Is Jesus Christ God?

Originally posted by kingdanwa
merci monsieur grenouille.

english please

Originally posted by Nicolaas
english please

That's between me and Kermit.

Originally posted by Omnislash
Well, if Jesus was not God then a lot of people are in a lot of trouble, as this eliminates any notion of salvation by grace.

(perhaps) By defination God doesn't play God because if he did he would no longer be God anyone who therefore trys to play God ... Jesus will probably dish out big trouble if anyone did try to play God or see if they can match his standards in anyway! (That should surely be every respectful mans challenge).

Originally posted by kingdanwa
I'd be interested in some biblical support for your Michael theory, I'm not familiar with it.

god supposedly created 7 arch angels to do his bidding, run errands, make coffee that sort of thing. there are many more but these dudes were kinda like his generals. michael, gabriel, raphael, uriel, and theres debate about who the last three are there are about six of them running for election, but those first four names are generally agreed on.

the theory goes that michael was jesus in a human incarnation cause his name roughly translates from hebrew as" he who is like god". the archangels were supposedly god's first creation and michael was the first cab off the rank.

there is some really really heavy theorizing that michael did all the creating for god on his behalf while god put his feet up. which included the creation of the other archangels( one of which was lucifer, the evil dude in all of this) and the rest of the universe and all it entails. this is why jesus AKA michael is refered to as god's only begotten son because he was the only thing that god actually created by his own hand.. or what ever he used.

thats the readers digest version. i need another lie down

Originally posted by cavan
god supposedly created 7 arch angels to do his bidding, run errands, make coffee that sort of thing. there are many more but these dudes were kinda like his generals. michael, gabriel, raphael, uriel, and theres debate about who the last three are there are about six of them running for election, but those first four names are generally agreed on.

the theor ...[text shortened]... is own hand.. or what ever he used.

thats the readers digest version. i need another lie down

Great premise. You got a Da Vinci Code 2 in the making. Good luck trying to sell the idea though.

Originally posted by Halitose
Great premise. You got a Da Vinci Code 2 in the making. Good luck trying to sell the idea though.

Or Pullman's HDM trilogy.

Originally posted by Halitose
Great premise. You got a Da Vinci Code 2 in the making. Good luck trying to sell the idea though.

Seems like the Jehovah's Witnesses subscribe to this idea:

http://www.afcministry.com/Jehovahs_Witnesses_Is_Jesus_Michael.htm

So the idea has already been sold.

Originally posted by Anwylyd
The real question is not wether or not Jesus Christ is God (though the BIBLE does reffer to Him being part of the God Head... what MEN call the Trinity)... it's "Do you believe Jesus Christ is God"... setting aside what you've read or heard... do you believe, not because someone talked you in or out of believing... but because you are convinced that Jesu ...[text shortened]... "work out our own faith"... that's between you and God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)...

I believe what the bible says as well....He is the son of God, not God.
Show me where the bible says He is God....🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I believe what the bible says as well....He is the son of God, not God.
Show me where the bible says He is God....🙂

Okay here goes.

Christ said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal to the Father (John 5:17,18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which the Bible teaches was something God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25)

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3). Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did his enemies (John 10:33).

Jesus did not just claim to be teaching the truth, He claimed He is the Truth (John 14:6)

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay here goes.

Christ said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal to the Father (John 5:17,18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which the Bible teaches was something God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25)

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3). Not only did His friends ...[text shortened]... 3).

Jesus did not just claim to be teaching the truth, He claimed He is the Truth (John 14:6)

John 8:58b
Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.” [23]

2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

3. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquerors the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. We are not the only ones who believe that Jesus’ statement does not make him God:

To say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). [24]

4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay here goes.

Christ said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal to the Father (John 5:17,18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which the Bible teaches was something God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25)

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3). Not only did His friends ...[text shortened]... 3).

Jesus did not just claim to be teaching the truth, He claimed He is the Truth (John 14:6)

Mark 2:7
Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? (NIV)

On several occasions the Lord Jesus told the Pharisees that their doctrine was wrong. Mark 2:7 records an instance where this was the case. There is no verse of Scripture that says, “only God can forgive sins.” That idea came from their tradition. The truth is that God grants the authority to forgive sins as He pleases. He granted that authority to the Son and, furthermore, to the apostles. John 20:23 records Jesus saying to them: “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven.” If the Pharisees were right, and only God can forgive sins, then God, Jesus and the apostles were all God, because they all had the authority to forgive sins.

Buzzard, pp. 21 and 22

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay here goes.

Christ said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal to the Father (John 5:17,18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which the Bible teaches was something God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25)

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3). Not only did His friends ...[text shortened]... 3).

Jesus did not just claim to be teaching the truth, He claimed He is the Truth (John 14:6)

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (KJV)

1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and
the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word]; and without it was not anything made that was made.

2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as “it.” It does not have to be translated as “him,” and it does not have to refer to a “person” in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau, and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.

This is true in the translation of any language that assigns a gender to nouns. In Spanish, a car is masculine, el carro, while a bicycle is feminine, la bicicleta. Again, no English translator would translate “the car, he,” or “the bicycle, she.” People translating Spanish into English use the word “it” when referring to a car or bicycle. For another example, a Greek feminine noun is “anchor” (agkura), and literally it would demand a feminine pronoun. Yet no English translator would write “I accidentally dropped the anchor, and she fell through the bottom of the boat.” We would write, “it” fell through the bottom of the boat. In Greek, “wind” (anemos) is masculine, but we would not translate it into English that way. We would say, “The wind was blowing so hard it blew the trash cans over,” not “the wind, he blew the trash cans over.” When translating from another language into English, we have to use the English language properly. Students who are studying Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, French, German, etc., quickly discover that one of the difficult things about learning the language is memorizing the gender of each noun—something we do not have in the English language.

