Proof that Jesus is God

[robert derrick]

1. Jesus is the true God (I John 5:20)
To believe otherwise is idolatry (5:21)

2. Jesus is the Word, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
And still is...

3. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:11)
It is not God the Father standing behind John speaking to him...

The 'Alpha and Omega' is the Lord which was, and is, and is to come. The Almighty. (Rev 1:8).

He 'that was, and is, and is to come' is Lord God Almighty (Rev 4:8)

Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.

4. To say that Jesus is the Word that was created in the beginning, is misquote Scripture (John 1:1), so as to say instead:
'In the beginning of the Word' or 'In the beginning was the Word created'.

That is exactly the same as saying in Gen 1:1:
'In the Beginning of God' or 'In the beginning God was created'
God was not created; therefore, Jesus was not created. There was no beginning of God, therefore, there was no beginning of the Word.

The false teaching that Jesus was and is a created being since the beginning of creation, is a paganist and idolatrous deism. If in fact, Jesus the Son of God was created by God, then there is at least one other god in heaven like God and with God. And if God created 1 other god like Himself but not Himself, then He likely has created many other gods, and shall do so again.

Also, if Jesus were a created being by God and not God Himself, then He would only be like God, but not God Himself.

But God did not create another god like Himself. He did however create an archangel who wanted to, and still does, make himself like God (Is 14), and to be a god (Gen 3). And God calls him the gold of this world, the devil.

It is this god that also teaches that Jesus the Son of God is not God Himself, but only another god like himself. (Like being god-brothers)

If Jesus is the created Son, then he is only like God, not God Himself. But Jesus is not 'like God', He is the true God Himself.

If Jesus is in fact a created being like God, then we could call Him, Apollo, or better yet Apollyon.

 

[tigger 2]

1. Jesus is the true God (I John 5:20)
To believe otherwise is idolatry (5:21)

2. Jesus is the Word, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
And still is...

3. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:11)
It is not God the Father standing behind John speaking to him...

The 'Alpha and Omega' is the Lord which was, and is, and is to come. The Almighty. (Rev 1:8).

He 'that was, and is, and is to come' is Lord God Almighty (Rev 4:8)

Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.

4. To say that Jesus is the Word that was created in the beginning, is misquote Scripture (John 1:1), so as to say instead:
'In the beginning of the Word' or 'In the beginning was the Word created'.

That is exactly the same as saying in Gen 1:1:
'In the Beginning of God' or 'In the beginning God was created'
God was not created; therefore, Jesus was not created. There was no beginning of God, therefore, there was no beginning of the Word.

The false teaching that Jesus was and is a created being since the beginning of creation, is a paganist and idolatrous deism. If in fact, Jesus the Son of God was created by God, then there is at least one other god in heaven like God and with God. And if God created 1 other god like Himself but not Himself, then He likely has created many other gods, and shall do so again.

Also, if Jesus were a created being by God and not God Himself, then He would only be like God, but not God Himself.

But God did not create another god like Himself. He did however create an archangel who wanted to, and still does, make himself like God (Is 14), and to be a god (Gen 3). And God calls him the gold of this world, the devil.

It is this god that also teaches that Jesus the Son of God is not God Himself, but only another god like himself. (Like being god-brothers)

If Jesus is the created Son, then he is only like God, not God Himself. But Jesus is not 'like God', He is the true God Himself.

If Jesus is in fact a created being like God, then we could call Him, Apollo, or better yet Apollyon.

................................

1 John 5:20 "We are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." - KJV.

1 Jn 5:20 -

It is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:

"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to `the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter." - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!

So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV.).

So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. As we have seen, if we include the context of all the uses of the `true God,' it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).

To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look another use of the term: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life.


At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father: “Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” - New International Version (NIV). Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification (“AND Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent”)!

Notice how this respected trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - “Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - New English Bible (NEB).

