Is Jesus God?

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.

No, just the parts the proved you wrong I pointed out that he was most certainly in Eden and you didnt even acknowledge this. I gave scripture to back up my assertion. I pointed out a cherub was not an angel and you ignored this. Do you want more scripture which also shows what a cherub is? Common sense-Satan was an angel. An angle is not a cherub. Therefore, Satan could not be a cherub.16 Through all your trading you have become full of violent ways, and have done evil: so I sent you out shamed from the mountain of God; the winged one put an end to you from among the stones of fire. 17 Your heart was lifted up because you were beautiful, you made your wisdom evil through your sin: I have sent you down, even to the earth; I have made you low before kings, so that they may see you. 18 By all your sin, even by your evil trading,Did Satan have trading routes???Here is how another translation reads:Ezekiel 28:14 With an anointed guardian cherub I placed you;...(RSV)Kings were refered to winged ones, due to their power:Isaiah 8:7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord brings up on them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: 8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.Ok, enough about Ezekial. We're ruining a great thread. Some other time like I said. We've both said enough on this topic.As for Jesus not being god, carry on!

there was never a city in Eden. Eden was lost after the flood. No one knows its exact location, so how can this mention of Eden be referring to a city with traders? It isnt. Its prophetic and symbolic. Just as mankind has their different stations (generals/captains/presidents/princes etc), so do the Angels of God.All of them, not matter their station, are still angelic sons of God. They are spirits. They are also termed sons of the true God, morning stars, and holy myriads. There is one Arch Angel, mentioned at Jude 6. Isaiah 6;2 mentions the Seraphs who have 6 wings (obviously not literal becaues spiritual creatures do not have physical bodies) The Cherubs are also metioned...2 of these were stationed at the garden of Eden to prevent entry. Then there is a large number of angelic messengers. These are all angels, they all serve God, the are all spirits.Paul didnt distinguish between any of the spirits when he said of them at hebews 1:13-14 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet? 14Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?Yes, all the anglic sons of God, no matter what their station, are used as ministers and carry out Gods will. And they dont have literal wings...they are spirits, they are only said to have wings because of their ability to be anywhere at any time.

Sometimes when you read these responses you get a good belly laugh, such is the case here. Sure you never said that directly Eric the hertic, but your implication was to convey that the early Christians did not believe in Jesus as God.My implication from this passage was that it was such common knowledge and there were so many other passages that indicate what this does, that there was no need to use every scripture to demonstrate a well established BELIEF.To the early christians HE did mean God, that is the way the understood the passage, based on other passages, so when translating it, it could be either God or HE, same thing. Another belly holder. eric before 1200 or so, I believe, there were no chapters or verses, just compilations of letters and writings, the writings and THIER CONTENTS were well KNOWN BY THE EARLIEST of Christians. When they refered to a doctrine, they seem to have quoted it verbatum or gave the gist of its context. Such is the case with John 1:1, Col, Phil 2, etc.One can see with the greatest of ease, they were using the same scriptures we are today, to establish the doctrine through inspiration. the verbage they use in thier letters ECHO without mistake what the Nt teaches on the fact that Jesus was believed to be God incarnate. its simply to easy to miss.Here is another item to drive the point home. the early Christians and some that directly followed John were DIRECTLY guided through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is those that had had the Apotles hands laid on them to recieve the gifts of the Spirit.Why would so many early Christians, some of which knew John and were guided by the Holy Spirit directly, get such a simple truth wrong. the answer is that they did not, and it is easily seen in thier writingsEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

