Jesus is God
- Thread starter sacraig67
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
God manifested Himself through Jesus. God didn't manifest Himself as Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God because God is His Father. God is our Father just like He is Jesus' Father. God is our God just like He is Jesus' God. Jesus was sinless by choice. Just some thoughts to ponder...
There are many ways to plant a seed that you do not need to prove anything. Random act of kindness, sharing a testimony, invitation to attend and observe a christian gathering like a bible study, personal prayers for the person, and many others.
Proving something means discussion, debate, argument and disagreement. Never engage a non-believer. He will surely close his heart. Put him in a passive position where he only watches, hears, observes and thinks.
If the question is for yourself, READ THE BIBLE and keep reading until you feel Him.
If the question is for yourself, READ THE BIBLE and keep reading until you feel Him.[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
No the question isn't for me (though I can learn new ways to spread the Gospel) I mainly started this thread to get people (including myself) thinking. The proof is in the Bible speaking through the Holy Spirit upon our hearts.
No the question isn't for me (though I can learn new ways to spread the Gospel) I mainly started this thread to get people (including myself) thinking. The proof is in the Bible speaking through the Holy Spirit upon our hearts.
[h=3]John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[/h]
[h=3]John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [/h]
[h=3]John 10:30 I and the Father are one.” [/h]
One more I can add.
Colossians 2:9-12
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[SUP]b[/SUP] was put off when you were circumcised by[SUP]c[/SUP] Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:9-12
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[SUP]b[/SUP] was put off when you were circumcised by[SUP]c[/SUP] Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
I think one place we can see Jesus' divinity is during his trial. Jesus is essentially hauled in for trial on different charges, the main one being that he threatened to destroy the temple:
But without 2 witnesses, nothing could really stick (though Matthew does say 2 came forward with the charge that Jesus threatened the temple). The charge of Jesus threatening to destroy the temple would be a fairly serious charge. That sort of thing had overt political-religious overtones. For example, it was thought that when the messiah came, one of the things he might do would be to either cleanse the temple and/or build the eschatological temple. Jesus wasn't even the first or the last messianic claimant to want to do something to the temple. So the High Priests follow on question is natural:
The Priest is not asking, "Are you God?" He is simply asking if Jesus thinks he's the messiah, which is not a divine office in itself. Even asking Jesus if he was the "Son of the Blessed One" isn't a question about divinity - it's a question about kingship as the king of Israel, and Israel as a whole, was called God's son (Eg, 2 Sam 7, Ps 2, Ps 89...). The High Priest just wants to know if Jesus thought he was the promised king of Israel. However, the answer he received was totally unexpected:
The phrase "I am" could have been enough as that's the same phrase used for the Name of God in Exodus 3. But Jesus continued with a double quote from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7. When these two verses were quoted together and directed at the High Priest, there was no doubt in the High Priest's mind what Jesus was saying. The High Priest himself was a "messiah" according to the OT, and as God's annointed one, the only one that could sit in judgment over the high priest was God himself. Jesus' double quote from Daniel and the Psalm essentially tells the High Priest that he will see Jesus vindicated and sitting on God's throne in victory and jugment over the enemies of God, which was the High Priest in this case. There can be no mistake, the only person that could sit in judgment over the High Priest was God.
The High Priest's response to Jesus' claim was easiliy predictable:
If Jesus wasn't divine, then the High Priests was correct - he was a blasphemer. As far as the High Priest was concerned the charge was legitimate. Jesus claimed to be the messiah, which was certainly a threat to the established political order, but Jesus went beyond that claim by claiming to be the one that would be sitting on God's throne in vindication and victory, judging the High Priest as an enemy of God. No doubt Jesus at least claimed divinity, and right to the High Priest's face.
But without 2 witnesses, nothing could really stick (though Matthew does say 2 came forward with the charge that Jesus threatened the temple). The charge of Jesus threatening to destroy the temple would be a fairly serious charge. That sort of thing had overt political-religious overtones. For example, it was thought that when the messiah came, one of the things he might do would be to either cleanse the temple and/or build the eschatological temple. Jesus wasn't even the first or the last messianic claimant to want to do something to the temple. So the High Priests follow on question is natural:
The Priest is not asking, "Are you God?" He is simply asking if Jesus thinks he's the messiah, which is not a divine office in itself. Even asking Jesus if he was the "Son of the Blessed One" isn't a question about divinity - it's a question about kingship as the king of Israel, and Israel as a whole, was called God's son (Eg, 2 Sam 7, Ps 2, Ps 89...). The High Priest just wants to know if Jesus thought he was the promised king of Israel. However, the answer he received was totally unexpected:
The phrase "I am" could have been enough as that's the same phrase used for the Name of God in Exodus 3. But Jesus continued with a double quote from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7. When these two verses were quoted together and directed at the High Priest, there was no doubt in the High Priest's mind what Jesus was saying. The High Priest himself was a "messiah" according to the OT, and as God's annointed one, the only one that could sit in judgment over the high priest was God himself. Jesus' double quote from Daniel and the Psalm essentially tells the High Priest that he will see Jesus vindicated and sitting on God's throne in victory and jugment over the enemies of God, which was the High Priest in this case. There can be no mistake, the only person that could sit in judgment over the High Priest was God.
The High Priest's response to Jesus' claim was easiliy predictable:
If Jesus wasn't divine, then the High Priests was correct - he was a blasphemer. As far as the High Priest was concerned the charge was legitimate. Jesus claimed to be the messiah, which was certainly a threat to the established political order, but Jesus went beyond that claim by claiming to be the one that would be sitting on God's throne in vindication and victory, judging the High Priest as an enemy of God. No doubt Jesus at least claimed divinity, and right to the High Priest's face.
oldhermit,
Your abundant remarks of course contain much truth, but they also serve to obscure the significance of the absence of the article before θεος, which you mention and then conveniently drop. You offer an interpretation for the placement of this word, but offer no explanation of why an unbiased reader (neither Christian nor atheist) should not give it its most natural translation, “a god.” We should not distort our translation to please Trinitarians – or even monotheists. The verse means
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was according to God, and the logos was a god.
I allow myself the use of “logos” because it is now in the English dictionary ( e.g., dictionary.com), and I avoid the translation “word” because it is wrong in 21st century English. Of course things were different in 1611.
A. The word logos was not yet English.
B. “Word” was any piece of speech, not necessarily a word in the present sense. Think e.g. of the Seven last words of Christ.
Your abundant remarks of course contain much truth, but they also serve to obscure the significance of the absence of the article before θεος, which you mention and then conveniently drop. You offer an interpretation for the placement of this word, but offer no explanation of why an unbiased reader (neither Christian nor atheist) should not give it its most natural translation, “a god.” We should not distort our translation to please Trinitarians – or even monotheists. The verse means
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was according to God, and the logos was a god.
I allow myself the use of “logos” because it is now in the English dictionary ( e.g., dictionary.com), and I avoid the translation “word” because it is wrong in 21st century English. Of course things were different in 1611.
A. The word logos was not yet English.
B. “Word” was any piece of speech, not necessarily a word in the present sense. Think e.g. of the Seven last words of Christ.
