Jesus is God {title edited}

[Arial]

If everything and all are demonstrably not literally everything and/or all then the metric of interpretation you and others are applying to Colossians 1:16 is subjective at best.

Now you have addend "everything" in your attempt to move the goalposts. Everything generally means everything. Every. Thing. It was not demonstrated that "all" is not literally everything. What was demonstrated, by me, is that sometimes it does mean everything as all the things stated or everything period. Whether it does or does not is ascertained by the context in which they appear. The purpose of ascertaining what it means is in order to correctly understand what the writer meant, so as to correctly interpret what the writer is saying. You keep throwing yourself and your mind into a place where it does not belong. Instead of determining what the writer meant, you tell the writer what he meant.

So in Col 1:16-17 when Paul wrote For by him (Jesus) all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers of authorities---all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. he is saying everything that is created was created through/by Jesus, are kept together through/by Jesus, and that He was before anything that was created. He is eternal as only God is eternal. There is nothing subjective about it. Nothing. It is what Paul is saying, and what Paul means. No interjections into the scripture and taking nothing away from it.

 

[Binyawmene]

What is relevant is what it meant in Lk 1:35.

You said: "and the son of the divine God (Holy Spirit). (Lk 1:35)"

The phrase "Son of God" doesn't mean "Holy Spirit".

The Jews thought Jesus was claiming to be God

Correct. They understood the phrase to mean that Jesus, as the “Son of God” was not only the Messiah but God incarnate. How does that correlate with Luke 1:35?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

He wasn't created. He is not a creature.

Christ's genealogy is relatively unimportant to the average Gentile, whereas very
important to Jews because only David's biological posterity qualifies to take his
throne and govern the people of Israel.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The New Testament verifies Christ is David's biological descendant.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

FAQ: Jesus is alleged to have been miraculously conceived (Luke 1:27-35) How
then did he in any way at all descend from David's loins, i.e. David's flesh?

REPLY: Mary wasn't Jesus' surrogate mother, viz: he wasn't implanted in her womb,
rather, he was conceived in her womb. Seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus'
biological father, then conception by means of his mom's flesh became the default
path to David's flesh (Gal 4:4). Although women are rare in biblical genealogies,
they still matter. For example Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. (Matt 1:5-6)

Anyway; if true that Christ is David's biological descendant, and if true that David
was Adam's biological descendant, then it must be true that Christ, along with
David, is also Adam's biological descendant. So then if Adam was a created being,
then his biological descendants Christ and David are also created beings.

It is right here at this very point where Jehovah's Witnesses have rank and file
Christians at a disadvantage due to the fact that quite a few pew warmers are
unable to discern the difference between the Word of John 1:1-3 and the flesh that
the Word became at John 1:14, to wit: the Word is an eternal spirit being whereas
the Word's flesh is a temporal material being whose human origin can be easily
traced to the very dust with which his ancestor Adam was constructed.
_

 

[Arial]

Upon further investigation into the context, it's erroneous. As previously stated, the "image of God" isn't God. One with the "fullness of God" in them isn't God.

Verse 15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. The meaning of this has nothing to do with your assertion which you says clarifies your interpretation and really has nothing to do with it. What Paul is saying here is that Jesus is a visible manifestation of the invisible God. What is described following in verse 16 is what Paul means by saying He was the firstborn of all creation.

What else could one be that had the fullness of God dwelling in them but God?

The context refers to the church. It's all about what Jesus' lordship over the church and what he accomplished through his blood of the cross

When those texts specifically identify Jesus as being creator (therefore not Himself created), specifically state identify what He created as everything that is created, it is impossible that when Paul follows this with verse 18. And he is the head of the body, the church. that he means that Jesus only created the church. It does not even say Jesus created the church, but is the head of the church. The church is not created. It is established.

Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of Jesus demonstrably not being the creator, not being the Lord of heaven and earth, not being God, not being YHWH, etc. We have gone over them many times. Perhaps this is not an issue of scripture, but rather an issue of belief.

There are plenty of examples that you use as evidence that Jesus is not the Creator, but they are not evidence, and have been refuted. They are nothing more than you grazing through the scriptures with confirmation bias as your headlamp.

The rest of this is just your arguing to the contrary because you simply don't want to accept that the grammar and translations, upon scrutiny, don't actually produce the desired outcome of what your theology states

That is what you do and are doing and the only fooling themselves is you. You have been shown that all your grammar and translation arguments are nothing but smoke screens and intensely amateurish at that. Coming not from knowledge that you possess but simply from pushing internet buttons and search engines.

