Jesus Is God: Part 1

[Free]

Ok, you used the words "strongly implied". That means it isn't there.

Then you don't know what the word "implied" means. In general, implying something doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't there; it may just mean it isn't explicitly stated.

So, there's nothing stating the Holy Spirit is a third person.

It's strongly implied.

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.

This is a exegetical, or at a linguistic, fallacy on your part. Just because "spirit" is neuter gender, it doesn't follow that it is an indication of gender nor does it follow that the Holy Spirit isn't a person. There are inanimate objects and concepts that have a female or male gender, but it doesn't mean that we refer to them as "he" or "she."

What isn't hard to notice is that you have continually sidestepped all the strongest arguments, such as in this response, where you don't address the passages showing the personhood of the Spirit.

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?

Because we need to be true to the Bible and keep them distinct. Remember Matt 28:19?

"Of" shows possession. The spirit belongs to God. Is the third person the possession of the first?

And, yet, I gave some verses which refer to the Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Jesus" and "Spirit of the Son."

You really need to stop sidestepping these passages and read them.

According to the Creed they are three coequals. How then is the third owned by the first?

He isn't. No person is owned by another. They are all three truly God, yet distinct, which is what Scripture reveals.

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.

But that is not at all a logical conclusion. Why does the Bible continually keep them distinct? This is especially clear in the NT where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are often mentioned within the same verse or passage (Matt 28:19 is an obvious example). And why is the Spirit also referred to as the Spirit of Jesus?

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

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?

1+1+1=3 indicates three completely separate items being added together. This is polytheism, which is your problem, not mine. Your position is 1+1=2. But the Father, Son, and Spirit aren't completely separate, they are distinct from each other, yes, but they are each truly God in substance.

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 is not the same thing. You need to pay attention to the language that is used. If it was three beings in one being, that is a contradiction. If it was three persons in one person, that is a contradiction. Three persons in one being; it is to say that there are three persons of the same substance. Again, the Bible reveals that there is one God, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they are distinct. That is what we have to make sense of.

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.

As I have pointed out, and which you also ignored, is that the development of the Trinity took a few centuries, but the belief that Jesus was truly God was believed from at least the early second century.

Where does it contradict Scripture?

You disagree that polytheism contradicts Scripture? You can't be serious.

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?

How do you not see the contradiction in your statements? "I acknowledged that Jesus is God. . . Paul said there is one God the Father. I'm simply repeating what he said." You quoted Paul to support your position that only the Father is God, yet you say that Jesus is God. Which is it? Is the Father the only God or is Jesus or both?

Of course Paul isn't a polytheist. As I clearly pointed out, he is likely expanding on the Shema in Deut 6:4, another passage you quoted to support your contention that there is only one God, yet still claim that Jesus is also God.

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.

Again, you contradict yourself. You say that Paul is comparing "the many gods of the pagans with the one God of the Christians. . . the Father," yet, you just stated above that Jesus is God.

At this point, here are your options, since you disagree with the Trinity:

1. Polytheism
2. Modalism

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?

I pointed out previously, which you didn't address, that Jesus is also called the king of Kings and lord of Lords (Rev 17:14, 19:16). Again, only possible in light of the Trinity.

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.

Then why would the Jews want to kill Jesus for simply stating that he was in unity of purpose with the Father?

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?

Paul isn't in error, that is what I am saying. It is your understanding and use of it that is in error, and that I have explained.

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.

Progressive revelation means more information. Again, that the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day didn't believe in a triune God doesn't mean that God isn't triune. It is an error in reasoning to believe otherwise. Of course, it doesn't necessarily make it true either, but we have the rest of the NT which provides the additional, non-contradictory information.

If, in regards to these matters, "What the Parisees, Scribes, and Sadicees believed does matter," and "He's not going to tell Israel a lie and then tell the "truth" to the church," then why do you say Jesus is God when the Jews wanted to kill him for making that very claim? Jesus gave further revelation as to who he was in relation to the Father, yet they wanted to kill him for it. Or would you rather just agree with me that the Jews didn't fully know the nature of God because he hadn't revealed it to them in the OT?

He is now. He's been resurrected.

