Do you believe Jesus is God?

[Jpark]

god sometimes changes his mind (so to speak, god doesn't really have a mind) but only because we repent or we ask for mercy or something like that.


Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


the LORD doesn't change, therefore he didn't change into a man. the bible doesn't say god became a man, it says Jesus was begotten, not that Jesus was a changeling. begotten doesn't mean change .
the main "god is not a man" verse actually says.
(Young) Numbers 23:19 God [is] not a man--and lieth, And a son of man--and repenteth! Hath He said--and doth He not do [it]? And spoken--and doth He not confirm it?

ther is one not before a man, lieth, a son of man, and repenteth. So reallly God is saying he isnt a man, doesn't lie, isn't a son of man, and he doesn't repent.

Yes, it's typically conditional.

Malachi 3:6 is talking about His promise to Jacob, indicated by "therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6 does not say that God does not change into a man.

Num. 23:19 is why I say that Jesus is no longer a human being. If Jesus was God, He would not always remain as a man because John 1:14 indicates temporariness.

Yes, but that merely says He does not change His promises. He can change His plans (Jeremiah 18:7-10).

So what you're saying means is that a spirit (God) changed into a soul (Jesus), then a spirit (God) changed a soul (Jesus) back to himself a spirit (God). And you don't see why that makes no sense to me?

The Omnipresent Spirit changed Himself into a human being while remaining as a Spirit. Then later the Spirit changed a human being who was Himself back into Himself, a Spirit.

Nope. It makes perfect sense to me.

one has to make a decision for himself as to which translation is the correct one. one shouldn't say , as you are intimating here, that the correct translation cannot be determined. Only rarely is it true that the correct translation is undeterminable.

I use the NASB and Codex Sinaiticus since they're apparently the most reliable translations.

Rarely do I use Greek (which I can only read. I can't translate Greek into English) and Hebrew (which I can't even read).

well yea, you ducked practically everything I said. one has to counter my claims in order to win a debate. Ducking a debate makes one a loser of the debate.

But on the other hand, I probably have presented you with some things you have never considered before and you would need time to develop a counter arguement, and that isn't likely due to the time factor. And you probablly would only devote the time needed to analyse closely my statements if you were being persuaded by the holy spirit into these truths, and were following the leading of the holy spirit. otherwise, most people aren't going to devote much time to something they dont believe. God isn't going to call someone who is satisfied being a baptist,( if that's where God has called him to be, ) to be a pentecostal. A person has to be dissatisfied with being a baptist before God can lead him into more truth, into the baptism of the holy spirit. Someone disatisfied being a pentecostal, god will show him justifiable reasons to be a baptist, because god doesn't want to force anyone to be something they don't want ot be. If someone doesn't want to be a queen, but wants to be a concubine (song of solomon) god will not force that person to be a queen. D'accord?

But it is impossible to counter your claims. I don't know Greek. I can only read it.

Perhaps. I know that I said I would search for a Scripture that said that God can come in bodily flesh.

 

[Superfast]

Yes, it's typically conditional.

Malachi 3:6 is talking about His promise to Jacob, indicated by "therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6 does not say that God does not change into a man.

Heb. 1. “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”NIV

ps 102.27 But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.


mal. 3.6 gave one example of how god does not change. that doesn't mean that the one example is the only way god does not change. Premise is that God doesn't change, example given in mal. 3.6 is just the statement that Jacob isn't consumed because he (god) does not change. Saying god changed from a spirit to a soul contradicts mal. 3.6. mal. 3.6 doesn't say the only way God doesn't change is that he doesn't change his promises. you just conclude that from the statement that Jacob isn't consumed. I don't see that as a warranted conclusion, but even if it is, it doesn't mean that the jacob example is the only way god does not change. the bible says God is from everlasting to everlasting, so we know from that that one way god does not c hange is that he doesn't die.

Num. 23:19 is why I say that Jesus is no longer a human being. If Jesus was God, He would not always remain as a man because John 1:14 indicates temporariness.

How does it indicate temorariness?

Yes, but that merely says He does not change His promises. He can change His plans (Jeremiah 18:7-10).

The Omnipresent Spirit changed Himself into a human being while remaining as a Spirit. Then later the Spirit changed a human being who was Himself back into Himself, a Spirit.

Nope. It makes perfect sense to me.

