Jump to content
IGNORED

Jesus Is God


KiwiChristian

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  596
  • Content Per Day:  0.27
  • Reputation:   320
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/16/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/01/1969

20 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings patrick jane,

Yes, and God also called the Angels "Elohim" in Psalm 8:5, refer Hebrews 2 and the Judges "Elohim" in Psalm 82:6, refer John 10:30-36. "Elohim" is the usual Hebrew word translated God in the OT and is the word used in Psalm 45:6 when speaking of the future king who would sit upon David's throne in Jerusalem.

Kind regards Trevor

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  596
  • Content Per Day:  0.27
  • Reputation:   320
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/16/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/01/1969

Scripture is timeless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
21 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings patrick jane,

Yes, and God also called the Angels "Elohim" in Psalm 8:5, refer Hebrews 2 and the Judges "Elohim" in Psalm 82:6, refer John 10:30-36. "Elohim" is the usual Hebrew word translated God in the OT and is the word used in Psalm 45:6 when speaking of the future king who would sit upon David's throne in Jerusalem.

Kind regards Trevor

Hebrew words have different meanings depending on various contexts.  The word Elohim is used as "elohim" when referring to angels or human magistrates/rulers, but it takes on a different meaning when referring to God.  

Jesus is not elohim, He is Elohim.

Hebrew is very nuanced and so word usage takes precedence over word meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Trinitarian
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  308
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   139
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/13/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/14/1944

Greetings again Shiloh357 and patrickjane,

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that the Trinity doesn't make sense and is not intended to make sense. I readily admit that it is beyond the ability of me or anyone else to explain in an intellectually satisfying manner how it all works. 

That is why I do not accept the Trinity. My understanding is that there is the One God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This can be explained and understood, from a children's level to an adult understanding. No need to go from light to darkness.

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

What people like you, who are not very well studied in the issue don't understand is that the "Son of"  in Hebrew thought is reference to two things that possess the same character/nature.    For example, Jesus referred to James and John as the "sons of thunder" after they wanted to call down fire on the Samaritans.

I am conscious of “sons of thunder”, but Jesus is both the literal Son of God by birth and he is also the fullness of God by character. This is also why God is called the Father, as all things are derived from Him.

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus even received worship even though He told Satan that only God is to be worshiped.

When we bow before Jesus in worship it is to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:9-11.

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

He exercised personal power over death and nature.   Those are things only God can do.

God gave him the power Acts 2:22.

 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

In fact, if you read Phil. 2: 5-8 and notice the verbs in that passage, it teaches the preexistence of Jesus in what He "made" himself to be in His incarnation compared to what He was before He is incarnation.

I believe that Philippians 2:5-8 is speaking of the disposition of the mind of Jesus during his teenage years and leading up to and including his ministry. Nothing to do with pre-existence and incarnation. The language is in contrast with Adam who followed Eve who grasped at equality.

 

1 hour ago, patrick jane said:

Scripture is timeless

Not sure if this was meant to be your answer to me, but not sure of your meaning.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Hebrew words have different meanings depending on various contexts.  The word Elohim is used as "elohim" when referring to angels or human magistrates/rulers, but it takes on a different meaning when referring to God.  

Jesus is not elohim, He is Elohim.

Hebrew is very nuanced and so word usage takes precedence over word meaning.

I believe that Elohim has a range of meaning, rather than a different meaning. I suggest that it could be defined as the One God, the Father who works in and through individuals, such as Angels, Judges and also through Jesus the Son of God. There are no distinguishing capitals in Hebrew. I suggest that Jesus’ comments in John 10:30-36 help to unlock the Biblical usage of Elohim, and Jesus uses Psalm 82:6 to explain his own role, not as God, but as the representative of God.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Edited by TrevorL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 minute ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Shiloh357 and patrickjane,

 

That is why I do not accept the Trinity. My understanding is that there is the One God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This can be explained and understood, from a children's level to an adult understanding. No need to go from light to darkness.

