karo93:

@viaro
i want us to reach a verdict together so pls answer these questions for me
1.After studying the way Jesus related and referred to God the father as a different entity['i am the way to the father',my God my God why hast thou forsaken me?] and the book of revelation do you believe that Jesus and God are separate entities but still one God?

I told you already:

[list](a)  God cannot be constrained by rigid reductionism or rationalism - we cannot bring Him down to any determined position of our finite understanding, and this is especially true in the case of the Trinity.[/list]

[list](b)  The Trinity is a mystery of the Christian faith which cannot be adequately captured in any metaphysical diction (Job 11:7 - "canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?".[/list]

Now, if you feel that you can adequately unravel and reveal all mysteries about the Godhead, please go ahead and do the same - I also have about 75 simple questions for you when you're done, and then I shall see what would be left of your arguments against the Deity of Jesus Christ.

However, I have no problem with the fact that the Deity and Humanity of Christ are perfectly united in Him. And the basic point that brought me here is the denial of His Deity as in your topic {"Proving That Jesus Is Not God"}. So far, rather than prove your denial, we have seen again and again that Jesus is God indeed - and that is why He is to be worshipped. That alone is enough for me, and if you have anything fresh to present, let's read from you.

^^^ Bollocks. Codswollop. Nonsense.

IF JESUS WERE GOD -

1. He would not categorically state the Father to be greater than him - which you have the ridiculous effrontery to contradict by insisting that he is equal with the Father.

2. He would not state that he worships God - in his words "my God and your God"

3. He would not state clearly that as the son, there are things which remain unknown to him - God is omniscient, no?

4. He would not be "begotten"

5. He would not make the statement in Gethsemane evincing a possible dichotomy of wills within the Godhead ("Nevertheless not as i will but as THOU wilt" - This statement also shows that he is NOT omnipotent as the Father is said to be.

6. The book of Revelation would not evince his CLEAR subjugation to that Father

7. He would not speak of being forsaken by the Father: being God he would have known the WHOLE script and what it meant

8. He would not be capable of being reduced to a finite element such as a human being as God is absolutely intangible and Transcendental; an infinite element cannot be borne within a finite vessel.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Bollocks. Codswollop. Nonsense.

Just those three? Is that your trinity of derision in your deistic OOI?

IF JESUS WERE GOD -

1. He would not categorically state the Father to be greater than him - which you have the ridiculous effrontery to contradict by insisting that he is equal with the Father.

I did not contradict that in any way - rather I have posted John 5:23 so many times and none of your ilks have ever addressed that issue for ONCE! If Jesus was not God/Deity, He would not have asserted that He is to be worshipped in exactly the same way as the Father is to be worshipped.

2. He would not state that he worships God - in his words "my God and your God"

That was not a statement of worship - it was His prophecied declaration on the Cross in His vicarious death in His Humanity - see Heb. 2:9. It is in His Humanity and not Hid Deity that He could taste death for every man - and it is in His Humanity that He made that pornouncement on the Cross.

3. He would not state clearly that as the son, there are things which remain unknown to him - God is omniscient, no?

That in no way negates the fact that He is God (John 1:1), nor does it take anything that He is to receive equal worship as is given to the Father (John 5:23).

In the divine economy of Redemptive history, God speaks as though He was unaware of certain events - "Where art thou", He asked Adam, as if He did not know (Gen. 3:9); "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it", as if He did not see that event prior to that time (Gen. 18:21); etc. Jesus would not be obliged to reveal the time or hour of the consummation of the present epoch, because it was not for the disciples to know "the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7). If He did not tell them, does that deny His Deity?

4. He would not be "begotten"

I already explained what "begotten" means. Do you mind acting your age instead of repeating this one-liner like you know any better?

5. He would not make the statement in Gethsemane evincing a possible dichotomy of wills within the Godhead ("Nevertheless not as i will but as THOU wilt" - This statement also shows that he is NOT omnipotent as the Father is said to be.

That also I already explained.

6. The book of Revelation would not evince his CLEAR subjugation to that Father

The book of Revelation does not present Him literally as a Lamb either. But one thing is clear: Jesus in Revelation is also the Alpha and Omega - and He also received EQUAL WORSHIP from the ENTIRETY of CREATION (Revelations 1:8-11 and 5:13).

7. He would not speak of being forsaken by the Father: being God he would have known the WHOLE script and what it meant

Please stop repeating yourself - that has been dealt with as well.

8. He would not be capable of being reduced to a finite element such as a human being as God is absolutely intangible and Transcendental; an infinite element cannot be borne within a finite vessel.

See your problem? I already anticipated goons like you who go about with this notion of reductionism. That was why I stated clearly: "God cannot be constrained by rigid reductionism or rationalism". Since your OOI is a reductionist element, little wonder that it ever takes off from the ground and has collapsed into the blackhole of complete ignorance.

