Jesus is God

Jesus is God


  • Total voters
    121

God's Truth

New member
Generally, I only stop speaking to someone when they repeatedly refuse to answer questions, are wholly unreasonable with the plain reading of the biblical text or are rude. Also, the obligations of life also at times prevent me.
None of those rude descriptions apply to me.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You seem to have a problem understanding that the "kinsman redeemer" must be a kinsman, meaning he must be a man (human) related by blood to the person he is redeeming.
The "kinsman redeemer" concept proves that Jesus must be a man in order to redeem mankind.

It's not often that I get to use this argument in a discussion.

Yes, Jesus had to be a man to redeem mankind.

However, no human can redeem himself, let alone his brother.

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit. - Psalm 49:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:7-9&version=NKJV

Therefore, and as Clete quoted good ole john w as saying:

"The "kinsman redeemer" concept explains why the Lord Jesus Christ must be God, to be qualified to redeem.

According to the Old Testament laws regarding punishment and retribution for a crime(sin), when one was assaulted, robbed, murdered...., the responsibility to bring the criminal to justice and to protect the lives/property of the relatives fell to the nearest "kinsman". This responsibility/obligation was referred to as "redeeming", and the man who had this role was called a "redeemer"('goel' in Hebrew). Thus, the LORD God would use this object lesson to teach that redemption(to buy back/release for the purpose of setting free) is provided by a kinsman redeemer. The kinsman redeemer is someone who is qualified to execute the law of redemption-he is qualified to pay the price of debt. This kinsman redeemer of the Old Testament was a "type" of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. There were 4 requirements for redemption, one being:

The redeemer must not be compromised by his predicament, i.e., the redeemer must be free from that which caused the need for redemption. Thus, the redeemer could not redeem himself. No slave, for example, could redeem another slave. A person in bondage was in no position to redeem another. This explains the virgin conception. This REQUIRES that the redeemer be God. The Lord Jesus Christ "...knew no sin...."(2 Cor. 5:21 KJV-see also 1 John 3:5 KJV, 1 Peter 2:22 KJV, Hebrews 4:15 KJV , John 8:46 KJV, Exodus 12:5 KJV="YOUR LAMB SHALL BE WITHOUT BLEMISH(emphasis mine)". Only God fits this REQUIREMENT." - John W

Thus, in order for God to save mankind, the Savior had to be BOTH man and God, man to be able to redeem mankind, and God to be valuable and qualified enough to redeem ALL of mankind.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
In Matthew 19:16-17, Mark 10:17-18, and Luke 18:18-19:

Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” - Matthew 19:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...7&version=NKJV

Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. - Mark 10:17-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. - Luke 18:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...9&version=NKJV

We see a man calling Jesus "Good Teacher."

Was Jesus' response correcting him about calling Him good? or was Jesus claiming to be God?
Neither, Jesus was telling the man that the man already knew what God said he should do and that the man should follow what God said instead of asking a man for another way to inherit eternal life than keeping the commandments of God.


Matthew 19:16-17
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, [JESUS]Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[/JESUS]



Mark 10:17-19
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, [JESUS]Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.[/JESUS]
19 [JESUS]Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.[/JESUS]



Luke 18:18-20
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, [JESUS]Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.[/JESUS]
20 [JESUS]Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.[/JESUS]

 

God's Truth

New member
A lot people mistake the actions or privileges of Jesus as evidence of him being God,
We are only to bow to God. Jesus allowed people to prostrate themselves to him.

like you claiming him sitting on the throne makes him God. The only issue with this is that the arguements are not consistent. For example, Jesus said "To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne", so unless you are willing to accept that we should worship the ones who have conquered as they also sit on the throne, then it's not evidence that we should worship Jesus directly since he sits on the throne.

You are not accounting to the fact that no one can conquer without Jesus.


