Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?

[St. SteVen]

The book of Enoch says, the Book of Enoch. What's dishonest about that? It is about Enoch so they call it Enoch. You are saying that Enoch is bad because Enoch may not have written it? Don't you think that just a we bit absurd? For all you know, I could be gathering material about you to write a book about you and your exploits...it will be a book about you so shouldn't I name it after you?

I would certainly object to a book titled The Book of St. SteVen, if I had not written it.
For the simple reason that I didn't write it. Nothing absurd about that.

[

 

[Johann]

The book of Enoch says, the Book of Enoch. What's dishonest about that? It is about Enoch so they call it Enoch. You are saying that Enoch is bad because Enoch may not have written it? Don't you think that just a we bit absurd? For all you know, I could be gathering material about you to write a book about you and your exploits...it will be a book about you so shouldn't I name it after you?

Then you could come out the next day and denounce the book as lies because you didn't write it so it can't be true. Lol!

Now you explain how Jesus wrote our Holy Scriptures. He wrote 66 books by about 40 different guys (Ghost writers) and apparently, God dictated it to them because every thing in it holds meaning, even the punctuation and spacing between the words! Over a period of about 2000 years to get it to where we have it today. So could we say Jesus wrote the book, or is that dishonest because Ghost writers were employed?

Oh but it's canonized! What does that even mean? And who canonized it and who DE canonized Enoch? Some men somewhere? Have you ever met them? Do you trust them? I've read books before that I refuse to read again! Other books, I liked them and thought they were useful, I'd even read them again. Enoch is like that for me I'd read Enoch again.
If you don't want to read Enoch, then dont read it. If you do want to read it, go ahead! Whatever you choose for yourself is fine with me Brother!

You can read whatever you like @MA2444 and don't let others dissuade you.

J.

 

[MA2444]

I would certainly object to a book titled The Book of St. SteVen, if I had not written it.
For the simple reason that I didn't write it. Nothing absurd about that.

[

You don't know that. What if the spoke kindly of you? then you would like it, lol. There wouldn't be anything absurd about you not liking it if it spoke poorly of you. I get that part, lol.

What section of Enoch is the section that made you dislike that book? Is part of it it lies? Which part?

 

[St. SteVen]

Now you explain how Jesus wrote our Holy Scriptures.

I don't make that claim.

Oh but it's canonized! What does that even mean?

Do you understand that the canon is a collection of books voted on by the RCC? (the western/Latin Church)

And who canonized it and who DE canonized Enoch?

The Book of Enoch was not under consideration for the canon as I understand it. There was criteria.

If you don't want to read Enoch, then dont read it. If you do want to read it, go ahead! Whatever you choose for yourself is fine with me Brother!

I have no problem with the Book of Enoch. As long as we understand that it is not a part of the canon of scripture and was not written by Enoch. There are no pre-flood writings to my knowledge. Floods and scrolls do not safely coexist. Unless it was on the ark.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
I would certainly object to a book titled The Book of St. SteVen, if I had not written it.
For the simple reason that I didn't write it. Nothing absurd about that.

You don't know that.

Yes I do. I would object either way. More so if it was unfavorable.

[

 

[Wrangler]

What's the gospel of Mary about?

All Gospels, including the Apocrypha Thomas and Mary are about the Good News that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[MA2444]

You can read whatever you like @MA2444 and don't let others dissuade you.

J.

He's not dissuading me, I'm having some fun with this one. I don't think he has thought it through and it sounds like he read something or saw a video which said Enoch is no good, and I want to know if his opinion was dissuaded because of that article or video or because of what the book says? How did he draw this conclusion about Enoch?

There's a lot of people talking the book of Enoch down and there a red flag right there. Anything they say over the media not to do, prolly means you should! Nobody should own a gun, what for? Oh it's ok to be gay or a transformer so that's acceptable. So if I spoke thusly I would be gay too. Because I would speak against them and tell them the truth, it is wrong. now I'm not a loving christian anymore or so they try to portray so maybe I better try to stay on the down low with it to avoid confrontation?

It's prolly the same guys that say gbtzq people are good that prolly are the ones who are saying Enoch is bad. Why do they want me gay, without a gun and not reading Enoch? That's suspicious!

 

[MA2444]

St. SteVen said:
I would certainly object to a book titled The Book of St. SteVen, if I had not written it.
For the simple reason that I didn't write it. Nothing absurd about that.

Yes I do. I would object either way. More so if it was unfavorable.

[

Even if your Mom wrote it and it made you sound real good?

 

[MA2444]

All Gospels, including the Apocrypha Thomas and Mary are about the Good News that Jesus is the Messiah.

Yesterday you sounded like you are against the apocrypha. Today you sound like you are for it!

