Jesus is God {title edited}

[Runningman]

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.

It shows he isn't the source of eternal life.

Do you believe this yet?

John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You,[the Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

[Runningman]

Byblos closing God John 1:1 - 3

This is a better translation of John 1:1 because the Greek grammar doesn't call "the word" the God with the definite article. The absence of the article (“the”) before “God” in the Greek makes the word “God” qualitative, which can be understood as “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it was godly.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.

 

[Runningman]

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).

Even Jesus couldn't forgive sins without God's authority being granted to him; that's sola scriptura. He isn't God.

It isn't about being given authority to forgive the personal trespasses one may have committed against someone, but rather absolution of their trespasses against God. God delegated it to Jesus and men, i.e., his disciples. As to whether or not it still applies to people today wasn't my point.

Matt 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.

8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Thanks! You're the greatest!

 

[Mercy_Shown]

This is a better translation of John 1:1 because the Greek grammar doesn't call "the word" the God with the definite article. The absence of the article (“the”) before “God” in the Greek makes the word “God” qualitative, which can be understood as “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it was godly.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.

This sounds like JW theology.

You are majoring in minors to make your point. But it falls apart when you look at the whole chapter and find that "God" occurs 8 times in the chapter and not one is introduced by a definitive article. Now we know that The Word is Jesus for the chapter indicates that.

The Word's attributes are that He is a person and that

1. He was with God from the beginning.
2. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
3. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
4. He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him.
5. The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made His dwelling among us.
6. John testified concerning Him. He cried out, saying, “This is He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’ ”

Ok, The Word was Jesus and the Word was God. Open your heart to the beauty of this truth.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

It shows he isn't the source of eternal life.

He is eternal life. That is the source by definition. The Father is eternal life also. They are one.

Do you believe this yet?

I know that Jesus had underived eternal life in Him because He is God.

John 17
3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You,[the Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

Jesus also said that He was the way, the truth, and the life. They are one.

 

[grace2]

It is what Christianity teaches my friend. You and @grace2 seem to think you can define Christianity by your own beliefs,

So a strange judgment.

We have used the Bible and Jesus' word to define our faith in God and Jesus and Christianity.

If you have been reading the Bible you certainly ought to know that.

You guys are so brainwashed by man-made doctrines rather than Bible knowledge.

I see so many people posted, but your claim is enough for you to handle.

I even skip reading the rest of the posts because it is so repetitious and redundant.

 

[Runningman]

This sounds like JW theology.

You are majoring in minors to make your point. But it falls apart when you look at the whole chapter and find that "God" occurs 8 times in the chapter and not one is introduced by a definitive article. Now we know that The Word is Jesus for the chapter indicates that.

The Word's attributes are that He is a person and that

1. He was with God from the beginning.
2. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
3. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
4. He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him.
5. The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made His dwelling among us.
6. John testified concerning Him. He cried out, saying, “This is He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’ ”

Ok, The Word was Jesus and the Word was God. Open your heart to the beauty of this truth.

No. In John 1:1 there are two distinctly different uses of the word "God." The first usage is ton theon which means The God. That's how it's used in the New Testament when referring to God the Father. The next usage is just theos which is the word used for "god" or "a god" and it's even used when referencing the devil some times.

Knowing that, a valid and Biblically consistent translation is the one I just showed you above. The reason the Word is just "god" is because the word isn't literally Lord God Almighty. It's referring to something godly which is what God's words are. Thus, god is qualitative in regards to the word (it has the qualities of God, but something with the qualities of God isn't God) hence "...what God was the word was."

What John would have done if he wanted to call the Word "the God" is use ton theon, but he did not do that because John not only is a monotheist, but doesn't believe there is another God called the word.

This is proofed by more of Apostle John's writings indicating he doesn't believe the "word" is God.

In 1 John 1:1,2, John directly, explicitly, and unapologetically referred to the "word (logos) of life" that was with the Father as an it that manifested a human.

In Acts 4:24-27, Peter and John prayed together to the Lord God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, while in the same breath referring to Jesus as His servant.

Following sound hermeneutics, sola scriptura, and the word rightly divided, the Biblically consistent translation of John 1:1 is that the word isn't actually God. Where the word "he" is assigned to the word is just personification. Think of the people who were reading these letters and who the writer is. John was a Jewish man who was a strict monotheist, didn't deal with human gods, and served YHWH. The way John's Jewish audience would understand John 1 is poetically. That's why the "logos" in scripture is not a literally he except in John 1. What you see in most versions is just trinitarian bias and corruption of the text. (It's common sense that spoken words aren't a person.)

This is apparent from the context of John 1. Jesus wasn't the begotten Son until John 1:18. He didn't literally pre-exist except in God's foreknowledge.

