Titles Jesus doesn't share with God

[Fred]

where does Jesus say "I am God"?

There is more than only one way to express a truth claim.

 

[Arial]

That isn't Jesus talking. Most Bible, aside from two as far as I know, will not assign red-lettering to that verse.

Get the gears in gear. I know that is not Jesus talking. It is God. Now compare it to this:

Rev 22:12-13 "Behold,I (Jesus) am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Jesus and God both say they are the Alpha and Omega. That was my point.

No.

Why does it work one way but not the other?

A look at the context reveals Jesus isn't God.

37You yourselves know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee with the baptism that John proclaimed: 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.

If the Bible makes an explicit statement as was made "Jesus is Lord of all" then the context will not contradict that. It is as though you read the "Jesus is Lord of all" and then have a "no, no,no, may it never be," and read the context through your confirmation bias position to make a liar out of God---the One who taught and inspired the words written. That is not what context means. And anyway, the issue was you saying that the Bible never says Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth. I simply showed you that is not a true statement. Deflecting is a tactic of failure.

 

[Arial]

where does Jesus say "I am God"?

If you are going to use that as your proof, then answer the question I asked @Runningman. Where does Jesus say "I am not God."?

His Father says it over and over and you don't even recognize it.

Yes, the Father says over and over that Jesus is deity and you don't even recognize it.

 

[Runningman]

More illogic. For one thing I don't use the shared titles as my only affirmation that Jesus is God. That is just for the sake of this particular argument. As Son of Man Jesus was not always referred to by all the titles of God. As Son of God, He is equal with God in all ways. And one shared title is enough to verify this. Whereas the absence of any shared title being used is meaningless.

I don't use all of the titles that Jesus doesn't share with God, whether pre or post resurrection, as my only affirmation that the Son isn't God. I also have the rest of the Bible that validates the same thing.

Why do you make the Son of Man a different person than the Son of God? The Son of Man is the Son of God. Even after he ascended to heaven, Stephen saw him as such.

Acts 7
56“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

Is Jesus equal to God in every away? Not according to scripture. Does it look like Paul thinks the Son is equal to God in 1 Corinthians 15?

1 Cor 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.

But if we use your measuring stick again for a moment---where does Jesus explicitly say, "I am not God."

If one were to put all of the things the Bible doesn't say on a pedestal then there would be no end to the heresies one could propose, but is there everything to the contrary about a man being God? Absolutely, and yes Jesus did deny being God in many different situations and demonstrated the saying he is the "Son of God" is not equal to claiming to be God, contrary to the accusations of blasphemy against him.


How then can they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for stating he is the son of God?

John 10
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’d? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

 

[Arial]

it is because you are not reading the Bible, especially the OT.

You don't have cameras or spies in my house. You aren't God. So why do you make statements like that? I have read through the entire Bible front to back so many times I have lost count. When I finish I begin again, for forty plus years. Even at the moment I have arrived again at Exodus 3, and in the NT Romans 10. I read from it daily. How about you?

 

[Runningman]

Get the gears in gear. I know that is not Jesus talking. It is God. Now compare it to this:

Glad to hear that. I'm just pointing that out so it's clear for the readers.

Jesus and God both say they are the Alpha and Omega. That was my point.

Alpha and omega refers to the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. In other words, that's a beginning and ending point. It's about the authority of their words.

Why does it work one way but not the other?

One way is Biblical and the other isn't. The one I am showing in this thread is the Biblical way.

If the Bible makes an explicit statement as was made "Jesus is Lord of all" then the context will not contradict that. It is as though you read the "Jesus is Lord of all" and then have a "no, no,no, may it never be," and read the context through your confirmation bias position to make a liar out of God---the One who taught and inspired the words written. That is not what context means. And anyway, the issue was you saying that the Bible never says Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth. I simply showed you that is not a true statement. Deflecting is a tactic of failure.

Jesus is Lord of all in the church which is what the context is about. You can't just cherry pick where the word "all" is and apply it to literally everything.

Ephesians 1
22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church,

 

[Runningman]

If you are going to use that as your proof, then answer the question I asked @Runningman. Where does Jesus say "I am not God."?

Yes, the Father says over and over that Jesus is deity and you don't even recognize it.

"The Bible doesn't say X thing therefore X thing is true" is called a logical fallacy known as an argument of ignorance. It's not considered sound reasoning because it introduces other possibilities that, no matter how absurd, cannot be falsified, i.e., the Bible doesn't say that a cheese pizza is not God.

However, does the Bible ever say "God is not a man?" Is Jesus a man? Then Jesus isn't God.

 

[Runningman]

Even at the moment I have arrived again at Exodus 3, and in the NT Romans 10. I read from it daily. How about you?

Perfect. You're at Exodus 3 where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob said He is the I AM and that's how He would be remembered forever.

Jesus wasn't remembered that way. Jesus was remembered as His servant. Therefore Jesus isn't the I AM either.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

 

[Arial]

Perfect. You're at Exodus 3 where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob said He is the I AM and that's how He would be remembered forever.

