Jesus is God {title edited}

[grace2]

Then you should be able to prove it. Do you have any other method of communication besides through personal comments about people?

You guys claim this site is "Christ-centered" which dismisses Jesus' claim that His Father is God.

That proves it is not "Christ-centered". If it is Christ-centered you would not dismiss His claims.

This site is "triune god-centered".

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Still disregarding Jesus' word.

So dishonest.

I don't think English is your native language and I don't believe you are capable of communicating properly with me. You seem to be using dogmatic conclusions as opinions without addressing anybody else's point of view or responding to the points they bring up, but rather you ignore them. I have no time for games like that, so I am going to put you on ignore. I hope you get born again, but this time, in reality.

 

[Fred]

You guys claim this site is "Christ-centered" which dismisses Jesus' claim that His Father is God.

That proves it is not "Christ-centered". If it is Christ-centered you would not dismiss His claims.

This site is "triune god-centered".

To be Christ-centered is to be Triune God-centered.

 

[Eleanor]

You are still using the usual tactic. Still disregarding Jesus' word.

Or, are you still using the usual tactic of setting God's word against itself, rather than reconciling God's word to itself.

There are no contradictions in God's word, only failure to reconcile it to itself in the light of all Scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

You guys claim this site is "Christ-centered" which dismisses Jesus' claim that His Father is God.

That is a serious misrepresentation of ignorance.

There is no dismissal of Jesus' claim that the father of the human as well as the divine Jesus (Lk 1:35) is God.
See Lk 1:35. Both the human and the divine Jesus are the Son of God.

That proves it is not "Christ-centered". If it is Christ-centered you would not dismiss His claims.

This site is "triune god-centered".

As is the NT in Jn 1:1, 14, Mt 28:19, and
2 Co 3:17, where the Holy Spirit is Jesus, who is God (Jn 1:1, 14).

 

[makesends]

That's the Truth.

Jesus says His Father is God yet you claim Jesus is God according to your false doctrine.

So that makes this site triune god-centered.

plain and simple truth.

I didn't say it isn't triune God-centered. I'm saying you have not even begun to prove that Jesus is not God, nor that we don't believe the Scriptures.

 

[Arial]

You guys claim this site is "Christ-centered" which dismisses Jesus' claim that His Father is God.

That proves it is not "Christ-centered". If it is Christ-centered you would not dismiss His claims.

This site is "triune god-centered".

Christianity has as one of its doctrines a triune God. You do not get to define Christianity according to your beliefs. Christianity is what it is. Unitarianism is what it is. They are two different things.

The forum is Christ-centered. You are not Christ-centered. You are man centered. You say Jesus is only a man. That is man-centered.

There is not one single claim that Jesus made that Trinitarianism dismisses. We acknowledge right along with Him, that God is His Father. You deny He is Son of God, even though He said He was.

You deny He appointed Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles. You deny that He is the Word of God come in the flesh.

 

[Arial]

You are the one making false accusations. So it is you need to provide proof of your claims which you never did.

What claim is it that you want me to provide proof of that you say I have not? Zero in and focus. Give specifics. Don't just make empty claims.

 

[Arial]

You are still using the usual tactic. Still disregarding Jesus' word.

You are still using your usual tactic. Making accusations without specifics. Generalizing. Never answering questions. Repeating yourself but never illustrating anything or supporting anything that you say. Never actually addressing what is posted. You are acting like you are the judge and jury, the accuser of the brethren who also goes by another name, the final authority on who everyone is, what everyone believes, what is true and what is false.

Did you think this was going to be easy? I know you from many experiences and so I take a lot into account, giving you some necessary leeway. And I have come to grow fond of you for many reasons. But I am not the only admin or moderator, and sometime, someone, may say enough is enough, if you don't begin having actual conversations with people and if you don't stop with the personal remarks, addressing the posts instead. Just saying. Most on here probably don't know you.

 

[Runningman]

Uh? All things?

