Is Jesus God?

[nChrist]

What some believe and what the Bible says are two different things. Some need to go back to the basics.

[Fez]

On John 1:1, that does not prove that the trinity exists. That verse proves that Jesus is the only God. Who is God in that verse that the Word was with? If it was the Father then plug the word "Father" in replace of the word "God" and see what you get. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father" See if you say God who the Word was "with" was the Father then the Word must also be the Father

Why on earth would I want to "plug" words into the bible, or "replace" words

Only reason I would want to do that, seems to me, is to place my own interpretation on something that is already perfect in God's eyes.

Wrong path brother, wrong and dangerous path....

[Guest shiloh357]

You are half right, and you are half wrong. Jesus IS God, you are right, because Jesus did not rebuke the disciples when they worshiped him (Matt 28:17) and we know only God was to be worshiped, and Jesus did not correct Thomas when he called Jesus his Lord and his God (John 20:28-29.) but you are wrong about one thing, there is no such thing as the trinity. There is only one God, and that God is only one (Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29) not three.

You are confusing being with personage. There is only God as far as being is concerned. To say otherwise would be polytheistic. The mystery of the Trinity is how God can be one in being, but three in personage.

Jesus Christ is that one God, He is the almighty (Revelation 1:8) Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6, John 14:9) Jesus is the Son (John 20:31) and Jesus is the Holy Ghost (John 14:16-18, 2Corinthains 3:17.) In Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9.)

Here is an exmple of what I mean when it comes to confusing person and being. Jesus is Almight God (being) But to say that Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a heresy known as modalism.

You cite Isaiah 9:6 "His Name shall be called..." "...everlasting father..." The phrase "everlasting father" in Hebrew (I speak and read Hebrew) is avi ad and is better translated as "father of eternity." It is not saying that Jesus is the Father. It is using the word "father" in a sense that is neither paternal or patriarchial. It is employing the word "father" much in the same way we would use it when we say that Alexander Graham Bell is the "father" of modern telecommunications.

When Jesus says that He and the Father are one, He is not saying they are one and the same. Jesus' point was that He was the revelation of the Father and that as it pertained "revealing the Father," Jesus had demonstrated the heart and essebce of who the Father is. He had glorified the Father by revealing His nature and operatations. Jesus demonstrated that He and the Father were in perfect unity. But NOWHERE does Jesus claim to be the Father.

Gods name is Jesus, and he is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost concerning his relationship to others, but he is only one person, not three.

Again, that is the heresy of modalism and has been rejected by the Church at large. God's Name according to Scripture, is YHVH. Jesus' real Hebrew Name was "Y'shua." The Holy Spirit is a different person and yet is still God. That is the mystery. How it works, the nuts and bolts of it all, is something the Scriptures don't explain. That information will be revealed to us at a later time.

As far as Jesus being indwelt by the fulness of the Godhead... The word for Godhead refers to Deity. That verse is not saying that Jesus is indwelt by the Father and Holy Spirit. It says that the fullness of the Divine Nature/Essence dwelled in Jesus when Jesus was in the flesh on earth. Paul made that statement because he was combatting the heresy of the Gnostics who had infiltrated the church at Colosse and were leading people to believe that Jesus did not raise from the dead bodily and even that He had no body during His earthly ministry.

Now in claiming that Jesus is the Holy Spirit, you cite II Cor. 3:17. What you need to understand is that Paul in that passage (vv. 13-17), is quoting from Exodus 34:34 when Moses went before "the Lord" and shone with such brilliance that he had to cover his face. "The Lord" is also used of God in the Old Testament and is referencing the Father. So to claim that Jesus is being referenced in 3:17 is simply not true. Paul was talking about God the Father who is a spirit.

Just like my name is Phillip and I am an uncle, a son, and a grandson concerning my relationship to others, but i am just one person. I did not split into three to become those things I entered into a new relationship.

Yes, but God's attributes are not "relational" in the sense you are painting them to be. God relates to man redemptively. There is nothing in the human experience that can serve as an adequate point of reference for the Trinity. It is one of those aspects of God's existence for which there is no adequate human explanation.

