Is Jesus God?

The question as to the identity of Jesus (Is he God or Gods Son) has been a debate that has raged for thousands of years. It is the very question that caused the church to become divided and turned members against each other to the point of executing those who became viewed as heretics for not believing in the trinity. It became an ugly chapter in the history of christianity and christians are still divided over the issue today.From the 'Jesus is a failure' thread, EMA made the comment as follows There is good reason why this idea was, and is, strongly fought against. Early christians recognized that the teaching that Jesus was God, did not come from the writings of the Apostles or the words of Jesus. The catholic encyclopedia acknowledges this fact by stating the following: Even those who teach the trinity have acknowledged that it is not an idea that comes from the scriptures. An Anglican bishop named John Robinson in his book 'Honest to God' wrote: Because trinitarians use certain scritpures to back their claim, I think it would be good to compare the scritpures that trinitarians use. I beleive that every scritpure they may use, can be shown to not convey the meaning that trinitarians put to them.the first scripture i'd like to put forward is EMA's verse from John where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God" and reasons that because the apostles called Jesus God, that means he is God. What could Thomas have meant by calling Jesus 'God' and is it wrong to do so? No i dont think it is for the fact that 'God' is just a title that means 'Mighty/Divine One'Jesus was surely of divine origin and so Thomas could have been recognizing this fact. When we compare scritpures about the Messiah, he is called 'Mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peaceits important to note that 'El Gib.bohr' is the hebrew word for 'Mighty God' whereas when the Hebrew speaks of the 'Almighty God' YWHY, it uses a different hebrew word which is 'El Shad.dai' as at Ge 17:1So even when the hebrew writers spoke about the Messiah, they called him God, yet differentiated him between the 'Almighty YWHY'John also calls Jesus a god in John 1:1 but he differentiated between THE God because he used the definite article 'ton' before one but not the other which indicated that he was speaking of two different Gods.John gave further evidence that these two are different beings in John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained himSo to understand Thomas's words, its a matter of understanding that the Messiah was of divine origin and could rightly be called, a god. 'god' is a title that means a divine being. Jesus was certainly a divine being for he even said that he was from heaven and that he existed with God before the founding of the world. If anyone has more scriptures, please put them on the table and im pretty sure they can be shown to not mean what they are purported to mean.

Hi hERICtic,i agree that John 20:17 is a great scripture in refuting the trinity

hi Kbertsche thats right, the essence of Jesus is that he was 'divine'some bibles actually use the word divine because its a description of the essence of him as opposed to his identity.my bible puts it'and the word was A god'

Hi Kbertsche The Authorized Version or Douay Version of John 1:1 reads: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.Surely John was not so unreasonable as to say that someone (the Word) was with some other individual (God) and at the same time was that other individual (God). I dont think the greek grammar could be so backward as to actually make this possible.Many have clued onto this. In the book The Patristic GospelsAn English Version of the holy Gospels as they existed in the Second Century, by Roslyn D’Onston. In John 1:1 this version reads: and the Word was God. but it has this footnote: The true reading here is, probably, of God. See Critical Note.Page 118.Now here is the critical note word for word from page 118 and the last sentence shows that trinitarians are the ones who ignore the greek gramma in favor of their theology.

Thats a good one. I guess the rabbis believed that only God could forgive sins and yet their own writings stated that thru their Messiah, their sins would be forgiven.
Isaiah 53:11 says
By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bearThe Messiah was given the authority to forgive sins because his purpose was to bring an end to sin.The writings of Paul shows that thru the sacrifice of Jesus, many people would have their sins forgiven John also spoke of forgivness thru Jesus sacrifice at 1John2:1-2and yet the high priest had authority to forgive the sins of the whole nation... are we to assume that the high priest was also God?? Im sure you would not assume such a notion.The fact that Jesus could forgive sins does not mean he had to be God Almighty. It simply means that as the chosen one, God had granted Jesus the authority to do so just as he had granted that authority to the high priest.