 

[CadyandZoe]

That which was from the beginning, = in the beginning was the Word
The Word became flesh = which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,
The Word that was God = concerning the Word of life = In Him is life....

For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

John isn't talking about the beginning of creation here. He is talking about the Beginning of Jesus' ministry.

 

[St. SteVen]

Even if your Mom wrote it and it made you sound real good?

Yes.
There is no authorized Book of St. SteVen, if I didn't write it.

[

 

[CadyandZoe]

I suggest forget about what the trinitarians say and take a look at the Scriptures-the Greek and Hebrew grammar is against your emphatic denial on who is the Logos.

J.

We are discussing the matter of whether or not Jesus is God. I claim that Jesus is God, based on what the New Testament says about him. Jesus and the Father share a representational identity. You incorrectly claim that Jesus is God because they share a qualitative identity. I claim that logos is not a person because a logos is never a person. It is ALWAYS the product of the mind. God's word is the scriptures. Everyone knows this.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Incorrect-

Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1-2
John 1:1-2 (Textus Receptus):
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.

Key Points:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("In the beginning was the Word"):
The verb ἦν (was) is in the imperfect tense, denoting continuous existence. The Logos existed before creation, implying pre-existence rather than something coming into being (as a "thing" would).

ὁ Λόγος ("the Word"):
The use of the article ὁ identifies the Logos as a specific subject, not an abstract idea or impersonal force.

πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ("with God"):
The preposition πρὸς conveys relational closeness, often indicating face-to-face interaction. This grammatical structure suggests personal relationship, which cannot apply to a "thing."

Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος ("the Word was God"):
The absence of the article before Θεὸς emphasizes the quality of divinity. The Logos shares the essence of God, not merely as an attribute or plan but as a Person.

2. Contextual Evidence in John 1:14
John 1:14: Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν.
(And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.)

Key Points:
The Logos "became flesh" (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), meaning the Logos entered human existence.

Abstract concepts like promises or plans do not take on flesh. This directly points to incarnation, which is inherently personal.

The verb ἐσκήνωσεν ("dwelt") means "to pitch a tent" or "tabernacle," indicating the personal presence of the Logos among humanity, akin to God’s presence in the Old Testament tabernacle.

John immediately ties the Logos to the "glory as of the only begotten of the Father" (δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός), reinforcing that the Logos is not an impersonal force but the unique, personal Son of God.

3. Scholarly Support
C.K. Barrett (Commentary on the Gospel of John)
Barrett emphasizes that Logos in John’s prologue is deeply rooted in both Jewish and Hellenistic thought. In Jewish tradition, the Word of God (Dabar Yahweh) was understood as God’s active agent in creation, revelation, and redemption. Similarly, Hellenistic philosophy viewed the Logos as rational order. John transforms these concepts, presenting the Logos not as an impersonal principle but as the pre-existent Christ.

D.A. Carson (The Gospel According to John)
Carson explains that the relational language of "with God" (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν) demonstrates that the Logos is distinct from the Father while fully sharing in His deity. Carson argues that only a personal being can "dwell" among humanity and reveal God’s glory, as the Logos does in John 1:14-18.

Leon Morris (The Gospel of John)
Morris shows the personal nature of the Logos, stating that John’s use of the term draws from its Old Testament background where God’s Word is active and personal (e.g., Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 55:11). John explicitly identifies the Logos as Jesus, the incarnate Son of God.

4. Theological Implications
The prologue of John portrays the Logos as:

Pre-existent: "In the beginning" aligns the Logos with God’s eternal nature.
Relational: "With God" indicates personal interaction, not abstraction.
Divine: "The Word was God" affirms the Logos shares God’s essence.
Incarnate: The Logos taking on flesh confirms personal identity, not an impersonal plan or promise.

Can't help you and will move onward.

J.

The Truth is not something we quote; it is something we own. And if we own it, we can explain it to others so that it makes sense. The references you quote don't make sense, so they are not true.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Spiritually…what do you understand Col 1:15 to mean?

Glory to God,
Taken

What do you mean "spiritually". I don't accept the premise that a passage has more than one meaning, i.e. a regular meaning and a spiritual meaning. Who told you that a passage can have a spiritual meaning?

 

[Johann]

We are discussing the matter of whether or not Jesus is God. I claim that Jesus is God, based on what the New Testament says about him. Jesus and the Father share a representational identity. You incorrectly claim that Jesus is God because they share a qualitative identity. I claim that logos is not a person because a logos is never a person. It is ALWAYS the product of the mind. God's word is the scriptures. Everyone knows this.

Incorrect-

John 1:1-14 (Textus Receptus)
John 1:1
"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."
In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This passage clearly identifies the Logos (Greek: Λόγος) as preexistent, distinct from God the Father, yet fully divine—"the Word was God."

