ksalzar

Perhaps you could look at this evidence and respond to it for me then.... Now let us look at the grammatical use of the phrase "I am" by Jesus and by God and see if that supports the assertion that Jesus is employing the divine name. First, Exodus 3:13-14: ...and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them? God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' " We see the way God uses the phrase "I AM" is consistent with someone identifying themselves with a name. For instance, if someone were to ask me my name, I would reply "I am Kyle". That person who asked me my name could go tell someone "Kyle has sent me to you". Both of these phrases make perfect sense. Now lets look at how Jesus uses the phrase "I am" grammatically.Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Let us do the same thing, and sub in my name, Kyle. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, Kyle." As we can see, grammatically this does not line up with how God used the phrase in Exodus. If Jesus were drawing a direct connection to the divine name as revealed in Exodus 3:14, he would have needed to use the name in a similar way; in a way that made sense grammatically. This though, he did not do. Nonsense-You "spin" more than the Roman Catholic Church amd Mormons. The Lord Jesus Christ, in 5th grade grammar, identified Himself as the great "I am" of the OT. You cannot see it, just as you cannot see that He identified Himself as "The Alpa and the Omega". You are spiritually blind. You cannot see the "I am's" of John. You will one day acknowledge that He is Lord=master, ruler, owner=deity. Any Jew who heard His "I am" statements knew He was claiming to be God. Your denial does not change this fact. Again, Ksalzar,You have been told. Therefore, as it is written: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" Titus 3:10 In Christ, John Whalen So you respond to a legitimate objection with "Nonsense-You "spin" more than the Roman Catholic Church amd Mormons. The Lord Jesus Christ, in 5th grade grammar, identified Himself as the great "I am" of the OT. You cannot see it, just as you cannot see that He identified Himself as "The Alpa and the Omega". You are spiritually blind." Perhaps instead of simply berating me you could respond to my objection and open my eyes. Thanks, Kyle

But wait Paul didn't really mean every single thing for in the next statement he says: The qualification is in the context, just as it is in Colossians. Furthermore the Colossians account doesn't even say that Jesus created the heavens and the earth. It does say that things in the heavnes and on the earth were created, not that the heavens and the earth were created. This in and of itself limits the "all things" that you claim is so encompassing. These are honest objections. Could you please address them, and explain to me how it is that you understand these points I just made. I was just rereading our exchange and it hit me Kyle... (sometimes it takes awhile ) Your reference to 1 Corinthians 15:27 actually proves my point...that ALL THINGS is ALL encompassing. Only GOD in HIS fullness is not subjected to HIMSELF...so that God may be ALL in ALL. GOD was not created...HE was and is I AM. Regarding Colossians, I say again... "All things" and "First place in everything". Pretty much covers ALL creation....dirt and flesh and all. Be Blessed, Wayne I appreciate the fact that you are respectfull and thoughtfull in your comments, as opposed to the responses I have gotten from some of the others in this thread. My objection is exactly that the text never says God is subjected to himself, it says Jesus Christ is subjected to God.

I am disheartened by your quick dismissall of my position. I am not a Mormon. I do not think Jesus is a God and I do not think I am a God. I do not think I sit at God's right hand like Jesus, therefore I am not equal to Jesus. Jesus is my lord. You are reading things into my doctrine of deception that simply are not there. I have already answered these questions in this thread, perhaps you could take a more detailed look at this thread. I do not present anything unbiblical when I say "new creation". The Bible itself says we are new creations in Christ. Now I agree this is an ongoing process, I only make the distinction between the literal creation in the Genesis account and the non-literal creation in the Colossians account because that is how it is presented. Paul the Apostle himself qualifies all things within the same sentance by limiting it to positions of power, not literal creation. Whenever Paul says "all things" it is clear that the context ammends this statement. For example look at 1 Corinthians 15: But wait Paul didn't really mean every single thing for in the next statement he says: The qualification is in the context, just as it is in Colossians. Furthermore the Colossians account doesn't even say that Jesus created the heavens and the earth. It does say that things in the heavnes and on the earth were created, not that the heavens and the earth were created. This in and of itself limits the "all things" that you claim is so encompassing. These are honest objections. Could you please address them, and explain to me how it is that you understand these points I just made.