^^^ When you find yourself having to explain away a zillion clear statements of your Christ which apparently negate what you teach about him; perhaps you should stop to consider sincerely, carefully and truthfully whether it has not come to it that you are actually mis-representing the poor guy.

For no matter how you may twist and turn, you cannot escape that GOD is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent: Two qualities that Christ EXPRESSLY and AFFIRMATIVELY DENIED having.

With Omniscience - he stated clearly that there are some things he knew not - Thus he affirms that he is NOT omniscient.

With Omnipotence - he pleaded with GOD for a certain outcome on a certain matter, closing his prayer acknowledging that things could not be done according to his own will, but[b] only according to the will of God[/b] - thereby showing that he was NOT omnipotent: and also that his will could be distinguished from God's will.

These signal points are inescapable; utterly ineluctable and serve on their very own to affirm that which every sincere person should know in his heart: namely that the man Jesus of Nazareth IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD.

So Viaro; i sincerely invite you to stop a moment in the mad rush of life and contemplate in sincerity and honesty why all these major signals would have been set forth by Jesus if indeed he were God. Indeed it should not be pilot for you to seek to "win" an argument on such serious matters - it would rather be in your spiritual interest to stop and see if it really and truly makes sense to insist that a mere mortal who stated very clearly and in no ambiguous terms that he is NOT omniscient and NOT Omnipotent - could actually be called Almighty GOD.

It neither makes logical sense; nor can it be sensed in any terms as even remotely true.

Stay blessed.

Image123:

MyJoe
Pls quit lying, at least for C.T Russell's sake. Or are you not aware that all liars will have their parts in the lake of fire? Even if you believe it to be annihilation, it's not worth it. I'm not exactly on this thread for word.trading with you. You've inconveniently skipped quoted passages only to dwell on what you think you can handle. I'm here for the body of Christ, not for talks about enemies and history class.

Your obsession is now on the borders of insanity. Guy, tell me, did some Witness guy hunt in your plot without permission - I mean, snatch your wife?

Viaro –

Let us look at a few of your comebacks to elucidate the point.

viaro:


I did not contradict that in any way - rather I have posted John 5:23 so many times and none of your ilks have ever addressed that issue for ONCE! If Jesus was not God/Deity, He would not have asserted that He is to be worshipped in exactly the same way as the Father is to be worshipped.

So can you explain exactly why he stated that the Father is greater than he is?

Why do you contradict him – and insist that they are equal?

It is either –

1. He was lying OR

2. YOU are lying.

Both cannot be true.

So which is it?

That was not a statement of worship - it was His prophecied declaration on the Cross in His vicarious death in His Humanity - see Heb. 2:9. It is in His Humanity and not Hid Deity that He could taste death for every man - and it is in His Humanity that He made that pornouncement on the Cross.

This statement was not made on the cross at all!

“My father and your father, my God and your God. . .” he utters these words whilst teaching the disciples!

Why does he claim to have a God, if he is God.

Does it make any sense to you for God to pray to a being having greater powers that he? Is God not said to be the “Supreme being?” If Jesus subordinated himself and his will to another being (as he repeatedly did when praying to the Father) then he CANNOT be said to be the “Supreme” being.

Can the terrible internal inconsistency here really miss you?

What does “Supremacy” mean to you Viaro? Does a supreme being go about declaring that another is “greater” than him – or pleading with another saying  - “nevertheless not as I wilt but as thou wilt? ? ?”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

That in no way negates the fact that He is God (John 1:1)

You are aware of what the proper Greek interpretation of this verse is.

I urge you to dig deep, pray and ask God to make the truth known to us all in this matter.

That in no way negates the fact that He is God (John 1:1)

You are aware of what the proper Greek interpretation of this verse is.

Deep Sight, this was one of your first questions to me on the thread I opened when I registered on NL. I told you that the correct interpretation is "THAT which God was, the Logos also was". So it's left to you to counter the translation, or else decide what God was/is. And that's what the Logos (Christ) was/is!

Deep Sight:

^^^ When you find yourself having to explain away a zillion clear statements of your Christ which apparently negate what you teach about him; perhaps you should stop to consider sincerely, carefully and truthfully whether it has not come to it that you are actually mis-representing the poor guy.

DeepSight, your deism is NOT Christianity. That is a very simple message that ought to have sunk in by now. You don't use the reductionism of your deism to exegete or interpret matters of the Christian faith that are beyond you - especially where you do not have a grasp of its teachings, nor understand its particulars, nor even yet subscribe to the Christian faith. This twist and turn is beginning to show you infected with something more than a bug of fundamentalism and now bordering on insanity. I think you ought to show a bit more decorum by saving the last dregs of your OOI - at least for your own sake.

For no matter how you may twist and turn, you cannot escape that GOD is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent: Two qualities that Christ EXPRESSLY and AFFIRMATIVELY DENIED having.

I do not see or read those texts as Christ positively or expressly denying His Omnipotence or Omniscience.

