How can Christians say Jesus (PBUH) is GOD?

[sojourner]

Basic Christianity says that the Church is the body of Christ. It teaches that each member is to receive the anointing which is called 'Christ'. Jesus is also called 'The Christ'. Jesus is also called the Son of God but Israel was called that first, but now the Church is too. The apostle Paul says that Christians are now members of the household of faith now, so they are part of Israel -- which is called the Son of God. Do you get what I am saying? To help my point: The Virgin Birth prophecy mentioned by Matthew is so obviously not a prediction that it can be no accident that it is not applied to Jesus 'The Man' but to the Church. In fact none of the fulfillments in Matthew come from predictions, but they can all be applied to the Church.

When the Koran calls Jesus a man who was a prophet it is completely at odds with the NT and creates some other version of Christianity. It is talking about something other than what Christians are reading about. It completely ignores how the Church has been operating, who Christians are. Its is pointless to nitpick about whether Jesus was part of a trinity or not. He will never fit with the Koran.

If I understand what you're saying here, let me embellish a little. The Trinity (like the church) is a perfect example of God-expressed-as-community.

 

[Me Myself]

I beiev God needs no other God than Himself. I believe Jesus is not a lesser god but God Hinself.

I believe He definitely does need to be incarnate in order to fulfill His objective.

He needs? you mean he would be unable to fulfill his objective without being incarnated?

 

[Brickjectivity]

If I understand what you're saying here, let me embellish a little. The Trinity (like the church) is a perfect example of God-expressed-as-community.

I think I grasped 'God-expressed-as-community' when you said it, and I have seen suggestions in the NT towards that conclusion. Take the invisible and inapproachable God and make it visible and approachable.

 

[danieldemol]

Since Jesus and the Father are one they can't be two.

If Jesus were just a prophet there would be no exclusivity because one would be able to get to the Father by another prophet.

But the Christians themselves state that it is possible to get to the Father by another Prophet logically, since otherwise those who faithfully followed the Jewish Prophets prior to the coming of Jesus would have wasted their time.

All Jesus was saying to the Jews was that it is not acceptable in the view of the Father to accept others and reject Jesus.

To claim that it meant otherwise denies salvation to all those faithful companions of earlier Prophets.

In that sense the Muslims could agree to this statement since they also consider it unacceptable to accept Muhammad while rejecting Jesus.

 

[Pegg]

I think what it all boils down to in the end is.. Does God need to have a human equivalent of a Son.. or another lesser God for that matter?

Jesus life did not begin as a human.
His life began in heaven as a powerful angel. The bible says he was the first of of the heavenly angels created by God.

He was later sent to earth to replace our first father Adam, who led mankind into the path of sin and death. God transfered the life of Jesus into the womb of Mary so that he would be born as a human and live as a human.

And when God restored him to life, he made him alive as he originally was in heaven. So being called a 'son of God' is quite accurate. All the holy angels are called Sons of God.....even humans are called sons of God.

 

[Pegg]

But the Christians themselves state that it is possible to get to the Father by another Prophet logically, since otherwise those who faithfully followed the Jewish Prophets prior to the coming of Jesus would have wasted their time.

All Jesus was saying to the Jews was that it is not acceptable in the view of the Father to accept others and reject Jesus.

To claim that it meant otherwise denies salvation to all those faithful companions of earlier Prophets.

In that sense the Muslims could agree to this statement since they also consider it unacceptable to accept Muhammad while rejecting Jesus.

no other prophet of God can give life to anyone. Jesus on the other hand stated :

“Jesus said to her: ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; and everyone that is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all.’”—JOHN 11:25, 26

It is Jesus role to bring the dead to life. No other prophet has been given such a role....thats why it is Jesus whom we must follow.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't agree with your manipulation of the text;
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"

Like when the physically alive but spiritually dead Pharisees were burying physically dead people and Jesus said, "...let the dead bury their dead." (Matt 8:22, Luke 9:60). Death in the verse you referred to is a reference to a person who if (s)/he believes in Jesus, though (s)/he were (spiritually) dead, yet shall (s)/he live. Obviously people who are already physically dead can't change their beliefs if the JW assumption regarding people having no immortal soul were hypothetically assumed correct.

