Those Who Believe Jesus Is God????

[Squeakybro]

SOME BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS GOD???????????
WHO BELIEVES THIS??????????????
Those Who Worship In The Flesh
In Ro 9-1,8 it explains that those who believe that Jesus is God are those who worship in the flesh not in the Spirit.
Paul explained it like this. He said he had great sorrow and continual grief in his heart over these people. He said it bothered him so much that according to his flesh and the way he felt, he could almost wish he were accursed from Christ for his brethren.
These are the Israelites, that should be receiving the promised massiah, but they believe that Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. But its not that the Word of God has taken no affect. For they are not all going to believe this. But these that believe it are not the children of God.

Rom 9:1-8

1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
(NKJ)


Those who believe that Jesus is God use verse 58 as evidence in the "I Am" delusion. They dont look at the context of the I am statement. The conversation was over a two day period. And it started in John 7-39 these people didnt have the Holy Spirit they were worshiping in the flesh not in the Spirit. And the question was is this man the Christ. And Jesus answered them a number of times. Jesus said "I Am He" and when they got to the point of stoneing Jesus to death Jesus was in the middle of " I Am" and they picked up the stones and you can see in verse 59 Jesus got out of there.
John 7:39-41
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
40 Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this saying, said, "Truly this is the Prophet."
41 Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Will the Christ come out of Galilee?
(NKJ)

John 8:24
24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
(NKJ)

John 8:28
28 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.
(NKJ)

John 8:58-59
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
(NKJ)


Those that believe Jesus is God also try to make a defense out of the "are one" delusion.
Just because the statement "are one" is in there doesnt mean Jesus is God. If that statement makes Jesus God then the next statement makes us God also. Which we know this is not true.
The "are one" statement has to do with being one in agreement.

John 10:30
30 "I and My Father are one."
(NKJ)

John 17:21-22
21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:
(NKJ)

I Jn 5:7-8
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
(NKJ)

The whole Godhead. Are those who are in total agreement with God. The Godhead consists of God the Father, Jesus the Son who is in total agreement with the Father, and the Holy Spirit who is in total agreement with the Father. And that agreement is evident in the Word.

Col 2:9-10
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
(NKJ)

Rom 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
(NKJ)

God came up with the Word, Jesus only spoke the Word, and the Holy Spirit only quotes the Word. That is the Godhead.

John 12:49-50
49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.
50 "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."
(NKJ)

John 14:26
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
(NKJ)

John 16:13-14
13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
(NKJ)

The Word is written in two covenants.The old covenant(testament) and the new covenant(testament). Satans throne was and is in the old testament. Jesus laid it down in many different ways. Dont go by the old testament, stay away from the old testament. If you accidentally or on purpose keep any part of the old testament you are subject to the whole entire thing. Jesus was point blank in John 10 when He said "All who ever came before Me" but if that isnt good enough look in Gal 4and 5. Abraham had two sons, verse 24 this is symbolic of the two testaments. Now look in verse 30 "cast out the old testament". And if that isnt good enough what about 2John. If you dont abide in the doctrine of Christ, you won't find the word Christ in the old testament. If you dont abide in the doctrine of Christ you dont have the right God.

John 10:8-9
8 "All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9 "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
(NKJ)

Gal 4:22-5:4
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, you who do not bear! Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

CHAPTER 5

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
(NKJ)

II Jn 1:8-11
8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
(NKJ)

The people that believe Jesus is God are those who worship in the flesh with their carnal reason and logic. These are not the children of God. These are not those who worship in the Spirit.

[Cyrus of Persia]

I totally agree with honest believer Thomas who said after touching resurrected Jesus: "My Lord and my God".

Jesus did not corrected him. I wonder why?

Also what were the 3 words what Jesus spoke to the Thomas in Gospel of Thomas?

[Sparko]

How come this isn't a "revelation?"


Anyway, you missed all the places where Jesus is called God directly in the bible.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made...14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

2 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He (1) appeared in a body (2), was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. NIV footnotes: (1) Some manuscripts God -- (2) Or in the flesh

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

You can’t get a better endorsement than that! God the Father is calling the Son “God” in two verses.

[InChristAlways]

The people that believe Jesus is God are those who worship in the flesh with their carnal reason and logic. These are not the children of God. These are not those who worship in the Spirit. Hi.
I believe those that fail to see Jesus as God and the only Name upon which one can be saved (acts 2),"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." are those who do not have the True Spirit of Christ. Another words, it does no good to believe in God without also believing in the Name of Jesus, our True God. God bless.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW12.htm

Isaiah 9:6. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given ... His name shall be called ... the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. "It does not say mighty man, but Mighty God. A little child is called the Mighty God. All Christians agree with the prophecy of this verse. The child mentioned here refers to the child born in the stable in Bethlehem, who is not only named the Mighty God, but also the Everlasting Father. As a child born to us, He is called the Mighty God; as a Son given to us, He is called the Everlasting Father. This is very strange, is it not? When the child is called the Mighty God, is He the child, or God? And, when the son is called the Everlasting Father, is He the son or the Father? If you try to figure it out, you cannot do it. You must take it as a fact, unless, of course, you do not believe the scriptures. If you believe the authority of the scriptures, you must accept the fact that since the child is called the Mighty God, it means the child IS the Mighty God; and since the Son is called the Father, it means the Son IS the Father! If the child is not the Mighty God, how could the child be called the Mighty God? And if the Son is not the Father, how could the Son be called the Father? And if we believe the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, we must believe that HE IS THE FATHER! So, then, how many Gods do we have? We have only one God, because the child Jesus is the Mighty God, and the Son is the Everlasting Father.

Furthermore, II Cor. 3:17 says, "Now the Lord is that Spirit." According to our understanding, who is the Lord? Jesus Christ IS LORD! But Paul tells us that the Lord is also the Spirit. Who is the Spirit? We have to admit that the Spirit must be the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Son is called the Father, and the Son, who is the very Lord, is also the Spirit! This means, in a way not understood by most Christians, that the Father, Son, and Spirit A-R-E O-N-E! All of God's children, from Adam forward, believed in this one God. It is only when we come to apostate Christianity that we find all these various ideas about who God is, and all these different concepts have come about by men studying the Bible without the aid of the blessed Spirit of Truth.

[Squeakybro]

Cyrus you said
I totally agree with honest believer Thomas who said after touching resurrected Jesus: "My Lord and my God".

Jesus did not corrected him. I wonder why?

I said
It was because Jesus knew that Thomas was addressing Jesus as Lord and the Father as God that was in Jesus. They didnt have all these intellectual idiots we do.l

2 Cor 5:19
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)

[Sparko]

Actually in greek, the phrase Thomas used is literally translated as "the Lord and God of me" and both words have to refer to Jesus who was directly in front of him and was being addressed. Thomas said that Jesus was the "God of him." Jesus was Thomas' God.

[luv1another]

hey squeaky,
click the pearls button at the bottom of the screen and give your pearls away,
It would be a waste for you to leave again with all those pearls :teeth:

[Squeakybro]

you said
Actually in greek, the phrase Thomas used is literally translated as "the Lord and God of me" and both words have to refer to Jesus who was directly in front of him and was being addressed. Thomas said that Jesus was the "God of him." Jesus was Thomas' God.

I said
Actually that is no more than your own opinion. And we know those that trust in their own opinion are worshiping in the flesh.

Rom 12:16
16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
(NKJ)

[ansbible]

I just finished writing this as part of a project to comment on John chapter 1 and it is so germane to this thread.

it is located at http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jn1_observe.htm as a work in progress. So any critiques will of course be welcomed. I follow the normative rules of language, context and logic which is the Holy Spirit's method by which the bible is to be interpreted as is inherent in the bible

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/hicee_rules.htm


So here it is a work in progress:


I) [Jn 1:1]:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning" =

A) "IN THE BEGINNING" REFERS TO THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND ALL CREATION

B) "THE WORD" IN THIS CONTEXT REFERS TO AN ETERNAL PERSON ALREADY PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION

"The Word" = "Logos" in Greek, commonly refers to speaking, a message or words. It is coined here with a definite article and a special meaning: A reference to an eternal Person already present at the beginning of all time and creation.