You also fail to realize Jesus is above all things apart from the one who appointed him above all things, it was the Father who appointed Jesus above all things -apart from himself- and the Father that granted Jesus to sit on the throne. No one granted the Father to sit on the throne and no one appointed the Father above all things, this is because its the Father who is the one God (1 Cor 8:4-6) and only he has the authority to do such things (he can also grant others, such as Jesus the power to grant others).
God didn’t pretend to come as a man. Only God in the flesh could do what Jesus did. You are the one who fails to realize that.
I do not believe Jesus is the one God, he is no doubt a type of God/god but not the one God. Jesus emptied himself when coming to earth, so how could he be God on earth if it was his divinity that he emptied.
If Jesus is not God, then how is he living through all the saved?


Again this argument is not consistent, Jesus also said "whoever receives anyone I send receives me also, and whoever receives me receives also the One who sent me” (John 13:20). These words do not imply the apostles were Jesus or even the Father who sent Jesus do they, despite them communicating a similar thing when Jesus said "when you see him you can say you see the Father". Jesus was sent by the Father and it was the Father who told him what to say and speak, therefore it was the Father's message he was speaking, in a sense then it was the Father speaking and not Jesus, despite Jesus being the one who said the words.
Your problem with that is that the apostles didn’t come from heaven, but Jesus did. Your problem with that is Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the apostles were not. Your problem with that is Jesus’ blood takes away the sins of the world, the apostles blood doesn’t, and never will yours or any other humans. The problem with what you say is that the world was made through Jesus; the world was not made through any apostle or disciple. Another problem you have with the logic you presented is that Jesus lives in all the saved by his Spirit, and no spirit of any man can do the same.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Neither, Jesus was telling the man that the man already knew what God said he should do and that the man should follow what God said instead of asking a man for another way to inherit eternal life than keeping the commandments of God.

So was the man correct in calling Jesus "good"?
 

God's Truth

New member
I do not deny Jesus is a type of God (Isa 9:6, Hebrews 1:8, John 20:28)
Isaiah says Jesus is God. In Hebrews the throne is God’s and Jesus’. When Thomas said ‘my Lord and my God’, he said that to Jesus; and, so, according to your other arguments to me, we can call the other apostles ‘God’ too, and maybe even call you 'god'.
as there are "many gods", I deny that he is the one God, only the Father is the one God.

(1 Corinthians 8:4, 5) "..Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 Foreven thoughthere are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."
So you see your argument against Jesus being the one and only God the Father coming as a son in the flesh is not consistent. You can’t have it both ways---if you can say other men who are ‘gods’ and that Jesus is just one of those, then you have to prove all the other ‘gods’ can do what Jesus did and does.
Did any of the other gods come from heaven? Did any of the other gods have the world made through them? Did any of the other gods blood pay for the sins of the world? Did any of the other gods have sins forgiven by them in their name? Did any of the other gods raise themselves from the dead and ascend to heaven? Did any of the other gods have their spirit live in all the saved and intercede for them?

Jesus does what only God the Father can do. So does that make Jesus like God? No, because God says there is no one like Him. So it does make Jesus God come in the flesh as a man. They are one and the same God.
 

God's Truth

New member
It's taught throughout the Bible. You've just decided that you like lies more than truth.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say 'God' is a plural of Persons.

God is singular and Jesus is that one and only God come as a man.

The Holy Spirit isn't another Person with a Spirit that God the Father and Jesus share.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Nowhere in the Bible does it say 'God' is a plural of Persons.

God is singular and Jesus is that one and only God come as a man.

The Holy Spirit isn't another Person with a Spirit that God the Father and Jesus share.

Poor confused GT... again and again with your false doctrines.

A FATHER is a PERSON (not a "figure"), a SON is a PERSON (not a "figure")... take your false doctrine somewhere else!
 

God's Truth

New member
Poor confused GT... again and again with your false doctrines.

A FATHER is a PERSON (not a "figure"), a SON is a PERSON (not a "figure")... take your false doctrine somewhere else!

A Father can be a Father and a Son.

The trinity doctrine says the word 'God' is plural with three different and separate Persons, and one of the Person's is the Holy Spirit which the Father and Son share. No such teaching in the Bible.