 

 

That is ridiculous. By that logic you should reject every part of the Bible that says anything you can't explain or understand.   Jesus is the Son of God and that means that Jesus is God.   They are not two gods.   They are one God but two distinct persons, three persons if you include the Holy Spirit. The fact that we cannot explain it, is not an excuse for rejecting it.  Otherwise you must reject everything the Bible says about God that you cannot explain.

The Bible is not written on a child's level, as if everything in it is so simplistic.  It contains doctrine and truth that require a certain about amount of spiritual maturity to believe.  The Trinity is one of those doctrines.

Quote

 

I am conscious of “sons of thunder”, but Jesus is both the literal Son of God by birth and he is also the fullness of God by character. This is also why God is called the Father, as all things are derived from Him.

 

 

No, Jesus is the fullness of God in character AND essence or essential being.   He is as much God as the Father.  They are one essence and character but distinct in personhood.   That is Bible 101.   

Quote

I believe that Philippians 2:5-8 is speaking of the disposition of the mind of Jesus leading up to and including his ministry. Nothing to do with pre-existence and incarnation. The language is in contrast with what Adam who grasped at equality.

No, that is not what it says. It may include a disposition of mind.  No comparison with Adam is made in the passage.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.(Php 2:5-8)

  • He made himself a servant.  He didn't just take on the attitude of a servant.  He is referred to as the servant of the Lord in the OT.   The Greek for 'made Himself of no reputation" is a word that means that Jesus emptied Himself.  Emptied Himself of what?    The Greek of v.6 tells us that although being equal with God, did not see His deity as something to exploit to His own advantage.  So He emptied Himself of divine prerogative.   He was still God, still equal with God, but temporarily surrendered certain areas of divine privilege so that He could model what it looks like to live in complete dependence on the Father.   Jesus is called "God" in so many places in the NT and in the OT, that to deny His deity is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
  • He was made in the likeness of man.  He didn't just take on the disposition of a man.  He became a man.  
  • He humbled Himself and became obedient to death.   Why if Jesus was just a man would He need to make Himself obedient to death? 

The verbs indicate that these things happened as a result of Jesus' will.  They were not imposed upon Him at birth like they are imposed on us.  Jesus birth into this world was an act of His will, which tells that He preexisted His human birth.  

Jesus even tells us that He preexisted His birth in John 17:   "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (Joh 17:5)
 

Quote

I believe that Elohim has a range of meaning, rather than a different meaning.

That is a distinction without a difference.

Quote

I suggest that it could be defined as the One God, the Father who works in and through individuals, such as Angels, Judges and also through Jesus the Son of God.

Yeah, I speak and read Hebrew and you clearly do not know what you're talking about.  The word Elohim is like a lot of Hebrews that play double, triple and quadruple duty.   Hebrew is a very nuanced language and very precise and Elohim is a word that in certain contexts, denotes certain things.   It is applied to angels, humans, false gods/idols, and God himself and context is the determiner of which usage applies to a given text/verse. 

"Son of God" does not distinguish the nature of Jesus from the nature of God.  It distinguishes their role in the Godhead.   But "Son of" also denotes deity and it shows that Jesus is of the same essential nature with the Father. 

Quote

There are no distinguishing capitals in Hebrew.

Irrelevant.

Quote

I suggest that Jesus’ comments in John 10:30-36 help to unlock the Biblical usage of Elohim, and Jesus uses Psalm 82:6 to explain his own role, not as God, but as the representative of God.

No, the comments of Jesus in John 10: 30-36 was actually defense of Jesus calling Himself the Son of God.   Jesus was actually defending His claim to deity.  The Jewish leaders understood "Son of God" to be a reference to deity and Jesus basically doubled down on that claim in His statements in these verses.  

