Proof that Jesus is God

[Wrangler]

Really? you are using THEIR faulty arguments for your post!

Sad reliance on Ad Homenim. Easier than refuting the argument ... You sound like a Separatist.

 

[Cooper]

Not entirely. I was also quoting verses that John wrote that say Jesus was God's only son, to show that John did not believe that Jesus was God, and therefore supporting that John 1:1 should be translated differently, perhaps like the Revised English Bible translates it:

"In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God's presence, and what God was, the Word was."​

Here are some other verses that John wrote that I didn't mention:

John 3:16-18 (WEB):

16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
17) For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.
18) He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.​

1 John 4:9,10,14-15 (WEB):
9) By this God’s love was revealed in us, that God has sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
10) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
14) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as the Savior of the world.
15) Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.

Jesus also referred to God as his God, and his father:

Matthew 27:46 - About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lima sabachthani?” That is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
John 20:17 - Jesus said to her, “Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
(Rev 2:7) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of my God.
(Rev 3:2) Wake up, and keep the things that remain, which you were about to throw away, for I have found no works of yours perfected before my God.
(Rev 3:12) He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.
(Rev 3:21) He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne.

These are all plain, straightforward to understand verses, that clearly state that Jesus is God's only son. A father and his son are not the same person - that's also plain and simple to understand. So there is no excuse not to believe the simple truth that's repeated throughout the Bible. Even the demons acknowledge this truth:

Matthew 8:28-29 (WEB):

28) When he came to the other side, into the country of the Gergesenes, two people possessed by demons met him there, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that nobody could pass that way.
29) Behold, they cried out, saying, “What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”​

The verses you quote tell of Christ's humanity, while other scriptures speak of Christ's divinity.

Jesus had to be the perfect man so that he could pay the penalty for the sins of mankind, while at the same time he had to be God to forgive us our sins.
.

 

[Wrangler]

The verses you quote tell of Christ's humanity, while other scriptures speak of Christ's divinity.

Dualism. Jesus was a man, period. What type of man was he? Obedient to the one true God onto death, where upon he was given all authority. Whoever believes in him will be saved. That is, God saves us through his adopted Son. NOTE: How "today" God became his Father is after the resurrection in Acts 13:29-33.

When Mark 1:1 begins by saying this is about the Son of God, it tells how that happened. It'd be like telling a story about the President and tell the story from the beginning, such as his birth. Joe Biden became President but was not President when the story begins.

Verses you claim speak of Christ's divinity are actually just his Oneness with God, which he has given us. Does not make us God. See John 17:22.

29 When they carried out everything that had been foretold by the prophets, they took His body down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30 But that was not the end: God raised Him from the dead, 31 and over a period of many days, He appeared to those who had been His companions from the beginning of their journey in Galilee until its end in Jerusalem. They are now witnesses to everyone. 32 We are here to bring you the good news of God’s promise to our ancestors, 33 which He has now fulfilled for our children by raising Jesus. Consider the promises fulfilled in Jesus. The psalmist says, “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.”
Acts 13:29-33

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus had to be the perfect man so that he could pay the penalty for the sins of mankind,

He was a man but I'm not sure he had to be perfect, just perfectly obedient.

while at the same time he had to be God to forgive us our sins.

Not at all. Not at all. God delegated the power to forgive sins to Jesus, who in turn, delegated that power to the Apostles. Does not make them God.

 

[Cooper]

Dualism. Jesus was a man, period. What type of man was he? Obedient to the one true God onto death, where upon he was given all authority. Whoever believes in him will be saved. That is, God saves us through his adopted Son. NOTE: How "today" God became his Father is after the resurrection in Acts 13:29-33.

When Mark 1:1 begins by saying this is about the Son of God, it tells how that happened. It'd be like telling a story about the President and tell the story from the beginning, such as his birth. Joe Biden became President but was not President when the story begins.

Verses you claim speak of Christ's divinity are actually just his Oneness with God, which he has given us. Does not make us God. See John 17:22.

