Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
Frankly, the Deity of Jesus Christ is the main point of the New Testament. If that point isn't true, the rest is pretty useless.The point of the NT is not that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is that man, the Messiah, whom God had promised to come in order to accomplish man's redemption and salvation.
@GaoLu said:
Jesus said he was God,I know of many places where Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God, I know of not one place where Jesus said that he himself was that God he was talking about in those many places. Where did Jesus say what you claim he said?
@GaoLu said:
did things God does,According to Jesus' own words, he did the things he did because God had given him the authority and power to do them;
@GaoLu said:
proved He was God.Jesus proved that he was that Messiah, whom God had sent, God's Son.
@GaoLu said:
That pretty well settles it.See above ... Unfortunately, what you claim is not in accordance with the Scriptures
Wolfgang, I think your responses to Gao Lu's contentions are spot on and consistent with the teaching of Scripture. In my view, the most compelling NT argument against the divinity of Jesus are the numerous and clear distinctions he makes between himself and God. No one who believed him/herself to be God would have taken such great pains to distinguish him/herself from God. (For the record, in my view, the second most compelling NT argument are the numerous distinctions Peter and Paul make between Jesus and God.)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
Frankly, the Deity of Jesus Christ is the main point of the New Testament. If that point isn't true, the rest is pretty useless.The point of the NT is not that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is that man, the Messiah, whom God had promised to come in order to accomplish man's redemption and salvation.
@GaoLu said:
Jesus said he was God,I know of many places where Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God, I know of not one place where Jesus said that he himself was that God he was talking about in those many places. Where did Jesus say what you claim he said?
@GaoLu said:
did things God does,According to Jesus' own words, he did the things he did because God had given him the authority and power to do them;
@GaoLu said:
proved He was God.Jesus proved that he was that Messiah, whom God had sent, God's Son.
@GaoLu said:
That pretty well settles it.See above ... Unfortunately, what you claim is not in accordance with the Scriptures
Wolfgang, I think your responses to Gao Lu's contentions are spot on and consistent with the teaching of Scripture. In my view, the most compelling NT argument against the divinity of Jesus are the numerous and clear distinctions he makes between himself and God. No one who believed him/herself to be God would have taken such great pains to distinguish him/herself from God. (For the record, in my view, the second most compelling NT argument are the numerous distinctions Peter and Paul make between Jesus and God.)
What authorities do you base your claims on when rejecting today's NT translators?
-
And your answer to my question in follow up to your statement above is ??
@Dave_L said:
I've already proven Jesus IS God beyond doubt from scripture.I have not seen any such proof .... the verses you perhaps thought were proof did not show what you claimed and/or assumed, as I showed in detail in each case.
@Dave_L said:
But you challenge the pros in their translations of scripture saying they do not know what they are doing. But I would like to know the history behind your particular group and what level of education any might possess.I've been a professional translator (English <> German) for decades (now retired), I have a degree in theology, I do not belong to any group or denominational church since the late 1980ies.
As far as translation matters go, I am well aware of how translations work and what is involved in terms of difficulty and consideration when the target language does not quite have the same equivalent word or figurative expression as the source language. I am used to reading carefully and paying attention to textual detail and structure, etc. ...And since I am not theologcally / dogmatically bound to any creed(s) or statements of belief, I am free to question anyone and anything ... You know, even "Pros" make mistakes, and in regards to the Bible there are a lot of such mistakes, because of affiliations held by the "pros", because - as you may know - there is a saying that is true quite often >= "don't bite the hand that feeds you".
-
@Wolfgang said:
And your answer to my question in follow up to your statement above is ??
@Dave_L said:
I've already proven Jesus IS God beyond doubt from scripture.I have not seen any such proof .... the verses you perhaps thought were proof did not show what you claimed and/or assumed, as I showed in detail in each case.
@Dave_L said:
But you challenge the pros in their translations of scripture saying they do not know what they are doing. But I would like to know the history behind your particular group and what level of education any might possess.I've been a professional translator (English <> German) for decades (now retired), I have a degree in theology, I do not belong to any group or denominational church since the late 1980ies.
As far as translation matters go, I am well aware of how translations work and what is involved in terms of difficulty and consideration when the target language does not quite have the same equivalent word or figurative expression as the source language. I am used to reading carefully and paying attention to textual detail and structure, etc. ...And since I am not theologcally / dogmatically bound to any creed(s) or statements of belief, I am free to question anyone and anything ... You know, even "Pros" make mistakes, and in regards to the Bible there are a lot of such mistakes, because of affiliations held by the "pros", because - as you may know - there is a saying that is true quite often >= "don't bite the hand that feeds you".
