On the pre-existence of Jesus

[APAK]

Jesus of Nazareth is... Immanuel, GOD with us. (Matthew 1:23)

Davy, explain (I)Emmanuel again to me, so we can get to the bottom of it? And WITH CONTEXT, without thinking of just substituting the word 'God' with Jesus this time. It means more that this simple mental exercise....

 

[Davy]

Davy, explain (I)Emmanuel again to me, so we can get to the bottom of it? And WITH CONTEXT, without thinking of just substituting the word 'God' with Jesus this time. It means more that this simple mental exercise....

I've already covered it, and I think you well know it. So quit messin' around and heed what God's written Word clearly states as written.

 

[APAK]

I've already covered it, and I think you well know it. So quit messin' around and heed what God's written Word clearly states as written.

copping out them ...hint: loosely said: Immanuel was used by the Father to let his presence be known, to save (primarily: physical lives) his people from their enemies and so to bring truth...and then Jesus happened, and now his Father is in his Son. The Father is in his Son and thus still with US via his Son if we believe in faith....! Immanuel was more of a nickname, as who he was about and not his formal name. He was about his Father who is his God and mine.

 

[Davy]

copping out them ...hint: loosely said: Immanuel was used by the Father to let his presence be known, to save (primarily: physical lives) his people from their enemies and so to bring truth...and then Jesus happened, and now his Father is in his Son. The Father is in his Son and thus still with US via his Son if we believe in faith....! Immanuel was more of a nickname, as who he was about and not his formal name. He was about his Father who is his God and mine.

No copping out on my part, because your challenge is LUDICROUS, since you have shown you DO NOT stay with Bible Scripture as written.

WELCOME TO MY IGNORE LIST.

 

[APAK]

No copping out on my part, because your challenge is LUDICROUS, since you have shown you DO NOT stay with Bible Scripture as written.

WELCOME TO MY IGNORE LIST.

I know you will still be watching and reading my posts and of others on your list of unfriendlies.....later

 

[keithr]

But what about all those Bible Scriptures that DO DECLARE JESUS AS CO-EQUAL WITH THE FATHER? Why did you leave all those out?

That's a silly question! I wrote "Here are a few examples" that Jesus is the Son of God, and then quoted some verses that supported that. Why on earth would I try to quote some verses that were contradictory to the 6 or so verses that I quoted, or quote verses that shed light on whether or not God's Son was equal with God? It's not my intention to try to show that God's word contradicts itself and can't be trusted or believed!

John 10:32-33
32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works have I shewed you from My Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me?"
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God."
KJV

So the blind Pharisees were stupid in accusing Jesus of His claim to be GOD?

YES!!! You seem to want to believe what the Pharisees thought rather than believing Jesus! The UASV+ translates verse 33 as:

(33) The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself a god."​

which is a valid translation. It was not saying "make yourself to be YHVH". Jesus had just answered the Pharisees and plainly stated that he was the Messiah, and said that the miracles that were performed (by God) testified that he was the Messiah as he claimed - John 10:25 (WEB):

(25) Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me.​

Jesus also said:

(26) But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you.​

(27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.​

(28) I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

(29) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand.​

(30) I and the Father are one.”​

so Jesus was not claiming equality with his Father, he said that his Father (God) was greater than all, and therefore greater than Jesus. By saying "I and the Father are one" he was saying that he and God were totally united in redeeming and preserving His people, giving them eternal life.

Why did you leave out Jesus' reply to the pharisees accusation that Jesus was claiming to be a god, or God? Jesus said:

(34) Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’​

(35) If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken),​

(36) do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’​

(37) If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me.​

(38) But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”​

So that is another verse to support my claim that Jesus is the Son of God - he clearly states it. In his answer Jesus did not claim to be God (or a god), but clearly stated that he was the Son of God, and that God had sanctified him and sent him into the world. That is what you should believe, and not believe the mistaken claim by the Pharisees. He stated that the miracles that he had performed demonstrated that God was working through him, just as all miracles performed through the Old Testament prophets demonstrated that God was with them and working through those men, so even if they didn't believe Jesus' claim to be the Messiah then they must at least acknowledge that God was with him.

