Proof that Jesus is God

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
.
Well, according to the Greek god of translation and governor of real Scripture, you must throw out Rev 1:11.

But you can still use Rev 22:13.

(And I am still waiting on him to show how the Word was God, was not really God, but rather was some other kind of created being. However, he hasn't made it back yet, because his 'careful study' is becoming a marathon cramming session...)
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.

'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me' is perfect. Very good.

How can God create another being to be like Himself, and yet that being is not God, and yet His Father and Creator is fully in him??

For "...in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col 2:9)

God the Father dwells in the Son fully, God the Son dwells in the Father fully. It is plain, simple, and a mystery of sorts.

But those carnal-minded 'believers' that must figure out everything with their own reasoning intellects (and great they are), just throw up their hands and proclaim: "It is impossible!!!!" So it must not be true. And all the Godhead does not dwell in Him fully, not at least the Father part, and though the Son is probably in the Father, the Father certainly is not in the Son, because that is literally impossible in this world! I mean, you might as well say the sun stood still, or they walked across on dry ground...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Curtis and MatthewG

MatthewG

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2021
14,196
4,957
113
33
Fyffe
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello this is the way my view is : robert derrick

Colossians 2:1-10
Young's Literal Translation

2 For I (Paul) wish you to know how great a conflict I have for you and those in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my (Pauls) face in the flesh,

2 that their hearts may be comforted, being united in love, and to all riches of the full assurance of the understanding, to the full knowledge of the secret of the God and Father,

and of the Christ,

3 in whom are all the treasures of the wisdom and the knowledge hid,

4 and this I (Paul) say, that no one may beguile you in enticing words,

5 for if even in the flesh I am absent -- yet in the spirit I am with you, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in regard to Christ;

6 as, then, ye did receive Christ Jesus the Lord, in him walk ye,

7 being rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as ye were taught -- abounding in it in thanksgiving. (Paul is writing to the people of Colossians Gods Saints; of the people in colosse; (Colossians 1:1-3)

8 See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,

9 because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

(In Christ does God dwell with-in His Son the man Jesus Christ ~ Who was the Word of God -> made flesh (in the body - the Father dwells by His Spirit with-in - The Holy Spirit descended like a dove - and so does Gods Spirit dwelled in Gods (WORD) Son the Son of Man, the Son of God - Jesus Christ the Lord of Lord an King of Kings.)

We are baptized Christ Jesus in the same manner that He was by the holy spirit/spirit of Christ which is given from the Son and the Father, for us to have comfort in our life by their love they have for us while we are living on this planet. Knowing we have a loving God, and Lord here to help us through this life that is and can be very difficult especially without the holy spirit with-in us as believers.​

10 and ye are in him made full, who is the head of all principality and authority,

And you as believers - are in him made full ~ The Lord Jesus Christ who is the head of all principality, and authority ~. (All authority and Heaven and on Earth have been given to me ~ Said the Lord Jesus Christ)​
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,997
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
...Clearly Jesus and Paul did not believe that Jesus was God...
And clearly you have been feeding on the lies of false teachers and false prophets. Therefore you should go back to the New Testament (KJV) and highlight each and every verse and passage that clearly presents Jesus as God (the Word, the Son, the Son of God, the I AM, the Alpha and the Omega, the second person of the triune Godhead. etc.). And stick with the King James Bible.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have shot themselves in the foot. But there are also other groups which deny the deity of Christ and the Trinity.
 

DuckieLady

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2021
3,288
5,932
113
Midwest-ish
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exodus 3:14
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


John 8:56–59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Yes, He is God and He is coming back!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cooper and HisLife

NayborBear

Active Member
Jan 21, 2020
292
108
43
71
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@robert derrick
It sounds pretty evident to me that you are accurately describing this:
2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

As you keep saying that Jesus is the true God? And Lord God Almighty?
And No one therefore sits at His right hand side? As in here:
Psalm 110
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Who ELSE could you be describing EXCEPT the ONE described in 2 Thess. 2:4?

