Jesus as God

KUWN · Apr 4, 2025

Part 1

'The New Testament does not often call Jesus "God." Contrary, though, to - what some people argue, it does assign that name to Jesus several times. In this chapter, we will examine several key texts that are the subject of much debate. We shall see that in most of these texts the evidence is decisively in support of the conclusion that Jesus Christ is indeed God. The Messiah as God in Isaiah The belief that Jesus Christ is God has some precedent in the Old Testament, especially in the book of Isaiah, which affirms more than once that the future Messiah would be God. The most explicit of these affirmations are in the same section of the book, in chapters 7-12, that focuses on the judgment about to come on the northern kingdom of Israel and on what this judgment would mean to Jerusalem and the southern kingdom of Judah.

Although the immediate concern was the Assyrian Empire and its conquest of Israel - events that took place during Isaiah's lifetime - the issue of the future of the Davidic line in Jerusalem broadened Isaiah's prophetic vision far beyond his own day. This is the context of Isaiah's most controversial prophecy. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (7:14) In the immediate context, Immanuel apparently was a child born during the reign of Ahaz (the king to whom Isaiah was speaking). The short time it took for Immanuel to reach maturity was to be the measure of the time Ahaz's two enemy kings had left (7:1-9, 15-16; 8:8). Other considerations, though, point to a future child. Perhaps a child named Immanuel born in Isaiah's time was a precursor to the future child.

Most of the debate over Isaiah 7:14 centers on the Hebrew almah, translated "virgin" (Greek, parthenos) in the Septuagint and in Matthew 1:23. Critics of Matthew 1:23, which cites Isaiah 7:14 in reference to the virginal conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary, routinely assert that almah meant simply "young woman" and not necessarily a virgin, which, they say, would have been better denoted using the word bethulah. But this objection to the traditional interpretation is mistaken. The word almah never refers to a married woman, and usually it is clear or implied that the woman is unmarried and a virgin (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8).

In one of these texts the Septuagint translated almah as "virgin" (parthenos, Gen. 24:43), just as it did in Isaiah 7:14. In the other texts, the Septuagint used forms of the word neanis, "young girl," a translation that also includes the idea of virginity. An almah is neither a child nor a mature woman, but a young woman who is unmarried but old enough to become married. The old-fashioned word "maiden" might be the best one-word substitute. As the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament correctly concludes, almah "represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity."

Another reason for understanding Isaiah's prophecy as referring to something beyond the ordinary birth of a boy in the eighth century B.C. is that Isaiah soon gave another, similar prophecy that is clearly messianic: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. (9:6-7)

The context is still the same: assurance that God will fulfill his promise of an everlasting Davidic kingdom despite the impending judgment that is coming on Israel through Assyria and the subsequent judgment on Judah. Both texts speak of a "child" and "son" whom God will "give"; both say that "his name will be called" something that gives assurance of God's presence. In context, then, we should interpret this prophecy as a further revelation about the Immanuel child of Isaiah 7:14. Yet this child is indisputably a Davidic Messiah, since he will reign on David's throne forever (9:7). In retrospect, Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 holds up very well. Now, in both prophecies Isaiah appears to call this wonder-child God. In Isaiah 7:14 he calls the child Immanuel, which, as Matthew points out, means "God is with us" (1:23).

If there was an eighth-century boy named Immanuel, he was not, of course, God incarnate; then again, neither was he born of a virgin nor did he come to be the Messiah and Savior of the world. That eighth-century boy was a type or foreshadowing figure of Jesus, the real Immanuel, who really is God with us. In Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah calls the future Messiah "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." The question is whether these titles are descriptive of the Messiah himself or simply express affirmations about the God he represents. There are good reasons to think they describe the Messiah. Isaiah goes on to credit the Messiah with doing just what the titles express: he establishes peace and rules forever over an everlasting kingdom (v. 7). Another prophecy of Isaiah about the Messiah later in the same section describes him as imbued with the Spirit of counsel (11:1-2). In short, Isaiah indicates that the child will live up to his name.