Jesus incarnate had not yet been revealed. Do you know what I AM means? I am who I am, I will be who I will be. It is expressing His eternal self existent and sovereign self. Now if in in His being He is triune---and we do have evidence of that, for in the OT we have mention of God and the Holy Spirit, we find revealed in the NT that Jesus was also there, as theophanies (the Rock for one) and those passages that say Jesus was involved in creation, we have Jesus called by the names of God (how many does not matter)and doing what only God can do. Same with the Holy Spirit in the NT----; if His being is Triune then Triune is the I AM. The fact that you do not believe any of that does not make it untrue.

Jesus wasn't remembered that way. Jesus was remembered as His servant. Therefore Jesus isn't the I AM either.

Acts 3
13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.

Trinitarians remember Jesus as the I AM. It is you and your fellow unitarians that don't. But that does not mean no one remembers Him that way. And Trinitarians recognize that Jesus came as a servant as the Son of Man, according to scripture. Phill. 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Look closely at that passage. He was in the form of God. He emptied himself---of what? Took the form of a servant being born in the likeness of men. If He took the form of man, He must not have always been in the form of man, but something else before He took that form.

 

[Mr GLee]

Jesus and God both say they are the Alpha and Omega. That was my point.

I would offer.

Jesus as the Christ is eternal God. God is the Alpha and Omega And not the son of man Jesus the apostle sent with the words of the Father. . not his own thoughts or ways. The Fathers way higher. His way or hit the highway

The witness of two the Father revealing himself through the creation the Son of man. Jesus No faith or power to rise coming from dying flesh and blood .

Not as I will, no power but as you will heavenly Father. The will with all power to raise dying mankind to new born again spirit life.

God is not a man

 

[Arial]

"The Bible doesn't say X thing therefore X thing is true" is called a logical fallacy known as an argument of ignorance. It's not considered sound reasoning because it introduces other possibilities that, no matter how absurd, cannot be falsified, i.e., the Bible doesn't say that a cheese pizza is not God.

Isn't that exactly what you do, and nothing else, when you say the fact that Jesus is not called by every name of God, any name of God that is not attached to Him means that He is not God? And when you say since the Bible does not make the explicit statement that Jesus is God (and to you they must be those words) then that means He isn't God?

Although your post was such a massive tangle of logical fallacies and illogical reason it was intensely hard to parse its intended meaning. Doing that as a defense of an argument is also a logical fallacy.

 

[Arial]

Glad to hear that. I'm just pointing that out so it's clear for the readers.

You need to read an entire post before you jump the gun like that and make foolish mistakes.

Alpha and omega refers to the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. In other words, that's a beginning and ending point. It's about the authority of their words.

No it doesn't. Read it again.

Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and was and who is to come, the Almighty."

It is a statement of His eternal sovereign existence.

One way is Biblical and the other isn't. The one I am showing in this thread is the Biblical way.

It is biblical to presume that Jesus is not God if He is not called by ALL the titles of God but not Biblical to say He is God because He is called by the title of God? You might pause to consider for at least ten seconds who God is. If someone is called a title that belongs only to Him, the that person is equated with Him. He will not give His glory to another and in His titles is His glory. Only one single time (though there are more than one single time) of being given a title that belongs to God alone, shreds your reasoning to a pile of unbiblical.

 

[Arial]

Glad to hear that. I'm just pointing that out so it's clear for the readers.

You need to read an entire post before you jump the gun like that and make foolish mistakes.

Alpha and omega refers to the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. In other words, that's a beginning and ending point. It's about the authority of their words.

No it doesn't. Read it again.

Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and was and who is to come, the Almighty."

It is a statement of His eternal sovereign existence.

 

[Arial]

I don't use all of the titles that Jesus doesn't share with God, whether pre or post resurrection, as my only affirmation that the Son isn't God. I also have the rest of the Bible that validates the same thing.

Except for the parts that you ignore or twist into your confirmation bias. They do not validate the same thing, you only say the do, and won't hear anything to the contrary.

Jesus is Lord of all in the church which is what the context is about. You can't just cherry pick where the word "all" is and apply it to literally everything.

Ephesians 1
22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church,

You accuse me of cherry picking where the word "all" is used, even though the passages themselves identified the "all" in explicit terms, and then cherry pick a half of a sentence and say that is all that "all" meant? What this half a sentence is is Paul saying in effect "Not only is Christ seated at the right hand of God in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come, and put all things under His feet, He also gave Him as head of the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

So no, the context is not about Christ only being Lord of the church.

 

[Arial]

Why do you make the Son of Man a different person than the Son of God? The Son of Man is the Son of God. Even after he ascended to heaven, Stephen saw him as such.

I don't. As Son of God He is deity. As Son of Man, He does the work of redemption in His earthly ministry. They are not two---they are one.

Absolutely, and yes Jesus did deny being God in many different situations and demonstrated the saying he is the "Son of God" is not equal to claiming to be God, contrary to the accusations of blasphemy against him.

