"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,"  says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Yea, Amen! let all adore Thee,
High on Thine eternal throne;
Savior, take the power and glory,
Claim the kingdom for Thine own;
O come quickly! O come quickly! O come quickly!
Everlasting God, come down!

Many people think of Jesus as a great religious teacher and even a prophet, but not the Divine Son of God. What did He really claim? Did He accept claims that He was the Christ, the Divine Son of God in the flesh, eternal, and our Savior? Did He believe people must believe in Him and obey Him to be saved and receive eternal life? Did He accept worship? Some people that believe these claims were first made for Him by His followers long after He died. Please consider this study of the claims of Jesus.

God’s Word teaches:

That the Godhead consists of three separate, distinct, and recognizable personalities and qualities, perfectly united in one.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are different Persons in the Godhead, not merely three names for one Person (Matthew 3:16,17; Il Corinthians 13:14; Matthew 28:19,20).

The Godhead is a great mystery, which is clearly beyond the finite mind of the unsaved, natural man (I Corinthians 2:14). The believer accepts the gospel truth of the Trinity by faith, recognizing that God remains the eternal repository of all mysteries (Deuteronomy 29:29); that with respect to His being or essence, God is one; with respect to His personality. God is three; and the essence must neither be divided nor the persons confused. In spite of the great mystery surrounding it, the doctrine of the Godhead has always proved to be eminently rich in spiritual and practical values. And for all those willing, the Lord Jesus Christ promises the advent of a blissful reign by the Godhead (John 14:23; Revelation 3:20).

Deep Sight:

Well for those who are too lazy to visit links, let me provide the words of Jesus HIMSELF on this matter and you can judge whether or not he claimed to be God:

John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”


John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."


Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

SO" What did Jesus claim? ? ?

But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

OLAADEGBU:

. . .

What does it mean to call Jesus the Son of God?

Does the title applied to Jesus, Son of God, imply that He is different than God? No. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16), while Christians are adopted sons of God (Romans 8:15-17). Christians are called adopted sons of God because we are different from God and must become His children (hence, adopted, not begotten). Jesus is not called adopted because He never became God's Son, but has always been God's Son. Calling Jesus the only begotten Son of God means that He is of the same nature as God, not a different nature, as C.S. Lewis explains:

"To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam . . . Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind."

There is a clear distinction between making and begetting, that is, you cannot make what you beget. What you make is different from yourself, what you beget has your nature. Therefore to call Jesus the only begotten Son is to say that He has God's nature and was not made. Since He has God's nature, He is, by definition, God and therefore eternal. If Jesus was created by God, He could not have been begotten, and John 3:16; 1:18, 1 John 4:9, etc. are in error.

The Trinity formula, in the sense of an expressed conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit occurred very early in the history of the Christian Church. This conjunction appears in two New Testament texts: 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19. The context of 2 Corinthians 13:14, which is the closing of a letter, suggests the church's conjunction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit may have originated as a doxological formula, while the context of Matthew 28:19 shows that the verbal conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was used early on as a baptismal formula. The oldest extant work in which the exact word "Trinity" (Greek Trias, triados) is used to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Theophilus of Antioch's second-century To Autolycus. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not explicitly expressed in the writings of ante-Nicene Church Fathers exactly as it would later be defined during the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381), namely as one substance (ousios) and three persons (hypostaseis). But their Trinitarian concepts did become defined with greater detail over time in this period.

Early second century: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD [1], wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church.

     “ Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the  flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual. ”

(Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]).[2]


First half of second century or late first century: Didache

This source uses the gospel of Matthew only and no other known gospel, and thus it must have been written before the four-gospel canon had become widespread in the churches, i.e. before the second half of the second century when Tatian produced the Diatessaron. Given its literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, it is not surprising that the Didache follows the Gospel of Matthew in designating the Trinitarian formula as a baptismal formula:

     “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

(Didache 7:1).[3][4]


ca.151: Justin Martyr

Even though he does not use the word "Trinity" explicitly, Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around AD 150, reveals a primitive theology of the Trinity, in which God is in first place, Christ in second, and the Spirit in third,

     “We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.”

(First Apology 13:5–6).[5]


169-181: Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1-3.

