Who is this Jesus?

[OneoftheLordsGenerals]

T8 you say that what comes from you is not of you and is scripture. For this I shall show you that the Trinity is purely scriptural. First thing is first, I am not claiming that there are three gods. I claim three personas, One God. Second scripture overwhelmingly states the doctrine of the Trinity. I had sent you a pm and I am not sure why you have not re-sent it when i asked you too. Maybe you deleted it but that is ok. I will resay it as best as possible.

In Jewish custom, to call one the Son of God was to call him equal to God. This can be witnessed by many of thousands of Hebrew Scholars and Gods word. Now i have a whole list of scriptures which show a New Testament filled with people who call Jesus-God, or the Son of God, and worship him(T8 has a copy). The people who called him Son of God were Peter and the rest of the Twelve, Paul, Nathaneul, Satan, Demons, different crowds of people, Mark, Luke, etc. Jesus is even called God and doesn't rebuke it. That alone makes Jesus an idolater. So basically every person who wrote a book in the New Testament is a blasphemer(calling him the Son of God or God), an idolater for worshipping him, and not only that. But they are unrepentant for doing so. Not once do they ask God for forgiveness for these acts unto Jesus. Because they weren't sinful acts.

SCRIPTURES IN WHICH JESUS IS REFERRED TO AS GOD;

Hebrews 1:8 But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness).

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.(A)

John1:1 IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.(A)
-(Now some translations don't have HIMSELF but still say he was God, whom we know is Jesus Christ)-

John 20:28 Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!
-(Speaking to Jesus he said this. Jesus did not deny it and rebuke him. Which would be blasphemy, and that means from a non-trinitarian veiw we have no salvation.[Jesus blasphemed/unrepentant=Jesus sinned=no perfect sacrifice=no salvation])-

2 Peter1:1 SIMON PETER, a servant and apostle (special messenger) of Jesus Christ, to those who have received (obtained an equal privilege of) like precious faith with ourselves in and through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Titus2:13 Awaiting and looking for the [fulfillment, the realization of our] blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One),

14 Who gave Himself on our behalf that He might redeem us (purchase our freedom) from all iniquity and purify for Himself a people [to be peculiarly His own, people who are] eager and enthusiastic about [living a life that is good and filled with] beneficial deeds.(A)

15 Tell [them all] these things. Urge (advise, encourage, warn) and rebuke with full authority. Let no one despise or disregard or think little of you [conduct yourself and your teaching so as to command respect].

-(We know that Jesus will come again, never said the Father will come, but the Son. Who is definitely called God here)-

Third, I come to a famous scripture. One you all might have read at one time or another.

John15:12 This is My commandment: that you love one another [just] as I have loved you.

13 No one has greater love [no one has shown stronger affection] than to lay down (give up) his own life for his friends.

14 You are My friends if you keep on doing the things which I command you to do.

First things first again. I thought it was God's commandment to love one another. Its one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God. So whos is it, God's or Jesus'? Second how can Jesus have greater love than God(The Father) whom sent him. I mean if God loved us so greatly wouldn't he sacrifice himself, before sacrificing his Son. The Son(Jesus) died for us all so by this scripture, Jesus has more love for us than God. How can this be? For God is Love. And from a trinitarian point of veiw, Jesus is God so it makes sense. If Jesus is the Word(John 1:1=God) then he has The same love as the Father(God). The love of The Father, Son & Holy Spirit is the same love for all.(THREE PERSONAS, ONE GOD)

Also through-out scripture God is called the same things as Jesus is called. God in Ps. 106:21, Hosea 13:4, Isaiah 45:21 and 43:3,11, AS THE SAVIOR and Jesus in Acts 2:21, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:9, Jude 25 AS THE SAVIOR. There are many Scriptures for each and not enough room for all so i will give one or two for each. If you need more just PM me.
God as the Rock(Ex. 17:6), The First and The Last(Isa.44:6), I AM(Isa. 43:10), God(Jer. 32:18), Lord of Lords(Deut. 10:17), Creator(Isaiah 40:28), Light(Psalm 27:1), Judge(Gen.18:25 & Joel 3:12);and Jesus as the Rock(1 Cor. 10:4), The First and The Last(Rev.1:17),I AM(John 8:58), God(Isaiah 9:6), Lord of Lords(1 Timothy 6:15), Creator(John 1:3,Collosians 1:15-17,Hebrews 1:10), Light(John 8:12, 1:9), Judge(2 Tim.4:1,2 Cor.5:10)

Now they both can't be these at the same time unless Jesus Christ(The Word made flesh) is God. The Word was God and became flesh(John 1:1-3); Jesus is 100% man(Hebrews 2:7&9, and the fact he had all the signs of being a man[eating, sleeping, etc.]) and 100% God(As the Word). Then we have this great scripture,
John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yourself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed.

He was The Word(God) before, so he regains his Glory. Now in order for our sins to be forgiven, we need an eternal sacrifice for an eternal sentence. Sin=eternal seperation from God. So an eternal sacrifice was needed. The Word(God) as Jesus=eternal sacrifice, so we can choose either eternal reward or eternal seperation from God. Now Jesus Christ had to be fully man so that he could be an example. If he wasn't man then we have no hope in overcoming sin(with God's help). Everything he said and did was to show an example of how to live(calling God his God, saying your will not mine, etc.). So he was both God-to take away the eternal punishment of sacrifice and slavery to sin, and man-so we know that we are capible with God to overcome these things.

Now it isn't me who needs to prove the Trinity, because for thousands of years it was taught. From the early church and on. It is you who flows against the grain of the Gospel and God's Church. Not me. And i never say there are three Gods but one. Three personas,One God. And i never disagree that Jesus was a man. But he was so much more than that.
This is not just for T8 to read but everyone.