So based on your translator skills as opposed to the pros, why do you trust your opinions over theirs?
-
@Dave_L said:
So based on your translator skills as opposed to the pros, why do you trust your opinions over theirs?Eh ... because I am a translation Pro ! Why should I trust their mistakes over my reading of the text?
See, you ought to first learn to read more carefully, instead of constantly "reading" what's not in the text. You not only do this to post from others here on CD, but your comments show that you do the same with Bible texts .... more careful reading and more careful consideration of the text does say is needed.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Mitchell said:
However. all the following terms are not found in the Biblical text: Trinity, Trinitarianism, Successive modalism, simultaneous modalism, Tritheism, Binitarianism, Swedenborgianism. While those terms are not biblical, they do however represent some of the various ways people have tried to make sense of theology.But what is explicitly found is that Jesus is God.
Where in the Bible? There is no such statement found in the Bible, nor is there anywhere an expression like "God the Son".
The Word WAS God.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
But what is explicitly found is that Jesus is God.
Where in the Bible? There is no such statement found in the Bible, nor is there anywhere an expression like "God the Son".
The Word WAS God.
This does not say at all that Jesus is God. Not even with lots of twisting and backwards (like taking v. 14 first and then calculate backwards to v.1) reading ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
But what is explicitly found is that Jesus is God.
Where in the Bible? There is no such statement found in the Bible, nor is there anywhere an expression like "God the Son".
The Word WAS God.
This does not say at all that Jesus is God. Not even with lots of twisting and backwards (like taking v. 14 first and then calculate backwards to v.1) reading ...
The Word was Jesus and the Word WAS God. There is no twisting necessary. Plain Jane reading.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
Frankly, the Deity of Jesus Christ is the main point of the New Testament. If that point isn't true, the rest is pretty useless.The point of the NT is not that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is that man, the Messiah, whom God had promised to come in order to accomplish man's redemption and salvation.
@GaoLu said:
Jesus said he was God,I know of many places where Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God, I know of not one place where Jesus said that he himself was that God he was talking about in those many places. Where did Jesus say what you claim he said?
@GaoLu said:
did things God does,According to Jesus' own words, he did the things he did because God had given him the authority and power to do them;
@GaoLu said:
proved He was God.Jesus proved that he was that Messiah, whom God had sent, God's Son.
@GaoLu said:
That pretty well settles it.See above ... Unfortunately, what you claim is not in accordance with the Scriptures
Wolfgang, I think your responses to Gao Lu's contentions are spot on and consistent with the teaching of Scripture. In my view, the most compelling NT argument against the divinity of Jesus are the numerous and clear distinctions he makes between himself and God. No one who believed him/herself to be God would have taken such great pains to distinguish him/herself from God. (For the record, in my view, the second most compelling NT argument are the numerous distinctions Peter and Paul make between Jesus and God.)
What authorities do you base your claims on when rejecting today's NT translators?
I don't reject NT translators, Dave; I read their work, and in that work find Jesus' multiple, repeated, and unmistakable efforts to distinguish himself from God.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
This does not say at all that Jesus is God. Not even with lots of twisting and backwards (like taking v. 14 first and then calculate backwards to v.1) reading ...The Word was Jesus and the Word WAS God. There is no twisting necessary. Plain Jane reading.
I see you doing exactly what I described above ... backwards reading and logic
I wonder what would happen when you have architect plans for a house, then build the house of wood and stone .... and claim that the architect's plan was already the building of wood and stone ... when in truth, it was a drawing on a piece of paper, which in the course of construction BECAME the building of wood and stone
-
“Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3).
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
But what is explicitly found is that Jesus is God.Here is my quick response to your question found in the OP :
Question: Is Jesus deity?
or rather "Is Deity Messiah?"
In other words, does Deity (God) make himself manifest in or as the historical Messiah Yeshua (Jesus)?Answer: Yes, according to Colossians 2:9 at least. And,1 Timothy 3:16 in the Byzantine text.
-
@Mitchell said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
But what is explicitly found is that Jesus is God.Here is my quick response to your question found in the OP :
Question: Is Jesus deity?
or rather "Is Deity Messiah?"
In other words, does Deity (God) make himself manifest in or as the historical Messiah Yeshua (Jesus)?Answer: Yes, according to Colossians 2:9 at least. And,1 Timothy 3:16 in the Byzantine text.
