• 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!

So Jesus is not God?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
So, skywalker, Jesus and God are the same essence and nature...
So let me ask you this further: What is the ESSENCE and NATURE of God? Trinity banters these words around without ever explaining what they mean?

Christian: So we are to follow JESUS... not GOD, then? Why are we to specifically follow Jesus if he is God? Why not both of them?
But, Skywalker, what was the testament that Jesus brought to mankind and who gave it to him (Hint: Rev 1:1).

Kingdom Rule: But skywalker, I thought you said Jesus created the created kingdom. If he did then why isn’t he ‘Father’ of all things (‘Father’ means: to bring an entity into being; to Give Life to an entity; to be the Head of an entity group. And why, since he is Almighty God, you say, is he to become ruler over “a Room in the Mansion of his Father”. i.e. The Father rules the endless spirit kingdom of Heaven while Jesus, who you say is the same Almighty god, gets to rule a meagre limited, physical, constrained, kingdom of creation?

Mentioning the trinity: YOU have to mention the trinity as it only exists in your head.

Skywalker, have you noticed that you HAVE NOT MENTIONED A TRINITY in your responses!!! Classic trinity failure. You have only mentioned two persons:
And scriptures testifies to two only (in your trinity concept):
1) Jesus said he was taught by the Father (no third person there)
2) Jesus prayed to the Father (no third person there)
3) Jesus said he was going to the Father (No third person there)
4) Jesus said that the Father was the only true God. (No third person there)
5) Stephen, on being stoned to death, saw Heaven opened and saw ALMIGHTY GOD SEATED ON THE THRONE and Jesus STANDING NEXT TO THE THRONE (no third person there!! And STANDING is a SERVILE position!!)
6) The apostles only addressed TWO PERSONS in their epistles (no third person there)
7) The Apostles baptised in the name of Jesus ONLY!!! (No three persons there)
8) Revelations does not mention THREE PERSONS of God at any time
9) The Holy Spirit OF GOD is SENT AS A GIFT... If is used to EMPOWER humans (Jesus and the Apostles.) If empowering Jesus makes him GOD then the apostles are ALSO GOD by your reckoning!!
10) Jesus said to ‘Worship the Father’ (only one person...) We are to worship the Father THROUGH the name of Jesus Christ... (No third person there)
11) Revelation says that ‘Praise, Honor, and Glory’ is given to both God and the [as if] slaughtered lamb - BUT ONLY “He who sat on the throne” received WORSHIP! (Definitely no third person mentioned there and only one worshiped one)

Skywalker, you’ve got a whole heap of explaining to do to make your fallacy appear credit worthy... impossible, in fact!!

God is too vast to understand what his nature and essence really is, so there's no exact comparison.

We are to pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus and read the teachings of Jesus, because Jesus didn't just come to die for our sins but also to teach us how to live. The Old Testament refers to Jesus as the Everlasting Father. Jesus is called the title of a Creator. Jesus said there are many mansions in the house of the Father, he didn't say that that's all he rules. The members of the Trinity are in communion with each other. It's too different for our human minds to understand. Jesus meant he was returning to heaven. He didn't deny that he was the one true God. What Stephen saw was only something that existed after the hypostatic union. Baptisms are done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
God is too vast to understand what his nature and essence really is, so there's no exact comparison.

We are to pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus and read the teachings of Jesus, because Jesus didn't just come to die for our sins but also to teach us how to live. The Old Testament refers to Jesus as the Everlasting Father. Jesus is called the title of a Creator. Jesus said there are many mansions in the house of the Father, he didn't say that that's all he rules. The members of the Trinity are in communion with each other. It's too different for our human minds to understand. Jesus meant he was returning to heaven. He didn't deny that he was the one true God. What Stephen saw was only something that existed after the hypostatic union. Baptisms are done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[ The Old Testament refers to Jesus as the Everlasting Father.]
Father of what? Look at Moses, he was a father of many nations. So what would Jesus be a father of? I already answered that too in one of your posts. But... because the phrase has "father" in it, he must be God, correct?

