Is Jesus God?

you've misread me again.I didnt say the sin offering was for the childs sin.I wrote "so the Law’s requirements pertaining to the functions of the reproductive organs reminded men and women of their sinful state."nothing about children is there? Well im more inclinded to heed Pauls words about sin and accept the fact that, thru Adam, we all have sin...we are all born into sin and we practice it even when we are not aware of practicing it.Its the falling short of Gods standards and I dont know of any child who perfectly reflects Gods standards.

You are correct.It is completely off topic now.I wont reply to EMA until the topic resumes.

thats because the comment by Thomas has already been discussed earlier.But i'll comment on this scripture that you posted in msg 183 Jesus admited to being a 'SON' of God... not God himself.Just as this scripture shows. He was a 'son' in comparison to a 'father'If he was the 'father' then there is no way that he would call himself a 'son' as that would be a lie and Jesus would not lie about something so important.And if he was trying to make them understand that he was the 'father', why use a term which shows inferiority? A son is a prodigy... he is an offspring... a created one.

you are ignoring the fact that the consequences for Adams sin was death. As a perfect sinless man he had no reason to die, he would have lived forever if he remained sinless.The fact is that even young children die...they too experience the consequence of Adams sin therefore they must also have sin. If they were sinless, they would not experience death...none of us would. It comes down to the law of heredity. Adam lost perfection so he could not pass it on to his children. What he passed on was an inheritance, not of life, but of death.this is what Pauls words mean at Romans 5:12 through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.So do children have sin? Yes they do. They die therefore they have sin. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Their reasoning was completey wrong just as your reasoning is completely wrong.Jesus only claim was that he was the Son of God. Not God himself.Even 3rd century opposers of christianity could see this thru the writings of the NT. You have been led along in this lie that 3rd century christians developed when they abandoned the writings of the apostles in favor of their own teachings.Even non believers can see it clearly, but sadly, those on the inside cannot. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Porphyry was right to oppose 3rd century chrisitanity because it was false. It had deviated away from what was written in the writings of the Apostles. He was able to determine this, why cant you? that depends on what he was objecting to. If he was objecting to ideas that did not originate in the scriptures, then yes, we should accept them.If he was objecting to the reality of Christ, then no, we would reject that. how can you say its insignificant?The fact is that the God whom Jesus was leading people to, is almost unknown today. This is thanks to the churchs and their false teachings that Jesus himself is this God. You know who I"m talking about...the God of the Old Testament Jehovah. Jehovah is the one whom we should be worshiping but christians dont even know who he is.And the work that Jesus did in 'making known the name of God' and in his sacrifice he gave so that all people can come to be in a relationship with Jehovah has fallen on deaf ears because the churchs' have removed the name of Jehovah from their bibles and deliberately elevated Jesus above Jehovah. If its Jehovah who we are supposed to be relying on for salvation, then there are a lot of people in a very bad position before God. 1 Tim. 2:3-6 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all. Well it seems that they did have an interest in the writings of the apostles because they must have studied them in order to make the claim that the teaching that Jesus IS God was false.People are not stupid...even people who are not followers of christ can see falsehoods and can put two and two together. You really have to give the man some credit for making an informed effort and not simply making claims that were not based on scripture.His claim about Christ NOT being Amighty God is true. Nowhere in the NT do the writers ever say that Jesus is Jehovah. Nowhere does Jesus claim to be equal to God.

im not going to discuss all of his contentions, that wasnt the point of this line of reasoning. and i've shown you that you are reading the scripture the wrong way.the KJV reads: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.the JB says: he did not cling to his equality with God.Now go back and look at the context. Verse 5 tells Christians to imitate Jesus in the subject being discussed. Were they being urged to consider it not robbery, but their right, to be equal with God? No way! Yet that is what you are saying is being told to christians, that we should imitate christ and not consider it robbery that we are equal with God.What John was really saying to christians was to imitate Jesus who emptied himself and took a slave’s form because he DID NOT consider himself equal with God.and this is in harmony with Jesus own words at John 14:28 The Father is greater than I.
He did not believe he was equal with God at all. I am not telling you to trust the man at all. I was using his opposition to show that what the 2nd/3rd century christians were teaching was not in harmony with the writings of the NT. the identity of Jesus as Immanuel did not mean he was the incarnation of God. It was a prophetic name that would identify him as the messiah.
You may recall that the Messiah was also to be called by other names such as at Isaiah 9:6 His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Yet none of these names were given to Jesus as personal names, they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identifiedits the same with emmanuel... it represented Gods attention would be on his people again, which it was - thru Jesus. show me the scriptures that specifically claim Jesus was an incarnation of God.even the idea of the 'god-man' did not become teaching until some three hundred years after Jesus’ day and not properly defined until A.D. 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Its another NON BIBLICAL idea from the man of lawlessness.and just think about this...if Jesus was an incarnation of God, there would have been no need for him to be born from Mary. None whatsoever.

fairly easily actually.If someone is given something, then they didnt always have it. So Jesus is acknowledging that he has been given something which he didnt have previously.Who gave him the power and authority in heaven and on earth? It could only have been someone in a higher position of power and authority.It was his father Jehovah who did that.this ties in with Pauls words at Acts 2:34-36 "Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘JEHOVAH SAID TO MY LORD (Jesus): Sit at my right hand, 35until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that GOD MADE HIM LORD AND CHRIST, this Jesus whom YOU impaled.So Jesus authority was given to him by God Jehovah. Jehovah put him in the position of Lord and Christ. This shows that they are not the same individual but two separate and distinct individuals, one with the ultimate authority and one that has been given authority. Edited by Peg, : bolded scripture.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

So we should consider ourselves equal to God too?Really??? are you sure? thats where you are wrong...the verse does not say Jesus was equal with God, it says 'even though he existed in Gods form...he did not consider equality as something to be grasped'Existing in Gods 'form' does not mean he is God. God is a spirit and there are millions more angels who also exist in Gods form....and like Jesus do not consider themselves to be equal with God.

