• 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!

Is Jesus God?

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Christian's are One with Christ just as Jesus is One with His Father.

The only difference is that Christian's still have to build their relationship with God. Jesus already had a relation-ship with His Father and because it in perfect accord, that is why He and His Father are One. (It's a marriage)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Yawn.
I wonder why people keep bringing up the trinity like it's the only way for Jesus to be God. Non-Trinitarian churches adhere to the idea of Jesus being God as well.

How so? Isn't that part of the trinitarian view, Jesus is God? How can one say they do not believe in the trinity yet say Jesus is God?
 

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
We see the concept from Genesis forward.

OK. I thought you might have something like that in mind.

My assumption is that you are protesting the idea that Gregory is important to the trinitarian conception because you reject various parts of orthodox theology or Christology, and so you want to derive the divinity of Christ without any reference to the ecumenical councils. To which I say: OK, that's fine with me. But I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make, which is not to say that Gregory entirely invented the "trinity". After all, the councils were at least attempting to properly interpret the scriptures, rather than invent a theological notion out of nothing. They believed also that there were numerous scriptural references that pointed at the trinitarian understanding. But whatever your views of the church fathers are, from a historical perspective the conciliar dogma of the trinity and its development is pretty important in Christianity, and Gregory was very important in the formation of it. It's to that importance that I'm referring, rather than to the idea that he "invented" the trinity entirely. The term "trinitarian" generally refers to the specifically orthodox formulation, rather than the general idea of the divinity of Jesus, which is why I referred to him specifically as being central to the trinitarian dogma, rather than central to the understanding that Jesus is God.

To further clarify, I was not suggesting that the two options are "Jesus is not Divine" OR the trinity, with no middle ground. I agree that you can accept the divinity of Jesus without being "trinitarian" in the orthodox sense. There are numerous examples of that. But nevertheless, again for historical reasons, it's still worthwhile, in my opinion, to note the reason why Christians like Gregory believed that Jesus' divinity was important, and the amount of importance they gave to it is clear from the struggle within early Christianity to understand it. In other words, when I referred to Gregory's role in the formation of the trinity, the point wasn't to suggest that it's the trinity or nothing, but merely to describe why, historically, his views were important. Whether or not what he said about the divine assumption of human nature is correct is somewhat distinct from the question of the trinitarian dogma.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
How so? Isn't that part of the trinitarian view, Jesus is God? How can one say they do not believe in the trinity yet say Jesus is God?
Because Jesus can still be the incarnation of God. No 'trinity' necessary. The trinity concept is an explanation of the nature of the Godhead, however it isn't needed for belief in Jesus being the manifestation of the father. The 'strict' definition, ie the 'trinity doctrine', is actually not exactly what many Xians who say Jesus is God believe in, because they may not separate the 'persons' in the Godhead at all.
For example, if I say 'Jesus is God', I don't mean, Jesus is a separate entity from God, I mean that Jesus is literally the manifestation of God, hence Jesus=JHVH. No need for a 'three' concept here.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
We see the concept from Genesis forward. "Let US make man in OUR image."

No you don't.

That is blatant perversion of the text.

Israelites were polytheistic and worshipped many gods early on, so the text reflects El and Baal and Yahweh and Asherah
 

OneThatGotAway

Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
1. There is ample evidence that Jesus was worshiped. The apostle Thomas certainly believed Jesus was God when he said, "My Lord and my God.

It is written that men have worshipped angels as honor due to angels. Men have worshipped kings as honor due to kings. And men have worshipped Jesus as honor due to the Son of God. However, no one has ever worshipped Jesus Christ as Yahweh, The God Almighty (Ton Theon). In fact, Jesus himself reminded Satan that that kind worship is only due to Yahweh, The God Almighty. And men have worshipped other men depending on their honorable titles. This is where we get titles like “His or Her Worship” when referring to dukes, Justices of the Peace, and magistrates. Consider the evidence that found in the Holy Scriptures:

"And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of YAHWEH am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? (Joshua 5:14)
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship YAHWEH thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8)
"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." (Luke 14:10)
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." (John 4:23)
"David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself." (1 Samuel 24:8)
"And he said unto her, What form [is] he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he [is] covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it [was] Samuel, and he stooped with [his] face to the ground, and bowed himself." (1 Samuel 28:14)
"It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and [so] it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance." (2 Samuel 1:2)
"Now when Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, was come unto David, he fell on his face, and did reverence. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered, Behold thy servant!" (2 Samuel 9:6)
"Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed [himself], and changed his apparel, and came into the house of YAHWEH and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat." (2 Samuel 12:20)

2. God being ONE has already been addressed. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the ONE God just as a husband and wife are ONE flesh.

