Is Jesus God?

[Bussi]

Maybe you missed this one too:

John 8:58
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am

And this too:

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

The highlighted words have very explicit meaning: both Jesus and God are saying individually we are the eternal uncreated beings… the Father and the Son, two of the three persons of the Trinity. If one believes the bible is inerrant and hold Trinitarian belief then there is no choice but to accept that Jesus is exactly what He claimed to be or if not then one might be saying Jesus is a liar.

And:

Matthew 28:19
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

(Quotes are from the Douay-Rheims bible)

God bless…

Bussi

I must apologize for repeating what has already been posted earlier in this thread. Today is the first time i have visited this particular thread and I skipped over most until the very last posting.

Bussi

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

Wow.

Martin R,

you have received some excellent responses. May you consider my opinion. Your position is gnostic. The first epistle of St. John says it is. The error is not yours alone, as John states, but has been a battle for centuries. Trinitarian doctrine is the essence of being Christian.

The mystery of the infinite becoming “finite” is a very deep contemplation. And it seems you have taken it seriously. Gnosticism has a problem with matter and spirit. It is dualistic in this way. The Christ is the gift to this quagmire. The incarnation or manifestation of the infinite into the corrupt and dying, and His triumph over it, and his reconciliation of what He created is the essence of Christianity.

Please reconsider your position and be open to the miraculous gift.

In Christ, SP

 

[TheQuestioner]

When Thomas called Jesus “My Lord and My GOD”. I suspect it was said as a high form of praise in the same way as people (wrongly) say, “He’s a god”, to show how much they respect somebody famous e.g. a guitarist. They know very well he’s not really a god, they are just saying how great a musician he is.

Thomas was idolising Jesus, which is ok as God said to worship Him.

Thomas used the Greek word “theos” which can mean godly:
blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Strongs=G2316&Criteria=godly*&t=KJV
and of course Jesus is Godly - He is God’s image.

btw I liked the hotel/casino thing.

False assumption. You are assuming that the Jews of 2000 years ago use the same form of high praise and colloquialisms we use today, which would be highly inaccurate because the Jews at that time were strictly monotheistic and don’t infer that title on anyone other than God himself.

Also, theos means God, not godly…God. And translated the words were actually “the Lord of mine, the God of mine”

 

[Martin_R]

Martin,

This thread has been resurrected (pardon the pun) so many times that I don’t know if a certain point has been dealt with by you, so I’ll present it again.

In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth, who is filled with the Holy Spirit at this time, asks, “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

It seems that the Holy Spirit inspired Elizabeth to claim that Jesus was Lord (God), even as a fetus in Mary. Now, many people claim that Elizabeth (and Luke) is using “Lord” to mean “master” in this statement, but I don’t find that feasible.

You see, if my count is correct, the word “Lord” is used 27 times in the first 2 chapters of Luke. It is inconceivable for the author of Luke to use “Lord” as a rendering for “God” 26 times and then switch in midstream to the alternate usage of “Lord” as “Master” in this one sentence.

What are your thoughts on this?

I haven’t checked that yet but I have just found this that reminded me of what you said:
Rom 8:9
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
NASB

What do you make of this verse? It appears to be describing 2 spirits - one of God, one of Christ. In the same way you didn’t think it likely that the use of the word usage would change after 26 occurancies, I’m wondering why the description of the spirit has changed in the next sentence if God is a trinity.

It’s a bit like me saying, “There’s a red car outside and I saw a man getting out of the new car”. That suggests two cars unless the car is both new and red, in which case I’d just use one description of it.

 

[Martin_R]

False assumption. You are assuming that the Jews of 2000 years ago use the same form of high praise and colloquialisms we use today, which would be highly inaccurate because the Jews at that time were strictly monotheistic and don’t infer that title on anyone other than God himself.