C) "IN THE BEGINNING" CANNOT REFER TO THE TIME OF THE WORD BEING CREATED BECAUSE THE PHRASE "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD" STATES THAT THE WORD ALREADY "WAS" IN THE BEGINNING, I.E., UNCREATED AND ETERNAL = GOD HIMSELF

To corroborate this: notice the verb "was" = Greek, "en" in this context indicates a continual existence in the past. An eternal existence of "the Word" is in view since "the Word" was already ongoing "in the beginning" before all time and all creation.

D) SINCE THE WORD IS ETERNAL, THE WORD IS GOD, HENCE WE HAVE TWO PERSONALITIES OF GOD IN VIEW

Since the Word "was" at the beginning of all time and all creation, then the Word was already and always there, i.e., eternal as only God is eternal. Hence the Word is God. In view then is one God but in two expressions or parts or personalities of that one God.

E) THE WORD WAS ALREADY THERE "IN THE BEGINNING" OF ALL TIME AND ALL CREATION AND AT THAT BEGINNING THE WORD WAS "WITH", LIT. FACE TO FACE WITH GOD = "THEON" INDICATING AN ETERNAL BEING EQUAL TO GOD - NOT SIMPLY WORDS FROM GOD

"With", (Greek, "pros", accusative case), with the stationary verb "to be", (Greek, "eimi"), means "close to", "facing", "in front of", "in the presence of" "God" = "Theon". If "pros" were in the dative case, it would mean something like the Word was "with God" or even "at God's place" in the sense of the French 'chez moi', for that is the typical usage. But John's use of "pros" here is unique. It is not in the dative case but in the accusative case, hence it portrays a face to face with God as directed/oriented towards God on an equal level, separate and in its own right. So, in the beginning, the Word was enjoying reciprocity with God.

F) SCRIPTURE CONSTANTLY AFFIRMS THAT JESUS CHRIST CLAIMED & POSSESSED THE INFINITE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD & IS THEREFORE EQUAL WITH GOD

Scripture constantly affirms that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are equal with respect to Their attributes, (infinite qualities). They are one God with three personalities. If our Lord Jesus Christ were merely a created being then He could NOT be equal with God the Father with respect to any of His attributes...thus refuting scores of Bible verses that do claim Christ's equality with God the Father. For example:

1) [Compare Col 2:9]:

"For in Him [Christ] all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form..."

hoti ..en autO katoikei pan to ..plErOma tEs ....theotEtos .sOmatikOs

"For in Him ..dwells ...all ..the fullness ....of the Godhead .bodily

[This description of our Lord can only apply if Jesus Christ is God Himself, i.e., if "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form']

2) [Compare Isa 9:6]:

"For to us a Child is born,

to us a Son is given,

and the government will be on His shoulders.

And He will be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Not only is Jesus Christ called "Mighty God" but objectors often skip the rest of the verse which calls Him "Everlasting Father" a term reserved for God Almighty alone.

3) [Compare Heb 1:3]:

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representative of His being."

4) [Compare Phil 2:6.]:

"[Christ Jesus]: Who being in very nature God.."

5) [Compare Jn 5:18]:

"For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

"equal" = "ison" = 'equal in quality as in quantity, to claim for one's self the Nature, rank, authority, which belong to God,' (Thayer's Greek Lexi Lexicon, p. 307). Incidentally, Dr. Thayer is a Unitarian who denies the diety of Christ, but he was honest enough to give the true meaning of Biblical terms even when they contradict what he believes.

Notice that our Lord, was a remarkably knowledgeable Jewish Man, Who knew precisely what He was saying the many times He called God His Father; and so did the Jews. Our Lord was claiming diety Himself.

I cont.) [Jn 1:1 cont.]:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, (cont.)" =

E) AND GOD - THE NATURE, ALL THE QUALITIES AND ESSENCE OF GOD WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION

"Kai Theos en ...o ...Logos"

"And God ..was the Word"

Notice the emphatic position of "Theos" = "God" at the beginning of the phrase which serves by this position to describe the Word. Since there is no article in front of "Theos" = "God", the noun is said to be anarthrous. The verb "was" = "en" is copulative, i.e. joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning.

The subject of the sentence is "Word" ("Logos"), the verb, "was". There can be no direct object following "was" since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause.

"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. It refers back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position and lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c, we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this verse being without the definite article means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only Jehovah God, i.e., God is the Word.

F) THE 'WORD' CANNOT BE A GOD IT MUST REFER TO THE GOD

1) "THEOS" = GOD IN THE 3RD CLAUSE PRECEDES AND IS THE PREDICATE NOMINATIVE OF THE INTRANSITIVE VERB "WAS" IDENTIFYING "LOGOS". THERE IS NO DEFINITE ARTICLE REQUIRED. IT DOES NOT REFER TO 'A' GOD

"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. The absence of a definite article before "Theos" does not demand an indefinite one.

Secondly, Greek does not possess an indefinite article ('a/an'), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ('a certain one', Greek 'tis') the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really 'God.'

Secondly, Greek does not possess an indefinite article ('a/an'), but it does have an indefinite pronoun ('a certain one', Greek 'tis') the very word that a Greek reader would expect here if the point was that Christ was somehow a god, but not really 'God.'

The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). It refers back to and identifies with the subject, "Word" (Logos), emphasizing that the qualities and essence of God have always been the personal qualities and essence of the Word. So to translate it 'a god' as some individuals do is both incorrect grammar, poor Greek and totally out of context. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Earlier in the verse, the apostle John used the definite article with the Greek word Theos to refer to the Father according to customary usage ('the [sc. Father] God'), and so to use the identical combination again to refer to the Word would be potentially confusing, making it seem as if 'the Word' was really identical to 'the [sc Father] God', one of the very points that John is disproving here.

So John only had three ways to write this:

1) the Word as 'the God' (but this would mean that there was no real distinction between the Father and Christ)

2) the Word was 'a certain god' (but this would mean that Christ was a lesser sort of divinity, not God on the level of the Father

3) 'God' was the Word - what John actually did write, thus fully and unambiguously attributing deity to the Word as distinct from the Father.

2) MANY PASSAGES WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR GRAMMAR COULD NOT BE TRANSLATED 'A GOD' OTHERWISE IT WOULD DETERIORATE INTO NONSENSE

a) [Lk 20:37-38]:

b) [Consider Jn 1:6]:

c) [Consider Jn 1:12]:

Consider Jn 1:13, 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17-18; 1 Cor 1:30, 15:10; Phil 2:13 Titus 1:1 and many many more.

3) OTHER PASSAGES WITH SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION CAN BE TRANSLATED AS 'A god' DUE TO CONTEXT OF PAGANISM BUT THE CONTEXT OF JN CHAPTER ONE IS SINGULARLY OF ALMIGHTY GOD ALONE

a) [Compare Acts 12:21-22]:

b) [Compare Acts 28:6]:

4) ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'A GOD' SO THE WORD COULD NOT BE 'A GOD'

a) [Compare Isa 43:10]:

b) [Compare Isa 45:5]:

5) THE TWO FORMS OF THE WORD GOD, THEON (2ND CLAUSE) AND THEOS (3RD CLAUSE) REFER TO THE ONE AND ONLY ALMIGHTY GOD, THEY DIFFER BECAUSE OF GRAMMAR NOT DEFINITION. NEITHER REFERS TO 'A GOD'

6) OTHER PASSAGES REFER TO GOD'S REPRESENTATIVES ON EARTH OR CERTAIN BEINGS THAT FALSELY MAKE THEMSELVES OUT TO BE GODS WHO WILL ALL PERISH

Objectors who insist that there are other Gods or gods point to passages in Scripture which contain words which can be translated 'god' in them. By this association they claim that since angels, humans and Satan are referred to by these words therefore Jesus Christ is also a god - a lesser, created god. They claim that the terms 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man' do not indicate our Lord's diety but His mortality for they also are used to refer to mortal men. A careful examination of each of these passages will reveal that they are not saying that God has created gods of any kind but that they were either His representatives on earth, (Ps 82:1-8), or that certain beings made themselves out to be gods, thus usurping the power of God Almighty for a season, (2 Cor 4:9).

c) BESIDES THE ONE TRUE GOD, THERE IS NO OTHER GOD OR 'god' AND ANYONE WHO ASPIRES TO EITHER WILL PERISH

i) [Compare Jer 10:10]:

ii) [Compare Isa 43:10]:

iii) [Isa 44:6]:

iv) [Compare Isa 45:5]:

e) SATAN AND THE DEMONS MAKE THEMSELVES OUT TO BE "gods"

i) [Compare 1 Cor 10:19-20]:

ii) [Compare 2 Cor 4:3-4]:

II) [Jn 1:1-2]:

(v. 1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(v. 2) He was with God in the beginning."

