To those Christians who keep saying that Jesus is God, and that the Catholic's believe this, can you please bring some evidence from scriptures.

Isn't it the Trinitarians that believe Jesus is God, not all christians and that the Nicene creed came from them?.

All my life I have known that Catholic don't believe that Jesus is God, despite the "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

Even in the bible Jesus doesn't not claim to be God.

God and Jesus are separate beings, otherwise we wouldn't be having Son of God or God's only begotten son nor would we have Jesus speaking to God.

I know in the book that there is god and then there is God, there is a difference between the two. In some parts Jesus says he is god just like the rest of us, BUT it is in no way that its meant to be "God" the Almighty Father.

When you put the proper meaning/use of god/God in the scriptures then you get a slightly different meaning and understanding.

Some peope do miss some vital information

100 verses that show God and Jesus to be different:

Matthew 27:46

Mark 1:24

Mark 10:18

Mark 15:34

Mark 16:19

Luke 2:52

Luke 6:12

Luke 18:19

John 3:2

John 8:42

John 8:54

John 9:3

John 13:31

John 14:1*

John 17:3

John 20:17

Acts 2:22

Acts 2:32

Acts 2:36

Acts 3:13

Acts 4:10

Acts 5:30

Acts 7:55

Acts 10:36

Acts 10:38

Acts 13:23

Acts 20:21

Romans 1:7

Romans 1:8

Romans 2:16

Romans 3:22

Romans 4:24

Romans 5:1

Romans 5:11

Romans 5:15

Romans 5:17

Romans 6:23

Romans 7:25

Romans 8:34

Romans 10:9

Romans 15:5

Romans 15:6

Romans 16:27

1 Corinthians 1:3

1 Corinthians 1:9

1 Corinthians 1:30

1 Corinthians 8:6

1 Corinthians 15:57

2 Corinthians 1:2

2 Corinthians 1:3

2 Corinthians 11:31

2 Corinthians 13:14

Galatians 1:1

Galatians 1:3

Ephesians 1:2

Ephesians 1:3

Ephesians 1:17

Ephesians 2:6

Ephesians 6:23

Philippians 1:2

Philippians 2:11

Colossians 1:3*

Colossians 3:17

1 Thessalonians 1:1

1 Thessalonians 1:3

1 Thessalonians 3:11

1 Thessalonians 3:13

1 Thessalonians 4:14

1 Thessalonians 5:9

2 Thessalonians 1:1

2 Thessalonians 1:2

2 Thessalonians 1:12

2 Thessalonians 2:16

1 Timothy 1:1

1 Timothy 1:2

1 Timothy 2:5

1 Timothy 5:21

1 Timothy 6:3

2 Timothy 1:1

2 Timothy 1:2

2 Timothy 4:1

Titus 1:4

Titus 2:13

Philemon 1:3

Hebrews 13:20

James 1:1

1 Peter 1:2

1 Peter 2:5

2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 1:2

1 John 5:1*

1 John 5:20

2 John 1:3

Jude 1:1

Jude 1:4

Jude 1:21

Jude 1:25

Revelation 1:1

Revelation 1:2

Revelation 14:12

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-04.htm - http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-04.htm

Part 04(True meaning of the word "God")

I think that it is important at this stage that I point out a fact that is quite often overlooked today.
The word "God", in the Old and New Testament are translated from many different words and each original Hebrew or Greek word for God have a wide range of uses.

Theos {theh'-os} is by far the most common Greek word that we translate as God or god. Below are the possible meanings of the word 'theos'.

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God's representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judges

So the Father is God because of his authority. However God the author also sends messengers with his authority, so when our Father anoints someone to speak His words, that person is given the title god whether he be an angel or a man. In addition, someone or something that takes takes the place of God is also called a god, a false god.

So looks look at some biblical verses that apply the word God (Theos) to denote different personalities.

Below we see a verse where the word 'theos' is used when referring to the Father.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Eph+1:3&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Ephesians 1:3 (English-NIV)
Praise be to the God (theos) and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

Now you will see a verse where the Greek word 'theos' is used to describe Jesus.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=John+20:28-29&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - John 20:28-29 (English-NIV)  
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God! (theos)"
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

The word 'theos' in the next verse is used to describe Satan as he is the author of this world/age.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=2Corinthians+4:4&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - 2 Corinthians 4:4 (English-NIV)
The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (theos).

The word (theos) is also used to describe Man see below.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=John+10:34&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - John 10:34 (English-NIV)
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and again we see that the word "God" can apply to our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Angelic & Demonic powers, idols and mankind. 

The NIV & NASB translate the following 3 words as God "el" "eloah" & "elohim"
Each is a generic term, meaning "God" or "mighty one".
Normally when one of these words occur in the OT, it designates either the true God or something that the pagan nations viewed as a god. In only a few instances are these words used of angels or human beings.

Below is a scripture that shows that the Father is God.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Malachi+2:10&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Malachi 2:10 (English-NIV)
Have we not all one Father ? Did not one God (El) create us?
Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?

Next I will show you a verse where the Hebrew word "eloah" is used to describe Jesus.
We will be looking at this scripture in more depth in Part 5 (Scriptures that are used to support the Trinity doctrine).

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Isaiah+9:6&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Isaiah 9:6 (English-NIV)
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God (El), Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Next we can see that the word god is used to denote idols.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Ex+20:23&search=&showxref=&showfn= - Exodus 20:23 (English-NIV)
Do not make any gods (Elohim) to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods (Elohim) of silver or gods (Elohim) of gold.

The word "Elohim" is the most common word that is translated God in the Old Testament.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Genesis+1:1&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Genesis 1:1 (English-NIV) says:
In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth.

"Elohim" is also used to describe Man. See next the verse.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Psalm+82:6&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Psalms 82:6 (English-NIV)
"I said, `You are "gods" (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'

Even angels are called gods in Psalm 97:7. This verse is actually quoted in the http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB%2B1:6&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Hebrews 1:6 and it is referring to the Angels.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PS%2B97:7&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Psalm 97:7
All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols; worship him, all you gods (Elohim)!

These scriptures show us that the word God is actually a term and is not always used to describe the Most High God, rather it is a term that can apply to many types of authority. I think that it is very important that we read each verse in its correct context e.g. The Most High God is completely different to the god of this age. In other words the type of God that is being referred to is determined by the adjective or context of the sentence. It is incorrect to read the word 'God' as the Most High God in every case. In fact the very term 'Most High God' leads us to conclude that there must be lesser gods.

We know that the word 'Elohim' is a term and not a name, but does God have a name? Yes he does, his name is YHWH which is called the "tetragrammaton," meaning "the four letters," and it is the revealed personal name of God, which scholars translate as Yahweh, Jehovah, Yahvah amongst others. Now there is no such letter in Hebrew to make the sound of a �J�. and many Hebrew names contain an emphasis on *Yah*, including Jesus who's name is actually 'Yahshua' in sound. But the translation Yahweh is not actually a translation of the tetragrammaton, it is a transliteration meaning the sounds of those original Hebrew letters have been reproduced into another language. Names should never really be translated from one language to another. They should always be transliterated as are most Biblical names. For example, Abraham in Hebrew is pronounced Abrawhawm; Sarah is pronounced Sawraw. Today if President Bush goes to Germany they will pronounce his name George Bush, they won't change it into a German word. So the name of Yahweh should be pronounced exactly the same in all languages.

God first reveals his name in http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+3:15&version=KJV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Exodus.3:15 and http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PS+135:13&version=KJV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Psalm 135:13
And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

God's response to Moses, lets those that have understanding, that 'God' is not a name, but a title and as I have already shown, this particular title can refer to others including man, angel and false gods. Therefore when we read the word God in the bible, it is important to consider the context in which it is written.

Now YHWH declares in http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PS+2:7&version=KJV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Psalm 2:7 the following:

"I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Therefore YHWH (God) is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is not YHWH. Jesus is the Son of YHWH, otherwise known as the Son of God.

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-03.htm - http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-03.htm

Part 03 (Who is Jesus?)

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Matthew+3:17+&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Matthew 3:17 (English-NIV)
"And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased"

If the Father is God, then who is Jesus and where did he come from ?
Again the scriptures are very clear with the identity of Jesus.
Jesus asked this very question himself to Peter and Jesus commended Peter for his answer, in fact Jesus built his Church on this Truth and it is a pillar of the foundation that was laid by Jesus and the Apostles. To preach that Jesus is not the the Son of God and the Christ is to preach another gospel.

In http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+16:13-17&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Matthew 16:13-17 (English-NIV) it says
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Notice that Peter didn't say to Jesus, "You are God".
If Jesus were God then this would have been the perfect opportunity to declare that.
Many people today given this opportunity would probably declare that Jesus is God. So why didn't Peter just say that Jesus was God as most who believe in the Trinity would have. Because this revelation didn't come from man, but from the Father. Also the Father himself not only revealed this truth to Peter, but God our Father also declared this truth to James and John and Peter again with Elijah and Moses as witnesses in the following scripture:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+9:7&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Mark 9:7 (English-NIV)
Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"

So who are we to argue or change this truth?
See also http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+17:5&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Matthew 17:5 for a parallel account and http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2PET+1:17&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - 2 Peter 1:17 as confirmation

It is also interesting to note that the demons never referred to Jesus as God. They referred to him as the Son of God. See http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Matthew+8:29&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Matthew 8:29 (English-NIV)
"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE%2B4:41&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Luke 4:41 (English-NIV)
Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.

Even Satan didn't refer to Jesus as God but rather the Son of God.

See http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Matthew+4:3-6&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Matthew 4:3-6 (English-NIV)
3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4 Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.
6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "`He will command his angels
concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Philippians+2:8-11+English+NIV&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Philippians 2:8-11 (English-NIV) Shows us that eventually everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. This is the correct confession. If everyone will eventually confess this truth, then why not start now. To declare that Jesus Christ is God is a different confession and shows a lack of understanding about who Jesus really is.

8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death,  even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Many today do not understand that Lord and God are 2 different words. Just as Pharaoh was the true ruler of Egypt, he gave his authority to Joseph who was Lord over all the Pharaoh's kingdom. It must also be noted that Lord and LORD are 2 different words. The Father is LORD and Jesus is Lord. Translators capitalize the name of God as LORD which causes this confusion. So Jesus being Lord is not the same as LORD in the OT. Lord in the Old Testament comes from the name of God, YHWH. That is also why it is written that the Father is the one true God and Jesus is the Lord.

To say that Jesus is the LORD is to say that he is the one true God (YHWH) and it is not correct and nor is it taught in scripture. When referring to Jesus, he is Lord and we know that there are many lords. Landlords, warlords, lords over kingdoms etc. But God made Jesus Lord over all that is his (God's).

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS%2B2:36&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Acts 2:36 (English NIV)
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS%2B10:36&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Acts 10:36 (English NIV)
You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

Now the following 7 scriptures reveal Jesus true identity.
These scripture do not mention a Trinity or even hint at such a thought.
If you want to believe in the real Jesus, then believe these next scriptures, and know that they were inspired by God himself. Trust in the scriptures and not the cleverly devised doctrines of man.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=colossians+1:12-16+&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Colossians 1:12-16 (English-NIV)
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Hebrews+1:1-6+&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Hebrews 1:1-6 (English-NIV)
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father" Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Revelation+1:4-6&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Revelation 1:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Fatherhood him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=John+1:1&search=&showxref=&showfn= - John 1:1 (English-NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Ephesians+1:22&matchno=50 - Ephesians 1:22
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+3:14&matchno=2 - Revelation 3:14 (English-KJV)
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

http://www.heaven.net.nz/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=John+1:3+&search=&showxref=&showfn= - John 1:3 (English-NIV)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

These  7 passages of scripture show us the following:

The Trinity doctrine would have us believe that the Father Son and Holy Spirit have always existed for all eternity together, when in actual fact it is God the Father who has existed for all eternity. Jesus came from the Father and all of creation came from Jesus including Man and just to take this one step further, woman came from the Man.
The Father is the one who is from everlasting to everlasting see the following scripture:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=Revelation+1:4-6&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Revelation 1:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,

Here we can see that Jesus is the Author of Life, yet it was God that raised him from the dead. So we cannot say as many do that Jesus is God because creation came from him. Rather we have to understand that http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=COL%2B1:16&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - God created all things though his Word , who is Christ.

Please do not pass over this without understanding it. It is important.

