arguments, such as a number of variants on the “naming†argument – if Jesus refers to God as “my Godâ€, how can Jesus Himself be God?

This line of thinking has a certain appeal – we are, of course, rightly concerned about ensuring that our models and representations of reality are internally consistent, in the sense that we honour the terms of our models, and don’t say things like “A is greater than B, but A is also less than Bâ€. Quite understandably, we would be suspicious of such a statement.

I suggest that many of the arguments presented by those who deny Jesus’ divinity have the following feature: they claim to expose the conceptual inconsistencies, and therefore the impossibility, of the Trinitarian position when, in fact, the only thing the Trinitarian is really “guilty of†is of not having adequate conceptual tools to make sense of the assertion that Jesus is divine.

There is a subtle, but important difference between these two things. If I claim that A is both greater than B, and also less than B, I probably am indeed talking nonsense. But the Trinitarian is not really making this kind of mistake. Consider the fact that scientists often describe physical reality using two very different models: the particle model and the wave model. Under the particle model an “electron†is a thing that is localized to one very particular “placeâ€. Under the wave description, the electron is extended in space, just like a wave is.

There certainly is a flavour of conceptual incoherence here – how can the same thing be both localized to a point and yet also extended in space? But the scientific community is perfectly happy to live with this tension. And rightly so, because the real problem is not that an error has been made, but rather that we humans (for now at least) lack the conceptual richness to provide a description of reality that is free from such uncomfortable conceptual challenges. And perhaps, we will never overcome this limitation. But, and this is the key point, this doesn’t mean that the particle model and the wave model are not valid ways to describe a single underlying reality, even though there are these seeming contradictions. In other words, these “contradictions†are not seen by any responsible scientist that there must be something “wrong†with the model. Instead, the scientist is properly humble – nature is what it is, and if it turns out that we cannot describe it in a manner that is entirely free of conceptual discomfort, so be it.

Now I am not suggesting that “God the Father†and “God the Son†are merely different ways to describe an entirely singular thing (as in the electron example) but the main point still holds – the seeming “contradictions†in the Trinitarian position really disclose the weakness of our conceptual powers, and not a fundamentally untenable position. God is what “He†is and if it is a struggle to make sense of Him, well, so be it.

But the real heart of the problem is that the opponents of the “Jesus is divine†position really do put the cart before the horse. Just as the scientist is “forced†by the data of the real world to accept wave-particle duality, with all its conceptual challenges, so is the responsible reader of Scripture “forced†by the content of the narrative, to embrace the notion that Jesus is God, even with all the conceptual challenges this brings.

This point is absolutely vital – the opponents of the “Jesus is God†position have been repeatedly, and almost without exception, refusing to engage Biblical arguments that show that Jesus the man is doing things that properly belong to the role of God. The proper approach to exegesis is to accept these truths from the narrative and live with the conceptual trouble that results. Instead, what the naysayers are doing is making conceptual arguments up front that effectively require us to muzzle parts of the narrative.

 

[Free]

That’s your definition. I believe even created beings like ourselves can partake of the divine nature. We don’t have to be uncreated to be the sons of God.

No, that is more than just my definition. God has attributes that make him God that no created thing can have. One of those attributes is that God is uncreated. Therefore, no created being can ever be called God.

 

[Free]

With all due respect, this is where the opponents of the “Jesus is God†position are in big trouble. They are forced to ignore this and a whole raft of other example of how the narrative itself, with its rich parallels and allusions, drive us to understand that Jesus is the very embodiment of God.

Agreed. Possibly on that line of thinking, I found something interesting in reading Titus:

1:3-4, 3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior; 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

2:10-13, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

3:4-6, 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

I'm sure there is a lot than can be said but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[Free]

This is question begging in excelsis. You are assuming what you are trying to prove - again.

Not at all. I have simply shown that there is a legitimate understanding of the use of "beginning" which is still in full agreement with Jesus being God.

Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (NKJV)

Jesus is never called the Almighty - so this is a clear reference to the Father: "...saith the Lord God" who cannot be mistaken for Jesus, and the rest of the verse is the covenant name, YHWH in translation - who was, who is, and who is to come.

This is the Divine imprimatur on the book of Revelation, the seal that it is genuinely from God Himself.

I say that because those words are used directly in ch 4 of the Almighty who is the one sitting on the throne (4.2)

You will have observed, I hope, the this book is the one which 'God gave unto him' (1.1). That is the first assertion, and which proves that Jesus is God's messenger in all this, not the author.

Firstly, I never said this refers to Jesus, at least it may not do so explicitly. Secondly, thank you for helping me make my point. To say that this verse refers only to the Father supports my assertion that "beginning" can have a different meaning. And since you must necessarily agree, it shows that I was not begging the question earlier.

Also, take note of the language: "the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End."

Rev 21:6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. (NKJV)

Jesus is the beginning of God's New Creation as He just said in 3.14 as I pointed out

This is begging the question. Just because you say that "Jesus is the beginning of God's New Creation," doesn't make it true. We must take into account everything that is said.

Regardless, notice that this is God once again stating that he is "the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." Once again there is support for my assertion that "beginning" does not necessarily mean "the first of."

Rev 22:12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." (NKJV)

The same holds true, and is a reference to ch 1, where He describes Himself fully for our benefit.

v5... the firstborn of the dead...

v17.. "I am the first and the last:and the Living One" what does that mean? He explains:
"..and I was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of hades".

But here you have completely missed the significance of Jesus referring to himself as "the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."

It is worthwhile here to look at some relevant OT passages:

Isa 41:4 Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. (ESV)

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

Again, clearly we have the being who is God, YHWH, referring to Himself as "the first and the last." So, if Jesus isn't God, then his referring to himself as "the first and the last," is nothing short of blasphemy.

If he is the offspring of David, then he cannot be from eternity, can he?

Why not? No one is denying either his humanity and lineage from David, nor his claim to be the Messiah. Neither have anything to do with whether or not he is from eternity.

In case you're wondering, He is the Root - because He was dead and in the earth. He is the Offspring, because the dead Root produced a new shoot, David's greater Son.

Well, I wasn't wondering and that really isn't why. Two ways to look at this: a root supports a tree, or a root grows out from a tree. It is likely the latter as it is supported by what follows: "offspring of David." That is in reference to his humanity. But more than that, it is a title of the Messiah.

Of what? Of the New Creation of God in Christ.

This echoes Rev 1:8, 11, 17-18:


This has been explained before.
....


See previous remarks.



Every one of your quotes refers to the BEGINNING OF THE NEW CREATION OF GOD IN CHRIST.

No, they do not. First, you have not come close to proving anything about Jesus being "the beginning of the new creation of God in Christ." You have presumed that you are correct, when you are not, and are now doing Scripture a great injustice by forcing your own interpretation into the text to make Scripture say what you want it to say and are not letting it speak for itself. Third, I have clearly shown that "beginning" has more than one meaning, and one of those, which fits every usage of it in Revelation, is that Christ is the beginner, the author of Creation.

And you will notice that this perfectly fits with all that I have said about John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:5-8, and Col 1:16-17. And all of that is based on a plain reading of Scripture and letting the text speak for itself without having to change the meanings of words and read meanings into the text which aren't there.

Now please comment on ch1.6:

'..priests unto HIS GOD and Father'.

Clearly, one must take into account all that is being said in this chapter, and also the whole book. To make this say that since the Father is said to be Jesus' God that therefore Jesus cannot be God, is to ignore what is said elsewhere, or, as you have done, reinterpret the text to make it say something it is not saying.

Jesus is the God-man and as such, as our example and Lord, he rightly referred to God as his God and our God. That Jesus himself says the Father is his God does not preclude Jesus himself from being God.