So, the title “the true God” does not have to mean that there are no others who may be called “gods” or “a god” in a subordinate but righteous sense. It is, however, an exclusive title for God, the Most High, only true God, Jehovah. And clearly it refers exclusively to the Father! No one else is the God or the True God! (Compare Ps. 86:10; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 37:16.)

 

[tigger 2]

R.D. wrote:
3. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:11)
It is not God the Father standing behind John speaking to him...

The 'Alpha and Omega' is the Lord which was, and is, and is to come. The Almighty. (Rev 1:8).

He 'that was, and is, and is to come' is Lord God Almighty (Rev 4:8)

Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.
......................................................

There are only three places in the entire Bible where the title "Alpha and Omega" is used: Rev. 1:8; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:13. "Alpha and Omega" as found at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and NKJV is recognized as spurious by most knowledgeable modern Bible scholars:

Virtually all modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,"

This wording at the beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in virtually any NT Greek texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in nearly all modern translations or in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

There are only three pre-ninth century Greek MSS which attest to this passage [Rev. 1:11], and all three of them omit the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." In addition, many later MSS and versions also omit. Hodges and Farstad's "Majority" text omits, and Robinson and Pierpont's "Byzantine/Majority" text omits. Thus whether one bases one's text largely on pre-ninth century MSS, or whether one bases one's text on the Majority of Greek MSS, either way, this phrase should be omitted.
.....................................................

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Revelation 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and--The oldest manuscripts, omit all this clause.
Revelation 1 Commentary - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
.......................................................

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Revelation 1

Verse 11." I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and
"This whole clause is wanting in ABC, thirty-one others; some editions; the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Arethas, Andreas, and Primasius. Griesbach has left it out of the text." - Revelation 1 - Adam Clarke Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

The truth of the above can be observed by merely examining most Greek NT texts, most Trinitarian Bible translations, or most ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT .

 

[tigger 2]

R.D. wrote:
"2. Jesus is the Word, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
And still is..."
...............................
A careful study of John's grammar and usage shows that he did not intend "God" here.
Examining the Trinity
or
Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity
or
Examining the Trinity: QUAL ("Qualitative" John 1:1c)

Yes, these are my own personal studies on my blog.

 

[robert derrick]

. It is, however, an exclusive title for God, the Most High, only true God, Jehovah. (Compare Ps. 86:10; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 37:16.)

I was waiting for the name 'Jehovah' to sneak in...

Nevertheless, I appreciate your honest effort of response. And I am well aware of God the Father being called by Jesus as the only true God. And the only difference between the two in John 17 and I John 5 is only. And it does not for me clinch anything. The Father being the only true God, and the Son being the true God does not contradict itself, when they are both God. There is a written difference, but not a contradiction, nor negating of Jesus being the Outos One.

Now, as to outos, I do not see any reference to the Father specifically in that Scripture nor in the context leading up to it. There is only the Son and God in Chapter 5. So, the first and sensible reference ought be to the Son. There must therefore be proven certain evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on anyone trying to read it differently than it is sensibly written as: That the Son is not This true God.

You claim of certainty that Him the true one, being the true God must be the only true God and Father, is far from certain. Jesus desiring we know the Father the only true God, and Jesus who He has sent, does not exclude Jesus from being the only true God as well. And if they both are One God, then it certainly does not. The reading dose not at all have to mean: 'knowing the Father the only true God and Jesus Christ who is not the true God'. A sensible reading could just as well be 'knowing the Father the only true God and Jesus Christ the true God...

So let's look at it.
"...that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

You contend that him that is true is the true God... Agreed. And because the Father is the only true God, He must be him that is true. Not agree.

