Is Jesus God?

[NotWorthy]

Why did Jesus not claim publicly to be God in addition to Messiah and King if it was time for his death?

He didn’t “claim” publicly his King and Messiahship, so much as He accepted the crowds claims that He was King and Messiah. If the crowd didn’t put two and two together that He was also God, as prophecied for example in Jeremiah, then that was their problem.

I still think the crowd wasn’t ready to accept that Jesus was God. “OK, Jesus, King and Messiah, we can accept and embrace. But God?!? Come again?”.

But, in the meantime, Jesus was claiming to be God by His actions. For instance:
a) calming the sea - “Who else but God can calm the seas…” (paraphrasing).
b) walking on water - “For God alone can tread the waters…” (paraphrasing).
c) The Sermon on the Mount - “*You have heard it said *(By God)… but I say to you…”(paraphrasing).
d) Healing of the paralytic - “For Who alone but God can forgive sins…” (paraphrasing).

 

[Dan_Parker]

He didn’t “claim” publicly his King and Messiahship, so much as He accepted the crowds claims that He was King and Messiah. If the crowd didn’t put two and two together that He was also God, as prophecied for example in Jeremiah, then that was their problem.

I still think the crowd wasn’t ready to accept that Jesus was God. “OK, Jesus, King and Messiah, we can accept and embrace. But God?!? Come again?”.

But, in the meantime, Jesus was claiming to be God by His actions. For instance:
a) calming the sea - “Who else but God can calm the seas…” (paraphrasing).
b) walking on water - “For God alone can tread the waters…” (paraphrasing).
c) The Sermon on the Mount - “*You have heard it said *(By God)… but I say to you…”(paraphrasing).
d) Healing of the paralytic - “For Who alone but God can forgive sins…” (paraphrasing).

Jesus claimed that his Father did these things through him:
NJB John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I say to you I do not speak of my own accord: it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his works.

That is why they praised God when he healed the paralytic:
NJB Mark 2:10 But to prove to you that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth’ – 11 he said to the paralytic-‘I order you: get up, pick up your stretcher, and go off home.’ 12 And the man got up, and at once picked up his stretcher and walked out in front of everyone, so that they were all astonished and praised God saying, 'We have never seen anything like this.’

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus claimed that his Father did these things through him:NJB John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I say to you I do not speak of my own accord: it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his works.That is why they praised God when he healed the paralytic:NJB Mark 2:10 But to prove to you that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth’ – 11 he said to the paralytic-‘I order you: get up, pick up your stretcher, and go off home.’ 12 And the man got up, and at once picked up his stretcher and walked out in front of everyone, so that **they were all astonished and praised God **saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this.’

They praised God because they didn’t knew that God was with them. They didn’t know that this was “Immanuel - God With us”.

Jesus lives in the Father, and the Father live in Him. The Church has taught this since the very beginning, more fully as Her understanding of the Trinity became clearer. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”.

I discussed this on another thread (I think), but Luke’s usage of the word “Lord” in the first two chapters of his Gospel clearly indicates that he taught that Jesus was God. Luke used the word “Lord” something like 25 times in the infancy narratives. Its clear from the usage that Elizabeth calls Mary, “The Mother of my ‘Lord’ (God)”.

 

[Dan_Parker]

They praised God because they didn’t knew that God was with them. They didn’t know that this was “Immanuel - God With us”.

Jesus lives in the Father, and the Father live in Him. The Church has taught this since the very beginning, more fully as Her understanding of the Trinity became clearer. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”.

I discussed this on another thread (I think), but Luke’s usage of the word “Lord” in the first two chapters of his Gospel clearly indicates that he taught that Jesus was God. Luke used the word “Lord” something like 25 times in the infancy narratives. Its clear from the usage that Elizabeth calls Mary, “The Mother of my ‘Lord’ (God)”.

Immanuel
There was an Immanuel born in Isaiah’s day. Some consider him to have been the Son of Isaiah or the son of a king of Israel. Note that this Son is not the Lord Jehovah because the Lord is giving the son as a sign. Therefore the Lord and child are distinguished:
NJB Isaiah 7:14 The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

In this context of which the Son of God is a greater fulfillment, the child was a sign that God was with them. Therefore the name, “With us is God” or “God with us.” It does not mean that Immanuel is the Lord Jehovah.