Greek is a language that assigns gender to nouns. For example, in Greek, “word” is masculine while “spirit” is neuter. All languages that assign gender to nouns demand that pronouns referring to the noun have the same gender as the noun. Once we clearly understand that the gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun, we can see why one cannot build a doctrine on the gender of a noun and its agreeing pronoun. No student of the Bible should take the position that “the Word” is somehow a masculine person based on its pronoun any more than he would take the position that a book was a feminine person or a desk was a masculine person because that is the gender assigned to those nouns in French. Indeed, if one tried to build a theology based on the gender of the noun in the language, great confusion would result.

In doctrinal discussions about the holy spirit some people assert that it is a person because the Bible has “he” and “him” in verses that refer to it. So, for example, John 14:16,17 reads:

John 14:16-17
(16) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—
(17) the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

In the Greek language, “spirit” is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun, “it.” So, for example, verse 17 above should be literally translated as: “The world cannot accept it (the spirit), because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in you.” Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, not masculine.

If the pronouns in the Greek text are neuter, why do the translators translate them as “he” and “him?” The answer to that question is that translators realize that when you are dealing with a language that assigns genders to nouns, it is the context and general understanding of the subject at hand that determines how the pronouns are to be translated into English as we have seen in the above examples (desk, bicycle, car, wind, etc.). It is amazing to us that Trinitarian translators know that the same neuter pronoun can be converted to an English masculine pronoun (e.g., “it” becomes “he&rdquo😉 but are evidently not as willing to see that a Greek masculine pronoun could be translated as an English neuter pronoun (e.g., “he becomes “it&rdquo😉, if the subject matter and context warrant it. Linguistically, both conversions could be completely legitimate. But any change depends, not on the gender assigned by the Greek language, but rather on the subject matter being discussed. For example, the logos is God’s plan and should be an it,” and “holy spirit,” when used as God’s gift, should also be translated into English as an “it.” To the un-indoctrinated mind, plans and gifts are obviously not “persons.”

Trinitarian Christians believe “the Holy Spirit” is a masculine being and translate the pronouns that refer to it as “he” in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an “it,” not a “he” in Greek. Similarly, even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek language, it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun, “he,” unless it could be shown from the context that the subject was actually a male; i.e., a man, a male animal, or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible). So the question to answer when dealing with “the Word,” “the Comforter” and “the holy spirit” is not, “What gender are the noun and associated pronoun in the Greek language?” Rather, we need to ask, “Do those words refer to a masculine person that would require a “he” in English, or do they refer to a “thing” that would require the pronoun “it”?” When “holy spirit” is referring to the power of God in action or God’s gift, it is properly an “it.” The same is true for the “comforter.” (For a much more exhaustive treatment of the subject of holy spirit see, The Gift of Holy Spirit available from Christian Educational Services.

In Hebrew, “spirit” is feminine and must have feminine pronouns, while in Greek, “spirit” is neuter and takes neuter pronouns. Thus, a person trying to build a theology on the basis of the gender of the noun and pronoun would find himself in an interesting situation trying to explain how it could be that “the spirit” of God somehow changed genders as the New Testament was written.

Because the translators of the Bible have almost always been Trinitarians, and since “the Word” has almost always been erroneously identified with the person of Christ, the pronouns referring to the logos in verse 3 have almost always been translated as “him.” However, if in fact the logos is the plan, purpose, wisdom and reason of God, then the Greek pronoun should be translated into the English as “it.” To demand that “the Word” is a masculine person and therefore a third part of a three-part Godhead because the pronouns used when referring to it are masculine, is poor scholarship.

3. Viewed in light of the above translation, the opening of the Gospel of John reveals wonderful truth, and is also a powerful polemic against primary heresies of the day. We have already seen (under John 1:1) that Gnostics were teaching that, in the hierarchy of gods, the god Elohim and the god Christ were actually opposed to each other. Also active at the time John was written were the Docetists, who were teaching that Christ was a spirit being and only appeared to be flesh. The opening of John’s Gospel shows that in the beginning there was only one God, not many gods. It also shows that this God had reason, wisdom, a plan or purpose within Himself, which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Thus, God and Christ are not at cross purposes as some were saying, and Christ was not a spirit being as others were saying.

The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: “In the beginning there was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us.” Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint.

Racovian Catechism, pp. 86-88

Snedeker, pp. 411 and 412

Originally posted by checkbaiter
John 8:58b
Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the ...[text shortened]... ly a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

One down, six to go... 😏

Edit 1: Drat! Didn't see your other posts...

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay here goes.

Christ said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal to the Father (John 5:17,18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which the Bible teaches was something God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25)

The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3). Not only did His friends ...[text shortened]... 3).

Jesus did not just claim to be teaching the truth, He claimed He is the Truth (John 14:6)

Halitose...
Jesus did not just claim to be teaching the truth, He claimed He is the Truth (John 14:6)

God is the truth, agreed, Jesus could say this because ...

Heb 1:3
3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(NKJ)

He is the "image" of God, not God. "Like Father, like son"