Why Do You Believe Jesus is God?

[shazeep]

"God is the head of Christ" I've never got why any deeper explanation is warranted.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I am busy. We are returning to Saudi shortly however I will answer your post.

The famous passage: John 10:30.

What does ONE (Greek word HEN) mean?

John 11

52 and not for the nation only, but that also the children of God, who have been scattered abroad, he may gather together into one. If this word word (HEN - ONE) means what you say it means then that means that somehow the people of God are all the same individual. It does not.

John 17: (Interestingly enough, Jesus who you say is proven to be God in the book of John, is praying to God in John 17 but not a one of you have ever explained this or brought this up)

11 and no more am I in the world, and these are in the world, and I come unto Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, whom Thou hast given to me, that they may be one as we

Same word - HEN - ONE - does NOT mean that each disciple is the same as the other disciple. It is used to show sameness in purpose/beliefs/feelings/goals (which I believe we all agree that Jesus was same in purpose with God)

Again in John 17 - here Jesus himself explains what (HEN - ONE) means which is much closer to what I believe it means than what you believe it means:

21 that they all may be one, as Thou Father [art] in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. ONE in US? The disciples were gods also? By your logic they are (speaking of peril yah? but by mine they are not)

22 `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one as we are one;

23 I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.

Summary:

"I and my father are one" does not mean that they are the same entity. It means that they are two different distinct entities with completely common goals and purposes - this does not make Jesus God any more than becoming ONE makes the disciples Peter the same as the Disciple John.

Another example: 1 Cor 6:16

16 have ye not known that he who is joined to the harlot is one body? `for they shall be -- saith He -- the two for one flesh.'

17 And he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit;

Being joined as ONE to your wife which is the reference here does not make you a wife any more than being joined as ONE to God makes you a god.

With that said I believe I saw you post He will judge all men

Not what your book says. Book says many will judge. I will let you find the passages because I think you (not just you, all of you) need to study it more.

Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years

Or do you not know that the Lord's people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

From a previous discussion on the definition of "Hen":

While it is true that the neuter hen generally means "one" in the sense of unity, as I would imagine you know, there are numerous places in the NT where it can also means "one" in person.

Romans 12:5 So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

The above verse will perhaps help illustrate what I am saying. Here is the exact parsing of the verse:

http://interlinearbible.org/romans/12-5.htm

As you will see, the first "one," as in "one body" is the neuter sing. "hen," while the second "one," as in "individually members 'ONE' of another" is the masc. sing. heis. And, it even contains the same plural verb (ἐσμεν/esmen) as in Jn. 10.30.

The "one" that appears in the independent clause could be taken to mean "one person" inasmuch as "one body" is never more "one person." Conversely, it could also be interpreted to mean "one in unity" due to "many members" clearly are not "one person." Here is where context will enter the picture to be the final judge.

However, the "one" that appears in the dependent clause is clearly talking about "one 'individual' person" (talk about demolishing the "multiple-divine-persons," or "Trinity".....the Masc. Sing. does it!).


Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."

There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=225

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

From a previous discussion on the definition of "Hen":

While it is true that the neuter hen generally means "one" in the sense of unity, as I would imagine you know, there are numerous places in the NT where it can also means "one" in person.

Romans 12:5 So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

The above verse will perhaps help illustrate what I am saying. Here is the exact parsing of the verse:

http://interlinearbible.org/romans/12-5.htm

As you will see, the first "one," as in "one body" is the neuter sing. "hen," while the second "one," as in "individually members 'ONE' of another" is the masc. sing. heis. And, it even contains the same plural verb (ἐσμεν/esmen) as in Jn. 10.30.

The "one" that appears in the independent clause could be taken to mean "one person" inasmuch as "one body" is never more "one person." Conversely, it could also be interpreted to mean "one in unity" due to "many members" clearly are not "one person." Here is where context will enter the picture to be the final judge.

However, the "one" that appears in the dependent clause is clearly talking about "one 'individual' person" (talk about demolishing the "multiple-divine-persons," or "Trinity".....the Masc. Sing. does it!).


Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."

There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=225

Thank you for your polite response. I also believe that what Jesus did and what Jesus said was directly inspired by and given by God and certainly Jesus Himself declared the same. I am wondering that if this statement means he WAS God why He used the same terminology (HEN) in John 17 - while adding what appears to be a direct comparison to His oneness with God to the Oneness of the disciples to God and to one another (while praying to God, I am also wondering why nobody picks that up and explains why if Jesus is God - who does Jesus pray to while making this very direct comparison)

IF: Jesus was God and HEN means this and Jesus asked that the disciples be made HEN as he was HEN how can that be possible? To be of one purpose, goal, mindset, is possible, but for the disciples to actually take the place of God is not. May I know why one statement using this term would mean one thing and another statement using the same term would mean something completely different?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry. You aren't.

You have not explained why the Alpha and Omega is both the one who died and is alive (Jesus), and the Almighty. You just dodge the issue and go to Rev 22. I addressed Rev 22, which you claim I did not.

You, on the other hand, applied the principle of me saying Jesus is both the Almighty and the one who died and rose again to the Rev 22 chapter, which I debunked. But you did not explain why He is both Almighty and the resurrected one. Please do so! The focus of my point is THE ALMIGHTY reference.



You dealt with with general thought but never gave one explanation as to why Jesus would be called Almighty.

Only GOD is Almighty. Jesus is not AN Almighty. But THE Almighty. There are not a multitude of Almighties. Just one.