Who exactly is without doubt him that is true? him that we are in. We are in him that is true. And who is without doubt Him that we are in? His Son Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ is Him that is true and is the true God. There is no other reading for this. To try and do so is to leave sense and plainly written Scripture. To deny that the true God is in fact him that is true, is to deny that God is true, which of course is not true. (Let God be true and every man a liar who says He is not Him that is true )

Now, I will offer another proof that Jesus is Him that is true. Jesus is the faithful and true witness (Rev 3:14). Jesus is the true witness, the true One, the true God. And as if that were not enough, here is another proof of Jesus as the Lord and true God. (Jerem 42:5) The Lord (Your Jehovah) is described as a true and faithful witness...(I do love Scripture. God is the most high logistician of mathematical analysis (If A=B, and B-C, then A=C)

And so the great Outos is not even in the argument of proof. And even if it were, the simplest reading is: His Son Jesus Christ: This is the true God. Scripture is saying: This One I just named: This Son of God, This Jesus, This is the true God.

This true God we know and are in is His Son Jesus, the true One and the true and faithful witness, the Lord of Jeremiah.

 

[robert derrick]

R.D. wrote:

There are only three places in the entire Bible where the title "Alpha and Omega" is used: Rev. 1:8; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:13. "Alpha and Omega" as found at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and NKJV is recognized as spurious by most knowledgeable modern Bible scholars:
.

And of course here we are. Your great Outos didn't work, and now you dive into the Greek and scholars, etc...just throws away the entire verse.

1. I have never heard that, nor care one bit about it. The King James writers wrote, and they were not ignorant nor biased. Which is what you would have to call them.

2. Never ever go 'to the original language' in order to prove doctrine, when it is already plainly written in your own. How many times, such as this have I seen so-called original word and text scholars dig deep to deny or change something plainly written and understood by any child. And full disclosure, I was one of them, trained in the Greek as a graduate historian with no ties to the Bible. I learned it was becoming a snare to me, when I then took that training to the Bible, especially when pertaining to doctrine of God.

'Going to the Greek' to prove the first principles of God (Heb 5:12), the lain foundation of the doctrine of Christ, is a hallmark of trying to force a false doctrine.

That said, Rev 22 for the same reasons in I John 5 is the Lord Jesus: Father not specifically mentioned, only God, the Lamb, and Jesus. The One speaking is the One who comes quickly, and the same one standing behind John speaking to him. That is not the Father coming quickly. And Jesus here is not only the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, but also the Beginning and the Ending.

And just to seal the deal, Scripture states it plainly (As God ALWAYS done when pertaining to His first principles):

"He which testifies these things says, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Jesus coming quickly, the Alpha and Omega that was, and is, and is coming, the Lord God Almighty.

Once again. No debate about it. Unless you want to say He that was, and is, and is to come, is not God at all, since Jesus is not God at all, and yet Jesus is plainly the One to come...As in, even so come Lord Jesus...

 

[robert derrick]

R.D. wrote:
"2. Jesus is the Word, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
And still is..."
...............................
A careful study of John's grammar and usage shows that he did not intend "God" here.

Yes, these are my own personal studies on my blog.

Really? Seriously? That's the best you got? Now you disappoint me. You at least made a decent stab at it in the first effort, and a so-so attempt in the 2nd, but a careful study of John's grammar?

"Tigger, Tigger, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful." Less careful grinding business of trying to avoid what is plainly written, and more needed simplicity of the Scriptures.

This is one of the few Scriptures that is actually translated word for word and in grammatical order, without any necessity to reword and shift the words around in order to satisfy English fundamentals of grammar.

It is literally translated exactly as read in subject, verb, and direct object. And at this point, I would say god did that on purpose to allow no careful study that would possibly screw it up!! Ha!! You are really something.

Let me try to show you something fundamental about reading God's Word: It is not John's grammar, but God's word by word, and it is not John's intent that matters, but God's simply as written.

I have never before seen such a plain and open proof about the absolute twisted witchcraft necessary to force feed a false doctrine around and thru and over or just simply getting rid of what is plainly written in Scripture. All the while justified by being an original languages expert falsely so called...(1 Tim 6)

For this I thank you. And praise be the Lord Jehovah Jesus, the true and faithful witness of His own Word, which He has written in such a way as to take the crafty in their own craftiness, while giving power, life, and immortality to the little children, who come unto Him and Scripture in open faith, without hidden agenda nor manufactured doctrine and twisted ideas.