[david]

Oneofthelordgeneral's, if you would like to pick one of those scriptures, we could discuss the contexts, how other Bible's word them, and how other similar scriptures relate. Please pick one other than John 1:1, as it has been discussed to death on here already. You have some interesting scriptures quoted. Please pick one that prooves the trinity.

david.

[david]

WHO IS JESUS? IS THAT THE QUESTION?

I know that all the scriptures I am going to show can be countered by saying: “It is a mystery that is not explainable.” But still, let's look at the question: Who is Jesus?

How did the angel announcing Jesus' birth refer to him?
“This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.” (LUKE 1:32)
(Compare Ps 83:18, where it says that Jehovah alone is the Most High.)
“For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” (LUKE 1:34)
So the angel could have said: What is born will be called God, but instead the angel showed how this one would be connected to God, being God's Son, and not God Almighty.

What did Jehovah say of Jesus?
“Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”” (MATTHEW 3:17)
Of course, if Jehovah and Jesus were the same, Jehovah could have said: 'This is me, whom I'm so proud of.' But that wouldn't make much sense.

And so John the Baptist, who witnessed the event, said of Jesus:
“And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”” (JOHN 1:34)
Did John think that he had seen God, or the Son of God?

Jesus’ apostles and friends repeatedly identified him this way:
“Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (JOHN 1:49)

“In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”” (MATTHEW 16:16)
Jesus then proclaimed Peter happy for having this revealed to him. It was not revealed to him that Jesus was God Almighty, but rather that Jesus was the “Son of” this one.

“She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (JOHN 11:27)
Martha was around Jesus quite a bit. Normal use of language would seem to indicate that if someone is the “son of” someone, they are not that person. “Ah,” you say, “well here is where the unexplainable mystery comes in.” It's really hard to argue with a mystery.

THESE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BY JOHN are to be noted, because so much weight is put on John 1:1

Why did the apostle John wrote what he did?
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (JOHN 20:31)
What are we to believe based on what John wrote? We don't have to guess. John himself tells us. Jesus is the “Son of” God.

Did John bear witness that Jesus was God, or God’s Son?
“I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (JOHN 1:34)

According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?
“Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (1 JOHN 4:15)

According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?
“Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 JOHN 5:5)

What did the apostle Paul preach about Jesus?
“he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God.” (ACTS 9:20)
Paul preached a lot. He would have told a lot of people that Jesus was the “Son of” God.

How did the demons address Jesus?
“What have we to do with you, Son of God?” (MATTHEW 8:29)
“Even the unclean spirits, whenever they would behold him, would prostrate themselves before him and cry out, saying: “You are the Son of God.”“(MARK 3:11)
“Demons also would come out of many, crying out and saying: “You are the Son of God.” (LUKE 4:41)

What did the chief priest charge Jesus as saying he was?
“So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!”“ (MATTHEW 26:63)
“Are you, therefore, the Son of God?” (LUKE 22:70)
“let Him [God] now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” (MATTHEW 27:43)
“Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus said: “I am.” (MARK 14:61-62)
If Jesus had been claiming to be Almighty God, certainly it would have been more to their advantage to repeatedly charge him with that, as opposed to charging him with being “the Son of” the Blessed One, God.

Is Jesus really God, or God’s Son? What did his disciples say?
“Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.”“ (MATTHEW 14:33)

How did those mocking him while he was dying refer to him?
“If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!” (MATTHEW 27:40)

What did the army officer there at Jesus' death think?
“when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”“ (MATTHEW 27:54)

Who did Jesus himself say he was?
“do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (JOHN 10:36)
Notice here what Jesus actually said, as opposed to what his accusers may have believed. He said he was God??? No. He said he was “God's Son.”

What did the Jews tell Pilate Jesus had made himself?
“We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.” (JOHN 19:7)

What was Jesus declared to be?
“but who with power was declared God’s Son.” (ROMANS 1:4)

He was not saying that he was equal to God, but rather “he was also calling God his own Father,” and in the minds of the Jews, this was tantamount to making himself equal with God.
“On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (JOHN 5:18)

So we have an angel, demons, Jehovah, Jesus, John the Baptist, Nathanael, Peter, Martha, John, Paul, disciples, mockers of Jesus, an army officer who saw Jesus die, the Jews, all making very plain what they believed Jesus to be, the “Son of” God, or “God’s Son,” and hence, not God, but someone related to God, the “Son of” God.

Of course, those who hold to the trinity take the expression “Son of” not to mean what it normally means every other time it is used. If I am the Son of a Mighty Man, then I am not that Mighty Man, but his Son. 'When discussing the trinity, we must remember that normal logic doesn't fit, because this is a special case,' you say, it's a “mystery.” Of course, that doesn't mean I can't also be a Mighty Man and at the same time be the Son of a Mighty Man. But the way language and words have always worked is: If someone is the “Son of” someone, they are not that person. It is by definition, wrong. Hence, we play the “mystery” card. And it's hard to argue with a mystery that isn't meant to be understood. So I'll stop now.

[Proclaimer]

OneoftheLordsGenerals,

Your arguments, interpretations of scripture, and conclusions have all been discussed here at great length. So in this post I will not quote scriptures that show your belief in a Trinity to be wrong, rather I will take your points and place them in a better context.

Quote

In Jewish custom, to call one the Son of God was to call him equal to God. This can be witnessed by many of thousands of Hebrew Scholars and Gods word.

Anyone could tell you that to be equal to something means that you are not that thing, rather you are like it.
E.g., 1+2 is equal to 1+1+1. yet both are different equations. Barcelona and Real Madrid may be equal soccer teams, still means that they are 2 different teams. $20,000 is equal to a new Honda car means that both are different.

As you say, in the Jewish custom makes the son equal to the Father. So are we to suppose that you are your Father, or that you are your son? Or are you different people?

Quote

Now i have a whole list of scriptures which show a New Testament filled with people who call Jesus-God, or the Son of God, and worship him (T8 has a copy). The people who called him Son of God were Peter and the rest of the Twelve, Paul, Nathaneul, Satan, Demons, different crowds of people, Mark, Luke, etc. Jesus is even called God and doesn't rebuke it. That alone makes Jesus an idolater.