29 When they carried out everything that had been foretold by the prophets, they took His body down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30 But that was not the end: God raised Him from the dead, 31 and over a period of many days, He appeared to those who had been His companions from the beginning of their journey in Galilee until its end in Jerusalem. They are now witnesses to everyone. 32 We are here to bring you the good news of God’s promise to our ancestors, 33 which He has now fulfilled for our children by raising Jesus. Consider the promises fulfilled in Jesus. The psalmist says, “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.”
Acts 13:29-33

So now Jesus is not the Son of God, but the adopted son of God!
.

 

[tigger 2]

Dr Mantey's Letter

Mantey letter to WT

"I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar. (1) Your statement: 'their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1: 1.' There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that 'a god' was a permissible translation in John 1:1." [Emphasis added.]

Of course, trinity-supporting Mantey would not mean to imply "a god" at John 1:1c no matter how accurate it may be. But the fact is, he did (unintentionally, of course.)

"Page 1158 in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (KIT), 1969 ed.: After a listing of trinitarian Bibles that translated Jn 1:1c as "The Word was divine," we read,

"Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality [like `divine'] about someone. That is what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks on p. 140, paragraph vii. Accordingly, on p. 148, paragraph (3), this same publication [by D&M] says about the subject of a copulative sentence, that in a copulative sentence sometimes the article ['the'] makes the subject distinct from the predicate. Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, [emporion d' en to chorion], 'but the place was a market', [my emphasis - remember this is Dana and Mantey's own translation of the Greek example they just provided - see below], corresponds with what is stated in John 1:1 [that is, the anarthrous predicate noun emporion (`market') comes before the verb, and the articular subject to chorion (`the place') comes after the verb exactly as in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos]...."

"Instead of translating John 1:1, and the word was deity, this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god, to run more parallel with [Dana and Mantey's own translation of] Xenophon's statement, and the place was a market." - - [Emphasis and bracketed material added and Greek characters changed to English equivalents by me.

Mantey's own translation is what he is so upset about. But perhaps more sadly, he (if he really wrote his letter) berates the JW translation in a number of verses where he must know better:

Jn 8:58 - “I AM”

Mantey complains of the NWT “mistranslation” of ego eimi [usually rendered “I am”] at John 8:58. Other (trinitarian) NT Greek authorities, however, also justify the rendering of a perfect tense rendering for ego eimi under identical conditions as found at John 8:58 (see my study on John 8:58 - I AM). In fact, renowned trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt rendered John 8:58 in his famous Bible translation in the perfect tense also: “I have existed.” And even Dr. Mantey’s own well-known reference book justifies the use of a perfect tense rendering for a present tense (“present of duration”) in cases similar to John 8:58! - p. 183 (c.), Dana and Mantey’s Manual Grammar.
.............................
Mantey also attacks “the addition of ‘for all time’ in Heb. 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it.”

But the equally rabid trinitarian scholar, W. E. Vine, says (of the NT Greek word hapax that was translated “once for all time” by the NWT) in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809: “1. Hapax denotes a. once, one time.... b. once for all, of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition.”

(Also see hapax in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon; the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (‘Little Kittel’), Eerdman’s Publ., 1985; the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, Eerdman’s, 1990; and A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 404.)

Like so many words (in NT Greek and OT Hebrew as well as in English) hapax has more than one meaning. Either the a. or the b. definition is an honest translation of the Greek word hapax!

Look at these trinitarian translations of hapax:

Heb. 9:26 - “He has appeared once and for all” [hapax] - Jerusalem Bible, NJB, GNB,
TEV, NEB, Phillips.

- “once for all” [hapax] - NAB (1970), NAB (1991), RSV, NRSV, REB.

Heb. 9:27 - “reserved for men to die once for all” [hapax] - MLB.

- “Destined that men die only once” [hapax] - JB, NJB, Living Bible.

Heb. 9:28 - “Christ sacrificed once for all” [hapax] - MLB.

- “Christ died only once” [hapax] - JB, NJB, LB.

Jude 3 - “once and for all” [hapax] - NEB, JB, NJB, GNB, TEV, Phillips.

- “once for all” [hapax] - RSV, NRSV, REB, NASB, NAB, NAB (1991), Mo, MLB,
LB, AT (Goodspeed).
Jude 3 - Bible Gateway

Yes, even the trinitarian standard, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, Vol. 2, pp. 717, 718, tells us hapax means

“once in the sense of an event that cannot be repeated. It is so used of the sacrificial death of Christ (Heb. 9:26 ff; 1 Pet. 3:18).... The author of Heb. sees the death of Christ as the once-and-for-all [hapax] sacrifice” - p. 717.

