Jesus is God

[MonoBiblical]

You are stuck.
God wrote the bible trough men
GOD CALLED Jesus all those things

Yes...you do need it modified.
I totally understand.

I need the real deal, and not your translational delusions.

ONE MORE THING. I am a not a JW. Never will be one

 

[Hiddenthings]

I'd like to share a few Scriptures with you.

1 Corinthians 15:47-49 KJV
47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

God tells us here that Jesus is the Lord from heaven, not the same as men on earth other than Himself. "The" Lord from heaven. There is only Him. This is exclusive language, there is no other.

And God shows us the continued contrast between the heavenly and the earthly, lest any become confused.

John 1:1-14 KJV
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2) The same was in the beginning with God.
3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
( . . . )
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.

This passage speaks for itself. God took on flesh.

Philippians 2:5-11 KJV
5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Being in the form of God, He took upon Him the form of a servant. Very clear.

He became obedient . . . have you ever considered the implications here? What was Jesus before He became obedient? Your choices are either disobedient, or Sovereign. Seems clear to me! And in harmony with the rest.

9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Imagine for a moment, that Paul would apply this passage from Isaiah to one who is not God??

YHWH declares that to Himself shall every knee bow, and Paul here affirms that every knee will bow to Jesus. Jesus is YHWH.

Zechariah 14:3-4 KJV
3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Acts 1:11 KJV
11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Easily seen.

And like I've said before, I could go on, but will you be convinced? Please understand . . . I'm not quoting creeds, I'm quoting the Bible. Hear it, and believe!

Much love!

Thanks for sharing, Marks.

Let me ask you a straightforward question: Have you actually read the Nicene Creed? I’ll assume that you have. When you read those words in your post, is that genuinely what you see in them? I'm perfectly fine with an honest answer if it is.

Because when I compare the verses you've quoted with the Nicene Creed, I don’t just see a few minor issues , I see widespread error throughout.

So here is the issue - when you quote Scripture what you see is not what is written but what you have been trained to perceive.

Let me give you an example.

When you read this "God also hath highly exalted him"

This is what’s known as a contradiction—because God, being supremely exalted, cannot be exalted any higher.

So, if I were to ask what God did to exalt His Son to such a position, you couldn't say He gave him immortality, because admitting that would undermine your cherished doctrine.

Here is where it gets hard for you because David, Jesus and Paul all agree with me, so I'm not sure where that places you?

As David wrote, “He (Jesus) asked life of You (God), and You (God) gave it to him, length of days forever and ever” (Psalm 21:4).

Jesus affirmed, “The Father has granted the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26).

Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35) and, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father (for Life) except through me” (John 14:6).

Paul’s declaration in 1 Timothy simply reflects what Jesus himself had already taught: that true, self-existing immortality belongs only to the Father.

No creeds, just good old-fashioned comprehension.

 

[GodsGrace]

JOHN
1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος In the beggining, it was a word(er), and a word(er) it was with a God, and the God, it was. 2 ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν A worder another it was. In the beginning with a God, etc et cetera.
....
14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. And a worder the sarx-flesh begins.

Wonderful.

So it states:

John 1:1

IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS A WORDER, AND A WORDER IT WAS WITH GOD, AND THE GOD IT WAS.

Sounds like IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS A WORDER AND THE WORDER WAS GOD.

Very Good.


John 1:14

AND A WORDER THE SARX-FLESH BEGINS.


Sarx means physical flesh.


So....
The questions remains

WHAT/WHO BECAME FLESH?


See, Strong's is not necessary.
Persons like to use it because languages are complex and cannot be understood by using
a dictionary....which is pretty much what Strong's is.

 

[GodsGrace]

[A worder.] Worders there are more than one in the NT.

[Mat 24:35 KJV] 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
24:35 ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται, οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν
[Mar 13:31 KJV] 31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
[Luk 21:33 KJV] 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
[Luk 24:17, 44 KJV] 17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications [are] these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? ... 44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
[Act 15:15 KJV] 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
[Rev 19:9 KJV] 9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed [are] they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
[Rev 21:5 KJV] 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
[Rev 22:6 KJV] 6 And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

of course Mono.
I just stated something to this effect in the post I just sent off to you.

But John 1:1 is referring to a SPECIFIC word.
The one that was with God from the beginning
and the one that was God.