Well no one is arguing that Jesus isn't the son of God, in fact by believing that he is makes believing that he is God himself redundant. Son of God does not mean son of the Trinity. If it did, the son would be mentioned twice.

So you then say that all these NT guys say that Jesus is God (theos) Well it is also written that we are ‘theos’. And Jesus was always the first to point out that his Father was greater than he was.

Quote

So basically every person who wrote a book in the New Testament is a blasphemer(calling him the Son of God or God), an idolater for worshipping him, and not only that. But they are unrepentant for doing so. Not once do they ask God for forgiveness for these acts unto Jesus. Because they weren't sinful acts.

No they are not blasphemers because no one is saying that son of God is wrong, that is actually what I teach. Worshipping him as God? Now that is a different story. Where is Jesus worshipped as God? He is worshiped/honored as the son of God and the Lamb.

To worship Christ as the son of God, is obviously a good thing. But only YHWH is worshiped as the Almighty God.

You then quote all these scriptures that say that Jesus is God, but as has been pointed out already, 'theos' and 'elohim' are not exclusive titles for God, they are used for God, Jesus, Man, Angel, Satan, and idols. So this conclusion is pointless, in that it is only prejudice that says that Jesus is YHWH and men are not, when in both examples the word 'theos' is used. Try this link which has answers to most of your arguments about what these scriptures really mean:
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-05.htm

We know that there is one God and his name is YHWH. Yahshua is YHWH son. But Trinitarians say that Yashua is YHWH, a clever way to deny that he is the son if you think about it.

Quote

Now they both can't be these at the same time unless Jesus Christ(The Word made flesh) is God. The Word was God and became flesh(John 1:1-3); Jesus is 100% man(Hebrews 2:7&9, and the fact he had all the signs of being a man[eating, sleeping, etc.]) and 100% God(As the Word). Then we have this great scripture, John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yourself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed. He was The Word(God) before, so he regains his Glory.

True. Jesus was the Word and then he came in the flesh. In the Book of Revelation, the glorified Christ is called “the Word of God”.

What you need to sort out here OneoftheLordsGenerals, is the difference between identity and nature. To have God’s nature, or to put it another way, divine nature, doesn't make one, God in identity. The same link I gave you before has a comprehensive explanation regarding this:
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-05.htm

Quote

Now in order for our sins to be forgiven, we need an eternal sacrifice for an eternal sentence. Sin=eternal seperation from God. So an eternal sacrifice was needed. The Word(God) as Jesus=eternal sacrifice, so we can choose either eternal reward or eternal seperation from God. Now Jesus Christ had to be fully man so that he could be an example. If he wasn't man then we have no hope in overcoming sin(with God's help). Everything he said and did was to show an example of how to live(calling God his God, saying your will not mine, etc.). So he was both God-to take away the eternal punishment of sacrifice and slavery to sin, and man-so we know that we are capible with God to overcome these things.

Not so quick here OneoftheLordsGenerals. What you say here is not scriptural. However it wouldn't be hard to understand that if Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God, and if God created all things through him, then surely God can redeem his creation through him too. Remember that Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The vine supports the branches. But the Father is even greater than the vine. He is the vine dresser.

Quote

Now it isn't me who needs to prove the Trinity, because for thousands of years it was taught. From the early church and on. It is you who flows against the grain of the Gospel and God's Church. Not me. And i never say there are three Gods but one. Three personas,One God. And i never disagree that Jesus was a man. But he was so much more than that.

This is complete nonsense because the Jews have never believed in the Trinity and they had the scriptures for thousands of years. Rather they are correct in rejecting the Trinity for they know that God is one, not triune.

The Jews knew that God was one and that he would send his Messiah. Their problem was they rejected the Messiah when he came to them. The Jews have never been judged for rejecting the Trinity have they?

Also to say that a doctrine is thousands of years old, is no proof that it is correct. There are religions today that are predate Christ coming to earth, and I wouldn't say that they are correct by reason of their age.

Just because most Christians believe in the Trinity doesn't make it right. Maybe most scientists in the west believe in evolution and many think that to not believe that doctrine is silly,
by reason of the support it has. Yet the majority can be wrong and often are. Before the reformation we had all kinds of lies floating around Christians. The reformation restored some truth back did it not?

Truth is not determined by what the majority believe. Usually it is held by the minority because the whole world is under the sway of the Evil One and he is the one who deceived the WHOLE WORLD. Jesus even said “fear not little flock”.

[Ramblinrose]

What does it mean to be called the 'Son of God':

Quote

Son of God – This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus’. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said: “The Son is of the same substance as the Father.” It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was not included in the formula. It was included fifty-six years later at another council. Let’s see what this title really means: Son of God – In the Old Testament Israel is described as God’s first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah “Son of God” for he is Israel’s representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204). “Son of God” denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman’s contention that the Hebrew concept of “son” does not denote an extensive circle of relationships” (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the “son of God” (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His “son” in 1 Chronicles 28:6. For Paul, “Son of God” is essentially a Christological description expressing “the Son’s solidarity with God” (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of “Son of God”(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God’s anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states: “The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation: Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man applies to Mark’s gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament.” Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states: “The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization.” This is the meaning of the title “Son of God.” Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let’s take a look at some verses to confirm this. “The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)”… “I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)”… “The LORD said to me, “You are my son” (Psalm 2:2,6-7). Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son. “He first found his own brother and told him, “We have found the Messiah”…”Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel” (John 1:41& 49). John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of “Son of God.” Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

God Bless

[david]