Hebrews 1
5For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”

 

[Runningman]

He is eternal life. That is the source by definition. The Father is eternal life also. They are one.

I know that Jesus had underived eternal life in Him because He is God.

Jesus also said that He was the way, the truth, and the life. They are one.

Indeed Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but didn't you know where he got his way, truth, and life from?

Jesus got his way from God:

John 5​

19So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.​

Jesus got his truth from God:

John 8​

40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.​

Jesus got his life from God:

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.”​

 

[Fred]

For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

Equal ability

 

[Runningman]

Equal ability

It’s something all Christians are supposed to be able to do. Not something unique to Jesus.

Ephesians 5
1Be imitators of God, therefore, as beloved children,

 

[Fred]

It’s something all Christians are supposed to be able to do.

"Whatever the Father does, Runningman also does"?

Total garbage.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Indeed Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but didn't you know where he got his way, truth, and life from?

He did not get it. He was it. Read the bible, not your own prejudices.

Jesus got his way from God:

John 5​

19So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.​

Not before the incarnation and not after his glorification. Jesus was only devoid of His divine power for a little while while here on earth but now he possesses His divine power which is ALL power. Heb 2:9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Unitarians focus only on that temporary period He was on Earth and made a little lower than the angles to define who Christ is now. Now is now, then was then.

Jesus got his truth from God:

John 8​

40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.​

He did not get truth, he was truth. He temporarily had to rely on God because he was living our lives as we do so that He could save us.

Unitarians seem to think Jesus is still frozen in the 1st century.

Jesus got his life from God:

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.”​

That was then because He was mortified and lived as a mortal human like us. Yes, God got hi hands dirty saving us from the muck. He did not create a blood sacrifice to kill as a token to excuse sin in us.

He cam and lived among as and ripped that sin from us and put it on himself. Glory be to God.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
FAQ: Did Jesus have human blood in his body, or did he have God's blood?

REPLY: According to Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Well
then, had there been God's life in his flesh instead of David's life, then Jesus
would've been precluded from inheriting David's throne because Jesus
would've failed to satisfy the biological requirement of Ps 132:11 which
says:

"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"

Plus: Acts 2:29-30 & Rom 1:3 would be easily proven false statements.

FAQ: Why are a number of Christians insistent upon Jesus having God's
blood in his body?

REPLY: They're overly infatuated with Jesus as the savior per Luke 2:8-11
instead of including him in their thinking as the Jewish monarch in the same
gospel per Luke 1:30-33. Consequently, they typically discount the
chemistry of Jesus' human genealogy because they sincerely believe human
blood isn't pure enough to offer as an atonement for the sins of the world.
Their logic is reasonable, I'll give them that; but under the microscope of
inspired writ, it turns out to be little more than sophistry.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~

He was born, but He was not born in Adam. He was human with a huma
nature, minus the nature to sin that we have. Otherwise He would have
sinned.

The so-called fallen nature is believed to be propagated via reproduction and
inherited from one's biological father. Oh? Then whence did Eve obtain it?

She was already fully sentient and fully constructed from material taken
from Adam's body prior to the forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted
the fruit after his wife was already in existence; then it was impossible for
Adam to pass the fallen nature to her by means of reproduction.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the first couple's altered moral perception; but now I
seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat the fruit, and when she
did, nothing happened. She remained just as comfortable in the buff as
before. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she began to feel indecent; so
I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the
chemistry of that fruit.

FAQ: If Eve's altered moral perception wasn't due to the fruit, nor due to
inheriting it from Adam when she was constructed with material taken from
his body; then what?

REPLY: Mr. Serpent is the logical source, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has
the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human
body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16,
Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to
cover up their pelvic areas.

FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come
into the world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions.
(Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of
the womb?

REPLY: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but
I'm guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)
_

 

[Runningman]

"Whatever the Father does, Runningman also does"?

Total garbage.

Classic ad hominem.

 

[Runningman]

He did not get it. He was it. Read the bible, not your own prejudices.

According to the Bible it all came from the Father.

John 1
9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.
30This is He of whom I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because He was before me.’

Not before the incarnation and not after his glorification. Jesus was only devoid of His divine power for a little while while here on earth

There aren't any examples of Jesus pre-existing with divine power. Many have tried to find them, but it isn't scripture. Please enlighten us if you know of any.

but now he possesses His divine power which is ALL power.

Not according to scripture. For example, he doesn't have the power and authority of God and he isn't the Lord of heaven and earth. Jesus is at the "right hand of God" meaning he isn't God.

Acts 1
7Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority.

Heb 2:9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while,

God isn't lower than angels at any point. Being made lower than angels doesn't presuppose that he pre-existed above them or equal to them.

