Jesus is God?

[lockyfan]

it is very clear in the bible that god and Jesus are separate. As shown by the words here of
Proverb 8:22-31
"Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men

These are the words of Jesus himself he brought forth like a BIRTH (not in existance with God at the beginning) he was produced by God himself, how can you say that Jesus is part of a trinity when it is clear hat Jesus himself was not created until later.

 

[Popeyesays]

I guess that is a rather obtuse way of saying "yes" then, as you have rationalized, however limply, that "god" is not omnipotent. In effect, there are some things that "god" cannot do -- for whatever reason. Sorry, your brilliant allusion simply doesn't hold water in my perspective. For any being capable of creating All That Is, I would think that creating an imagine in human form would be akin to child's play... but I must be anthropomorphizing again.

So, what other limits do your preconception place on "god", Scott?

Paul,

It's not GOd that lacks capacity.

It's creation that lacks capacity.

You make the mistake of thinking that God is part of Creation, when it is Creation that is PART of God.

My words don't bend that far, so you put others in my mouth?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

it is very clear in the bible that god and Jesus are separate. As shown by the words here of
Proverb 8:22-31
"Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men

These are the words of Jesus himself he brought forth like a BIRTH (not in existance with God at the beginning) he was produced by God himself, how can you say that Jesus is part of a trinity when it is clear hat Jesus himself was not created until later.

Nice quote. I suspect some may argue that this does not describe Yeshua. Some may say this is speaking of Solomon. It sure does sound like it is speaking of Yeshua to me especially when compared to;

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify, YOU, me with YOUR own self with the glory which I had WITH YOU before the world was.

But I guess it's all in the interpretation.....If this is speaking of him then it sure would clear up that age old argument of him being created by his god or not.....(IMO)

 

[YmirGF]

Paul,

It's not GOd that lacks capacity.

It's creation that lacks capacity.

I don't particularly care about how you rationalize you statements Scott, you are nevertheless placing limits on what an all powerful being can or cannot do.

You make the mistake of thinking that God is part of Creation, when it is Creation that is PART of God.

Scott, if Creation is indeed a part of God, but God is not a part of Creation, then God cannot be Omnipresent. Congratulations Scott, you have just made God an absentee landlord. So... for those keeping score, we are now two for two. Scott has "prostualated" that God is neither Omnipotent or Omnipresent. I rather expect that your next assertion will be that God is also not Omniscient.

*Hands Scott a shovel to continue digging his hole*

My words don't bend that far, so you put others in my mouth?

Rubbish, Scott. You are a fairly competent writer, not great, but competent. You also come across as someone with "expert knowledge" in a variety of areas. I don't need to put words in your mouth, Scott, I need only show what the net result of your words convey. I'm simply underscoring the flaws in your thinking.

 

[Popeyesays]

I don't particularly care about how you rationalize you statements Scott, you are nevertheless placing limits on what an all powerful being can or cannot do.

This is a prime example of putting words in someone's mouth. I did not say that.

Scott, if Creation is indeed a part of God, but God is not a part of Creation, then God cannot be Omnipresent. Congratulations Scott, you have just made God an absentee landlord. So... for those keeping score, we are now two for two. Scott has "prostualated" that God is neither Omnipotent or Omnipresent. I rather expect that your next assertion will be that God is also not Omniscient.

*Hands Scott a shovel to continue digging his hole*

How so? If I have something in my stomach, I am aware of its presence. If there is something in the universe, God is present and aware of its presence.

If on the other hand God were a discrete part of the universe then it would be possible for another discrete part of the universe NOT to experience the presence of God.

Speaking of flaws in logic, that's a pretty big one, Paul.

Regards,
Scott

 

[YmirGF]

God has done as He willed, He made us what we are, not what any one of us might think he might be.

Suppose God (we are) were all the water in the universe and He wished to pour Himself into a teacup. Would that succeed?

Scott, this argument is absurd. This is akin to “Can God create a rock so large that even “he” cannot move it?” In both cases the answer consigns concepts of Omnipotence to the trash heap. Likewise comparing All That Is to an Ocean trying to squeeze itself into a teacup negates the Omnipotence factor. This is something can “god” cannot do. There is no other meaningful way to interpret this, imho.