Quote

How did the angel announcing Jesus' birth refer to him? “This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.” (LUKE 1:32) (Compare Ps 83:18, where it says that Jehovah alone is the Most High.) “For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” (LUKE 1:34) So the angel could have said: What is born will be called God, but instead the angel showed how this one would be connected to God, being God's Son, and not God Almighty. What did Jehovah say of Jesus? “Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”” (MATTHEW 3:17) Of course, if Jehovah and Jesus were the same, Jehovah could have said: 'This is me, whom I'm so proud of.' But that wouldn't make much sense. And so John the Baptist, who witnessed the event, said of Jesus: “And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”” (JOHN 1:34) Did John think that he had seen God, or the Son of God? Jesus’ apostles and friends repeatedly identified him this way: “Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (JOHN 1:49) “In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”” (MATTHEW 16:16) Jesus then proclaimed Peter happy for having this revealed to him. It was not revealed to him that Jesus was God Almighty, but rather that Jesus was the “Son of” this one. “She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (JOHN 11:27) Martha was around Jesus quite a bit. Normal use of language would seem to indicate that if someone is the “son of” someone, they are not that person. “Ah,” you say, “well here is where the unexplainable mystery comes in.” It's really hard to argue with a mystery. THESE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BY JOHN are to be noted, because so much weight is put on John 1:1 Why did the apostle John wrote what he did? “But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (JOHN 20:31) What are we to believe based on what John wrote? We don't have to guess. John himself tells us. Jesus is the “Son of” God. Did John bear witness that Jesus was God, or God’s Son? “I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (JOHN 1:34) According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess? “Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (1 JOHN 4:15) According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God? “Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 JOHN 5:5) What did the apostle Paul preach about Jesus? “he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God.” (ACTS 9:20) Paul preached a lot. He would have told a lot of people that Jesus was the “Son of” God. How did the demons address Jesus? “What have we to do with you, Son of God?” (MATTHEW 8:29) “Even the unclean spirits, whenever they would behold him, would prostrate themselves before him and cry out, saying: “You are the Son of God.”“(MARK 3:11) “Demons also would come out of many, crying out and saying: “You are the Son of God.” (LUKE 4:41) What did the chief priest charge Jesus as saying he was? “So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!”“ (MATTHEW 26:63) “Are you, therefore, the Son of God?” (LUKE 22:70) “let Him [God] now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” (MATTHEW 27:43) “Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus said: “I am.” (MARK 14:61-62) If Jesus had been claiming to be Almighty God, certainly it would have been more to their advantage to repeatedly charge him with that, as opposed to charging him with being “the Son of” the Blessed One, God. Is Jesus really God, or God’s Son? What did his disciples say? “Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.”“ (MATTHEW 14:33) How did those mocking him while he was dying refer to him? “If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!” (MATTHEW 27:40) What did the army officer there at Jesus' death think? “when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”“ (MATTHEW 27:54) Who did Jesus himself say he was? “do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (JOHN 10:36) Notice here what Jesus actually said, as opposed to what his accusers may have believed. He said he was God??? No. He said he was “God's Son.” What did the Jews tell Pilate Jesus had made himself? “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.” (JOHN 19:7) What was Jesus declared to be? “but who with power was declared God’s Son.” (ROMANS 1:4) He was not saying that he was equal to God, but rather “he was also calling God his own Father,” and in the minds of the Jews, this was tantamount to making himself equal with God. “On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (JOHN 5:18)

OK, so there's a couple references to his identity and him being identified repeatedly as the “son of” God, as opposed to 'God the Son,' an expression which never appears in scripture.

“But,” you say, “there are so many references to him being called “God.” How do you explain those?

Well, I would be of the opinion that it isn't that many times that Jesus is called God. I've checked the Bible. I've actually went through it and checked every reference where the word God appears. Jehovah is specifically called God around a thousand times in Scripture. I agree with
the Canon Theologian of Coventry Cathedral, H. W. Montefiore, who notes that
“very seldom indeed is Jesus called God in the New Testament.”
–Soundings—Essays Concerning Christian Understanding, edited by A. R. Vidler, page 159

In a lecture at the University of Manchester, visiting Professor of Theology G. H. Boobyer explained:
“Some nine or ten passages occur in which Jesus is, or might be, alluded to as ‘God’ (‘theos’). . . . Two or three of these, however, are highly dubious, and, of the remainder, varying degrees of . . . uncertainty attach to all save one, which is Thomas’s adoring acclaim of the risen Jesus in John xx. 28 as ‘My Lord and my God!’ Distinguishing this passage from the others, Vincent Taylor—a moderately conservative scholar on christological problems—speaks of it as ‘the one clear ascription of Deity to Christ’ in the New Testament.”
–Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, Vol. 50, Spring 1968, No. 2, pages 253, 259, 251.

But does even this one apparently “clear ascription of Deity to Christ” prove that he is the Almighty God? John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed:
“The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas ‘my Lord and my God’ (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, a
nd it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v. 17): ‘Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’”
–The Divinity of Jesus Christ, by John Martin Creed, page 123

Thomas may have addressed Jesus as “God” in the qualified sense of his being “a god,” but not Almighty God. The Scriptures speak of spirit persons or angels as gods.
Also at that time powerful humans were commonly called “god.” For example, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV, who ruled from 175-163 B.C.E., styled himself Theos Epiphanes (“God Manifest”) on coins. And the first-century Roman emperor Domitian affected the honor of being “Lord and God.” The Bible, too, acknowledges powerful persons as “gods,” saying, “There are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords.’”—1 Cor. 8:5; compare Psalm 82:1-7.

What about John 1:1?

The CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY, Vol. XIII, No. 4, October 1951, observed:

“Grammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse should be translated, whether ‘God’ or ‘a god.’”

And indicating propriety for the rendering “a god,” The New American Bible (1970) in its section “Biblical Terms Explained” says under the word “God”:

“In Jn 1:1, the Word is called ‘God’ but the original Greek term used here, theos [God], is not the usual word for God, ho theos [the God].”