"He was with God in the beginning" =

A) THE WORD WAS NOT A COMMUNICATION BUT A PERSON WHO WAS ETERNALLY & UNCREATED EXISTING FACE TO FACE, I.E., EQUAL WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME & CREATION

Verse two reiterates the message of verse one for emphasis and leaves no doubt that the Word is a Person, not a communication Who was at the beginning of all time and creation Who is uncreated, eternal, God.

The phrase 'He was with God in the beginning' eliminates the possibility that the Word is simply a communication from God. No communication from God would be described as 'He was with God in the beginning!' The phrase 'in the begining' points all the more to the beginning of all time and creation at which beginning 'He', the Word already was with = face to face on an equal basis with God.

III) [Jn 1:1-3]:

(v. 1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(v. 2) He was with God in the beginning.

(v. 3) Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

A) THE WORD, HIM, IS THE AGENT OF ALL CREATION

The phrases "through Him" and "without Him" mark "Him", the Word, out as the Agent of creation. In this verse the context of the term "Word" is as the Agent of creation, a Person, and not just a commanding word from God to create. So through the Word, a Person all things were created. He Himself was not created. He is our great Creator God.

B) OTHER PASSAGES CORROBORATE THAT THE WORD IS THE PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO CREATED ALL THINGS

Compare what the Apostle Paul said in his letters to the Colossians and Corinthians about Jesus Christ being the Creator:

1) [Col 1:16-17]:

(v. 16) "For by Him all things were created: Things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him.

(v. 17) He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

2) [1 Cor 8:6]:

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from Whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Without the eternal presence and power of our Lord Jesus Christ for one microsecond the whole universe would disintegrate instantly. The smallest atomic particle holds together as a result of our Lord's continued and absolute sovereignty over the universe. You and I in fact owe our very next breath to God the Son Almighty God. (Cp Heb 1:2, 10).

These verses clearly states that all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, (including souls and spirits) owe their creation and moment to moment existence to Jesus Christ. Therefore since all things which were created were created by Jesus Christ and since He was before all things then Jesus Christ cannot be created Himself. He is self-existent and uncreated, He is God.

3) [Compare Heb 1:10, cp Ps 102:25]:

"And, 'Thou, Lord, [Jesus Christ, vv. 5-9] in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth,

And the heavens are the works of Thy hands;"

4) [Compare Gen 1:1]:

"In the beginning God [Who is Jesus Christ, (Jn 1:3) and the Father and the Spirit] created the heavens and the earth."

[Cyrus of Persia]

It was because Jesus knew that Thomas was addressing Jesus as Lord and the Father as God that was in Jesus.
I have known for years that one method how to interpretate the Bible is TWISTING METHOD. It works best, because every intellectual (and unintellectual) idiot can back-up their ideas by using it :lol:

[Squeakybro]

ansbible
I have seen that so many times with the carnality.
Well this says this so it could mean this. Then afew lines later. Well because this means this that means that this is the only conclusion. That is so sad.
This has to be my favorite delusion.
you said
E) AND GOD - THE NATURE, ALL THE QUALITIES AND ESSENCE OF GOD WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION

I said
But simple understanding tells me this. That God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

2 Cor 5:19
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)

And that Jesus totally submitted to God the Father.

John 12:49
49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.
(NKJ)


John 14:10
10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
(NKJ)

Even the simplest of minds can see that if Jesus submitted to the Father within Him that Jesus would have the appearance and all the qualities that God had and still not be God. The same nature, essence, and qualities and still not be God.

[Jaltus]

Actually in greek, the phrase Thomas used is literally translated as "the Lord and God of me" and both words have to refer to Jesus who was directly in front of him and was being addressed. Thomas said that Jesus was the "God of him." Jesus was Thomas' God.

That is not true, Thomas says "Lord my and God my!"

Of course, grammatically speaking, it is the same thing.

[shunyadragon]

I have known for years that one method how to interpretate the Bible is TWISTING METHOD. It works best, because every intellectual (and unintellectual) idiot can back-up their ideas by using it :lol:
The art was perfected by trinitarians. Throw in some blue smoke and mirrors along with the cleansing of the ranks with the sword and fire. The results is the Greco-Roman trinitarian orthodoxy.

[Squeakybro]

One can only twist the interpretation of scripture with interpretation. One cant twist it by quoting it. And the trinity only first started at the nicine creed in 325 AD.
The Word is written perfect just out of context.

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(NKJ)

[dizzle]

Squeaky PLEASE can I get you a rubber ducky avatar? It would be so cute with your name.

[InChristAlways]

Even the simplest of minds can see that if Jesus submitted to the Father within Him that Jesus would have the appearance and all the qualities that God had and still not be God. The same nature, essence, and qualities and still not be God. According to 1 corin 15 it appears Jesus can't "turn into God" until the "end" of the ages comes. That is if I am interpreting this right. And here all this time I thought Jesus was God Himself.

1 corin 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those [who are] Christ's at His coming. 24 Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy [that] will be destroyed death. 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under [Him," it is] evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

[i]Hebrew 1:8 "But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom."

Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

I am assuming this is the temple that was standing in the first century unless it means "us" as His temple.

Malachi 3:1"'Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,' Says the LORD of hosts."

[InChristAlways]

[QUOTE=InChristAlways]According to 1 corin 15 it appears Jesus can't "turn into God" until the "end" of the ages comes. That is if I am interpreting this right. And here all this time I thought Jesus was God Himself.

1 corin 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those [who are] Christ's at His coming. 24 Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy [that] will be destroyed death. 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under [Him," it is] evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Hebrew 1:8 "But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom."

Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

[i]Malachi 3:1 "'Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,' Says the LORD of hosts."

[Cyrus of Persia]

The art was perfected by trinitarians. Throw in some blue smoke and mirrors along with the cleansing of the ranks with the sword and fire. The results is the Greco-Roman trinitarian orthodoxy.
Well, at first there was psychological inquisition. Real sword and fire came after.

While i agree that many things that were debatable were made into dogmas by force, there are still hints both in the Bible and in other early Christian writings that Jesus was sometimes referred as God. Otherwise it would be highly unlikely that without those hints mainstream Christianity would force it to become dogma (although not 100% unlikely).

[shunyadragon]

Well, at first there was psychological inquisition. Real sword and fire came after.

While i agree that many things that were debatable were made into dogmas by force, there are still hints both in the Bible and in other early Christian writings that Jesus was sometimes referred as God. Otherwise it would be highly unlikely that without those hints mainstream Christianity would force it to become dogma (although not 100% unlikely).
Hints should not be interpreted as doctrine or orthodoxy. That is where the force comes in.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Hints should not be interpreted as doctrine or orthodoxy. That is where the force comes in.
True. But hints provide hints that Jesus might be actually God :lol:

Without hints there are no doctrines, although some doctrines surpass the hints and read more into texts than nessessary.

