• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus is equal to God

BARNEY E BRIGHT

New Member
What do you disagree with?

Unless you have no belief in jesus god of not, what you say describes one of the two views adopted by non-trini or Trini, unless you don't believe in Christ, where do you disagree?

My disagreement is that you speak as though both is correct and it matters not which you believe. I believe Jesus to be a god but not The God. I believe Jesus to be the only begotten Son of the Only True God and it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to this world and died then three days after his death God resurrected him back to life.
 

BARNEY E BRIGHT

New Member
What in the context makes you say Jesus was only speaking about his age? I'm I wrong in thinking you are speaking about actual, physical age?

As I said Jesus was a central player in God's plan, the logos, which was indeed with God in the beginning, well before Abraham. However the part Jesus played in God's plan, i. e., when he was born, was some time after Abraham.

How is it any different with us having been chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Certainly you are not suggesting you are over 6,000 years old!

Don't be so quick to dismiss the connection with what Jesus said and Gen 3:15, which was indeed well before Abraham. He understood his role in the plan of Redemption. When he read Gen 3:15 he knew that was the starting point for what he was sent by God to accomplish, our redemption.

In a previous post you said "I am" may have something to do with Gen.3:15 which is guessing. I choose not to agree with your guess work. I choose instead agree with scripture which as I said the context Is about Jesus existing before Abraham, not discussing Who Jesus is.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
You are still taking this scripture out of context I believe because Jesus wasn't talking about his identity, he was talking about his age. I will never agree with taking any scripture out of context. You can talk about tenses all you want.
I think my reading of it is a fairly conventional one.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
My disagreement is that you speak as though both is correct and it matters not which you believe. I believe Jesus to be a god but not The God. I believe Jesus to be the only begotten Son of the Only True God and it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to this world and died then three days after his death God resurrected him back to life.


They are both correct depending on who reads it. Religion isn't "as is". When one learns scripture, one must come to conclusions for themselves to find meaning in it.

Take: the father and I are one

Religion doesn't fall outside English rules and grammar. Nothing special. Depends on interpretation.

Some believe jesus is god because they interpret "as one" being one another. So, they see jesus as God because of it. They know he has a father but because of that Oneness, he is also god. It's a way of relating to the father Through Christ, as says the gospels many times.

Others believe "as one" refers to two separate people in union with each other not, by English grammar, not each other. They correctly (too) state that because jesus separates himself from his Father literally one cannot see them the sense in any sense of the word each other. They miss the point of the trinitarian expression of faith.

Yet, scripture says profoundly that jesus separates himself from the father in their natures. They are right just their view discredits the relationship with God in divine importance since religion is not verbatim in nature.

It doesn't matter your interpretation. They are both the same goal just you read scriptures differently. Has nothing to do with your beliefs themselves.

You'd fall under jesus is related to his Father as god (second one/non Trini) but not as the father himself. You separate jesus from his Father not because of their purpose but because of their natures.

That's fine. You and Trinis still believe God resurrected and everything. Trinis don't refer to the father differently when expressing their beliefs. The difference is in the expression. God vs. god is one example of many.
 
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
In a previous post you said "I am" may have something to do with Gen.3:15 which is guessing. I choose not to agree with your guess work. I choose instead agree with scripture which as I said the context Is about Jesus existing before Abraham, not discussing Who Jesus is.
Jesus was born at a very specific time which was well after Abraham. Like the rest of us, he did not physically exist before his birth. God is not so stupid as to say Jesus was physically older in age than Abraham.

Matt 2:1,

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod (well after Abraham) the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
As I've said, and as the scriptures also say, the only way Jesus "existed" before Abraham was in God's mind, just like those whom God choose before He even made the world. Are we older than Abraham, given the truth of Ephesians 1:4?

You need to look at the overall context of the Bible itself. You seem to be stuck on a few verses which causes you to come up with a conclusion that makes God look like an idiot. Of all people, God understands that somebody born some 4,000 years after somebody else does not make the former older in age than the latter. You need to come up with a better idea that fits with the scriptures as a whole.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
In a previous post you said "I am" may have something to do with Gen.3:15 which is guessing. I choose not to agree with your guess work. I choose instead agree with scripture which as I said the context Is about Jesus existing before Abraham, not discussing Who Jesus is.
Everything in the OT refers to Jesus.