By there mere fact that Jesus is the servant of the creator means he isn't the creator. That being the case, you simply are not understanding the verses you're proof texting in their appropriate contexts. I mean this humbly, and sincerely, truly hoping it helps.

If you were truly humble and sincere, you would not accuse me of proof texting when I am not, you would not accuse me of not understanding the verses in their contexts when I have illustrated that I do. You would not accuse me of these things when you know they are not true, and when all you mean is that I do not agree with you and you cannot get me to, and you have nothing else to support your view.

 

[Eleanor]

You said: "and the son of the divine God (Holy Spirit). (Lk 1:35)"

The phrase "Son of God" doesn't mean "Holy Spirit".

God means Holy Spirit.

Correct. They understood the phrase to mean that Jesus, as the “Son of God” was not only the Messiah but God incarnate. How does that correlate with Luke 1:35?

Jesus was generated by God the Holy Spirit, which is why the man Jesus was actually the Son of God, just as I am the child of the one who generated me.
Both the man Jesus and the divine Jesus were the actual Son of God.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

What else could one be that had the fullness of God dwelling in them but God?

They could be a Christian.

● Eph 3:14-16 . . For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ . . .that you might be filled with all the fullness of God.
_

 

[Binyawmene]

God means Holy Spirit.

That's not correct, Eleanor. "God" in the phrase "Son of God" does not mean Holy Spirit.

Jesus was generated by God the Holy Spirit,

Eternal generation is by the Father. The human nature is created, or the miracle of the virgin birth was by the Holy Spirit.

which is why the man Jesus was actually the Son of God,

Son of God isn't derived from the human nature.

Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 John 3:8, John 11:27, 1 John 5:20

just as I am the child of the one who generated me.
Both the man Jesus and the divine Jesus were the actual Son of God.

There is not two Jesus. I think you was saying only one selfsame person who is both God and man, as the Messiah, the Son of God.

 

[Arial]

They could be a Christian.

● Eph 3:14-16 . . For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ . . .that you might be filled with all the fullness of God.
_

I suggest that Paul means something entirely different when he applies fullness of God to the believer in Eph 3, than he does when he applies it to Christ in Col 1. The difference is seen in what he says about Jesus in Col before he says all the fullness of God dwells in Christ. We do not have the fullness of God dwelling in us in the way Jesus did as God. We have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us and through Him everything we need for our Christian walk and are sealed in Christ.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

I suggest that Paul means yada, yada, yada, yada.

I suggest you no longer use Col 1:16 as a proof text for Christ's divinity. A sharp
Bible student can too easily refute it in a debate.
_

 

[Bob Carabbio]

That's correct and God gave Jesus the authority and men (plural) to forgive sins.

TRUE!!! ANybody can forgive sin that's commited against themselves, no problem with that at all!!
NOBODY (other than Jesus) can "Forgive sins that aren't directly against themselves. There's no biblical concept of getting into a "box" with a priest to be forgiven of anything (unless you've sinned against the priest himself - THAT HE CAN FORGIVE).

ANYBODY can confess their SIN DIRECTLY TO GOD, and there's no need for a "Priest".

IF the priest also is a Christian (some are), then he might be able to give some spiritual counsel

THERE"S NO SUCH THING as "Mortal" and "Venial". SIN. it's just another worthless Roman Catholic invention. ALL SIN is "Mortal SIN", AND THE BLOOD OF JESUS CLEANSES IT ALL BY faith. AND, of course "Purgatory is a HUGE LIE, and satan's BEST JOKE on Catholics, who'll find out to their horror that it's actually HELL, and they're NEVER getting out..

And "Forgiveness" doesn't mean SPIT anyway. What's important is that Jesus SACRIFICE doesn't just "Forgive" - it Cleanses and REMOVES SIN completely, and you're Justified (Just as if I'd never sinned).

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
Errata:

I suggest you no longer use Col 1:16 as a proof text for Christ's divinity. A sharp
Bible student can too easily refute it in a debate.

The reference was supposed to be Col 1:19 instead of 1:16
_

 

[Mercy_Shown]

He did have a hand in demonstration of the (Unseen ) lamb of God slain from the foundation the six days he did work the promised bloody demonstration thousands of years later.