[ansbible]

For the most part Jesus acts out of His humanity, as opposed to His diety.


Don't forget He is fully both. Hence it is not that He is going to evolve into diety, but to return to acting in His diety which always existed from eternity past.

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jn1_observe.htm

Jesus added to Himself humanity and will always have this humanity:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/phil2v8.htm

[InChristAlways]

Well, at first there was psychological inquisition. Real sword and fire came after.

While i agree that many things that were debatable were made into dogmas by force, there are still hints both in the Bible and in other early Christian writings that Jesus was sometimes referred as God. Otherwise it would be highly unlikely that without those hints mainstream Christianity would force it to become dogma (although not 100% unlikely).Hi Cyrus. Have you ever heard from others that God had to die Himself to atone for Israel's and Judah's sin and to also be able to remarry the house of Israel He divorced in the OT? Revelation appears to be showing these 2 nations being brought together again as ONE NATION under ONE KING, Jesus the Christ. Any thoughts on this? Jeremiah 3:8 "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel [10 northern scattered tribes] had committed adultery, I had put Her away and given Her a certificate of divorce; yet her Treacherous Sister Judah[2 southern tribes] did not fear, but went and played the Harlot also. Hebrew 1:8 "But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom."

Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Malachi 3:1 "'Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,' Says the LORD of hosts."

[Cyrus of Persia]

Hi Cyrus. Have you ever heard from others that God had to die Himself to atone for Israel's and Judah's sin and to also be able to remarry the house of Israel He divorced in the OT? Revelation appears to be showing these 2 nations being brought together again as ONE NATION under ONE KING, Jesus the Christ. Any thoughts on this?

No, i have not. The only thing i knew was that the sacrifice need to be spotless (without sin). Whether it was God who needed to die, or perfect human, is pretty irrelevant in my eyes. Although i think that as there is no perfect human, then God needed to incarnate Himself to become one :wink:

[berated]

Here's a simple question: If in point of fact Jesus Christ is not God in the flesh, is redemption, i.e., salvation in His name valid?
The Arian heresy that inflitrated the Early Church, which a Synod of bishops -over 380- in Ecumenical Council, pronounced "anathama" on, was over this very same issue. Evryone from Eastern Orthodox to Catholics, to Evangelical Protestants, while disagreeing on various doctrines, all agree on this primary issue.
If Jesus Christ was not God, what was the point of the temptations by the devil in the wilderness; and again if Jesus was just a man His crucifixion for the sins of, and the redemption of mankind , was totally pointless.
Again, this is an old heresy settled already by the Fathers of the Early Church!



"...walk humbly with thy God."

[InChristAlways]

Here's a simple question: If in point of fact Jesus Christ is not God in the flesh, is redemption, i.e., salvation in His name valid?
The Arian heresy that inflitrated the Early Church, which a Synod of bishops -over 380- in Ecumenical Council, pronounced "anathama" on, was over this very same issue. Evryone from Eastern Orthodox to Catholics, to Evangelical Protestants, while disagreeing on various doctrines, all agree on this primary issue.
If Jesus Christ was not God, what was the point of the temptations by the devil in the wilderness; and again if Jesus was just a man His crucifixion for the sins of, and the redemption of mankind , was totally pointless.
Again, this is an old heresy settled already by the Fathers of the Early Church!

"...walk humbly with thy God."Hi berated. The jews fail to see Jesus as God's unblemished sacrifice for atonement because He didn't fulfill the prophecies as stated in the OT. Look at the temple of Ezekiel and see how many animal sacrifices are shown and what He says in Isaiah about "sacrifices"Isaiah 66:1 Thus says the LORD: "Heaven My throne, And earth My footstool. Where [is] the house that you will build Me? And where [is] the place of My rest? [i]2 For all those [things] My hand has made, And all those [things] exist," Says the LORD. "But on this [one] will I look: On [him who is] poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word. [i]3 " He who kills a bull he slays a man; He who sacrifices a lamb, [as if] he breaks a dog's neck; He who offers a grain offering, [as if he offers] swine's blood; He who burns incense, [as if] he blesses an idol.
We of course know He did and was indeed God manifested in the flesh. He came to redeem and atone for Israel's and Judah's sins and the whole world, and become the Chief High Priest, which means the priestly tribe of Judah had to be "taken out" and replaced. The jews had no concept of a "second coming" but outright fulfillment of the prophecies. One for atonement, then one for vengeance and Wrath on the Temple and Jerusalem for Redemtion and salvation.
Jeremiah is essentially the same prophecy as the parable of the Rich Man[Judah] and Lazarus[Lost sheep of Israel/gentiles.

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, [i]2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

How the jews views christians view of another coming just for the jews
"The Jewish rabbis have taunted Christians throughout church history saying Jesus can't be their Messiah, since the Messiah would accomplish redemption, and judgement, in one generation with no gaps, delays, parentheses of postponements.

Notice how various will know Jewish writer express this.The Jew refused to accept the excuse that the major prophecies concerning the Messiah will only be fulfilled in a "second coming." ( He expects the Messiah to complete his mission in his first attempt.) [The Real Messiah Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973 page 15.]

The full establishment of the Kingdom could not be delayed. (The Real Messiah. Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973. page 15).

Since Jesus did not fulfill the most important Messianic prophecies, they expected him to return to complete this task in a "second coming." At first, Christians expected that this (second coming) would come very shortly...in their lifetime. When their prayer was not an answered they began to hope that it would come a thousand years after Jesus' death. This was the millennium or thousand years kingdom.

Finally after a thousand years passed and Jesus still had not returned, (they postponed his second coming to an indefinite time). We therefore see that the (early Christians were forced to radically alter the Jewish concept of the Messiah in order to explain Jesus failure). This compounded with the pagan influence in the (early church, gave birth to a Messianic concept totally alien to Judaism. [Pinchas Stolper, ed. pages 32, 33}

[Cyrus of Persia]

The Arian heresy that inflitrated the Early Church, which a Synod of bishops -over 380- in Ecumenical Council, pronounced "anathama" on, was over this very same issue. Evryone from Eastern Orthodox to Catholics, to Evangelical Protestants, while disagreeing on various doctrines, all agree on this primary issue.


Truth cannot be settled by cursing (anatheming) those who have different views. If you want powerplay, then yes, you put your opponent under curse and have illusion that by that your view becomes the one and the only truth. Powerplay was strongly involved in developing the doctrines and dogmas in Christianity, but powerplay is not proof that the ideas it fights for are nessessarily the truth.


If Jesus Christ was not God, what was the point of the temptations by the devil in the wilderness;


If Jesus was God then every human can say: yes, He was tempted, but He was God, so it's OK if He did not sinned, but i'm FORCED to sin because i'm only a human.


and again if Jesus was just a man His crucifixion for the sins of, and the redemption of mankind , was totally pointless.


Please, refer a Scripture where it says that only God could become a sacrifice for our sins.


Again, this is an old heresy settled already by the Fathers of the Early Church!


What is heresy in someone's eyes, might not be heresy in objective sense. Powerplay does not create truth, like i said.


All this said, i do not doubt in Divinity of Jesus. But those arguments are just weak.

[ansbible]

Jesus is declared to BE God all over the bible
[Jn 1:1 cont.]:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

G) AND GOD - THE NATURE, ALL THE QUALITIES AND ESSENCE OF GOD WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, (cont.)" =

"Kai Theos en ...o ...Logos"

"And God ..was the Word"

Notice the position of "Theos" = "God" at the beginning of the phrase - an emphatic one - which serves by this position to describe the Word as having the essence of God.

Since there is no article in front of "Theos" = "God", the noun is said to be anarthrous. The verb "was" = "en" is copulative, i.e. joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former describes the latter.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position and lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c, we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this verse being without the definite article means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only Jehovah God, i.e., God is the Word.

Throughout this passage the Word is presented as a Person, Creator, Truth, Life and Incarnate and later stipulated as Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world.

