• 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!

Who do YOU say Jesus is?

Oeste

Well-Known Member
God can not sin.

Correct.

Man can sin.

Correct.

It is impossible to be able to sin and at the same not able to sin.

Great start but wrong deduction. If you are fully God then no, you do not sin. But if you are fully man then yes, you can sin.

Remember, Christ didn’t come here to live the life of “a God”, he came here to live the life of “a man”. He was able to do everything a man was able to do. He could thirst, he could get hungry, and he could be tempted to sin.

God doesn’t get hungry, thirsty, or tempted to sin, but Jesus didn’t arrive on earth in his pre-incarnate state. He arrived on earth as a man.

God can not die.

Correct.

Man can die.

Correct.

It is impossible to be able to die and at the same time not able to die.

Jesus the man died on the cross. It wasn’t the pre-incarnate Christ on the cross. If it were, they wouldn’t have been able to look upon him, let alone nail him to a cross!

You forget that Jesus emptied himself…that is, he did not take advantage of his Divine attributes.

There’s a lot more to it then this but it would get us off topic. I suspect that when you say “die” you’re somehow inferring Jesus “ceased to exist”. As men, we die in the flesh but we do not cease to exist.

It is a pagan idea that someone can be a not man and God.

I don’t see why. The Father is not man and God at the same time. And as for God, the pagans had their own. That doesn't mean Deity is a "pagan idea".

That is exactly the same lie told Eve. He said she could become a god (Gen 3:5) and she fell for it. Same damnable lie dominating Christian doctrine today.

Correct. Neither man nor woman can become God, but God can become man.

As yourself pointed out, Jesus did not fall for the same lie (Phil 2:6-8).

Jesus was not a man that became God.

Man is created, God is not.


By the way, had Phil 2:6 read, "who being god..." I'd say you might have something. But it says he was in the form of God.

The word you're looking for here is morphē (μορφή) which means form, appearance or shape. I don’t think there is anyone or anything in heaven that would have the audacity to take on the form, shape or appearance of God except God.

Think about it Rrobs. Do you honestly believe there was another, separate entity running around in heaven taking on the shape or form of God? Let’s forget the brazen audacity. How would a created entity even have the capacity to do such a thing in the first place?

Every word in the scriptures is important. You are in effect dropping the words "in the form of." I do believe there is something in the book of Revelation about changing God's word.

There is also something about changing established doctrines. What you have just espoused has nothing to do with the Trinity. We don’t believe man became God but that God became a man. We also believe you may not be man and God at the same time and I see nothing “pagan” about the concept. Lastly, you’ll read nothing about God dying, or by wrong implication “ceasing to exist” in any doctrine concerning the Trinity unless the supposed doctrine was written by a skeptic or Unitarian.

If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that Eve's answer to the devil omitted words that God told her. She also added words as well as changed words. That is pretty much what is required to promote the trinity.

Nah, Changing, adding, and/or omitting words are what’s required to promote a distortion of the Trinity. As it is, it appears to be the only "effective" way Unitarians can argue against it.

There is no point in trying to explain the trinity. Even the staunchest trinitarian scholars readily admit it can not be explained.

God cannot be explained and the Trinity doctrine makes no attempt to do so. He is above our reason. In fact, if you have a God you can explain and understand, then your God is not the God of scripture. I could ask an amoeba to explain humans to his buddies and I wouldn’t come close to how difficult it is for a human being to explain God.

As for the Trinity doctrine it’s not all that difficult. If "Trinitarian scholars" had stated that the Trinity doctrine could not be explained they would not have written an explanation of the doctrine. There are plenty of Trinitarians on this forum that understand the doctrine in its entirety, but none of them, as far as I know, make an attempt to explain God. For that you have to go to the Unitarians, and for some reason they appear to explain a God in their own image which looks suspiciously like Zeus or Thor.

The problem is that no matter how often Trinitarians point to a horse Unitarians will enthusiastically paint a zebra.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Trinity). Two articles provide backup for this:
There's a number of distinct Jesuses in the NT, one each for Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, for a start.