So it is you who have "gone the way" of the Socinians. which is this:
The Socinians held to a rationalistic approach to Scripture and to faith. This philosophical approach, especially in regard to biblical doctrine, declares that all religious matters must be fully reconcilable with human reason, and that theological matters pertaining to the nature of God cannot be beyond the finite understanding of the human mind.

Which shall happen every time a not "born from above" person tries to understand, or rationalize what being born from above IS!
Prime example? Nicodemus!

I'll pray for your understanding sir!
 

HisLife

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
689
375
63
Napier
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
God purchased the church with his own blood

Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
 
Last edited:

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
408
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
HisLife wrote:

God purchased the church with his on blood

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
.............................................

Acts 20:28 ("God...with his own blood")

Trinitarians, for obvious reasons, prefer this translation of Acts 20:28 - "... to shepherd ["feed" in some translations] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - NASB. This certainly seems to be excellent evidence for a "Jesus is God" doctrine.

But there are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!

First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, "the church of the Lord." - NEB; REB; ASV; Moffatt. Since Jesus was often referred to as "the Lord," this rendering negates any "Jesus is God" understanding for Acts 20:28.

Yes, even the popular trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also: "to feed the church of the Lord"!

And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering "the church of God" at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is "considerable degree of doubt" about this "preferred" rendering. They admit that "The external evidence is singularly balanced between `church of God' and `church of the Lord.'"


Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." - RSV, 1971 ed. also NRSV; NJB; CEB; CJB CEV; GNT; LEB; MOUNCE; NCV; NET; and VOICE.

The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow "with the blood" in this scripture. This could be translated as "with the blood of his own." A singular noun may be understood to follow "his own." This would be referring to God's "closest relation," his only-begotten Son.

The NIV Study Bible tells us in a footnote for Acts 20:28: "his own blood. Lit[erally] 'the blood of his own one,' a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one,' referring to his own son)." - Zondervan, 1985.

Famous trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:

"something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11, 13:1; Ac 4:23, 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations .... In Expos. vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 `the blood of one who was his own.'" - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.

And for the above reason noted trinitarian NT scholar and translator William Barclay rendered Acts 20:28:

"... the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One."

Highly respected trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:

"it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or `of the Son'] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or `of his own'] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind." - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.

And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, tells us:
"Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [`through the blood of the own'], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean `with the blood of his Own.' (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that `his Own' (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to `the Beloved'."

Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV's "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or `beloved']" is obviously an honest, proper rendering.

Although the UBS Committee didn't actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that "some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [`his own Son']." - p. 481. Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.) and Today's English Version.

Note the the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:

"I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one' or 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son' (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.

"If however, one follows many English versions in construing [IDIOS] adjectivally ('through his own blood'), [HO THEOS] could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore allude to 'the blood of God,' although on this construction of [IDIOS] it is more probable that [THEOS] is God the Father and the unexpressed subject of [PERIEPOIHSATO] is Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible, that Acts 20:28 [HO THEOS] denotes Jesus." - p. 141, Jesus as Theos, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Baker Book House, Grand rapids, Michigan, 1992.

Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can't honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
408
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
HisLife wrote:

God purchased the church with his on blood

Acts 20:28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
..........................................

1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh")

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”

Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt),who,” orwhich.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: “The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.
 
Last edited:

HisLife

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
689
375
63
Napier
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Acts 20:28 ("God...with his own blood")

Trinitarians, for obvious reasons, prefer this translation of Acts 20:28 - "... to shepherd ["feed" in some translations] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - NASB. This certainly seems to be excellent evidence for a "Jesus is God" doctrine.

But there are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!

I only needed to read this far in your response, Doubt in translations and word games? No...the scripture is very clear, here is a few more for ya I have many

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Boom the Almighty, There is only one almighty by definition or you are not almighty

The Name above every name "JESUS"
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
23,547
40,205
113
52
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Goodness tiger all those words and strifes of words and yet
the simple truth is ..............when thomas said my LORD and MY GOD , JESUS NEVER CORRECTED THOMAS .
Any guesses on what that is , a hint Notice the langauge in revelation . Its not like we have two alphas and two omegas .
 

