How can Jesus Christ be the One True Almighty God?

[jbeck43]

Actually in John 8:58, He did. Here, Christ is calling Himself by the divine name. In Hebrew, it is the YHWH, but in Greek, it is Eigo Eimi. Jesus is using the name that God gave to Himself in Exodus 3:2-6, when Moses asks God in the burning bush, “Whom should I say sent me?” Here, God says, “tell them ‘I Am’ sent you.” The Greek from the Septuagint reads, Eigo Eimi. He is precisely calling Himself the Supreme God in this verse, and He is being shockingly unambiguous in His usage. There is no clearer way for Him to profess not only that He is God, but also that He is their God, the God of Israel, the YHWH. That is why they picked stones to kill Him as prescribed by the Law.

The question as to why others in the old testament were called sons of God is usually a reference to 1 Chron. 3:28, where Solomon is called a Son of God. Here, as in all other passages in the Old Testament, God is calling them sons not because they are by nature, but by declaration. God, in a sense, is adopting them, so long as they remain with Him and obey His precepts. So the Jews knew the context of these declarations and knew that David or Solomon were again not sons by nature, and this is evident by the Shma, “Here O Israel, the Lord your God is One”.
But this is very different with Jesus. With Christ, He, by not qualifying that He was a son in an adoptive sense, was declaring to the Jews that He was a son in the natural sense. The Jewish crowd knew what He meant. He was proclaiming for Himself the divine nature, and by doing so, declared Himself to be God also. This is why the Jews were so upset with Jesus, and tried to stone Him, once again in John 8. So don’t let them fool you with arguments from Scripture that they themselves don’t understand or appreciate. We’re the ones who put it together, which is why we understand it best.

Re-read that passage, He said “I am” before Abramham, but He did Not say “I am God.” I know that it is our interpretation of the phrase “I am” that He meant He is God, but He never said that about Himself in a clear manner.

 

[jbeck43]

Re-read that passage, He said “I am” before Abramham, but He did Not say “I am God.” I know that it is our interpretation of the phrase “I am” that He meant He is God, but He never said that about Himself in a clear manner.

Actually in John 8:58, He did. Here, Christ is calling Himself by the divine name. In Hebrew, it is the YHWH, but in Greek, it is Eigo Eimi. Jesus is using the name that God gave to Himself in Exodus 3:2-6, when Moses asks God in the burning bush, “Whom should I say sent me?” Here, God says, “tell them ‘I Am’ sent you.” The Greek from the Septuagint reads, Eigo Eimi. He is precisely calling Himself the Supreme God in this verse, and He is being shockingly unambiguous in His usage. There is no clearer way for Him to profess not only that He is God, but also that He is their God, the God of Israel, the YHWH. That is why they picked up stones to kill Him as prescribed by the Law.

The question as to why others in the old testament were called sons of God is usually a reference to 1 Chron. 3:28, where Solomon is called a Son of God. Here, as in all other passages in the Old Testament, God is calling them sons not because they are by nature, but by declaration. God, in a sense, is adopting them, so long as they remain with Him and obey His precepts. So the Jews knew the context of these declarations and knew that David or Solomon were again not sons by nature, and this is evident by the Shma, “Here O Israel, the Lord your God is One”.

But this is very different with Jesus. With Christ, He, by not qualifying that He was a son in an adoptive sense, was declaring to the Jews that He was a son in the natural sense. The Jewish crowd knew what He meant. He was proclaiming for Himself the divine nature, and by doing so, declared Himself to be God. This is why the Jews were so upset with Jesus, and tried to stone Him, once again in John 8. So don’t let them fool you with arguments from Scripture that they themselves don’t understand or appreciate. We’re the ones who put it together, which is why we understand it best.

 

[GaryTaylor]

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=50&bible_chapter=18&submit=Go

There’s a few ways to approach this which coincide from Genesis to Revelation. The Word of God which is the Second person Trinity. Also the Alpha and Omega, we see the Alpha and Omega in the OT, in NT

Revelations 1:8 I AM the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. Chapter one is the Revelation of Christ.

And the abundant verse’s of “I AM” who is God-Genesis and is Jesus Christ=God

Revelation 1:17 I AM the First and the Last. 22:12 “Behold, I Am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.

