Is Jesus God or a god?

[Jeannot]

In John 14, Jesus says "The Father is greater than I."

[Shazard]

In John 14, Jesus says "The Father is greater than I."

So? Now go and read Philipians 2:6-9 and seek the answer why he sayed so!

Real question is Father better?
Atleast we find that Jesus is much better then any of angelrs (so he can't be Angel by nature) in Heb 1:3-4

[Pythagoras]

Hi Shazard,

I can Answer. Coz those trinitarians read in context. If you bother to read next 2 verses then you will find out that we are talking about such Theos who is creator of the whole universe. ....

Trinitairans read out of context more like. That verse doesn't say Christ created the whole Universe but that God did through Christ just as God delivered the children of Israel and parted the sea through Moses. If we follow your logic, we would have to conclude Moses, the God of Pharaoh(Ex.7:1), parted the sea and delivered the children of Israel and not God.

best wishes,

[Jeannot]

Hi Shazard,



Trinitairans read out of context more like. That verse doesn't say Christ created the whole Universe but that God did through Christ just as God delivered the children of Israel and parted the sea through Moses. If we follow your logic, we would have to conclude Moses, the God of Pharaoh(Ex.7:1), parted the sea and delivered the children of Israel and not God.

best wishes,

The JW position seems to me to be about the same as the early Arians. I believe the Aryans cited Proverbs 8:22ff and applied it to the Son:

"The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old. I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.

When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water . . . .

Then I was the craftsman at his side, I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in the whole world and delighting in mankind."

The concept of the Son then more or less fits the Platonic idea of the Demiurge.

[alam]

The JW position seems to me to be about the same as the early Arians. I believe the Aryans cited Proverbs 8:22ff and applied it to the Son:

"The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old. I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.

When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water . . . .

Then I was the craftsman at his side, I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in the whole world and delighting in mankind."

The concept of the Son then more or less fits the Platonic idea of the Demiurge.

Hello Jeannot:

In Plato's Timaeus, the Greek δημιουργος is translated as the "Creator" (see the link) because this is what "demiurge" means in Timaeus, as also in most patristic writings. The platonic demiurge creates using the forms as a template but does not work for someone else. Thus this is rather different from JW and Arain belief.

Best regards

[Shazard]

Hi Shazard,


Trinitairans read out of context more like. That verse doesn't say Christ created the whole Universe but that God did through Christ just as God delivered the children of Israel and parted the sea through Moses. If we follow your logic, we would have to conclude Moses, the God of Pharaoh(Ex.7:1), parted the sea and delivered the children of Israel and not God.

best wishes,

See again. You put Moses context into John 1:1 context, which ar two very different contexts. But context of John 1:1-18 is very clear, that we are talking about creator Theos. And greek word "dia" is english "by". Showing active agent of the creation. The same is applied to Father in Heb 2:10 and especially read Rom 11:36. I am showing you similar contexts, where it is written that all things are through God (Theios). So only blind (or fool) refuses to obey simple rules of exegesis. John 1:1-18 is speaking about such Theos which is Creator through whom and by whom all things are created and no single thing created without him. This actually is real and the only true characteristics of God. He is creator, besides him there is no other God's. When he created the world there were no other gods. I could not be trinitarian, it is enough that I am honest person and read in context. Context is VERY clear. That's you are trying to force other meaning of the word "god" which is drived from very very different context. That is normal thing that words have different meanings. And very rule of hermaneutics says that context define meaning not otherwise. The same applies to "Holy Spirit". If you do not know what meaning of word "spirit" it is, you read context. If conext applies person charateristics to word "spirit" then it is clear that we are talking about person version of word "spirit". What JW do is fid some very different context, where it is clear that word "spirit" is used by other meaning and then try to force that meaning into different context. Trinitarians in 90% of cases finds the meaning of the word in the very context. Bible is very clear book for those whoo seeks truth and are not afraid to find it and face it.

[Jeannot]

Hello Jeannot:

In Plato's Timaeus, the Greek δημιουργος is translated as the "Creator" (see the link) because this is what "demiurge" means in Timaeus, as also in most patristic writings. The platonic demiurge creates using the forms as a template but does not work for someone else. Thus this is rather different from JW and Arain belief.

Best regards

Thanks, Alam. As you can see, my education consisted primarily of Aristotelian/Thomist ideas.

Anyway, isn't the demiourgos under the overall Good in Plato? I dunno. As I understand it, the Neo-Platonists refined the ideas further, as did the Jewish and Christian Gnostics.

[Topherlee]

I think you are rationalizing and turning a blind eye to the text.


the verses say (and there are plenty more) that there is NO OTHER GOD. It doesnt say "No other God as almighty as me." It says NONE. NO OTHER. There is no other God besides YHWH. He is the ONLY GOD.

All other Gods are false Gods. Idols.

It's funny watching you twist in the wind trying anyway you can to deny clear, plain language. God wasn't mincing words. He said what he meant. NO OTHER GODS. PERIOD.

