Who/What is Jesus if not God?

[ScottA]

Jesus is the son of God... How do you explain Jesus is his own father? If Jesus was God, how could he have a God?
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

The same way you explain that Eve was not her own person, but was, and again was not.

Which of course is the image of just how things are with God, and has been since the beginning. Yet here we are still not seeing, still not hearing, still not understanding...and arguing about what He has already revealed is true, many arguing against it--that is, against God:

"The two become One."​

 

[Saint of God]

@Saint of God

ah but he is the Word of God.

Therefore not God

@Saint of God
anyway I don’t care to debate it, as it is a waste of time. Only studying and taking time to learn from scripture one learns.

not from really our opinions however we all have our own biases.

Of course, you don't care to debate it because you don't have a leg to stand on. You are making a case for two Gods

 

[Saint of God]

The same way you explain that Eve was not her own person, but was, and again was not.

That is confusion, God is not the author of confusion...Your statement is not written ot taught in the scripture. Therefore it is your opinion.

Which of course is the image of just how things are with God, and has been since the beginning.

No, it has not. You are making up things.

Yet here we are still not seeing, still not hearing, still not understanding...and arguing about what He has already revealed is true, many arguing against it--that is, against God:

"The two become One."​

Two becoming one does not mean two persons becoming one person or two Gods becoming one God as you seem to be implying... So please explain two what becomes one what?

 

[MatthewG]

I’m not making the case for two Gods buddy.

If the Word of God goes back to God and they become one. That is the Lord God Almighty.

Let me ask you, why is it you do not see God and the Word of God as one? Jesus talked about that plainly while he was on earth.

If I speak my words are apart of me.

 

[GEN2REV]

Jesus is zero% God... Only his father is 100% God.

That's just not what the Bible teaches, my friend.

 

[GEN2REV]

That is the scripture... Are you saying that Jesus is his own father? The Hs teaches us that Jesus is the son of God...Not that the son is his own father God.

Actually, it is made pretty clear that they are one and the same in many places in Scripture.

Here's a couple passages that are undeniable .... for those who are honest.
John 14:21-23
Romans 8:9-11

 

[GEN2REV]

God is a spirit.

So, do the math with me here.

If God is a spirit (John 4:24), and Romans 8:9 tells us that the Spirit is Christ's spirit, what does that tell us?

Do spirits have blood?

Are you unaware that the spirit of any living thing is contained in the blood? The Life is in the blood. The spirit IS the life.
Leviticus 17:14

So, Does a spirit have blood? Well, a spirit IS blood ... when it's in the flesh. That's why the Blood of Christ is so powerful; and how it was able to accomplish so much.

There is no mention of a God man in the scripture...Why are you making up lies?

You are hurtin for Truth, my brother.

 

[Brakelite]

Your saying that Jesus begot himself.

Where did that come from?
I said the Father begot a Son. Scripture declares the Son as Creator of all things, which is why Jesus was able to state with authority, that He is Lord of the Sabbath, seeing it was He who established it.
So if the Father begot His own Son: if the Son was 'brought forth' ( begotten) of the Father, then whose nature is the Son therefore comprised? God's nature, that is divinity?... Or something else? And if something else, what? And what evidence do you have in scripture declaring that 'something else'?

 

[GEN2REV]

I've only read maybe half the posts on this thread, but . . . does anyone attempt to answer your question? I think I saw one from @Brakelite , but I haven't noticed anyone else.

Most absolutely will not.

And it's been asked in other threads as well with the same lack of direct answers.

 

[Brakelite]

Where did that come from?
I said the Father begot a Son. Scripture declares the Son as Creator of all things, which is why Jesus was able to state with authority, that He is Lord of the Sabbath, seeing it was He who established it.
So if the Father begot His own Son: if the Son was 'brought forth' ( begotten) of the Father, then whose nature is the Son therefore comprised? God's nature, that is divinity?... Or something else? And if something else, what? And what evidence do you have in scripture declaring that 'something else'?

@Cristo Rei
Don't judge my posts through the eyes of an antitrinitarian. I'm not a trinitarian in the traditional sense. I just take scripture as it reads and try not to add assumptions unless absolutely unavoidable. Just try to take my posts at face value. Just sayin.

 

[ScottA]

That is confusion, God is not the author of confusion...Your statement is not written ot taught in the scripture. Therefore it is your opinion.
No, it has not. You are making up things.

Two becoming one does not mean two persons becoming one person or two Gods becoming one God as you seem to be implying... So please explain two what becomes one what?