There is no getting around this: Jesus Christ is both God and Man at the same time.

[InChristAlways]

Jesus is declared to BE God all over the bible
[Jn 1:1 cont.]:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

G) AND GOD - THE NATURE, ALL THE QUALITIES AND ESSENCE OF GOD WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, (cont.)" =

"Kai Theos en ...o ...Logos"

"And God ..was the Word"

Notice the position of "Theos" = "God" at the beginning of the phrase - an emphatic one - which serves by this position to describe the Word as having the essence of God.

Since there is no article in front of "Theos" = "God", the noun is said to be anarthrous. The verb "was" = "en" is copulative, i.e. joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former describes the latter.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position and lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c, we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this verse being without the definite article means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only Jehovah God, i.e., God is the Word.

Throughout this passage the Word is presented as a Person, Creator, Truth, Life and Incarnate and later stipulated as Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world.

There is no getting around this: Jesus Christ is both God and Man at the same time. Hi asnbible. He is no longer a "man" anymore if you look at revelation!!! The catholics still look at Him as a "little baby" instead of the Glory of God Himself. He is seen as a "Lamb" in revelation a lot as that is suppose to symbolize the "sacrifice" He made for the jews first. He is indeed God. But alas, to this day the jews still can't "see" Him.

reve 11:13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. 14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. 15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters.

Reve 2:18 "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this:

[ansbible]

Romans 9:5
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

I guess that settles it: Jesus Christ is God.

Of course Jn 1:1 settles it too:

[Jn 1:1c]:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
AND GOD - THE NATURE, ALL THE QUALITIES AND ESSENCE OF GOD WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" =

"Kai Theos en ...o ...Logos"

"And God ..was the Word"

Notice the position of "Theos" = "God" at the beginning of the phrase - an emphatic one - which serves by this position to describe the Word as having the essence of God.

Since there is no article in front of "Theos" = "God", the noun is said to be anarthrous. The verb "was" = "en" is copulative, i.e. joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former describes the latter.

The subject of the sentence is "Word" ("Logos"), the verb is "was". There can be no direct object following "was" since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause.

"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. It refers back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position and lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c, we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this verse being without the definite article means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only Jehovah God, i.e., God is the Word.

[ansbible]

Jesus Christ is forever a Man. Notice in the passages you cite you have the terms Son of Man and Son of God. He is both! God and Man forever.

[InChristAlways]

Jesus Christ is forever a Man. Notice in the passages you cite you have the terms Son of Man and Son of God. He is both! God and Man forever.Hi ansbible. Yes, here He is as "one like the son of man" coming for His elect saints shown here, and He is also shown as like a Lion and like a "slain Lamb".
I guess this must be the rapture most are waiting on. What is the difference between a man and "one like the Son of Man"? For some reason, I just can't picture Jesus as a "physical flesh and blood man" now.

reve 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat [One] like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.

[Theoferrum]

Actually he is not God and Man he is the GodMan.

Theologically, people like to separate the two so as to understand the doctrine when, in fact, nobody can ever totally understand it except Y'shua himself.

And, for the person who started this thread I will ask you the same question that Yshua asked the religious leaders of his day.

If Yshua is the Son of David than how was it possible for David, speaking by the Spirit, to call Yshua Lord BEFORE HE WAS EVER BORN.

The only explanation is that Yshua is not only the son of David, he is also the Son of Y'hova making him self existant.

That, by the way, is the definition of God per his own name.

The Self Existant One.

"Before Abraham was [past tense] IAM [present tense].

You go greatly ere not knowing the Scriptures or the Power of God.

[Squeakybro]

you said
Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

I am assuming this is the temple that was standing in the first century unless it means "us" as His temple.

Malachi 3:1"'Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,' Says the LORD of hosts."[/QUOTE]

I said
Your right about Jesus not being God. And to realize this these verses might help you.

II Jn 1:8-11
8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
(NKJ)

Gal 5:1-4

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
(NKJ)

[ansbible]

"Actually he is not God and Man he is the GodMan."

Scripture declares in many places that He is God and in many places that He is Man. Do you disagree with Scripture/???


No where in Scripture does it say He is the GodMan although the concept is true.

Hence Jesus Christ inexplicably in my finite understanding is both God and Man and the GodMan, He is correctly described by either way.


"Theologically, people like to separate the two so as to understand the doctrine when, in fact, nobody can ever totally understand it except Y'shua himself."

Theolgically is the only way to discuss Theological matters. The word is unnecessary.

I separate the two because the Bible at times speaks of Christ's humanity and at other and separate times speaks of His Diety. So that's why I separate the two, because the bible does. This is not to say that Christ is ever separate from His Diety or His humanity except before He added to Himself humanity, (Phil 2:6-8).

Your criticism of what I have said is not biblical and bespeaks more of fault finding that edifying.

"And, for the person who started this thread I will ask you the same question that Yshua asked the religious leaders of his day.

If Yshua is the Son of David than how was it possible for David, speaking by the Spirit, to call Yshua Lord BEFORE HE WAS EVER BORN.

The only explanation is that Yshua is not only the son of David, he is also the Son of Y'hova making him self existant."

What is the purpose of your point except to denigrate, and all this without a Scripture quoted in support of your belittlement.

Let's go to a detailed examination of the hypostatic union and see what God has to say, which I reflect on. See if you can find edification in this study about the unfathomable Christ both man and God:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/phil2v8.htm

Let me know what you think of this study:

walter878@excite.com

even call if you are in the continental US at EST: 727-204-8189

"That, by the way, is the definition of God per his own name."

This is extraneous to the point and I wonder why you are interjecting it here as if others are ignorant of this. Are you trying to be pedantic or edifying???


ansbible (Bob)

The Self Existant One.

"Before Abraham was [past tense] IAM [present tense].

You go greatly ere not knowing the Scriptures or the Power of God.[/QUOTE]

[ansbible]

you said
Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

I am assuming this is the temple that was standing in the first century unless it means "us" as His temple.

The context is Israel and all mankind unto whom a Child is born

In addition to this, the verse you cited do not have anything to do with whether or not Christ is human or Diety or both. Passages may have in view His humanity but that does not exclude the fact that He is Diety, and the reverse is also true. Your logic is faulty.

Just as I may present myself as an employee at work does not exclude the fact that I am a husband and a father at the same time, does it????

[InChristAlways]

Romans 9:5
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

I guess that settles it: Jesus Christ is God.

Of course Jn 1:1 settles it too:

[Jn 1:1c]:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
AND GOD - THE NATURE, ALL THE QUALITIES AND ESSENCE OF GOD WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING OF ALL TIME AND CREATION
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" =

"Kai Theos en ...o ...Logos"

"And God ..was the Word"

Notice the position of "Theos" = "God" at the beginning of the phrase - an emphatic one - which serves by this position to describe the Word as having the essence of God.

Since there is no article in front of "Theos" = "God", the noun is said to be anarthrous. The verb "was" = "en" is copulative, i.e. joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning where the former describes the latter.

The subject of the sentence is "Word" ("Logos"), the verb is "was". There can be no direct object following "was" since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back in meaning to the subject of the clause.

"Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third clause of the verse. It refers back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). The definite predicate nominative never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. Hence no article is needed for "Theos" ("God"). So to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek. The Word, then, can be no one else except God.

Therefore, in view of the emphatic position and lack of a definite article in Jn 1:1c, we conclude that the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "Logos" = "the Word". So "Theos" in this verse being without the definite article means that the Word has the nature, qualities and essences of the One and only Jehovah God, i.e., God is the Word.Hi. According to revelation, the One speaking to John in chapt one is the same One sitting on the Throne when he is told to "come up here", so it would be pretty hard to see Him as a "man" now. The Man/Lamb/Son of God/Son of Man is indeed the Word which was God. A slain Lamb is shown later in chapt 5. Pretty fascinating.

reve 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,"

Revelation 4:1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door [standing] open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard [was] like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this." 2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and [One] sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and [there was] a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald.