The truth is, just how John 1:1 should be translated cannot be definitely determined solely by rules of Greek grammar. As Divinity Professor John Martin Creed noted:
“The Prologue [John 1:1] is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [theos without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in English.”
–The Divinity of Jesus Christ, by John Martin Creed, page 123.

Thus this text alone is inconclusive in identifying whether Jesus is truly “God,” or is a subordinate, lesser “god.” Do the few other texts where “Jesus is, or might be, alluded to as ‘God’” prove that he is really Almighty God?

Other Bible Texts (which some have recently referred to)
As already noted, there is “uncertainty” that Jesus is the one called “God” in some of these texts; and other texts are “highly dubious.”

For example, 1 Timothy 3:16 says, “God was manifest in the flesh.” (AV) But most modern translations read instead, “He who was manifested . . .” This is because, as the footnote of the American Standard Version explains: “The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”
Also, it cannot be proved that Jesus is the one called “God” at 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Regarding this text that reads, “According to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (AV), Theologian Vincent Taylor says: “It is manifest that Paul is speaking first of God and secondly of Christ.” -The Expository Times, January 1962, page 117

The Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner puts 2 Peter 1:1 in the same category with 2 Thessalonians 1:12, explaining that in the Greek, theos “here is clearly separated from ‘Christ.’”
–Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner, Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137.

Some persons contend that the ascription of 1 John 5:20, “This is the true God, and eternal life” (AV), refers to Jesus and hence proves him to be God. However, Karl Rahner says that “it should be noted that precisely in St. John’s First Epistle [Artwork—Greek characters] [ho theos, “the true God”] so often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the Epistle, unless we are to suppose that some incomprehensible change has taken place in the subject referred to by [Artwork—Greek characters].”—Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner, Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137.

Another text that is said to show that Jesus is God is Romans 9:5, which says: “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (AV) Vincent Taylor notes that there are differences of opinion, but adds: “I think the balance of opinion falls on this side, and that Christ is not addressed as God.”–The Expository Times, January 1962, page 117.
Thus modern translations commonly render the text in a way to make a clearer distinction between God and Christ.

In connection with Titus 2:13 the question is whether the Greek should be rendered ‘the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,’ or ‘the glory of the great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ.’ As Vincent Taylor observes: “The grammarians range themselves on both sides.”—-The Expository Times, January 1962, page 117.
Thus, as with John 1:1, grammar alone is not conclusive in showing how the text should be translated.

THEREFORE THE TEACHING OF THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF GOD MUST GOVERN THE RENDERNING OF CERTAIN TEXTS—whether they should represent Jesus as truly “God,” or as separate from and subordinate to Almighty God.

The quote at the top of this post shows how people who knew Jesus , Jesus himself, his Father, the Demons, an angel, his disciples, Peter, Paul, John, etc, viewed him, and those texts cannot really be misunderstood, unlike the few “Jesus is God” scriptures, which depend on the rest of the scriptures for insight.
Jehovah is referred to specifically as God a thousand times in Scripture. If they are equal, all God,

Where is the holy spirit called “God” a thousand times in Scripture?

david.

[Ramblinrose]

Is 1:18

Quote

Ramblinrose from Feb 23rd Being filled with Holy Spirit does not make Yahshua Almighty YHWH. It says of John the baptiser: Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. If people can be given/filled with Holy Spirit, how can the Holy Spirit be a person?  You cannot fill one person with another. When John was born, he was gifted with a mind that was already in alignment with YHWH.  He was not to drink strong drink – would this be because alcohol alters the state of the mind? It says of the disciples: Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. When the disciples were filled with Holy Spirit they had an understanding of YHWH and the scriptures.  They couldn’t seem to get it together before this but their minds being aligned to that of the Father was the answer to their understanding. It says of those that ask: Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? When we ask our heavenly Father to give us the Holy Spirit we are asking him to line our minds up with his.   Being given/filled with Holy Spirit does not make one Almighty God.  It does not make the disciples, Yahshua not us, Almighty God. I see this as one way to understand Holy Spirit but there are other applications.

Quote

Is 1:18 – 23 Feb 06 2 CORINTHIANS 13:5 5Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test? What do you make of this verse Ramblinrose? or this one: GALATIANS 4 6Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Firstly, the above say two different things if you are reading them word for word.  Corinithians says that Yahshua is in you but Galations says that the spirit of Yahshua is in you.  

I believe Corinithians should be understood in the same light as Galations as a ‘person’ cannot be inside you but you may act in the spirit of another person therefore you are considered to have that persons spirit inside you. This is what I was referring to in my previous post.

Here is an example of what I am trying to say.  A child is said to have the spirit of his father as he acts in many ways like his father.  He does not have his father inside of him, he presents himself in many ways (actions etc) like his father.  Is this then what we are meaning when we say we have the spirit or YHWH or the spirit of Yahshua?

I see this as ‘one aspect’ of understanding Holy Spirit .  I don’t have Yahshua inside me (as such) but YHWH has filled my heart with a spirit like that of Yahshua.  I now have the spirit of wanting to strive to please and following my Elohim YHWH in the same way as Yahshua.   I have the spirit of Yahshua.  That is how they are always with me – my spirit has been tuned into theirs, we are one in spirit.

God Bless

[Sultan]

Quote

Here is an example of what I am trying to say. A child is said to have the spirit of his father as he acts in many ways like his father. He does not have his father inside of him, he presents himself in many ways (actions etc) like his father. Is this then what we are meaning when we say we have the spirit or YHWH or the spirit of Yahshua?

Ramblinrose,
Here is a scripture to help illustrate your point a little clearer:

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:13-17)

Here the scriptures say that John the Baptizer will go in the spirit of Elijah. Yet we know that John is not Elijah.

Though I do believe that the Holy Spirit literally abides in those who are Christians,

the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John. 14:17)

but I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person. It is described as the power of God.