Perhaps you could address these objections which I have to interpreting this account as including the Genesis creation account: Thus far Paul has been discussing the Kingdom of God's beloved Son, where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High and is the firstborn of all creation. This verse continues talking about the new creation. The extent of this verse only implies the new creation and not the Genesis creation. This is obvious by the fact that the "all things" being created on "heaven and earth" here are thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities. If this verse were talking about the Genesis creation we would expect to see physical things created, like the dirt or fish or animals, but we do not see this. This becomes even more explicit when we look at two other verses in Colossians. Colossians 2:10-11 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; Colossians 2:14-15 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Notice also that Col 1:16 says "in the heavens and on the earth". If this were talking about the first creation account, the Genesis creation, we would expect it to be a creation of the heavens and earth. The creation spoke of here, though, is a creation concerning things in the heavens and on the earth. Look at how the Genesis creation account starts, Gen. 1:1.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created the heavens and the earth in the old creation account. The colossians account does not speak of the creating of the heavens and the earth, it does not speak of creating the land, sea, animals or plants. Finally, before I address an objection, I put forth two parrallel passages: Note, if you will, the parrallels between these passages and the one we are discussing, the Colossians passage. In both of these supporting passages we see Christ is above rule, authority, powers, dominions and angels after his resurrection. An Objection Addressed: Col 1:16 speaks of things being created in the past tense, therefore this must be talking about the old creation, the Genesis creation(also). No, this is not true and here is why. The new creation is consistently spoken of with this type of language, let us look at some scriptures. [*]Col 2:10-11 10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [*]Col 2:15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. [*]Col 3:10 and have put on the new self who is being renewd to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him- [*]Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. [*]Ephesians 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. The new creation is consistently spoken of in the past tense, it is simply the principle that God "calls things that are not as though they were".(Rom 4:17,NIV) This very creation account of Colossians 1 closes with a verse that uses the past tense, yet is obviously about the new creation. This is all from an article I have written on the Colossians account, if you could please address these objections I have to reading in the Genesis Creation account into this Colossians creation account I would appreciate it: Sincerely, Kyle.

