Jesus Is God: Part 1

[Randy]

Only while Jesus was on earth.
Notice as well that no mortal can possess those things.

What about God the Spirit?

Which did you read?
God the Spirit or the Spirit of God?

Take heart Jesus is all that the Father is and He and the Father are one but He has always been the Son.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

For in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell. Col 1:19

 

[Free]

Take heart Jesus is all that the Father is and He and the Father are one but He has always been the Son.

So, you agree then that the Son is and always has been God?

 

[Cooper]

You keep stating Jesus was God in the flesh but you answer as Jesus ceased being God when He became the Son of Man.

Which did you read?
When I became the Son of Man the Father became the only true God.

the only true God

When Jesus returns in His Glory as the Son of Man on the last Day will He be God then?

My emphasis on the deity of Jesus, is because when I first came on the internet in the year 2000 when I got my First Windows computer, before then I was an Atari user and thought it was wonderful, but that is beside the point. Anyway, as soon as I mention Jesus, I meet so much opposition, it is unbelievable. You can see it for yourself when you go on the forums. Now then, as salvation is only through Jesus Christ in whom belief is essential for salvation, then in order to lead people to Christ we need to show them that salvation is only through Jesus and none other. Hence my emphasis on Jesus, because to believe in Him is to believe in God.

So if you want to be a soul winner, be an apostle for Jesus, for He is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[stovebolts]

The Israelites were the first to have God's word. Did the Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees believe in a three in one God? Nope!

Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV 1900): Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

I tried explaining this to you earlier…

The Hebrew word one does not have to refer to its numerical counterpart. It means whole and complete. Numerically, it could represent 1 or many depending on what made that object while and complete.

 

[Cooper]

What about God the Spirit?

Which did you read?
God the Spirit or the Spirit of God?

Take heart Jesus is all that the Father is and He and the Father are one but He has always been the Son.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

For in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell. Col 1:19

We are made in the image and likeness of God, and like God we are a tripartite being, comprising body soul and spirit. I do not divide God up into three, for God is one, and to separate God into three is to destroy His oneness. The Spirit of the Father dwells in Jesus, and when we accept Jesus into our heart and life we have all the fulness of the Godhead in us and are saved by the blood of the Lamb. (Not the Father.) Blessings to you. "Look to Jesus and be saved."

 

[Butch5]

I tried explaining this to you earlier…

The Hebrew word one does not have to refer to its numerical counterpart. It means whole and complete. Numerically, it could represent 1 or many depending on what made that object while and complete.

How did the Jews understand it?

 

[Free]

How did the Jews understand it?

Pre-Christ, the Jews probably understood it to mean that there was one God, as a statement of monotheism. Post-Christ, they understood it as the same, but that within the one God, there were three persons--a compound unity. Again, this is quite likely what Paul, a Jew, wrote about in 1 Cor 8:4-6, although referencing only the Father and Jesus.

 

[Butch5]

Pre-Christ, the Jews probably understood it to mean that there was one God, as a statement of monotheism. Post-Christ, they understood it as the same, but that within the one God, there were three persons--a compound unity. Again, this is quite likely what Paul, a Jew, wrote about in 1 Cor 8:4-6, although referencing only the Father and Jesus.

The Jews didn't see the Holy Spirit as a person. They referred to it as the shekinah glory of God. So, there's no way they saw a Trinity. It seems pretty obvious they didn't see the Son as God since they killed Him.

 

[Free]

The Jews didn't see the Holy Spirit as a person. They referred to it as the shekinah glory of God. So, there's no way they saw a Trinity. It seems pretty obvious they didn't see the Son as God since they killed Him.

Would you prefer I used post-resurrection instead of post-Christ (I used this term since he did imply certain things about himself and the Holy Spirit)? Or do you want to deny that all the first disciples were Jews?

I should also ask: how many Jews believed in a dying and resurrecting Messiah?

 

[Butch5]

Did the Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees believe Jesus was the Son of God or the Son of Man? Nope!


Deut 6:4 does not speak of the nature of God; it is only a statement of monotheism, which the doctrine of the Trinity affirms. In the Hebrew, the Shema actually leaves room for God being triune.


