Jesus is God

[Davy]

Wondering if people read posts before they go off on one ;)

I only wonder if people have actually read and studied their Bible before they ask Biblically illiterate questions.

 

[Pet]

I only wonder if people have actually read and studied their Bible before they ask Biblically illiterate questions.

Who asked questions?

 

[Davy]

Who asked questions?

I was just re-sounding your gripe in your post no.21.

Jesus never stopped... being GOD The Son while He was in the flesh. That's my point.

And that means His Spirit inside His flesh body was still... GOD.

Just because He chose to take on the flesh like us to suffer is not proof of His Spirit inside having changed when His Spirit was placed in woman's womb. Likewise when He died on the cross, His Spirit did not change then either, nor did His Spirit take on flesh, because Spirit and flesh are two separate operations in God's creation. Yet His flesh body was instead transfigured, or "quickened" to a heavenly body, like Peter showed in 1 Peter 3. That His flesh body did not see corruption, and was quickened to a spirit body, was done no doubt for our benefit, to show the marks of His crucifixion as a remembrance of His Sacrifice forever.

The reason it seems I am such a stickler on this matter is because there's been a lot of men's philosophy of HUMANISM that has crept into many Churches that try to teach that Lord Jesus in the flesh was fully human without still being GOD while in the flesh. Those preachers couldn't get out of a wet bag if it depended on it, as they fall for false doctrines by the false Jews like the drop of a hat.

The end of Matthew 1 reveals that Jesus, even having come in the flesh, has as one of His Titles as "Emmanuel", which is "Immanuel" from the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, and it means, "God with us". That means literally, 'God in the flesh, on earth with us.'

 

[Pet]

I was just re-sounding your gripe in your post no.21.

Jesus never stopped... being GOD The Son while He was in the flesh. That's my point.

And that means His Spirit inside His flesh body was still... GOD.

Just because He chose to take on the flesh like us to suffer is not proof of His Spirit inside having changed when His Spirit was placed in woman's womb. Likewise when He died on the cross, His Spirit did not change then either, nor did His Spirit take on flesh, because Spirit and flesh are two separate operations in God's creation. Yet His flesh body was instead transfigured, or "quickened" to a heavenly body, like Peter showed in 1 Peter 3. That His flesh body did not see corruption, and was quickened to a spirit body, was done no doubt for our benefit, to show the marks of His crucifixion as a remembrance of His Sacrifice forever.

The reason it seems I am such a stickler on this matter is because there's been a lot of men's philosophy of HUMANISM that has crept into many Churches that try to teach that Lord Jesus in the flesh was fully human without still being GOD while in the flesh. Those preachers couldn't get out of a wet bag if it depended on it, as they fall for false doctrines by the false Jews like the drop of a hat.

The end of Matthew 1 reveals that Jesus, even having come in the flesh, has as one of His Titles as "Emmanuel", which is "Immanuel" from the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, and it means, "God with us". That means literally, 'God in the flesh, on earth with us.'

Yes, thankyou

 

[bro.tan]

Jesus is equal with God...
John 10:30-36, a commentary

10.30. I and My Father are one.

10:30 I and The Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expression of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if Jesus was not God, then why did He say this?

John 10:31
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

John 10:32
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from My Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me?

John 10:33
The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:34 Psa 82:6.

John 10:35
If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

10:35 If He (God) called them gods unto whom the Word of God came, (that is, to whom God was then speaking,) and the Scripture cannot be broken - That is, nothing which is written therein can be censured or rejected.

John 10:36
Say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am The Son of God?

10:36 Say ye of Him Whom The Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world - This sanctification (whereby he is essentially the Holy One of God) is mentioned as prior to his mission, and together with it implies, Christ was God in the highest sense, infinitely superior to that wherein those judges were so called.

This statement was made by one of Jesus disciples named Thomas. The power of this statement blows by the average Christian like a jumbo jet.

It was made after Jesus had been raised from the grave after his death on the cross. (John 20:19-28) (v.19)" Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, peace be unto you. (v.20) And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. (v.24) But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Did-y-mus, was not with them when Jesus came. (v.25) The other disciples therefore said unto him, we have seen the Lord. But he saith unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and trust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Now that's a reasonable statement Thomas made, saying he'll believe it when he sees it. (v.26) "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, peace be unto you. (v.27) Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." Then Thomas made one of the most over looked statements in the bible, when he said unto Jesus (v.28) "MY LORD AND MY GOD". Jesus after his resurrection from the dead was returning to his former glory, God. (John 17:5) "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Yes, with thee before the world was. That's why after Jesus was raised from the dead he made this statement. (Mat. 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." It's hard for some people to understand that Jesus came through the Virgin Mary in the flesh, but he has always existed as a spirit being.