All things isn't always literal in the Bible. It normally refers to a specific context. Wisdom, balance, and measure are needed to know when and where to apply literalism to words like "all" and "everything" or "the beginning" in the Bible. So let's look at some examples.

Paul didn't break out of prison penning the letter to the Philippians. Why couldn't he do that despite "all things" being possible with Christ?

Philippians 4​

13I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength.​

The disciples didn't become omniscient, knowing literally all things, when the Spirit of truth came.

John 14​

26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.​

The disciples weren't there at the literal beginning of creation to see, hear, or touch anything.

1 John 1​

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life.​

The gospel hasn't been literally preached to every creature under heaven.

Colossians 1​

23if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.​

​

Yet you persist in your inconsistent "all things" theology where it suits you then quickly abandon it when it doesn't suit you.

Really? You think that John's use of logos was mean words???? In the 1st century, Logos referred to that which gave order, form, and meaning to the universe.

You believe is that the word (logos) is Jesus where it suits you, but where the word is not Jesus do you have a workaround?

The "word of life" is an it in 1 John 1:1,2

The "word of God" and the testimony of Jesus aren't the same things in Revelation 1:2 and Revelation 20:4

Rev 9:13 describes Jesus this way, "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God."

Revelation 19:13 isn't about Jesus. It's about YHWH. Jesus is never described as have a robe dipped in blood and Jesus is never called the word God.

Isaiah 63
3“I have trodden the winepress alone,
and no one from the nations was with Me.
I trampled them in My anger
and trod them down in My fury;
their blood spattered My garments,
and all My clothes were stained.

God came down also (Gen 11:5) so then He must not be omnipresent.

God is omnipresent. Jesus isn't omnipresent.

Mark 1
45But the man went out and openly began to proclaim and spread the news. Consequently, Jesus could no longer enter a town in plain view, but He stayed out in solitary places. Yet people came to Him from every quarter.

You have messed with the following passage, basically disagreeing with it.

John 1
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

You have the cart in front of the horse. The context is regarding the word manifesting a human. A literal begotten son created, God's offspring.

John 1
18No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

 

[Runningman]

The Lord in 1 Corinthians 6:17 is Jesus.

Regardless becoming one with someone else doesn't make someone become the other person.

 

[Runningman]

"Trinitarianism" does not teach that Jesus did not die.

What is the sacrifice in trinitarianism?

All that was mortal in Jesus; i.e., his physical body, died. . .all that was immortal in Jesus; i.e., his Divine Spirit and his human spirit, did not die, just as our immortal spirits do not die.

Your assumption is that the spirit does not die, yet spiritual death and spiritual birth are solid biblical doctrines. Do you deny that someone can die spiritually? Can a soul die?

The prefigure of the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus was the OT physical flesh of animals as sacrifice.
Jesus' flesh, his natural body, was the Atoning Sacrifice by its death for the sin of our sinful flesh.

It isn't the flesh that sins, but the soul that sins. Where temptation begins isn't in the flesh, but from out of the heart is what defiles a person. There the adulteries, murders, thefts, and lies originate. So the human body is the sacrifice for sins or a perfect soul?

Ezekiel 18
20The soul who sins is the one who will die....

James 1
15Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

 

[Runningman]

That is a ramble of illogic. When someone begins their defense by saying "the best versions" (translations) do this or that it shows right off the bat that the person is looking for a way to make God's word fit their belief, rather than actually looking to the word to establish what God is saying. Also known as confirmation bias, a well known but erroneous way of going about the task of interpreting scripture. It is not looking for the truth according to God, but looking for their truth.

The word "by" in your preferred Bible version for Colossians 1:16 is defined in the Greek in the context of instrumentality. It has nothing to do with Jesus being the author of the originator of the creation.

Definition: through, on account of, because of
Usage: (a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of.

Doing this arrives at the nonsense we see you post here

My "nonsense" just completely refuted your premise that Jesus is the creator in Colossians 1:16

No one is saying that God is the image of God.

God isn't the image of God? Good. Then Jesus isn't God. Thank you for yielding the field.