Hebrews 1:5 says there was a day in which Jesus became the Father's Son. That means he didn't always exist. He was procreated.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”?

now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Who gave Jesus his glory?

Unitarians focus only on that temporary period He was on Earth and made a little lower than the angles to define who Christ is now. Now is now, then was then.

Post-ascension to heaven Paul called Jesus a man between God and men. Stephen saw a vision of the "Son of Man" "standing" at the right hand of God. 1 Timothy is estimated to have been written some 30 years after Jesus was taken to heaven. This isn't a "temporary" period. This is the Jesus who was resurrected, had died, but is now alive forever.

1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

He did not get truth, he was truth. He temporarily had to rely on God because he was living our lives as we do so that He could save us.

John 8:40 says Jesus was given the truth from God. Jesus had to be taught it.

John 8
28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.

Unitarians seem to think Jesus is still frozen in the 1st century.

According to God, Jesus, Paul, and the others Jesus is a man in heaven with a God known as his Father.

Yes, God got hi hands dirty saving us from the muck.

So you think God sinned?

He did not create a blood sacrifice to kill as a token to excuse sin in us.

Indeed.

He cam and lived among as and ripped that sin from us and put it on himself. Glory be to God.

I am sure the Bible tells a different story than this. Where do you see God was incarnated as a man who denied being God?

Mark 10
18“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
FAQ: Is it wrong to have a picture of Jesus in one's home?

REPLY: Well; I would say that as long as folks don't use his picture for a shrine,
then more power to them. (consult the 14th of Romans for caveats)

Personally; were I to have a picture of Jesus here in my study, I'd want it be the
cover photo of a special re-issue of LIFE Magazine that was on display over the
2022-2023 holidays because the look on his face speaks volumes. But the thing is:
that face is haunting-- in an eerie sort of way --and I really don't think I'd want it
looking at me all the time.
_

 

[Arial]

REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come
into the world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions.
(Rom 5:12-21)

This is the only part of your post that has any resemblance to anything that we are told in the Bible. The rest is vain speculation. God tells us both Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. It tells us Eve was deceived and Adam pleased his wife, knowing what God had said. He was not deceived by the serpent and we are not told whether he even saw or spoke to the serpent. All those speculative possibilities you present are not addressed because that is not the information we need or that God is giving us.

God tells us in Adam all have sinned. The difference in Jesus' conception and birth in Mary and that of any other human conception and birth is that she was a virgin and the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and Jesus was conceived. His father is God. This gives Him two natures. That of His Father and that of His mother. Jesus did not have a sin nature, was free of being in Adam. Adam is who is missing in the picture. Adam is who gives mankind a nature that sins. Anyone with a nature to sin, will sin. Jesus did not sin.

 

[Arial]

No. In John 1:1 there are two distinctly different uses of the word "God." The first usage is ton theon which means The God. That's how it's used in the New Testament when referring to God the Father. The next usage is just theos which is the word used for "god" or "a god" and it's even used when referencing the devil some times.

Knowing that, a valid and Biblically consistent translation is the one I just showed you above. The reason the Word is just "god" is because the word isn't literally Lord God Almighty. It's referring to something godly which is what God's words are. Thus, god is qualitative in regards to the word (it has the qualities of God, but something with the qualities of God isn't God) hence "...what God was the word was."

What John would have done if he wanted to call the Word "the God" is use ton theon, but he did not do that because John not only is a monotheist, but doesn't believe there is another God called the word.

This is proofed by more of Apostle John's writings indicating he doesn't believe the "word" is God.

In 1 John 1:1,2, John directly, explicitly, and unapologetically referred to the "word (logos) of life" that was with the Father as an it that manifested a human.

In Acts 4:24-27, Peter and John prayed together to the Lord God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, while in the same breath referring to Jesus as His servant.

Following sound hermeneutics, sola scriptura, and the word rightly divided, the Biblically consistent translation of John 1:1 is that the word isn't actually God. Where the word "he" is assigned to the word is just personification. Think of the people who were reading these letters and who the writer is. John was a Jewish man who was a strict monotheist, didn't deal with human gods, and served YHWH. The way John's Jewish audience would understand John 1 is poetically. That's why the "logos" in scripture is not a literally he except in John 1. What you see in most versions is just trinitarian bias and corruption of the text. (It's common sense that spoken words aren't a person.)

This is apparent from the context of John 1. Jesus wasn't the begotten Son until John 1:18. He didn't literally pre-exist except in God's foreknowledge.

Hebrews 1
5For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”

Always learning and never coming to the truth. Grade: F Commits: Shows a failure to read or comprehend the material. Relied on previously held misconceptions. Study the class text and write a makeup paper.