Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

Ahem...Canaanite woman was called a dog.

I've seen some attempts to say Jesus didn't really mean it or he was being facetecious, or testing her faith because he gave her request in the end but....he was kinda saying Canaanites are dogs. He only granted the request in the end after she admitted she was a dog.

That was an allegorical statement not meant to point out her similarity to a K-9. It meant she was of the race who was not designated to receive the initial revelation. That verse sure stirs up much debate however. You stated what was said but not to what purpose you did so?

 

[Shermana]

That was an allegorical statement not meant to point out her similarity to a K-9. It meant she was of the race who was not designated to receive the initial revelation. That verse sure stirs up much debate however. You stated what was said but not to what purpose you did so?

Yes "dogs" is an allegorical reference, but the allegory is that she's beneath the Israelite people.

My purpose? To show that yes, there is indeed a concept of being a "Superior" people that the Liberals and PCs among us don't want to admit. Jesus was indeed born among the "Superior" ethnic group. In context to the text.

 

[1robin]

Yes "dogs" is an allegorical reference, but the allegory is that she's beneath the Israelite people.

My purpose? To show that yes, there is indeed a concept of being a "Superior" people that the Liberals and PCs among us don't want to admit. Jesus was indeed born among the "Superior" ethnic group. In context to the text.

At lunch a co-worker gave me an interesting insight into that verse. It also is among Ravi Zacharias's prime directives (so to speak). It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus was pointing out something to her about her own status in her own eyes. This is what Ravi calls forcing a person to open up under their own presuppositions. He was basically asking her how could a person who is technically (in the eyes of Jewish culture at the time) a half breed and inferior ask something expected to be given only to a "more approved" race. This also seems to be a tactic of God throughout the Bible. He asks who do you think you are? Not rhetorically but literally. It is the sort of tactic designed to pry open an intended discussion on the common ground of identity. I think he was saying are you asking as a half breed Samaritan or as a child of God born with an equal right to know the truth. She responded with almost too much wit to give credibility. She basically said she had a right or need even under the lesser status.

I do not think the Jewish race superior genetically. I do think they were given privileges based on the faith of certain people along the way and the promises God made. That seems to have come at a dreadful price as they were judged by a much higher standard. I do believe they have the most interesting history of any people, are still God's children (not implying automatic salvation), and have behaved far more honorably than their neighbors since 1948 at least. I was a little confused by what you stated concerning superiority.

 

[BornAgain]

Yes, that is my argument. My argument goes further to suggest that there doesn't have to be any mention of that in Genesis 1:1 in order for it to be true. Not everything about creation is recorded in Genesis 1 because that is only ONE of many creation accounts. Genesis 1 doesn't tell us that God created the Angels, or that one-third of them rebelled, or that Satan was cast out of heaven, or that God stretched out the heavens, or that he wrapped the earth in thick layers of clouds when he created the earth. But other creation accounts DO tell us these things! So we can infer from other scriptures (outside of Genesis) what also happened in the beginning (or in this case BEFORE the beginning) of creation.

So, you believed that Colossians 1:15 is part of the Genesis C1 and C2.

 

[BornAgain]

Case in point ^^^ "I was your words we are arguing" - ??? Perhaps that's one of the reasons I can't understand you, because your sentences are not intelligible.

My words? OR your argument?

Yes, that is my argument. My argument goes further to suggest that there doesn't have to be any mention of that in Genesis 1:1 in order for it to be true.

 

[BornAgain]

All we know for sure (through God's word) is that God existed before time existed, that Jesus was his firstborn of all creation, that time is part of the creation, and that all things were created through Jesus.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that sometime before "the beginning", God created Jesus (in essence, in spirit, or as a concept, but not yet as a physical being) and through him created everything else in the universe (matter, energy, space and time).

You said, “the logical conclusion is that sometime before the beginning God created Jesus”

As we all know, we must have premises to make a conclusion, and our conclusion must follow our premises, and your premises to this conclusion is, Colossians 1:15, otherwise, it is a non sequitur.

