Is Jesus God?

[james2ko]

Long before the Council at Nicea, the early Christians (taught by the apostles) believed and taught Jesus is God. And rightfully so. The Scriptures call Jesus "God" several times.

Arius made the claim that Jesus was "created" from nothing, yet we are told in the Scriptures that the Word was with God from the beginning. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God."

Arius was excommunicated for his claim that Jesus was created from nothing. Russell resurrected the heresy in the later 1800's and the result was the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Here is how I understand it.

In eternity past, God's Logos (his Word) was inside him, then in some manner beyond our understanding God generated/begat/ emitted his Word as the Son of God.

Many years before the Council at Nicea (325 A.D.), Theophilus, bishop of Antioch around AD 170, wrote this,

"John says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' showing that at first God was alone and the Word in him." (To Autolycus. II:22.)

Tertullian, who wrote just after AD 200, said, "Before all things, God was alone ... Yet even then he was not alone because he had with him that which he possessed in himself, that is to say, his own Reason." (Against Praxeas. Ch. 5. Tertullian wrote in Latin, and he preferred the term "Reason" to "Word" when translating Logos.)

The Son was begotten like a stream issues forth from a spring, or a beam comes from the sun. The spring and stream are one and of the same substance, but they are also two, a spring and a stream.

If you are ever considering examining this topic from all sides, then you may want to look at how the early Christians viewed Jesus. You can easily find their writings by doing a google search.

When I think of the Logos (the Word, Jesus) being inside God, in the beginning, it's easy to understand that Jesus was begotten, begat, or emitted, and not created from nothing.

Something for you to consider!

“Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted:Athenagoras,Tatian,Theophilus of Antioch,Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation” To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius.Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism..http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm​

Based on the Catholic's church comment above regarding Theophilus and Tertullian, your suggestion may backfire. Arius' disputed the Universal Church's "new" belief that both Father and Son were unbegotten--both eternally and consciously co-existed. In a letter written to Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arius sympathizer from NW Asia Minor, dated 318 AD, while in exile for his beliefs Arius writes:

“..Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son; .…we are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning”[1]​

In the same letter, Arius goes on to contrast and explain the prevailing doctrine with what seems to be a “fresh” up and coming teaching from his superior and persecutor, Alexander of Alexandria Egypt, who held a powerful position in the growing Catholic movement, ranking only second to the Bishop of Rome at the time.

“ He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself,..”…But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. “This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.​

[1]http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/arius_letter_to_eusebius_of_nicomedia.htm

In other words, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the Lucianists were teaching and “have taught” the Scripture’s literal interpretation that Christ did not always exist as the second member of the God family. He was created—purposed--begotten-- established, as a spirit being before time began and since Christ did not exist at one point as a spirit being, He at one point was not part of God or the God family. For the Father, who is “unbegotten” or “uncreated”, would have existed alone. And for this, Arius’ said, they were persecuted.

Eusebius, while seeking support for Arius from Bishop Paulinus of Tyre, seems to affirm Rome’s belief of the Son’s co-eternal existence with the Father was a strange, new teaching for the Eastern churches:

“We have never heard that there are two unbegotten Beings, nor that one has been divided into two, nor have we learned or believed that the unbegotten [The Father] has ever undergone any change of a corporeal nature.”http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-8/​

It seems neither the binity or trinity was being taught by the Eastern churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Asia Minor, etc) at the time. The more I read the Arian conflict correspondence the more it started to form the picture Arius and the Lucianist were defending a known doctrine of Christ being created or begotten while the up and coming Catholic church was developing a "new" doctrine of two unbegotten beings.

 

[katiemygirl]

“Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted:Athenagoras,Tatian,Theophilus of Antioch,Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation” To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius.Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism..http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm​

Based on the Catholic's church comment above regarding Theophilus and Tertullian, your suggestion may backfire. Arius' disputed the Universal Church's "new" belief that both Father and Son were unbegotten--both eternally and consciously co-existed. In a letter written to Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arius sympathizer from NW Asia Minor, dated 318 AD, while in exile for his beliefs Arius writes:

“..Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son; .…we are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning”[1]​

In the same letter, Arius goes on to contrast and explain the prevailing doctrine with what seems to be a “fresh” up and coming teaching from his superior and persecutor, Alexander of Alexandria Egypt, who held a powerful position in the growing Catholic movement, ranking only second to the Bishop of Rome at the time.