Also, theos means God, not godly…God. And translated the words were actually “the Lord of mine, the God of mine”

Ah yes! “God of” is different to “God”. It looks like another way of saying lord and master.

the Jews at that time were strictly monotheistic

My point exactly - why change things to say God is 3 in 1?

 

[Martin_R]

Trinitarian doctrine is the essence of being Christian.

And yet the Bible writers forgot to mention it?

The incarnation or manifestation of the infinite into the corrupt and dying, and His triumph over it

For God to triumph over death is easy - He created death after all. Creating and destroying things is easy for Him. To say God triumphed over death makes death sound like an experiment that went wrong. He battled hard with death and eventually managed to beat it. Phew that was close!

But for Jesus to conquer death, that really is something. Jesus was rewarded for what He did and was even given the name above all names. If He was already God, it’s not much of a victory is it and why would He need to be given God’s name if He was already God?

 

[NotWorthy]

I haven’t checked that yet but I have just found this that reminded me of what you said:
Rom 8:9
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
NASB

What do you make of this verse? It appears to be describing 2 spirits - one of God, one of Christ. In the same way you didn’t think it likely that the use of the word usage would change after 26 occurancies, I’m wondering why the description of the spirit has changed in the next sentence if God is a trinity.

It’s a bit like me saying, “There’s a red car outside and I saw a man getting out of the new car”. That suggests two cars unless the car is both new and red, in which case I’d just use one description of it.

I’ll look into it. We both have some homework now, brother!

 

[TheQuestioner]

Ah yes! “God of” is different to “God”. It looks like another way of saying lord and master.

hmmmmm. Actually I think this would hurt your case more than help it. If Thomas says “the God of mine” it would make it less likely to be a colloquialism. In fact it means that Thomas is actually calling Jesus his God. So “the God of” and “my God” are in fact not different at all, and in this original translation Jesus cannot then be said to be a “lord” or “master”, but literally, Thomas’ God. Yeah…the original form of the words doesn’t work to your advantage at all.

My point exactly - why change things to say God is 3 in 1?

They haven’t. Trinitarianism is monotheism. It is one God in three persons. One being in three persons. Also, note that the truth is continually revealed to the Jews throughout the entire history of the bible. For example some historians believe the Jews were only strictly monotheistic after the exile. Before then they were believed to be henotheistic (all gods exist, but they worship YHWH). This is because we tend to find God saying things like “I am the only God” in the books written after the exile and not before.

 

[TheQuestioner]

For God to triumph over death is easy - He created death after all.

Sorry to interrupt your convo, i know it is not polite, but I must point out that God did not create death, only the possibility of it, just as God did not create sin, only the possibility of it.

Romans 5

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

So from this we know that

1. God did not create sin
2. Sin came into the world, but was not made into the world
3. Death came into the world through Sin
   therefore
4. God did not create death

again

1. God did not create sin
   But
2. God gave man free will, which allowed the possibility of sin
   therefore
3. God created the possibility of death, but, as shown above, not death itself.

 

[Martin_R]

Sorry to interrupt your convo, i know it is not polite, but I must point out that God did not create death, only the possibility of it, just as God did not create sin, only the possibility of it.

Romans 5

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

So from this we know that

1. God did not create sin
2. Sin came into the world, but was not made into the world
3. Death came into the world through Sin
   therefore
4. God did not create death

again

1. God did not create sin
   But
2. God gave man free will, which allowed the possibility of sin
   therefore
3. God created the possibility of death, but, as shown above, not death itself.

No need to be sorry, all are welcome to join in and yes, I agree with what you said.

 

[Martin_R]

hmmmmm. Actually I think this would hurt your case more than help it. If Thomas says “the God of mine” it would make it less likely to be a colloquialism. In fact it means that Thomas is actually calling Jesus his God. So “the God of” and “my God” are in fact not different at all, and in this original translation Jesus cannot then be said to be a “lord” or “master”, but literally, Thomas’ God. Yeah…the original form of the words doesn’t work to your advantage at all.