MatthewG

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2021
14,196
4,957
113
33
Fyffe
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Goodness tiger all those words and strifes of words and yet
the simple truth is ..............when thomas said my LORD and MY GOD , JESUS NEVER CORRECTED THOMAS .
Any guesses on what that is , a hint Notice the langauge in revelation . Its not like we have two alphas and two omegas .

That is right, Jesus told his disciples, that those who have seen me; have seen also the Father. Thomas sees Jesus, and says My Lord and My God. Seeing and believing in Jesus, also not seeing but believing in the Father.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

kcnalp

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2020
7,326
1,782
113
Indianapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's interesting how Satan denies that Jesus is God and Hell fire is eternal. Hell will be filled with those who don't believe in Hell.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
408
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
HisLife wrote:
God purchased the church with his on [sic] blood

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
...........................................

Gen. 1:27 “God created man in his own image, in the image [eikon, Sept.] of God he created him” - NIV.

Gen. 9:6 “for in the image [eikon, Sept.] of God has God made man” - NIV.

1 Cor. 11:7 “a man ... is the image [eikon] and glory of God” - NIV; NASB.
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
23,547
40,205
113
52
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There was a man who went to the ocean and from the ocean he took a bucket of water .
he then teaches a class and says alas class is the water in this ocean STILL the ocean . And many said no .
To which the man replied then tell me what is it . SO too is the mystery of Godhead .
Mayhaps that was a crude way of explaining it . But i hope it made sense .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cooper

Curtis

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2021
3,268
1,574
113
70
KC
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pop quiz: who created the world in Genesis 1?

Answer: God

Who created the world in John 1?

Answer: Jesus:

Verse 1: He’s the word who was WITH God and WAS God

Verse 3: the word made all things.

Verse 10: He came into the world that He had made.

Verse 14: the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

The word was God who made all things, including the world, and was manifest in the flesh, and born into the world which He had made.

Question: who did John the Baptist come to make straight the paths, and prepare tge way for, in the Old Testament?

Answer: Jehovah.

Question: who did John the Baptist come to make straight the paths of, and prepare the way for in the New Testament?

Answer: Jesus.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
917
408
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, according to the Greek god of translation and governor of real Scripture, you must throw out Rev 1:11.

But you can still use Rev 22:13.

(And I am still waiting on him to show how the Word was God, was not really God, but rather was some other kind of created being. However, he hasn't made it back yet, because his 'careful study' is becoming a marathon cramming session...)
...........................

Is Jesus the 'Alpha and Omega' in Rev. 22?

There were no quotation marks in the NT manuscripts to help show who was speaking.

Now look at Rev. 22:8-16. John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in 22:9). The angel apparently continues speaking in 22:10). The angel may be still speaking in 22:11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB, 1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in 22:12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It's entirely a matter of translator's choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ISV, 21st Century King James Version, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).

Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other highly respected trinitarian translations do not!

The ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE show (by quotation marks and indenting/paragraphs) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words. (The Jerusalem Bible; the NJB; and Moffatt show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.)

Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE , you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

And, just as the use of "I, John" indicates a new speaker in Revelation 1:9, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - "I, Jesus" also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement ("I am the Alpha and Omega") was made by someone else!

Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word "his" in verse 14 that they didn't mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing "His Commandments" (not "My Commandments")! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text (TR), e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJ21; KJIIV, MKJV; GNV; World English Bible; Young's Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa's translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses "him."

So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.

The only other use of the title "Alpha and Omega" confirms this understanding.
"And He who sits on the throne said, `Behold, I am making all things new.' .... And He said to me, `It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. .... He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.'" - Rev. 21:5-7, NASB.

"Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be `sons' of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his `brothers.' (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those `brothers' of Jesus are referred to as `sons of God [the Father].' (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)." - pp. 412-413, Reasoning from the Scriptures, WBTS, 1985.

So Rev. 21:6, 7 confirms the understanding that the Alpha and Omega is the Father, not Jesus.

In short, there is no reason, other than a desire to support the trinity tradition, to believe that Jesus is being called "Alpha and Omega" in Rev. 22. And there is good evidence to believe that it is his Father only who uses this title for himself.
....................
As for the Word (Logos) being God, the links I have given you already explain it as simply as I am able to make them. Sometimes a complete answer takes more words than most would like. However, I firmly believe that most people are capable of understanding my studies if they are sincere in their attempts to understand.
 
Last edited:

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@robert derrick
It sounds pretty evident to me that you are accurately describing this:
2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

As you keep saying that Jesus is the true God? And Lord God Almighty?
And No one therefore sits at His right hand side? As in here:
Psalm 110
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Who ELSE could you be describing EXCEPT the ONE described in 2 Thess. 2:4?

So it is you who have "gone the way" of the Socinians. which is this:
The Socinians held to a rationalistic approach to Scripture and to faith. This philosophical approach, especially in regard to biblical doctrine, declares that all religious matters must be fully reconcilable with human reason, and that theological matters pertaining to the nature of God cannot be beyond the finite understanding of the human mind.

Which shall happen every time a not "born from above" person tries to understand, or rationalize what being born from above IS!
Prime example? Nicodemus!

I'll pray for your understanding sir!

So the one Lord Jesus is not the Lord God commanding Adam in Gen 2. The one Lord Jesus is not the Lord God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob (Gen 28:13). The one Lord Jesus is not the Lord that is God (Deut 4:35,39) (Josh 22). The one Lord Jesus is not the Lord whom God told Moses I am the Lord. (Exodus 6:2)

Clearly the Lord of the Old Covenant is God. The God of Abraham, But the One Lord Jesus of the New Covenant is not that Lord of the Old, Who is God.

And so, how many Lord's of Scripture are there? It's a simple question. Just plain grammar. Who is the Lord of the Old Covenant, but is not the One Lord of the New?
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@robert derrick
It sounds pretty evident to me that you are accurately describing this:
2 Thessalonians 2:4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

As you keep saying that Jesus is the true God? And Lord God Almighty?
And No one therefore sits at His right hand side? As in here:
Psalm 110
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Who ELSE could you be describing EXCEPT the ONE described in 2 Thess. 2:4?

So it is you who have "gone the way" of the Socinians. which is this:
The Socinians held to a rationalistic approach to Scripture and to faith. This philosophical approach, especially in regard to biblical doctrine, declares that all religious matters must be fully reconcilable with human reason, and that theological matters pertaining to the nature of God cannot be beyond the finite understanding of the human mind.

Which shall happen every time a not "born from above" person tries to understand, or rationalize what being born from above IS!
Prime example? Nicodemus!

I'll pray for your understanding sir!

It was Arian that did not accept Jesus is God even as the Father is God, because intellectually it was not possible Neither did he believe it was possible for the omniscient God to become a man. And so, he just declared it impossibility for the Father to be God and Jesus to be God, and went on to create a more carnally minded solutions, the God must have created His son in the beginning in order to help create the heaven and the earth.

It is the carnal mind such as yours that is impatient with the mystery of the Godhead, and so you toss it out.

And by grand brilliance of intellectual feats, and a good dose of Greek, you come up with something really mystical than truly mysterious. Knowledge puffs up Science falsely so called.

It is the spiritual and the scriptural mind that accepts what is written as is, and then studies and discerns that nothing is impossible with God, neither with God His Sone, nor with God His Father.

Bottom line. The Word was God. We are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God. There is One Lord. The Lord thy God. the Lord God of Abraham. The Lord Jesus who was before Abraham and spoke to him. The same Lord God that spoke to Moses, saying I am the Lord.

Keep your created demi-god, and I'll worship both the Father and the Son Jesus Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.