Is there any Biblical evidence that proves that Jesus is God?

[RCNicholas]

It would be changed, it would have an additional human nature.

The divine nature would not be changed. There would be something in ADDITION to the divine nature, that's not a change to the divine nature itself.

But there's nothing in the Bible preventing a man from having an additional God nature, man can change.

A created being cannot become an uncreated being. That makes no sense.

That's why you can only argue for the current state of the man Jesus as God.

Um, no, exactly the opposite...if Jesus is God and God is uncreated, timeless, and eternal, then Jesus must have always been God.

[John Goddard]

The divine nature would not be changed. There would be something in ADDITION to the divine nature, that's not a change to the divine nature itself.

That something would have made his divine nature lower than the angels due to addition of a human nature, according to the common Trinitarian argument, so his divine nature would change if you interpret it that way. And if you do then you are going to contradict elsewhere when it says God does not change.

A created being cannot become an uncreated being. That makes no sense.

Um, no, exactly the opposite...if Jesus is God and God is uncreated, timeless, and eternal, then Jesus must have always been God.

And as I've been saying, we can only argue for the current God state of Jesus, with powers to judge humans, etc. Not any eternal, uncreated nature.

The man Jesus cannot be uncreated, timeless, and eternal, because men aren't uncreated, timeless, and eternal, and also, God doesn't change into a man.

But Jesus can be God over us, as a man given that power by God.

[JAYMZ]

God doesn't change, so that prevents God from becoming a man, and thus Jesus existing eternally.

However, God can give a man God powers and make the man change into a God. God and God's Word in flesh, but not changed into flesh. God is still there unchanged, only Jesus changed.

So if Jesus is fully man and fully God, he must have become a God later, not a man later.

BrotherSka can't really argue the Adoptionist answer as to the current God state of Jesus, but he could argue against the Trinitarian one and an eternal state.

The distinction between your view and the orthodox view is that the Son has always existed with the Father. They are co-equal and co-eternal. The Word is the Son and the Word was made flesh. The Son was not flesh before this, but now forever has a glorified, resurrected body.

The adoption view does not make sense in light of John 1:1-3, John 1:14-17, John 6:41-42, John 8:58, John 17:5.

[RCNicholas]

That something would have made his divine nature lower than the angels due to addition of a human nature, according to the common Trinitarian argument, so his divine nature would change if you interpret it that way. And if you do then you are going to contradict elsewhere when it says God does not change.

I don't think Trinitarians would generally say that verse is indicative of a change in the divine nature, but rather Christ's willful subjection and limitation of Himself by adding a human nature to Himself (He "took the form of a bondservant" and came "in the likeness of men" and was "found in appearance as a man.") This does not mean Jesus ceased to be God, but that He rather willingly subjected Himself. So no, that's not a contradiction of Trinitarianism...if anything it seems to support it by indicating that Jesus was "in the form of God" prior to the Incarnation.

And as I've been saying, we can only argue for the current God state of Jesus, with powers to judge humans, etc. Not any eternal, uncreated nature.

What do you mean by "we can only..." Are you saying the Bible does not address this, or that Adoptionism does not address it?

The man Jesus cannot be uncreated, timeless, and eternal, because men aren't uncreated, timeless, and eternal, and also, God doesn't change into a man.

God did not "change into" a man at the Incarnation, that's where you're going wrong. God the Son added a human nature to His divine one.

But Jesus can be God over us, as a man given that power by God.

Again, that makes nonsense of the word "God," by definition.

[John Goddard]

The distinction between your view and the orthodox view is that the Son has always existed with the Father. They are co-equal and co-eternal. The Word is the Son and the Word was made flesh. The Son was not flesh before this, but now forever has a glorified, resurrected body.

If the Son is God and changed by having flesh and dying, then God changed, which is a biblical contradiction.

But if God dwells in a man and gives a man His power, that man can die or change all he wants and it's not going to affect God. His power can simply be on loan to the man, or prophet as the case usually would be elsewhere in the Bible.

The adoption view does not make sense in light of John 1:1-3, John 1:14-17, John 6:41-42, John 8:58, John 17:5.

John 1:1-3, 1:14-17: God's Word is God's commands, desires, plans, laws. When expressed through a man, God does not become man, but God is manifested through the flesh.

John 6:41-42: I believe Jesus is resurrected son of David and Bathsheba, so he came down from heaven but as a resurrected human.

