• 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!

The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

iam1me

Active Member
Of course it wasn't. You figured you could just post a bunch of BS about our beliefs and that everyone here would just believe you. You didn't count on people who actually know better to be looking over your shoulder, ready to set the record straight. Sorry, but that's what we do, and we'll do it every time.

I wasn't attempting to besmirch you in the least - merely recalling what I have studied about Mormonism in the past. I'll readily admit I'm not expert on Mormon theology - I don't have much interest in it. Nevertheless, I've put forth evidence to substantiate what I've have said. Whether that conflicts with the common views of Mormons today isn't really my concern or point. When I study theology - whether of my own religion or another - I am concerned with the source materials, not with the common interpretation(s) thereof.
And two side notes for you:

(1) The common view of people outside of a faith they love to criticize is so flawed it's not even funny -- particularly when they get their information from CARM. o_O

Just a quick lookup. If the quotes are false or taken out of context, I'd welcome such critique and may change my view. However, thus far you are simply trying to dismiss the quotes rather than address them.

(2) As you noted, the common [Christian] populace claims to hold the teachings of Jesus Christ dear. And what does He say about being judgmental of others? Stooping to the level of lying about denominations other than their own is so "un-Christian" that I hardly think Jesus Christ would even recognize such people as His followers.

I'm not lying or being judgemental. I maybe incorrect on some finer details, but I'm not intentionally putting forth anything false. Nor again am I being judgemental - rather it is you who are making up false acquisitions against me and judging me. You have clearly been triggered.
 

iam1me

Active Member
It's not because "I'm old" that you should believe me. It's because I know what I'm talking about from 71 years of experience.

Phrase it how you like, it isn't a valid argument that anyone should respect. If you are experienced and knowledgeable, then put forth arguments that draw upon that experience and knowledge rather than demand people cow to your age. I used to hear such non-sense all the time from people in the church growing up, demanding that I agree with them because they are older rather than putting forth legitimate arguments for their positions or admit to being wrong. I have no respect for that attitude whatsoever.

We don't need to "erase well-recorded historical statements by Mormon Elders & Prophets" because we know what is actually taught Sunday after Sunday after Sunday after Sunday. If somebody said something 150 years ago that was never canonized, so what? You can say, "Well, so and so said it, so that means it's what Mormons believe," but that simply isn't the case. Why claim that we believe something one person taught when a hundred people who followed him have taught something else?

What do Mormons say to Trinitarians who make a similar defense of the Trinity? They say that overtime error crept in and corrupted their doctrine (hence Joseph Smith asserted that he was instructed to join no Christian sect, for they had all become corrupt). It is completely legitimate to point to earlier Mormon Elders & Prophets, the doctrines and statements they made about their beliefs to gain an understanding of what Mormonism has classically taught. If it doesn't mesh well with modern views - that is simply evidence of the shifting views and errors in Mormonism overtime.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I wasn't attempting to besmirch you in the least - merely recalling what I have studied about Mormonism in the past. I'll readily admit I'm not expert on Mormon theology - I don't have much interest in it. Nevertheless, I've put forth evidence to substantiate what I've have said. Whether that conflicts with the common views of Mormons today isn't really my concern or point. When I study theology - whether of my own religion or another - I am concerned with the source materials, not with the common interpretation(s) thereof.
If you are genuinely concerned with accuracy, your should stick to reliable sources, not sources as intentionally biased as CARM is. Let me ask you a question. If you had a sincere interest in learning about Judaism, who do you think would provide you with the most accurate information -- a Jew or a Muslim? If you wanted to get to the bottom of what Catholicism was all about, would you ask a Jehovah's Witness to tell you or would you go to a Catholic source? You talk about "the common views of Mormons" not being your concern. Well, they should be, because we believe what we're taught! If we're not taught something that an LDS leader 150 years ago happened to believe, it's because the hundreds of LDS leaders ever since have come to a consensus that this teaching was merely the opinion of one man. Try looking checking out the official LDS site if you want accurate information on what LDS doctrine really is. If you really don't have much interest in it, as you say, then leave there is no need for you to even comment on it.

Just a quick lookup. If the quotes are false or taken out of context, I'd welcome such critique and may change my view. However, thus far you are simply trying to dismiss the quotes rather than address them.
I think I pretty much already did that when I explained that we believe that God was literally Jesus Christ's Father, but that He fathered His Son without having had sex with Mary (thereby leaving her a virgin throughout her pregnancy). We don't know how this took place; it was clearly miraculous and it clearly involved the power of the Holy Ghost. Perhaps you don't believe that Jesus even had a real father. I don't know. We do; we believe it was God.

