₦airaland Forum

Nachmonides:
John says that Jesus was God. Not another God.

You are confused... and an author of confusion

you said "This establishes Jesus (the Word) as both distinct from God the Father ("with God"wink and fully divine ("was God"wink. It sets the foundation for understanding that Jesus is God made manifest."

You think you are talking to idiots..

Then said,"If John says that Jesus (the word, who he calls God) was with God.


Is he not saying that there are 2 persons?"

Then you give your response above when asked Jesus is the other God there?

Nachmonides:
I have no problem with a yes or no question.

It's what was attached to the yes or no that seemed unintelligent.

so this question he asked you seemed "unintelligent" to you right

"So the word and the father are not the same right, They are two Gods? Yes or no?"

Very simple question but you see like the snake that you are you are looking for grass or tree to hide in

Nachmonides:
Don't be a fool.

The son of man is a term used frequently in the old testament that's why he picked that narrative for himself to say he is that son of man that was spoken of. He is God, he is the son of man.


And no, God did not change to not being God, he was 100% God and 100% man in Jesus.

intelligent one

Num.23.19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,...

Hosea 11:9 I am God not a man

But your god is a man or he became a man?

Meanwhile
Please where was Son of Man spoken about repeatedly in the old testament

I know Ezekiel being referred to as son of man repeatedly though

Nachmonides:
Jesus cannot be the same God, the father because John clearly tells us Jesus was with God.

lets not pretend you didn't write this then you come here and say this because you want to drag others to hell as well right?

Nachmonides:
John says that Jesus was God. Not another God.

Just look at, you think you are talking to yourself. Even if you delete them better pray heaven deletes their own record as well

Nachmonides:
Why? — because God the father says in scriptures that there is none beside him, no one like him, and his people even say that he is one, singular.

Nachmonides:
"Yes or No", why are you boxing up God to your ideas.

you think he was putting God inside a box where it's you putting yourself in a box with your ideas, hopefully not an eternal box

Nachmonides:
Exactly, why the need to identify God as God, the father?

Is there some God, the son?

That's exactly what John is saying, yes there is.

brilliant logic and answer, so there's probably also God the mother right?

Nachmonides:
Yes, haha. That's exactly it.

People have seen God, but not God the father.
That's the Submission of John, God became flesh and died for man.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


Please enlighten us with your nonsense let us laugh

John.14.9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father'?

Nachmonides:
What's your basis, foundation for the statement: "God is consciousness"

Well, that is what the whole Bible is talking about.
The clue is in the creation of man..

Figure it out..

SIRTee15:
Resorting to abuse won't safe U.
Ancient Judiasm believed in a divine messiah.
Evidence abound everywhere in their scriptures.
We can start with Daniel 7

Quote the Daniel 7 you are talking about.

Nachmonides:
Hello and thank you for your responses, I have a question or two for you:
The same I asked Gohf, which have since seen silence. I perceive you're a JW like Gohf.
1, What does your bible say about John 1:1 in comparison to the original greek, and what can you conclude from careful reading of VV.1-14
2, What do you think about the connection between verse 16 of Revelation 22 and the preceding verses?
If V.16 begins with “I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches..."
Which things, the ones said before or after (5 last verses)?
If God is the one coming in V.12, and then V.13 says he is the Alpha and the Omega, as Gohf has opined that God (the Father) is the one speaking in VV.12-15.
What do you have to say about Revelation 1:4-8 where we see almost the same texts of VV.12-15.
Who is the one coming that every eye will see?—which then follows with the "I am the Alpha and the Omega" statement.

It's good to know answers to all the questions we have about faith in God but we have to take it one at a time otherwise everything will be complicated.
Instead of focusing on what you were taught from childhood about God why not ask yourself how this belief is benefiting mankind because that's the purpose of God the supreme being not just arguing yet everything is contradictory and people claiming believers aren't worshiping harmoniously coupled with the fact that they are fighting and killing one another at the slightest chance of politics and racism!

SIRTee15:
No I mean logos acting as a person and creating the world instead of the Father just speaking it.
That's what I mean.

Would U accept if I bring the evidence
I don't want to stress myself or waste my time if U will not accept evidence from Jewish scripvtures.

Bring it on...I will only accept if in the Hebrew scriptures it says the logos will come as a man in the future to die for the sins of the world..

gohf:
Don't deceive yourself that Jesus agreed with the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the council of men and teachers who taught lies and practiced a lie.