That is not what verse 20 says.
Col 1:19-20 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. You use this in a way that completely dismisses all that was said before, as though it were not said. For one thing the church is not all things. Verse 20 tells us how He reconciled ALL things. By making peace (propitiation)by His death on the cross. It is not saying, as you make it to say, that Christ's participation in the creation of all things did not happen until after the cross. It is saying the reconciliation of all things created took place on the cross. And what was needed for that reconciliation is full and complete, and persons are fully redeemed through faith now, the fullness of the reconciliation is yet to come, and will come when Jesus appears the second time, and we have a new heaven and a new earth. The bodies of believers will be resurrected to incorruption and immortality just as Jesus' flesh and blood was. That is why He is called the firstborn from the dead. (Col 1:18; 1 Cor 15:42-58)

I prefer to give you a chance to do your own studying and research before I follow up with an "i told you so" because it's better if people discover the truth believing it was their idea. You won't hear the truth from me, but if you think it's your idea you will accept it. Go ahead and read it again. What I said to you stands.

 

[Runningman]

Whereupon you are in disagreement with the plain gospel of John:
". . .the Word was God. . .the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (Jn 1:1, 14)

Jesus was both God and man.

You erroneously set Scripture against itself, rather than reconciling it to itself.

It's personification of a non-human thing. Words aren't Jesus. Words are an it, Jesus is a human. The church isn't literally a bride. Wisdom isn't literally a woman in Proverbs 9. I am sure people were supposed to understand this when they read about a word being referred to as a he, but tradition and interpretation eventually replaced sense.

 

[Runningman]

Logos in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the universe.
John makes the staggering declaration in the opening of his gospel that the recently despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

Logos just means a word, speech, divine utterance, or analogy. Throughout the Bible God creates using words. God created the human Jesus.

Wow!

"The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world" said John the Baptist (Jn 1:6-9).

"In him was life, and that life was the light of men." (Jn 1:4)

"The life" is Christ (Jn 14:6) who is "the true light" of men (Jn 1:6-9), from whom comes all spiritual illumination as "the light of the world." (Jn 8:12)

On whose authority do you deny the clear word of God in the above?

You cannot be taken seriously.

And read 1 John 1:1,2 where the "word of life" is an it that manifested a human. You're getting closer to the truth.

God is light and in Him is not darkness. God cannot be tempted by evil.

Jesus was tempted in every way as we are. Is being susceptible to temptation a darkness? One may say, yes it is. Therefore, Jesus isn't the "true light" but the light Jesus received was from God. God gives light to all men entering the world and it refers to life.


The Father is the Lord of heaven and earth:

Matt 11​

25At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.​

The Father is the Lord of heaven and earth who gives life to everyone, including Jesus:

Acts 17​

24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. 25Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.​

​

Since Jesus is never called the Lord of heaven and earth one time in the Bible then he isn't God.

 

[Runningman]

Acts 10:36-42 "Jesus is Lord of all---"
Jesus is called Lord throughout the NT and if He is called Lord, He is Lord. And if it says all things were created through/by Jesus, (and it does as you have been shown, the language unequivocal, and still deny in defiance of the word of God itself) then Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth.

This is an example of zero hermeneutics, a complete failure in any attempt to reconcile all of scripture with itself, of arriving at doctrine from single passages instead of these passages being within the whole. In other words not rightly dividing (handling) the word of God. This is proof texting. Why is it proof texting and if I quote a single scripture it is not? I am not saying I never do that, but here is the difference in what is a proof text and what is not.

A proof text taken out of its context, (which includes such things as the surrounding text, who is writing, who they are writing to and why, any cultural aspects that may play into how and why something is being said, and most of all, all the other teaching on the same subject in the Bible), may appear at first glance to be saying one thing. But if all those things are taken into consideration in finding what the passage means, it says something entirely different than what first appeared.

Here you quote scriptures disconnected from the whole counsel of God. And you do so in a very deliberate way. I say deliberate because you have been shown repeatedly, by several people, even in different threads, scriptures that contradict your use of these scriptures. You simply ignore them.