I've already given a plausible explanation as to Jesus' statement. Suffice it to say that it doesn't preclude Jesus from being God. Indeed, your own position necessitates that Jesus is God.


Interesting verse, isn't it? What does it look like to you, in verse 5

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Quite possibly Paul had the Shema in mind and expanded on it with understanding of Jesus as God. There are two problems for you here:

1. If the use of "God" is exclusive to the Father, then it follows that the use of "Lord" is exclusive to Jesus.
2. If "from whom are all things and for whom we exist," speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Father, then it follows that "through whom are all things and through whom we exist" speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Son.


First, we have already seen that according to your position, only the Son is Lord to the exclusion of the Father. Second:

Rev 17:14 "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” (ESV)


You stopped your bolding too soon. Notice that the Son is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God." It shows that they believed the Son was God. A curious thing that you seem to think otherwise by quoting it for support. Why it doesn't speak of three in one should be obvious--the whole point was to make a statement of who Jesus was as the Son of God.


And, yet, even in quotes you provided of the Nicene Creed, they believed Jesus was God. There is no getting around it and that was a belief held since at least the early second century.


Yes, and they believed he was "true God of true God," because that is what the Bible states. This is where your reasoning has failed to take into account the very things you claim. If Jesus proceeds from the Father and was begotten, not made, then he is of the same substance or nature as the Father. If that is the case, then it follows that he has existed for eternity past. If he hasn't existed for eternity past, then he cannot be of the same nature, since that nature is eternal.


The Trinity follows from accepting the deity of Jesus, based on what the Bible states about the Holy Spirit. That it took centuries to formulate the specifics is irrelevant as to the truth of the matter.

The Trinity doesn't follow from accepting the Deity of Jesus. Where do the Scriotures say the Holy Spirit is a third person? The 3 in1 concept is a logical contradiction. A logical conclusion is that the term one is being used figuratively for unity or purpose. We see that elsewhere in Scripture used of the Father and Son. Nowhere in Scripture or in real life do we see one being consisting of three others. That is completely illogical.

I never said the use of God was restricted to the Father. I've acknowledged several times that Jesus is God (Deity). What I've denied is the three in one concept.

It's interesting that you mention the Jews missing the Messiah. I figured someone would point that out. If missing something in God's word disqualifies someone then we have to disqualify pretty much all of our theologians, pastors, Bible teachers, and laymen. That Jesus is the Messiah, is about the only thing modern western Christianity has right. Most believe they go to Heaven when they die, yet the Bible says no such thing. Many, if not most, believe they have an immortal soul. Yet Paul tells us the Father alone has immortality. Many, if not most, believe they are a spirit living in a flesh body. Yet God said man is flesh. Jesus, who was made like His brethren said He was not a spirit. Many, if not most, believe the wicked will be tortured for eternity. This one is somewhat understandable since the translators have written their bias into the text. The readers of the original languages wouldn't have read that. Many, if not most, believe, defying logic and common sense, that God consists of three persons. Many, if not most, have no problem serving in the military, using self defense, and/or serving in Law enforcement. The real Christian faith forbids this. Many, if not most believe that Jesus died to appease Gods wrath. That sounds an awful lot like the pagans, doesn't it? It doesn't leave any room for forgiveness. Add to this that some say you can lose salvation and some say you can't. Some say people are chosen before they're born and some say they aren't. Some say the church will he raptured before the tribulation, some say during, and some say after. Some say they speak in tongues some say that gift ceased. Most women don't wear head coverings in the congregation some do. I could go on and on.

So, if missing something in God's word disqualifies, modern western Christianity wins hands down. There's no comparison. I don't think any generation of Christians have been further from the faith taught by Jesus and the Apostles than today's western church. It's placed its hope in that of the Greeks and the Gnostics rather than that of the Bible. It was the Greek and Gnostic hope to ascend into the Heavens. That wasn't the Jewish hope and it surely wasn't Paul's hope.

My friend, there's a whole other Christian faith out there that many never see because they are caught up in the echo chamber of Modern Christianity. I've seen both and I can tell you there's no comparison. The "Other" Christian faith is that taught by Jesus and the apostles. It's what I like to call, The Pristine Faith. It's the faith before everyone put their spin on it, before the Chatholic church got a hold of it. It's the faith before the Reformers got a hold of it. It's what was believed in the very beginning.

