It's is obvious that you and I are going to disagree. You believe I'm not agreeing with scripture and I believe you are not agreeing with scripture. So be it.
Jesus Christ Claims to be Yahweh - John 8:23-25
- Thread starter SolaScriptura
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
I deal with what you post on here. You cannot because the Bible is against you and therefore you use some excuse about disagreeing with me, when it is the Infallible Word of God that proves that you are wrong
The original text is all about Jesus as the book of Hebrews so plainly reveals.
AGAIN, ALL YOU DO IS DENY THE TRUTH!
For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?
And again:
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says:
“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; (The Father calls His Son, God)
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:5-10
Jesus, as YHWH the LORD created the heavens and the earth.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:15-18
Read These verses -
But to the Son He says:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth
JLB
Dia generally means God working by means of an intermediary, so “through” is correct. It can be translated as “by” with the understanding of “by means of.”
Right, and that is what I stated.
Right. So, as I stated, you’re conflating different meanings of “nature.” It is not meaning that we share in the divine essence. It means we share in his holiness, one of his communicable attributes, as opposed to the sin and corruption we experience now. See 2Pet 1:3, 1Pet 1:5, Heb 12:10, and Eph 2:3.
Jesus, however, as the Son of God, has the exact same nature, the same essence, as the Father, just as every human son has a human father.
None of this precludes Jesus from also being truly God. Again, you need to take the totality of the biblical revelation into account, including Phil 2:6-8, a restatement of John 1:1-3, 14 with additional detail.
You do what you choose, but you haven't convinced me to deny that God has an only begotten Son who he sent to mankind to die for mankind. What you want me to do is deny that God has an only begotten Son that was in heaven with him before he sent his only begotten to mankind to die for mankind.
So you go ahead and say that I'm just making some excuse. You're just don't like that I won't deny that God has a only begotten Son who he sent to die for mankind. That's the difference between you and I. I believe God has a only begotten Son who he sent to die for mankind, you obviously don't. You don't like the fact that I'm going to continue to exercise faith that God has an only begotten Son that he sent to mankind to die for mankind. So you are just going to have to continue to dislike that I'm not going to deny that God's only begotten Son existed in heaven with God before his prehuman existence.
Yes, we are to imitate Paul’s and Jesus’s life, who are examples of how we ought to live as believers. But I don’t see what this has to do with my response.
Each of them, rightly divided, based on a plain reading of the passages, fully support the Son being truly God; none refute that in the slightest.
None of these prove Jesus isn’t God, and 1 Cor 8:6 logically shows that he is.
He sure did, because his declaration that Jesus was his Lord and his God cannot mean anything else. It just can’t, as much as you want it to. That, along with Jesus’s many claims about himself, among other things, are precisely why John, decades later, wrote what he did in the prologue to his gospel. He also believed Jesus was the Son of God in human flesh, being truly God and truly man. There simply is no other way to understand what he wrote.
No. Theon and Theos are the same word. It has to do with the case—genitive (possessive), accusative (direct object), nominative (subject), dative (indirect object), and vocative. For more, see HERE and HERE. Don’t just repeat things you find on the internet but study them for yourself.
There is no other understanding for Thomas’s declaration than that Jesus is truly God in the same way the Father is truly God.
That is showing the distinction of persons and doesn’t preclude the Son from being truly God.
I don’t understand your argument here. It seems to be an straw man argument based on an incorrect understanding of the Trinity.
Because it also teaches that the Son is truly God.
I think the main reason is a lack of proper biblical study, a lack of understanding proper hermeneutics. That is why people end up proof-texting and taking things out of context. Everything begins (and ends) with Christ. If we get him wrong, nothing else matters.
Agreed.
The Greek preposition, “διά”, has the root meaning of, “two; from duo...two, between, through”.
The ancient Greek poet, Homer (around 800 BC), who was the first to use this preposition, did so with the meaning, "Through, by means of, by virtue of, by the help or working of" (Richard John Cunliffe; A Lexicon of Homeric Dialect, p.91). "By the help or working of", where two or more can do something, by equal participation, where there is no need to distinguish between the work done. And, “Mutual operation: with one another” (Henry Smith [G Crusius]; A Complete Greek and English Lexicon for the Poems of Homer, page, 106. 1871 ed).