This is just like John 5:18 (WEB):

(18) For this cause therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.​

It was just because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and they couldn't believe that the Son of God could be a mere man, born of a woman. They were wrong about that too. As Jesus said on another occasion, Matthew 22:29 (WEB):

(29) But Jesus answered them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.​

Matt 1:21-23
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
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.

So your belief means to claim that Apostle Matthew was telling a LIE in his above reference to the Isaiah prophecy about Jesus Christ being "Emmanuel", "God with us"?

Those verses (including the quoted verse Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel") don't say that Jesus was God, they say that the virgin called him Immanuel. In fact God told Joseph in a dream that Mary's son should be called Jehoshua, meaning 'YHVH is salvation'. A name is a name, not a declaration that you are somebody else, just as Israel meaning 'God prevails' or 'he will rule as God' (Strong's) did not mean that Jacob became God when God renamed him as Israel.

The below references by Jesus involve powers of The Father, which is a direct pointer by Jesus of His Co-Equal relationship with The Father in The Godhead...

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things that Himself doeth: and He will shew Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.

Jesus said that he only worked in union with God, doing what God showed him he should do. He was not claiming to be equal with God.

John 8:56-59
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad."
57 Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"
58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
59 Then took they up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Again, Jesus was not claiming to be equal with God. He was just stating that he had been in existence from before Abraham was born. (The UASV+ Notes says, "based on grammar and context, an alternative reading could be, 'Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I have been in existence"'.") This passage says nothing about Jesus being equal with God.

To be continued.

 

[keithr]

Phil 2:5-11
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Or as more modern translations translate it, e.g. WEB:

(6) who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,​

Even the blind Jews admitted that Jesus was claiming to be GOD when He told the one below that his sins were forgiven. The Jews well knew that only GOD can forgive sins.

Again you're believing the scribes rather than Jesus. Why did you leave out Jesus' reply, Mark 2:8-11 (WEB):

(8) Immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you reason these things in your hearts?​

(9) Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your bed, and walk?’​

(10) But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—​

(11) “I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.”​

The Book of Hebrews has many more examples proving that Jesus of Nazareth is GOD come in the flesh.

Really? Please enlighten us. Hebrews starts with:

(1) God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,​

(2) has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.​

(3) His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, who, when he had by himself purified us of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

(4) having become so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they have.​

etc.​

It's talking about Jesus being God's Son once again. It does not say that God came in the flesh. The only verses in the whole Bible that mention "come in flesh" are written by the apostle John:

1 John 4:2-3

(2) By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,​

(3) and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.​

2 John 1:7

(7) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don’t confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.​

One MUST also believe that Jesus of Nazareth is "God with us" like the Matthew 1:23 Scripture says, born in the flesh for the purpose of offering remission of sins through His death and resurrection, an act which ONLY Jesus of Nazareth as Immanuel, GOD WITH US, could accomplish.

You have made an incorrect assumption! Only a perfect man could pay the redemption price. God's perfect justice is, Exodus 21:23-25 (WEB):

(23) But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life,​

(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,​

(25) burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.​

Therefore the only justified redemption price for the death of the perfect man Adam is the death of another perfect man. God could not pay that price because He cannot become a man and die:

Numbers 23:19 (WEB):

(19) God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?​

Malachi 3:6 (WEB):

(6) “For I, Yahweh, don’t change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed.​

1 Timothy 6:16 (WEB):

(16) who alone has immortality [cannot die], dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and eternal power. Amen.​

Even common sense reveals that the flesh of man cannot save us,

A man descended from Adam, having inherited Adam's sinful nature, cannot save us. Jesus was not descended from Adam; he had a perfect father - God.

And THAT idea, is from the devil as the author, wanting flesh man to think he can save himself and become his own god.