**Jesus lives in the Father, and the Father live in Him. **
This also applies to Christians.

NJB 1 John 3:24 Whoever keeps his commandments remains in God, and God in him. And this is the proof that he remains in us: the Spirit that he has given us.

John 1:1
You said: the Trinity became clearer. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”.

However there are only two mentioned here and not three. John is not teaching the Trinity. He is teaching that the Word was divine, not the God he was with. In addition some like Theophilus taught that the first part of this verse meant that “At first, God was alone, and the Word in him.”

Lord
Lord is a title that is given to both the Father and the Son as well as men an angels. If you identify the Father as being the Son then you are not Trinitarian. In addition it was the Father who made Jesus Lord:

NAB Acts 2:36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Therefore Lord does not always mean the same thing in Scripture. The Son was made Lord by God and thus distinguished from God. No one makes God the Lord, he has always been the Lord.

 

[NotWorthy]

Immanuel
There was an Immanuel born in Isaiah’s day. Some consider him to have been the Son of Isaiah or the son of a king of Israel. Note that this Son is not the Lord Jehovah because the Lord is giving the son as a sign. Therefore the Lord and child are distinguished:NJB Isaiah 7:14 The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.In this context of which the Son of God is a greater fulfillment, the child was a sign that God was with them. Therefore the name, “With us is God” or “God with us.” It does not mean that Immanuel is the Lord Jehovah.

But that wasn’t the fulfillment of the birth of a true “Immanuel”. The Greek translation correctly understood that the Child Immanuel would be born of a virgin. That Child was called “Immanuel”, the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah.

**Jesus lives in the Father, and the Father live in Him. **
This also applies to Christians.
NJB 1 John 3:24 Whoever keeps his commandments remains in God, and God in him. And this is the proof that he remains in us: the Spirit that he has given us.

But this wasn’t possible was it, until the God-Man became incarnate. The best that could be expected before that was to “walk with God”.

John 1:1
You said: the Trinity became clearer. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”.

However there are only two mentioned here and not three. John is not teaching the Trinity. He is teaching that the Word was divine, not the God he was with. In addition some like Theophilus taught that the first part of this verse meant that “At first, God was alone, and the Word in him.”

And there are some, like Theophilus, who are wrong. The early Church, correctly interpreted this, and even put down the heresy that Jesus wasn’t God.

Lord
Lord is a title that is given to both the Father and the Son as well as men an angels. If you identify the Father as being the Son then you are not Trinitarian. In addition it was the Father who made Jesus Lord:
NAB Acts 2:36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."Therefore Lord does not always mean the same thing in Scripture. The Son was made Lord by God and thus distinguished from God. No one makes God the Lord, he has always been the Lord.

No, it does not. I understand that Lord CAN mean master and what-not. But I ask you, look at Luke 1 and show me where any of those “Lords” do not mean “God”. There is only one that can be called “questionable” out of 15 or so - “And how is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me”. Every other time, its apparent that “Lord” is referring to God. Go ahead and read Luke 1 and see if you agree.

Now, knowing that Luke has a good grasp of the grammatical rules of Greek, it would behoove him to use a different word for “Lord” in the above sentence regarding Elizabeth, because its the only time in the infancy narratives that “Lord” did not mean “God”.

 

[Dan_Parker]

But that wasn’t the fulfillment of the birth of a true “Immanuel”. The Greek translation correctly understood that the Child Immanuel would be born of a virgin. That Child was called “Immanuel”, the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah.

Dan:
The word can mean virgin and it can mean a “young woman” as rendered by the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible.

NJB Isaiah 7:14 The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.

The fact remains that Immanuel was born to a young woman in Isaiah’s day as a sign that God was with them and he was not God himself. That argument is refuted.

NotWorthy
But this wasn’t possible was it, until the God-Man became incarnate. The best that could be expected before that was to “walk with God”.

Dan:
That is irrelevant (if indeed it is true, which is also not relevant, because) the fact is that since Christians are ijn God and they in him, this is not proof that Jesus is God.

NotWorthy
And there are some, like Theophilus, who are wrong. The early Church, correctly interpreted this, and even put down the heresy that Jesus wasn’t God.

Dan:
What happened to the belief that this was handed down to the early Church by the apostles, did no one tell Theophilus? Was not he part of the early Church? That group preserved his writings.