22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End…this is Jesus Christ coming…God, the Alpha and Omega.

And Revelation 1:11 [Vision of the Son of Man], I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou sees, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia

Biblically I AM is God, Biblically the Word…is God, and so is the Alpha and Omega.

Also

In 382 AD, Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome (the Council where the Canon of the Bible was first established), declared the following:

“If anyone denies that the Father is eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic. If anyone says that the Son made flesh was not in heaven with the Father while He was on earth: he is a heretic. If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit has all power and knows all things, and is everywhere, just as the Father and the Son: he is a heretic.”

Genesis 1:26- Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Its taken years and a few Church Councils to establish the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Eleventh Synod of Toledo in Spain 675-AD

“We confess and we believe that the holy and indescribable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one only God in His nature, a single substance, a single nature, a single majesty and power. We acknowledge Trinity in the distinction of persons; we profess Unity because of the nature or substance. The three are one, as a nature, that is, not as person. Nevertheless, these three persons are not to be considered separable, since we believe that no one of them existed or at any time effected anything before the other, after the other, or without the other”

Here’s a link from a protestant Biblical perspective also.

jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm

I AM for the Gospel of John

jesusanswers.com/bible/friday.htm

Anyway that’s how I would approach this, Tradition, I-AM, the Word, the Alpha and Omega. Then on to the other verse’s as the protestant brother/sister did above.

Prayers are with you.

 

[Kc906]

1.God is All-Knowing yet Jesus “learned” and also specifically admitted to Not Knowing things, like when the end of the world would be

1. Jesus never once (in plain language) ever claimed to be God - they say if that were the case, He would have said it clearly so that there would never be any confusion as to Who He claimed to be
2. His Apostles, through St. Peter’s mouth, when asked directly said that they knew Him to be the Son of God (not God Himself), the exact same term used for King David and the ancient Israelists

Jesus is called God in scripture several times throughout scripture **(Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 1:23, John 1:1, John 20:28.) **In John 20:28 the doubting Thomas calls Jesus My Lord and My God to his face, and Jesus does not rebuke or correct him. If Jesus were not the one true God, then allowing himself to be called God would be blasphemy, which means he committed a sin, after the resurrection albeit. This is impossible of course, hence it is right to call Jesus “Our God or My God.”

The Word of God is the actual being who spoke to Moses from the Burning Bush, and he declared himself to be Almighty God and gave the name of I AM when Moses asked who he would say sent him. Re-read Exodus 3 and see that the Angel of the Lord/YHWH is the “being” who was in the flame, and then scripture states that Yahweh spoke to Moses directly from the flame. Well which is it, the Angel of YHWH or YHWH himself? The answer is, both. The word Angel merely means messenger, the Word of God, who is separate from the Father (but equal,) was the messenger used to communicate directly with Moses.

Colossians 1:16 says Jesus created all things through him, and for him. If Jesus were not God, would he really create everything for himself, as a creature/created being? Or would he create everything for his creator, the only true God, the Father?

If I could only give you 2 verses to cross reference, it would be the following:

Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who by myself spread out the earth.

Look what God the Father says to his Only Son, Jesus:

Hebrews 1:10, And, In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

God Almighty stated in Isaiah that HE ALONE stretched out the heavens and the Earth. In Hebrews, the Father states that Jesus is the one who founded the Earth and the Heavens, they are the work of the hands of Jesus. Either, Jesus is the actual being speaking in Isaiah 44:24, or the Father is Lying in Hebrews 1:10. Everyone on Earth knows what is true, it’s whether their own biases will prevent them from understanding or accepting it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Apart from the Apostles who give witness to Jesus divinty, Nature obeying Jesus, the dead hearing his voice and rose from the dead, demons begging for mercy from him not to send them into the abbyss, Jews who tried to stone him for making himself God, the centurian pagan who gives witness to the greatest faith in all of Israel recognized just by His Word the sick are healed.

Included in the witnesses we have holy writ from the prophets and Moses who pre-announced His coming into the world.

We also have a witness from heaven the angel who proclaims him as “Immanuel” = God who saves.