[Guest shiloh357]

You rephrase Isaiah 9:6 to make it seem more in your favor but let me ask you this, what biblical translation actually uses the words "Father of eternity" in their translation, I know of none, and if you can recite any it would probably be one or two at best if any at all that use that wording.

Translations in English don't always reflect the nuances in Hebrew. Hebrew is more precise. Most Christians understand, through study what the term means. You are taking the word father to reference His person, whereas, here it refernces His authority. He is the possesser, guardian, chief and architect of all that is and has been. He is the Creator. It is not being used in a paternal sense. It does not say that he is THE Father. It is referncing His Titles. "His Name shall be called..."

So either way you word it, you cannot be the Father of eternity without being an everlasting Father yourself.

That is not correct. The wording in Hebrew would preclude one from coming to that conclusion. I have a different perspective because I can read the original language and I can detect the precision and the nuances that English simply cannot duplicate. When the term "father" is used to simply mean "originator," (as in the Alexander Graham Bell example), it is possible for Jesus to be called a "father" without calling Him "the Father."

Your problem is compounded by the issue of Jesus addressing the Father in the third person. Jesus tells us that He was sent by the Father, which makes it impossible logically for them to be the same person. It would, in fact, be a mistake on Jesus part to represent the Father as a separate third party when in fact, He is the Father. It also makes no sense for Jesus to pray to the Father if Jesus IS the Father. Those are logical difficulties that have to be addressed.

Colossians 2:9 Means that Christ is indwelt by the ALL the FULNESS of DEITY. Which means that everything that God is, is in Christ, God is the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Jehovah jirah, jehovah nissi and everything else that God is, is in Christ. This is why Christ is the almighty (Rev 1:8) meaning he has all the might, there is no one as mighty as He.

No, that is not what it means. It simply means that Jesus is God that He is fully divine and still fully man. He is not saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in Jesus. That is just absurd. The word for "Godhead" is a word that mean Deity or Divinity. Again, the context in Colossians had to do with Gnostic heresy. Paul is trying demonstrate that Jesus is both fully Divine and fully human. You are putting more into the text than is warranted.

You are completely wrong, God attributes ARE "relational"

I did not say they were not relational. I said they are not relational in the sense that you depicting them. Relating to us redemptiive IS the basis of the relationship. His Names like YHVH Nissi, YHVH Rophe are all redemptive Names and describe different facets of that relationship.

[nChrist]

Phillip123,

You need to start over with the basics. I'll give you a little hint to help you get started:

Who Did Jesus Christ pray to during his earthly ministry?

[Guest shiloh357]

You did not give me one bible translation that used your wording for Isaiah 9:6. I would take any of the bible translators authority over yours, and im sure out of all those translators of different bibles, there is one that has more understanding and authority on the subject then you, but all of the translations word it "everlasting Father" instead of "father of eternity" and so you do admit that Jesus is "a father" in some since, so then you have "two Fathers" in some sense, therefore calling Jesus a liar in Matt 23:9, because Jesus made it clear that now we do not have a Father in any sense except for the one Father who is in heaven. You argue and say that it does not say that he is THE Father, that it is refering to titles, but i argue and say that THE Father, is a title itself, just like THE Son is a title, but any way you look at it, if you call Jesus "A Father" in any sence, and then you have another person who is not Jesus who is THE Father, then in some sense you have two Fathers, and we know that is wrong in any sense you would like to put it, because we only have one Father, which is in heaven (Malachi 2:10, Matt 23:9)

You are making the mistake of assuming that the translators read the phrase "eternal father" the same way you do. I am studied under seasoned translators and Hebrew scholars who know what they are talking about. Modern versions reflect a certain amount of tradition. There are a number of places in Scripture that do not reflect the current knowledge that scholars possess about how certain words should be translated. Rather, those nuances are born out in their commentaries and study notes. I am not making anything up. Hebrew is what it is and it says what it says, and continuing to appeal to English over the Hebrew is a practice in futility. Jesus is nowhere called "The Father."

The Father sent the Son, the Son is the flesh of God, Jesus was saying as a man that the Father sent the Son(Romans 1:3),

Jesus did not make that distinction.