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Genesis 3:15 is therefore about Jesus. That was the first hint of Jesus that God revealed to us. The utterance of Genesis 3:15 was well before Abraham's birth. When Jesus was referring to that verse, it had everything to do with time, not who he was. I'm not talking about who he was. I'm talking about time, that Gen 3:15 was before Abraham.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Everything in the OT refers to Jesus
No. It doesn’t. And to assert that it does is disingenuous. The OT writers knew nothing of Jesus, and the Jewish scholars will tell you that *their* texts “prefigure” no such thing. The misappropriation of others’ religious texts for one’s own purposes is really bad form, and does not respect either the texts, or the people who wrote them.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
No. It doesn’t. And to assert that it does is disingenuous. The OT writers knew nothing of Jesus, and the Jewish scholars will tell you that *their* texts “prefigure” no such thing. The misappropriation of others’ religious texts for one’s own purposes is really bad form, and does not respect either the texts, or the people who wrote them.
Geez guy, you make me out to be Satan! Oh well.

John 5:39:,

Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
I do believe that the scriptures Jesus was referring to would have to have been the OT.

You don't have to believe that, but I'm not sure where you're getting all these wild ideas about my disrespect for religious texts. You should think a bit more about what you read and what you say. Civility and all that. Only if you're so inclined of course. I don't mean to tell you what to do.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Geez guy, you make me out to be Satan! Oh well.

John 5:39:,

Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
I do believe that the scriptures Jesus was referring to would have to have been the OT.

You don't have to believe that, but I'm not sure where you're getting all these wild ideas about my disrespect for religious texts. You should think a bit more about what you read and what you say. Civility and all that. Only if you're so inclined of course. I don't mean to tell you what to do.
Yes, That refers to the OT. But you also have to consider that what the writers wrote is not necessarily what Jesus may have said. It may come as a surprise to some that not all quotes in the gospels attributed to Jesus are necessarily authentic.

When John was written, there was a strong push toward seeing the movement as the “true Israel,” replacing the Jews as the “chosen people.” Statements such as the one you cite seem to serve to cement that belief.

Plus, for Jesus to say, “testify of me,” does not mean he was saying, “the writers were writing about me.” He was saying, “I do fulfill what the writers were writing about.” This quotation cannot be used to assert that the writers intended to write about Jesus.

I come on strong here because the Christian machine has, for far too long, dismissed the Jewish faith as legitimate in the eyes of God. Consider a scenario in which Islam has completely overshadowed Christianity. And they continuously take the Christian Bible, calling it “theirs,” and twisting its messages to say that Jesus was not really the Son of God, and that Paul and the gospel writers were “prefiguring” Muhammad, and that we were all “just wrong.” Wouldn’t you hope that someone would come along to stand up for the legitimacy of your sacred texts?

It’s one thing for a reader to assign a new insight to previous texts, based upon her or his beliefs, but it’s quite another for the reader to assert that her or his insights are “what the writer meant with the writing. The first illustrates how art (and writing is an art form) can expand the mind and stir inspiration. The second is imposing one’s own beliefs onto texts where there is no historical, cultural, or literary evidence to support the claim.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Yes, That refers to the OT. But you also have to consider that what the writers wrote is not necessarily what Jesus may have said. It may come as a surprise to some that not all quotes in the gospels attributed to Jesus are necessarily authentic
Who decides which are and which aren't?