And

“Jude 3 urges its readers ‘to contend for the faith which was once for all [hapax] delivered to the saints.’” - p. 718.
..........................
Mantey berates the NWT’s “mistranslating arche tes ktisoos” as “beginning of the creation” at Rev. 3:14 even though this is the literal rendering of the NT Greek. But how do most trinitarian Bible translations themselves translate Rev. 3:14 ? - The KJV has “beginning of the creation.” So do the NKJV; ASV; NASB; RSV; MLB (1969 ed.); Douay; Byington; Darby; Lamsa; Lattimore (1979); New Century Version; Phillips; Rotherham; Third Millenium Bible; Webster; Revised Webster (1995); Wesley’s New Testament; Weymouth; and ISV NT.

How is it, then, that the NWT is “mistranslating ... as ‘beginning of the creation’”?
............................

Mantey also says, "Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after 'today' in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, even in the Greek in your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say) -- 'Today you will be with me in Paradise.'"

We find Dr. Mantey complaining of the NWT “attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after ‘today’ in Luke 23:43,” when he knows better than anyone that none of the earliest manuscripts (up to the 9th century A.D.) originally had capitalization or punctuation! Later copyists have added punctuation wherever they felt it should be!

Just because a modern text writer decides where he wants the punctuation and capitalization to be in his interpretation of the original text (as Westcott and Hort did for the text that is used by the NWT and Nestle did in the text used by the NASB, etc.) does not mean that is how the original Bible writer intended the meaning - as explained in the Kingdom Interlinear footnote for this verse! (Do you really think Mantey didn't know this elementary fact about NT Greek or didn't see the footnote in the KIT??)

Clearly, for Dr. Mantey to even hint that punctuation can be precisely determined at Luke 23:43 is totally dishonest. We see The Emphasized Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham also punctuating this scripture to produce the meaning found in the NWT:

“Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise.”

And the footnote for Luke 23:43 in Lamsa’s translation admits:

“Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today.”

The Concordant Literal New Testament renders it: "43 And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.'"

2001 Translation – An American English Bible: 43 And [Jesus] replied, ‘I tell you this today; you will be with me in Paradise.’

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E.W.Bullinger, DD., page 811 says:

"'And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise.'

Again, as for being in the KIT, my 1969 copy has no comma in the word-for-word section of the left-hand page and has a comma after the word 'today' in the right-hand translation page. The footnote says on the left-hand page: "43 'Today.' Westcott and Hort text puts a comma in Greek text before the word for 'today.' In the original Greek no comma is found. Hence we omit comma before 'today'."

As with a number of his complaints, he has clearly lied here.

Mantey deliberately (and in a nasty manner) says things like "Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people" when it is apparent that he has done it himself in his letter.

Too many provable falsehoods by Mantey concerning JWs or trinity. I still use his Grammar (as I do other Grammars by trinitarians), but do not feel obligated to trust his opinions concerning trinity 'proofs' which I have already studied and found to be in great doubt (at best).

 

[Wrangler]

So now Jesus is not the Son of God, but the adopted son of God!
.

You never knew that huh? In Biblical Times they did not differentiate significantly on non-blood relations. This is the only way Jesus is related to David - through his stepdad Joseph.

 

[BroRando]

To be truthful about Dr Mantey. He was not misguided by quite deceptive. His take on John 1:1c was that theos NEVER means 'a god'. However that is inaccurate and untrue.

He made the claim "There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1." Quote from Dr Mantey

Long story short. Theos can be rendered in the Masculine Sense or the Feminine Sense. Feminine Nouns pointed to Creation.

According to the strong concordance theos can be rendered two ways. One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?


Strong's Concordance theos:
God, a god
Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ Part of Speech:
Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)
Short Definition: God, a god
Definition: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.


Many Scholars know this, but withhold the fact that theos can be rendered (a god) as it was with Paul and Moses. Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:


1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament
1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English
1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists
1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation (Herman Heinfetter)
1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"–Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

Of course he had no desire in learning about the Deity of Christ....
Strong's Concordance
theotés: deity
Original Word: θεότης, ητος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration:
theotés Phonetic Spelling: (theh-ot'-ace)
Short Definition: deity, Godhead
Definition: deity, Godhead.