Isaiah, then, refers to the future Messiah as Immanuel, meaning "God is with us," and as "Mighty God" (Isa. 10:21). These are not the only statements in Isaiah that suggest that the Messiah will be God. Later in the book, Isaiah' states repeatedly that God is coming to redeem, restore, and rule over his people (Isa. 40:9-11; 43:10-13; 59:15-20). Perhaps the most famous such statement in Isaiah is the following: (40:3) The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A Highway for our God."

KUWN · Apr 4, 2025

Part 2

The Gospel of John contains at least two, and probably three, statements explicitly identifying Jesus Christ as God. The first of these statements comes in the very first sentence of the book: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). "Word" (Greek, logos) is a name for Jesus Christ, referring here to Christ in his existence prior to becoming a human being. Thus, verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and lived among us," and verse 17 identifies this incarnate Word as "Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). The second reference is in verse 18, which apparently also calls Jesus "God": "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known." There is a textual question here, since some manuscripts do not call Jesus "God" in verse 18; we will return to this question later. The third reference to Jesus as God in the Gospel is also the most emphatic, and it comes at the climax of the book. The apostle Thomas, confronted by the risen Jesus, responds to him by saying, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28). Jesus as God in John's Prologue (John 1:1-18) We begin with the first two references to Christ as God (John 1:1, 18). These statements function like bookmarks indicating the beginning and the ending of the introduction of what is commonly called the prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18).

Between these two statements that call Jesus "God" is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.' John says that the Word was already existing' "in the beginning" (vv. 1-2). The opening words of the Gospel, "In the beginning" (en arche), are the same as the opening words of the Old Testament, "In the beginning" (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). John states that everything that came into existence-the world itself-did so through the Word (vv. 3, 10). These statements affirming the Word's existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated - two essential attributes of God, as we saw in part 2. John concludes this part of the prologue with a call for people to "believe in His name" (v. 12) - one of the divine honors that the New Testament often indicates we are to extend toward Christ.

The identity of this Word starts to become clear when John writes, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (v. 14). The word that the NIV translates "made his dwelling" (eskenosen) literally meant to pitch one's tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God's dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle essentially was a tent where God made his presence known to the Israelites and met with them. Before the Israelites constructed the tabernacle, Moses would pitch an ordinary tent away from the camp and meet God there (Exod. 33:7-11). When the tabernacle was finished, "the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle" (Exod. 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the "glory as of the only Son from the Father" (v. 14). This statement is a way of saying that the Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory (a "chip off the old block," some people still say). John then gets specific: the Son's glory is "full of grace and truth" (v. 14).

This description of the Son echoes God's description of himself to Moses, who had asked at the tent of meeting to see God's "glory" (Exod. 33:18). God's response was to descend in a cloud and to proclaim that he is "abounding in lovingkindness and truth" (Exod. 34:6). What John says here must have been startling to Jews in his day in a couple of ways. First, John is implying that the revelation of God's loving-kindness, or grace, and truth that came through Jesus superseded the revelation that came to and through Moses. John makes that plain two sentences later: "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (v. 17).

John also makes explicit the second, even more startling implication: the revelation that Moses received of God's glory, of God himself, was only an anticipation of the revelation of God that came through his incarnate Son. John's statement, "No one has ever seen God" (v. 18a), clearly recalls the Lord's statement to Moses, "No man can see Me and live" (Exod. 33:20 ). John concludes, "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (v. 18b). Jesus as God in John 1:1 Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them. The primary issue of controversy in John 1:1 is how best to translate the last part of the verse (usually translated "and the Word was God"). Some translators have rendered the last clause to say that the Word was "divine" (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed) rather than "God." The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was."

The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail. There are really two issues here. The Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them.

The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was." The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail.

There are really two issues here. The first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. In order to understand the issue, it will be helpful to set out the whole verse in interlinear fashion:

en arche in ho logos in beginning was the word (first clause) kai ho logos in pros ton theon and the word was with the god (second clause) kai theos in ho logos and god was the word (third clause) Advocates of the alternate translations argue that the absence of the article "the" (Greek, ho, which appears in front of logos) in front of theos avoids the problem of the second and third clauses contradicting each other. The second first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. After verse 2, which summarizes the first two clauses of verse 1, theos appears five times in the prologue, each time without the article, and in the first four occurrences everyone agrees it means "God" (vv. 6, 12, 13, 18a, 18b).