Romans 1:3 refers to Jesus being made the seed of David. It does not say that God only sent Jesus "the man." Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus the Son "is the flesh of God." That is just something you have concocted.

Sorry your logic just doesn't wash. The Father sent the Son , but the Son IS the Father. Jesus the Father sent Jesus the man. Yet they are one and the same. That is just absurd. Oneness theology is far more problematic than Trinitarian theology.

I would have to tell you that you cannot have a 3 distinct persons in a trinity praying to each other and still be one God without ultimately saying that God prayed to himself.

Except that is not what I believe. I believe that Jesus in His humanity prayed to His Father, but I don't think that Jesus is also the Father. So Jesus would not be praying to Himself.

You are still confusing being with personage. In His essential being He is one, singular entity ONE God. How is it that this one God is comprised of three persons? That is the mystery.

Even when Jesus is referenced in the OT, he is distinct from the Father, this is especially seen in prophecies like Isaiah 53.

Colossians 2:9 by using the word divine I am assuming that you mean that he is fully God and fully man correct? If you are, then what I am saying is I agree, but to be fully God you have to be everything that God is, or you are not fully God, you are only part of God, and i do not believe that Jesus is part of God because then he could not claim to be the almighty (Rev 1:8) He could only claim to be part of the almighty.

Fully Divine does not mean He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It means that Jesus is in His essential being, Divine. It means that Jesus is God. Yes, it does mean that Jesus was fully God and fully human.

Again, what you are promoting is the heresy of modalism, where God is appears sometimes as the Father, Sometimes as the Son and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. Yet at Jesus' baptism, all three were present yet separate at the same time. The Father spoke from heaven, the Son was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove. That demonstrates as disctinction in their personages.

Okay well then if you agree that the attributes of God are relational then yes I agree but you have no grounds for arguing if you agree, because the sense that I am using it in is the sense that you just described, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all redemptive titles describing different facets of Gods relationship to man

No, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not redemptive titles. Redmeptive titles are connected to the Divine Name YHVH. Again, YHVH Nissi and YHVH rophe are redemptive because they demonstrate something about God's nature and operations towards man. Other such compound titles do the same. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply references to personage or role/rank.

but you do not have to have three different persons to have those different redemptive relationships, if we used that kind of logic we would have to say that Jehovah nissi and Jehovah rophe are distinct persons too, but they are not, it is just titles for the one God whos name is Jesus.

No God's Name is YHVH. That has always been His only Name. It is the Name revealed by Scripture.

[other one]

because how can you have three persons in a godhead praying to one another and still be one God without ultimately saying that God prayed to himself?

because your defination of the word God is not the same as the Hebrew and Greek words.

Not even in John 1:! does the Greek use the same words for God in that one scripture. Until one gets the concept of that word one simply can not understand the entities and relationships of what most of us referr to as the trinity.

[Believer112]

Phillip123,

You need to start over with the basics. I'll give you a little hint to help you get started:

Who Did Jesus Christ pray to during his earthly ministry?

I already explained that, Jesus prayed as a man(Hebrews 5:7) because God by definition does not pray. The Son is not a separate person, the Son is the flesh of God, God manifested in the flesh. As a man Jesus prayed, but as God Jesus answered prayer, and I told everyone not to try to say that Jesus wouldnt pray to himself, because how can you have three persons in a godhead praying to one another and still be one God without ultimately saying that God prayed to himself?

Philippians 2:9-11

⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

These scriptures seem to seperate God and Jesus.