I was actually making a statement
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
This does not say at all that Jesus is God. Not even with lots of twisting and backwards (like taking v. 14 first and then calculate backwards to v.1) reading ...The Word was Jesus and the Word WAS God. There is no twisting necessary. Plain Jane reading.
I see you doing exactly what I described above ... backwards reading and logic
I wonder what would happen when you have architect plans for a house, then build the house of wood and stone .... and claim that the architect's plan was already the building of wood and stone ... when in truth, it was a drawing on a piece of paper, which in the course of construction BECAME the building of wood and stone
No Wolfgang, that is not what I am doing. It is simple and plain that is the passage. No twisting, no crazy rules about grammar and writing. Plain and Simple.
-
@C_M_ said:
“Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3).I'm curious about the intention behind your citing the verses from 1 John 4, C.M. Is it your view that one or more posters in this thread refuse to "acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"? For what it's worth, I know of no such posters, but am open to your viewpoint to the contrary.
-
I've already proven Jesus IS God beyond doubt from scripture. But you challenge the pros in their translations of scripture saying they do not know what they are doing. But I would like to know the history behind your particular group and what level of education any might possess.
Well, there would be a great many scholars among the LDS, JW's, Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Muslims, etc.
****Note to self:**** Maybe we should stick with what Scripture says and avoid attacking or belittling others. If God is sovereign (He is) and if there is a Holy Spirit (there is) then let Father Call and the Spirit work in the heart. We only need to speak the Word, give the sense, and reason kindly.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
No Wolfgang, that is not what I am doing. It is simple and plain that is the passage. No twisting, no crazy rules about grammar and writing. Plain and Simple.Not quite so plain and simple .... you ignore the meaning of "became" and treat it as equal to "was/is", you do not understand "word" to plainly mean "word", etc etc ...
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
“Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3).I'm curious about the intention behind your citing the verses from 1 John 4, C.M. Is it your view that one or more posters in this thread refuse to "acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"? For what it's worth, I know of no such posters, but am open to your viewpoint to the contrary.
No! What gave you that impression? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I'm curious about the intention behind your citing the verses from 1 John 4, C.M. Is it your view that one or more posters in this thread refuse to "acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"? For what it's worth, I know of no such posters, but am open to your viewpoint to the contrary.No! What gave you that impression? CM
Well then perhaps you could tell us the purpose for you quoting the 1Jo 4 passage, maybe Bill and others like me would understand what it is you want to contribute by it to this exchange ?
If it was to simply introduce another verse into the discussion, I will say that this passage rather plainly indicates that Jesus could not have been God, because God is not a human being of flesh and blood.
-
Here's a passage from Eph 1 which rather clearly indicates that Jesus is NOT God.
Eph 1:2-3
Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:V.2 makes a clear distinction between (a) God our Father and (b) the Lord Jesus Christ
V.3 then makes mention of the same God, and stating that He is both "God and Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ.This same truth, that God is not only the Father but also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ is also found in 1Co 11:31 and 1Pe 1:3.
2Co 11,31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
1Pet 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, -
Bro. Wolfgang,
I answered Bill's question.If you want to know why I shared the text, it's simple: "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God..." (1 John 4:2-3). Is this not what you and others have been saying, repeatedly, in this thread, and elsewhere, when it comes to Jesus? If you or whoever is not saying this, the rest the text, speaks for itself. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
If you want to know why I shared the text, it's simple: "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God..." (1 John 4:2-3). Is this not what you and others have been saying, repeatedly, in this thread, and elsewhere, when it comes to Jesus? If you or whoever is not saying this, the rest the text, speaks for itself. CMwell, in your initial comment you only quoted the verse without any indication as to what you had in mind to convey with the verse ... usually, someone quotes a verse or passage in order to convey some thought by doing so, such as showing that what has been said is supported by the verse, or not supported by the verse, or illustrates it further, etc ...
You may not be aware of this, but these verses in particular have often been stated "to warn" those like me who do not think that "God has come in the flesh" and by means of these verses to convey their thoughts that I would be anti christ. Perhaps Bill has experienced the same in the past, thus he asked for clarification ...
With your added comment above, I understand that you actually quoted the verses as indications for the truth of what I and others have said about Jesus not being God but a man (i.e. "is come in the flesh"). I appreciate your clarification.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I was actually making a statementOkay, gotcha.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
No Wolfgang, that is not what I am doing. It is simple and plain that is the passage. No twisting, no crazy rules about grammar and writing. Plain and Simple.Not quite so plain and simple .... you ignore the meaning of "became" and treat it as equal to "was/is", you do not understand "word" to plainly mean "word", etc etc ...
