Scriptural proof that Jesus is in full Godhood

[psychoslice]

I personally don't care what Jesus is, This whole idea of Jesus is nothing but a guilt ridden belief system, and that is disgusting.

 

[JesusBeliever]

Sorry, I cringe when I see people using the KJV.

This is the 21st century and we no longer use that archaic language.

Hi Deeje, I can totally relate to your cringing coz I used to feel that way about it too, until I realized that it gave me the ability to look up the original Hebrew & Greek for myself. For that reason alone I have found it worth the cringe factor.

That scripture in a more modern English translation reads....

"Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." (NASB)

Of course this is not literally true, it isn't simply the "saying" of these words, but the heart acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah . (There is actually no such thing as a holy ghost btw.)

Yes I'm aware of that too thanks to my King James Concordance. PNEUMA is SPIRIT. And yes I agree that accepting Jesus as Lord is a heart thing.

Because true Christians walk by holy spirit, they are able to maintain a close relationship with God and his Son. Paul was writing about spiritual gifts and said the words above to fellow believers in Corinth. Any spirit that moves people to pronounce a curse upon Jesus must originate with Satan the Devil. As Christians walking by holy spirit, though, we are convinced that Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead and made him higher than all other creation. (Philippians 2:5-11) We have faith in Christ’s ransom sacrifice and accept Jesus as the Lord appointed over us by God....all things Christ accomplished was

"to the glory of God the Father".

I'm sorry to say but your description of a true Christian sounds very trinitarian to me, and yet I know that JW's don't believe in the trinity so I'm a little confused.

I agree, we need a personal invitation from the Father to come to his son. The Father is the one who taught his son everything he knows.

Agreed, except the only difference between us would probably be that I see the learning having occurred from the inside out:

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." John 14:10-14

I decided to look up the NWT and see how it reads and it is quite concerning to say the least:

10 Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me?+ The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality,+ but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works. 11 Believe me that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me; otherwise, believe because of the works themselves.+ 12 Most truly I say to you, whoever exercises faith in me will also do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these,+because I am going my way to the Father.+ 13 Also, whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son.+ 14 If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. John 14:10-14 NWT

Reading these verses from the NWT translation support the impression I was getting from your comments. And that was that they seemed to try to separate the Father from the Son as separate entities like the trinitarian doctrine. Am I getting the right impression, that it is not the issue of separate entities that JWs have with the Trinity, but the fact that trinitarians believe that Jesus is God?

Yes, this speaks about the conditions that will be enjoyed in the "new earth" (redeemed human subjects of the kingdom) who are ruled by the "new heavens" (God's kingdom with Jesus at the helm.)
This is also described by the apostle John in his Revelation....

Revelation 21:1-5:
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

5 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”


What wonderful prospects we have for the future if we just obey the teachings of the Christ...all of them, not just the convenient ones.

I agree with your last statement about obeying all of the teachings of Christ. But what I disagree with is your presentation of what those teachings are. For example, above you imply that the verses from Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:10-11 are yet future events by associating them with a new earth and heaven. And this would be fine if the Scriptures put those 2 events together as you have. But that's not what I see in the Scriptures. I actually like the NWT's version of the verse I'm about to share because it picks up on the mistranslation of the KJV:

2 Corinthians 5:17-18 NWT .+ 17 Therefore, if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation;+ the old things passed away; look! new things have come into existence.18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ+ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation,+

2 Corinthians 5:17-18 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature(KTISIS): old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;"

Either way, whether one believes they are in Christ or in union with Christ, both translations agree that they are a new creation/creature. "New things have come into existence" or as the KJV say "all things are become new". But what I can see is this doesn't specifically address whether or not the verses from Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:10-11 are part of the present "new creation" or part of the future "new earth" as you propose. But there are other verses in both translation that I believe prove that these verses are indeed present tense "new creation":

1 John 2:26-29 NWT I write you these things about those who are trying to mislead you. 27 And as for you, the anointing that you received from him+ remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things+ and is true and is no lie. Just as it has taught you, remain in union with him.+ 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech+ and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence. 29 If you know that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who practices righteousness has been born from him.+

Sorry no room for KJV verse.

 

[JesusBeliever]

I personally don't care what Jesus is, This whole idea of Jesus is nothing but a guilt ridden belief system, and that is disgusting.

Hi there psychoslice, please don't let any of us Christians put you off the idea of Jesus and learning about Him yourself from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that is if you haven't already. I sometimes wonder if our debating is a help or hindrance to Jesus. Before I was a believer in Jesus I too felt it was a guilt ridden belief system until I read His story for myself in the Bible and I found myself drawn to Him rather than away from Him. While I would say that learning about Jesus has led me to feel remorse for many of the things I've done and even thoughts and feelings I've had, I wouldn't describe it as guilt ridden. In that guilt often causes us to shrink and withdraw, while remorse causes us to open our hearts and arms and draw closer to Him. I liken it to a little child with a wound, who might hide it from the taunts of his friends, or he might even pretend that he's tough and it doesn't affect him. But in the private and nurturing presence of his parent he says, "I have a sore and it hurts, can you put a bandaid on it?" As a Christian I hope I never come across as a taunting friend, and if I do please do me a huge favour and tell me. I won't be offended.

