Is Jesus God?

the difficulty is in rendering the hebrew into english because hebrew is so much more flexible in its use.If you read the writings of the NT, they understood it to mean that God had used someone to speak on his behalf, and for this reason it was as if God himself was speaking.In Acts 7, the account about the diciple Stephen shows that their belief was that an angel spoke on Gods behalf so exodus is not a contradiction, its simply viewed that when God sends an angel to speak for him, its as good as if God is speaking himself.Another example of this is found with Moses and Aaron. Moses was said to be the one who spoke to Isreal, but it was actually Aaron who did the talking. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

unfortunately none of those scriptures tell us that God took on human form... im pretty sure you wont find a scripture that does.Yes God spoke to people thru his angels, yes he gave visions of himself but nowhere is he ever physically seen except for Moses was saw the glory of his back after Moses was shielded from seeing God in his fullness. of course he had all the attributes of God, he imitated God perfectly as he said he didEven mankind has been created in the 'image' of God with that attributes of God...Adam was a perfect man with those attributes, we are imperfect people and we still display Gods attributes.And Jesus was said to be a 'corresponding' ransom for the 'first man Adam' So if Jesus corresponds to the life that Adam lost, then Adam was a perfect man who had the same attributes of God like Jesus....and like chrisitans can also have. It doesnt make all of us God becuase we can have the attributes of God.Ok so you are going to ignore the early christians i posted and go with turtillian who 'appears to you' to be advocating that trinity...lets be clear that he most certainly not advocating that trinity...he is not saying that God and Christ and Holy spirit are all one being which is what the trinity claims.He is saying they are all one with respect to 'substance' which does not mean what you think it means. It means their purpose, goals, desires are one and the same. this is in harmony with Jesus words"I and the Father are one""I always do the things pleasing to my Father""I do not do a single thing of my own initiative"Jesus showed that his desires are the same as his Fathers, his will is the same as his Fathers, his goals are the same as his Fathers. In this way the substance of everything Jesus is, was the same as the Fathers.its not a physical substance which is why Turtulian says 'I and my Father are one' in respect not in the singularity of number, but the UNITY of the substance.

the translators will capitalize GOD or LORD if the original passages have the tetragrammaton (YHWY)so the fact that it is not capitalized signifies that the tetragramaton was not in the original text and therefore not a reference to God Almighty.2ndly, the account goes on to say that it was an angel who was with them

i've stated this previously, I've given an example of how Moses was said to 'speak to pharoah, or isreal' yet it was actually Aaron doing the talking.this is because the hebrew language is dynamic and flexible... Yes God spoke to Abraham, but it was thru one of his angels just as Moses spoke to Isreal thru Aaron.Just remember that other scriptures tell us that No one has seen God at ANYTIME, and even God has said 'you cannot see me and live' adam would have lived eternally if he had of obeyed God and did not sin...death was a consequence of sin and he was specifically told that he would die if he ate from the tree. If he had not of eaten, then there would not have been death for him and he would have lived eternally. and Jesus??? but they are not identical in the fact that Jesus is a created being unlike God who is not.
Remember Proverbs 8:22Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth..." Not in the context of our discussion on EVC, no.

actually the verses do not state clearly that Aaron spoke to pharoh. They state that Moses spoke to Pharaoh: If its only becuase of the few verses which tell us that Aaron was a mouth to moses that you accept that idea, so now you should try to apply that reasoning to the following scriptures which show that God used angels to speak to people. And remember when Moses asked God to let him see him the reply from God was at Ex 33:18-20: I myself shall cause all my goodness to pass before your face, and I will declare the name of Jehovah before you; and I will favor the one whom I may favor, and I will show mercy to the one to whom I may show mercy but you are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.So in light of all these verses from different writers that angels were the ones who transmitted the law and the visions seen of God were really of Angels, how can you deny them and continue to say that God actually did these things himself? Or perhaps you'll view these verses with an open mind and see that it is highly likely that God used these angels as his representatives just as the scriptures show. i'll leave that for you to decide. No that is simply not the case. ITs the scritpures that tell us that God did not show himself physically to anyone and the scriptures that tell us that he used Angels to speak to people....just as Moses used Aaron to speak for him.The chrisitans beleived this as the above scriptures show. John, Paul and Stephen all say the same thing. Its not just because i dont want to believe that God spoke to men...its because the christians didnt beleive it for the reason that they believed and understood what the hebrew scriptures said on the matter. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

can you provide some scriptures showing this to be the case?

well if you think its possible that God with his inifite power and energy could be bundled up into a tiny fleck of human flesh, then thats up to youI personally dont believe God could do that for the reason that his being is far too great for it.If Moses had to be protected from viewing even the back of God, how on earth could God be ecapsulated into such a weak and vulnerable piece of flesh???Anyway, i think we've done this point enough and we'll just have to agree to disagree. My view is as the scriptures show...God used angels to speak on his behalf. Stephen saw that vision, and Ezekiel saw a similar vision... but a vision is not a phyical view of God. When Stephen said he saw God on his throne and Jesus standing beside him, no one else saw it....the jews around him thought he was blaspheming and proceeded to stone him. So it wasnt a physical view of God that Stephen saw. Ok well like i said, that is your perogative. We'll have to agree to disagree.