NotWorthy
No, it does not. I understand that Lord CAN mean master and what-not. But I ask you, look at Luke 1 and show me where any of those “Lords” do not mean “God”. There is only one that can be called “questionable” out of 15 or so - “And how is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me”. Every other time, its apparent that “Lord” is referring to God. Go ahead and read Luke 1 and see if you agree.

Dan:
How can Jesus be Lord as in the one who is Lord from eternity if he was made Lord? Your argument is seriously deficient. Lord is used of both Father and Son. The Father made Jesus Lord. But don’t confuse the two or you will be a Sabellian, not a Catholic. You make Sabellian arguments.

NotWorthy
Now, knowing that Luke has a good grasp of the grammatical rules of Greek, it would behoove him to use a different word for “Lord” in the above sentence regarding Elizabeth, because its the only time in the infancy narratives that “Lord” did not mean “God”.

Dan:
Yes, Luke was good at Greek, and he wrote Acts where he said that God made Jesus Lord. So you are wrong.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dan Parker:

Dan:
The word can mean virgin and it can mean a “young woman” as rendered by the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible.
NJB Isaiah 7:14 The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel. The fact remains that Immanuel was born to a young woman in Isaiah’s day as a sign that God was with them and he was not God himself. That argument is refuted.

I’m not too concerned that the word CAN mean “a young woman”. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible is looking at the literal translation and not the actual meaning. That’s why our good Hellenistic Jews chose the word to mean Virgin, because they understood that, back then, a “young maiden” was a “virgin”. This is why some things a too-literalistic translation can lose the original meaning.

Dan:
That is irrelevant (if indeed it is true, which is also not relevant, because) the fact is that since Christians are ijn God and they in him, this is not proof that Jesus is God.

Ahhhhh, but it IS important. Jesus is the Gatekeeper. We can’t be IN GOD without the Gatekeeper, the Vine, and all the other beautiful analogies that Jesus used.

You see, A man must go through the God-Man to get to God.

Dan:
What happened to the belief that this was handed down to the early Church by the apostles, did no one tell Theophilus? Was not he part of the early Church? That group preserved his writings.

Yes, we preserved all the writings that we could, whether they were right or wrong. You see, the Church wanted to present the whole story so that the same errors in doctrine would not be repeated. Sadly, our Protestant brothers have managed to resurrect nearly every heresy at least once or twice.

But regarding the Church Fathers, they are not infallible. Origen wrote some beautiful things, but he wasn’t always right. Tertullian is another example. And yet, the Church kept as much of their writings as they could.

Dan:
How can Jesus be Lord as in the one who is Lord from eternity if he was made Lord? Your argument is seriously deficient. Lord is used of both Father and Son. The Father made Jesus Lord. But don’t confuse the two or you will be a Sabellian, not a Catholic. You make Sabellian arguments.

I’ll try and not be a Sabellian (mental note: look up Sabeliianism) But regarding Luke, did you look at all the cases of “Lord” in chapter 1? Do you see my reasoning? So far, you haven’t offered up the chink in the grammatical logic.

Dan:
Yes, Luke was good at Greek, and he wrote Acts where he said that God made Jesus Lord. So you are wrong.

Once again, you fail to look at Luke 1 and 2. Show me where my logic is wrong using Luke 1 and 2.

 

[Dan_Parker]

I’m not too concerned that the word CAN mean “a young woman”. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible is looking at the literal translation and not the actual meaning. That’s why our good Hellenistic Jews chose the word to mean Virgin, because they understood that, back then, a “young maiden” was a “virgin”. This is why some things a too-literalistic translation can lose the original meaning.
Ahhhhh, but it IS important. Jesus is the Gatekeeper. We can’t be IN GOD without the Gatekeeper, the Vine, and all the other beautiful analogies that Jesus used.

**
Dan:**
So then, was the original Immanuel born in Isaiah’s day also born to a virgin?

You see, A man must go through the God-Man to get to God.
Yes, we preserved all the writings that we could, whether they were right or wrong. You see, the Church wanted to present the whole story so that the same errors in doctrine would not be repeated. Sadly, our Protestant brothers have managed to resurrect nearly every heresy at least once or twice.

Dan:
Where are the writings of Arius? They are only found in the apologetic of Athanasius.