Of course, not and no fault to God, it is the teacup which has a measured capacity. Each of us has a measured capacity if it varies from individual to individual--one may have a thimble, one might have a gallon bucket.

Considering that a super-massive star can be collapsed into a black hole a few miles across, I am hard pressed to understand how an Omnipotent being could not squeeze into a teacup. I am perfectly serious. Why not? It is my perception that you are assuming that such a remarkable being would be constrained by the rules that apply to its creation.

When God pours Himself into the container the container fills to its capacity and what is contained is no longer "God", it's simply a full container of measured capacity.

This is where I am insisting that you are the one placing limitations on what is allegedly an unlimited being. To make your theory work, God would have to play by physical laws. Given the idea that “god” allegedly created those laws, I would not be surprised if such a being would understand how to contravene those laws, if in fact, conformity was even an issue to begin with. Why should it be?


You then replied thusly.

Paul,

It's not GOd that lacks capacity.
It's creation that lacks capacity.

You make the mistake of thinking that God is part of Creation, when it is Creation that is PART of God.

My words don't bend that far, so you put others in my mouth?

So, we are back to God being able to do anything, but for some reason, his creation is not capable of being molded in such a way as to contain his being. Is that fair to say? My thinking is that you are making the assumption that God cannot do whatever he jolly well pleases.

If I seem to be putting words in your mouth, a weak argument, at best, then I would suggest that you choose your words more wisely, so that there can be no misunderstanding.


And finally...

This is a prime example of putting words in someone's mouth. I did not say that.

Indeed you do not specifically say that, Scott, but your words lead to few other conclusions.

How so? If I have something in my stomach, I am aware of its presence. If there is something in the universe, God is present and aware of its presence.

Ok, so now God is back to being present in Creation. *sigh* You did say that "You make the mistake of thinking that God is part of Creation, when it is Creation that is PART of God." If you can humor me as to how these two statements work together I would be most appreciative.

If on the other hand God were a discrete part of the universe then it would be possible for another discrete part of the universe NOT to experience the presence of God.

Ok. So, how does that fit with the above? Now you are weasling in that God IS a "discrete" part of the universe, where above you said that was my mistake for thinking that God was a part of Creation (the universe -- as is there is but one, lol).

Scott, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you said that god is both within and without creation then I wouldn't be badgering you on this point. The point is that you very clearly stated that Creation is a part of God. Um, if my hand is part of my body then how can you say that my body does not include my hand?

Speaking of flaws in logic, that's a pretty big one, Paul.

Sorry Scott, if there is a flaw in my logic, you have not made it abundantly clear to me. In fact you have only succeeded in muddying your postion even further. Shall I get you a backhoe?


(I'm pulling for ya buddy, just come up with a reasonable argument.)

Love ya, Scott.
Fondest regards,

Paul

 

[deelo505]

Well then it must mean one God with multiple personalities.

i wouldnt call it personalities because it doesnt really fit

Explain, please, the difference between your soul and your spirit.

The spirit that God has given man is what the world calls our conscience. I believe that the Holy Spirit unites the Father and Son as One; One in love, One in will, One in personality. The spirit that God has given man is what the world calls our conscience. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7) The spirit that God has given man is our source of life, (John 6:63). The moment that the spirit that God has given us departs from our body we are dead, (James 2:26).
Human souls have inherited corruption from Adam’s sin, (Romans 5:12). Because a person is born a sinner he cannot trust his own soul, which is his heart. The natural tendency of our soul is to sin. Sin is disobedience to God and comes from rejecting God as God and trying to be our own god. The natural tendency of a corrupted human soul is to be his own god, which appeals to his pride and selfishness. "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)




It's not the same concept at all. To begin with, neither my spirit nor my body are fully me. It's only when they come together that they are fully me. Are you saying that Jesus is not fully God -- on His own?

so do you think IF you were to go to heaven your spirit would not be you?

