Is Jesus God?

[Oeste]

Those much smarter than you and I, who translate the original languages, indicate the two terms are synonymous:

Mat 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" NKJV

Joh 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." NKJV​

Oh yeah, and we've both demonstrated a propensity to listen to these smarter people, right?

I notice in a Greek Interlinear Translation at both places at Matthew 19:16 and John 3:36 from the Greek it says: life everlasting

I agree with URAVIP2ME on "everlasting". I think it describes our potential state better than eternal. Let the interpreters translate, and the lexicologists define the words.

*Edit...that should be "translaters" rather than interpreters. Interpreters translate the oral words, whilst translaters translate the written word. Linguistically they're very close.

 

[Oeste]

My goodness, so many posts! I'm already overwhelmed with work, but I'll try to get to everyone over the weekend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your reply and passages have nothing to do with Oeste and I's conversation. We were discussing whether or not the term eternal only applies to the uncreated.

James, URAVIP2ME was mentioning Scriptures that show "eternal" can apply in more than one way, as in "eternal destruction"; the destruction has a start. Also, a Scripture was given where God's mercy on a righteous person will be eternal. That means the person will be eternal. But the mercy had a beginning, and the person had a beginning. They didn't exist in the endless past.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My dictionary defines eternal as:"lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." I believe this was the original meaning and usage of the word.

Currently it can also mean to be consistently annoying, as "her eternal yapping".



I think the more correct word for this state is "everlasting".

But, Oeste, don't you believe in 'eternal damnation'? You believe the 'damnation' has a start, right? But its called 'eternal.' I'm sure you've said it.

 

[moorea944]

But, Oeste, don't you believe in 'eternal damnation'? You believe the 'damnation' has a start, right? But its called 'eternal.' I'm sure you've said it.

Eternal damnation would be staying dead forever with no possibility of resurrection.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Eternal damnation would be staying dead forever with no possibility of resurrection.

Yes, exactly! (I know that's not what he believes, though; he thinks it's torment.) The point I was making, was that the 'damnation' has a start, although it's called eternal.

 

[Yoshua]

Brother Yoshua. Yes I know the attributes Jesus had. You mean his divine attributes right? Yes I do.

But he also has other attributes, but you will say "well he was human". Like "Jesus wept", "Jesus thirst" etc. For that the general answer is "God was in human form". But then, why do you talk of Godly attributes when he was in human form? Was he God or not? If God became a human, would he weep? He is the everknowing, the creator.

Hi firedragon,

I believed Jesus' nature is divine in nature and human. Son of Man and Son of God. I based my belief with the Holy Scriptures. In Philippians 2:6-8,

6. who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Yes, He is the Creator, God. God exists in the person of Christ to save people form their sins. The incarnation was transpired by the Spirit of God to Mary.

Fell down and worship does not make a person a God. That is why I said that there were many who were worshipped like that in the bible. Everyone must be God then.

This is why I showed you several verses (before) pertaining to the fell down and worship. The emphasis of worship for Jesus is much more than the ordinary bowing down or respect. We cannot conclude that everybody is God. As I told you, first is Jesus’ attributes which men in the Bible don’t have. Second, the emphasis of worship for Jesus differed from others.

So your point is, again, that Thomas said to Jesus "My God" and that makes Jesus God. Thats an exclamation. A third party exclamation. Your salvation relies on this kind of third party utterences! Bro, speak to a scholar in the NT, they will not use this quote to prove Jesus is God. You will see preachers and layman apologists using this.

God Himself, YHWH himself calls Moses Elohim. Even that doesnt make anyone else God.

Did the exclamation point express wrong confession for Jesus? Absolutely not!

First, check the narratives, I already posted this before from no. 1608:

In v.18, Mary Magdalene announced to the disciples that she has seen the Lord Jesus. (Thomas was not included and it does not specify who are those disciples that she was told aside form v.1 & v.2 Simon Peter & Peter)
In v.19, Jesus came and appeared with the disciples (Thomas was not included)
In v.25, Those disciples who have seen Jesus told Thomas. Truly he doubted about the information that Jesus appeared to them. Thomas claimed that he must see Jesus first before believing.
Note: Thomas has in mind (in advance) that Jesus came and appeared to other disciples without him but to assure the validity of information, he must see Jesus first.

