Is Jesus God?

Ah, it looks like your translation (New World?) has changed the sense of this passage! The Greek literally says, "Your throne, God, to the age of the age." This is a quote of Ps. 45:6, which says essentially the same thing in the Hebrew. In both languages, the word "is" is implied and must be added for the English translation to make sense. But where should it be added?Your translation places the "is" between "throne" and "God." While this is technically possible, it doesn't make sense. Nowhere else in Scripture is God called a "throne." He has a throne, but nowhere does it say that He is a throne. Further, this translation does not make sense in the flow of the author's argument where he is showing how Jesus is superior to the angels.Much better is to place the "is" between "God" and "to the age of the age." This is what the standard (non-JW) translations do: The NET Bible translator's note on this phrase is very helpful:

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.

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.

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."

quote:

---

quote:

---

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"

---

​

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.

---

Ah, circular reasoning! You start by assuming that Jesus is not God, in which case this can't be speaking of Jesus, because it would be addressing Him as God. This is not the way to find truth!

quote:

---

John 20:21 Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending YOU. 22 And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: Receive holy spirit. 23 If 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.

---

Good question. This is a difficult passage. Yes, some branches of Christendom (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox) believe that apostles and church leaders actually have the authority to forgive sins. But I don't believe this is the case.Let's look at a couple of other translations of John 20:23: The Greek tenses are interesting in this verse. The word "forgive" is in the aorist tense, while "forgiven" is in the perfect. The word "retain" is in the present, with "retained" again in the perfect. I would translate it something like, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, they have been forgiven; if you are retaining anyone’s sins, they have been retained.NET Bible has a study note which is helpful: In other words, the sense of this passage (like Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18) is: "If you forgive anyone’s sins, they have already been forgiven; if you are retaining anyone’s sins, they have already been retained. God is the one who forgives; the disciples' responsibility was to proclaim what God had already done.

quote:

---

KB,
Does Psalms 45 say that the messiah will be god?

---

Yes, I believe this is the implication.

quote:

---

so what you are saying is that i should start by assuming that Jesus IS God and then i will find truth?

​

and how is that NOT circular reasoning?

---

Of course not. If you want to find the true answer to your question "Is Jesus God?", you cannot start by assuming either conclusion--you must keep an open mind. Maybe Jesus is God and maybe He isn't. Then let the literary context tell us who is speaking in Rev 22:13. I think the most reasonable conclusion, from a literary standpoint, is the the same person is speaking in verses 7, 12-13, and 16.

Rev 1:8 has "the Alpha and the Omega," even in the oldest manuscripts. Some later manuscripts also add "the beginning and the end," but this is probably a later addition. Neither phrase occurs in Rev 1:11.

quote:

---

Because this expression is applied to God Almighty several times in its unlimited sense, it would be illogical to apply it to Jesus just because the text in revelation does not specifically indicated that it is refering to God Amighty.

---

This only seems illogical to one who has an a priori rejection of the Trinity. (Circular reasoning again!)

quote:

---

This is what Trinitarians are doing with the verses in Revelation. They try to show it is used indiscriminately for either God or Christ, and in this way show God and Christ are the same.

---

There is nothing "indiscriminate" about the language of the Word of God. Other than this, you have accurately summarized the argument.

quote:

---

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.

---

The Old Testament taught that no one is to be worshiped except for God alone. Jesus believed and reiterated this: So how did Jesus respond when Thomas addressed Him as God? Rather than rebuking Thomas or reminding him that only God is to be worshiped, Jesus accepted his worship and praised Thomas for his faith. In accepting the worship due to God alone, Jesus was implicitly claiming to be God.

quote:

---

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.

---

According to the Old Testament, only God has power to give life. Man does not have this power: But Jesus claimed and demonstrated the power to give life: In claiming and demonstrating the ability to give life, a power belonging to God alone, Jesus was claiming and demonstrating that He was God.

quote:

---

Hello again. Before I go over each verse, just a simple question. The Jews believed the messiah was to be a man. You're claiming the Hebrews stated the messiah will be god. This would be utter blasphemy to the Jews. Why would this book be included? Wouldnt there be an uproar amongst the Jews? Ok, its more than one question, but you get the idea

---

A number of OT prophecies of the Messiah suggest that He will be more than a man, and will in fact be God in the flesh.

quote:

---

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.

---

Jesus is commonly referred to as "Lord" in the New Testament. Rom 10 is interesting: Paul rephrases this claim about Jesus a few verses later: The word "Lord" in these verses is the Greek kurios. But Rom 10:13 is a quote from the Old Testament: The word LORD here is the Hebrew YHWH (God). Thus in Rom 10, Paul is equating Jesus with YHWH.NET Bible has a note on the phrase "Jesus is Lord" in Rom 10:9: