Hello,


Is Jesus the son of God or is Jesus God? What does the Bible say?

Take care,
Hope12

I've seen your many questions lately, and recognize that they're not really questions, but comments designed to generate discussion...

You ask "Is Jesus the son of God or is Jesus God? What does the Bible say?"

It's easy to look up what the Bible says, but since Jesus was here about 300 years before the Bible, aren't there other sources to answer the question?

The Bible is the only reliable source I have on that question and it clearly says that Jesus in God the Son of God.
He is the anointed Word of God in whom all things were created, the Messiah, the Christ. See the first few verses of the gospel of John.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
:)

He is the anointed Word of God in whom all things were created, the Messiah, the Christ. :)

Amen.

But gosh, what did the Christians of the first 3 centuries rely on I wonder?

But gosh, what did the Christians of the first 3 centuries rely on I wonder?
I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it your belief that the early Christian congregations did not have access to the scriptures?

They certainly had the Hebrew scriptures, or the "Old Testament", in the form of the LXX (Septuagint.) Those are the scriptures Jesus used and quoted. The Christian Greek scriptures, or "New Testament", were distributed to the congregations in their original form as copies of the letters and writings of the apostles and disciples. There is evidence of such copies dated as early as the 1st century CE--within decades of the writing of the originals. Remarkably fast distribution for that day and age!

Perhaps you mean they didn't have the full body of scriptures in one convenient source as we do in the Bibles we use today?

Chris

OK, I'll confess. I was posting "in kind" to the many recent posts of Hope12 - which I saw as not really questions, but rhetoric.

Christ, rather than writing a book, founded a Church. This Church decided which of the many writings that were circulating amongst the churches were certainly Divinely inspired; and called these Scripture.

His Church did, and does today, affirm that Scripture is full of Truth and without error, however the claim that it is the only authority is not supported by Christ or His Church.

In fact, there are more exhortations to seek the guidance of The Church and it's leaders in the Bible than there are to Scripture itself.

... so I, like Hope12, am just preachin' a little :p

In fact, there are more exhortations to seek the guidance of The Church and it's leaders in the Bible than there are to Scripture itself.
I'd be interested to see what scriptural support you have for this statement. I can't help but recall how many times Jesus himself referred people (and even Satan) to the scriptures saying "It is written..." or "Is it not written...?"

It is true that the authority of the congregations, or The Church as you say, is vital but surely you do not mean to imply that such authority exceeds the scriptures? That cannot be. If a Church teaching conflicts with the scriptures, the scriptures are the final authority. (John 17:17; Acts 5:29)

Chris

First of all, let me interject. May the True Peace and Joy of Christ be with all sincere Christians. Amen.

OK, so I shouldn't have said what you quoted since I'm not willing to count them.

... and even if I were right, it wouldn't make my point very well anyway... so I'll jump ahead to my real point.

As you've probably figured by now, I am speaking of Sola Scriptura, which is simply not even hinted at in Scripture.

If the Bible were the sole authority, then somewhere within it we should find that it is so.

But we do not.

I don't remember my Logic101 very well, but wouldn't this be thesis be considered as either false or illogical?

Further, Christ's words do not apply here. When He was speaking of Scripture, he was speaking of extant Scripture. And to boot, even He did not say it was the sole authority even then.

Yes, I know it is an argument that's been debated for several centuries, but nonetheless I get an itchin' to get in on it every once in awhile...

May the True Peace and Joy of Christ be with all sincere Christians.
See that's where I differ from you - I wish true peace to all, not just christians. People are people, no matter what religion, color, nationality.

Yes, I know it is an argument that's been debated for several centuries, but nonetheless I get an itchin' to get in on it every once in awhile...
Hey, I'd like to "get in on it" too. Let's not let a few centuries get in the way! :)


If the Bible were the sole authority, then somewhere within it we should find that it is so... But we do not.
Do you mean the Bible itself making the claim to being the sole authority? If so, consider these NT passages:


All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17


For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. -- Revelation 22:18-19
Paul's letter points out that the scriptures make one "complete" to carry out "every" good work. And Jesus' words in Revelation emphasize how seriously God views the authority of the scriptures. Nothing can be added or taken away from them. I think together these two passages make a very strong argument for Sola Scriptura.

And consider Jesus' warning to the Pharisees about giving traditional teachings more emphasis than God's word:


For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men--the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do." He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." -- Mark 7:8,9,13
I have to agree with Jesus' view of scriptural authority.

Now, this is not to say that God doesn't reveal the meaning of scripture--especially prophecy--to his servants at a later date (see Dan 12:8-9; Habakkuk 2:2-3; 1 Corinthians 13:9-12), but I know of nothing that would suggest that such revelation is based on anything other than the scripture.


Further, Christ's words do not apply here. When He was speaking of Scripture, he was speaking of extant Scripture.
But if God were to inspire more scripture--as he eventually did--surely we would follow Jesus' example and give it the same respect. After all, they are the work of the same Author.


And to boot, even He did not say it was the sole authority even then.
Can you provide scriptures on this point? I'd be interested to learn the source of this teaching.

