Jesus is God

[ThewindBlows]

Alpha and Omega are Greek letters. Remember, Jesus is often referred to as the Word. Right? This is a reference to power and authority of Jesus’ words, but he isn’t coming out and saying “I am God” there.

How many ways do you want to twist almighty or you just going to ignore that, can you get mightier than Almighty....no

Psalm 138 says "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

God created everything through his Word

Think on this verse a while

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

 

[williamjordan]

Read my responses in that thread again. My entire thesis in that thread is about what the Pharisees believed about Jesus and how their claims that Jesus claimed he is God is false because Jesus never said that. I am not even talking about what I believe there.

I think you’ve added a lot of your commentary and you’re free to make deductions, but you’re misrepresenting me. I have never even read the Watchtower magazine, fellowshipped with any JWs, or been to a Kingdom Hall. So you got me all wrong, as most people seem to do on this forum.

I’ve said this at least a half dozen times now, but Bible discussions are scholarly to me and I’m staunchly Biblical and a lot of people will find it impossible to pry me away from what the Bible doesn’t plainly say.

That’s why I prefer to keep it more scholarly and academic and less personal.

As far as the Trinity Goes, I am a Trinitsrian since I believe in the Trinity, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren’t the same Person; that’s very clear. The Father is God who delegated power and authority to Jesus for the time being. The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit.

Please refer to Paul’s theology about the Father and Son, below: this is how I view it too.

1 Corinthians 15
25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.27For “God has put everything under His feet.”b Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

Nothing in my post was "personal." I was simply making a few observations. You should probably re-read what I said, and try reading it without the "personal" lenses on, because I think I was pretty clear. I did not deny that you weren't Trinitarian. What I said was that though you believe in the preexistence of Jesus, what wasn't so clear (up until the time of your response), was if you were Trinitarian. In the second sentence, I was indicating that there was the possibility of you being Trinitarian, but taking the term "God" as a reference only to "the Father." My dad was a Trinitarian, and often times when I spoke of Jesus being "God," he thought I was referring to Jesus as the Father. So I understand where you're coming from.

In the second paragraph I did use the word "either" to indicate one of two options hold true about theology: "Either Runningman holds to an Arian type Christology, similar to that of the JW's. Or he believes in the eternal preexistence of the Son of God, so you have two eternal divine figures." So, again, my take on it was an either/or. I did not say you were a JW, but I did say there was the possibility given the style of arguments you were putting forth.

 

[Mem]

The Spirit of God, Jesus' Father, didn't rest on Jesus until after his water baptism. This voice from heaven speaking is Jesus' Father, aka God, who referred to Jesus as His Son.

Matthew 3
16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!”

Is it your supposition, then, that Jesus did not have the Spirit of God until His baptism? or simply, because the Spirit speaks to us in the language of the Son, scripture says that the Spirit testifies of Him, Jesus manifested the Father and the Spirit, as Son of Man, to man?

 

[Nehemiah6]

.The way I see it: The Word, as creator, has always been God-- however, the flesh that The Word became hasn't always been God.

When the eternal Word of God took human form, that person -- Jesus of Nazareth -- was fully God and fully sinless Man at one and the same time. So there is no need to confuse the issue.

And now He is the Man Christ Jesus, seated at the right hand of the Father as the Mediator between God and men. God the Son has always been God and will remain God eternally. At the same time the Godhead consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is "the Mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ".

It was necessary for God to become Man in order to pay the full penalty for the sins of the whole world, and then rise again for our justification. But this "necessity" was purely based upon (a) the infinite grace of God and (b) the finished work of Christ. So the title of the thread should say "the Lord Jesus Christ is God".

He is no longer simply "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth". And there is really no need to call Him "Yeshua" since He is now the Savior of the world. Even the Samaritans who met Him had this discernment. See John chapter 4.

 

[williamjordan]

Read my responses in that thread again. My entire thesis in that thread is about what the Pharisees believed about Jesus and how their claims that Jesus claimed he is God is false because Jesus never said that. I am not even talking about what I believe there.

I think you’ve added a lot of your commentary and you’re free to make deductions, but you’re misrepresenting me. I have never even read the Watchtower magazine, fellowshipped with any JWs, or been to a Kingdom Hall. So you got me all wrong, as most people seem to do on this forum.

I’ve said this at least a half dozen times now, but Bible discussions are scholarly to me and I’m staunchly Biblical and a lot of people will find it impossible to pry me away from what the Bible doesn’t plainly say.