A demonstration of the unseen Holy Father working in dying mankind the Son of man Jesus. The dynamic duo God and redeemed mankind .
The Father striking the Son bruising his heel. His heel crushing the head of the serpent or father of lie . . again three times the Father yoked with the Son strengthening the Son empowering him to perform the good will of the Father.

The Father (not a creation) did his work in creating as our Faithful and True Creator. "Let there be Light" as the very essence and "of God It revealed the hidden thing of God" and the earth took on form revealing his handy work. Thousand of years before the Son of nan was formed from the dust like all of dying mankind .

1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. . . . . ." Let there be ' . . . . .God good

Not dying mankind . . . . . . . good .

Yes, God spoke so another words the word of God did the action in creating. You see, we have the Trinity right there in the creation story. We have God the father speaking his word and the spirit moving up on the face of the Waters.

 

[Arial]

I suggest you no longer use Col 1:16 as a proof text for Christ's divinity. A sharp
Bible student can too easily refute it in a debate.
_

How rude! (That yada, yada, yada, that you inserted into my post instead of what I actually said.) What is your problem? I suggest you follow the conversation that was taking place before you jump to conclusions and then act on them. I also suggest you no longer change a person's post after you quote it and add to it your own dismissive and insulting opinion. If you quote someone, quote it as it is, and then actually address what was said. Rule breaking like this is subject to demerits or even dismissal if it is continued.

I was never using Col 1:16 as a proof text for anything. I was not using it at all but quoted, not just that one verse, but the whole of that discourse of Paul point out that scripture says Jesus is the creator. And the dispute from the one who actually proof texts, was that all and everything in those passages do not mean all and everything but only the church. A sharp Bible student would have noticed that and also would have noticed how stupid it is to say it only means the church. HE is the one that was using it to dispute that Jesus is the Creator by ignoring what it says.

And if Jesus is the Creator it also indisputable makes Him deity.

But instead of actually debating the conclusion you drew you simply stated that a sharp Bible student can easily refute how that passage (along with many others) can be used to dispute the deity of Christ---you simply make the statement. So I guess you intend to leave that to a sharp Bible student.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

It's because the words Jesus spoke were the words God the Father gave him. God's words lead to eternal life and Jesus gave them the words of eternal life.

The eternal life only comes from the Father.

John 12
49I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it. 50And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say.”

This does not at all change with Jesus said and that he gave eternal life to this every please. Furthermore the Bible says he is eternal life.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Thank you, but that isn't exactly what the Bible says. The Bible calls him the "image of God" a man with the "fullness of God" the "representation of his being/person/nature" but not himself God. There are too many things to the contrary to believe otherwise.

Never mind the fact that worshipping a man as though he is God is idolatry. He could do nothing of himself, got his power and authority from the Father, prayed to God, worshipped God, served God, died for God, was resurrected by God, never claimed to be God, and denied being God.

Someone doesn't claim to be God and directly denies being God isn't God.

Byblos closing God John 1:1 - 3

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I would offer. .

The word eternal must be defined. Believers are warned to beware of those who would change the meaning of one word it violates the integrity of the whole . many words have been changed by some in that way.
Change the meaning of one word change all the commandments You could call it spiritual plagiarism redefining the word death ( Surely you will not die look at my beauty and live forever) making the word of God sola scriptura) without effect One word again there seems many according to the witness of His word. .

Deuteronomy 4King James Version4 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word (singular) which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it (singular), that ye may keep the commandments (plural) of the Lord your God which I command you.

Eternal or a remnant of the fullness of grace which is the complete cost of salvation , or more sufferings and wonderings even after one takes thier last breath. calling that Eternal Life?

Some say only a queen mother of heaven (Jeremiah 44) his an hers gods received the fullness of salvation eternal life other received a unknown measure of grace must suffer and wonder with not end of salvation in sight .

The Bible God's living word infallible informs us in 1 Peter that the born again believers born of incorruptible seed (Christ) The living word of God .informing that as new creatures we received the end of the work of Christ's labor of His love or call a work of his faith . Yoked with Him our burden can be lighter with a living hope beyond what the eyes see, the temporal

1 Peter1 a beautiful gospel parable teaching of the power new born again of faith . God giving us ears to hear his eternal understanding of faith

1 Peter 1:23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 Peter 1:7-11 That the trial of your (new born again) faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

We can look back to the three days and nights demonstration of the Holy Father and Son working as one yoked by the love of the Father they can look with thier new born faith (understanding) they looked ahead no limbo or purgatory.

It appears that you’re doing exactly what you condemned. You’re changing the meaning of the word eternal.