Chris

1st to NeedKarma:

I do indeed wish Peace on all. My statement was within the contect of this post to help set the mood... to affirm that my disagrements are not condemnations.

If you and I were debating about who God is, I would likewise early in the argument confirm the same.

Chris, I haven't figured yet how to "quote selected text" - and not the whole thing. How you do dat? :confused:

Even when I was Protestant I never understood the heavy leaning on
2 Timothy 3:16-17 as the main reference to support SS.

What in it leads one to believe it implies it's the sole authority?

Paul confirmed that the Scripture that existed at the time was
1. Inspired by God, and
2. Useful.

300 years later, the teaching Church that Christ founded confirmed that Paul's letters to Timothy, too, were to be added to Scripture. So we can now say Timothy's writing was
1. Inspired by God, and
2. Useful.

So, again, where do we get that we should take this to mean the only authority?

And Revelation? That's a dual-edged sword.

He said "If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book". By "this book" he was not referring to what we know today as the Bible. He was referring to the "book" he just wrote.

You're not implying that he was speaking of Scripture, are you? If you are, then we're all doomed, because The Church has added to scripture.

I haven't figured yet how to "quote selected text" - and not the whole thing. How you do that? :confused:

I can help you with that. :)

When you choose to reply by using the Quote button you'll notice that the previous poster's text is "wrapped" by [ quote] at the beginning and [ /quote] at the end. What I do is removed both those "tags" which makes it just like regular text.

Now here comes the neat fun part. Remove the text that you won't be commenting on (highlight it and press Delete). Now highlight the part of text that you wish to quote and click on the Quote icon at the top right, the one that looks like cartoon talk bubble. That's it, you've quoted selected text.

Experiment, use the Preview button to see what it looks like before you post.

Cheers.

I can help you with that. :)



Thanks NeedKarma... duh Rick :o... just delete what you don't want to post! :D

What in it leads one to believe it implies it's the sole authority?

Paul confirmed that the Scripture that existed at the time was
1. Inspired by God, and
2. Useful.
Well, those are only two of the points he makes. Let's look at 2 Tim 3:16-17 and highlight some other relevant points.


All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
First of all, Paul says that "All Scripture" is God's word. For us today, "All Scripture" includes both the Hebrew (OT) and Christian Greek (NT). Paul goes on to say the scriptures are to be used for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction. This would make a Christian "complete" and "thoroughly equipped for every good work." If the Bible is to be used for "doctrine" and "correction" and to make one complete for every good work, would you not agree that it is the authority to be used by Christians to resolve conflicts in teachings and traditions?

And it's important not to focus just on this scripture. What does the rest of the Bible say? What examples do we have? If the examples of Jesus and the apostles and disciples are taken into consideration, I believe the pattern that Christians are to follow is very clear. Without exception, they all relied on the scriptures and were careful that their teachings not go beyond what God said in them. For example:


These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. -- Acts 17:11


Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. -- 1 Corinthians 4:6

But maybe I don't fully understand your view point. Is it your opinion that the NT is incomplete or not canonical in some way? Or that later teachings and traditions would eventually have the same authority as the Bible?

Let me ask this: if a tradition or teaching of a church is found to contradict the scriptures, which has the greater authority?


And Revelation?. By "this book" he was not referring to what we know today as the Bible. He was referring to the "book" he just wrote.
Yes, but this principle applies to all the scriptures. Otherwise, we would have to believe that God is saying, "You are free to modify my other words, but not Revelation." Is that possible? Consider these:


"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. -- Deuteronomy 12:32


Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar -- Proverbs 30:6


But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. -- Galatians 1:8


You're not implying that he was speaking of Scripture, are you? If you are, then we're all doomed, because The Church has added to scripture.
No, we're only doomed if we nullify scripture in favor of tradition.

But again, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the addition of the NT as a whole to the scriptures was somehow improper, or are you referring to traditions and teachings that were added later? If you are questioning the authenticity of the NT, then that's more than I can address within the limits of this forum, but if you mean the later teachings, I definitely agree.

It then becomes a question of whether to abandon teachings and traditions that contradict scripture.

Which leads to the question, do you think that all forms of worship are acceptable to God? If so, then you likely don't see a need to question any teaching. But if not, you must be careful to evaluate your worship. The Bible definitely teaches the latter view: God sets the standards for acceptable worship and we must meet them, not the other way around.

Even in Jesus' day his disciples had to choose between the worship Jesus taught and the worship the Jewish leaders taught. We have the same issue today. If we find that our form of worship does not please God--perhaps it is incomplete or even incorrect--we need to make the needed corrections.

The account of Priscilla, Aquilla and Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) is interesting because Priscilla and Aquilla corrected a misconception that Apollos had about a Christian teaching. The example for us is that if we have an improper understanding of a Christian teaching, we should be willing to correct it.

