Jesus is God

Jesus is God


  • Total voters
    121

daqq

Well-known member
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by daqq
Blahahahah, yet another passage that is under dispute!
Are you one of the "KJV Only" people?

As already quoted: NO ONE has seen or beheld Elohim at any time, and that is from two separate NT passages, so how do you understand the "blood of Elohim" if that translation is correct?
Unitiarians are a persistent faction that will dispute any passage regarding the divinity of Jesus. It doesn't matter if the alternate reading is found in only four or five places out of hundreds, they will claim that is the correct one, and the others are product of a vast conspiracy theory. Case in point, the "He who was manifest in the flesh" (only found in a few corrupt readings, not even sensible to mean anything other than God regardless) ... is found in how many manuscripts Daqq?

And still yet none of what we have discussed in the last two pages has any impact on what I first said to you, which you quoted, and that is because what I said to you was from the scripture, and is written in two places which are not in dispute by anyone:

John 1:18a ASV
18a θεον ουδεις εωρακεν
[G3708 ὁράω - horao] πωποτε
18a No man hath seen God at any time;

1 John 4:12a ASV
12a θεον ουδεις πωποτε τεθεαται
[G2300 θεάομαι - theaomai]
12a No man hath beheld God at any time:


No one disputes either of the above statements and all important manuscripts and codices agree. And yet these two statements comprise an insurmountable obstacle for your doctrine because they no doubt speak of "seeing" and "beholding" according to the physical ocular-visual natural eye. You now have two Greek words for "seeing" and-or "beholding" which absolutely cannot apply to anyone you might claim to be "God Almighty", (whether it be Jesus or anyone else), for if you say that "Jesus is God Almighty" then the scripture plainly states in these two places that no man, (or no one), has seen or beheld him at any time. Do you see the problem here or do you simply wish to ignore these plain emphatic statements from the scripture writings so that your doctrine may remain? And here is the next issue from these same two passages: both of them contain Theos, ("God" or "Elohim"), in an anarthrous form, (θεον without an article), like as in John 1:1. What do you suppose the implications of this to your doctrine might be? if any? Moreover, mind you, I have not said that "Jesus is not God". :chuckle:
 

God's Truth

New member
More hypocrisy.

If you meant what you claim, you would immediately cease to give frequent evidence to the contrary in all your lachrymose responses to what I have to say on this matter.

Rather, you are just a double-minded person (James 1:8).

AMR

Again, accuser, this thread is not for you to come and accuse me.
 

Rosenritter

New member
And still yet none of what we have discussed in the last two pages has any impact on what I first said to you, which you quoted, and that is because what I said to you was from the scripture, and is written in two places which are not in dispute by anyone:

John 1:18a ASV
18a θεον ουδεις εωρακεν
[G3708 ὁράω - horao] πωποτε
18a No man hath seen God at any time;

1 John 4:12a ASV
12a θεον ουδεις πωποτε τεθεαται
[G2300 θεάομαι - theaomai]
12a No man hath beheld God at any time:


No one disputes either of the above statements and all important manuscripts and codices agree. And yet these two statements comprise an insurmountable obstacle for your doctrine because they no doubt speak of "seeing" and "beholding" according to the physical ocular-visual natural eye. You now have two Greek words for "seeing" and-or "beholding" which absolutely cannot apply to anyone you might claim to be "God Almighty", (whether it be Jesus or anyone else), for if you say that "Jesus is God Almighty" then the scripture plainly states in these two places that no man, (or no one), has seen or beheld him at any time. Do you see the problem here or do you simply wish to ignore these plain emphatic statements from the scripture writings so that your doctrine may remain? And here is the next issue from these same two passages: both of them contain Theos, ("God" or "Elohim"), in an anarthrous form, (θεον without an article), like as in John 1:1. What do you suppose the implications of this to your doctrine might be? if any? Moreover, mind you, I have not said that "Jesus is not God". :chuckle:

If we accept what Jesus said, "No man has seen God at any time" Jesus also says that he himself has seen God. Therefore, in this context, Jesus is not a man. We are also told he is not an angel. What's left?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I have no idea how this is supposed to form an "insurmountable obstacle to my doctrine." Perhaps you should define "my doctrine" as it seems that we have a difference of opinion as to what that entails?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I couldn't care any less what you think of my avatar.
More hypocrisy.

If you meant what you claim, you would immediately cease to give frequent evidence to the contrary in all your lachrymose responses to what I have to say on this matter.

Rather, you are just a double-minded person (James 1:8).

AMR

Q.E.D.

AMR
 

daqq

Well-known member
If we accept what Jesus said, "No man has seen God at any time" Jesus also says that he himself has seen God. Therefore, in this context, Jesus is not a man. We are also told he is not an angel. What's left?

The answer. :)

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I have no idea how this is supposed to form an "insurmountable obstacle to my doctrine." Perhaps you should define "my doctrine" as it seems that we have a difference of opinion as to what that entails?

Do you not claim that Jesus was a man? and that he is also YHWH Elohim Almighty who became the man Jesus? Since I'm pretty sure I have seen you saying such things perhaps you should explain my error or assumption if I am incorrect about your stance. And if I am incorrect I do apologize. However, if you say that Jesus was/is a man, and YHWH Elohim Almighty became a man, (Jesus), then again, the two passages I quoted utterly refute your doctrine. :)
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No I am not.

Yes you are. They are two separate persons.


John 14:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
 

CherubRam

New member
You are promoting distrust about the Written Word of God, the Holy Bible. That is sin.
The bible says that it would be tampered with. A true Christian seeks the truth. The answer is easy, just separate the Paganism from Judaism, and then you will have the true word of God.
 

God's Truth

New member
Yes you are. They are two separate persons.


John 14:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

They are exactly the same.

Jesus only says and does what the Father says and does. So if one said something, how would you know which one said it?
 

God's Truth

New member
The bible says that it would be tampered with. A true Christian seeks the truth. The answer is easy, just separate the Paganism from Judaism, and then you will have the true word of God.

God knows how to preserve His written Word and He knew exactly what would be in the Bible.
 

God's Truth

New member
John 14:23 proves you WRONG through its grammar and sentence structure.

That scripture is one of the scriptures that I use to prove they are the same.

Think about it some more, for Jesus says that he and the Father will live with the saved; however, we are ONLY GIVEN ONE SPIRIT. So that proves they are the same. Jesus is Spirit. The Father is Spirit. So do you understand now?
 

CherubRam

New member
All of the people in heaven are called gods. (elohiym) Yahshua said he was a god from heaven.

Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "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— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Yes you are. They are two separate persons.


John 14:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Yep, there is distinction in the GodHead. FATHER, SON, HOLY GHOST

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH GOD, and the Word WAS GOD.

Here we see Jesus (the Word) was God...not the Father. A fine distinction, but an important one, if you want to stay true to all that is written in Holy Scripture.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
All of the people in heaven are called gods. (elohiym) Yahshua said he was a god from heaven.

Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "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— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

No, that is referring to the Judges in Israel that spoke for God. Read the context.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Again, think what you want.

It is harassment when you keep calling someone a liar and speaking about what they don't want to speak about.

Talk about the thread topic and stop talking about me. Stop harassing me.
Again, accuser, this thread is not for you to come and accuse me.
I told the truth.
 
Top