So when it comes to Jesus being creator and therefore deity, and you are quoted John 1:3; Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6; John 1:10; Heb 1:1-2, it is not proof texting. It is showing you that you are making a contradiction in the Bible because the Bible indeed says that all things were created by/through Christ. And since that is the case, Jesus must be eternal and pre-existent within God. That He is not a creature. But rather came as one of us.

You truly divide the word of God according to the literal definition of divide. You only keep the parts you can use to hold onto your conviction that Jesus is a creature like you. The scriptures you quote to deny His deity in no way do deny His deity. The discrepancy you see, half of which you simply ignore, is not in the scriptures. It is in your view of Jesus. That is why you quote them and then quibble over direct words that were said of the Father and those same direct words were not said of Jesus, and therefore your proof. As though no such thing as concepts existed or could be found in the scriptures and verified in them. And could be seen with just a modicum of use of the brain God gave us. A person has to intentionally blind themselves to it. Not good!

Jesus has been given authority in heaven and earth, but not the authority of God. He isn't equal to God nor is Jesus above God nor is Jesus God himself. He doesn't have the authority of God and his Lordship is temporary.

Jesus doesn't have the authority of God:

Acts 1​

7Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority.​

Jesus isn't above God or equal to God:

1 Corinthians 15​

27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him​

Jesus' Lordship is temporary:

1 Corinthians 15​

28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.​

​

Long story short, Jesus isn't the Lord of heaven and earth. He was never called that once in the Bible. I recommend studying about the divine hierarchy.

 

[Runningman]

What circumstances was this said ander and to what power and things did it refer because Jesus also said, "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. "

Yes, if you are in Jesus. Are you a universalist? Because there are prerequisites for Jesus giving someone eternal life. He didn't intend to say he gives everything eternal life with the authority delegated to him.

Romans 6
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Fred]

Regardless becoming one with someone else doesn't make someone become the other person.

Irrelevant.
To be joined to the Lord involves worshiping the Lord.

 

[Eleanor]

What is the sacrifice in trinitarianism?

See post #165.

Your assumption is that the spirit does not die, yet spiritual death and spiritual birth are solid biblical doctrines. Do you deny that someone can die spiritually? Can a soul die?

Spiritual death in the NT is absence of eternal life in the immortal human spirit, which Adam lost for us in his rebellion.
Spiritual birth is the re-impartation of eternal life to the human spirit.

It isn't the flesh that sins, but the soul that sins.
Where temptation begins isn't in the flesh, but from out of the heart is what defiles a person. There the adulteries, murders, thefts, and lies originate. So the human body is the sacrifice for sins or a perfect soul?

Ezekiel 18
20The soul who sins is the one who will die....

"Soul" in the OT is most often used of the person.

James 1
15Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Desire gives birth to sin in the act of sin which leads to death.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus directly said "I will raise it up" referring to, as the Bible says, His body as the temple and He would raise it up. The fact that He was speaking of something that had not occurred yet but would occur, in no way changes what He said. John 2:22 in no way proves what you claim, as was shown you in the very post you are responding to. It is willful blindness. It is willfully denying the unequivocal words of our Lord in order to maintain your unsupportable position.

How many times does Jesus have to explicitly say something before you believe Him? What about those scriptures I gave you several days ago that you wisely chose not to respond to at all, that explicitly state both God the Father and the Spirit also being involved in the resurrection?

One would think that by now that a person would realize they cannot prove what is not true using the Bible to do so. They have to ignore and deny too much of what is in the Bible. Yet they keep on trying, not even learning that simple truth.

After Jesus died, there are no examples of him resurrecting himself. It's as simple as that. The Bible continually says someone else resurrected Jesus, namely the Father.

If Jesus raised himself from the dead then why did he offer up prayers and petitions with loud cries to God to save him from death?

Hebrews 5​

7During the days of Jesus’ earthly life, He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence.​