PGS11 · Apr 4, 2025

Jesus tells you himself in revelation when he is speaking right to you that he is the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end.Revelations 22 the invitation.Your in for quite the battle here believe it or not.I gave up on it there are those who will believe it and those that won't no matter how hard you try.I read here that Jesus became divine that he never was to begin with honestly.You should of use the word divine or divinity there are big arguments here over that which is the same topic.

Runningman · Apr 4, 2025

KUWN said:
Part 2

The Gospel of John contains at least two, and probably three, statements explicitly identifying Jesus Christ as God. The first of these statements comes in the very first sentence of the book: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). "Word" (Greek, logos) is a name for Jesus Christ, referring here to Christ in his existence prior to becoming a human being. Thus, verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and lived among us," and verse 17 identifies this incarnate Word as "Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). The second reference is in verse 18, which apparently also calls Jesus "God": "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known." There is a textual question here, since some manuscripts do not call Jesus "God" in verse 18; we will return to this question later. The third reference to Jesus as God in the Gospel is also the most emphatic, and it comes at the climax of the book. The apostle Thomas, confronted by the risen Jesus, responds to him by saying, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28). Jesus as God in John's Prologue (John 1:1-18) We begin with the first two references to Christ as God (John 1:1, 18). These statements function like bookmarks indicating the beginning and the ending of the introduction of what is commonly called the prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18).

Between these two statements that call Jesus "God" is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.' John says that the Word was already existing' "in the beginning" (vv. 1-2). The opening words of the Gospel, "In the beginning" (en arche), are the same as the opening words of the Old Testament, "In the beginning" (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). John states that everything that came into existence-the world itself-did so through the Word (vv. 3, 10). These statements affirming the Word's existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated - two essential attributes of God, as we saw in part 2. John concludes this part of the prologue with a call for people to "believe in His name" (v. 12) - one of the divine honors that the New Testament often indicates we are to extend toward Christ.

The identity of this Word starts to become clear when John writes, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (v. 14). The word that the NIV translates "made his dwelling" (eskenosen) literally meant to pitch one's tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God's dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle essentially was a tent where God made his presence known to the Israelites and met with them. Before the Israelites constructed the tabernacle, Moses would pitch an ordinary tent away from the camp and meet God there (Exod. 33:7-11). When the tabernacle was finished, "the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle" (Exod. 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the "glory as of the only Son from the Father" (v. 14). This statement is a way of saying that the Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory (a "chip off the old block," some people still say). John then gets specific: the Son's glory is "full of grace and truth" (v. 14).

This description of the Son echoes God's description of himself to Moses, who had asked at the tent of meeting to see God's "glory" (Exod. 33:18). God's response was to descend in a cloud and to proclaim that he is "abounding in lovingkindness and truth" (Exod. 34:6). What John says here must have been startling to Jews in his day in a couple of ways. First, John is implying that the revelation of God's loving-kindness, or grace, and truth that came through Jesus superseded the revelation that came to and through Moses. John makes that plain two sentences later: "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (v. 17).

John also makes explicit the second, even more startling implication: the revelation that Moses received of God's glory, of God himself, was only an anticipation of the revelation of God that came through his incarnate Son. John's statement, "No one has ever seen God" (v. 18a), clearly recalls the Lord's statement to Moses, "No man can see Me and live" (Exod. 33:20 ). John concludes, "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (v. 18b). Jesus as God in John 1:1 Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them. The primary issue of controversy in John 1:1 is how best to translate the last part of the verse (usually translated "and the Word was God"). Some translators have rendered the last clause to say that the Word was "divine" (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed) rather than "God." The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was."

The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail. There are really two issues here. The Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them.

The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was." The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail.

