Was Jesus God or the Son of God?

[JesusServant]

Originally posted by billhabing
Jesus servant, I don't want you to think i am a wise guy, But Jesus is the one who said Be Perfect as Our Father in Heaven. That even puts a little more bite into for me.

And the fact is that when God has children they are baby gods. If you look close at the gospels you will see that Jesus called disciples the "light" and He is also the "Light" He taught us to do what He did, heal etc. He calls us "brothers"( in Heb) He Prayed for us to be one with Him and one with the Father. The fact is that we are him (small h) in the world today. Can any one say when you see me you see Jesus? If we are one with Him this should be true. Can we say come follow me? if not why not?

This is a high calling and  should put away any notion that living in sin is ok. I wonder why the teaching is so rejected?

Just another seeker, no longer a preacher, in His love

Your Friend Bill

Not at all Bill, thanks for correcting me on that, you're absolutely correct Jesus said that not Paul.  I type 90+ words a minute and probably think slower sometimes

Also, something that is ignored today Bill, is that He also told us to cast out demons/devils in His name, something that you don't see a lot of today... I've witnessed it (not in a church setting like it was set up or anything either), but I obviously can't prove it.

And on the holiness preaching Bill, you go boy!  It's a rarity today and it's considered impossible to live a righteous life.  Jesus, I think, proved everyone wrong in this assumption.  No, you will not be born without sin and not sin ever, but you can, with the HS be turned from it and continue towards God's righteousness rather than away from it...

God bless

Night all!  Love to my brothers in Christ!

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by JesusServant

So you must know how hard this is to accept and/or understand.  This is obviously a doctrine that takes a faith of its own. 

 

true but so does many other doctrines that we would agree on. 

 

I am not saying there are not good arguments on the side that Jesus was God and that's why I am staying with this until I get an answer from God Himself or there is such conviction from the Holy Spirit that I have to simply accept it.  This hasn't happened yet so I am still seeking as many viewpoints as I can get.  So far I've learned some things from both sides I haven't even looked at before (viewpoint wise).

God bless! [/B]

Okay. 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by JesusServant
 

Just another perspective...

How did God want us or the Jews of the OT to be?  How did He want them to live and love one another?  Is Jesus not the epitome of God's word and fulfilled every characteristic that God wanted to see in all of His people?  To me, Jesus fulfilled the Word of God promised in the prophecies of the OT and lived up to exactly what God wants us all to be.

Yes He fufilled al lteh prophecies and was perfection incarnate. Which brings me to another argument that since this is true Jesus has to be God because Paul tells us that no man seeks after God. (Rom. 3)

Now obviously He needed help, and that was the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.  Now we have access to it if we're deemed worthy by God.  I have to go back and make sure but I don't think anyone answered the question...

Why did Jesus have to die for the Comforter to come?  (Jesus said this, I think we should all know He did, but I can find the scripture if need be) [/B]

Well we are not worthy to receive the H.S. WE get Him as a gift after we are saved.  I believe that Jesus had to leave so the H.S. would come because that was the way God ordained it to occur.  God could of chosen not to do it that way but He did.  I do not think that they were forced to do it that way.  But all 3 are God. 

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Well then how do you explain what john says?
First we all know the scripture that says that there is only one God.  So God must be of atleast one substance right?
now let's get to john.  First we find out that the Word is God. 
John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I asked you a question about what James said and you answer a question by bringing up your usual proof text that most trinitarians "thinks" it proves the trinity.  OK I'll play your game by taking this part for now.  Here is an excellent explanation by Chris Camillo:

1:1 IN THE BEGINNING (at the time when John the baptizer was preaching in the wilderness) WAS THE MESSAGE (was the gospel announcement about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ), AND THE MESSAGE WAS TOWARD GOD (and the gospel announcement about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ, was for repentance toward God the Father), AND GOD WAS THE MESSAGE (and God the Father, Himself, was making the gospel announcement about repentance and the appearing of Jesus, the Christ, through John the baptizer)

Now blackhawk, here is my question that I asked you in the post I addressed to you..... BTW, I'll cover the entire context of John 1 later for you by Chris C....

Q. If Jesus was not fully human, but had another nature that was divine, then how can he expect us to live up to his standards?


 

 

[Phoenix]

1:1 IN THE BEGINNING (at the time when John the baptizer was preaching in the wilderness) WAS THE MESSAGE (was the gospel announcement about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ), AND THE MESSAGE WAS TOWARD GOD (and the gospel announcement about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ, was for repentance toward God the Father), AND GOD WAS THE MESSAGE (and God the Father, Himself, was making the gospel announcement about repentance and the appearing of Jesus, the Christ, through John the baptizer)

I'm willing to bite on this Franklin - but how does that translation of that verse correspond to verses 1:2-5 ?

