Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy 156 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  dubla

  hairdog-

  this reply might be a little hop-scotchy, so bear with me.

  quote: It is not my intent, nor do I possess the ability, to “convince” anyone about a spiritual matter.

  -okay, just real quickly here regarding this statement. you say you do not intend to convince anyone about a spiritual matter (namely the meaning of john 1:1 for our purposes), yet you refuse to discuss any other points or scriptures until we "agree" on the meaning of this one scripture. please forgive me if im blind here, but to me this sounds contradictory. if it is not contradictory, then you must be saying simply, "until you agree with me on the meaning of john 1:1, then i will not discuss anything else on this matter". i say this because i highly doubt you will waiver even a miniscule amount on your beliefs on this scripture and its meaning. and if it indeed is the case, that we cannot move on until i agree with you, or "we agree" as you say it, then i think it would be fair to both of us to save the time and end this discussion now.

  quote: Cross-referencing is a dead-end when agreement on a verse (as discussed in point 1) has not been achieved

  -i strongly disagree with this statement, only because it is my belief that other scriptures lend in understanding the meaning of a scripture (john 1:1 for example), and it goes beyond just studying the original greek meanings for the words in the translation (and yes they have merit and certainly are important, ive never denied that).

  quote(s): I know that you are not a Trinitarian and that I am. For the sake of objective examination, I am willing to set aside my belief in the trinity. Are you willing to set aside your belief in the contrary?>>>>>>>>This is my suggestion. The choice to do so is yours. If you can’t agree, then further discussion with each other would not be profitable for either of us.

  -i can set aside my belief against the trinity to discuss john 1:1 if thats what you are proposing. but again, if the idea is that we need to agree on the meaning of john 1:1 before we go any further past john 1:1, then i too think it would not be profitable for either of us to go on with this. if thats the case, then thank you for the discussions, thank you for the laughs, and peace to you.

  aa
• 

  Hairdog1937

  aa:

  You completely misunderstand me. When you went to grade school, you didn’t learn how to multiply until you first knew what a number was, how to add, and how to subtract. Then you memorized “times-tables.” The same is true with understanding Scripture. Establishing the meaning of a single phrase in a verse, then the next, and the next, and so on, is foundational to understanding the verse. Once it is understood, you move on to the next verse and do the same thing there. After examining several verses, one can see the formation, or discounting, of a teaching. This is systematic hermeneutics. I didn’t invent it, but I learned it when I took Principles of Interpretation in college. Mr. aa, it works! And it can be applied to any literary work, too. Believe me, it’s a valuable tool and method. So, take it or leave it. It’s up to you. If you don’t like this method, then, as you say, I guess we’re done communicating.

  Your disagreement with my comments on cross-referencing (“Cross-referencing is a dead-end when agreement on a verse [as discussed in point 1] has not been achieved”) fails to comprehend the point I was trying to get across, namely, that if there is disagreement on the meaning of one verse, agreement on other verses will never be achieved. So there is no profit in cross-referencing under these circumstances. I am not completely against cross-referencing; I’m just not in favor of starting off with it. One verse at a time. Once agreement on a verse is realized, we can cross-reference it with another. And once again, I am not saying that a verse, totally by itself, can establish any doctrine. One should not become dogmatic nor adamant over a position based upon one verse (although some people do take that position). I won’t and I don’t.

  So, there you have it. I must go by established hermeneutical principles and the application thereof. I cannot follow any other procedure. When followed, you will see that it leads to objective Bible study – something I think we both desire. After all, does not our eternal destiny depend upon the right understanding and application of Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit? I know you believe that, too.

  God’s Blessings,
  Hairdog
• 

  pomegranate

  jdubla,

  I am part of no religion...I will never be part of any "religion" ever again. As the saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I won't be fooled again.

  I do get together with fellow Bible/God enthusiasts in this spirit:

  Matt 18:20
  20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

  That is as large as my "religion" will ever be.

  The real truth will be logical and not contradict the Bible. Both Arianism and trinitarianism have major contradictions when reading the Bible. I will not try and force someone's elses passed down understanding on top of what the Bible says plainly by itself.

  Duotheism does not contradict. It is what is the basic simple truth of ALL creation to me.

  The two become one flesh.

  I and the Father are one.

  Two compartments in one tent/temple.

  The theme of two is a blatantly over looked truth in the Bible.

  Rom 1:19-20
  19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and DIVINE NATURE-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

  God's invisible qualities have been made PLAIN. Clearly seen. Men are without excuse.

  Look in the mirror. The image and likeness of God.

  Two.
• 

  Hairdog1937

  Two:

  Have you considered Matt.12:31? “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”

  Or Acts 5:3? “…Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…?”

  Or Ephesians 4:30? “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God…”

  Or 1 Thessalonians 5:19? “Do not quench the Spirit.”

  Three
• 

  pomegranate

  >>Have you considered Matt.12:31? “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”<<

  The above is Christ talking to the Pharisees. They were saying Christ's power to expel demons was directly from Satan (Beelzebub). Jesus called them out to their lies. They KNEW who Jesus was. The fact is, Christ's power came from the Holy Spirit Father. Calling the true Father God in heaven "Satan" IS blasphemy against the Holy Spirit Father. It was willful, it was intentional, they will NOT be forgiven.