I'm not lying or being judgemental. I maybe incorrect on some finer details, but I'm not intentionally putting forth anything false. Nor again am I being judgemental - rather it is you who are making up false acquisitions against me and judging me. You have clearly been triggered.
Yes, I've been triggered. That's what happens when people post nonsense about "what Mormons believe" and then refuse to back down when Mormons say, "No. We don't believe that."
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Phrase it how you like, it isn't a valid argument that anyone should respect. If you are experienced and knowledgeable, then put forth arguments that draw upon that experience and knowledge rather than demand people cow to your age. I used to hear such non-sense all the time from people in the church growing up, demanding that I agree with them because they are older rather than putting forth legitimate arguments for their positions or admit to being wrong. I have no respect for that attitude whatsoever.
Well, I don't have any respect for your attitude either, so I guess we have that in common. My argument for what Mormons believe is based upon what I have been taught as a Mormon for my entire life. If that's not good enough for you, I'm sorry.

What do Mormons say to Trinitarians who make a similar defense of the Trinity? They say that overtime error crept in and corrupted their doctrine (hence Joseph Smith asserted that he was instructed to join no Christian sect, for they had all become corrupt). It is completely legitimate to point to earlier Mormon Elders & Prophets, the doctrines and statements they made about their beliefs to gain an understanding of what Mormonism has classically taught. If it doesn't mesh well with modern views - that is simply evidence of the shifting views and errors in Mormonism overtime.
Actually, I've never encountered a Trinitarian who has claimed that over time, errors crept in and corrupted their doctrine. From where I stand, it looks like you don't really have any interest at all in understanding LDS theology as it has been taught for well over the last century. You're intentionally trying to misrepresent it based on the statements of a few individuals -- as interpreted by a highly biased source. And you don't get why that is offensive to jane.doe, Clear, and me? Seriously?
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Keep in mind, John 1:1 does not say "In the beginning"...it says "In beginning".
That may be the case, but it's only because there were no definite or indefinite articles in ancient Greek. Does the New World Translation omit all of the articles throughout the Bible to remain true to the original documents?
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
The English bible was originally translated in capital letters, which of course includes the word “Logos” as “WORD”. The translators added small letters to our bible, but that wasn’t until later.

Jesus is the Word , was the Word and will always be the Word. How you came up with two different Words, one in verse 1 and a second in verse 14 is beyond me. I don’t see an exegetical foundation for it.

Is this your private interpretation or are you reflecting the shared belief of a community of Christian believers?




@URAVIP2ME seems to believe this shows Jesus was created even though she later claims it was Jesus who created the world.



“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.” Job 38:4​

The answer to this is not “We were there, occupying space in your mind”


Jesus is the Word , was the Word and will always be the Word. How you came up with two different Words, one in verse 1 and a second in verse 14 is beyond me. I don’t see an exegetical foundation for it.
Yes, Jesus IS the word and he's alot of other words in the bible too. Just because the word "Word" is in a sentence, doesnt make it automactily Jesus.

"In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
It's not talking about Jesus, it's talking about God's reasonings. His plan and purpose. And yes, Jesus IS involved in that too. But it's not saying that Jesus was literally there with God in the beginning.........

Is this your private interpretation or are you reflecting the shared belief of a community of Christian believers?
Im sorry..... shouldnt I be saying that to you?.....
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
I see you have given the ^ above ^ much thought.
I agree Adam was the first creation (on Earth) whereas fleshly Jesus came along in the first century.
Spirit heavenly Jesus is the second part of the word 'us' found at Genesis 1:26.
Because God sent heavenly Jesus to Earth for us is where the pre-human heavenly Jesus comes from.
Right the word 'pre-human ' is Not in the Bible but because Jesus existed in the heavens before his God sent Jesus to Earth for us to be born as a human on Earth, then in the heavens before Earth Jesus was pre-human or a spirit person in Heaven.
Since we both believe that the resurrected Jesus still believes he has a God over him, to me that shows that when God resurrected dead Jesus He resurrected Jesus back to his heavenly spirit body which he had before his God sent the heavenly Jesus to Earth for us as the 'second' Adam (Romans 5:12-15; Romans 5:17, 19)
Any thoughts about 1 Corinthians 15:45-47_____________________


I see you have given the ^ above ^ much thought.
I agree Adam was the first creation (on Earth) whereas fleshly Jesus came along in the first century.
Spirit heavenly Jesus is the second part of the word 'us' found at Genesis 1:26.


I really dont understand why we have to break up Jesus into two parts. I dont get that! Earthly Jesus and Heavenly Jesus. There is only one Jesus who is the Son of God, born of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Why are we adding things into the bible? Plus, 'US' in Gen 1:26 is not Jesus. It is the Elohim. Angels. Angels worked with their creator in the creation process. Jesus wasnt born yet. Elohim can also be used for angels. Jesus was made lower than the angels (elohim in org lang)


Because God sent heavenly Jesus to Earth for us is where the pre-human heavenly Jesus comes from.
Right the word 'pre-human ' is Not in the Bible but because Jesus existed in the heavens before his God sent Jesus to Earth for us to be born as a human on Earth, then in the heavens before Earth Jesus was pre-human or a spirit person in Heaven.