Here I must once again reiterate the main issue that can be seen throughout this thread. Non-trinitarian positions must necessarily ignore or change the plain meanings of passages which contradict their position, passages such as those mentioned above. In doing so, they make Jesus out to be a mere creature.

The trinitarian position, on the other hand, at least attempts to reconcile all that is said about Christ, without ignoring any or changing meanings. This is done without ignoring or compromising neither those passages which explicitly and implicitly state he is God nor those which clearly show his humanity.

 

[Asyncritus]

This point is absolutely vital – the opponents of the “Jesus is God†position have been repeatedly, and almost without exception, refusing to engage Biblical arguments that show that Jesus the man is doing things that properly belong to the role of God. The proper approach to exegesis is to accept these truths from the narrative and live with the conceptual trouble that results. Instead, what the naysayers are doing is making conceptual arguments up front that effectively require us to muzzle parts of the narrative.

Drew

I appreciate the time and effort you've made to produce this serious and lengthy reply.

Alas, there is a very grave deficiency in it, and I think you probably know what it is.

You haven't attempted to answer the very serious question posed by those passages.

If the Father is Jesus' God, then that carries major implications with it.

Let me ask you first, though, and I need your agreement on the point, Do you agree that the Father is Jesus' God, in the light of those verses I quoted?

If you do then I can proceed to draw out those major implications. If you don't, then there is no point in my doing so.

So, do you agree with that very fundamental premise?

 

[Drew]

Drew

I appreciate the time and effort you've made to produce this serious and lengthy reply.

Alas, there is a very grave deficiency in it, and I think you probably know what it is.

You haven't attempted to answer the very serious question posed by those passages.

If the Father is Jesus' God, then that carries major implications with it.

And I appreciate the fact that you read my material. However, I have addressed your question in a more general way.

I argued that all these "conceptual" challenges that come with the Trinitarian position - and one example is how can Jesus be God if His father is also God - are not showstoppers, but rather the necessary consequence of taking the narrative seriously. Yes, there are "challenges" with the idea of God being one, yet three. But that is where the narrative forces us. If this were not the case, why aren't you (and others) jumping all over the narrative arguments and showing where they are mistaken?

And you, and others, continue to simply ignore them. Very telling indeed.

Let me ask you first, though, and I need your agreement on the point, Do you agree that the Father is Jesus' God, in the light of those verses I quoted?

Absolutely - the Father is "Jesus's God". But I will anticipate your next move - you will try to argue thus:

1. The "Father" that Jesus refers to is indeed "God";
2. Jesus sets Himself apart from that Father by referring to Him as "my God";
3. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

This kind of argument, if indeed this is what you will say, fundamentally begs the very question at issue. Reasoning like this rules out the Trinitarian position off the table even before the narrative evidence is examined. That is putting the cart before the horse. Yes, it bends the mind to have a "God" (Jesus) referring to "God" (the Father) as "my God". But why would you necessarily expect that the God of the Universe would be describable in neat conceptual categories? That seems an awfully bold assumption.

The correct approach is to take the narrative as the stating point. And, as has been shown (even though one poster still deserves a response from me), we have, as one major element of the narrative, Jesus fulfilling the promise that YHWH would return to Zion and to the temple.

You must undermine this argument for your position to be sustained, but you, and almost all the others, are entirely silent on this matter. Can you explain why?

Or, I suggest that, whether you realize it or not, you may be employing the following exegetical principle: I will ignore those elements of the Biblical narrative that cannot be readily accomodated into the set of concepts I bring to the reading.

 

[Asyncritus]

And I appreciate the fact that you read my material. However, I have addressed your question in a more general way.

I argued that all these "conceptual" challenges that come with the Trinitarian position - and one example is how can Jesus be God if His father is also God - are not showstoppers, but rather the necessary consequence of taking the narrative seriously. Yes, there are "challenges" with the idea of God being one, yet three. But that is where the narrative forces us. If this were not the case, why aren't you (and others) jumping all over the narrative arguments and showing where they are mistaken?