[Squeakybro]

ansbible you said
Quote: Originally posted by Squeakybro
you said
Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

I am assuming this is the temple that was standing in the first century unless it means "us" as His temple.

I said
Would you go look again. I didnt say that.
And you all are not getting the concept that God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. God was working through Jesus. The same way that God can work through us.

2 Cor 5:19
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)


Phil 2:13
13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
(NKJ)

You are not God you are not a Godman. Jesus showed us how to submit to God the Father. There is only one God the Father. The apostles said so.

1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)

Jesus said there is only one true God the Father.

John 17:1-3
1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(NKJ)

And the only trinity in the Word of God is

Rev 12:9
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(NKJ)

[Grace2U]

Squeaky not only denies that Jesus is God, he even denies that Jesus is good. Squeaky is a deceiver.

Peace in Christ!

[ansbible]

ansbible you said
"Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

[ansbible]
That's a bible Verse????????????????????

I am assuming this is the temple that was standing in the first century unless it means "us" as His temple.

[ansbible]
Where does Isa 9:6 say anything about a temple?????????????????????


I said
Would you go look again. I didnt say that.
And you all are not getting the concept that God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. God was working through Jesus. The same way that God can work through us.

[ansbible]
God working through the humanity of Jesus Christ does not negate the fact that He is also God. It is both. One is not mutally exclusive from the other any more than my being an employee wherein my employer works through me to get the work of his company done is not mutally exclusive from me being the employer himself. I can act as a worker in my own company and still be the owner can't I????

Besides John 1:1 proves it that Jesus is God, so you can't go elsewhere and negate what John 1:1 says, that's called bait and switch.!!!! So do many other verses prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is God. You cannot put your head in the sand when these verses go by.

You are not God you are not a Godman. Jesus showed us how to submit to God the Father. There is only one God the Father. The apostles said so.

[ansbible]

True and this does not negate that fact that Jesus Christ is God. The concepts are not mutually exclusive as I have proven. Jesus in His humanity is showing us how to submit to God the Father in the same way that I as a worker is showing the rest of the staff at the company how to submit to the owner who I am also. It is a matter of which role I am playing is in view. The role of Christ in His humanity is one thing the role of our Lord in His diety is another.

[ansbible]

Isaiah 9:6"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Means what it says. It says no more than that and no less. Temple is not evident. The name of Christ is not there. Other passages cannot change what it does not say. Context context context.

Us is Israel - read the first 5 verses of this chapter and see.

You cannot/must not impose other passages on the message of Isa 9!!!!

[Doubting John]

Was Jesus God Incarnate?

One) The traditional view that Jesus was literally God in the flesh was not something he himself believed or taught, but was written into the Gospels after the Easter event. For Palestinian Jews living in the first century, a close encounter with Jesus “would be a conversion experience.” For someone to see the conviction in his eyes as he preached that the kingdom is at hand, the authority of his words and deeds, the way he expressed love, the “miraculous” healings and providential circumstances that surrounded his life, and his apocalyptic conviction of living in the last days of the present age would lead one to think God is indeed in this person.
How this conversion experience led up to John’s claim in his Gospel that Jesus was “the only begotten Son of God” (John1: 18) is a large and complex topic. Wolfhart Pannenberg argues that the belief that Jesus claimed anything like this “has been demonstrated with growing certainty by critical study of the Gospels to be the work of the post-Easter community. Today it must be taken as all but certain that the pre-Easter Jesus neither designated himself as Messiah (or Son of God) nor accepted such a confession to him from others.” Jesus—God and Man (Westminister, 1968).

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus says to a man, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (10:17-18). According to James Barr, “This only makes sense if Jesus is not claiming to be God.” Because “it fits with the fact that Jesus fully accepted Jewish monotheism.” Beyond Fundamentalism, 1984 (p. 58). By contrast, John’s Gospel, dated conservatively at 100 A.D., thirty (to forty-five) years after Mark, reveals a very high view of Christ.

One huge piece of evidence that leads scholars to believe John’s Gospel was written very late is his usage of the phrase, “the Jews.” It occurs about seventy times, in contrast to five occurrences in the other Gospels. In John’s gospel it is a stereotype for Jesus’ opponents. Compare 7:13: “for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him (Jesus)” (See also John 2:18-20; 5:15, 18; 7:1; 9:18, 22; 10:31; 12:9; 18:28; 19:38; 20:19). But they were all Jews! How do Jews fear the Jews? The Gospel writer himself was a Jew, if it was John! Such a usage reveals the complete break between official Judaism and Christianity, which occurred after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Roman army. It is a very odd use of the phrase, leading some to believe John the Apostle didn’t even write this gospel, because he himself was a Jew. At the minimum it reveals that the author was not so much interested in historical facts, but in elaborating on history, and even creating history.

Conservative scholar James Dunn, in The Evidence for Jesus, tells us the specific problem. It’s “whether we can use John’s Gospel as direct testimony to Jesus’ own teaching.” “This problem was not invented by modern scholarship; it was rather discovered by modern scholarship.” (p. 31). John’s Gospel is “obviously different” from the other three earlier Gospels in terms of style and content. In the other three Synoptic Gospels (so named because they see the same things) Jesus speaks in proverbs, epigrams (cf. Sermon on the Mount for example, Matt. 5-7) and in parables, whereas in John’s Gospel Jesus often speaks in long involved discourses (John 6, 14-17). In the three Synoptic Gospels Jesus speaks often of the “kingdom of God” and hardly anything about himself, but in John’s Gospel he speaks often about himself (“I am the light of the world…the bread of life…the way the life and the truth.”), but he hardly says anything about the kingdom of God.

At best, scholars see these differences as indicative of the fact that John’s Gospel is a theological elaboration of history, while still others see them indicating it is wholly theological in nature with not much historical value at all when it comes to what Jesus taught. Case in point is the question of the high view of Christ revealed in John’s Gospel. Even Dunn acknowledges that the number of times Jesus speaks of God as his “Father” or ‘the Father’ in John’s gospel (173 times--Dunn's count) when compared to all three earlier Synoptic Gospels (a total of 43 times, many repeated between them) leads him to say that John’s Jesus is “the truth of Jesus in retrospect rather than as expressed by Jesus at the time…it is expanded teaching of Jesus.” (p. 45). And yet it is mostly because of John’s Jesus that we get a very high Christology. John’s Jesus is quoted as saying: “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30), and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John14:9). But, based on what we’ve just seen, he never said those things. This is John’s Jesus speaking, not the historical Jesus.

Two) We can trace how Jesus was deified by his followers leading ultimately to the Nicean/Chalcedonian view of Christ as a way of expressing the Lordship of Jesus over the gods and goddesses of the Roman Empire. John Hick: “In general it seems that the early Christians, seeking to understand and communicate the significance of their Lord, grasped at concepts and titles within their culture and that the usage of these developed under the pressures of preaching and controversy.” (Encountering Jesus, p 14).

Jewish tradition in Jesus’ time had three major images of the redeemer who would bring in the coming new and glorious age. One was the “Messiah” (Hebrew for “King”), who was to reign in a new kingdom in which Jerusalem would be the center of the world, and where God’s will would be done on earth. The second was that of the “Son of man” prophesized in Daniel 7:13-14. Hick reminds us that “with a view to the later Christian doctrine of the incarnation, that neither the Messiah nor the Son of man was, in Jewish thinking, divine…it was emphatically not equivalent to being God incarnate.” Encountering Jesus, (pp. 7-9). It couldn’t be!

A third image was “Son of God,” which was common in the ancient world as well as in Biblical literature. Oscar Cullman: “The origin of the ‘son of God’ concept lies in ancient oriental religions, in which above all kings were thought to be begotten of gods…. In the N.T. period one could meet everywhere men who called themselves ‘sons of God’ because of their peculiar vocation or miraculous powers.” “In the O.T. we find this expression used in three ways: the whole people of Israel is called ‘Son of God’ (Hosea 11:1); kings bear the title (Ps. 2:7; II Sam. 7:14); persons with a special commission from God, such as angels (Job 1:6; 38:7), and perhaps also the Messiah, are so called.” The Christology of the N.T., (pp. 271-273).