Sincerest regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

good afternoon

So, who made the 'mistake', the writers of the Bible, /Greek language, or the translators, or what? If you think that the LORD, and 'Lord', usage is correct, then the verses indicate that it was Jesus, who led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the first Covenant. This makes sense if you believe that Jesus is God, not so much if think that
/LORD and 'Lord' differentiation, is legitimate as an indication of Godhood
/That Jesus isn't G-d, /full Godhood

Your personal theology aside, do you not realize, that if both titles can refer to Jesus, or His father, then..
/there really is no inherent difference between the Deity references, that do not specify which it is , /the father, or the son
/That according to your own argument, a reference to 'Deity title', per differentiation, cannot be used as a Scriptural argument to indicate 'who' is being referred to.

If I call a house cat a "cat" and a lion a "cat", does that mean they are equal even though I used the same word?

So, are you making the argument, that the authors of the Bible,/New Testament,, were 'wrong'?

The NT author is about as right as saying Satan lied to Eve. If you bother to read Genesis, Satan isn't there and neither is there any lie.

 

[Desert Snake]

If I call a house cat a "cat" and a lion a "cat", does that mean they are equal even though I used the same word?

The titles mean the same thing, in this instance; in other words, it means 'God'. That is why the different titles are used, for both Jesus and the father.

The NT author is about as right as saying Satan lied to Eve. If you bother to read Genesis, Satan isn't there and neither is there any lie.

This word interpretation, could be for another argument. We could argue that issue separately; it is not directly related to the original argument, except by bringing some other factors of how one might determine 'truth', in Scripture. I will say that if you actually think it was 'just a serpent', like a normal animal, then why is it talking to Eve, so forth. It might be a tad strange in that interpretation.

 

[Desert Snake]

If I call a house cat a "cat" and a lion a "cat", does that mean they are equal even though I used the same word?

The Scripture here is inferring that the 'word' being used, /the words/, mean the same thing. Different words, same meaning. You encounter the ''problem'', if you read Scripture in the manner that Jesus is not God. You don't encounter the problem, if you read the scripture, in the manner, that Jesus is God.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

26. When Allah raised up His servant(Jesus PBUH). (Acts 3:26)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm having a dejavu feeling as if I did this before.

The Supremacy of God's Son
Hebrews 1:1-12

1Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son,*whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.

God appointed is son as an heir not himself.

3He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains* all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

If Jesus is god, why would he need to be purified and why would't he sit where his father sits given he is the father? (No other god but the Father)

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
‘You are my Son;
today I have begotten you’?
Or again,
‘I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son’?
6And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ (Given he is god's son and no one else's)
7Of the angels he says,
‘He makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.’
8But of the Son he says,
‘Your throne, O God, is* for ever and ever, (Because you share in my kingdom)
and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your* kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you (not himself. Why would Jesus need to be anointed?)
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’
10And,
‘In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, (Who is Jesus' talking to? Himself?)
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing* they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.’

<< >>

Let me ask. Say Jesus is god (all power, all knowing, creator). Say the Father is god (creator, all knowing, all powerful), and say the Holy Spirit is god (creator, all knowing, all powerful), even though they are one (as said in their union) trinitarians also claim they are separate.

That claim automatically says there are three gods not one.

Can you rephrase that or correct this; because, if Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are one and each of them are a god, then you have three gods.​

In my view of how I read scripture "union", "like", "representation", etc shows a connection between two separate people. According to the Bible a god cannot be in union with another god because there is only one god.

If all three natures are the same, but they are three different people (entity, human, spirit), they are not each other. Their shared nature doesn't make them the same person but like each other.

Each person has a different nature but they are all in union with each other:

Father (entity/creator)
Son (human/savior)
(Holy) Spirit (comforter/spirit)

Your scripture:

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Everyone of high standing is called Lord. Since Jesus is god's son, he shares that title. Most of this is addressed above in context rather rather than isolated verse in context.

Can you explain in your own words how Jesus is god?​

Some Christians say "Jesus is not the Father and he is god". Then I think, "wait a minute. So you just separated one god and made him two because the father is like the son?" Doesn't scripture say there is only one god?

Maybe god isn't the best word to describe Jesus' nature? Once you use god, it contradicts the point of scripture-which is all about one god, the father.

No one else is worthy to be called god (creator/all knowing/all powerful) but the Father. The Son even says not to put him in the same position as his Father. Why would any Christian do the opposite?​

 

[JesusBeliever]

Hi Carlita, I won't try to respond to every question you have as there are quite a few in one post, but will just respond to the parts that jumped out at me, and leave room for others to respond if they'd like.