And you, and others, continue to simply ignore them. Very telling indeed.

Absolutely - the Father is "Jesus's God". But I will anticipate your next move - you will try to argue thus:

1. The "Father" that Jesus refers to is indeed "God";
2. Jesus sets Himself apart from that Father by referring to Him as "my God";
3. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

That wasn't quite what I had in mind. What I am going to say is this:

1 If The Father is Jesus' God, as God Himself, Jesus Himself, the NT, and you agree, the you must forgive me, but I cannot see how the Father can in any way be other that Jesus' superior.

And if He is superior (as that whole list of 78 passages in John's gospel which I posted awhile back states quite clearly) then by definition Jesus cannot be equal to Him.

This kind of argument, if indeed this is what you will say, fundamentally begs the very question at issue. Reasoning like this rules out the Trinitarian position off the table even before the narrative evidence is examined.

I'm afraid you're right. But isn't that what we are examining right now?

That is putting the cart before the horse.

It's strange, but that is exactly what I was thinking about your position quite recently.

You seem to be rejecting the superior position the Father holds to everything else. Having made that assumption, then of course, everything else is up for grabs.

Yes, it bends the mind to have a "God" (Jesus) referring to "God" (the Father) as "my God". But why would you necessarily expect that the God of the Universe would be describable in neat conceptual categories? That seems an awfully bold assumption.

The God of the Universe Himself made that neat conceptual categorisation. Jesus agrees with it and supports it fully in several places. The NT writers do the same.

I cannot see any good reason to disagree with them - and that is the reason for my position. There's just too much weight for me to attempt to put to one side.

The correct approach is to take the narrative as the stating point. And, as has been shown (even though one poster still deserves a response from me), we have, as one major element of the narrative, Jesus fulfilling the promise that YHWH would return to Zion and to the temple.

You may not have read the thread Who is God in the Bible. In it I present some of the vast amount of very clear evidence that God's Representatives are permitted to use the YHWH name. Here is the classic and definitive one:

Ex.23. 20 ¶ "Behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Have regard for him, and obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for My name is in him.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

Very clearly, this is an Angel: I send an angel before thee

Equally clearly he is God's Representative with complete Divine authority vested in him: for My name is in him.

He therefore speaks as if he were God Himself: obey his voice, do all that I speak - ( even though the words may come out of the angel's mouth, it is as if God Himself is speaking.)

- and forgives transgressions, or not as the case may be: for he will not pardon your transgressions.

Given all that, and I cannot see how it can be gainsaid, you must admit that God's greatest Representative of all, His Son, is fully entitled to use, and be described by the YHWH name, the name of His Father.

In fact, Php 2 states categorically that God has given Him 'the name that is above every name'. That may be the YHWH name, and now it is perfectly easy to understand what has happened.

The prophecies which speak of the LORD coming to his temple, are speaking of the Bearer of the Name YHWH coming to the temple. It is not the Bearer's temple - He expressly disclaims that: 'Ye have made MY FATHER'S HOUSE a den of thieves.'

1 ¶ "Behold, I will send My messenger, [John the Baptist]
and he shall prepare the way before Me.

And the Lord [this is NOT the name YHWH], whom you seek, shall suddenly come to His [YHWH's] temple, even the Messenger of the covenant [Jesus], whom ye delight in. Behold, He shall come," saith the LORD [YHWH] of hosts.

Here are ESV and Message (which in this case I find illuminating):

1 ¶ “Behold, I send my messenger and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. ESV

1 ¶ "Look! I’m sending my messenger on ahead to clear the way for me. Suddenly, out of the blue, the Leader you’ve been looking for will enter his Temple—yes, the Messenger of the Covenant, the one you’ve been waiting for. Look! He’s on his way!" A Message from the mouth of GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies. MSG

Interesting.

You must undermine this argument for your position to be sustained, but you, and almost all the others, are entirely silent on this matter. Can you explain why?