No, Satan tries to deceive us into believing his first lie, that we won't die. He was wrong about that!

God has chosen that His only begotten son, Jesus, should be our saviour. Jesus does not need to be almighty God YHVH to be our saviour, a role that he was anointed by God to do - the title Messiah/Christ means 'anointed'.

 

[face2face]

That faulty reasoning is simply vanity by those who reject Jesus of Nazareth as Immanuel, GOD with us. Apostle Paul meant what he said in Phil.2 that Jesus is Co-Equal with The Father, and in the Form of GOD...

Not God to Servant but Son to Servant

Davy, if you want to understand the basis for Paul's words study the Servant Songs in Isaiah. The key is there!

Follow Paul's lead and not the vain teachings of men!

F2F

 

[face2face]

Davy, explain (I)Emmanuel again to me, so we can get to the bottom of it? And WITH CONTEXT, without thinking of just substituting the word 'God' with Jesus this time. It means more that this simple mental exercise....

@Davy

Do you make the same inferences from other peoples names and titles?

Joshua in the Bible! His original name was Oshea, meaning "Salvation" (Numbers 13:16), but Moses renamed him Yahoshua (contracted to Joshua in English), meaning "Yahweh's Salvation" or "He Who Will Be Salvation." The name "Joshua" is the Hebrew form of "Jesus," and it appears as such in the New Testament (e.g., Hebrews 4:8).

Why these meanings?

God manifests Himself through His Mighty Ones i.e His Children and performs certain works which are associated with their names.

Joshua is not God nor was he Salvation however God revealed through Him His Plan of Salvation with Israel.

The significance exhibited in Emmanuel, God with us (Mat. 1:23; Heb. 8:2; 9:23), is not different! Through Christ a family of glorified
Redeemed in whom Yahweh will again tabernacle among men, in the age to come (Rev. 21:3).

Feel free to ask questions!

F2F

Out of interest do you know how Joshua became a type of Christ?

 

[Davy]

That's a silly question! I wrote "Here are a few examples" that Jesus is the Son of God, and then quoted some verses that supported that. Why on earth would I try to quote some verses that were contradictory to the 6 or so verses that I quoted, or quote verses that shed light on whether or not God's Son was equal with God? It's not my intention to try to show that God's word contradicts itself and can't be trusted or believed!


YES!!! You seem to want to believe what the Pharisees thought rather than believing Jesus! The UASV+ translates verse 33 as:

(33) The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself a god."​

which is a valid translation. It was not saying "make yourself to be YHVH". Jesus had just answered the Pharisees and plainly stated that he was the Messiah, and said that the miracles that were performed (by God) testified that he was the Messiah as he claimed - John 10:25 (WEB):

(25) Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me.​

Jesus also said:

(26) But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you.​

(27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.​

(28) I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

(29) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand.​

(30) I and the Father are one.”​

so Jesus was not claiming equality with his Father, he said that his Father (God) was greater than all, and therefore greater than Jesus. By saying "I and the Father are one" he was saying that he and God were totally united in redeeming and preserving His people, giving them eternal life.

Why did you leave out Jesus' reply to the pharisees accusation that Jesus was claiming to be a god, or God? Jesus said:

(34) Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’​

(35) If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken),​

(36) do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’​

(37) If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me.​

(38) But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”​

So that is another verse to support my claim that Jesus is the Son of God - he clearly states it. In his answer Jesus did not claim to be God (or a god), but clearly stated that he was the Son of God, and that God had sanctified him and sent him into the world. That is what you should believe, and not believe the mistaken claim by the Pharisees. He stated that the miracles that he had performed demonstrated that God was working through him, just as all miracles performed through the Old Testament prophets demonstrated that God was with them and working through those men, so even if they didn't believe Jesus' claim to be the Messiah then they must at least acknowledge that God was with him.