Take care,
Chris

The statement in Revelation regards that book only.
Rev.22: 19. And if anyone takes words away from THIS book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Revelation was written long before the entire Bible was put together.
Also Sola Scriptora is non biblical. The Bible even mentions another authority than it.
See the books of Timothy to find it. Hint: It is the pillar or ground of the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God." However, he is not the "son" of God in the same sense that you are the son (or daughter) of your parents. Jesus is God incarnate ; thus he is fully God and also fully human. He is equal in power and stature to God the Father ; that part of the trinity that's often referred to as simply "God." Jesus is referred to as "son" because he willingly subordinated himself to the will of the Father, just as a good earthly son or daughter would willingly subordinate him/herself to the will of his/her earthly father and mother.

The Bible even mentions another authority than it. See the books of Timothy to find it. Hint: It is the pillar or ground of the truth.
I assume you mean 1 Tim 3:15 which reads:


but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (NKJV)
I find no permission here for anyone to supersede God's Word. It says that the Christian congregation is the pillar and ground of the truth, which is simply Paul's way of agreeing with Jesus' statement that those who worship God acceptably do so "in spirit and truth." (John 4:23-24) What truth? You will find Jesus' answer at John 17:17.

What do you see in this passage that leads you to say that any Christian congregation has the same or greater authority than the Bible?

Chris

Since Jesus Christ referred to himself as the Son and as God the Father as His Father I see no reason why we should change what the Bible records that Jesus said. "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Of course you are welcome to your opinion as everyone else is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura) :)

Since the word of God says that The Church is" the pillar and foundation of the truth" (NIV) The Church also is an authority on what is the truth.

If you don't believe that just ask The Church. It was even given the inspirational authority to compile the books of holy sacred Scripture into what we call the Holy Bible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura) :)

The Bible can never be used to support that it is the only authority for Christians. It's just not there. It is over and over again affirmed to be Sacred and we today believe it to be God inspired and without error - but not the sole authority for God's people.

If "Bible Only", then "Nothing Christ or his Apostles said or did is important unless it is recorded in the books of the NT"

Christ founded a Teaching Church. The earliest teachers of His Church wrote very important things that the Church later "officially" deemed worthy of adding to Scripture.

If writings that Christians were to use as their only authority was the goal, then why didn't Christ write? Any why didn't he command his disciples to write? And why didn't the Apostles command their disciples to write?

If "Bible Only", then the Christians of the first 3 centuries were just... what, lost? Winging it? Of course they weren't. They were doing just like the Christians of the Apostles age did it. They were relying on the designated leaders of Christ's Church to teach, feed and correct them.

By adhering to Sola Scripture, Christians reject or ignore the richness of the history of our faith; the early years of our Church.

We have the writings of dozens of Church leaders from the 1st to 4th Century... and we don't find Sola Scriptura.

The origin of Sola Scriptura is about 1500 years after Christ. Was the Church lost until this point?

Since the word of God says that The Church is" the pillar and foundation of the truth" (NIV) The Church also is an authority on what is the truth.
Hmm. "An authority" is not the same as "equal or greater authority." Perhaps I don't understand your position clearly. Is it your position that The Church (which I assume means the Catholic Church) has the authority to promote a teaching that is not supported by scripture?

How about this: what if another church claims the same authority and starts to teach something contrary to what your church teaches? How do we decide which teachings (and which church) are acceptable to God?

This dangerous line of thought is foretold in the scriptures at 2 Tim 4:3-4:


For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (NIV)
2 Tim 3:16 and John 17:17 tell us the source of "sound doctrine." I accept what Jesus and Paul said in this matter. The Bible must be the highest authority.

Chris

Seeing that SS is not held to by the writers of the Bible, nor the Church in general for so many centuries, limiting the teachings of the Christian faith to the words of the Bible just does not jive.

Sola Scriptura was not a practice that either Christ or His Apostles, or their disciples taught.

It is a doctrine of man.

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).

Where is Sola Scriptura?

The Bible can never be used to support that it is the only authority for Christians. It's just not there.
What authority can there be for the Christian congregation if not the inspired words of the God whom they profess to obey and worship?

I want to be clear on your position. Answer this question, please: if the teachings of a church conflict with the Bible, are we to follow the church or the Bible?

Chris

1. The authority of the Church is affirmed by Christ himself - i.e.. Gods words.

MT 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter,[Rock] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

"I will build my Church"

Not "I will write my book" or "I will give you more Scripture"

2. Your 2nd question is a non-issue. We (Catholic Christians) affirm that Scripture is God Inspired and without error. No teaching of our Faith can or does contradict Scripture.

The authority of the Church is affirmed by Christ himself - i.e.. Gods words.

MT 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter,[Rock] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
To my mind, such a position is a logical fallacy known as "Special Pleading." It appeals to scriptural authority in some cases (ie, to establish the authority of the Church), but denies it in others (ie, to establish the teachings of the Church). What if someone comes along and uses your earlier argument against you, saying, "Jesus never said to write down MT 16:18, so it has no authority--and therefore you have no authority"? Now you must start deciding which passages are authoritative and which are not. Quite a slippery slope...

Surely we cannot pick and choose like that. Scriptural authority is all or nothing. I firmly believe it is "all".