Jesus was not in the heavens before he was born. Where are you seeing that? And for what reason? Why two Jesus's?....

Since we both believe that the resurrected Jesus still believes he has a God over him, to me that shows that when God resurrected dead Jesus He resurrected Jesus back to his heavenly spirit body which he had before his God sent the heavenly Jesus to Earth for us as the 'second' Adam (Romans 5:12-15; Romans 5:17, 19)

I disagree. Jesus didnt go back to anything. He was now make immortal. Before he wasnt. Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection and immortality. He shows us what we can have. And that is one of our hopes. Resurrection and immortality.

Any thoughts about 1 Corinthians 15:45-47_____________________

One of my favorite chapters in the NT!! The resurrection chapter. Thanks for bringing that up.

Verses 46-47. Each version of the bible is different. YLT has it, " the second man is the Lord out of heaven;" But no worries, I get your point.

A few things here. The second "man" is used, not God. I like that part. The rest is saying that Jesus is from God. Jesus DID come out from heaven, but not physically. He was part of God's plan and purpose. God sent him into the word. But he was born first. When he was older around 30, he get baptized, then started preaching. You cant be 100% man and 100% God at the same time. That's just Clash of the Titans movie stuff. You cant go from immortal to mortal to immortal. Jesus was from God, yes. Look at John, a man sent from God. Does that mean that John was in heaven and then floated down to earth to do God's will? Look at the manna in the wilderness. That came from God. It didnt float down to earth, it was there on the ground in the morning. It was from God. It's not saying it pre-existed. Or that it was stored in heaven, then sent to earth. Jesus is from God, yes, but it's not saying that he lived in Heaven and then sent down to earth. There is no reason for that.

The Verizon people that come to your house. They come from Verizon, but dont live in the corp headquarters.

Read the whole chapter of Corin 15 on the resurrection. It gives alot of answers too.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
That may be the case, but it's only because there were no definite or indefinite articles in ancient Greek. Does the New World Translation omit all of the articles throughout the Bible to remain true to the original documents?
Hello, @Katzpur !
There were definite articles, like ho, as in “hoTheos” (the God) .Just not indefinite ones (a god).

To answer your question: of course we add articles, to fit our English language.

That was my point: sometimes, words need to be added, to make the text understandable in another language.

Take care, my cousin.
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
Well, I don't have any respect for your attitude either, so I guess we have that in common. My argument for what Mormons believe is based upon what I have been taught as a Mormon for my entire life. If that's not good enough for you, I'm sorry.

Actually, I've never encountered a Trinitarian who has claimed that over time, errors crept in and corrupted their doctrine. From where I stand, it looks like you don't really have any interest at all in understanding LDS theology as it has been taught for well over the last century. You're intentionally trying to misrepresent it based on the statements of a few individuals -- as interpreted by a highly biased source. And you don't get why that is offensive to jane.doe, Clear, and me? Seriously?
Amen to this!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Iam1me stated “….the Father had sex with Mary (Post #584)
Iam1me stated “….Jesus was in fact the product of God having sex. (post #584)


1) THE PLACING OF A SPIRIT INTO A WOMB BY GOD
The early Judeo-Christians were not speaking of sex when referring to God placing of spirits into the wombs of earthly mothers. Likewise, restorationists who believe the early Christianity is most correct are not referring to sex when referring to God placing spirits into the wombs of earthly mothers.

For example, in Apo Sedrach 9:1-2 “God said to his only begotten Son, “Go, take the spirit of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The only begotten Son said to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother." The early Judeo-Christian concept of God the Father of spirits "depositing a spirit into a mortal mothers womb" did not refer to God having sex with mortal women as with Iam1me’s claim that “….the Father had sex with Mary (Post #584)

Often, the early Judeo-Christians described actual events inside symbolic language. There is a mixing. For example, Jewish Haggadah, in describing the placing of the individuals spirit into the womb of a Mother, describes it in symbolic language. In this Jewish narrative, God sends for a specific spirit whose time it is to be placed into the womb of a mortal mother and be born into the world. The spirit is reluctant to leave a pure and clean world and enter a world of moral sin and corruption and thus “The soul opens her mouth, and pleads: “O Lord of the world! I am well pleased with the world in which I have been living since the day on which you called me into being. Why do you now desire to have me enter this impure seed, I who am holy and pure, and a part of your glory?” God consoles her: “The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.”