[Jesus is called the title of a Creator.]
No he's not. I already explained that too. Are you referring to 1 Col 1? I hope not.....
But Jesus can carry and bear God's name too.

[Jesus said there are many mansions in the house of the Father,]
Again, bad translations. Read the whole chapter to understand what he's really saying.

[The members of the Trinity are in communion with each other.]
You have to remember that there are no members in the trinity because the trinity is man-made. There is only one God and Jesus. The HS is not a person.

[It's too different for our human minds to understand.]
Not really. I fully understand the trinity. And I can explain it in two words... "false doctrine". See how easy that was?

[He didn't deny that he was the one true God.]
You have to remember that man made Jesus God, not the bible.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
[ The Old Testament refers to Jesus as the Everlasting Father.]
Father of what? Look at Moses, he was a father of many nations. So what would Jesus be a father of? I already answered that too in one of your posts. But... because the phrase has "father" in it, he must be God, correct?

[Jesus is called the title of a Creator.]
No he's not. I already explained that too. Are you referring to 1 Col 1? I hope not.....
But Jesus can carry and bear God's name too.

[Jesus said there are many mansions in the house of the Father,]
Again, bad translations. Read the whole chapter to understand what he's really saying.

[The members of the Trinity are in communion with each other.]
You have to remember that there are no members in the trinity because the trinity is man-made. There is only one God and Jesus. The HS is not a person.

[It's too different for our human minds to understand.]
Not really. I fully understand the trinity. And I can explain it in two words... "false doctrine". See how easy that was?

[He didn't deny that he was the one true God.]
You have to remember that man made Jesus God, not the bible.

Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus as the Everlasting Father of those who follow Jesus as Messiah.

John the Baptist referred to Jesus in John 1:29 as the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

Jesus referred to himself as the light of the world in John 3:19. And this is the judgement, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Isaiah 9:6 refers to Jesus as the Everlasting Father of those who follow Jesus as Messiah.

John the Baptist referred to Jesus in John 1:29 as the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

Jesus referred to himself as the light of the world in John 3:19. And this is the judgement, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil.

That's correct, but that doesnt make him God or part of a triune world or headship.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Why would Jesus be called the Everlasting Father if he wasn't God? I would never call the pope the Holy Father or Everlasting Father because He isn't God.

No worries, I'll click and paste my earlier post again. But just because your a father doesnt make you God. Plus, that is a later prophecy of the Lord on when he's here a second tme, not the first. "He shall be called". But I know that you wont understand this because your mind is set on the trinity.

Here's my earlier post.....

Jesus is most definitely a father without having to be Yahweh Himself. We understand the process and timing when Jesus becomes a father on the basis of Isaiah 53:10... when the Messiah makes himself an offering for sin he will see his seed (his descendants). It is on the basis of Christ sacrificing himself that he can have children. Aren't we born again through baptism, joining Jesus in his death and resurrection through the baptismal grave?!!

In this same context the saints will qualify as priests in the Kingdom Age, In the First Kingdom Age the priests had to be the sons of the High Priest (from Aaron down). Therefore the priests (immortal) of the restored Kingdom Age will also have to be the children of the High Priest Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3) that one has to be born again in order to enter the Kingdom. Well Jesus is the Father for this rebirth, on the basis of his sacrifice (as noted in Isaiah 53:10).
The fact that Jesus qualifies for the title of "Everlasting" Father is the fact that those born again through him will inherit everlasting life. The difference between Christ and God in the context of "everlasting" is that God is from everlasting and to everlasting. Jesus is only to everlasting, as he had an origin... but he will be the father of those who inherit everlasting life.

Abraham is also given the title "Father" as he is the Father of the faithful and those baptized into Christ are constituted his children on the basis of faith (Gal 3:27-29). Abraham will qualify as an "Everlasting Father" as well, as he will inherit everlasting life.

There is no reason why a son can't also be a father. I am both a son and a father. My father had a father. The difference is that Yahweh had no beginning. He has no father, unlike Jesus. I certainly have a father, but when (if) I am born again I will necessarily have a new father. That will be Jesus, who also had a father, but his Father didn't have a father.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
No worries, I'll click and paste my earlier post again. But just because your a father doesnt make you God. Plus, that is a later prophecy of the Lord on when he's here a second tme, not the first. "He shall be called". But I know that you wont understand this because your mind is set on the trinity.