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me[a] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts. 1:8)

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2 Tim 1:7)

[Cubes]

Quote (david @ Mar. 02 2006,06:15)

WHO IS JESUS?  IS THAT THE QUESTION? I know that all the scriptures I am going to show can be countered by saying: “It is a mystery that is not explainable.”  But still, let's look at the question: Who is Jesus? How did the angel announcing Jesus' birth refer to him? “This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.” (LUKE 1:32) (Compare Ps 83:18, where it says that Jehovah alone is the Most High.) “For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” (LUKE 1:34) So the angel could have said: What is born will be called God, but instead the angel showed how this one would be connected to God, being God's Son, and not God Almighty. What did Jehovah say of Jesus? “Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”” (MATTHEW 3:17) Of course, if Jehovah and Jesus were the same, Jehovah could have said: 'This is me, whom I'm so proud of.'  But that wouldn't make much sense. And so John the Baptist, who witnessed the event, said of Jesus: “And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”” (JOHN 1:34) Did John think that he had seen God, or the Son of God? Jesus’ apostles and friends repeatedly identified him this way: “Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (JOHN 1:49) “In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”” (MATTHEW 16:16) Jesus then proclaimed Peter happy for having this revealed to him.  It was not revealed to him that Jesus was God Almighty, but rather that Jesus was the “Son of” this one. “She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (JOHN 11:27) Martha was around Jesus quite a bit.  Normal use of language would seem to indicate that if someone is the “son of” someone, they are not that person.  “Ah,” you say, “well here is where the unexplainable mystery comes in.”  It's really hard to argue with a mystery. THESE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BY JOHN are to be noted, because so much weight is put on John 1:1 Why did the apostle John wrote what he did? “But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (JOHN 20:31) What are we to believe based on what John wrote?  We don't have to guess.  John himself tells us.  Jesus is the “Son of” God. Did John bear witness that Jesus was God, or God’s Son? “I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (JOHN 1:34) According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess? “Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (1 JOHN 4:15) According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God? “Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 JOHN 5:5) What did the apostle Paul preach about Jesus? “he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God.” (ACTS 9:20) Paul preached a lot.  He would have told a lot of people that Jesus was the “Son of” God. How did the demons address Jesus? “What have we to do with you, Son of God?”  (MATTHEW 8:29) “Even the unclean spirits, whenever they would behold him, would prostrate themselves before him and cry out, saying: “You are the Son of God.”“(MARK 3:11) “Demons also would come out of many, crying out and saying: “You are the Son of God.”  (LUKE 4:41) What did the chief priest charge Jesus as saying he was? “So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!”“ (MATTHEW 26:63) “Are you, therefore, the Son of God?” (LUKE 22:70) “let Him [God] now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” (MATTHEW 27:43) “Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus said: “I am.” (MARK 14:61-62) If Jesus had been claiming to be Almighty God, certainly it would have been more to their advantage to repeatedly charge him with that, as opposed to charging him with being “the Son of” the Blessed One, God. Is Jesus really God, or God’s Son?  What did his disciples say? “Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.”“ (MATTHEW 14:33) How did those mocking him while he was dying refer to him? “If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!” (MATTHEW 27:40) What did the army officer there at Jesus' death think? “when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”“ (MATTHEW 27:54) Who did Jesus himself say he was? “do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (JOHN 10:36) Notice here what Jesus actually said, as opposed to what his accusers may have believed.  He said he was God???  No.  He said he was “God's Son.” What did the Jews tell Pilate Jesus had made himself? “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.” (JOHN 19:7) What was Jesus declared to be? “but who with power was declared God’s Son.” (ROMANS 1:4) He was not saying that he was equal to God, but rather “he was also calling God his own Father,” and in the minds of the Jews, this was tantamount to making himself equal with God.   “On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (JOHN 5:18) So we have an angel, demons, Jehovah, Jesus, John the Baptist, Nathanael, Peter, Martha, John, Paul, disciples, mockers of Jesus, an army officer who saw Jesus die, the Jews, all making very plain what they believed Jesus to be, the “Son of” God, or “God’s Son,” and hence, not God, but someone related to God, the “Son of” God. Of course, those who hold to the trinity take the expression “Son of” not to mean what it normally means every other time it is used.  If I am the Son of a Mighty Man, then I am not that Mighty Man, but his Son.  'When discussing the trinity, we must remember that normal logic doesn't fit, because this is a special case,' you say, it's a “mystery.”  Of course, that doesn't mean I can't also be a Mighty Man and at the same time be the Son of a Mighty Man.  But the way language and words have always worked is: If someone is the “Son of” someone, they are not that person.  It is by definition, wrong.  Hence, we play the “mystery” card.  And it's hard to argue with a mystery that isn't meant to be understood.  So I'll stop now.

Great contribution, David.

[TJStarfire]

Simply put Jesus is the son God sent to counteract the arrogance of the Jewish leaders who used the compact God made with Moses to claim that they were the only people on Earth that God would save.
They led Gods people into thinking they were better people because of their birth and started shunning other tribes, who started hating them for their treatment of them.

They put aside the ways of peace,
In other words they were leading the people,
God agreed to help out of slavery if they would follow Him,
into sin.

They became vain people.

That is what the book of Jeremiah describes, is it not?

[Woutlaw]

Quote (Sultan @ Mar. 03 2006,03:28)

Quote Here is an example of what I am trying to say.  A child is said to have the spirit of his father as he acts in many ways like his father.  He does not have his father inside of him, he presents himself in many ways (actions etc) like his father.  Is this then what we are meaning when we say we have the spirit or YHWH or the spirit of Yahshua? Ramblinrose, Here is a scripture to help illustrate your point a little clearer: But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah,  ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:13-17) Here the scriptures say that John the Baptizer will go in the spirit of Elijah. Yet we know that John is not Elijah. Though I do believe that the Holy Spirit literally abides in those who are Christians, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John. 14:17) but I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person. It is described as the power of God. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me[a] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts. 1:8) For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2 Tim 1:7)

Good Stuff Sultan and Rose

[Proclaimer]

Yeshua is the author of life.