hERICtic writes:
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. I guess we will keep discussing this until PD says its off topic. Eden most certainly was a place outside of the garden you refer to:Isaiah 37:12 Did the gods of the nations that were destroyed by my forefathers deliver themthe gods of Gozan, Haran, Rezeph and the people of Eden who were in Tel Assar?Ezekial 27: 22 " 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah traded with you; for your merchandise they exchanged the finest of all kinds of spices and precious stones, and gold. 23 " 'Haran, Canneh and Eden and merchants of Sheba, Asshur and Kilmad traded with you. 24 In your marketplace they traded with you beautiful garments, blue fabric, embroidered work and multicolored rugs with cords twisted and tightly knotted.And finally, absolute proof Eden refers to a town!Town of Eden, New York | The Garden Spot of New York hERICtic writes:
3) A cherub is NOT an angel. Nowhere in scripture is it even stated. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it state a cherub is an angel. Plus, nowhere in scripture does it state an angel is a morning star.Again, all you have done is ignore what I have stated. I find it amazing that you constantly tell others to refer to scripture to back up their assertions, yet you refuse to do it now. You also seem to have a habit of ignoring question. You cannot even use scripture from the OT to show Satan was in the garden. It makes no mention of Satan ever being a serpent, no mention of Satan or any angel for that matter being in the there.Did Satan have a trading route? Did you miss the part where it shows Kings have "wings"?So cherubs/angels do not have literal wings bc they are spirits, but they have legs? Hands? Face?Where does it say in the Bible that their wings are not literal?Bottom line Peg, the ONLY way you can make this about Satan is if you throw in your dual meanings. This occurs every single time a Christian is faced with a theological problem. Just make it with a dual meaning!It clearly states its about a MAN. It clearly states who this man is. It states foreigners will go against him. Does this sound like Satan yet? Satan had treasures? Really? A spirit needs precious stones?Its only bc of the words Eden and cherub to you believe it refers to Satan. No mention of an angel. No mention of Satan. Without the proper understanding of those two words, combined with your need for dual hidden meanings.....only then can you mean it to be Satan.Late addition:Mountain of god is Mt Zion. Located on earth, not heaven. (Isa. 2:2, 3; 56:7). Last but not least (I have enough edits on here), start reading from chapter 26. Remember, there werent chapters originally. Its on story about the King of Tyre and his fall.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes--God can be seen in Jesus in a unique way. Who else in Scripture ever claimed that he was in the Father and that the Father was in him?

quote:

---

Paul is recognizing that Jehovah is the source of the Messiah and therefore he is still the source of their salvation.

​

This is why in Acts the same quote is used by Peter to explain that Jehovah sent the Messiah, resurrected him and thru him will fulfill his promise of salvation.

​

...

​

The apostles were not under the impression that Jesus and Jehovah were one and the same. This passage, which uses the same verse from Joel most certainly shows their belief was that Jesus was the promised Messiah whom Jehovah would send.... certainly not Jehovah himself.

---

I agree that thus far in Peter's argument, Acts 2:21 (a quote from Joel) probably refers primarily to God the Father. But in this context, as Peter develops his argument further, he concludes: This is a claim that Jesus is MORE than Messiah; He is BOTH Lord and Christ. In the context of Acts 2:21 and Acts 2:34-25 (a quote of Psalm 110), Lord refers to YHWH. Jesus is both YHWH and Messiah.NET Bible has this study note on the word Lord in Acts 2:36: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

It may be both. Biblical prophecy often has multiple referents, a near-term referent and another further in the future.

I humbly say...no such thing. Invented to cover the obvious midrash used in the gospels.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Well, I'm glad I could provide some comic relief. The problem is that never once did I suggest this. I have no idea how many did or did not accept Jesus as god. We could go back and forth and provide quotes, but thats a strawman argument. We are debating what scripture states. Not what people think. But it was not common knowledge. On top of that, there are only a few that would indicate Jesus is god. Most state the opposite. In fact, the few you have given, not one is greater than the verse we are refering to. As I said, it SCREAMS out loud and clear Jesus is god. Yet its never referenced. How do you know this? From some quotes? Look up Marcionites.
Look up Gnostics. Look up Docetism. Justin Martyr and St Clement of Rome are two big names in Christianity, neither believed Jesus to be god. So lets see if I undestand this. The verse in question was well known but NO ONE quoted it to show Jesus was god. I should be holding my belly laughing. Now this is funny. You do realize there are many passages in the Bible which were tampered with. Now you go to state its "too easy to miss", yet thats my entire point...it WAS missed. LMAO! It was not John who wrote it wrong...it was the translators! Although even more hysterical, John was illiterate, so I have trouble understanding how he wrote anything. But thats another debate. Anyway, Peg has already covered what John 1:1 should be read as or could be read as. Worse, you're using circular reasoning to drive home your point. You have no evidence John was guided by anything.Here is the bottom line. It was NOT clear that Jesus was god bc you have many offshoots and Christian writers who did not believe this. The mere fact that this occured should be a warning to your beliefs. Why, if crystal clear as you say, should so many NOT believe Jesus was god? Bc its not clear. The FEW verses you gave have been shown time and time again to be mistranslated or ambigious at best.I'll ask for the fourth time. If Jesus is god, how is he in heaven next to god, claiming to have a god? Your excuse was that hes part man, part god (nowhere in scripture is this stated by the way) and that its his human side that proclaims god is his father. Yet here Jesus is in heaven, not a man.ON earth Jesus is god? Jesus, talking to himself? Jesus crying out to himself? Jesus praying to himself? Jesus asking not to die, to himself? OT scripture stating that god is not a man. Heck, Jesus crapping? Do you really think god lowered himself to this?Everything makes perfect sense if Jesus was divine, although a man, who was the messiah. As Jesus said, his words were not his own, he can do nothing without gods permission, he is not all powerful, not all knowing and has a god.

