Jesus is God?

[Jeremy Mason]

I think i understand where you are coming from, but the problem is that every christian i have met try to hold a specific set of verses which supports his stance and ignore the other passages which seem to contradict his/her argument. This is the main problem in christianity.

On the contrary, I find what some may find paradoxical to further clarify the subject at hand. Not everyone who reads the Bible will come to same conclusion. I'm sure there are difference in POV within Islam. As a Christian, I feel it's my responsibility to fellowship with other Christians and discuss what we understand of Jesus so that we will have a collective understanding. As steel sharpens steel.

 

[TashaN]

On the contrary, I find what some may find paradoxical to further clarify the subject at hand. Not everyone who reads the Bible will come to same conclusion. I'm sure there are difference in POV within Islam.

One can tolerate the variety in understanding of certain verses within any religion, but in Islam, we never differ on who was God or who was Mohammed. We might differ in very minor issues, unlike christianity who still argue about the identity of God and Jesus, even how many god there are who deserve to be worshipped.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

One can tolerate the variety in understanding of certain verses within any religion, but in Islam, we never differ on who was God or who was Mohammed. We might differ in very minor issues, unlike christianity who still argue about the identity of God and Jesus, even how many god there are who deserve to be worshipped.

While there may some Christian who may think Jesus wasn't God, I think the majority of Christians will tell you he is God. The Bible clear points out that people worshiped Jesus and the Father.

 

[TashaN]

While there may some Christian who may think Jesus wasn't God, I think the majority of Christians will tell you he is God. The Bible clear points out that people worshiped Jesus and the Father.

Jesus never said worship me. He asked people to worship his lord, the father.

 

[Muffled]

Just because he adheres to the "law" doesn't mean he doesn't worship his god.

And I guess it all depends on your interpretation of "fulfillment"....I take it to mean he was the seal or completion of the law. No more laws were to come.

American Heritage Dictionary

Fulfill
To bring to an end: to complete

Additionally when you quoted Yeshua you should have completed the quote. Here's the rest of it;

Matthew 5:17-19
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.[/FONT]

Nowhere does he say the laws should not be observed but on the contrary he warns against not obeying the laws and teaching other to do so. "No law will disappear until it is finished". He says the law has not achieved its purpose so it is to remain in effect.

Revelation 21:1
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.[/FONT][/quote]

He only worships His meagre concept of God. His view of God is just as skewed as the Athanasian view of God in three persons.

Yes, I already know that you pick the meaning out of the dictionary that you prefer but here is the full definition: 2 a: to put into effect : execute b: to meet the requirements of (a business order) c: to bring to an end d: to measure up to : satisfy3 a: to convert into reality b: to develop the full potentialities of

That is why Jesus is not the end of the law because He did not come to bring it to an end (abolish) or would you like to redefine the word abolish too?

I will point out at this point that for jesus to be the fulfillment (complete satisfaction) of the law He had to be without sin and only God is without sin.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus never said worship me. He asked people to worship his lord, the father.

This is a favorite argument that never works. You can never prove anything from a null hypothesis. If you have no evidence to start with your conclusions are coming from a lack of evidence.

Jesus never said don't worship me when people did worship Him. Wasn't it His responsibility to set them straight if they were doing something contrary to God's law by worshipping another God other than Yahweh? If Jesus is a fulfillmnet of the law as He says, He is obligated to defend that law and not allow people to worship Him if He is not God. However if He is God He need say nothing because their worship is acceptable and proper.

 

[Popeyesays]

This is a favorite argument that never works. You can never prove anything from a null hypothesis. If you have no evidence to start with your conclusions are coming from a lack of evidence.

Jesus never said don't worship me when people did worship Him. Wasn't it His responsibility to set them straight if they were doing something contrary to God's law by worshipping another God other than Yahweh? If Jesus is a fulfillmnet of the law as He says, He is obligated to defend that law and not allow people to worship Him if He is not God. However if He is God He need say nothing because their worship is acceptable and proper.

You're looking at the word in English translation through modern glasses. That's what does not work.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jeremy Mason]

You're looking at the word in English translation through modern glasses. That's what does not work.

Regards,
Scott

No scott, Muffled is correct. Great post Muffled, frubals!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I counted 64 posts in this thread that have tried to biblically describe that Jesus is God. None of them has convinced you nor do I think any more will either.

