Is Jesus God?

I have read that in the oldest translations, Alpha and Omega are not even in the texts. It should read:Revelation 1:11 11 saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per'gamum and to Thyati'ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice'a." (RSV)Have you ever heard of this?

I'm really not sure where you are going with this. I never claimed Jesus was not morally superior. I never suggested Jesus was not more than man. I have no problem with this. But it does not change anything. Christ may have been sinless, may be morally superior to anyone in the Bible, but this does not automatically make him god. I agree. But as Job states: How can one born of woman be pure?Wouldnt that negate Jesus being god? It states the opposite. Peg covered this.Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 15
28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.Colossians 3
1
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Exactly what I have said. Jesus isnt god. Paul clearly states in Phil 2 Jesus is not equal to god. Paul also states Jesus is subject to god and that god is above Jesus.Add that all up, Jesus is not god. Now thats funny. But you're missing the point. If Jesus was god, he already had everything. How can Satan offer Jesus the world, if god already owns it? Satan may be devious and power hungry, but thats just plain ridiculous. But it makes perfect sense if Jesus was not god, with Satan trying to sway him. You're ignoring scripture. Jesus clearly states he is not all powerful. He is not all knowing. If he is god, then this makes no sense. You gave a great example...which proves my point. The CEO has not lost any power. He still has it. Jesus though, claims he does NOT have this power. He states he is not all knowing. If god decided to go down to earth as a man, he would still have all his power. He could choose not to use it in certain circumstances, but that is not what Jesus states.Jesus states authority has been GIVEN to him by god. Not that its his own authority.Jesus claims the message he tells was GIVEN to him.Jesus claims he is not all knowing, not all powerful.Jesus prays to god (himself according to you).Jesus cries to god to save him. Using your "logic", hes crying to himself to save himself. I did not claim Jesus was not good. There are many aspects of good. Again, Peg covered this. Jesus did not want to be called good. He was called by many names. God to him, should be the one called good, not himself. Jesus corrects the man, then the man addresses him again, but without the "good". The man understood what Jesus was refering to. Do not call him good, that should be reserved for god alone.John 15:2 "My Father takes away every branch in me that bears not fruit; he purges it; that it may bring forth more fruit."
I would say Jesus admits he is not perfect. How can a perfect being admit this? Again you lost me. What does someone not accepting god have to do with him being perfect or not. The fact is, the verse above clearly has Jesus stating he is not perfect. Phil 2 does not claim Jesus was equal to god. It states the opposite! Jesus, existed before mankind, was sent by god to convey a message. Even if Jesus was perfect, in any sense, it makes no difference. God can create anything he chooses. But the fact remains, nowhere does it states Jesus was perfect like god, only sinless and perfect in his mission.

Which ones?

Not at all. You have to back up. (v9-10) "He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and Father in me? The words that I say to you I don not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works."Thomas acknowledges that god can now be seen in Jesus.

Reread chapter 10:1-14. Paul most certainly is NOT calling Jesus god. It states the opposite. You must go through Jesus to be saved by god. Go verse by verse and you'll see the distinction between Yahweh and Jesus.

It appears both Peg and I are up quite early.....all yours Peg. Your responses as usual are a tad more indepth than mine. Time for some coffee and to get ready for work! Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Isa. 9:6 is not about Jesus. Most Jews will state is a past event, probably refering to Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz. Read chapter 10, it mirrors the events in chapter 9, showing its a past event.

Hello again. Thats the problem. Everything is not simple. You have to undestand the authors mindset, you have to factor in context, translational differences, the fact that many verses have been tampered with, etc. Phil 2 is a great example of how one could see it one way, yet another read it differently. Hopefully this will help. Its pretty complex.Philippians 2:6-11 Jesus in the form morphe of God This is a great example of ignoring the context. It states "we are in HIM", which refers to god. It then states "we" are in his son, Jesus Christ. So two seperate "beings" are refered to. How do you know, "true God" refers back to Jesus but not god? Before the last sentence, the word "true" is used twice, both times refering back to god. Why would the "true God" then refer to Jesus and not god himself?2 Chronicles 15:3; Jeremiah 10:10; John 17:3 and 1 Thessalonians 1:9.All four places use "true God", all four refers to the Father. From what I have read, the earliest manuscripts do NOT have "god", they have "he" refering to Jesus.An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture - WikipediaThese translations do NOT have "god"."He appeared in a body" (NIV)"He who was manifested in the flesh" (ASV)"He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB)"He was manifested in the flesh" (RSV)"Which was manifested in the flesh" (Douey-Rheims)"Who was manifested in the flesh" (NAB)"Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