When John was written, there was a strong push toward seeing the movement as the “true Israel,” replacing the Jews as the “chosen people.” Statements such as the one you cite seem to serve to cement that belief.
There is nothing anti Jewish in my posts. In fact, there is nothing about Jews one way or the other.
Plus, for Jesus to say, “testify of me,” does not mean he was saying, “the writers were writing about me.”
So when Jesus said, "me" he meant it in some other way than the usual meaning? Was he talking about Muhammad?
I come on strong here because the Christian machine has, for far too long, dismissed the Jewish faith as legitimate in the eyes of God. Consider a scenario in which Islam has completely overshadowed Christianity. And they continuously take the Christian Bible, calling it “theirs,” and twisting its messages to say that Jesus was not really the Son of God, and that Paul and the gospel writers were “prefiguring” Muhammad, and that we were all “just wrong.” Wouldn’t you hope that someone would come along to stand up for the legitimacy of your sacred texts?
Oh yeah, like nobody ever criticizes the Bible! I wouldn't know what that's like!
It’s one thing for a reader to assign a new insight to previous texts, based upon her or his beliefs, but it’s quite another for the reader to assert that her or his insights are “what the writer meant with the writing.
And you're not doing that?
The first illustrates how art (and writing is an art form) can expand the mind and stir inspiration. The second is imposing one’s own beliefs onto texts where there is no historical, cultural, or literary evidence to support the claim.
Have I not been forthright in stating you don't have to believe anything I say? I don't believe what you say, so I believe you deserve the same courtesy. I always think that way.

Without Israel Christians wouldn't be here. I guess you wouldn't believe that because it is written in Romans chapter 11, which I understand is not part of our sacred texts. But there it is anyway.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I come on strong here because the Christian machine has, for far too long, dismissed the Jewish faith as legitimate in the eyes of God. Consider a scenario in which Islam has completely overshadowed Christianity. And they continuously take the Christian Bible, calling it “theirs,” and twisting its messages to say that Jesus was not really the Son of God, and that Paul and the gospel writers were “prefiguring” Muhammad, and that we were all “just wrong.” Wouldn’t you hope that someone would come along to stand up for the legitimacy of your sacred texts?
Not to force anything down your throat, but are you aware that the Book of Revelations in our text says that the Jews and Christians will live together in everlasting harmony? Whether true or not, why don't we get started now.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Who decides which are and which aren't
Bible scholars who specialize in the gospels.

There is nothing anti Jewish in my posts. In fact, there is nothing about Jews one way or the other
Any time you’re talking about the Jewish texts, you’re inherently bringing Judaism into the conversation. These are their texts after all. That you don’t recognize them as inherently included in their sacred texts is, frankly, a little scary.

So when Jesus said, "me" he meant it in some other way than the usual meaning? Was he talking about Muhammad
No, Jesus, in saying that, was inserting himself into the meaning. He never said that when the writers wrote, they wrote about me.

It’s like if I said, “Harry Potter sounds a lot like me,” that’s not the same thing as asserting that Rowling had me in mind when she wrote the books.

Oh yeah, like nobody ever criticizes the Bible! I wouldn't know what that's like
And how does it make you feel when that happens?

And you're not doing that?
No. I’m regurgitating what the experts in biblical scholarship say.

Without Israel Christians wouldn't be here. I guess you wouldn't believe that because it is written in Romans chapter 11, which I understand is not part of our sacred texts. But there it is anyway
Try again. That doesn’t make sense.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Bible scholars who specialize in the gospels.

Any time you’re talking about the Jewish texts, you’re inherently bringing Judaism into the conversation. These are their texts after all. That you don’t recognize them as inherently included in their sacred texts is, frankly, a little scary.

No, Jesus, in saying that, was inserting himself into the meaning. He never said that when the writers wrote, they wrote about me.

It’s like if I said, “Harry Potter sounds a lot like me,” that’s not the same thing as asserting that Rowling had me in mind when she wrote the books.

And how does it make you feel when that happens?

No. I’m regurgitating what the experts in biblical scholarship say.

Try again. That doesn’t make sense.
Looks like I can't come up with a single statement that rings true in your ears. I won't take any more of your time on this subject. Maybe some other post down the road.

Take care...
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
I always took the trinity to say that the two people were separate in their relationship to each other, that they were separate people. That's what you seem to have just said.

Yes, 3 distinct persons or hypostases.


I also think the trinity doctrine says that Jesus and God share the same essence or nature and that is what makes them one (thus avoiding the appearance worshiping of false gods). So I understand they are one in essence or nature while being distinct in relationship. Pretty sure I'm right on that.

If sharing the same nature makes them actually the same identical person, then why aren't we God in light of:

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Because sharing the same nature does not make them the same identical person.

You and I have the same nature or substance, but we are not the same identical person.

I don't think this whole idea of "distinct persons but the same essence" means anything at all.

Mankind is a collection of distinct persons of the same essence. It means quite a bit.