In v.26, take note of the span of days, this is after eight days that Thomas knew about Jesus appearance with the other disciples. Look at the first word of Jesus, He say "Peace be with you," then He continues saying "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
In v.28, Thomas confessed "My Lord and my God!"

Now, let us analyze the situation about the expression. This is what most of the non-trinitarians believers used to misinterpret it as the expression. Let me ask you this questions:
1. Why would Thomas will uttered such a phrase "My God" to Jesus when they are not allowed to call someone "God" during their time?
2. Why Jesus does not corrected nor rebuke Thomas if He was not God?
3. Do you think that a person's reaction to commit such an expression is valid when Thomas knew the information about Jesus appearance beforehand (after eight days passed)?
4. Would somebody will react such expression upon the following sequence of scenario?
- eight days passed knew that Jesus appearance
- Jesus appeared first and uttered "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."
5. Why Thomas was not stoned by the other disciples when He uttered "My Lord and My God"? (When Jesus claimed to be God, the Jews stoned Him) Why not for Thomas?

I think it is better to understand and know their custom and tradition before jumping to exclamation point. This is for the sake of Scripture study to get the right context.

The number one question should be first answered. How would you reconcile Thomas’ confession of 'My Lord and My God' with the taking of God’s name in vain (calling someone God for the punishment of stoning)?

Additionally, Scholars accepted Greek text for John 20:28 in this format:

Nestle GNT 1904
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.

Westcott and Hort 1881
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me.

Secondly, it says Thomas said to him, therefore the expression of surprise is unjustifiable and no effect.

Well, Jesus was the messiah. He speaks to God. He is the word of God. He will speak for God. Why cant he say it?

Then, why He is not God if can say it? Does a man have the full authority (as deity) to forgive someone?

And just think of the logical fallacy, you quote "I will ask the father if your sin is forgiven or not" as Jesus said it, while Jesus himself is the God. Of course Jesus will ask God, and God would tell him. Jesus is Gods representative, his Christ.

Should Jesus ask the Father about this? Of course, not. Jesus said that they are one with the Father, they are in unity. What the plan of the Father is also the plan of Jesus.

Where does Jesus say what you say "Saviour should be a man to save our soul and can bring us to eternity"??

Acts 4:12
12. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

I explain things about Jesus in the form of question. What I mean is how can a man (human) be a Saviour for sinners, and can bring our soul to eternity—if Jesus is not God??

 

[Yoshua]

Errm. I think anyone here can differentiate Moses and Jesus.

And my example was not of Moses, it was Moses's father in law. Moses worships him. Thats how you pay respect. Fell down and worshipped him. That does not make him God.

And you are saying Moses is merely an instrument, while is called Elohim by YHWH himself. Jesus became a saviour and God only after his death, once a third person called Saul started his ministry.

Moses is still a human, who is prone to weakness of man. No doubt about this, far to compare him with Jesus. Very far.

ALright then, quote me a prophecy if you dont mind.

Isaiah 9:6
6. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Brother, I really appreciate your personality, your honesty and your absolute respectful patience. I only discuss with you because discussion helps me in academic work and I dont see any other topic more important than the topic of salvation.

It is my pleasure to discuss with you. You may ask me anything about salvation, my basis is the Bible.

Anyway, on your last point, the new testament does not have any eye witnesses. There are only revelations. Only paul would have been alive during the ministry of Jesus but yet, he never met Jesus. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. No one. No one is clear as to how many authored the Revelations. No one knows who authored the synoptic gospels. In bible study it is common knowledge that Mark was the first Gospel and other had sources, Q, L and M to write their books. John is completely out of the picture. A completely different theology.

There are no eye witnesses brother.

Acts 9:3-6
3. And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;
4. and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
5. And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
6. but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do."

Yet Paul did not met Jesus personally but spiritually he met Jesus and spoke to Him. Jesus used Paul as the instrument to propagate His ministry (for Jews and Gentiles). There are of course those apologists, early church Fathers, believers that are converted in their ministry. Logically, it does not mean that Christianity died down and that Paul was left.