Worshipping Jesus is scriptural and actually doesn't contradict the above scriptures. Why? Because we do not worship Jesus as God, rather the Son of God and the Lamb of God.

Now the scripture you have just read points out 2 things. First, that Jesus came from Heaven, so he must have existed before his birth as a man, and secondly that he has his own will and he chose to align his will with God's will.

The next scriptures also show us that Christ existed before he came to earth.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+1:15&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - John 1:15
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "

We know from scripture that John the Baptist was 6 months older than Jesus Christ. So it is physically impossible for Christ to be before him. This verse shows a pre-existance.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JUDE+1:25&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

This verse is either saying that glory, majesty, power... before all ages or it is saying the same thing but through Jesus Christ before all ages. Most translations favour the second option, but some do not mention the 'through Jesus Christ' part such as the King Kames version.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+10:1-4&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - 1Corinthians 10:1-4
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

So it appears that Christ accompanied Moses and the Jews when they left Egypt.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=COL+1:15-17&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Colossians 1:15-17
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+1:1-2&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Hebrews 1:1-2
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

So God created all things were created through Christ. Surely this suggests that he must have existed before all things in order for God to create all things through him.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+17:5&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

So Jesus had glory before the world began.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+1:1&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.

This verse mentions God as a person, except for the last word 'god' which is talking about the nature of God. i.e In the beginning was the Divinity and the Word was with the Divinity and the word was divine. The verse says that the Word existed with God as another person and he had the nature of that God. For more information about this, visit the following page:
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-05.htm#john1 - http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/Trinity-5.htm#john1

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+10:18&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Luke 10:18
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Compare Luke 10:18 with http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+12:1-10&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Revelation 12:1-10 and it appears that Satan and his angels fell to the earth before the birth of Christ as a man.

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

The last verse says I am, which means I exist or I existed.

Finally to conclude this part of the study, I want to point out a very interesting scripture from the Book of Proverbs. The verse is http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PROV+8:22-30&version=NIV&language=english&showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print - Proverbs 8:22-30 (English-NIV)  and it talks about the concept of wisdom, then to wisdom himself:

Even today we refer to objects or concepts as 'she'. We call boats, cars, wars, etc., 'she'. E.g., "She was a bad war alright". "She can drive fast enough." "She was a powerful storm." But if I said "he can drive fast enough", then most would assume I was talking about a person and not the car.

But if wisdom in God was the first to be begotten (brought forth) then who was really first to be begotten? Was it wisdom or the son? Or are they one in the same? For God created all things with wisdom and would it be incorrect to call Jesus 'Wisdom'. If God created all things in truth, would it be incorrect to call Christ the 'Truth'. If God who is the originator of all life gave that life to his son, then could we not say that Jesus is the 'Life'. It appears that he is all those concepts or attributes of God, but personified. After all God created all creation through Christ and so would it not be befitting for Christ to be the personification of all those attributes of God.

Remember these two points:

• That the fullness of God's nature dwells in Christ and Christ is a person. So if he reflects the fullness of God, then would it not be fair to say that Christ is all the attributes of God in person. He is God's image.
• That Christ is between God and creation. He is the part or person where creation interfaces with God and God interfaces with creation. He is the only mediator for us. If God created all things through his wisdom, then he did it through Christ.
  

• truth
• life
• light
• peace
• word
• wisdom?

If we go back to Proverbs 8:22-30 and look at John 1:1, we see the following similarities.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=NIV&passage=colossians+1:15-16+&search=&showxref=yep&showfn=yep&interface=print - Colossians 1:15-16 (English-NIV)  
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Compare with "Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,". Proverbs 8:30

Wow, Angel, I just have to say WoW!

I'm going to have to really read this on Sunday when I have hte time and respond to you. 

Is it okay if I also use my own beliefs?  Or do you not even want those in the equation?

If those who believe Jesus is God, then bring your support

even thou I don't follow Christianity I have never believed that Jesus is God. Jesus showed us the way by communicating God's words, taught the word of God (the word became flesh) and showed the way, God's way - God's nature/God's will/Holy Spirit. This doesn't violate monotheism. The belief in One God.

In the trinity this is what I believe would be the most closest and my own understanding:

Father - the word - thoughts/concepts/instruction, coming from God.

Son - Jesus - the word becomes flesh, Jesus acts out 'the word', speaks the words of God, and demostrates how to live the way of truth. Still coming from God but Jesus is "no way" God nor like God, he simple provided the instructions from God. Jesus being the intermidary. 

Holy Spirit - (according to religious theology there is 2 natures/wills - our self nature and God's) God's will or God's nature, which ever one you want to use, now Jesus instead of acting out his nature, he acted out God's nature. And since this nature is of God, it is I believe considered Divine / Divinity and anything coming from and/or pertaining from God is of Divine nature which is considered Holy. 

This, my view doesn't show Jesus to be God - our Creator.    

Angela wrote: Wow, Angel, I just have to say WoW! I'm going to have to really read this on Sunday when I have hte time and respond to you.

Is it okay if I also use my own beliefs?  Or do you not even want those in the equation?

ummmm  

Yep of course you can  I did ask those who kept saying that Jesus is God to explain, show support for it

Since I just put my opinion / view of why Jesus is NOt God  

p.s: everyone: my quota of 10 percent copying is done   

oh and I won't be around for the weekend.

Well, there ya go, I would actually be arguing in support of you.  Since we don't believe Elohim and Jesus are the same.

Angel,

All my life I have known that Catholic don't believe that Jesus is God, despite the "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

Catholics believe that the Word of God incarnated Jesus.  They believe that he is 100% human and 100% divine.  They believe that God is the Father and the Word (son) and the Holy Spirit--all God--in three "persons"  -- the same divine substance.

What religion are you?

Your post is too long, my dear.  I'll try to have something for you to think about sometime next week.

Angela wrote: Well, there ya go, I would actually be arguing in support of you.  Since we don't believe Elohim and Jesus are the same.

Who is "we" Angela?  The "same" what?

We are Mormons.  We are not traditional Christians and do not subscribe to the Trinity, thus Elohim and Jesus are not the same person or essense.  They are only one in purpose, not one being.

But, since Angel's posts are lengthy and I need my KJV bible next to me, I have to wait till Sunday when I'll be home after Church.

Angela,

Is this the official Mormon site?

http://www.lds.org/ - http://www.lds.org/

Basic beliefs:

http://www.mormon.org/ - http://www.mormon.org/

It is good that you said that Mormons were not traditional Christians because of what I read on this sites is true, then the Mormons do not represent the majority of Christian beliefs.

There are about 2.1 billion Christians and the Mormons represent about 12 million of the total.

I don't know much about the Mormons other than the founder's name and a few other things.

Angel,

I went over some of your post and I'm am very sorry but it is too long and there are so many "inaccuracies" in it that it would take me forever to respond to them all.

I can give you a couple of websites to look over if you wish.

Jesus is God

http://web.archive.org/web/20021206035950/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ98.HTM - http://web.archive.org/web/20021206035950/ic.net/~erasmus/RA Z98.HTM

Trinity

http://web.archive.org/web/20040217141524/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ99.HTM - http://web.archive.org/web/20040217141524/ic.net/~erasmus/RA Z99.HTM

Good luck.

Angel,

That was a huge effort and looking at all the stuff that people wrote and you quoted, everyone including even the Christians should be able to say that Jesus is not God.

To understand God in all Majesty, Glory and Truth, it would be better to read and quote from the chapter of Isaiah in the Jewish Bible or the OT.

Some pearls from Isaiah:

42:8 "I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or praise to idols."

43:10-12 "Before me no god was formed, nor willl there be one after me. "I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is no saviour. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed- I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the Lord, "that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?"

44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

44:8 "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." 

After reading all of above, Jesus is not God at all.

BMZ

After reading, Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.", one would like to know from whom and where did, "I am the Alpha and I am the Omega" come from?

Looks like some "inspired" writer copied it from Isaiah!

BMZ

Servetus wrote: �Jesus is God (or not)� I think, according to the Catholic, or what is the same thing, �universal� (Trinitarian) credo, it is most accurate to say that Jesus is �God, the Son.� Servetus

Interesting and in addition to that Fred mentions another Catholic belief that Mary is the "mother of God." I guess believing in God doesn't have to make sense.

bmzsp wrote: Angel, That was a huge effort and looking at all the stuff that people wrote and you quoted, everyone including even the Christians should be able to say that Jesus is not God. To understand God in all Majesty, Glory and Truth, it would be better to read and quote from the chapter of Isaiah in the Jewish Bible or the OT. Some pearls from Isaiah: 42:8 "I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or praise to idols." 43:10-12 "Before me no god was formed, nor willl there be one after me. "I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is no saviour. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed- I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the Lord, "that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." 44:8 "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."  After reading all of above, Jesus is not God at all. BMZ

BMZ, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.  It seems to me that you don't understand what Christians are trying to tell you.  Another F on your report card.

The Jews understand the concept but don't believe it happened with Jesus, but at least they understand the concept.

Angel,

Maybe the following information will help you understand about the Word of God becoming flesh in Jesus.  I hope so.

The Self-Understanding of Jesus (Gospel of John)

Source:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03c.html - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03c.html

Passages in John, in which Jesus is the speaker, relating to His deity:

Jn 3.13: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the Son of Man.--Notice: a statement of pre-existence (in heaven), and uniqueness in terms of having 'gone into heaven'. ("has ever gone" is in the perfect tense, and probably denotes some sense like "no one has ever taken up permanent dwelling in heaven").

Jn 3.15: that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.--This is just the first of SCORES of verses that demonstrate that Jesus was aware that He was BOTH appropriate as the object of religious trust AND sufficient to produce salvation!

(The deity-rich text of 3.16-21 is uncertain as to who its speaker is--Jesus or John. I will treat it under 'responses of His followers' for the sake of caution.)

Jn 4.10: Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."--Notice: Jesus is able to give 'living water' (elsewhere identified as the Holy Spirit--7.37-39).

Jn 4.25-26: The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." 26 Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."--Notice: explicit claim to be the Messiah.

Jn 5.17ff: Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 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.--Notice several things about this important passage: (1) Jesus claim to be the Son is understood by the audience as blasphemy--a claim to deity!; (2) Jesus response is NOT to say 'hey, but I am using sonship DIFFERENTLY than that-i am NOT claiming to be God'--instead He simply continues describing the incredible unity between Himself and the Father (the Father's works are the Son's works, the Son knows EVERYTHING the Father does, Son gives life JUST LIKE THE FATHER DOES, Father entrusts ALL judgment to the Son, the Son is supposed to be honored 'just as' the Father is honored(!), dishonoring the Son is tantamount to dishonoring the Father). These are INCREDIBLY EXORBITANT claims (for a 'mere creature'!). The Father and Son are co-extensive in work and honor.

Jn 5.39: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,--Another clear claim to be the OT messiah.

Jn 5.40: yet you refuse to come to me to have life. --Notice: Jesus claims here to be the 'giver of life'! That he has authority/power to grant life.

Jn 6.33: For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."--Jesus claims here to have 'come down from heaven'. A very clear pre-existence reference, involving heaven.

Jn 6.38: For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.--Notice: another VERY clear reference to Jesus' pre-existence in heaven.

Jn 6.46: No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.--This is an unusually strong statement. No one has seen the invisible Father, except the Son who is 'from God'. A very strong claim to uniqueness, exclusivity, and intimacy with the Father.

Jn 6.62: What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!--Another strong statement of exalted pre-existence.

Jn 7.28-29: Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me."--Notice: this statement again highlights the uniqueness of Jesus relationship with the Father--HE ALONE knows the Father, because He is FROM HIM.

Jn 8.23: But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.--Another strong statement of Jesus pre-existence, heavenly source, and mission from heaven. He is not just another religious leader 'from below'!

Jn 8.29: The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."--Could a mere man "ALWAYS do what pleases the Father?!"

Jn 8.36: So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.--The Son dispenses freedom!

Jn 8.38: I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence,--Notice: Jesus actually claims to have SEEN the Father, not just to have HEARD the Father.

Jn 8.42: Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.--Again, clear statement of pre-existence with God, and mission to earth on the Father's request.

Jn 8.46:Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?--Would a normal human being, with ethical sensibilities and standards as high as Jesus, EVER implicitly claim to be sinless?!

Jn 8.50 with 8.54b: I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge and My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.--Notice, the Father (who uttered Is 42.8--"I will NOT give my glory to another") is here seeking to glorify Jesus the Son!