“The Father and I are one”, for this reason the Jews took up stones to stone Jesus, who was making himself God.

**How can Jesus Christ be the One True Almighty God? simply put “Trinity”.
**
Man cannot save himself. It takes an act of God for our humanity to be redeemed. God himself provided the sacrifice (payment) for our fallen humanity. The only way for God to be just in order to save our humanity. God himself took upon himself flesh and perfected our humanity in himself when His Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Jesus perfected Humanity sufficed the justice of God to be our perfect victim and lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World. This was the act of God himself who took on flesh so that man can be set free from eternal death. No other creature including Angels could break that enmity and dividing wall between God and our humanity, except God himself when His Word became flesh and finished it on the cross and resurrected in that same flesh as perpetual sacrifice for all ages to the end, Amen.

Peace be with you

 

[pacloc]

Being a former Jehovah Witness, there is one big thing you must keep in mind when discussing the trinity with them. JWs don’t know the real teaching of the trinity. They are guided by the writing headquarters in New York to develop a false view of the trinity so that they never question whether or not it is correct. So technically, the trinity that they believe that all “Christendom” worships is wrong and not real. They teach the false idea that God is one person and manifests himself in 3 ways, as father, son, and holy spirit. So they have a field day showing how this makes no sense, especially when Jesus prays to the Father. The reality is that we believe that there are 3 unique persons in the trinity, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Same for the Holy spirit. Once you lay that out on the table, and agree that Jesus is begotten from the Father, and that the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you develop some common ground. Now the trinity and the JW view of Jehovah and Jesus is starting to look similar, with a few big differences.

1. Jesus is eternal, not Michael the Archangel, God’s oldest creature.
2. Jesus did not become God-like through being with him for Billions of years as they say, but
   has the full diety as Paul explains.
3. The Holy Spirit is a person, not God’s active force that works like electricity.

Other than that, there really are no differences, it just seems that there are. To call yourself Christian (as they do) you pretty much have to believe in a trinity even if you do not admit it because otherwise you are breaking God’s laws of worshipping false Gods. How can you take on the name of a man or angel in place of God without showing idolotry. They used to pray to and worhip Jesus in the first years of the religion’s creation, but have changed their mind.

So to ease your mind, it is good to recognize basics in the Bible and know for a fact that there is no problem in interpreting, and then leave the rest to faith.

Jesus fulfills numerous old testament scriptures that were spoken about the Lord YHWH. How can he claim to be all of the titles of God, especially Lord, coming in the Clouds, Being the one Judge, Baptizing with Fire, The one Savior, etc, etc. You don’t really have to look hard to see the extreme emphasis on Jesus’ God like character. Now piece that knowledge together with the idea that the Jesus is not the Father, or the Holy Spirit and you have a problem. Are there 3 Gods? No, they share the same purpose and will, so they work together. Is one older than the other? No, Jesus is in the beginning, and alpha and omega. So they must both exist out of time like the scriptures say. Is the Father Greater than the Son? Yes and No. We say no mainly to demonstrate that Jesus lacks nothing that the father has, but at the same time, he is the Son of the Father, and therefore is submissive to him and is more dependent on the Father’s existance than the Father is on the Son’s existance. This is purely in theory however because, both being infinite and both being spirits originally, we have no comprehension of how that really is possible. We as humans can not comprehend infinite past, just future. So that is where the mystery of it comes in. We must have the faith that it is so, or else we should not worship a man or angel. That is why religions like JW and such are recent and won’t last for long, they make no sense. Jews at least are bold enough to reject Christ totally, out of fear of idolotry. Muslims on the other hand just prove themselves in error, by doubting sacred scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

This is the question I’ve been hearing so much lately: How can Jesus possibly be the One True God?