There are really two issues here. The first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. In order to understand the issue, it will be helpful to set out the whole verse in interlinear fashion:

en arche in ho logos in beginning was the word (first clause) kai ho logos in pros ton theon and the word was with the god (second clause) kai theos in ho logos and god was the word (third clause) Advocates of the alternate translations argue that the absence of the article "the" (Greek, ho, which appears in front of logos) in front of theos avoids the problem of the second and third clauses contradicting each other. The second first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. After verse 2, which summarizes the first two clauses of verse 1, theos appears five times in the prologue, each time without the article, and in the first four occurrences everyone agrees it means "God" (vv. 6, 12, 13, 18a, 18b).

Jesus as elohim, perhaps, along with others directly called such. However, Jesus as YHWH the Lord God Almighty? no.

Hobie · Apr 4, 2025

KUWN said:
Part 2

The Gospel of John contains at least two, and probably three, statements explicitly identifying Jesus Christ as God. The first of these statements comes in the very first sentence of the book: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (1:1). "Word" (Greek, logos) is a name for Jesus Christ, referring here to Christ in his existence prior to becoming a human being. Thus, verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and lived among us," and verse 17 identifies this incarnate Word as "Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). The second reference is in verse 18, which apparently also calls Jesus "God": "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known." There is a textual question here, since some manuscripts do not call Jesus "God" in verse 18; we will return to this question later. The third reference to Jesus as God in the Gospel is also the most emphatic, and it comes at the climax of the book. The apostle Thomas, confronted by the risen Jesus, responds to him by saying, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28). Jesus as God in John's Prologue (John 1:1-18) We begin with the first two references to Christ as God (John 1:1, 18). These statements function like bookmarks indicating the beginning and the ending of the introduction of what is commonly called the prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18).

Between these two statements that call Jesus "God" is a rich tapestry of affirmations about Jesus that confirm his identity as God.' John says that the Word was already existing' "in the beginning" (vv. 1-2). The opening words of the Gospel, "In the beginning" (en arche), are the same as the opening words of the Old Testament, "In the beginning" (Gen. 1:1). This is not mere coincidence, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3-5; John 1:3-5, 9). John states that everything that came into existence-the world itself-did so through the Word (vv. 3, 10). These statements affirming the Word's existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated - two essential attributes of God, as we saw in part 2. John concludes this part of the prologue with a call for people to "believe in His name" (v. 12) - one of the divine honors that the New Testament often indicates we are to extend toward Christ.

The identity of this Word starts to become clear when John writes, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (v. 14). The word that the NIV translates "made his dwelling" (eskenosen) literally meant to pitch one's tent in a place, and it alludes in this context to God's dwelling among the Israelites in the tabernacle. The tabernacle essentially was a tent where God made his presence known to the Israelites and met with them. Before the Israelites constructed the tabernacle, Moses would pitch an ordinary tent away from the camp and meet God there (Exod. 33:7-11). When the tabernacle was finished, "the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle" (Exod. 40:35). Later, the temple served the same purpose as the tabernacle (cf. Ps. 74:7). John says that the Word that made his dwelling among us has the "glory as of the only Son from the Father" (v. 14). This statement is a way of saying that the Son is just like his Father when it comes to glory (a "chip off the old block," some people still say). John then gets specific: the Son's glory is "full of grace and truth" (v. 14).

This description of the Son echoes God's description of himself to Moses, who had asked at the tent of meeting to see God's "glory" (Exod. 33:18). God's response was to descend in a cloud and to proclaim that he is "abounding in lovingkindness and truth" (Exod. 34:6). What John says here must have been startling to Jews in his day in a couple of ways. First, John is implying that the revelation of God's loving-kindness, or grace, and truth that came through Jesus superseded the revelation that came to and through Moses. John makes that plain two sentences later: "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (v. 17).

John also makes explicit the second, even more startling implication: the revelation that Moses received of God's glory, of God himself, was only an anticipation of the revelation of God that came through his incarnate Son. John's statement, "No one has ever seen God" (v. 18a), clearly recalls the Lord's statement to Moses, "No man can see Me and live" (Exod. 33:20 ). John concludes, "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (v. 18b). Jesus as God in John 1:1 Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them. The primary issue of controversy in John 1:1 is how best to translate the last part of the verse (usually translated "and the Word was God"). Some translators have rendered the last clause to say that the Word was "divine" (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed) rather than "God." The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was."