"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes..." (Luke 10). (You do know that Jesus is Lord, right? Lord Jesus? And there is one Lord (Eph 4:5). You know, Lord of heaven and earth? Even as the Father? Both being the true and only God...)

I will conclude with this: You are very learned and sincere, in the wrong things and sincerely wrong. And I do not at all question your faith in Jesus for salvation and forgiveness of sins, which is always personal between us and the Lord. However, this 'Jesus created by God in the beginning' is a very devilish, paganish, and idolatrous doctrine, used by the devil to devalue Jesus' Godhead, that he may exalt himself to the Godhead, and either take the Son's place or to at least become the 4th in the Godhood.

And since he cannot do that with God, he will be more than happy to do it with people who profess faith, while destroying the faith of Jesus according to Scripture, through many many many hours of careful research, study, and fantastic abilities to change, wrest, and mishandle what is plainly written for what is not written, and neither came it into God's mind (Jerem 19:5, 32:35)

And while I am willing to admire your efforts and skill, I cannot at all appreciate nor honor you for your violent and forceful reshaping of the true God Jesus Christ. (Matthew 11:12)

"...and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." (Rev 17:6)

 

[keithr]

(You do know that Jesus is Lord, right? Lord Jesus? And there is one Lord (Eph 4:5). You know, Lord of heaven and earth? Even as the Father? Both being the true and only God...)

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him" (1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB)​

Also:

Jesus said to her, “Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17, WEB)​

and Jesus also said:

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Rev 3:12, WEB)​

Clearly Jesus and Paul did not believe that Jesus was God (almighty God, Yahweh) - and Jesus should know! We have these (and other) simple, easily and clearly understandable verses which should help us to correctly interpret other verses which are more ambiguous or more difficult to understand. The only way to harmonise all the verses of Scripture is if they are interpreted on the foundational truth that Yahweh is God and Jesus is Yahweh's only begotten son.

Another example from Acts 5 (WEB):

30) The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.
31) God exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32) We are His witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”​

How can God exalt himself with his right hand? This does not make sense if Jesus is God, but does make sense if Jesus is God’s son. God is not the Messiah; God did not anoint himself! (Messiah means 'anointed'). The Holy Spirit is not a person who makes up a trinity god of beings, for God gives the Holy Spirit to many people.

Above you referenced Ephesians 4:5 to say that there is one Lord (and indeed we have just one Lord, Jesus, as Paul confirmed in the quote above). But you should tie that together with Pauls introductory remarks at the beginning of his letter:

(Eph 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(Eph 1:2) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Eph 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ;
(Eph 1:17) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, ...

It was only after his resurrection that Jesus said, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Mat 28:18, WEB). So Jesus now has all authority in heaven and on earth, because God gave it to him. But as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (WEB):

For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection”, it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him.
When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.​

It's clear from these verses that Jesus is not God.

Your expression, "Both being the true and only God" does not make logical sense! It's like saying two different bishops are both the only true Pope - it's not possible!

 

[robert derrick]

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him" (1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB)​

Also:

Jesus said to her, “Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17, WEB)​

and Jesus also said:

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Rev 3:12, WEB)​

Clearly Jesus and Paul did not believe that Jesus was God (almighty God, Yahweh) - and Jesus should know! We have these (and other) simple, easily and clearly understandable verses which should help us to correctly interpret other verses which are more ambiguous or more difficult to understand. The only way to harmonise all the verses of Scripture is if they are interpreted on the foundational truth that Yahweh is God and Jesus is Yahweh's only begotten son.