Here's my earlier post.....

Jesus is most definitely a father without having to be Yahweh Himself. We understand the process and timing when Jesus becomes a father on the basis of Isaiah 53:10... when the Messiah makes himself an offering for sin he will see his seed (his descendants). It is on the basis of Christ sacrificing himself that he can have children. Aren't we born again through baptism, joining Jesus in his death and resurrection through the baptismal grave?!!

In this same context the saints will qualify as priests in the Kingdom Age, In the First Kingdom Age the priests had to be the sons of the High Priest (from Aaron down). Therefore the priests (immortal) of the restored Kingdom Age will also have to be the children of the High Priest Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3) that one has to be born again in order to enter the Kingdom. Well Jesus is the Father for this rebirth, on the basis of his sacrifice (as noted in Isaiah 53:10).
The fact that Jesus qualifies for the title of "Everlasting" Father is the fact that those born again through him will inherit everlasting life. The difference between Christ and God in the context of "everlasting" is that God is from everlasting and to everlasting. Jesus is only to everlasting, as he had an origin... but he will be the father of those who inherit everlasting life.

Abraham is also given the title "Father" as he is the Father of the faithful and those baptized into Christ are constituted his children on the basis of faith (Gal 3:27-29). Abraham will qualify as an "Everlasting Father" as well, as he will inherit everlasting life.

There is no reason why a son can't also be a father. I am both a son and a father. My father had a father. The difference is that Yahweh had no beginning. He has no father, unlike Jesus. I certainly have a father, but when (if) I am born again I will necessarily have a new father. That will be Jesus, who also had a father, but his Father didn't have a father.

Jesus was both a son and a father. Jesus said call no man Father. Jesus being a father doesn't necessarily make him God, but titles like Holy Father and everlasting Father apply to God. I would never call the pope Holy Father because he's not God. Abraham is never called an Everlasting Father. 1 John 3:2 says about Jesus, when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is".
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Jesus was both a son and a father. Jesus said call no man Father. Jesus being a father doesn't necessarily make him God, but titles like Holy Father and everlasting Father apply to God. I would never call the pope Holy Father because he's not God. Abraham is never called an Everlasting Father. 1 John 3:2 says about Jesus, when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is".

[but titles like Holy Father and everlasting Father apply to God.]
No one called Jesus by the name Holy Father. And everlasting father does not make Jesus God. Your looking at it the wrong way.

[Abraham is never called an Everlasting Father.]
Correct. But he is a father that his descendants are everlasting....

[1 John 3:2 says about Jesus, when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is".]
Correct, we will see Jesus immortal and by God's grace we be changed like that too when Jesus comes back. But... again.. that doesnt make him God.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
[but titles like Holy Father and everlasting Father apply to God.]
No one called Jesus by the name Holy Father. And everlasting father does not make Jesus God. Your looking at it the wrong way.

[Abraham is never called an Everlasting Father.]
Correct. But he is a father that his descendants are everlasting....

[1 John 3:2 says about Jesus, when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is".]
Correct, we will see Jesus immortal and by God's grace we be changed like that too when Jesus comes back. But... again.. that doesnt make him God.

There's a difference between having descendants that are everlasting and having the office and title of Holy Father.

Why would people see Jesus after death if he isn't God?
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Why would Jesus be called the Everlasting Father if he wasn't God? I would never call the pope the Holy Father or Everlasting Father because He isn't God.
Skywalker, do you know why Jesus was PROPHESIED to be called ‘Everlasting Father’?

Skywalker, if Jesus is God, why was he ‘filled with the holy spirit’ to become as God? What was Jesus BEFORE ‘the Father was pleased that [he/Jesus] should be filled with the Holy Spirit of God’?

Skywalker, why, if Jesus is Almighty God, is he only the ‘son of God’. Son of God is not God anymore than son of a king is king!!!