There is no real textual evidence of it unless one is willing to take inference upon inference upon inference as textual evidence.

I am sure there is quite a bit of textual and biological evidence we are distinct persons of the same essence. This is something explicitly evident all around us and need not be inferred.

There are many, many clear verses that say Jesus was the son and not the father. There are only a few verses that seem to say otherwise.

This is the point where you appear to confuse Trinitarianism with modalism.

Trinitarians, as you stated previously, believe the Father and Son to be separate persons of one substance, not one person of one substance. Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the Father nor do they believe the Father to be the Son.

In modalism (Sabellianism) God operates in various "modes", generally described as avatars or manifestations. So the Father can "manifest" himself as the son or even the Spirit.

Modalism was denounced as a heresy by the historic church, but this has not prevented numerous post-Millerite groups, like Jehovah Witnesses, from framing Trinitarians as Modalists or even Tritheists. Their "Should you believe in the Trinity?" booklet is an excellent example of this.

It's the equivalent of a Christian church asking: "If the Watchtower believes their members should be witnesses of Jehovah, why do they call themselves Mormons?"

Of course this mis-framing is deliberate, continues, and has been widely embraced by many but not all anti-Trinitarian groups. For groups like the WT I believe it's because they see Modalism as an easier target to rail against than the Trinity. On the other hand, Mormon publications (to my knowledge) do not cast the Trinity as Modalism or Tritheism and I'm not trying to suggest they do.

If Jesus and God are really one person, then He (they?) must have a split personality disorder, given two different wills mentioned in Luke 22:42. No! They have two different wills because they are two separate persons, not one. Jesus, by tireless work, made his will to be the same as his father's, but that doesn't actually make him his own father. Like any other son, he could have told his dad, "Go fly a kite. I'm gonna go have some fun!" That's what free will means, and Jesus had one just like the rest of us.

Trinitarians do not believe "Jesus and God are really one person". You would have to go to an anti-Trinitarian website or publication to read that.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
All goats have a goat nature, but not all goats are somehow one goat.
Ditto for a horse or a man. Why any different for Jesus?

There is no difference for Jesus. Let's look at it again, taking your objection into consideration:

If the son of goat is one goat and,
the son of horse is one horse and,
the son of man is one man, then
the son of God is one _________?



An offspring indeed has the nature of it's parents, but it is never it's own parent. Jesus is the son, God is the father. Therefore they can't be one person any more than all the goats that ever lived are really one goat.

I agree with you they can't possibly be one person :)

As sons and daughters of God, we share in the divine nature, since father always passes his own nature to his offspring.

Jesus also had the same divine nature (in fact, he was the first to have it), but that didn't make him God any more than it makes us God. It makes us both children of the one true God. What a privilege it is!

Yes it is a privilege. But it's important to remember that although we share in this divine nature, we ourselves are not Divine. Also Jesus had a pre-incarnate state which we do not have. It is this dual nature that makes Jesus unique.

Whatever Jesus was, we are.

If I understand this statement correctly I would respectfully disagree, as we cannot shout "I AM" as Jesus did since none of us were around.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Everything in the OT refers to Jesus.
I'd have to agree with this to a large extent. I believe that the individual known as Jehovah in the Old Testament was none other than the individual known as Jesus in the New Testament. I don't believe references to God the Father are altogether absent from the Old Testament, but that it is, by and large, about Jesus Christ (prior to His birth).
 
John 5:18 is a stock verse used by trinitarians to prove Jesus is God. But is that what it really says?

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
First of all, if God wanted to make Jesus God, then why didn't he just say, "...making himself God" instead of, "making himself equal with God?" Seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity for God to have settled the trinity question once and for all. I for one would absolutely believe Jesus were God had He omitted the words "equal with," but we must assume He included them for a good reason. The word equal is the Greek word isos from which we get our word isosceles triangle. An isosceles triangle is so called because it has 2 equal length sides. Now to make these two sides somehow the same side is not using language in any meaningful way. It has two separate sides that are simply of equal length. It by implication makes the two sides unique and separate, e.g. side 1 and side 2.