  >>Or Acts 5:3? “…Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…?”<<

  The Holy Spirit above is Jesus Christ and the Father. "Holy Spirit" is the generalized way to refer to either the Father, the Son or both. Of course THEY can be lied to.

  >>Or Ephesians 4:30? “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God…”<<

  The above is both the Holy Spirit Father and Son. Of course THEY can be grieved.

  >>Or 1 Thessalonians 5:19? “Do not quench the Spirit."<<

  The above is the POWER of God. Read the context;

  1 Thess 5:19-22
  19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

  The Father and Son ARE the Holy Spirit.

  If you sin (BLASPHEMY) against the Father, you've sinned against the Spirit. Willful blasphemy will not be forgiven.

  If you sin (BLASPHEMY) against the Son after his resurrection back to Divine existence, you've sinned against the Spirit. Willful blasphemy will not be forgiven.

  King of willful blasphemers: Satan the Devil. He will not be forgiven.

  Now, defining this "Spirit of God."

  Rom 8:9-11
  9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.

  Paul now defines WHO EXACTLY that very Spirit of God is:

  And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 AND if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

  Spirit of Christ + Spirit of the Father who raised Christ = The Holy Spirit

  That is your Holy Spirit.

  I and the Father are one.

  There is no third.
• 

  Hairdog1937

  Hey, Two:

  You have taken your opinion, that the Spirit is the Father and the Son, and then tried to make the Bible fit your doctrine of the "twinity." Naah, won't work. The Spirit is the third Person of the Godhead. He can be lied to, sinned against, grieved, etc. I'm sure you've heard it all before. Yes He is the Spirit of Christ. Yes He is the Spirit of God (BTW, have you ever found any place in the Bible where He's called the Spirit of the Father?), but so is Jesus referred to as the Son of - guess who? - God. And God is referred to as the Father. C'mon, dude, gimme a break.

  Treis
• 

  dubla

  pom-

  youve got hairdog out of "exegesis" mode and into just arguing...... BRAVO.

  aa
• 

  dubla

  hairdog-

  i dont think i misunderstood you, but ill refrain from going around and around in circles here saying "you mean this" and "i mean that". lets keep it simple. you want to agree on john 1:1 giving evidence for jesus as a deity before looking at other scriptures, correct? okay, i think we can agree on that point. ill post a dictionary definition (notice i didnt say the definition, as you have pointed out before there are usually several) of "deity", just so were clear on this understanding or "agreement".

  deity n : any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

  okay? so yes, john 1:1 gives evidence that jesus is a deity, we are in full agreement!!

  aa
• 

  dubla

  hairdog-

  i wanted to go back and get a quote from your first post (the one that started this discussion) real quickly, just to see what it is weve been trying to agree on.......

  quote: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" - John 1:1.
  There is more in this verse to support the deity of Jesus Christ than one might think. Anyone care to discuss it?

  -just making sure were on the same page here. you were saying that the verst supports the deity of jesus christ, and i am saying you are 100% correct with my last post.

  aa
• 

  pomegranate

  >>You have taken your opinion, that the Spirit is the Father and the Son, and then tried to make the Bible fit your doctrine of the "twinity."<<

  Be careful you don't blaspheme God's true nature. You stand at blaspemy's door step. He has spoken his true nature in so many different ways because texts as plain as "I and the Father are one" would be ignored and not believed as teaching the plain TWO-th by the trinitarians and the arians.

  The Bible has 66 books. (twin sixes) (Which is divided in two, one side greater in size than the other)

  The Song of Solomon is the 22nd book. (twin two's)

  It has 8 chapters. Divide that in two, we come to chapter 4. Look at verse number 2. Read it for yourself:

  Song 4:2
  2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn,
  coming up from the washing.
  Each has its twin;
  not one of them is alone.

  Two. Twins. You mock the principle of God's existence. "Each has it's twin" because that's the way God exists. In TWO. You are a left and right created so by the image and likeness of the nature of the true God.

  Still, people like you would still scoff. When God says something twice, you better listen. So he says the exact same thing TWICE. Go up TWO chapters to chapter 6. Go to where the chapter number and verse number become twins 6:6, read it for yourself professor of the triune lie:

  Song 6:6
  6 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep
  coming up from the washing.
  Each has its twin,
  not one of them is alone.

  My eternal life is dependent on only TWO, NOT THREE:

  John 17:3-4
  3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

  I'm told to only honor TWO, NOT THREE:

  John 5:23
  23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

  >>(BTW, have you ever found any place in the Bible where He's called the Spirit of the Father?)<<

  John 4:23-24
  23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit <Christ speaking of the Father>, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

  Romans 8:11 ...and if the Spirit of him <the Father> who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, <obviously the spirit of the Father>

  The above IS the spirit of the Father. Can you comprehend what you read? Or are you fully dependent on your man made system of "hermeneutics" and passed down traditional lies? Tsk tsk.

  >>C'mon, dude, gimme a break.<<

  Ask God for the break, not me. Because He will break to pieces the menage au trois god.

  Oh, do you want to see where the Bible records the infant false god of triunity? God placed it right in the beginning where it first raised it's ugly head. Genesis CHAPTER 3:

  Satan, Eve, Adam.

  Even lies come in two's: God is singular...God is triune.

  God is two.

  Father and Son.

  Rev 21:22
  22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

  Two.