Inside this ancient symbology, the spirit is then placed inside the seed, and in this sense there is a mixing of the metaphysical (spirit) and the physical (seed). Despite the fact that this spirit is reluctant to leave her place. Still God places the spirit into the physical embryo and after birth the narrative says ”.. the angel fillips the babe on the nose, extinguishes the light at his head, and brings him forth into the world against his will. Immediately the child forgets all his soul has seen and learnt, and he comes into the world crying... Haggadah (The Soul of Man) The reference to sperm here does not indicate that “God the Father had sex with Mary”, as iam1me suggests.


2) RULES BY WHICH INDIVIDUALS MAY JUSTIFY MISREPRESENTING TRUTH
I agree with the majority of posters who have expressed concern over iam1me’s attempt to mis-inform regarding mormon doctrine and his “rules” for making claims about religions he is not a member of : .

iam1me says “I've put forth evidence to substantiate what I've have said...” (Post 601) but then admits that his “evidence" comes from an anti-mormon site.
Using this rule, anti-christians are also allowed to bring forth any bogus information they want and present it as “evidence” even when the information comes from anti-christian sites.

iam1me represents the silly claim that “God had sex with Mary” as a mormon belief, but then admits he doesn’t care “ Whether that conflicts with the common views of Mormons...
Using this rule, Anti-Christians are allowed to make multiple bogus claims regarding Christianity without caring whether the claims conflict with actual Christian beliefs and viewpoints.

iam1me says “I am concerned with the source materials....” but admits he got his information from an anti mormon source.
Using this rule, Anti-Christians are may use quotes from anti-christian websites and present them as “evidence” and as “source materials” without regard to their contextual correctness.

iam1me admits he is not concerned “with the common interpretation(s)” of his data while offering a bogus interpretation.
Using this rule, Anti-Christians are allowed to claim ALL Christians who say Jesus is the son of God believe and are claiming God had sex with Mary since sex is how all “sons” are created.

IF we allow ourselves on the forum to mis-represent other religions at will and create justifications for doing so, the forums will cease to be a place of authentic education and authentic communication.

The LDS concept is that, other than being very willing and not at all reluctant, the spirit of Jesus was placed into the womb of his mother just like any other spirit born in mortality in this early model. He was not given a “superior” body but suffered the same conditions as all other mortals. He was human. This does not indicate that “God the Father had sex with Mary”, as iam1me suggests.

Clear
ειτωτζτωφιω
 
Last edited:

Oeste

Well-Known Member
’m afraid this is of huge consequence because you run into the same problem as @URAVIP2ME and the Witnesses. If Jesus is created, then these verses show he was created after time, because “Today” is already there.

Not a problem at all. Time isn't a thing that it needs to be created.

That’s absurd. If time did not need to be created then time always existed. If time always existed there is no such thing as “In the beginning” because there never was one. It makes both Genesis 1 and John 1 a fabrication or lie.

The truth is that our universe was created, and that includes the very fabric of which the universe is made.

Rather, time is nothing more than the phenomenon of change. Unless we were to make God out to be static, time must be part of God such that he can think and act, and respond to his creation.

God Himself says He does not change.

The Christian God is a constant, outside of time-space, and not somehow "restrained" or "constrained: by His creation.

Some erroneously taking the idea that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow too far - to the point of denying the obvious changes that God does go through in scripture.

Somehow I think when God states “I do not change” (Malachi 3:6) He actually means He doesn’t change, and this despite your objection to the contrary. Not only does He not change, He is unchanging. (Hebrew 13:8; James 1:17; Psalm 102:25-27)

Indeed, God is constantly adapting to man's (mis)deeds. It is not that God does not change in any way imaginable, it is that God's core characteristics and spirit do not change. God is himself a temporal being who experiences events as they unfold.

Where on earth (or heaven) does it say God is time constrained???

God lives outside of time, not in it. You’re confusing the Christian God with the man made Gods of the Greeks, Romans, Aztecs and Egyptians. They were time constrained just like the men who created them.

In other words, the Gods of the Greeks and Romans were made in man’s image, not God’s. Man is time constrained and thus any Gods we create were likewise assumed to be time constrained. In fact, this is one of the defining differences between a pagan and Christian God.

This is an important distinction, so perhaps an illustration will help:

Pagan view of God.jpg Christian View of God.jpg

Everything thing was created through Jesus - this is not the same thing as saying that Jesus himself created everything.

I’m afraid scripture disagrees with you:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer and Creator: “I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth? (Isaiah 44:24)

It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. It was My hands that stretched out the heavens, and I ordained all their host. (Isaiah 45:12)​

The only sensibly consistent conclusion I can draw is that either John and the prophets are lying, or that Jesus is God.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Nothing in scripture claims that Jesus is uncreated (to the contrary, it asserts he is begotten). There are hints at the idea of pre-existing (firstborn of creation), but that's not the same thing.

