The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[Ingledsva]

An example a few posts back mentions a Jones family. This is actually a great example but it was not used correctly. If John Jones is married to Sue Jones and they have a son named Joe Jones, you can say there is one Jones family. John is Jones and Sue is Jones and Joe is Jones. There is only one Jones family but three people in it. There is also only one God (family) but two people in it. The Father is God and the Son is God. Two separate persons but making up one God. Several separate Family members but making up one Jones.

Baloney, they are saying ONE person is three. You are saying three DIFFERENT people are part of one family. Not the same thing.

It would actually be like saying a specific Jones, Jim (married to Sue,) is also Frank and Peter, all at the same time , and doing things at the same time. = Frank Jones is swimming in the river, while split-person 2 Peter Jones does a belly-flop on him, and at the same time - Jim split person 3 Jones yells out Whoopee from a tree limb above (Jesus' supposed three split baptism). And by the way Frank prays to himself Jim. And this Jim Jones has a special chair in a special place, but even supposedly being actually ONE, - somehow needs a second special chair in his special place, to accommodate himself Frank, apparently now an autonomous second being - in need of a special chair. I guess Peter doesn't get a special chair.

I'm not sure how this ONE person cut into three - lives - or moves.

We are told Jesus gets a throne beside God's throne, - whom is supposedly him, - so why a need for a second throne when in heaven???

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You are confusing the meaning of the word "God". Most people use the word "God" to mean the Father. You do not pray to God, you pray to the Father. The Father is one part of God and the Son is another part of God. Just like John is one part of the Jones family and Sue is another part of the same Jones family. Only one family made up of different people and only one God made up of Father and Son. If you believe in a trinity then why not believe in four persons instead of three. The Bible says that in the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God. So you have Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Word.

 

[viole]

So you ask a question then presuppose the answer with a "Yes, No, or Maybe"?

Is that logical given the topic?

Suppose I asked you if 3 is better than 4, or if gray has more black than white, then demanded a Yes, No, or Maybe as a response?

Would you gleefully herd your answer into my predetermined range of responses? And if not, why do you insist on it from me?



Conversely we could also make the relatively safe assumption you didn't really understand your question or our answer. A good try Viole, but where does that leaves us? It's a direct question to which you may freely respond, provided it's with a Yes, No, or Maybe.

Yes, I presuppone that.

And I presuppone that because the question "do the Father and the Son share the same knowledge?" seems to accept a yes or a no as answer.

It is simple, if there is an X which is known by one and not the other, then the answer is no. If such an X does not exist, then the answer is yes.

That is vastly different from questions like "what is better 3 or 4?". And the reason is that the latter depends on taste, or on a very badly specified "better" adjective. However, I could turn into a meaningful question by asking "what is prime, 3 or 4?".

I suppose it is clear what we intend by "knowledge".

So, is there an X which is known by only one of Them? Is such an X even possible, in principle?

Or, put in other terms. If the Father is all knowing, is Jesus all knowing, too?

I will be generous, I will allow "it depends" in your answer

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Did you know that the heart has a brain too?

Am I right?

A pesto

- me

And where did you get that from?

A tomato sauce

- viole

 

[viole]

Sorry. I thought you honestly wanted to have knowledge of the premise I was proposing so that you could have an informed foundation to give a reasoned response.

If all you will accept is a one word response you're barking up the wrong tree.

No. I am not interested in the premises. I might later, depending on their logical result. Which seems to be non existent, apparently.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

And where did you get that from?

A tomato sauce

- viole

latest discoveries

Let Your Heart Talk to Your Brain | HuffPost

 

[Kenny]

Yes, I presuppone that.

And I presuppone that because the question "do the Father and the Son share the same knowledge?" seems to accept a yes or a no as answer.



Ciao

- viole

Yes... you can set your own parameters. But are your parameters be correct? because you say so? (yes-no please)

As far as answers... didn't I give them?

A pesto,

- me

 

[viole]

latest discoveries

Let Your Heart Talk to Your Brain | HuffPost

Pseudo science.

NeuroLogica Blog » Brain Cells in the Heart?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes... you can set your own parameters. But are your parameters be correct? because you say so? (yes-no please)

As far as answers... didn't I give them?