 

[jaybo]

H2O is two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. Three parts that constitute water, making it; “Three in One.”
.

3-in-1 oil is also an excellent lubricant.

 

[Butch5]

Would you prefer I used post-resurrection instead of post-Christ (I used this term since he did imply certain things about himself and the Holy Spirit)? Or do you want to deny that all the first disciples were Jews?

I should also ask: how many Jews believed in a dying and resurrecting Messiah?

Post-Christ is fine. We have to remember that,

Romans 11:25 (KJV 1900): For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

[jaybo]

The Jews didn't see the Holy Spirit as a person. They referred to it as the shekinah glory of God. So, there's no way they saw a Trinity. It seems pretty obvious they didn't see the Son as God since they killed Him.

"The Jews" did not kill Jesus! a) Jesus and His disciples were all Jews. b) The Romans killed Jesus. This kind of blatant anti-Semitism has no basis in fact.

 

[Butch5]

"The Jews" did not kill Jesus! a) Jesus and His disciples were all Jews. b) The Romans killed Jesus. This kind of blatant anti-Semitism has no basis in fact.

It's not anti-Semitism. They didn't do the act, they caused it to happen.

 

[jaybo]

It's not anti-Semitism. They didn't do the act, they caused it to happen.

But that's not what you said. You said, "they didn't see the Son as God since they killed Him." ("They" clearly means the Jews". Accusing the Jews of killing Christ is as anti-Semitic as it gets.

 

[Free]

But that's not what you said. You said, "they didn't see the Son as God since they killed Him." ("They" clearly means the Jews". Accusing the Jews of killing Christ is as anti-Semitic as it gets.

No, it isn't. They requested Jesus be crucified and the Romans crucified him. He died because the Father willed it and he for our sins. We all had our part in it. Let's not get off topic.

 

[Butch5]

But that's not what you said. You said, "they didn't see the Son as God since they killed Him." ("They" clearly means the Jews". Accusing the Jews of killing Christ is as anti-Semitic as it gets.

Dude, it was the Jews who took Him to Pilot Pilot wanted to release Him and the Jews would have none of it. They are the reason He died. For all intents and purposes they killed Him.

 

[Free]

The Trinity doesn't follow from accepting the Deity of Jesus. Where do the Scriotures say the Holy Spirit is a third person?

It's strongly implied that the Holy Spirit is a person, and so it can only be that he is also truly God, the same as the Father and as the Son.

Matt 12:31-32--blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin, while blasphemy against Jesus is not.

Matt 28:19--singular name, three persons, one God.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (ESV)

Interestingly, the Holy Spirit is not only referred to as the Spirit of God, but also the Spirit of Christ or the Son (Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; Gal 4:6; 1 Pet 1:11). This shows the nearness and intimacy of the three persons.

The Holy Spirit:
Acts: Matt 4:1; Acts 8:39, 16:7,
Speaks: Acts 1:6, 10:19, 11:12, 11:28, 13:2, 15:28; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3, which is the same as lying to God (5:9)
Bears witness: Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15; 1 John 5:6
Helps, intercedes, and searches: Rom 8:26-27, 1 Cor 2:10
Teaches: Luke 12:12; 1 Cor 2:13
Gives gifts: 1 Cor 12:11; Heb 2:4
Leads: Gal 5:18, Heb 9:8
Can be grieved: Eph 4:30
Can be outraged: Heb 10:29

And on it goes. These are actions of personal agency.

The 3 in1 concept is a logical contradiction.

Not at all. It's impossible to fully comprehend, but that doesn't mean it is contradictory.

A logical conclusion is that the term one is being used figuratively for unity or purpose. We see that elsewhere in Scripture used of the Father and Son. Nowhere in Scripture or in real life do we see one being consisting of three others. That is completely illogical.

It is illogical if one says one being consisting of three other beings, but that is not what is said. It is one being, three persons.

I never said the use of God was restricted to the Father. I've acknowledged several times that Jesus is God (Deity). What I've denied is the three in one concept.

