Christ is God

[Noose]

In the Revelation these words "alpha and omega" are not entirely clear who pronounces them. In Rev. 1:8 it is most likely God-Father (λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ = YHWH).
In Rev 1:10-11 according to TR and KJV this sentence ("I am alpha and omega....") seems to say Jesus, but the study of earlier versions of the Greek text, with which modern translations are consistent, suggest that here this phrase was interpolated.
In Rev 21:6 the phrase "alpha and omega ..." says the one who sits on the throne (21:5), it is not clear whether the Father or the Son.
Perhaps this phrase ("alpha and omega ...") is spoken by Jesus at 22:13, but even there it is not clear, because before that the "angel" speaks (22: 9-11), then suddenly it is appearance the phrase of Jesus (22:12) and possibly 22:13 is a continuation of Jesus phrase. But perhaps this is also unexpectedly appearance of phrase by God the Father.
In Dan 7:9, 13 we see two figures - "the Ancient of days" and "one like the Son of man" (= God Father and Son of God. Messiah).
These figures come together (the visionary sees the son of man approaching to the Ancient of days), but they are two different things.

It is only unexpected for you but for those who know, it is Jesus speaking. We can tell from the introduction and the conclusion of Revelation that is Jesus:

Rev 1:1The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

This introduction shows us that it is all Jesus in Rev because the Father can not send Jesus and then come and deliver the message by Himself- which one is which? did the father send Jesus or did He deliver the message Himself? It is very clear that Jesus is the one speaking all over Revelation, apart from Jesus, a few places the angel and very few, John. But we can tell John's voice from angel's voice and angel's voice from Jesus' voice.

Rev 22:16“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give youa this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

The conclusion confirms that everything as revealed by the angel was from Jesus.
So, was Jesus merely quoting the Father when He claimed those things? No. Of course not. The Father and the son are one. Not one in purpose or two persons, they are one being, one person.
This can be supported by other verses in the bible including:

Isa 9:
6For 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.

The Father= Father
The son= Son
The Wonderful Counselor = Holy spirit

 

[trofimus]

Answer me this then, can Jesus -who is only 1/3 of the trinity- claim to be the one God, or can the one God only be described as Father/Son/HS?

The reality of the Trinity is above any human comprehension, we can only work with simplified models and concepts. The rest is a mystery.

Jesus is God, Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there is one God.

Father begotten His only Son before all worlds, before any other creation. However, Father and Son are one.

More details can be found in ancient Christian creeds.

 

[NWL]

Father and Son are one.

One in what manner?

The reality of the Trinity is above any human comprehension, we can only work with simplified models and concepts. The rest is a mystery.

Jesus is God, Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there is one God.

Father begotten His only Son before all worlds, before any other creation. However, Father and Son are one.

More details can be found in ancient Christian creeds.

The reality of the Trinity is above any human comprehension yes, but the God of the bible isn't. The same fact remains, the doctrine of the trinity is nowhere found or taught in the bible, however, God and is personage clearly is.

No one can completely come to know God since he is eternal, but we can know his person and who he is, we are the very images of God, we, as his image are a single person, not three. Scripture is clear about who the one God is, that person being the Father.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) "...there is no God but one. For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father..."

According to 1 Cor 8:6 we have a category God, who is in that category? Jesus? The HS? NO! The Father and only the father.

 

[trofimus]

One in what manner?

"...Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father".
Nicene creed, 325 AD

we are the very images of God, we, as his image are a single person, not three.

There is no basis for saying that to be His image must mean to be composed of three personalities.
Also, you should realize that it was written "Let us make man in our image".

According to 1 Cor 8:6 we have a category God, who is in that category? Jesus? The HS? NO! The Father and only the father.

"Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God [i.e. Son], did not consider equality with God [i.e. Father] something to be used to his own advantage.
Phil 2:6

 

[NWL]

"...Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father".
Nicene creed, 325 AD

So your basing your belief from a creed 300 years after the fact... Smart. Again, the bible trumps a man established creed anyday. Where in the bible does it states Jesus is "of one substance with the Father", moreover, shouldn't the statement be "of one substance with the Father AND the HS"?

There is no basis for saying that to be His image must mean to be composed of three personalities.

You're right, but God must be pretty rubbish to create something in his image that doesn't resemble the most basic and fundamental part of his nature.

Also, you should realize that it was written "Let us make man in our image".

So? As I've mentioned countless times now the Father created the world through Jesus (Again, see Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:6). Its is mine and many others belief that the Father created Jesus as the beginning of his creation (Rev 3:14) and then created all other things through Jesus. Thus when God was creating man, using Jesus as his agent in creation to create man he said to him "let us make man in our image". This makes complete sense, since Jesus and even the angels have the same image as God, furthermore it was Jesus who the Father was making man through.

"Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God [i.e. Son], did not consider equality with God [i.e. Father] something to be used to his own advantage.

Phil 2:6

Jesus is the excact copy/impression of what God is, scripture states "He [Jesus] is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being" Jesus is a reflection of God, which implies he is not God, since if he was God then he wouldn't be the representation of what God is, this is basic.

In the verse you cited, Phil 2:6 where it states "very nature of God" we find the Greek word "morphe", which means a "persons shape, outward appearance or form" (Strongs Concordance). For this reason most translations translate that Jesus "was in the form of God" in v6. The verse is stating Jesus had the same type of body as God and NOT that he was in the same body/trinity as God. "God is a spirit" (John 4:24) and therefore has a spirit body, like the angels. Jesus too, according to Phil 2:6 existed and had the same type of body as God, namely a spirit body, this is evident when we read all of v6 as it states he left the form(morphe) he was in and took on the a human form(morphe).

As alluded to earlier, Jesus is "exact representation of his [Gods] very being", God basically created a copy of himself (col 1:15, Rev 3:14). Since Jesus was exactly the same as God -but of course beneath him as he was a creation of God- he could have reasoned that he was equal with him, as Satan did and chose to challenge or demand worship, but he didn't but rather humbled himself.

None of this proves that Jesus is God.

 

[Placid]

Hi,

To continue from Post 265 where I concluded with this,
--- So this shows that the Word is the ‘only begotten God’ or the ‘only begotten Son of God.’ the One in ‘the bosom of the Father.’

Now we must relate the Logos to the Word.
Quote: Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son. Being the mind of the Eternal, Logos is imperishable. He is neither uncreated as God is, nor created as men are, but occupies a middle position. He has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one."

--- So Logos would be the direct link between Almighty God and the Word, who was the anointed Son of God. The Logos from the middle position would be the mediator from Almighty God to the Word, who was God (Theos) to the underside of eternity, or the world. --- So the Logos and the Word are the intellect and wisdom of God.

Someone said that “Almighty God is of Divine Essence which is above Personhood.” Almighty God has no definable image and cannot be seen. He reigns in the Kingdom of Heaven with multitudes of holy angels, in Holiness. --- This is why when sin was found in heaven, both the offenders and the offence had to be removed.

There is more history of how sin developed, and found its way down to earth.

 

[Nehemiah6]

-- So Logos would be the direct link between Almighty God and the Word, who was the anointed Son of God. The Logos from the middle position would be the mediator from Almighty God to the Word, who was God (Theos) to the underside of eternity, or the world. --- So the Logos and the Word are the intellect and wisdom of God.

So you think that an unbelieving Jew -- Philo -- has more credibility about the deity of Christ than the apostles and Christians?

THE WORD = LOGOS = THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD = GOD THE SON = JESUS

In the beginning was the Word (Logos)---> Jesus is the eternal Son of God

and the Word was with God---> Jesus was always with God the Father

and the Word was God ---> Jesus was and is GOD (THEOS)

 

[trofimus]

So your basing your belief from a creed 300 years after the fact... Smart. Again, the bible trumps a man established creed anyday. Where in the bible does it states Jesus is "of one substance with the Father", moreover, shouldn't the statement be "of one substance with the Father AND the HS"?

I have no need to invent a wheel again. Yes, I can use anything Church systematized in a proper manner. You use what JW teach, the JW theology is in no meaning based on Sola Scriptura, so I do not know why do you want to bring it forth now.

Son is of the same substance as the Father is, because He is begotten, not created.

You're right, but God must be pretty rubbish to create something in his image that doesn't resemble the most basic and fundamental part of his nature.

I see no reason for such statement. The image of God does not mean you must be trinity. BTW, ever heard of the soul, spirit and body?

Its is mine and many others belief that the Father created Jesus as the beginning of his creation....

You had a problem with my first point, because you cannot find "of one substance" in the Bible.

No, show me in the Bible that Jesus is created. Bible and Christinity say Jesus is begotten.

In the verse you cited, Phil 2:6 where it states "very nature of God" we find the Greek word "morphe"...

The part I made bold was "equality with God [Father] ". So no "secondary type" of deity as you are still trying to push.

None of this proves that Jesus is God.

There is no need to prove it again. J 1:1: "And the Logos was God".

 

[NWL]

I have no need to invent a wheel again. Yes, I can use anything Church systematized in a proper manner. You use what JW teach, the JW theology is in no meaning based on Sola Scriptura, so I do not know why do you want to bring it forth now.