Moses was not a God. He was representing God to the Pharoah. The various Judges were not Gods either. There is only ONE true God. YHWH.

Jesus cannot be a "lesser" god. The bible makes that clear. God himself makes it clear. If you can't even see that, then there is no point in discussing anything with you, because you are a polytheist, not a Christian.

Is Jesus the Almighty God? Is he as great as the Father? Jesus himself says he's not. You yourself said that Moses is in representation a god or of God. Jesus being the Word of God, can he not also be in representation a god or of God? Exod 7:1 no where speaks of in representation.
It is your automatic conclusion that false gods means that there are no other gods. The very godly nature of man is in spirit and only then are we one with God. For God is a Spirit, those that worship him must do so in spirit.
A false god is one who decieves and who opposes the one true God.

just a thought?

[Sparko]

Is Jesus the Almighty God? Is he as great as the Father? Jesus himself says he's not.

No he doesn't. In fact he claims to be God and John claims it too. But I guess you can't read with that blind eye of yours.

You yourself said that Moses is in representation a god or of God. Jesus being the Word of God, can he not also be in representation a god or of God? Exod 7:1 no where speaks of in representation.

Go do a study on "memra" of the old testament. The use of the "Logos" or "Word" for Jesus directly relates to that. Then come back and tell me what you have found out.

It is your automatic conclusion that false gods means that there are no other gods. The very godly nature of man is in spirit and only then are we one with God. For God is a Spirit, those that worship him must do so in spirit.

YHWH SAYS THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS! HE SAYS IT OVER AND OVER AND IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS JUST SO THERE IS NO CHANCE OF YOU MISUNDERSTANING HIM. BUT YOU SEEM TO DO SO ANYWAY.

How much clearer do you want God to tell you there are no other Gods beside himself? There there were no God before him nor after him nor with him. There is only ONE true God. All others are false gods, like idols or demons.

A false god is one who decieves and who opposes the one true God.

A false god is NOT A GOD AT ALL. You yourself just said "the one true God" If there is only ONE TRUE GOD, then all others must be false by definition. There can't be both ONE TRUE GOD and TWO TRUE GODS.

just a thought?

Yeah. let me know how that thinking stuff works out. You should actually try it some time.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Shazard,

See again. You put Moses context into John 1:1 context, which ar two very different contexts. But context of John 1:1-18 is very clear, that we are talking about creator Theos. And greek word "dia" is english "by". Showing active agent of the creation. ...

This is your interpretation of scripture which I believe is faulty. We could say the same about Moses, that "by" him the sea was parted, "showing active agent of the parting." These sorts of statements are neither here nor there.

You have major problems which you ignore. How about all those statements which show Jesus to not be God? He was a man, he died, he was not omniscient, he claimed to be inferior to God. To explain these scriptures away, the Catholic Church came up with the doctrine of the hypostatic union, paragraphs of self-contradictory mumbo-jumbo which cliams he was some sort of hybrid, freakish God-Man.

No dice.

[Shazard]

Hi Shazard,

You have major problems which you ignore. How about all those statements which show Jesus to not be God? He was a man, he died, he was not omniscient, he claimed to be inferior to God. To explain these scriptures away, the Catholic Church came up with the doctrine of the hypostatic union, paragraphs of self-contradictory mumbo-jumbo which cliams he was some sort of hybrid, freakish God-Man.

No dice.

It is your assumtion that God can't become man problematic. Scripture shows that exactly this was case in Phil 2:6-9 And this is what all the christians learned from scripture. That God became Man. And claims "Son of Man" and "Son of God" are claims about Jesus nature.
And My interpretation of John 1:1 is exactly from the context. But you try to force Moses analogy (that is other context) onto allready clear context to confuse reader. But you do not have to go to other context to understand John 1:1-18. That's why the prologue is there - to make it clear what we are talking about. But JW are not able to live without forcing very different contexts and applying false analogies to allready clear scriptures. Actually this is not only JW but each cult tactis - describe clear Bible verses with unclear. And that's why half of JW doctrines are based in Revelation which can be interpreted as you wish, and then JW uses this wishful interpretation to interpretate very clear passages. But it is sayed (in John 20:30-31) that John Gospel alone is able to bring us to faith and everlasting life. So you even don't need to read Moses to understand who is Jesus and what "Son of God" actually means. But ofcourse if you do not believe and you do not want to come to Jesus for everlasting life, you will use every possible way to aviod it - even applying Moses context to John context, but Bible says (In 2 Cor 3) that you have to explain Moses by New Testament but JW are doing exactly oposite, that's why they are learning and never getting to truth... light is blinking while whole world allready last 2000 years lives in the light which is Jesus - fully God and fully Man

[spitndirt]

And this is yet another question. Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God? But we will stick to one the subject at hand.
The "Godhead" refers to godhood. Jesus is the invisible image of God. We are the image and likeness of God. We are of flesh and Jesus is of spirit. We are also told to worship God in spirit, because as John 4:24 states "God is a Spirit. Does this mean we must obtain the godhood to be one with our maker?
John 1:1 I believe is correct according to the NWT. That the Word is a god. As God made Moses (Exod 7:1) a god to the Pharoah and basically from how I read it, the Pharisees also saw Moses as a god. So was the Word made a god to us, our Lord.
Does this mean there are more than one god? No, I surely do not believe so. I'll say that there is one God who by means of him are men gods by association. If you do the works of our God, are you not godly?