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by Phoenix
I'm willing to bite on this Franklin - but how does that translation of that verse correspond to verses 1:2-5 ?

Hi there Phoenix, This might be more then just a bite for you, it's a meal! So how's everything going with ya?  Here is John 1:2-5 by Chris C:

1:2 AND IT (the gospel message about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ) WAS IN THE BEGINNING TOWARD GOD (was about repentance toward God the Father, since the time John the baptizer was preaching in the wilderness).

1:3 ALL THINGS (everything now manifest pertaining to the eternal life and true fellowship with God the Father, Himself, through Jesus, the Christ) CAME INTO BEING THROUGH IT (came to be manifest on account of the gospel message about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ), AND APART FROM IT (and without the gospel message about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ) NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING (nothing pertaining to the eternal life and true fellowship with God the Father, Himself, through Jesus, the Christ, would be manifest)

1:4 IN IT (in the gospel message about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ) WAS LIFE (was the manifestation of the eternal life through Jesus, the Christ), AND THE LIFE (and the manifestation of the eternal life through Jesus, the Christ) WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN (is the eternal life and the true fellowship with God the Father, Himself, for all the people)

1:5 THE LIGHT SHINES (the eternal life and the true fellowship with God, Himself, through Jesus, the Christ, was manifest) IN THE DARKNESS (among the unbelieving Jews), AND THE DARKNESS (and the unbelieving Jews) DID NOT COMPREHEND IT (did not recognize the eternal life and the true fellowship with God the Father through Jesus, the Christ, when it was proclaimed)

Pretty good huh? Hope BH is paying attention.....   

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by franklin
I asked you a question about what James said and you answer a question by bringing up your usual proof text that most trinitarians "thinks" it proves the trinity.

 

Huh? When did you ask me anything about James? Maybe I missed it. 

 

OK I'll play your game by taking this part for now.  Here is an excellent explanation by Chris Camillo:

1:1 IN THE BEGINNING (at the time when John the baptizer was preaching in the wilderness) [/B]

 

Huh? How does he get this? John makes no statment that the beggining was to be defined as the time when John the baptist was preaching.  It goes against the clearer understanding of the  text to assert that.   

 

WAS THE MESSAGE (was the gospel announcement about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ), [/B]

 

now this goes against the context of the text.  Also john personifies the Word.  I think Mr. Camillo is trying to look at a 2,000 year old text with 21st century eyes.  It does not work. 

 

AND THE MESSAGE WAS TOWARD GOD (and the gospel announcement about the appearing of Jesus, the Christ, was for repentance toward God the Father), [/B]

 

I do not know where he is getting this?  IS this supposed to be the subsitute for "And the Word was with God?"  If so wow!

 

AND GOD WAS THE MESSAGE (and God the Father, Himself, was making the gospel announcement about repentance and the appearing of Jesus, the Christ, through John the baptizer) [/B]

 

Again how does he get just this from "And the Word was God."  To just say that seems to go against the context of the text and the clearer meaning of the text.  Another words i do not see how his interpretation makes any sense.  It seems like someone who is trying to twist the Bible away from saying Jesus is God and has to wildly interpret some Bible verses to do so. 

 

Now blackhawk, here is my question that I asked you in the post I addressed to you..... BTW, I'll cover the entire context of John 1 later for you by Chris C....

Q. If Jesus was not fully human, but had another nature that was divine, then how can he expect us to live up to his standards?


  [/B]

well I do not think Jesus expects us to live to His standards.  I think we blew it when sin entered the world.  Once we are saved then we have the power to not sin but before that we are totally depraved.  I thought the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross was because God knew that we could not be perfect so He sent His son to die for us. 

 

[Phoenix]

1:1 IN THE BEGINNING (at the time when John the baptizer was preaching in the wilderness) WAS THE MESSAGE

Sorry i wasn't able to get back to this today Franklin. To be sure you know where i'm coming from i need to say that i believe 100 percent that Jesus is God, there isn't a doubt in my mind.

That's an interesting translation of that verse. The magority of course translate The Word ( Logos ) as God. How does the same author explain the paralel verse in 1John 1-4 ?

I'm well thank you for asking and hope you are too !

 

[Blackhawk]

Oh and here is some context about Logos.


John 1:1 PP3

3. This term (Logos) was in use before the time of John
(a) It was used in the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, as, "e. g.," <Isa. 45:12>: "I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Aramaic it is, "I, `by my word, ' have made," etc. <Isa. 48:13>: "mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Aramaic, "`By my word' I have founded the earth." And so in many other places.

(b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term "Mimra"-- that is, "Word;" and no small part of the interpositions of God in defense of the Jewish nation were declared to be by "the Word of God." Thus, in their Targum on <Deut. 26:17-18>, it is said, "Ye have appointed THE WORD OF GOD a king over you this day, that he may be your God."