Sure I do. The word "Word" is clearly being used as a name/title in the passage and is not talking about literal speaking words. That is very clear. Context...> @Wolfgang said:
Here's a passage from Eph 1 which rather clearly indicates that Jesus is NOT God.
Eph 1:2-3
Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:V.2 makes a clear distinction between (a) God our Father and (b) the Lord Jesus Christ
V.3 then makes mention of the same God, and stating that He is both "God and Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ.That doesn't prove that He is not God at all.
This same truth, that God is not only the Father but also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ is also found in 1Co 11:31 and 1Pe 1:3.
2Co 11,31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
1Pet 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,Once again, that doesn't prove your point at all. It strengthens mine. Three parts of the Trinity.
-
Messiah Jesus is called in the NT Scriptures both "the Son of man" and "the Son of God" numerous times.
It seems clear from all the verses where these terms are used in reference to Jesus, they are simply two terms for the very same person, emphasizing a particular aspect. None of the verses indicates that the two terms refer to "two natures", "two personalities", "two parts", etc of the same one person, the man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary.
Thus, one could not make "Son of God" to supposedly mean or indicate something liek "God the Son".
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Not quite so plain and simple .... you ignore the meaning of "became" and treat it as equal to "was/is", you do not understand "word" to plainly mean "word", etc etc ...Sure I do. The word "Word" is clearly being used as a name/title in the passage and is not talking about literal speaking words. That is very clear. Context...
Sorry, on what do you base this assumption that "Word" is a name/title rather than having the meaning of "Word" ??
@Wolfgang said:
Here's a passage from Eph 1 which rather clearly indicates that Jesus is NOT God.
Eph 1:2-3
Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:V.2 makes a clear distinction between (a) God our Father and (b) the Lord Jesus Christ
V.3 then makes mention of the same God, and stating that He is both "God and Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ.That doesn't prove that He is not God at all.
Of course it does ... because it states that God is SOMEONE OTHER than Jesus !!
This same truth, that God is not only the Father but also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ is also found in 1Co 11:31 and 1Pe 1:3.
2Co 11,31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
1Pet 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,Once again, that doesn't prove your point at all. It strengthens mine. Three parts of the Trinity.
How so? Where is there a mention of the Trinity? Where in Scripture would the Trinity be mentioned and/or defined ?
Also, do you not know that most proponents of the Trinity do NOT even think in terms of "parts of the Trinity" ?? -
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
So based on your translator skills as opposed to the pros, why do you trust your opinions over theirs?Eh ... because I am a translation Pro ! Why should I trust their mistakes over my reading of the text?
See, you ought to first learn to read more carefully, instead of constantly "reading" what's not in the text. You not only do this to post from others here on CD, but your comments show that you do the same with Bible texts .... more careful reading and more careful consideration of the text does say is needed.
Do you have any earned degrees in Greek or Hebrew from accredited colleges or universities?
-
@Dave_L said:
Do you have any earned degrees in Greek or Hebrew from accredited colleges or universities?No specific degrees in Greek or Hebrew ... enrolled in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew classes as part of my theology degree.
Note, the comments I made earlier regarding translation were about general translation principles (applicable to any language combination), not to some specific language. Therefore, dond't get overly excited about the point you think you are trying to make
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Do you have any earned degrees in Greek or Hebrew from accredited colleges or universities?No specific degrees in Greek or Hebrew ... enrolled in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew classes as part of my theology degree.
Note, the comments I made earlier regarding translation were about general translation principles (applicable to any language combination), not to some specific language. Therefore, dond't get overly excited about the point you think you are trying to make
I probably have about the same level of Greek and Hebrew as you. This is why I don't trust myself beyond quoting standard resources. And I know the translator's of the commonly used resources are better qualified than we. So when they translate passages affirming Jesus is God, I'm emboldened to accept their credentials and work over my own.
-
Can a woman give birth to a baby that is something other than a human being?
My answer would be, No!Does the principle of "after its kind" for pro-creation (cp the various verses in Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25) apply not only to plants and animals but also to humans?
My answer would be, Yes. This truth is the basis why a woman can not conceive by any other seed than a seed of the kind "homo sapiens"/human kind, and then give birth to a "dual kind living being".Considering the birth of Jesus, my conclusion from these basic truths -- (a) women can only give birth to humans, and (b) pro-creation always is according to "after its kind" -- is that the child born of Mary was a human being and NOT a God-man, man-God or some other "mystical kind living being".
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
