Is Jesus God?

John declares this in John 4,23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."In Acts 2:36 Peter declares this,"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified."Paul declares this in 2 Cor 3.15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart ;
16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.There is a veil that remains even to today over the eyes and hearts of those who deny that Jesus is Lord God. If they deny that Jesus is Lord God, God's Spirit cannot, nor will not take the things of Jesus and disclose them to us (John 16:15). If we deny Jesus is Lord God, He will deny us (2 Tm 3:12).There is only one work that man can do, as declared by John 6,28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God ?"
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."When man chooses to believe in "another Jesus" other than the ONE revealed in Scripture, there is no salvation in any other NAME (Acts 4:12).

quote:

---

the rule is that if two nouns are connected by καi (and) and the first is preceded by the definite article, then it is a reference to two distinct subjects.

---

Sorry, but your references are not stating the Granville Sharp rule precisely enough, and my excerpt from Wikipedia was not precise enough, either. Here is a better explanation of the Granville Sharp rule: Note the requirements NOT PROPER NAMES and SINGULAR IN NUMBER. The only verse you mention which meets these requirements is Eph 5:5.

quote:

---

Im sure you can see that in many of these verses the translators have not abided by the rule of Granville sharp.

---

Of course not. Except for Eph 5:5, the verses do not meet the requirements.

quote:

---

In many of the above scriptures we even see the use of "OF" so tell me why they are not applying the Granville sharp rule here.

---

Because except for Eph 5:5, none of the verses you listed fit the requirements of the rule. Your JW references are among "those who have misunderstood Sharp’s rule." If you want to understand it, I'd recommend the detailed article by Wallace referenced above. If you want to try to disprove with the Granville Sharp rule, the passages that you use must satisfy its requirements!So let's look at Eph 5:5, which meets the Granville Sharp requirements, and see how modern translations render it: The GS rule says that "Christ" and "God" refer to the same person here. NET, NASB, ESV, and NKJV all respect the GS rule in their translations. But the others do not for some reason.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : Realized that Eph 5:5 DOES meet the requirements

if they are trying to convey the idea that they are relating to one person, why would they use the term'of Christ AND OF God'In english, i would read that as refering to two individuals, not one.This is exactly why the list of translations i posted in msg 275 show that the verse is rendered as two indivduals by many translators i would say the others do not respect the GS rule because they do not believe it is accurate.

Not even in Jehovah....the God whom Jesus preached?

Your argument lies not with me, but with the revealed Word of God.The writer of Hebrews declares this in Heb 1,1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.These Scriptures declare the worlds were made thru Jesus.
These Scriptures declare Jesus is the exact representation of His heavenly Father.
These Scriptures declare the Jesus upholds all things by the word of His power.
These Scriptures declare Jesus made purification of sins.
These Scriptures declare the LORD Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
The more excellent name Jesus was given is LORD in the Godhead acording to Acts 2:36.Yes, the Lord Jesus is the exact representation of God the Father, and this is the Lord Jesus God the father honors with His salvation. There is no salvation in "another" JW Jesus.Edited by John 10:10, : spelling errorEdited by John 10:10, : added sentence