It is because you have failed at every attempt to show proof. Every quote you have listed, to me, has been taken out of context and every quote I have listed shows directly and plainly Yeshua not to be God.

I have repeatedly stated that in fact Jesus and the Father have different roles and that yes the Father sits on the throne. I've also stated that Jesus recognizes his position with the Father and is a subordinate to the Father and that is why Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. But Jesus has all authority in Heaven and Earth.

If they have "different roles" then they are gods not God. If he ranks below God then he is not God. If he sits at the right hand of power (God) then he is not God. If all that he has was given to him in heaven then he is not God. In order to be given something there must be a giver and if you have to be given it then it was not in your possesion thus you are not God to begin with.

And ALL of what you say here denotes Yeshua to be separate from God....An I must repeat that, Yeshua, in Rev. 3:12 returns to heaven (ascended)....and all of God's creation saw him and God as separate from beginning to end. And in that verse he does not inform Jon he is God, John did not ever at ANY point in Revelation view him as such. This is because Yeshua informs him he is not because he has a god.

Rev. 5:7
7 He stepped forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne.
Who is HE?...It is Yeshua the Lamb (Messiah). What does he do? He steps forward after John wept because no one in heaven, on earth or under the earth was worthy of opening the seals. This is not a reference to God because God would definately be worthy. His creation would never question him whether he was worthy or not. As a matter of fact Rev 4:11 lets us know that his creation did not question his worthyness. Now....what does (HE) do?...He takes the scroll from God because he is deemed the only one worthy of the task at hand. I am truly amazed the lengths you are going through to hold to this notion when these scriptures are flat out telling you that God and Yeshua are completely different and all of his creation knew they were separate.

He also was sinless further clarifying that Jesus was God, because only God is without sin. It's this very fact that he was without sin that qualifies Jesus to be the Lamb of God

I see, because he was sinless he must be God? Truly none of this is proof of deity. It just proves that he was sinless. Shucks, God seems to have a whole hoset of hevenly beings who seem to be sinless....how shall we address their deity?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just because he adheres to the "law" doesn't mean he doesn't worship his god.

And I guess it all depends on your interpretation of "fulfillment"....I take it to mean he was the seal or completion of the law. No more laws were to come.

American Heritage Dictionary

Fulfill
To bring to an end: to complete

Additionally when you quoted Yeshua you should have completed the quote. Here's the rest of it;

Matthew 5:17-19
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.[/FONT]

Nowhere does he say the laws should not be observed but on the contrary he warns against not obeying the laws and teaching other to do so. "No law will disappear until it is finished". He says the law has not achieved its purpose so it is to remain in effect.

Revelation 21:1
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.[/FONT][/quote]

He only worships His meagre concept of God. His view of God is just as skewed as the Athanasian view of God in three persons.

His "meager concept"

The pot calling the kettle black......

Yes, I already know that you pick the meaning out of the dictionary that you prefer but here is the full definition: 2 a: to put into effect : execute b: to meet the requirements of (a business order) c: to bring to an end d: to measure up to : satisfy3 a: to convert into reality b: to develop the full potentialities of

Like I said.. it's all in how you interpret the word. As it shows, Yeshua told them to make sure they follow the laws, even the smallest ones and if they taught other not to follow the law then they would not be blessed. His quote doesn't stop at 5:17 like we see most christians quoting. You highlighted (execute) and obviouly we can't use that one because he said he came not to do that. Now I can give you (satisfy) but that in no way means the laws don't have to be followed. If that were the case then he wouldn't have uttered verses 18 and 19.

That is why Jesus is not the end of the law because He did not come to bring it to an end (abolish) or would you like to redefine the word abolish too?

I agree and that's why they all, even the smallest should be observed. Why?...because he said to follow them. Do you not agree?

 

[Muffled]

Just because he adheres to the "law" doesn't mean he doesn't worship his god.

And I guess it all depends on your interpretation of "fulfillment"....I take it to mean he was the seal or completion of the law. No more laws were to come.

American Heritage Dictionary

Fulfill
To bring to an end: to complete

Additionally when you quoted Yeshua you should have completed the quote. Here's the rest of it;

Matthew 5:17-19
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.[/FONT]

Nowhere does he say the laws should not be observed but on the contrary he warns against not obeying the laws and teaching other to do so. "No law will disappear until it is finished". He says the law has not achieved its purpose so it is to remain in effect.