This is just like John 5:18 (WEB):

(18) For this cause therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.​

It was just because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and they couldn't believe that the Son of God could be a mere man, born of a woman. They were wrong about that too. As Jesus said on another occasion, Matthew 22:29 (WEB):

(29) But Jesus answered them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.​

Those verses (including the quoted verse Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel") don't say that Jesus was God, they say that the virgin called him Immanuel. In fact God told Joseph in a dream that Mary's son should be called Jehoshua, meaning 'YHVH is salvation'. A name is a name, not a declaration that you are somebody else, just as Israel meaning 'God prevails' or 'he will rule as God' (Strong's) did not mean that Jacob became God when God renamed him as Israel.




Jesus said that he only worked in union with God, doing what God showed him he should do. He was not claiming to be equal with God.


Again, Jesus was not claiming to be equal with God. He was just stating that he had been in existence from before Abraham was born. (The UASV+ Notes says, "based on grammar and context, an alternative reading could be, 'Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I have been in existence"'.") This passage says nothing about Jesus being equal with God.

To be continued.

False statements all in... your above Post.

You completely twisted what I said about the John 10:32-33 Scripture that I posted! That shows you either have a PROBLEM WITH READING COMPREHENSION, or you intend to lie and deceive.

What the unbelieving Pharisees said to Jesus in John 10:33 showed they UNDERSTOOD JESUS WAS CLAIMING TO BE GOD. So to 'side' with the Pharisees one would have to AGREE with those Pharisees that JESUS IS NOT GOD, but only claiming to be, like you apparently do!

But in MY POSTS, I am constantly declaring that JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.

 

[Davy]

Or as more modern translations translate it, e.g. WEB:

(6) who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,​

Again you're believing the scribes rather than Jesus. Why did you leave out Jesus' reply, Mark 2:8-11 (WEB):

(8) Immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you reason these things in your hearts?​

(9) Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your bed, and walk?’​

(10) But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—​

(11) “I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house.”​

Really? Please enlighten us. Hebrews starts with:

(1) God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,​

(2) has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.​

(3) His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, who, when he had by himself purified us of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

(4) having become so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they have.​

etc.​

It's talking about Jesus being God's Son once again. It does not say that God came in the flesh. The only verses in the whole Bible that mention "come in flesh" are written by the apostle John:

1 John 4:2-3

(2) By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,​

(3) and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.​

2 John 1:7

(7) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don’t confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.​

You have made an incorrect assumption! Only a perfect man could pay the redemption price. God's perfect justice is, Exodus 21:23-25 (WEB):

(23) But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life,​

(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,​

(25) burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.​

Therefore the only justified redemption price for the death of the perfect man Adam is the death of another perfect man. God could not pay that price because He cannot become a man and die:

Numbers 23:19 (WEB):

(19) God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?​

Malachi 3:6 (WEB):

(6) “For I, Yahweh, don’t change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed.​

1 Timothy 6:16 (WEB):

(16) who alone has immortality [cannot die], dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and eternal power. Amen.​

A man descended from Adam, having inherited Adam's sinful nature, cannot save us. Jesus was not descended from Adam; he had a perfect father - God.


No, Satan tries to deceive us into believing his first lie, that we won't die. He was wrong about that!

God has chosen that His only begotten son, Jesus, should be our saviour. Jesus does not need to be almighty God YHVH to be our saviour, a role that he was anointed by God to do - the title Messiah/Christ means 'anointed'.

NOT WORTH AN EDUCATED RESPONSE. WELCOME TO MY IGNORE LIST.

 

[Davy]

Not God to Servant but Son to Servant

Davy, if you want to understand the basis for Paul's words study the Servant Songs in Isaiah. The key is there!

Follow Paul's lead and not the vain teachings of men!

F2F

It's actually you... that needs to understand, and is obvious to me that you have missed many Bible Scriptures in your study. I am actually following Bible Scripture, and you think you can just cast that off by FALSELY claiming I'm referring to "teachings of men"?

Heb 1:8
8 But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom."
KJV

So is the above verse the "teachings of men"?