The whole context of the verse you quoted is regarding the already deceased brother of the lady Jesus is talking to. Furthermore it is followed by this verse 26;

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Obviously if Jesus was referring to physical death He would already have been proven wrong by the fact that the brother had been physically dead for some time.

Also, if Jesus were referring to physical death, this would prove beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that not one single Jehovah's Witness member has ever been saved, since from the inception of the movement in the 19th century there has not been one single JW who never died at all.

Kind regards

 

[Ingledsva]

Since Jesus and the Father are one they can't be two.

If Jesus were just a prophet there would be no exclusivity because one would be able to get to the Father by another prophet.

One meaning in sync with, not the same being.

*

 

[no-body]

"Mark 17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

You can quote as many verses as you want though they'll just twist it around and quote something unrelated to make it what it isn't.

 

[Ingledsva]

"Mark 17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

You can quote as many verses as you want though they'll just twist it around and quote something unrelated to make it what it isn't.

Indeed they will.

Mark 10:18 And he Jesus said to him: why me call good? None/Not even one is good; not one but the Deity.
John 5:30 I can do nothing by myself; but as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just; for I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me.
*

 

[sojourner]

I think I grasped 'God-expressed-as-community' when you said it, and I have seen suggestions in the NT towards that conclusion. Take the invisible and inapproachable God and make it visible and approachable.

God is both transcendent and immanent.

 

[sojourner]

You two are forgetting that Jesus was not only fully God, but fully human at the same time.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You two are forgetting that Jesus was not only fully God, but fully human at the same time.

Thank you, and I hope you continue to bring up things like that. That is a traditional view which is great for those in a traditional meeting, though I don't know what I can do with it when I'm surrounded by non-traditional Christians.

Please don't take this as a rant. Its really an explanation. Leaving the 99 to find the one lost sheep means to me going to non-traditional people and speaking plainly. It means discussing traditionally sacred subjects I think in vulgar terms if possible. You value tradition, and so do I since having lived without it I discovered it was missing through intellectual pursuits. Unfortunately that means the tradition failed to reach me. Nobody left the 99 for me and nobody is leaving the 99 for these others. Call them stubborn, rebellious, unteachable if you like, but nobody will crack the door for them or has for 300 years. They are studied like guinea pigs though. "Oh, so that's what happens without a tradition!" I don't know what to do with the tradition.

 

[sojourner]

Thank you, and I hope you continue to bring up things like that. That is a traditional view which is great for those in a traditional meeting, though I don't know what I can do with it when I'm surrounded by non-traditional Christians.

Please don't take this as a rant. Its really an explanation. Leaving the 99 to find the one lost sheep means to me going to non-traditional people and speaking plainly. It means discussing traditionally sacred subjects I think in vulgar terms if possible. You value tradition, and so do I since having lived without it I discovered it was missing through intellectual pursuits. Unfortunately that means the tradition failed to reach me. Nobody left the 99 for me and nobody is leaving the 99 for these others. Call them stubborn, rebellious, unteachable if you like, but nobody will crack the door for them or has for 300 years. They are studied like guinea pigs though. "Oh, so that's what happens without a tradition!" I don't know what to do with the tradition.

You're right! The church must transform -- must die and be resurrected as something different. the tradition has become irrelevant to many of today's people -- both those without and those within the church. We've become captive to our traditions rather than freed by them. There are many within the church these days that need to be reached, as well as those outside.

How can the tradition become relevant again? By the church being willing to meet people where they are and speak -- not the formulae -- but the truth of the gospel.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not sure, You shameless frubal hound. The liturgy has held off the raping hands of government for a long time. Would there even be Christianity today without it? I don't feel connected to it myself, but obviously we all are. There is a long war between different forces of good and evil within the church going all the way back to the early Christians. Imagine if you will an engine hidden in the church crypts that produces Christianity, and about 100 meters away a corruption engine designed to destroy everything that comes out. I see the church historically like that, like a puzzle and a war within itself. If the war isn't over then I can't ask those fighting that war to give away their positions.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure, You shameless frubal hound. The liturgy has held off the raping hands of government for a long time. Would there even be Christianity today without it? I don't feel connected to it myself, but obviously we all are. There is a long war between different forces of good and evil within the church going all the way back to the early Christians. Imagine if you will an engine hidden in the church crypts that produces Christianity, and about 100 meters away a corruption engine designed to destroy everything that comes out. I see the church historically like that, like a puzzle and a war within itself. If the war isn't over then I can't ask those fighting that war to give away their positions.