That’s why I prefer to keep it more scholarly and academic and less personal.

As far as the Trinity Goes, I am a Trinitsrian since I believe in the Trinity, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren’t the same Person; that’s very clear. The Father is God who delegated power and authority to Jesus for the time being. The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit.

Please refer to Paul’s theology about the Father and Son, below: this is how I view it too.

1 Corinthians 15
25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.27For “God has put everything under His feet.”b Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

And I also want to say one more thing just to get it off my chest. It isn't that one believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that makes them Trinitarian. Distinct persons or not, if your theology (which is hopefully derived from the Canon) does not permit a Father and Son that are consubstantial with one another, then all you have are three gods. That's polytheism. Though certainly consistent with it, even believing in the eternal preexistence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not make one Trinitarian. One could just believe in three gods that are eternal. But at the end of the day, it is the consubstantiality of the three (distinct) Persons that makes one Trinitarian. And when you come along citing texts in hopes to prove something counterintuitive of consubstantiality, as you certainly did in the other thread mentioned earlier, that makes you a very confused "Trinitarian." And you can join the club, because there's plenty of self-professing "Trinitarians," that don't understand what makes them "Trinitarian," and wind up espousing some form of Modalism.

What other reason would there be to cite Mark 10:18 and John 14:28 had you not intended to attack the idea of consubstantiality? Your post of these texts did not really go into any explanation.

 

[Runningman]

Is it your supposition, then, that Jesus did not have the Spirit of God until His baptism? or simply, because the Spirit speaks to us in the language of the Son, scripture says that the Spirit testifies of Him, Jesus manifested the Father and the Spirit, as Son of Man, to man?

I don't know. The Bible is a bit vague about if Jesus had the Holy Spirit prior to his water baptism or if the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus served a different function. Sometimes in Acts, people could be "filled" with the Holy Spirit more than once. Sola scriptura simply says the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his water baptism and Jesus didn't do any miracles prior to this according to standard Biblical canon.

My main point is that this shows the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinctly different. If they were exactly the same then what's with Jesus getting water baptized to do what God requires, then the Holy Spirit descending upon him, and a voice from heaven calling Jesus His Son? What do you make of that? Is that all the same person?

 

[Runningman]

What other reason would there be to cite Mark 10:18 and John 14:28 had you not intended to attack the idea of consubstantiality? Your post of these texts did not really go into any explanation.

Mark 10:18 and John 14:28 explain what the Father to Son relationship is. Jesus' Father and is greater than Jesus and Jesus would have no power or authority whatsoever unless his Father gave it to him.

John 5:30
30I can do nothing by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

I wouldn't call that an attack on any idea, that wasn't my intention, I just like to show what the Bible says because I accept that as truth. If ideas can't stand Biblical scrutiny then they aren't good ideas.

Given the verses I quoted, do you think Jesus is greater than or equal to his Father? Do you believe they're the same person? If so, please quote any verse that says so.

Before you do, I know about the "I am my Father are one" verse. Where the Jews who were listening laid the false charge against Jesus that he had claimed to be God. Seemingly perplexed as to why they would pick up rocks to stone him in John 10:32, Jesus said “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?” They replied, “We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Jesus didn't claim to be God. Actually, he went on to debunk them. Jesus proved that he claimed to be the Son of God and used scripture from the Law to prove it.

John 10
34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

 

[Runningman]

How many ways do you want to twist almighty or you just going to ignore that, can you get mightier than Almighty....no

Psalm 138 says "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

God created everything through his Word

Think on this verse a while

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Exactly. The words of the scripture testify of Jesus hence he not only is the Word but also his words will never pass away:

Matthew 25
35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• John 10:34 . . Jesus answered them; Is it not written in your Law: I have
said you are gods?

Jesus quoted only half that verse in Psalm 82, probably assuming his
opponents knew the rest by heart; which goes like this:

"You are all sons of the Most High."

That Psalm was addressed to the Jews. Well; Jesus was a Jew so it was
scriptural to claim himself a god, and also scriptural to claim himself the son
of God. He kind of had them over a barrel on that one.
_

 

[wattie]

Thank you. I didn't think there was a plain verse of Jesus claiming to be God.

Any other takers?

'Before Abraham was, I AM'

Jesus is calling Himself the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush.

 

[williamjordan]

Mark 10:18 and John 14:28 explain what the Father to Son relationship is. Jesus' Father and is greater than Jesus and Jesus would have no power or authority whatsoever unless his Father gave it to him.