Wrong again, show me a teaching or JW doctrine where haven't used the bible but instead relied on JW theology?

I see no reason for such statement. The image of God does not mean you must be trinity. BTW, ever heard of the soul, spirit and body?

A poor example, the trinity is that one being, namely God is three separate persons. We have a body yes, but are your soul and spirit two different persons? When was the last time your soul or spirit spoke to you the same way Jesus spoke to the Father? Its laughable.

You had a problem with my first point, because you cannot find "of one substance" in the Bible.

No, show me in the Bible that Jesus is created. Bible and Christinity say Jesus is begotten.

I've shown you many times already:

(Colossians 1:15) "..He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."
(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that [Jesus] the Amen says, [who is] the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."
(Proverbs 8:22)"..Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.."
(Micah 5:2) "..And you, O Bethʹle·hem..From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel, Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.."

Lets just look at Col 1:15 since we've been talking about it previously in our discussion. The word for firstborn is prōtotokos which typically refers to the first-born or eldest person/animal/thing in a group in a temporal sense (relating to time). At times "firstborn" means firstborn in the sense of preeminence(authority). Consider Esau and Jacob the twins, Esau was the literal firstborn(temporal) but Jacob became/was the firstborn in the sense of preeminence. My argument does not rely on what sense the word prōtotokos/firstborn should be understood in, as I will show.

Before I continue I need you to answer a straight forward question. In Col 1:18 it states regarding Jesus "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things". My question is this, if Jesus didn't die, could he be called the firstborn from/of the dead? Its not a theological question but rather a linguistic question

 

[GodisONE]

The reality of the Trinity is above any human comprehension, we can only work with simplified models and concepts. The rest is a mystery.

.

but God is simple. His ways our beyond ours, but to know Him and understand Him is in simple form. Just look how Yeshua taught the people and His Disciples.

here is what I find ironic concerning the trinity concept...Yeshua taught that we are to BELIEVE upon Him [a person representing God], we are to pray to our Father [Colossians 1:15 the invisible image to Yeshua, the visible image], and if we do this we will receive the (((((((GIFT))))))) of the Holy Spirit.

NOWHERE does it say we have to believe upon the Holy Spirit like we are taught to believe upon Yeshua [physical appearance representing the invisible Father]. and, it calls the Holy Spirit a GIFT.

so, if the Holy Spirit is an actual PERSON of GOD, how is it possible for a person to live in every believer and also be a body in heaven?



here is the Father speaking:
3 ADONAI said, "My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years." (notice capital S in Spirit = Holy Spirit)...

this verse is clear about the PERSON of GOD claiming His personal Spirit (Holy Spirit) lives in us.

this verse makes it absolutely clear that the Holy Spirit [[is not]] a person of the trinity, but rather is the personal Spirit of God.

this verse proves there is no trinity!!

 

[Nehemiah6]

so, if the Holy Spirit is an actual PERSON of GOD, how is it possible for a person to live in every believer and also be a body in heaven?

With God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

Those who use their humanistic, rationalistic reasoning will never understand that God is three Persons yet one God, and that the Holy Spirit can be everywhere and yet in each and every believer.

 

[Zmouth]

Who is the image of the invisible God:

Since image is taught to refer to appearance, the flesh is not the image of the eternal God. The Holy Ghost has probably already shown you in the NT scriptures of meaning of image.

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. 16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. Mark 12

​

Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. Luke 20:24

​

However if one tries to make a visible man into a invisible God then of course the definition of image would be a stumbling block if interpreted correctly, since the image of the invisible would be unseen. But nowhere in the scriptures does it refer unto him having the same likeness since the invisible God is eternal, thus the Holy Ghost being immortal as written in 1 Tim 6:16

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see:

Thus, your Father in heaven, who is the image of the eternal God, being the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God; 'phasma' a being of invisible light. [Latin] or phantasma (fan'-tas-mah); NT:5326 from NT:5324; (properly concrete) a (mere) show ("phantasm"), i.e. spectre:

,

 

[Zmouth]

With God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

Then is it possible that God lied to you?

 

[GodisONE]

With God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

AMEN!!

Those who use their humanistic, rationalistic reasoning will never understand that God is three Persons yet one God, and that the Holy Spirit can be everywhere and yet in each and every believer.

yes, what I asked was a stupid way of asking that. but let's use your answer and reasoning here for one moment. IF WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, then it is possible there is only ONE PERSON known as God. and while being the Father in heaven, He could have also been the Son on earth since this is what Yeshua claimed in John 14, and is backed by Colossians 1:15 by Paul when Paul claimed, Yeshua is the VISIBLE IMAGE to the INVISIBLE GOD.