Then God began speaking through Jesus fully after he was baptized, and so at that point, Jesus was the Word of God in flesh. Come down from heaven as a resurrected human.

John 8:58: I am like Melchizedek, who Abraham saw, honoring not myself for the position, Hebrews 5:4-5, John 8:54,56.

John 17:5: The glory was in the eternal plan God had for Jesus, which Jesus soon hoped to realize. Not that the man Jesus existed with glory eternally.

[John Goddard]

a change in the divine nature: Christ's willful subjection and limitation of Himself by adding a human nature to Himself...

God giving up authority is God changing.

What do you mean by "we can only..." Are you saying the Bible does not address this, or that Adoptionism does not address it?

Since the "total" Jesus is now fully God and fully man regardless of how you and I think he got there, neither Adoptionism nor Trinitarianism can argue for the "total" Jesus as always being God eternally. Since Jesus is also a man, and men aren't eternal.

Again, that makes nonsense of the word "God," by definition.

Jesus can be God over us, as a man given that power by God.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him instead of God.

[Bill the Cat]

Jesus is God to us. It's all in the context.

No. It is in His nature. He shares the divine nature with the Father, and has forever. There was never a time where Jesus was not God in nature.

[John Goddard]

No. It is in His nature. He shares the divine nature with the Father, and has forever. There was never a time where Jesus was not God in nature.

The eternal nature of God is perfection. It is not made and developed, it is eternal and always was perfect.

We are told this was not the case with Jesus, he was a man who became perfect through his obedience to God.

Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

And so Jesus was given power of God, by God, because he proved himself to use it wisely through complete obedience to God's will.

The verses here support Adoptinism, not Trinitarianism. Even though you can find other verses that can be read either way. We've discussed some, like glory of God's plan for Jesus before the world was.

[Bill the Cat]

Focusing on His human nature and assuming that is His only nature is where you err.

[John Goddard]

Focusing on His human nature and assuming that is His only nature is where you err.

I don't assume that. I believe Jesus was born with a human nature and fully given a God nature, so that he is God to us.

Humans can be given a God nature, by God, in addition to their human natures. Man can change, according to the Bible.

But the Bible says God doesn't change. Including, changing to take on a human nature in addition to His own God nature.

Psalms 102:26-27 ...as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Man changes, God does not. That's Adoptionism, and biblical.

It's not biblical to have God changing to take on a human nature, Trinitarianism.

The end result is the same, Jesus is fully man and fully God, but the means are different.

It's kind of a nitpicky thing to differ over, but it's major enough to consider my doctrine not Christian, and your doctrine unbiblical, depending on POV. So there we are.

[JAYMZ]

I don't assume that. I believe Jesus was born with a human nature and fully given a God nature, so that he is God to us.

Humans can be given a God nature, by God, in addition to their human natures. Man can change, according to the Bible.

But the Bible says God doesn't change. Including, changing to take on a human nature in addition to His own God nature.

Psalms 102:26-27 ...as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Man changes, God does not. That's Adoptionism, and biblical.

It's not biblical to have God changing to take on a human nature, Trinitarianism.

The end result is the same, Jesus is fully man and fully God, but the means are different.

It's kind of a nitpicky thing to differ over, but it's major enough to consider my doctrine not Christian, and your doctrine unbiblical, depending on POV. So there we are.

God at times, in the old testament, took on physical form for limited amounts of time.

Gen 18:1-5, God appeared with two angels. He had his feet washed and he ate.

Gen 32:22-30, God wrestled with Jacob, this is a physical act.

Joshua 5:13-15, This has to be God because he bowed, and it was holy ground.

lets not forget about the " the angel of the Lord " in Numbers and Judges.

It is very reasonable to believe that these are pre-incarnate appearances of the Son ( Jesus ). They cant be angels because of the context of the verses.

You are hung up on this idea that Jesus being in heaven with a physical body, but the Son did not take on an additional nature ( human ) until he was in Marys womb. ( but their are times he took physical form on limited basis before this )

Your view sounds more like God taking possession of Jesus body, and I find no scriptural support for Jesus being Davids son, resurrected.

[John Goddard]

God at times, in the old testament, took on physical form for limited amounts of time.

Gen 18:1-5, God appeared with two angels. He had his feet washed and he ate.

Gen 32:22-30, God wrestled with Jacob, this is a physical act.