And none of them is part of the Trinity. All the five versions above have a Jesus who expressly denies he's God, for a start. As you may know, the Trinity doctrine didn't exist until late in the 4th century CE, so none of the NT authors nor any of their Jesuses had ever heard of it eg (and there are many more examples):

Paul: Philippians 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Mark 12:28 [...] asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “[...] The Lord our God, the Lord is one; [...] 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
Matthew 24: 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 17: 3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him." - Colossians 1:16
Jesus as maker of the material universe is an idea from Gnosticism, in which God is thought of as pure spirit and seriously remote from it, and the demiurge, in this case Jesus, is the intermediary who created the material world and is the mediator between it and God. This is Paul's view, and John's Jesus says he'd always been with God in heaven before he came to earth. The Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke are silent on the point.
The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being?
To make the point about distinct Jesuses, the first we meet in historical order is that of Paul, a being whom Paul never met in life, but only in visions. Paul's Jesus has an earthly biography that is so slight, it'll fit in a line or two. For example, his parents are never named, the charges leading to the crucifixion are never specified, he even suggests Jesus wasn't called Jesus until after his death (Philippians 2:9-10). Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew, born without virgins, annunciations or signs in the heavens or mentions of Bethlehem, Egypt, massacres &c. He's not the genetic son of God but becomes the son when adopted by God at his baptism, on the model of God's adoption of King David in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33). At his crucifixion he's a dejected and defeated figure. By contrast, while the authors of Matthew and Luke borrow Mark (synoptically) for the spine of their stories, their Jesus is conceived in the Greek manner, divine insemination, with annunciations, portents, and a number of maneuvers designed to portray Jesus as fulfilling what their authors considered to be messianic prophesies, so eg he has to get to Egypt so he can 'come out of Egypt' (Matthew 2:15, perhaps referring to Micah 7:15 or Psalm 68:31) and much more. Jesus at the Crucifixion is much more self-aware; and by the time we get to John's Jesus he's like the master of ceremonies. John's Jesus is notably more opposed to the Jews. as is consistent with the observation that at this time (c. 100 CE) Christianity was moving away from being a Jewish sect and becoming its own religion; and that the imminent establishment of the Kingdom, promised in all three synoptics to happen in the lifetime of some of Jesus' hearers, had become too hard to explain, so is not mentioned.

It also seems clear that neither Paul, nor Mark whose Jesus is the synoptic foundation, had any serious biographical information about an historical Jesus. Possible exceptions are the scenes in Mark 'physician heal thyself', and 'a prophet is not without honor' and the way Jesus, with only one exception, has nothing but contemptuous words for his mother every time he mentions her. It seems equally clear that instead the biography Mark devises is intended to move Jesus through lists of purported messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, and perhaps include sayings attributed to Jesus (a number of which seem to be directly influenced by Greek Cynic philosophy eg taking to the road to encounter people and trusting to divine influence to provide your sustenance).

So I think there isn't one Jesus to be found.
WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest (i.e. is Jesus the resurrected Savior)?
There are six versions of the resurrection in the NT ─ Paul's, the one in Mark ends at the empty tomb, someone else adding the rest later, then the other gospels, then Acts 1. Each of them contradicts the other five in major ways. It's a forensic disaster. So the only way you can arrive at a belief in the resurrection is by faith. You certainly can't reach it from the accounts in the bible.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Man is created, God is not.
Where then did God come from?
Nah, Changing, adding, and/or omitting words are what’s required to promote a distortion of the Trinity.
Does it matter? As you know, Jesus said on no fewer than seventeen occasions that he was not God, god was someone else; never once said that he was God; like the authors of the NT, had never heard of the Trinity doctrine, which church politics brought into existence towards the end of the 4th century CE; and if in some anachronistic fashion he'd ever got to hear of it, he'd have agreed with the churches (and me) that it's incoherent, a nonsense.
As it is, it appears to be the only "effective" way Unitarians can argue against it.
Careful now.
God cannot be explained and the Trinity doctrine makes no attempt to do so. He is above our reason.
What test will tell us whether something is "above reason" or not? I mean, without such a test, there'd be no way of knowing whether the Trinity doctrine actually has that status, or whether the phrase is an empty excuse to cover a hole ─ one that the churches admit ─ in the doctrine itself, no?
As for the Trinity doctrine it’s not all that difficult. If "Trinitarian scholars" had stated that the Trinity doctrine could not be explained they would not have written an explanation of the doctrine.
It's church doctrine that the Trinity is "a mystery in the strict sense". And as you'll recall, this means it "can neither be known by unaided reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason one it has been revealed." So the Trinity doctrine is admitted by the churches to be a nonsense, even if they don't actually like that term.
There are plenty of Trinitarians on this forum that understand the doctrine in its entirety, but none of them, as far as I know, make an attempt to explain God.
I'm not a Trinitarian, of course, but the doctrine is easy to understand in its entirety once you know it's incoherent. Baldly put, it says 1+1+1=1. But whether in the realm of maths or the realm of counting your cows home, 1+1+1=3.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
There's a number of distinct Jesuses in the NT, one each for Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, for a start.