Now, that he's been resurrected he's immortal? So, the Son isn't God then, as you claim. By definition, God has always existed, there was never a time when he did not exist. Again, you contradict your position.

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

But they weren't polytheists or Modalists either.

You are not at all following the flow of arguments, not even your own.

 

[jaybo]

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.

Read your Bible! Mark 10:32-34, "They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”

The Bible clearly says who killed Jesus: the Gentiles. Not the Jews. Anything to the contrary is an anti-Semitic lie. No "all intents and purposes; facts are facts!

 

[stovebolts]

How did the Jews understand it?

I’ll spend some time tomorrow and put something together for you tomorrow from a Jewish perspective. (Lord willing).
I’ll see what I can pull from Chabad.org since they are as close to the Jewish culture in the days of Jesus.

In the meantime, ponder what I’ve said about one not being restricted to the numeric value of 1 and also consider that Elohim aka God is plural and it’s counter El aka God is singular. Both are titles. Both Elohim and El were used heavily in other ancient near eastern religions. Both are official titles and their usage depends on the context.

Here O Israel, Yahweh (YHVD) our Elohim is one.

 

[Butch5]

I’ll spend some time tomorrow and put something together for you tomorrow from a Jewish perspective. (Lord willing).
I’ll see what I can pull from Chabad.org since they are as close to the Jewish culture in the days of Jesus.

In the meantime, ponder what I’ve said about one not being restricted to the numeric value of 1 and also consider that Elohim aka God is plural and it’s counter El aka God is singular. Both are titles. Both Elohim and El were used heavily in other ancient near eastern religions. Both are official titles and their usage depends on the context.

Here O Israel, Yahweh (YHVD) our Elohim is one.

Ok thanks! I am familiar with Elohim being plural. I'll also check the h
Hebrew when I get time. At the moment I'm covered up at work.

 

[Butch5]

Read your Bible! Mark 10:32-34, "They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”

The Bible clearly says who killed Jesus: the Gentiles. Not the Jews. Anything to the contrary is an anti-Semitic lie. No "all intents and purposes; facts are facts!

If the Jews hadn't turned Him over would he have been killed?

 

[Butch5]

Then you don't know what the word "implied" means. In general, implying something doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't there; it may just mean it isn't explicitly stated.


It's strongly implied.

Which is what I said. It's not stated.

This is a exegetical, or at a linguistic, fallacy on your part. Just because "spirit" is neuter gender, it doesn't follow that it is an indication of gender nor does it follow that the Holy Spirit isn't a person. There are inanimate objects and concepts that have a female or male gender, but it doesn't mean that we refer to them as "he" or "she."

There's no fallacy. I was simply pointing out that the use of "he" with refence to the Spirit doesn't prove personhood.

What isn't hard to notice is that you have continually sidestepped all the strongest arguments, such as in this response, where you don't address the passages showing the personhood of the Spirit.

I acknowledged them. I suggested that the Spirit is the Father. That's personhood.

Because we need to be true to the Bible and keep them distinct. Remember Matt 28:19?

I'm not sure what has to do with the issue. Matt 28:19 doesn't prove three persons. It just says, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Breath. It seems to me that calling it the Spirit of God is uniting them.

And, yet, I gave some verses which refer to the Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Jesus" and "Spirit of the Son."

You really need to stop sidestepping these passages and read them.


He isn't. No person is owned by another. They are all three truly God, yet distinct, which is what Scripture reveals.

Ok, then how do you explain the possessive "of"?

But that is not at all a logical conclusion. Why does the Bible continually keep them distinct? This is especially clear in the NT where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are often mentioned within the same verse or passage (Matt 28:19 is an obvious example). And why is the Spirit also referred to as the Spirit of Jesus?

Actually, it is a logical conclusion and it's stated in Scripture. By Jesus no less.

7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 "of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 "of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
11 "of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
15 "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
16 "A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father."
17 Then some of His disciples said among themselves, "What is this that He says to us,`A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me'; and,`because I go to the Father '?"
18 They said therefore, "What is this that He says,`A little while '? We do not know what He is saying."
19 Now Jesus knew that they desired to ask Him, and He said to them, "Are you inquiring among yourselves about what I said,`A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me '?
20 "Most assuredly, I say to you that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; and you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy.
21 "A woman, when she is in labor, has sorrow because her hour has come; but as soon as she has given birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.
22 "Therefore you now have sorrow; but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you.
23 "And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you.
24 "Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.
25 "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. (Jn. 16:7-25 NKJ)

Here Jesus tells them that when He was speaking of the Helper, the Spirit of Truth, He was speaking figuratively of the Father. So, He says the Helper, the Spirit of Truth is the Father. There aren't three, there are two.