The Bible teaches that God is singular, and that Jesus is that ONE and ONLY God come in the flesh as a man.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
It's not often that I get to use this argument in a discussion.

Yes, Jesus had to be a man to redeem mankind.

However, no human can redeem himself
Jesus did not need to be redeemed, since He was without sin.

Hebrews 4:15
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit. - Psalm 49:7-9
That passage is saying that earthly wealth cannot be used to buy eternal life.


Psalm 49:6-10
6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;
7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever: )
9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.
10 For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others.



Therefore, and as Clete quoted good ole john w as saying:
Thus, in order for God to save mankind, the Savior had to be BOTH man and God, man to be able to redeem mankind, and God to be valuable and qualified enough to redeem ALL of mankind.
You are almost there, but your conclusion does not follow because "the Savior had to be BOTH man and God" is not taught by the Bible but another answer to the problem is taught by the Bible.
We are not redeemed with the silver and gold (mentioned in the passage from Psalm 49 you quoted).
We are redeemed with the blood of Jesus Christ who was without blemish and without spot (without sin).

1 Peter 1:17-21
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.


Jesus had to be slain in order to provide the blood that redeemed us.

Revelation 5:9
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;


Jesus was with God before the foundation of the world, but He did not come because God wanted a sacrifice, He came because God wanted someone who would do His will.

Hebrews 10:5-9
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


When it came time for Jesus to sacrifice Himself, He prayed for God to remove that command, but said that He would obey God's will in the matter.

Luke 22:41-42
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, [JESUS]Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.[/JESUS]


Jesus was obedient unto death, and it is that obedience that is the reason that God highly exalted Jesus.

Philippians 2:5-11
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Jesus did not need to be God Himself in order to redeem us, Jesus only needed to be completely obedient to the will of God.

Romans 5:19
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


We are made righteous by the obedience of Jesus, who was obedient unto death on the cross.
And because of His obedience, Jesus is now able to stand as a mediator between God an men.

1 Timothy 2:5-6
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.



Now, if you want to believe the Savior had to be BOTH man and God in order to redeem us, that is your choice, but it is not taught by the Bible.
 

Right Divider

Body part
A Father can be a Father and a Son.
:rotfl: :dizzy:

The trinity doctrine says the word 'God' is plural with three different and separate Persons, and one of the Person's is the Holy Spirit which the Father and Son share. No such teaching in the Bible.
WRONG... The doctrine of the trinity is simply a recognition of what the Bible teaches throughout.

The Bible teaches that God is singular, and that Jesus is that ONE and ONLY God come in the flesh as a man.
The trinity doctrine teaches (as does the Bible) that there is ONE God.

We agree that God came in the flesh as a man. That is ALL completely compatible with the doctrine of the trinity.
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
:yawn:



Well, no, he hasn't.

Clete has been a member of TOL for FAR LONGER than you have, about 10 years longer, and has been dealing with people like you who have no idea what they're talking about because they've just been hand-fed what to believe.



Well, no, they're answerable, but Clete has done it so many times with nothing to show for it that it's simply a waste of his time to do it again.



There's really no comparison to be made here.

Clete's tired of repeating the same lines over and over again, only to have the cultist completely ignore (as you already have in this thread) his arguments. Hypocrite.



Not really. Especially not with cultists like yourself.



https://kgov.com/jehovahs-witnesses-secretly-recorded
https://kgov.com/deity



Because you say so?

Question:

Is Jesus the one conversing with Paul in Acts 9:4-6? If so, is Jesus also the one conversing with Paul in his recounting of Acts 9:4-6 in Acts 22:7-10?



So, in other words, your argument is that, because John is stating for the record that he's the one writing down the words of someone else, therefore the other person's words aren't really that person's words, but John's?

Question: Is John, in verse 8, claiming to be the following?:
“The Alpha and the Omega,"
"the Beginning and the End,”
"the Lord,"
“who is and who was and who is to come,"
"the Almighty”?
And if not, who is making the claim in verse 8 to those names?



