Christ is God
- Thread starter posthuman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I said "Jesus is God, Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God." This is in a perfect consistency with the picture or with the Athanasian Creed:
"So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord."
So I am not sure why you need to say I do not understand it. I do not say I have a perfect knowledge of historical and orthodox Trinity, but in what I said, there is no conflict with the general view of Trinity.
You are ignoring J 1:1 and J 1:18 in this point. Your point is not valid, then.
It was given to Him by Father. And only to Him.
"He was in the beginning with God" - J 1:2
Also, He was God from the beginning: "And the Logos was God". J 1:1
Also, He is the Creator God: “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” J 1:3
And because timespace is a property of this created Universe, Jesus has no beginning, because He has no time.
Your interpretation is again in a contradiction to other verses like that He is the Creator of everything. Therefore he is not part of creation.
Also, I am pretty sure you know it can be translated as "firstborn before all creation". And this is reflected in a Nicene creed “begotten before all worlds “.
"So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord."
So I am not sure why you need to say I do not understand it. I do not say I have a perfect knowledge of historical and orthodox Trinity, but in what I said, there is no conflict with the general view of Trinity.
You are ignoring J 1:1 and J 1:18 in this point. Your point is not valid, then.
It was given to Him by Father. And only to Him.
"He was in the beginning with God" - J 1:2
Also, He was God from the beginning: "And the Logos was God". J 1:1
Also, He is the Creator God: “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” J 1:3
And because timespace is a property of this created Universe, Jesus has no beginning, because He has no time.
Your interpretation is again in a contradiction to other verses like that He is the Creator of everything. Therefore he is not part of creation.
Also, I am pretty sure you know it can be translated as "firstborn before all creation". And this is reflected in a Nicene creed “begotten before all worlds “.
-
1
- Show all
Hi,
Trofimus said, in post 241:
Quote: I do not say that the Son is identical with the Father. I say that the Son is from the Father and so united with Him that they can be called "God" together (with the Holy Spirit). That they must be seen as one (from our point of view).
John 1:1 is saying it quite completely - Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father) from the beginning and is so united with the God (i.e. with Father) - in his bossom - that the Logos is God.
NWL said in post 243:
Quote:
You say "Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father)" but where in the context does it say the first theos was referring to the Father?
--- In the Interlinear Greek English New Testament it says in John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (Theov) and the Word was God (Theos) --- or God (Theos) was the Word.
2 This one was in the beginning with God (Theov)
--- We find this again in verse 18 and this is the literal translation :
18 God (Theov) no man has seen never; [the] only begotten God (Theos), the [one] being in the bosom of the Father that one declared [him].
I asked our Bible teacher who knows Hebrew and Greek about two Gods and the Greek spelling of Theov, and Theos. (While nobody wants to admit to there being two Gods), he said, “Theos is subject to Theov.”
So the Word, Theos, was with God, Theov, in the beginning. --- in 18 ‘no one has seen (Almighty) God, Theov, but ‘the only begotten God, Theos, he has declared Him.’
The different versions make God and Son interchangeable.
NKJV says, Only begotten Son* --- to a footnote that says ‘God.’
NASB says, Only begotten God* --- ‘some later manuscripts say Son’
NIV says No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and* is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. * Some manuscripts say, ‘but only Son who’
Amplified Bible says, No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him.
--- So this shows that the Word is the ‘only begotten God’ or the ‘only begotten Son of God.’
Trofimus said, in post 241:
Quote: I do not say that the Son is identical with the Father. I say that the Son is from the Father and so united with Him that they can be called "God" together (with the Holy Spirit). That they must be seen as one (from our point of view).
John 1:1 is saying it quite completely - Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father) from the beginning and is so united with the God (i.e. with Father) - in his bossom - that the Logos is God.
NWL said in post 243:
Quote:
You say "Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father)" but where in the context does it say the first theos was referring to the Father?--- In the Interlinear Greek English New Testament it says in John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (Theov) and the Word was God (Theos) --- or God (Theos) was the Word.
2 This one was in the beginning with God (Theov)
--- We find this again in verse 18 and this is the literal translation :
18 God (Theov) no man has seen never; [the] only begotten God (Theos), the [one] being in the bosom of the Father that one declared [him].