Skywalker, is the daughter of God also God? Why not?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Skywalker, do you know why Jesus was PROPHESIED to be called ‘Everlasting Father’?

Skywalker, if Jesus is God, why was he ‘filled with the holy spirit’ to become as God? What was Jesus BEFORE ‘the Father was pleased that [he/Jesus] should be filled with the Holy Spirit of God’?

Skywalker, why, if Jesus is Almighty God, is he only the ‘son of God’. Son of God is not God anymore than son of a king is king!!!

Skywalker, is the daughter of God also God? Why not?

The Bible mentions Jesus being filled with the Holy Spirit but it doesn't mention that the situation made him become God. Jesus wasn't just a son of God he was the son of God. A son of a king is not a king but son of God has many connotations. It's akin to there being grammatical gender and being a man or a woman. Jesus referred to himself as the son of Man and one of the soldiers who killed him referred to him as the son of God. Jesus said that the Father knows the exact hour of his return, not the Son. He was talking about himself. In John 15:1, Jesus referred to Himself as the True Vine.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
There's a difference between having descendants that are everlasting and having the office and title of Holy Father.

Why would people see Jesus after death if he isn't God?

Wow, I really dont know what bible your reading, I really dont...

Scripture tells us that God raised up his son. And for a reason. Jesus was sinless all through his life, so the grave could not hold him. Because if you sin, you die. Jesus had to be raised and his father did just that. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for us. He is the firstfruits of the resurrection and immortality. And that is something that we can share in too. But there's more to his death and resurrection and our baptism. When we symbolically die through baptism (Romans 6) we are now free from the law. We are now under Grace. We die with Christ and are raised with him, symbolically. We are now, "in Christ". Scripture tells us that when Christ returns, the first thing he will do is raise the dead. Does that mean the risen dead are all God too? No...
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Wow, I really dont know what bible your reading, I really dont...

Scripture tells us that God raised up his son. And for a reason. Jesus was sinless all through his life, so the grave could not hold him. Because if you sin, you die. Jesus had to be raised and his father did just that. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for us. He is the firstfruits of the resurrection and immortality. And that is something that we can share in too. But there's more to his death and resurrection and our baptism. When we symbolically die through baptism (Romans 6) we are now free from the law. We are now under Grace. We die with Christ and are raised with him, symbolically. We are now, "in Christ". Scripture tells us that when Christ returns, the first thing he will do is raise the dead. Does that mean the risen dead are all God too? No...

In John 12:32 Jesus mentioned all people being drawn to him in correlation to him being lifted up. That is a reference to his divinity and him dying for our sins.
 

tigger2

Active Member
Is. 9:6 is usually translated in trinitarian-translated Bibles as:
“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” - NASB.

Even most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father or may be called the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.
...........................
So what is really intended at Is. 9:6?

First, the WT has given one probable answer: the words are to be taken in their secondary sense (e.g., 'a mighty god' rather than 'the mighty God').

Another probable answer is that the name, like so many personal names of Israelites, was intended as a praise or description of the Father, God Almighty, the only true God, Jehovah.
One interesting fact is that the meaning of many personal names of Israelites were meant as a praise or description of God alone - not a description of themselves.
For example,
JEHU - ‘Jehovah is he.’
(1.) The son of Obed, and father of Azariah (1 Chronicles 2:38).
(2.) One of the Benjamite slingers that joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:3).
(3.) The son of Hanani, a prophet of Judah (1 Kings 16:1, 7; 2 Chronicles 19:2; 20:34), who pronounced the sentence of God against Baasha, the king of Israel.
(4.) King of Israel, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 9:2), and grandson of Nimshi.” - Easton’s Bible Dictionary, ‘Jehu,’ from Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ. (Also p. 331, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House, 1982.)

So four different men, worshipers of the one true God, Jehovah, were named ‘He is Jehovah’ in the Holy Scriptures! This popular Israelite name obviously was not intended to describe the person who bore it!

“Now Malchiel means ‘God is king,’ ... Gedaliah ‘Jehovah is great,’ Zerahiah ‘Jehovah hath risen in splendor,’ Jehozadak ‘Jehovah is righteous,’ and Joel, if a compound name, ‘Jehovah is God.’ A moment’s reflection makes clear that these names do not describe the persons who bear them, but in every case speak of God. ....