With Omniscience - he stated clearly that there are some things he knew not - Thus he affirms that he is NOT omniscient.

He did not affirm that He was not omniscient - you're reading it as such. I have given you examples of the very same manner or construct where God Himself speaks in language as to make the reader at first glance suppose that He did not know what was going on - (a) the case of Adam [Gen. 3:9]; and (b) the case of Sodom and Gomorrah [Gen. 18:21]. Such manner of speaking do not take anything away from His Deity - and that are many such examples outside the manner of speaking that might make the reader assume a reductionist position in reading those texts superficially.

With Omnipotence - he pleaded with GOD for a certain outcome on a certain matter, closing his prayer acknowledging that things could not be done according to his own will, but[b] only according to the will of God[/b] - thereby showing that he was NOT omnipotent: and also that his will could be distinguished from God's will.

That does not demonstrate a lack of Omnipotence. If you know what it takes to create the world and also sustain it, you would not speak so carelessly like an idiot. The Bible teaches that Christ created the world (John 1:3) as well that the same Christ upholds ALL THINGS by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). His Humility is not something He supposed should be grasped at (Phil. 2:6) - nor does such a display of His subjection to the Father assume that He was merely man and nothing else. The one thing we have seen in this thread is the clear establishment that Jesus is God, and that is why even those that argue to the contrary still will bow down and yet worship Him.

These signal points are inescapable; utterly ineluctable and serve on their very own to affirm that which every sincere person should know in his heart: namely that the man Jesus of Nazareth IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD.

Namely, that you are a hypocrite who argues with dark rings around his eyeballs so as not to see the essential points that Christ is also Alpha and Omega and as such receives the same equal worship that the ENTIRE CREATION renders to Deity (Rev. 1:8-11 and 5:13). Arguing just only one side of the issue smarks of conceited hypocrisy, which is more than an entertainment on its own.

The question of whether Jesus is 'Almighty God' still begs the question of whether He is GOD at all. Is Jesus God? I never see you guys stand up to address that point. Rather, like rabid goons you sit all day arguing what you cannot steal to add to your rogue religion of a doomed OOI.

So Viaro; i sincerely invite you to stop a moment in the mad rush of life and contemplate in sincerity and honesty why all these major signals would have been set forth by Jesus if indeed he were God. Indeed it should not be pilot for you to seek to "win" an argument on such serious matters - it would rather be in your spiritual interest to stop and see if it really and truly makes sense to insist that a mere mortal who stated very clearly and in no ambiguous terms that he is NOT omniscient and NOT Omnipotent - could actually be called Almighty GOD.

I am not looking out to win any arguments. From the onset I have made my point, and I'm not forcing it on any other Christian. The fact is that Jesus is to be worshipped because He is God. The purple higlight of your quote establishes that you are denying that Jesus is 'God' - so the question of whether He is 'Almighty God' is quite a subterfuge.

I already stated the reason that brought me here - to discuss the topic that argues "That Jesus Is Not God" - and that is what I have dealt with. Why do the likes of karo93 who started the thread admit that Jesus is to be worshipped if He was not God? Why? Yes, they make all sorts of excuses (nevermind that they twist direct texts of Scripture), but if anyone should know that such arguments only promote idolatry in the Biblical sense, then they should know. To you it may not matter to worship a dot in the cosmos called your beloved OOI; but for Christians it is altogether another thing to consider the very essence of the Person of Christ - whom Scripture affirms as God over all (Romans 9:5).

It neither makes logical sense; nor can it be sensed in any terms as even remotely true.

Stay blessed.

That's what I said earlier -

God cannot be constrained by rigid reductionism or rationalism - we cannot bring Him down to any determined position of our finite understanding, and this is especially true in the case of the Trinity.

The Trinity is a mystery of the Christian faith which cannot be adequately captured in any metaphysical diction (Job 11:7 - "canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?". Yet, that does not therefore weaken its Biblical foundation in any way.

Deep Sight:

Viaro –

Let us look at a few of your comebacks to elucidate the point.

So can you explain exactly why he stated that the Father is greater than he is?

Why do you contradict him – and insist that they are equal?

Since you are deaf to what I have explained, now rather let me ask you why you are the one so blind as to contradict Him on John 5:23?? Does it make any sense to you that a mere "created being" would be making such statements in that verse as that ALL MEN would honour Him even as they honour the Father? You wake up and deal with that and stop acting like you've resumed smoking what's not in the books.

It is either –

1. He was lying OR

2. YOU are lying.

Both cannot be true.

So which is it?

Neither.

And yes, I have used the example of the Triple Point (which is NOT the Trinity) to show that "a scenario of a contrapositive statement where two things stand in contrast" is not out of joint; nor is it "impossible" nor "contrary to all reason". The Humility of Christ does not take anything away from His Deity (Phil. 2:6) - and that is not an impossible situation.

This statement was not made on the cross at all!