1+1+1=3 indicates three completely separate items being added together. This is polytheism, which is your problem, not mine. Your position is 1+1=2. But the Father, Son, and Spirit aren't completely separate, they are distinct from each other, yes, but they are each truly God in substance.

I believe this is the first time you've brought up the word substance. Before you used being. If each is fully God, then it is 1+1+1. And, yes, it is polytheism even though Christians deny it vehemently. Three, fully God, individuals, cannot be one no matter how many millions claim it is.

It is not the same thing. You need to pay attention to the language that is used. If it was three beings in one being, that is a contradiction. If it was three persons in one person, that is a contradiction. Three persons in one being; it is to say that there are three persons of the same substance. Agaitn, the Bible reveals that there is one God, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they are distinct. That is what we have to make sense of.

Yes, and being and person are synonyms. They are interchangeable. I am paying attention to the wording you can be sure. I watch very carefully how people word it because they all seem to word it differently. As we saw with Cooper, he's espousing Modalism, not Trinitarianism, which claims three persons in one God. I purposely use the same term to point out the absurdity. A lot of people get fooled by the three persons in one being.

As I have pointed out, and which you also ignored, is that the development of the Trinity took a few centuries, but the belief that Jesus was truly God was believed from at least the early second century.

That Jesus is God is not at issue. That's a Red Herring. That the three are one being is the issue. No one believed that until around 500AD. "Let us make man in Our image" is in the very beginning of the Bible. People were reading that passage for about 4000 years and didn't think it meant a Trinity. Then suddenly in the 5th century it means a Trinity? Not likely.

You disagree that polytheism contradicts Scripture? You can't be serious.

I didn't say I disagree. I wanted you to show how it contradicts Scripture. I was looking for you show it from Scripture.

 

[Butch5]

How do you not see the contradiction in your statements? "I acknowledged that Jesus is God. . . Paul said there is one God the Father. I'm simply repeating what he said." You quoted Paul to support your position that only the Father is God, yet you say that Jesus is God. Which is it? Is the Father the only God or is Jesus or both?

I didn't say the Father is the only God. Jesus is God (Deity) also. The Father is Deity. They are both Deity. It seems you're confusing title and name. If I said to you the President was on TV today, you'd know that I was talking about Biden. However, If I said President Obama was on TV today, you'd know I didn't mean Biden. Both are called president. both aren't the same being. Present is a title. However, It's often used as a name for the current president, as in The President. We do the same with God. God is title, Jesus and the Father are both Deity. However, the word God is also used of the Father as a name. When Paul says to us there is one God, the Father, he points to our ultimate authority. It's the same thing he said to Timothy.

13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing,
15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1 Tim. 6:13-16 NKJ)

Paul says, that God, whom no man can see, is the only potentate. Is He saying that the Father is the only ruler? obviously not. There were many rulers. He's using "only" as a superlative. the Father is the Ultimate ruler. He is the Ruler above all other rulers. He answers to no one. Everyone else answers to Him. That's the point. Paul isn't denying the Deity of Christ. He's pointing to the Superiority of the Father above all else. Jesus does the same when He says, 'this is eternal life that they may know you the only true God'. The words, "only true" are being used as a superlative. Jesus isn't denying He own Deity. He's acknowledging the Fathers ultimate Superiority to all others. All are subordinate to the Father. Paul make this point in 1 Cor 15.

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:24-28 NKJ)

At Jesus' resurrection He was giving all power and authority. Hence His title, King of kings and Lord of lords. However, Paul makes sure to say that even though all things were put under Christ, The Father is excepted from that. The Father is never under the Son, even when the Son has been given all authority. So, even when the Son has all authority, the Father is still superior to the Son. thus Paul's statement about the Father being the only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords. The Father is the ultimate in authority, bar none.

