Who is Jesus? Is he God? (page 6)

ellderwho

Mondo1...Finally, we might consider Jesus' words of John 8:54. "Jesus answered, If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, whom you say is your God."

Why does Jesus have glory?

I am not a trinitarian. I agree with you that the God of the old testament is the heavenly father. I never said that Jesus is the father. What I said was that in the NT as well as the OT it is stated many times that "no one has seen the father" and "no one can see God and live" if this is true then how can Moses, Abraham and others say they "saw God".

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say they saw the son who is the "exact image of God". By seeing Jesus they saw God and lived. We are told in the NT that "if you have seen me you have seen the father also". Since we know Jesus did not come into existance only once he was born of Mary but had a pre-human existance, then why is it not reasonable to conclude that if the prophets saw Jesus - they saw the father also. The father revealed in the Son which is the same principle found in the NT?

As far as Words spoken and being attributed to God and not Christ, are you saying that Jesus as the divine son of God cannot speak in place of the father and it be attributed to God? Please note this scripture:

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Can anyone explain why Jesus is called the word of God?

Thanks, Lilly

Mondo1

ellderwho,

Why wouldn't he? He is our savior. Glory isn't something exclusive to God.

Mondo

Mondo1

lilly,

I'm glad we agree that God is not Triune. I would say it is reasonable that at times within the OT Jesus might have appeared in the place of God. This fits into a concept known as agency, where the one who appears for a person as their agent is considered to be the person himself legally, though not physically. I would note though that in Acts 7 Stephen speaks of the law being delivered by angels, plural, so it seems that while Christ might have appeared at times for God, there were angels as well that did so when the law was being delivered.

Mondo

fjtoth

Lilly,

The clothing in Daniel and Revelation is different because in Revelation we have Christ as king and thus he is wearing the long Robe.

I know you are sincere, but there you go again, attempting to put your own spin on the Scriptures instead of accepting what they say. Daniel 10:12, 13 clearly shows that the man in linen is inferior to the archangel Michael who helped him in his struggle with the prince of Persia. Revelation does not in any way suggest that Jesus is an angel, so there is a monumental difference between Daniel's vision and John's in Revelation.

Can you or anyone else find any scripture where an Angel is described in the same detail as this man in Daniel?

Matthew 28:3 says concerning an angel: "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow." And, as I mentioned, the man in linen is identified in Daniel 10, not as the Son of God, but as an angel inferior to Michael. Why is that so hard to grasp if it isn't because of your pre-conceived view of Jesus?

Also why is the term "someone like a son of man" used?

Ezekiel, Daniel and many others were also called "son of man." That does not mean they were Jesus in some prehuman form.

We know we are made in God's image and thus Christ's image. But what about Angels, could they be said to be "someone like a son of man"?

Angels are called "sons of God." Couldn't that mean they also are in God's image? If not, why not? "Son of man" was a term that simply meant "you" or "mere mortal." It did not mean "descendant of man," as it might in English. Angels took on the form of animals in Daniel and Revelation, but this angel had the appearance of a man.

About Hebrews: I explained that one already and fully believe what it says but still - it does not dismiss the idea that Christ who is the image of God is the one that people saw in the OT.

I don't believe you do "fully believe what it says." Otherwise you wouldn't add "but still." You continually try to find a way to ignore what it clearly states. Many examples could be given of where men and women thought they saw God when it was actually an angel that they saw. I'll give just one: Jacob wrestled with "a man," according to Genesis 32:24. But Hosea 12:4 says the "man" was "an angel." When the wrestling match was over, Jacob said: "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." (Genesis 32:30)

Frank

ellderwho

Glory isn't something exclusive to God.

Isa 42:8

"I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images. (nwt)

He is our savior

Isa 43:11
I-I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior." (nwt)

Mondo1

ellderwho,

First, what does the fact that God does not give **his** glory to another have to do with another receiving glory that is not God's glory?