Gen 1:26
26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
KJV

Just Who is that "Us", and "Our" in the above verse? Have you not read Hebrews 1 that declares that ALL THINGS WERE MADE through Jesus Christ? and that Jesus is the "express image of His Person", meaning of The Father?

Jesus IS... GOD, which is what the Matthew 1:23 Scripture DECLARES with even giving 'you' the definition of His Name "Emmanuel"!

And you want to falsely claim I'm pushing the "teachings of men"? Get a life!

 

[Davy]

@Davy

Do you make the same inferences from other peoples names and titles?

Joshua in the Bible! His original name was Oshea, meaning "Salvation" (Numbers 13:16), but Moses renamed him Yahoshua (contracted to Joshua in English), meaning "Yahweh's Salvation" or "He Who Will Be Salvation." The name "Joshua" is the Hebrew form of "Jesus," and it appears as such in the New Testament (e.g., Hebrews 4:8).

NT:2424
Iesous (ee-ay-sooce'); of Hebrew origin [OT:3091]; Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites:
KJV - Jesus.

OT:3091
Yehowshuwa` (yeh-ho-shoo'-ah); or Yehowshu`a (yeh-ho-shoo'-ah); from OT:3068 and OT:3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (i.e. Joshua), the Jewish leader: -Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare OT:1954, OT:3442.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

OT:3068
Yehovah (yeh-ho-vaw'); from OT:1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:
KJV - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare OT:3050, OT:3069.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

OT:3467
yasha` (yaw-shah'); a primitive root; properly, to be open, wide or free, i.e. (by implication) to be safe; causatively, to free or succor:
KJV - at all, avenging, defend, deliver (-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe, bring (having) salvation, save (-iour), get victory.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

So like I said, we cannot... separate Christ Jesus' Name from The Father's Name.



The difference between The Father and The Son is that The Son only came in the flesh to die on the cross, and that's Scripture too in case you failed to read that too...

Heb 1:1-6
1 God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds;

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 on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For 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, and He shall be to Me a Son?"

6 And again, when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."
KJV

Thus the matter of The Godhead is that Jesus Christ is GOD The Savior, Immanuel ("God with us"; Matt.1:23). The Father also is GOD The Savior...

Do all the below Old Testament Scriptures confuse... you about Christ Jesus as GOD The Savior?...

Isa 43:11
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no saviour.
KJV

Isa 45:15
15 Verily thou art a God that hidest Thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
KJV

Isa 45:21
21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me.
KJV

Isa 49:26
26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
KJV

Hos 13:4
4 Yet I am the LORD Thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but Me: for there is no saviour beside Me.
KJV


What about these New Testament Scriptures that declare Jesus Christ as The Savior?...

Luke 2:11
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, Which is Christ the Lord.
KJV

Acts 5:31
31 Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
KJV

Acts 13:23
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
KJV

Rev 1:7-8
7 Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come, the Almighty.
KJV

Does Jesus saying that above about Himself confuse you too?

 

[keithr]

You completely twisted what I said about the John 10:32-33 Scripture that I posted!

All that you wrote about those verses was the question, "So the blind Pharisees were stupid in accusing Jesus of His claim to be GOD?". I didn't "twist" your question at all, although I will now point out that it actually says Jews and not Pharisees - it was ordinary Jewish people, not the religious leaders, that Jesus had this discussion with.

I simply answered your question with a "Yes", and then went on to explain that Jesus had not claimed to be God. The Jews incorrectly thought that by referring to God as his Father that Jesus was claiming to be a god, like God, whereas, during his earthly ministry, he was 100% human, just like them (Romans 8:3 - "... God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh"). The Jews had not believed Jesus when he claimed to be the Messiah, and after he then claimed to be the Son of God, not God or a god, the Jews didn't believe that either, or they thought that to claim to be God's son was blasphemy. As it said earlier in the chapter, John 10:6, "Jesus spoke this parable to them, but they didn’t understand what he was telling them", so again the Jews didn't understand what Jesus was telling them, and they made a wrong decision. I believe what Jesus said, whereas you prefer to believe that the Jews were correct. Do also you believe they were correct to try to kill Jesus?