“ He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself,..”…But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. “This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.​

[1]http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/arius_letter_to_eusebius_of_nicomedia.htm

In other words, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the Lucianists were teaching and “have taught” the Scripture’s literal interpretation that Christ did not always exist as the second member of the God family. He was created—purposed--begotten-- established, as a spirit being before time began and since Christ did not exist at one point as a spirit being, He at one point was not part of God or the God family. For the Father, who is “unbegotten” or “uncreated”, would have existed alone. And for this, Arius’ said, they were persecuted.

Eusebius, while seeking support for Arius from Bishop Paulinus of Tyre, seems to affirm Rome’s belief of the Son’s co-eternal existence with the Father was a strange, new teaching for the Eastern churches:

“We have never heard that there are two unbegotten Beings, nor that one has been divided into two, nor have we learned or believed that the unbegotten [The Father] has ever undergone any change of a corporeal nature.”http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-8/​

It seems neither the binity or trinity was being taught by the Eastern churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Asia Minor, etc) at the time. The more I read the Arian conflict correspondence the more it started to form the picture Arius and the Lucianist were defending a known doctrine of Christ being created or begotten while the up and coming Catholic church was developing a "new" doctrine of two unbegotten beings.

Is the logos eternal?

 

[katiemygirl]

"URAVIP2ME, post: 4544928, member: 19507"]
Yes, in the beginning was the Word. It does Not say ' before ' the beginning was the Word.
Only God was before the beginning - Psalms 90:2 - so Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning

Jesus clearly indicates that He existed before the foundation of the world.

In John 17:5, Jesus said, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."

Recall also that one of the names given to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6 is "Eternal Father."

Micah 5:2
"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."

 

[james2ko]

Is the logos eternal?

He was created as an eternal being so He is eternal in the sense He will live forever.

 

[james2ko]

Jesus clearly indicates that He existed before the foundation of the world.

In John 17:5, Jesus said, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."

Recall also that one of the names given to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6 is "Eternal Father."

1. Before the foundation of the world does not necessarily mean forever in the past. Notice:


It graphically depicts God the Father's solitude existence from eternity in the past up until the point He created The Son. The Father and Son planned and implemented the angelic creation and later the physical creation. Notice how The Father, Christ, and the angels were all in existence---in the beginning--for the creation of the heavens and earth, just as scripture indicates (Job 38:7;Joh 1:1;Gen 1:1).

But many assume "in the beginning" implicates the Father and Christ have co-existed from eternity in the past which is actually a contradiction, for eternity in the past cannot have a "beginning". Logically, "In the beginning" had to occur at some point AFTER eternity in the past.

This creates a gap of "time” (as God would have defined it) between eternity in the past and the creation of the physical universe. It was during this epoch Christ and the angelic hosts were created.

Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."

2. The Hebrew term for everlasting is "olam" which does not necessarily mean forever in the past in every context. It can also mean from ancient time or long time in the past (see BDB's definition). In our passage, "olam" is preceded by the term "yom" [day]. The instances where "yom" is used in conjunction with or in close proximity to "olam", as in our passage, implies temporal action (from ancient times or a long time in the past--Psa 21:4; 77:5; Isa 51:9; 63:9,11; Amo 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4) and not eternity in the past. Young’s Literal Translation more precisely renders it:

Mic 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.​

 

[katiemygirl]

He was created as an eternal being so He is eternal in the sense He will live forever.

Jesus was not created.

1. Before the foundation of the world does not necessarily mean forever in the past. Notice:


It graphically depicts God the Father's solitude existence from eternity in the past up until the point He created The Son. The Father and Son planned and implemented the angelic creation and later the physical creation. Notice how The Father, Christ, and the angels were all in existence---in the beginning--for the creation of the heavens and earth, just as scripture indicates (Job 38:7;Joh 1:1;Gen 1:1).

But many assume "in the beginning" implicates the Father and Christ have co-existed from eternity in the past which is actually a contradiction, for eternity in the past cannot have a "beginning". Logically, "In the beginning" had to occur at some point AFTER eternity in the past.

This creates a gap of "time” (as God would have defined it) between eternity in the past and the creation of the physical universe. It was during this epoch Christ and the angelic hosts were created.