[TJStarfire]

Hi T8

Quote

Yeshua is the author of life.

I beg to differ on that,
Yeshua, by what ever name label, is the author of the safe way around the lake of fire.

Or rather the author of How to Stand without shame before the Judge.

[Cubes]

Who is Jesus?  According to Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch?  

Acts 8:34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

By these accounts, I doubt that one would have been baptized by some other confession. Let's face it.

[Is 1:18]

Hi Ramblinrose,
Thanks for replying with what looks like quite a carefully thought out post.

Quote

Firstly, the above say two different things if you are reading them word for word.  Corinithians says that Yahshua is in you but Galations says that the spirit of Yahshua is in you.

Granted, but I don't think the NT writers draw the same distinction that you do. They appear, to me, to use “Spirit of Christ” and “Christ” interchangably. I suppose its semantic to argue whether being indwelled by a person's spirit is the same as being indwelled by the person themself and, in practical terms, it doesn't seem to matter.

Matthew 18:20
Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Quote

I believe Corinithians should be understood in the same light as Galations as a ‘person’ cannot be inside you but you may act in the spirit of another person therefore you are considered to have that persons spirit inside you. This is what I was referring to in my previous post.

My first though when reading this was:- aren't demons persons? Certainly they can indwell humans and Jesus (and His followers) often cast out these sentient beings from the possessed. Perhaps you hold to the Christedelphian belief that demons are a synonynm for mental illness, in which case you will be far from convinced by my line of reasoning. I personally think is clear in scripture that that demonic spirits and fallen angels are actual persons, and will happlily debate this with you.

Quote

Here is an example of what I am trying to say.  A child is said to have the spirit of his father as he acts in many ways like his father.  He does not have his father inside of him, he presents himself in many ways (actions etc) like his father.  Is this then what we are meaning when we say we have the spirit or YHWH or the spirit of Yahshua?

I take your point here and certainly having the spirit of someone can mean acting in like manner. I guess its a matter of interpretation, when I read “Spirit of Christ” I understand it literally, whereas you see it as an allegory. Although, there are a number of verses that don't appear to fit with your theory. Here are a few:

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

The body/temple analogy infers a place of inhabitance for God's Spirit. If our bodies are indeed temples then surely they are built for something or someone to inhabit. The above verses make it plain that it is God Who will inhabit our temple. These of course tie in with this verse:

John 14:23
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Abode:
From G3306; a staying, that is, residence (the act or the place): – abode, mansion.

How, in your opinion, will Jesus and The Father make their abode with us??

Also, consider these verses:  

Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come

Only an intelligent being can:
– “testify” (or bear witness) – Also see Acts 5:32.
– “teach”
– “bring to remembrance what ever I [Jesus] have said to you”
– “speak”
– “hear”
– “shew you things to come”

1 John 4:4
Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

Here John is contrasting the “he that is in you” (God) with “he who is in the world” (Satan, refer Matt 4:9-10, Joh 12:31, 2 Cor 4:4, Eph 2:2, 1 Joh 5:19). If the “he who is in the world”  is a person, then it stands to reason the the “he that is in you” would also have to be. Otherwise John's statement makes no sense at all.

Quote

I see this as ‘one aspect’ of understanding Holy Spirit .  I don’t have Yahshua inside me (as such) but YHWH has filled my heart with a spirit like that of Yahshua.

If I was you I would want to make 100% certain that the “Spirit of Christ” does not refer to His literal Spirit, because salvation is predicated on this:

Romans 8:9
9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Quote

I now have the spirit of wanting to strive to please and following my Elohim YHWH in the same way as Yahshua.  I have the spirit of Yahshua.  That is how they are always with me – my spirit has been tuned into theirs, we are one in spirit.

I would say it like this: being Christ-like is a sole function of having His (literal) Spirit in us.

Be well

[Proclaimer]

Quote (TJStarfire @ Mar. 05 2006,13:48)

Hi T8 Quote Yeshua is the author of life. I beg to differ on that, Yeshua, by what ever name label, is the author of the safe way around the lake of fire. Or rather the author of How to Stand without shame before the Judge.

I quoted a scripture:

Acts 3:15 (New International Version)
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Perhaps the translation is dodgy.

Acts 3:15 (New American Standard Bible)
but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.

I believe that God created all things through Yeshua. So all things including living things came through him. Yet God raised him from the dead. So if all living things were created through Yeshua, then he must predate those things and this goes against the popular teaching that Christ is God because he is the root of living things.

John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

[Cubes]

From Pg 2 of the Scriptural Common Sense Vs. Confusion
Thread:

Quote

Having said that, I frankly do not know WHEN Jesus became a son, and don't consider it to matter to our belief that he IS the son of God. Hi Cubes, Well I would say it is important in the sense that it would give me insight into what the title “Son of God” actually means to you. From what you've written I take it that you believe the title originates from an event that happaned before His incarnation. Is this correct?

Hey Is!

The Son of God is the express image of God (Hebrew 1)
By INHERITANCE he has a more excellent name than anyone else.
He is the heir of all things
Hebrews 1:2… heir of all things, BY whom also HE made the worlds; (Compare to John 1 and Colossians 1)
In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; (Col 2:9)
The Father has given all authority over everything, excepting the Father himself, unto him.
The Father has given him to have life in himself.
The Father loves him and considers him his beloved Son
The Father commands that every knee be bowed before him and every tongue confess him as Lord

I maintain however, that it is not prerequisite to our salvation process that we know WHEN Jesus actually became a son or it would be a question asked of those who received and believed on him, which was never once done, to my knowledge.

On the one hand Jesus was born on earth and we are told:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

On the other hand Jesus speaks of his Father as though he's been his Son for more than 33 years.  

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

In light of all that, I plead the fifth through the wonderful account in John 9:9-38 on the question of WHEN!  Noting that Jesus doesn't ask the question either but accepts the only valid answer to the relevant question:  “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” to which the approved response was, “'Lord, I believe.' And he worshipped him.'”