Also, Jesus was accused of blasphemy because the Jews were without understanding. They accused him of claiming to be God, while he merely asserted to be God's Son - and he further defended himself by pointing out that the scriptures call them all gods. Indeed, not once in scripture does Jesus claim to be God - but always God's Son.

1. Creation is not the only concept/way of something originating from something. There is also emanation ...

In the final establishment of the Trinitarian doctrine the idea of emanation undoubtedly played a part, as in the emphasis laid upon the Son's being " begotten, not made " (Nicene Creed) /.../ (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
2. Jesus indeed never called himself God in gospels but (only) Son of God. This is not the difference with other humans because we can also call God our Father (as in Lord's Prayer). The difference is his pre-existence and divine/heavenly origin and that not just as a part of Creator's original thought (pre-existence in Mind). It's actual pre-existence:

John testified concerning him and exclaimed, “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming after me ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ ” (Jn 1:15)

He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (Jn 8:23)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (Jn 8:58)

So this was the "man claiming to be God" blasphemy. We read in the folllowing verse: "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." (Jn 8:59)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
1. Creation is not the only concept/way of something originating from something. There is also emanation ...

In the final establishment of the Trinitarian doctrine the idea of emanation undoubtedly played a part, as in the emphasis laid upon the Son's being " begotten, not made " (Nicene Creed) /.../ (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
2. Jesus indeed never called himself God in gospels but (only) Son of God. This is not the difference with other humans because we can also call God our Father (as in Lord's Prayer). The difference is his pre-existence and divine/heavenly origin and that not just as a part of Creator's original thought (pre-existence in Mind). It's actual pre-existence:

John testified concerning him and exclaimed, “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming after me ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ ” (Jn 1:15)

He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (Jn 8:23)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (Jn 8:58)

So this was the "man claiming to be God" blasphemy. We read in the folllowing verse: "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." (Jn 8:59)
Let me recommend looking up the concept of "essence", and even the Wiki article on this is half-way decent on this. This concept was heavily used by the early Church, and it very much shows up in various ways in the NT because of the heavy Greek influence and also the use of Greek in the writing of the NT and the Septuagint.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
I'll give you this: of the many attempts that people try to use to infuse Christ or the Trinity into the OT, the idea that Jesus is the light in Genesis actually has some merit. However, you don't follow through with this observation in your theology. You recognize that he is the light, but then deny that there was a time before the light - that God called the light into existence, and that the light in question was distinct from God himself, as we see in Genesis.
1. According to Revelation 21:23 Jesus is the Lamb and is the lamp that shines the light of the God. So, it is not reasonable for us to assume that Jesus shown any other light than the Light of God. Therefore, we must conclude that the idea that Jesus shown His own Light (separate from God) can't be accurate. No, Jesus must have shown the Light of the most high God in the world.

2. Since we are discussing the writings of John specifically here. We must look at things from the perspective of John himself. Now, John calls Jesus the Light in the world in John 1:4-9. Here we see that John thinks of Jesus as being the true Light that is shining in the world. So, since John is speaking of the same exact subject in his first epistle chapter 1. --That is the advent of Christ into the world.-- We finding it extremely telling that here he describes the Father as the Light this time. We must deduce that in John's mind these are inseparably connected.

3. All these themes are clearly and invariably connected in the book of John and 1st epistle of John. That is how Jesus is described as the "Word of Life" (1 John 1:1) and "in Him was the life and the life was the Light of men". (John 1:4)

For example let's just compare John 1:1-2 with 1st John 1:1-2.

John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

1st John 1:1-2
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

Here we can clearly see that the Word spoken of in John 1 is the "Word of Life" or said differently it is the "eternal life" that was with the Father and was finally manifested into the world.

So why is Jesus called the "Word" and the "eternal life"? Simple. IT is because He is the resurrection from the dead into eternal life. You see, this is the promise that was promised from Genesis 1:3 onward. That the darkness would be overcome by the Light of eternal life when He would rise from the dead. Thus giving us light where once we all were under the "shadow of death" which is the "great darkness" that covers all peoples. (Isaiah 60:2) However, God promised that He would arise upon the peoples just as the Light shown in the beginning upon the face of the deep. This He did when Jesus rose from the dead and manifested to everyone who believed that the eternal life which was with the Father was finally come into the world.

For the Word of Life was silent so long as Jesus lived. But when He died then just as His body was broken; so the silence was broken when He rose from the dead. Because first the Spirit of God hovered over the waters in silence and then God spoke. For the Light of life had overcome the grave.

So in conclusion it is apparent that Jesus is indeed described as the Light and that He could not have shown any other Light in the world than the Light of God which is the Light of eternal Life which God gives to the world through Him. And all who see and believe in Him see and believe in the Father.
Unbiblical speculation. Nothing in scripture asserts that it is merely the human aspect of Christ that is subordinate. You add to the scripture by saying such things, and deny the Lord's own words.