I know some of them was anonymous, we don’t know who wrote it but as of now a lot of studies has been done by scholars and theologians. They are not different theology. Tell me what particular theology differed. I don’t see Christology as different in theology. Josephus, a secular historian also mentioned Jesus and an eyewitness.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Jesus was never equal with his Father. Ever....

Hi Moorea,

I respect your belief as Jewish since we both believed in one God (monotheism). We are discussing this because we are in the Scripture debates section and it is our privilege to discuss and express our thoughts regarding Scriptures.

This is why I ask you that why it was should be stated that He did not consider equality if Jesus is not God. I'm now referring to the Scripture of Philippians. How you will explain this and reconcile the context. Take note of the phrase " did not consider equality."

Yes, Jesus is a person, a man. He was born of a woman like everyone else. Jesus had to inherit a sin nature to overcome it or to conquer it. That is why God wanted a son. He had to be like us. Bible even says it, but people unfortunately make him God and not who he really is. Dont people read the bible when it says that God was working through His son? God "glorified" His son too. If Jesus was God or a God, he wouldnt have to be glorified.

I agree with you that He had to be like us, so what God did is to come down here in the person of Jesus Christ. I hope you get my point. The prime reason why God sent His son is in John 3:16, so we may have the hope of salvation and to be with Him in eternity--everlasting life. Jesus naturally should show to people that He is one with the Father. Of course, that should it be because God is with us--Emmanuel.

God was in Christ as we are in Christ and Christ is in us. God's spirit is in us too. When we are baptized, we are now "in Christ".

John 17 "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

Ok. This is about unity and oneness of direction between His followers. What Jesus taught to His disciples and believers should also be the same as to other people-- for the ministry of Jesus Christ.
When we say God was in Christ and Christ in us, do you mean that God and Christ is always with us as not forsaking us and always on our side taking care of us?

We need to be on the same page with one another. Spiritually minded is so important. We need to be one with Christ and our Creator. That is why Jesus said that he and his father are one. Jesus was NOT saying that he is God!!!

Also, notice the language here by Jesus. He gives glory to his Father in all things. Does this really sound like two co-equal Gods to you? I hope not......

Yes. I agree that we should be spiritually minded in Christ. Jesus should show to the people that He give all glory to the Father, He prayed to Him, and talked to Him. With this, Jesus is showing an example (in the form of man) so believers will do likewise as in praying to the Father, worshiping God etc....

Jesus does not directly and boldly claimed that He is God but it shows that He is God. His attributes, witnesses, narratives, prophecies and revelations. I already posted a detailed explanation about Christ deity for Thomas' confession (to firedragon) above.

Thanks

 

[firedragon]

Hi firedragon,

I believed Jesus' nature is divine in nature and human. Son of Man and Son of God. I based my belief with the Holy Scriptures. In Philippians 2:6-8,

6. who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Yes, He is the Creator, God. God exists in the person of Christ to save people form their sins. The incarnation was transpired by the Spirit of God to Mary.

1. He was son of man
2. He was son of God
3. He was God the creator

So Jesus himself is 3 in one.

No. He was also the Messiah. Thus, he is 4 in one.

Messiah or Masaha is a representative of God. I wonder how you can be a representative of a person, and be that person at the same time. Oh but thats the wonder of Jesus that we dont understand because we are limited, the typical answer brother. I personally say that your knowledge is narrowed down to proving Jesus is all of the above but still God.



Your point is
Jesus did not claim to be God, others did. Jesus claims again and again that he Son of Man, but you equate it to your words that he is Son of God.

Adam is also Son of God. God has so many sons. Not only Jesus. (No not sons like Adam and Seth)

What do you think Son of Man means? How do you understand it?
Whats your idea of Messiah? How do you understand it?

Moses is still a human, who is prone to weakness of man. No doubt about this, far to compare him with Jesus. Very far.

You are a good guy, but somethings seriously wrong in comprehension mate.

I again, for the third time say vehemently and with great emphasis, I did not equate Moses to Jesus.

Acts 9:3-6
3. And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;
4. and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
5. And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
6. but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do."

