I get that, but what I asked was, "you have no problem with Jesus being the Father?"
John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?
- Thread starter Rich R
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..........................................
From my personal study of Philippians 2:6-8
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος…. - Greek text.
“Who, being [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal [ison] with God. But ... took upon him the form [morphe] of a servant, and was made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men: And being found in fashion [schemati] as a man....” - Phil. 2:6-8, KJV.
“Who, although He existed [huparchon] in the form [morphe] of God [theou], did not regard equality [ison] with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos], but emptied Himself, taking the form [morphe] of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness [homoiomati] of men. And being found in appearance [schemati] as a man....” - Phil. 2:6-8, NASB.
Some trinitarians insist that this scripture proves that Jesus was (and is) “equal with God.” But all the real evidence proves just the opposite! Phil. 2:6 is, in reality, proof that Jesus has never been equally God with the Father!
To begin with, the context of Phil. 2:3-8 indicates how Phil. 2:6 should be understood. The context stresses the concept of humility and obedience, and Phil. 2:6 itself is clearly meant as the prime example of this for all Christians. The extremely trinitarian The Amplified Bible, for example, translates Phil. 2:3, 5 this way:
“Instead, in the true spirit of humility (lowliness of mind) let each regard the others as better than and superior to himself.... Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. - Let Him be your example in humility.”
Then that very example of Jesus (Phil. 2:6-8) is given. - Cf. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 547.
Most trinitarian interpretations of Phil. 2:6, however, as above, do not show Jesus as regarding God as “better than and superior to himself” in the beginning (as the context demands for this example)! Most of them, instead, twist that proper example of humility into just the opposite: an example of a person who regards himself already as equal to the Most High, Almighty God (“thought it not robbery to be equal to God”). Such an interpretation destroys the very purpose (Phil. 2:3) of Jesus’ “example in humility” here!
Paul is not telling us to regard ourselves as equal to others. (Whether we obey them or not is very important but is not the main point here.) He is clearly using Jesus as his example to teach that each Christian must, as the very trinitarian Amplified Bible above puts it, “regard others as better than and superior to himself”! And yet most trinitarian translations show Jesus doing the very opposite in this “example in humility” for all Christians!
Something, then, is very wrong with the translation of Phil. 2:6 in most trinitarian Bibles!
Harpagmos
Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:
1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.
2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).
We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸς).
There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.
Even so, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.
“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ ”
Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!
We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.
[Continued in my next post]
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Phil. 2:6 continued
In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).
So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.”
For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!
Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.
Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.
The Phil. 2:6 footnote for ‘grasped’ (harpagmos) in the NAB (2002, by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops):
[6] “Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though . . . in the form of God (Genesis 1:26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5-6.”
The NASB, on the other hand, chooses an English word for harpagmos that doesn’t clearly bring out its full intended meaning: “[Jesus] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos],” when, of course, it should be: “did not regard equality with God a thing to be taken by force [harpagmos].” (Review the quote from the Expositor’s Greek Testament above.)
When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!
The highly regarded (and trinitarian) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says:
“Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28).” - p. 80, vol. 2. [Emphasis found in quotations is nearly always added by me, as it also is here.]
Morphe
Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!
As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Thayer agrees that morphe is
“the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]
Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.
The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.
In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).
So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery” or “taken by force” without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.”
For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery” (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!
Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.
Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].” In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.
The Phil. 2:6 footnote for ‘grasped’ (harpagmos) in the NAB (2002, by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops):
[6] “Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though . . . in the form of God (Genesis 1:26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Genesis 3:5-6.”
The NASB, on the other hand, chooses an English word for harpagmos that doesn’t clearly bring out its full intended meaning: “[Jesus] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [harpagmos],” when, of course, it should be: “did not regard equality with God a thing to be taken by force [harpagmos].” (Review the quote from the Expositor’s Greek Testament above.)
When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!
The highly regarded (and trinitarian) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says:
“Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28).” - p. 80, vol. 2. [Emphasis found in quotations is nearly always added by me, as it also is here.]
Morphe
Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!
As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Thayer agrees that morphe is
“the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]
Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.
The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.
Last edited:
God emptied Himself of deity? He no longer had deity, but He did have it?
Communism is down on logic also.That's the problem. Your "logic."
I don't mean to be a wise guy, but you're just not making any sense. I think you're just winging it without really thinking about what you're saying. I love you as a brother, but you just don't make sense to me. We'll figure it all out when Jesus comes back!
Well, Paul was saying a husband and wife are like Christ and the church.Yeah, I think we're in perfect agreement on at least this one thing, Rich. Can you and I be one in purpose? We can, can't we? Of course it's even much greater than just that. What do you think it means that my wife and I are one, as Paul says in Ephesians 5? Might want to investigate that...
Grace and peace to you.
Your assertion:
- Christ is God
- Christ is the church
- The church is God
In any case, every morning there are two lumps in the mattress when my wife and I get up. Maybe we're carnal, not spiritual enough to realize there is really only one lump? I don't know. You tell me.
When He made Himself nothing, taking on human form, the Father was greater than He. During that time of His earthly life, the Father was greater than He.
LOL! You're being obtuse, Rich. Purposely so, it seems. It's put very well by stunnedbygrace above; Jesus made Himself nothing (though still certainly... Something). Jesus was, is, and always will be the Son of God. But, likewise, since His birth, the Son of Man. Neither one can be soft-pedaled, much less ignored. Paul most certainly does not in Philippians 2 or in any of his other epistles.