CD writes: Well since you sleep through everything else, why not the rest of the arguments and the evidence. Yes I am aware of the fact you were responding to Jaywills
arguments. You have a very high opinion of yourself, demolishing CD, please get real.As I was explaining to Peg and to which there is never a reply, the complete Deity of Jesus is not contained in one verse. I was simply trying to give you an opportunity to respond to the arguments presented thus far, and I put them in a form of a question(s).As usual you replaced responses with insults and humor. Just answer the questions I put toyou in the last post.here is another curious point. Here is a man in the form of CD, that rejects the existence of God, denies with all of his being that the Bible is Gods word, does not believe any of it in English, but demands to see it in the Greek, as if this will throw him over the top. Hmmm?The explanation of the verses in Titus are found in all the other verses asserting the God nature of Jesus. If one has any concern as to what Philippians 2 means, he simply needs to read John 1:1 and Colosians chapter 1. "In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"The word usage in these passages is unmistakable. The word usage is so specific that to apply them to any created being is simply idiocy. John clarifies even further, drives the point HOME by making it clear that Nothing that is made or was made, was made without him. On needs to rearrange these passages to work in that Jesus was a created beingJohn 1See if both verses dont clarify and compliment each other. See if both verses dont explaing who and what Christ was and is. One simply needs to remove the word NOTHING, to make it say something else.Before however one removes the word NOTHING, one needs to insert the greek article (a) into the first verse to make Christ less than God himself. So much maneuvering to support a doctrine.after one inserts the greek article (a) into the original language in the first verse, then an alternate explanation is required for the second verse, which is plain, when unaltered before hand. Such maneuvering to support a doctrine.All of the verses concerning his existence as only God, are plain and simple and compliment eachother so that nearly 98% of believers have come to the correct conclusion concerning Christ. There are however, a few contentious ones that will not let go of thier false doctrine.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

peg writesThere may be some ambiguity that one can play with in these verses but there is no ambiguity in the ones you and i have discussed. Please dont forget about post 276, my last response to you and where we left off, thank youEAM

quote:

---

quote:

---

The GS rule says that "Christ" and "God" refer to the same person here. NET, NASB, ESV, and NKJV all respect the GS rule in their translations. But the others do not for some reason.

---

i would say the others do not respect the GS rule because they do not believe it is accurate.

---

Perhaps. Wallace says that "Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on these passages." I would recommend reading Wallace's discussion of the rule, if you haven't already. He makes a strong, reasoned defense that the Grqnville Sharp (GS) rule IS accurate. He also notes that the early church Fathers viewed "God" and "Christ" as referring to the same person in Eph 5:5. This supports the GS rule for this passage.But Wallace also points out another possibility for Eph 5:5; some scholars consider the word "Christ" as used in the Epistles to be a proper name. If this is so in Eph 5:5, then this passage does not meet the requirements for the GS rule.So it is somewhat questionable whether or not the GS rule should apply to Eph 5:5. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule, and show that the rule does not work for these passages.

From Message 262: We don't think Jesus was the Father... he is the Son Like I said in Message 252:

quote:

---

It seems that everytime someone shows Biblical references to Jesus' divinity, you claim that he, god the son, is not equivalent to god the father. And sure, there has to be some kind of difference in order for them to be different, but they're still part of the same thing.

---

... Yeah, I'm not sure what John is talking about. But from that same chapter we have this:

quote:

---

John 1, KJV,

​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

​

...

​

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

---

From Message 266: Do you think he was "a" god? As in polytheism? Or was he just divine like an angel or something? Well John says that the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (= Jesus) so therefore, Jesus is God.There's been plenty of passages shown that say that Jesus is God, but yeah, you don't have to believe them if you don't want to.

i completely agree, i have no argument with the scriptures at all. I accept them 100%As Hebrews 1 says, God spoke thru the prophets long ago and then he sent his son to speak on his behalf.Exactly.Now if you think that the Son is God because of what hebrews says, then you must also think that the prophets were God too, yes?

you are only assuming that the first and the last in Rev chpt 2 means the alpha and omega. As i showed, Jesus was actually called the first and last for other reasons. So why do you assume that the apostle John is not making reference to these? I find no reason in the text to assume John meant alpha and omega and if he did, why didnt he simply write it as alpha and omega??? The simplest reason i can express for why Alpha and Omega is not a reference to Christ is this...Revelation 1:8 states: The Lord God says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the One who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty!’Jesus is never called the Almighty. Only Jehovah is called the Almighty. Its for this reason that we need to know exactly what jesus role in the creation was. This is why Proverbs 8 is such an important passage for understanding that. Jesus was beside God as a master worker, God gave Jesus creative ability and this is why John says that all things came into existence thru him and by him...but tell me this. If the one mentioned in Prov 8 is not Jesus (and its certainly not wisdom because wisdom is someone who can act and think and love) then who is it? Because if its not Jesus, then there is someone greater then Jesus who sat beside God as a master worker.I think Johns words about Jesus being a creator add weight to the identity of the one who was beside God in Prov 8.