Consider the argument undermined.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Because He not only healed all manner of diseases and raised the dead in His own name, but, with the same display of divine authority, said to the paralytic, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Mark 2:5.

Would not this be blasphemy, were He not Himself the great Lawgiver, the supreme Judge, even God? "Who can forgive sins but God only?" Mk 2:7 [see job 14:4] The language of Jehovah is, "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions." Isa. 43:25.

Jesus Christ authoritatively pronounced the forgiveness of sins: He is therefore God.

 

[Alabaster]

God is the ONLY Saviour:

1. "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11

2. To the only wise God our Saviour... Jude 1:12


3. God our Saviour. Titus 2:10


4. ...we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour. I Timothy 4:10


5. God my Saviour. Luke 1:47








Jesus is the ONLY Saviour:


[SIZE=+1][/SIZE] 1. ...the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14


2. ...our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 3:18


3. ...God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 1:1


4. ...the Christ, the Saviour of the world. John 4:42


5. ...the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. Titus 1:4


6. a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11


7. Neither is there salvation in any other (than Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. --Acts 4:12


8. ...salvation... is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10


9. ...captain of their salvation [Jesus] perfect through sufferings. ---Hebrews 2:10


10. [Jesus]...author of eternal salvation... Hebrews 5:9

 

[Asyncritus]

Because He not only healed all manner of diseases and raised the dead in His own name,

41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
42 And I knew that you hear me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that you have sent me.

but, with the same display of divine authority, said to the paralytic, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Mark 2:5.

8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Would not this be blasphemy, were He not Himself the great Lawgiver, the supreme Judge, even God? "Who can forgive sins but God only?" Mk 2:7 [see job 14:4] The language of Jehovah is, "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions." Isa. 43:25.

Jesus Christ authoritatively pronounced the forgiveness of sins: He is therefore God.

So is this Angel:

Ex 23.20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

When are you going to stop doing this and start really reading what the bible says??

 

[Asyncritus]

God is the ONLY Saviour:

1. "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11

2. To the only wise God our Saviour... Jude 1:12


3. God our Saviour. Titus 2:10


4. ...we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour. I Timothy 4:10


5. God my Saviour. Luke 1:47

Jesus is the ONLY Saviour:


1. ...the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14


2. ...our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 3:18


3. ...God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 1:1


4. ...the Christ, the Saviour of the world. John 4:42


5. ...the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. Titus 1:4


6. a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11


7. Neither is there salvation in any other (than Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. --Acts 4:12


8. ...salvation... is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10


9. ...captain of their salvation [Jesus] perfect through sufferings. ---Hebrews 2:10


10. [Jesus]...author of eternal salvation... Hebrews 5:9

2 Kings 13. 4 And Jehoahaz besought the LORD, and the LORD hearkened unto him: for he saw the oppression of Israel, because the king of Syria oppressed them.
5 (And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.

In the following passages 03467 = save, saviour etc.

Jud 3:9 And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer <03467> to the children of Israel, who delivered <03467> them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother.
Jud 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a deliverer <03467>, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab.
Jud 3:31 And after him was Shamgar the son of Anath, which slew of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad: and he also delivered <03467> Israel.
Jud 6:14 And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save <03467> Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
Jud 6:15 And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save <03467> Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.

Are all these saviours God too?

 

[savedbygrace57]

asy:

Are all these saviours God too?

Not even in the same leauge..

 

[cleanfreak]

asy:



Not even in the same leauge..

How do you know for sure? The same word (03467) is used.

Very interesting points Asyncritus.

 

[Prince]

No, that is more than just my definition. God has attributes that make him God that no created thing can have. One of those attributes is that God is uncreated. Therefore, no created being can ever be called God.

What biblical passage leads you to believe Jesus was created?

From my knowledge of scripture Christ has always existed.

 

[savedbygrace57]

cf:

How do you know for sure?

If you dont know, I cannot help you..