Of course Paul isn't a polytheist. As I clearly pointed out, he is likely expanding on the Shema in Deut 6:4, another passage you quoted to support your contention that there is only one God, yet still claim that Jesus is also God.

How is he expanding on the Shema by saying there is only one God the Father?

Again, you contradict yourself. You say that Paul is comparing "the many gods of the pagans with the one God of the Christians. . . the Father," yet, you just stated above that Jesus is God.

At this point, here are your options, since you disagree with the Trinity:

1. Polytheism
2. Modalism

I explained this above. In Scripture we are told to worship the Father. The Scriptures don't tell us to worship the Son or the Spirit. Jesus said the time is coming when the Father would be worshipped in spirit and truth. When asked about prayer He said, "Our Father who art in Heaven". We worship one God, the Father.

We also have to remember what Paul said about Jesus. He was in the form of God and emptied Himself and took on the form of man. John said, the word became flesh. So, Jesus emptied Himself of the form of God and became man, flesh.

I pointed out previously, which you didn't address, that Jesus is also called the king of Kings and lord of Lords (Rev 17:14, 19:16). Again, only possible in light of the Trinity.

Not at all. I explained this earlier in this post. Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords while He has all authority. However, that will end when all things are put under Him and He turns the Kingdom over to the Father.

 

[Butch5]

Then why would the Jews want to kill Jesus for simply stating that he was in unity of purpose with the Father?

Because they didn't understand and thought He was claiming equality with God, the Father.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (Jn. 10:27-33 KJV)

Paul isn't in error, that is what I am saying. It is your understanding and use of it that is in error, and that I have explained.

What part of "to us there is one God, the Father" am I not understanding correctly?

Progressive revelation means more information. Again, that the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day didn't believe in a triune God doesn't mean that God isn't triune. It is an error in reasoning to believe otherwise. Of course, it doesn't necessarily make it true either, but we have the rest of the NT which provides the additional, non-contradictory information.

No, it doesn't prove it. You can't prove a negative. However, no one believed it for about 4000 years. Not the Jews, not Jesus, not the apostles, not the early Christians. Are we to believe that 4000 years of people working with God's word no one every saw this Trinity and then some 5th century Christians figured it out? The people who spoke the same Hebrew that the passage was written in didn't see it, but some Christians 4000 years later speaking a different language did? That's really hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe the ones who misunderstood were the 5th century Christians who came up with the idea. There's evidence that the doctrine may have come from Augustine. Augustine was a Gnostic before becoming a Christian and just looking at his writings shows he didn't have a good grasp of the Scriptures. He was a Fatalist. His writings are the foundation of Calvinism. Luther was an Augustinian Monk. Between him and Calvin they revived several of Augustine's doctrines that the Catholic church had rejected. He didn't have a good grasp of the Scriptures. If he was indeed the source of the doctrine I'm not surprised it veered so far from the original faith.

If, in regards to these matters, "What the Parisees, Scribes, and Sadicees believed does matter," and "He's not going to tell Israel a lie and then tell the "truth" to the church," then why do you say Jesus is God when the Jews wanted to kill him for making that very claim? Jesus gave further revelation as to who he was in relation to the Father, yet they wanted to kill him for it. Or would you rather just agree with me that the Jews didn't fully know the nature of God because he hadn't revealed it to them in the OT?

The Jews in the OT knew God had a Son.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Ps. 2:1-12 KJV)

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? (Prov. 30:4 KJV)

Now, that he's been resurrected he's immortal? So, the Son isn't God then, as you claim. By definition, God has always existed, there was never a time when he did not exist. Again, you contradict your position.

Not at all. The Father has always existed. The Son proceeded forth from the Father. However, He took on the form man and became subject to death, thus no longer eternal. He has eternal life now that He's been raised.

But they weren't polytheists or Modalists either.

You are not at all following the flow of arguments, not even your own.

Actually, I am. Remember when I spoke of a framework? You're understanding my answers within your framework. That won't work. Our presuppositions are different so we're going to draw different conclusions from the same evidence. That's why I've been talking about seeing things from a different perspective.