i already did thatAll the verses that have the same construction (meaning there is a single article preceding two nouns that are joined by the conjunction) i posted in msg 281.Acts 13:50 is a good example of how it doesnt work because there is no way to mistake the women and the men of the city as being the same person.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So it is somewhat questionable whether or not the GS rule should apply to Eph 5:5. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule, and show that the rule does not work for these passages.

---

i already did that

---

No, you did not. Where did you present ANY passages which "undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule"?

quote:

---

All the verses that have the same construction (meaning there is a single article preceding two nouns that are joined by the conjunction) i posted in msg 281.

---

That's nice, but irrelevant. This does not meet the requirements of the rule as laid down by Granville Sharp. For these requirements, see Message 287.

quote:

---

Acts 13:50 is a good example of how it doesnt work because there is no way to mistake the women and the men of the city as being the same person.

---

Acts 13:50 is a good example of a verse which does not meet the requirements of the rule as laid down by Granville Sharp.If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule. So far you have not suggested ANY!

what do you think a god is?Moses was made a god to Pharoah
The angel who saved the hebrews from Nebudchudnezzas fire was called a god
Jesus was called a god
The jews were called gods to the nationsgod literally means a 'mighty one' in the hebrew language.Yes i believe jesus was a mighty one...just as the angels are mighty ones.
It is not polythiestic to believe Jesus was a god...or the angels are gods. They are such because God Almighty makes them such. have you done any research into the rendering of John 1:1?Did you know that there are many translations who render the verse as 'a' god.? Are you interested why they render the verse as such?

As I have been pointing out to you my old friend, I am not mad. perhaps WE should bring down our tone with eachother.Your problem is, in this statement, "I find no reason in the Text that John meant Alpha and Omega"As I pointed out before One cannot find the meaning ALWAYS in one text, it takes all of them to come to a conclusion. So the reason I KNOW he means Alpha and Omega, is because Jesus said, "before Abraham was I AM". this tells me that he is the Alpha and the Omega. But my friend from down under over at Melbourne, it cant be derived from one textYou say Jesus is first because he was created first, he is last because he was the last AdamThen answer me this miss smarty pants. What was Jesus the IAM of? if the the First and Last have a correspondant then what was he the IAM of?Im just kidding about the smarty pants commentI guess I should just be happy you didnt change the wording In Revelations 2:8, from first and last to something else, to make the words themself mean something else, as you do with IAM to IWASIf Last and first do not refer to Christ as God and IAM, when spoken by Christ, does not mean God, then what is he the IAM of? Is he the IAM of the real IAM But he is peg, your just not looking at all the places. Jesus called himself the great IAM.Now watch this Peg. If Jesus said the before Abraham was I was, there would be no need for alarm on the Jews part, because they would simply thought he was a lunitic, caliming to be older than Abraham or was claiming preexistence of some sort, angelic or whatever.The text makes it clear he used the expression IAM, resulting in thier comments that he making himself equal to God. They charged him with blasphemeous statements not crazy ones.You simply have to look in the right places where Christ is called the almighty. It does not have to use excally that wordSecondly, revelations is a LETTER Peg, not a book. Its not necessary for the writer to keep repeating traits of the same person, over and over in the same way for it not to be about the same personThats why in Revelations 2 you get the condensed statement about first and last, without repeating again, Alpha, Omega, b and E, the Almighty, still refering to the same personNotice in revelations 22:12, the expression Almighty is left off"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. "So who is this refering to Peg?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.