John 1:14
"Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας."
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

This further affirms the Logos as a person, as it is described as becoming flesh, a reference to the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The Logos is not an abstract principle or impersonal force but is revealed in a personal, incarnate form in Jesus.

Revelation 19:13
"Καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν χιτῶνα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν μηροῦ αὐτοῦ ἔχει ὄνομα γεγραμμένον, Βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ Κύριος κυρίων."
And He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

Here, the Logos is explicitly identified with Christ, who is portrayed as a person with a name and title. The connection between the Logos and Jesus as a personal, divine figure is clear.

2. Scholarly and Theological Perspectives

Early Christian Fathers
Justin Martyr (2nd century) refers to the Logos as the pre-incarnate Christ in his First Apology (Chapter 63). He writes that the Logos is the one who created the world and appeared to the prophets, particularly identifying the Logos with Christ.

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century) in his Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 6) emphasizes that the Logos is both distinct from the Father yet fully divine, supporting the notion of the Logos as a personal figure who became incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century), in his work On the Incarnation, speaks of the Logos as the eternal Word of God, who became flesh for the salvation of mankind. He affirms the personal identity of the Logos with the person of Jesus.

Scholarly Writings
N.T. Wright, a prominent contemporary biblical scholar, in his book John for Everyone, asserts that the Logos in John’s Gospel is a personal being, fully divine, who enters the created world in the person of Jesus Christ. Wright connects the preexistent Logos with the revelation of God in Jesus, who embodies the very Word of God.

R.C. Sproul, in his book The Gospel of John, emphasizes the personal nature of the Logos in John 1. He argues that the Logos is not just a concept or a principle but a person, specifically the second person of the Trinity, who was with God and is God.

Theological Implications
The Logos doctrine, particularly in the early church, was essential for articulating the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. The Logos is understood as the mediator through whom all things were created and through whom God's revelation is made known to humanity.

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed the divinity of the Logos and its personal existence as the Son of God. The Nicene Creed explicitly states that Jesus, the Son (the Logos), is "begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father."


Both scripture and scholarly writings affirm that the Logos is a person, specifically identified with Jesus Christ.

The Logos is not an impersonal force or concept but a distinct person within the Godhead, fully divine and fully revealed in the person of Jesus. This understanding is central to Christian theology, especially in explaining the nature of Christ and His relationship to God the Father.

J.

 

[Johann]

The Truth is not something we quote; it is something we own. And if we own it, we can explain it to others so that it makes sense. The references you quote don't make sense, so they are not true.

I would rather quote the Scriptures-and even the Scriptures don't make sense to many.

J.

 

[St. SteVen]

Yes.
There is no authorized Book of St. SteVen, if I didn't write it.

[

--- PARODY ---

Perfect stranger: I loved your book.
St. SteVen: My what?
Perfect stranger: The Book of St. SteVen
St. SteVen: Never heard of it. Who wrote it?
Perfect stranger: You did, obviously.
St. SteVen: No, I've never heard of it.
Perfect stranger: It said nice things about you.
St. SteVen: That's nice, but I didn't write it.
Perfect stranger: You should accept it as your own.
St. SteVen: Like I said, I didn't write it.
Perfect stranger: What difference does that make?
St. SteVen: Seriously?

[

 

[amigo de christo]

what about the other two gospels, when was the last time you read thru them (Mark and Luke)

I read them all my friend . Bible reading is a joy to my soul . We should be reading all of it .
To the trenches one and all, an end hour delusion has grown huge and is taking
many captive to a version of love that is of the world but has come in under the guise it is of GOD
to not only merge the denominations but even all religoins to partake as one of its common ground
and what it calls the golden rule and yet DENIES HE who gave the golden rule .

 

[amigo de christo]

Yes.
There is no authorized Book of St. SteVen, if I didn't write it.

[

I dont think folks realize that when jude wrote as HE did about enoch
that you can actually find that very phrase in the pslams .
What i think is that a clever man came up with this book of enoch
and though it has truths in it it also contains a few errors .
In other words it would be like ME
if i had read what jude said
and then i came up with a book i titled as enoch .
Its not that its all entirely false and that all things in it are bad
its just its not canon scrip as the other seven books are not .
Its more like books written that had wisdom in them , though its not all spiritual wisdom i seen but some carnal too .
this lamb sticks to the original sixty and six . Even they who added in the other seven
WERE wise enough to NOT make the cliam it was Original but rather secondary .
Men can write books . And though not every singel book would be false beware for many books are bad news .
Better we stick to the original sixty and six , learn them REAL , REAL good .
THEN test all we read or hear against THAT TRUTH
PS , the gospel of thomas , IS TOTAL BAD NEWS . i read just a bit of it and was shocked at the horrors within it

 

[amigo de christo]

Ein scwhester ist hier . Hit the trenches dear sister .