NOW, according to you, “sometime before the beginning, God created Jesus” and you base this conclusion on the premises or assumption on Colossians 1:15, or IOW, before Genesis 1:1 “God created Jesus” and “that time is part of the creation” or part of Genesis CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 2 BUT WERE NOT WRITTEN IN GENESIS.

I hope I’m making myself clear here.

Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is not really the actual “BEGINNING” because, according to YOUR LOGICAL CONCLUSION BASE ON COLOSSIANS 1:15, “sometime before "the beginning", God created Jesus” and TIME STARTED ALREADY EVEN before THE ACTUAL BEGINNING OF THE “THE BEGINNING” IN GENESIS 1:1, because, AGAIN, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGICAL CONCLUSION “Jesus was his firstborn of all creation” COL 1:15, OR IOW, AGAIN, the Lord Jesus Christ was created by God and according to you “that time is part of the creation” ALREADY.

ALL THESE ARE YOUR LOGICAL CONCLUSION BASE ON THE PREMISES OR ASSUMPTION ON COLOSSIANS 1:15.

IOW, COLOSSIANS 1:15 SHOULD BE PART OF THE SUPPOSEDLY MISSING VERSE, ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE Lord Jesus Christ, BEFORE THE “BEGINNING” IN GENESIS CHAPTER 1:1 AND CHAPTER 2.

Tell me what is so hard to understand HERE when I’m just getting my answer from your own statement.

MY ARGUMENT NOW IS, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THIS CREATION ““sometime before "the beginning", God created Jesus”” IN GENESIS 1:1 AND C2.

AND YOUR ARGUMENT WAS,

Yes, that is my argument. My argument goes further to suggest that there doesn't have to be any mention of that in Genesis 1:1 in order for it to be true. Not everything about creation is recorded in Genesis 1 because that is only ONE of many creation accounts. Genesis 1 doesn't tell us that God created the Angels, or that one-third of them rebelled, or that Satan was cast out of heaven, or that God stretched out the heavens, or that he wrapped the earth in thick layers of clouds when he created the earth. But other creation accounts DO tell us these things! So we can infer from other scriptures (outside of Genesis) what also happened in the beginning (or in this case BEFORE the beginning) of creation.

WOW!

WHERE DID YOU LEARN ALL THESE THINGS?

DID MOSES FORGET ALL THESE THINGS YOU WERE SAYING WHEN God GAVE THIS, GENESIS 1:1, TO HIM?

I DO NOT THINK SO!

I THINK MOSES IS OR WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
AND IF THERE WAS NO MENTION OF “the logical conclusion is that sometime before the beginning God created Jesus” BEFORE THIS, THEN THERE IS ONLY ONE CONCLUSION TO THIS, YOU LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS NOTHING BUT A PRODUCT OF YOUR MIND AND NOT OF GOD. THEREFORE, I LOGICALLY CONCLUDE, BASE ON GENESIS 1:1, THAT I WOULD RATHER BELIEVE GOD THAN YOU.

 

[BornAgain]

The doctrine of trinity is given in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; and it is only as we assemble the*disjecta membra*into their organic unity that we are able to grasp its true meaning.

Loraine Boettner

 

[BornAgain]

You cannot draw a conclusion based on this scripture that Jesus is the same person as God without drawing the same conclusion about ALL Christians.

I cannot see what doesn't exist. Especially when there is scripture standing in the way of your claims! Not only is there no trinity based on the verses we are discussing, but God's word flat out rules out the possibility of a "trinity", therefore there is no trinity!

Your belief does not lie on truth but of speculative philosophy and that is the reason why you have never arrived at a trinitarian conception of God. Only with the unprejudiced mind one can understand what God has freely given.

Mt 11:25 NLT Then Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike.

 

[BornAgain]

I agree with the fact that Jesus was WITH God in the beginning. I disagree that he WAS God, and I contend that John 1 is poorly translated from Greek.

All the primarily Trinitarian-based objections to translating "and the Word was God" as "a god" amount to little more than presupposition or special pleading.

Though such faulty, superficial objections have been cut and pasted frequently on the internet, they are poorly researched and often misleading.