According to John Hick: “It is not in the least surprising that Jesus, as a spirit-filled prophet, a charismatic healer, perhaps as Messiah, believed to be of the royal line of David, should have been thought of and should have thought of himself as, in this familiar metaphorical sense, a son of God. What happened, as the gospel went out beyond the Hebraic milieu into the Greek-dominated intellectual world of the Roman Empire, was that the metaphorical son of God was transformed into the metaphysical God the Son.” Encountering Jesus, (p. 14). Pannenberg: “At first the ‘Son of God’ concept did not express a participation in the divine essence….Only in Gentile Christianity was the divine Sonship understood physically as participation in the divine essence.” Jesus—God and Man (p. 117). The progression of this train of thought led up to the very strong affirmation of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology of the 4th–5th centuries. John Hick: “It could well be that its deification of Jesus helped the early Christian community to survive its period of intermittent persecutions and that subsequently, if the church was to be the spiritual, moral, and cultural director of the Roman Empire, and thus of Western civilization, it needed the prestige of a founder who was none other than God, in the person of the eternal Son.” (in Encountering Jesus).

Three) The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: “It lies beyond my meager abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine, without either interfering with the other.” (p. 134).

Here then are three conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings. Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily omniscient—he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn’t act omniscient. He said he didn’t know the time of his own return; 3) God is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and yet we’re told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.


Regarding Doubting Thomas:

Those who heard the stories of Jesus’ resurrection didn’t initially believe them (Luke 24:11), including “doubting” Thomas (John 20:24-29). By them we are led to believe that these people were not gullible—they demanded evidence before they would believe. In the case of the disciple Thomas, when he saw the risen Jesus he “said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” But we’ve already seen that John’s gospel takes quite a few liberties with what actually was said and done. Such a high exclamation coming through the lips of Thomas never happened. So we have reason to wonder if the event itself ever took place.

John describes a risen Jesus who appeared to Thomas, even “though the doors were locked,” indicating that Jesus either walked through the doors, or just appeared out of thin air. And then Jesus proceeds by asking Thomas to put his finger in his hands, and his hand in Jesus’ side. How can both of these descriptions of Jesus be of a flesh and blooded person? The way Jesus appeared to Thomas leads us think that this was nothing but a vision. How then can Thomas touch the flesh of Jesus, which still had open fatal wounds? Did the post-resurrected Jesus still have blood running in his veins? We now know that blood is necessary for the body to function, and that breathing gives the blood its oxygen, which is pumped though the body by the heart. Did he have a functioning heart and a set of lungs? Did the post-resurrected Jesus breathe? John said that he breathed (John 20:22). To speak demands a functioning set of lungs. But didn’t Jesus lose all of his blood on the cross, and didn’t the post-resurrected body of Jesus still have open fatal wounds, according to John? All of this leads me to suspect, at best, it was a vision.

The stories also tell of a post-resurrected Jesus who is usually not immediately recognized by his disciples (John 20:14; Luke 24:16). It’s also worth noting that even among those who saw the risen Jesus, “some doubted” (Mt. 28:17). How is that really possible? What is it that made them doubt? The fact that Matthew tells us of this may indicate his honesty in telling the story, or it may be a way of dealing with those doubters out there who told a different story.

[InChristAlways]

By contrast, John’s Gospel, dated conservatively at 100 A.D., thirty (to forty-five) years after Mark, reveals a very high view of Christ.

One huge piece of evidence that leads scholars to believe John’s Gospel was written very late is his usage of the phrase, “the Jews.” It occurs about seventy times, in contrast to five occurrences in the other Gospels. In John’s gospel it is a stereotype for Jesus’ opponents. Compare 7:13: “for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him (Jesus)” (See also John 2:18-20; 5:15, 18; 7:1; 9:18, 22; 10:31; 12:9; 18:28; 19:38; 20:19). But they were all Jews! How do Jews fear the Jews?

.............At the minimum it reveals that the author was not so much interested in historical facts, but in elaborating on history, and even creating history.Hi DJ. What does the amount of the usage of the word jew/jews have to do when it was written??? You ever notice how many times those words are used in Acts and Paul epistles? Does that mean those were written in 100 ad??
The events of 70 ad are not written in it either, so how could it have been written AFTER 70 ad? Blessings

[berated]

Was Jesus God Incarnate?

One) The traditional view that Jesus was literally God in the flesh was not something he himself believed or taught, but was written into the Gospels after the Easter event. For Palestinian Jews living in the first century, a close encounter with Jesus “would be a conversion experience.” For someone to see the conviction in his eyes as he preached that the kingdom is at hand, the authority of his words and deeds, the way he expressed love, the “miraculous” healings and providential circumstances that surrounded his life, and his apocalyptic conviction of living in the last days of the present age would lead one to think God is indeed in this person.
How this conversion experience led up to John’s claim in his Gospel that Jesus was “the only begotten Son of God” (John1: 18) is a large and complex topic. Wolfhart Pannenberg argues that the belief that Jesus claimed anything like this “has been demonstrated with growing certainty by critical study of the Gospels to be the work of the post-Easter community. Today it must be taken as all but certain that the pre-Easter Jesus neither designated himself as Messiah (or Son of God) nor accepted such a confession to him from others.” Jesus—God and Man (Westminister, 1968).

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus says to a man, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (10:17-18). According to James Barr, “This only makes sense if Jesus is not claiming to be God.” Because “it fits with the fact that Jesus fully accepted Jewish monotheism.” Beyond Fundamentalism, 1984 (p. 58). By contrast, John’s Gospel, dated conservatively at 100 A.D., thirty (to forty-five) years after Mark, reveals a very high view of Christ.

One huge piece of evidence that leads scholars to believe John’s Gospel was written very late is his usage of the phrase, “the Jews.” It occurs about seventy times, in contrast to five occurrences in the other Gospels. In John’s gospel it is a stereotype for Jesus’ opponents. Compare 7:13: “for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him (Jesus)” (See also John 2:18-20; 5:15, 18; 7:1; 9:18, 22; 10:31; 12:9; 18:28; 19:38; 20:19). But they were all Jews! How do Jews fear the Jews? The Gospel writer himself was a Jew, if it was John! Such a usage reveals the complete break between official Judaism and Christianity, which occurred after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Roman army. It is a very odd use of the phrase, leading some to believe John the Apostle didn’t even write this gospel, because he himself was a Jew. At the minimum it reveals that the author was not so much interested in historical facts, but in elaborating on history, and even creating history.

Conservative scholar James Dunn, in The Evidence for Jesus, tells us the specific problem. It’s “whether we can use John’s Gospel as direct testimony to Jesus’ own teaching.” “This problem was not invented by modern scholarship; it was rather discovered by modern scholarship.” (p. 31). John’s Gospel is “obviously different” from the other three earlier Gospels in terms of style and content. In the other three Synoptic Gospels (so named because they see the same things) Jesus speaks in proverbs, epigrams (cf. Sermon on the Mount for example, Matt. 5-7) and in parables, whereas in John’s Gospel Jesus often speaks in long involved discourses (John 6, 14-17). In the three Synoptic Gospels Jesus speaks often of the “kingdom of God” and hardly anything about himself, but in John’s Gospel he speaks often about himself (“I am the light of the world…the bread of life…the way the life and the truth.”), but he hardly says anything about the kingdom of God.