You further contradict Christ when he plainly says "it is not I, but the Father" - further clarifying (if there were any doubt) that he is not the Father, but the Son. Indeed, he never says he is God, but always the Son of God. He is always depicted as being on the right hand of God.

Unless you put forth a very strong and reasonable argument that addresses the plethora of scripture that so clearly distinguishes Jesus from the Father, your theology cannot be seriously entertained.

As for Isaiah 9:6, this whole thing: "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." is a single name. It is a common practice, particularly in the OT, to embed the term "God", "Yahweh", etc. into the names of men. So this verse by itself carries little weight. See Theophory in the Bible - Wikipedia

Additionally, the very translation of this verse (not just the interpretation) is contestable. For example, this is how it is translated in the Orthodox Jewish Bible:
(5) For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).
As for Hebrews 13:8, that verse merely communicates his consistency, not the idea that he is without beginning. You are reading what you want into the verse.
Just do a quick search on Biblegateway.com or (your choice of Bible sites) of the term "Son of man" in the 4 gospels. You will see how many times Jesus refers to Himself by this phrase. And to be clear, the term is inherently human in every way. For it is literally the Son of a man or a human being. In this case the Son of Adam. So, Jesus constantly referred to Himself as a human being.

So it is not at all a great leap to assume He was speaking of Himself in the human sense.
Agreed, you haven't fallen back on the mystery defense - which I commend you for. I believe in Jesus' words: seek and you shall find, knock and it will open.
You say well to believe in Jesus words and to trust that He will show you is the beginning of wisdom. Because it is self confident fools who think they can figure these things out by themselves. So, whatever you do pray and seek for the truth; for God is more than able to give it.
Which doesn't really address my point in bringing up such verses. Namely: the clear distinction being made between Jesus and God. It is abundantly clear that when Paul says something like "Jesus is at the right hand of God" that Paul does not view Jesus as being God himself.
The term "right hand" is used as a position of authority and great power. In some scriptures it is even written out as "the right hand of the power of God" or "the right hand of power" for short.

And what this position is; is a position of possessing all power in heaven and earth. This is the power that Jesus wields in glorified human form. This is so that He can subdue all the enemies of mankind through it. This is why God promised this power to a human being: the Messiah. He knew that the Messiah must have all power in heaven and earth in order to defeat the enemies that would be against mankind. So, all things that Jesus did; He did for our sake. Because He is the Savior. So, Jesus did not need to obtain all power for Himself. But He did it for us. Jesus sits on the right hand not for Himself but for our sake. Beacue we were without power in the face of our enemy which is death. But Jesus came as the resurrection and eternal life that overcomes the grave to give us power over all our enemies. Because since He dies once and lives again He is free from all and if we receive Him; then He receives us into His body. We are then free with Him from our enemies. And since we are members of His very body then we have access to all power in heaven and earth to overcome every thing that would rise against us. So long as we trust in Him.

This is why the scripture says that the Almighty took "great power" to Himself and reigned. (Revelation 11:17) The Almighty already should have all power. So how then can you explain the Almighty needing to take power to Himself? It is very simple. He did so in human incarnation (Matthew 28:18) so that we could be saved through the power that He receives while in our likeness. Because the power has to be given to a human being in order for humans to overcome the enemies that are arrayed against us. (1 Corinthians 15:25, Psalm 8:6)

And when He is finished He will deliver us all up to the Father (those who are saved) and they will be spotless like He is because they are washed in His blood.

Revelation 5:9
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The English bible was originally translated in capital letters, which of course includes the word “Logos” as “WORD”. The translators added small letters to our bible, but that wasn’t until later.
@URAVIP2ME seems to believe this shows Jesus was created even though she later claims it was Jesus who created the world.....................

I find at KJV Psalms 110 that the Tetragrammaton was translated into English as LORD in all Upper-Case letters.
Whereas the other Lord (in some lower-case letters) stands for Lord Jesus, and Not LORD God.
Psalms 90 shows God was Not created, thus only God was ' before ' the beginning of anything.
God's first creation known as God's 'only-begotten Son' is the pre-human heavenly Jesus.
Pre-human Jesus being ' in ' the beginning but Not 'before' the beginning as per Revelation 3:14 B; Rev. 1:5.
So, other than created heavenly Jesus, all things come thru Jesus.- Colossians 1:15 (first born of every creature)
Also, Jesus always gives all the creation credit to his God - Revelation 4:11; John 4:23-24,
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I see you have given the ^ above ^ much thought.
I agree Adam was the first creation (on Earth) whereas fleshly Jesus came along in the first century.
Spirit heavenly Jesus is the second part of the word 'us' found at Genesis 1:26.