Another example from Acts 5 (WEB):

30) The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.
31) God exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32) We are His witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”​

How can God exalt himself with his right hand? This does not make sense if Jesus is God, but does make sense if Jesus is God’s son. God is not the Messiah; God did not anoint himself! (Messiah means 'anointed'). The Holy Spirit is not a person who makes up a trinity god of beings, for God gives the Holy Spirit to many people.

Above you referenced Ephesians 4:5 to say that there is one Lord (and indeed we have just one Lord, Jesus, as Paul confirmed in the quote above). But you should tie that together with Pauls introductory remarks at the beginning of his letter:

(Eph 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(Eph 1:2) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Eph 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ;
(Eph 1:17) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, ...

It was only after his resurrection that Jesus said, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Mat 28:18, WEB). So Jesus now has all authority in heaven and on earth, because God gave it to him. But as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (WEB):

For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection”, it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him.
When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.​

It's clear from these verses that Jesus is not God.

Your expression, "Both being the true and only God" does not make logical sense! It's like saying two different bishops are both the only true Pope - it's not possible!

"It's clear from these verses that Jesus is not God." No it is clear from your interpretation of these verses, that Jesus is not God, which you already hold to.

Those verses can equally be read: Jesus the true God has as His Head, God (1 Cor 11:3), to whom God the Son did willingly subject Himself for a season for the specific purpose of redeeming man on earth. He did so by laying down His own power (Phillip 2:7) as the true God from everlasting, which He could have taken back to Himself at any time on earth (John 10:18), and yet remained humble to God in keeping His law without sin unto death of the cross. And having died on the cross, He was resurrected with power of God, which He returned to His own Son and God.

This is the normal reading of Scripture concerning the 'trinity' of God's Headship. 3 Persons in the Godhead, each being God, and altogether in perfect unity being God. Your Arianic accusation against the Son's own Headship in God is old and still false, and not been proven true.

You tried to address several proofs of Scripture in a fair manner without success, and so you have returned to spinning the Scripture your way. I believe I have sufficiently rebutted your arguments against mine. There is however one remaining point that you did not address at all, and was very disappointing for me:

If the Word was created by God in the beginning for the work of creation, and the Word was God, then God created God in order to create the heaven and the earth.

Your thoroughly disingenuous response of suggesting a 'careful study' of (John 1:1) in the Greek, in order to show that what was written plainly was really not so plain after all, was thoroughly silly. In other responses you actually did 'go to the Greek', but here you didn't even try. And as I noted, this verse is one of the few verses of Scripture that was accurately translated from Greek to English, without any need whatsoever of making necessary changes to the order of words, for the sake of English comprehension. There is not study, careful or not, in the Greek that can be translated in any other words nor sentence structure. A first semester Greek student could do so without 'study' nor error.

Therefore, once again, one last time: show me how a careful Greek would reword John 1:1 into something other than 'and the Word was God.'

You see my friend, the Scriptures are just as simple to read and understand as the simplicity of Christ Himself, but it only gets complicated and confusing when people such as yourself wrest them away from their clear meaning, in order to insert something for their own understanding and desire. And where the first principles are concerned, such as the Godhood of Jesus, going to original languages is the favorite devise of deception. No doubt it makes you feel really smart and scholastic, but it also makes you look purposely objective and dishonest in handling the Word of truth.

"Your expression, "Both being the true and only God" does not make logical sense! It's like saying two different bishops are both the only true Pope - it's not possible!" It is impossible to be so with a pope, not with God. 'Nothing is impossible with God.'

You appear to show here the reason for your foolish dive into Arianism, because to you God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is just impossible, because you can't believe it, because you can't understand it. In other words, this mystery of the Godhead (Col 2:2), that both the Father and the Son are the true God, and yet the Father is not the Son, neither is the Son the Father, doesn't compute with you personally and naturally, so it can't possibly be true...But it is.

And until you come up with some Greek that reasonably and simply demonstrates that the Word was not God, then it remains so.