the prophecy in Daniel 7 clearly identifies the arrangement of Gods Kingdom. Notice that the kingdom is Gods kingdom, but he gives the rulership of the Kingdom over to the 'son of man'This scripture clearly shows that Jesus authority in the kingdom was bestowed upon him, it wasnt always his. The angels you speak of were given to Jesus in order for him to fulfill his role just as a government will hand over the authority of the army to those who are put in charge of the military.Also, Jesus rulership of this kingdom is only temporary according to 1Corintians 15:24 where Paul clearly explains that Jesus will rule until all of the kingdoms enemies are defeated and then he will 'hand back the kingdom to his God and Father' and you may notice in verse 27 Paul clarifies that God himself is not subjected to Jesus when he says "it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him"and he finishes by saying that Jesus will then subject himself to God
"then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him"So just because Jesus is the head of the Kingdom of God, does not mean that he has to also be God Almighty. These scriptures clearly show that Jesus is subject to God and that the kingdom was bestowed upon him for a specific length of time.

sorry, thats a bad habit of mine.The only way the isrealites could get their sins forgiven was by presenting themselves to the priest who was able to make the atonement for them. We may think that it was the sacrifice that made the atonement, but in fact it wasnt and we know this because if they could then the isrealites could have made their own sacrifices. But they could not do that, they had to present themselves to the priests and only the priests had authority to make the sacrifices legal for forgiveness to take place. Also at We also have the example of King Saul at 1Samuel 13 who tried to make a priestly sacrifice for the people before battle and was promptly removed from his position for the action. So only thru the priests could forgiveness of sins take place.

Im sure these translators cannot all be wrong on the rendering of John 1:1What is interesting about trinitarian translators is that they insist on rendering John 1:1, The Word was God, and yet they don't hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other verses where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb.Such as at John 6:70. Both JB and KJ refer to Judas Iscariot as a devil, and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as a prophet.they willingly insert an indefinite article into these verses which have exactly the same sentence construct, yet they say that its not gramatically correct to insert the indefinite article in John 1:1.... thats evidence enough which shows they are deliberately fudging the numbers to make a case for their theology. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

well he did point out their error when in response he said to them: Notice Jesus didnt say I am the authority and the source of forgiveness, he said "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" This is in harmony with the prophecy in Isaiah about the Messiah being given all authority on earth and bringing mankind into a righteous standing before God.Now if the Messiah was 'given' authority, we cannot assume that he IS the authority....otherwise the prophecy would make no sense, nor would Johns words found here Nor would Jesus own words where he said that he was 'given' authority at Matt 28:18 Also, just on the point of the High Priest that i mentioned earlier, you may like to look at Pauls words (and Paul was a very well educated Pharisee and a lawyer of the mosaic law, so he understood it very well) If it werent for the high priest, not forgiveness of sins would have ever taken place because he was 'appointed' by God for that purpose. Paul goes on to explain that Jesus was also appointed for that purpose of gaining forgiveness of sins and that he was now the approach to God.
In verses 8-10 he says: 8Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; 9and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek

The expression used at John 8:58 is far different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. He did have a prehuman existence because he is the 'son of God'to be a son of God he must have lived in the heavens with God before he came to earth as a man. The heavens are full of other 'sons' of God and these are called Angels. They also lived before Abraham existed. We read atJob 38:4-7
Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding...
7When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?But you should know that John 8:28 is not rendered as 'I am' by all translators. So I would be questioning the rendering of "I Am" in whatever bible you are using. My guess is its a trinitarian translator again. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Is this really a claim that Jesus is God Almighty?Read from vs 1 right thru to 9 and you'll see that this is not a claim that Jesus is God, but once again that he is the Son of God, the one appointed by God. What Paul is really explaining here is the position that Jesus has obtained thru his loyalty to his father. God is his throne forever does not mean that Jesus IS God, but rather that Jesus has obtained that position on Gods throne. This is spoken of in Revelation 3:21 where Jesus says that those who conquer, he will do for them what God has done for him.... sat him on the throne. this is Co-Rulership...and its in perfect harmony with those earlier verses that speak of Jesus being given all authority.

well then you should be asking why they are using it at all because they DO use it in the verses i mentioned.

