Is Jesus God or a god?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

I see you are still at it.



We’ve shown this is a false claim, yet you keep making it. I thought you were attempting to reform your ways. Please refrain from stating an out in out falsehood. If you disagree, because you can’t comprehend how it works, fine, but to continue to state a falsehood borders on dishonesty.

Regards,

Paul

Answer my question please: Was Jesus Christ a human being? YES or NO?

Remember Jesus said,"Let your yes be yes and your no be no otherwise it comes from the evil one."

But you're unable to answer with a straight yes or no despite repeated requests.

Do you know what happened to the foolish man who coudn't give the Master a straight answer in one of Jesus's parables? He got thrown into the outer darkness. How are you going to answer this question when you stand before the Judge of souls?

best wishes,

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,
Thank you for your response,

Hi Paul,

Answer my question please: Was Jesus Christ a human being? YES or NO?

I have answered your question, directly and very specifically on post #98, where I said, “Christ was unique, the “Person” or who of Christ was a man, like you or I, the “Being” or what of Christ is God, unlike you or I. The “Person” of Christ is finite in the sense that He took on the form of a man, He became flesh; the “Being” of Christ is infinite. The fallacy of your argument goes back to my original post on this thread when I made the observation that you were attempting to bind the Creator to your, (a creatures view), this will never work.”

Just to make it clear, when I mean unique, Christ is the ONLY human who ever lived that had both natures that of a man, like you and I and that of God. How is “Christ was a man like you or I” not a direct answer? Was it you didn’t like me throwing in the term “unique”?

However, this wasn’t the issue, was it? Your claim has to do with the Being of God and the Persons of God. I’ve shown that the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate the law on non-contradiction because “Being” and “Person” are not used in the “exact same sense” within the teaching of the Trinity. Even the “Being” of Christ’s dual natures are not used in the same sense, one nature is that of man the other of God.

Hi Paul,

Remember Jesus said,"Let your yes be yes and your no be no otherwise it comes from the evil one."

best wishes,

Thank you for your admonition but I believe the current dilemma is best described by Paul who said, “Professing themselves, (guys like you) to be wise, they became fools” Ro 1:22. Your problem is that because you cannot comprehend how God can be both God and man at the same time, you are denying the very plain teaching of Scripture.

Hi Paul,

But you're unable to answer with a straight yes or no despite repeated requests.

Do you know what happened to the foolish man who coudn't give the Master a straight answer in one of Jesus's parables? He got thrown into the outer darkness. How are you going to answer this question when you stand before the Judge of souls?

Well, if your presupposition that I’m wrong ends up being the case, I will inquire with Christ why He allowed John to mislead me by writing that He, Christ was the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, John 1:18. If John is wrong, so be it, but I believe I got a fairly good argument with which to press my case.

However, you on the other hand will have some explaining to do. If John didn’t lie when he wrote John 1:18 then you will need to explain why you overlooked John’s clear teaching, suggesting that John was misled or intentionally wanted to mislead Christ’s Church, because your view is that Christ wasn’t the only BEGOTTEN God, but rather just one of a bunch of gods who were all begotten.

At the end of the day, your issue really isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity; you don’t have a leg to stand on. Your issue is denying who Christ really is, just like the Jews. How are you going to explain to Christ and His Father that you thought they were kidding all this time when they ensured Christ was described as the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD? Is your answer really going to be, "It just didn't make sense"?

Regards,

Paul

[Shazard]

Okey guys. This is allready too far. Sending one another to hell and begining judgement on your own is not very wise. I guess all that can be sayed about this matter is allready sayed. Let the readers judge themselves, and as Jesus told - those who are from truth can hear his voice.

Go in peace....

[Pythagoras]

Hi Paul,

I have answered your question, directly and very specifically on post #98, where I said, “Christ was unique, the “Person” or who of Christ was a man, like you or I, the “Being” or what of Christ is God, unlike you or I.

So does that mean Christ was a human being ? YES or NO?

The “Person” of Christ is finite in the sense that He took on the form of a man, He became flesh; the “Being” of Christ is infinite. The fallacy of your argument goes back to my original post on this thread when I made the observation that you were attempting to bind the Creator to your, (a creatures view), this will never work.”

Just to make it clear, when I mean unique, Christ is the ONLY human who ever lived that had both natures that of a man, like you and I and that of God. How is “Christ was a man like you or I” not a direct answer? Was it you didn’t like me throwing in the term “unique”?