Apparently not effective enough; because some Christians either cannot count or stubbornly continue to preach that there are three gods. And I’m still waiting on someone to show me the name of the Holy Spirit. And how can you call on the name of God the Father when it was deliberately banned and substituted for a title instead of a translated name? The LORD is not a name, Kurios is not a name. I’m just “curious” on how do you baptize in those three names when those names are not found in the New Testament. I say that the ancient Hebrew patriarchs and Muslim still have it right when they follow the ancient truth regarding the monotheism of Yahweh, The God Almighty.

And the analogy of “a man and wife becoming one flesh” is weak at best. Jesus Christ himself said that millions of believers are one in Yahweh the Father and Jesus the Son of God; however, you don’t see anyone worshipping these believers as gods or calling any of them God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17:21)

The oneness between Yahweh and his son Jesus is referring to their shared qualities like one purpose, one goal, one love, etc. This same oneness is shared between the millions of believers making the one with Yahweh The God, and Jesus the Son of God possible.

3. This is a big one! You really need to consider ALL of the verses concerning the glory which God gave/shared with His Son. According to the Scriptures, God, the Father did give His glory to another. He gave it to Jesus.

And you really need to ensure that all of your teachings and sporadic verse quoting harmonize with all the Holy Books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations and not just from Matthew to Revelations. God did give glory to Jesus; but not the glory due to The God Almighty. The truth is that God gave Jesus glory due to the Son of God. In fact. Yahweh gave glory to Moses due to the glory of a prophet of God. And the Almighty God gave glory to David due the glory of the King of Israel, and so forth with other honorable men and women. However it is written that:

"I [am] YAHWEH: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." (Isaiah 42:8)

Satan would love for people to believe that God lied later on and actually gave or shared this kind of glory to someone else such as his Son, Jesus Christ. No, the glory of The God (Ton Theon) is only due to the one and only Yahweh, The God Almighty.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; we have beheld his glory, the glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

That is an incorrect understanding of that verse; read it again. John said the glory as the only Son from the Father; not the glory of the Father. That is glory do to a son not a father. There are different levels of glory depending on the title of honor as I’ve mentioned in the above scriptures.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
@katiemygirl

In reference to Chief Agent, the Greek word in these 4 places (Acts 3:15; 5:31; Hebrews 2:10; 12:2) is archégos. It basically means "Chief Leader," and it refers to the essential role of Jesus Christ in freeing humans from the deadly effects of sin and in leading them to everlasting life.

Jesus introduced a new element for gaining everlasting life in that he not only became an intermediary or go-between between God and man, but he also takes on administrative roles as both God's High Priest and God's appointed Judge. It is Jesus who judiciously administers the ransom benefits as Jehovah's agent. (Hebrews 3:1,2; 7:23-25; John 5:22-27; Acts 10:42,43; John 6:39,40)
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
@katiemygirl

In reference to Chief Agent, the Greek word in these 4 places (Acts 3:15; 5:31; Hebrews 2:10; 12:2) is archégos. It basically means "Chief Leader," and it refers to the essential role of Jesus Christ in freeing humans from the deadly effects of sin and in leading them to everlasting life.

Jesus introduced a new element for gaining everlasting life in that he not only became an intermediary or go-between between God and man, but he also takes on an administrative role as both God's High Priest and God's appointed Judge. It is Jesus who judiciously administers the ransom benefits as God's agent. (Hebrews 3:1,2; 7:23-25; John 5:22-27; Acts 10:42,43; John 6:39,40)
Chief agent, God, the Creator, yes these are all very ''normal'' titles to ascribe to people ..:D
Anyways ,back to seriousness, this presents problems for OT interpretation, like I said before. Namely that the method of telling whether a title is literal deific meaning, or simply glorifying someone with descriptive words becomes entirely subjective.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
Chief agent, God, the Creator, yes these are all very ''normal'' titles to ascribe to people ..:D
Anyways ,back to seriousness, this presents problems for OT interpretation, like I said before. Namely that the method of telling whether a title is literal deific meaning, or simply glorifying someone with descriptive words becomes entirely subjective.

Such as where? I mean I understand the argument in theory, but please provide one or two examples we can look at.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Such as where? I mean I understand the argument in theory, but please provide one or two examples we can look at.
Anywhere in the OT. That is the problem here. We both agree that 'God' means JHVH, right? Unless otherwise specified? Because in Genesis for example, we have Elohim creating, not JHVH. Yet we know that this is JHVH. The same principle applies elsewhere in the Scriptures. Jesus may not have even said 'JHVH' most of the time, yet don't you think He was talking about JHVH? It's subjective if we always separate the 'God' title from the 'JHVH' title, we don't know for sure who is being referred to.../theoretically/.
 

nothead

Active Member
The ONE/ECHAD HE, is the Lord or The One/Echad/Unified LORD is our God/Elohim, and God/Elohim being plural shows that God, i.e., [God/Father, God/Son, God/Holy Spirit described in John 10:30, John 14:16, and Acts 5:3-4] are all ONE/Echad/Unified LORD, that is more than one, yet is "ONE/ECHAD-SH259 United Jehovah/LORD" and this is what Deuteronomy 6:4 in the OT was saying. Hence, we have the Trinity from the OT to the NT.