Those who knew that Jesus calling Himself Son of God was making Himself equal with God---which Jesus did not deny but verified----is one you cannot deny as you try to here, because it speaks to the culture and mindset of the Jews. They KNEW what it meant. You only speculate that it did not mean that to them.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus incarnate had not yet been revealed. Do you know what I AM means? I am who I am, I will be who I will be. It is expressing His eternal self existent and sovereign self. Now if in in His being He is triune---and we do have evidence of that, for in the OT we have mention of God and the Holy Spirit, we find revealed in the NT that Jesus was also there, as theophanies (the Rock for one) and those passages that say Jesus was involved in creation, we have Jesus called by the names of God (how many does not matter)and doing what only God can do. Same with the Holy Spirit in the NT----; if His being is Triune then Triune is the I AM. The fact that you do not believe any of that does not make it untrue.

Trinitarians remember Jesus as the I AM. It is you and your fellow unitarians that don't. But that does not mean no one remembers Him that way. And Trinitarians recognize that Jesus came as a servant as the Son of Man, according to scripture. Phill. 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Look closely at that passage. He was in the form of God. He emptied himself---of what? Took the form of a servant being born in the likeness of men. If He took the form of man, He must not have always been in the form of man, but something else before He took that form.

Since Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13 prove that Jesus isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then he isn't the I AM. Only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the I AM.

I am aware of this common misunderstanding held by trinitarians about what they thought John 8:58 means, but since the Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13 prove that Jesus isn't the I AM, then together they unseat the false interpretation of John 8:58 meaning Jesus is the I AM. In this context Jesus is simply saying he is the one who was prophecied about before Abraham. This is exclusively in regards to Jesus being the promise human messiah.

 

[Runningman]

Isn't that exactly what you do, and nothing else, when you say the fact that Jesus is not called by every name of God, any name of God that is not attached to Him means that He is not God? And when you say since the Bible does not make the explicit statement that Jesus is God (and to you they must be those words) then that means He isn't God?

Let's be clear, sharing titles with God is not something that makes someone God. There are numerous examples of normal people sharing a title with God in the Bible. What clearly differentiates someone from being God is if they are not like God in every single last way imaginable. Isn't God the God who never changes? If Jesus doesn't share all of God's titles then he simply isn't God.

 

[Runningman]

You need to read an entire post before you jump the gun like that and make foolish mistakes.

haha thank you I love that when you people disrespect me with your backhanded remarks.

No it doesn't. Read it again.

Put it on repeat.

Why does "Alpha and omega" mean someone is God but when someone isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or the Lord of heaven and earth then regardless they are still God according to you?

It is a statement of His eternal sovereign existence.

Citation needed.

It is biblical to presume that Jesus is not God if He is not called by ALL the titles of God but not Biblical to say He is God because He is called by the title of God?

It just goes to show he isn't who God is.

You might pause to consider for at least ten seconds who God is. If someone is called a title that belongs only to Him, the that person is equated with Him. He will not give His glory to another and in His titles is His glory.

Are you sure about that?

Ezra 7
12Artaxerxes, king of kings...

Only one single time (though there are more than one single time) of being given a title that belongs to God alone, shreds your reasoning to a pile of unbiblical.

Then according to your logic and reasoning Artaxerxes is Lord God Almighty. Now pause 10 seconds and reconsider what you're saying.

 

[Runningman]

Except for the parts that you ignore or twist into your confirmation bias. They do not validate the same thing, you only say the do, and won't hear anything to the contrary.

I just take into counsel the whole of Scriptures rather than knee jerking on proof texts. For example you may read John 8:58 and see Jesus said "I am" and say "wow must mean Jesus is God!" but when does reading Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13 where Jesus is not the I AM not change anything?

You accuse me of cherry picking where the word "all" is used, even though the passages themselves identified the "all" in explicit terms, and then cherry pick a half of a sentence and say that is all that "all" meant? What this half a sentence is is Paul saying in effect "Not only is Christ seated at the right hand of God in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come, and put all things under His feet, He also gave Him as head of the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

There is an error in interpreting absolutes as being literal because there are usually outliers and exceptions. Sometimes all can refer to literally all, but Jesus isn't literally the Lord of all. For example, All of Jesus' enemies aren't under his feet yet therefore Jesus isn't their Lord. However, when they are all put under his feet Jesus will lose his Lordship by being made subject to God.

1 Corinthians 15
24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 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. 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.

So no, the context is not about Christ only being Lord of the church.

According to Hebrews 5 Jesus' lordship applies to the church, to those who obey him.

Hebrews 5
9And having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him 10and was designated by God as high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

 

[Runningman]

I don't. As Son of God He is deity. As Son of Man, He does the work of redemption in His earthly ministry. They are not two---they are one.

Same exact person on earth too. The Son of God is a human through and through. You are missing out on so much by not understanding who Jesus is.

Matt 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Those who knew that Jesus calling Himself Son of God was making Himself equal with God---which Jesus did not deny but verified----is one you cannot deny as you try to here, because it speaks to the culture and mindset of the Jews. They KNEW what it meant. You only speculate that it did not mean that to them.

That doesn't mean he is equal to God. Contrary to that false accusation Jesus denied it.

John 10
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”

34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’d? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?