Sure does!

Walks in Islam said that the ANGEL in Rev 1:1 was JESUS, Hiimself. I disagreed. And He insisted, and cited Rev 22 as evidence, like you have done. But if the angel is Jesus, then it wreaks havoc on what Rev 22:16 says about Jesus SENDING HIS ANGEL. The only way Jesus could say He sent His angel was for the Angel in Rev 1:1 to not be Jesus but THIS DISTINCT being called the angel whom he sent in Rev 22.

Rev 22:16 demands that the angel in Rev 1:1 NOT BE JESUS.



The only way you could come to that conclusion is to WANT TO DISBELIEVE THAT JESUS IS GOD.



Wrong. You WANT a way out for some odd reason, likely due to pride of not being wrong.

There is a good solid reason why Jesus is not the angel in Rev 22. A solid piece of evidence that disallows it. Verse 16!!! There is nothing like that in chapter 1.

And notice how I debunked Rev 22 issue, and you see it! So you STILL jump back to Rev 1 and find some grain of a loophole. It's my own argument of Rev 22! You really do not want to believe Jesus is God, do you? Even at the cost of seeing your argument of Rev 22 debunked.

God is the only almighty. The speaker in Revelation 1:8 is indicated as being the Lord. All throughout the Old Testament and even throughout much of the new testament the title "Lord" is mostly used in reference to God himself. If you do not believe that point I can find examples.

So, God himself declares to be the almighty in verse 1:8. There's no guess work about who is talking there, the scriptures plainly tell us, thus "saith the Lord".

Where does Jesus claim to be the Almighty I don't see it?

[Sean]

JFROG...just read vs 12- 13, it will explain who the Alpha and Omega is of vs 8 and vs 11...

Revelation 1:12-13
King James Version (KJV)

12 And I turned to see the "voice" that "spake" with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the "Son of man", clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

The more you read of this passage, the more you will see who it is.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Thank you for your polite response. I also believe that what Jesus did and what Jesus said was directly inspired by and given by God and certainly Jesus Himself declared the same. I am wondering that if this statement means he WAS God why He used the same terminology (HEN) in John 17 - while adding what appears to be a direct comparison to His oneness with God to the Oneness of the disciples to God and to one another (while praying to God, I am also wondering why nobody picks that up and explains why if Jesus is God - who does Jesus pray to while making this very direct comparison)

IF: Jesus was God and HEN means this and Jesus asked that the disciples be made HEN as he was HEN how can that be possible? To be of one purpose, goal, mindset, is possible, but for the disciples to actually take the place of God is not. May I know why one statement using this term would mean one thing and another statement using the same term would mean something completely different?

I believe that Jesus is able to say, “that they may be one, even as we are one” as the next verse explains how that would be possible.

“I in them..” John 17:23

He is referring to the time when the Comforter/Holy Ghost, which He promised, would come to dwell. We can be in unity having His Spirit indwelling us, but our flesh can act independently from God. That was not the case with Jesus Christ. His flesh and spirit never acted independently.

We know that we can be in “unity” with God, having received His Spirit, but we also know that we cannot be “one person” with God as we were not manifested in the flesh, having been born of both man and woman. That was not the case concerning Jesus who was “God manifested in the flesh.”

I also see John 17 as an example of intercessory prayer. Jesus, as a man, would stand in need of prayer. If he had to eat, rest and sleep, He would also need to pray. And He led by example, ie, fulfilling all righteousness by being baptized, praying, healing, having compassion, etc.

Again, I see no division as Jesus says in John 17:6 “I have manifested thy name…” He is in effect saying, “I have rendered apparent thy name.” That is the same as saying, “He that has seen me, has seen the father.” (John 14:9) It doesn’t take much research to correlate the name of God and Jesus as being one and the same.

I view this issue of determining who Jesus really is in the same way I view determining if the references concerning the Holy Ghost as always referring to speaking in tongues. After going over all of the scriptures, my conclusion is that, yes, there are more scriptures supporting the evidence of the Holy Ghost as speaking in tongues than not.

There are also more scriptures supporting Jesus as God than simply being a prophet.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Sean

JFROG...just read vs 12- 13, it will explain who the Alpha and Omega is of vs 8 and vs 11...

Revelation 1:12-13
King James Version (KJV)

12 And I turned to see the "voice" that "spake" with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the "Son of man", clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

The more you read of this passage, the more you will see who it is.

You want to read it that way so you do. In verse 8 the Lord God speaks and we know this because verse 8 tells us he speaks. In verse 9 John starts speaking again and doesn't stop till verse 10. In verse 11 and onward we have a new speaker that is identified as Jesus by the alive and dead verse.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

...
Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."

There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=225

The bible tells us why the Jews got mad at Jesus. John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

It wasn't because he ever claimed to be God but because he claimed to be the Son of God and then he would do things that they believed only God could do. But when he would do those things he would always give God the credit for them and they refused to listen to those words...

[Sean]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You want to read it that way so you do. In verse 8 the Lord God speaks and we know this because verse 8 tells us he speaks. In verse 9 John starts speaking again and doesn't stop till verse 10. In verse 11 and onward we have a new speaker that is identified as Jesus by the alive and dead verse.

I am simply saying to keep reading the passage. It tells you clearly who is talking in the passage.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Sean

I am simply saying to keep reading the passage. It tells you clearly who is talking in the passage.

verse 8 is a different speaker than verse 11 and on.