The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail. There are really two issues here. The Now that we have looked at these two affirmations of Jesus as "God" in the prologue, we want to address the most important questions or difficulties that commentators raise about them.

The Revised English Bible (1989) translates, "and what God was, the Word was." The New World Translation (NWT), published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is notorious for its rendering, "and the Word was a god." The NWT was not the first version to adopt this rendering, but it is by far the best known. Since an adequate treatment of this controversial question would be rather lengthy, we will be content to summarize our conclusion as simply as we can and refer the interested reader to works that explore the question in more detail.

There are really two issues here. The first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. In order to understand the issue, it will be helpful to set out the whole verse in interlinear fashion:

en arche in ho logos in beginning was the word (first clause) kai ho logos in pros ton theon and the word was with the god (second clause) kai theos in ho logos and god was the word (third clause) Advocates of the alternate translations argue that the absence of the article "the" (Greek, ho, which appears in front of logos) in front of theos avoids the problem of the second and third clauses contradicting each other. The second first is how John can say that the Word was with God and yet also that the Word was God. The second question has to do with the well-known fact that the Greek article (the word we often translate as "the") is present before "God" in the second clause but not before "God" in the third clause. After verse 2, which summarizes the first two clauses of verse 1, theos appears five times in the prologue, each time without the article, and in the first four occurrences everyone agrees it means "God" (vv. 6, 12, 13, 18a, 18b).

The New World Translation and many of the new versions are based on Westcott and Hort, dig a little below the surface and you will be amazed at what you find how Westcott and Hort persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for the new version.

The basis of the change was Westcott and Hort's theory that the New Testament was preserved in a almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, what are the corrupted Alexandrian codices. Westcott and Hort, hated the Bible of the Textus Receptus. of which the King James Bible is one and Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

The Bible scholar Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Horts "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

History shows the true text of the Textus Receptus on which the older Bibles and the King James Version is based, and those of the new versions which have picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts which have been shown to have corrupted and changed in many parts of the text and are unreliable.

Hobie · Apr 4, 2025

Here is a good description of how the corruptions came into the text in the book LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton which gives a easy to understand explanation...

"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text."

"..The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of
the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes.

It is believed that the Minority Texts were butchered by Egyptian gnosticism with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The gnostics were a group that did not believe:
In the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins. There are many alterations in the Minority Texts, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 versus from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to omitting First and Second Peter. The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places...."

http://endtimeoutreach.com/whichbible.html

Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin...."

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html

PGS11 · Apr 4, 2025

There is another spot in gospel were Jesus identifies himself as God he says that he is "I Am" which is the name God used when speaking to Moses from the burning bush.

I do understand how Jws see it I have looked into it but I am not inclined to change to a faith that began in 1870 I will stay with the original belief.1900 years of error just sound wrong.

KUWN · Apr 5, 2025

Found this article on the Internet. It has some good thoughts in it.

Bear in mind that the reason I am certain that Jesus is God is because I translate the scriptures literally. For the same reason I am a dispensationalist.

here's the article:

The third chapter of Exodus describes the encounter between Moses and God about the Lord’s name: “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you”’” (Exodus 3:13–14, NASB).

The phrase I am who I am in the Hebrew is YHWH, often translated as “LORD,” “Yahweh,” or “Jehovah,” and is referred to in theology as the tetragrammaton (“a word having four letters”). The literal translation of the term is “I be that I be,” a statement that makes reference to God’s self-existence—He is not dependent upon anything else for His existence.

One of the foundational Christian doctrines is that Jesus is God. He is the Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh described in Exodus 3. This teaching can be difficult to grasp because the Bible also says there is only one God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4).

The Bible’s claim that only a single God exists is called monotheism. The doctrine of Jesus being God does not mean that more than one God exists (polytheism) or that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity equates to there being three gods (tritheism) or that there is one God who represents Himself as one person in three different ways or modes (modalism).