2. The Hebrew term for everlasting is "olam" which does not necessarily mean forever in the past in every context. It can also mean from ancient time or long time in the past (see BDB's definition). In our passage, "olam" is preceded by the term "yom" [day]. The instances where "yom" is used in conjunction with or in close proximity to "olam", as in our passage, implies temporal action (from ancient times or a long time in the past--Psa 21:4; 77:5; Isa 51:9; 63:9,11; Amo 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4) and not eternity in the past. Young’s Literal Translation more precisely renders it:

Mic 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.​

John 17:5 does not say "before the foundations of the world. It says "before the world was," or before the world existed."

That is simple, straightforward language. Jesus claimed He existed before the world was.

Jesus is called "eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6.

Eternal in Hebrew is "ad," which means perpetuity. All translations of this verse say eternal or everlasting Father.

 

[NathanShepard8888]

John 39.27 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

 

[james2ko]

Jesus was not created.

1. I experienced the same cognitive dissonance. Studying the doctrine in the original languages made the difference for me.

John 17:5 does not say "before the foundations of the world. It says "before the world was," or before the world existed."

That is simple, straightforward language. Jesus claimed He existed before the world was.

2. Can you explain the difference between the two phrases in the original Greek?

Jesus is called "eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6.

3. Isa 43:10, Rev 3:14, Col 1:15 and other scriptures indicate He was created that way.

Eternal in Hebrew is "ad," which means perpetuity. All translations of this verse say eternal or everlasting Father.

4. It can mean forever in the future, but in isolation it does not mean forever in the past:

ad
BDB Definition:
1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future
1a) ancient (of past time)
1b) for ever (of future time)
1b1) of continuous existence
1c) for ever (of God’s existence)​

Christ was the first, eternal, everlasting being created sometime in the ancient past ("ad") who will live forever ("ad") in the future, as the scriptures testify.

 

[katiemygirl]

"james2ko, post: 4546460, member: 25331"]

1. I experienced the same cognitive dissonance. Studying the doctrine in the original languages made the difference for me.

You are still experiencing cognitive dissonance. As for you studying the original languages, are you claiming expertise in the field? I ask because the world's most renowned Greek scholars disagree with you.

2. Can you explain the difference between the two phrases in the original Greek?

I see no point in doing that. I refuse to add, take away or change the Word of God in any way. Jesus did not say "before the foundation of the world" in John 17:5. Every Bible I have seen translates the phrase "before the world was," or "before the world existed." There is nothing ambiguous about John 17:5. It is straightforward, plain language.

3. Isa 43:10, Rev 3:14, Col 1:15 and other scriptures indicate He was created that way.

Not one of those verses say Jesus was created. This is your interpretation. With straightforward verses such as John 17:5, you jump through hoops, even going so far as to insert your own words to make it fit your theology. But with verses like Rev. 3:14, you refuse to consider the possibility that "arche" has more than one meaning.

The word“beginning” (arche) can mean either “source/origin” (NRSV) or “ruler” (NIV and NLT). You don't want to think that the verse is saying that Jesus is the source or originator of all creation.

For someone who claims to have studied the topic in the original languages, you seem to ignore that words like "prototokos" (firstborn) can have more than one meaning. Your cognitive dissonance won't allow it.

4. It can mean forever in the future, but in isolation it does not mean forever in the past:
ad
BDB Definition:
1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future
1a) ancient (of past time)
1b) for ever (of future time)
1b1) of continuous existence
1c) for ever (of God’s existence)

Our heavenly Father is called (olam) eternal or everlasting in Genesis 21:33. Are you suggesting that it is possible that HE is not eternal or everlasting?

In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is also called (olam) eternal or everlasting Father. Same exact word, yet you try to apply a different meaning.

Again, your cognitive dissonance is not allowing you to see the forest for the trees.

 

[moorea944]

You are still experiencing cognitive dissonance. As for you studying the original languages, are you claiming expertise in the field? I ask because the world's most renowned Greek scholars disagree with you.

I see no point in doing that. I refuse to add, take away or change the Word of God in any way. Jesus did not say "before the foundation of the world" in John 17:5. Every Bible I have seen translates the phrase "before the world was," or "before the world existed." There is nothing ambiguous about John 17:5. It is straightforward, plain language.


Not one of those verses say Jesus was created. This is your interpretation. With straightforward verses such as John 17:5, you jump through hoops, even going so far as to insert your own words to make it fit your theology. But with verses like Rev. 3:14, you refuse to consider the possibility that "arche" has more than one meaning.

The word“beginning” (arche) can mean either “source/origin” (NRSV) or “ruler” (NIV and NLT). You don't want to think that the verse is saying that Jesus is the source or originator of all creation.