I really dont understand why we have to break up Jesus into two parts. I dont get that! Earthly Jesus and Heavenly Jesus. There is only one Jesus who is the Son of God, born of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Why are we adding things into the bible? Plus, 'US' in Gen 1:26 is not Jesus. It is the Elohim. Angels. Angels worked with their creator in the creation process. Jesus wasnt born yet. Elohim can also be used for angels. Jesus was made lower than the angels (elohim in org lang)
Because God sent heavenly Jesus to Earth for us is where the pre-human heavenly Jesus comes from.
Right the word 'pre-human ' is Not in the Bible but because Jesus existed in the heavens before his God sent Jesus to Earth for us to be born as a human on Earth, then in the heavens before Earth Jesus was pre-human or a spirit person in Heaven.

Jesus was not in the heavens before he was born. Where are you seeing that? And for what reason? Why two Jesus's?....
Since we both believe that the resurrected Jesus still believes he has a God over him, to me that shows that when God resurrected dead Jesus He resurrected Jesus back to his heavenly spirit body which he had before his God sent the heavenly Jesus to Earth for us as the 'second' Adam (Romans 5:12-15; Romans 5:17, 19)
I disagree. Jesus didnt go back to anything. He was now make immortal. Before he wasnt. Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection and immortality. He shows us what we can have. And that is one of our hopes. Resurrection and immortality.
Any thoughts about 1 Corinthians 15:45-47_____________________
One of my favorite chapters in the NT!! The resurrection chapter. Thanks for bringing that up.
Verses 46-47. Each version of the bible is different. YLT has it, " the second man is the Lord out of heaven;" But no worries, I get your point.
A few things here. The second "man" is used, not God. I like that part. The rest is saying that Jesus is from God. Jesus DID come out from heaven, but not physically. He was part of God's plan and purpose. God sent him into the word. But he was born first. When he was older around 30, he get baptized, then started preaching. You cant be 100% man and 100% God at the same time. That's just Clash of the Titans movie stuff. You cant go from immortal to mortal to immortal. Jesus was from God, yes. Look at John, a man sent from God. Does that mean that John was in heaven and then floated down to earth to do God's will? Look at the manna in the wilderness. That came from God. It didnt float down to earth, it was there on the ground in the morning. It was from God. It's not saying it pre-existed. Or that it was stored in heaven, then sent to earth. Jesus is from God, yes, but it's not saying that he lived in Heaven and then sent down to earth. There is no reason for that..

Yes, Jesus was born of Mary as per Galatians 4:4.
The Jesus that was 'first born of all creation' as per Colossians 1:15.
Not two (2) Jesus' but one Jesus a heavenly Jesus whom God sent froth to Earth to be born as a human.
Jesus did Not send himself but his God sent Jesus to Earth to be born of Mary.
God sent forth is created only-begotten heavenly Son to Earth to be born as a human.
At Jesus' baptism, then the heavens were opened up to Jesus - Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22
I find it was Not the voice of Jesus that came out of heaven, but another's voice.
Jesus says he came to do ( Not his will ) but the will of Him that sent Jesus.- John 4:34; John 5:23-24.
Jesus says he does nothing of his own will as per John 5:30, thus Jesus was doing the will of another.

Adam was Not God, so God sent heavenly Jesus born of flesh which corresponded Not to God but to Adam.
Both Adam and Jesus started out sinless, Adam proved unfaithful, while sinless Jesus proved faithful.
Thus, Jesus taking the place of Adam could pay the ransom price for our sins - Matthew 20:28.
So, sinless Jesus by dying faithful balanced God's Scales of Justice for us for all eternity.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Yes, Jesus was born of Mary as per Galatians 4:4.
The Jesus that was 'first born of all creation' as per Colossians 1:15.
Not two (2) Jesus' but one Jesus a heavenly Jesus whom God sent froth to Earth to be born as a human.
Jesus did Not send himself but his God sent Jesus to Earth to be born of Mary.
God sent forth is created only-begotten heavenly Son to Earth to be born as a human.
At Jesus' baptism, then the heavens were opened up to Jesus - Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22
I find it was Not the voice of Jesus that came out of heaven, but another's voice.
Jesus says he came to do ( Not his will ) but the will of Him that sent Jesus.- John 4:34; John 5:23-24.
Jesus says he does nothing of his own will as per John 5:30, thus Jesus was doing the will of another.

Adam was Not God, so God sent heavenly Jesus born of flesh which corresponded Not to God but to Adam.
Both Adam and Jesus started out sinless, Adam proved unfaithful, while sinless Jesus proved faithful.
Thus, Jesus taking the place of Adam could pay the ransom price for our sins - Matthew 20:28.
So, sinless Jesus by dying faithful balanced God's Scales of Justice for us for all eternity.


Not two (2) Jesus' but one Jesus a heavenly Jesus whom God sent froth to Earth to be born as a human.
Jesus did Not send himself but his God sent Jesus to Earth to be born of Mary.
God sent forth is created only-begotten heavenly Son to Earth to be born as a human.