The reason it doesn't make sense to me is that if God who is a spirit chaned into a man who is a soul, then he is no longer God or spirit. If something changes into something else it cease to be what it was before it made the change. that is why what you guys say makes no snese to me. If one melts down 50 gold coins and changes it to a gold bar. then it's no longer 50 gold coins, ya can't have your cake and eat it too.

I use the NASB and Codex Sinaiticus since they're apparently the most reliable translations.

How would you know they are the most reliable?

Rarely do I use Greek (which I can only read. I can't translate Greek into English) and Hebrew (which I can't even read).

But it is impossible to counter your claims. I don't know Greek. I can only read it.

and you have never checked out the def. of a greek word in says Strongs concordance? there are numerous sources out there for people who don't understand Greek to use to check out what highly intellignent and knowledgeable people say about the greek language. one of my favorites is the UBS book written by Bruce Metzger that deals with most of the interpoltated and spurious scriptures in the bible and gives therir reasons for why they choose whatever translation they choose. It's readable and understandable for laymen like myself. It's on line here.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

the introduction is in arabic, but just push the numbers and t hey take you to the books of the NT. 1. for mathew. 2 for mark 3. for luke 4. for John etc. then it's just a copy of Metzgers book in english. I have found this book to be very faluable in making my decisions as to which translation is the correct one. at first at times it was hard to follow but though practice I have no difficulty now.

there are also numerougs greek grammar books on line that one can check out to verify grammatical claims that might be made. one doesn'th ave to be an expert on language to understand what a predicate nominative is, or what a noun is or a verb etc. they teach grammar in likethe 8th grade . it's not nuclear science.

Perhaps. I know that I said I would search for a Scripture that said that God can come in bodily flesh.

you have no trobule understanding the Eidios means appearance and morphe means form in Greek do you? that's easily determinable by just looking in strongs. If you find a translation that says form you canc check it out in strongs can't you? you can, so you are capable of verifiying greek def. claims to some extent. there are other sources besides strongs available to us laymen. we don't have to just rely on what scholars say. besides scholars frequently disagree, it's not like we have to examine every single word they translate and detemine for every single word they translate withich is the correct translation. all we have to do is check out the differences in translations that have significant consequences. and that doesn't require years of study and investigation.

 

[.Iona.]

Do you believe Jesus is God?

No, I don't.

 

[Jpark]

The reason it doesn't make sense to me is that if God who is a spirit chaned into a man who is a soul, then he is no longer God or spirit. If something changes into something else it cease to be what it was before it made the change. that is why what you guys say makes no snese to me. If one melts down 50 gold coins and changes it to a gold bar. then it's no longer 50 gold coins, ya can't have your cake and eat it too.

The problem with using such a analogy is that God is immaterial and gold coins are material.

How would you know they are the most reliable?

Maybe not the NASB, but I have heard about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

and you have never checked out the def. of a greek word in says Strongs concordance? there are numerous sources out there for people who don't understand Greek to use to check out what highly intellignent and knowledgeable people say about the greek language. one of my favorites is the UBS book written by Bruce Metzger that deals with most of the interpoltated and spurious scriptures in the bible and gives therir reasons for why they choose whatever translation they choose. It's readable and understandable for laymen like myself. It's on line here.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

the introduction is in arabic, but just push the numbers and t hey take you to the books of the NT. 1. for mathew. 2 for mark 3. for luke 4. for John etc. then it's just a copy of Metzgers book in english. I have found this book to be very faluable in making my decisions as to which translation is the correct one. at first at times it was hard to follow but though practice I have no difficulty now.

there are also numerougs greek grammar books on line that one can check out to verify grammatical claims that might be made. one doesn'th ave to be an expert on language to understand what a predicate nominative is, or what a noun is or a verb etc. they teach grammar in likethe 8th grade . it's not nuclear science.

I have Strong's Concordance. I also have a Majority Text Greek Interlinear. It's just that I'm not convinced by words. My concern is not with the meaning of words, but with what the text plainly says.

Interesting. Is this ubs book biased? What does the author believe concerning Jesus?

I occasionally use this when I'm interested in the meaning.

you have no trobule understanding the Eidios means appearance and morphe means form in Greek do you? that's easily determinable by just looking in strongs. If you find a translation that says form you canc check it out in strongs can't you? you can, so you are capable of verifiying greek def. claims to some extent. there are other sources besides strongs available to us laymen. we don't have to just rely on what scholars say. besides scholars frequently disagree, it's not like we have to examine every single word they translate and detemine for every single word they translate withich is the correct translation. all we have to do is check out the differences in translations that have significant consequences. and that doesn't require years of study and investigation.