But regarding the Church Fathers, they are not infallible. Origen wrote some beautiful things, but he wasn’t always right. Tertullian is another example. And yet, the Church kept as much of their writings as they could.

I’ll try and not be a Sabellian (mental note: look up Sabeliianism) But regarding Luke, did you look at all the cases of “Lord” in chapter 1? Do you see my reasoning? So far, you haven’t offered up the chink in the grammatical logic.

Dan:
Yes, they don’t prove what you say they do. Did you read where Luke says in Acts that God made Jesus Lord? Factor that one in.

Once again, you fail to look at Luke 1 and 2. Show me where my logic is wrong using Luke 1 and 2.
**
Dan:**
I have not read the posts to which you refer so I started from Luke 1 and it did not take me long to get here:

NJB Luke 1:11 Then there appeared to him the angel of the Lord, standing on the right of the altar of incense.

The angel of the Lord is not the Lord. This angel represents the Lord.

 

[NotWorthy]

Dan:
So then, was the original Immanuel born in Isaiah’s day also born to a virgin?

At the time of Isaiah’s prophecy, the mother of Hezekiah would have been a young maiden, so its safe to assume that she was a virgin at the time. But even Matthew understood that this wasn’t a full fulfillment of the prophecy.

Dan:
Where are the writings of Arius? They are only found in the apologetic of Athanasius.

As you well know, many of the writing throughout the Church are gone… not by the Church’s hands, but by the burning of libraries by foreign invaders. As you mentioned, the Apologetic of Athanasius has survived. Was that by accident?

Dan:
Yes, they don’t prove what you say they do. Did you read where Luke says in Acts that God made Jesus Lord? Factor that one in.

Yes, in this passage, God made Jesus master… king… whatever. I’ve got no problem with that phrase. I understand that, even in Luke’s writings, “Lord” sometimes means master. I still challenge you to prove otherwise. I’ll get to your angel text in a second.

** Dan:**
I have not read the posts to which you refer so I started from Luke 1 and it did not take me long to get here:

NJB Luke 1:11 Then there appeared to him the angel of the Lord, standing on the right of the altar of incense.The angel of the Lord is not the Lord. This angel represents the Lord.

Please tell me you are mistaken. The “Angel of the Lord” can easily be read “The Angel of God”. That’s the only way “Lord” could be read in that sentence. Hence, in 1:11, “Lord” means “God”.

 

[Dan_Parker]

At the time of Isaiah’s prophecy, the mother of Hezekiah would have been a young maiden, so its safe to assume that she was a virgin at the time.

Dan:
I am glad you realize that Immanuel in Isaiah’s day was a human being and not God. Do you agree that the name at that time signified at that time that God was with them, giving them a sign, or do you teach that this child born to that young women was God?

But even Matthew understood that this wasn’t a full fulfillment of the prophecy.

Dan:
Agreed, but Matthew by using this prophecy was saying that God had sent his Son as a sign that He was with them, not that this child was God himself.

As you well know, many of the writing throughout the Church are gone… not by the Church’s hands, but by the burning of libraries by foreign invaders. As you mentioned, the Apologetic of Athanasius has survived. Was that by accident?

Dan:
I don’t consider what Arius wrote to have been worth saving any more than what Athanasius wrote. I do appreciate the glimpse into history but also don’t trust that those works survived down to our day free of tampering. My point was that in the Political and Religious skirmishes called Church Counsels the prevailing side had their works preserved.

Yes, in this passage, God made Jesus master… king… whatever. I’ve got no problem with that phrase. I understand that, even in Luke’s writings, “Lord” sometimes means master. I still challenge you to prove otherwise. I’ll get to your angel text in a second.

Dan:
I only just started at how Luke used the word KURIOS and so far have two that don’t mean God. Surely you don’t believe that the Father made Jesus Lord as in Lord = God!

Please tell me you are mistaken. The “Angel of the Lord” can easily be read “The Angel of God”. That’s the only way “Lord” could be read in that sentence. Hence, in 1:11, “Lord” means “God”.

Dan:
No, KURIOS is Lord and QEOS is God. That being said, the Angel of God is not God anymore than is the angel of the Lord.

Here is one for you from Paul where is appears that Jesus is being called an angel of God.
NAB Galatians 4:14 and you did not show disdain or contempt because of the trial caused you by my physical condition, but rather you received me **as **an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

 

[NotWorthy]

**
Dan Parker:
**Dan:
I am glad you realize that Immanuel in Isaiah’s day was a human being and not God. Do you agree that the name at that time signified at that time that God was with them, giving them a sign, or do you teach that this child born to that young women was God?Is this a rhetorical question?