 

[MatthewG]

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him" (1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB)​

Also:

Jesus said to her, “Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17, WEB)​

and Jesus also said:

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Rev 3:12, WEB)​

Clearly Jesus and Paul did not believe that Jesus was God (almighty God, Yahweh) - and Jesus should know! We have these (and other) simple, easily and clearly understandable verses which should help us to correctly interpret other verses which are more ambiguous or more difficult to understand. The only way to harmonise all the verses of Scripture is if they are interpreted on the foundational truth that Yahweh is God and Jesus is Yahweh's only begotten son.

Another example from Acts 5 (WEB):

30) The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.
31) God exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32) We are His witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”​

How can God exalt himself with his right hand? This does not make sense if Jesus is God, but does make sense if Jesus is God’s son. God is not the Messiah; God did not anoint himself! (Messiah means 'anointed'). The Holy Spirit is not a person who makes up a trinity god of beings, for God gives the Holy Spirit to many people.

Above you referenced Ephesians 4:5 to say that there is one Lord (and indeed we have just one Lord, Jesus, as Paul confirmed in the quote above). But you should tie that together with Pauls introductory remarks at the beginning of his letter:

(Eph 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(Eph 1:2) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Eph 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ;
(Eph 1:17) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, ...

It was only after his resurrection that Jesus said, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Mat 28:18, WEB). So Jesus now has all authority in heaven and on earth, because God gave it to him. But as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (WEB):

For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection”, it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him.
When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.​

It's clear from these verses that Jesus is not God.

Your expression, "Both being the true and only God" does not make logical sense! It's like saying two different bishops are both the only true Pope - it's not possible!

Am reminded of Jesus talking to His disciples saying if you have seen me you have seen my Father. (IF you have seen me standing here before you; and believe you have seen my Father, My God.) ~

 

[MatthewG]

Here is Jesus Christ answering Philip' the the disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ whom he has been following for a little while now.

Philip ask him this question.

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

This is Jesus Christ response to the question: Pay close attention to what is being said.

Listen very closely at what Jesus Christ is saying in response to Philip and his question.

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

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

 

[Wrangler]

"It's clear from these verses that Jesus is not God." No it is clear from your interpretation of these verses, that Jesus is not God

LOL. Talk about projecting creative interpretation! I've seen pretzel rationalizations on these boards that are something to behold. It is hardly possible to construct a more anti-trinitarian statement than 1 Corinthians 8:6, which reads in relevant part.
For us, there is one God, the Father

Why would the Apostles write anti-trinitarian statements all the time if there was a shred of truth to this 4th century invention? To support the trinitarian view, one would have to find a non-existent verse that contradicts 1 Corinthians 8:6; namely, for us there is one God consisting of F, S & HS.

 

[Cooper]

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him" (1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB)​

Also:

Jesus said to her, “Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17, WEB)​

and Jesus also said:

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Rev 3:12, WEB)​

Clearly Jesus and Paul did not believe that Jesus was God (almighty God, Yahweh) - and Jesus should know! We have these (and other) simple, easily and clearly understandable verses which should help us to correctly interpret other verses which are more ambiguous or more difficult to understand. The only way to harmonise all the verses of Scripture is if they are interpreted on the foundational truth that Yahweh is God and Jesus is Yahweh's only begotten son.

Another example from Acts 5 (WEB):

30) The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.
31) God exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32) We are His witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”​

How can God exalt himself with his right hand? This does not make sense if Jesus is God, but does make sense if Jesus is God’s son. God is not the Messiah; God did not anoint himself! (Messiah means 'anointed'). The Holy Spirit is not a person who makes up a trinity god of beings, for God gives the Holy Spirit to many people.

Above you referenced Ephesians 4:5 to say that there is one Lord (and indeed we have just one Lord, Jesus, as Paul confirmed in the quote above). But you should tie that together with Pauls introductory remarks at the beginning of his letter:

(Eph 1:1) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(Eph 1:2) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Eph 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ;
(Eph 1:17) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, ...