If Jesus is god, why would he need to be purified

This was the verse that popped into my mind as I read this question:

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Romans 8:3

and why would't he sit where his father sits given he is the father? (No other god but the Father)

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Revelation 3:21-22

Let me ask. Say Jesus is god (all power, all knowing, creator). Say the Father is god (creator, all knowing, all powerful), and say the Holy Spirit is god (creator, all knowing, all powerful), even though they are one (as said in their union) trinitarians also claim they are separate.

That claim automatically says there are three gods not one.

I agree that's why I'm not a big fan of the trinity, despite believing that Jesus is God. Don't forget that Jesus was not conceived by a human dad. So the seed or sperm that impregnated Mary was straight from God. Hence the reason the Scriptures tell us:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second MAN is the Lord from heaven." 1 Corinthians 15:45-47

Even I needed to be reminded of this. It's so easy to forget this. According to the Scriptures, Jesus was unlike any man born before Him and after Him. We all had human dads and are adopted into the family of God. The Human Jesus descended straight from the Spirit of God! This is what sets Him apart from every other Prophet before and after Him, despite them also being filled with the Holy Spirit. They all had human dads.

Gotta go so will leave it there for now.
What I have shared here gives me much pause for thought.
And dare I say that I'm re-evaluating the trinity in light of this peace of the puzzle that until now I had completely overlooked.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm confused. If you believe Jesus is god, wouldn't that mean you believe in the trinity? Is the Holy Spirit god to you?

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Romans 8:3

This I couldn't see the connection to my post without commentary. However, if I just went off of this verse, I'd say the son the son has the same nature and they are not each other.

I haven't heard anyone say that is wrong or corrected me on it. If they are each other, both would be god and there is only one god. If they are not each other, and they share the same nature, then of course the son would be in the likeness and in union with this father. How does that union make him god (creator/father), though? Is there another way to use the word god in mainstream Christian faith?

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Revelation 3:21-22

Some Christians miss the prepositions. They are very important when discerning if Jesus is the creator or a human savior sent by god and with the nature of god to sacrifice his human flesh (Christians sins) for their salvation and resurrection as well.

I agree that's why I'm not a big fan of the trinity, despite believing that Jesus is God. Don't forget that Jesus was not conceived by a human dad. So the seed or sperm that impregnated Mary was straight from God. Hence the reason the Scriptures tell us:

Jesus being human, though, doesn't exclude the miracle of him being born without a human father to help concieve him. If god can do miracles, why put that miracle (of others) aside and say that because of this miracle, it would make Jesus god. If god didn't perform miracles, then yes, you'd have a point. Since he does, I don't see how him being human has anything to do with his nature that is the likeness and image of his father, his role as a savior, and his passion.

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second MAN is the Lord from heaven." 1 Corinthians 15:45-47

I am assuming both men are human? Adam? and Jesus? Given I heard that Jesus is the last Adam? Wouldn't that further my point that, like the first Adam-who was human and sinned, Jesus-the last human and sinless being did the opposite of sinning but showing salvation instead?

Even I needed to be reminded of this. It's so easy to forget this. According to the Scriptures, Jesus was unlike any man born before Him and after Him. We all had human dads and are adopted into the family of God. The Human Jesus descended straight from the Spirit of God!

He is unlike any human and god still made him human for a reason. He isn't just any human. What is it about the word "human" that excludes Jesus from being and claiming that nature (Christians sins)? Once you make Jesus god then where is the sin that Jesus shed for Christians? If he is god, then his flesh means nothing (in my view) because it's justs an image or a mirror rather than the actual sin itself.

In other words, if Jesus is god, his flesh is not our sins. Since he is not god, that is how he relates to Christians. Him being sinless shows that Christians can die in him and raise like Jesus which no other human who isn't Christian can do without seeing their sins in the flesh of Jesus.

That, and if Jesus were god, how can he take on sins when god can't be around sin?

It's almost common sense but it's engraved in mainstream Christianity that to call Jesus human is to say he is us. That isn't the case. Him being human makes his flesh like us for the purpose of his passion.

I don't see how that is wrong or even incorrect. It's not an opinion, though I have posted scriptures in past threads, so this is more of a repeat.

 

[psychoslice]

Hi there psychoslice, please don't let any of us Christians put you off the idea of Jesus and learning about Him yourself from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that is if you haven't already. I sometimes wonder if our debating is a help or hindrance to Jesus. Before I was a believer in Jesus I too felt it was a guilt ridden belief system until I read His story for myself in the Bible and I found myself drawn to Him rather than away from Him. While I would say that learning about Jesus has led me to feel remorse for many of the things I've done and even thoughts and feelings I've had, I wouldn't describe it as guilt ridden. In that guilt often causes us to shrink and withdraw, while remorse causes us to open our hearts and arms and draw closer to Him. I liken it to a little child with a wound, who might hide it from the taunts of his friends, or he might even pretend that he's tough and it doesn't affect him. But in the private and nurturing presence of his parent he says, "I have a sore and it hurts, can you put a bandaid on it?" As a Christian I hope I never come across as a taunting friend, and if I do please do me a huge favour and tell me. I won't be offended.