This word isos is used in Matthew chapter 20 where Jesus spoke the parable about the property owner paying helpers who worked a few hours the same as those who labored all day. The latter of course protested it as unfair, feeling they should have received more. As part of their plea to the land owner they said,

Matt 20:12,

Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal [isos] unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
Could this be construed as saying that the ones who worked all day were the same ones who came later in the day? Of course not! Two separate people here. Why should the same usage of isos in John 5:18 be any different?

There is another usage of isos I will point out in the Book of Revelations.

Rev 21:16,

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Does this say the length and breath are in fact one thing and not two? No! Length is the length and width is the width; again, two distinctly different things. Making them equal [isos] simply means the two have the same length.

One more for the record.

In Mark 14 the Pharisees were trying to get a few people to give false testimony against Jesus so they could do what they did to him on the cross. They had a problem getting multiple "witnesses" to come up with the same story.

Mark 14:59,

But neither so did their witness agree [isos] together.
So, had they agreed together, would that have then made them one person? I think the trinity struck out here also.

It would be a good study to find out exactly what John 5:18 meant when it said Jesus was equal [isos] to God. As always, any biblical research is best done by using the Bible itself and not tradition as a source of truth.

By the way, it should be noted that Jesus himself didn't claim to be God in John 5:18.

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
He claimed, and rightfully so, to be God's son. Never said, "I am God" anywhere in the scriptures.
You said:-


4) He could only do what the Father in Heaven told Him to do. (v19)



God tells us to do the same. We're just not as good at it as Jesus!
My reply


You seem to have lost the thread of the discussion?? The question is about the interpretation and the use of the Greek word isos and whether it should be interpreted ‘equal’ or otherwise. We must keep the context, and the context demands: - why did the Jews come to that conclusion. We must examine the mindset of the Jews AT THAT TIME. You and I weren’t there in AD28. We live in 2018. Therefore we must understand the situation which was between Jesus and the Jews. All the points which I gave to you were important to the Jews at that time and how they saw the situation through that culture.
You said:-
There is not one verse in that chapter that says anything about Jesus being God. You are reading something into it that simply isn't there.
My reply
Well, since you made the assertion, let me respond:-I would assume that you are using a dishonest version of the Bible where the verses clearly stating that Jesus is God, has been covered up. There is about 150 versions of the Bible on the market today, and to my knowledge, there is only one where all areas which indicate that Jesus is God have been hidden in the interpretation. I would cite John 1:1 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God.
And
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

And
Zechariah 12:4 (KJV)
4 In that day, saith the LORD, …..(who is the speaker)
10 (KJV) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son…..
And this fulfilled in…
Revelation 1:7-8 (KJV)
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

And
17…..Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

And
Isaiah 44:6 (KJV)
6 Thus saith JEHOVAH the King of Israel, and his redeemer the JEHOVAH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

There are two Jehovah. Jesus is Jehovah, the First and the Last. God is plural. The Jews also know that God is plural.
Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:…
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God is plural.
So, is that enough for you to consider.
You said
6) He is the One who has the power of eternal life which only God has. (v24)
Only God has it? Is there a verse that says that?
My reply
Try Isaiah 45:14; Acts 4:12; John 5:19; All things originate from God, salvation is of the Lord as the people of Israel well and truly know in the Old Testament. When they resorted to other gods, their situation became worse than before.
Certainty for eternity.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
You said:-


4) He could only do what the Father in Heaven told Him to do. (v19)



God tells us to do the same. We're just not as good at it as Jesus!
My reply


You seem to have lost the thread of the discussion?? The question is about the interpretation and the use of the Greek word isos and whether it should be interpreted ‘equal’ or otherwise. We must keep the context, and the context demands: - why did the Jews come to that conclusion. We must examine the mindset of the Jews AT THAT TIME. You and I weren’t there in AD28. We live in 2018. Therefore we must understand the situation which was between Jesus and the Jews. All the points which I gave to you were important to the Jews at that time and how they saw the situation through that culture.
You said:-
There is not one verse in that chapter that says anything about Jesus being God. You are reading something into it that simply isn't there.
My reply
Well, since you made the assertion, let me respond:-I would assume that you are using a dishonest version of the Bible where the verses clearly stating that Jesus is God, has been covered up. There is about 150 versions of the Bible on the market today, and to my knowledge, there is only one where all areas which indicate that Jesus is God have been hidden in the interpretation. I would cite John 1:1 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God.