Jn 8.58-59: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him--Notice: This statement actually goes beyond pre-existence--it is an explicit claim to be YHWH. The "I am" phrase is how the OT LXX translators render the Hebrew "I AM" of Ex 3.14. This "I am" statement (which also occurs in vv. 24, 28 of this chapter!) of Jesus is immediately understood by the natives, who pick up stones to execute the proper sentence for blasphemy (Lev 24.16).

Jn 9.35-38: Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36 "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshipped him.--Notice: In this passage Jesus affirms himself as BOTH a legitimate object of religious faith AND as a legitimate object of WORSHIP! (No rebuke is given to the man at all for worshipping Jesus--even in the presence of the Pharisees!)

Jn 10.17ff: The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life -- only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.--This incredible passage has Jesus affirming that He can 'raise Himself from the dead'! Could a mere creature have the ability to do that?!

Jn 10.30-39: I and the Father are one." 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came -- and the Scripture cannot be broken -- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand th at the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.This passage is so very clear as to the intent and content of Jesus' claims--they were explicitly claims to being God! His affirmation of unity (30) is understood immediately as being a claim to deity (33). Jesus defends his affirmation with a technical argument in Rabbinic style ("qal wahomer": http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#BEAP - BEAP: 69). The general argument type is like this: "If it is okay to use the term X in a limited sense on Y, then it is certainly okay to use it in an expanded sense on a Z that is so much more than Y". In this passage, He thus argues that if it was okay in the psalms to call the Israelite leaders 'elohim' once, then it was CERTAINLY appropriate to call the pre-existent One, special of the Father, perfect image of the Father's character and actions, "GOD". And, once again, they understand that claim to REAL deity and try to seize him! His claims were quite clear in those days--He was claiming to be fully GOD.

Jn 11.4: When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."--Notice, this event couples "Gods glory" with the "glorification of God's SON"! The two are somehow identical.

Jn 13.32: If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself--Note: God the Father will glorify God the Son.

Jn 14.9: Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.--These are statements of extreme unity--they boggle the mind in the metaphysics, of course, but their import as to the deity of Jesus and the unity with the Father are quite clear.

Jn 14.28: If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.--Although this statement seems obvious to us on the surface, a moments reflection will surface just how preposterous it is--IF JESUS is merely a human! So Bickersteth: "How could a mere man, without absurd presumption, solemnly announce that God the Father was greater than he?"!

Jn 15.5: "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.--Note: this is another passage that makes NO sense without a divine Jesus. How could the phrase 'apart from me you can do nothing' make any sense--IF Jesus were not God--omnipotent, omnipresent deity?

Jn 15.9: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.--Jesus loves AS THE FATHER loves!--a conjunction of comparison ("kathos"--BAG s.v.).

Jn 15.23: He who hates me hates my Father as well.--This is another passage that is preposterous if Jesus is not 'identical' in both character and action with God the Father!

Jn 15.26: "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.--Jesus will SEND the Holy Spirit, which will testify about Jesus. This ONLY makes sense if Jesus is on a parity with the Father and the Spirit.

Jn 16.7: But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.--Note: Jesus will SEND the Spirit, but the Spirit will not come to earth UNLESS Jesus leaves. The Spirit of God 'dependent on' the acts of a 'mere creature'?!

Jn 16.28: I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."--A clear statement of the pre-existent, heavenly-origin of Jesus.

Jn 17.2: For you granted him authority over all people--He has authority over EVERYONE.

Jn 17.5: And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.--Before the world began, the Son had glory in the presence of the Father! An exalted claim above all claims!

Jn 17.10: All I have is yours, and all you have is mine.--Unless the Son is truly God, this statement is utterly ridiculous! "All that God has" vs. "all that a creature has"--NOT a fair swap!

Jn 20.17: Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"--This is one of the strangest passages in scripture, with an odd construction. Why does Jesus differentiate between HIS sonship and the sonship of His followers? Probably since His Sonship is totally unique. Craig ( http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#RF - RF: 245) points out "And notice that although Jesus may have taught his disciples to pray to God as 'Abba,' he never joined them in praying 'Our Father...' On the contrary, he always referred to God as 'My Father'. This distinction leads to an odd circumlocution like John 20.12...Jesus prayer life thus shows that he thought of himself as God's Son in a unique sense that set him apart from the rest of the disciples."

Summary: The claims of Jesus in the Gospel of John:

1.      To be a permanent dweller in heaven

2.      To have come to earth from heaven

3.      To have a unique relationship with the Father (in many ways)

4.      To be appropriate as on object of religious faith

5.      To be a 'giver' of the Holy Spirit

6.      To be the promised Messiah

7.      To be the Son of God (considered blasphemous)

8.      To be equal with God (considered blasphemous)

9.      To know everything the Father does

10.  To give 'life'

11.  To have been entrusted with ALL JUDGMENT from the Father(!)

12.  To be worthy of honor LIKE THE FATHER

13.  To have been sent from the Father

14.  To be the ONLY one who has seen the invisible Father

15.  To know the Father uniquely

16.  To always please the Father with His life

17.  To give 'freedom'

18.  To be blameless in regards to sin

19.  To be the object of glorification by the Father

20.  To be able to use the divine Name YHWH as a personal identification(considered blasphemous)

21.  To be an appropriate object of worship

22.  To be able to raise Himself from the dead(!)

23.  To be one with the Father (considered blasphemous)

24.  To be an appropriate object of the word "GOD"

25.  To be so different from created reality that the sentence 'the Father is greater than I' was not ludicrous!

26.  To be able to exert power throughout the world simultaneously

27.  To be absolutely necessary to the success of his human followers

28.  To be so 'one' with the Father that ANY response to one of them, was "AUTOMATICALLY" a response to the other as well

29.  To be equal partners with the Father and the Spirit, and to 'send' the Spirit

30.  To have authority over EVERYONE

31.  To have had glory in the presence of the Father before the world began

32.  To "co-own" the universe with the Father(!)

33.  To have a unique Sonship with the Father

Conclusion: The Gospel of John, like the synoptic gospels, shows us that Jesus understood Himself to be divine, to have an exclusive relationship with the Father, to have been the promised Messiah, to have all authority in heaven and earth, to be related in parity-status with the Spirit and Father, and to be the central issue in the personal destinies of people.

But the words of Jesus in John also develop some themes a bit further. Jesus (in John) draws considerably more attention to His glorious and unique pre-creation state in heaven, with the Father. The complex relationships between the Father and Son (and Spirit) are focused on. And the mutuality of their work in the drama of redemption is recorded faithfully.

If it is fair to say that the Synoptics teach the deity of the Son, then it is probably equally accurate to say that the Gospel of John emphasizes the divine unity of the Father and Son. 

For you:

Angel,

In addition to my last post, please consider the following:

NT Passages mutually involving the Father, Son, and Spirit (Raw Data)

Can be found here:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03a2.html - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03a2.html

The Self-Understanding of Jesus (Synoptics)

Can be found here:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03b.html - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03b.html

Responses to Jesus in the Gospels

Can be found here:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03d.html - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03d.html

I know it is a lot to read, but I sincerely think it might help your understanding.

George,

From you: "The Jews understand the concept but don't believe it happened with Jesus, but at least they understand the concept."

No! George, The Jews don't believe at all in the concept. Trinity or Jesus being a God is not acceptable to Jews.

Have you read this before. I post below courtesy askmoses.com and hope you will pay attention to the views of Jews. Here it is:

Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus

1. Scriptural References

   In order to understand anything in the Torah one must look at the original Hebrew. You will see that the Christians distorted, changed and misinterpreted many of the Hebrew words in order to fit things into their beliefs. The two places that you mentioned are good examples. In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".

   In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah". Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus!

2. Genealogy

   He was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father's side, being Jewish, from the mother's side. According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David (Although there are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in Luke, however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of King David.

   Three answers to this problem are given in classic Christian sources:

   1. The genealogy is that of Mary - This is inadequate, since if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and according to Jewish tradition he must be descended on his father's side, Mary's genealogy is irrelevant.

   2. He was adopted by Joseph -According to Jewish law, adoption does not change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen, (A descendant of Aaron the High Priest), the child does not become a Cohen, likewise if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he does not become of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.

   3. It doesn't matter, he was a spiritual inheritor of King David - If it doesn't matter, why do Christian scriptures spend time establishing his genealogical pedigree? And if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah, then according to Jewish tradition it does matter!

3. Messianic Predictions

   The main predictions concerning the Messiah are that he will bring peace to the world, gather the Jewish people from their exile to the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by followers of Jesus) These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah.

   The main Christian responses to these objections are:

   1. The Second Coming - First of all, we find this to be a contrived answer, since there is no mention of a second coming in the Jewish Bible. Second, why couldn't G-d accomplish His goals the first time round. Most importantly, the second coming idea is just an attempt at answering an obvious question but it certainly does not constitute proof of messianic claims.

   2. There is peace within his followers hearts - That is wonderful for them, but does that help the victims of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, the First World War, the Second World War etc. In each of the events that I mentioned most if not all the combatants, the violent oppressors and torturers where people who claimed to be followers of Jesus. And is peace in the heart a fulfillment of "swords into plowshares etc."

4. Messiah's Qualifications

   Messiah is a prophet, a scholar and a pious king. Jesus made a prediction that "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1:15) That was 2000 years ago, has the kingdom of God come? Do you call the holocaust, Pol Pot and Stalin a world in which the kingdom of God has come? Jesus was not a great scholar - one of the requirements of the Messiah. Was Jesus a king? He was not anointed as king by a prophet (as was the rule in Jewish kings), he was not appointed by any judicial body as a leader and he did not rule over the Jewish people nor was he accepted by them. He was arrested, tortured and killed by the Romans like a common criminal. He had no army or government. The answer to my question is an obvious, "no."

   JESUS - NOT A DEITY

   1. The Trinity

      The Christian idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism - that G-d is One. Jews have declared their belief in a single unified G-d twice daily ever since the giving of the Torah at Sinai - almost two thousand years before Christianity.

      The trinity suggests a three part deity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).

      In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.

   2. Physical Manifestation

      Christianity believes that G-d came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

      The Torah states that G-d cannot not take any form.:

      "You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)

      "You did not see any form on the day G-d spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of fire" (Deuteronomy 4:15)

      As little as we may know about G-d's nature, Judaism has always believed that G-d is Incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. G-d is Eternal, He is Infinite; above time and beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die.

   CHANGES TO THE LAW

   Christianity denies the eternal relevance of Torah Law, basing the concept of the New Testament on a mistranslation of a verse in Jeremia.

   In Jeremia 31:30 the Hebrew states: "Henei yamim baim Neum Hashem VeCharati Brit Chadash" They translate: "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new Testament with the house of Israel "

   "Brit" does not mean Testament. Throughout Scripture "Brit" means covenant. See for example Genesis 17:2, 15:18 Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 26:42, Numbers 25:12.

   It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah received at Sinai will never be changed nor become obsolete. This concept is mentioned in the Torah no less than 24 times, with the words:

   "This is an eternal law for all generations"

   (Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28)

   It is absurd to accept the Divine origin of the Torah yet deny it's eternal relevance. Judaism is a religion of action; it has always taught that through performance of the commandments one declares the belief of the heart. To dispense with the legal body of the Torah and reduce it to a book of morals would cut it down to less than half it's size. Can this really be the meaning of those words an eternal law for all generations?

   Recommended Reading

   For a lengthier discussion on this subject I suggest the books, "The Real Messiah," by Aryeh Kaplan, "Faith Strengthened" by Isaac Troki, "You Take Jesus, I'll Take God"and http://www.drazin.com/ - "Their Hollow Inheritance" by Michoel Drazin. (available at Jewish bookstores everywhere)

   ---

   � 2000 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved. This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample issue.
   

   ---

   http://www.ohr.edu/web/sub.htm -

   This publication is available via E-Mail

   ---

   http://www.ohr.edu/ -

   Ohr Somayach Institutions is an http://www.ohr.edu/web/branches.htm - international network of Yeshivot and outreach centers, with branches in North America, Europe, South Africa and South America. The Central Campus in Jerusalem provides a full range of educational services for over 685 full-time students.

   The http://www.ohr.edu/web/jle/ - Jewish Learning Exchange (JLE) of Ohr Somayach offers summer and winter programs in Israel that attract hundreds of university students from around the world for 3 to 8 weeks of study and touring.