Of course Jesus didn't agree with religionists who are contradicting themselves in teachings he formed a group and taught them to have the same line of thought regarding faith in God! John 17:22; 1Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3

Truthseeker10:
You said two persons have one identity Which is God.
So if one of the person has been seen, does that not mean that one has seen the identity which is God? So how can John 1:18 be correct?

Yes, one has seen God (the Son, or the word), and yes his Identity (or his person, the Son), but one hasn't seen the person, the Father.

If one has seen God, one has seen his person or identity, but not his essence; his nature.



Let me relate it to humans.
The essence of humans refers to the fundamental nature or defining attributes of what it means to be human. In philosophical, theological, and biological contexts.

So these attributes are like, Rationality, Freewill, Moral Capacity, Consciousness, Creativity, Adaptability, e.t c

These attributes are what it means to be human. That is our essence.

It is more abstract that we can only know exist when man acts.

So the essence of God refers to His fundamental nature or "what God is"—the qualities and attributes that define Him as God, some are:

One: God is indivisible and singular in essence, meaning there is only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4, "The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Infinite: God’s nature is limitless, not constrained by space, time, or any boundaries.

Eternal: God’s essence exists outside of time—He has no beginning or end. (Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Immutable: God’s essence does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change."

Nachmonides:
Yes, one has seen God (the Son, or the word), and yes his Identity (or his person, the Son), but one hasn't seen the person, the Father.

If one has seen God, one has seen his person or identity, but not his essence; his nature.



Let me relate it to humans.
The essence of humans refers to the fundamental nature or defining attributes of what it means to be human. In philosophical, theological, and biological contexts.

So these attributes are like, Rationality, Freewill, Moral Capacity, Consciousness, Creativity, Adaptability, e.t c

These attributes are what it means to be human. That is our essence.

It is more abstract that we can only know exist when man acts.

So the essence of God refers to His fundamental nature or "what God is"—the qualities and attributes that define Him as God, some are:

One: God is indivisible and singular in essence, meaning there is only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4, "The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Infinite: God’s nature is limitless, not constrained by space, time, or any boundaries.

Eternal: God’s essence exists outside of time—He has no beginning or end. (Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Immutable: God’s essence does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change."

Basically the above is what it means to be God


The essence of God defines these amongst many others:

His uniqueness: God is unlike any other being.

His perfection: God lacks nothing and is complete in Himself.

His worthiness: God alone deserves worship because of His divine essence.


Essence is seen when God acts, as we God do, we begin to see his essence, so in that he comes in the person of Jesus, as flesh, we see the essence of;

His humility in choosing such a humble beginning

His sovereignty in orchestrating the salvation of the world

His transcendence and mystery in doing something beyond human understanding

His faithfulness to His promises and His grace in bringing salvation

His compassion and identification with humanity’s weakness and suffering

Nachmonides:
Basically the above is what it means to be God


The essence of God defines these amongst many others:

His uniqueness: God is unlike any other being.

His perfection: God lacks nothing and is complete in Himself.

His worthiness: God alone deserves worship because of His divine essence.


Essence is seen when God acts, as we God do, we begin to see his essence, so in that he comes in the person of Jesus, as flesh, we see the essence of;

His humility in choosing such a humble beginning

His sovereignty in orchestrating the salvation of the world

His transcendence and mystery in doing something beyond human understanding

His faithfulness to His promises and His grace in bringing salvation

His compassion and identification with humanity’s weakness and suffering

God can have an essence because He is a person, or rather, God's essence is what defines Him as a person.


So some his attributes include being eternal, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful; all these define what it means to be God.


A person refers to an individual being that possesses certain attributes typically associated with humanity or a higher level of self-awareness, rationality, and personal identity.

It cannot be lower, insects are lower, insects are not considered persons because they do not have the qualities or attributes typically associated with personhood (self-awareness, rationality, moral agency, etc.).


So, personhood is understood from the framework mankind has set for himself.
Mankind's Framework: The framework for defining personhood is often anthropocentric—meaning it is based on what humans know, experience, and value. Since insects or other animals don't meet the specific criteria that humans use (such as rationality, self-reflection, moral judgment), they are not seen as persons in this framework.

Nachmonides:
God can have an essence because He is a person, or rather, God's essence is what defines Him as a person.


So some his attributes include being eternal, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful; all these define what it means to be God.


A person refers to an individual being that possesses certain attributes typically associated with humanity or a [b]higher level [/b]of self-awareness, rationality, and personal identity.