“My father and your father, my God and your God. . .” he utters these words whilst teaching the disciples!

I did not say that Hebrews 2:9 was made at the Cross! Are you thick or blind or both?

I said rather "see Heb. 2:9" in explanation of what went before.

Why does he claim to have a God, if he is God.

I don't know. Nor can I tell why the Father would refer to Christ as "God" in Heb. 1:8. Scripture affirms the Trinity in the Godhead, and viaro is satisfied with that - for I do not argue OOI into my faith.

Does it make any sense to you for God to pray to a being having greater powers that he? Is God not said to be the “Supreme being?” If Jesus subordinated himself and his will to another being (as he repeatedly did when praying to the Father) then he CANNOT be said to be the “Supreme” being.

Can the terrible internal inconsistency here really miss you?

It is not my loss but yours. I already said that the Trinity is not based on reductionist rationalism; and also, I have noted that the Trinity is NOT tritheism. What you tend to argue is tritheism and not the Trinity.

What does “Supremacy” mean to you Viaro? Does a supreme being go about declaring that another is “greater” than him – or pleading with another saying - “nevertheless not as I wilt but as thou wilt? ? ?”

Dude, you have no clue about the words you bandy around. Besides supremacy, there is also Sovereignty. As regards supremacy, the Subjects being discussed could still show humility and condescension; whereas in Sovereignty, it is a case of divine prerogatives. Both connotations are found in Christ Himself, and His submission to the Father does not affect either of them.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

And your point is. . .?

You are aware of what the proper Greek interpretation of this verse is.

Yes. And it does not deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

I urge you to dig deep, pray and ask God to make the truth known to us all in this matter.

I have done so, no offense. The one thing I know God has shown me is the Deity of Christ, and I cannot dismiss that truth on the fallacies of your OOI.

@Everyone:

Do you consider God as unending, unquenchable, unlimited, eternal (in all respects, not just in time)? If you do, then I will present to you a simple analogy, and borrow a leaf from viaro while I'm at it: The ANALOGY is not the TRINITY, it's just a pointer for descriptive and evaluative purposes. Lest you tear me apart. E she gann ni.

Recall the widow of Zarephath's flask of oil that never ran out? I think that miracle was an expression of an attribute of God: He never runs out no matter how much he pours himself out. And he cannot be taken by surprise! So, tell me, if God poured himself out into a human form, is that one NOT still God, and has God diminished? Or like the never-ending oil, if I pour it out into a pot and the pot gets full BUT the flask of oil is still full, are they not both full AND the EXACT same oil?

The reasoning of those that say Christ is not God, simply amazes me

^^ I like that 'analogy'. Brilliant.

InesQor:

The reasoning of those that say Christ is not God, simply amazes me

And yet they are willing to acknowledge that 'Jesus is to be worshipped'. It only fascinates me as much as the Arius fellow who, while arguing to deny the eternal Deity of Christ, yet asserts that the same Jesus Christ is "perfect God" who subsisted before time and before ages. Nice.

VIARO!!!
Haven t i told you why he is to be worshiped or have you resigned all argument just to hold onto your points
if it is so then you should stop sending the point and keep it to yourself for i have explained it.peace

i repeat
Jesus is to be worshiped because according to john.3.35 everything has been PUT under his power by GOD.we worship God becos we are under his power and as we are under Jesus power too we have to worship him too.

havent you reasoned that you dont give someone what belongs to him??yet God gave jesus power over everything.

karo93:

VIARO!!!
Haven t i told you why he is to be worshiped or have you resigned all argument just to hold onto your points
if it is so then you should stop sending the point and keep it to yourself for i have explained it.peace

Dude, you told yourself whatever you want to believe - that is a different thing from having told me anything.

I made my point that the only reason why Jesus Christ is to be worshipped is because He is God and nothing other than that reason would count. If Jesus was not God, then you're saying He was a "created being" - and if that is what you're asserting, then your worship is idolatry: keep it to yourself! Any worship you ascribe to a "created being" at par with divine worship to God is idolatry - for only when you recognize the Deity of Christ would it be proper for you to affirm that "Jesus is to be worshipped".

WHY THIS ARGUMENT IS HEADING FOR A STALEMATE WHILE ARGUING WITH VIARO.

Viaro on the verge of being swept away by the overwhelming points has decided to hold onto a weak point as a tree when in fear of being swept by the flood.

Viaro still holds onto why Jesus is worshiped even though rev.5.13 and the book of rev. shows them to be two different people [since worshiping the son is not the same as the father which is why they were worshiped separately]and i have explained why Jesus is to be worshiped but viaro has decided not to understand which shows that there is no point continuing this argument.

Viaro has also decided to hold onto mystery,saying we cannot grasp it then you are forced to wonder why he has being trying to explain what we and himself cannot grasp.

with this i plead with viaro to quit the thread so that we can explain to those who are willing to understand.peace

To any other person who is still wondering if jesus is God.

