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

[Bill the Cat]

Yes it can, watch:

Isaiah 9:6 Father of Eternity
We should apply "father" to Jesus in a titular manner same as we would apply it to Satan as the "father" of lies, John 8:44. Not apply it to any position of "Father" in a Trinity.

We both agree.

Isaiah 9:6 The Mighty God
We should apply "god" to Jesus in a titular manner same as we would apply it to Satan as the "god" of this world, 2 Corinthians 4:4. Not apply it to any position of "God" in a Trinity.

Now you're saying, wait a minute, I didn't mean for that to happen!

No! Christ is referred to as El Gabor here in Isaiah. That term is solely reserved for YHWH in the Old Testament. You are taking English words and importing them into Greek and then comparing them with the english rendering of Hebrew.

[John Goddard]

No! Christ is referred to as El Gabor here in Isaiah. That term is solely reserved for YHWH in the Old Testament. You are taking English words and importing them into Greek and then comparing them with the english rendering of Hebrew.

Not at all. The term is not solely reserved for the God of Israel, thus it may be the title of a man acting by the full power of God.

'el (ale)
strength; as adjective, mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity)

gibbowr (ghib-bore')
powerful; by implication, warrior, tyrant -- champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace

Isaiah 10:21 The remnant shall return even the remnant of Jacob unto the mighty God.

Ezekiel 32:21 The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him they are gone down they lie uncircumcised slain by the sword.

[barnasha]

Wasn't Isaiah written before Jesus was even born? I don't understand the above thread

[RCNicholas]

God giving up authority is God changing.

Untrue. God purposefully choosing to limit Himself is not equivalent to a change in nature.

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.

Trinitarianism CAN argue that He has always been God, because God IS eternal, by definition. You're right that He hasn't always been a man, but you're confusing the fact that Jesus now has a human nature with the idea that we can't say that He was something before he was a man. Once again, you cannot claim that a created being at some point BECAME an uncreated being. If he's God now, He has always been God.

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.

Couple of things:

#1, that verse is about Moses...you really think that's an equivalent example?

#2, the indication is that Moses would be LIKE God to Aaron, "and you shall be to him AS God." That's not the same as possessing a divine nature, which Christ does. Now, if you're claiming an exact equivalence between those two examples, then you really don't believe Jesus IS God, in any literal sense - only in a figurative sense in that He may speak for God or have authority from God - and you're stepping way outside Biblical and Christian orthodoxy (and maybe you don't care about that, I'm just pointing it out).

[John Goddard]

Wasn't Isaiah written before Jesus was even born? I don't understand the above thread

It's a future fulfillment since Hezekiah was only a forerunner of Messiah.

Isaiah 7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim...

Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Beast = Syria
10 Horns = Ephraim
Harlot = Judah

Isaiah 7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim...

Revelation 17:16-17 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

[RCNicholas]

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.

Now the REALLY interesting thing to look at is the places in the New Testament that it quotes an Old Testament passage referring to YHWH, and applies it to Jesus...in which case it becomes much more plausible to refer to Jesus as Lord in a very real, "Big L" sense.

[RCNicholas]

I would say that there is one God and the Spirit is simply His power, not another being, working through men like Jesus, so they can counsel too.

Oh dear... Ever studied with the JWs, John?

[John Goddard]

Untrue. God purposefully choosing to limit Himself is not equivalent to a change in nature...

...Jesus now has a human nature

See how you contradict yourself from one paragraph to the next? It makes everything you say about it sound like hogwash.

According to Trinity, God the Son only had a deity nature, then he changed to have a human nature as well. Plain and simple.

[RCNicholas]

See how you contradict yourself from one paragraph to the next? It makes everything you say about it sound like hogwash.

No, I don't. In order to support that you have to SHOW how I have done so.

According to Trinity, God the Son only had a deity nature, then he changed to have a human nature as well. Plain and simple.

Yes, a human nature AS WELL. Meaning the divine nature, which He had all along, did not change. The divine nature did not change into a human nature. The human nature was added onto the divine nature. Don't know how many ways and times I need to say it. You have to somehow demonstrate how that is a change in the divine nature if you want to keep asserting it.

[John Goddard]

No, I don't. In order to support that you have to SHOW how I have done so.

"God purposefully choosing to limit Himself is not equivalent to a change in nature...

...Jesus now has a human nature"

If you only have a male nature then add a female nature, your nature would not remain strictly male, it would change to include a female nature.

[Bill the Cat]

Not at all. The term is not solely reserved for the God of Israel, thus it may be the title of a man acting by the full power of God.

'el (ale)
strength; as adjective, mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity)

gibbowr (ghib-bore')
powerful; by implication, warrior, tyrant -- champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

Individually, they are used in other places (although that translation of 'el is out of date.) But used together, they always refer to God Almighty.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace

Isaiah 10:21 The remnant shall return even the remnant of Jacob unto the mighty God.

Ezekiel 32:21 The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him they are gone down they lie uncircumcised slain by the sword.

The first two are about YHWH while Ezekiel is not 'el gibbor but 'ayil gibborim

[RCNicholas]

"God purposefully choosing to limit Himself is not equivalent to a change in nature...

...Jesus now has a human nature"

If you only have a male nature then add a female nature, your nature would not remain strictly male, it would change to include a female nature.

Are you referring to a sex change? And then comparing that to the Incarnation?

[John Goddard]

Individually, they are used in other places (although that translation of 'el is out of date.) But used together, they always refer to God Almighty. The first two are about YHWH while Ezekiel is not 'el gibbor but 'ayil gibborim

I'll take your word for now and research Ezekiel later, it's not a big issue for me.

How do you know they always refer to the God Almighty of Trinity, since you agree Father in Isaiah 9:6 does not literally refer to the Father person of Trinity?

How do you know it doesn't refer to a man as "almighty god" being placed in that position by God, as Satan was given great power to be god of this world?

[John Goddard]

Are you referring to a sex change? And then comparing that to the Incarnation?

No, it's just an example of adding a different nature.

What if you as a man added the nature of a dog and sometimes had instincts of a dog even though your man nature was able to overcome them, would your total nature be changed?

Of course.

So when Trinitarians argue that Son the God took on the nature of a man to experience temptations of a man and things like that, then turn around and claim that Son the God's nature never changed, it seems either confused or insincere.

[RCNicholas]

No, it's just an example of adding a different nature.

The problem is your analogy has to be realistically equivalent.