John 5:30
30I can do nothing by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

I wouldn't call that an attack on any idea, that wasn't my intention, I just like to show what the Bible says because I accept that as truth. If ideas can't stand Biblical scrutiny then they aren't good ideas.

Given the verses I quoted, do you think Jesus is greater than or equal to his Father? Do you believe they're the same person? If so, please quote any verse that says so.

Before you do, I know about the "I am my Father are one" verse. Where the Jews who were listening laid the false charge against Jesus that he had claimed to be God. Seemingly perplexed as to why they would pick up rocks to stone him in John 10:32, Jesus said “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?” They replied, “We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

Jesus didn't claim to be God. Actually, he went on to debunk them. Jesus proved that he claimed to be the Son of God and used scripture from the Law to prove it.

John 10
34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Given everything I've said throughout our dicussions over here (click me!), is it not clear what I believe about Father and Son? For someone to be "equal" to another naturally requires them to be distinct in their person. So no, Father and Son are not the same persons, and I have made that abundently clear when I said,

The prologue of John’s gospel speaks of the Word existing “with” God. The term used here for “with” is the Greek word πρὸς (pros), which, when followed by a noun in the accusative case, speaks of face-to-face communion, interaction. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g., 1:29, 42, 47). Of course, this comports well with John 17:5, where Jesus speaks of His pre-existence with the Father. This πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (John 1:1b) language or some slight variation thereof, is used throughout the Testaments — some (17) occurrences of the phrase found within the NT, according to NA28 (Jn. 1:1, 2, 13:3; 1 Jn 3:21; Rev. 12:5, 13:6; Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Phillippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT/LXX (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). Also, similar phraseology (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα) is found in John 5:45; 14:6, 12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 20:17; 1 John 1:2. In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communication with one another.

Or again when I said,

You do understand the difference between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism, right? Unitarianism is the idea that God exists as one sole individual. That’s what differentiates it from Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism isn’t the idea that Jesus is the person of the Father, but that they are truly distinct persons, existing alongside one another, communicating with one another, and sharing in the divine nature. But even in your latest response it seems that you are conflating this idea with a form of Unitarianism referred to as Modalism,

“When Jesus said "I am the Father are one" he was referring to spiritual union. If we can understand what it means to be one with Jesus, one united body, then we can understand what it means for Jesus and his Father to be one. Again, it doesn't mean that when we are one united body that we become each other, but rather we are connected.”

As if this is even what I’m arguing for. Modalists cite John 10:30 to teach that Jesus and the Father are the same person. They believe that prior to the incarnation Jesus existed as the Father, and that it was the Father that came down from heaven in flesh. So your comments here are out of place.

Or again,

You keep insisting that the Jews are falsely accusing Jesus of being the Father (John 10:30); however, you are not interacting with what I have put forth as arguments against your interpretation. I will repeat those arguments here:

• Prior to His statement made in John 10:30 (“I and the Father, we are one”), Jesus refers to God as His “Father” seven times.
  
  
• The neuter adjective ἕν (“one”) is used, indicating a unity of essence, not personal identity.
  
  
• The plural verb ἐσμεν (“are”) is used. Thus, 10:30 is rendered, “I and the Father, we are (ἐσμεν) one.” This requires a distinction to be made between Jesus and the Father.

How do you read any of this, and then ask the question, "Do you believe they're the same person?" Let's start off by answering that, and then I can address your other questions as they pertain to Mark 10:18, John 14:28, and the equality of Father and Son.

 

[Runningman]

'Before Abraham was, I AM'

Jesus is calling Himself the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush.

In that passage, Jesus said this:

John 8 KJV
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Jesus did not seek his own honor or glory:
49Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me
50And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

Since Jesus only honors his Father and does not seek his own glory, when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" he was referring to Who he proceeded forth from, that is God:
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

[Runningman]

Given everything I've said throughout our dicussions over here (click me!), is it not clear what I believe about Father and Son? For someone to be "equal" to another naturally requires them to be distinct in their person. So no, Father and Son are not the same persons, and I have made that abundently clear when I said,

How do you read any of this, and then ask the question, "Do you believe they're the same person?" Let's start off by answering that, and then I can address your other questions as they pertain to Mark 10:18, John 14:28, and the equality of Father and Son.

I agree with a good percentage of what you said. I have nothing significant to add to it.

 

[Nehemiah6]

My main point is that this shows the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinctly different. If they were exactly the same then what's with Jesus getting water baptized to do what God requires, then the Holy Spirit descending upon him, and a voice from heaven calling Jesus His Son? What do you make of that? Is that all the same person?