A pesto,

- me

Nope. But here is your opportunity. Yes...or no?

A tomato sauce

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

Pseudo science.

NeuroLogica Blog » Brain Cells in the Heart?

Ciao

- viole

-maybe that site... but, according to my personal friend sources, its true. Just have to give some diligence to find the scientific site.


A pesto,

- me

 

[viole]

-maybe that site... but, according to my personal friend sources, its true. Just have to give some diligence to find the scientific site.


A pesto,

- me

Good luck.

A tomato sauce

- viole

 

[Kenny]

Nope. But here is your opportunity. Yes...or no?

A tomato sauce

Ciao

- viole

Bonjour Viole,

It sounds like you are wanting a certain snapshot of eternity to reflect all of eternity. In other words, to have a parenthetical notation as the synthesis of the whole sentence would be wrong.

Or, in context of a forum, it sounds more like a setup than a real question.

A simple yes or no is not the answer.

As the Word... yes.
As Jesus before resurrection... no.
As resurrected Jesus, "yes" except for just one item.

Now, although my answer was very clear, you certainly can make your determination that my answer nothing but "theory, philosophy, Bible stuff" and therefore not clear.

Wait no longer....

A presto,

me.

must be your sauce


A pesto,

- me

 

[Kenny]

V

Good luck.

A tomato sauce

- viole

voila

2.4.3. Heart: an Electromagnetic Organ

A pesto,

- me

 

[viole]

V

voila

2.4.3. Heart: an Electromagnetic Organ

A pesto,

- me

A scientific site? Have you checked?

However, Let me ask that magnet attached to my fridge.

Allright. It agrees, lol.

A amatriciana sauce

- viole

 

[Rick B]

No. I am not interested in the premises. I might later, depending on their logical result. Which seems to be non existent, apparently.

Ciao

- viole

The result of the premises, which you have apparently missed, is that the Bible Declares Jesus is God. This is what this thread is all about. So if you're not interested maybe you should find another that you can run afoul in.

 

[Ben Avraham]

"The Bible declares that Jesus is God!"

What Bible, for heaven's sake! You must specify what Bible you are talking about because the Jewish Scriptures is also called Bible and, your statement is akin to a blasphemy without boundaries. First of all, Jesus was a Jewish man and, if the dead could be aware of what is said on the upper side of the earth, Jesus would turn in his grave. I know, all religions have the right to express their freedom of speech but, for heaven's sake, you are infringing on the right of an individual Jew.

 

[Rick B]

What Bible, for heaven's sake! You must specify what Bible you are talking about because the Jewish Scriptures is also called Bible and, your statement is akin to a blasphemy without boundaries. First of all, Jesus was a Jewish man and, if the dead could be aware of what is said on the upper side of the earth, Jesus would turn in his grave. I know, all religions have the right to express their freedom of speech but, for heaven's sake, you are infringing on the right of an individual Jew.

If you were actually paying attention, instead of feigning umbrage, you couldn't have missed the references.

 

[Oeste]

Show the text so we can decide for ourselves.

Seriously??? All 5800 of them?

Brian J. Wright is a well known, well thought of, peered review author and student of Greek scripture. I think his work speaks for itself.

Likewise you can read his work and make your own decision.

This is your standard KJV

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

However in the Greek - God is the first word, and Monogenes and Uios are together half way down the sentence.

I looked at several translations including the Textus Receptus, Byzantine, a 1611 KJV, and a 1568 Bishop's. They all translate it Monogenes Uios. Obviously so do the majority of modern Biblical scholars as that is the translation we find in our bibles.

Oh come on Ingledsva! I’m not referring to translations but to the manuscripts. You’re the one who claimed Rick B.'s translation was “wrong” (which you wrote in bold red letters) as if you had the original autographs in hand.

And how exactly is challenging something LATER Christians came up with*, - and Jesus NEVER said, an "attack" on Jesus?

By denying Jesus as the fulfillment of messianic prophesy (or as is oft the case, denying there is a messianic prophesy) you hope to undermine the redemptive power of Jesus which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. As I mentioned before, it’s an attempt to reclassify Jesus along the lines of a Gandhi or Confucius.

As for Jesus NEVER saying he was God... I think that's something you need to take up with the Jews. Obviously they believed he said it otherwise they would NEVER have picked up stones.