This is coming from their (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Remenant Fellowship members, Pentacostals & Muslims) point of view that:

1.God is All-Knowing yet Jesus “learned” and also specifically admitted to Not Knowing things, like when the end of the world would be

1. Jesus never once (in plain language) ever claimed to be God - they say if that were the case, He would have said it clearly so that there would never be any confusion as to Who He claimed to be
2. His Apostles, through St. Peter’s mouth, when asked directly said that they knew Him to be the Son of God (not God Himself), the exact same term used for King David and the ancient Israelists

He is the problem when dealing with those groups. They foget that Jesus is 100% God and also 100% man. He at times succumbed His Divine wil to His Father. Remember what Jesus said: I come to the WILL of the one who sent me. However, those groups will see a conflict or a contradiction that how can Jesus be God and yet somehow lower His will for the Father. But there is no conflict or competition between the Three distince persons of the Blessed Trinity.

1 X 1 X 1 = 1 Three persons, but ONE God.

 

[Nicea325]

Being a former Jehovah Witness, there is one big thing you must keep in mind when discussing the trinity with them. JWs don’t know the real teaching of the trinity. They are guided by the writing headquarters in New York to develop a false view of the trinity so that they never question whether or not it is correct. So technically, the trinity that they believe that all “Christendom” worships is wrong and not real. They teach the false idea that God is one person and manifests himself in 3 ways, as father, son, and holy spirit. So they have a field day showing how this makes no sense, especially when Jesus prays to the Father. The reality is that we believe that there are 3 unique persons in the trinity, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Same for the Holy spirit. Once you lay that out on the table, and agree that Jesus is begotten from the Father, and that the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you develop some common ground. Now the trinity and the JW view of Jehovah and Jesus is starting to look similar, with a few big differences.

1. Jesus is eternal, not Michael the Archangel, God’s oldest creature.
2. Jesus did not become God-like through being with him for Billions of years as they say, but
has the full diety as Paul explains.
3. The Holy Spirit is a person, not God’s active force that works like electricity.

Other than that, there really are no differences, it just seems that there are. To call yourself Christian (as they do) you pretty much have to believe in a trinity even if you do not admit it because otherwise you are breaking God’s laws of worshipping false Gods. How can you take on the name of a man or angel in place of God without showing idolotry. They used to pray to and worhip Jesus in the first years of the religion’s creation, but have changed their mind.

So to ease your mind, it is good to recognize basics in the Bible and know for a fact that there is no problem in interpreting, and then leave the rest to faith.

Jesus fulfills numerous old testament scriptures that were spoken about the Lord YHWH. How can he claim to be all of the titles of God, especially Lord, coming in the Clouds, Being the one Judge, Baptizing with Fire, The one Savior, etc, etc. You don’t really have to look hard to see the extreme emphasis on Jesus’ God like character. Now piece that knowledge together with the idea that the Jesus is not the Father, or the Holy Spirit and you have a problem. Are there 3 Gods? No, they share the same purpose and will, so they work together. Is one older than the other? No, Jesus is in the beginning, and alpha and omega. So they must both exist out of time like the scriptures say. Is the Father Greater than the Son? Yes and No. We say no mainly to demonstrate that Jesus lacks nothing that the father has, but at the same time, he is the Son of the Father, and therefore is submissive to him and is more dependent on the Father’s existance than the Father is on the Son’s existance. This is purely in theory however because, both being infinite and both being spirits originally, we have no comprehension of how that really is possible. We as humans can not comprehend infinite past, just future. So that is where the mystery of it comes in. We must have the faith that it is so, or else we should not worship a man or angel. That is why religions like JW and such are recent and won’t last for long, they make no sense. Jews at least are bold enough to reject Christ totally, out of fear of idolotry. Muslims on the other hand just prove themselves in error, by doubting sacred scripture.

I am confused. Are you saying JW’s teach Jesus is God’s old creation or the Archangel Michael?

 

[pacloc]

This is the question I’ve been hearing so much lately: How can Jesus possibly be the One True God?

This is coming from their (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Remenant Fellowship members, Pentacostals & Muslims) point of view that:

1.God is All-Knowing yet Jesus “learned” and also specifically admitted to Not Knowing things, like when the end of the world would be

1. Jesus never once (in plain language) ever claimed to be God - they say if that were the case, He would have said it clearly so that there would never be any confusion as to Who He claimed to be
2. His Apostles, through St. Peter’s mouth, when asked directly said that they knew Him to be the Son of God (not God Himself), the exact same term used for King David and the ancient Israelists

So to address your 3 points.