The doctrine of the Trinity depends on two things, both supported in scripture Some people have argued that the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and is therefore a political construction that was simply declared to be doctrine at the Council of Nicea, rather than Biblical truth. This is simply not true; the doctrine of the Trinity is inferred from Scripture. Perhaps, let's see: Even though the term for "trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible, the term merely summarizes an idea that Christians had inferred from various passages. To put it simply the doctrine of the Trinity depends on two points, which if shown to be true, must mean the that the godhead has multiple persons in it (in this case, no more than and no less than three.): The divinity of the Messiah The Personhood of the Holy Spirit The Father is God (in the godhead, that is), there is no doubt of that. If the Messiah can be shown to be the Son, and the Holy Spirit (undoubtedly divine, as I will show you) can be shown to be a personal being, then God must be not a singularity, nor a duality, but a trinity of persons. Why is it that showing the Messiah is God's Son makes him God? That is an assumption you are making off the start, just because Jesus is God's Son does not make him God. The doctrine of the trinity is not that there are three gods in one; it is that there is one god, but that this one god has three persons in the godhead. (The key idea is that "person" != "god". We can have one god of three persons; there is no contradiction.) The Old and New Testaments are both in agreement that there is only one god, but both the Old and New Testaments imply that there are multiple divine persons in this god. Infact, one of the names of God in the Old Testament is Elohim, which is a plural form. The fact that the Hebrew word Elohim is found in it's plural form does not support the trinity. The reason is because in the Hebrew language there are many words which are plural in form but singular in meaning, and are used in the plural form to intensify the meaning; not to multiply the objects. This article HERE does a very good job of presenting this fact. The Divinity of the Messiah (For the sake of clarity, I'll start by arguing for duality rather than trinity by considering the issue of whether the Messiah (a.k.a. the Christ) was the son of God according to the Bible, and whether this makes the Messiah a second person in the godhead. Later, I'll address the issue of the Holy Spirit.) Okay. The question of whether the Messiah was divine is pretty clearly settled if the New Testament is your prooftext. In the all four of the gospels, Jesus makes claims to divinity (both implied and explicit), and his divinity is expounded on all over the epistles as well as in various verses in the gospel according to John. Since this is not much in question, I'll spare you the detailed explanation from the New Testament about the Messiah's divinity and his union with God the Father; instead, I'll focus on the Old Testament prooftext for the divinity of the Messiah. This is precisely what is in question for me. I do not think any of those passages you just put forth support your claim that Jesus says implicitly or explicitly that he is God. I simply do not see that in any of the passages you linked to. Perhaps we could pick one of them and start discussing it in detail so you may explain to me why those prove Jesus is God. I have already replied to a person on Philippians, maybe you could read up on my reply to that and answer my objections to using that as a proof text for Jesus being God. If not perhaps you could pick one of these to discuss with me in detail and we could start another thread to do so. The following yet-unfulfilled prophetic Psalm is clear that the Messiah (the anointed one) is the son of God. Psalm 2 Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against YHWH and against his Anointed One. "Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters." The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." I will proclaim the decree of YHWH: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery." Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve YHWH with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. I agree Jesus is the Son of God, I do not agree he is God the Son. The following passage makes it clear that the "Son of God" is understood to be of the same substance or quality of the godhead, making Him equal with God: John 5:16-18 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. But wait, you just linked to Philippians 2 which said Jesus did not grasp at equality with God, now you are telling me Jesus was making himself equal with God. Which is it? I disagree with your interpretation for one, because it conflicts with what Paul says in Philippians. God gave Jesus power and authority, Jesus came in the name of God. When someone comes in someone elses name they come with that authority. In this way Jesus was "equal with God", but I do not see how this makes him God. The following verses are Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament. The Highlighted verses imply that the Messiah is divine. Isaiah 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, Father of eternity "father of eternity" is the more literal translation], Prince of Peace. (Digression: Christians take this last title to mean peace between God and man; persecution and painful conflict with loved ones over faith convictions is promised to followers of Jesus.) I thought you were supplying Biblical backing for the trinity? The passage you just put forth supports a oneness position but does not support a trinitarian position. You do not believe Jesus is God the Father, yet this is what the title "Eternal Father"(NAS, also literal translation) implies. Are you trying to say Jesus is God the Father? With that said, here are some more facts on the verse: According to Hebraists, the titles of Messiah in thise verse are more accurately rendered as a series of couplets. Thus: Wonderful Counsellor. Mighty God. Father of Eternity. Prince of Peace. The New American Bible (a Catholic translation) says:For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. It also contains an interesting footnote:A child: the Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:8; cf Isaiah 11:1, 2, 9. In Christian tradition and liturgy, this passage is used to refer to Christ. Upon his shoulder dominion rests: authority. Wonder-Counselor: remarkable for his wisdom and prudence. God-Hero: a warrior and a defender of his people, like God himself. Father-Forever: ever devoted to his people. Prince of Peace: his reign will be characterized by peace. And some more: Furthermore some Footnotes in the New English Translation - an evangelical publication. In reference to "Wonderful Counsellor", the NET says:Some have seen two titles here (

Romans 9 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry ofChrist, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. Did you check your footnotes on this one?Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. This is taken from the NIV, which actually presents two alternative readings in a footnote:Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised! You will notice that both of these alternatives preclude a Trinitarian interpretation The New Living Translation says

Perhaps you could look at this evidence and respond to it for me then.... Now let us look at the grammatical use of the phrase "I am" by Jesus and by God and see if that supports the assertion that Jesus is employing the divine name. First, Exodus 3:13-14: ...and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them? God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' " We see the way God uses the phrase "I AM" is consistent with someone identifying themselves with a name. For instance, if someone were to ask me my name, I would reply "I am Kyle". That person who asked me my name could go tell someone "Kyle has sent me to you". Both of these phrases make perfect sense. Now lets look at how Jesus uses the phrase "I am" grammatically.Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Let us do the same thing, and sub in my name, Kyle. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, Kyle." As we can see, grammatically this does not line up with how God used the phrase in Exodus. If Jesus were drawing a direct connection to the divine name as revealed in Exodus 3:14, he would have needed to use the name in a similar way; in a way that made sense grammatically. This though, he did not do.

