Is Jesus God

[Zeleste]

Never said you did.



That is not what Paul said but what you are yet to prove that he said.



Nope. I guess you think that all translators are wrong. lol



You have not read nor understood any of my posts. Go back and read what I wrote about this very topic several times now. I am not going in circles with you. If you believe that what I wrote is incorrect then address the point and provide evidence to refute it. So far your posts have lacked evidence of any kind.

I thing you are saying that Paul and John are wrong LOL.

men are spirit plus soul plus body.
God is Spirit
Christ being God, being Spirit, he accepted (add if you want) soul and body.

 

[Zeleste]

Now is time for the Hypostatic Union.
Perhaps my christology is wrong. Probably it is; or not.
But proving my christology is wrong (it was not been proved) is not enough.
It is necessary to prove that the HU is correct.
And nobody in the las 15 centuries (since it was formulated) have given a scriptural support.
Nobody, including this Forum.

 

[Keachian]

Now is time for the Hypostatic Union.
Perhaps my christology is wrong. Probably it is; or not.
But proving my christology is wrong (it was not been proved) is not enough.
It is necessary to prove that the HU is correct.
And nobody in the las 15 centuries (since it was formulated) have given a scriptural support.
Nobody, including this Forum.

You're 15 Centuries old and have read/heard every presentation of the HU wow

 

[Hentenza]

Now is time for the Hypostatic Union.
Perhaps my christology is wrong. Probably it is; or not.
But proving my christology is wrong (it was not been proved) is not enough.
It is necessary to prove that the HU is correct.
And nobody in the las 15 centuries (since it was formulated) have given a scriptural support.
Nobody, including this Forum.

Scriptural support has been given.

 

[98cwitr]

Christ seems to really separate Himself from the Father in a few places

Luke 18:19
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."

 

[Keachian]

Christ seems to really separate Himself from the Father in a few places

Luke 18:19
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."

Why do you think there is a denial of Jesus' goodness?

 

[98cwitr]

I think Jesus was acknowledging His humanity and at the same time acknowledging the sin of the world and of all men and the Goodness of the Father. While on the surface, it seems to be a very simple statement, like many things Jesus said, carries tremendous truth and weight.

 

[Keachian]

I think Jesus was acknowledging His humanity and at the same time acknowledging the sin of the world and of all men and the Goodness of the Father. While on the surface, it seems to be a very simple statement, like many things Jesus said, carries tremendous truth and weight.

I think it also challenges the young man to reassess who he is dealing with

 

[98cwitr]

I would agree as well as a stark self-assessment Just after that he tells this ruler (think politician or gov. official) to sell everything he owns and follow Him. WOW!

 

[Zeleste]

Scriptural support has been given.

That is not true.

 

[Zeleste]

That is not true.

Not scriptural support of the HU have ever gived.
The HU is NOT a biblical doctrine.

 

[Zeleste]

Christ seems to really separate Himself from the Father in a few places

Luke 18:19
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."

Luke 18:19 Jesus is not saying that he is not God
Mark 9:11 Jesus is not saying that Elia is not coming first
Mark 10:18 Jesus is not saying that he is not good
Mark 12:35 Jesus is not saying that the Mesia is not from the family of David

 

[Hentenza]

That is not true.

Not scriptural support of the HU have ever gived.
The HU is NOT a biblical doctrine.

Then refute post 138 point by point. Tell me how the grammar fails and how, from the grammar, the conclusions are wrong. Opinions devoid of proof do not count.

 

[OzSpen]

Not scriptural support of the HU have ever gived.
The HU is NOT a biblical doctrine.

In bible.org, there is an article by Emery Nester, 'Christology: The Doctrine of Christ', that provides ample biblical evidence for the hypostatic union.

Oz

 

[Zeleste]

Then refute post 138 point by point. Tell me how the grammar fails and how, from the grammar, the conclusions are wrong. Opinions devoid of proof do not count.

how many times I have to do the same?

 

[Zeleste]

In bible.org, there is an article by Emery Nester, 'Christology: The Doctrine of Christ', that provides ample biblical evidence for the hypostatic union.

Oz

Doest it caontaing any biblical evidence of the following:
Divine nature is different than human nature.
Jesus Christ has two different natures: divine and human.
Those two supposed natures co-exist indepently, not mixed.
Share that evidence. I didnt found it. It is a nice human speach. as usual on teaching HU; but nothing more that human words.

 

[OzSpen]

Greetings in Jesus Christ.

Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.
​

As you can see from the above scriptures... The apostles said He was God.

Blessed be the journy.

Yoshua,

These are excellent references to support Jesus' being fully God.

Here are two articles that provide a biblical defense for Jesus' Godhead:

• Jesus’ two natures: God and man;
• How can Jesus be God and man?

In Christ, Oz

 

[yogosans14]

I would like for someone to prove to me that the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is false:
In [the] beginning+ the Word*+ was, and the Word was with God,*+ and the Word was a god

The "a" god implies that Jesus is lower then God, I'm currently studying with JWs and would want to see evidence that the KJV's and many other translations have the correct rendering of John 1:1 vs the NWT's.

IMHO I think placing an "a" next to god makes the sentence structure kind of akward...

 

[Keachian]

I would like for someone to prove to me that the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is false:
In [the] beginning+ the Word*+ was, and the Word was with God,*+ and the Word was a god

The "a" god implies that Jesus is lower then God, I'm currently studying with JWs and would want to see evidence that the KJV's and many other translations have the correct rendering of John 1:1 vs the NWT's.

IMHO I think placing an "a" next to god makes the sentence structure kind of akward...

Well I do know that the use of the definitive would say something that John didn't want it to say, that is that Jesus was the Father.

In terms of actually discussing with JWs I would actually go to other passages, Psalm 102 and its use in Hebrews 1, read through and talk about what Psalm 102 is doing and then go to Hebrews 1 read it and talk about who the writer is applying it to, then also look at John 12 and the imagery he draws on from Isaiah 6 in v41 the NWT cross-reference notes will actually help you because they point to Isaiah 6 and it is very significant, then I'd probably also walk them from start to finish through Phil 2 talking about what it means to be humble, don't just spurt out these like proof-texts but engage them in looking at what the texts say and what the implications of those are.

EDIT: I've just had a look at some of your other threads and posts and feel that you should have a watch of this video which goes into more detail about what I talk about above:
EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS GOD & THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION" BIBLE IS WRONG - YouTube

 

[Zeleste]

Yoshua,

These are excellent references to support Jesus' being fully God.

Here are two articles that provide a biblical defense for Jesus' Godhead:

• Jesus’ two natures: God and man;
• How can Jesus be God and man?

In Christ, Oz

That article concider that God nature is different from man nature; but his asumption is never prioved and offcourse it is wrong. God and men have exactly the same nature: spirit.