We (Catholic Christians) affirm that Scripture is God Inspired and without error. No teaching of our Faith can or does contradict Scripture.
Thanks for stating your position clearly. I absolutely agree with the former and absolutely disagree with the latter, but clearly your mind is made up and I respect your right to hold to your beliefs.

Anyway, if you and I cannot appeal to the scriptures as the final authority, there is no basis on which to agree or reason. All that remains is arguing over opinion and I'm not interested in that!

Final thought--give prayerful consideration to the principle found in these Bible texts:


Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD. -- Lamentations 3:40


Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test? -- 2 Corinthians 13:5


Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. -- 1 John 4:1


Test everything. Hold on to the good. -- 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Chris

You say my argument
"appeals to scriptural authority in some cases but denies it in others"

This is incorrect. Anything spoken of in scripture is infallible. In other words, I do not deny the authority of scripture in any case.

I do not know the formal names for fallacious or false arguments, but I think there is something very wrong about saying
"Even though "the Bible is the sole authority" is not taught in the Bible - and was not taught by members of the Church until many hundreds of years after the founding of Christianity - it is none-the-less a valid Christian Doctrine".

While the last 4 citations you quote are certainly good and without error, none of them defend Sola Scriptura.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree on the point of Sola Scriptura.

And while we can agree that Scripture is without error, we will have to disagree as to whom to rely on for interpretation of them. I will rely on the Church that Christ built and Sola Scriptura adherants will rely on either themselves or leaders of sects.

Rick's argument makes sense and has church history back it up.
Even the Bible mentions that not all the Jesus said and did are recorded therein.
But the Apostles and disciples Jesus taught did know and that is why the writings of the early Church Fathers are so important.
Chrisl's argument does not make sense because it ignores that and the fact that Jesus gave His authority to His Church to carry on His work.
That is why He called it His bride and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
:)

Please; am I alone in thinking that Hope throws gasoline onto the fire and then skedaddles?

Why does she not revisit her questions?

Is she one of them darned argent prevaricators?

MORGANITE

:eek:

She's just looking for a place to preach and ask rhetorical questions.

I got tired of seeing them, and finally jumped in - and look where it got me :p

Peace and Blessings to all,

Have a nice weekend everyone!

Is she one of them darned argent prevaricators?


'agent provocateur' - it's French.

I can't believe you fell into that whole.

Best rearguards.

MORGANITE

:)

I can't believe you fell into that whole.

Best rearguards.

MORGANITE

:)
Stay in School. Drink the koolaid your priest tells you to drink. And yes, he only fondles you because God told him to.

Stay in School. Drink the koolaid your priest tells you to drink. And yes, he only fondles you because God told him to.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe anyone would post this.
fredg

Hi,
Jesus is the Son of God.
John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son...."

Best wishes,
fredg

This is ridiculous. I can't believe anyone would post this.
fredg
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-01-05-bishop-report_x.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week525/cover.html
http://www.natcath.com/crisis/010888.htm

Freud had a word for people who jumped to conclusions that were based on too little information. I can't remember what it was.

A little well intended correction:

I am not in school
I do not drink Kool-ade
I do not have a priest
Anyone who fondles me without permission, physically or intellectually, will regret it.

Either lighten up, or turn out the light when you leave.

:mad:

Hello,


Is Jesus the son of God or is Jesus God? What does the Bible say?

Take care,
Hope12



I ASK YOU TO EXAMINE MAT.3:17 FOR YOUR ANSWER... 17:5
MARK 1:11, LUKE 3:22, 2 PT. 1:17

I have not just posted and left, I have been helping those in NO and Mississippi.
I am sorry if some here feel I just posted and ran because I was preaching. Not true.

By the way, I had asked this question:" Is Jesus the son of God or is Jesus God? What does the Bible say?"

I must say how bold so as to say as acura did "that the Church has the finale say".

We all can only have authority that God grants us, and God has granted authority only to those following Jesus Christ, his sons, commands and also only those who honor his Father, and God Almighty. Here are what the scriptures say about Jesus being the Son of God. First allow me to share with you who I personally feel Jesus is:

The only-begotten Son of God, the only Son produced by AGod the father h alone. This Son is the firstborn of all creation. By means of him all other things in heaven and on earth were created. He is the second-greatest personage in the universe. It is this Son whom God the father, sent to the earth to give his life as a ransom for mankind, thus opening the way to eternal life for those of Adam’s offspring who would exercise faith. This same Son, restored to heavenly glory, now rules as King, with authority to destroy all the wicked and to carry out his Father’s original purpose for the earth.


Scriptures taken from the NWT:

John 17:3, RS: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God [“who alone art truly God,” NE], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

Notice that Jesus referred not to himself but to his Father in heaven as “the only true God.”

John 20:17, RS: “Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
So to the resurrected Jesus, the Father was God, just as the Father was God to Mary Magdalene. Interestingly, not once in Scripture do we find the Father addressing the Son as “my God.”