No, they weren't polytheists, but if you look at both copies of the Nicene Creed, they say that Jesus is true God out of true God, who was begotten before all worlds. So, I've just been saying what was Orthodox Christian theology in 325 AD. and 381 AD. It was actually from the beginning. It was changed in the Athanasian Creed. If you study the beliefs of the early Christians you'll find a very different Christianity than we have today.

 

[Edward]

It's strongly implied.

Wow, here you are over in this thread telling someone else what they believe. Can you see that you have tried tearing down both sides of theological issues.

You confuse me me. Do you believe in God or not? Weird how you seem to only post to tear people down and you don't seem to build anything up or even try. So why are you here? What's your agenda? Free the Destroyer?

 

[Cooper]

I didn't say the Father is the only God. Jesus is God (Deity) also. The Father is Deity. They are both Deity. It seems you're confusing title and name. If I said to you the President was on TV today, you'd know that I was talking about Biden. However, If I said President Obama was on TV today, you'd know I didn't mean Biden. Both are called president. both aren't the same being. Present is a title. However, It's often used as a name for the current president, as in The President. We do the same with God. God is title, Jesus and the Father are both Deity. However, the word God is also used of the Father as a name. When Paul says to us there is one God, the Father, he points to our ultimate authority. It's the same thing he said to Timothy.

13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing,
15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1 Tim. 6:13-16 NKJ)

Paul says, that God, whom no man can see, is the only potentate. Is He saying that the Father is the only ruler? obviously not. There were many rulers. He's using "only" as a superlative. the Father is the Ultimate ruler. He is the Ruler above all other rulers. He answers to no one. Everyone else answers to Him. That's the point. Paul isn't denying the Deity of Christ. He's pointing to the Superiority of the Father above all else. Jesus does the same when He says, 'this is eternal life that they may know you the only true God'. The words, "only true" are being used as a superlative. Jesus isn't denying He own Deity. He's acknowledging the Fathers ultimate Superiority to all others. All are subordinate to the Father. Paul make this point in 1 Cor 15.

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:24-28 NKJ)

At Jesus' resurrection He was giving all power and authority. Hence His title, King of kings and Lord of lords. However, Paul makes sure to say that even though all things were put under Christ, The Father is excepted from that. The Father is never under the Son, even when the Son has been given all authority. So, even when the Son has all authority, the Father is still superior to the Son. thus Paul's statement about the Father being the only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords. The Father is the ultimate in authority, bar none.


How is he expanding on the Shema by saying there is only one God the Father?

I explained this above. In Scripture we are told to worship the Father. The Scriptures don't tell us to worship the Son or the Spirit. Jesus said the time is coming when the Father would be worshipped in spirit and truth. When asked about prayer He said, "Our Father who art in Heaven". We worship one God, the Father.

We also have to remember what Paul said about Jesus. He was in the form of God and emptied Himself and took on the form of man. John said, the word became flesh. So, Jesus emptied Himself of the form of God and became man, flesh.

Not at all. I explained this earlier in this post. Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords while He has all authority. However, that will end when all things are put under Him and He turns the Kingdom over to the Father.

As there is only One God who is Spirit, Father and Son are the titles of the One God.

 

[eddif]

Got to make our doctrinal statement or bust. Then when we have made it we try to defend it. Twenty years later we tweak two words and set about defending our new confession of faith.

Kind of like two spirits are in eternity and there wills could be about one, and that unity could be called Holy Spirit.

The son / word Spirit became flesh, which is sort of an out of Spirit existence. With the help of the Holy Spirit.

The three agreed to express themselves on earth.
Then the Holy Spirit descended and remained on Jesus.

Jesus performing their will was given the main authority till everything was completed.

When Jesus died and was raised from the dead; Jesus could give up his out of spirit existence and return to his former glory as a Quickening Spirit. That quickining spirit can help our life.

The Holy Spirit can empower us to be witnesses to others.

This is way out of the redneck thinking process. lOL

eddif

 

[Edward]

The son / word Spirit became flesh, which is sort of an out of Spirit existence. With the help of the Holy Spirit.

And they named the flesh body Adam, isn't that right? I've watched videos explaining how they found the entire hebrew alphabet within our DNA. And the name of God.