God did not send Jesus "FROM" heaven to earth. Jesus did not pre-exist. There is no reason for that at all. IF that's the case, then John is from heaven. Remember that John was sent from God too.

IF Jesus is God and co-equal with him, then why go through the father and son thing?..... Doesnt make sense. Why couldnt the bible just say that one of the 3 God's was coming down to earth to do what the other co-equal God wanted. IF all 3 are co-equal, then one would be lesser than the other. Wouldnt that upset one of the co-equal God's?

Jesus wasnt sent from heaven down to earth, literally, he was sent out into the world. Big difference!! Jesus is from God in a way that no man ever was. God created the world with his son in mind.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The Gospel of John is indeed the closest to the doctrine of Trinity, especially the opening verses. However I'm not sure if it means exactly the same. It seems more like the divine Wisdom of the Proverbs became identified with Christ.

What baffles is that the Word/Wisdom is before all creation but at the same time it/she/he stems from God - "begotten", "firstborn", "image of the invisible God". Maybe like the Sun and its light. Paul said Christ "dwells in unapproachable light". For the Orthodox this is the "Tabor Light" - the uncreated glory. For them God is not only essence but also "energy" ...

I believe John 14 puts it all in perspective.

I don't believe it is logical to personify attributes of God. There is not a different god who is wisdom and another that intelligent and another that is truth. It is the same God with all His attributes.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I believe yo should know there is an injunction against changing the Word of God to suit your own purpose. The text does not say "one in plan and purpose" the text says "one".

Im not changing anything, you are. I'm just explaining what a certain verse means, just like you are doing........

I believe, you are reading the mind of Jesus and saying he meant that even though He didn't say it. Actually what He said made sense in the light of so many other things He said.

Since you are putting words in the mouth of Jesus you are intimating that you know what he was intending to say but didn't and if you were guided by the Holy Spirit on this I would still contend with you because I am guided by the Holy Spirit on this and He meant just what he said.

I"m not putting any words in Jesus's mouth. Plus, the HS is not a person....... It is the power God. Angels can be called the Holy Spirit or a spirit that is Holy. There is only one God, not three. And you say that I"m changing things? Wow..........
If the HS was a person, then he would be Jesus's father.

I believe it is quite evident that you don't know Him.

I believe that is totally illogical. A person can be a person without being someone's father. If you want to go by the definition of personality for person, then the HS is the same person as the Father and Son.

I believe I don't know what false reasoning are you using. That exactly confirms they are co-equal because there is no way Jesus would so exactly be as the Father in doing things if it were not so.

I'm not using any false reasoning. Jesus is not co-equal. Where do you even get that?

Plus, Jesus is not exactly like the Father. He is not a GOD. But.... Jesus is doing "exactly" what the father wants. Doesnt Jesus say that I can do anything without the father? The father is great than I? What..... bible are you reading?.......

I believe yo are talking non evident nonsense.
I believe that is correct He is the same God not a different one.
I read the NASB but I have the HS to guide me and you evidently do not.


I believe you don't understand that there is a difference. The Spirit of God is in Jesus as the residing Spirit.

I dont, esp your version!!! But anyhow......

Doesnt scripture say that God's spirit is also in us?

I believe it does and that is what the HS is.

I believe you will find that God does not share His power. So if He is the power of God then He is God.

Ughhhhh....

Of course He shares his power. He "gave" his power and all authority to his son. He also gave some of his power in Holy Spirit gifts. Even in the OT. Samson for one.......

I believe this is not a tautology. I believe you are mistaking the fact that God provides His power for actually sharing it. God controls when and how His power will be used. I am sure people would love to have Gods power and be able to do whatever they wanted but that is never going to happen. So you can pray for a lottery win until you are blue in the face but God will grant to those He wishes the empowerment He wishes.

I believe I have seen it many times. I think you ought to notice that He doesn't deny that He is making Himself God. He only justifies it.

I really dont know where your getting this from. Jesus NEVER says that he is God!!! He gives God glory in everything that he did!!

In the book of Isaiah, it says that there is only one God and no other God's beside God. Your saying that is wrong, there are God's beside our Gods!! God the son and God the HS. STop changing the bible!!!

I believe I say no such thing. I say God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one God.

 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I am afraid you weren't formally schooled in Christian theology.

God and Jesus are not two gods, anymore than the Trinity is three gods.

Jesus is God. The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

What does this involve? Well, all things. An analysis of world religion talked in-depth about each of the major religions, and of the Trinity, they said there is really nothing outside the Trinity. So this means:
1. Everything that exists is of God, even things created by humans or tools
2. Our souls are part of the Holy Spirit
3. And Jesus, having lived and died as one of us, lives inside of all of us.

I believe the premise is wrong so the points are wrong.
 
Top