I asked our Bible teacher who knows Hebrew and Greek about two Gods and the Greek spelling of Theov, and Theos. (While nobody wants to admit to there being two Gods), he said, “Theos is subject to Theov.”
So the Word, Theos, was with God, Theov, in the beginning. --- in 18 ‘no one has seen (Almighty) God, Theov, but ‘the only begotten God, Theos, he has declared Him.’
The different versions make God and Son interchangeable.
NKJV says, Only begotten Son* --- to a footnote that says ‘God.’
NASB says, Only begotten God* --- ‘some later manuscripts say Son’
NIV says No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and* is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. * Some manuscripts say, ‘but only Son who’
Amplified Bible says, No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him.
--- So this shows that the Word is the ‘only begotten God’ or the ‘only begotten Son of God.’
-
1
- Show all
I believe this is conceptually similar to how God has revealed Himself to man. His qualities are seen by what is made: the nature of His creation testifies of Him.
He is eternal and unchanging, like a fixed point. His moving is like Spirit. The place of the Christ is where He is found. It's a loose metaphor, but it isn't altogether worthless for understanding IMO
He is eternal and unchanging, like a fixed point. His moving is like Spirit. The place of the Christ is where He is found. It's a loose metaphor, but it isn't altogether worthless for understanding IMO
That's what you think and then establish your trinity doctrine based on what you think the bible says. This is what Jesus says:
Rev 21:6He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
Rev 21:6He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
-
1
- Show all
Really?!!
Rev 21:6He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
Can't you see the ending? He says "i will be their God and THEY WILL BE MY CHILDREN"
The correct translation should actually be "..they will be my son"
Rev 21:6He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
Can't you see the ending? He says "i will be their God and THEY WILL BE MY CHILDREN"
The correct translation should actually be "..they will be my son"
The son (children) is with respect to the Father (God). John was not speaking of children (son) in the same context as Jesus. Jesus clearly says "i will be their God and they will be my children (son)..". The context here is the Father-son with regards to authorities of God. I mean, the context is that they are His son (children) because He is their God.
Not a few verses, actually, the entire bible says the same thing:
Jer 30:22And you will be My people, and I will be your God.”
2 Corinthians 6:18
And: “I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
1 Chron 17:13I will be his Father, and he will be My son. And My loving devotion will neverdepart from him as I removed it from your predecessor. 14But I will set him over My house and My kingdom forever, and his throne will be established forever.”
Rev 21:3And I heard a loud voicefrom the throne saying: “Behold, the dwelling placeof God is with man, and He will live with them. Theywill be His people, and God Himself will be withthem as their God. .....6And He told me, “It is done! I am the Alphaand the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To thethirsty I will give freely from the spring of the waterof life. 7The one who is victorious will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son
Eze 37:27My dwelling place will bewith them; I will be their God, and they will be My people.
Mal 3: 17“They will be Mine,” says the LORD of Hosts, “on the day when I prepare My treasured possession. And I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.
So Jesus is the Father and not a Father because of anything, a Father because He is God.
Jer 30:22And you will be My people, and I will be your God.”
2 Corinthians 6:18
And: “I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
1 Chron 17:13I will be his Father, and he will be My son. And My loving devotion will neverdepart from him as I removed it from your predecessor. 14But I will set him over My house and My kingdom forever, and his throne will be established forever.”
Rev 21:3And I heard a loud voicefrom the throne saying: “Behold, the dwelling placeof God is with man, and He will live with them. Theywill be His people, and God Himself will be withthem as their God. .....6And He told me, “It is done! I am the Alphaand the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To thethirsty I will give freely from the spring of the waterof life. 7The one who is victorious will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son
Eze 37:27My dwelling place will bewith them; I will be their God, and they will be My people.
Mal 3: 17“They will be Mine,” says the LORD of Hosts, “on the day when I prepare My treasured possession. And I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.
So Jesus is the Father and not a Father because of anything, a Father because He is God.
-
1
- Show all
Answer me this then, can Jesus -who is only 1/3 of the trinity- claim to be the one God, or can the one God only be described as Father/Son/HS?
What am I ignoring? Jesus did receive all power and authority from the Father as you later confirm. As mentioned, there is not only one interpretation of John 1:1, and that is that the logos was being described as "a god" and not God. With that in mind, how is my reasoning that Jesus can't be God since he receives all authority and power from the Father, something the Almighty God Jesus should already posses me ignoring anything?