Sincerest regards

Hi JesusBeliver, yes I have studied the bible for many years, but in the end just couldn't except it, there are some wonderful stories in their, but you can find wonderful stories in many books. For Jesus, I personally don't believe he ever excited, well not as the bible would have us believe.
The story of Jesus to me is just a metaphor for our connection to all there is, we are all One with the Cosmos, no need to call the Cosmos god and then worship it, just knowing we are all one is enough, well for me at least.......but yes thank you for your kind words.

 

[Deeje]

Hi Deeje, I can totally relate to your cringing coz I used to feel that way about it too, until I realized that it gave me the ability to look up the original Hebrew & Greek for myself. For that reason alone I have found it worth the cringe factor.

Now I am confused...why does the KJV alone lead you to the original Hebrew and Greek? Strongs doesn't just have the KJV references exclusively. I believe that it is a highly biased translation, full of misinterpretation so as to promote the trinity.

Yes I'm aware of that too thanks to my King James Concordance. PNEUMA is SPIRIT. And yes I agree that accepting Jesus as Lord is a heart thing.

Some points of agreement.

My knowledge is backed up by Strongs too, but I don't need the KJV at all. I prefer to use the NASB or others.

I'm sorry to say but your description of a true Christian sounds very trinitarian to me, and yet I know that JW's don't believe in the trinity so I'm a little confused.

So you are a trinitarian then?

The son is a created being...the very first and only creation brought into existence directly by the hand of Jehovah before all other things came into existence. (Revelation 3:14) The son was then used as the agency "through" which the rest of creation was fashioned using the raw materials created by the Father. (Colossians 1:15-16; John 1:2-4 ; Proverbs 8:30-31)

Agreed, except the only difference between us would probably be that I see the learning having occurred from the inside out:

The Father and son are two completely separate entities. Only one is YAHWEH. That is because all created beings who reflect Gods 'image and likeness' are free willed. If Jesus did not have the free will to sin as a man (as trinitarians believe that he was both "fully God and fully man") then why would the devil try so hard to derail his course through temptation? If the devil was not a free willed being, then how could he rebel?

I decided to look up the NWT and see how it reads and it is quite concerning to say the least:

John 14:10-14 NWT

Reading these verses from the NWT translation support the impression I was getting from your comments. And that was that they seemed to try to separate the Father from the Son as separate entities like the trinitarian doctrine. Am I getting the right impression, that it is not the issue of separate entities that JWs have with the Trinity, but the fact that trinitarians believe that Jesus is God?

Our issue with the trinity is that it isn't taught in scripture, and was never part of Jewish belief at all. All of the Bible writers were Jewish, not Catholic (from whom the trinity became official church doctrine.)
Do you think that the Jewish monotheistic God somehow changed who he was when Jesus came? (Deuteronomy 6:4) Can you show me a single direct statement that proves unequivocally that there are three distinctly different persons who inhabit one godhead? Where did Jesus ever teach such a thing?

I agree with your last statement about obeying all of the teachings of Christ. But what I disagree with is your presentation of what those teachings are. For example, above you imply that the verses from Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:10-11 are yet future events by associating them with a new earth and heaven. And this would be fine if the Scriptures put those 2 events together as you have. But that's not what I see in the Scriptures.

The Bible is one story from Genesis to Revelation. It is the story of how we lost out on attaining God's first purpose for the human race and how Christ came to get it back for us.
The Messiah was a vital part of that rescue mission for condemned mankind. But The redeemer did not have to be God in order to pay the ransom....all he had to be was the equivalent of the perfect man, Adam.

The "new heavens and new earth" that are repeatedly spoken about in scripture are the culmination or ultimate outcome of the whole exercise. I see people nit-picking over details whilst completely ignoring why we had to go through all this in the first place. Step back...look up.

I actually like the NWT's version of the verse I'm about to share because it picks up on the mistranslation of the KJV:

2 Corinthians 5:17-18 NWT .+ 17 Therefore, if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation;+ the old things passed away; look! new things have come into existence.18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ+ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation,+

2 Corinthians 5:17-18 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature(KTISIS): old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;"

Either way, whether one believes they are in Christ or in union with Christ, both translations agree that they are a new creation/creature. "New things have come into existence" or as the KJV say "all things are become new". But what I can see is this doesn't specifically address whether or not the verses from Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:10-11 are part of the present "new creation" or part of the future "new earth" as you propose. But there are other verses in both translation that I believe prove that these verses are indeed present tense "new creation":

1 John 2:26-29 NWT I write you these things about those who are trying to mislead you. 27 And as for you, the anointing that you received from him+ remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things+ and is true and is no lie. Just as it has taught you, remain in union with him.+ 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech+ and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence. 29 If you know that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who practices righteousness has been born from him.+

Again I see you concentrating on the individual pixels but losing sight of the big picture. The lens you are wearing must focus on a trinity and fit it into everything you believe, but it simply isn't there...it is clouding your view IMO.
What does it mean when it says, "he is a new creation"? In what way were these human beings a "new creation"? What does it mean to be "in Christ" or "in union with Christ"? How is Christ in union with his Father?