This is exactly the meaning when used for Creation, which is the Work of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, Who Worked TOGETHER, and not "through". Genesis 1:1 is clear on this, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The Hebrew "’ĕ·lō·hîm" is in the masculine plural, which is used thousands of times in the Old Testament, to show the Plurality of Persons in the Eternal Godhead.
Which is what God's nature is. We can share in it.
Jesus also shared in God's nature, but not perfectly. Jesus was susceptible to temptation and is a human. God is not susceptible to temptation and is not a human.
Jesus is a human so he's automatically not God.
Let's see. If Jesus was in a crowd of 10,000 men, would you be able to point and say which one God is?
If Paul can intimate Jesus and we can imitate Paul then Jesus isn't God.
I rightly divided them and presented them here.
1 Corinthians 8:6 quantifies who the one God is and identifies Him as the Father like so many other places in Scripture. It proves Jesus isn't God.
According to Jesus, Thomas' God is the Father in John 20:17. I believe Jesus. Therefore when Thomas said, "my God" he was referring to the Father.
Based on Scripture there is simply no other way to understand what Thomas said.
No, I got it right. I demonstrated that no matter how John 20:28 is interpretted, it actually doesn't support the deity of Jesus.
Let's put your logic to the test. Your premise is that if Jesus is called X thing then that means that is who or what he is. However, do you apply the same reasoning to other p[laces in the Bible such as Matthew 16:23 where Jesus directly called Peter Satan? According to your opinion, that would follow that Peter is the devil in the flesh.
Matthew 16
23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Thomas didn't say to Jesus "you" are my God.
Demonstrably, no one in the Bible even believed Jesus is God. I'll go into that in my next reply.
Yes it does.
Not according to scripture.
John 20:28 is a proof text. There are so many places in the Bible where Jesus isn't God.
Okay okay, got it. I won't be able to get through to you and we are just going around in circles at this point and you seem to be copying and pasting the same replies to me at this point. I won't be believing your presentation of scripture. It'll never happen, I guarantee it. The way I am is I accept what the best manuscripts say and if one is proven to be false such as your 1 Timothy 3:16 containing "God" then I have no problem accepting that.
“Through” is a legitimate translation and is how dia is most often translated, as that is generally what it means. Again, “by” can and likely does mean “by means of,” in John 1:3. Your sources support that meaning.
Whether “by” or “through,” it doesn’t matter; it has no consequence for the doctrine of the Trinity. As such, it seems to me to be making a mountain out of a mole hill.
So now you reject the what the scriptures say in the book of Hebrews about the Son of God?
First it was 1 Timothy 3:14-16 that show the context of the word God (Theos G2316) where you claim "God (theos) was in the original text. You then reject what John 1:1 say about the Word (Son) being God.
You then reject Colossians 1:15-16 that shows us Jesus Christ the Son, created all things in heaven and earth.
Now you reject what Hebrews says about the Son being called God by the Father, and that the Father says the Son created the heavens and the earth.
You basically reject the bible, and deny what is written!
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?
And again:
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
7 And of the angels He says:
“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
10 And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:5-10
now you are speaking about things you don't know much about. it is best that nothing is said!
Here we go again with Hebrews 1:5-10. Did you read my last reply about this where I pointed out it's a quote from the Old Testament book of Psalms chapter 45? This is about a human king who has a queen. YHWH isn't a human king with a queen. Psalm 45 isn't a Messianic Psalm. The author of Hebrews later applied this chapter to Jesus, but since the original context in Psalm 45 isn't about YHWH, it doesn't transfer to Hebrews 1 that Jesus is God.
I could accept they call Jesus a god and that would be okay, but not God because it doesn't fit the context.
You even quoted verse 9 which only enhances the context, proving the point I have been making all along. The one who was anointed is an inferior and subordinate person, with companions, anointed by someone greater.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
What this means is the God who anointed the Son is YHWH as Hebrews 1:10 clearly and plainly shows you.