No idea what Mr. Communism is all about, but junk logic ("logic," in quotes, as I said) is certainly a problem for which there is no place.
"...but I'm going to keep doing it." Got it.
...says Mr. Purposefully obtuse.
Ohhhh... there you go "thinking" again...
Ah, I would so appreciate a bit of honesty...
That you will, one way or the other.
Actually, I think I would put that a little differently, too.Right, and that speaks to His position as the Son of Man...
Ah, yes, "thinking."
Two lumps there are, I'm sure. But are you and your wife not one flesh, in the sense that Paul alluded to in Ephesians 5 (and referred to Genesis 2:24)? I mean, that would be a problem... Or are you just avoiding speaking to and acknowledging that?
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
God is omnipresent, everywhere simultaneously. The ONE God was "multitasking" but does not need to be three persons to do so.
Matt 28:19 is not the only account of the great commission...
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Now let's see what they did with that command...
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ok now show me scripture of anyone baptized with "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"
Let's look at that scripture...
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him(How do they "know" him?); for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you(Jesus is the one dwelling with them, and that is how they know him).
[18] I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.(Jesus is come back to live in our hearts)
Agreed, stunnedbygrace, in His state of having taken on the form of man, as Paul says in Philippians 2. But I would also assert that the Father is and always will be "greater" than Christ in the sense that the Father is the One Who sends and commands; the Father is "greater" in authority/leadership than the Son. However, what this verse does not mean is that Jesus is somehow inferior in His being and essence to the Father. It cannot, as John would be contradicting his own words in John 1:1, John 10:30, and John 20:28. I think you agree with this.
Grace and peace to you!
I don’t think he’s being purposefully obtuse. He really can’t see it. It hasn’t been revealed to him. It sounds like foolishness to him.
I just know He is my everything. I adore Him, I worship Him, He is eternal life, He is my savior, He WAS God, as John says. His name is above all names on earth and in heaven. God commands that every knee will bow on earth and in heaven. He even commands the angels to worship Him.
And in these kinds of conversations, men try to bring Him down and say He is not to be worshiped. They try to say all kinds of things to convince men they are in an endtimes deception and try to minimize Him. But my soul magnifies Him. He is my Lord and my God.
Jesus reveals Himself as truly God and truly Man at His discretion.
Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.
Based on this Truth (John 14:6), Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as Man at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.
Furthermore. Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as God at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.
Here is an instance of Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God.
Here is another instance, this time of Jesus, truly Man, saying "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of Man thus including the person of Jesus and His brothers in one (John 17:21). See, the Son of Man being the firstborn of the born of God persons (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, John 3:3-8).
We, children of God, can also refer to Jesus in his capacity as truly God as well as His capacity as truly Man. We can use context to make the distinction.
We, born of the Holy Spirit of God persons (John 3:3-8), are one in God (John 17:21) because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), thus God is One. We are the blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God's work in us.
Jesus as truly Man refers to God and Father in John 17:1-3.
You are quite confused with your thoughts that God is only the Father without the Son without the Holy Spirit of God.
Jesus being God is consistent Apostolic testimony, including the Apostle Paul whom you mentioned regarding 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The Apostle Paul calls Jesus "the great God" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) with "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior of us, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13).
The Apostle Peter calls Jesus "the God" (τοῦ Θεοῦ) with "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours by the righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).
The Apostle Thomas calls Jesus "my God" wirh "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).
The Apostle Matthew attests that Jesus is "God with us" Immanuel (Matthew 1:23) thus Jesus is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us the children of God (Revelation 1:8).
The Apostle John calls Jesus "the Word" and "God" with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
You reject Apostolic testimony about Jesus being God.
A child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Rich R, see "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6 referring to Jesus.
Lord Jesus says "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30).
In this blessed instance, Lord Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Jesus is uncreated.
There is no scripture that states Jesus was created.
In fact, the Word of God says Jesus is uncreated with "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).
Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8).
The Word (Logos in Greek) in John 1:1 is Jesus because John wrote "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory" (John 1:14) in reference to Jesus.
John truthfully shows that the Word in John 1:1 is Jesus.
In fact, John establishes that Jesus is the Word throughout John chapter one.
John decisively calls Jesus God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
You deceive yourself.
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
No, because you're saying Jesus was perfect from the start.
That's not the case; He was in sinful flesh from the start and wasn't perfected in the flesh until He took His final breath, defeating sin in the flesh.
There was not suddenly finding out He was God. He knew He was God and knew what His mission was. There is Scriptural evidence of Him at a very young age teaching grown men, experts of the Bible, about the Bible and telling His parents that He must be about His Father's (God's - which is who He is and was) business.
All of that is a detour from the topic of discussion, but I brought it back there at the end, see.
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
Amen.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Acts 4:12
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
Amen.
"Glorify Me (Jesus/God) with the Glory I had with You (Father/God) before the world was."
John 17:5
"I and the Father are One."
John 10:30
Jesus was MADE his God via the full indwelling of his God in him bodily, after his God raised him from the dead and made him a quickening, omnipresent human spirit.
That is how Jesus is God today...by default.
That is how Jesus is God today...by default.
- Status
Similar threads