Second, your savior passage is entirely out of context, there contrasting God with the idol god's of the nations. You cannot remove a passage from its context and argue by that. It is an abuse of Scripture. I would suggest you read the book of Judges, where a number of "saviors" are refered to, and properly called such. For example, Ehud was "a savior." There is no issue with calling others saviors, but we recognize that God is always the source of the salvation.

Mondo

lovelylil

Mondo, Thank you.

Frank -

why are you being so condescending to me when I asked an honest question? You use terms like "here you go again putting your own spin on things" and "whay can't you understand" and accusing me of twisting scripture. Haven't you ever had a calm discussion about biblical texts before? I am not getting upset at you for disagreeing, I am simply asking questions. Do you feel I am trying to disprove you for that is not my intention at all. I am trying to learn about certain texts.

For instance by giving me that text in Matthew you shed light on the issue so thank you for that. I see what you mean about the Angels appearance but in Matthew it clearly identifies this person as "an angel of the Lord" so this text does not help with my question. I will try again to state my question.

There are many times when the OT people said an "angel of the LORD" appeared to them. I was simply asking when they specifically say "I saw GOD" and the bible says "no one has seen God at any time" who did they see? Could it be reasonable that they had actually seen Jesus - the image of God? The only one who actually answered my question is Mondo.

I ask this because if in some verses they said they saw an Angel of the LORD, why would they say in other verses they actually saw GOD?

In Daniel the statement "no one supports me but Michael" is in parenthesis in my bible. I will do more research to find out why. It could have been added in but not agreed upons by some bible scholars.

It is interesting that the words spoken to Daniel by the man is very similar (not saying exactly the same) as the words spoken to John by Jesus and recorded in Revelation. And both said they saw a man - not Angel. Why do you think this is so? Lilly

BelieverInJesus

Mondo1>>>>>>>>>>>

The Finite cannot understand the Infinite. 12 people on earth understand the theory of relativity. Dr. Einstein's wife doesn't understand the theory of relativity....but she understood Dr. Einstein. You don't have to understand the trinity, but you can understand Jesus!

If you try to understand the trinity.......you will lose your mind.

If you deny the holy trinity..................you will lose your soul.

The Finite cannot understand the Infinite. You and I can't begin to understand the exact science and chemistry in the creation of a soul! And we are designed in his image! Not designed as him! You can't understand the trinity either, just know that it exists!

The NWT is translated in error. Take a look at this regarding John 1:1 You will see that the article is translated incorrectly.

HO LOGOS EH HO THEOS.....would mean that LOGOS and THEOS were equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no HO THEOS which is not HO LOGOS. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of John 1:1.

HO LOGOS EN THEOS........would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind.....

HO LOGOS EN THEIOS.......would mean that the LOGOS was 'divine' without specifying further in what or to what extent...it could also imply that the LOGOS being only THEIOS was subordinate to THEOS....

HO LOGOS THEOS EN........means that the LOGOS (rather than something else) has the nature of THEOS.......

THEOS EN HO LOGOS........means that the LOGOS has the nature of THEOS (rather than something else). In this clause, the form John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis.

If John had wanted us to understand that Jesus was only 'a god' he would have written HO LOGOS EN THEOS instead of THEOS EN HO LOGOS

Furthermore, In John 20:21 Thomas says regarding Jesus....."My Lord and my God!"

In Titus 2:13 Jesus is refered to in the same manner "God and Savior".

There is only 1 God, no other's. Look in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalm. ONE GOD ONLY. All other God's are idols, worthless. Some people make their corvette a god! Some people make a hollywood movie star a god. And he is a "god" in hollywood. But as far as a real, true, everlasting God, there is only one.

If you go to the original greek, you can see that the NWT is wrong. Whoever changed it doesn't follow the rules of translation, they are inconsistant in the "rules" such as in Luke 20:38 also. The so called translators are like John Kerry, they flip flop on issues, in this case to take away Jesus's Deity.

Mr. Kim

...............too much baby food going around. Got any REAL meat? LOL

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

Share this