And none of them is part of the Trinity. All the five versions above have a Jesus who expressly denies he's God, for a start. As you may know, the Trinity doctrine didn't exist until late in the 4th century CE, so none of the NT authors nor any of their Jesuses had ever heard of it eg (and there are many more examples):

Paul: Philippians 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Mark 12:28 [...] asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “[...] The Lord our God, the Lord is one; [...] 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
Matthew 24: 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 17: 3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

Jesus as maker of the material universe is an idea from Gnosticism, in which God is thought of as pure spirit and seriously remote from it, and the demiurge, in this case Jesus, is the intermediary who created the material world and is the mediator between it and God. This is Paul's view, and John's Jesus says he'd always been with God in heaven before he came to earth. The Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke are silent on the point.
To make the point about distinct Jesuses, the first we meet in historical order is that of Paul, a being whom Paul never met in life, but only in visions. Paul's Jesus has an earthly biography that is so slight, it'll fit in a line or two. For example, his parents are never named, the charges leading to the crucifixion are never specified, he even suggests Jesus wasn't called Jesus until after his death (Philippians 2:9-10). Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew, born without virgins, annunciations or signs in the heavens or mentions of Bethlehem, Egypt, massacres &c. He's not the genetic son of God but becomes the son when adopted by God at his baptism, on the model of God's adoption of King David in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed Acts 13:33). At his crucifixion he's a dejected and defeated figure. By contrast, while the authors of Matthew and Luke borrow Mark (synoptically) for the spine of their stories, their Jesus is conceived in the Greek manner, divine insemination, with annunciations, portents, and a number of maneuvers designed to portray Jesus as fulfilling what their authors considered to be messianic prophesies, so eg he has to get to Egypt so he can 'come out of Egypt' (Matthew 2:15, perhaps referring to Micah 7:15 or Psalm 68:31) and much more. Jesus at the Crucifixion is much more self-aware; and by the time we get to John's Jesus he's like the master of ceremonies. John's Jesus is notably more opposed to the Jews. as is consistent with the observation that at this time (c. 100 CE) Christianity was moving away from being a Jewish sect and becoming its own religion; and that the imminent establishment of the Kingdom, promised in all three synoptics to happen in the lifetime of some of Jesus' hearers, had become too hard to explain, so is not mentioned.

It also seems clear that neither Paul, nor Mark whose Jesus is the synoptic foundation, had any serious biographical information about an historical Jesus. Possible exceptions are the scenes in Mark 'physician heal thyself', and 'a prophet is not without honor' and the way Jesus, with only one exception, has nothing but contemptuous words for his mother every time he mentions her. It seems equally clear that instead the biography Mark devises is intended to move Jesus through lists of purported messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, and perhaps include sayings attributed to Jesus (a number of which seem to be directly influenced by Greek Cynic philosophy eg taking to the road to encounter people and trusting to divine influence to provide your sustenance).