And
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

And
Zechariah 12:4 (KJV)
4 In that day, saith the LORD,
…..(who is the speaker)
10 (KJV) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son…..
And this fulfilled in…
Revelation 1:7-8 (KJV)
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

And
17…..Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

And
Isaiah 44:6 (KJV)
6 Thus saith JEHOVAH the King of Israel, and his redeemer the JEHOVAH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

There are two Jehovah. Jesus is Jehovah, the First and the Last. God is plural. The Jews also know that God is plural.
Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:…
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God is plural.
So, is that enough for you to consider.
You said
6) He is the One who has the power of eternal life which only God has. (v24)
Only God has it? Is there a verse that says that?
My reply
Try Isaiah 45:14; Acts 4:12; John 5:19; All things originate from God, salvation is of the Lord as the people of Israel well and truly know in the Old Testament. When they resorted to other gods, their situation became worse than before.
Certainty for eternity.
You mentioned that we need to know what the Jews of 2,000 years ago thought and how they saw things. Very, very true. At that time the only people with a trinity were the pagans. The Jews always believed in one God.

If you look at the verses you quoted, not one on them says anything about Jesus being God without reading preconceived ideas into them. For example,

6 Thus saith JEHOVAH the King of Israel, and his redeemer the JEHOVAH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

What part of this verse says Jesus is God? God was simply saying He will redeem Israel.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God.

It doesn't say, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God"
When it is read that way the idea of the logos is completely lost. The word "word" is the Greek word logos. It's not easy to translate with one English word. It has a complex meaning, but it basically refers to the ideas in the speakers mind, not just the words spoken. It can be thought of as a plan in the speaker's mind. The logos is the plan God had in His mind to redeem mankind because He knew from the beginning Adam would sin. Jesus was the central figure of that plan, but that doesn't make him God. Jesus was a perfect image and manifestation of God in that he always did his Father's will. That doesn't make him his own father though. Substituting the word Jesus for word pretty much makes the redemption story incomprehensible. I think that is true regardless of the Bible version.

We were also with God in the beginning.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:​

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:…
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


If God is a trinity, then we, being in His image, are also a trinity? There are other explanations for God saying, "let us..." It's another case of seeing how the ancient Jews understood it. Have you ever heard of the royal we? It's worth a study. Just Google "royal we."

4 In that day, saith the LORD, …..(who is the speaker). When that was written the Jews had no idea about the man Jesus other than that God promised a redeemer. It was God who spoke to them. Jesus wasn't born until a few hundred years after Zechariah, so he wasn't talking.

You mentioned different Bible versions. I use the KJV, but I understand it is not the original God breathed word. We actually have none of the papers the Moses, Isaiah, Paul, etc. wrote on. I honestly am not familiar with anywhere near all the Bible versions out there, but the ones I do know seem to introduce forgeries that support the trinity. For example, John 1:1 capitalizes Word to make us think it is a proper noun, i.e. Jesus. In the original texts every single letter was capitalized. Therefore capitalizing some words in the KJV is misleading. It was introduced by scribes who had been taught that Jesus was God. They were dishonest.

Thanks to 2,000 years of church heresy, it is very difficult to see that Jesus is the son of God and therefore not God himself. There is no other arena of human affairs where a son can be his own father except for the Bible. Go figure! We'll just have to wait for Jesus' second appearance to settle it for good. God bless....
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
Well, that would certainly make them different, just like 2 + 3 is different from 5, but still equal. ;)

.

Even the Spirit of God in Jesus is not equal to the Spirit of God outside the body but God is one so in Jesus one does get all of God.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
But it must say Jesus is God somewhere in the Bible. After all, that is what the vast majority of Christians believe. It's just gotta be in there somewhere! But, alas, it is nowhere to be found. Could it actually be true, as the Bible avers almost 50 times, that Jesus is actually the son of God?

In case you haven't already guessed it, the preceding is pure satire. Getting real; Jesus is absolutely not God, nor some pagan god/man grotesque creature. He is the only begotten son of God who loved us and gave himself for us.

I believe He does say He is God but not in those exact words.

I believe in some ways that is true and in some ways it is not. It does not change the fact of His deity.
 
Top