"[Early in the 9th century B.C.] .... it was conventional for the king of Judah to have for his name a sentence with Jehovah as its subject. .... During the five centuries and a half, beginning near the close of Solomon’s reign and extending to the end of Nehemiah’s administration, 22 high priests held office, so far as their names have been preserved in the records. Of these pontiffs 17 bear names which are sentences with Jehovah as subject, and another is a sentence with El [God] as subject. .... evidently the priests of Jehovah’s temple at Jerusalem not only recognized the appropriateness for themselves and their families of names possessing a general religious character, but came to favor such as expressly mentioned God, especially those which mentioned God by His name of Jehovah.” - p. 2115, Vol. 3, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.


Another important detail about personal names is that those names composed of more than one Hebrew word (e.g., Immanuel; Isaiah; Michael; Jehoshabeath; etc.) is that minor words such as prepositions ('of',' 'in,' 'with', 'on,' etc.) and some verbs such as 'is,' 'are,' etc. are omitted in the scriptures.
For instance, two well-known Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982. And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - Elimelech – Kveller .

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.” And no scholar ever claims that it means that Elimelech himself was "God King."

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.
But perhaps most instructive of all is the compound name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz
: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’” - TLB. - - “They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.” - NLV.

And trinitarian John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:
“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:
“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

Of course it could also be honestly translated:
“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a]“quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]“For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a few trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
I would hazard a guess that skywalker is not a real poster here. The posting from skywalker are simply antagonistic - please do not take this poster with any seriousness in regard to attempting to make ‘him’ understand / but rather, to strengthen your faith against trinity.

It is quite clear that skywalker is not taking any notice of what is clear and concise information against what ‘he’ says - please try to take ‘his’ responses with a pinch of salt.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
So it is clear, even to a few trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
The word ‘necesarily’ is extreme overkill.
  • Isa. 9:6 does not imply Jesus is Jehovah - and in no way could it since the person involved, the baby, is even yet to be born... and Jehovah God is not born
But that information is only fir true believers as ones such as skywalker will just ignore the trut and maintain the fallacy. He and his type are not out to debate the faith nor even to defend trinity... they are purely out to frustrate their opponent - nothing more!
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The word ‘necesarily’ is extreme overkill.
  • Isa. 9:6 does not imply Jesus is Jehovah - and in no way could it since the person involved, the baby, is even yet to be born... and Jehovah God is not born
But that information is only fir true believers as ones such as skywalker will just ignore the trut and maintain the fallacy. He and his type are not out to debate the faith nor even to defend trinity... they are purely out to frustrate their opponent - nothing more!

It does imply that Jesus is Yahweh, because the verse is a prediction about who the baby who will be born in the future will be. Jehovah is not born, He is self existing, but the second member of the Trinity chose to be born.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
It does imply that Jesus is Yahweh, because the verse is a prediction about who the baby who will be born in the future will be. Jehovah is not born, He is self existing, but the second member of the Trinity chose to be born.

That is correct @Skywalker, however they will not respond directly to your statement nor will they respond to your questions.

It's now what, 837 posts and counting? And none of the "Jesus ain't God" crowd has been able to answer the Opening Post. Nor will they be able to.

As stated in post #43:

As @74x12 pointed out earlier, God is the source of love:
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.. (1 John 4:8)

And we also know how the ultimate in greater love is shown:
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. (John 15:13)

And to drive the point I am about to make a little further, we know a servant is not greater than his master:

Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' (John 15:20)

Now, with this in mind...that scripture is authoritative...we come back to our premise that Jesus is not God and Romans 5:8:

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

It is Christ who died, but it is God that shows the love. How? By having His son die! So it is the Son who shows greater love for mankind than God, because there is no greater love than dying for your friends!!

How is that possible when you accept as authoritative that God is the source of love, the servant is not greater than the master and "Jesus is not God"? How does Jesus show greater love than the source of love itself?