   The Ohr Somayach Home Page is hosted by TeamGenesis
   

   ---

   Copyright � 2000 http://www.ohr.edu/ - Ohr Somayach International . Send us http://ohr.edu/web/feedback.htm - feedback
   Dedication opportunities are available for Ask The Rabbi. Please contact us for details.

BMZ:

From me: "The Jews understand the concept but don't believe it happened with Jesus, but at least they understand the concept."

From you: No! George, The Jews don't believe at all in the concept. Trinity or Jesus being a God is not acceptable to Jews.

I did not say that they believed the concept. I said they understood the concept.  See the difference?  See:

http://www.menorah.org/trinity1.html - http://www.menorah.org/trinity1.html http://www.menorah.org/trinity1.htm -

If the Jews didn't understand the concept and think that it fit into Jewish theology, then how do you explain that so many Jews have become Christians?  Messanic Jews.  I also read what they have to say.

Have you read this before. I post below courtesy askmoses.com and hope you will pay attention to the views of Jews. Here it is:

I have read all of the Jewish objections against Jesus being their Messiah.  I would think under the circumstances--the importance of Jesus being the King Messiah, my Messiah and your Messiah--you would not let what the Jews think decide what you think.

fredifreeloader wrote: yes bmz - you have not answered these points about the claims Christ made for himself, either on this thread or on the other thread (emperor constantine) - well there are so many of them, perhaps the "forgery" of it all is too much for you, or perhaps you just cant face the fact that it might not be forgery

You know, Fred, I am insulted everytime a Muslim says something is "forged" in the Bible.  I think that we should take each of our Holy Books and give them credit for being an accurate depiction of the originals and base are discussions on what is being said.

We can discuss different interpretations of verses--that is fair--but if one claims forgery, I believe that they have crossed the line.  Christians could do the same with the Koran, but I don't think the Muslims here would tolerate that and they, too, would be insulted.

Crying forgery does not promote a better understanding between Muslims and Christians or Jews, for that matter.

To: fredi,

I will respond to this when I have more time on my hands. Those are all just Claims and Claims but there is no conclusive proof. The onus to prove Jesus is or was a God is not on me but it is on Christians.

Putting claims before me does not prove that Jesus was God. If he were God, all the disciples should have had a common statement, not a statement by the doubting Thomas or another.

To: George,

Please do not feel insulted. Christians do the same with Qur'aan and we have seen this mutually on other internet boards. As long as one can remain civil, it is fine to discuss. I will quote you from Christian sources about the forgeries in the Bible.

You must have read the post from Moses.com that I quoted above.

I have three major tenders to go by 2nd May 2006 and I will surely raise a hell after that.

In the mean time, forget the "Claims', they make a poor case. 

(Angel)  �Jesus is God (or not)�

(Me)  �I think, according to the Catholic, or what is the same thing, �universal� (Trinitarian) credo, it is most accurate to say that Jesus is �God, the Son.�

(Fredi)  �well, roman catholics refer officially to mary as the mother of God, therefore, according to them, Jesus is God�

It is a matter of logic or, better yet, of �alternative logical systems,� I think.  

At any rate, the fact remains that, as I understand, according to the Catholic, whether Roman or otherwise, dogma of the Trinity, it is a heresy to confuse the �Son� with the �Father.�  Those who claim that, for example, �God, the Father� died upon the cross are evidently guilty of the heresy and therefore sin of �patripassionism.�       

(Israfil)  �Interesting and in addition to that Fred mentions another Catholic belief that Mary is the "mother of God." I guess believing in God doesn't have to make sense.�

For what it is worth, I often think of {important: dogma of } the Trinity as being somewhat analogous to a Zen koan (in later Buddhist tradition).  Consider the �Master/student� dialogues and how they are intent, at times, to at once satisfy and yet defy human rationality.    

Anyway, speaking of making sense, have you ever seen this �shield of the Trinity� diagram?  Perhaps, by viewing the (attempt) to diagrammatically represent the (proposed) Trinity one might better understand my original statement above, that it is most accurate to say, according to the credo, that Jesus is �God, the Son.�

Basic "Shield of the Trinity" diagram (first click here and note text that follows):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-basic.png - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fid ei-basic.png

Servetus,

Holy Cow!

"Welcome to paradox."

I don't know how long people will be kept in that paradox.

BR

BMZ

George wrote: Catholics believe that the Word of God incarnated Jesus.  They believe that he is 100% human and 100% divine.  They believe that God is the Father and the Word (son) and the Holy Spirit--all God--in three "persons"  -- the same divine substance.

There is no problem to be both human and divine, if you ask me we all are

Yes God is the Father and the word of God, Jesus spoke the word of God and I'm not really arguing that, that does not make it that Jesus is God, How Jesus acted was of God's nature/God's will, don't we have that in ourselves as well? To become Christ like which is also to become divinely [NOT as in God our creator] (for us ordinary folks) is to follow Jesus who acted divinely from the Holy Spirit - God's will or God's nature either one.

What religion are you?

Does that really matter ??

Your post is too long, my dear.  I'll try to have something for you to think about sometime next week.

Your lost

George wrote: Angela wrote: Well, there ya go, I would actually be arguing in support of you.  Since we don't believe Elohim and Jesus are the same. Who is "we" Angela?  The "same" what?

Angela meant her and me (we) and that we both don't believe God and Jesus are the same (entity, being, person)

fredifreeloader wrote: very lengthy quotations, angel.  you posted 100 verses purporting to show that Jesus and God are different things.  perhaps you could help by going through them, to show exactly how they show this

If I do that then you will have to really really really bear with me, I'm not sure if I can thou and I believe a lot of them are explained in the website I provided which basically is similar to the way I understand it.  

George wrote: Angel, I went over some of your post and I'm am very sorry but it is too long and there are so many "inaccuracies" in it that it would take me forever to respond to them all.

inaccurancies

Inaccurancies like you believing that Jesus is God

I can give you a couple of websites to look over if you wish.   Jesus is God http://web.archive.org/web/20021206035950/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ98.HTM - http://web.archive.org/web/20021206035950/ic.net/~erasmus/RA Z98.HTM Trinity http://web.archive.org/web/20040217141524/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ99.HTM - http://web.archive.org/web/20040217141524/ic.net/~erasmus/RA Z99.HTM Good luck.

Thanks.wil have to look at it later.

bmzsp wrote: Angel, That was a huge effort and looking at all the stuff that people wrote and you quoted, everyone including even the Christians should be able to say that Jesus is not God. To understand God in all Majesty, Glory and Truth, it would be better to read and quote from the chapter of Isaiah in the Jewish Bible or the OT. Some pearls from Isaiah: 42:8 "I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or praise to idols." 43:10-12 "Before me no god was formed, nor willl there be one after me. "I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is no saviour. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed- I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the Lord, "that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." 44:8 "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."  After reading all of above, Jesus is not God at all. BMZ

Did not Jesus spoke God's words and teach it ? And Didn't Jesus speak it word for word ? Of course people are going to think Jesus is God I can see how/why people would do so.

How is Jesus going to teach and show God's words and will if he didn't actually animated God's words and will.

For example if I am speaking some of God's words from the bible or the qur'an (since qu'ran is (supposedly) God's words) am I God ? is Muhammed God since he spoke and taught God's words. Jesus spoke orally, yes, so I can see how people can think Jesus is God since the words came from his mouth.

I agree with what fredi mentioned:

bmz - none of the verses you quote from isaiah show that Jesus is not God.  what they show is that there is only one God, and so if any other "god" comes along, claiming to be something other than God, or different to God, then he/it cannot be God

-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~

have to go now but will back to respond more

George: Posted: 22 April 2006 at 12:26pm

Posted: 22 April 2006 at 12:35pm

Posted: 24 April 2006 at 10:14am

George, your post on the 22nd, Doesn't show that Jesus is God not in the verses adn not in your own words either, your words put a distinction between Jesus and God. more later.

Assalaamu waylakum:

Found a Historical Perspective on the origins of the Bible and the origin of the claim that Jesus the prophet (pbuh) was divine. Cant say I agree or disagree with what it says, but it is interesting and was written from a secular viewpoint.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm - http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Maryah wrote: Assalaamu waylakum: Found a Historical Perspective on the origins of the Bible and the origin of the claim that Jesus the prophet (pbuh) was divine. Cant say I agree or disagree with what it says, but it is interesting and was written from a secular viewpoint. http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm - http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

I did a google and asked who wrote the Koran?  Here are some sites that popped up:

http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran7.html - http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran7.html

http://bibleandquran.com/quran-word-of-god9.htm - http://bibleandquran.com/quran-word-of-god9.htm

http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html - http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html

These articles are also interesting.

BMZ,

�I don't know how long people will be kept in that paradox.�

I didn�t say parabox, mate, I said paradox .

Best regards,

Serv

Serv,

That was a good one. Thanks for responding, mate.

BR & Good Night from Singapore

Angel wrote: To those Christians who keep saying that Jesus is God, and that the Catholic's believe this, can you please bring some evidence from scriptures. Isn't it the Trinitarians that believe Jesus is God, not all christians and that the Nicene creed came from them?. All my life I have known that Catholic don't believe that Jesus is God, despite the "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". Even in the bible Jesus doesn't not claim to be God. God and Jesus are separate beings, otherwise we wouldn't be having Son of God or God's only begotten son nor would we have Jesus speaking to God. I know in the book that there is god and then there is God, there is a difference between the two. In some parts Jesus says he is god just like the rest of us, BUT it is in no way that its meant to be "God" the Almighty Father. When you put the proper meaning/use of god/God in the scriptures then you get a slightly different meaning and understanding. Some peope do miss some vital information

If Yeshua haMashiach = God...

How does God intercede between God and Mankind?  That is, how does God inter-cede, ie, come between, Himself and Mankind?  How can God come between His own Self and Man?

If God created all things through his wisdom, then he did it through Christ.

It is my understanding that Yeshua haMashiach ushered in the Messianic age.  Possibly, a more exact/precise wording would be, Yeshua haMashiach was the culmination of the Messianic times and ushered in the post-Messianic Age of Salvation.

The Crucifiction was a Passover.  Afterwards, as shown in Acts, Simon Peter led the Believers in a New Way of Living, Living out the Messianic Way of Life in Jerusalem.  That was the "Day of the New Creation" of God's Church on Earth.  That was the "Dawn of a New Era".  Everything before that time, around 35 CE, was therefore "Before the [New] Creation".  The Messiah was the "firstborn from the dead"... that is, before the Crucifiction and Resurrection, all the world was bound in the death-chains of Sin.  As of Easter, the Messiah punched a hole in the Snake's prison walls, and was the Spearhead of Salvation, the Vanguard of Freedom into Life through Christ.

It is my understanding that this "Second Creation", this burgeoning Resurrection through Christ, should not be confused with the "First Creation" by Almighty God in Genesis 1-2.

I am willing to argue these scripturally, but my inet is about to cut out.

Bismarck,

The Truth from you:

"The Crucifiction was a Passover." I agree with that wholeheartedly.  

I would like to re-write, "Afterwards, as shown in Acts, Simon Peter led the Believers in a New Way of Living, Living out the Messianic Way of Life in Jerusalem." by adding a small comment within.

"Afterwards, as shown in Acts, Simon Peter, the one who had clearly disowned Jesus three times openly, led the Believers in a New Way of Living, Living out the Messianic Way of Life in Jerusalem, which was futher made newer by Paul, the giant."

"It is my understanding that this "Second Creation", this burgeoning Resurrection through Christ, should not be confused with the "First Creation" by Almighty God in Genesis 1-2."

Adam still retains the First Spot.  Nothing changes that because if Adam were not created then David would not have been born!

Best Regards

BMZ

bmzsp wrote: Bismarck, The Truth from you: "The Crucifiction was a Passover." I agree with that wholeheartedly.   I would like to re-write, "Afterwards, as shown in Acts, Simon Peter led the Believers in a New Way of Living, Living out the Messianic Way of Life in Jerusalem." by adding a small comment within. "Afterwards, as shown in Acts, Simon Peter, the one who had clearly disowned Jesus three times openly, led the Believers in a New Way of Living, Living out the Messianic Way of Life in Jerusalem, which was futher made newer by Paul, the giant." "It is my understanding that this "Second Creation", this burgeoning Resurrection through Christ, should not be confused with the "First Creation" by Almighty God in Genesis 1-2." Adam still retains the First Spot.  Nothing changes that because if Adam were not created then David would not have been born! Best Regards BMZ

You are probably right.  Guess this is why Allah asked the angels to bow down to his first created man.