[Is 1:18]

Quote t8:

Quote

Is 1:18, Why dont you tell us what the son of God means. We might even agree with you. Perhaps you can reply to this in the “Who is Jesus” forum.

I have done in various threads at different times, e.g. on pg25 of the Holy Spirit thread I wrote this:

Quote

Hi Kenrch, You wrote: Please tell me where you find that Jesus was “begotten” in heaven BEFORE God used Mary.  Jesus was not begotten until Mary came along. Yes, I agree. I also find no account of an eternal generation of the pre-incarnate Word in either Testament. Jesus is only ever identified as a Son in a post-incarnation context and your statement aligns with the NT writers understanding of the origin of this title: LUKE 1 (KJV) 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. LUKE 1 (NASB) 35The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. LUKE 1 (NIV) 35The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Jesus will be called the Son of God as a consequence of the incarnation event. Luke makes a very clear and direct linkage between these two variables here, in this verse. Paul said he was “declared” (From G3725; that is, [figuratively] to appoint, decree, specify: – declare, determine, limit, ordain.) to be the Son of God: ROMANS 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. He also associated the origin of the 'Sonship' of Christ with the Resurrection in Acts 13:33: ACTS 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Therefore, to me it is conclusive that, at least in the mind of Paul, that He was not in any way 'birthed' by the Father. This is not how Paul appears to understand the origin of the title “Son”. In fact none of the NT writers use Ps 2:7 in reference to a pre-incarnation begettal. HEBREWS 1 5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be  to him a Father (future tense), and he shall be to me a Son?(future tense) 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world (future tense), he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Notice, that the Father declares that he pre-incarnate Word will be a Son to Him (The Father) immediately before the firstbegotten is brought into the world (in terms of the passages sequence). Clearly the writer intended to convey the relationship between the titles (Father and Son) and the earthly life of Christ. If this was a reference to the eternal begettal it doesn’t fit contextually. As far as I know He is never called a Son before his incarnation (except in the case(s) of predictive prophecy). Add to this the biblical data attesting to the eternality of Christ and it appears conclusive that the title Son of God has everything to do with His earthly existence. Some of my thoughts for what they're worth…..

I also understand the title “Son of” is used to convey ‘having the nature of’. For instance, James and John were called by Jesus “the sons of thunder”, (Mark 3:17), were they literally the sons of an metereological phenomenon? No, but they had that nature. Jesus also gave himself the title “Son of man” does this mean that he was literally the son of a man? No, He was not…..you get my point, I hope.

[Is 1:18]

Hey Cubes.
I get the feeling you think i'm trying to trap you in something here. I'm not. I was simply asking you if you believed Jesus was somehow birthed by The Father pre-incarnation, or if you believe that He became a Son during His earthly life. From what you've written I take it that it's the former. I understand that a lot of people hold to this but I see NO scriptural evidence for this birth event. What have you read that has lead you to the conclusion that Yahshua became a Son pre-incarnation and ALWAYS existed as a Son (in an anthropic context).

Quote

On the other hand Jesus speaks of his Father as though he's been his Son for more than 33 years.   And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I dont see how you can draw the conclusion that “Jesus speaks of his Father as though he's been his Son for more than 33 years” from this verse. If anything it shows that the shared the same glory and that argues against a subordination.

[Is 1:18]

Quote David:

Quote

Hebrews 1:8: Revised Standard Version reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.) Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os´] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os´ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him´] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os´] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

It is true that the Greek construction of Heb 1:8 means that it can be translated two ways. However, all the creditable English versions render it “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” For some very good reasons. Here are three:

1. Although the Greek of Heb 1:8 is ambiguous the Hebrew in Psa 45:6, the quoted OT verse, isn’t.

Psalm 45:6 (NASB)
“Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom”

The KJV, NIV, and NASB all translated it as above. The RSV translators rendered it as “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever,” but this is not a sound translation because it requires the understanding that the Hebrew noun for “throne” to be in the construct state, this would be exceptionally unusual when a noun has a pro-nomial suffix.

2. Context.

Quote

HEBREWS 1:1-11 1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5For to which of the angels did He ever say,         “YOU ARE MY SON,         TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?         And again,         “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM         AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,         “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” 7And of the angels He says,         “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS,         AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” 8But of the Son He says,         “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,         AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.    9″YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;         THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU         WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10And,         “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,         AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;    11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;        AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,    12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;         LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED         BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,         AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”

This short passage records these things about Yahshua:
1. He made the world(s)* (v2)
2. He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His [Father’s] nature (v3)
3. He “upholds all things by the word of His power”* – He sustains the entire Universe. Its estimated that 100,000,000 galaxies exist, each with approximately 100,000,000 planets and Yahshua sustains every atom by the word of HIS power!
4. All the angels of God worship Him. Angels are forbidden to worship anyone BUT God (Rev 22:8-9).
5. The pre-incarnate Word of God is clearly identified as having “laid the foundations of the earth” the Heavens are also “the works of HIS hands” in v10.*
6. He is immutable (v12)

*More info here

None of these could be true of an angel, or any being of inferior ontology to Almighty God for that matter. Hebrews 1:8 (the correct rendering) fits naturally and harmoniously within the context of this passage.

3. The NWT translation “God is your throne forever and ever” MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!! What are we to take from this statement, that God actually Jesus' throne?!?!

Quote

Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God.

Yes the context of this verse in Psalm 45 apparently deals with an earthly king, but it is not at all unusual for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that ostensibly deals with one subject and apply it to another. It’s far more important to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put Psalm 45:6 into, than the context of the passage it came from. The writer applied it to Jesus – therefore, by default, Psalm 45:6 is a Messianic verse. Or do you have some inside knowledge on Psa 45:6 that the writer of Hebrews wasn’t privy to David?

[Author]

Posts