 

[Pet]

This statement was made by one of Jesus disciples named Thomas. The power of this statement blows by the average Christian like a jumbo jet.

It was made after Jesus had been raised from the grave after his death on the cross. (John 20:19-28) (v.19)" Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, peace be unto you. (v.20) And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. (v.24) But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Did-y-mus, was not with them when Jesus came. (v.25) The other disciples therefore said unto him, we have seen the Lord. But he saith unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and trust my hand into his side, I will not believe."

Now that's a reasonable statement Thomas made, saying he'll believe it when he sees it. (v.26) "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, peace be unto you. (v.27) Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." Then Thomas made one of the most over looked statements in the bible, when he said unto Jesus (v.28) "MY LORD AND MY GOD". Jesus after his resurrection from the dead was returning to his former glory, God. (John 17:5) "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Yes, with thee before the world was. That's why after Jesus was raised from the dead he made this statement. (Mat. 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." It's hard for some people to understand that Jesus came through the Virgin Mary in the flesh, but he has always existed as a spirit being.

I love that Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas, but confirmed the revelation.
Also, blessed are they who believe when they haven't physically seen Jesus...that's us!

 

[bro.tan]

Let’s take a closer look to try and better explain this, let's start in Genesis, because that's where the one who became known as Jesus can be seen first. (Gen. 1: 1) It said that; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But (John 1: 1-3,-10, 14) states" in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (v.2) The same was in the beginning with God. (v. 3) All things were made by him; (the Word) and without him was not any thing made that was made. (v.10) He was in the world and the world was made by him.

We all know that one of Jesus many names is the Word of God. (Rev. 19:13) So who created the world, was it God? Was it the Word (Jesus)? Yes! They are one in the same (v.14) And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father,) full of grace and truth. Yes the WORD that was in the beginning with God, was God and was made flesh and dwelt among man. That's why Jesus said give me the glory I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS, that was in the beginning. (John 17: 5)

 

[bro.tan]

I love that Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas, but confirmed the revelation.
Also, blessed are they who believe when they haven't physically seen Jesus...that's us!

Jesus said that for the people in the world, that need to see things before they believe. There are people in his world who will not believe things especially spiritual things, unless they see it with they own eyes, as proof. Paul says in Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● John 1:14 . .The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

It is very easy to prove the Word's human origin began with Adam's creation.

● Luke 1:31-32 . . You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are
to give him the name Jesus. . . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his
father David.

Now, before any man can be considered for David's throne he has to be one
of the king's natural descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn
from it: "Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The new testament verifies Jesus is the fruit of David's body spoken of in
that oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us
unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle,
separated unto the gospel of God, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to
spiritual progeny as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed
refers to biological progeny because Christ was 1) the fruit of David's body
and 2) of David's loins according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was David's paternal descendant, then of
course Jesus was Adam's paternal descendant too because we all, including
David, descend from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all
the face of the earth.

NOTE: According to Luke 1:31-33, the Word's incarnation has two paternal
fathers, the one divine and the other human, so that Jesus could speak of
himself as deity and he could speak of himself as mankind. I think quite a
few Bible readers much prefer him one way or the other, rather than both
simultaneously. As someone fully God and fully Man, the Word's incarnation
can be a mite confusing at times.

Having a foot in both worlds gives Jesus a couple of amazing advantages. On
the one foot he's entitled to God's throne, and on the other foot he's entitled
to David's throne so that one day he'll be the supreme man on Earth just as
he's now the supreme man in Heaven.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
The status of born-again Christians in God's family circle is that of an
adopted child. (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:15)

Jesus' status is many times more superior than theirs because he's in God's
family circle as a paternal child; in point of fact, as God's one and only
paternal child. (John 1:14 John 1:18 John 3:16, John 3:18, 1John 4:9)

Regardless of how people believe Jesus might've obtained his paternal
status, and regardless of whether his paternal status is actual or
administrative, the status entitles Jesus to be known as God's direct
descendant-- a position whereby the rules of heredity entitle Jesus to be
known by his Father's name, which most everybody knows is Jehovah, a.k.a.
Yahweh. (cf. Heb 1:4-5)

Now if God was to actually father a direct descendant, the result would be as
divine as Himself just as when a man fathers a direct descendant, the result
is as human as himself. So then, in his status as God's direct descendant,
Jesus is entitled to be known as deity, i.e. the one true deity.