     “It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place,  The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom. ”

(To Autolycus 2:15).[6]


Third century: Trinitarian theology in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism

In the early third century Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome wrote Against Praxeas and Against Noetus, respectively, which may be considered the first extant expository treatments of Trinitarian theology. Both authors use the word Trinity (Latin: Trinitas; Greek: Trias). They wrote these works to combat Patripassianism, the view that the Father suffered on the cross along with the Son. In the third century there were also Trinitarian theologies expressed in writings against Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism.


216: Tertullian

Tertullian's treatise against a Patripassian heretic named Praxeas, who claimed that the Father had suffered with the Son on the cross, is arguably the oldest extant treatise with a detailed explicit Trinitarian theology. In his Against Praxeas Tertullian wrote:

     “And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ”

(Against Praxeas 2).[7]


ca. 220: Hippolytus of Rome

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote a treatise Against Noetus, in response to a Christian from Smyrna named Noetus who had been promoting Patripassian views, which Hippolytus deemed heretical. Noetus and other Patripassians, such as Praxeas (see above), claimed that the Father as well as the Son had suffered on the cross.[8] Like Tertullian, Hippolytus explicitly used the word Trinity in his treatise against Patripassian views.

     “The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested.”[9]


ca. 225: Origen

Origen's On First Principles (De Principiis or Peri Archon) is the oldest extant Christian theological treatise. Origen develops Trinitarian theology is developed in this treatise, which reveals that by this time the use of the word Trinity to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is standard in orthodox churches.

  “For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages . . . .

It seems right to inquire into the reason why he who is 'born again through God' to salvation has need of both Father and Son and Holy Spirit and will not obtain salvation apart from the entire Trinity, and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. In discussing these points it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the activity which is peculiar to the Holy Spirit and that which is peculiar to the Father and Son”[10]


ca. 256: Novatian

Novatian, presbyter of Rome, wrote the oldest extant Christian treatise that is specifically dedicated to and entitled On the Trinity.[11] It was written in response to a number of views deemed heretical by Novatian, and particularly against Sabellius, who had maintained that the Trinity was divided into three prosopa, or "characters by which God is revealed to man, the Trinity being one of revelation, not essence." [12]

     “For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God.”

(Treatise on the Trinity 11).[13]


262: Pope Dionysius

According to Athanasius of Alexandria, in the mid-third century Pope Dionysius (Dionysius of Rome) a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria criticizing Sabellius's views on the relations between the Son and the Father, as well as some who attempted to refute Sabellius's views. Athanasius quotes parts of Dionysius' letter in On the decrees of the Council of Nicaea .[14] In this letter it is clear that Dionysius used the word Trinity (Greek Trias) to explicate the relations between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

     “Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partive subsistences and godheads. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius' opininons; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Unity into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Trinity be gathered up and brought together . . . .

Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine Unity, Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. For thus both the Divine Trinity and the holy preaching of the Monarchy will be preserved”[15]


265: Gregory the Wonderworker

Gregory was Bishop of Neocaesarea in Asia Minor,[16] and wrote a Declaration of Faith which treats the Trinity as standard theological vocabulary.[17].

     “There is one God,  There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever."

Enigma:

Thanks for those links, Lagos Shia. Hope you enjoyed the recent 'Ileya'. Hope also you realise that the quotations in my post immediately preceding yours all came well before each of the things referred to in your posts/links?

benalvino: God is the only one who can save sinners. In other words, in order for a person to interrupt the power of sin in their life, and achieve salvation from Christ, God would have to be the active agent. the main point was that God and God alone would have to be responsible for this change. No created being could cause salvation for another creature. “if Christ is not God, he is part of the problem, not its solution.”
We underscored the teaching of the Bible is that Jesus is the savior of the world. Frosbel, deep-sight, ijawkid Oga anony “firmly committed to the idea that Christ was the savior of humanity.” well ijawkid doesnt really believe this... Yet as discussed above, the fact that only God could be the savior. Therefore, the tension in the ijawkid and other anti-trinitarians view is well defined. If Christ is the savior, then in order for Christ to save creatures, he cannot be a created being himself; for only God can save sinners. In other words, anti-trinitarians has left their selves with only two options: either accept that Jesus is God and responsible for saving the world, or admit that Jesus cannot redeem humanity. Thus, anti-trinitarians’ views that Jesus is created is at best inconsistent and at worse incoherent or illogical.

ijawkid:

I am only replying this post simply because once again you have maligned my person by making statements I have never made......