I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.(Joh 10:30-33)
 

Jesus said in v. 30, "I and my Father are one."  The word for "one" in Greek (en) is a word that refers to "one in essence"  The Jews understood that to be  claim to deity.   That's why they wanted to stone him.  They said that He was blaspheming by making himself God.   Jesus didn't correct them, or contradict them.   Instead Jesus doubled down on that claim.  And they still tried to capture Him after that. 

In reference to vv. 34-36, If God called them gods, are you therefore saying, He whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world blasphemes because He said, “I am the Son of God?” 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  75
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,399
  • Content Per Day:  0.43
  • Reputation:   1,307
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  09/01/2002
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, DJ7 said:

Actually he is correct. Man translates the word today their own way, not inspired by God. As we have seen in the message bible, NLT bible and NIV bible as a few examples.

The NIV was translated by a lesbian so you think she was inspired by God?? I don't think so.

The NLT had 90 men translate it from all different faiths and beliefs.

So hardly inspired since they are not accurate bibles.

The NLT even says God is unjust because He sends people to hell.

The word was inspired when the apostles wrote the original texts.

Today man translates the word to suit their own ideas.

 

I don't think you understand that i believe the KJV is the inspired Word of God... As for the NIV and NLT i do not recognise them as being inspired..

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  166
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   25
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/13/2018
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, Adstar said:

I don't think you understand that i believe the KJV is the inspired Word of God... As for the NIV and NLT i do not recognise them as being inspired..

If the KJV is inspired, why are so many words added by the translators?

I've found some verses to have as many as 7 extra words in a verse, changing the meaning of the verse.

And many verses are not accurate when studied out properly, the idea of the verse or what it is meaning.

I only use the KJV but will always use the concordance as proof of what verses mean, not trusting man's interpretation because even they are sometimes wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  75
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,399
  • Content Per Day:  0.43
  • Reputation:   1,307
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  09/01/2002
  • Status:  Offline

18 minutes ago, DJ7 said:

If the KJV is inspired, why are so many words added by the translators?

I've found some verses to have as many as 7 extra words in a verse, changing the meaning of the verse.

And many verses are not accurate when studied out properly, the idea of the verse or what it is meaning.

I only use the KJV but will always use the concordance as proof of what verses mean, not trusting man's interpretation because even they are sometimes wrong.

 

Why do you assume they have added...

Why do you assume that someone studied it out properly...

Do you trust in the infallability of the person/ persons who produced the concordance? 

In whom do you trust?

Edited by Adstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  596
  • Content Per Day:  0.27
  • Reputation:   320
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/16/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/01/1969

1 hour ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Shiloh357 and patrickjane,

 

That is why I do not accept the Trinity. My understanding is that there is the One God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This can be explained and understood, from a children's level to an adult understanding. No need to go from light to darkness.

 

I am conscious of “sons of thunder”, but Jesus is both the literal Son of God by birth and he is also the fullness of God by character. This is also why God is called the Father, as all things are derived from Him.

 

When we bow before Jesus in worship it is to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:9-11.

 

God gave him the power Acts 2:22.

 

I believe that Philippians 2:5-8 is speaking of the disposition of the mind of Jesus during his teenage years and leading up to and including his ministry. Nothing to do with pre-existence and incarnation. The language is in contrast with Adam who followed Eve who grasped at equality.

 

Not sure if this was meant to be your answer to me, but not sure of your meaning.

 

I believe that Elohim has a range of meaning, rather than a different meaning. I suggest that it could be defined as the One God, the Father who works in and through individuals, such as Angels, Judges and also through Jesus the Son of God. There are no distinguishing capitals in Hebrew. I suggest that Jesus’ comments in John 10:30-36 help to unlock the Biblical usage of Elohim, and Jesus uses Psalm 82:6 to explain his own role, not as God, but as the representative of God.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

I marvel at those that can't comprehend John 1:1-3 KJV - and John 1:14 KJV - The first time I read that I knew Jesus is God. Jesus Christ created all things. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God. The Word WAS God. The same was in the beginning with God. The Word (who is God) became flesh and dwelt among us. Pretty simple even for a 6 year old. That's not even mention the numerous other scriptures throughout the entire Bible.