At best, scholars see these differences as indicative of the fact that John’s Gospel is a theological elaboration of history, while still others see them indicating it is wholly theological in nature with not much historical value at all when it comes to what Jesus taught. Case in point is the question of the high view of Christ revealed in John’s Gospel. Even Dunn acknowledges that the number of times Jesus speaks of God as his “Father” or ‘the Father’ in John’s gospel (173 times--Dunn's count) when compared to all three earlier Synoptic Gospels (a total of 43 times, many repeated between them) leads him to say that John’s Jesus is “the truth of Jesus in retrospect rather than as expressed by Jesus at the time…it is expanded teaching of Jesus.” (p. 45). And yet it is mostly because of John’s Jesus that we get a very high Christology. John’s Jesus is quoted as saying: “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30), and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John14:9). But, based on what we’ve just seen, he never said those things. This is John’s Jesus speaking, not the historical Jesus.

Two) We can trace how Jesus was deified by his followers leading ultimately to the Nicean/Chalcedonian view of Christ as a way of expressing the Lordship of Jesus over the gods and goddesses of the Roman Empire. John Hick: “In general it seems that the early Christians, seeking to understand and communicate the significance of their Lord, grasped at concepts and titles within their culture and that the usage of these developed under the pressures of preaching and controversy.” (Encountering Jesus, p 14).

Jewish tradition in Jesus’ time had three major images of the redeemer who would bring in the coming new and glorious age. One was the “Messiah” (Hebrew for “King”), who was to reign in a new kingdom in which Jerusalem would be the center of the world, and where God’s will would be done on earth. The second was that of the “Son of man” prophesized in Daniel 7:13-14. Hick reminds us that “with a view to the later Christian doctrine of the incarnation, that neither the Messiah nor the Son of man was, in Jewish thinking, divine…it was emphatically not equivalent to being God incarnate.” Encountering Jesus, (pp. 7-9). It couldn’t be!

A third image was “Son of God,” which was common in the ancient world as well as in Biblical literature. Oscar Cullman: “The origin of the ‘son of God’ concept lies in ancient oriental religions, in which above all kings were thought to be begotten of gods…. In the N.T. period one could meet everywhere men who called themselves ‘sons of God’ because of their peculiar vocation or miraculous powers.” “In the O.T. we find this expression used in three ways: the whole people of Israel is called ‘Son of God’ (Hosea 11:1); kings bear the title (Ps. 2:7; II Sam. 7:14); persons with a special commission from God, such as angels (Job 1:6; 38:7), and perhaps also the Messiah, are so called.” The Christology of the N.T., (pp. 271-273).

According to John Hick: “It is not in the least surprising that Jesus, as a spirit-filled prophet, a charismatic healer, perhaps as Messiah, believed to be of the royal line of David, should have been thought of and should have thought of himself as, in this familiar metaphorical sense, a son of God. What happened, as the gospel went out beyond the Hebraic milieu into the Greek-dominated intellectual world of the Roman Empire, was that the metaphorical son of God was transformed into the metaphysical God the Son.” Encountering Jesus, (p. 14). Pannenberg: “At first the ‘Son of God’ concept did not express a participation in the divine essence….Only in Gentile Christianity was the divine Sonship understood physically as participation in the divine essence.” Jesus—God and Man (p. 117). The progression of this train of thought led up to the very strong affirmation of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology of the 4th–5th centuries. John Hick: “It could well be that its deification of Jesus helped the early Christian community to survive its period of intermittent persecutions and that subsequently, if the church was to be the spiritual, moral, and cultural director of the Roman Empire, and thus of Western civilization, it needed the prestige of a founder who was none other than God, in the person of the eternal Son.” (in Encountering Jesus).

Three) The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: “It lies beyond my meager abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine, without either interfering with the other.” (p. 134).

Here then are three conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings. Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily omniscient—he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn’t act omniscient. He said he didn’t know the time of his own return; 3) God is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and yet we’re told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.


Regarding Doubting Thomas:

Those who heard the stories of Jesus’ resurrection didn’t initially believe them (Luke 24:11), including “doubting” Thomas (John 20:24-29). By them we are led to believe that these people were not gullible—they demanded evidence before they would believe. In the case of the disciple Thomas, when he saw the risen Jesus he “said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” But we’ve already seen that John’s gospel takes quite a few liberties with what actually was said and done. Such a high exclamation coming through the lips of Thomas never happened. So we have reason to wonder if the event itself ever took place.

John describes a risen Jesus who appeared to Thomas, even “though the doors were locked,” indicating that Jesus either walked through the doors, or just appeared out of thin air. And then Jesus proceeds by asking Thomas to put his finger in his hands, and his hand in Jesus’ side. How can both of these descriptions of Jesus be of a flesh and blooded person? The way Jesus appeared to Thomas leads us think that this was nothing but a vision. How then can Thomas touch the flesh of Jesus, which still had open fatal wounds? Did the post-resurrected Jesus still have blood running in his veins? We now know that blood is necessary for the body to function, and that breathing gives the blood its oxygen, which is pumped though the body by the heart. Did he have a functioning heart and a set of lungs? Did the post-resurrected Jesus breathe? John said that he breathed (John 20:22). To speak demands a functioning set of lungs. But didn’t Jesus lose all of his blood on the cross, and didn’t the post-resurrected body of Jesus still have open fatal wounds, according to John? All of this leads me to suspect, at best, it was a vision.

The stories also tell of a post-resurrected Jesus who is usually not immediately recognized by his disciples (John 20:14; Luke 24:16). It’s also worth noting that even among those who saw the risen Jesus, “some doubted” (Mt. 28:17). How is that really possible? What is it that made them doubt? The fact that Matthew tells us of this may indicate his honesty in telling the story, or it may be a way of dealing with those doubters out there who told a different story.

The "Synoptic Gospels" Matthew, Mark and Luke use some of the same sources, which is why they are termed synoptic. Scholars agree also that the Gospel of St. John uses a source termed "Q". For as you note, the style, language, and content are dramatically different. And while you mention the names of some of whom I've never heard, you fail to take into considferation those of the Early Church, who waged polemic battles on the theology front against heresies of their times.
St. Basil, his brother St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Gregory the Great, St. John Chrysostom, Ss Cyril and Athanisus of Alexandria, John of Damascus, and St. Maximus the Confessor (Who in defiance of the Emperor's edict to not use the Greek term which spoke of the two natures of Jesus, had his tongue sut out). The one heresy which threatened the Church for years -at least 100- was called Arianism, named after a Bishop of the Church who was later condemned by all the other Bishops (who had gathered in Ecumenical Council) for teaching what your article is suggesting. He formed his belief after rejecting the concept of Origen's idea of the universe, and taught that Jesus , the Word of God, was created in time just as the created order was. This idea of rejecting the two natures of Jesus, was an offshoot of the rejection of Mary being refered to using the Greek term Theotokos, which means "Mother of God".
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel..." (Gen 3:15) "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel..." (Isaiah 7:14) Suffice it to say of the geneoligies of Matthew and Luke that one follows the priestly line, and the other the legal heritage of Jesus. And, although Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the Synoptics, it is only Matthew and Luke which carry the story of the birth of Jesus, the fullest account being in the Gospel of St. Luke. However; both those Gospel accounts refer back to as a source, the passage noted above from the prophet Isaiah.
Hebrews 2:5-18, 4:14 - 5:10 by the Holy Apostle Paul, is to long to post, so I'll let you read them for yourself. Please remember that what Paul taught about the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, he learned by way of divine revelation.
Taking into account then what God spoke to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and what He spoke through the prophet Isaiah, and the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation, and the Epistles of St. Paul, a man who "...moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God..."; all these witnesses, and those of the Early Church, would have to be discounted, not to mention the logical reasoning which tells us that for the Redemption of Jesus to be of any profit to man (as St. Paul says), He would have to be fully human.
I have no idea if the 'scholars' you referenced have any idea of the Theologians and Scholars of the Early Church, who definitively argued for what Mr. Sanders says has never been defended; men whom, I would rather believe, who learned theology by both education and experience, rather than pure academians. Oh yes, those names I referenced earlier, their writings along with some of those of St. Augustine of Hippo, can be found at www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org).

My pillow beckons.