For someone who claims to have studied the topic in the original languages, you seem to ignore that words like "prototokos" (firstborn) can have more than one meaning. Your cognitive dissonance won't allow it.



Our heavenly Father is called (olam) eternal or everlasting in Genesis 21:33. Are you suggesting that it is possible that HE is not eternal or everlasting?

In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is also called (olam) eternal or everlasting Father. Same exact word, yet you try to apply a different meaning.

Again, your cognitive dissonance is not allowing you to see the forest for the trees.

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.

 

[james2ko]

You are still experiencing cognitive dissonance. As for you studying the original languages, are you claiming expertise in the field? I ask because the world's most renowned Greek scholars disagree with you.

1. And scholars much closer to the original text like Tertullian and Theophilus of Antioch disagree with you.

I see no point in doing that. I refuse to add, take away or change the Word of God in any way. Jesus did not say "before the foundation of the world" in John 17:5. Every Bible I have seen translates the phrase "before the world was," or "before the world existed." There is nothing ambiguous about John 17:5. It is straightforward, plain language.

Then perhaps you should heed your own unambiguous, straightforward, plain language and stop adding and changing the Word of God because you yourself indicated John 17:5 was an example of Jesus implying He existed before the foundation of the world :

katiemygirl said: ↑
Jesus clearly indicates that He existed before the foundation of the world.

In John 17:5, Jesus said, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."​

I made the same implication with Joh 17:5 in my graph and you have the audacity of accusing me of altering God's word? Looks like your OCD (obsessive cognitive dissonance) is acting up again Still luv ya KG..

Not one of those verses say Jesus was created.

This is your interpretation. With straightforward verses such as John 17:5, you jump through hoops, even going so far as to insert your own words to make it fit your theology. But with verses like Rev. 3:14, you refuse to consider the possibility that "arche" has more than one meaning.

3. Daniel Wallace explains Rev 3:14 is considered a SG (subjective genitive). In an SG, the verbal noun to which the genitive is related is converted into a verbal form and the genitive turns into its subject. For example, “the revelation of Jesus Christ …” in Gal 1:12 becomes “[What/the fact that] Jesus Christ reveals …” Utilizing this example for Rev 3:14, we get: “[What/the fact that] God-The Father- creates. The immediate context in our passage actually answers the question, “What has The Father created ?”--the Amen, Faithful, True witness, The Beginning--Christ!

BTW..Since you seem to have done your due diligence on this doctrine, can you please parse and explain the grammar behind Isa 43:10?

The word“beginning” (arche) can mean either “source/origin” (NRSV) or “ruler” (NIV and NLT). You don't want to think that the verse is saying that Jesus is the source or originator of all creation.

4. Daniel Wallace, world renowned Greek Scholar, and Albert Barnes, world renowned Theologian, don't think so either.

For someone who claims to have studied the topic in the original languages, you seem to ignore that words like "prototokos" (firstborn) can have more than one meaning. Your cognitive dissonance won't allow it.

5. Since you brought it up. Please demonstrate and explain how the different meanings of prototokos are used in scripture?

Our heavenly Father is called (olam) eternal or everlasting in Genesis 21:33. Are you suggesting that it is possible that HE is not eternal or everlasting? In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is also called (olam) eternal or everlasting Father. Same exact word, yet you try to apply a different meaning. Again, your cognitive dissonance is not allowing you to see the forest for the trees.

6. Both Jesus and The Father are everlasting in the sense they will both live forever in the future. But only the Father has lived forever in the past (everlasting to everlasting-Ps 90:2). Jesus has his "origins" from the ancient past (origins from the distant past-Mic 5:2(NLT)).

 

[NathanShepard8888]

[Luk 18:18-20 KJV] 18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good
Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said
unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that
is], God.

Obviously he is not saying he is God, but is saying the opposite.

 

[katiemygirl]

="james2ko, post: 4548020, member: 25331"]
Then perhaps you should heed your own unambiguous, straightforward, plain language and stop adding and changing the Word of God because you yourself indicated John 17:5 was an example of Jesus implying He existed before the foundation of the world

Jesus didn't only imply that He existed before the world was, He flat out declared it in John 17:5! You have yet to show that Jesus didn't mean exactly what He said.

"And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."
​

 

[moorea944]

Jesus didn't only imply that He existed before the world was, He flat out declared it in John 17:5! You have yet to show that Jesus didn't mean exactly what He said.

"And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."
​

Jesus didn't only imply that He existed before the world was, He flat out declared it in John 17:5! You have yet to show that Jesus didn't mean exactly what He said.
"And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."

Once again , your making Jesus God. Your missing the whole point of what he is saying. 17:5 This verse is often used to prove that Jesus was God.
Consider the phrase talking about the glory Jesus had: with thee before the world was. Doesn’t that prove that Jesus was co-equal with God? Does it really?
Let us examine the preposition with. In Greek, with is para, which can also be translated from. There are many places in the New Testament where this is so. For example, when Paul received his authority from the chief priests, that word translated from is para (Acts 9:14; 26:10,12).

And so, Jesus received His glory and authority from His Father. That glory and authority existed before the world was because God knows the end from the beginning of all things. But, the glory and the authority were only dispensed when Jesus, the man, was born, made. It gave God glory to know that Jesus was in His plans right from the beginning of time. John 1v14, and then the word of God became flesh.... Very simple language here.

God also says "I am the Lord, and there is no Savior besides Me." Do you deny Jesus is our Savior?

In the OT God was their saviour, their rock, their salvation. But now, our Creator does it through His son. Why is that so hard to understand?

Isaiah 43:10 in no way shows Jesus was created, especially when in John 17:5, Jesus, Himself tells us He shared glory right alongside His Father before the world existed.

Again, your trying to 'FIT" Jesus into a God. What is 43 really saying here? Read it again....

There is no verse in the Bible, which states Jesus was created!

He was born, made like us for a reason.

Colossians 1:17 also tells us Jesus is before all things.

It says IS, not WAS. Big difference!! Jesus IS before all things. Absolutely!!!!! Not talking about creation. Stop making Jesus God!! Read!!

 

[katiemygirl]

Once again , your making Jesus God. Your missing the whole point of what he is saying. 17:5 This verse is often used to prove that Jesus was God.
Consider the phrase talking about the glory Jesus had: with thee before the world was. Doesn’t that prove that Jesus was co-equal with God? Does it really?
Let us examine the preposition with. In Greek, with is para, which can also be translated from. There are many places in the New Testament where this is so. For example, when Paul received his authority from the chief priests, that word translated from is para (Acts 9:14; 26:10,12).

And so, Jesus received His glory and authority from His Father. That glory and authority existed before the world was because God knows the end from the beginning of all things. But, the glory and the authority were only dispensed when Jesus, the man, was born, made. It gave God glory to know that Jesus was in His plans right from the beginning of time. John 1v14, and then the word of God became flesh.... Very simple language here.


In the OT God was their saviour, their rock, their salvation. But now, our Creator does it through His son. Why is that so hard to understand?


Again, your trying to 'FIT" Jesus into a God. What is 43 really saying here? Read it again....


He was born, made like us for a reason.


It says IS, not WAS. Big difference!! Jesus IS before all things. Absolutely!!!!! Not talking about creation. Stop making Jesus God!! Read!!

Sorry friend! Jesus is God, and I don't have time to debate right now.

 

[james2ko]

Jesus didn't only imply that He existed before the world was, He flat out declared it in John 17:5! You have yet to show that Jesus didn't mean exactly what He said.

"And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."
​

You are indicating how both phrases "before the foundation of the world" and the words of Joh 17:5--"before the world was"-- are synonymous, which was the point I was trying to make to you. Yet you make me out to be the "bad" guy by accusing me of a behavior (adding words to Joh 17:5) that you yourself are engaged in?

Are you ok? Or was there some kind of misunderstanding? Nevertheless, I look forward to your answers to my questions in point 3 and 5 above.

 

[katiemygirl]

You are indicating how both phrases "before the foundation of the world" and the words of Joh 17:5--"before the world was"-- are synonymous, which was the point I was trying to make to you. Yet you make me out to be the "bad" guy by accusing me of a behavior (adding words to Joh 17:5) that you yourself are engaged in?

Are you ok? Or was there some kind of misunderstanding? Nevertheless, I look forward to your answers to my questions in point 3 and 5 above.

I'm fine, James. I don't have time to put into a debate right now. Forty zillion things to get done, none of the least being the church bulletin. Will get back when I can.

If you have time, please tell me why John 17:5 does not mean Jesus shared God's glory b4 the world was. Because it seems quite clear to me that Jesus is precisely saying that.