Can all of us come back to the topic, "Jesus is God (or not)?

My conclusion is that he was NOT? Had he been one, it would have been  a success story as he would have not have run into untold troubles and miseries inflicted upon him by the Jews. He would have become the "King Messiah", but in fact he did not.

Agreed? 

Zulqarnain, No this will not close, I for one started this and I am still involved despite me not being able to be here for some days  I am not finish I have replies to do

For the rest of the participants here, Sorry for not being able to be here but I haven't forgotten and look forward to getting back soon 

George I printed out the article from that guy and read it on the train to work but there is something that is in error I believe.

bismarck wrote:   "the Crucifiction was a Passover" - your sly, antichrist insinuation has not escaped me, bismarck.  let us put it properly thus - "the crucifixion was a passover" - and so it was.  it was the passover to end all passovers, the sacrificial lamb being none other than the Lamb of God

bmzsp wrote: Can all of us come back to the topic, "Jesus is God (or not)? My conclusion is that he was NOT? Had he been one, it would have been  a success story as he would have not have run into untold troubles and miseries inflicted upon him by the Jews. He would have become the "King Messiah", but in fact he did not. Agreed?

Jesus' story was a success story and Jesus was the King Messiah.  God vindicated all of his claims.  The was the Victory of God.

BMZ = you are leaving out of the equation the prophecy found in Isaiah, chapter 53, of the Jewish Bible, which states that the Messiah must suffer and die as an atonement for sin.

Hi Ali Baba,

From you:

"BMZ = you are leaving out of the equation the prophecy found in Isaiah, chapter 53, of the Jewish Bible, which states that the Messiah must suffer and die as an atonement for sin."

I do not consider Isaiah 53 in the equation as it was not a prophecy, for the following reasons:

Chapter 53 from the Jewish Bible is titled "Israel suffers for the Lord".

Chapter 53 from the Christian Old Testament is titled, "The Suffering and Glory of the Servant."

A sample:

Isaiah 53:10 from the Jewish Bible: "Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him by disease; To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, That he might see his seed, prolong his days, And the purpose of the Lord might prosper by his hand:"

Isaiah 53:10 from the Christian OT: "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will propsper in his hand."

Ali Baba, with the above changes made to Isaiah 53:1-12 of the Jewish Bible, this is a serious change made to the words and the meanings of the Jewish "Isaiah".

That is the reason, I do not consider Isaiah 53, a prophecy of any kind. It is talking about the past.

Please read the entire Isaiah in the Jewish Bible and compare it with Isaiah in the Christian OT. You will find the difference easily.

Best Regards

BMZ

OK, Angel!

I for one, am carrying it on for you.  It is a tough job you know. Please interject when you can.

This topic is very easy to discuss. Just keep the Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible handy and available near your PC.

Zulqarnain, are you listening to my "cries"?

Fredi,

The sly old fox wrote it quite some time ago. I agree with him. Did you just see that last night? Let the passovers be passover.

BMZ,

�Can all of us come back to the topic, "Jesus is God (or not)?�

Yes.  I have returned to the topic.

�My conclusion is that he was NOT?�

My conclusion is that, as it is phrased, the question, �[is] Jesus God (or not)?,� contains a logically forced either/or.  Again, as I understand, according to the Catholic credo, it is most accurate to say that Jesus is �God, the Son.�  Consider the �Shield of the Trinity� diagram linked above and that we are still dealing here with paradox and with what might be called �alternative logical systems.�

�Had he been one, it would have been a success story as he would have not have run into untold troubles and miseries inflicted upon him by the Jews.�

I think that you might have written that sentence too fast, BMZ.  By way of parallel, and leaving the question if he were God out of the equation, was Muhammad�s story, or mission, any the less successful because of the opposition of his own house, or tribe, the Quraish?

�He would have become the "King Messiah", but in fact he did not.�

He was, in fact, born the King Messiah.  His Kingdom is not of this world.  That should be understood (for sublime instruction, it might help to listen to the complete version of Handel�s Messiah  ).  But someday, God willing, this world shall be reclaimed (Rev 11:15).

�Agreed?� 

We are agreed on some points.  Thanks for keeping the discussions lively.

Serv

Angel wrote: Zulqarnain, No this will not close, I for one started this and I am still involved despite me not being able to be here for some days  I am not finish I have replies to do For the rest of the participants here, Sorry for not being able to be here but I haven't forgotten and look forward to getting back soon  George I printed out the article from that guy and read it on the train to work but there is something that is in error I believe.

Hi Angel,

I will help you all that I can and bless your heart for reading the article.

George wrote: bmzsp wrote: Hi Ali Baba, From you: "BMZ = you are leaving out of the equation the prophecy found in Isaiah, chapter 53, of the Jewish Bible, which states that the Messiah must suffer and die as an atonement for sin." I do not consider Isaiah 53 in the equation as it was not a prophecy, for the following reasons: The Jews say that it is a prophecy; a prophecy of the nation of Israel; or at least that is what they say today, but not during the time of Jesus. Chapter 53 from the Jewish Bible is titled "Israel suffers for the Lord". The nation of Israel; a prophecy. Chapter 53 from the Christian Old Testament is titled, "The Suffering and Glory of the Servant." The Jews say that Israel is the suffering servant; the Christians and Messanic Jews say it is the Messiah Christ.  Some Muslims say it is Muhammad. A sample: Isaiah 53:10 from the Jewish Bible: "Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him by disease; To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, That he might see his seed, prolong his days, And the purpose of the Lord might prosper by his hand:" Isaiah 53:10 from the Christian OT: "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will propsper in his hand." Ali Baba, with the above changes made to Isaiah 53:1-12 of the Jewish Bible, this is a serious change made to the words and the meanings of the Jewish "Isaiah". That is the reason, I do not consider Isaiah 53, a prophecy of any kind. It is talking about the past. Please read the entire Isaiah in the Jewish Bible and compare it with Isaiah in the Christian OT. You will find the difference easily. Best Regards BMZ Don't pay any attention to the titles, BMZ.     My Tanakh does not have titles and neither does Rashi's translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Rahi's tranlation: 1. Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 2. And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? 3. Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account. 4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed. 5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed. 6. We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us. 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. 8. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. 9. And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand. 11. From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear. 12. Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors. Isaiah 53 was almost unanimously considered Messanic by the Jews, until many centuries after the death of Jesus when they tried to say it refers to the nation of Israel and not to a person. Please pay particular notice of verse 12

Greetings again George. Great thread and I hope to contribute more in the near future.

A few quick points:

1) Rashi gave his opinions. His opinions do not hold as law.

2) Isaiah 53 does not give a specific name. It is written in a style of "prose" considered "poetic". To try and determine who is the suffering servant requires evidence from which to draw a conclusion. When Rashi says this is a messianinc verse, this does not mean that he believed it was Jesus. He was not a Christian, no more than "Messianic Jews" are "Jewish". Messianic Jews are "Christians", and so they see Isaiah 53 the same as Christians do, and use the same argument.

3) It is incorrect to say that Jews after Rashi invented the suffering servant as the "People Israel". We know that Jews as far back as the 3rd century believed that Isaiah 53 was about the "People of Israel". This is not to say that this was the only interpretation, as any learned Jew knows that because Isaiah 53 does not give a name, several interpretations exist, none of which is about Jesus. That is a Christian idea. We know about what the 3rd century Jewish position was due to commentary by Origen, who stated unambiguosly that learned Jewish men told him this very idea (Isaiah 53 is about Israel). (Origen Contra Celsum, Cambridge Press page 50) So the "Jewish Bible" with the commentary is based upon a belief that is tracable to the 3rd century.

Hope This Helps

Peace

George,

This was my post.

"Hi Ali Baba,

From you:

"BMZ = you are leaving out of the equation the prophecy found in Isaiah, chapter 53, of the Jewish Bible, which states that the Messiah must suffer and die as an atonement for sin."

I do not consider Isaiah 53 in the equation as it was not a prophecy, for the following reasons:

Chapter 53 from the Jewish Bible is titled "Israel suffers for the Lord".

Chapter 53 from the Christian Old Testament is titled, "The Suffering and Glory of the Servant."

A sample:

Isaiah 53:10 from the Jewish Bible: "Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him by disease; To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, That he might see his seed, prolong his days, And the purpose of the Lord might prosper by his hand:"

Isaiah 53:10 from the Christian OT: "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will propsper in his hand."

Ali Baba, with the above changes made to Isaiah 53:1-12 of the Jewish Bible, this is a serious change made to the words and the meanings of the Jewish "Isaiah".

That is the reason, I do not consider Isaiah 53, a prophecy of any kind. It is talking about the past.

Please read the entire Isaiah in the Jewish Bible and compare it with Isaiah in the Christian OT. You will find the difference easily.

Best Regards

__________________________________________________________

George,

Please write your comments to indicate that they are from you, otherwise it gives the impression that I wrote what I disgreed with, when you insert your comments. You can see when, for example, Andalus copied and quoted it. It looks as if I am carrying your Christian baby too, which I am not.   

The Holy Scriptures, of the Jews that I have, do have sections properly titled like the Christian OT.  

George,

From you: "Don't pay any attention to the titles, BMZ."

If you ask me not to pay any attention to the titles, the please read the version of the Jews and the version of Christians and you will see a vast difference in the way it has been redone!

Wasn't the OT supposed to be an exact copy of the Jewish Scripture?

bmzsp wrote: George, This was my post. "Hi Ali Baba, From you: "BMZ = you are leaving out of the equation the prophecy found in Isaiah, chapter 53, of the Jewish Bible, which states that the Messiah must suffer and die as an atonement for sin." I do not consider Isaiah 53 in the equation as it was not a prophecy, for the following reasons: Chapter 53 from the Jewish Bible is titled "Israel suffers for the Lord". Chapter 53 from the Christian Old Testament is titled, "The Suffering and Glory of the Servant." A sample: Isaiah 53:10 from the Jewish Bible: "Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him by disease; To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, That he might see his seed, prolong his days, And the purpose of the Lord might prosper by his hand:" Isaiah 53:10 from the Christian OT: "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will propsper in his hand." Ali Baba, with the above changes made to Isaiah 53:1-12 of the Jewish Bible, this is a serious change made to the words and the meanings of the Jewish "Isaiah". That is the reason, I do not consider Isaiah 53, a prophecy of any kind. It is talking about the past. Please read the entire Isaiah in the Jewish Bible and compare it with Isaiah in the Christian OT. You will find the difference easily. Best Regards __________________________________________________________ George, Please write your comments to indicate that they are from you, otherwise it gives the impression that I wrote what I disgreed with, when you insert your comments. You can see when, for example, Andalus copied and quoted it. It looks as if I am carrying your Christian baby too, which I am not.    The Holy Scriptures, of the Jews that I have, do have sections properly titled like the Christian OT.

BMZ, I gave you the Scriptures from the Hebrew Scriptures from The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi.

I asked my Jewish friends for an Internet Tanach.  I wanted the top of the line.  I was given two.  The one I used here on this post and another that just includes the first 5 books.

You will find a variation in the different translations of any Holy Book whether they be Islam's, Christianity's or Judaism's.

You can take what I gave you for Isaiah 53 from the Hebrew Scriptures and compare it with what Christians call the Old Testament in our Bible.

It is a prophecy, BMZ, as I explained in my original post.

bmzsp wrote: George, From you: "Don't pay any attention to the titles, BMZ." If you ask me not to pay any attention to the titles, the please read the version of the Jews and the version of Christians and you will see a vast difference in the way it has been redone! Wasn't the OT supposed to be an exact copy of the Jewish Scripture?