What happened to THIS word?

 

[GodsGrace]

I used a Lexicon. Thayer's which is standard on every BLB page.

[And BDB for the Hebrew.]

Replied to.

I liked your translation better.

 

[GodsGrace]

You only proved my point Marks.

As the Creed states "For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man"

This is not from the Bible but your own interpretation of Creed language.

It’s not inconceivable because it’s a miracle, but because it’s a man-made invention. Anything originating from human constructs and not from God’s Word becomes irreconcilable with Scripture and is quickly labeled a “mystery” simply because it cannot be truly known or explained.

Hidden....
WHAT exactly is not biblical from the following which the other member had posted?:

From a creed.....which creed must be believed in order for one to be defined as Christian....

FOR US MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION HE CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS INCARNATE OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND BECAME MAN.


1. Is Jesus considered to be the Savior?

2. Where did He come from...He did not exist before?

3. Did the Holy Spirit come upon Mary?

4. Was she a young girl?

5. Did that being that came down from heaven become a man? (Did Mary give birth?)

 

[Hiddenthings]

Hidden....
WHAT exactly is not biblical from the following which the other member had posted?:

From a creed.....which creed must be believed in order for one to be defined as Christian....

FOR US MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION HE CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS INCARNATE OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND BECAME MAN.


1. Is Jesus considered to be the Savior?

2. Where did He come from...He did not exist before?

3. Did the Holy Spirit come upon Mary?

4. Was she a young girl?

5. Did that being that came down from heaven become a man? (Did Mary give birth?)

The Creed itself is the source of these assumptions, so instead of comparing Scripture with Scripture, what's actually happening is a comparison of the Nicene Creed with Scripture. Many Christians, like David Lamb, have accepted the foundation of their beliefs without ever questioning or testing it. Over the past two months, this forum has had the opportunity to uncover the identity of their so-called "fallen angel", yet has failed to do so. The reason remains the same, a willingness to blindly accept the source of extrabiblical beliefs, not grounded in the Word, but in the doctrines of men.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Sarx means physical flesh.

Sarx does not include muscle.

WHAT/WHO BECAME FLESH?

The worder Jesus who is the son of the worder YHWH, the highest God.

But John 1:1 is referring to a SPECIFIC word.
The one that was with God from the beginning
and the one that was God.

What happened to THIS word?

It created another word(er) Yeshua.

 

[Deleted member 26788]

ONE MORE THING. I am a not a JW. Never will be one

that's been said before

 

[rebuilder 454]

I need the real deal, and not your translational delusions.

ONE MORE THING. I am a not a JW. Never will be one

I am reporting what God said.
He is not delusional as you suggest.

 

[jaybird]

The docrine of the Trinity, was not available in the OT.
Its a NT, "Church"...... teaching.

Believing this doctrine is not required for Salvation.

are you sure thats the position your taking?
Jesus and the 12 taught the Hebrew bible, Pauls teachings in Acts 17 were tested against scripture, the Hebrew bible.

 

[Behold]

are you sure thats the position your taking?

Believing that the Trinity Doctrine is true, is not necessary for Salvation.

Jesus and the 12 taught the Hebrew bible, Pauls teachings in Acts 17 were tested against scripture, the Hebrew bible.

Christianity is the New Testament....... the Hebrew bible is the Old Testament old covenant.
So, what we do, is use the New Testament, when we want to learn doctrine for the Church, and we specifically study Paul's Epistles, as He was chosen by Jesus to reveal Doctrine for the NT Church, that consists of mostly gentiles.

 

[jaybird]

Believing that the Trinity Doctrine is true, is not necessary for Salvation.



Christianity is the New Testament....... the Hebrew bible is the Old Testament old covenant.
So, what we do, is use the New Testament, when we want to learn doctrine for the Church, and we specifically study Paul's Epistles, as He was chosen by Jesus to reveal Doctrine for the NT Church, that consists of mostly gentiles.

old new doesnt matter, its still the bible, calling the Hebrew bible "old" doesnt make it not exist.
Jesus taught from the Hebrew bible. do you follow this example or is this a bad example?
and again, Pauls teachings in Acts 17 were tested against scripture, the Hebrew bible. that means anything Paul taught, that could not be confirmed in the Hebrew bible, was not biblical.