So lets say that Jesus was equal to God, then he must have known that he was equal to God, right?And as Jesus was the one giving Paul his words to write, and as you say, Paul was saying that Jesus was equal to God then please explain this...right before Paul apparently tells us Jesus is equal to God, he says...
Vs 5 "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ JesusSo, what is the mental attitude Paul wants us to imitate?
Is it that we are equal God because Jesus was equal to God? or is it something else you havent mentioned yet???Remember, i am keeping the scripture in context here...which was to imitate christ in what Paul was about to explain...here it is again in its entirety. Ok, what is Gods form? So God is a spirit, he is invisible to human eyes because he exists in a form that has no physical traits. Just as the angels exist in the form of spirits with no physical traits and just as some christians will be transformed into the same image. Yes we can and I just did. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Spartcz1978 i agree with you wholeheartedly.Its EMA who believes Jesus is God, not me.

If paul was making a simple point about humility, why would he need to mention that Jesus 'may have been' equal to God?Your claim is that paul is telling christians that Jesus WAS equal to God...so tell me what Jesus attitude was? Because If Jesus attitude is that he WAS equal to God, then the whole humily argument goes out the window because humility is a recognition of ones limitations....something Jesus would not have had and therefore no need to be humble.So the question remains, what was the attitude that christians were being told to imiatate? and yet you happily use a rendering that indicates that while Jesus existed in Gods form, he did not consider equality as somethign to be grasped.Sounds more like Paul is saying that Jesus did not try to grasp at equality with God as opposed to believing he actually was equal to God. No he couldnt and he even tells humans this very fact. He had to protect Moses from viewing him because no one can view God. In harmony with what Jehovah told Moses and what the apostle John said, Moses did not see a material form of God. Yes, he saw the afterglow of the divine presence but even from that he had to be protected.And if Jesus was God, then John must not have been an inspired writer because he certainly got this very wrong.

So you think because Paul called Jesus 'lord' it means that he is God Almighty?Thats very strange considering Lord is merely a title of reverence...it was given to many people in positions of authority and others beside God are called lord.John calls one of the Elders a lord in the book of revelation
Rev 7:13And in response one of the elders said to me: These who are dressed in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from? 14So right away I said to him: My lord, you are the one that knows. Lot called the two visiting angels Lords.
Gen 19:2And he proceeded to say: Please, now, my lords, turn aside, please, into the house of YOUR servant and stay overnight and have YOUR feet washedAbigail called David her Lord
1Sam25:24She then fell at his feet and said: Upon me myself, O my lord, be the error; and, please, let your slave girl speak in your ears, and listen to the words of your slave girlSo please explain how the calling of Jesus a lord means that he is Almighty God.You might also like to explain why John says that
John 1:18 "no man has seen God at any time"

i have to admit that im getting a little tired of going over and over this same point, so i'll make this my final comment on it.If God became visible in the flesh, then John was not an inspired writer because he said
"no man has seen God at any time"And finally, if Jesus was God then having an attitude that equality with himself was not something to be grasped is just a silly notion. If he was God then there would be no need to state this because it would be like me saying i dont need to be equal to myself...its rediculous. I didnt say 'only'. But of all the things that humility is, a recognition of ones limitations is one of them. We are humble when we recognize our lowly position and act in accord with that position. Jesus was humble because, although he was in a powerful position, he recognized his lowly position beside his Father and accepted the work God had given him.But God himself is in the highest posiition in the universe and therefore he cannot literally be lowly before anyone. He cannot look at someone else in a higher position, so its not really possible for him to be humble in such a way.His Son Jesus could be humble because he could look to one in a higher position to himself. Can you provide the scritpures that say that God Almighty manifested himself in human form?

if God has appeared in human form, the OT should contain an account of it.If you believe that he appeard as Jesus, then why has he not appeard to Isreal in the form of a man? You wont find anywhere in the OT where he has done so. this thread is full of scritpures that show that Jesus is not Jehovah.But it seems the scriptures are not enough for some to accept so lets go back in history to the first and 2nd century writers and find out what the earliest beliefs among early christians were before the doctrine of the trinity was introduced in the 3rd/4th century.The following christian writers are called the ante-Nicene Fathers. They were leading christian teachers in the early centuries and some were taught by the christians who associated with the apostles. Justin Martyr (100-165) called the prehuman Jesus a created being. Irenaeus, who died about 200C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior tohim. Clement of Alexandria, (150-215) called God the uncreated and imperishable and only true God. in his writing 'Exhortation to the Greeks, ch XII., par. 93.' Tertullian (160-220) Hippolytus
Origen (185-254)As you can hopefully see, none of these early christian teachers taught that Jesus was Jehovah. Why? Becuaes the NT does not contain such a doctrine. The Apostles never taught such a doctrine and Jesus never taught such a doctrine. These early christians were reading the NT in their native tongues so its not as if they need to interpret things the way we do...they were reading the language they spoke and they did not read a trinity doctrine into any of the NT writings.The only explanation for that is becaues there was not doctrine at that time.