The bolded is a belief I do not uphold...I think the inability for you to think past the trinity gibberish or maybe just refering to me after you have been taught clear truths is what is making you lay false claims on me...

You said for d fact Jesus is the saviour of the world then means he must be the same or equal with the Father who claimed to be the only saviour...

Then I said Jesus being the saviour of the world does not negate the fact that the Father remains the one saviour and I gave reasons from the scriptures which even a 2 year old would understand,but as it stands grown azz adults find it hard to understand....

I quote these scriptures...

1 john 4:14

New International Version
(©2011)
And we have seen and testify that
the Father has sent his Son to be
the Savior of the world.

Acts 5:31

English Standard Version
(©2001)
God exalted him at his right hand
as Leader and Savior, to give
repentance to Israel and
forgiveness of sins.



1...Jesus is the saviour of the world which I agree(but you have lied and slandered that I don't ),but not the one SAVIOUR who sent him to act in that role...

2..The Father remains the ONE undisputed SAVIOUR who worked/works out salvation for his people by sending his son(vendor) to be saviour...

I had given exact parallels of individuals who were sent as or to be saviours,but never negated the Father from being the one saviour who does the sending....


So your thought that if Jesus is not God then he can't save us is a white washed LIE!!!....Jesus is Gods perfect firstborn son and indeed was qualified to act in that role...

It was through a perfect man(a created being) that sin entered into the world,and another perfect son of God(who was also created) was appointed to wrong that right...your theory of saviour-ship is out of point...it was through a created man/son sin entered into the world and it is also through a created man/son of God that sin was to be forgiven....scale balanced...



It Is clear the Father sent Jesus...and as we know Jesus isn't the one God the Father who sent him and so Jesus is not the one God or part of him....

And so your theory collapses....


And next time don't lie against my person..it doesn't help you make your point..........

1...Jesus is the saviour of the world which I agree (he agrees)(but you have lied and slandered that I don't ),but not the one SAVIOUR who sent him to act in that role(he disagrees jesus is the savior)...

2..The Father remains the ONE undisputed SAVIOUR who worked/works out salvation for his people by sending his son(vendor) to be saviour...(without the Son did the Father workout the salvation? another Denial that Jesus is the Only savior Just like the father... By now you should have know that the father son and holy spirit are always working in harmony)

I had given exact parallels of individuals who were sent as or to be saviours,but never negated the Father from being the one saviour who does the sending...(so why didnt the Bible say they saved us from our sin)

And then we also have EHUD in the saviour line..that makes it 3......grin...
You guys just can't understand anything.....
Please when Yahweh raised EHUD as savior to his people,did Yahweh stop being the saviour of his people??......
Acts 5:31
New International Version
(©2011)
God exalted him to his own right
hand as Prince and Savior that he
might bring Israel to repentance
and forgive their sins.
God appointed and chose his son as saviour just like he did with EHUD.....
You guys read every scripture with the trinity lens.....

---

Smh!!!!....

Benalvino.....
The delivering job might defer in magnitude,but how does that negate the fact that it was Yahweh who sent EHUD and Jesus respectively to be saviour to his people.......
Even if na one small batcher I save in contrast to the whole world,na still Yahweh send us.......chikena.....
You guys always read meanings into everything because of the trinity....
E no good oo.....
Abeg make I go read for my test them.....

Isaiah 45:20-25 says we hav one God & one savior. If u agree with me that Jesus is ur savior, do we den hav two saviors, the father and the son (as against the book of Isaiah quoted)?

from ijawkid Isn't ehud too a saviour??...are you people blind to exegesis or what??...
1...Yahweh appointed EHUD as saviour
2..Yahweh appointed his son Jesus as saviour...
Who is the doing the appointing??