Yet Paul did not met Jesus personally but spiritually he met Jesus and spoke to Him. Jesus used Paul as the instrument to propagate His ministry (for Jews and Gentiles). There are of course those apologists, early church Fathers, believers that are converted in their ministry. Logically, it does not mean that Christianity died down and that Paul was left.

I know some of them was anonymous, we don’t know who wrote it but as of now a lot of studies has been done by scholars and theologians. They are not different theology. Tell me what particular theology differed. I don’t see Christology as different in theology. Josephus, a secular historian also mentioned Jesus and an eyewitness.

Thanks

Jesus vs Paul

• God speaks to Jesus who you claim to be God says "Unless you exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the pharisees, you shall not enter heaven".
• God speaks to Jesus who you claim to be God tells us "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

Now

• Paul, "Claims" to see Jesus "in a vision", and says "faith alone as necessary for salvation"

You do not follow Jesus, you follow paul, and you contradict Jesus.

Isaiah 9:6
6. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

1. When did the government rest on the shoulders of Jesus?
2. How did Jesus every be called "Wonderful Counselor". Yowes Pele. So are you saying Jesus is Yowes Pele. Where in the NT did anyone call him by that name?
3. Mighty God. Gibbor. There are many Gods then. Including Moses, the Judges, Psalm 82:6 'You are "gods" you are all sons of the Most High.

Cant you see that they dont have any relationship to Jesus.

I see where you are from brother. But,

The number one question should be first answered. How would you reconcile Thomas’ confession of 'My Lord and My God' with the taking of God’s name in vain (calling someone God for the punishment of stoning)?

Additionally, Scholars accepted Greek text for John 20:28 in this format:

Nestle GNT 1904
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.

Westcott and Hort 1881
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me.

Secondly, it says Thomas said to him, therefore the expression of surprise is unjustifiable and no effect.

.

Brother, if there is a scholar, he would not say Lord of me and God of me. Thats word for word, it renders My lord and my God. Thats the way Greek is written. Many other languages in the world are written like that. Nevertheless thats not relevant, its just grammer.

And I dont need to reconcile third party exclamations.

Have you ever though of who wrote the Gospel of John?
If this is the story of Jesus, why did not the synoptic gospels narrate the same story? None of them.
Why do you, if you look back quote John most extensively regarding Jesus's divinity?
How many people do you think wrote the Gospel of John?
Who is this John? Who named it John? When did they name it? Where did he find the information to write the Gospel because this is 7 or more decades later.

John does not use the sources Q, L or M. Its its own source. How come? Was John Inspired? Then do you say the others were not? Because they contradict eachother.

I would like to see your thinking on the above questons.

 

[james2ko]

Oh yeah, and we've both demonstrated a propensity to listen to these smarter people, right?

Care to demonstrate from scripture how these smarter people are wrong about the Greek terms for eternal and everlasting life being synonymous ?

 

[PreacherToTheChoir]

Jesus in not God.

1 Cor. 8:6 says that the only God is the Father. And John 14:28 says that the Father is greater than (not equal to) Jesus.

Paul says that they are equal in form (their forms are equal,) but Jesus said that overall the Father is greater than he is.

 

[Muffled]

False.

A spirit is considered mythology.

I believe the ignorant would think of it that way.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus in not God.

1 Cor. 8:6 says that the only God is the Father. And John 14:28 says that the Father is greater than (not equal to) Jesus.

Paul says that they are equal in form (their forms are equal,) but Jesus said that overall the Father is greater than he is.

I believe you have ignored the evidence of Jesus who says that He and the Father are one.

 

[firedragon]

I believe you have ignored the evidence of Jesus who says that He and the Father are one.

Jesus also says that him and disciples are also one.

 

[PreacherToTheChoir]

I believe you have ignored the evidence of Jesus who says that He and the Father are one.

One can just mean together. It does not necessarily mean "one and the same" or "interchangeable."

The interpretation of "one" in John 10:30 must fit the context of all Scriptures, including John 14:28 which says (Jesus speaking:)

John 14:28
English Standard Version (ESV)
(28)...for the Father is greater than I.

Two things cannot be equal at the same time that one is greater than the other.

 

[moorea944]

Jesus in not God.