The woman named the child Immanuel. The Angel of the Lord told Mary that Jesus would be called Immanuel. Jesus hammers this home at the end of Matthew’s Gospel where he tells the Apostles, “Lo, I will be with you til the end of the age”.

**
Dan Parker:
**
Dan:
Agreed, but Matthew by using this prophecy was saying that God had sent his Son as a sign that He was with them, not that this child was God himself. OK. That’s your opinion.

The Church’s opinion is that this was a sign that God had become incarnate and dwelled with us.

**
Dan Parker:

Dan:

**
I don’t consider what Arius wrote to have been worth saving any more than what Athanasius wrote. I do appreciate the glimpse into history but also don’t trust that those works survived down to our day free of tampering. My point was that in the Political and Religious skirmishes called Church Counsels the prevailing side had their works preserved.There’s a difference between “preserving” and “preserving and distributing en masse”. Many of the writings of the heretics were preserved, in order to prevent the re-emergence of these heresies (among other reasons). You know, “History forgotten is History repeated”.

But the problem with tampering with documents is that people always tend to fail to tamper with all existing documents and these forgeries eventually turn up. I’d hate to base a whole doctrine, or put down a whole heresy, on a forgery and end up having the hoax revealed.

Egg, meet face!

**
Dan Parker:
**
Dan:
No, KURIOS is Lord and QEOS is God. That being said, the Angel of God is not God anymore than is the angel of the Lord.Dan, you are going down the wrong trail. I never said the Angel of God was God. I said the “Angel of the Lord” was the “Angel of God” because “Lord” and “God” are interchangeable. “Lord” did not mean “Master” or some other non-Divine title of respect, as you’ve indicated.

**
Dan Parker:
**Here is one for you from Paul where is appears that Jesus is being called an angel of God.NAB Galatians 4:14 and you did not show disdain or contempt because of the trial caused you by my physical condition, but rather you received me **as **an angel of God, as Christ JesusAllow me to spend some time on this. I remember studying it recently and would like to review my studies.

 

[Dan_Parker]

**Is this a rhetorical question?

The woman named the child Immanuel. The Angel of the Lord told Mary that Jesus would be called Immanuel. Jesus hammers this home at the end of Matthew’s Gospel where he tells the Apostles, “Lo, I will be with you til the end of the age**”.

**OK. That’s your opinion.

The Church’s opinion is that this was a sign that God had become incarnate and dwelled with us.

Dan:**
You are welcome to your opinion. I don’t find the argument compelling that Immanuel means that the one with the name is God himself when the original Immanuel was not God. This fact is more than my opinion and you have not explained why the meaning changes when applied to the Son of God.

**There’s a difference between “preserving” and “preserving and distributing en masse”. Many of the writings of the heretics were preserved, in order to prevent the re-emergence of these heresies (among other reasons). You know, “History forgotten is History repeated”.

But the problem with tampering with documents is that people always tend to fail to tamper with all existing documents and these forgeries eventually turn up. I’d hate to base a whole doctrine, or put down a whole heresy, on a forgery and end up having the hoax revealed.

Egg, meet face!

**Dan, you are going down the wrong trail. I never said the Angel of God was God. I said the “Angel of the Lord” was the “Angel of God” because “Lord” and “God” are interchangeable. “Lord” did not mean “Master” or some other non-Divine title of respect, as you’ve indicated.

Dan:****
I did not understand how you used this. However my argument still holds. The angel is distinguished from God in the same way that the angel is distinguished from Lord. If you say that the angel of YHWH is Jesus then he is not God, Lord or Yahweh in those contexts, for he is sent by YHWH, God and Lord.

Also, the fact that God is also called Lord in certain contexts is not proof that the words have the same meaning. Moses was called Elohim at Ex 7:1. Was he also Yahweh or Adonay? No. God is a title as Lord is a title. Both words have a very broad semantic range and are applied to men and angels in various contexts. I suggest you get a good lexicon and look at the various senses. You analysis is not lexically sound.