I am tired of listing point upon point so i decided to break it down.

It is clear that The father and the son are two different bodies as in the book of rev. especially 5.13 and john.14.1 where Jesus said he should be believed separately from the father.

So we now ask ourselves
Why did Jesus not have the same power as his father as shown in matt.12.28 and why did he have restricted knowledge as he did not know the time of his coming.
You can neither be more powerful nor knowledgeable than yourself.you can only be better than another.

you also ask yourself why you would give yourself something or give someone what he already owns as said in jn.3.35 where God GAVE jesus power over everything.

this clearly shows you that jesus is not God but if you are still in doubt go through the entire thread.peace

karo93 what do you think about my analogy about the jar that never got empty? What's your perspective on it, can you please share?

Karo 93.
First of all Jesus came into ds world not 2 ascertain his divinity but 2 redeem man. Ds thgs cropped up as d jews needed 2 be convinced.
1. Jesus is a divine being wt two natures divine and human hypostatically joined 2geda (see Jn 1:1,14, phil 2:6-8 the Word was God, took flesh; tho he was in the FORM of God, taking the FORM of a servant, reconcile that
Jesus was of d same being wt the Father Jn1:1, Heb1:3, Col 1:15,19. So while jesus was on earth as man it is reasonable dt he submit himself 2 his Father phil 2:6
2.the statement does not imply blivin seperately 4 2 bliv in God is to bliiv in Jesus and vice versa Jn 14: 7,11,22
3. God is a whole being not comprising of parts. Jesus said dt 4 de man did not acknowledge him as God/Lord but as a master - an appelletion given 2 d rabbis of his time. D4 it is 4 d man 2 kno dt Goodness is an attribute of God of wch he is an not of man, an later he would call himself the GOOD SHEPHERD jn 10:11
4. See Phil 2: 6-8. Do u not distinguish the personalities there- the One on the throne and the Lamb. That a husband and wife joined 2 become one flesh (matt 19:6) does not mean dt d man has become a woman (ANALOGY).
Dt they were praisin The One and d Lamb. How would u like em 2 sing d praise?
For d H.Sp see verse 6
5. How can you bliv in God whom U hav not seen Jn 1:18, wtout blivin in Jesus his Image Col 1:15,19, whom He sent Jn 14:7,11, JN 15:23, Jn 3:16 and yet there is doom 4 those who do not bliv in d Son Jn 3:18.
6. The water there is d symbol of d H.Spirit. See Jn 7:37-39 ' if anyone is thirsty let him come, the rivers of livin water shall flow, he was speakin of d H.Sp wch will be given , '
Concernin d throne, how many throne(s) did u read there? Where is d Lamb sitting? On a stool?
7. The H.Sp-will not be teachin a new doctrine ( read well and reasonably); and how can Xt teach thgs dt contradict his Father's will?
On authority, see mt 28:18, mt 5 - 'u av heard, But 'I' say, ' in Israel only God address em as such. See also Mk2:10, The authority of God the Father is that of Christ but Jesus said dt in order 2 bear witness 2 his father.
8. Dt is because He is God. -Trinity
jn 10:30, Ur explanatn of dt is irrational.
Jn 14:20. Who taught u dt? Where is ur soul if u bliv u hav any? And yet it is mysteriously joined 2geda tho both are seperate entities wch are seperated at death? And to be reunited at the end time? (ANALOGY)

Man looks like u're a J.Witness. One thing is clear, if God reveals/ed 2 man everything about Himself (God), he will cease 2 be acknowledged and no man will worship Him and therefore, He gave us much dt is enough 4 our ackowledgement of Him and 4 our salvation. Jesus is God. There is Trinity. If U say dt Jesus is the Son of God, in wt sense do u mean? Born of a woman? And be4 Abraham he was. How can u acct 4 his existence pre-creation? See Jn 1