It sounds to me that Thomes was using the word “god” with a small g as in “ye are gods”.
i.e somebody with authority over somebody else.

 

[Martin_R]

2 Corinthians 5:19 (New American Standard Bible)
…God was in Christ…

Does that make Christ God?
Does my car become human when I’m in it?

 

[TheQuestioner]

It sounds to me that Thomes was using the word “god” with a small g as in “ye are gods”.
i.e somebody with authority over somebody else.

Well…you are assuming there was a distinction between “God” and “god” in ancient times. There wasn’t however. Theos meant “god”, “God” or however you want to spell it. This is because the distinction we have to day of the word “god” and “God” has nothing to do with the divinity of the subject, but is to draw a distinction between God as a singular deity or god as part of a pantheon. Also, are still divine, but the capitol “G” used more indicates (though is not restricted to) the Judeo-Christian God while the small “g” indicates other gods.

While the word “theos” represents a deity, you run into some problems when you try to apply it as a small “g” god, as if some title of honor. This is because theos is never used as a title of honor, but denotes actual divinity. Also, the Jews were monotheistic. For Thomas to call Jesus God, even with a small “g” would be problematic on his part.

 

[TheQuestioner]

2 Corinthians 5:19 (New American Standard Bible)
…God was in Christ…

Does that make Christ God?
Does my car become human when I’m in it?

This is a false dichotomy. God has no physical space, so it must mean something more than being inside Christ physically when it is said that “God was in Christ”. So your car example wont work.

 

[Martin_R]

I’ll look into it. We both have some homework now, brother!

Also Revelations 1-5 speak of 7 spirits of God.

 

[Martin_R]

This is a false dichotomy. God has no physical space, so it must mean something more than being inside Christ physically when it is said that “God was in Christ”. So your car example wont work.

What can it mean then? If God being in Christ makes Him God as well, don’t we all become God?

John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, {are} in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us… NASB

 

[NotWorthy]

What can it mean then? If God being in Christ makes Him God as well, don’t we all become God?

John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, {are} in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us… NASB

In a way, yes, but not until we are in heaven and fully a part of the Body of Christ.

 

[Martin_R]

Well…you are assuming there was a distinction between “God” and “god” in ancient times. There wasn’t however. Theos meant “god”, “God” or however you want to spell it. This is because the distinction we have to day of the word “god” and “God” has nothing to do with the divinity of the subject, but is to draw a distinction between God as a singular deity or god as part of a pantheon. Also, are still divine, but the capitol “G” used more indicates (though is not restricted to) the Judeo-Christian God while the small “g” indicates other gods.

While the word “theos” represents a deity, you run into some problems when you try to apply it as a small “g” god, as if some title of honor. This is because theos is never used as a title of honor, but denotes actual divinity. Also, the Jews were monotheistic. For Thomas to call Jesus God, even with a small “g” would be problematic on his part.

Moses wasn’t God either was he?
Exodus 7
1Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. NASB

 

[Cides28]

2 Corinthians 5:19 (New American Standard Bible)
…God was in Christ…

Does that make Christ God?
Does my car become human when I’m in it?

Well Jesus said “I am in the Father and the Father in Me.” John 10:38 & john 14:10,11

again why was Jesus calling God His Father making himself equal to God (John 5:18)

[27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
[28] and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
[29] My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
[30] I and the Father are one."
[31] The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[32] Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?”
[33] The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

 

[TheQuestioner]

Moses wasn’t God either was he?
Exodus 7
1Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. NASB

keyword: As

This shows us it was a symbolic gesture. Moses would represent God to the Pharaoh and Aaron would represent a prophet.

Sorry, nice try.

Also, I’m not going to let it go until you acknowledge what is said in John 1. You are not going to divert the subject away. If the word was with God and was God (the word theos is used in both instances) then how can you say that that same word made flesh (Jesus) was not God?