I like to say it this way: when Yeshua looks into a mirror He see's Himself as the INVISIBLE GOD, and when the INVISIBLE GOD looks into a mirror He see's Himself as Yeshua...because THEY ARE ONE and the SAME PERSON!!

which then makes the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the ONE PERSON GOD like Genesis 6:3 states!!

we have a spirit and so does God. it's called the Holy Spirit. and as a Spirit, it can be everywhere at once where a person cannot!!

 

[Zmouth]

here is the Father speaking:
3 ADONAI said, "My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years." (notice capital S in Spirit = Holy Spirit)...

Wow, that sure is a change from the KJV, and I am sure if I looked, even that of the copyrighted translations.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3 KJV

​

Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever,for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3 NIV​

​

So if your translation is written "therefore their life span is to be 120 years." then is that interpreted to mean the lifespan of man would be 120 years or that the flood would occur within 120 years of the time at which Genesis 6:3 occurred or rather said what it is written was said?​

 

[Nehemiah6]

it is possible there is only ONE PERSON known as God. and while being the Father in heaven, He could have also been the Son on earth

Please study the baptism of Christ, which shows three distinct divine persons involved. Just like in your family the father cannot be the Son, so in the Godhead each divine Person is distinct, yet they are all one God. This is the Mystery of God, so human reason does not prevail.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Then is it possible that God lied to you?

You certainly know how to twist things around consistently.

 

[GodisONE]

Wow, that sure is a change from the KJV, and I am sure if I looked, even that of the copyrighted translations.

​

​

So if your translation is written "therefore their life span is to be 120 years." then is that interpreted to mean the lifespan of man would be 120 years or that the flood would occur within 120 years of the time at which Genesis 6:3 occurred or rather said what it is written was said?​

that translation is the Complete Jewish Bible [CJB] version!!

 

[GodisONE]

Nehemiah6,

I HOPE YOU ENJOY TRUTHFUL FACTS!!


(1)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."


(2)
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."


(3)
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:

Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."


(4)
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."


(5)
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.


(6)
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."


(7) [THIS ONE IS IMPRESSIVE BECAUSE THIS MAN BECAME THE CATHOLIC POPE AFTER ADMITTING THE CATHOLICS CHANGED THE VERSE FROM ...BAPTIZE IN MY NAME...to the unholy trinity!!

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.










basically what these are stating: the ORIGINAL Matthew 28:19 stated from Yeshua to baptize in HIS NAME ONLY.
the 12 Disciples used Acts 2:38 like Peter preached on day of Pentecost to Baptize in NAME of YESHUA.
the early church baptized in the NAME of YESHUA.

and then the CATHOLIC CHURCH changed it in 2nd century to the unholy trinity!!


that is a FACT!!

 

[trofimus]

Wrong again, show me a teaching or JW doctrine where haven't used the bible but instead relied on JW theology?

You said you are a JW. JW is not "Sola Scriptura" movement, it has other sources of truth, like the Watch Tower. Therefore I am not sure why you try to say I should ignore ancient Christian creeds and use bible only?

A poor example, the trinity is that one being, namely God is three separate persons. We have a body yes, but are your soul and spirit two different persons? When was the last time your soul or spirit spoke to you the same way Jesus spoke to the Father? Its laughable.

What is laughable is your supposed rule that "the image of God" must mean three persons in humans. Thats not the meaning of the text at all.

(Colossians 1:15) "..He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."
(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that [Jesus] the Amen says, [who is] the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.."
(Proverbs 8:22)"..Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.."
(Micah 5:2) "..And you, O Bethʹle·hem..From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel, Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.."

You are using only ambiguous verses.

Rev 3:14 - can be translated also as: "The ruler of God's creation" or "God's creation has its beginning in me" [meaning that all that is created is from Him, which is consistent with other bible verses saying that He created everything and with Christian creeds].
Prov 8:22 - The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works (again, consistent withChristian creeds the teaching that Jesus is creator of everything)
Mic 5:2 - his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity. (Again, consistent with Christian creeds)

My question is this, if Jesus didn't die, could he be called the firstborn from/of the dead? Its not a theological question but rather a linguistic question

This is about Him being the first among humans to be resurrected with a new, spiritual body. So this is about His humanity, not about His deity.

Also, notice the difference between:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως - Col 1:15 (ambiguity)
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν - Col 1:18 (he is one of the group)

As NIV translates:
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created."