Is Jesus God?

quote:

---

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

---

Rev 22 is somewhat confusing; the speaker alternates between the narrator and Jesus. A red-letter Bible will highlight Jesus' words. The NET Bible uses parentheses for Jesus words, as they are parenthetical to the narrative. Here is v. 6 onward from NET. I have also highlighted Jesus' words in light red, similar to what a red-letter Bible does: Why do you say that the context indicates this is "God Jehovah who is speaking, not Jesus?" As you admit, elsewhere in the book Jesus is identified as the one who is "coming quickly" or "coming soon" The wording "I am coming soon" is identical. Thus the context of the book seems to indicate that this is Jesus speaking in Rev 22.

and this is the authority that God had given them, if they did not offer the sacrifice, no forgiveness took place...they had a responsibility and the authority in that regard. You cant say that they did not have the authority to forgive sins when, without them, no forgiveness took place.God could have forgiven anyone he chose to, at any time, yet he had made the arrangement that forgivenss was to take place, only thru the priests. Why would he choose this method of forgiveness? Why would he only forgive if the priest was offering the sacrifice?? It was because the priest was given that authority...it was Gods arrangement.In the same way, God gave the Messiah this authority and just like the priest, forgivenss only takes place thru Jesus. Jesus obviously knew this, he understood his role better then any one else and therefore he could rightfully say that he had authority to forgive sins.This certainly doesnt make him God though, just as it did not make the priests God.And the apostles understood his role in this way also, John said sin was cleansed thru Jesus.
1John 1:7However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sinRevelation 1:5 5and from Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness, The firstborn from the dead, and The Ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him that loves us and that loosed us from our sins by means of his own bloodThe sacrifice of Jesus is what makes forgiveness of sins possible, Hebrews bears this out also and shows that the sacrifice Jesus gave was to be the means of forgivenss for all mankind. And you have to remember that jesus said 'ALL authority has been given to me in heaven and upon earth"All authority. This includes the forgiveness of sins but it was something bestowed upon Jesus, he didnt always have that authority... if he was God, then he would have always had it, yet he said 'it has been given to him'

The grammar is not an issue as this construct is found in other passages. as the quote from above shows, the grammar is not an issue.another source agrees with the above Im happy to have a closer look at the verse in greek.Greek: πρὶν - ᾿Αβραὰμ ------- γενέσθαι ------- ---- ἐγὼ ------ εἰμίTrans: prin - A‧bra‧am′ -----ge‧ne′sthai ---------- e‧go′ ----- ei‧mi′Eng: before - Abraham ---- came into being ------- I -------- am.The Greek verb there used, eimi', is literally in the present tense, but because it is preceded by the aorist infinitive clause in referring to Abraham’s past, the Greek verb eimi′ must be viewed as a historical present.
This is possible in Greek. Here is another reference about the 'historical present' in greek grammar: Jesus was here referring to an existence from before Abraham and continuing down till he spoke which is in harmony with how greek can be constructed according to the above scholars.Its for this reason that numerous translators use a different rendering then the King James version

looking at the verse of hebrews in the greek interlinear it literally reads:
Heb 1:8 "And to the son, the throne of you, O God is, to the age of the age"
which is how RS renders it as does the KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB.
The NWT renders it But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever. which is similar to the AT, Mo, TC, By...so the NWT is not alone in this rendering.The correct rendering must be in line with the context. So what is the context?
The preceding verses show that God is the one speaking, and the following verse uses the expression God, thy God, showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God.Hebrews 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which was addressed to one of the kings of Israel. We can pretty much be sure that writer did not think that this human king was Almighty God. This is why the RS reads Your divine throne. and the NE says, Your throne is like God’s throne. and the JP says Thy throne given of God.So with that in mind, and in harmony with the fact that God is the throne, or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13,14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Just as he did the king in Isreal who was said to sit on Gods throne, so too Jesus is sitting on Gods throne.
About this I have the following quote about this verse:

I agree its confusing as the whole book osillates between different characters who are speaking. One of the main problems with identifying them comes from the fact that the at some stage during the 2nd or 3rd century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton (Gods personal name) from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Lord and God.The NWT at Revelation 22.6 reads:
And he said to me: These words are faithful and true; yes, Jehovah the God of the inspired expressions of the prophets sent his angel forth to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. 7And, look! I am coming quickly. Happy is anyone observing the words of the prophecy of this scroll.Because only God Almighty is called the 'alpha and omega' which is why the NWT has used the name of God in this verse. jesus has never been called by that term so it would be illogical to assume that it must be speaking about Jesus. The wording may be identical, but if you consider that Jesus will carry out Gods will, then this would explain it.
Gods will is for jesus to go into action against Gods enemies. If God sends Jesus for that purpose, then God can say that he is coming. It should be understood in that context because Jesus will only come at Gods direction.