Again feminine nouns point to a creation as being brought forth or begotten. John 1:1c is rendered in the feminine sense relating to Christ divinity. Words like Deity, Divine, Wisdom, Beginning are all feminine nouns that describe Christ's Divinity as a Divine Creation. An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father."

Read more...

 

[Cooper]

To be truthful about Dr Mantey. He was not misguided by quite deceptive. His take on John 1:1c was that theos NEVER means 'a god'. However that is an inaccurate and untrue.

He made the claim "There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1." Quote from Dr Mantey

Long story short. Theos can be rendered in the Masculine Sense or the Feminine Sense. Feminine Nouns pointed to Creation.

According to the strong concordance theos can be rendered two ways. One way, is in the Masculine sense as in the first instance of (John 1:1) But what about in the second instance as in John 1:1c? Isn't that scripture describing his qualitative sense? His divinity in being divine?


Strong's Concordance theos:
God, a god
Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ Part of Speech:
Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)
Short Definition: God, a god
Definition: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.


Many Scholars know this, but withhold the fact that theos can be rendered (a god) as it was with Paul and Moses. Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist:


1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament
1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English
1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists
1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation (Herman Heinfetter)
1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)
1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago
1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"–Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

Of course he had no desire in learning about the Deity of Christ....
Strong's Concordance
theotés: deity
Original Word: θεότης, ητος, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration:
theotés Phonetic Spelling: (theh-ot'-ace)
Short Definition: deity, Godhead
Definition: deity, Godhead.

Again feminine nouns point to a creation as being brought forth or begotten. John 1:1c is rendered in the feminine sense relating to Christ divinity. Words like Deity, Divine, Wisdom, Beginning are all feminine nouns that describe Christ's Divinity as a Divine Creation. An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father."

Read more...

There goes another one on ignore. You stop them coming to your house, and then they come in by the back door.
.

 

[BroRando]

Okay. Can't we can be grown ups about this? An exercise we can do is to insert God into scriptures meant for Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God as you say, then Jesus and God would be interchangeable. I mean if you have the true, then your theory would be quite easy to defend. Right?

I'm not trying to embarrass you or win an argument. Just sharing scriptures and a few simple questions.

Who died for our sins? Jesus or God?

• For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

Who inherited a more excellent name? Jesus or God?

• So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

Claiming God become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. Wasn't God always better than the angels?

DO You mean at one time God was worse than the angels because his Name was not more excellent than theirs until an inferior angle named God??


Who cried out to God? Jesus or God?

• Jesus called out with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
• Can we assume God called out with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

oh ummm..... ​

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Robert Derrick said:
John 14: 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?[/Quote\]

At John 14:9. Too many Trinitarians say, your forgetting what Jesus said to the apostle Philip, and what was that? This: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” John 14:9, well, that is far different from Jesus’ saying, ‘I am the Father. Jesus also had told Philip and the other faithful apostles at John 20:17 that he was going away to God his Father; so how could Jesus in the same breath say that Philip, when looking at Jesus, was looking at the Father? Jesus could not have meant that, for he Showed God was his Father when he said: “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” John 14:1, Why was the expression “also in me,” used in John 14:1 if Jesus were God himself? Philip asked Jesus: “Lord, show us the Father,” and Jesus answered that was what he had been doing all along, namely, showing them the Father. He had been explaining who his heavenly Father was. He had been showing them what his heavenly Father was like. He imitated his Father. He was like him, so much so that when one saw Jesus it was as if seeing his Father.

 

[Cooper]

Okay. Can't we can be grown ups about this? An exercise we can do is to insert God into scriptures meant for Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God as you say, then Jesus and God would be interchangeable. I mean if you have the true, then your theory would be quite easy to defend. Right?

I'm not trying to embarrass you or win an argument. Just sharing scriptures and a few simple questions.

Who died for our sins? Jesus or God?

• For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

Who inherited a more excellent name? Jesus or God?

• So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

Claiming God become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. Wasn't God always better than the angels?