 

[Popeyesays]

"Ok. So, how does that fit with the above? Now you are weasling in that God IS a "discrete" part of the universe, where above you said that was my mistake for thinking that God was a part of Creation (the universe -- as is there is but one, lol).

Scott, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you said that god is both within and without creation then I wouldn't be badgering you on this point. The point is that you very clearly stated that Creation is a part of God. Um, if my hand is part of my body then how can you say that my body does not include my hand? "

I am sorry you've lost the ability to read for comprehension, Paul. Now you are arguing my point verbatim and claiming it for your own.

At this point the discussion is pointless for you and me. Hopefully others will be able to sort it out for what it is.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jeremy Mason]

This does nothing to answer the question I asked......

If Yeshua is God (fully God and fully man) as trinitarians believe then how can God be given authority if he is master or heaven and earth? Are there 2 gods????? One giving the power and the other receiving????

Because the Father had the authority first. Not two gods, two parts of the collective that make one in purpose. There is also the Holy Spirit, but we are just talking about how power is shared within the Father and Son relationship.

 

[deelo505]

Nice quote. I suspect some may argue that this does not describe Yeshua. Some may say this is speaking of Solomon. It sure does sound like it is speaking of Yeshua to me especially when compared to;

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify, YOU, me with YOUR own self with the glory which I had WITH YOU before the world was.

But I guess it's all in the interpretation.....If this is speaking of him then it sure would clear up that age old argument of him being created by his god or not.....(IMO)

"
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
who is the word of God?

 

[Katzpur]

so do you think IF you were to go to heaven your spirit would not be you?

I'm not sure to whom you were addressing this question, deelo, since your quote contained both my statements and someone else's. But my answer to your question is that I believe that when I go to Heaven it will be after I am resurrected, in other words, when my spirit re-enters my physical body which will have been made perfect and immortal.

 

[Popeyesays]

"
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
who is the word of God?

Rather WHAT is the word of God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[CDB]

In reading the posts here even a genius would be confused at the different views. I just want to try to simplify this for it appears that even some religious people are confused. I John 5:5-8 For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father,(God), Jesus, (the word) and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. (united) In John 14:6 no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. This is Jesus saying that He is the mediator between The Father (God) and us.

If you make Jesus the Son of God the Word, then you make him a second God.

John 1 says the Word is God. If the Father is God, and the Word is God, then the Father and the Word are the same. The Son cannot be the Word unless he is also God.

BIG problem, since all christianity supposedly believes in only one God.

With regards to being mediator:

1 Timothy 2:5

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus;

That's pretty plain to me. He doesn't need to be God to be mediator.

 

[CDB]

"
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
who is the word of God?

God. The answer is at the end of the passage.

The Son of God is the Word made manifest, the express image of God, but not God himself.

Remember that Jesus is the only begotten (born) Son of God.
God gave birth to his Son.
And since there is no Mrs. God, then the Son is going to come out looking EXACTLY like his Father, since no other material than God material was there in the first place.

 

[Popeyesays]

Remember that Jesus is the only begotten (born) Son of God.
God gave birth to his Son.
And since there is no Mrs. God, then the Son is going to come out looking EXACTLY like his Father, since no other material than God material was there in the first place.

Then who is Mary? Not Mrs. God certainly, but Jesus was born of a woman, gestated within a woman who was brought to bear a child by the will of God rather than by the usual method of introducing sperm into her vagina.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
who is the word of God?

I was simply replying to Lockyfan on Proverbs 8:22-31

I'm not sure what response you're looking for from me. Before I can answer your question you must answer this one first. Do you believe Proverbs 8:22-31 is speaking of Yeshua....because this is what your responding to.........?

Be careful before you answer because it is normally the position of christians that Yeshua was not a "created" being. If Proverbs 8:22-31 is about Yeshua then the first sentence refutes their claims. Looking at the quotes at first glance can give one the impression it is speaking of Yeshua because of a couple of quotes from Yeshua......

He said he existed before the world was......and it is the scripture that says Yeshua sits at the right hand of God (power). These would seems to fit the statements in proverbs.........