It was through a perfect man(a created being) that sin entered into the world,and another perfect son of God(who was also created) was appointed to wrong that right...your theory of saviour-ship is out of point...it was through a created man/son sin entered into the world and it is also through a created man/son of God that sin was to be forgiven....scale balanced...

benalvino:

Now y'all can see that he acts like am lying yet again deny Jesus of being our only savior and here is how... Note that this is the only respond i will give concerning this... this thread is not for our 2 dog and cat fight ...

benalvino:

^^^ bible says Jesus is the Only savior it says God is the only savior... which backs up the post you replied to...

benalvino:

^^ as y'all can see... police and firemen save people today... are we Going to say they are saviors like Jesus?

benalvino:

Now because EHUD save some people those people Died... without Jesus paying the ransom and destroying death and sin.. were they saved? 3 saviors? Even if you say the father send them... EHUD is just like Jesus savior of mankind? I know Jesus is Unique because he payed the price for sin... those people EHUD saved were not saved from death yet you get the point?
from true2god he asked

benalvino:

^^^ this shows he doesnt consider jesus to be the only savior going against the bible... the thinks EHUD is also a savior in same manner of Jesus...

benalvino:

the first created being that sinned was satan an angel...(God gave us free will so we can express Genuine Love for him... if he didnt do that they its forced love which is not love)
adam was the first man to sin... and you can see the created are the problems... but spirits(angels) and Humans sin...
Now since angels and man sin... they are part of the problem(created) again creature cannot solve the problem of sin since they are part of it...
So through man(creature) through Jesus(creator) sin was taking away.


if you guys goto this page you will see the statements he made...
https://www.nairaland.com/1318212/firstborn-does-it-mean-first/13

Itsfacts: ^^ this guy has lust his senses. Could you tell your government buddies to release your brain? They are over washing it. this guy just they talk shit here. Why the father they send? Why him no do am by him self. If Jesus na take those koboko carry the cross for sin how e take matter say him no be savior cause papa send am. The bible demostrates only God is the saviour then it also says only Jesus is the savior. Why bible no talk say only EHUD be savior too? If bible say only God be saviour then only Jesus be saviour e no mean say Jesus na God?

frosbel:

this is how warped your theology is, of course GOD is the saviour, but does not the saviour choose how he will save ?

And in this case , did he not choose his only Son, does it not therefore imply that both God and Jesus are saviours but it is GOD who initiated our salvation through his Son Jesus Christ.

Why must you and co keep holding onto Pagan tradition that turns logic on it's head by calling Dad his Son and Son his Dad, is this not babel and confusion.

Romans 5:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Itsfacts: ^^ this guy has lust his senses. Could you tell your government buddies to release your brain? They are over washing it. this guy just they talk shit here. Why the father they send? Why him no do am by him self. If Jesus na take those koboko carry the cross for sin how e take matter say him no be savior cause papa send am. The bible demostrates only God is the saviour then it also says only Jesus is the savior. Why bible no talk say only EHUD be savior too? If bible say only God be saviour then only Jesus be saviour e no mean say Jesus na God?

Itsfacts: ^^ see this ijawmonkey I say the result is the son is the only saviour as recorded in the bible and the father is the only savior as recorded and the bible again said one savior is = Jesus. What is the vendor talk? Father and son and holyspirit always work together.

Itsfacts:
If you dont like Jesus being God and our saviour go change the bible you be mumu boy. Has God do something very important without Jesus and the holy spirit? Like my man talk they work in harmony.

Itsfacts:

when did Jesus need saving? Kindly browse through your fraudulent bible and show me

ijawkid:
Lol........

And as I have shown your daft brain from scriptures,Jesus could only become a savior because he was appointed and exalted to be,not because he has always been.......






Has Jesus done anything important without us here on earth??.......

Remember the more you try to equate Jesus with the Father,I drag Jesus to our level.......

What your brain doesn't get is that the Father sends every body while he himself cannot be sent...he remains the all and all who carries out his biddings through is servants and vendors of which Jesus is part of.......




.....

Like I said the NWT would not be opened by me on this thread.....

See this scripture below..

Hebrews 5:7

New International Version
(©2011)
During the days of Jesus' life on
earth, he offered up prayers and
petitions with fervent cries and
tears to the one who could save
him from death, and he was heard
because of his reverent
submission.


Did Jesus need and depend on a saviour or not??...