The Coptic text of John 1:1 was made prior to the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by Egyptian and other churches, and it is poor scholarship to attempt to "read back" a translation such as "the Word was God" into any exegesis of the Coptic text. Such a rendering is foreign to Coptic John 1:1, which clearly and literally says, "the Word was a god."

Doctrinal facts need to be classified and arranged into a logical system and thus transformed into theology. Now, if one wants to build a theology base on ONE VERSE, by this Coptic text translation of John 1:1 written some 2 to 3 A.D., vs. the original Koine Greek text, but ignored other verses such as, John 1:14 and 1:18, 17:5, 1 Tim 3:16 referring to Christ as the Son of God, and God, and not a god is unsustainable. This Coptic text of John 1:1 is the very heart of the J. Witness. They center their argument on this verse alone.

PLEASE READ THE FF:
Jn.1:1*En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos *
"In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face -toward) and the word was God."

Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in the flesh they must change John 1:1 NWT. The NWT renders John 1:1 as: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." That is NOT what the Greek text actually says! It states "the word was God." Let's take a look at what authentic New Testament Greek scholars say about this verse.
Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)

YOU CAN READ THE REST HERE, Scholars on Jn.1:1

 

[captainbryce]

You said, “the logical conclusion is that sometime before the beginning God created Jesus”

As we all know, we must have premises to make a conclusion, and our conclusion must follow our premises, and your premises to this conclusion is, Colossians 1:15, otherwise, it is a non sequitur.

So you say! But you haven't been able to demonstrate HOW my premise or my interpretation of Colossians 1:15 is faulty (in accordance with scripture). So until you can explain this non-sequitur, you have no case!

NOW, according to you, “sometime before the beginning, God created Jesus” and you base this conclusion on the premises or assumption on Colossians 1:15, or IOW, before Genesis 1:1 “God created Jesus” and “that time is part of the creation” or part of Genesis CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 2 BUT WERE NOT WRITTEN IN GENESIS.

I hope I’m making myself clear here.

In this case you are. But I've already addressed this point you are making: it doesn't have to be written in Genesis in order for it to be a creation account.

Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is not really the actual “BEGINNING” because, according to YOUR LOGICAL CONCLUSION BASE ON COLOSSIANS 1:15, “sometime before "the beginning", God created Jesus” and TIME STARTED ALREADY EVEN before THE ACTUAL BEGINNING OF THE “THE BEGINNING” IN GENESIS 1:1, because, AGAIN, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGICAL CONCLUSION “Jesus was his firstborn of all creation” COL 1:15, OR IOW, AGAIN, the Lord Jesus Christ was created by God and according to you “that time is part of the creation” ALREADY.

WRONG! You're assuming that God experiences the passage of time the way that we do. You're assuming that God's existence had a beginning that coincides with the beginning of our universe. That is a faulty assumption because scripture clearly indicates that God existed BEFORE time began. He in fact exists outside of time because he created time. Time starts when God creates the universe! Anything that happens (before then) is not part of "time" because time is something that only applies once the universe is created. God existed before time, therefore there were things he could have done before he created time (ie: creating Jesus). All of that is supported by scripture, and none of it is contradicted by scripture.

WOW!

WHERE DID YOU LEARN ALL THESE THINGS?

The bible! :yes:

DID MOSES FORGET ALL THESE THINGS YOU WERE SAYING WHEN God GAVE THIS, GENESIS 1:1, TO HIM?

No. Because that information was never intended to be included in Genesis 1 because it's irrelevant to the story being told in Genesis 1. But it is included in other books of the bible, therefore it's true (unless you choose to willingly disregard what scriptures says)!

I THINK MOSES IS OR WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I think he was telling the truth too. Your point?

AND IF THERE WAS NO MENTION OF “the logical conclusion is that sometime before the beginning God created Jesus” BEFORE THIS, THEN THERE IS ONLY ONE CONCLUSION TO THIS, YOU LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS NOTHING BUT A PRODUCT OF YOUR MIND AND NOT OF GOD. THEREFORE, I LOGICALLY CONCLUDE, BASE ON GENESIS 1:1, THAT I WOULD RATHER BELIEVE GOD THAN YOU.