However, this wasn’t the issue, was it? Your claim has to do with the Being of God and the Persons of God. I’ve shown that the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate the law on non-contradiction because “Being” and “Person” are not used in the “exact same sense” within the teaching of the Trinity. Even the “Being” of Christ’s dual natures are not used in the same sense, one nature is that of man the other of God.



Thank you for your admonition but I believe the current dilemma is best described by Paul who said, “Professing themselves, (guys like you) to be wise, they became fools” Ro 1:22. Your problem is that because you cannot comprehend how God can be both God and man at the same time, you are denying the very plain teaching of Scripture.



Well, if your presupposition that I’m wrong ends up being the case, I will inquire with Christ why He allowed John to mislead me by writing that He, Christ was the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, John 1:18. If John is wrong, so be it, but I believe I got a fairly good argument with which to press my case.

However, you on the other hand will have some explaining to do. If John didn’t lie when he wrote John 1:18 then you will need to explain why you overlooked John’s clear teaching, suggesting that John was misled or intentionally wanted to mislead Christ’s Church, because your view is that Christ wasn’t the only BEGOTTEN God, but rather just one of a bunch of gods who were all begotten.

At the end of the day, your issue really isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity; you don’t have a leg to stand on. Your issue is denying who Christ really is, just like the Jews. How are you going to explain to Christ and His Father that you thought they were kidding all this time when they ensured Christ was described as the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD? Is your answer really going to be, "It just didn't make sense"?

Regards,

Paul

All this beating around the bush... . But I just need a simple yes or no answer. Was Christ a human being? YES or NO?




best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparkey,



Lol! Wanna bet!?

No official definition of the trinity will use the word "separate persons" or "separate beings"

You are welcome to prove me wrong.

So the persons are distinct but not separate?? You like speaking from both sides of your mouth, don't you? You're bodering on modalism Sparkey. On the other hand, the Eastern type trinity of which Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian fathers were a part of boders on tritheism . An illogical proposition will never find an equilibrium, and such is the case with the trinity doctrine. It's premises iwll always be in flux, never making sense.


This is more of the same nonsense from you.

Look it: How do you expect me to have a logical discussion with you , if even in the realm of science fiction you cannot properly present your trinity doctrine.?? -- "example is not a perfect analogy". .. If something cannot even make sense in Narnia land, it is truly nonsense.

best wishes,

How can anyone have a decent discussion with you if you dont even address the pionts they are making but insist of trying to twist what they say into somethign else? Instead of even trying to understand my viewpoint and using logic and reason to counter my view, you instead insist on misrepresenting what I am saying and accusing me of "modalism" - which is clearly just a tactic to toss a red herring into the mix. If I were modalistic I would gladly say so and argue that view. I am not. you know I am not. But you think that by accusing me of being modalistic you can anger me and use misdirection to keep people from noticing that you have no argument against the trinity.

In fact, all you seem to be able to do is cut and past and plagerize your arguments from other websites and toss about red herrings like accusing people of positions they don't hold or trying to redifine words to fit your preconcieved notions.

Do you realize how scared and silly that makes you look. I get a chuckle reading your every 'reply.'

--> Pythagoras

[Sparko]

Hi Sparkey,




Can you show me where Alpha and Omega are used of Jesus? In Rev. 22:12 it is the Angel speaking . The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. This should clue you in .

So now an angel will be handing out rewards and is called the Alpha and Omega? Your argument is getting WORSE not better. First you say it is the Father speaking and now you say it is an angel speaking?

It is JESUS speaking. He will judge, he will reward, he is the one who is coming soon. The Father is not coming soon, neither is an angel. There is no break in the speech from rev 22:12 on down to 16. It is all speech and it is all from the same person. Verse 16 shows it is Jesus. Why do you kick against the goads, pythagoras? It is clear in the text that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. It is clear in other passages that Jesus is YHWH. You have to jump through so many illogical hoops to deny the clear and plain words of the bible to keep your silly little arianism alive.

I'm not worried about going to heaven Sparko. If God is a trinity, I never knew him .

That is the probably the most profound truth you have uttered on this site so far. You don't know God. I pray that you never hear those words from Him though.

Is Jesus a human being like us? YES or NO?