Acura, was part of the Authority you speak of given to the Catholic Church, also authority to change the scriptures. No where in the scriptures to my knowledge does it state the Jesus and God are the same being.

Where exactly and what scritpture says the Jesus and God are the same being? Tell me scripture Acura, not what the Catholic church says. I want scriptures and then we can go from there. Show me where in the Bible that Jesus is God, I really want to see that for myself.

Waiting to hear from you.

Take care,
Hope12
BTW: I am going back to Mississippi the end of the month to help build new houses for those that lost their homes from Katrina. I am telling you all this so you don't think I post and then run. I am not like that.


:)

The Bible is not, was not and cannot be the final authority. The Finakl Authority is God Himself.

The early Church had, we presume, copies of most of the Bible rolls used by the Jews. When it came time to choose a replacement for Judas Iscariot, why didn't the eleven consult the Bible for who to choose? If the Bible is the final authority, you would expect to find the solution there.

But they didn't look in the scripture. They prayed and cast lots, believing that the hand of God would make sure that the result of the lottery was his will.

What part did the Bible play in this selection? None!

What did play a part in the selection?

Authorised servants of God sought from Him a revelation that was not to be found in the Bible they had, and God responded as he had promised to do. There is no Final Authority in the Bible. The very idea is ludicrous.

God is either the Final Authority or else he is not God.

Making the Bible greater than God is a folly that has cost the Christian world, including the Watch Tower, dearer than they know.

Looking into an old book to find the will of God while ignoring God is too ludicrous for words.


MORGANITE


:)

Jesus Christ is God!
The Bible Proves it.
John 14:28 - Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I."
The Father is "greater" than the incarnate Christ in terms of position because Christ's humanity is a creation, though in His divinity He is equal to the Father.
Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus was made for a while "lower than the angels" at the Incarnation.
Matthew 11:11 says there has never been a man "greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Does this mean John does not have a human nature? Does this mean those in heaven, who are greater than John, have a different nature?
If John the Baptist is the greatest man to ever live, and if Jesus was just a man, does that mean John the Baptist was greater than Jesus, superior to Him by nature? Does that mean Jesus and John could not have both had a human nature?
John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life, that they know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." The argument is that Jesus can't be God if the Father is the "only true God," and was praying to God here.
God the Father is "the only true God." This statement is completely in harmony with the doctrine of the Trinity: One God in three Persons. Christ's statement does not entail a denial that He too is God.
Christ was affirming the monotheism of the Jews, that there is only one God. This monotheism is the basis of the Trinity.
Christ is true God and true man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; John 8:58 & Ex. 3:14), and as a man, He prayed to the Father.
John 20:17 - "I ascend to My Father and to your Father, to My God and to your God." How can the Father be His 'God' if Christ is God? How can God have a God?"
"I believe that Jesus is both God and man. Here, he speaks in reference to His human nature. As a man the Father is His God - just as He is ours. He calls the Father His God because He is His God whom He worships, prays to and needs in His life just as we do."
This verse is a clear reference to the Hypostatic Union of Christ (He was fully God and man).
Rev. 3:14 - "These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God's creation."
Notice the text does not say Christ was created. The Greek word translated as "source" or "origin" is arche. It connotes "the eternal source of all that is."
In Revelation 21:6 Jehovah is called the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.. . I shall be His God and He shall be My Son." But Jesus is called the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" in Revelation 22:13. How Jesus and Jehovah can both be the "Alpha and the Omega." Does this mean that Jehovah God had a "beginning," because arche is used to describe Him? Here arche means "the source of all being." Jesus is the source of the creation of God because he is the creator of all things. John 1:1-3 says Jesus (the Word) created "all things.. . And without Him was made nothing that was made."
If Christ was created, He would have had to have created Himself, which is impossible.
Colossians 1:15-17 - Jesus is called the "first-born of all creation. For in Him were all things created.. . He is before all and by Him all things were created." Some think this means Jesus is the first created being.
"First-born" here does not refer to time, but to preeminence. It is a title given by a father to his son. Isaac, Jacob and Ephraim received the blessing of the "first-born," though they were not biologically the first sons born to their parents.
The text doesn't say Jesus was created. If so, St. Paul would have said Jesus created all other things, but he did not. Jesus is the Creator of all things. He is God. He is given the title "first-born" as the title of His preeminence and because He is eternally begotten by the Father.
Colossians 1:15-17 means that Christ created everything.
Now let’s take a look at Isaiah 44:24: "This is what the Lord says, your Redeemer who formed you in the womb: 'I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.'" If Christ created "all things," it says that the Lord God - the Hebrew word used here is Yahweh (Jehovah) - did it by Himself.
I believe God is not a God of confusion, but of order and truth. Since He inspired Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16), Scripture cannot contradict itself.
Look at John 1:1-3 - "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. . All things were made by Him: and without Him was made nothing that was made."
The Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible changes John 1:1 the passage to read, "the Word was a god" . Then is Christ the "true" God or a "false" God. They will say a "true" god, but that He is not the One True Almighty God. Then please explain that Jehovah God commands us to have no other God besides Him (Ex. 20:3). Christ is either the One True God, or He is a false god (cf. Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).
Christ is here clearly identified as God, the Creator of all things. Notice that Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created" everything in the universe. This means Christ is God.
"Thomas answered, and said to [Jesus]: 'My Lord and My God'" (John 20:28). The Greek reads: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou ("the Lord of me and the God of me"). If the Witnesses argue that in John 20:28 Thomas was exaggerating about Jesus, point out that if Jesus was not God, Thomas would have been blaspheming and Jesus would have rebuked him, but He didn't - He clearly approves of what Thomas said.
The JWs argue that Thomas referred to Jesus as "Lord" and then to the Father as "God," respond that there is no evidence for this in the text and Thomas was directly addressing Jesus, not the Father.
Revelation 22:6 - "And the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets (ho kurios ho theos) sent His angel to show His servants the things which must be done shortly."
Who is the Lord God who sent His angel? Witnesses say it is Jehovah, but Revelation 22:16 (just ten verses later) says: "I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the Churches." Jesus is "the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets" spoken of in verse 6.
Luke 12:8-9 - "And I tell you, every one who acknowledges Me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God."
Matthew 13:41 says, "The Son of man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers." Jesus and God are synonymous.
Genesis 18:25 and Joel 3:12 - Jehovah is the Judge of the world.
Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:27, 9:39; Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; and 2 Timothy 4:1 say that Jesus Christ is the Judge of the world. How can Jesus and Jehovah both be the supreme Judge?
Exodus 3:15-18 - "Then Moses said to God, 'If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is His Name?" what shall I say to them?' God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.'.. . 'Say this to the people of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you. . . The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is My Name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.'"
The Hebrew consonants for the divine name, I AM, are YHWH. By inserting the first three vowels for the Hebrew title for God, Adonai, and corrupting the pronunciation, the term JEHOVAH is made. Ask the JWs if "Jehovah" (I AM) is the Name of the one true God.
In John 8:21-59 Jesus repeatedly claims the divine name "I AM" for Himself. The Jews understood that He was calling Himself God and wanted to stone Him for blasphemy (cf. John 5:18, 8:59, 10:30-36). Why would the Jews would seek to stone Jesus if He wasn't claiming to be God, especially since execution by stoning was reserved by Jewish Law for only a few crimes.
Exodus 20:10 - "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God."
Jesus calls himself "The Lord of the Sabbath" in Mark 2:28, thus identifying Himself as God. Cf., Isaiah 8:13 (referred to in 1 Peter 3:15) and Joel 2:31-32 (quoted in Acts 2:20-21 and Romans 10:13).
Acts 20:28 - "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with His own Blood."
When did Jehovah ever shed His own Blood. Christ shed His own Blood for the Church. If you argue that this passage should read "by the Blood of His own Son," Greek word son (huios) does not appear. It reads: periepoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou.
There are many references where Christ is said to have been slain and shed His Blood for the Church (cf. Matt. 28:27-28; Mark 14:24; Luke 20:20; Rev. 5:6). And finally Revelation 5:9: "Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for Thou wast slain and by Thy Blood didst ransom men for God.. . " This clearly refers to Christ as God.
Note: The above is excerpted From ENVOY Magazine
Peace and Kindness,
Fred (arcura) :)