Can you explain what you think these terms mean in human understanding?

I read that scripture in 1 John 2:26-29 in a completely different way to you.
In this "time of the end", Jehovah was going to 'cleanse, whiten and refine' his worshippers. (Dan 12:4, 9, 10) If there was no 'soiling', then cleansing would not be necessary. If there were no stains and impurities, then whitening and refining would also be unnecessary. The anointing that the chosen ones were to receive, was from God, and it meant that they would be taught directly by holy spirit, just as the early disciples of Christ were, not individually but collectively. It also meant separating from an old and corrupted form of worship which had completely lost sight of the truth.
This spiritual direction provided by God is not done on an individual basis because that is not the way God has ever dealt with his worshippers. From early times, there were the patriarchs who were the head of their clan and the director of worship for the whole group. Then, when God formed his people into a nation, he again appointed leaders so that they could be organized for worship, which was undertaken only by those who were authorized by God for their role as priests. Not everyone in Israel could be a priest, just as not everyone could be a king.
When Jesus came, he did not change the way God did things; worship was still organized with a body of older men in Jerusalem overseeing the congregations to make sure that all spoke in agreement. (1 Corinthians 1:10) No one was permitted to introduce their own ideas. (2 John 10, 11)

But as with all things that have the imperfect human element, corruption always seems to creep in, and after a few hundred years, nothing resembles the original. The devil sees to it that human worship is contaminated gradually so that it goes unnoticed by the majority. All the beliefs that he promotes originate with the false teachings that he set up in ancient Babylon with Nimrod...the first to rebel in Noah's family.

I see John's words above as pertaining to the ones whom God appointed over the Christian congregation in this "time of the end". It would become obvious as time went on that a separation had to be made from the "weeds" in Christendom. The ones who separated would have nothing in common with these weed-like Christians. They would not have the same beliefs or practices that Christendom has.....there would be no pagan doctrines dressed up under a "Christian" label, and no pagan festivals masquerading as Christian celebrations. Tainted worship is as unacceptable to God today as it ever was. Christendom's doctrines do not originate in the Bible...they originate in Babylon, where the devil first launched false worship.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm having a dejavu feeling as if I did this before.

The Supremacy of God's Son
Hebrews 1:1-12

1Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son,*whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.

This is a good verse for reference by how, we can infer things about 'Jesus'. Now, since Jesus is through whom the worlds were created, we know ,for a fact, that He /''Jesus'', pre-existed the man incarnation that we encounter in the New Testament. He pre-exists Adam. The first ''person'', was Adam. Jesus pre-exists the first created person. It's right there, in the text.

God appointed is son as an heir not himself.

3He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains* all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Another good reference, contextually. /Note ''exact imprint'', of being,, is like, the same entity, in a different form. This is similar to ''image''. Now, if you think that Jesus is /literally, physically, the 'image' of the father, then you are inferring that not only does the father have form,/ which is fine,, you would also be in that area of argument, where you would have to explain that, Scripturally.
Now, if you do not believe that 'image', means physical likeness, that is great, however, then you are faced with what 'perfect image', means. Note, it doesn't state a ''similar image'', /if you are regarding it in the character interpretation. It states exact image.

If Jesus is god, why would he need to be purified and why would't he sit where his father sits given he is the father? (No other god but the Father)

Isn't the father 'invisible', according to your beliefs? What is the purpose of the presence, if the father is not even really 'there' for all intents and purposes?
Your invisible Deity is seated on a Throne?

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
‘You are my Son;
today I have begotten you’?
Or again,
‘I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son’?
6And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ (Given he is god's son and no one else's)
7Of the angels he says,
‘He makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.’
8But of the Son he says,
‘Your throne, O God, is* for ever and ever, (Because you share in my kingdom)
and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your* kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you (not himself. Why would Jesus need to be anointed?)
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’

Yes, the 'father', can only call Jesus God, because Jesus is God. Jesus is a different aspect of the Godhood. the ''kingdom'', is the fathers Kingdom. Here, it is called 'your Kingdom', in reference to Jesus.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm

This is a good verse for reference by how, we can infer things about Jesus. Now, since Jesus is through whom the worlds were created, we know ,for a fact, that He Jesus', pre-existed the man incarnation that we encounter in the New Testament. He pre-exists Adam. The first person, was Adam. Jesus pre-exists the first created person. It's right there, in the text.

How does this make him god? There is only one god...unless there is a different definition of god when you apply it to Jesus than to his father?

Another good reference, contextually. Note exact imprint, of being is like, the same entity, in a different form. This is similar to image, Now, if you think that Jesus is literally, physically, the image of the father, then you are inferring that not only does the father have form which is fine you would also be in that area of argument, where you would have to explain that, Scripturally.

To tell you honestly, it sounds pagan. God is an entity. Once you make him anything other than who he is, he is no longer god. Thats like a Catholic explaining the Eucharist is Jesus. The two makes sense contextually but not literally.