So I think there isn't one Jesus to be found.
There are six versions of the resurrection in the NT ─ Paul's, the one in Mark ends at the empty tomb, someone else adding the rest later, then the other gospels, then Acts 1. Each of them contradicts the other five in major ways. It's a forensic disaster. So the only way you can arrive at a belief in the resurrection is by faith. You certainly can't reach it from the accounts in the bible.

Wow. That's a load. Jesus is Risen in all four Gospels. Any alleged contradictions don't involve the resurrection, but people or events surrounding the resurrection. In addition, if you place those alleged contradictions on a timeline (i.e. first there was one angel who appeared and then perhaps 30 seconds later or whatever another one appeared - that sort of thing), then the discrepancies disappear. There's also any number of websites that answer those contradictions.

And I'll stick with the examples I posted in the introductions. Jesus said he was "I am" (John 8:58), and if you do a thorough study on "THE Angel (Hebrew: 'messenger') of the Lord" in the Old Testament - in the burning bush - there's considerable evidence that's the pre-incarnate Jesus
Christ. Examples in the link below.

Angel of the LORD | Precept Austin

Cheers...
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus created "all things." If "all things" is taken to mean the universe we have a huge problem. That problem is in verse 15.

Col 1:15,

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
First of all, Jesus is called the image of God, not God. Remember when the Pharisees tempted Jesus about paying taxes? Jesus asked for a coin then asked them whose "image" was on the coin. They correctly answered Caesar. Did Jesus or any or the Pharisees understand that to say that the image and Caesar were one and the same entity? Of course not! By definition an image of something is not actually that something.

But that's not the real problem with assuming the verse 16 says Jesus created the universe. The problem is in the second half of verse 15 where it says Jesus is, the firstborn of every creature. The word "created" in verse 16 and "creature" in verse 15 come from the same Greek word, ktisis. Of course in verse 15 it is a noun and in verse 16 a verb, but they are the same word.

So here is the problem. If Jesus created the universe how could he have been the firstborn of that creation? Did God create Himself?

God bless.

Hi. I'll just address one of your points - the "firstborn" issue. From CARM:

"
Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created," and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn," and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo, and it is not used here.

Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first-born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him . . . I also shall make him My first-born." (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence."

Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation" | CARM.org

That's the answer. God bless!
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Not likely in the literal sense, although one can say that each of us have a "piece" of God in us, which many call the "soul".

The Trinitarian concept has been covered many times here at RF, and the one thing I usually point out is that this was a highly contentious concept that certainly was not universal in the early Church. Matter of fact, there's a compromise in it that was put in to bring those within the Arianism camp into the fold. Taken literally, it actually defies logic. Taken figuratively, which I do, then it can make sense.

Certainly, Jesus is not the Father. At one point, for example, Jesus says he doesn't know when the end of times will be and that only the Father knows for sure. Therefore, Jesus is not omniscient if we go by that statement and some other questions he periodically asked.

The issue of "incarnate" is interesting since the use of "essence" is important here, namely that it was believed in the early Church that Jesus was of the "essence" of God. This is a Hellenized concept used extensively in the N.T. even though the word "essence" itself is not used.

Jesus was a person, born of a woman, with human qualities. But when we inject "essence" into this, that changes things dramatically. Jesus did not just speak as a Jewish man who lived almost 2000 years ago but as the "essence" of God on Earth according to the Trinitarian concept. To the extent that this is true, I do not know, but I do believe with reservations, but there's no doubt that his message was truly important and significant. There's much more to be said about this, but I'll stop here on this.

I don't know because there simply is no way of knowing that this actually occurred. Yes, there are the testimonies, but are they the byproduct of what actually happen or some dream(s)?

Dreams back then were often considered "visions", so it's hypothetically possible that these "visions" may have been a byproduct of a consortium of dreams. And if one checks it out, the four gospels do not agree with each other on this as no two of them match. However, something unusual happened, no doubt.

To the literalist, what I write above is not going to go over well, but I've never been a scriptural literalist. When I first started teaching, I taught history, and one thing one quickly learns when doing the research is that what we read are people's take on what supposedly happened.