I know what you said, but then your use of 1 Cor 8:6 doesn't make sense, which is what I am getting at. You used taht verse to support your assertion that only the Father is God. Putting all your arguments together--that Jesus is God but denying the Trinity--means that you are a polytheist. That flatly contradicts all of Scripture.

The whole purpose of the doctrine of the Trinity is to make sense of these essential, biblical facts:

1. There was, is, and always will be only one being that is God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit isn't the Father.

The only logical conclusion is that they all coexist and have necessarily done so for eternity past.

It's interesting that you mention the Jews missing the Messiah. I figured someone would point that out. If missing something in God's word disqualifies someone then we have to disqualify pretty much all of our theologians, pastors, Bible teachers, and laymen. That Jesus is the Messiah, is about the only thing modern western Christianity has right.

The purpose was to show the error of one of your arguments.

You stated: "The Israelites were the first to have God's word. Did the Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees believe in a three in one God? Nope!"

I replied: "Did the Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees believe Jesus was the Son of God or the Son of Man? Nope!"

The point being, there were some things about the nature of the Messiah and his mission that the Jews didn't understand. That Jesus revealed more fits with the idea of progressive revelation. Regardless, that the "Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees [didn't] believe in a three in one God" is irrelevant as to the truth of the matter. That is what I have proven.

Most believe they go to Heaven when they die, yet the Bible says no such thing. Many, if not most, believe they have an immortal soul. Yet Paul tells us the Father alone has immortality.

So, Jesus is not immortal?

Many, if not most, believe, defying logic and common sense, that God consists of three persons.

Again, it doesn't defy logic or common sense. Your arguments, on the other hand, contradict each other and Scripture, at points.

So, if missing something in God's word disqualifies, modern western Christianity wins hands down. There's no comparison. I don't think any generation of Christians have been further from the faith taught by Jesus and the Apostles than today's western church. It's placed its hope in that of the Greeks and the Gnostics rather than that of the Bible. It was the Greek and Gnostic hope to ascend into the Heavens. That wasn't the Jewish hope and it surely wasn't Paul's hope.

My friend, there's a whole other Christian faith out there that many never see because they are caught up in the echo chamber of Modern Christianity. I've seen both and I can tell you there's no comparison. The "Other" Christian faith is that taught by Jesus and the apostles. It's what I like to call, The Pristine Faith. It's the faith before everyone put their spin on it, before the Chatholic church got a hold of it. It's the faith before the Reformers got a hold of it. It's what was believed in the very beginning.

And your sources are what, exactly?

 

[Butch5]

It's strongly implied that the Holy Spirit is a person, and so it can only be that he is also truly God, the same as the Father and as the Son.

Matt 12:31-32--blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin, while blasphemy against Jesus is not.

Matt 28:19--singular name, three persons, one God.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (ESV)

Ok, you used the words "strongly implied". That means it isn't there. So, there's nothing stating the Holy Spirit is a third person. If it's by way of inference, then there is the possiblity of error, correct? Let me that the pneuma or spirit is in the neuter gender. The Greek language requires that the pronoun be the same gender as the noun. That means everywhere you see the word spirit the pronoun should be "it" not "he". If the pronoun is "he" the translator is inserting his bias. With that said, the only place the Spirit is correctly referred to as "he" is when Jesus speaks of the Helper or Comforter. But again, the pronoun must agree with the noun in gender and the noun translated comforter is masculine so the pronoun must be masculine. Effectively the "he" statements about the Spirit don't personhood.

You said it is implied that the Spirit is a third person. Since it is called the Spirit of God why would we expect a third person rather than God Himself? "Of" shows possession. The spirit belongs to God. Is the third person the possession of the first? According to the Creed they are three coequals. How then is the third owned by the first?

Let me suggest that the Spirit isn't a third person but rather is the first person, the Father. Thus, a Trinity isn't the only logical conclusion.

Interestingly, the Holy Spirit is not only referred to as the Spirit of God, but also the Spirit of Christ or the Son (Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; Gal 4:6; 1 Pet 1:11). This shows the nearness and intimacy of the three persons.