 

[Arial]

Christ's genealogy is relatively unimportant to the average Gentile, whereas very
important to Jews because only David's biological posterity qualifies to take his
throne and govern the people of Israel.

Why do you presume it is unimportant to the average "Gentile?" I have been a "Gentile" Christian for over forty years and I have never met one who considered it unimportant. And why is this dividing wall being erected again? Jew and Gentile. Here is what the Bible says about it.
Gal 3:26-29 Soin Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all on in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.

Anyway; if true that Christ is David's biological descendant, and if true that David
was Adam's biological descendant, then it must be true that Christ, along with
David, is also Adam's biological descendant. So then if Adam was a created being,
then his biological descendants Christ and David are also created beings.

The Bible never says that we are born in Eve. It says we are born in Adam. Jesus' Father was not born in Adam and was not born at all but has always been. We do not know how that is in God's economy, but we do know that it is, for He tells us so. Jesus got His divine nature from His Father and His human nature from His mother. He was born, but He was not born in Adam. He was human with a human nature, minus the nature to sin that we have. Otherwise He would have sinned. Jesus was not created. He already existed. He came through Mary as one of us.

Each human is not formed anew out of the dust of the ground. They are generated through natural processes, yet they are still God's creation because we live and move and have our being in Him and only Him.

 

[Eleanor]

That's not correct, Eleanor. "God" in the phrase "Son of God" does not mean Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is God, the Son is God, the Father is God--one God in three divine persons.

Eternal generation is by the Father. The human nature is created, or the miracle of the virgin birth was by the Holy Spirit.

Eternal generation (without beginning or end) of the Son by the Father occurs in the divine Trinity.
The generation of Jesus of Nazareth is not eternal (without beginning).
The virgin birth; i.e., conception/generation, was by the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35), according to the Apostles' Creed.

Son of God isn't derived from the human nature.

Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 John 3:8, John 11:27, 1 John 5:20

Son of God is derived from the eternal generation of the Son of God in the Trinity.
Jesus' human nature, being sired by God, the Holy Spirit, and conceived by a human, is likewise the Son of God as well as the son of man (human).

There is not two Jesus. I think you was saying only one selfsame person who is both God and man, as the Messiah, the Son of God.

Yes, Jesus is both God and man, two natures (human and divine) in one person, Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Eleanor]

That's not correct, Eleanor. "God" in the phrase "Son of God" does not mean Holy Spirit.

Eternal generation is by the Father. The human nature is created, or the miracle of the virgin birth was by the Holy Spirit.

Son of God isn't derived from the human nature.

Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 John 3:8, John 11:27, 1 John 5:20

There is not two Jesus. I think you was saying only one selfsame person who is both God and man, as the Messiah, the Son of God.

I think I see what you are driving at.

The eternal Son of God came down from heaven and was enfleshed in the womb of Mary.
He is the Son of God who came down from heaven, making him a divine person (with a divine nature),
to take on a complete human body and nature, making him a human person (with a human nature),
so that Jesus of Nazareth had two natures, divine and human--God and man, in one person.

 

[Binyawmene]

The Holy Spirit is God, the Son is God, the Father is God--one God in three divine persons.

Yes and no. I will explain. "God" in the phrase "Son of God" does not mean Holy Spirit or Triune.

When we speak about the persons alone distinctively, that doesn't mean the persons are separated or divided into another god. There is only one undivided and indivisible Divine Nature. Each person of the Trinity is completely and fully God indivisibly. And each person has the whole fullness of God's being in himself when spoken about distinctively. In reference to the Son who is wholly and fully God indivisibly and the Son possesses the whole being of God in himself when spoken about distinctively. So, when we speak about the three persons distinctively, specifically the Son alone, then he is all of God's being. The phrase "Son of God" is about the Son alone distinctively.

The Hypostatic Union framework has the phraseologies of "the Son of God," "God in the flesh" and therefore, "Jesus Christ is God." How are we to define "God" in phraseological context? Well, Christologically speaking, the framework for the term "God" has a two-fold meaning. You have, Jesus Christ, who is identified as "God," which doesn't mean he is all of the "One Triune God" (that would be absurd to think Jesus Christ is a Triune God when he is only a member of the Trinity), but he is only "God" according to the Divine Nature distinctively from the other members of the Father and the Holy Spirit in context. So, in one sense, the term "God" can be used to designate God as Triune, and in another sense, God is in reference to the Divine Nature.