There are many heretical or confused teachings about the Holy Trinity. But to keep it simple here is how one should see it:
GOD THE THE FATHER IS NEITHER THE SON NOR THE HOLY SPIRIT
GOD THE SON IS NEITHER THE FATHER NOR THE HOLY SPIRIT
GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NEITHER THE FATHER NOR THE SON

Three distinct divine Persons, yet one God to be accepted by faith not human reason.

 

[wattie]

In that passage, Jesus said this:

John 8 KJV
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Jesus did not seek his own honor or glory:
49Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me
50And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

Since Jesus only honors his Father and does not seek his own glory, when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" he was referring to Who he proceeded forth from, that is God:
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

And then Jesus also forgives sin, performs miracles by His power, accepts worship, saw Phillip when He wasn't with Phillip in person etc..

But getting back to the I AM...

The Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus for saying this. Why would they stone someone if He were just 'sent from' the Father-- but not equal to the Father?

Again.. look at the Jewish concept of agency.

Jesus is in the Father.. and the Father is in Jesus. Jesus is one with the Father.

Jesus may be distinct from the Father.. but that doesn't make Him unequal or inferior. To have one God.. monotheism.. they must be equal. Otherwise you have inferiority in the Godhead.. and that is Polytheism.

Distinct .. but not seperate. What the Father does.. the Son does and the Holy Spirit.

I don't like to say Jesus is not the Father.. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.. because if we have one God.. monotheism.. they are not seperate. But, they are distinct personas of God.

You can still have one God.. monotheism and have Jesus as fully God with the Father and Holy Spirit.

The main thing is.. Jesus, even while in the flesh had all the abilities to be fully God.

Have a read of the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel regarding Jesus being fully God if you want to.

But yeah.. I don't really understand how you are identifying Jesus. Son of God.. doesn't mean 'not God'.. like I typed before-- 'Son' meaning 'image', 'expression', 'manifestation'... not 'inferior' or 'born out of'

 

[wattie]

There are many heretical or confused teachings about the Holy Trinity. But to keep it simple here is how one should see it:
GOD THE THE FATHER IS NEITHER THE SON NOR THE HOLY SPIRIT
GOD THE SON IS NEITHER THE FATHER NOR THE HOLY SPIRIT
GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NEITHER THE FATHER NOR THE SON

Three distinct divine Persons, yet one God to be accepted by faith not human reason.

But aren't they in some sense.. each-other.. if we have one God? I agree they are distinct personas of God.. but they aren't seperate. Actual seperateness and that to me looks like Polytheism.

I know it's not modalism for the Trinity-- God doesn't go in and out of each like a sock puppet.

I know when Jesus talks to the Father it's not just 'an expression talking to an expression' or 'a manfestation talking to a manifestation'

But they must be together not seperate to be one God, right?

 

[ThewindBlows]

Exactly. The words of the scripture testify of Jesus hence he not only is the Word but also his words will never pass away

And the Word was God. John 1:1

Also notice that God purchased the church with his own blood

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Acts 20:28 . .Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church
of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

That's actually a very useful text for showing Jesus is God's posterity by
means of reproduction rather than by adoption.

To begin with: we know that God is spirit, and spirit doesn't have flesh.
(John 4:24 & Luke 24:39) So the blood in question may be a reference to
God's kin instead of Himself because the Greek word for "blood" in that
verse is somewhat ambiguous and doesn't always refer to the red material
flowing in people's veins.

For example:

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the
right to become children of God-- children born not of natural descent, nor of
human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." (John 1:12-13)

The Greek word for "natural descent" is the same word for blood in Acts
20:28.

Another example:

"From one man he made every nation of men" (Acts 17:26)

The Greek word for "one man" is again the same word for blood.

There is an abundance of evidence that Jesus is God's direct descendant, i.e.
His blood, so to speak. For example Luke 1:35, John 1:14, John 1:18, John
3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, and 1John 4:9.
_

 

[Runningman]

And the Word was God. John 1:1

It’s a parallel to Genesis 1:1 where God spoke creation into existence using words. So Jesus is the culmination of the word of God made flesh who came from God. The scriptures that testify of Jesus are the words of God. To me it’s just a way of saying that God’s words are part of who He is.

We need God to live, not bread only. God’s words are powerful, hence Jesus said this:

Matthew 4
4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

 

[Runningman]

Revelation 19
13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is The Word of God.