**Allow me to spend some time on this. I remember studying it recently and would like to review my studies.

Dan:**
I am interested in what you find about Ga 4:14

 

[Dan_Parker]

NotWorthy:
Once again, you fail to look at Luke 1 and 2. Show me where my logic is wrong using Luke 1 and 2.

Dan:
NJB Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David;

Here both Lord and God are used together as a title of the Father. The NAB footnotes say that “Most High” is a common title for God in Luke.

Here Lord God is distinguished from Jesus and is a title of the Father. I don’t think you identify Jesus as the person of the Father, but some do.

 

[catholic1seeks]

**(1) See this section of the article “The Incarnation” from the Original Catholic Enyclopedia.

(2) Also see this link from Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism website:
**Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs **
(socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-is-god-biblical-proofs.html)

(3) See what the early Christians believed: cin.org/users/jgallegos/son.htm

One of the earliest extra-biblical Christian writings says “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, AD 110)

(4) Please see the following articles here on Catholic Answers:

“The God of the Jehovah’s Witnesses”

“The Divinity of Christ”

“Stumpers for the Jehovah’s Witnesses”

“More Stumpers for the Jehovah’s Witnesses”

“Mormon Stumpers”

“The Gods of the Mormon Church”**

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy:
Once again, you fail to look at Luke 1 and 2. Show me where my logic is wrong using Luke 1 and 2.

Dan:
NJB Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David;

Here both Lord and God are used together as a title of the Father. The NAB footnotes say that “Most High” is a common title for God in Luke.

Here Lord God is distinguished from Jesus and is a title of the Father. I don’t think you identify Jesus as the person of the Father, but some do.

Dan, I’m not sure you understand my point. Even in 1:32, the title “Lord God” is still referencing that “Lord” has the context of “God”, not merely a title of respect. Hence, when the word “Lord” is used in Luke 1 & 2, the author means God. Therefore, when Elizabeth says, “And who am I that the Mother of my Lord has come to me”. It can be understand that Mary is the Mother of God, not Mother of “a Person who deserves respect”.

 

[NotWorthy]

**Allow me to spend some time on this. I remember studying it recently and would like to review my studies.

Dan:**
I am interested in what you find about Ga 4:14

So, I’m sitting in a meeting with a customer trying to explain why my product is failing at his plant, when all of a sudden it hits me. “Angels” are “messengers”. If I remember correctly that’s the entymology (?) of the word Angel ----> Messenger. In the bible, men are called angels, even though its clear they are not what we think of angels today.

BTW, my product was failing at the customer because they misapplied it. When I showed them how to correctly wire them up, they work fine.

So I was able to knock out two birds with one stone!

 

[Dan_Parker]

**(1) See this section **of the article “The Incarnation” from the Original Catholic Enyclopedia.

(2) Also see this link from Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism website:
**Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs **
(socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-is-god-biblical-proofs.html)

(3) See what the early Christians believed: cin.org/users/jgallegos/son.htm

One of the earliest extra-biblical Christian writings says “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, AD 110)

(4) Please see the following articles here on Catholic Answers:

“The God of the Jehovah’s Witnesses”

“The Divinity of Christ”

“Stumpers for the Jehovah’s Witnesses”

“More Stumpers for the Jehovah’s Witnesses”

“Mormon Stumpers”

“The Gods of the Mormon Church”

You don’t need to go to web sites of ex JWs or anti-JWs to find out what we teach and why. I am here. So go ahead and try to stump me.

I challenge you.

 

[Dan_Parker]

So, I’m sitting in a meeting with a customer trying to explain why my product is failing at his plant, when all of a sudden it hits me. “Angels” are “messengers”. If I remember correctly that’s the entymology (?) of the word Angel ----> Messenger. In the bible, men are called angels, even though its clear they are not what we think of angels today.

BTW, my product was failing at the customer because they misapplied it. When I showed them how to correctly wire them up, they work fine.

So I was able to knock out two birds with one stone!

Yes, it is a convention that when someone that is a spirit represents God they are called angel and when human they are called messenger. So do you agree that Christ Jesus here is called ANGELOS?

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, it is a convention that when someone that is a spirit represents God they are called angel and when human they are called messenger. So do you agree that Christ Jesus here is called ANGELOS?

No, the words were interchangeable.

 

[Dan_Parker]

No, the words were interchangeable.

So, do you agree that Jesus is called ANGELOS at Gal 4:14?
DRA Galatians 4:14 You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.