Let's not confuse tradition (things like strict lines of demarcation between who's in and who's out, between "sacred" and "secular," etc.) and Tradition (sacred liturgy, the office of the clergy, theological systems, ritualistic expression). The world isn't the same place, culturally or paradigmatically as it was anciently. We have become too mixed, too close, too diverse for the traditional view of "who's in" and "who's out." In fact, Jesus, through Matthew, was saying that -- even in the 80s c.e. There was a time for such rigid lines of demarcation in the past, but I believe the time is fast approaching when those lines will be viewed as unauthentic. We are becoming a human family, instead of remaining divided into "tribes" and "clans." The church is going to have to reflect that. And that's going to require transformation. We can still bind all people into community through the sacred liturgy and other Tradition, without separating ourselves from those formerly viewed as being "on the outside."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think what it all boils down to in the end is.. Does God need to have a human equivalent of a Son...

God, in order to pay the debt for mankind's sins, had to come in the flesh. His father could not have been from Adam or his flesh would be sinful, hence he is the spawn of the Father.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

God, in order to pay the debt for mankind's sins, had to come in the flesh. His father could not have been from Adam or his flesh would be sinful, hence he is the spawn of the Father.

But God is omnipotent, God wouldn't need to come into flesh...the debt was what Mankind Owed to God, God can forgive that debt, just as we are expected to forgive those who have done us wrong.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Let's not confuse tradition (things like strict lines of demarcation between who's in and who's out, between "sacred" and "secular," etc.) and Tradition (sacred liturgy, the office of the clergy, theological systems, ritualistic expression). The world isn't the same place, culturally or paradigmatically as it was anciently. We have become too mixed, too close, too diverse for the traditional view of "who's in" and "who's out." In fact, Jesus, through Matthew, was saying that -- even in the 80s c.e. There was a time for such rigid lines of demarcation in the past, but I believe the time is fast approaching when those lines will be viewed as unauthentic. We are becoming a human family, instead of remaining divided into "tribes" and "clans." The church is going to have to reflect that. And that's going to require transformation. We can still bind all people into community through the sacred liturgy and other Tradition, without separating ourselves from those formerly viewed as being "on the outside."

Thanks for that clarification.

 

[Pegg]

I don't agree with your manipulation of the text;
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"

Like when the physically alive but spiritually dead Pharisees were burying physically dead people and Jesus said, "...let the dead bury their dead." (Matt 8:22, Luke 9:60). Death in the verse you referred to is a reference to a person who if (s)/he believes in Jesus, though (s)/he were (spiritually) dead, yet shall (s)/he live. Obviously people who are already physically dead can't change their beliefs if the JW assumption regarding people having no immortal soul were hypothetically assumed correct.

The whole context of the verse you quoted is regarding the already deceased brother of the lady Jesus is talking to. Furthermore it is followed by this verse 26;

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Obviously if Jesus was referring to physical death He would already have been proven wrong by the fact that the brother had been physically dead for some time.

Also, if Jesus were referring to physical death, this would prove beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that not one single Jehovah's Witness member has ever been saved, since from the inception of the movement in the 19th century there has not been one single JW who never died at all.

Kind regards

I would direct you to Jesus words to the Saducees who denied a physical resurrection:

Luke 20:37*But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed, in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’ 38*He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.”

When Moses called Jehovah "the God of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob" those men were already dead long before. Moses spoke of those physically dead as if they were still alive. The reason is because he was writing from Gods viewpoint.... no one who will be raised to physical life is considered to be 'dead' in Gods eyes. If God purposes to raise you back to life, then in his eyes you are not dead.


You said above; Obviously people who are already physically dead can't change their beliefs if the JW assumption regarding people having no immortal soul were hypothetically assumed correct.

The whole context of the verse you quoted is regarding the already deceased brother of the lady Jesus is talking to. Furthermore it is followed by this verse 26;



Lazarus was already deceased, he had been dead 4 days in the tomb. So the context shows that Jesus really was speaking about a physical resurrection. It wasnt a spiritual resurrection,....he went onto raise Lazarus to life and the man came out of the tomb wrapped in bandages.


The whole account is about a physical resurrection.