It cannot be lower, insects are lower, insects are not considered persons because they do not have the qualities or attributes typically associated with personhood (self-awareness, rationality, moral agency, etc.).


So, personhood is understood from the framework mankind has set for himself.
Mankind's Framework: The framework for defining personhood is often anthropocentric—meaning it is based on what humans know, experience, and value. Since insects or other animals don't meet the specific criteria that humans use (such as rationality, self-reflection, moral judgment), they are not seen as persons in this framework.

God can simply not make sense to mankind unless he comes to mankind through mankind's framework.


One man's language framework is Hebrew, another is Greek. For the Hebrew to understand the Greek, the Greek will have to be filtered through to the Hebrew language for understanding.

In the process, certain things will miss; tone, passion... Anyways that's for another day.


Basically, mankind formed what a person should be, not God.

So we are using this framework to understand the writings of John.

If you say we are not using God's word.
God's word was written in a language framework as well. Languages formed by men. Why? — God cannot make sense to us unless we understand him, a lower being cannot understand a higher being unless the higher being descends, or the higher being elevates the lower being through a framework.

gohf:
intelligent one

Num.23.19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,...

Hosea 11:9 I am God not a man

But your god is a man or he became a man?

Meanwhile
Please where was Son of Man spoken about repeatedly in the old testament

I know Ezekiel being referred to as son of man repeatedly though

I'm referring to Daniel 7:13-14: The "Son of Man" title takes on a messianic and divine connotation in Daniel 7:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven... And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him."
In this passage, "Son of Man" is associated with a figure who is given eternal dominion and worshiped by all people. This is the messianic title that Jesus often uses for Himself in the Gospels, aligning Himself with the divine figure in Daniel 7.


The Son of man coming on the clouds is similar to the coming on the clouds in Revelation 1:4-8



In fact here's the whole thing, see if it's not similar with Daniel 7:13-14

Revelation 1:4-8 (NIV)

> 4 John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father— to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all peoples on earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

gohf:
intelligent one

Num.23.19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,...

Hosea 11:9 I am God not a man

But your god is a man or he became a man?

Meanwhile
Please where was Son of Man spoken about repeatedly in the old testament

I know Ezekiel being referred to as son of man repeatedly though

Let me address your Objection:

In Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9, the Bible says that God is not a man, emphasizing that God's nature is distinct from humanity. These verses stress God's transcendence and immensity, but they don’t contradict the idea that God can manifest Himself in a human form.


Take your time, research for yourself. It doesn't contradict it.

gohf:
intelligent one

Num.23.19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,...

Hosea 11:9 I am God not a man

But your god is a man or he became a man?

Meanwhile
Please where was Son of Man spoken about repeatedly in the old testament

I know Ezekiel being referred to as son of man repeatedly though

Nachmonides:
Let me address your Objection:

In Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9, the Bible says that God is not a man, emphasizing that God's nature is distinct from humanity. These verses stress God's transcendence and immensity, but they don’t contradict the idea that God can manifest Himself in a human form.


Take your time, research for yourself. It doesn't contradict it.

OK, you two, how many times in the Bible was God called "a MAN of war"?

And can you two interprete this passage below.
Son of man and Ancient of days

DaddyCoool:
OK, you two, how many times in the Bible was God called "a MAN of war"?

And can you two interprete this passage below.
Son of man and Ancient of days

.

Daniel 7:13-14 shows a prophetic vision of the Messiah, as the "Son of Man" approaching God, the Father (the Ancient of Days) to receive eternal authority, glory, and a kingdom. His reign is universal, inclusive of all nations and languages, and everlasting.
.
We know Daniel 7:13-14 refers to a messianic figure, not just a human being, for several reasons:

1. The "Son of Man" is given everlasting dominion, glory, and a universal kingdom—attributes that go beyond any human ruler and are reserved for a divine figure (see Psalm 145:13).



2. In Jewish thought, coming "with the clouds of heaven" symbolizes divine presence and authority (Exodus 19:9; Psalm 104:3). This imagery aligns the "Son of Man" with God’s heavenly power.



3. Jesus explicitly identified Himself as the "Son of Man" (e.g., Matthew 24:30, Mark 14:62), claiming this passage as a prophecy about His divine mission and kingdom. His audience recognized this as a messianic claim. The Pharisees and Jewish leaders literally wanted to kill him for claiming to be the Son of man, accusing him of blasphemy.

DaddyCoool:
OK, you two, how many times in the Bible was God called "a MAN of war"?