Like I said, I can't be persuaded by word meanings alone. On the other hand, I'm willing to learn.

 

[Samuel Coleridge]

This is one of the hottest topics on CF, and members span the entire spectrum from extreme YES to extreme NO, with every moderate point in between being represented.

While I've seen and participated in many debates about this issue, I have not seen a poll on the subject.

Please provide some rationale for your answer and maybe even a comment or response to how others have answered.

In doing so, please be mindful and respectful of the rules of CF.

Thank you.

If Jesus is God

then God would have to be Jesus.

Jesus said he was the Son of God.

I am going to take Jesus at his own word till he tells me different.

 

[cubinity]

If Jesus is God

then God would have to be Jesus.

Jesus said he was the Son of God.

I am going to take Jesus at his own word till he tells me different.

I've read a few of your posts on various threads today.

I like the way you think. Stick around awhile.

 

[mannysee]

Haven't read the whole thread, so am not sure if the righteousness of God angle has been examined.
I am in the middle of a justification discussion at the SDA forum, and have been considering the above phrase.

I see the righteousness of God as being that righteousness which Jesus demonstrated when he fulfilled for his people all the pressing claims of the law upon them. From this, His righteousness being then imputed to them.

So the righteousness of God is the same as saying the righteousness of Jesus.
e.g. "...the righteousness of one (Jesus)..." [Rom.5:18]

 

[xpatriot]

I answered "maybe" because how in the world could I ever know?

There is some indication that he wasn't God. For instance his question from the cross: God, why have you foresaken me?

 

[xpatriot]

It appears to me that what you are doing is equating your interrpreatation of certain scriptures that Jesus is God, with scripture that says Jesus is a man and not a spirit. Doesn't what scripture says have priority over interpretations of scriptures?

Interesting philosophical question. How do you propose it's possible for one to seperate "what the scripture says" from one's interpretation of what the scripture says? The prevailing consensus is that such a thing would be impossible.

 

[Superfast]

The problem with using such a analogy is that God is immaterial and gold coins are material.

So what you're saying is that god can change into something else and at the same time not change into something else because he is a spirit being and not a material being. Whereas to me saying God can change into something else and at the same time he doesn't change into something else is just a contradiction. If one says god changed to something else, that means he is what he changed to not what he use to be. an irreconsilable point, one that you share with most who believe Jesus is god, and one which us who believe Jesus is not god find to be a contradiction.

Maybe not the NASB, but I have heard about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

I have Strong's Concordance. I also have a Majority Text Greek Interlinear. It's just that I'm not convinced by words. My concern is not with the meaning of words, but with what the text plainly says.

and what the text plainly says isn't determined by the meaning of the words use? It doesn't matter what the words people use mean? You aren't concerned with the meaning of the words you used? Either I'm not following you or you haven't thought this one through. If I say "I ran deftly to the store" then it doesn't matter what I consider the word deftly to mean? If you think deftly means fast, it doesn't matter that it doesnt' mean fast? it doesn't matter what deftly means as far as the meaning of my sentence? I can't believe you or anyone believes that. deftly means deterously, or nibbly something like that it doesn't mean fast. so if I meant that i ran deftly and you think it means i ran fast, you have a wrong understanding of my sentence ":I ran deftly to the store". Themeaning of deftly affects the meaning greatly of what I said. .

On the other hand, there are 2 ways of translating a sentence into any language. One way is to translate it in a more literal mannar, and another way is to read a senetence in one language, decide what the person means, and regurgitate the idea in the way we would say it in our language, but the second way, although it might be more accurate than a literal translation, requires some great degree of intepretation. Safer, in my opinion, to stick with the more literal translation, and decide for oneself if the literal translation is accurate, or more interpretative translations are the accurate one. it's a judgement call. Perhaps you meant something along these lines?

Interesting. Is this ubs book biased? What does the author believe concerning Jesus?