Now, if you do not believe that image, means physical likeness, that is great, however, then you are faced with what perfect image, means. Note, it doesn't state a similar image, if you are regarding it in the character interpretation. It states exact image.

Since image ans likeness doesnt mean something is what it is like, how can you conclude jesus is god given those terms are used rather tha concrete referrences such as " I 'am' god"?

Isn't the father invisible, according to your beliefs? What is the purpose of the presence, if the father is not even really there for all intents and purposes? Your invisible Deity is seated on a Throne? That's a bit of a weird idea, to me.

I dont believe a diety exists. If I did, it woulent be through Jesus as a deity because I find that an insult to who god is and his nature. It helps a lot of people to have a visible image of an invisible god. However, image of is not the same as what that image is of.

I know people like that personal connection with jesus without calling him human. Thats okay. I just dont see that outlook in scripture.

Yes, the father, can only call Jesus God, because Jesus is God. Jesus is a different aspect of the Godhood. the kingdom, is the fathers Kingdom. Here, it is called your Kingdom, in reference to Jesus.

If jesus is god and not separate from his father, there is two gods. To make jesus god, you have to make him the creator. How can you do that? It makes jesus seem not mentally healthy.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmm


How does this make him god? There is only one god...unless there is a different definition of god when you apply it to Jesus than to his father?



To tell you honestly, it sounds pagan. God is an entity. Once you make him anything other than who he is, he is no longer god. Thats like a Catholic explaining the Eucharist is Jesus. The two makes sense contextually but not literally.

...

Since image ans likeness doesnt mean something is what it is like, how can you conclude jesus is god given those terms are used rather tha concrete referrences such as " I 'am' god"?

Contextually, it isn't actually a ''question''/ Once Jesus is called 'God', we know that He is God/ contextually. Because there is only one God.

I dont believe a diety exists. If I did, it woulent be through Jesus as a deity because I find that an insult to who god is and his nature.

That makes sense, because the God that you don't believe exists, would not be a 'normal person'. But Jesus is not an average person. Nowhere in Scripture, is Jesus anywhere a person that is somehow limited to 'personhood', as opposed to 'Deityhood'.

It helps a lot of people to have a visible image of an invisible god. However, image of is not the same as what that image is of.

I am not sure where you got the idea that G-d never has form. Sometimes, He has form. Some religions, believe that He never has form; that is a religious belief, not necessarily a Biblical belief, and certainly not my belief.

I know people like that personal connection with jesus without calling him human. Thats okay. I just dont see that outlook in scripture.

It's all over Scripture.

 

[moorea944]

I personally don't care what Jesus is, This whole idea of Jesus is nothing but a guilt ridden belief system, and that is disgusting.

So why are you even on this board?

 

[moorea944]

no Jesus is not God
(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”
(1 Corinthians 11:3) But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 15:28) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
(Philippians 2:5, 6) Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
(John 14:28) You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.

Well said. We have to remember that Jesus also "carries" or "bares" his Father's name too. Just like some angels. Angels represent God. The angel with Moses in the tent of meetings. God was talking "through" the angel and told Moses that "my name is in him". Though Jesus is not God himself, and never was (sorry trinitarians), but is the image and the glory of his father. All through Jesus's life, his father was "in him" and we are too with Jesus and God.

John 17 "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."

Can we say that we represent our Creator or Jesus? Of course we can. People need to look at us and see that we are different from the world around us. They need to see God's spirit and love come out of us. Unfortunetly, we fail God in two ways. We sin and we fail to manifest His character in us. But being a new person at baptism, the old man dies and a new man raises. We follow our Lord the best we can. We are the Lord's ambassadors, as Paul puts it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Contextually, it isn't actually a question. Once Jesus is called God, we know that He is God contextually. Because there is only one God.

Where does it say he is god?​

Being god in context is not being god literally. I am my mother in context because we share the same genes, have the same characteristics, I even share some of her attitude. However, literally, I not her.

It's the exact same thing with God/Father and Jesus/Son.

If it is a fact, can you explain how so outside of contextual reasons?​

That makes sense, because the God that you don't believe exists, would not be a 'normal person'. But Jesus is not an average person. Nowhere in Scripture, is Jesus anywhere a person that is somehow limited to 'personhood', as opposed to 'Deityhood'.

How would god making Jesus human make him the average person?​

I'm just saying he isn't god/creator. I'm not denying his divinity. I am saying he shares in his father's nature-his/father's divinity.

How can you share between yourself?​

I am not sure where you got the idea that G-d never has form. Sometimes, He has form. Some religions, believe that He never has form; that is a religious belief, not necessarily a Biblical belief, and certainly not my belief.

I'm not Christian but Christianity is the only religion I know of that puts a earthly form to a deity. However, being on RF for so long, there are different deities and gods that take different forms; so, I can't say god can't take a form. I'm saying in all abrahamic faiths, the only one I know that puts limitations or form to god is Christianity.

It's all over Scripture

I have read the Bible. This isn't personal opinion. My personal opinion of Jesus is that since there is no god, Jesus has no heavenly father. He is just like the rest of us with a message.



