Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?
- Thread starter Taken
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Mat 1:21 - And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for heshall save his people from their sins.
Tools
Mat 1:22 - Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord bythe prophet, saying,
Tools
Mat 1:23 - Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
I think Matthew cleared that up
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not an intellectually honest answer to my question.
The trinity is not in the Bible. Citing something as though it supports the trinity cannot be substantiated by invoking other verses in a unitarian book. The claim has to stand on its own. That's why I asked what other options are there in interpreting that verse other than the trinity? Demanding eisegesis on top of eisegesis is not the way.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
The verses in Matthew refute what you are claiming. I’m not trying to prove the trinity just that the prophecy refers to Jesus and calls him God with us
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
1st, my comment was regarding the options besides the trinity.
2nd, no one called the son of God Emmanuel. His name was Jesus, don't you know?! This is one of my favorite rationalizations to support the trinity and the most absurd.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Okay so what are the options here? Matthew doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Let’s stick with the argument that Jesus is God and not worry about the Trinity.
Well then those that believe with a dual mind, also in a 'God the Son' better heed this scripture, and are on notice, that there is only a/one Son of God that saves and one true God.
Also, I would recommend writing the contextual verses along with 1 John 5:20 as it does do a great disservice to the one God and confuses who is He and who is the Son of God. Maybe is was done deliberately to be vague and confuse..?
Better to write:
(1Jn 5:18) We know that whoever is begotten of God does not keep on in sin; but he that was begotten of God keeps himself, and the evil one touches him not.
(1Jn 5:19) We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
(1Jn 5:20) And
.. we know that the Son of God came, and has given us an understanding (of the true God) so that we truly know him (the true God) that is true; and we are in him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
(1Jn 5:21) Little children, guard yourselves from idols.
Now we can easily see that God, the Father and his Son are two distinct personalities. And one is the true God and the other not. If we think we can fuse these two together, we are gravely mistaken. It is called idolatry.
For more discussion:
The “true God” in 1 John 5:20 refers to the heavenly Father, not the Son. This interpretation is based on the context and the use of the phrase “true God” in other parts of the Bible, where it consistently refers to the Father.
- The context of 1 John 5:20, including the immediate and remoter context, suggests that the phrase “true God” is referring to the Father. The verse mentions “him that is true” twice, and both times it refers to the Father, which supports the argument that “the true God” in the last part of the verse is also the Father.
- The use of the word “this” (houtos) in the last sentence of the verse does not necessarily refer to the closest noun, which is Jesus Christ. Instead, the context determines the referent, and in this case, it is more likely that “this” refers to the Father, who is the true God.
- The phrase “true God” is used in other parts of the Bible, such as 2 Chronicles 15:3, Jeremiah 10:10, John 17:3, and 1 Thessalonians 1:9, where it consistently refers to the Father, not the Son.
If we are in the Son's spirit then we know the true God, the Father. And the Son has revealed him to us.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Definitely a virgin birth, the angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin, would the angel of God who God sent to this virgin Mary deceive her? Of course not.
Luke 1
Christ’s Birth Announced to Mary
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; [e]blessed are you among women!”29 But [f]when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I [g]do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”
38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Okay you've left what we were discussing, the prophecy in Isaiah and it's fulfillment in Matthew and gone to something else
Who else could this refer to?
Tools
Isa 9:7 - Of the increase of hisgovernment and peace there shall be no end, upon the throneof David, and upon his kingdom,to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Last edited:
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
HE and HIM are pronouns of a PERSON
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No! You skipped over my question in the 1st paragraph about what the options are regarding John 1. For some reason you went to Isaiah and Matthew, which was relative to the 2nd paragraph of my post - having nothing to do with my question about options - bu making it seem that that was the answer to the options I was asking about regarding the 2nd god in John 1.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
That is the trinity option. I'm asking about what other options are there in interpreting that verse.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Verse 14 confirms that Jesus is the Word, but this has all been argued before and the different interpretations of which the holders have been unable to come to any agreement, so I see little to be gained from having this argument again.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not one little bit. The word, which was a god, was put in Jesus. This makes him a container. Not a god.
All this is rushing past my question of the options for what is the other god. You do know that 2 gods do not make a trinity, right?
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Locked