Karo 93.
First of all Jesus came into ds world not 2 assert his divinity but 2 redeem man. Ds thgs cropped up as d jews needed 2 be convinced.
1. Jesus is a divine being wt two natures divine and human hypostatically joined 2geda (see Jn 1:1,14, phil 2:6-8 the Word was God, took flesh; tho he was in the FORM of God, taking the FORM of a servant, reconcile that
  Jesus was of d same being  wt the Father Jn1:1, Heb1:3, Col 1:15,19. So while jesus was on earth as man it is reasonable dt he submit himself 2 his Father phil 2:6
2.the statement does not imply blivin seperately 4 2 bliv in God is to bliiv in Jesus and vice versa Jn 14: 7,11,22
3. God is a whole being not comprising of parts. Jesus said dt 4 de man did not acknowledge him as God/Lord but as a master - an appelletion given 2 d rabbis of his time. D4 it is 4 d man 2 kno dt Goodness is an attribute of God of wch he is an not of man, an later he would call himself the GOOD SHEPHERD jn 10:11
4. See Phil 2: 6-8. Do u not distinguish the personalities there- the One on the throne and the Lamb. That a husband and wife joined 2 become one flesh (matt 19:6) does not mean dt d man has become a woman (ANALOGY).
Dt they were praisin The One and d Lamb. How would u like em 2 sing d praise?
For d H.Sp see verse 6
5. How can you bliv in God whom U hav not seen Jn 1:18, wtout blivin in Jesus his Image Col 1:15,19, whom He sent Jn 14:7,11, JN 15:23, Jn 3:16 and yet there is doom 4 those who do not bliv in d Son Jn 3:18.
6. The water there is d symbol of d H.Spirit. See Jn 7:37-39 ' if anyone is thirsty let him come, the rivers of livin water shall flow, he was speakin of d H.Sp  wch will be given , '
Concernin d throne, how many throne(s) did u read there? Where is d Lamb sitting? On a stool?
7. The H.Sp-will not be teachin a new doctrine ( read well and reasonably); and how can Xt teach thgs dt contradict his Father's will?
On authority, see mt 28:18, mt 5 - 'u av heard,  But 'I' say, ' in Israel only God address em as such. See also Mk2:10,  The authority of God the Father is that of Christ but Jesus said dt in order 2 bear witness 2 his father.
8. Dt is because He is God. -Trinity
jn 10:30,  your explanatn of dt is irrational.
Jn 14:20. Who taught u dt? Where is your soul if u bliv u hav any? And yet it is mysteriously joined 2geda tho both are seperate entities wch are seperated at death? And to be reunited at the end time? (ANALOGY)

Man looks like u're a J.Witness. One thing is clear, if God reveals/ed 2 man everything about Himself (God), he will cease 2 be acknowledged and no man will worship Him and therefore, He gave us much dt is enough 4 our ackowledgement of Him and 4 our salvation. Jesus is God. There is Trinity. If U say dt Jesus is the Son of God, in wt sense do u mean? Born of a woman? And be4 Abraham he was. How can u acct 4 his existence pre-creation? See Jn 1

Did Jesus ever claimed to be God Almighty? No
Did the Father ever call his son his God? No
Did Jesus acknowledge his Father as greater? Yes

Jesus was in form of God just as man is in image of God. Though Jesus being the last Adam reflect God's attribute more perfectly than any creature.

It is you people that are making Jesus to be almighty God, He never claimed to be such.

@viaro
Hebrews 1:8:
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. The Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon LORD’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the‧os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the‧os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo‧him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the‧os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

So stop pointing to Heb 1:8 as your support.


AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same.  But note how other translations render this verse:

1869: “who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: “He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God.” Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: “who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own.” La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” Today’s English Version.

1984: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [har‧pa′zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.”
Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul’s point here—namely the importance of humility and obedience to one’s Superior and Creator, Almighty God.

You can refer to my previous post regard to John 1:1, 20:28

Honestly, I must admit your sense of humor and the format you always present your defense. But as regard the issue of trinity and Jesus being almighty God, I think you got it right wrong.

Remain bless

One thing is clear,it's always difficult  to change one's faith in an argument like this,  I learn't from one of the speakers in this forum that bible cannot be understood with prejudice and being biased. If we look deep inside and be meek in our understanding,the truth will be revealed!  Without bias, it will be extremly difficult to prove that JESUS IS GOD than JESUS IS NOT GOD. The points that HE is not God is very glaring,even if it is only one point. He called someone 'father' not only father but 'his' father  and referred  himself as son,  he went further and clearly stated that the Father is greater than Son. Literally or not literally the word father cannot be de same as son,except that son will grow someday and become the father. This will only take place if the initial 'father' is dead. Is that how the case of Jesus implied?  He called another being His God. Don't tell me jesus at a time is not aware of his status as God,  that mankind understand his status better than Him. Yes Philip asked jesus show us the father and Jesus replied whoever seen me has seen the father,that father is him and him in father. No human is permitted to see God physical. But what philip needs is the way to father but if it is to see something physical to believe that there is God,  Jesus said he who has seen me has seen God. Remember he (jesus) is mediator! There is absolute nothing like having dual deity. Jesus is often referred as second adam,

, From the old testament,we were told that God is one not three persons in one God. Will i hear someone saying that in the begining God said let us,  Well to my understanding that US is God and his sons(gods) and other heavenly bodies like angels. All are united in one accord and harmony. They were created by God and existed before the creation of universe. So let 'us' is not ambiguity. Lucifer the arc-angel before his rebellion is among the sons of God, So God does his things in harmony with his creations. When he asked Adam 'where art thou?, ' it does not mean God do not know,  but he want Man to answer from his (man) own volition where he is,  So this should not be compared with when it is said that Jesus has limited knowledge of time and space. In New testament God send one of his sons  redemed man of his wrong doings and for his (son) great work of redemption,God glorified him and gave him right to be worshiped,  There is an injunction in the bible that said,  that those who do the will of God and pleases him ( God) will be given the right to become sons of God,  So my God promotes beings that pleases him.  For it is by God's will that jesus is to worshiped,respect jesus,you'll respect God,deny jesus,you'll denied God. For Man: 'whatever you do unto your fellow brother that's what you do unto jesus and God'

I cannot get over this.