I'd like to take time to pick the bones out of the arguments put forward b y Envoy magazine. They are flawed, but maybe some other time.

:)

Flawed? I think not, but I would like to see you bone picking when you have the time.
If you are going use the original Greek, I have the answers for that also.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura) :)

Matthew 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

NOW THAT SOUNDS LIKE A PROCLAMATION TO ME FROM GOD PERTAINING TO HIS SON.

Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus was made for a while "lower than the angels" at the Incarnation.

The quote in Hebrews is taken from Psalm 8:5

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.


This is a poor translation, because the word rendered 'angels' is English is elohim in Hebrew, whose original meaning is 'the gods.'


MORGANITE



:)

There Are Numerous Instances Where Kjv Is Mistranslated. The One That Comes To Mind Most Quickly Is, "resist The Devil And He Will Flee From You." In Hebrew It Rerads More Like This, "resist The Devil And He Will Run In Holy Terror." If There Is One Thing I Never Want To Experience It It "holy Terror."

There Are Numerous Instances Where Kjv Is Mistranslated. The One That Comes To Mind Most Quickly Is, "resist The Devil And He Will Flee From You." In Hebrew It Rerads More Like This, "resist The Devil And He Will Run In Holy Terror." If There Is One Thing I Never Want To Experience It It "holy Terror."


The text AV reads:

James 4:7 (New Testament)

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

It is Koine Greek, not Hebrew, and there is no mention of terror, holy or otherwise.




Your translation is a mistranslation.