To tell you honestly, Jesus is god is like a Catholic saying bread and wine is Jesus. Both parties see this as literal.

I had a priest explained it to me; and, I asked him, do you really see Jesus (his hair, bones, body, etc) when you take the Eucharist?

He goes, "Of course not" and said it was a mystery.

Same thing with Jesus being god. It's a mystery, yes. How do you explain it, though. Christianity is the only religion I know that puts form to a deity that, by definition, has no form and in some religions is beyond form.

If it were in the Bible, then I'd shrug and say "hey, that's what they believe." Since it's not, context or not, it makes me curious how Christians came to that conclusion. I know about the Eucharist but not about Jesus as god.

Interesting.

 

[JesusBeliever]

Now I am confused...why does the KJV alone...I believe that it is a highly biased translation, full of misinterpretation so as to promote the trinity.

I'm not a KJV only person nor am I trinity believer. Any version that allows us to look up the Hebrew and Greek would be perfectly fine IMHO.

I prefer to use the NASB or others

I use the esword software and unfortunately it doesn't have the NASB with Strongs, but if it did I would happily use it.

So you are a trinitarian then?

I'm actually not, but I always try to come from an attitude that I might be wrong just in case there's something I've missed. My issue with the trinity is the separation of the Holy Spirit from the Father. I believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, and the Son is the Heavenly Body (aka Temple) that the Father dwelt in while on earth.

The son is a created being...

Where is the evidence in Scripture that the son is a created being coz I don't see it. If you are able to show me from Scripture I would be happy to take a really good look at it!

Our issue with the trinity is that it isn't taught in scripture...

I agree, I too see no evidence for 3 distinctly different persons.

It is the story of how we lost out on attaining God's first purpose for the human race and how Christ came to get it back for us....The Messiah was a vital part of that rescue mission for condemned mankind. But The redeemer did not have to be God in order to pay the ransom....all he had to be was the equivalent of the perfect man, Adam.

I used to believe this as well. And while I think it is partly true, I can see from Scripture that there is more to the story than that. If restoring us back to the original condition of Adam and Eve in the garden was God's only goal then I would probably agree that all Jesus had to be was the equivalent of the perfect man, Adam. But that's not what I see in Scripture, coz Jesus was clearly different to the first Adam:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 1 Corinthians 15:45-55

The First man Adam was corruptible. The last Adam was incorruptible. The First Adam was earthy. The Last Adam was Heavenly etc, etc...

I once thought that this difference between the first and last Adam occurred at the Resurrection of Jesus. That was until last night when I was reminded of the birth of Jesus. As I said in a previous post:

"Don't forget that Jesus was not conceived by a human dad. So the seed or sperm that impregnated Mary was straight from God."

Jesus was the Seed of the Woman whom God foretold in Genesis would bruise the head of Satan. Genesis 3:15"

Again I see you concentrating on the individual pixels but losing sight of the big picture. The lens you are wearing must focus on a trinity and fit it into everything you believe, but it simply isn't there...it is clouding your view IMO.

If by lens you are referring to denominational doctrine I am not a member of any denomination, so I have no hierarchy telling me how I must interpret the Scriptures. Can you honestly say that you don't have such a lens? I don't claim to know everything coz almost daily I learn something new from the Scriptures and often wonder how I missed it. I can also see truths from Scripture in all of the denominations of Christianity, including the JWs. But I can also see that they all have a bit of leaven in their bread as well, which is to be expected seeing that Pentecost is a leavened Feast and we were told to purge out the old leaven, which aside from malice and wickedness (1 Corinthians 5:8) also INCLUDES the Leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matthew 16:12) whose names interestingly translate into "Separatists" and "The Righteous"(Matthew 9:13). And don't worry I'm not judging, coz I too could be accused of being a Separatist by the simple fact that I am not a member of any denomination. I have no issue with everyday Christians like yourself and see them all as my brothers and sisters. It's just those who set themselves up as Mediators between us and God that I have a problem with and am wary of, as our Lord Jesus warned us to be (1 Timothy 2:5; Luke 20:46)

What does it mean when it says, "he is a new creation"? In what way were these human beings a "new creation"? What does it mean to be "in Christ" or "in union with Christ"? How is Christ in union with his Father?

I think these are questions you should put to the Lord Jesus directly and look for Him to teach you as He promised He would.

...not individually but collectively...
...there were the patriarchs who were the head of their clan and the director of worship for the whole group...
he again appointed leaders so that they could be organized for worship...
...undertaken only by those who were authorized by God for their role as priests...
worship was still organized with a body of older men in Jerusalem overseeing the congregations to make sure that all spoke in agreement. (1 Corinthians 1:10) No one was permitted to introduce their own ideas. (2 John 10, 11)

I'm sorry but I can't help but see your Governing Body Lens:

"And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, WHOM YE CRUCIFIED, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole...Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were UNLEARNED AND IGNORANT men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. ...the council, they conferred among themselves, Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto YOU MORE than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4:5-20

Also please don't forget that the Apostle Paul warned:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:29-30

While the Governing Body of the JWs might promote that they are correcting the perverse things of the past, all I can see is them trying to draw disciples away from Jesus and after themselves. Coz according to them, one can not be a TRUE CHRISTIAN if they do not accept the authority of the Governing Body correct?