Your logic is faulty (for reasons already given). If you don't understand by now that their are other books in the bible that discuss creation, then I can't waste my time trying to explain my interpretation to you anymore. Clearly, my interpretation is consistent with scripture and if you think it isn't, then you have to point out exactly HOW it is inconsistent with scripture. The only thing you've said so far is that my conclusions are not based on Genesis 1:1, but you are ignoring all of the other scriptures it' based on. Ignoring everything in the bible outside of Genesis 1:1 IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT!

 

[captainbryce]

The doctrine of trinity is given in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; and it is only as we assemble the*disjecta membra*into their organic unity that we are able to grasp its true meaning.

Loraine Boettner

With all due respect to Loraine Boettner (whoever the hell that is supposed to be), I don't think that God intended for his word to be obscure and fragmented. I think he said exaclty what he meant ("God is One"), and any attempt to make God "three" is blasphemy and represents polytheism. If Jesus intended for his message to portray the idea that he was God, he would have just said that! Instead, he denies it in a multitude of different ways. Therefore, he is not God, and there is no trinity!

 

[captainbryce]

Your belief does not lie on truth but of speculative philosophy and that is the reason why you have never arrived at a trinitarian conception of God. Only with the unprejudiced mind one can understand what God has freely given.

Thank you for your opinion. But until you can substantiate your opinion with scripture (which to this point you have failed to do), I will dismiss it as easily as I dismiss the blasphemous lie that is trinity.

Mt 11:25 NLT Then Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike.

Thank you. Now let me give you a few:

Mark 7:6-9
6 Jesus replied, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’ 8 For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.” 9 Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition.

Mark 12:28-29
28 One of the teachers of religious law was standing there listening to the debate. He realized that Jesus had answered well, so he asked, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. 30 And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’.

2 Peter 2:1-2
But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.

Goodbye now!

 

[BornAgain]

And the seed of David verse only supports the theory that it was Joseph who conceived Jesus, since Joseph was the descendant of the line of David; not Mary. Hurts your claim that Jesus was even the son of God. Just saying...

AMP VERSION:
Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place under these circumstances: When His mother Mary had been promised in marriage to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be pregnant [through the power] of the Holy Spirit.

“BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found to be pregnant [through the power] of the Holy Spirit.” IN CONTRAST TO “the theory that it was Joseph who conceived Jesus”

Mt 1:19 And her [promised] husband Joseph, being a just and upright man and not willing to expose her publicly and to shame and disgrace her, decided to repudiate and dismiss her quietly and secretly.

Joseph was about to “PUT MARY AWAY PRIVILY” OR SEPARATE FROM MARY.

Mt 1:20 But as he was thinking this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary [as] your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of (from, out of) the Holy Spirit.

The angel's opening words V19, "Joseph son of David," tie this pericope to the preceding genealogy, maintain interest in the theme of the Davidic Messiah, and, from Joseph's perspective, alert him to the significance of the role he is to play.

READ AND UNDERSTAND THESE TWO VERSES:

Mt 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded. He brought Mary home to be his wife,
Mt 1:25 but she remained a virgin until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

Matthew wants to make Jesus' virginal conception unambiguous, for he adds that Joseph had no sexual union with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The "until" clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus' birth.

Lk 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

“TO BE TAXED” or BE ENROLLED, TO REGISTER IN A CENSUS.

Lk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

Lk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

TO ENROL, REGISTER WITH MARY AS JOSEPH‘S WIFE.

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;*
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

[BornAgain]

Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;*
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

None of those say that Jesus was God...

The word “DECLARED” here is HORIZO, to mark off by boundaries, signifies to determine, usually of time. The Lord Jesus Christ is said to have been marked out as the Son of God, by the fact of His resurrection.