The Holy Spirit:
Acts: Matt 4:1; Acts 8:39, 16:7,
Speaks: Acts 1:6, 10:19, 11:12, 11:28, 13:2, 15:28; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3, which is the same as lying to God (5:9)
Bears witness: Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15; 1 John 5:6
Helps, intercedes, and searches: Rom 8:26-27, 1 Cor 2:10
Teaches: Luke 12:12; 1 Cor 2:13
Gives gifts: 1 Cor 12:11; Heb 2:4
Leads: Gal 5:18, Heb 9:8
Can be grieved: Eph 4:30
Can be outraged: Heb 10:29

And on it goes. These are actions of personal agency.

Since it is referred to as the spirit of both, is it owned by both?

Not at all. It's impossible to fully comprehend, but that doesn't mean it is contradictory.

It's definitely impossible to comprehend. It's also a logical contradiction. Please explain how it isn't. Not matter how I try when I add 1+1+1 I get 3. Every time I get 3. I never ever get 1. Can you please explain how it isn't a contradiction?

It is illogical if one says one being consisting of three other beings, but that is not what is said. It is one being, three persons.

That's same thing. You say one being, God. The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. So, we have 3 separate persons which are one being, no?

It baffles why people accept this. The Scriptures don't say it. It's simply the conclusion of some fifth century Christians. As I pointed out, the church didnt believe this until around 500 AD.

I know what you said, but then your use of 1 Cor 8:6 doesn't make sense, which is what I am getting at. You used taht verse to support your assertion that only the Father is God. Putting all your arguments together--that Jesus is God but denying the Trinity--means that you are a polytheist. That flatly contradicts all of Scripture.

Where does it contradict Scripture?

I didn't say only the Father is God. I acknowledged that Jesus is God. I explained this to either Edward or Cooper. But, first remember that they are Paul's words not mine. Paul said there is one God the Father. I'm simply repeating what he said. Let me ask you this, would you also accuse Paul of being a polytheist? He is the one who said, there is one God, the Father. He could have said, there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but He didn't. Why not? Was he lying? I mean seriously, if there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, isn't Paul's statement a lie and misleading the Corinthians?

If we look at the context we see he compares the many gods of the pagans with the one God of Christians. The pagans served many gods, the Christians one, the Father. Just like Paul said to Timothy, there is only one Potentate, one King of kings, again, was he denying the Deity of Christ? Was he lying to Timothy? Was he simply wrong and didnt know what he was talking about?

The whole purpose of the doctrine of the Trinity is to make sense of these essential, biblical facts:

1. There was, is, and always will be only one being that is God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Holy Spirit is God.
5. The Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit isn't the Father.

The only logical conclusion is that they all coexist and have necessarily done so for eternity past.

That's not the only logical conclusion. A far more logical conclusion is that it refers to unity of purpose and not number of person. Saying there is one being and that three other beings make up that one being is not logical.

The purpose was to show the error of one of your arguments.

You stated: "The Israelites were the first to have God's word. Did the Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees believe in a three in one God? Nope!"

I replied: "Did the Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees believe Jesus was the Son of God or the Son of Man? Nope!"

The point being, there were some things about the nature of the Messiah and his mission that the Jews didn't understand. That Jesus revealed more fits with the idea of progressive revelation. Regardless, that the "Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees [didn't] believe in a three in one God" is irrelevant as to the truth of the matter. That is what I have proven.

There is no error in my argument. "To us there is one God, the Father", Is Paul's argument, not mine. I'm just repeating what he said. You obviously disagree with his statement. Can you please explain where His error is?

What the Parisees, Scribes, and Sadicees believed does matter. Yes Jesus could reveal more information, but God doesn't lie. He's not going to tell Israel a lie and then tell the "truth" to the church. More information, yes. Contradictory information, no.

So, Jesus is not immortal?

He is now. He's been resurrected.

Again, it doesn't defy logic or common sense. Your arguments, on the other hand, contradict each other and Scripture, at points.

It does defy logic. You say it doesn't but don't explain how.

And your sources are what, exactly?

For starters look at what the Ante-Nicene church believed. While not perfect, they had much better grasp of the Christian faith than what we have today

 

[Cooper]

3-in-1 oil is also an excellent lubricant.

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it.

Has it also occurred to you that one car has many parts?