Instead, Christianity teaches that there is one God who exists in triune fashion as three Persons within one God, i.e., one “what” but three “who’s”; a plurality of Persons who are one in essence. Referencing the depth of this doctrine, A. W. Tozer writes, “Our sincerest effort to grasp the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity must remain forever futile, and only by deepest reverence can it be saved from actual presumption. We cover our deep ignorance with words, but we are ashamed to wonder, we are afraid to whisper ‘mystery’” (The Knowledge of the Holy, p. 18).

The Bible affirms the Son of God’s place in the Godhead in both the Old and New Testaments. One passage affirming the Son’s deity in the Old Testament is Psalm 2: “The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!’ . . . Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” (Psalm 2:1–3, 12, NASB).

In the New Testament, Jesus affirms His deity in many places. In His general teachings, He refers to Himself in the same way God is described in the Old Testament and does the same in twenty of His parables. Examples include the following:

God in the Old Testament
I AM (Exodus 3:14–15; Isaiah 48:12)
The Shepherd (Psalm 23:1)
The Light (Psalm 27:1)
The Rock (Psalm 18:2)
Ruler of all (Isaiah 9:6)
Judge of all nations (Joel 3:12)
The Bridegroom (Isaiah 62:5; Hosea 2:16)
God’s Word never passes away (Isaiah 40:8)
The Sower (Jeremiah 31:27; Ezekiel 36:9)
First and the Last (Isaiah 48:12)

Jesus’ Reference to Himself
I AM (John 8:58)
The Shepherd (John 10:11)
The Light (John 8:12)
The Rock (Matthew 7:24)
Ruler of all (Matthew 28:18)
Judge of all (John 5:22)
The Bridegroom (Matthew 25:1)
Jesus’ words never pass away (Mark 13:31)
The Sower (Matthew 13:3–9)
First and the Last (Revelation 1:17–18)

Jesus said many things that equated Himself with Yahweh: “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). He asked God, “Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” (John 17:5). He said, “My Father is always at His work to this very day, and I too am working” (John 5:17).

In addition, Jesus accepted worship nine times in the gospels, forgave sins, and commanded His disciples to pray in His name. Jesus never said—as other prophets did—“Thus says the Lord”; rather, Jesus said, “I say,” and commanded His disciples to baptize in His name.

The New Testament writers also refer to Jesus as God many times (e.g., Matthew 3:16–17; John 1:1–3,14; John 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:5–8, 9–11; Colossians 1:16–19; 2:9–10; 1 Timothy 6:15; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8; 13:8; Revelation 1:8, 17; 2:8; 17:14; 19:16; 21:6; 22:13).

In conclusion, the teaching of Scripture is that Jesus is indeed Yahweh, the I AM, the God of the Old Testament.

KUWN · Apr 5, 2025

The New World Translation and many of the new versions are based on Westcott and Hort, dig a little below the surface and you will be amazed at what you find how Westcott and Hort persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for the new version.

The basis of the change was Westcott and Hort's theory that the New Testament was preserved in a almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, what are the corrupted Alexandrian codices. Westcott and Hort, hated the Bible of the Textus Receptus. of which the King James Bible is one and Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

The Bible scholar Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Horts "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

History shows the true text of the Textus Receptus on which the older Bibles and the King James Version is based, and those of the new versions which have picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts which have been shown to have corrupted and changed in many parts of the text and are unreliable.

Runningman said:
Jesus as elohim, perhaps, along with others directly called such. However, Jesus as YHWH the Lord God Almighty? no.

I see that you didn't read my article or didn't understand it.

Runningman said:
Jesus as elohim, perhaps, along with others directly called such. However, Jesus as YHWH the Lord God Almighty? no.

Thanks for giving some thought to your reply.

Your numbers are very old. For example, you said there are 5,309 Greek manuscripts. That's about the number long before modern times. Today, there are approximate 5800+ Greek manuscripts. Note that this does not include 10,000 Latin Manuscripts, and about 9,300 other language translations.

The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are dated in the 3rd century, and belong to the early text manuscripts. To say the Alexandrinus Text Type is inferior is something you read somewhere. You are not trained in Greek, so I wouldn't makes claims like that. Because I might embarrass you by asking you to support such a claim, without searching in Google and cutting and pasting articles. I do it sometimes myself, but it should be as a last resort.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

I can see by your writings that you have not been trained in Textual Criticism.