I just explained that I did give you Isaiah 53 using the Hebrew Scriptures as the English speaking Jews read them.  I thought I made that very clear in my post.

zulqarnain wrote:

"I am out of breath now! Listen up everybody.
There was a question posed by a christian in Campbell's debate:
The concept of Trinity can be proven scientifically.Water can have three forms, Liquid, Solid and Gas, in the form of Ice , water and vapour. SO similarly can't God also be in three forms also, The Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost. Is this explanation scientifically correct?"

the christian who asked this question is incorrect in suggesting that the Holy Trinity consists of 3 forms.  there is only one form of God.  philippians 2: 5,6 - "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:" - thus Christ was in the form of God, he was not a form of God.  the greek word which is translated by form,  is morphe, for which Gifford gives the correct definition: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual exists...thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseperably  subsisting in the Person of Christ.."

zulqarnain wrote: I am out of breath now! Listen up everybody. There was a question posed by a christian in Campbell's debate: The concept of Trinity can be proven scientifically.Water can have three forms, Liquid, Solid and Gas, in the form of Ice , water and vapour. SO similarly can't God also be in three forms also, The Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost. Is this explanation scientifically correct? Ans: Scintifically it is agreed that water can be in three forms, solid, liquid and gas, taht is Ice, water and vapour. BUT scientifically we also known that the COMPONENT of the water remains the same, H2O, 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. The components remain the same, the constituents remain the same, the froms keep on changing, there is no problem. Lets check with the concept of trinity. Form-- form can change, first father, then son, then Holy Ghost.OK, for sake of argument we agree. DOES THE COMPONENTS CHANGE?? God and Holy Ghost is made of spirit, Human beings are made of flesh and bone, they aren't the same. Human beings require to eat, God doesn't require to eat. They aren't the same. In Luke Chapter 24, verse 36-39, Jesus Christ himself testifies: Behold my hands and feet. Handed me and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones". And he gave his hand and they saw, and they were overjoyed. And he said, "Do you have anything to eat?". And they gave him broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb. And he ate..to prove what?..taht he was God? To prove that he was not God. And this proves scientifically that he was not God. And the word "Trinity" does not exist anywhere in the Bible. BUT it is there in the Quraan: Chapter 4, verse 171: "Don't say Trinity, desist, it will be better for you". Trinity is also there is Quraan chapter 5 verse 73 saying: "They are doing "kufr", they are blaspheming, those who say Allah is three in one". Jesus Christ never said he was god. The concept of trinity does not exist in the Bible. The only verse which is the closest to the concept of Trinity is in 1 John chapter 5, verse 7 saying: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". But if you read the revised standard version, revised by 32 christian scholars of the highest degree, backed by 50 different coptic denomination, they say that this verse of the Bible is a concoction, a fabrication, it was thrown out of the Bible. Jusus Christ never claimed divinity. There is not a single statement in ther complete Bible where Jesus Christ says that I am god, or wether you should worship me. In fact it is mentioned in Gospel of John Chapter 14 verse 28, saying: "My Father is greater that I". John (10:49) says, "My Father is greater than all". Matt (12:28) says, "I cast out devils with the spirit of God. Luke (11:20) says, "I, with the finger of God, cast out devils". John(5:30) says, ""I cannot make something out of nothing, except I judge according to what I hear and my judgment is a righteous [judgment.] For I do not want satisfaction for myself, except [I do so] for the satisfaction of the one who sent me". Anyone who says"not my will, but God's will, He is a Muslim . The word "Muslim" mean a person who submits his will to Almighty God. Juses Christ said "not my will but God's will". He was a Muslim, and the mightiest Messenger of Allah, Jesus was born miraculously, without any male intervention. He gave life to the Dead with God's permission, he healed those born blind or who had leprosy with God's permission. We respect Jesus Christ as the mightiest Messenger of God, but he is NOT God, and he is not the part of Trinity, which doesn't exist. Quran says: "There is ALLAH ONE AND ONLY" and see

Assalam Aleikum.

In my opinion, the best way to debate Christians is from their own sources and their own books. And the best way to learn about their faith is from their own books. Unfortunately, the above debator could have saved agreat deal of time by recognizing that the stated analogy above is called "modalism", which is a Christian heresy, and often confused with "trinitarianism".   

To Andalus,

See my comments to your post in red below.

Greetings again George. Great thread and I hope to contribute more in the near future.

A few quick points:

1) Rashi gave his opinions. His opinions do not hold as law.

The site I used was The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi.  As far as I know Rashi had something to do with the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, but it matters not since it is one of the best translations that the Jews, themselves, use.

Rashi also has a commentary�not sure if it is in the Talmud, Midrash or Targums, but we are talking about a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and not his commentary on those Scriptures.

2) Isaiah 53 does not give a specific name. It is written in a style of "prose" considered "poetic". To try and determine who is the suffering servant requires evidence from which to draw a conclusion. When Rashi says this is a messianinc verse, this does not mean that he believed it was Jesus. He was not a Christian, no more than "Messianic Jews" are "Jewish". Messianic Jews are "Christians", and so they see Isaiah 53 the same as Christians do, and use the same argument.

Of course, Rashi didn't believe that Jesus is the Messiah.  I know who Rashi is.

3) It is incorrect to say that Jews after Rashi invented the suffering servant as the "People Israel". We know that Jews as far back as the 3rd century believed that Isaiah 53 was about the "People of Israel". This is not to say that this was the only interpretation, as any learned Jew knows that because Isaiah 53 does not give a name, several interpretations exist, none of which is about Jesus. That is a Christian idea. We know about what the 3rd century Jewish position was due to commentary by Origen, who stated unambiguosly that learned Jewish men told him this very idea (Isaiah 53 is about Israel). (Origen Contra Celsum, Cambridge Press page 50) So the "Jewish Bible" with the commentary is based upon a belief that is tracable to the 3rd century.

I said that Isaiah 53 was almost unanimously considered Messanic in the first century.  It was only later that the Jews started saying that it was the Nation of Israel.  I thought Rashi was the first to say that, but I'd have to look it up.

Yes, the first mention of this comes with a conversation with Origen and some Jews.  These Jews are not identified. 

Quoting the conversation:

"Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, "Thy form shall be of no reputation among men; "and then, "They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see; "and the expression, "A man under suffering."

End of Quote.

These were "certain" Jews and this discourse with Origen is too late to be of any use.  And it is not representative of all Jews of that period.  The Jews can find nothing earlier than the third century and I know because I have asked them.

This part of the same discussion is interesting:

Quote:

"To quote the prophecies at length would be tedious; and I deem it sufficient for the present to quote a part of the Psalms 45, which has this inscription, in addition to others, "A Psalm for the Beloved," where God is evidently addressed in these words: "Grace is poured into Thy lips: therefore God will bless Thee for ever and ever. Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O mighty One, with Thy beauty and Thy majesty. And stretch forth, and ride prosperously, and reign, because of Thy truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and Thy right hand shall lead Thee marvellously. Thine arrows are pointed, O mighty One; the people will fall under Thee in the heart of the enemies of the King."107 But attend carefully to what follows, where He is called God: "For Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and h ated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."108 And observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, whose "throne is for ever and ever," and "a sceptre of righteousness the sceptre of His kingdom," says that this God has been anointed by a God who was His God, and anointed, because more than His fellows He had loved righteousness and hated iniquity. And I remember that I pressed the Jew, who was deemed a learned man, very hard with this passage; and he, being perplexed about it, gave such an answer as was in keeping with his Judaistic views, saying that the words, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom," are spoken of the God of all things; and these, "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed Thee," etc., refer to the Messiah.109 

According to Judaism 101 these are the Messanic Scriptures they use today.

� Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
� Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
� Ezekiel 38:16
� Hosea 3:4-3:5
� Micah 4
� Zephaniah 3:9
� Zechariah 14:9
� Daniel 10:14

Notice that Psalm 45 is not among them. How "learned" was this Jew conversing with Origen? This particular Jew said that "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed Thee," etc., refer to the Messiah. But, Psalm 45 is not included in the Messianic verses above.

What this tells me is that the Jews--non-believers in Jesus--were very uncertain what their Scriptures revealed.

Notice also that these "Jews" did not refer to any authoritive document to support their case, nor did they mention the opinions of Rabbis. It is very significant that outside of this one comment from a non-Jewish source there are no ancient Jewish references of a national interpretation of Isa 53. Not until Rashi who comes along 400 years after the Talumd was finished.

It is interesting to me because the Jews today do not include this Psalm (45) in their Scriptures that they consider Messianic.  In other words, it is just another example of how they have changed their minds over the years.

George wrote: To Andalus, See my comments to your post in red below. Greetings again George. Great thread and I hope to contribute more in the near future. A few quick points: 1) Rashi gave his opinions. His opinions do not hold as law. The site I used was The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi.  As far as I know Rashi had something to do with the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, but it matters not since it is one of the best translations that the Jews, themselves, use. Rashi also has a commentary�not sure if it is in the Talmud, Midrash or Targums, but we are talking about a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and not his commentary on those Scriptures.

Rashi is a major contributor for Rabbincal works and commentary. I have the TANACH Stone Edition published by Mesorah Publications that also has Rashi commentary and for Issiah 53 the section is explained as "The Nations wonderment at Israel's redemption."

Rashi is a great scholar as far as Rabbincal work, but he is not the only commentator and his opinions do not hold as "tenents of belief".

George wrote:   2) Isaiah 53 does not give a specific name. It is written in a style of "prose" considered "poetic". To try and determine who is the suffering servant requires evidence from which to draw a conclusion. When Rashi says this is a messianinc verse, this does not mean that he believed it was Jesus. He was not a Christian, no more than "Messianic Jews" are "Jewish". Messianic Jews are "Christians", and so they see Isaiah 53 the same as Christians do, and use the same argument. Of course, Rashi didn't believe that Jesus is the Messiah.  I know who Rashi is.

fair enough

George wrote: 3) It is incorrect to say that Jews after Rashi invented the suffering servant as the "People Israel". We know that Jews as far back as the 3rd century believed that Isaiah 53 was about the "People of Israel". This is not to say that this was the only interpretation, as any learned Jew knows that because Isaiah 53 does not give a name, several interpretations exist, none of which is about Jesus. That is a Christian idea. We know about what the 3rd century Jewish position was due to commentary by Origen, who stated unambiguosly that learned Jewish men told him this very idea (Isaiah 53 is about Israel). (Origen Contra Celsum, Cambridge Press page 50) So the "Jewish Bible" with the commentary is based upon a belief that is tracable to the 3rd century. I said that Isaiah 53 was almost unanimously considered Messanic in the first century.  It was only later that the Jews started saying that it was the Nation of Israel.  I thought Rashi was the first to say that, but I'd have to look it up.

Saying "unanimously" I think is an exaggeration, given that there are no serious records to tell us what the unanimous thought was and given that late second temple was serverly fractioned in terms of belief and interpretation of scripture. Origen states that Jews held the belief by the third century. Many evangelicals will try and derive first century belief about Christians from what the church fathers wrote in the third century, I find it difficult to fathom why the "People Irsael" was also not a major interpretaiton in the first century.

George wrote: Yes, the first mention of this comes with a conversation with Origen and some Jews.  These Jews are not identified.    Quoting the conversation: "Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, "Thy form shall be of no reputation among men; "and then, "They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see; "and the expression, "A man under suffering."   End of Quote.   These were "certain" Jews and this discourse with Origen is too late to be of any use.  And it is not representative of all Jews of that period.  The Jews can find nothing earlier than the third century and I know because I have asked them.

You are nit picking.

1) If Origen chose them to speak with, then he would have had good reason to choose them (there was a good reason to think they would give him the answers he sought).

2) No one is arguing that there is only one interpretation, only evangelicals are arguing that there is only one major interpretation.

3) We know what Jews were thinking before the NT was even put together. Yet the book is authoritative to the first century according to Christians, but for some mysterious reason, the Jews Origen spoke with were some how a small, ignroant, siolated gourp that difered from everyone else. A bit of "special pleading" don;t you think? 

4) There is nothing that makes the belief necessarily isolated, or the Jews necessarily ignorant, nor can you make the claim that this does not necessarily represent the first century as a collective second temple thought.

 

5) If the interpretation of Jesus having to suffer was so wide spread in the first century, then one must ponder and ask why Peter was astonished.