MORGANITE



:)

In conclusion here is my final word on this matter:

Who Is Jesus Christ? The only-begotten Son of God, the only Son produced by Jehovah alone. This Son is the firstborn of all creation. By means of him all other things in heaven and on earth were created. He is the second-greatest personage in the universe. It is this Son whom Jehovah sent to the earth to give his life as a ransom for mankind, thus opening the way to eternal life for those of Adam's offspring who would exercise faith. This same Son, restored to heavenly glory, now rules as King, with authority to destroy all the wicked and to carry out his Father's original purpose for the earth. The Hebrew form of the name Jesus means “Jehovah Is Salvation”; Christ is the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma•shi´ach (Messiah), meaning “Anointed One.”
Is Jesus Christ actually God?
No Jesus Christ is not actually God!
John 17:3, RS: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God [“who alone art truly God,” NE], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (Notice that Jesus referred not to himself but to his Father in heaven as “the only true God.”)
John 20:17, RS: “Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], 'Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” (So to the resurrected Jesus, the Father was God, just as the Father was God to Mary Magdalene. Interestingly, not once in Scripture do we find the Father addressing the Son as “my God.”)
Does John 1:1 prove that Jesus is God?
John 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NW reads “the Word was a god”; NTIV uses the same wording.
What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the•os´ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. (See 1984 Reference edition of NW, p. 1579.)
What did the apostle John mean when he wrote John 1:1? Did he mean that Jesus is himself God or perhaps that Jesus is one God with the Father? In the same chapter, verse 18, John wrote: “No one [“no man,” KJ, Dy] has ever seen God; the only Son [“the only-begotten god,” NW], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (RS) Had any human seen Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously not. Toward the end of his Gospel, John summarized matters, saying: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, [not God, but] the Son of God.”—John 20:31, RS.
Does Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God?
John 20:28 (RS) reads: “Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'”
There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus' own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as “gods.” (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as “the only-begotten god.” (See also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as “Mighty God,” but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus' being described as “a god,” or “divine,” at John 1:1 (NW, AT).
The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus' death, Thomas had heard Jesus' prayer in which he addressed his Father as “the only true God.” (John 17:3, RS) After Jesus' resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including Thomas, in which he had said: “I am ascending.. . To my God and your God.” (John 20:17, RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected Christ, the apostle John stated: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31, RS) So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas' exclamation that Jesus is himself “the only true God” or that Jesus is a Trinitarian “God the Son,” he needs to look again at what Jesus himself said (vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John (vs. 31).
Does Matthew 1:23 indicate that Jesus when on earth was God?
Matt. 1:23, RS: “'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman´u-el' (which means, God with us [“God is with us,” NE]).”
In announcing Jesus' coming birth, did Jehovah's angel say that the child would be God himself? No, the announcement was: “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.” (Luke 1:32, 35, RS; italics added.) And Jesus himself never claimed to be God but, rather, “the Son of God.” (John 10:36, RS; italics added.) Jesus was sent into the world by God; so by means of this only-begotten Son, God was with mankind.—John 3:17; 17:8.
It was not unusual for Hebrew names to include within them the word for God or even an abbreviated form of God's personal name. For example, Eli´athah means “God Has Come”; Jehu means “Jehovah Is He”; Elijah means “My God Is Jehovah.” But none of these names implied that the possessor was himself God.
What is the meaning of John 5:18?
John 5:18, RS: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.”
It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, RS; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: “It is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”—Matt. 12:10-12, RS.
Does the fact that worship is given to Jesus prove that he is God?
At Hebrews 1:6, the angels are instructed to “worship” Jesus, according to the rendering of RS, TEV, KJ, JB, and NAB. NW says “do obeisance to.” At Matthew 14:33, Jesus' disciples are said to have “worshiped” him, according to RS, TEV, KJ; other translations say that they “showed him reverence” (NAB), “bowed down before him” (JB), “fell at his feet” (NE), “did obeisance to him” (NW).
The Greek word rendered “worship” is pro•sky•ne´o, which A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature says was also “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground.” (Chicago, 1979, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker; second English edition; p. 716) This is the term used at Matthew 14:33 to express what the disciples did toward Jesus; at Hebrews 1:6 to indicate what the angels are to do toward Jesus; at Genesis 22:5 in the Greek Septuagint to describe what Abraham did toward Jehovah and at Genesis 23:7 to describe what Abraham did, in harmony with the custom of the time, toward people with whom he was doing business; at 1 Kings 1:23 in the Septuagint to describe the prophet Nathan's action on approaching King David.
At Matthew 4:10 (RS), Jesus said: “You shall worship [from pro•sky•ne´o] the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.” (At Deuteronomy 6:13, which Jesus is evidently here quoting, appears the personal name of God, the Tetragrammaton.) In harmony with that, we must understand that it is pro•sky•ne´o with a particular attitude of heart and mind that should be directed only toward God.
Do the miracles performed by Jesus prove that he is God?
Acts 10:34, 38, RS: “Peter opened his mouth and said: '.. . God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power;.. . He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.'” (So Peter did not conclude from the miracles that he observed that Jesus was God but, rather, that God was with Jesus. Compare Matthew 16:16, 17.)
John 20:30, 31, RS: “Now Jesus did many other signs [“miracles,” TEV, Kx] in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (So the conclusion we should properly draw from the miracles is that Jesus is “the Christ,” the Messiah, “the Son of God.” The expression “Son of God” is very different from “God the Son.”)
Pre-Christian prophets such as Elijah and Elisha performed miracles similar to those of Jesus. Yet that certainly is no proof that they were God.
Now if you all want to get into the trinity teaching that is also not biblical and can be disputed also.