1. I’ll let Saint John Chysostom answer:

"But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” By saying, not the angels, He stopped their mouths, that they should not seek to learn what these angels know not; and by saying, “neither the Son,” forbids them not only to learn, but even to inquire. For in proof that therefore He said this, see after His resurrection, when He saw they had become over curious, how He stopped their mouths more decidedly. For now indeed He has mentioned infallible signs, many and endless; but then He says merely, “It is not for you to know times or seasons.” And then that they might not say, we are driven to perplexity, we are utterly scorned, we are not held worthy so much as of this, He says, “which the Father has put in His own power.” And this, because He was exceedingly careful to honor them, and to conceal nothing from them. Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. Since if it be not this, but He is ignorant of it, when will He know it? Will it be together with us? But who would say this? And the Father He knows clearly, even as clearly as He knows the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover, “the Spirit indeed searches even the deep things of God,” 1 Corinthians 2:10 and does not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how He ought to judge He knows, and of the secrets of each He has a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if “all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made,” was He ignorant of the day? For He who made the worlds, it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?

1. And ye indeed say that you know even His substance, but that the Son not even the day, the Son, who is always in the bosom of the Father; and yet His substance is much greater than the days, even infinitely greater. How then, while assigning to yourselves the greater things, do you not allow even the less to the Son, “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Colossians 2:3 But neither do you know what God is in His substance, though ten thousand times ye talk thus madly, neither is the Son ignorant of the day, but is even in full certainty thereof.

For this cause, I say, when He had told all things, both the times and the seasons, and had brought it to the very doors (“for it is near,” He says, “even at the doors”), He was silent as to the day. For if you seek after the day and hour, you shall not hear them of me, says He; but if of times and preludes, without hiding anything, I will tell you all exactly.

For that indeed I am not ignorant of it, I have shown by many things; having mentioned intervals, and all the things that are to occur, and how short from this present time until the day itself (for this did the parable of the fig tree indicate), and I lead you to the very vestibule; and if I do not open unto you the doors, this also I do for your good.

And that you may learn by another thing also, that the silence is not a mark of ignorance on His part, see, together with what we have mentioned, how He sets forth another sign also. “But as in the days of Noe they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that the flood came, and took all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.” And these things He spoke, showing that He should come on a sudden, and unexpectedly, and when the more part were living luxuriously. For Paul too says this, writing on this wise, “When they shall speak of peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them;” and to show how unexpected, He said, “as travail upon a woman with child.” 1 Thessalonians 5:3 How then does He say, “after the tribulation of those days?” For if there be luxury then, and peace, and safety, as Paul says, how does He say, “after the tribulation of those days?” If there be luxury, how is there tribulation? Luxury for them that are in a state of insensibility and peace. Therefore He said not, when there is peace, but “when they speak of peace and safety,” indicating their insensibility to be such as of those in Noah’s time, for that amid such evils they lived in luxury.

 

[pacloc]

But not so the righteous, but they were passing their time in tribulation and dejection. Whereby He shows, that when Antichrist has come, the pursuit of unlawful pleasures shall be more eager among the transgressors, and those that have learned to despair of their own salvation. Then shall be gluttony, then revellings, and drunkenness. Wherefore also most of all He puts forth an example corresponding to the thing. For like as when the ark was making, they believed not, says He; but while it was set in the midst of them, proclaiming beforehand the evils that are to come, they, when they saw it, lived in pleasure, just as though nothing dreadful were about to take place; so also now, Antichrist indeed shall appear, after whom is the end, and the punishments at the end, and vengeance intolerable; but they that are held by the intoxication of wickedness shall not so much as perceive the dreadful nature of the things that are on the point of being done. Wherefore also Paul says, “as travail upon a woman with child,” even so shall those fearful and incurable evils come upon them.