How does this negate anything I said. Again, Jesus can't be almighty God, as almighty God always has all power and authority and can never loose or come in possession of it.
John 1:1 is in relation to the Genesis account. The Genesis account is about the creation of the earth and the heavens, not the universe as we know it. Thus when it says in "in the beginning was the word" this isn't at the beginning of time or creation, but rather, the beginning of the creation of the Earth and heavens at the times of the Genesis account.
Moreover, even if John 1:1 was referring to "the beginning of creation" it still doesn't contradict Jesus being part of creation, since if Jesus was the Fathers first creation then Jesus was the beginning since God never began but always has been. Therefore in the beginning(Jesus) the word was with God(father) since Jesus was that beginning.
In regards to what you said about John 1:3, again, John 1:1 was about the Genesis account. Jesus is the agent through which the Father -who is the originator and source of creation- creates all things (see Hebrews 1:1-2, 1 Cor 8:6, Prov 8:30). So their is no issue with Jesus creating all things, since the "all things" in the context of John 1:3 is referring to the Genesis account it can only be understood as far as that context permits, it does not encompass literally all things like Col 1:16-17 does.
What's more, the bible usage of negative language such as "no other", "only one", "all things" typically aren't all encompassing and absolute, as I can demonstrate if challenged.
in Col 1:15 is in reference to firstborn in the sense of preeminence, you're still wrong as I can demonstrate if prompted.
What am I ignoring? Jesus did receive all power and authority from the Father as you later confirm. As mentioned, there is not only one interpretation of John 1:1, and that is that the logos was being described as "a god" and not God. With that in mind, how is my reasoning that Jesus can't be God since he receives all authority and power from the Father, something the Almighty God Jesus should already posses me ignoring anything?
How does this negate anything I said. Again, Jesus can't be almighty God, as almighty God always has all power and authority and can never loose or come in possession of it.
John 1:1 is in relation to the Genesis account. The Genesis account is about the creation of the earth and the heavens, not the universe as we know it. Thus when it says in "in the beginning was the word" this isn't at the beginning of time or creation, but rather, the beginning of the creation of the Earth and heavens at the times of the Genesis account.
Moreover, even if John 1:1 was referring to "the beginning of creation" it still doesn't contradict Jesus being part of creation, since if Jesus was the Fathers first creation then Jesus was the beginning since God never began but always has been. Therefore in the beginning(Jesus) the word was with God(father) since Jesus was that beginning.
In regards to what you said about John 1:3, again, John 1:1 was about the Genesis account. Jesus is the agent through which the Father -who is the originator and source of creation- creates all things (see Hebrews 1:1-2, 1 Cor 8:6, Prov 8:30). So their is no issue with Jesus creating all things, since the "all things" in the context of John 1:3 is referring to the Genesis account it can only be understood as far as that context permits, it does not encompass literally all things like Col 1:16-17 does.
What's more, the bible usage of negative language such as "no other", "only one", "all things" typically aren't all encompassing and absolute, as I can demonstrate if challenged.
in Col 1:15 is in reference to firstborn in the sense of preeminence, you're still wrong as I can demonstrate if prompted.
When the bible speaks of Jesus creating all things it does not literally mean all things, for example, did Jesus create the father and HS? They are part of all things are they not? Typically when the bible uses absoulte langauge such as "no other", "only one" and "all things" it leaves out the obvious. Take the following citation:
"..You made him [Adam/Man] a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him..." (Hebrews 2:7, 8)
When God subject all things under Adam he left NOTHING not subject to him. Technically speaking there is no reason why God shouldn't be included in the category of all things, the same goes for the Angels. However, as it goes without saying that the angels nor God are included in the statement of Hebrews 2:8 despite the absoluteness of the statement, they obviously aren't included.
The same examples can be found with God being the ONLY saviour (Isaiah 43:11) when comparing other saviours in the bible such as Othniel (Judges 3:7-11), Ehud (Judges 3:15-30), and finally Shamgar (Judges 3:31).