It was only after his resurrection that Jesus said, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Mat 28:18, WEB). So Jesus now has all authority in heaven and on earth, because God gave it to him. But as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (WEB):

For, “He put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when he says, “All things are put in subjection”, it is evident that he is excepted who subjected all things to him.
When all things have been subjected to him, then the Son will also himself be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.​

It's clear from these verses that Jesus is not God.

Your expression, "Both being the true and only God" does not make logical sense! It's like saying two different bishops are both the only true Pope - it's not possible!

This confuses everyone until we realise Jesus had the flesh of Mary and spoke as a man, while at other times he spoke and healed the sick as only the living God can do.
.

 

[Cooper]

R.D. wrote:
3. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:11)
It is not God the Father standing behind John speaking to him...

The 'Alpha and Omega' is the Lord which was, and is, and is to come. The Almighty. (Rev 1:8).

He 'that was, and is, and is to come' is Lord God Almighty (Rev 4:8)

Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.
......................................................

There are only three places in the entire Bible where the title "Alpha and Omega" is used: Rev. 1:8; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:13. "Alpha and Omega" as found at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and NKJV is recognized as spurious by most knowledgeable modern Bible scholars:

Virtually all modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,"

This wording at the beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in virtually any NT Greek texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in nearly all modern translations or in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

There are only three pre-ninth century Greek MSS which attest to this passage [Rev. 1:11], and all three of them omit the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." In addition, many later MSS and versions also omit. Hodges and Farstad's "Majority" text omits, and Robinson and Pierpont's "Byzantine/Majority" text omits. Thus whether one bases one's text largely on pre-ninth century MSS, or whether one bases one's text on the Majority of Greek MSS, either way, this phrase should be omitted.
.....................................................

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Revelation 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and--The oldest manuscripts, omit all this clause.
Revelation 1 Commentary - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
.......................................................

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Revelation 1

Verse 11." I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and
"This whole clause is wanting in ABC, thirty-one others; some editions; the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Arethas, Andreas, and Primasius. Griesbach has left it out of the text." - Revelation 1 - Adam Clarke Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

The truth of the above can be observed by merely examining most Greek NT texts, most Trinitarian Bible translations, or most ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT .

When we read Revelation 1:18 the speaker of Revelation 1:11 is revealed, it is none other than... "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

Context is so important, and here we have, presented in the context, the second person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ.
.

 

[Cooper]

It is hardly possible to construct a more anti-trinitarian statement than 1 Corinthians 8:6, which reads in relevant part.
For us, there is one God, the Father

Why would the Apostles write anti-trinitarian statements all the time if there was a shred of truth to this 4th century invention? To support the trinitarian view, one would have to find a non-existent verse that contradicts 1 Corinthians 8:6; namely, for us there is one God consisting of F, S & HS.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV)

All things are of the Father, and all things are by Jesus Christ. There is only one omnipresent God and He came down from heaven's glory and took upon himself the likeness of man. Father and Son are One. There is only One God. His name on earth was Jesus and He is the one spoken of in Revelation 1:11-18, who has the keys Hell and of death.
.

 

[Wrangler]

But to us there is but one God, the Father

There is only one omnipresent God and He came done from heaven's glory and took on himself the likeness of man.

This is not what 1 Corinthians 8:6 says. There is only one God, the Father. Jesus is a man, not a likeness of a man and nowhere is he called God incarnate or the Father, the only God.

 

[robert derrick]

LOL. Talk about projecting creative interpretation! I've seen pretzel rationalizations on these boards that are something to behold. It is hardly possible to construct a more anti-trinitarian statement than 1 Corinthians 8:6, which reads in relevant part.
For us, there is one God, the Father

Why would the Apostles write anti-trinitarian statements all the time if there was a shred of truth to this 4th century invention? To support the trinitarian view, one would have to find a non-existent verse that contradicts 1 Corinthians 8:6; namely, for us there is one God consisting of F, S & HS.