No...God is not the author of chaos, but He is the author of confusion:

Genesis 11:7
Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
​

No...I am not making things up. My statement is the blow by blow of exactly what happened in the Garden: Adam was without Eve, except for that part that would become her, Eve was taken out of Adam, then the two become one flesh again.

Yes...they do become one...that's what the scriptures say. But what you are not getting is that with Adam and Eve and the rest of people born of the flesh...is it's only an image of what and who they/we are an image of. So, no, the Potter and the Clay are not actually the same, the clay is just a poor likeness--and image, just like He said. How is it you don't know this?

So...it's not that two can actually become one with people, as they are only the fleshly clay of God and a poor likeness--but He has done what amounts to drawing a picture of His likeness, in whom two actually were one even with Adam at first--but also what can and does occur in the spirit in God. God is spirit. His ways are higher. Thus, when Jesus went to the Father...the Two became One, which like Adam's image showed...He was One with the Father before--before the foundation of the world, and now is again.

 

[DavidB]

I already said what I thought...He is making up lies.

I did , jesus is the son of God. That means God is the father of Jesus... If Jesus is God, then Jesus is his own father.
If you actually knew the scripture, you would know that God does not have blood. Spirits do not have blood. According to this passage God the father does not have blood...
Matthew 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Yet you believe God has blood. You assume the passage is saying that the HS and God have blood and you are asking me to explain it? You are the one making the claim. So you have to explain why the same God that Jesus said is not flesh and blood, you are claiming he has blood.

Perhaps you will find this helpful on Acts 20:28.

"I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is "the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one" or "the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son".
Murray J Harris - Jesus as Theos, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus

The Catholic Douay: "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

However, the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible reads: "Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the guardians, to feed the Church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son."

Other translations agree with the New Jerusalem Bible.
CEB - "...which he obtained with the death of his own Son."
CJB - "...which he won for himself at the cost of his own Son’s blood."
CEV - "...he bought with the blood of his own Son."
GNT - "...which he made his own through the blood of his Son."
LEB - "...which he obtained through the blood of his own Son."
MOUNCE - "...which he purchased with the blood of his own Son."
NCV - "...which he bought with the death of his own son."
NET - “...that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”
NRVS - “...that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”
RSV - “...which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”
NWT - "...which he purchased with the blood of his Son."

 

[Cristo Rei]

Where did that come from?
I said the Father begot a Son. Scripture declares the Son as Creator of all things, which is why Jesus was able to state with authority, that He is Lord of the Sabbath, seeing it was He who established it.
So if the Father begot His own Son: if the Son was 'brought forth' ( begotten) of the Father, then whose nature is the Son therefore comprised? God's nature, that is divinity?... Or something else? And if something else, what? And what evidence do you have in scripture declaring that 'something else'?

@Cristo Rei
Don't judge my posts through the eyes of an antitrinitarian. I'm not a trinitarian in the traditional sense. I just take scripture as it reads and try not to add assumptions unless absolutely unavoidable. Just try to take my posts at face value. Just sayin.

Sorry if i misunderstood.
I dunno you've lost me there a bit.
Not sure what you mean by nature, it isn't what I was talking about.
But if Jesus has Gods nature what does that mean to you? That he is also God?
I have my mum and dads nature but I'm a different person still.

I dunno maybe I should just leave the debating with you guys. It doesn't make sense to me and I don't like arguing about God. I'm more comfortable arguing about earthly stuff.

Sorry if I was rude it wasn't my intention

 

[Pearl]

That is the scripture... Are you saying that Jesus is his own father? The Hs teaches us that Jesus is the son of God...Not that the son is his own father God.

Jesus is not the Father. The Father is not Jesus. But both are God. It's like the three parts we ourselves have, intellect/mind, body and soul/spirit. Our bodies can do nothing without our mind/brains. And Jesus did nothing without his father.

 

[Pearl]

We can't explain the supernatural we must just accept it. God is God nothing is impossible for Him.

 

[Johann]

If Jesus is not God, as so many love to claim today, please explain who Jesus is then; what He is that His life and sacrifice could accomplish so much if not the work of divine efforts.

Many will make all manner of case to prove that He is not God, but I have seen nobody explain just where He stands in such a scenario as having changed everything in the entire world ... by His sheer blood, sweat and tears.

Nobody but God could do what He did.

You would have heard of this statement in Church that “Jesus was 100% man and 100% God while on earth.”

But what does this mean?


In simple terms, it means that Jesus existed as God before He existed as a man. Many get this wrong by thinking that Jesus was first a man and then became God.