Revelation 21:1
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.[/FONT][/quote]



His "meager concept"

The pot calling the kettle black......




Like I said.. it's all in how you interpret the word. As it shows, Yeshua told them to make sure they follow the laws, even the smallest ones and if they taught other not to follow the law then they would not be blessed. His quote doesn't stop at 5:17 like we see most christians quoting. You highlighted (execute) and obviouly we can't use that one because he said he came not to do that. Now I can give you (satisfy) but that in no way means the laws don't have to be followed. If that were the case then he wouldn't have uttered verses 18 and 19.




I agree and that's why they all, even the smallest should be observed. Why?...because he said to follow them. Do you not agree?

No, I do not agree. All that I need to follow is Jesus who is the beginning and the end of the law for me. Laws wren't made to be worshipped, they were made for our benefit. If Jesus decides that I benefit by not having to observe a law then I do not need to observe it.

For instance: How many sabbaths do you observe? The Bible only requires a sabbath from labor but Jesus has me observe other sabbaths as well. He had me take a sabbath from recreational inactivity (Tv watching, reading books, playing games on the computer). It was like going on a fast which is a sabbath from eating. So in my opinion you should give it a rest, lol.

 

[emiliano]

Hear, O Israel, the lord thy God is ONE. . . . .

Regards,
Scott

Citing the Shema isn’t going to solve our problem because of the Hebrew language, one have a meaning that it can express more than one. eg. Ge 2:24, Gen 3:22
Deu 6:4 Hear,8085 O Israel:3478 The LORD3068 our God430 is one259 LORD:3068
H259
אחד
'echa^d
ekh-awd'
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Citing the Shema isn’t going to solve our problem because of the Hebrew language, one have a meaning that it can express more than one. eg. Ge 2:24, Gen 3:22
Deu 6:4 Hear,8085 O Israel:3478 The LORD3068 our God430 is one259 LORD:3068
H259
אחד
'echa^d
ekh-awd'
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

Echad only means one.

It is the context, and the context alone that determines what that 1 item is, whether it's one apple or one bunch of apples.... but the number itself is no more than 1.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one.

There is nothing in this statement to suggest that God is anything more than one.

 

[emiliano]

Echad only means one.

It is the context, and the context alone that determines what that 1 item is, whether it's one apple or one bunch of apples.... but the number itself is no more than 1.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one.

There is nothing in this statement to suggest that God is anything more than one.

What about Elohiym?
H430
אלהים
'ĕlo^hi^ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
This is the root of the problem, you say that the Christians interpret the context of scripture to suit their doctrine and so did your religious leaders.
The scribes fixed the text of the law and recorded interpretations as they occurred through time. The Pharisees were a sect that devoted themselves to the exact observance of oral and written law. While the Babylonian captivity tended to unite the Jews, the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Herodian dynasty, and finally the destruction of the temple in ad 70 led to the dispersion of the Jews. Fragmentation accompanied dispersion, from the extremes of fundamentalism (Karaites who reject rabbinical tradition and rely on scripture alone) and orthodoxy, to rationalism, either purely philosophical or a mixture of philosophy and Talmudic and rabbinical tradition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism
So really we can say that this word have the connotation that one is used as a compounded unit, as you said earlier that Israel meant the whole nation and the this compounded one is the suffering servant, it is the same Israel= Jacob one man and a Nation when it suited the scribes. Who do we believe?

 

[nawab]

You should Believe Elohim as one God because if there are more than one kings than they will fight similarliy if there are more than one God they will fight agaisnt each other I want to do this, and i want to do that. Just like in Hinduism Brahma and Vishnu are always fighting.

Cant you see how peaceful our universe is, if there were more Gods than they would often be in dispute.

However, In Judaism, the concept of God is accurate, because logically that would be a description of God almighty. However if you read the Christians scriptures when Jesus compares himself with God he calls himself a worm. He preaches Why thou callest me good, He refuses that you call him good why would he tell you to call him God, God is supposed to be Good and he denys to be called Good this is hipocrasy.