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

They CANNOT both be speaking the truth!

Deep Sight:

I cannot get over this.

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

They CANNOT both be speaking the truth!

                         lol, do u expect him to give up easily? When you re killing a horse, it kicks before it finally gives up. It wasn't easy for me initially.

Deep Sight:

I cannot get over this.

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

Actually, DeepSight is lying, thank you very much.

No matter how many times I have mentioned clearly the context in which He spoke that verse, you conceitedly ignored what I explained so you can find some dot for your lying adventures, no? Did you read how many times I mentioned "essence" to you? You must be one arrogant idiot with a rare malady on Nairaland.

They CANNOT both be speaking the truth!

We both are - the problem is that you are too busy ignoring what has been said already.

I cannot get over this. And insults will not becloud the truth. No escape:

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

la_vivi:

                        lol, do u expect him to give up easily? When you re killing a horse, it kicks before it finally gives up. It wasn't easy for me initially.

Lol, la_vivi. . . if you're thinking of killing any horses here, you won't find it applicable to viaro. You may have come to the conclusion that Jesus is not God - but was that new at all? You came here pretending to be enquiring, and in time you showed exactly where you already had stationed your heart so you could find sympathy for what you already believed, no?

Deep Sight:

I cannot get over this. And insults will not becloud the truth. No escape:

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

You can repeat it as many times as you wish - idiots do exactly that. That is what you often do after I reply your enquiries.

Maybe repetition will help. It is a teaching method used in Nursery school you know? It helps struggling minds grasp basic principles:

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

la_vivi:

, From the old testament,we were told that God is one not three persons in one God. Will i hear someone saying that in the begining God said let us,  Well to my understanding that US is God and his sons(gods) and other heavenly bodies like angels.

Please stop making up stories - show us precisely from Scripture where you got all these lullabies from. This is what happens when you guys no longer look at what Scripture says, so you can dribble in your preconceived notions to fill in the gaps.

All are united in one accord and harmony.

Please show us. Just please demonstrate how angels and God are "united" - like God created you through an angel, yes?

They were created by God and existed before the creation of universe. So let 'us' is not ambiguity.

Did any angel create you?

Lucifer the arc-angel before his rebellion is among the sons of God, So God does his things in harmony with his creations.

Was God speaking to Lucifer in that verse when He said "Let us make man"? Who precisely was He speaking to, and where do you find verses for what you're asserting?

When he asked Adam 'where art thou?, ' it does not mean God do not know,  but he want Man to answer from his (man) own volition where he is,  So this should not be compared with when it is said that Jesus has limited knowledge of time and space.

Thank you so very much - at least you acknowledge the scenario in Genesis 3:9 that God who knew all things yet was asking Adam where he was. That was brilliant. Not only was God wanting Adam to answer the question, but what about the same manner He spoke as regards the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did God not see it already? Did He not know? Did you deal with that as well?

In New testament God send one of his sons  redemed man of his wrong doings and for his (son) great work of redemption,God glorified him and gave him right to be worshiped,  There is an injunction in the bible that said,  that those who do the will of God and pleases him ( God) will be given the right to become sons of God,  So my God promotes beings that pleases him.

Excellent. Your 'god' promotes "beings" as it please him - so that you can just worship any "being" as it pleases you, no? I like the way you fill pages with your story-telling without pointing anything out from Scripture.

The Bible does not tell us that God sent "one of His sons" - rather, it says that He gave His "ONLY BEGOTTEN" Son for our redemption (John 3:16). There is no other "being" that is called the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father in Scripture - and that is because there is none else like 'Christ who is God over all' (Romans 9:5). Christ in His divine ESSENCE is exactly what the Father is in His divine ESSENCE - that is what John 1:1 presents to us. This does not make the Son the Father; but unless you take time to see that Jesus is God in His divine ESSENCE, whatever you term 'worship' is civilised idolatry.

For it is by God's will that jesus is to worshiped,respect jesus,you'll respect God,deny jesus,you'll denied God. For Man: 'whatever you do unto your fellow brother that's what you do unto jesus and God'

God cannot set up a "created being" for any man or angel to worship. That was the very thing that Lucifer wanted - and that was what sent Lucifer out of God's presence (Isaiah 14:12-15 . . . "I will be like the most High". And that, again, is what Lucifer is looking for in the endtimes (2 Thes. 2:4). Has Lucifer found a recruit in you?

Deep Sight:

I cannot get over this.

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

They CANNOT both be speaking the truth!