This "quandary" is easily answered if Jesus is God, but...for the sake of argument...that premise is off the table. So I am asking my fellow Christians, especially those who believe "Jesus is not God", how we balance our equation.

Unfortunately there has been little in the way of answers so far. Instead, they point to other equations they've formulated, hoping to distract from this one.
I don't mind applying the same microscope we're using here, but I'd like to get this one "off the table" and taken care of first.
When did I post #43? TWO YEARS AGO, on December 6, 2018 and there is still no coherent, logical answer. In fact, we are no further along now than we were back then. The question is still sitting there, jumping up and down like an 800 pound gorilla.

Perhaps in another two years, if we're still around we might see an answer but I doubt it. Until then @Skywalker, all you'll get are unrelated questions designed to distract from answering thread theme.

I've been extremely busy and wish I had more time to devote to this thread, but after two years I think for anyone who holds the New Testament authoritative the only answer to the question is that Jesus is God.

For anyone who holds the NT authoritative but who believe Jesus is not God, the only possible answer will be what I and my fellow Trinitarians have observed so far: an endless parade of side chatter.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
That is correct @Skywalker, however they will not respond directly to your statement nor will they respond to your questions.

It's now what, 837 posts and counting? And none of the "Jesus ain't God" crowd has been able to answer the Opening Post. Nor will they be able to.

As stated in post #43:

As @74x12 pointed out earlier, God is the source of love:
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.. (1 John 4:8)

And we also know how the ultimate in greater love is shown:
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. (John 15:13)

And to drive the point I am about to make a little further, we know a servant is not greater than his master:

Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' (John 15:20)

Now, with this in mind...that scripture is authoritative...we come back to our premise that Jesus is not God and Romans 5:8:

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

It is Christ who died, but it is God that shows the love. How? By having His son die! So it is the Son who shows greater love for mankind than God, because there is no greater love than dying for your friends!!

How is that possible when you accept as authoritative that God is the source of love, the servant is not greater than the master and "Jesus is not God"? How does Jesus show greater love than the source of love itself?

This "quandary" is easily answered if Jesus is God, but...for the sake of argument...that premise is off the table. So I am asking my fellow Christians, especially those who believe "Jesus is not God", how we balance our equation.

Unfortunately there has been little in the way of answers so far. Instead, they point to other equations they've formulated, hoping to distract from this one.
I don't mind applying the same microscope we're using here, but I'd like to get this one "off the table" and taken care of first.
When did I post #43? TWO YEARS AGO, on December 6, 2018 and there is still no coherent, logical answer. In fact, we are no further along now than we were back then. The question is still sitting there, jumping up and down like an 800 pound gorilla.

Perhaps in another two years, if we're still around we might see an answer but I doubt it. Until then @Skywalker, all you'll get are unrelated questions designed to distract from answering thread theme.

I've been extremely busy and wish I had more time to devote to this thread, but after two years I think for anyone who holds the New Testament authoritative the only answer to the question is that Jesus is God.

For anyone who holds the NT authoritative but who believe Jesus is not God, the only possible answer will be what I and my fellow Trinitarians have observed so far: an endless parade of side chatter.

The embarrassing testimony supports Jesus being God. The sinful woman washing Jesus' feet with her tears and drying them with her hair and anointing them with ointment could easily be seen as a sexual advance.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
That is correct @Skywalker, however they will not respond directly to your statement nor will they respond to your questions.

It's now what, 837 posts and counting? And none of the "Jesus ain't God" crowd has been able to answer the Opening Post. Nor will they be able to.

As stated in post #43:

As @74x12 pointed out earlier, God is the source of love:
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.. (1 John 4:8)

And we also know how the ultimate in greater love is shown:
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. (John 15:13)

And to drive the point I am about to make a little further, we know a servant is not greater than his master:

Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' (John 15:20)

Now, with this in mind...that scripture is authoritative...we come back to our premise that Jesus is not God and Romans 5:8:

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

It is Christ who died, but it is God that shows the love. How? By having His son die! So it is the Son who shows greater love for mankind than God, because there is no greater love than dying for your friends!!

How is that possible when you accept as authoritative that God is the source of love, the servant is not greater than the master and "Jesus is not God"? How does Jesus show greater love than the source of love itself?