With scripture, it's even more complicated because of time (almost 2000 years ago), authorship (often unknown), and subjectivity (the authors were clearly writing from the paradigm of being believers). Put the three together, and there's plenty of reason why using a literalistic approach really doesn't make much sense, imo.

Anyhow, I gotta stop as I'm leaving shortly.

Thanks for your views. I'll just address two points - where you said "Jesus is not the Father". I'll post that diagram later.

As for Jesus not being omniscient - there are examples in the OP link where Jesus did have omniscient knowledge. But like Philippians chapter 2:6-7 notes, Jesus... "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage, rather he made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant."

So that's Jesus in his human nature not being omniscient. A good study of the miraculous nature of Jesus can be found when reading about the Holy Spirit empowering Jesus.

Here's the diagram:

trinity.gif


God bless!
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Hi. I'll just address one of your points - the "firstborn" issue. From CARM:

"
Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first created," and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn," and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo, and it is not used here.

Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first-born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him . . . I also shall make him My first-born." (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family, was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence."

Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation" | CARM.org

That's the answer. God bless!

You don't seem to be aware that Psalms wasn't written in greek
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Thanks for your views. I'll just address two points - where you said "Jesus is not the Father". I'll post that diagram later.

As for Jesus not being omniscient - there are examples in the OP link where Jesus did have omniscient knowledge. But like Philippians chapter 2:6-7 notes, Jesus... "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage, rather he made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant."

So that's Jesus in his human nature not being omniscient. A good study of the miraculous nature of Jesus can be found when reading about the Holy Spirit empowering Jesus.

Here's the diagram:

trinity.gif


God bless!

That's trinitarian crap, what does it take to convince you that that's not in the Bible????
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wow. That's a load. Jesus is Risen in all four Gospels.
And in Paul, and in Acts.

But the aim of examining ancient documents is not to show that they're accurate reports of historical events, but to test whether they are or not.

If I tell you of a resurrection that occurred in 1998 ─ about as far in time from the Crucifixion as Paul was in writing his account ─ and then I add that I never met this person, wasn't there when it happened, haven't mentioned it till now, but these days talk about it to make my living, do you thereupon assume I'm telling the truth? Or what if I said it happened in 1977, about as distant in time as the author or Mark was? Or 1952, about as distant in time as the author of John was? Why would you believe anyone whose life functions had irreversibly failed would come back to life at all? When there's no one who even claims to have seen it, just all these tales? When there's no contemporary report of it, no independent report of it?

And then you meet some other people who may or may not have spoken to me, or to my unidentified source, and they tell you a similar story, but no two versions agree, all differ from each other in major ways? Does that incline you to accept the report and believe it, or does it increase your natural doubts?
There's also any number of websites that answer those contradictions.
The job of the apologist is to sell belief, not to offer an objective, rational and skeptical analysis ─ the difference, you might say, between a salesman and a person who sought to make accurate statements about reality on the basis of reasoned enquiry.

On the other hand, you live in a free country and I don't argue with your right to believe whatever you want.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Trinity). Two articles provide backup for this:

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture
Jesus Must be Jehovah

The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him." - Colossians 1:16

The Bible also says that Jesus existed as God BEFORE his incarnation as a man (Philippians 2:5-7, etc.).

The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being? WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest (i.e. is Jesus the resurrected Savior)?

I think that in our inner religious experience Jesus is God. But that representation of God has two significant aspects: he is visible and he has a name. God cannot be seen and as such often inspires more a sense of fear and awe. Jesus has these qualities but as he is visible this creates an experience of God "toned down" by human limitations.

By giving God as a human a name it further limits God and identifies Him as mortal. This makes God more relatable. His unrelatable qualities become more remote.

To identify a God as a man is a natural progression of human religious experience where a culture achieves a level of control over nature. Where nature predominates, a potentially non-friendly God presides. Where culture significantly buffers nature or where humans are the primary challenge to ones existence, then a God must become a human.

The next step in this progression is that we will realize the a God is an expression of the natural forces at work in our psyche. We need to recognize the image of God within us, commit sincerely to a relationship with that God and acknowledge the importance of that imaginal self-relationship.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
That's trinitarian crap, what does it take to convince you that that's not in the Bible????