Any idea that the Jews didn’t think Jesus claimed to be God is *something Judaism LATER came up with, which, come to think of it, is the same assertion you placed against Christianity.

Funny how that works.

But as a Christian it’s all the more troubling because as soon as anyone mentions Trinity our non-Trinitarian Christian friends are all over it. But if anyone denies the redemptive power of Jesus or questions his credentials as Messiah they paradoxically go dark, fade in the background or remain quiet.

Funny how that works too.

He was a Jew teaching ONE GOD Tanakh. Trinitarians are the ones that attack him and change his message.

Actually, as you can see from our discussion here Trinitarians, for the most part, are the only ones willing to defend the entirety of the gospel message. Who knows? Maybe one day we’ll all be pleasantly surprised.

But for now, your comments appear to confirm rather than deny my earlier assertion…our non-Trinitarian Christian friends here are great at attacking things but a little short on defense. As such, had early Christians believed as these Non-Trinitarians claimed they believed, I seriously doubt if Christianity would have survived it's second century.

But to answer your question:

Jesus did not have to be named Immanuel. "God with us" is a reference to who Jesus is, not to what Jesus is named. It was also prophesied that Jesus would be cal "Wonderful Counselor" and "Mighty God", and if Mary had named him Immanuel I suspect there would be those wondering why she hadn't named him "Wonderful Counselor" instead.

Not correct.

Isn't it interesting that everything is a PROPHECY from God and can't be changed, - until you don't like what it says HE SAID.

And I might as well add at this point that the verse is not about a future Jesus.

They were in a war and God gave them a sign, - a MAIDEN would conceive and NAME her child Immanuel, God is with us = in the war going on right then. The sign was for Ahaz and Isaiah, which means it cannot be a far future person. Named Kings would be gone BEFORE the child Knew the difference between Good and Evil. So, again, no future Jesus.

The God prophecy says SHE will name her son Immanuel, Not some future person (a pope I think) saying it is a title, trying to claim Jesus is this child. Mary gave her son the wrong name.

Isa 7:14 Therefore will YHVH himself give you a sign: behold, this (‛almah) young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and she shall call his name ‘Immanu-el, God with us.

Quotes below from http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

Well this is pretty easy, but I’d like to pose a question to some of our Arian “true-defenders-of-Christianity-before-it-went-poof-and-apostatized-in-the-3rd-or-4th-century-and-lucky-for-you-we-came- along-to-restore-the-original-teachings” friends what they actually think about this before I answer.

Does Ingledsva have a point? She claims the reference to Jesus as “God with us” at Isaiah 7:14 is “not correct”. Perhaps Matthew was incorrect @ 1:23?

Do you have a scriptural response or does the assertion become invisible when it doesn't support the Trinity?

Or worse, do you fade to black hoping there’s a Trinitarian on board around to answer questions like this for you?

Bonus if you can answer the virgin/young woman challenge.

I'll leave the question open for a day or two.

Thanks!

 

[Rick B]

Nothing that you wrote there actually says Jesus is God. Jesus was a Jew, - teaching Tanakh, - and would never have split YHVH into a pagan threesome.

And why the WRONG translation of John1:18?

You have this -

18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

The standard is -

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

There is no second God in that verse. There is a word for son/child of.

Also the word translated only begotten - means one/or first of a kind. The awaited Messiah would be such, without being a God.

*

This post is intended to put an end to those who assert that the Bible does not claim that Jesus is God. The few Bible translations regarding the three key text should forever silence the naysayers.

Revelation 19:13

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. New American Standard Bible (NASB)

And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His name is called, The Word of God. 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called the Word of God. Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

He wore a robe dyed[a] with blood, and his name was called the Word of God. Common English Bible (CEB)

For Ben Avraham

He was wearing a robe that had been soaked in blood, and the name by which he is called is, “WORD OF GOD.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

And He is robed in a kaftan dipped in dahm, and His Name is called, “The DVAR HASHEM.” [YESHAYAH 63:2, 3] Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. New International Version (NIV)


If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

And if that same Word is God. Jn.1

Then Jesus is God.