Hi Peg. This is a good example of why you shouldn't be spoon fed from your central source of doctrine. JWs have the same problem as the secularists on this board relative to your rejection of a literal return of Jesus.Remember that all important word, corroboration. The significant prophecies of the OT prophets come into play here, corroborating with the statements of Jesus and the apostles. You need to read, reread and read again thoughtfully with pen and paper taking notes the messianic chapters of Ezekiel 36-39, the latter chapters of Zechariah, Joel, Zephaniah, etc. I suggest beginning with Ezekiel 36-39, the reason being that this is a concise sequence of Israeli messianic events signifying apocalypse.It's a crying shame that so many Christian brethren who don't care a whit about the amazing prophecies are oblivious to these things which are coming to pass before our eyes. This is indiciative of II Thessalonians 2 where Paul states the anti-christ will not be revealed until apostacy (departure from truth) prevails. One reason for the evangelical apathy toward end time prophecy is that they falsely think they will raptured (caught up) out before tribulation so who cares. Western evangelicals, unlike thrird world evangelicals don't realize that tribulation/persecution of Christians is well underway just as prophesied.This pertains to is Jesus God in that Jesus/messiah, during the messianic kingdom will be as (I say as) Jehovah to the nations of the whole world, to the extent that they will call him Jehovah. Zechariah 14 explains how this will play out. Edited by Buzsaw, : Tidying up and changing message title

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

he did this for the same reason he taught people how to pray, the same reason he was baptized, not to wash away his sins Peg, but to be an example on how to follow God. His dependency was an example. an illustration of respect and to demonstrate authority, not because he was actually dependent on the father, but to show to humans the source of all authorityoften times he healed never involking the name of the father. often time he performed miracles of his own power. they are examples of how God is God and how to show respect for that authority at times. How to be a servant .when he did involk his fathers name it was to demonstrate that he and the father were one.the realationship you explained here Peg is one of respect. Paul makes it clear that he was equal with God. While many may be called sons of God, none were siad to be equal or possess the fullness of the Godhead Both are true and all is true but where one trumps the other, one must lend itself to athropomorphism. So if Christ is equal to God, the lesser son of man and son of God expressions, of necessity must take on a different value.Here is an example. Christ is said to be "made sin", not that he sinned or became sinful, but took it on to get rid of itAnother says "Who did no sin nor was guile found in his mouth"What do I make of the two, the same I do with the totality concerning Jesus' nature, I take them all togetherIf the Nt did not make it clear he was God and the son of God and the son of man, if the first one was left off I would believe as you do, but ICANT because all are there and there is no mistake.lets say for example that the only refernces to Christ in the scriptures were Son of God and Son of Man, I then would believe that he was more than man but less than God, but since there are more accurate descriptions, I must take thos as well. So i say to myself, oh now i get it this is God becoming a servant, yet he was born a son to God and is also a son of mary or man.Paul and others didnt write these things with our discussions in mind, its just the way it is Surely you can see Peg, like the passage in Daniel, these are propjhetic passages about the incarnation AND ITS PREMINECE IN CHARACTER. Now Peg add to these scriptures the totality of what the inspired writer says, He is equal with and in him DWELT ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD.He cant be both, less and equal at the same time. Do the anthropomorphic math My idea is not that God comes in parts, my idea is that we cannot understand Gods nature and makeup. He helps us with terms like, father, Son, Holy Spirit, personalities, trinity, etc.Again, if all things in heaven and earth are made by and through him and nothing that is made is made without him (this is describing God), then firstborn and creation when applied to Christ cannot mean him. he did not create himself. if it does apply to him it can only have application to his incarnation, or the premenince of his birth and ressurection. thats why he is also called the first born of the dead, or firstfruitsHe is called the 'FIRST BORN FROM THE DEAD", it does not mean he was the first one ever raised, only that his was superior remember the larger description TRUMPS the lesser description. he cant be both the creator and the created. this is quite obviously a prophecy about his incarnation, NOW WATCH, which was in place SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH Your confusing obedience, with oneness. christ could have choose not to die as he suggest in the garden, but oneness with God would not let it happen. As a human being he is showing the correct thing to do. It was worked out since eternity Surely you can see the difference between Christ and humans being filled with the spirit.if christ is not a part of God Peg, as you suggest, how can he be equal with God? How can the fullness of the Godhead reside in him?Make a pie out of the whole teaching on the subject PegEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