All of us are biased. whether or not any of us let our bias affect our judgement is a judgement call. my opinion is that sometimes the majority opinion is wrong because their trinitarian bias has affected their judgement adversly. sometimes the minority opiion is wrong because of a bias, sometimes the majority is right in spite of their bias, sometimes the minority is right in spite of thier bias. sometimes both the majority and minority opinion is wrong because of their bias. Depends on the verse under consideration. There is no bible, and no commentary that is totally 100 percent free of any adverse affect due to bias, in my opinion. some just more so than others. I think Rotherhams translation is the lest biased and the best, but he is biased at times and wrong at times when generally less accurate bibles are correct. even extremely liberal bibles are sometimes right when generally more literally accurate translations are wrong. At least that's what I have concluded from my experience with them.

here is the ubs home.

http://www.biblesociety.org/index.php?id=2


It's the findings of the United bible Society regarding thier decisions as to what they as a body have decided is the correct reading for verses with variant readings in the Greek Manuscripts. Bruce Metzger, the author of the book, and a member of the committee, just reports the findings of the comittee and sometimes puts in his divirgent opinon where he differs with the majority opinon on any verse. they voted and that's how they decided which was the correct reading. the majority rules. Also they rate the probability of thier choice by rating their choices either A, B, C, or D. A means certain, B means almost certain, C meets considrable doubt, and D means something like just a guess.

I occasionally use this when I'm interested in the meaning.

I use Strongs as well, but I have found that it isn't always right. haven't you ever read a definition of a word and thought to yourself, " that don't seem right?" I have. and sometimes further investigation of other sources either confirms my suspicions or denys them.

Like I said, I can't be persuaded by word meanings alone. On the other hand, I'm willing to learn.

ok so no need to look up the meaning of words in whatever source to determine if it has been translated correctly. I disagree.

 

[Superfast]

Interesting philosophical question. How do you propose it's possible for one to seperate "what the scripture says" from one's interpretation of what the scripture says? The prevailing consensus is that such a thing would be impossible.

John 1.1c "the word was god"
john 17.3 "there is but one god, the Father"

these two verses should be interpreted to result in no contradiction.

interpreting john 1.1c to mean "Jesus is god" or "the preexistant christ was god" should not be compared with john 17.3 "there is but one god, the Father" and then get a non contradictory intepretation. But this is what happens all the time. Trinitarians are always sayin John 1.1 says Jesus is god as if it actually said that,

It is a matter of interpretation however as to whether any scripture is literal or figurative. It is not a matter of interprretation as to what the scripture actually says , It is not a matter of interpretation that john 1.1c says "the word was god."

 

[xpatriot]

John 1.1c "the word was god"


Trinitarians are always sayin John 1.1 says Jesus is god as if it actually said that,

It is a matter of interpretation however as to whether any scripture is literal or figurative.

Agreed. In fact it seems to me that anything I or anyone else ever reads must be filtered through our interpretations of its meaning.

 

[Woldeyesus]

I answered "maybe" because how in the world could I ever know?

There is some indication that he wasn't God. For instance his question from the cross: God, why have you foresaken me?

The indications that Jesus wasn't God are actually typical of his divine nature and attitude verbally expressed including his altruistic language, figures of speech and the rhetorical questions. The preferred language Jesus used was the testimony of his works, particularly baptism in the Holy Spirit at his death on the cross!

Investigation will confirm that "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me"? is nothing but a rhetorical question dismissing outright man's unbelief in his divine identity and absolute authority over death and life as it was actually being exercised!

 

[ToxicReboMan]

The indications that Jesus wasn't God are actually typical of his divine nature and attitude verbally expressed including his altruistic language, figures of speech and the rhetorical questions. The preferred language Jesus used was the testimony of his works, particularly baptism in the Holy Spirit at his death on the cross!

Investigation will confirm that "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me"? is nothing but a rhetorical question dismissing outright man's unbelief in his divine identity and absolute authority over death and life as it was actually being exercised!

I view the words of Jesus, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" to be very much in line with the other things he said. For example, read the words of Christ when he was praying to God in the garden of Gethsemane... "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Mt 26:39 KJV

Jesus was possibly relating to the plight of King David. I believe he very much meant the words that he was saying. For example, he asked God to let that cup pass from him. He preferred not to go to the cross if at all possible, but in the end he wanted to do the will of God. Despite the many temptations Jesus did not act on the weak nature of the body. Instead, he let the Spirit of God lead him.

Jesus was a man just like you and me albeit he was a very unique man, but he was still a man. Now Jesus the Christ is a glorified man in a glorified body. This special man is our Mediator, High Priest, King, Lord, Messiah.

Hosanna! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord! Mk 11:9

 

[xpatriot]

The indications that Jesus wasn't God are actually typical of his divine nature

Sort of like how Europe's coldest winter on record is an indicator of global warming? Well, maybe, but it seems unlikely.