So if Jesus is part of creation, which I believe Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 show, then all things being created through Jesus wouldn't necessarily imply he wasn't part of creation, anymore than God was actually subjected to Man or was the only Savior, since, it would go without saying Jesus was part of creation and wouldn't need further clarification by the bible writer.
Furthermore, Jesus isn't the creator, the Father is. As I've previously mentioned the Father is the one whom all things come from, Jesus is the agent through with the Father creates, even Jesus himself got his life from the father, this is irrefutable.
(Hebrews 1:1, 2) "..God...at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.."
(1 Cor 8:6) "..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. ."
(John 6:57) "..Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me.."
No, it cannot, and I would take the original language used in the bible over the interpretation of the Nicene creed any day. I personally don't know of a Bible that does translate it that way, the Greek word pasēs certainly doesn't mean "before". If you alluding to the argument that the term prōtotokos
"..You made him [Adam/Man] a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him..." (Hebrews 2:7, 8)
When God subject all things under Adam he left NOTHING not subject to him. Technically speaking there is no reason why God shouldn't be included in the category of all things, the same goes for the Angels. However, as it goes without saying that the angels nor God are included in the statement of Hebrews 2:8 despite the absoluteness of the statement, they obviously aren't included.
The same examples can be found with God being the ONLY saviour (Isaiah 43:11) when comparing other saviours in the bible such as Othniel (Judges 3:7-11), Ehud (Judges 3:15-30), and finally Shamgar (Judges 3:31).
So if Jesus is part of creation, which I believe Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 show, then all things being created through Jesus wouldn't necessarily imply he wasn't part of creation, anymore than God was actually subjected to Man or was the only Savior, since, it would go without saying Jesus was part of creation and wouldn't need further clarification by the bible writer.
Furthermore, Jesus isn't the creator, the Father is. As I've previously mentioned the Father is the one whom all things come from, Jesus is the agent through with the Father creates, even Jesus himself got his life from the father, this is irrefutable.
(Hebrews 1:1, 2) "..God...at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.."
(1 Cor 8:6) "..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. ."
(John 6:57) "..Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me.."
No, it cannot, and I would take the original language used in the bible over the interpretation of the Nicene creed any day. I personally don't know of a Bible that does translate it that way, the Greek word pasēs certainly doesn't mean "before". If you alluding to the argument that the term prōtotokos
In the Revelation these words "alpha and omega" are not entirely clear who pronounces them. In Rev. 1:8 it is most likely God-Father (λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ = YHWH).
In Rev 1:10-11 according to TR and KJV this sentence ("I am alpha and omega....") seems to say Jesus, but the study of earlier versions of the Greek text, with which modern translations are consistent, suggest that here this phrase was interpolated.
In Rev 21:6 the phrase "alpha and omega ..." says the one who sits on the throne (21:5), it is not clear whether the Father or the Son.
Perhaps this phrase ("alpha and omega ...") is spoken by Jesus at 22:13, but even there it is not clear, because before that the "angel" speaks (22: 9-11), then suddenly it is appearance the phrase of Jesus (22:12) and possibly 22:13 is a continuation of Jesus phrase. But perhaps this is also unexpectedly appearance of phrase by God the Father.
In Dan 7:9, 13 we see two figures - "the Ancient of days" and "one like the Son of man" (= God Father and Son of God. Messiah).
These figures come together (the visionary sees the son of man approaching to the Ancient of days), but they are two different things.
In Rev 1:10-11 according to TR and KJV this sentence ("I am alpha and omega....") seems to say Jesus, but the study of earlier versions of the Greek text, with which modern translations are consistent, suggest that here this phrase was interpolated.
In Rev 21:6 the phrase "alpha and omega ..." says the one who sits on the throne (21:5), it is not clear whether the Father or the Son.
Perhaps this phrase ("alpha and omega ...") is spoken by Jesus at 22:13, but even there it is not clear, because before that the "angel" speaks (22: 9-11), then suddenly it is appearance the phrase of Jesus (22:12) and possibly 22:13 is a continuation of Jesus phrase. But perhaps this is also unexpectedly appearance of phrase by God the Father.
In Dan 7:9, 13 we see two figures - "the Ancient of days" and "one like the Son of man" (= God Father and Son of God. Messiah).
These figures come together (the visionary sees the son of man approaching to the Ancient of days), but they are two different things.