The English word “horizon” means “to distinguish.” Just as the horizon serves as a clear demarcation line, dividing the earth and sky, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ clearly divides Him from the rest of humanity Verse 3, providing irrefutable evidence that He is the Son of God Verse 4. Son of God. This title, used nearly 30 times in the gospels, identifies Jesus Christ as the same in ESSENCE AS GOD.

The resurrection clearly “DECLARED” that the Lord Jesus Christ was deity, the expression of God Himself in human form, See Philippians2:6. While He was eternally the Son in anticipation of His incarnation, it was when He entered the world in incarnation that He was declared to all the world as the Son of God and took on the role of submission to the Father.

His victory over death was the supreme demonstration and most conclusive evidence the He is God the Son.

 

[look3467]

Like to comment on two separate issues discussed: 1. Quote "

Originally Posted by captainbryce
I agree with the fact that Jesus was WITH God in the beginning.

and 2. quote "

Originally Posted by I.S.L.A.M617
And the seed of David verse only supports the theory that it was Joseph who conceived Jesus

Note: It is key in interpreting and understanding of the works of God via Gods view, or better understood as spiritual insight.

The beginnings, Consistency of message, fulfillment and finalization of mission.

Those are four distinct operations in the whole of the bible and of the human creation.

Being consistent then, Jesus was from the beginning, as in: Jesus had to begin His redemptive process to include the world as it was begun in order to leave nothing out.
If we see God as the creator, we must also see God as the redeemer, for no man except God Himself could redeem that which was created.

So, a body was prepared:Heb_10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Again, we see Gods work in the body prepared for a sacrifice......that of Jesus' body.

Isa_9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

The beginning of the end places Jesus at the beginning of all creation to order the redemption of all mankind, and ...The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this...

Jesus divine? Absolutely!!

Second issue discussed:
"...And the seed of David verse only supports the theory that it was Joseph who conceived Jesus"...

Consistency again: Jesus must be born of God's Spirit and not of Man.
Inhabits the body of a man but not it's spirit. Jesus divine? Again, yes, absolutely.

Anyone can argue scripture verses scripture, but without consistency, the spiritual message becomes lost.

Blessings, AJ

 

[captainbryce]

If we see God as the creator, we must also see God as the redeemer, for no man except God Himself could redeem that which was created.

Why exactly?

Do you not believe that God could grant all authority to judge to his only begotten Son (who has his own God)?

 

[Katzpur]

it is only as we assemble the*disjecta membra*into their organic unity...

Um... Huh? Specifically, what do you mean by the "disjecta membra" and what is "organic unity" as it pertains to God?

 

[look3467]

Why exactly?

Do you not believe that God could grant all authority to judge to his only begotten Son (who has his own God)?

If I didn't believe that Jesus was as God on earth in human form, then to me, Jesus would not have any authority except what mankind could give Him.

But because I believe God was in Jesus, then Jesus had God's full authority to forgive sins, and redeem the world from it's lost condition.

The whole bible is centered on Jesus as the focal point, being that Gods creation not only created that which was lost, but also saved it.

If I thought Jesus had His own God, then why would I follow Him? Isn't that why they crucified Him for?

In the following verse, Jesus cuts the nation of Israel off from the Father by stating the following:
Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

There are no other gods but the One almighty God, the Father of all creation.

Blessings, AJ

 

[captainbryce]

If I didn't believe that Jesus was as God on earth in human form, then to me, Jesus would not have any authority except what mankind could give Him.

Then I suppose that is the primary difference between us. I don't need Jesus to be God in order for him to have authority over men, because the bible doesn't say that.

John 5:21-22
21 For just as the Father gives life to those he raises from the dead, so the Son gives life to anyone he wants. 22 In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge,

John 5:30
I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.

But because I believe God was in Jesus, then Jesus had God's full authority to forgive sins, and redeem the world from it's lost condition.

There is a difference between saying "God was in Jesus" and saying "Jesus is God".

The whole bible is centered on Jesus as the focal point, being that Gods creation not only created that which was lost, but also saved it.

I agree.

If I thought Jesus had His own God, then why would I follow Him?

Because the bible says so!