Matthew 24:36

³⁶

[Guest shiloh357]

You did not give me one bible translation that used your wording for Isaiah 9:6. I would take any of the bible translators authority over yours, and im sure out of all those translators of different bibles, there is one that has more understanding and authority on the subject then you, but all of the translations word it "everlasting Father" instead of "father of eternity" and so you do admit that Jesus is "a father" in some since, so then you have "two Fathers" in some sense, therefore calling Jesus a liar in Matt 23:9, because Jesus made it clear that now we do not have a Father in any sense except for the one Father who is in heaven. You argue and say that it does not say that he is THE Father, that it is refering to titles, but i argue and say that THE Father, is a title itself, just like THE Son is a title, but any way you look at it, if you call Jesus "A Father" in any sence, and then you have another person who is not Jesus who is THE Father, then in some sense you have two Fathers, and we know that is wrong in any sense you would like to put it, because we only have one Father, which is in heaven (Malachi 2:10, Matt 23:9)

You are making the mistake of assuming that the translators read the phrase "eternal father" the same way you do. I am studied under seasoned translators and Hebrew scholars who know what they are talking about. Modern versions reflect a certain amount of tradition. There are a number of places in Scripture that do not reflect the current knowledge that scholars possess about how certain words should be translated. Rather, those nuances are born out in their commentaries and study notes. I am not making anything up. Hebrew is what it is and it says what it says, and continuing to appeal to English over the Hebrew is a practice in futility. Jesus is nowhere called "The Father."

The Father sent the Son, the Son is the flesh of God, Jesus was saying as a man that the Father sent the Son(Romans 1:3),

Jesus did not make that distinction.

Romans 1:3 refers to Jesus being made the seed of David. It does not say that God only sent Jesus "the man." Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus the Son "is the flesh of God." That is just something you have concocted.

Sorry your logic just doesn't wash. The Father sent the Son , but the Son IS the Father. Jesus the Father sent Jesus the man. Yet they are one and the same. That is just absurd. Oneness theology is far more problematic than Trinitarian theology.

I would have to tell you that you cannot have a 3 distinct persons in a trinity praying to each other and still be one God without ultimately saying that God prayed to himself.

Except that is not what I believe. I believe that Jesus in His humanity prayed to His Father, but I don't think that Jesus is also the Father. So Jesus would not be praying to Himself.

You are still confusing being with personage. In His essential being He is one, singular entity ONE God. How is it that this one God is comprised of three persons? That is the mystery.

Even when Jesus is referenced in the OT, he is distinct from the Father, this is especially seen in prophecies like Isaiah 53.

Colossians 2:9 by using the word divine I am assuming that you mean that he is fully God and fully man correct? If you are, then what I am saying is I agree, but to be fully God you have to be everything that God is, or you are not fully God, you are only part of God, and i do not believe that Jesus is part of God because then he could not claim to be the almighty (Rev 1:8) He could only claim to be part of the almighty.

Fully Divine does not mean He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It means that Jesus is in His essential being, Divine. It means that Jesus is God. Yes, it does mean that Jesus was fully God and fully human.

Again, what you are promoting is the heresy of modalism, where God is appears sometimes as the Father, Sometimes as the Son and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. Yet at Jesus' baptism, all three were present yet separate at the same time. The Father spoke from heaven, the Son was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove. That demonstrates as disctinction in their personages.

Okay well then if you agree that the attributes of God are relational then yes I agree but you have no grounds for arguing if you agree, because the sense that I am using it in is the sense that you just described, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all redemptive titles describing different facets of Gods relationship to man

No, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not redemptive titles. Redmeptive titles are connected to the Divine Name YHVH. Again, YHVH Nissi and YHVH rophe are redemptive because they demonstrate something about God's nature and operations towards man. Other such compound titles do the same. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply references to personage or role/rank.

but you do not have to have three different persons to have those different redemptive relationships, if we used that kind of logic we would have to say that Jehovah nissi and Jehovah rophe are distinct persons too, but they are not, it is just titles for the one God whos name is Jesus.

No God's Name is YHVH. That has always been His only Name. It is the Name revealed by Scripture.

Romans 1:3 refers to Jesus being made the seed of David. It does not say that God only sent Jesus "the man." Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus the Son "is the flesh of God." That is just something you have concocted.

Sorry your logic just doesn't wash. The Father sent the Son , but the Son IS the Father. Jesus the Father sent Jesus the man. Yet they are one and the same. That is just absurd. Oneness theology is far more problematic than Trinitarian theology.

Romans 1:3 is saying that "the Son"..."WAS MADE"..."of the SEED of David according to the FLESH" The Son was made! He was not eternal, he was made according to the flesh! and again it says that "the Son"..."was MADE of a WOMAN" in Galatians 4:4. The Son was sent from the womb.