...and attitude verbally expressed including his altruistic language, figures of speech and the rhetorical questions. The preferred language Jesus used was the testimony of his works, particularly baptism in the Holy Spirit at his death on the cross!

I'm also capable of using figures of speech and posing rehtorical questions, though it's not an indication of a devine nature. Unless we are speaking in terms of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Phenomemon of Man.

Your statement that Yeshua was baptised in the holy spirit while on the cross seems to contradict [my interpretation of] scripture.
“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you (John 16:7)

Investigation will confirm that "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me"? is nothing but a rhetorical question dismissing outright man's unbelief in his divine identity and absolute authority over death and life as it was actually being exercised!

Possibly. Isnt it also possible that He was a man, chosen to be the last Adam, the One through which all would be made alive, and that He gained his supremacy over death in the subsequent taking of death's key, and that He walked that corridor alone, into the unknown in a supreme act of bravery and sacrifice, and that when He called out to God from the cross, he sincerely felt himself to be forsaken?

 

[xpatriot]

The indications that Jesus wasn't God are actually typical of his divine nature and attitude verbally expressed including his altruistic language, figures of speech and the rhetorical questions. The preferred language Jesus used was the testimony of his works, particularly baptism in the Holy Spirit at his death on the cross!

Investigation will confirm that "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me"? is nothing but a rhetorical question dismissing outright man's unbelief in his divine identity and absolute authority over death and life as it was actually being exercised!

I view the words of Jesus, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" to be very much in line with the other things he said. For example, read the words of Christ when he was praying to God in the garden of Gethsemane... "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Mt 26:39 KJV

Jesus was possibly relating to the plight of King David. I believe he very much meant the words that he was saying. For example, he asked God to let that cup pass from him. He preferred not to go to the cross if at all possible, but in the end he wanted to do the will of God. Despite the many temptations Jesus did not act on the weak nature of the body. Instead, he let the Spirit of God lead him.

Jesus was a man just like you and me albeit he was a very unique man, but he was still a man. Now Jesus the Christ is a glorified man in a glorified body. This special man is our Mediator, High Priest, King, Lord, Messiah.

Hosanna! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord! Mk 11:9

Exactly. Consider this. If Yeshua were God, He would have known He was God, because omniscience is an attribute of God. That would make everything that transpired in the garden and on the cross an odd pantomime. It would utterly destroy the integrity of Yeshua's character. What fear and pain could a cross threaten to God?

 

[cubinity]

Exactly. Consider this. If Yeshua were God, He would have known He was God, because omniscience is an attribute of God. That would make everything that transpired in the garden and on the cross an odd pantomime. It would utterly destroy the integrity of Yeshua's character. What fear and pain could a cross threaten to God?

Judas believed he was God, and that the cross was no real threat. He turned him in so Jesus would be forced to reveal himself as God. Then, when Judas' friend actually died, Judas realized his faith was misguided, and that he had essentially murdered his best friend. So, overcome with guilt, he took his own life.

Believing Jesus was God, in this case, proved tragic. Sad Judas.

 

[xpatriot]

I love my new forum!

I have nothing against Trinitarians. I can totally understand the desire to heap as much praise and as many titles upon Yeshua as possible.

 

[xpatriot]

Judas believed he was God, and that the cross was no real threat. He turned him in so Jesus would be forced to reveal himself as God. Then, when Judas' friend actually died, Judas realized his faith was misguided, and that he had essentially murdered his best friend. So, overcome with guilt, he took his own life.

Believing Jesus was God, in this case, proved tragic. Sad Judas.

Interesting take. Judas played a crucial role in the plan of salvation. I believe he is forgiven. I believe that even the writers of the gospels didn't comprehend the totality of the victory at calvary, and the absolute grace of Lord Yeshua.

 

[Evergreen48]

Judas believed he was God, and that the cross was no real threat. He turned him in so Jesus would be forced to reveal himself as God. Then, when Judas' friend actually died, Judas realized his faith was misguided, and that he had essentially murdered his best friend. So, overcome with guilt, he took his own life.

Believing Jesus was God, in this case, proved tragic. Sad Judas.

What makes you think Judas believed he was God? Surely none of his disciples believed that they had been following the Almighty God around all that time. That they believed he was the Son of God and the promised Messiah is evident, but that he was Almighty God himself? uh uh. Not so!