 

[Behold]

old new doesnt matter, its still the bible, calling the Hebrew bible "old" doesnt make it not exist.

When understanding Theology, its very important to recognize some things...

Like, a Old Testament, vs a NT..........and an Old Covenant vs a NC.

Its important to recognize that There is no LITERAL Cross of Christ in the Hebrew OT, because Jesus didnt die in the OT.

Jesus taught from the Hebrew bible. do you follow this example or is this a bad example?

Jesus taught from the OT, and Paul teaches doctrine for the Church that is not found in the OT.

What is found in the OT that Paul teaches is "justification by Faith"......as you find with Abraham and Noah, who were both justified by faith.

and again, Pauls teachings in Acts 17 were tested against scripture, the Hebrew bible. that means anything Paul taught, that could not be confirmed in the Hebrew bible, was not biblical.

Nonsense.

 

[jaybird]

When understanding Theology, its very important to recognize some things...

Like, a Old Testament, vs a NT..........and an Old Covenant vs a NC.

Its important to recognize that There is no LITERAL Cross of Christ in the Hebrew OT, because Jesus didnt die in the OT.

where in the NT does anyone command the Hebrew bible is no longer valid?

Jesus taught from the OT, and Paul teaches doctrine for the Church that is not found in the OT.

What is found in the OT that Paul teaches is "justification by Faith"......as you find with Abraham and Noah, who were both justified by faith.



Nonsense.

nope, here is the passage in question:

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

is this passage an error?

 

[MonoBiblical]

that's been said before

I will never believe in globalism like the JWs ...?

 

[MonoBiblical]

I am reporting what God said.
He is not delusional as you suggest.

But perhaps you are delusional as you suggest.

 

[MonoBiblical]

1. Is Jesus considered to be the Savior?

He is not the only one.

2. Where did He come from...He did not exist before?

He did not pre-exist.

3. Did the Holy Spirit come upon Mary?

The HS is the begetter; this implies a spirit that is a father.

4. Was she a young girl?

Close to fully grown up at the least. This is sensitive information.

5. Did that being that came down from heaven become a man? (Did Mary give birth?)

Mary gave birth to a boy.

 

[GodsGrace]

He is not the only one.

The OT teaches that God HIMSELF will save His people.
So who is the other Savior Mono?

He did not pre-exist.

In the beginning was the word and the word was God.
And the word became flesh.
What does this mean??

The HS is the begetter; this implies a spirit that is a father.

Yes sir.
God Father is a spirit.
Can God Father do as He wishes...
or do you limit what God Father, a spirit being,
can do?
Can God Father enter into the time HE created IF He wants to?

Close to fully grown up at the least. This is sensitive information.

Why is it sensitive information?
You believe a being I worship is a man.
Which means I'm a cultist and so is every other Christian.
I guess you don't worship Jesus and yet He was called God in the NT and He never corrected this title.

Mark 14:56-64
56 For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent.
57 Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying,
58 "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.' "
59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent.

60 The high priest stood up and came forward * and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"

61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"

62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?

64 "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.


Daniel 7:13-14 refers to The Son of Man and the Jews of Jesus' time knew that this meant God Almighty coming to earth.
Jesus was declaring Himself to be that Son of Man.

This is the reason the High Priest tore his clothes...
it was a sing of indignation and the statement was blasphemous and deserving of the death penalty.

Mary gave birth to a boy.

Yes sir.
A boy that could teach rabbis at the age of 12.
A boy that could heal and raise from the dead.
A boy that could forgive sin and only God can forgive sin.
A boy that died for your sins just as the OT had prophesied.
A boy that could come back from the dead and send the Holy Spirit to be our comforter.
A boy that could draw all men to Himself.

 

[Behold]

where in the NT does anyone command the Hebrew bible is no longer valid?

All the word of God is important.

However, when we are learning how to understand what Christ has accomplised on The Cross, and how to understand Spiritual Gifts, and how to understand how to walk in the Spirit, and how to perfect disciplship, and all these things that are important for the CHRISTian.........to learn..........then we use the NT, and we study Paul's epistles as he wrote the NT Church Doctrine.

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

Are you aware that when your verse was given.. there was no New Testament yet given or written or published.?
So, this is why they only used the OT., as they didnt have a NT at that time.
Understand?