And can you two interprete this passage below.
Son of man and Ancient of days

The phrase "a man of war" referring to God appears once in the Bible, specifically in Exodus 15:3 (KJV), and the context was that of the Israelites' deliverance from Pharaoh's army at the Red Sea.

GothamCities:
The verse is Micah 5:2:

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The verse above clearly prophesies about the Messiah, Jesus Christ and clearly states that His going forth is from EVERLASTING. That is to say, He is from eternity past. He has no beginning. Some translations translated the word 'owlams' as ancient times instead of Everlasting. However, META AI clarifies that the term 'Ancient Times" as used by some translators shouldn't be seen as a time calculated within the time of earth but that it means that Christ had been existing before time was created. I have attached a screenshot from Meta AI for your perusal.

I have also attached a screenshot from the original Hebrew Interlinear rendering of the verse. The Hebrew word OWLAMS actually means Everlasting. Jesus is from Everlasting. From eternity past. He had no beginning. The only person who has no beginning is God. Hence if Both God and the Messiah have no beginning, then God is the one who manifested Himself as the Messiah. This will make you understand why Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" - John 8:58.

No matter the scripture you may want to quote as a Jehovah Witness or as any other worshipper of some false gods, it does not negate the fact that Jesus was from Everlasting as stated in this scripture. Jesus is not Angel Michael. Jehovah Witnesses are peddlers of demonic doctrines. This verse further establishes the truth about the Trinity.

If you have not embraced Jesus, I admonish you to come to Jesus today. Do not listen to the lies of satan. Religion cannot save you. Only God can save you by Himself. And this God is He who manifested Himself to man through Jesus Christ the Savior. His hands are stretched forth today, "No one gets unto the Father except through Him" John 14:6. And be rest assured, anyone that comes to Him, He will in no wise cast out. John 6:37.

No one can save you from God's wrath which is coming upon this sinful world. Only God can, and He will do it through Jesus - the One who is from Everlasting to Everlasting.

LoLz. The storybook proves the storybook is true.

LordReed:
LoLz. The storybook proves the storybook is true.

What would you consider valid evidence for the Bible’s truth. What is your criteria for truth?

Nachmonides:
Yes, one has seen God (the Son, or the word), and yes his Identity (or his person, the Son), but one hasn't seen the person, the Father.

If one has seen God, one has seen his person or identity, but not his essence; his nature.



Let me relate it to humans.
The essence of humans refers to the fundamental nature or defining attributes of what it means to be human. In philosophical, theological, and biological contexts.

So these attributes are like, Rationality, Freewill, Moral Capacity, Consciousness, Creativity, Adaptability, e.t c

These attributes are what it means to be human. That is our essence.

It is more abstract that we can only know exist when man acts.

So the essence of God refers to His fundamental nature or "what God is"—the qualities and attributes that define Him as God, some are:

One: God is indivisible and singular in essence, meaning there is only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4, "The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Infinite: God’s nature is limitless, not constrained by space, time, or any boundaries.

Eternal: God’s essence exists outside of time—He has no beginning or end. (Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Immutable: God’s essence does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change."

Oga in John 1:18 did John say no one has seen the Father(person) or that no one has seen God(identity) according to your explanation?

Are you saying that there is A Godship(identity)of the father that is seperate from the Godship(identity) of the son?

So is John 1:1 talking of two Godship(identity)?

Truthseeker10:
Oga in John 1:18 did John say no one has seen the Father(person) or thay no one has seen God(identity) according to your explanation?

Are you saying that there is A Godship(identity)of the father that is seperate from the Godship(identity) of the son?

So is John 1:1 talking of two Godship(identity)?

A separate godship would imply that there are two or more distinct divine natures or gods that are not unified in essence or being. In other words, each "godship" would refer to a separate, independent, and fully autonomous divine entity. This concept would conflict with the idea of monotheism, which is the belief in one God.



Separate godships are often associated with polytheism, the belief in multiple gods. In polytheistic religions, gods are distinct beings, each with its own divine nature, authority, and role.

For example, in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, gods like Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades were viewed as separate beings with their own realms and powers.

Nachmonides:
A separate godship would imply that there are two or more distinct divine natures or gods that are not unified in essence or being. In other words, each "godship" would refer to a separate, independent, and fully autonomous divine entity. This concept would conflict with the idea of monotheism, which is the belief in one God.