But as with all things that have the imperfect human element, corruption always seems to creep in, and after a few hundred years, nothing resembles the original. The devil sees to it that human worship is contaminated gradually so that it goes unnoticed by the majority....

I would agree and no human or Governing Body of Humans (except Jesus Christ Himself) is exempt from this contamination, that is why we are warned in several places to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I mean this sincerely Deeje, please don't let your Governing Body Lens keep you from seeing the warnings Our Lord Jesus gave us about those who would seek to rule over us. Jesus said:

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:" Matthew 20:25-27

 

[Deeje]

I'm not a KJV only person nor am I trinity believer. Any version that allows us to look up the Hebrew and Greek would be perfectly fine IMHO.I use the esword software and unfortunately it doesn't have the NASB with Strongs, but if it did I would happily use it.I'm actually not, but I always try to come from an attitude that I might be wrong just in case there's something I've missed.

What about Strongs Concordance online? You can choose your favorite Bible translation.
https://www.tgm.org/bible.htm

Keeping an open mind is a good thing.

My issue with the trinity is the separation of the Holy Spirit from the Father. I believe the Holy Spirit is the Father, and the Son is the Heavenly Body (aka Temple) that the Father dwelt in while on earth.Where is the evidence in Scripture that the son is a created being coz I don't see it. If you are able to show me from Scripture I would be happy to take a really good look at it!

Col 1:15, 16:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." (ESV)

"Firstborn" (Greek prōtotokos) means....

1. the firstborn
   1. of man or beast
   2. of Christ, the first born of all creation "

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4416&t=NASB

There is nothing to indicate that this word means anything different to what is generally understood by "firstborn".
Jesus is a unique son of God, but he is not the only son of God.

If Jesus is God, then how can he be his own "firstborn"?
The other word used to describe Jesus is "only begotten" (Greek "monogenes") which means "an only child".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3439&t=NASB

1. single of its kind, only
   1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
   2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.

Then there is Revelation 3:14:
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV)

I agree, I too see no evidence for 3 distinctly different persons.I used to believe this as well. And while I think it is partly true, I can see from Scripture that there is more to the story than that. If restoring us back to the original condition of Adam and Eve in the garden was God's only goal then I would probably agree that all Jesus had to be was the equivalent of the perfect man, Adam. But that's not what I see in Scripture, coz Jesus was clearly different to the first Adam:

Can you tell me what God's purpose was in putting material creatures on a material earth when it is clear from the scriptures that he already had a large family of spirit sons in heaven? According to Isaiah 55:11, everything that God purposes will come to be. It cannot fail.

Corinthians 15:45-55

Adding some context to those verses is what precedes it.

1 Corinthians 15:20-26:
"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (ESV)

Christ, though not the first to be resurrected, was the first human raised from the dead to life in the spirit. He went to heaven to present the value of his sacrifice to God on our behalf. (Hebrews 9:24) But as Paul confirms, no other human was to be raised to heavenly life until his return. Those who "belong to Christ" are his "elect" or "chosen ones". (Revelation 20:6) These alone have the "heavenly calling" (Hebrews 3:1) which means that all the anointed disciples of Christ were to "sleep" until he came back for them.

The verses you quoted apply only to them. The apostle Paul spoke as one of the anointed who were to be "raised first". They are assigned to be immortal "kings and priests" to reign in heaven with Jesus. But they will have earthly subjects. (Revelation 21:1-5)

The First man Adam was corruptible. The last Adam was incorruptible. The First Adam was earthy. The Last Adam was Heavenly etc, etc...

The first Adam was mortal but perfect; he abused his free will and lost his perfect life, succumbing to sin and death and passing on defective genes to his children.
Jesus had to be a 100% mortal human and a son of Adam through Mary. He also had free will just like Adam. If this was not the case then why would the devil even try to tempt him away from perfect obedience to his Father? The future of the entire human race was on Jesus' shoulders and he knew it.
This beloved son was was trusted to carry out this commission.....to pay a ransom for the human race who were sold into slavery by their disobedient father...and set them free.

I once thought that this difference between the first and last Adam occurred at the Resurrection of Jesus. That was until last night when I was reminded of the birth of Jesus. As I said in a previous post: Jesus was the Seed of the Woman whom God foretold in Genesis would bruise the head of Satan.

The difference between the first and last 'Adam' was the the one thing they had in common....physical perfection without the defect of sin. A ransom is an equivalent price demanded for the release of a captive. Jesus paid that price.
The devil dealt Jesus the 'heel wound' by influencing the Jews to have the Lamb of God executed. But Jesus is yet to deal the serpent his head wound. Satan is to be bound and detained in an abyss from which he will not be able to influence mankind for the full term of the Kingdom's reign. (Revelation 20:1-3)