You have not provided any reason for it to be otherwise.

Remember, you're the one who came to a Christian forum (which is strongly trinitarian) and demanded that Jesus is not God. The onus is on you to provide the evidence, and so far when you've been pressed (by Clete especially) you have yet to sufficiently respond to his direct challenges of your position.

Who's the one running agian?



See my previous response to you for the dissection of this claim.



"The one who is and who was and who is to come" is describing the One who is eternal, God.

To have it applied to Jesus makes him God.



Do you even know the significance of "alpha" and "omega" in the greek alphabet?



Question:

Who is speaking in Isaiah 44:6?
Here's the verse for you to consider:

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. - Isaiah 44:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah44:6&version=NKJV



Why?



Could you please, seeing as you haven't responded to my previous post to you (and here's hoping you are in the process of doing so), define what exactly, if anything, you mean by the word "die" in your claim, "God cannot die"?

And just to confirm, your argument is "God cannot die, therefore Jesus cannot be God, because Jesus died"?



:confused:

I have no idea what you just said, because none of that comes close to anything that is said in the Bible...



Supra.



Just because you can back up your false doctrine from the Bible doesn't make it truth.

Just look at Marx and his Communist Manifesto. He drew upon what was going on in Acts.



False.



You have been.



Well, no. The reason that he doesn't want to talk to you is because he's been there, done that with cultists like yourself over the many years he's been on TOL, and perhaps even longer.

It's extremely arrogant of you to assume otherwise.



:yawn:



Do you even know any Greek or Hebrew at all?



And you've been shown that this is false. By me.



Being unable to answer because you've stumped him and being unwilling to answer because he's done it all several times before may have the same appearance, but it's extremely shallow of you to assume that the former is the case and to not even consider the latter.



Except it's not all that different at all.

Do you even know the Greek alphabet?



What, you mean the nonsense you've posted? :chuckle:

Sorry to burst your bubble, NWL, but while I agree with your statement in general, the nonsense you've posted isn't truth, and Clete has better things to do than to debate a knucklehead like yourself who spent several paragraphs answering his direct and to the point question about your beliefs.



Supra.



And FINALLY you answer his question.

Thanks for the entertainment though, Mr. Jehovah's Witness.

:first:
 

genuineoriginal

New member
It's taught throughout the Bible.
No, the Trinity doctrine is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

This article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is neutral on the issue (presents both sides without giving preference to either).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
History of Trinitarian Doctrines

2. The Christian Bible
2.1 The Old Testament
No trinitarian doctrine is explicitly taught in the Old Testament. Sophisticated trinitarians grant this, holding that the doctrine was revealed by God only later, in New Testament times (c.50–c.100) and/or in the Patristic era (c. 100–800). They usually also add, though, that with hindsight, we can see that a number of texts either portray or forshadow the co-working of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[...] Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of the New. For example, the former speaks of God as working by his “word”, “wisdom”, or “spirit”. Some New Testament passages call Jesus Christ the word and wisdom of God, and in the Gospel of John, Jesus talks about the sending of another comforter or helper, the “Holy Spirit”. Thus, some Christians claim the door was open to positing two divine intelligent agents in addition to “the Father”, by, through, or in whom the Father acts, one of whom was incarnated in the man Jesus. In opposition, other Christian readers have taken these passages to involve anthropomorphization of divine attributes, urging that Greek speculations unfortunately encouraged the aforementioned hypostasizations.

2.2 The New Testament
The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine. However, many Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God. But how may it be inferred? Is the inference deductive, or is it an inference to the best explanation? And is it based on what is implicitly taught there, or on what is merely assumed there? Many Christian theologians and apologists seem to hold it is a deductive inference.

In contrast, other Christians admit that their preferred doctrine of the Trinity not only (1) can't be inferred from the Bible alone, but also (2) that there's inadequate or no evidence for it there, and even (3) that what is taught in the Bible is incompatible with the doctrine.

 
Top