Psalm 110 has two obvious "lords" for Christians, which David foresaw. One is adonai. One is adoni. Not knowing the difference is your confusion, sir.
 

nothead

Active Member
Anywhere in the OT. That is the problem here. We both agree that 'God' means JHVH, right? Unless otherwise specified? Because in Genesis for example, we have Elohim creating, not JHVH. Yet we know that this is JHVH. The same principle applies elsewhere in the Scriptures. Jesus may not have even said 'JHVH' most of the time, yet don't you think He was talking about JHVH? It's subjective if we always separate the 'God' title from the 'JHVH' title, we don't know for sure who is being referred to.../theoretically/.

Jesus NEVER said "YHWH" since it was then not verbally said as the name of God. He was in fact the rabbi of rabbis who came up with a new name for God, the Father.
Although precedented, never emphasized as he did. Only the high priest had the authority to say this name for God, and this only once a year. Even spiritually he might have had the authority to say it, but did NOT since of course the Jews would be YOMPIN' up and down and screaming as well as ripping their own garments to shreds.
 

nothead

Active Member
It does not matter how you define it. There was no orthodoxy early on.

There is a reason it took 300 years to create a canon.

Yeah, oddball ideas which took hold the faithful. Especially Greek thinkin'. Which I think you think from and I think you think is cool.
 

OneThatGotAway

Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
Are you and other anti-trinitarians aware that the Bible in numerous places say Jehovah is A GOD? Does this make Him a lesser God, or one of many Gods?
Many JW's and anti-trinitarians say that since Jesus is called "a god" in John 1:1 of the NWT, that proves Jesus is a creature.
Really?
Gen. 16:13 Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou art a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?"
Deut. 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

Are you and other polytheists aware that it is written in the Holy Bible that there is only ONE God Almighty and his name is Yahweh? Even if Yahweh is referred to as “a God”, the context of that scripture will not take away from his rank as being The God Almighty.

Your example of deductive reasoning would goes something like this:
1. Anyone refer to as “a god” is lesser than “The God”.
2. Yahweh is refer to as “a god”.
3. Therefore, Yahweh is a lesser god.​

The fallacy of the above reasoning is that Yahweh is “The God”; therefore you have to rely on the context of every scripture that references Yahweh as “a god” in order to achieve a harmonious understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

All of those scriptures that you have quoted would make sense that God is a “lesser” god except when you comes across the following verses that make that deductive reasoning falls flat on its face:
1. "I [am] the [YAHWEH] thy God,...Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:2-3 KJV)
2. Hear Israel: YAHWEH is our God, YAHWEH is one (Deuteronomy 6:4)
3. I am YAHWEH. That is my name! And my glory will I not give to another; neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)​

You can rest assured that all of those verses in which you quoted supports the fact that there is only one Almighty God and his name is Yahweh. We monotheists are in agreement with other monotheists like Moses, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Stephen, and Timothy that there is only one God Almighty and his name is Yahweh.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Are you and other polytheists aware that it is written in the Holy Bible that there is only ONE God Almighty and his name is Yahweh?

And you and other apologist tend to be narrow minded and historically uneducated on how the god concept continually evolved from many civilizations and cultures previous to Israelites formation after 1200 BC. When did it actually stop evolving, is a better question?
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
One is adonai. One is adoni. Not knowing the difference is your confusion, sir.

The first was not originally adonai but the divine name represented by the tetragrammaton. You can see it infered in many Bible by the all-caps "LORD".
 

outhouse

Atheistically
1. "I [am] the [YAHWEH] thy God,...Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:2-3 KJV)

That is a great verse that shows how Israelites tried to edit out Yahweh's father EL from the text after king Josiah's reforms.


The same kind of people who factually redefined Yahweh, are the same ones who redefined the concept to include Jesus as part of the concept.

Israelites evolved the Canaanite religion Yahweh started in as Els son.

later people redefined it again with islam
later people redefined it again to create mormans

The cycle rarely stops for long.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
Anywhere in the OT. That is the problem here. We both agree that 'God' means JHVH, right? Unless otherwise specified? Because in Genesis for example, we have Elohim creating, not JHVH. Yet we know that this is JHVH. The same principle applies elsewhere in the Scriptures. Jesus may not have even said 'JHVH' most of the time, yet don't you think He was talking about JHVH? It's subjective if we always separate the 'God' title from the 'JHVH' title, we don't know for sure who is being referred to.../theoretically/.

How do we know? Ge 2:4 uses the divine name in addition to the title to specify which God is the God that did this.

"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." - Ge 2:4
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The first was not originally adonai but the divine name represented by the tetragrammaton. You can see it infered in many Bible by the all-caps "LORD".


And what is funny is during the Hellenistic periods the use of the tetragrammaton had almost stopped completely.
 
Top