A) The bible says that Jesus has his own God:

Matthew 27:46
At about three o’clock, Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”

John 20:17
“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Revelation 3:12
All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God, and they will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of my God, and they will be citizens in the city of my God—the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God. And I will also write on them my new name.

B) We follow him because he is our only path to salvation:

Matthew 7:24
Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock.

Matthew 7:26
But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand.

John 14:6
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity--the man Christ Jesus.

Isn't that why they crucified Him for?

They had him crucified because they were corrupt leaders who considered him a threat to their sovereignty.

Matthew 21:23-27
23 When Jesus returned to the Temple and began teaching, the leading priests and elders came up to him. They demanded, “By what authority are you doing all these things? Who gave you the right?” 24 “I’ll tell you by what authority I do these things if you answer one question,” Jesus replied. 25 “Did John’s authority to baptize come from heaven, or was it merely human?” They talked it over among themselves. “If we say it was from heaven, he will ask us why we didn’t believe John. 26 But if we say it was merely human, we’ll be mobbed because the people believe John was a prophet.” 27 So they finally replied, “We don’t know.” And Jesus responded, “Then I won’t tell you by what authority I do these things.

Matthew 23:1-7
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. 3 So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. 4 They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden. 5 “Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels. 6 And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. 7 They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi.’

Matthew 26:3-4
3 At that same time the leading priests and elders were meeting at the residence of Caiaphas, the high priest, 4 plotting how to capture Jesus secretly and kill him.

Mark 14:55-59
55 Inside, the leading priests and the entire high council were trying to find evidence against Jesus, so they could put him to death. But they couldn’t find any. 56 Many false witnesses spoke against him, but they contradicted each other. 57 Finally, some men stood up and gave this false testimony: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, made without human hands.’” 59 But even then they didn’t get their stories straight!

The reason the Jewish leaders wanted him crucified is made obvious by Jesus description of them.

In the following verse, Jesus cuts the nation of Israel off from the Father by stating the following:
Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

There are no other gods but the One almighty God, the Father of all creation.

Blessings, AJ

Correct. And that is exactly why Jesus cannot be God!

1 Corinthians 8:6
But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

 

[Ares]

jesus 100 % human & 100 % god? maybe thats why his cup runneth over. I respect you for being devout, when I write I convey my perception of the truth & if thats what I believe, no one can debate, dispute or change that. christianity in its infancy didnt have a bible. The different sects had books atributed to the apostles. 1 might have all of peter, etc. But it was the roman emperor constantine that took the 5 books of Moses & gathered up all of the christian books. He with his scribes went thru the 13 apostles books. mary magdelene was an adopted apostle. Constantine thru oout what he deemed heresy. Thats why not every apostle got a book in the testament. Constantine had other books written to coincide with the beliefs of christianity but with alterations that go against Judaism. Its was impossible to change the books of Moses, it had been established for too long, but christianity was still new. Thats why the new testament claims do not marry but if you do, do not divorce. The purpose of marriage was to be fruitful and multiply, divorce was ok if unhappy but if either party marry again and divorce, you cant get back together or its adultery cause you cast them away. This is an ancient military tactic. When you take over a town you didnt destroy everything, then your empire is a kindom of rubble. You take control with everything intact, even the people. You want the land, crops, livestock, buildings and the poeple to take care of it. But you want to keep their numbers to a minimum, so you can leave less men to run the town while you march your army to the next town. The reason to combine the 2 beliefs, try to get them under 1 roof it takes less men to watch them and you know where they are and when they all worship. In 321 a.d. constantine passed a law to worship on sunday. Jesus worshipped on Saturday the Sabbath, sunday coincides with sun worship of ancient babylonia. This is why the 1st christian bible is in greek, that was the common language of rome, and not in Hebrew. Jesus was Jewish and most if not all of his apostles too. So wouldnt they write in Hebrew? Rome was a war machine whos main goal was furthering the empire. They knew people will refuse to give up their beliefs, so modify them to romes benefit and you can even pretend their are your beliefs. Do you think constantine gave up his female slaves that bathed him and pleasured him? Sori, I can be long winded. I'll step of the soap box, for now.