DO You mean at one time God was worse than the angels because his Name was not more excellent than theirs until an inferior angle named God??


Who cried out to God? Jesus or God?

• Jesus called out with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
• Can we assume God called out with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

oh ummm..... ​

God the Father became flesh. Jesus and the Father are ONE. When Jesus cried out on the cross, it was the flesh that was in agony, not the Spirit of God within him. The fact that the Father deserted Jesus in his death throes, is indeed proof from Christ's own lips that God the Father was indeed here with us on earth, in Jesus Christ.

As for the nonsense about there being 'a' god in the beginning, seeing as there were no other gods, this has to be the creator God.

Listen to me. Words have several meanings (homonyms) instead of picking the one that best suits the fabricator, go for the one that fits the context. How many Gods were there in the beginning? This is the Almighty Creator God who made all things. This is the creator God who is being made redundant by the fabricators of this God forsaken religion who reduce the creator God to a mere god of their own making, as evidenced in your post. That is an insult to the Almighty. People will suffer in hell for this.

Jesus said to the deceiver, "Get thee behind me Satan." In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command Satan to be gone from our presence. Thank you, Lord."

Amen, so be it Lord.
.

 

[kcnalp]

Isaiah 48:16-17 (NKJV)
16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me."17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, The Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God,

Amen Jesus, You are God!

 

[Cristo Rei]

It doesn't take much working out once you know Jesus was God with us. Sometimes he spoke as a man and sometimes as the Almighty.
.
.

U know how they say actions speak louder than words... It seems to apply here. Jesus' actions indicated there is a God above him.
Who else could he possibly be praying to in the garden when he was most afraid...
He prayed to the Lord to give him strength. That comforts me cos that's what i do too instead of praying for interventions

Jesus wouldn't need to do that if he was the Lord himself... God is spirit, the Holy Spirit, i believe.

The Vatican even says that the Trinity is a mystery. And they like to define everything in their Catechisms usually

So unless there is an explanation as to who Jesus was praying to then that matter remains open in my book.
I can't just simply ignore that obvious contradiction. Maybe our feeble human minds are just too inept to understand such things

 

[Cooper]

U know how they say actions speak louder than words... It seems to apply here. Jesus' actions indicated there is a God above him.
Who else could he possibly be praying to in the garden when he was most afraid...
He prayed to the Lord to give him strength. That comforts me cos that's what i do too instead of praying for interventions

Jesus wouldn't need to do that if he was the Lord himself... God is spirit, the Holy Spirit, i believe.

The Vatican even says that the Trinity is a mystery. And they like to define everything in their Catechisms usually

So unless there is an explanation as to who Jesus was praying to then that matter remains open in my book.
I can't just simply ignore that obvious contradiction. Maybe our feeble human minds are just too inept to understand such things

The explanation is that the Father who you correctly say is spirit, was made visible in Christ Jesus. Remember no man can see God and live, however those lucky people who could touch the hem of his garment, were in the presence of both Jesus and the Father. God is One.

Jesus said, “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” John 14:11a

Father and Son are "God with us."
.

 

[Cristo Rei]

The explanation is that the Father who you correctly say is spirit, was made visible in Christ Jesus. Remember no man can see God and live, however those lucky people who could touch the hem of his garment, were in the presence of both Jesus and the Father. God is One.

Jesus said, “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” John 14:11a

Father and Son are "God with us."
.

So then who was Jesus praying to? Himself?

 

[Cristo Rei]

The Father is in us as well remember, through the Holy Spirit

I remember one part where Jesus is asked a question he says i don't know, only the Father knows

 

[Cooper]

So then who was Jesus praying to? Himself?

Jesus was praying to the Father in him. Jesus said, "I and the Father are One."
.

 

[Cooper]

The Father is in us as well remember, through the Holy Spirit

I remember one part where Jesus is asked a question he says i don't know, only the Father knows

We have an earthly father. That is the difference.
.

 

[Cooper]

You never knew that huh? In Biblical Times they did not differentiate significantly on non-blood relations. This is the only way Jesus is related to David - through his stepdad Joseph.

Your admission that the Son of God was adopted by Joseph, is true.

Proof indeed that the Father of the Son of God, is God himself.

Thank you Lord for this insight of Wrangler.
.