(c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.

(d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the Second Person of the Trinity. The Greek term [nous] (grk 3563) or "mind," was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this [nous] was "the word" or "reason" of the First Person of the Trinity. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the Second Person of the Trinity by Christians. whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the [Logos] (grk 3056), or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the [Logos] (grk 3056) or "Word" was one of the "Aeones" that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.
(from Barnes' Notes)

 

[JesusServant]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Yes He fufilled al lteh prophecies and was perfection incarnate. Which brings me to another argument that since this is true Jesus has to be God because Paul tells us that no man seeks after God. (Rom. 3)

This is going in a circle hawk.&nbsp; Jesus told us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.&nbsp; We know this is fact.&nbsp; Yet, since Jesus is perfect that means that He was God?&nbsp; This logic cannot hold true.&nbsp; It is the excuse to sin.&nbsp; If we are to be perfect our only hope is that the HS perfects us to God's perfect will for us.&nbsp; Once this happens we will not be God because God has made it possible for this to occur.&nbsp;

If you don't believe in a perfection then you don't believe what Jesus Himself said right?

Please don't return Jesus being perfect with that being reason He was God because God made Him perfect and we are told by that perfect creation (and scripture tells us Jesus was a creation) that we have to also be perfect as our Father in heaven.&nbsp; Will this perfection make us God?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Because God made&nbsp;us that way.&nbsp; Just like the angels (satan missed the boat here) could not claim righteousness because God made them that way.&nbsp; Am I perfect?&nbsp; No, but I know through God's word that I will be one day and only He and His Son will get the glory not I.&nbsp; I am just&nbsp;His creation and proud and unworthy of it.

 

[franklin]

&nbsp;&nbsp; Originally posted by Phoenix
Sorry i wasn't able to get back to this today Franklin. To be sure you know where i'm coming from i need to say that i believe 100 percent that Jesus is God, there isn't a doubt in my mind.

Hi Phoenix, Sorry brother but if your going to tell me that you are totally convinced that Jesus is God, your going to have to back up what you believe from scripture.&nbsp; I used to believe that very same thing.&nbsp; If you believe that Jesus is 100% God then what are you going to do with these scriptures:

Jesus is not God in the flesh. Numbers 23: 19 states: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should change his mind. "

1 John 4: 12: "No one has ever seen God"

2 John vv. 7 says: "Many deceivers who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. "

Jesus, is Jesus in the flesh. It does not say God, Jehovah, The Father, or The Most High God as coming in the flesh. It says Jesus Christ. When Jesus asks Peter, "But who do you say I am? " Peter answers, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

IF you believe that Jesus is God, you need to show me from scripture Ph, not from the guesses and conjectures that are told to you by theologians.&nbsp;

That's an interesting translation of that verse. The magority of course translate The Word ( Logos ) as God. How does the same author explain the paralel verse in 1John 1-4 ?

I always believed that John 1 referred to the pre-existed Christ and that the word refers to Jesus as God.&nbsp; None of these passages tells us that Jesus is God.&nbsp; John gives witness to the word of God (God’s plan of salvation) AND to the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is obvious that Jesus is not logos. Logos is used in many places in the New Testament, and it is never used as a reference to Jesus.

I'm glad you brought up 1 John 1.... that is a good comparison to John 1 .... Take a close look for yourself at those passages and get back to me as to what God's word is telling you.&nbsp;

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Tradition teaches that&nbsp;John 1 is in reference to Gen 1 ..... What do you think the scripture is saying?&nbsp; I said scripture not man!

&nbsp;
I'm well thank you for asking and hope you are too !

Doing fine and thanks for asking .....&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by franklin
Hi Phoenix, Sorry brother but if your going to tell me that you are totally convinced that Jesus is God, your going to have to back up what you believe from scripture.&nbsp; I used to believe that very same thing.&nbsp; If you believe that Jesus is 100% God then what are you going to do with these scriptures:

The book of Hebrews is clear that Jesus is indeed God.

Heb 1:6:

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

Why are the angels of God worshipping Jesus? The scripture is clear that God alone is to be worshipped.

Heb 1:8-9 continue with:

But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

The Father is calling the Son, "God" why is that?

 

[Phoenix]

Brother,

your going to have to back up what you believe from scripture

I already have. Franklin, there is so much Scripture to back up what i believe i couldn't begin to have time to post it all.

Aside from the verses in John 1:23 lets look back to Isaiah 40:3 where John the Bapist is quoting from - Do you believe that Scripture interprets Scripture ?