And wherefore did He not speak of the ills in Sodom? It was His will to introduce an example embracing all men, and disbelieved after it was foretold. So therefore, as by the more part the things to come are disbelieved, He confirms those things by the past, terrifying their minds. And together with the points I have mentioned, He shows this also, that of the former things also He was the doer. Then again He sets another sign, by all which things He makes it evident, that He is not ignorant of the day. And what is the sign? “Then shall two be in the field; one shall be taken, and one left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill, one shall be taken, and one left. Watch therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord does come.” And all these things are both proofs that He knew, and calculated to turn them from their inquiry. So for this cause He spoke also of the days of Noe, for this cause He said too, “Two shall be on the bed,” signifying this, that He should come upon them thus unexpectedly, when they were thus without thought, and “two women grinding at the mill,” which also of itself is not the employment of them that are taking thought.

And together with this, He declares that as well servants as masters should be both taken and left, both those who are at ease, and those in toil, as well from the one rank as from the other; even as in the Old Testament He says, “From him that sits upon the throne to the captive woman that is at the mill.” For since He had said, that hardly are the rich saved, He shows that not even these are altogether lost, neither are the poor saved all of them, but both out of these and out of those are men saved, and lost.

And to me He seems to declare, that at night will be the advent. For this Luke too says. Luke 17:34 Do you see how accurately He knows all things?

After this again, that they may not ask about it, He added, “Watch therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord does come.” Matthew 24:42 He said not, “I know not,” but, “ye know not.” For when He had brought them well near to the very hour, and had placed them there, again He deters them from the inquiry, from a desire that they should be striving always. Therefore He says, “Watch,” showing that for the sake of this, He did not tell it.

“But know this, that if the good man of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as you think not the Son of Man comes.”
For this intent He tells them not, in order that they may watch, that they may be always ready; therefore He says, When ye look not for it, then He will come, desiring that they should be anxiously waiting, and continually in virtuous action.

But His meaning is like this: if the common sort of men knew when they were to die, they would surely strive earnestly at that hour.

1. In order therefore that they may strive, not at that hour only, therefore He tells them not either the common hour, or the hour of each, desiring them to be ever looking for this, that they may be always striving. Wherefore He made the end of each man’s life also uncertain.

After this, He openly calls Himself Lord, having nowhere spoken so distinctly. But here He seems to me also to put to shame the careless, that not even as much care as they that expect a thief have taken for their money, not even this much do these take for their own soul. For they indeed, when they expect it, watch, and suffer none of the things in their house to be carried off; but you, although knowing that He will come, and come assuredly, continue not watching, says He, and ready so as not to be carried away hence unprepared. So that the day comes unto destruction for them that sleep. For as that man, if he had known, would have escaped, so also ye, if you be ready, escape free.

Then, as He had fallen upon the mention of the judgment, He directs His discourse to the teachers next, speaking of punishment and honors; and having put first them that do right, He ends with them that continue in sin, making His discourse to close with that which is alarming.

Wherefore He first says this, “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall set over His household to give them their meat in their due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He comes shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all His goods.”

 

[pacloc]

Tell me, is this too the language of one who is in ignorance? For if because He said, “neither does the Son know,” you say He is ignorant of it; as He says, “who then?” what will you say? Will you say He is ignorant of this too? Away with the thought. For not even one of them that are frantic would say this. And yet in the former case one might assign a cause; but here not even this. And what when He said, “Peter, do you love me?” John 21:16 asking it, knew He not so much as this? Nor when He said, “Where have ye laid him?” John 11:34

And the Father too will be found to be saying such things. For He Himself likewise says, “Adam, where are you?” Genesis 3:9 and, “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is waxed great before me. I will go down therefore, and see whether their doings be according to their cry which comes unto me, and if not, I will know.” Genesis 18:20-21 And elsewhere He says, “Whether they will hear, whether they will understand.” Ezekiel 2:5 And in the gospel too, “It may be they will reverence my Son:” all which are expressions of ignorance. But not in ignorance did He say these things, but as compassing objects such as became Him: in the case of Adam, that He might drive him to make an excuse for his sin: in that of the Sodomites, that He might teach us never to be positive, till we are present at the very deeds; in that of the prophet, that the prediction might not appear in the judgment of the foolish a kind of compulsion to disobedience; and in the parable in the gospel, that He might show that they ought to have done this, and to have reverenced the Son: but here, as well that they may not be curious, nor over busy again, as that He might indicate that this was a rare and precious thing. And see of what great ignorance this saying is indicative, if at least He know not even him that is set over. For He blesses him indeed, “For blessed,” says He, “is that servant;” but He says not who this is. “For who is he,” He says, “whom His Lord shall set over?” and, “Blessed is he whom He shall find so doing.”