You are applying Rev 22:12-13 to Jesus whereas the context of the scripture shows that it is God Jehovah who is speaking, not Jesus.Have a look at the verse from Vs 6 onward and you will see that it is not actually Jesus speaking here Now we know from earlier passages that it is in fact Jesus who is 'coming quickly' but this isnt because he IS God, it is because he is the one who God has placed in charge of the Kingdom and who will take the lead in defeating Gods enemies.He is coming in Gods name, as Gods representative king and so God can say that he himself is coming quickly because thru Jesus, his judgements are to be carried out. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Hi EMA,
I didnt know you had been banned either, so who did you annoy lol? I dont claim that he was a part of God. Jesus is a completely separate individual to God his Father. Just as the rest of the Angels are separate individuals to God.Think about this, if Jesus was really a part of God, why would he explain his total dependence upon God? if he was God, he would have been doing everything of his own initiative.
why would he have said the following about where he stood in relation to God? I find your 3rd query a little strange because Jesus specifically told his diciples that he had existed before he became a man. He told the religious leaders "before Abraham existed, I have been" And the scriptures constantly call him a 'son' in comparison to a 'father'Proverbs 8:22 Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth....30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time"Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"Revelation 3:14 And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness (Jesus), the beginning of the creation by God"John 1:1a "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God..."John 1:14 "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father"John 3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son"John 4:9 "By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world" your idea is that Jesus is a part of God, that is not how I view him at all. God doesnt come in parts, he is a whole individual. His creation, made in his image, do not come in parts....we are also whole individuals. I dont believe there is any scripture that describes God as coming in 'parts' but if you have one, please post it. Proverbs 8:22, which can only be a description of Jesus in his pre human existence, certainly shows him to be in the posiiton of a 'son' in relation to his father. Daniel is very clear in showing that two individuals are involved. If he was trying to make it easy for simple minded humans to understand, it would have been much clear to simply state that " I am God Almighty and I am Coming into the world", dont you think?Yet what we see over and over is an Almighty God who is sending somone else, that someone will be given rulership to bring the nations back to God. and yet even the diciples were said to be 'filled with holy spirit'So why is it so strange the Jesus would be full of God? Jesus imitated his father perfectly and Gods goodness and love and peace was a part of Jesus personality, just as it can be a part of ours. It doesnt make us God though. We are still individuals...we have simply put on the personality of God. Just as wicked people can put on the personality of the Devil. [b]Ephesians 4:22-24, Put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct and which is being corrupted according to his deceptive desires; but ... be made new in the force actuating your mind, and ... put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loving-kindness. according to your verse above, the opposite is true. Jesus did not view himself as equal to God. Jesus was 'obedient' and took the form of a 'servant' ...this is the opposite of what your theology is saying.So Jesus WAS obedient to God. If Jesus was God as you say, then he could not have been obedient to himself....his actions would have been his own, yet even he said that his actions were not his own. "I do not act of my own initiative" is what he said. thats exactly right...God is not the Son and the Son is not God.They are two separate individuals.

thats a fair enough point you make, however, have you looked at the reasoning behind why Jesus return to Mount Zion is not taken literally?Firstly, the word return can mean something else besides a going back bodily to a previous geographical location. For example, we might say that a person has returned to good health, or that the previous government has been returned to powerThe Bible’s use of the word at Genesis 18:10 is where God told Abraham: I am surely going to return to you next year at this time, and, look! Sarah your wife will have a son. The following year, God didnt make a literal visit to Sarah, but in Gen 21.1 we see the way in which he 'returned'. He extended his power toward her so that she could conceive and give birth to Isaac. So he returned, but not physically.The reason why we say that Jesus wont return physically is because in John 14:19 he specifically said that 'a little while longer and the world will behold me no more'
Would Jesus had said this if he knew that the world was going to behold him again in the future?
I dont think Jesus would lie, or deliberately mislead people, about something so serious, do you?Now I believe the verse about Mount Zion is Revelation 14.1
And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. Yet if you look at what Paul said about where this Mount Zion is located, you'll hopefully see that he understood it to not be an earthly location: So according to Paul, heavenly Jerusalem is where Mount Zion is located. It is where Jesus rules from...at Gods right hand.