Isa 40:3 The voice of one crying&nbsp;in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.&nbsp;

Isa 40:5 The crooked places shall be made straight And the rough places smooth; The Glory of he Lord shall be revealed. And all flesh shall see it together; For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Isa 40:9 O Zion You who bring good tidings, Get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem You who bring good tidings, Lift up your voice with strength, Lift it up, be not&nbsp;afraid: Say to the cities of Judah, BEHOLD YOUR GOD ! ( echo..echo..echo.. ) for effect.

Isa 40:10 Behold , the Lord God shall come with a strong hand, And his arm shall rule for Him: Behold His reward is with Him, And his work before Him, He will feed his flock like a shepard ( who is the good Shepard ? )&nbsp;&nbsp;

Franklin, please understand that i cannot fathom the Trinity as i see it, from Scripture plain Scripture, we see the Jesus is given attributes of God. He can forgive sins, is worshiped etc..The Holy Spirit is God ( to lie to the Holy Spirit is God ) But yet, we only have one God - how is this possible ?

&nbsp;

 

[Warrior FC]

Why do we and the angels worship Jesus?

Because God, The Father has given Jesus all the authority, title, and position that He has!

THE FATHER IS GOD AND JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD... He is not God!

 

[Warrior FC]

Jesus does nothing on His own but only does what THE FATHER (God) tells Him to do!

If Jesus is God then why does He have to GO TO THE FATHER for everything?

Why doesn't He just go to HIMSELF?

 

[Phoenix]

Because God, The Father has given Jesus all the authority, title, and position that He has

Yeah that's kind of the point .. God gave Jesus the title of God.

 

[Warrior FC]

Amen!... But He is not God.. THE FATHER IS!

 

[franklin]

&nbsp;&nbsp; Originally posted by Apologist
The book of Hebrews is clear that Jesus is indeed God.

&nbsp;

Well, ap, I hate to pop your bubble again, but fraid not pilgrim!&nbsp; As you are so persistant in relying on&nbsp;your trinitarian proof texts once again!&nbsp; I think your&nbsp;running out of cards!&nbsp; If the book of Hebrews is so clear to you, you would see that Jesus is the Son of God and not God Almighty!

If we make Hebrews 1:8-9 to mean that Jesus is God, then we have a major conflict for any Trinitarian doctrine. The reason being that it specifically says that the Son has a God who anointed him. If Jesus is God, and he has a God, then there are TWO Gods. This is impossibility for Christianity.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;
Heb 1:6: But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
Why are the angels of God worshipping Jesus? The scripture is clear that God alone is to be worshipped.
Heb 1:8-9 continue with:
But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
The Father is calling the Son, "God" why is that? [/B]

Does this imply that he is God Almighty? Not even close.&nbsp; In this verse the writer is quoting Psalm 45:7 word for word. This same verse was used for the Hebrew King (probably Solomon) in Psalm 45:7, and nobody ever accused Solomon of being God.&nbsp; Read Psalm 45 in its entirety.&nbsp; As you will see from reading this Psalm, it was common to refer to the Hebrew king as "God" because he represented God to the people, not because he was God. In other words, God gave His authority to the Hebrew kings, and in that sense they sat on the throne of God, and in that sense they were addressed as god in their court. 1 Chronicles 29:23 states:

"Therefore Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of his father David."

The whole point of chapter 1 in Hebrews is to prove the superiority of the Son (Messiah) over the angels.&nbsp; Hebrews 1:8-9 is speaking about the Son being the king of Israel, the Messiah. It speaks about a throne, a scepter and a kingdom. These are all things that are associated with a king as it was in Psalm 45:7, this is why it was written of Solomon.

Ap,&nbsp;I remember when&nbsp;someone first shared with me the fact that the trinity is not a biblical doctrine.&nbsp; I&nbsp;became very defensive and used the same scriptures you and the others are using.&nbsp; The question I have to ask you is, Are you really worshipping God? If Jesus is not God, are you not committing idolatry by making Jesus "God the Son?"&nbsp;I'm afraid that you are!&nbsp; Because Jesus said:&nbsp; "Worship the LORD your God, and serve Him ONLY" (Matthew 4: 10).&nbsp;

Also, John 17: 3 states: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Make sure you know the ONLY TRUE GOD and His Son Jesus Christ. Remember, it is part of the greatest commandment to know that God is one, not three.&nbsp;(Mark 12: 29).&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[billhabing]

Hey, This is bill I agree with you about the Son. In my honest search and prayer I came up with the same conclusion, if i am understanding you correctly. That truth certianly grates against everyone I know that is Christian except you and a few others. I have a hard time seeing it any other way. What's up with the pic of George W.?

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by waterwizard
John 10:30 -- I and my Father are one.

I can't see how this statement makes Jesus God. Jesus CLEARLY said that the Father is the ONLY (meaning - alone) true (meaning - all others, is any, are false) God (John 17:3).

Ed