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
How can we be children of God if we are not godly?
What do you think?

Hi,

This is what I believe: Jesus, the man, could have been referred to (very loosely) as 'a God' in the sense that the Israelites of old - those (men) to whom the Word of God came - were called 'gods' by God. Yet since He was 'the Word made flesh' He was really much more than they. The 'Word' prior to becoming 'flesh' was God 'personified' in the beginning - begotten, not made - as per Proverbs ch. 8:22-31 (I believe). If you will notice in this passage a 'progression' of this 'One' into creation. 1) I was brought forth....2) I was there (in the heavens).....3) then I was by Him, as One brought up with Him....! Here you would have the Word being both God, and also 'with' God. I believe this happened when God said in the beginning '...let [there] be light...'. This 'light' was the Word brought forth, then sent forth into the earth that is described in Gen.1:2. Later, then, this One became 'flesh'....Jesus, the Word made flesh. A man in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. The Godhead being the Father who Himself is Spirit.

That's kinda the way I see it (as through a glass darkly). Peace.....

[apostoli]

Hello All,

I thought I'd share a bit of Philo (the 1st century Jewish philosopher) & his Logos concepts with you...

"Why is it that [Moses] speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself?

Philo, Questions & Answers on Genesis, Book II Q.62
The Works of Philo (Complete & Unabridged), New Updated Edition of Yonge's translation.(1993) p834.

Just Checked: Yonges translation is available online (free)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/

So, for our "Arian" friends I'll also cite Philo's "WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS" Chapter XLII

"And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. (206) And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;"{69}{#nu 16:48.} neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace."

[Pythagoras]

Hi Shazard,

It is your assumtion that God can't become man problematic.

It's not an assumption but a fact. Malachi 3:6a

"For I am the LORD, I change not."

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Doesn't get any clearer than that. Very few scriptures are as emphatic as Numbers 23:19. Just as God is not a liar, he is not a man. God imposes these limitations upon himself.

Scripture shows that exactly this was case in Phil 2:6-9 And this is what all the christians learned from scripture.

Unfortunately Phil. 2:6-9 does not say God became a man.

That God became Man. And claims "Son of Man" and "Son of God" are claims about Jesus nature.

The very appelation son of God proves that Jesus not God. Even the Saints are called sons of God. Angels too.

And My interpretation of John 1:1 is exactly from the context.

Keep fooling yourself. What can I say?

But you try to force Moses analogy (that is other context) onto allready clear context to confuse reader. But you do not have to go to other context to understand John 1:1-18. That's why the prologue is there - to make it clear what we are talking about. But JW are not able to live without forcing very different contexts and applying false analogies to allready clear scriptures. Actually this is not only JW but each cult tactis - describe clear Bible verses with unclear. And that's why half of JW doctrines are based in Revelation which can be interpreted as you wish, and then JW uses this wishful interpretation to interpretate very clear passages. But it is sayed (in John 20:30-31) that John Gospel alone is able to bring us to faith and everlasting life. So you even don't need to read Moses to understand who is Jesus and what "Son of God" actually means. But ofcourse if you do not believe and you do not want to come to Jesus for everlasting life, you will use every possible way to aviod it - even applying Moses context to John context, but Bible says (In 2 Cor 3) that you have to explain Moses by New Testament but JW are doing exactly oposite, that's why they are learning and never getting to truth... light is blinking while whole world allready last 2000 years lives in the light which is Jesus - fully God and fully Man

Here you're trying to convince yourself that you're right. Keep fooling yourself. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

best wishes,

[Krusader]

Hi Shazard,




It's not an assumption but a fact. Malachi 3:6a

"For I am the LORD, I change not."

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Doesn't get any clearer than that. Very few scriptures are as emphatic as Numbers 23:19. Just as God is not a liar, he is not a man. God imposes these limitations upon himself.





Unfortunately Phil. 2:6-9 does not say God became a man.



The very appelation son of God proves that Jesus not God. Even the Saints are called sons of God. Angels too.




Keep fooling yourself. What can I say?




Here you're trying to convince yourself that you're right. Keep fooling yourself. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

best wishes,

Pyth, you are being downright dishonest here. You very well know that Christianity does not teach that the Nature of God, His Substance, changed into a human substance in the Incarnation. The Nature of God and His Substance rather took on an additoinal nature, that of man. Christ is the God/Man. His Human nature was not transformed into Deity, nor His Divine Nature into Humanity. The two resided within the One Person, Jesus Christ.

And this is the doctrine of the hypostatic union.