1. He is not the Father, so he never claimed that. He also liked to refer to the Father as God, and not himself as God because his whole purpose for teaching and instructing was for us to imitate him, a human, not a God. We can not become all powerful Gods, but we can become perfect humans one day. We also notice that the apostles rarely called Jesus God, but rather Lord. I think this is all intentional by God the Father and Jesus our Lord, to help us to imitate Jesus’ pefect humanity.
2. Pretty much the same answer as to question 2. “Now something greater than (insert name here) is here.” He fulfilled all the things any prophet or king of God did to show he was the true messiah. He is not like them, but rather they led up to Jesus, the perfect one. Once again his human nature is the emphesis in this passage being the Son of God that will lead them into God’s Kingdom totally, not for a short period of time, like the past sons of God.

 

[pacloc]

I am confused. Are you saying JW’s teach Jesus is God’s old creation or the Archangel Michael?

They teach that God’s first Creation was Michael the Archangel, making him the oldest. They then say that God transfered him into the virgin Mary to be born as Jesus.

 

[Nicea325]

They teach that God’s first Creation was Michael the Archangel, making him the oldest. They then say that God transfered him into the virgin Mary to be born as Jesus.

Well that in itself is false. Michael cannot be the oldest angel, because the highest nature that God has created was that of the greatest of the angels-Lucifer.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

With Muslims, the claim is that the scriptures are corrupted. With oneness Pentecostals, the entire NT is privately interpreted to meet their beliefs. What can we do? Pray for them and for their faith, so that they might understand.

Yes, I’ve heard that from life-long Muslims, but a growing # of Muslims that were Catholics or Christians are citing other reasons why they don’t believe Jesus is God - specifically that Jesus never claimed to be God in the Bible and that it wasn’t until hundreds of years post-Jesus that the Trinity was even mentioned & another hundred or so before the belief in the Trinity was defined/required dogma. For goodness-sake there’s even a Muslim, former Catholic Priest, with a You Tube video out explaining it!

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

What about St. Thomas’ words upon encountering the risen Christ: “My Lord and my God”?

Yes, we do turn to that as “proof” - yet it’s so quickly rejected because of how many times have we all been guilty of exclaiming “My God” when someone has done something amazing? Yet, it doesn’t mean with think that person is God.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, I’ve heard that from life-long Muslims, but a growing # of Muslims that were Catholics or Christians are citing other reasons why they don’t believe Jesus is God - specifically that Jesus never claimed to be God in the Bible and that it wasn’t until hundreds of years post-Jesus that the Trinity was even mentioned & another hundred or so before the belief in the Trinity was defined/required dogma. For goodness-sake there’s even a Muslim, former Catholic Priest, with a You Tube video out explaining it!

Yes, they can say what they want. But where is the Islamic proof that Jesus was not God when the Trinity was explained then? Who were the Muslims back in the 4th Century?

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, we do turn to that as “proof” - yet it’s so quickly rejected because of how many times have we all been guilty of exclaiming “My God” when someone has done something amazing? Yet, it doesn’t mean with think that person is God.

I think you are using the modern secular world’s mind in this. Was Thomas using the name of God in vain? Surely that was NOT the context.

MJ

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I think you are using the modern secular world’s mind in this. Was Thomas using the name of God in vain? Surely that was NOT the context.

MJ

Giving credit to God for something isn’t using His Name in vain.

 

[MartinJordan]

Giving credit to God for something isn’t using His Name in vain.

My brother in Christ. Thomas was not giving credit in that sense. He was calling Jesus God. THAT is the context. Please don’t have any doubts about our Scripture.

MJ

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

If he had not confessed to being the son of God, they could not have accused him of speaking blasphemy.

I hope these Gospel quotes help you, God Bless.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Hi Josh, thank you, but the people I’m trying to answer don’t really care about whether or not Jesus is the Son of God, but their issue is that Jesus is Not God Himself. Showing that He was/is the Son of God doesn’t do anything to prove He is God. thank you though.