"BUT".........If you agree then you must concede Yeshua is not God.....because in Proverbs it says......"God created me before he created anything else"......."I was put in place before the earth was created".......and we see that the speaker in Proverbs gives all credit to the creator whom created him as well as being the creator of heaven and earth which also sounds like Yeshua's declaration in his prayers to his god;

John 17:3
You are the one true god and I am the messiah whom you have sent.

Matthew 11:25
......I thank YOU, O Father, master of heaven and earth..........


This is why I said some would not agree that this is speaking of Yeshua even though the statements fit.

Now to see if the writer of the book of John's interpretation fits Yeshua as being "God" you simply need to look no further than within the same book and Yeshua prayer in 17:3 says.....NO....he is not God.....

 

[Muffled]

I'm aware of the verse in the Tenach describing King Messiah, which includes some of the titles you list.

How do you square the title of "Prince of Peace" being applied to Jesus when Jesus said He came not to bring peace but a sword?

There are two different types of peace 1. As the world gives, temporal 2. As Jesus gives, eternal.

Having the second peace I am more at odds with this world or less at peace with it as in the first definition.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Because the Father had the authority first. Not two gods, two parts of the collective that make one in purpose.

Then this is where we differ. It is one of the trinitarian beliefs that God gave up his power to become human but yet when asked how can God temporarily give up his power and run the universe if he is omnipotent.....we are told.....that he was still running the universe while in the form of a man. To me this doesn't make sense and comes off as a contradiction. If God gave up his power to become part of his creation then how can he be fully (100%) God and fully (100%) man? Why would this creator have to be "given" power and authority if it all was his from the beginning? And who was it that "gave" him this power and authority?

For me, the logical conclusion would have to be that they are not the same. In order to be given there must be a giver. In order to be sent there must be a sender. I have said this plenty of times in every thread like this and that logic has gone unchallenged.

 

[Muffled]

My bottom line is if Jesus told His followers to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...then it would be best if they were obedient and did so.

And I don't actually have a problem with the notion that Jesus spoke with all authority, and most certainly for that time He was given to speak. Jesus was the closest thing to God anyone could manage for those who saw Him, and for the many who came after.

Here's the analogy I use -- if you look at the reflection of the sun in a mirror, you can say "That's the sun" and you'd be correct. You could also say "That's not the sun" because it's the image and not the actual sun. Both statements are true.

Likewise, if Jesus speaks as if He's God, that's correct. And if in another place He speaks as if He is not God, that is also correct.

Paradoxes are such fun.

When you understand what is meant in the Qu'ran that God has no partners, then you can see that God gives His authority to no-one but Himself. If there were another that person would be a partner. Even as the Paraclete, God does not give you His authority, you step aside and let God be the authority in you.

God knows my ego and how I would love to have His power but He knows better than to put power into the hands of sinful men. All we have to do is look at the men who loved power like Hitler and we should know it isn't a good thing. As our technology expands we have put more power in the hands of men, enough to destroy ourselves and our world. It is getting to be time for God to step in and remove that power from us.

 

[Muffled]

Well then it must mean one God with multiple personalities.

Explain, please, the difference between your soul and your spirit.

It's not the same concept at all. To begin with, neither my spirit nor my body are fully me. It's only when they come together that they are fully me. Are you saying that Jesus is not fully God -- on His own?

If there are multiple personalities there are three Gods but there is no Biblical evidence for three personalities or three Gods.

The soul is the melding between spirit and body. When God created Adam He breathed the spirit of Adam into a body and it became a living soul.

This is a temporal view and the first definition of person. Once you die that person no longer exists. By the second definition that a spirit is a person, it always remains the same person no matter how many temporal persons you have been.

There are two questions to this 1. essence 2. identity
1. Jesus is not essentially God because His soul is spirit and body but God is only spirit
2. Jesus has the identity of God becuase it is the spirit of God that is in Him

1.If you define Jesus as a person by His temporal soul then there is only one such person in the Trinity. The Father does not have a temporal person and the Paraclete has millions of temporal persons but not in the same way that Jesus is a temporal person because we still retain our own identity.

2. If you define the person as the spirit, Jesus, the Father and the Paraclete are the same person because they are the same spirit EPH 4:4.