Yes I am saying that the Father sent the Son, and the Son was the Father in the flesh, maybe I could come up with the same argument as you trinitarians do with the trinity and say that it is "a great mystery that no one can understand"lol. The Son was God manifested in the flesh "1Timothy 3:16" lets look at it like this (Father=Spirit, Son=flesh)

the Spirit sent the flesh into the world. God caused the conception of that flesh, and because God caused the conception of that flesh, that is the reason that the flesh is called the Son of God, and that God is called the Father of that flesh (Luke 1:35.) I pray that God lifts the vail off your eyes and opens you to understanding.

You are still confusing being with personage. In His essential being He is one, singular entity ONE God. How is it that this one God is comprised of three persons? That is the mystery.

Even when Jesus is referenced in the OT, he is distinct from the Father, this is especially seen in prophecies like Isaiah 53.

No I am not confusing being with personage, I do not believe that God is any person but one, I believe he is one in mind, personality, person, and being. You do not undersand what I am saying. Im saying that you cant have one person of God praying to another person of God, and still calling them one God, without ultimately saying that God prayed to himself, because if you say that one God prayed to another God then that is polytheistic(more than one God,) so you would ultimately have to say that God prayed to himself.

and Isaiah 53 and other prophesies clearly talk about the Jesus as a man in contrast to God, it even calls him "a man of sorrows" it is clearly making a distinction between the flesh of God and God himself, and not between on person of God and another person of God, because there is no person of God but one.

Again, what you are promoting is the heresy of modalism, where God is appears sometimes as the Father, Sometimes as the Son and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. Yet at Jesus' baptism, all three were present yet separate at the same time. The Father spoke from heaven, the Son was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove. That demonstrates as disctinction in their personages.

Modalism is not heresy it is the truth, I could call your trinitarian doctrine pagan, but I do not. I try to use the bible to promote what I believe and not take low blows calling you a heretic or something of that sort, so I would appreciate it if you would treat me with the same courtesy, but you have the believe of modalism all wrong. God is not some times the Father, and some times the Son, and some times the Holy Ghost, he is all of that and so much more at the same time. I myself am a brother, a son, and a grandson, but I am not just a brother some times, and a son some times, and a grandson sometimes, I am all of those things at once, all of the time. When talking about Jesus baptism, you need to realize that Jesus is omnipresent(everywhere present) he can be at more than one place at the same time and still only be one person (John 3:13). The voice and the dove does not mean that there is a trinity, because if there was a trinity then that would be the first time it was ever recorded and the jews that witnessed the baptism would be amazed and it would be recorded them saying something like "All of this time we thought God was only one but now we see that he is three! what an amazing revelation!" but nothing like that is recorded because thats not what it was. The dove was the sign to John the baptist (John 1:31-34) and the voice was the sign to the surrounding people (John 12:30) that the one being baptized was the Son of God (John 1:34.)

No, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not redemptive titles. Redmeptive titles are connected to the Divine Name YHVH. Again, YHVH Nissi and YHVH rophe are redemptive because they demonstrate something about God's nature and operations towards man. Other such compound titles do the same. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply references to personage or role/rank.

We are going to have to just agree to disagree here, because I believe that Jehovah nissi, Jehovah rophe, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are all titles also concerning Gods relationship to us and not just a role or a rank.

No God's Name is YHVH. That has always been His only Name. It is the Name revealed by Scripture.

The name "Jesus" includes "YHWH" it means "YHWH Savior" So Jesus is "YHWH Savior" that is why (Matt 1:21) says his name shall be called JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. YHWH Savior sums up everything God is, but im sure you already knew that being studied in greek and hebrew. That is why the only name of God by identification is "Jesus/ YHWH Savior" and that is why there is only one name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12) and that name is Jesus, it is the name above ALL names (Philippians 2:9.)

Well it is obvious that you are comfortable in your sloppy, bargain basement theology. You are not the first person to sucked into the heresy of modalism.

[other one]

And it's not likely he'll be the last...