Paul has answered that quite well several times. Jesus was unique. He was YHWH who took on the added nature of a human being. He was fully man and fully God. I am only fully human. I am not sure about you.

best wishes,

You shouldn't say stuff you don't mean, pythagoras. Your hatred for me and other trinitarians shows that you don't have any best wishes for any of us. Don't be a hypocrite.

[OU812]

In fact, all you seem to be able to do is cut and past and plagerize your arguments from other websites and toss about red herrings like accusing people of positions they don't hold or trying to redifine words to fit your preconcieved notions.

Do you realize how scared and silly that makes you look. I get a chuckle reading your every 'reply.'

--> Pythagoras

Yep, that's his m.o. allright.

"Just answer me 'yes' or 'no', • Edited by a Moderator •

You shouldn't say stuff you don't mean, pythagoras. Your hatred for me and other trinitarians shows that you don't have any best wishes for any of us. Don't be a hypocrite.

Heck, even if a person only professed to believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, he would accuse that person of being 'trinitarian', such is his paranoia concerning that doctrine...





- OU812

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,

So now an angel will be handing out rewards and is called the Alpha and Omega? Your argument is getting WORSE not better. First you say it is the Father speaking and now you say it is an angel speaking?

Stop getting excited.

The expression Alpha and Omega occurs only 3 times. Only in Rev. 22:13 is there even a chance that it's Jesus speaking, and only through the agency of an angel, using the expression in a qualified sense. If Jesus is speaking here, he's not claiming to be God. He is saying, when he does come back to earth, he will fulfill the task to which he is appointed by God. He will stand in place of God, speak for God, and administer judgment. In Jewish thinking a master's servant was as himself . An example : Moses sent to Pharaoh as God (Ex. 7:1) does not make Moses God Almighty. Neither does Aaron, who is Moses's prophet (Ex. 7:1) , is really Moses's prophet, though he's called such. Get it?

It is JESUS speaking. He will judge, he will reward, he is the one who is coming soon.

Exactly. Jesus is acting on behalf of God. As His agent, he is as God just as Moses is God to Pharaoh.

The Father is not coming soon, neither is an angel. There is no break in the speech from rev 22:12 on down to 16. It is all speech and it is all from the same person. Verse 16 shows it is Jesus. Why do you kick against the goads, pythagoras? It is clear in the text that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. It is clear in other passages that Jesus is YHWH. You have to jump through so many illogical hoops to deny the clear and plain words of the bible to keep your silly little arianism alive.

Unfortunately this is trinitarian eisegesis.

That is the probably the most profound truth you have uttered on this site so far. You don't know God. I pray that you never hear those words from Him though.

Sparkey, if God asks you to answer Him with either a yes or no if Jesus is s a human being how will you answer?

Paul has answered that quite well several times. Jesus was unique. He was YHWH who took on the added nature of a human being. He was fully man and fully God. I am only fully human. I am not sure about you.

Why can't you answer with a yes or no? Was Jesus a human being?

You shouldn't say stuff you don't mean, pythagoras. Your hatred for me and other trinitarians shows that you don't have any best wishes for any of us. Don't be a hypocrite.

The only thing I hate is the defilment of God's holy name. I could care less whether I go to heaven, hell or whatnot.

best wishes,

P.S.

This is from a Unitarian site:

" Scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the Omega” means. It cannot be strictly literal, because neither God nor Christ is a Greek letter. Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega. Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha and Omega,’ or in Hebrew, ‘Aleph and Tau.’” [45]

Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4)” [46] The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something. Norton writes that these words, “denote the certain accomplishment of his purposes; that what he has begun he will carry on to its consummation” (pp. 479 and 480)."

I tend to agree.

[alam]

Greetings to all,


According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT):

"[μονογενής θεός] can only mean "an only-begotten God'; to render "an only-begotten, one who is God," is an exegetical invention. It can hardly be credited of Jn., who is distinguished by monumental simplicity of expression. An only-begotten God corresponds to the weakening of monotheism in Gnosticism. It derives from this, and came into the Egyptian texts by way of its influence on the theology of Alexandria. The original is preserved in the Western text (cf. also 1:13). On this whole matter cf. the exhaustive discussion of the tradition in Zn. J., 703 ff. and Bultmann J., 55 f., who also supports ['ο μονογενής 'υιός]. W. Bauer's preference for [μονογενής θεός] corresponds to his attempt to relate John's Gospel as closely as possible to Gnosticism" (Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament vol IV; Tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Eerdmans 1967; p. 740 ftn.)