Take care,
Hope12

Sorry to disappoint you Hope...
But you can dispute all you want to but it will not change the fact that Jesus is God the son of the one and only Triune God.
Believe as you like, but don't try to convince others that know better. It's a futile task.
Peace and kindness,
Aurcra (Fred)

Morganite, I Don't Know If I Know You. But, I Do Know The Teachers I Have Had In The Past And If My One Teachers Said He Received This Info From Old Manuscripts My Trust Is In Him.

Another One Is "spare The Rod And Spoil The Child." What Was Actually Spoken In Paraphrased Form Is This. "the Man Who Refuses To Bring His Child Up On God's Precepts Hates That Child." How Is That Derived From A Translation? If A Man Doesn't Bring His Child Up On God's Word, He Cares So Little About That Child That He Doesn't Even Care If The Child Grows Up And Splits The Gates Of Hell Wide Open Upon Entry. Can You See The Concept Here?

Stony,
I don't know about Morganite, but I can sure see it.
Thanks much.
Peace and kindness,
arcura (Fred)

Morganite, I Don't Know If I Know You. But, I Do Know The Teachers I Have Had In The Past And If My One Teachers Said He Received This Info From Old Manuscripts My Trust Is In Him.

Another One Is "spare The Rod And Spoil The Child."

What Was Actually Spoken In Paraphrased Form Is This. "the Man Who Refuses To Bring His Child Up On God's Precepts Hates That Child."

How Is That Derived From A Translation?

If A Man Doesn't Bring His Child Up On God's Word, He Cares So Little About That Child That He Doesn't Even Care If The Child Grows Up And Splits The Gates Of Hell Wide Open Apon [sic] Entry. Can You See The Concept Here?


STONY.

First, "Old Manuscripts" could be anything, not even biblical documents. Which old manuscript did he say it was? It is well to be suspicious of people who say they have read things in "Old Manuscripts" unless they provide references for you to read it yourself. Will you ask him what and where it is?


Second, “Spare the rod and spoil the child,” is not found anywhere in the Bible, neither is it in any of the ancient manuscripts that are copies and edited versions of the original monographs.

The Proverbs (13-24) reads, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son.”

The phrase “spare the rod, spoil the child” is actually from a burlesque poem from the 1600s by Samuel Butler, and is actually about sex. The whole phrase reads:

“Love is a boy by poets styled
Then spare the rod and spoil the child.”

It is a bawdy poem about sex between a fat man and a widow: hardly a decent source of parenting advice. So why is it so often claimed to be a biblical quote? The answer to that is that it is only so claimed to be Biblical by those who are not familiar with the Bible. No Bible scholar or student would fall into such a basic error. Your ‘teacher’ is sermonising on what he mistakenly believes is part of the original text of the Bible. He is wrong.

The phrase does not appear in the Bible, and though I can see the what you are driving at in the long quote it is not correct to say that those words appear in that form, or anything close to it, in the Hebrew Bible text of Proverbs 13.24, which in literal translation is:


"He who holds back his rod is hating his son he, but loving him seeks him with correction."

Bible Hebrew is always terse, never explanisve, and some words must be supplied to make it make sense in English and to make it read elegantly.

Translation must always be done without introducing ideas that are not present in the original. When a translator introduces extended or amplified ideas based on a simple text, he has overstepped the bounds of his science and is 'adding to the scriptures' in an unacceptable way. In those circumstances, he is ”Wresting the scripture” and brings condemnation onto himself.

Peter denounces them with: “ … they that are unlearned and unstable wrest also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

When a sermoniser takes a simple text and amplifies it into something more extensive, then he has left hermeneutical exegesis far behind and is preaching his own ideas that he 'thinks' are based on what is written. In your example he is clearly shown to be wrong.

Paul gives some sound advice to those who hang onto the words of their teachers as if they are handed down on Sinai:

“Prove (test, examine, prove, scrutinise, to see whether a teaching is genuine or not) all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)


When a teacher quotes what he believes is a Bible verse, but it is not in the Bible but in a lewd song, the wise will ask themselves what other major mistakes he has made.



M:)RGANITE

Jehovah is God Almighty and the father of Jesus Christ, Jehovah's son.

"Read your bible and you will see that this is the truth, when you learn the truth, it will set you free from false teachings.

Take care,
Hope12

Hello,


Is Jesus the son of God or is Jesus God? What does the Bible say?

Take care,
Hope12
He is both god and son the bible tells you so

HE IS BOTH GOD AND SON THE BIBLE TELLS YOU SO

We are not meant to kill people, the bible tells us so, yet look at all the "christians" and most other religions who support wars... :(

My point is that no matter what the bible says, many will twist God's sayings to suit themselves.