Good honest question. He is not a lesser God. There is only one God, that is the God of Jesus and the God of us; God the Father. Jesus said in John 17:3 "That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." It is stated plainly that God the Father is the only true God. Jesus is a man who died, and whom God raised again. Jesus was appointed by God as our savior and lord. Jesus has now been glorified by God to God's right hand as a prince and a savior.

Absolutely amazing, "You SEE Jesus - You SEE God, but then Jesus IS NOT God? DUH! YOU JUST DON'T SEE AT ALL KSALZAR! Blessings, Dad Ernie Okay I don't have time to respond to any of these because I have to many papers to grade. Even if I did have time to respond to these, I am going to stop responding until responses like this are either apologized for or stopped. This is very disrespectful, I don't let my brothers talk to me like that. I don't talk to my parents like this, nor do I let my students at school talk to me like this. I have already pointed out numerous things which have offended me. That sh ould be enough for someone to stop doing it, even if they don't think its offensive. If eating meat causes another to stumble, Paul said don't eat meat for their conscience sake. I am saying right now this type of response is bothering me, and I will not respond until this type of response ceases. You can attack my doctrine all day, but saying "DUH" to me in bright red, and telling me that I don't think God is just - please stop these kind of insulting comments.

This is not true, you have not shown the savior is God. Jesus statement of "I AM" is not even gramatically used the same as God's decleration of His name in Exodus. Galatians chapter 1 says nothing about denying Jesus is God. You have yet to address the objections I have made to the scriptures we have discussed on this thread so far. And now you throw out more scriptures, moving onto the "I AM" statements of Jesus. What about my points on John 10, what about my points on Phil 2, what about my points on Col 1? I am perfectly content to discuss Jesus' "I AM" statements with you as well, but please answer my objections to the interpretations put forth for the other passages.

I'm speechless at these comments. I mean, wow. Please attack me more, that will convince me. You obviously know nothing of me or my relationship with God, making the statement "you do not believe God is just". I do not appreciate any of these comments. I wonder if you would say these things to me if we were to talk face to face. What is it we are supposed to do? Build each other up speaking words seasoned with salt, graceful. Why would you even make personal attacks like that? Prove yourself biblicaly and let me learn. Personal attacks only tear down, they do not edify. Ugh, good night for now.

No sir, colossians is limited by its context. For an explicit decleration of the statement I just made have a look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: When it says all things are put in subjection it is talking of what it outlined previously in verse 24, namely "every rule and every authoriy and power." God is excepted and Jesus Christ will be subjected to God so that God is all in all. You are right, there is only one who is head over everything, that is God. This is who puts things in subjection under Christ's feet, and who is excepted from the statement of all things being subject to Christ.

The thing is Christ is not head over all rule and authority, there is one who is excepted from this statement. That is God.

Only God is without sin, this is your claim. What about children who die during birth, are they without sin? They have not sinned yet. What about Adam before the fall, he was without sin. He was not God.

It said the deity dwells in him. It did not say Jesus is deity, it speaks of deity filling Jesus up; as something fills up a container. This does not lend weight to the understanding that deity is Jesus essence or nature. Furthermore we also partake of the divine nature, again I ask could you answer this question, will we then be God also if the divine nature is in us?

Huh? I didn't say anything about lifting up diety. So Jesus became God? The word implies the deity has filled up Christ. Again I ask, will we then become God also? For we will partake of the divine nature as well.

Apologies for offending you. I am simply discussing the biblical support for Jesus being God. If he is I want to know, if he is not I would hope you would want to know. With that said: Nope Not in the way that Jesus' was, though we do all have one Father that is God. Nope He has performed great miracles in my life, he has made me a new creation. I trust in God and His Son, and I live my life obediently so that I may attain to the resurrection of the dead. Sure has not. If i'm not mistaken it declared this of only Jesus and the King of the time at which the Psalm was written, that would be either King David or King Solomon. Nope. Nope Don't worry, I don't expect anyone to be worshiping me anytime soon. If they did I would reply as did the disciples in Acts, "get up! I am a mere man!". Blessings also, kyle

Fair enough, here goes: Word Study: The word translated "fullness" in Colossians 2:9 is the Greek word pleroma. Strong's Greek Lexicon has this for the definition pleroma play