I was under the impression I was speaking with someone who believed the scriptures to be the direct revelation of God to the writers indicated.Is this not the case, you and I have been wasting our precious time.EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

So since we have different religious views, we're wasting our time debating what scripture states. Might as well close down the entire site, since most people debating with each other have different view points.Lets assume they are inspired...it has no bearing at all on our debate.Scripture could be inspired and have Jesus not as god. Or as god.The debate is what scripture states.Your comment about John made it seem like it was John, the apostle. I did not say the author was not inspired. I said the author was not John. Big difference.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Absolutely wrong, it has everything to do with bearing Eric. So beofre we get to far off topic, is it your opinion that these are inspired writings, your not rquired to respond, but it would help. That is not what you said but I will go with it anyway. Of course the groups existed and I am aware of all of them. But the point is that they arose after the formulation of the Gospel and Pauls epistles, that is how they knew that they (gnostics and related groups )were heresies. for the first 30 or 40 years of the Church, it was free of this and other errorsThey knew and were aware of what the truth was already and could judge error against it. they arose afterwards, some around the end of Johns life, etcExcept for the judizing teachers the Chruch was relative free of these other herisies until the later part of Johs lifeIll get to the restof your post laterEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

It has nothing to do with our debate. You are using horrible, horrible circular logic. From what I can tell you're saying Jesus is god. Since the writers were inspired and they claim Jesus is god, its must be true.If you're not claiming this, then whether or not they're inspired has nothing to do with our debate.Peg believes they're inspired. You believe they're inspired. Yet you both disagree on what scripture states. Not sure how those filled with the ghost can disagree on what the Bible states. Again, a debate for another time.So how does the belief that scripture is inspired or not have any validity on our debate?The authors could be inspired and claim Jesus is god.
The authors could be inspired and claim Jesus is not god.
The authors could not be inspired and claim Jesus is god.
The authors could not be inspired and not claim Jesus is god.The end result is the exact same. Is Jesus god or not. My quote, from post 160: You need to do a lil research on those names I listed.

I simply dont understand why it is so hard for people to grasp the concept that if two people agree that the scriptures oare Gods word, that it is not then circular reasoning from that standpoint.If the scriptures are not the Word of God, then none of the claims can be taken seriously from a spiritual standpointif the scriptures are not the word of God, then they cannot be taken serious as a unit of teaching on a given topic. One writers mind may have meant something totally different from another.If they are not the word of God then I dont wish to chase a bunch of endless clues that have no real end or purpose.take for example your and pegs difference on the passage in Ezekiel. Pegs and mine approach of dual menaings in a passage can only be understood from a spiritual standpoint. Y0u appear to have no spiritual approach.this is why your comments about jesus talking to himself and bowel movements are simply silly "The natural man RECIEVES not the things of the Spirit, for they are spiritually undecernable". I Cor 1. Your approach is humanistic. Here is a simple example of that point.it appears that you are repulsed by the idea that God would live and function as a man. now watch this. After the creation of all things he said IT IS GOOD. Now why would it be such a repugnat concept that God would live in somthing he created and CALLED GOOD.he often took on the form of a human,as whenhe visited Abraham
he walked in the garden with Adam
The Spirit of God moved across the face of the watersits these simple spiritual truths you cant even get started with. you make light of the human character and his existence in comparison to God. So you make ignorant comments like, "do you think God would crap.How without a total comprehension and totality of scripture could one begin to understand the expression, "I and the father are one'And as K points out, where in scripture besides Christ did anyone use such language.Do you think inspiration and spiritual understanding still dont matter? Think about it logically, if this is not the work of a single mind, then any meaning could and will be extracted due to different authors opinions and mind sets in any given centuryEMA writes: Eric writesNo No, I was refering to your comment that "I did NOt have evidence John was guided by anything" You also refered to John as being illiterate, and at the same time with this kind of statement you imply that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. what would it matter if he was illiterate, since Christ promised them the Holy Spirit to guide them (John 16:13) and not worry about what they would say in situations, because it would be,"given to them in that hour what to say"I bet none of them were orators eitherHere you seem to not even understand that it is God working and doing in these situations and you seem to think that a view of inspiration is not important when interpreting the Bible Did I really misrepresent or misunderstand you?
Is it your view that any of the writers were guided by the Holy Spirit? I have, what is your point?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.