You used 1 Timothy to show Jesus is god. Using your translation, it most certainly does. Let me ask you this. Why didnt the church recognize this scripture until AFTER the fourth century? If really stated "god" as plainly as you gave it, it should have jumped right out for the trinitarians. But its NEVER mentioned.Do you think perhaps it was altered after the fourth century to make it appear that way?You skipped over 1 John 5. Let me ask you this, "one true god" could it refer to Jesus? Could it also refer to god the way its read?Yes or no?You seem to be quite upset at your belief that the translators "changed" the meaning of Phil. 2. Yet you are very quiet when I point out other mistranslations which destroy your notion of Jesus being god.Why in heaven does Jesus still call the Father god? Why does Jesus NEVER say he is god? Jesus stated over and over the Father IS god. Why does he never call himself Father, only the son?Phil 2 is the most troublesome. I admit this. It appears everything hinges upon "form". Lets look at how Paul used similiar words to describe Jesus.2 Cor 4:4-6 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.Hmmm....not god, bu the image of god.Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.Again, Paul does not say Jesus is god, but the image of god.Hebrews 1:2-4 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.A representation of his being.Ema, each one of these verses clearly lays out what Paul thought of Jesus. He is not god.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Wow. You just completely ignored the entire context. The way it is written (as per your translators) SCREAMS Jesus is god. Using your translation, its obvious Jesus is god, why wasnt it shown BEFORE the fourth century?Obvious answer: "God" is not written there. "He" is.If "he" refers back to Jesus, it changes the meaning completely. It does not corroborate your posistion. Sheesh. Your entire argument rests upon the last sentence. Lets remove the last sentence.18We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. 19We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 20We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is trueeven in his Son Jesus Christ.There is NOTHING in this entire scripture that states Jesus is god. NOTHING. So everything rests upon: He is the true God and eternal life.So if that last sentence refers back to god, you have a case. If it refers back to Jesus, then it does not show Jesus is god. Its as simple as that.Using just that scripture alone, its difficult to tell who is being refered to. But as I pointed out, "one true god" in the four instances its used, refers to god, the father. I did not agree with you. I simply pointed out that you base everything upon "translations". You dismiss anything which does not back up your point. You cannot provide ANY evidence "true god" refers back to Jesus. Nothing. Yet using other verses, I have shown "true god' each time refers back to god. Wow. You've ignored my questions again. No it does not. It states NOT equal. So when Paul states four times Jesus is basically just in the image of god...these verses do not count bc you hinge upon one verse which states "form". Which has the same meaning. So we ignore the other four?If Jesus was not god, what does this mean to you? Could Jesus still be the messiah?So you have no problem that Jesus, who is god, runs away from people? Craps? Prays to god that he will not be killed? Screams out to god to save him? Adding all this up, you believe Jesus was god?Even when the OT states god is not a man?Edited by hERICtic, : Incorrectly attributed quote to myself

Ema,Take your time. Hell, most of my responses are banged it within 5-10 minutes. Why? Bc I just do not have the minutes to sit down and take my time with work, four kids, wife and life in general. Days after I post, if I have time I'll reread my previous posts and wince at how at times I seem to be all over the place, simple spelling errors, grammatical goofs and uneven.I would rather wait on a response from you that you could take your time on, with everything in order...then for you to rush and make a mistake or difficult to follow. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Peg, I agree with nearly everything you are saying, but I wish to address the fact that Ezekial is not refering to Satan-but the King of Tyre. The problem is that I'm unsure if I should get into it, since most likely it would be off topic.