  • Praise God! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Trinitarian
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  308
  • Content Per Day:  0.10
  • Reputation:   139
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/13/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/14/1944

Greetings again Shiloh357 and patrickjane,

 

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That is ridiculous. By that logic you should reject every part of the Bible that says anything you can't explain or understand.   Jesus is the Son of God and that means that Jesus is God.   They are not two gods.   They are one God but two distinct persons, three persons if you include the Holy Spirit. The fact that we cannot explain it, is not an excuse for rejecting it.  Otherwise you must reject everything the Bible says about God that you cannot explain.

The Bible is not written on a child's level, as if everything in it is so simplistic.  It contains doctrine and truth that require a certain about amount of spiritual maturity to believe.  The Trinity is one of those doctrines.

What you say could be correct if the Trinity was true. But I suggest that the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. I was introduced to the concept that there is one God the Father and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God when I was an infant, and we continue to teach our infants. I was introduced to an exposition of the Yahweh Name and understanding of OT use of Elohim when I was 19 at a YPs study weekend. My understanding of all of this has expanded over the years and I now have a better understanding of God the Father’s revelation of Himself and his character and purpose as it is centred in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, that is not what it says. It may include a disposition of mind.  No comparison with Adam is made in the passage.

I appreciate your thorough treatment of Philippians 2. I suggest that it is a comparison with Adam. Note the RV mg “Gr. A thing to be grasped”. Jesus was born the Son of God, the greatest prince ever born, but he did not use this status and privilege in a proud way, but humbled himself as a servant, and was obedient unto death.

 

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus even tells us that He preexisted His birth in John 17:   "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (Joh 17:5)

That glory was in prospect before the creation. Notice the past tense of Psalm 8:5. It speaks as if it was an accomplished fact.

 

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, I speak and read Hebrew and you clearly do not know what you're talking about.  The word Elohim is like a lot of Hebrews that play double, triple and quadruple duty.   Hebrew is a very nuanced language and very precise and Elohim is a word that in certain contexts, denotes certain things.   It is applied to angels, humans, false gods/idols, and God himself and context is the determiner of which usage applies to a given text/verse. 

Despite your claim to Hebrew, I would like to see your exposition of the plural “us” in Genesis 1:26-27 and the introduction and use of Elohim in Genesis 1-3.

 

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

"Son of God" does not distinguish the nature of Jesus from the nature of God.  It distinguishes their role in the Godhead.   But "Son of" also denotes deity and it shows that Jesus is of the same essential nature with the Father. 

I suggest that this is Trinitarian double talk to reject the Biblical teaching that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

8 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus said in v. 30, "I and my Father are one."  The word for "one" in Greek (en) is a word that refers to "one in essence"  The Jews understood that to be  claim to deity.   That's why they wanted to stone him.  They said that He was blaspheming by making himself God.   Jesus didn't correct them, or contradict them.   Instead Jesus doubled down on that claim.  And they still tried to capture Him after that. 

How do you explain the same language “one” used in John 17 for the disciples?

 

7 hours ago, patrick jane said:

I marvel at those that can't comprehend John 1:1-3 KJV - and John 1:14 KJV - The first time I read that I knew Jesus is God. Jesus Christ created all things. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God. The Word WAS God. The same was in the beginning with God. The Word (who is God) became flesh and dwelt among us. Pretty simple even for a 6 year old. That's not even mention the numerous other scriptures throughout the entire Bible.

I view the Word in John 1:1-3 the same as Wisdom in Proverbs 8. It is speaking of how the character of God, the fullness of grace and truth came to be revealed in God’s begotten Son, the word made flesh.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...