Now the young man had more energy than wisdom or experience, so he went kind of wild. And God thought, hmm ok I can fix this. It will yake a bit of time but then when it is complete then I will have an even bigger harvest.

Is something wrong with our country, is this biblical, or some kind of political game they're playing? Because when almost any redneck you meet nowadays, talks better sense than the President of the entire country? Now I ask you, what's with that?!

 

[jaybo]

If the Jews hadn't turned Him over would he have been killed?

That is a hypothetical question. Since Jesus said He would be killed by the Gentiles, the response to your hypothetical question is -- yes. Why are you going on and on about this?

Here is what the Gentiles did to Jesus Christ: Matthew 27:28-30, "They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. And that is before they crucified Him and divided up his clothes by casting lots.

This is an example of extreme cruelty, and it was not done by the Jews.

If you are the one who actually commits a murder, you are guilty, not someone who told you to do so.

 

[Butch5]

That is a hypothetical question. Since Jesus said He would be killed by the Gentiles, the response to your hypothetical question is -- yes. Why are you going on and on about this?

Here is what the Gentiles did to Jesus Christ: Matthew 27:28-30, "They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. And that is before they crucified Him and divided up his clothes by casting lots.

This is an example of extreme cruelty, and it was not done by the Jews.

If you are the one who actually commits a murder, you are guilty, not someone who told you to do so.

You're the one going on about it. You're the one that brought it up. If you can't see how the Jews are guilty I can't help you

 

[jaybo]

You're the one going on about it. You're the one that brought it up. If you can't see how the Jews are guilty I can't help you

I don't need your help. You seem to forget that all of Jesus' disciples were Jews, as was Saul (a.k.a Paul). You're intent on blaming the Jews for killing Jesus which is not scriptural and is blatant anti-Semitism. If you can't see how the Gentiles are the ones guilty of killing the Jewish Messiah, not the Jews, I can't help you.

 

[Butch5]

I don't need your help. You seem to forget that all of Jesus' disciples were Jews, as was Saul (a.k.a Paul). You're intent on blaming the Jews for killing Jesus which is not scriptural and is blatant anti-Semitism. If you can't see how the Gentiles are the ones guilty of killing the Jewish Messiah, not the Jews, I can't help you.

Whatever

 

[Free]

Wow, here you are over in this thread telling someone else what they believe.

Certain beliefs only result in certain conclusions. We simply cannot believe whatever we want.

Can you see that you have tried tearing down both sides of theological issues.

What do you mean “both sides”? I’ve supported one side.

You confuse me me. Do you believe in God or not?

If you don’t understand what I’ve said, which has been very clear, then you need to go back and read all that I wrote.

Weird how you seem to only post to tear people down and you don't seem to build anything up or even try.

I never write to tear people down.

So why are you here?

I wrote to discuss things that are of theological or ideological concern. Some people seem to think they can make connections in Scripture that aren’t there or take things out of context to support whatever strange and erroneous theological idea they may have.

What's your agenda?

Correct understanding of Scripture and better behaviour by those who profess Christ.

Free the Destroyer?

Do you see your hypocrisy here?

 

[JLB]

Friendly Reminder!

The title of this thread is:

Jesus is God: part 1

Please stay on topic in this thread.



Thanks JLB

 

[Edward]

If you are the one who actually commits a murder, you are guilty, not someone who told you to do so.

Well if they hired you to be a hit man then they'd be guilty too.

 

[Edward]

Certain beliefs only result in certain conclusions. We simply cannot believe whatever we want.


What do you mean “both sides”? I’ve supported one side.


If you don’t understand what I’ve said, which has been very clear, then you need to go back and read all that I wrote.


I never write to tear people down.


I wrote to discuss things that are of theological or ideological concern. Some people seem to think they can make connections in Scripture that aren’t there or take things out of context to support whatever strange and erroneous theological idea they may have.


Correct understanding of Scripture and better behaviour by those who profess Christ.


Do you see your hypocrisy here?

Yes, you caught me before my coffee this morning and you just sounded arrogant to me. Understanding the spiritual realm and how it operates is a deep subject and we see through a glass that's dark. So it's not like you can expect everyone to have all of the answers right then or else theyre wrong, is far fetched. That's all. I'll try not to post so early, lol.