hERICtic writes:
Peg, I agree with nearly everything you are saying, but I wish to address the fact that Ezekial is not refering to Satan-but the King of Tyre. Peg, there isnt a single instance in all of scripture for a "dual meaning". None. This was invented to solve certain theological problems. In other words, the Bible can mean anything one wants by just stating there is a hidden meaning.That being said, its poetry. Three points:1) It clearly states its about the King of Tyre.Ezekiel 28:1,2
The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, {2} "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Because your heart is lifted up, And you say, 'I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods, In the midst of the seas,' Yet you are a man, and not a god, Though you set your heart as the heart of a god
2) Yes, The King WAS in Eden.The chapter before:Ezekiel 27:22,23
"The merchants of Sheba and Raamah were your merchants. They traded for your wares the choicest spices, all kinds of precious stones, and gold. {23} "Haran, Canneh, Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, and Chilmad were your merchants.2 Kings 19:11,12
'Look! You have heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by utterly destroying them; and shall you be delivered? {12} 'Have the gods of the nations delivered those whom my fathers have destroyed, Gozan and Haran and Rezeph, and the people of Eden who were in Telassar?Eden was a trading route.3) A cherub is NOT an angel. Nowhere in scripture is it even stated.Here is an example of an angel and a cherub:
Ezekiel 10:1 And I looked, and there in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubim, there appeared something like a sapphire stone, having the appearance of the likeness of a throne. 2 Then He spoke to the man clothed with linen, and said, "Go in among the wheels, under the cherub, fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim, and scatter them over the city." And he went in as I watched. 3 Now the cherubim were standing on the south side of the temple when the man went in, and the cloud filled the inner court. 4 Then the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub, and paused over the threshold of the temple; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the LORD'S glory. 5 And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard even in the outer court, like the voice of Almighty God when He speaks. 6 Then it happened, when He commanded the man clothed in linen, saying, "Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim," that he went in and stood beside the wheels. 7 And the cherub stretched out his hand from among the cherubim to the fire that was among the cherubim, and took some of it and put it into the hands of the man clothed with linen, who took it and went out. 8 The cherubim appeared to have the form of a man's hand under their wings. 9 And when I looked, there were four wheels by the cherubim, one wheel by one cherub and another wheel by each other cherub; the wheels appeared to have the color of a beryl stone.Chebubs are winged creatures, with vastly different descriptions.The King of Tyre was the successor of Nimrod, who was symblolized by wings.Here is an example in scripture of a ruler, the King of Assyria with "wings":Isaiah 8:7 Behold, therefore the Lord also brings on them the channels of the River, mighty and many: the king of Assyria and all his glory. And he shall come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks. 8 And he shall pass through Judah. He shall overflow and go over. He shall reach to the neck; and his wings will be stretching out, filling the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.Ezekial 28 is poetry about the ego and the fall of the King of Tyre.No mention of Satan. It does not have a dual meaning towards Satan. It exaggerated poetry to convey how great the King WAS.

So basically you ignored my entire post. The fact that it states its about Tyre. You challenged me that the King was NOt in Eden, I gave you the scripture. You called a cherub an angle, while I showed not once in the entire Bible is an angel called a cherub and ALSO showed that its another creature. But of course, this would contradict your belief...so regardless of what scripture actually states........ Of course there is allegory, metaphors and symbolism. But not once does that Bible state there are dual meanings with prophecies. Not once does scripture mention dual fulfillments. This was invented to explain away the obvious midrash in the gospels.Ezekial clearly has metaphors within. But its stated what the poem is about-the King of Tyre. It exaggerates his greatness and ego.But we are both off topic. Perhaps some other time on a thread dealing with Satan we could discuss this.

You STILL have no idea what I am trying to convey.I NEVER suggested even once that before the Creed others did not believe Jesus to be god.I said, the verse in question, screams that Jesus is god. But NO ONE, prior to the fourth century ever used said scripture to show Jesus was god. NO ONE.If it states "god", instead of "he", again I ask-why is it never mentioned by all the great writers. Heck, you just gave a list of authors who believed Jesus was god prior to the 4th century. Please show me which one refers to Phil 2.