its quite simple reallyJesus did not claim to be equal to God. He did not have the same knowledge as God nor did he have the same decision making power as God. Matt. 12:31,32, RS: Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven

​

John 14:28, RS: [Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

​

1 Cor. 11:3, RS: I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

​

Mark 13:32, RS: Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

​

Matt. 20:20-23, RS: The mother of the sons of Zebedee ... said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, ... ‘ to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’ The fullness of God can reside in all of us.The 'godhead' has been interpreted by some scholars to mean 'the divine nature' According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the expression to thei'on is derived from the adjective theos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’ So that phrase can be understood to refer to a person or to a quality....Gods qualities.Jesus imitated Gods personality perfectly and i beleive its in this way that the 'divine nature' dwelt in Jesus.
The divine nature is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, mildness, kindess etc...its all the good qualities attributed to God. Jesus displayed these qualities perfectly. We ourselves can work to display such qualities and have adopt the nature of God into ourselves.

quote:

---

Not at all. In fact, its lifted from Pslams 45. The psalmist is writing about King David...but obviously he is not calling David god.

---

Yes, Heb 1:8 is a quote of Psalm 45:6. And Psalm 45 is speaking of King David. And the psalmist is not calling David "God."There are two reasonable interpretations of Psalm 45:6.View #1: This could be "royal language" where the king, as God's representative on earth, is addressed as if he were God. Then Heb 1:8 should be interpreted the same way; instead of claiming that Jesus is God the writer to the Hebrews would be claiming that He is king.But this can not be what the writer of Heb 1 is claiming. The writer is making a case that Jesus is superior to angels, yet kings are inferior to angels. The author would not try to establish Jesus' superiority to angels by claiming that he was a king.View #2: This could be a "Messianic Psalm." The Psalmist could be speaking not of David alone, but also speaking prophetically of the Messiah who would come from David's line. Psalm 22 is a classic example of a Messianic Psalm, and a number of other Psalms have Messianic portions.Most Christian commentators claim that Ps 45:6 is one of these Messianic passages, and I agree with them. If this is correct, Ps 45:6 was claiming that the Messiah would be God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I can find no passage which says that priests can forgive sins, and you have yet to show any. The priests were to act as intermediaries between man and God. They were to offer sacrifices to God so that God would forgive sins:

---

and this is the authority that God had given them, if they did not offer the sacrifice, no forgiveness took place...they had a responsibility and the authority in that regard. You cant say that they did not have the authority to forgive sins when, without them, no forgiveness took place.

---

No, the priests did NOT have the authority to forgive sins. Their authority was much more limited. God was the only one who could forgive sins.

quote:

---

The grammar is not an issue as this construct is found in other passages.

---

Your quotes from Winer and Moulton do not argue that a present tense should be translated as a past tense. Rather, they argue that in some cases it should be translated as a perfect where "the action is conceived as still in progress" (from your Moulton quote).This could perhaps be applicable to John 8:58. Instead of "Before Abraham was, I am" it would then have the sense "Before Abraham was, I have been and still am."I notice that a few of your translations choose the perfect, "I have been." This is not quite as good as "I have been and still am" (or the more straightforward translation "I am"), but it is better than "I was."

quote:

---

The Greek verb there used, eimi', is literally in the present tense, but because it is preceded by the aorist infinitive clause in referring to Abraham’s past, the Greek verb eimi′ must be viewed as a historical present.
This is possible in Greek.

---

A historical present might be a possible translation IF the participle were also in the present. Then, since we know that Abraham lived in the past, we might be justified in evaluating both present verb forms as historical present.But here the participle is in the aorist and the verb "to be," two words later, is in the present. The author has intentionally switched tenses to create a contrast with the historical aorist participle. It is highly unlikely that he intends this to be a historical present.