 

George wrote: This part of the same discussion is interesting:   Quote:   "To quote the prophecies at length would be tedious; and I deem it sufficient for the present to quote a part of the Psalms 45, which has this inscription, in addition to others, "A Psalm for the Beloved," where God is evidently addressed in these words: "Grace is poured into Thy lips: therefore God will bless Thee for ever and ever. Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O mighty One, with Thy beauty and Thy majesty. And stretch forth, and ride prosperously, and reign, because of Thy truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and Thy right hand shall lead Thee marvellously. Thine arrows are pointed, O mighty One; the people will fall under Thee in the heart of the enemies of the King."107 But attend carefully to what follows, where He is called God: "For Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and h ated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."108 And observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, whose "throne is for ever and ever," and "a sceptre of righteousness the sceptre of His kingdom," says that this God has been anointed by a God who was His God, and anointed, because more than His fellows He had loved righteousness and hated iniquity. And I remember that I pressed the Jew, who was deemed a learned man, very hard with this passage; and he, being perplexed about it, gave such an answer as was in keeping with his Judaistic views, saying that the words, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom," are spoken of the God of all things; and these, "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed Thee," etc., refer to the Messiah.109    According to Judaism 101 these are the Messanic Scriptures they use today.   � Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20 � Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39 � Ezekiel 38:16 � Hosea 3:4-3:5 � Micah 4 � Zephaniah 3:9 � Zechariah 14:9 � Daniel 10:14 Notice that Psalm 45 is not among them. How "learned" was this Jew conversing with Origen? This particular Jew said that "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed Thee," etc., refer to the Messiah. But, Psalm 45 is not included in the Messianic verses above.

George, your conclusion is problematic, as you are trying to relate entriely different thigs.

You are saying:

1) The website on introductory Judaism did not include Pslams 45 as Messianic in its list of verses.

2) The Jews of the 3rd century did consider it messianic.

3) Therefore, Psalms 45 is either messianic and Jews now are hiding it, or the Jews that Origen spoke with were not learned.

I bring up the famous quote by Occam, "plurality should not be posited without necessity". If we look at the bases of your premise, which includes as evidence the list of messianic verses at Judaism 101, one may find a third choice beyond the two you have forced which is more raitonal and "makes sense".

Judaism 101 did not state that these were the only Messianic verses. There is nothing implied that the list contains the only vereses in existence, it is only a list with Messianic Verses. Therefore, if a Jewish authrority remarks that a certain verse is messianic which is not on the list, that does not make the list wrong, nor can one imply that the Jews as a people aree attempting to hide something. One does not invalidate the other unless the verses conlfict with each other somehow, which is not the case in the instance.

Another possible explanation about Judaism 101 is that the made a mistake and forgot to include it, and there are also other alternative explanations, none of which will lead us to the false dichotomoy you presented. 

A verse being described as Messianic becomes such through an authority figure arguing for this case based upon the standard methodologies used by Jewish scholars.   

With this in mind, the most rational conclusion is that the Jews that Origen spoke with were learned, and they gave a reply about Isaiah that was not new, and was an accepted, supported interpretation of Isaiah 53. They also stated that Psalms 45 is is messianic. My Stone Edition TANACH also states that Pslams 45 is messianic. Noe of this proves Jew are hiding anything about the verse, and even one of the most widely accepted editions of the TANACH, the Stone Edition, also states unambiguously that Pslams 45 is Messianic.  

George wrote: What this tells me is that the Jews--non-believers in Jesus--were very uncertain what their Scriptures revealed.

 

You have drawn this from a false dichotomy that you derived based upon an irrational assumption about Judaism 101. Given that Peter was confused about any notion of a suffering servant in Isaiah 35 tells me that early Christians were somewhat confused (if we follow your raitonal). I will say that late second temple history paints a period of diverse views and confusion, which does not invalidate the idea that Isaiah 35 was about Israel.

 

George wrote: Notice also that these "Jews" did not refer to any authoritive document to support their case, nor did they mention the opinions of Rabbis. It is very significant that outside of this one comment from a non-Jewish source there are no ancient Jewish references of a national interpretation of Isa 53. Not until Rashi who comes along 400 years after the Talumd was finished.

Your point assumes 1) that Jews must refer to an authoritative document everytime they tell you what a verse means. 2) that Origen must have necessarily wrote down a source that they might have quoted 3) argument from silence in this case is a fallacy 4) Christians have no ancient references for this verse to imply it was "Christological", even Peter was ignorant, which would be a case for "argument from silence" that would not be a fallacy to invoke. Rashi was not the first person to come up with the suffering servant as Israel. We know 3rd century Jews believes this as well.   

George wrote: It is interesting to me because the Jews today do not include this Psalm (45) in their Scriptures that they consider Messianic.  In other words, it is just another example of how they have changed their minds over the years.

bmzsp wrote: OK, Angel! I for one, am carrying it on for you.  It is a tough job you know. Please interject when you can.

You are so kind  thank you.

I'm back and ready to continue some more

George wrote: Hi Angel, I will help you all that I can and bless your heart for reading the article.

Thanks, I will continue now where I left off  

John 1:1 says that �the Word was God.� John 1:14 says that �the Word became flesh.� This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, "...Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood." Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. Acts 20:28 declares that God purchased the church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, �Lord and my God� (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior - Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, "But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

In Revelation, an angel instructed the Apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation had. There are many other verses and passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus� deity.

The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected - proving His victory over sin and death.

Please understand that Catholics definitely DO believe that Jesus is God.

Peace to all,

Patty

Greetings, Patty.

Please forgive George.  He is a Protestant and does not know much about Catholics, who are literally, the originators of Christianity and the Christian Church.

Muslims, on the other hand, have always known since time immemorial that Catholics believe Jesus is God.

Best Regards

BMZ

Many thanks, BMZ.  Actually many Protestant denominations also believe that Jesus is God.....they believe in the "Triune God".  I have no wish to be disrespectful toward anyone's faith.  We are have, and are entitled to, whatever it is we believe.  But as a Catholic, I also have a responsibility to "set the record straight" as to how the Catholic Church truly believes....and this is a pretty big belief for us.  I won't allow the Church's doctrines and teachings to be misrepresented.  There are far too many myths regarding the Catholic faith as it is....we don't need any more misunderstandings.

May the Peace of Jesus be with You Always!

Patty

I'm rather indifferent as to who said it.  I only want to correct the notion that Catholics don't believe that Jesus is God.  We do believe He is God.  We believe, as many Protestant brothers also believe, in the Trinity. 

Catholics also believe that God is very merciful, and on Judgment Day all human beings, regardless of their chosen religion will be granted entrance into Heaven/Paradise, IF they have lived their life honestly trying to live a moral, decent, honest life....the kind of life Christ/God has commanded us to live.  For the billions of individuals who have had no exposure to the Catholic Church, there is no way anyone could expect them to be Catholic.  Even for the atheist there is hope in eternal life with God.  We believe that God "calls all souls" at the moment of death....this means He offers everyone one last chance to accept him in that instant of death.  If they accept, they are saved from eternal damnation.  I suppose our greatest comfort is in the belief that we consider God extremely just and loving.  He does not want any of His children to be damned, thus He gives them every opportunity to accept Him, especially at the moment of death.  In other words, we believe there will be Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., in Heaven if they followed the basic teachings of God......the major one being to love our neighbor as ourself.

God's Peace and Blessings to You Always,

Patty

Patty,

Thanks for the explanatory post. One question, if you don't mind:

As a Catholic, do you see a difference between Trinity and a Triune God? If you do, how would you define that? Thanks.

BR

BMZ

Angel said the following:

"Isn't it the Trinitarians that believe Jesus is God, not all christians and that the Nicene creed came from them?."

For this reason, and many others, I doubt that Angel is Catholic.  Or at least not a practicing Catholic, as she knows little about the faith and Doctrine of the Church.  The following is an article explaning the Nicene Creed, which was began at the Council of Nicene and approved at the Council of Constantinople.  Protestant denominations came into being centuries later, when Luther broke with the Church. The Trinitarians were not even a church at this early date.

The Nicene Creed

As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations. Soon after the Council of Nicaea new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to meet new phases of Arianism. There were at least four before the Council of Sardica in 341, and in that council a new form was presented and inserted in the Acts, though not accepted by the council. The Nicene Symbol, however, continued to be the only one in use among the defenders of the Faith. Gradually it came to be recognized as the proper profession of faith for candidates for baptism. Its alteration into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan formula, the one now in use, in usually ascribed to the Council of Constantinople, since the Council of Chalcedon (451), which designated this symbol as "The Creed of the Council of Constantinople of 381" had it twice read and inserted in its Acts. The historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret do not mention this, although they do record that the bishops who remained at the council after the departure of the Macedonians confirmed the Nicene faith. Hefele (II,9) admits the possibility of our present creed being a condensation of the "Tome" ( Gr. tomos), i.e. the exposition of the doctrines concerning the Trinity made by the Council of Constantinople; but he prefers the opinion of R�mi Ceillier and Tillemont tracing the new formula to the "Ancoratus" of Epiphanius written in 374. Hort, Caspari, Harnack, and others are of the opinion that the Constantinopolitan form did not originate at the Council of Constantinople, because it is not in the Acts of the council of 381, but was inserted there at a later date; because Gregory Nazianzen who was at the council mentions only the Nicene formula adverting to its incompleteness about the Holy Ghost, showing that he did not know of the Constantinopolitan form which supplies this deficiency; and because the Latin Fathers apparently know nothing of it before the middle of the fifth century.

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

In this form the Nicene article concerning the Holy Ghost is enlarged; several words, notably the two clauses "of the substance of the Father" and "God of God," are omitted as also are the anathemas; ten clauses are added; and in five places the words are differently located. In general the two forms contain what is common to all the baptismal formulas in the early Church. Vossius (1577-1649) was the first to detect the similarity between the creed set forth in the "Ancoratus" and the baptismal formula of the Church at Jerusalem. Hort (1876) held that the symbol is a revision of the Jerusalem formula, in which the most important Nicene statements concerning the Holy Ghost have been inserted. The author of the revision may have been St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386, q.v.). Various hypotheses are offered to account for the tradition that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol originated with the Council of Constantinople, but none of them is satisfactory. Whatever be its origin, the fact is that the Council of Chalcedon (451) attributed it to the Council of Constantinople, and if it was not actually composed in that council, it was adopted and authorized by the Fathers assembled as a true expression of the Faith. The history of the creed is completed in the article Filioque. 

God's Peace Always.

Patty

"I'm rather indifferent as to who said it." 

that may well be the case, patty, but my comment was directed to our good friend from singapore, bmz, as i should have specified, who never misses an opportunity....

i will pass over the other things you said as i have no wish to get into a catholic-protestant argument

Dear bmzsp:

I am not very good at explaning many things, but I will try my best. This message is intended to be not only a declaration to the critics, but also a help to the dear saints in the local churches, that all may know what we believe according to the Scriptures regarding the matter of the Triune God.

This matter of the Trinity has been a subject of great argument and strong disputation among Christians ever since the second century. During the last eighteen or nineteen centuries, the argument has never ceased. It has been utilized by the enemy to destroy the unity of the saints. I prefer to not get caught in the snare of endless debate. We must come back from the traditional terms, sayings, and teachings to the pure Word of God. The controversy concerning such a mystery as the Trinity is endless.

I am governed by the revelation that God is uniquely one. The Bible tells us that God is one. However, because the first occurrence of the word God (Elohim) in the Bible (Gen. 1:1) is in the plural number, some people translate it as �Gods.� This is preposterous. It is appalling to speak of �Gods.�

This one unique God is triune. I do not know how to explain this, although for many years I tried.  I spent a great deal of time analyzing and trying to understand the Trinity. Since I could find no way to resolve it, I gave up long ago. I said to myself, �Little lady, you are too small. You can never understand the Trinity adequately.�

Let us look at Isaiah 9:6: �Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.�

Who is this child? It is Jesus. Where is this child born? In the manger at Bethlehem. �Unto us a son is given.� Who is this son? It is Jesus. Whose Son is He? He is God�s Son. God so loved the world that He gave us His Only Begotten Son. Not only is a child born to us, but also a Son is given to us. (God gives His Son to us. Why is He called Wonderful? Because He is not simple. It is not easy to understand Him, nor can we fully do so. He is wonderful. This child by the name of Jesus, who was born in the manger at Bethlehem, is also called the Mighty God. Do you believe this? The Jewish people do not. They do not believe that that little Jesus is the Mighty God. If they believed it, they would immediately become real Christians. I believe it! My God is Jesus. My God is that little child. That little child who was born of Mary in that manger at Bethlehem is my Mighty God! His fourth name or title is the Everlasting Father. The Son who is given to us is called �the Everlasting Father.� Is He the Son or the Father? If you believe that the child born to us is the Mighty God, you have to believe also that the Son given to us is the Everlasting Father. To say that the Son is the Father is according to the pure Word of God.