Have a blessed day!

 

[james2ko]

I'm fine, James. I don't have time to put into a debate right now. Forty zillion things to get done, none of the least being the church bulletin. Will get back when I can.

No rush. Take your time. I realize this time of year is very busy for you guys. I'll be waiting.

If you have time, please tell me why John 17:5 does not mean Jesus shared God's glory b4 the world was. Because it seems quite clear to me that Jesus is precisely saying that. Have a blessed day!

Joh 17:5 does indicate they share in the same glory. That thought is reflected in 2 Co 3:18 where Paul speaks of how we also share/reflect in God's glory and will one day experience a greater degree of glory which we will continually share with Him:

2Co 3:18 All of us, then, reflect the glory of the Lord with uncovered faces; and that same glory, coming from the Lord, who is the Spirit, transforms us into his likeness in an ever greater degree of glory. (GNB)​

This passage exemplifies how it would be bad exegesis to imply that Christ and The Father's shared glory means they have existed from eternity in the past. As we would have to conclude we existed from eternity in the past because we will one day share in the same glory. As the scriptures and graph illustrate, shared glory does not equate to an existence forever in the past. But it can indicate an existence from the point someone was created/born to forever in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems you are assuming "before the world was" is akin to "eternity in the past".

 

[katiemygirl]

This passage exemplifies how it would be bad exegesis to imply that Christ and The Father's shared glory means they have existed from eternity in the past. As we would have to conclude we existed from eternity in the past because we will one day share in the same glory. As the scriptures and graph illustrate, shared glory does not equate to an existence forever in the past. But it can indicate an existence from the point someone was created/born to forever in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems you are assuming "before the world was" is akin to "eternity in the past".

I did not say shared glory proved Jesus was eternal. I said Jesus shared glory alongside the Father before the world was.

You are wrong! Jesus has always existed.
He is YHWH, the Alpha and Omega, the first and last! I am assuming nothing. Jesus said He shared glory alongside His Father BEFORE THE WORLD WAS. There is no assuming. I believe the words Jesus spoke. I'm only sorry you don't. Instead you make Jesus out to be a liar.

JESUS IS YHWH!

Revelation 22:6-16, 20 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

In Revelation 22 the Lord God YHWH is the one who sent His angel and it is the Lord God YHWH who is coming soon. Then it says the one coming soon is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Then it says Jesus is the one who sent the angel and Jesus is the one described as coming soon. Jesus is the Lord God who sent the angel, who is coming soon and who is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and the beginning and the end

James, you are going to believe what you believe no matter if Jesus, Himself, told you He was YHWH. It wouldn't matter! You'd exhaust yourself trying to prove to HIM that HE isn't who He says HE is. I can only say to you, GOOD LUCK! You're going to need it because you'll get no help from the One who bled and died for you.

And with that said, I'll be moving on. There is no point in going further. You are no different than the JW's and Muslims who attack the character of my Lord Jesus. It's time for me to shake the dust.

 

[NathanShepard8888]

I did not say shared glory proved Jesus was eternal. I said Jesus shared glory alongside the Father before the world was.

You are wrong! Jesus has always existed.
He is YHWH, the Alpha and Omega, the first and last! I am assuming nothing. Jesus said He shared glory alongside His Father BEFORE THE WORLD WAS. There is no assuming. I believe the words Jesus spoke. I'm only sorry you don't. Instead you make Jesus out to be a liar.

JESUS IS YHWH!

Revelation 22:6-16, 20 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place." "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

In Revelation 22 the Lord God YHWH is the one who sent His angel and it is the Lord God YHWH who is coming soon. Then it says the one coming soon is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Then it says Jesus is the one who sent the angel and Jesus is the one described as coming soon. Jesus is the Lord God who sent the angel, who is coming soon and who is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and the beginning and the end

James, you are going to believe what you believe no matter if Jesus, Himself, told you He was YHWH. It wouldn't matter! You'd exhaust yourself trying to prove to HIM that HE isn't who He says HE is. I can only say to you, GOOD LUCK! You're going to need it because you'll get no help from the One who bled and died for you.

And with that said, I'll be moving on. There is no point in going further. You are no different than the JW's and Muslims who attack the character of my Lord Jesus. It's time for me to shake the dust.

How do you explain Jesus prayer to God in the garden "Not my will but yours Father." Also every scripture that separates Jesus and God.
I corinthian 8:6} But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. {