[Barne's Notes says: The word “blaspheme” originally means to speak evil of anyone; to injure by words; to blame unjustly. When applied to God, it means to speak of him unjustly; to ascribe to him acts and attributes which he does not possess; or to speak impiously or profanely. It also means to say or do anything by which his name or honor is insulted, or which conveys an “impression” unfavourable to God. It means. also, to attempt to do, or say a thing, which belongs to him alone, or which he only can do.]

What the unbelieving Pharisees said to Jesus in John 10:33 showed they UNDERSTOOD JESUS WAS CLAIMING TO BE GOD. So to 'side' with the Pharisees one would have to AGREE with those Pharisees that JESUS IS NOT GOD, but only claiming to be, like you apparently do!

As I pointed out, the Updated American Standard Version translates verse 33 as the Jews wanted to stone Jesus "for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself a god". Jesus then denied that he was claiming to be God - John 10:36 (WEB):

(36) do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’

The Jews seems to think that it was right to stone someone if that person claimed to be the Son of God. They were wrong to think that!

But in MY POSTS, I am constantly declaring that JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.

And you are constantly wrong about that! Jesus was God's one and only begotten Son. Christians too are begotten by God, and they will become sons of God by adoption - Galatians 4:4-5 (WEB):

(4) But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law,​

(5) that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of children.​

Before God changed Jesus' nature/body to be human, Jesus was a mighty spirit being - as God's Son he was indeed a mighty god, but there is only one almighty God, our Father YHVH. At Jesus' resurrection God changed Jesus' nature again, and Jesus is now an immortal spirit being, the first of a new creation of brothers/sons which have the immortal divine nature:

2 Peter 1:4 (WEB):

(4) by which he has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust.​

1 John 3:2 (WEB):

(2) Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is.​

 

[keithr]

NOT WORTH AN EDUCATED RESPONSE. WELCOME TO MY IGNORE LIST.

Translation - I can't argue with that, so I give up!

 

[Johann]

Or as more modern translations translate it, e.g. WEB:

(6) who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Php_2:6 "who although He existed" Literally this is "who being in the form of God." This is one of two present tenses (here a participle) in the midst of a series of Aorist tense verbs and participles.

It emphasizes the pre-existence of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Joh_1:1; Joh_8:57-58; Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24; 2Co_8:9; Col_1:17; Heb_10:5-7).
Jesus' pre-existence is another proof of His deity. Jesus did not come into being at Bethlehem. There has never been a time when Jesus did not exist and was not divine.

"in the nature of God" This is the Greek word morphç which is used in several senses.
1. an Aristotlian sense of essence

2. the sense of the nature of something or unchanging essence of something (this is how the early Church fathers interpreted it)

3. the outward form of something, as in the Septuagint (LXX). This does not mean that YHWH has a physical body, but that the attributes and characteristics-the very essence of God the Father-are evident in God the Son.
It is another way of asserting the full deity of Christ.

Being (huparchōn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of huparchō. In the form of God (en morphēi theou). Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.

A prize (harpagmon). Predicate accusative with hēgēsato. Originally words in ̇mos signified the act, not the result (̇ma). The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”).

To be on an equality with God (to einai isa theoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hēgēsato, “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case theōi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Rev_21:16.


Emptied himself (heauton ekenōse). First aorist active indicative of kenoō, old verb from kenos, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosis doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. “He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty” (Lightfoot).


There is an undue overemphasis on the humanity of Christ Jesus, often to the exclusion of acknowledging that He is God, the D'var Hashem (Word of God).

J.

 

[keithr]

There is an undue overemphasis on the humanity of Christ Jesus, often to the exclusion of acknowledging that He is God, the D'var Hashem (Word of God).

Jesus is not God! Why would Paul even mention that Jesus could even consider equality with God if Jesus was God? It only makes sense to mention it if Jesus was not God.