 

[Popeyesays]

What about Elohiym?
H430
אלהים
'ĕlo^hi^ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
This is the root of the problem, you say that the Christians interpret the context of scripture to suit their doctrine and so did your religious leaders.
The scribes fixed the text of the law and recorded interpretations as they occurred through time. The Pharisees were a sect that devoted themselves to the exact observance of oral and written law. While the Babylonian captivity tended to unite the Jews, the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Herodian dynasty, and finally the destruction of the temple in ad 70 led to the dispersion of the Jews. Fragmentation accompanied dispersion, from the extremes of fundamentalism (Karaites who reject rabbinical tradition and rely on scripture alone) and orthodoxy, to rationalism, either purely philosophical or a mixture of philosophy and Talmudic and rabbinical tradition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism
So really we can say that this word have the connotation that one is used as a compounded unit, as you said earlier that Israel meant the whole nation and the this compounded one is the suffering servant, it is the same Israel= Jacob one man and a Nation when it suited the scribes. Who do we believe?

It's called "The Imperial We." Queen Victoria says "We are not amused." Since she is a sovereign, "she" is "we".

It's a quirk of language in many languages, including Engflish and Hwbrew.

Same thing as referrinbg to God as "He". God does not require testicles to bne called "He".

Regards,
Scott

 

[Poisonshady313]

What about Elohiym?
H430
אלהים
'ĕlo^hi^ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
This is the root of the problem, you say that the Christians interpret the context of scripture to suit their doctrine and so did your religious leaders.
The scribes fixed the text of the law and recorded interpretations as they occurred through time. The Pharisees were a sect that devoted themselves to the exact observance of oral and written law. While the Babylonian captivity tended to unite the Jews, the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Herodian dynasty, and finally the destruction of the temple in ad 70 led to the dispersion of the Jews. Fragmentation accompanied dispersion, from the extremes of fundamentalism (Karaites who reject rabbinical tradition and rely on scripture alone) and orthodoxy, to rationalism, either purely philosophical or a mixture of philosophy and Talmudic and rabbinical tradition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism
So really we can say that this word have the connotation that one is used as a compounded unit, as you said earlier that Israel meant the whole nation and the this compounded one is the suffering servant, it is the same Israel= Jacob one man and a Nation when it suited the scribes. Who do we believe?

Whenever Elohim is used to refer to God, it is always surrounded by singular verbs, adjectives, etc.


As for Israel... read all of Isaiah. Learn and understand that frequently the nation of Israel is referred to as a single person.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, I do not agree. All that I need to follow is Jesus who is the beginning and the end of the law for me.

Laws wren't made to be worshipped

No where did I say you should nor am I suggesting that they should. It is a fact that he said to follow (ALL) the laws, even the smallest ones. Christians are selective in which laws of old they follow. These are usually limited in what is known as the (10 commandments).

they were made for our benefit. If Jesus decides that I benefit by not having to observe a law then I do not need to observe it.

But that's just it. He explicitly said to follow all of them. Where did he decide that you didn't have to follow all of them?

Matthew 5:18-19
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.[/FONT]

So in my opinion you should give it a rest, lol.

He said it not me. But you're right....it's really not important to this discussion.....

 

[Poisonshady313]

Isaiah 53:8 From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.


Compared to a poorly translated Christian version (KJV)

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

The Hebrew has it plural. "them". Who could that possibly refer to?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What about Elohiym?
H430
אלהים
'ĕlo^hi^ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
This is the root of the problem, you say that the Christians interpret the context of scripture to suit their doctrine and so did your religious leaders.
The scribes fixed the text of the law and recorded interpretations as they occurred through time. The Pharisees were a sect that devoted themselves to the exact observance of oral and written law. While the Babylonian captivity tended to unite the Jews, the Roman occupation of Palestine, the Herodian dynasty, and finally the destruction of the temple in ad 70 led to the dispersion of the Jews. Fragmentation accompanied dispersion, from the extremes of fundamentalism (Karaites who reject rabbinical tradition and rely on scripture alone) and orthodoxy, to rationalism, either purely philosophical or a mixture of philosophy and Talmudic and rabbinical tradition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/judaism
So really we can say that this word have the connotation that one is used as a compounded unit, as you said earlier that Israel meant the whole nation and the this compounded one is the suffering servant, it is the same Israel= Jacob one man and a Nation when it suited the scribes. Who do we believe?

Genesis 1:27 answers your question quite well as far as the word Elohim. The word is used there a couple times and it is rendered as a single being...Not "them" or "they".

Gen 1:27
So God (Elohim) created (bara) man (adama) in his [own] image (tselem), in the image (tselem) of God (Elohim) created (bara) he him; male (zakar) and female (nqebah) created (bara) he them.