Joshua 5:13-15, This has to be God because he bowed, and it was holy ground.

lets not forget about the " the angel of the Lord " in Numbers and Judges.

It is very reasonable to believe that these are pre-incarnate appearances of the Son ( Jesus ). They cant be angels because of the context of the verses.

Of course they can, Abraham was talking to God, and also talking to angels. Angels are angels and God is God, and God doesn't change to take on a human nature.

I guess you could believe that Michael is an angel and Jesus too, like JWs. But that would be your own interpretation of what an angel really is.

You are hung up on this idea that Jesus being in heaven with a physical body, but the Son did not take on an additional nature ( human ) until he was in Marys womb. ( but their are times he took physical form on limited basis before this )

I don't understand what you mean, hung up on Jesus being in Heaven with a body. When did I say he was in Heaven with a body any time before he ascended after the crucifixion?

Your view sounds more like God taking possession of Jesus body...

God's Spirit did take possession of his body right after baptism.

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

...and I find no scriptural support for Jesus being Davids son, resurrected.

That's kind of a side issue, there are a couple threads about it if you want to discuss that one more. But here's a quick one:

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

You might see this as evidence of Jesus being one of those angels. I see it as evidence Jesus was David's son resurrected and come into the world again as a human and leaving again as one.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Jesus was made according to resurrection by the Spirit with Mary. And made according to the flesh by sex between David and Bathsheba.

--------------------

So you may find no scriptural support for it because you can only see your interpretation of the text, as with the angels.

[R. Hoeppner]

John 1:1-3,14 Amplified Bible
"IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was present originally with God.
All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth."Here it is clear that Christ pre-existed both with and as, God. He participated in the creation of all things. The personality called the Word is none other than the Creator.
Yet Isaiah 44:24 (AMP) records this statement: "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and He Who formed you from the womb: I am the Lord, Who made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, Who spread out the earth by Myself [who was with Me]?--" And Genesis 1:26 (AMP) says, "God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth. We know the Father, the Word and the Spirit (Genesis 1:2) were involved in the creation, and the Hebrew word for God used in Genesis 1:1 is translated in the plural (Thou shalt have no other gods before me). The only explanation is that One God exists in three persons.
When Moses asked God what His name was, our Bibles record that God identified Himself as I AM. Jesus used the same exact wording when asked (note the reaction that followed that statement).
Again see the reaction when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Following His resurrection he received worship -
Jesus Christ is both the Son of God and God the Son!! Isaiah said it this way, " For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace." - Isaiah 9:6 (AMP).

Jesus is LORD!

[Bill the Cat]

I don't assume that. I believe Jesus was born with a human nature and fully given a God nature, so that he is God to us.

Exactly. You assume that it is so.

Humans can be given a God nature, by God, in addition to their human natures. Man can change, according to the Bible.

No! Man can not be given a God "NATURE". They can be given temporary authority to act on God's behalf, but they never take on God's nature. The nature of God is not created or redistributed. The creator is not the created and the created can never share in the nature of the creator.

But the Bible says God doesn't change. Including, changing to take on a human nature in addition to His own God nature.

Sorry, but that's not God changing.And to take your logic one step further:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever

How could Jesus be the same before He was "adopted" and still be the same?

Psalms 102:26-27 ...as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

If the Father had no son before the Baptism and Annunciation, then He changed from "not a Father" to a Father. Even at creation He changed from "not a creator" to the Creator (through Jesus Christ).

Man changes, God does not. That's Adoptionism, and biblical.

It's heretical and sorely misses Jewish wisdom theology.

It's not biblical to have God changing to take on a human nature, Trinitarianism.

It certainly is.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever

The end result is the same, Jesus is fully man and fully God, but the means are different.

No, it is completely different. If Jesus is still fully God, then the Father changed from beilg the only eternal God to a separate God and one was formed after Him, despite what He said in Isaiah. You've gored yourself with your own ox.

It's kind of a nitpicky thing to differ over, but it's major enough to consider my doctrine not Christian, and your doctrine unbiblical, depending on POV. So there we are.[/QUOTE]

[barnasha]

Jesus is LORD!

I always find this sentence most interesting.

"LORD" is the KJV rendition of YHVH the sacred name for God.

Jesus is lord with a little m, i.e. master or rabbi.

Knowing that Jesus is lord can help guide you to become one, God willing.