 

[ElieG12]

... You are running blind here without your lights off, and have found what you think is a code or secret hook to say there is proof Jesus pre-existed just by looking at some common Greek phrase or expression of Jesus in some scripture.....quite ridiculous I might say...

Thanks for your opinion. I believe Jesus.

John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man. (...) 31 The one who comes from above is over all others. The one who is from the earth is from the earth and speaks of things of the earth. The one who comes from heaven is over all others. (...)

... 6:33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (...) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. (...) 62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?

... 8:23 He went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.” (...) 57 Then the Jews said to him: “You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

... 17:1 Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, (...) 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

 

[ElieG12]

Trinitarians (vs. Unitarians) argue that Jesus' pre-existence supports their belief in a triune deity, yet his existence in heaven before his earthly birth does not prove he had no beginning.

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, understand that Jesus was present with God during the creation of the universe, marking his presence, but this adds nothing about whether he had a beginning.

The Bible not only states that Jesus was there at the start, but also identifies him as the beginning (Col. 1:18; Pro. 8:22) of all things. Someone described as "the beginning" cannot be eternal in the past.

The concept of Jesus' pre-existence does not negate the fact that he was "the beginning of God's creation" (Rev. 3:14) and "the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15). So, YES, he was alive in heaven before being born human, but he had an origin and this is why he is God's Son.

 

[Johann]

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, understand that Jesus was present with God during the creation of the universe, marking his presence, but this adds nothing about whether he had a beginning.

I appreciate your frankness @ElieG12

The question of whether Jesus had a beginning depends on which aspect of His nature you are referring to-His divine nature or His human nature.

Divine Nature (Eternal Sonship)
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus, as the second Person of the Trinity, is eternally begotten of the Father, not made, and without beginning or end. Passages such as John 1:1–3 affirm His eternal existence:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made."

The Greek word ἦν (ēn), translated as "was," indicates continuous, timeless existence.

The Nicene Creed further emphasizes this by stating that the Son is "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." This teaching highlights that Jesus, in His divine nature, is uncreated and co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit.

Human Nature (Incarnation)
In His human nature, Jesus had a beginning when He was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. This event is described in Luke 1:35:

"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."

This marks the beginning of His existence as a human being while maintaining His divine nature. The mystery of the Incarnation is summarized in John 1:14:

"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."

Early Church Councils, such as Nicaea (AD 325) and Chalcedon (AD 451), articulated these truths to combat heresies that either denied Christ’s full divinity (e.g., Arianism) or His true humanity (e.g., Docetism).

These councils affirmed that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, with two distinct natures united in one Person without confusion, change, division, or separation.

From this perspective:

As God, Jesus is eternal, without beginning or end (Revelation 1:8; Hebrews 13:8).
As man, His human life began at the Incarnation.
Rev_1:8 YHWH Himself speaks this verse, affirming the truth of the previous statements about Jesus. It combines four titles for Him with an allusion to a fifth and possibly a sixth. Apparently, Rev_1:8 was God adding His personal affirmation to the above statement by the use of these magnificent names.
1. "I Am," which is an allusion to the Covenant name YHWH (cf. Exo_3:14), a form of the verb "to be." Jesus used this of Himself (cf. Joh_8:56-59). The title "Lord" (kurios) in the NT reflects this OT title.

2. "Alpha and Omega" are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet which assume that God is the beginning and the ending, the controller of history (cf. Isa_44:6; Rev_21:6); this title is also used of Jesus in Rev_1:17; Rev_22:13.

3. "The Lord" is the modern way of translating YHWH.

4. "God" in Gen_2:4, YHWH, and Elohim are combined (the LORD God) as a name for deity. El is the general name for god in the Near East, from the root "to be strong."