Deep Sight:

I cannot get over this. And insults will not becloud the truth. No escape:

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

Deep Sight:

Maybe repetition will help. It is a teaching method used in Nursery school you know? It helps struggling minds grasp basic principles:

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

Repeat it. . . highlight it. . . enlarge the fonts. . . fill the pages. . . but my answer is simply this:

viaro:

You can repeat it as many times as you wish - idiots do exactly that. That is what you often do after I reply your enquiries.

^^^ Easy now - the process is often painful -

Glaring inconsistensies are hurtful when pointed out.

We will take it step by step to help your struggling mind.

Repetition just might help at the end of the day. . .

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They[b] CANNOT [/b] both be speaking the truth![/size]

TrueSeeker:

Did Jesus ever claimed to be God Almighty? No
Did the Father ever call his son his God? No
Did Jesus acknowledge his Father as greater? Yes

Did Jesus claim equality with the Father in John 5:23? YES.
Did Jesus ever deny His Deity in Scripture? NO.
Did Jesus declare He is the same as God (Alpha and Omega)? YES.

No matter how many times these issues are pointed out, you guys just cleverly ignore them and then come back with the arguments of folks who also have a career of denying the Deity of Christ. Well done.

Jesus was in form of God just as man is in image of God. Though Jesus being the last Adam reflect God's attribute more perfectly than any creature.

What "attributes" were those?

It is you people that are making Jesus to be almighty God, He never claimed to be such.

None of us here on this forum wrote Revelation 1:8-11 or Revlation 5:13. We only cited those verses for people like you who are too busy quoting denials here and there.

@viaro
Hebrews 1:8:
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Hahaha. .  I was actually waiting for this. Of all things to market on this forum is the NW - the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses! I shoulda known. Dude, I'm not a JW, nor do I take my reading from them. There is no basis for them to have twisted either Hebrews 1:8 or Psalm 45:6 to read as they have so twisted it; so if that is where you base your arguments, I'm sorry to note that you already failed to make any substance.

As far as I know, Hebrews 1:8 clearly is the Father's speech reported in addressing the Son: "But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". The Father in that verse was referring to the Son as "GOD" to show that the Son in divine ESSENCE is God. This follows smoothly from a reading of verse 7 and verse 8 together, as in -

[list](a)   verse 7 tells us the nature of the angels - 'And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire';

(b)   and then in verse 8 by contrast, the Son is shown in verse to be more than an angel, more than just merely a spirit - but absolutely 'DEITY' in His ESSENCE: 'But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom'.[/list]

There just was no basis for the Jehovah Witnesses to have twisted that verse to read what it did in the NW translation (as do so many like them). What that chapter shows is the very essence of the Son - that:

       *  the Son is not an angel (v. 4, 5)

       *  the Son is not a "created being", which is why the angels worship Him (v. 6)

       *  the angels are spirit beings in essence (v. 7)

       *  the Son by contrast is Deity ('God') (v. 8 )

       *  angels are ministering spirits (v. 14)

       *  the Son Himself is precisely what the Father is in ESSENCE (v. 3)

These are the things the NW transl. will not tell you before dramatically twisting that verse to deny the very essence of the Son of God.

If you enjoy footnotes of theologians on that verse, I could recommend some (seeing that you did the same) -

[list]Adam Clarke's commentary on Hebrews 1:3 ~

The brightness of his glory -
Απαυγασμα της δοξης The resplendent outbeaming of the essential glory of God. Hesychius interprets απαυγασμα by ᾑλιου φεγγος, the splendor of the sun. The same form of expression is used by an apocryphal writer, Wis. 7:26, where, speaking of the uncreated wisdom of God, he says: “For she is the splendor of eternal light, απαυγασμα γαρ εστι φωτος αΐδιου, and the unsullied mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness.” The word αυγασμα is that which has splendor in itself απαυγασμα is the splendor emitted from it; but the inherent splendor and the exhibited splendor are radically and essentially the same.

The express image of his person -
Χαρακτηρ της ὑποστασεως αυτου· The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.
From these words it is evident,
[list]1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, must be the same with the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor.
2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one αυγη, or splendor, produce another αυγη, or splendor, the produced splendor must be of the same essence with that which produces it.
3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor, cannot subsist without its απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, nor the proceeding splendor subsist without the inherent splendor from which it proceeds.
4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendor must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendor. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal.[/list][/list]

These are things which such interpreters as those of the NW completely ignore when dealing with Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6. Not only do other scholars understand that Christ is the very same IN ESSENCE as the Father is in ESSENCE, they do not confuse the Father for the Son nor the Son for the Father. It is the same thing with John 1:1 - the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father: yet, IN DIVINE ESSENCE, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Deity.

So stop pointing to Heb 1:8 as your support.

Oh verily YES - I will point to Hebrews 1:8 rather than the illiterate arguments of NW translators. If you want more commentaries, just call on me - there are things you never considered before rushing to Jehovah Witnesses spurious version.