As far as the number of variants among the Greek manuscripts (something you didn't mention), there are about 450,000!! That includes the Textus Receptus. This number seems quite high but it is accurate.

Runningman · Apr 6, 2025

KUWN said:
The New World Translation and many of the new versions are based on Westcott and Hort, dig a little below the surface and you will be amazed at what you find how Westcott and Hort persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for the new version.

The basis of the change was Westcott and Hort's theory that the New Testament was preserved in a almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, what are the corrupted Alexandrian codices. Westcott and Hort, hated the Bible of the Textus Receptus. of which the King James Bible is one and Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

The Bible scholar Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Horts "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

History shows the true text of the Textus Receptus on which the older Bibles and the King James Version is based, and those of the new versions which have picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts which have been shown to have corrupted and changed in many parts of the text and are unreliable.

I see that you didn't read my article or didn't understand it.

Thanks for giving some thought to your reply.

Your numbers are very old. For example, you said there are 5,309 Greek manuscripts. That's about the number long before modern times. Today, there are approximate 5800+ Greek manuscripts. Note that this does not include 10,000 Latin Manuscripts, and about 9,300 other language translations.

The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus are dated in the 3rd century, and belong to the early text manuscripts. To say the Alexandrinus Text Type is inferior is something you read somewhere. You are not trained in Greek, so I wouldn't makes claims like that. Because I might embarrass you by asking you to support such a claim, without searching in Google and cutting and pasting articles. I do it sometimes myself, but it should be as a last resort.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

I can see by your writings that you have not been trained in Textual Criticism.

As far as the number of variants among the Greek manuscripts (something you didn't mention), there are about 450,000!! That includes the Textus Receptus. This number seems quite high but it is accurate.

Sorry, but this is either a strawman argument or you meant to reply to someone else. My comment was very simple. I didn't make any claims regarding any number of manuscripts. I did not make any attempts at textual criticism. I also didn't mention variations in the manuscripts.

KUWN · Apr 6, 2025

Runningman said:
Sorry, but this is either a strawman argument or you meant to reply to someone else. My comment was very simple. I didn't make any claims regarding any number of manuscripts. I did not make any attempts at textual criticism. I also didn't mention variations in the manuscripts.

Sorry!! Got the wrong member.

KUWN · Apr 6, 2025

Hobie said:
In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

The Bible scholar Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Horts "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

History shows the true text of the Textus Receptus on which the older Bibles and the King James Version is based, and those of the new versions which have picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts which have been shown to have corrupted and changed in many parts of the text and are unreliable.

First, the Vaticanus is an early manuscript, around 340 AD. Second, Burgon's talks about the Traditional text as if its corruption is any different than any other manuscript. All manuscripts have many corruptions. The Textus Receptus is not at all how you describe it. Have you ever don't any textual criticism with the Textus Receptus. here are a few numbers:

Variants:
MT vs TR (1,838)
MT vs CT (6,577)
Total variants (MT vs CT) that are significant (less than 1,400). When you do a thorough examination of the 1,400 significant variants, you are looking at about 10 variants that are of interest. But, as Dan said, there is no cardinal doctrine affected by and variant.

The number of variants in the TR is significant, no difference from other late or early manuscripts. The reason I do not put any weight on the TR is because there is no manuscript that is earlier than the 9th century that support it. I think if you do a thorough text critical study, you want have to rely on others to tell you what you believe.

FaithWillDo · Apr 9, 2025

KUWN said:
Part 1

'The New Testament does not often call Jesus "God."

Dear KUWN,

Is Jesus God? Here is what scripture says:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

1Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2Cor 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Eph 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

2Thes 1:2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The verses above teach that Jesus is the Son of the Father, that the Father is greater than Jesus and that the Father is the GOD of Jesus.

Looking closely at 1Cor 8:6 above, it says that there is only "one God, the Father, of whom are all things.” If all things come from the Father, then God the Father has to be the one supreme God. God does not consist of three persons as the Trinity Doctrine states.