5. "The One who is the One who was, the One coming" is the phrase used earlier in Rev_1:4, which speaks of the unchanging, ever-living God (cf. Psa_102:27; Mal_3:6; Jas_1:17). This phrase is used of God the Father, YHWH, in Rev_1:4; Rev_1:8 and of Jesus, God the Son, in Rev_1:17-18; Rev_22:13 (cf. Heb_13:8).

6. "The Almighty" which was the OT term, (1) "El-Shaddai," the patriarchal name for God (cf. Exo_6:3) or (2) "YHWH Sabaoth," from the LXX's "The Lord God Almighty.

It is found often in this book (i.e., pantokratôr, cf. Rev_4:8; Rev_11:17; Rev_15:3; Rev_16:7; Rev_16:14; Rev_19:6; Rev_19:11; Rev_21:22), but only once in the other NT books (i.e., 2Co_6:18).

One early Greek manuscript, aleph (א*), and several later manuscripts add the phrase "the beginning and the end" after "the Alpha and the Omega." Scribes inserted it from Rev_21:6, but it is probably not an original part of the inspired original Greek text. The UBS4 rates its exclusion as "certain."

I am. This text, according to Daniel Waterland, "is to be interpreted (with all antiquity) of God the Son," which he proves (1) from the context; (2) from antiquity; (3) from the weaknesses of the reasons for applying this text to the Father. As to the context, all acknowledge that verse 7 applies to the Son; there is insufficient contextual warrant for making a sudden shift in this verse to avoid the application of divine titles to the Son, as the Arians argue for.

As to antiquity, both Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene writers concur in applying this text to Christ, such that "never were men more unanimous than the ancients were in this matter; there being no one exception, on record, against it." As to reasons for applying this text to the Father, some argue that since in verse 4 the title "which is, which was, and which is to come" applies to the Father, the same title used here must likewise.

But this fails to recognize that the same titles are often given to both, as the title "Alpha and Omega" most certainly is (Rev_1:11; Rev_1:17; Rev_2:8; Rev_22:13, See related note on Rev_3:14). The objection that the title "the Almighty" is always in Scripture applied to the Father, never the Son, is mistaken, for (1) "it is mere groundless presumption to suppose that as often as that title is applied to the one God in the Old Testament, it is applied to the Father only: since it may often be understood indifferently either of Father, or Son, or of the whole Trinity"; (2) "there are several texts of the Old Testament, which we have good reason to believe are to be understood particularly of God the Son. Psalms 24 has by the primitive Fathers been interpreted of Christ.

The title Lord of hosts (Kurios dunameon), applied to Christ in that Psalm, is equivalent to Almighty (Kurios pantokrator), as the LXX Interpreters render the same words indifferently by one or other, as may easily be seen in a multitude of instances, by looking into Trommius’s Concordance."

John himself in his Apocalypse, Rev_4:8, alluding to Isa_6:3, where it reads "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts," gives not Kurios dunameon, (or sabaoth), but Kurios o Theos o pantokrator, Lord God Almighty. John likewise applies the title "Lord of hosts" to Christ, as can be seen by comparing Jhn_12:41 with Isa_6:5, Compare Zec_2:8; Zec_12:5; Zec_12:10 with Jhn_19:34; Jhn_19:37, "These instances are sufficient to check the confidence of such as roundly affirm, without a syllable of proof, that the title of pantokrator, Almighty, is in holy Scripture applied always to the Father only" (Waterland, Works, vol. 2, Sermon VI, "Christ’s Divinity proved from his Titles," pp. 141-143; "A Second Defence of Some Queries," pp. 562-565). Waterland continues his argument at length with the astute observation, that the arguments used by the Arians to deny the eternity of the Son left no remaining valid arguments to assert the eternity of the Father. Rev_1:18, Rev_2:23; Rev_21:6; *Rev_22:13; *Rev_22:16, >Exo_3:14; Exo_23:21, Psa_68:4, Isa_43:3; Isa_43:10-11; *Isa_44:6; Isa_45:5-6; Isa_48:12; Isa_63:16, +*Jhn_8:28; +*Jhn_8:58.

You agree?

J.