There's proof for this is all over Hebrews 1.
Hebrews 1:1 God spoke through the prophets in the past not Jesus
Hebrews 1:2 God didn't speak through the Son until the last days through whom God made the ages.
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the representation of God, therefore he isn't the God he represents
Hebrews 1:4 The Son "became" superior to angels and "inherited" a greater name, therefore it follows he was at one point less than or equal to angels and didn't have a greater name until he inherited it.
Hebrews 1:5 YHWH became the Son's Father today, so to say YHWH was not always the Son's Father.
Hebrews 1:6 YHWH commanded angels to bow to Jesus, yet Philippians 2:10,11 is clear only the Sons Father gets glory when Jesus is bowed to
Hebrews 1:7 about angels
Hebrews 1:8-10 about a lesser being who God anointed above his companions by YHWH and a quote from Psalm 45 about the one who was anointed isn't YHWH.
Therefore, Jesus isn't God, Jesus isn't YHWH, etc.
Many believe Jesus to be God others believe him to be the only begotten Son of God.
Because so many people view Jesus to be God they say that the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. According to this teaching, the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” But why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?
The Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible. Because the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine, Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts, even twisting them, to find support for their teaching.
One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton theon], and the Word was God [theos].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun theos (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word theon refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, theos has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?
The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho agros] is the world [Greek, ho kosmos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.
What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho theos and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”
It did not seem so to Jesus that the identity of God was some profound mystery. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Jesus also said at John 20:17 said he has a Father and God which is his apostles Father and God. If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship YHWH God as “the only true God.”
Because so many people view Jesus to be God they say that the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. According to this teaching, the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” But why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?
The Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible. Because the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine, Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts, even twisting them, to find support for their teaching.
One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton theon], and the Word was God [theos].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun theos (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word theon refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, theos has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?
The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho agros] is the world [Greek, ho kosmos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.
What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho theos and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”
It did not seem so to Jesus that the identity of God was some profound mystery. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Jesus also said at John 20:17 said he has a Father and God which is his apostles Father and God. If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship YHWH God as “the only true God.”
Here is A T Robertson on John 1:1
And the Word was God (κα θεος ην ο λογος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο θεος ην ο λογος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ο λογος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ο λογος) and the predicate without it (θεος) just as in John 4:24 πνευμα ο θεος can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ο θεος αγαπη εστιν can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ο Λογος σαρξ εγενετο, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html
It is clear that Robertson says that Jesus Christ is GOD
William Barclay's translation on John 1:1
"When the world had its beginning, the Word was already there; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God"
and on verse 18
"No one has ever seen God. It is the unique one, he who is God, he who is in the bosom of the Father, who has told us all about God."
In both places Barclay says that Jesus Christ is GOD
The Unitarian George Noyes in his own translation says on verse 1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", https://archive.org/details/newtestament00noye/page/196/mode/2up
and on verse 18
" No one hath ever seen God ; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath made him known."
Noyes is clear that Jesus Christ is GOD.
Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott, which is published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, reads in the English right hand translation
"In the Beginning was the Locos, and the Locos was with God, and the Logos was God", https://archive.org/details/nouveau...benjamin-wilson-wtbts-1902/page/n295/mode/2up
Clearly the JWs own publication says that Jesus Christ is GOD!
As I said you believe what you choose. I understand you want to teach people that God is the Word, so teach people to deny that the Word is the only begotten Son of God. So that when you do get people to agree with you, and they deny that the only begotten Son of God is the Word they will be denying it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human and came to mankind to die for mankind. People must make their choice what they believe.
Please don’t make such statements. They are completely unhelpful and show your pride. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they “don’t know much about” the topic or that you know more or that you are right.
I have written facts. How can this be showing my pride?
Why do people have to keep on being "nice" and compromise on the TRUTH?
Jesus spoke the Truth always and He offended many!
If anyone thinks that I am wrong then they should prove it