1 Cor. 8:6 says that the only God is the Father. And John 14:28 says that the Father is greater than (not equal to) Jesus.

Paul says that they are equal in form (their forms are equal,) but Jesus said that overall the Father is greater than he is.

Absolutely Correct! Jesus WAS in the form of God, but it doesnt MAKE him God. Jesus wanted to be in the "form" or "likeness" of his father. Same with us, we want to be like our creator and his son too. We want to manifest God in our life. We want to manifest his character, but of course we fail. We fail God in two ways..... we sin and we fail to manifest his character. But just because someone is in the form of someone, doesnt make them God. And the are two ways that we DONT sin. We are either dead or immortal.

Also, scripture tells us that Jesus IS the image of God. That is a BIG difference from "being" God. How can the son be the father in the first place?

And... when we get baptized we are now 'in Christ". But that doesnt make us Christ.....

 

[moorea944]

One can just mean together. It does not necessarily mean "one and the same" or "interchangeable."

The interpretation of "one" in John 10:30 must fit the context of all Scriptures, including John 14:28 which says (Jesus speaking:)

John 14:28
English Standard Version (ESV)
(28)...for the Father is greater than I.

Two things cannot be equal at the same time that one is greater than the other.

When Jesus said that he and the Father are one, he was saying that they were one in purpose and mind, not that he was his Father.

Look at John 17
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

So, and this is directed to Muffled, if this is the case that Jesus was saying that he was God, then we are God too. We are the Father, the Creator, everything equal with God. But we know that we are not by John 17.

 

[Oeste]

My dictionary defines eternal as:"lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." I believe this was the original meaning and usage of the word.

Currently it can also mean to be consistently annoying, as "her eternal yapping".

I think the more correct word for this state is "everlasting".

But, Oeste, don't you believe in 'eternal damnation'? You believe the 'damnation' has a start, right? But its called 'eternal.' I'm sure you've said it.

I’m absolutely sure I’ve never used the term.

Look at the second definition I gave HockeyCowboy. I’m sure “...her eternal yapping” had a beginning at some point in time, but this is the current colloquial, rather than historical usage of the word “eternal”. I doubt we'll find translators translating “annoying” as “eternal” in scripture.

Secondly, God is eternal and will never change. Pride, covetousness, greed, envy and similar attributes are eternally away from God, and thus were and always will be condemned or “damned” by God, even though the actual, individual sinful act or acts may have a beginning and/or end with the sinner.

Lastly, I’m rather surprised you take exception to the translations found in your NWT and Greek Interlinear. That shows an independent spirit or attitude, and although I think you’re displaying it on the wrong issue, I have hopes for you yet.

Does a literal hell exist, the smoke rising “eis tous aionas ton aionon”? Yes, but that’s a different thread for a different time.

 

[Oeste]

Oh yeah, and we've both demonstrated a propensity to listen to these smarter people, right?
I agree with URAVIP2ME on "everlasting". I think it describes our potential state better than eternal. Let the interpreters translate, and the lexicologists define the words.

*Edit...that should be "translaters" rather than interpreters. Interpreters translate the oral words, whilst translaters translate the written word. Linguistically they're very close.

Care to demonstrate from scripture how these smarter people are wrong about the Greek terms for eternal and everlasting life being synonymous ?

Hmmm….So I pick a translator, then you pick a translator, then I’ll pick another, then you’ll pick someone different…?

Honestly James2ko, I realize this is a discussion forum, but why go through the bother of all that??? Will we not come to the conclusion that the opposing translator is biased?

Eternal and everlasting are not synonymous. Are they similar? Yes. Are they synonymous? No.

If your assertion is that the words are synonymous then your argument is with the lexicon. If your assertion is that translators are using non-equivalent words equivalently, then your argument is with the translation. If your assertion is that translators not only choose but define words as they translate, then your argument is with both because I’m not aware of any lexicologist or translator who would agree with such an assertion. The practice is, if a translator cannot find an equivalent word in the target language, he should keep as much as possible the original word ("chutzpah" or "computer" being examples). Yes, the word may take on a slightly different meaning in the target language, but the etymology will be the same.

However if your argument is simply that their are translators out their that have used the terms interchangeably when they shouldn't have, on that we can agree.