Separate godships are often associated with polytheism, the belief in multiple gods. In polytheistic religions, gods are distinct beings, each with its own divine nature, authority, and role.

For example, in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, gods like Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades were viewed as separate beings with their own realms and powers.

No, John1:1 is not talking of more than one Godship.

Nachmonides:
A separate godship would imply that there are two or more distinct divine natures or gods that are not unified in essence or being. In other words, each "godship" would refer to a separate, independent, and fully autonomous divine entity. This concept would conflict with the idea of monotheism, which is the belief in one God.



Separate godships are often associated with polytheism, the belief in multiple gods. In polytheistic religions, gods are distinct beings, each with its own divine nature, authority, and role.

For example, in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, gods like Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades were viewed as separate beings with their own realms and powers.

Oga.....so is Jesus the same God(identity) that he was with in John 1:1 according to your explanation?

Nachmonides:
What would you consider valid evidence for the Bible’s truth. What is your criteria for truth?

External confirmation with hard evidence. Like evidence of a global catastrophic flood (which we don’t have) or repeatability of some miracle, like someone turning water to wine in a controlled setting (which I bet someone will say you can't test god). This is in general, all evidence must be evaluated on their own merits on a case by case basis.

Truthseeker10:
Oga.....so is Jesus the same God(identity) that he was with in John 1:1 according to your explanation?

Essence is what a being is, and identity is who a being is.

He is not the same identity as God, the father.
He is however, of the same essence ( divine nature).

Nachmonides:
Essence is what a being is, and identity is who a being is.

He is not the same identity as God, the father.
He is however, of the same essence ( divine nature).

So Jesus and the father have two different identities(God)?

So please where does John 1:18 mention essence(God)?

Nachmonides :
What would you consider valid evidence for the Bible’s truth. What is your criteria for truth?

That's exactly what no atheist or agnostic can deny not just quoting LETTERS out of a book that's not revered by all.

Paul said in his letter to Christians in Corinth:


He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. ‭2 Corinthians 3:6 NIV‬

What's the import of this statement?

Paul knew how each Judaist used to ARGUE using the scriptures to back his personal opinion so it's like LETTER or CODE that each person holds so dear yet they keep fighting and killing one another over the CODE but what of God's SPIRIT?
This is what unites believers to WORK together as ONE {John 17:22} so that no atheist or agnostic can deny the evidence that's obvious to everyone not just what is read in a book to back the same book but FINE WORKS that's SEEN globally {Matthew 5:14-16} everywhere true Christians are doing what Jesus taught them Unitedly! Act 1:8

All of you are quoting the scriptures for sure but you can never ever find one person to join you in doing what Jesus commanded his disciples.

I remember my friend in Deeperlife back then he asked me:
"How do you (Jehovah's Witnesses) keep the preaching and teaching work at heart so that you're always doing it? I tried to organize my people in Deeperlife but each time we start it doesn't last more than a week or two before everyone gets tired but you Jehovah's Witnesses never gets tired of the work. Please what is the secret?"
Back then i was still new among the JWs and i'm not good in sighting the scriptures but today i know why no other group can WORK together no matter how much you people try it always end up in arguments and each person will go his or her own way justifying himself or herself while the assignment Jesus gave his disciples is left only for Jehovah's Witnesses! Matthew 10:11-13; 28:19-20; Luke 10:6

LordReed:
External confirmation with hard evidence. Like evidence of a global catastrophic flood (which we don’t have) or repeatability of some miracle, like someone turning water to wine in a controlled setting (which I bet someone will say you can't test god). This is in general, all evidence must be evaluated on their own merits on a case by case basis.

Balderdash, I'll first tackle the method you have mentioned, which is, it has to be scientific. That's a dishonest thing to do.

Science is limited to the physical realm and is not equipped to evaluate or prove concepts that are outside of it, such as faith, morality, or divine inspiration. These are not always testable or repeatable in a laboratory setting.

For instance, the existence of God, the purpose of life, or the afterlife are metaphysical or philosophical questions that go beyond the purview of scientific experimentation.

Truth is not limited to only what can be scientifically proven; some truths exist in experience, relationships, and faith that cannot be captured through empirical means.
The main problem with looking for scientific truth in religious matters is that science and religion operate in different realms. Science seeks to explain the physical world using observation and evidence, while religious truths often deal with spiritual, moral, and metaphysical questions that are not always measurable or observable. This doesn't mean that scientific truth is irrelevant, but it does highlight that there are different kinds of truth that require different approaches to understanding.