NOTE: I'm not suggesting that Jesus' relationship with God is biological. The
thing is: I don't know how else to explain their rather unique situation
except in terms familiar to us all.
_

 

[marks]

I love that Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas, but confirmed the revelation.

Thomas was doing exactly as Jesus had told them:

Matthew 24:23-26 KJV
23) Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25) Behold, I have told you before.
26) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Much love!

 

[Webers_Home]

Jesus' status is many times more superior than theirs because he's in God's family circle as a
paternal child; in point of fact, as God's one and only paternal child. (John 1:14 John 1:18 John
3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9)

● 1John 4:9 . . By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has
sent His only begotten son into the world so that we might live through him.

The Greek word translated "only begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace').
There are three very good examples if its use located in Luke 7:12, Luke
8:42, and Luke 9:38. It always, without exception, refers to the fact that a
lone child in a family's home is the entire number of their offspring. That one
child is it, so I think most of us can sympathize with the sorrow of a family
that loses their child to disease, accident, crime, or an act of nature like that
flood in Texas.

Seeing as how I've brought up the Greek word monogenes, then I'm pretty
much obligated to discuss its use in Heb 11:17 because of Abraham's eldest
son Ishmael.

He was Abraham's very first biological son; fathered with one of Abraham's
female slaves. Common laws in that day specified a way to annul the
inheritance rights of children that a slave owner produced with a female
slave. The catch was, the slave owner couldn't simply evict the mother and
her child, nor sell them at market; no, he had to emancipate the mother,
which is just what Abraham did.

● Gen 21:14 . . Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of
water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder, and
together with the child, sent her away.

The phrase "sent her away" is from a versatile Hebrew word that can be
used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.

In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she
was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking
because if Abraham had merely evicted Hagar, or sold her off, then Ishmael
would have retained his status as Abraham's eldest son.

Thus in the eyes of the common laws of that day-- and apparently in God's
eyes too - Ishmael no longer counted as Abraham's direct descendant;
which of course improved Isaac's status from that of the junior sibling to
that of not only Abraham's eldest son, but also his only son as he is
identified in the very next chapter when God required Abraham and Isaac to
journey to the mountain.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

He is eternal. He’s always existed as God (Micah 5:2, John 1:1).

● Mic 5:2 . . But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

At first glance, the words "going forth" appear to be associated with activity
but from what I gather; they actually indicate that the Word's incarnation
was put on track to be a potentate in Israel many eons ago in the dateless
past; possibly even before any of the cosmos was created. In other words; I
really don't think we should be using Micah 5:2 as a proof text that Jesus
has always existed when it so strongly suggests we should use it in our
quest to make some sense of the Word's incarnation.

* I haven't a clue how any IQ, even the supreme being's, is capable of
planning something so complex so far in advance. It tells me that the
supreme being likely has other plans in the works, about which we are
unaware, that stretch very far into the future and deal with things that
our limited intellects can't even begin to imagine.
_

 

[bdavidc]

● Mic 5:2 . . But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

At first glance, the words "going forth" appear to be associated with activity
but from what I gather; they actually indicate that the Word's incarnation
was put on track to be a potentate in Israel many eons ago in the dateless
past; possibly even before any of the cosmos was created. In other words; I
really don't think we should be using Micah 5:2 as a proof text that Jesus
has always existed when it so strongly suggests we should use it in our
quest to make some sense of the Word's incarnation.

* I haven't a clue how any IQ, even the supreme being's, is capable of
planning something like that so far in advance. It tells me that the
supreme being likely has plans in the works, about which we are
unaware, that stretch very far into the future and deals with things that
our limited intellects can't even begin to imagine.
_

Micah 5: 2 does not merely imply pre-planning; it outright asserts eternal pre-existence. The Hebrew text states His “goings forth are from of old, from everlasting”. This is not poetic language for a distant past; it is unequivocal eternity. God is not a man that He should speak like this and not mean it.

This is not a statement about when the incarnation was pre-planned; this is a statement about who the Messiah is. He did not have a beginning in Bethlehem. He entered the world in Bethlehem. John 1: 1 is quite clear: “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.” This is not metaphorical language. This is the eternal Son of God.

Anyone who attempts to water this down or turn it into a statement about “plans” instead of a statement about the actual person is committing a form of Scriptural twisting. You either take what it says or you don’t, but don’t pretend that the Bible is vague on the subject. The only reason it is vague is to those who refuse to believe.

 

[Webers_Home]

Anyone who attempts to water this down or turn it into a statement about “plans” instead of a
statement about the actual person is committing a form of Scriptural twisting.