This "quandary" is easily answered if Jesus is God, but...for the sake of argument...that premise is off the table. So I am asking my fellow Christians, especially those who believe "Jesus is not God", how we balance our equation.

Unfortunately there has been little in the way of answers so far. Instead, they point to other equations they've formulated, hoping to distract from this one.
I don't mind applying the same microscope we're using here, but I'd like to get this one "off the table" and taken care of first.
When did I post #43? TWO YEARS AGO, on December 6, 2018 and there is still no coherent, logical answer. In fact, we are no further along now than we were back then. The question is still sitting there, jumping up and down like an 800 pound gorilla.

Perhaps in another two years, if we're still around we might see an answer but I doubt it. Until then @Skywalker, all you'll get are unrelated questions designed to distract from answering thread theme.

I've been extremely busy and wish I had more time to devote to this thread, but after two years I think for anyone who holds the New Testament authoritative the only answer to the question is that Jesus is God.

For anyone who holds the NT authoritative but who believe Jesus is not God, the only possible answer will be what I and my fellow Trinitarians have observed so far: an endless parade of side chatter.
Oh dear, oeste, your question has been answered so many times that you no longer see it. Moreover, what you are seeking is not an answer / you are seeking to NOT get answer therefore all answers are invalid to you.

From what I read of what you wrote, you are completely at odds with yourself.

At one point Jesus is God.

At another point he is Christ?

At yet another point Christ, who you say is God, died... God died for the sins of mankind!!! But no! It was Christ... confused... you certainly are!!

But now CHRIST is greater than God.... now that is heretical - in fact, completely false!!

Oh dear, oh dear, the created being becomes, to you, oeste, greater than its creator!!!

Oeste,
  • ‘Greater love hath no MAN than to die for his fellow MAN
Yes, Oeste, you rightly class Christ as MAN... but then promote him ABOVE GOD, who created him!

God IS Love. Jesus Christ shows ‘Godliness’ by dying for MANkind. But, Oeste, ‘Godliness’ is not ‘BEING GOD’... it is ‘BEING LIKE GOD’.

Oeste, something that is like an apple is NOT an apple... otherwise it would scarce be required to say it is LIKE an apple!

So Jesus is NOT showing greater love than the God who IS LOVE. In fact, it is GOD who is showing the greater LOVE FOR HIS CREATURE... because, remember for purpose of a man dying for mankind:
  • After Adam sinned and the world turned to sinfulness, God sought to DESTROY his creation... but relented saying that if a holy man, sinless and righteous, were to sacrifice his life for all mankind then He, God, would relent from the destruction of ALL MANKIND.
  • So, one life for all ...
  • Remember what the yearly lamb sacrifice was about...
Remember, or Know, this: It is GOD who gives life... so man dying can be resurrected... but EVEN JESUS was doubtful for a moment; you remember the scene in the garden in Gethsemane. Jesus faultered:
  • ‘Father, if there could be another way... but yet, YOUR WAY, not mine’
Oeste, the REWARD for Jesus’ sacrifice was to be resurrected into an IMMORTAL BODY.. and to receive the greatest heavenly blessing of being seated NEXT TO GOD and also power and glory like as never given before.

Now, Oeste, since Jesus’ sacrifice is COMPENSATED by the grandest reward FROM THE ALMIGHTY GOD, Oeste, How do you still say that Jesus is greater than God, of that GOD REWARDS himself with what is ALREADY HIS!!!

Seems your God and your Christ are mixed up in their hierarchical order!

Oeste, has this answered your long sort after question:
  • God is Spirit
  • Jesus is Man
  • God gives his Spirit in full to empower the sinless and holy man, Jesus, to do the Will of God (Christ: “Anointed one”. Did God amount himself?)
  • But God also gives his Spirit in limited amounts to those having some sinfulness and are not completely holy, in order to accomplish limited ‘GODLINESS’ in his name (Viz: The Apostles at Pentecost)
Oeste, I’m happy to not skirt around questions you ask... perhaps you are asking the wrong persons!!
 
Top