Look at these two verses below:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Since the First Fruits of Jesus’ harvest of mankind will someday be "one" as Jesus and His Father are "one", how can there be a "trinity"?

If we are to understand that Jesus and the Father are the one supreme God, doesn't that also make the First Fruits the same one supreme God?

If that were true, God would then be much, much more than a trinity. But, of course, that understanding is not correct.

What makes Jesus and His Father “one”?

Jesus and His Father are made “one” because the Father gave Jesus the full measure of His Spirit.

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him.

For that reason alone, Jesus is said to be "one" with His Father.

And in like manner, after Christ has given the Father’s Spirit in full measure to mankind, we too, will be “one” with the Father. When that day arrives, Christ's reign will come to an end because His work will be finished and the Father will have many new sons:

1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore, the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

So who exactly is Jesus?

Scripture says that Jesus is the Son of God:

John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

However, Jesus is much more than just the Son of God to mankind.

Scripture tells us that the Father, of whom are all things, created all things within this creation "by" Jesus. That makes Jesus mankind's Father, God, Lord, Creator and Savior.

In other words, Jesus is everything to mankind.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Clearly, Jesus is not the one supreme God of whom are all things. Jesus is the Son of the one supreme God (the Father) and is of lesser authority. There simply is no trinity. There is only one God (the Father) who has a very big family.

Scripture also tells us that Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God the Father:

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things say the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, ...

After the Father created Jesus, He then made everything in this creation by Him.

In short, Jesus is mankind’s God, Father and Creator, just as the God the Father is Jesus' God, Father and Creator.

Because Jesus is the Son of God, He is not equal to the Father in authority and is always subordinate to Him. However, Jesus was made by the Father in the Father’s spiritual image, so much so, that when we see Jesus, it can be said that we see the Father – not visually but spiritually. Jesus is the perfect spiritual representation of the Father. At a minimum, Jesus was created by the Father to fulfill the Father’s desires as they relate to this creation. This creation is the Father's creation but He created it all by Jesus.

When the time came, the Father sent His Son Jesus into the world to be the Savior of mankind:

1John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

While in the flesh, Jesus learned obedience and was made into the perfect sacrifice for mankind’s sins:

Heb 5:8-10 Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered; And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him; Called of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Because of the saving work of Jesus at the cross, Jesus earned the authority to give all mankind the Father’s Spirit and convert them from being the children of the Devil into being the children of God. And since nothing in this creation happens by chance or by mankind's falsely claimed free will ability, Jesus will "work" the Father's plan which established a time of salvation for every person who has ever lived.

In this age, Jesus is converting the individuals who were chosen by the Father to be saved first. They are the Elect. Then, at the beginning of the next and final age, the OT faithful will be converted. Finally, at the end of the final age, all the remaining Gentiles will be converted, followed by the physical nation of Israel - who will be last.

Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved...

After the last Jewish person is converted at the end of the final age, Jesus will deliver up the Kingdom of Heaven to His Father. God will then be "all in all" and will have a much larger family:

1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24-28 Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom of God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For He hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Rom 5:18 so then as it was by one offence towards all men to condemnation, so by one righteousness towards all men for justification of life. 19 For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous.

The great work of creating many new children for the Father is the work of Jesus Christ and is the primary purpose of why the Father made this creation:

Gen 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; ...

This single verse of scripture above explains the true meaning of life and is why we exist.

What a glorious future we will all have as a member of the family of God!

Joe

marks · Apr 9, 2025

KUWN said:
Jesus never said—as other prophets did—“Thus says the Lord”; rather, Jesus said, “I say,”

Very good point!

Much love!

Search

Search

Jesus as God

KUWN

Active Member

KUWN

Active Member

PGS11

Active Member

Runningman

Active Member

Hobie

Well-Known Member

Hobie

Well-Known Member

PGS11

Active Member

KUWN

Active Member

KUWN

Active Member

Runningman

Active Member

KUWN

Active Member

KUWN

Active Member

FaithWillDo

Well-Known Member

marks

Well-Known Member

Similar threads