In agreement with NA-27, I believe the reading of "only-begotten God" is correct, but that Theos in that expression does not signify the One God. For, if the Son, being only-begotten, is therefore an only-begotten God, by analogy the Father, who is unbegotten, must be an un-begotten God. The law of non-contradiction requires that ~(Ex)(Ax & ~Ax). Thus one and the same God cannot be both begotten and unbegotten. The only-begotten God and the unbegotten God are not the same God.


Kittel seems to be right in this respect: the phrase in John 1:18 is a weakening of monotheism in its strictest sense, although it weakens monotheism no more than Philo, the leader of the Jews in Alexandria, who described the Logos as a deuteros theos or secondary God, nor any more than the Dead Sea Scrolls, which prescribe Melchizedek to the faithful as "your ELOHIM."


In answer to the thread title, Jesus is a God.


God bless,

[Pythagoras]

Hi OU812,

Yep, that's his m.o. allright.

"Just answer me 'yes' or 'no', • Edited by a Moderator •










- OU812

Darn right! Matt 5:37 (NIV)

37 "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one"

Is Jesus a human being? Yes or No?


good luck,

[Sparko]

You sound like a lawyer who is trying to manipulate a witness on the stand to force them to say only what he wants them to say in order to stop them from telling the whole truth and therefore hurt his case.

You see pythagoras, the problem with your question "is Jesus a human being?" is that it is only half of the question and if answered you will only get half of the truth.

Here is your whole truth:

Is Jesus a human being? Yes.

Is Jesus God? Yes.

He is fully human and fully God. He has a dual nature. God took on flesh.

1 tim 3:16Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.


If you were to ask: Is Jesus merely a human being? I would answer NO.

[Pythagoras]

Sparko,

No official definition of the trinity will use the word "separate persons" or "separate beings"

Lol!. Now it's "official definition".

As usual, you're speaking from both sides of your mouth . Have you stopped to consider that what one Church considers it's "official definition" of the trinity, you might not. So this is a subjective claim on your part.

In anycase, the Oxford dictionary defines distinct as separate, so you're creating a phoney distinction(no pun intended) between the two words, true to your trinitarian forked tongue.

distinct, (a) not identical; separate; individual.

By now it's clear your words have no meaning. It is also clear you're unable to answer with a simple yes or no. In this regard, you still haven't answered my question: Is Jesus a human being? Yes or No?

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Answer yes or no only please...

Is the nature of light a particle?

Is a candy cane red?

Is a traffic light green?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

So does that mean Christ was a human being ? YES or NO?

You tell me, if I say the Person of Christ was a man like you and I what do you think I mean? This really is not that difficult.

Hi Paul,

All this beating around the bush... . But I just need a simple yes or no answer. Was Christ a human being? YES or NO?

best wishes,

Do you and I have the nature of a man? Give me a break, I’ve not beat around the bush at all. I’ve answered your question in a very straight forward manner. I notice you didn’t tell me how my statement, “Christ was a man like you and I” was not a direct response. I notice you did not address my question what assuming my view is right and yours is wrong, you will say to God the Father and God the Son?

Regards,

Paul

[Pythagoras]

Hi sparko,

You sound like a lawyer who is trying to manipulate a witness on the stand to force them to say only what he wants them to say in order to stop them from telling the whole truth and therefore hurt his case.

You see pythagoras, the problem with your question "is Jesus a human being?" is that it is only half of the question and if answered you will only get half of the truth.

Lol! Blame the question.

Is Jesus a human being? Yes.

Finally!

Is Jesus God? Yes.

Then you're wrong when you say 'yes' Jesus is a human being . Why? Because Jesus is a human being plus something. So he's human + something but not human.

He is fully human and fully God. He has a dual nature. God took on flesh.

Then he's not truly human, for true humans (like you and me) do not have a dual God/Man nature, unless ofcourse we are not truly human.

If you were to ask: Is Jesus merely a human being? I would answer NO.

Thank you. If he's not merely a human being then he's a human being + something which means he's not really a human being, just as 1 + something is anything but 1.
If Jesus is fully God and fully human being(man) , then logic dictates he's neither truly God nor is he truly man.


best wishes,