Ouch!
_

 

[Webers_Home]

I haven't a clue how any IQ, even the supreme being's, is capable of planning something so complex
so far in advance. It tells me that the supreme being likely has other plans in the works, about which
we are unaware, that stretch very far into the future and deal with things that our limited
intellects can't even begin to imagine.

It occurred to me whilst contemplating the above comment that God has
foreseen all possible consequences and ramifications of His actions; and way
back there in eternity, eons ago, determined which are best to suit His
purposes. In other words: the supreme being is so well informed about His
own future that it is impossible for God to surprise Himself.
_

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Jesus is equal with God...
John 10:30-36, a commentary

10.30. I and My Father are one.

10:30 I and The Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one expression of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if Jesus was not God, then why did He say this?

John 10:31
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

John 10:32
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from My Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me?

John 10:33
The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:34 Psa 82:6.

John 10:35
If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

10:35 If He (God) called them gods unto whom the Word of God came, (that is, to whom God was then speaking,) and the Scripture cannot be broken - That is, nothing which is written therein can be censured or rejected.

John 10:36
Say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am The Son of God?

10:36 Say ye of Him Whom The Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world - This sanctification (whereby he is essentially the Holy One of God) is mentioned as prior to his mission, and together with it implies, Christ was God in the highest sense, infinitely superior to that wherein those judges were so called.

Great post, Brother Pet, John 10:36 Say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am The Son of God? Matthew 16:13-20 KJV

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Pet]

Micah 5: 2 does not merely imply pre-planning; it outright asserts eternal pre-existence. The Hebrew text states His “goings forth are from of old, from everlasting”. This is not poetic language for a distant past; it is unequivocal eternity. God is not a man that He should speak like this and not mean it.

This is not a statement about when the incarnation was pre-planned; this is a statement about who the Messiah is. He did not have a beginning in Bethlehem. He entered the world in Bethlehem. John 1: 1 is quite clear: “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.” This is not metaphorical language. This is the eternal Son of God.

Anyone who attempts to water this down or turn it into a statement about “plans” instead of a statement about the actual person is committing a form of Scriptural twisting. You either take what it says or you don’t, but don’t pretend that the Bible is vague on the subject. The only reason it is vague is to those who refuse to believe.

Note micah 5:2 in the niv

 

[bdavidc]

Note micah 5:2 in the niv

The NIV of Micah 5: 2 actually says the same thing, it’s just been smoothed over for readability. But it still affirms eternity: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Compare that to the Hebrew: מוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם “His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.”

The Hebrew word עוֹלָם (olam) is univocally used in Scripture for eternity, or forever, Psalm 90: 2 declares it explicitly: “from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

This isn’t about lineage or some pre-existing plan for bringing the Messiah to earth. The Hebrew grammar is personal, not conceptual. “Goings forth” is an activity, not an idea or a plan. He is the activity of a Person whose origin cannot be in time. The Messiah did not begin to exist in Bethlehem. He came forth from eternity into Bethlehem.

John 1:1–14 tells this even more clearly. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh.” Anyone who says this does not mean the eternal pre-existence of Christ is not just missing the point, they are rejecting the plain reading of the text.

So no, the NIV doesn’t do damage to Micah 5:2. And even if a translation softens the language, the original Hebrew does not. That is what matters. You either believe what God said, or you don’t. And the Bible leaves no room for a created Messiah.

 

[Pet]

The NIV of Micah 5: 2 actually says the same thing, it’s just been smoothed over for readability. But it still affirms eternity: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Compare that to the Hebrew: מוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם “His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.”

The Hebrew word עוֹלָם (olam) is univocally used in Scripture for eternity, or forever, Psalm 90: 2 declares it explicitly: “from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

This isn’t about lineage or some pre-existing plan for bringing the Messiah to earth. The Hebrew grammar is personal, not conceptual. “Goings forth” is an activity, not an idea or a plan. He is the activity of a Person whose origin cannot be in time. The Messiah did not begin to exist in Bethlehem. He came forth from eternity into Bethlehem.

John 1:1–14 tells this even more clearly. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh.” Anyone who says this does not mean the eternal pre-existence of Christ is not just missing the point, they are rejecting the plain reading of the text.

So no, the NIV doesn’t do damage to Micah 5:2. And even if a translation softens the language, the original Hebrew does not. That is what matters. You either believe what God said, or you don’t. And the Bible leaves no room for a created Messiah.

Compare The Lords prayer in Luke 11 in the niv and kj