John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. New American Standard Bible (NASB)

In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. Amplified Bible (AMP)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Common English Bible (CEB)

For Ben Avraham

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:3], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with, etzel, Mishle 8:30;30:4) Hashem, and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13 i.e., the Ma’amar Memra] Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God. Contemporary English Version (CEV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. English Standard Version (ESV)

In the beginning [Gen. 1:1] ·there was the Word [the Word already existed; C the Word refers to Christ, God’s revelation of himself]. The Word was ·with [in the presence of; in intimate relationship with] God [C the Father], and the Word was [fully] God. Expanded Bible (EXB)

That Word begotten of God before all worlds, 2 and which was ever with the Father, 14 is made man.  6, 7 For what end John was sent from God. 15 His preaching of Christ’s office. 19, 20 The record that he bare given out unto the Priests. 40 The calling of Andrew, 42 of Peter, 43 Philip, 45 and Nathanael.

1 In [a]the beginning [c]was [d]that Word, and that Word was [e]with God, and that [f] Word was God.

Footnotes:

a. John 1:1 The Son of God is of one, and the selfsame eternity or everlastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature, with the Father.

b. John 1:1 From his beginning, as the Evangelist saith, 1 John 1:1, as though he said, that the world began not then to have his being, when God began to make all that was made: for the word was even then when all things that were made, began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things.

c. John 1:1 Had his being.

d. John 1:1 This word, That, pointeth out unto us a peculiar and choice thing above all other, and putteth a difference between this Word, which is the Son of God, and the Laws of God, which otherwise also are called the word of God.

e. John 1:1 This word (With) putteth out the distinction of persons to us.

f. John 1:1 This word (Word) is the first in order in the sentence, and is that which the learned call (Subjectum and this word (God) is the latter in order, and the same which the learned call (Predicatum.) 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. New International Version (NIV)

In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. New Living Translation (NLT)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Revised Standard Version (RSV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

John 20:28

Thomas answered Him, “My Lord and my God!” Amplified Bible (AMP)

Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Thomas responded and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.

The Lord of me and the God of me.

Enough said.

The context of these verses identify Jesus as the subject.

Therefore:

If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

And if that same Word is God. Jn.1:1

Then Jesus is God.

The Bible declares Jesus is God.

 

[Ingledsva]

Seriously??? All 5800 of them?

The info specifically dealing with the verse we were discussing.

Well this is pretty easy, but I’d like to pose a question to some of our Arian “true-defenders-of-Christianity-before-it-went-poof-and-apostatized-in-the-3rd-or-4th-century-and-lucky-for-you-we-came- along-to-restore-the-original-teachings” friends what they actually think about this before I answer.

Does Ingledsva have a point? She claims the reference to Jesus as “God with us” at Isaiah 7:14 is “not correct”. Perhaps Matthew was incorrect @ 1:23?

Do you have a scriptural response or does the assertion become invisible when it doesn't support the Trinity?

Or worse, do you fade to black hoping there’s a Trinitarian on board around to answer questions like this for you?

Bonus if you can answer the virgin/young woman challenge.

I'll leave the question open for a day or two.

Thanks!

Immanuel is Isaiah's son, named Immanuel by his mother, and called Mahershalalhashbaz by his father.

Immanuel God with Us, is a sign for Ahaz, and Isaiah who is with him in this war, - and thus cannot be a future Jesus.

Isa 7:10 Moreover YHVH spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of YHVH thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

THE SIGN IS --

Isa 7:14 Therefore YHVH himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 8:3 And I (Isaiah) went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said YHVH to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.


Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isa 7:17 YHVH shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.


Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Almah = young woman/maiden, “bethulah” for a true definite virgin.

There are three other places in Tanakh where Christians have mistranslated this as virgin. For instance SOS 6:8. And here is the correct "maiden" translation from a Jewish site which also has the Hebrew.

6:8 here are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and innumerable maidens Shir Hashirim - Song of Songs - Chapter 6

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isaiah 7:16 tells us ABSOLUTELY that this takes place THEN. The two kings are mentioned in the earlier verses, and are the ones they are fighting RIGHT THEN. If the two Kings Ahaz and Isaiah are fighting - are gone - before Immanuel understands good and evil, - then OBVIOUSLY Immanuel can NOT be a future Jesus. Read the whole thing in context.

*