The fact that Jesus was first God also ties into the Christian belief that God is Trinity which is that God is one in Being revealed in three distinct Persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus being part of the Trinity, has always existed as the second person of the Godhead.

So what happened?

In God’s appointed time, Jesus, who eternally existed as God, took on the role of a human in the incarnation and became flesh. Simply put, Jesus added the nature of humanity to His divinity. He did not cease to be God in the embodiment, but He did become a man.

So when Jesus became a man, He did not become another ‘person’ but instead took on / added to Himself the human nature, which is how Jesus could be both God and Man.

Jesus took on this role not for a mere display of His divinity but rather in humility to display His love for us on the cross and become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

JESUS TOOK ON THIS ROLE NOT FOR A MERE DISPLAY OF HIS DIVINITY BUT RATHER IN HUMILITY DISPLAYED FOR US ALL THE LOVE OF GOD ON THE CROSS.

How is it that you don't believe in the simple core doctrines as written in Scripture?
J.

 

[Johann]

@Saint of God

I don’t believe the claim of Jesus is fully 100% God when he left the heavenly realm, he was maybe 50% God and 100% human.

Jesus being born in fleshly body became lower than the angels is something to consider.

I do see Jesus however in the fullness of God having done everything he said he would do, as now being the Lord God Almighty.

Many people have a problem with that though… but when you think about Jesus being the WORD, God spoken Word was Jesus who became flesh who was the Lord God Almighty.

That is the end result for me and my understanding and doesn’t matter if people have a problem with it as GOD SEES right through me and my nakedness… the only one who clothes me in his righteousness is Jesus when I abide in him.

You would have heard of this statement in Church that “Jesus was 100% man and 100% God while on earth.”

But what does this mean?


In simple terms, it means that Jesus existed as God before He existed as a man. Many get this wrong by thinking that Jesus was first a man and then became God.

The fact that Jesus was first God also ties into the Christian belief that God is Trinity which is that God is one in Being revealed in three distinct Persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus being part of the Trinity, has always existed as the second person of the Godhead.

So what happened?

In God’s appointed time, Jesus, who eternally existed as God, took on the role of a human in the incarnation and became flesh. Simply put, Jesus added the nature of humanity to His divinity. He did not cease to be God in the embodiment, but He did become a man.

So when Jesus became a man, He did not become another ‘person’ but instead took on / added to Himself the human nature, which is how Jesus could be both God and Man.

Jesus took on this role not for a mere display of His divinity but rather in humility to display His love for us on the cross and become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

JESUS TOOK ON THIS ROLE NOT FOR A MERE DISPLAY OF HIS DIVINITY BUT RATHER IN HUMILITY DISPLAYED FOR US ALL THE LOVE OF GOD ON THE CROSS.

Are you in agreement with this?
J.

 

[Johann]

And more nonsense. God doesn't have blood. You are tripping yourself up in trying to support Jesus being divine so much you are denying Jesus' humanity. Jesus IS BOTH fully God And fully man. You obviously can't reconcile this duality...as VERY FEW are honest enough to consider. Any sense of balance seems beyond the capability of the carnal religious mind.

Reading skills seem to be very lacking where religious convictions are concerned. The church of God was indeed purchased by the blood of Jesus...not the blood of God. You are falling into the SAME error as the Catholics who see Mary as the mother of God...rather than the mother of the humanity of Jesus.

The reason why there is a religious reaction going too far one way is because of a religious reaction going too far the other way. Nobody wants to use some wisdom to see the proper balance so instead people take up one extreme or the other...in the cause of foolishness.

Basic human tomfoolery at work.

I must admit, I concur with you, there are way too many denominations, inter- denominations and whatever denominations on this forum.
J.

 

[Johann]

If Jesus is not God, as so many love to claim today, please explain who Jesus is then; what He is that His life and sacrifice could accomplish so much if not the work of divine efforts.

Many will make all manner of case to prove that He is not God, but I have seen nobody explain just where He stands in such a scenario as having changed everything in the entire world ... by His sheer blood, sweat and tears.

Nobody but God could do what He did.

I may disagree with you on a lot , but here in full agreement.
J.

 

[Johann]

Exactly. God the Son, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man, shed His blood for our redemption. He is not just "your" God or "my" God (as opposed to other gods) but He is the Lord God Almighty.

Therefore Luke says that God purchased the Church with His blood. If that is not good enough for you, then you are rejecting the salvation which is offered through that. We must either wholeheartedly believe this, or face the wrath of God.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

The time has come to do just that.
J.