You may need to reconsider this a bit more.the evidence is that in Isreals history, God instituted High Priests. Their role was to present the people before God so that they could have forgiveness of sins. The priest offered sacrifices on behalf of the people...if they people tried to offer sacrifices without a priest officiating, the sacrifice was rejected.Just as he instituted priests, he also instituted Jesus as a means of forgiveness of sin. In turn, Jesus gave that authority to forgive sins to his apostles.John 20:21 Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending YOU. 22And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: Receive holy spirit. 23If YOU forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if YOU retain those of any persons, they stand retained.I really dont think you can use the fact that Jesus had authority to forgive sins to proclaim that he is God. But lets say you still want to stick to your view, think about this:If Jesus is God as you say, then he certainly would have the authority to forgive sins and being God he must also have the authority to give the apostles the same authority..... but now you have a problem.... If the apostles have authority to forgive sins, then perhaps they are also God?I think that puts this idea in a bit of a quandry.

quote:

---

looking at the verse of hebrews in the greek interlinear it literally reads:
Heb 1:8 "And to the son, the throne of you, O God is, to the age of the age"

---

Not bad; this is consistent with most translations, but not with the NWT:

quote:

---

The NWT renders it But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever

---

quote:

---

So with that in mind, and in harmony with the fact that God is the throne, or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship

---

The NWT translation here is highly unlikely. As I noted earlier: If you disagree, please present some Scriptural support for speaking of God as a "throne."

Peg writes:It should be easily demonstrated by even the casual reader Peg that there are certain attributes ascribed to Jesus by himself and the NT writers that are not claimed and attributed to anyone elsePlease provide a passage that suggest or indicates that any created creature, was the source of all creation of both things in heaven and earth. This alone indicates that Christ is God, if Genesis 1:1 is to be believedAgain, while Jesus certainly attributed his dependency to God as a human being, he also at times healed and performed miracles on his own accord Hardly, the passage says that "ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in him
I agree Peg that some phrases and passages can be viewd and interpreted to gain a different meaning, but I dont see how the statement that, Christ was, while in the flesh equal with God could be manipulated to come to another conclusion, other than that stated by the inspired Apostle.You will find no ther passages that ascribe this meaning to a created beingI think your main problem here is that youwant to maintain that Christ is not actually a part of God, but you have trouble finding passages that refer to anyother created being (as you suggest for Christ) detailing attributes that should and only could be attributed to God, like that of creation.If Christ is not actually a part of Gods nature or make up, what is he some super created being with special abilities?Because Christ said, "why do you call me good,there is none good but God", which means he could not be the perfect sacrifice, if he was not perfect. How can he be less than perfect, yet a perfect sacrifince?"Who did no sin , niether was guile found in his mouth". If Christ was completley GOOD, perfect and sinless and there is only one that is Good, that would make Christ God, by Christs own wordsOr christ could have been claiming Godship,by saying, do you realize what you are calling me when you call me GOOD? In his instance he is saying to the person, do you realize you are calling me God.In this instance and passage Christ is claiming to this person that he is actually God. If he is not good in any respect as a created being, as this passage would suggest then he is and WAS NOT QUALIFIED to be a perfect sacrifice. Would you say that there was ever a time here or before the incarnation that Christ this created being was NOT GOOD or LESS THAN PERFECT?Of course you see your delimma here. If he was always good or perfect that would make him God,according to Christs own words. If not then he is not the Lamb without spot or blemmish, correct?EAMEdited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.Edited by MEA, : No reason given.

Genesis 1:26 shows that God spoke to someone when he said
"Let US make man in OUR image and in OUR likeness" then we have proverbs which speaks about 'someone' who was the first of God creations who dwelt with God and became a co-worker with him in the creationProverbs 8:22-31
"Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. ... Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains ... When he prepared the heavens I was there; ... 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, ... and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.This proverb certainly applies to Jesus. This is why the apostles said of Jesus that He is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist.Colossians 1:17; Revelation 3:14.What you really need to explain is why the bible has both the God Jehovah and the Son Jesus.Jesus was never called Jehovah and Jehovah is never called Jesus. They are distinct characters. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.