the meaning of 'soul' has changed since it was written in ancient times, I get the impression you are going with the current meaning of soul....as some life force that exists outside the physical body?The original meaning of the word soul, as it is written in the scriptures, means 'the living body' but i wont take us off topic unfortunately the scriptures dont give us this sort of information. They do not say if God did or did not do this, so its pure speculation to say he definiately did manifest himself in human form.From the scriptures it seem very clear to me that, as John said "No man has seen God at anytime"Now either I believe Johns words that God has not shown himself to humans at anytime, or I speculate that he may have done so. But if I do that, then i am disrepecting the words of the Apostle...one whom I'm sure you consider an inspired writer. The teaching you are proposing has come from non inpsired writers.You tell me who Jesus entrusted with the truth? You tell me who he chose to impart such information? An you tell me why, if Johns words are not true, would Jesus allow such a statement to be made in the first place? Not at all. Visions were given to people so that they could be informed of what was to happen or what they were to do, or so that they could be assured that God was with them. God does not exist in any form,he is a spirit without a body, so he is invisble to human eyes. So obviously God gives us an image that we can understand...he gives us an image, but not of his true self. i'll let you decide

Unfortunately, the scriptures that have been used simply do not mesh with the many that I have posted which show the opposite.Even Jesus own words about who he was do not fit with the idea that he is God. Tell me why Jesus did not announce that he was God in the flesh? Rather he said said: I am God’s Son. (John 10:36)Tell me why, if he was God, he said I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 5:30)Also, explain why when he was on the torture stake, he prayed to God when he cried out My God, my God why have you forsaken me. (Matthew 27:46)And then after he had been resurrected he told Mary Magdalene I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. (John 20:1,17)And no one has even attempted to explain what John meant when he said under inspiration No man has seen God at any time.The incarnation was not something the apostles or Jesus taught...it came much later by the very men who were killing their christian brothers for not believing the new teaching that they themselves introduced with the help of emperor constantine...a pagan worshiper.

thats right....yet if Jesus WAS the father, then everything would be his own will and his comment "I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative" is a contradiction.If Jesus was the father, then everything was Jesus will. John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him"

thats right, the scriptures are practically void on these matters because....I'll let some theogian scholars answer why

The problem here is that that in one sentence they say that angels are 'heavenly intelligences whom God employs...'they also say that these 'messengers' appeard to Abraham, Jacob and Joshua as 'the angel of the Lord'but they do NOT say that the 'angels of the Lord' were God himself.They state that these 'angels of the Lord were manifestations of the Divine presence' which i agree with. If an angel of the Lord came to you, it most certainly was a manifestation of Gods presence.....but it wasnt God Himself.The messenger was still an angel sent by God just as all the verses of scripture i posted in msg 244...posted again below: Of course these messengers represent God and so do represent the divine presence....but they are NOT God himself. If they were, why are they called his messengers? It would make no sense to have messengers if God was delivering the message himself.

please dont get me wrong, i certainly DO believe Jesus was divine.I just dont believe he is Jehovah, the Creator, the God of the OT.I believe as the scriptures state that Jesus is Gods Son, his only begotten son, the firstborn of all Gods creations. Colossians 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

the problem is that you go beyond saying Jesus is a diety....You are saying he is the Creator, the Almighty Jehovah, YWHYThey are not the same. They are both diety, one is the father and one is the son. One was created the other existed eternally. The son is subject to the father for the father is greater then the Son.The Son was sent to earth as a man to do the will of the Father.The Son became flesh in order to bring order back to the universe, at his Fathers request.The Son was killed and the Father resurrected him from the dead.They are two individuals...two dieties who exist with a myriad other dieties in the heavens.

Yes, Jesus did have a hand in the creation, but you have to ask, did he do it alone? As the firstborn of all creation, he existed before all other things, not alone, but with YWHY. That is why he is called Gods 'only begotten' because Jesus is the only 'direct' creation of God. All other things came into existence by Jesus THROUGH the power and direction of Jehovah.This does not make Jesus, Jehovah. They are still two separate entities.
Remember Proverbs 8:27 thats exactly right and its the reason why Jesus cannot be Jehovah. Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega in the OT, but you read the alpha and omega in revelation and assume its talking about Jesus only because of the trinity teaching.
Look at Rev 1:8 "I am the Al'pha and the O.me'ga, ... the AlmightyThere is only one 'Almighty' in the OT and its always used in reference to YWHY. The apostle John was not speaking of Jesus when he refered to the Alpha and Omega...he is refering to the A&O from the OT...YWHY because the coming of Jesus is by the grace of YWHY. Yes we will. And i guess we will know if the trinity is true or not in due time when God himself settles the issue.