Well, the word Trinity isn't in the Bible but either is the word Bible.

There's scriptures that support the deity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (see Acts chapter 5 for the example on the Holy Spirit). The OP has numerous scriptural evidences for the deity of Christ, and the deity of the Father is without question in the Bible.

So, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Where then did God come from?
Does it matter? As you know, Jesus said on no fewer than seventeen occasions that he was not God, god was someone else; never once said that he was God;

Did Jesus claim to be God?

"The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.

Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.

When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33, NASB)."

More in the link.

Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He Did, Why Should I Believe It? - Josh.org
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Did Jesus claim to be God?

"The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.
I dealt with all that before, pointing out the role of Gnosticism in Paul and John BUT not in the synoptics.

Here's a more extended set of quotes, in which Jesus emphasizes that he's not God. As against that, in no gospel does Jesus claim to be God.

And as I said, the Trinity doctrine didn't exist until the latter 4th century, so neither Jesus nor any of the gospel writers had ever heard of it; and it was intended to solve political problems of the early church, but that didn't exist in the first and second centuries CE.

1 Corinthians 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Philippians 2:8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;” ... 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

1 John 4:12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.​
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
I dealt with all that before, pointing out the role of Gnosticism in Paul and John BUT not in the synoptics.

Here's a more extended set of quotes, in which Jesus emphasizes that he's not God. As against that, in no gospel does Jesus claim to be God.

And as I said, the Trinity doctrine didn't exist until the latter 4th century, so neither Jesus nor any of the gospel writers had ever heard of it; and it was intended to solve political problems of the early church, but that didn't exist in the first and second centuries CE.

1 Corinthians 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Philippians 2:8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;” ... 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

1 John 4:12 No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.​

Virtually all those quotes were from Jesus speaking from his human nature. The Bible clearly says Jesus was God before he incarnated (John chapter 1; Philippians 2, etc.).

Also, did you overlook all these scriptural evidences of Jesus' deity? Jesus Must be Jehovah
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
As for Jesus not being omniscient - there are examples in the OP link where Jesus did have omniscient knowledge.
But another possibility is that Jesus was informed by God of certain things. If Jesus was omniscient, he would have no need to ask questions, and yet he does on many an occasion.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
He remains the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. He is the way, the truth and the life! IMHO :D
I tend to believe that the "final sacrifice" is most likely a theological construct not meant to be taken literally because human sacrifices have never been "kosher" in Judaism nor Christianity, plus how can God be sacrificed to God if one takes a more literal approach on Jesus somehow being God.

IMO, my drift of what Paul was concluding is that Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary for those who believed in Jesus because he "fulfilled" the Law.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Philippians chapter 2:6-7 notes, Jesus... "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage
That is a misuse of the partial quote. The more literal translations indicate Jesus is in the form of God but not that he is God. Secondly John 1 equates Jesus with the Light, not with God. It precisely argues against your claim or didn't you notice? Even so the trinity is legit, just completely independent of such specious arguments. It is philosophical and not drawn from John or Philippians despite any attempts to screw it into them.

The gospel of John presents a creation story, culminating in Jesus speech to Nicodemus and places Jesus as the light of the new creation, that which divides the good from the evil. It seems fallacious to try to use this to argue for the Trinity since it argues nothing of the sort. Its using a completely different analogy unless you want to add 'Light' as a 4th person of the Trinity.

Philippians 2:6 mentioned in that post is part of a conversation about being humble with other people, doing nothing out of ambition or conceit and looking to the interests of others while not grumbling. Specifically he says not to preach out of ambition like the people mentioned in chapter 1. He adds in chapter 3 they live as enemies of the cross of Christ, that they are circumcisers of Christians, that they are dogs, evildoers whose destiny is destruction and whose god is their own stomach. This is about Jesus humility, not an argument about his divinity. I repeat the more literal translations say Jesus is in the form of God and, the Trinity is not what the author is talking about. Saying otherwise is confusion. Its bad theology.
 
Top