John 14:8-9. �Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip: he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?� This word indicates clearly that the Son is the Father. Yet some twist this word saying that the Son is not the Father, but the representative of the Father. If you read the context without any twisting, you can realize that the Son was the Father there. Philip asked the Son to show him the Father. The Son was surprised, saying, �I have been with you such a long time and you have seen Me. Since you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.�

Whoa!  I think that's far more than enough for now.  I personally dislike long, rambling posts, and here I am posting just such a post. There is much more on the subject, and it's from the Bible.  But I must emphasize that the Triune God/Trinity is a MYSTERY.  One of many in this life, don't you think?  Without faith, it is impossible to believe, as is so much of every religion.  The most important asset we can possess is faith when search for the Truth.

I hope I haven't bored you with too much at one time. 

God's Peace to You.

Patty

Dear fredifreeloader:

"actually, as i understood it , it was angel, the roman catholic, who said catholics did not believe Jesus is God"

Please accept my apologies for having offended you.  I read the above and mistakenly thought you had posted it to me.  I, too, have no desire to argue Catholicism with any other religion.  My intent was to clarify an error made in regard to the Church.

We are all trying our best, I believe, to please God and do His will. That is what really matters.  Arguing does no good for anyone.  Mature dialogue tempered with respect can be beneficial.

God's Peace,

Patty

Quote BMZ:

Please forgive George.  He is a Protestant and does not know much about Catholics, who are literally, the originators of Christianity and the Christian Church.  [End Quote.]

BMZ, what on earth are you talking about?  Where and when did I ever say that Catholics do not believe that Jesus Christ is God?

I know a lot about Catholicism.  Many Catholics are in my Bible study class and my minister is a former Catholic.  They all believe that Jesus is God.

And, in addition, you are incorrect when you say that the Catholics are "literally the originators of Christianity and the Christian Church."  It is Jesus Christ who is the originator of Christianity and the Christian Church.  I don't have to explain this to you. 

And please, in the further, refrain from telling others what I believe, what I know or don't know.  You cannot speak for me and I would appreciate it if you not do this type of thing in the future.  Thank you.

Can we please keep the trinity out of this discussion, there is already a couple threads on it.

Patty wrote: My intent was to clarify an error made in regard to the Church.

Or at least not a practicing Catholic, as she knows little about the faith and Doctrine of the Church.

Patty what do you think you are doing? You think you really know what i know and don't know don't you??

if you are going to be in this discussion which you are welcomed but Please don't bring your stuff on what is right and what is wrong in this thread its not about that!, it is just a discussion which is going quite excellent without pin pointing out what is right and wrong. People have kept that out.

And please don't go on about what I don't know, (I cannot seem to have a discussion without that being injected by you), over here, you already do enough to me.

Please don't respond to this post here, I am only responding here because I know you will be back to read, please make another thread if you are going to respond, just not here. I will ask the moderators to delete this post after awhile.   

Now I am getting back to my discussion.

I would only like to state to all that, as a Catholic, when I see a statement made as fact which is incorrect regarding Catholic beliefs, I will correct that error.  It makes no difference who makes the statement.  And it is not made out of anger or to shame or embarrass anyone...only to defend the faith of the Church.

Since I haven't visited this site for several months, could someone enlighten me please?  Have the rules changed?  Are we not to state our opinions any longer?  Are we not to respond to a question as directly to us by another poster (I was asked about the Triune God/Trinity)?  If we are not to offer rebuttals or our opinions, where is the debate and/or dialogue? 

Please forgive me if I am out of place in my posts, or in asking for clarification.  I mean no offense to anyone.

God's Peace,

Patty

George,

My sincere apologies if you did not understand the humour that I injected. Sorry, if you feel that way but I did not make any fun of you at all. 

Now, remember an elephant never forgets!  I never lie and I am mostly never wrong when I make an statement. Here it is from you, George:

"

George Senior Member Joined: 14 April 2006 Online Status: Online Posts: 178

Posted: 21 April 2006 at 10:09am | IP Logged http://www.islamicity.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=40278&TPN=9"> Angel, All my life I have known that Catholic don't believe that Jesus is God, despite the "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". Catholics believe that the Word of God incarnated Jesus.  They believe that he is 100% human and 100% divine.  They believe that God is the Father and the Word (son) and the Holy Spirit--all God--in three "persons"  -- the same divine substance. What religion are you? Your post is too long, my dear.  I'll try to have something for you to think about sometime next week.

____________________________________________________________

Still waters run deep.

BMZ

BMZ,

Look at this again:

Angel,

All my life I have known that Catholic don't believe that Jesus is God, despite the "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

I was quoting Angel.  It is in her first post.  Then I went on to explain what Catholics believe.

Catholics believe that the Word of God incarnated Jesus.  They believe that he is 100% human and 100% divine.  They believe that God is the Father and the Word (son) and the Holy Spirit--all God--in three "persons"  -- the same divine substance.

You made a mistake and with a little thought you could have figured it out.  In fact, with our history you would know that I would never make a statement like that about the Catholics.

You owe me an apology.

George,

Now that you have clarified, I can accept that but your presentation was heinous.

You should have said, "Angel wrote or Angel said", something like that but the construction of that post shows as if you were writing to Angel. Next time, please try to be careful.

My sincere apologies.

Dear George,  You stated the following:

"I know a lot about Catholicism.  Many Catholics are in my Bible study class and my minister is a former Catholic.  They all believe that Jesus is God."

Many in my family are Protestants.  My brother-in-law in England is an Anglican priest, and at our church we have Protestants who attend our Bible Study....one of our priests is also a convert from the Methodist denomination.  So we seem to have some things in common!

God's Peace to You,

Patty

Hi, back

Well I have just gone over some posts to get back on track.

The essay of Rich Deem that George brought across, I think has some flaws. I don't know how one can show that Jesus "is" God and yet still show that Jesus is "not" God by putting evidence.  If Jesus "is" God then all references would be towards it, and prove it. But the essay clearly shows with evidence that Jesus is "not" God, even with evidence that others claim Jesus is the Son of God which indicts that Jesus is not, surely if Jesus "is" God then the angels, demons, John the Baptist, Paul, in psalms, and others would not have mentioned or acknowledged Son of God, nor Jesus himself.

Why does Jesus claim and acknowledge these titles if he is actually "God" ?  If he is God and yet still claims these titles (which clearly show a separate being) then he (God) is a lair, not told the truth about Himself.

Jesus is suppose to be the Son of God, Son of Man, the Messiah, the anointed, Christ, these are titles that are separate, of a separate being/entity and not the title of God. Even the reference to "God's Son" shows that Jesus is NOT God.

How can Jesus be God, or even claim to be indirectly when there are clear evidence that Jesus and God are not the same entity.

(I will get back to this bit later) - Even all the scripture quotes that George brought across in a previous post clearly shows that Jesus has separated himself as a different entity when talking about himself and God (My Father is what said, I and the Father....)  

Jesus claims the title of Son of Man. Not God.

Jesus claims the title of Son of God, Not God.

Jesus claims the title of Messiah, Not God.

Even others make references to these titles for Jesus, but no title of God.

Even with claims of attributes of God, to accept worship and the ability to do (some) things that God alone suppose to do, still does not make Jesus, God, The almighty father.

It does not make sense that God would refer to Himself when talking to Himself (as) My Father, claim to be the Son of God, Messiah etc.

Patty wrote: Dear George,  You stated the following: "I know a lot about Catholicism.  Many Catholics are in my Bible study class and my minister is a former Catholic.  They all believe that Jesus is God." Many in my family are Protestants.  My brother-in-law in England is an Anglican priest, and at our church we have Protestants who attend our Bible Study....one of our priests is also a convert from the Methodist denomination.  So we seem to have some things in common! God's Peace to You, Patty

Yes, we do seem to have things in common.  Interestingly enough, one of the topics at Bible study class this week was what we as Christians have in common, whether Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, etc.  And the point was brought up that we should celebrate what we have in common--which is much--and not concentrate on areas in which we disagree, which are really minor in the grand scheme of things.

Blessings. :)

To believe that Jesus is God you have to believe in the Holy Trinity.  Without that belief you could not believe that Jesus is also God (and the Holy Spirit, but we'll work on that later.)  Jesus did say several times that He is God, such as during this conversation with St. Phillip:

"John 14:8-9.  �I have been with you such a long time and you have seen Me. Since you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.�

Also, when the Angel, Gabriel, visited our Blessed Mother, Mary, the Angel said to her in the Ave Maria, "Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with You; Blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, MOTHER OF GOD, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

Peace, Angel.

Patty

George wrote: Angel, Maybe the following information will help you understand about the Word of God becoming flesh in Jesus.  I hope so.

My understand is this, that Jesus spoke God's words and acted out God's will, I have always said this  But that does not show that Jesus 'is' God thou.

The Self-Understanding of Jesus (Gospel of John) Source:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03c.html - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin03c.html Passages in John, in which Jesus is the speaker, relating to His deity:

I have to get back to this later, ok George, I spent much time going over some things and putting together the last post. and now its 5am  man talk about dedication!  

For you:

thank you

-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~

Yes, George, we do have a great many things in common.  All of the people who believe in the God of Abraham, which, of course, includes Muslims.  It is most important the we concentrate on our similarities, and pray for guidance, patience and respect concerning our differences.  Our Church is trying deligently to do this!

God's Peace to You.

Patty

Patty wrote: To believe that Jesus is God you have to believe in the Holy Trinity.  Without that belief you could not believe that Jesus is also God (and the Holy Spirit, but we'll work on that later.)  Jesus did say several times that He is God, such as during this conversation with St. Phillip: "John 14:8-9.  �I have been with you such a long time and you have seen Me. Since you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.� Also, when the Angel, Gabriel, visited our Blessed Mother, Mary, the Angel said to her in the Ave Maria, "Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with You; Blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, MOTHER OF GOD, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." Peace, Angel. Patty

Those of the Oneness belief do believe that Jesus is God, but they do not believe in the Trinity.  I have a dear, dear Oneness friend and over the years we have made great progress in some of our differences and we are still talking and still working and still making progress.  I think that we will be dear friends for the rest of our lives.  We talk about Jesus constantly.

I think if we can lay the Trinity aside -- all Christians -- and come to realize who Jesus is in terms of the King Messiah -- then that in itself should bring trinitarians and non-trinitarians closer together.

I also know someone who does not believe in the Trinity, but he considers Jesus his Lord and Master as the King Messiah was meant to be for all people -- Jew and Gentile alike.  He signs his notes to me, "In Christ."

Blessings.

Angel wrote: Hi, back Well I have just gone over some posts to get back on track. The essay of Rich Deem that George brought across, I think has some flaws. I don't know how one can show that Jesus "is" God and yet still show that Jesus is "not" God by putting evidence.  If Jesus "is" God then all references would be towards it, and prove it. But the essay clearly shows with evidence that Jesus is "not" God, even with evidence that others claim Jesus is the Son of God which indicts that Jesus is not, surely if Jesus "is" God then the angels, demons, John the Baptist, Paul, in psalms, and others would not have mentioned or acknowledged Son of God, nor Jesus himself. Why does Jesus claim and acknowledge these titles if he is actually "God" ?  If he is God and yet still claims these titles (which clearly show a separate being) then he (God) is a lair, not told the truth about Himself. Jesus is suppose to be the Son of God, Son of Man, the Messiah, the anointed, Christ, these are titles that are separate, of a separate being/entity and not the title of God. Even the reference to "God's Son" shows that Jesus is NOT God. How can Jesus be God, or even claim to be indirectly when there are clear evidence that Jesus and God are not the same entity. (I will get back to this bit later) - Even all the scripture quotes that George brought across in a previous post clearly shows that Jesus has separated himself as a different entity when talking about himself and God (My Father is what said, I and the Father....)   Jesus claims the title of Son of Man. Not God. Jesus claims the title of Son of God, Not God. Jesus claims the title of Messiah, Not God. Even others make references to these titles for Jesus, but no title of God. Even with claims of attributes of God, to accept worship and the ability to do (some) things that God alone suppose to do, still does not make Jesus, God, The almighty father. It does not make sense that God would refer to Himself when talking to Himself (as) My Father, claim to be the Son of God, Messiah etc.

Responses will be coming soon to all of your questions.  I would like to ask you a favor.  If you want to know what Orthodox Christianity and the New Testament teaches in regard to your questions, then I request that you only entertain responses from Orthodox Christians.  I think there are at least three on IC at the moment.  Me, Patty and Fred--there may be more.  I just am not sure who they are.

I think it will be too confusing for you if you don't limit the responses to replies from the Orthodox Christians.

I hope you agree.  :)