Since you want to join in, maybe you will refute that the Word was God (John 1), or that This is the true God (I John 5) was not the Son Jesus Christ...

Until someone can reasonably change those two verses into saying something else, then Jesus the Son and Word of God was God and still is the true God.

In meantime:

1. There is One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ. No contradiction. One is God and One is Lord, and the Lord is God. (Josh 22:34)
If not enough: The Lord He is God (4:35,39) Not to mention all the Scriptures of The Lord God, the Lord thy God, The Lord is my strength and the Lord is my God, the anointing oil of His God is upon him: I am the Lord.

The Lord God is the Son and the Father together. It's all very simple and grammatical.

Correct? Is the Lord not God? Or is the One Lord Jesus not only not God, but also is not the Lord He is God? Is there different meaning to the title Lord, or to being the one Lord? Maybe you can ask some Greek if there is another title to insert for 'Lord' in Jesus' case, while retaining the title 'Lord' solely to that Lord that is God in the Old Covenant?

(Your monotheistic Jewish brethren that reject Jesus as God (to this day), did not and do not at all object that the Lord is God. They, as yourself, just won't believe that the Lord God has already come...)

2. The accusation of your Jewish brethren against Jesus was that of blasphemy for making Himself God (John 10:33), and so they had Him crucified, when He stated plainly that He was the Christ, the Son of the blessed. Even they knew from prophesy that the promised Messiah would be the Lord Himself on earth. It is their own accusation that proves claiming to be the Messiah is to try and make oneself God.

(Perhaps if they had been able, like yourself and others, to parse a distinction different between the Messiah and the Lord God, then they had not needed crucify Him for trying to make Himself God. They could have just treated Him like Muhammed and admit that they knew He was a great prophet (John 3), but not the Son of the Blessed, the Christ, which is plainly by prophesy of Scripture to be God on earth.)

Frankly I'm surprised you even accept Jesus as the Son of God and don't question even that, as the devil did (Luke 4:9) Or is He not the Son of God either? Or do we need simply remove the Capitalized 'S' for son when in connection with God? Which is what you are doing by trying to make Him (oops, sorry. him) a created being unequal to the true God, though certainly like God, but certainly not God.

(Which by the way is the status with God that Lucifer wanted to make of himself: "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Is 14:14)

Look, you can refuse to believe and agree the above reasoning and quotes of Scripture, but you certainly cannot reject it out of hand, as fabricated deifying of Jesus from the 4th century...(Especially since I am in the 20th and 21st century, and I never ready anything about it from the 4th)

 

[robert derrick]

This is not what 1 Corinthians 8:6 says. There is only one God, the Father. and nowhere is he called God incarnate or the Father, the only God.

There is the Father, the only true God (John 17), and there is the Son, the true God (I John 5).

"Jesus is a man, not a likeness of a man..."

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phill 2)

Care to revise?

 

[robert derrick]

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV)

All things are of the Father, and all things are by Jesus Christ. There is only one omnipresent God and He came down from heaven's glory and took upon himself the likeness of man. Father and Son are One. There is only One God. His name on earth was Jesus and He is the one spoken of in Revelation 1:11-18, who has the keys Hell and of death.
.

While Jesus is the true God and Son of God both together, He is not God the Father. They are both God individually and One God together.

The mystery of the Godhead (Col 2:2): the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is trying to understand how that can be.

And because certain can't understand it in their carnal minds, then they must reject it as impossible. Which is fine, but then to launch off into pagan deism that the Son of God is a created being, who is not really God, but only like Him, and He was only created initially to help in the creation of God...

Can anyone say father Uranus and son Zeus? And you can throw in the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' as mother Gaia...

 

[robert derrick]

This confuses everyone until we realise Jesus had the flesh of Mary and spoke as a man, while at other times he spoke and healed the sick as only the living God can do.
.

True, as in "God with us".

(Well not really with us in Person. But rather sort of with us when we see Jesus, who is sort of like God, but not God)