Did Jesus teach he was GOD himself?

Newbirth

Well-known member
The Bible does NOT say invisible image.
But you said...who IS the EXACT IMAGE of The invisible God.
It says The EXACT IMAGE.
No,it does not There is no mention of exact image in the scripture
Jesus The MAN was conceived and born;
yep sons come from their fathers. Therefore Jesus the Son of God was born.
Jesus The Son of God was NOT.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The bible says he was born.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
But you said...who IS the EXACT IMAGE of The invisible God.

No,it does not There is no mention of exact image in the scripture

yep sons come from their fathers. Therefore Jesus the Son of God was born.

Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The bible says he was born.
Yes, Jesus Christ was born as The Son of God and Man.
Hebrews 1:3 says EXPRESS IMAGE of His Person, which means EXACT IMAGE.
And Jesus Christ is The ONLY Son who came from God.
 

Anthony

Active member
In the form of man=Man.
God in the form of Man - indivisible. Man Yeshua Messiah is the form of God.

When scriptures mention about Him as Man - it's not to be mixed up with the first Adam. The 2nd Man was the YHWH/Lord from heaven:

1Cor 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam 's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Adam was the figure/image of Him Who was to come

The Greek word translated as 'Figure'' corresponds to Hebrew word translated as 'Image' in Gen 1:26.

You have to look at Greek (LXX) - Hebrew dictionary.

G5179

G5179 * τύπος (tupos)

tupos H6754 * צֶלֶם (ṣelem) tselem

G5179 - 'Tupos' corresponds to H6754 'Tselem'

It's translated in Gen 1:26 - Let us make man in our IMAGE.

So, Adam was the Figure/Image of the One Who was to come. This proves that Yeshua is God/YHWH in Man's form.

Gen 3: 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

YHWH walking in the Garden? Adam and His wife hid from His presence? Walking needs legs. Voice needs mouth. Presence requires to have a body.

Exod 15: 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Was Moses mistaken to say YHWH is a Man of war?

It corresponds to Rev 19;11

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Scriptures are quite clear:

Phil 2:
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:

.His equality WITH God deals with His being totally transcendent. God is compounded unity - duality of powers. When we see Him we see the invisible God in all fullness.
 

Anthony

Active member
What is the nonsense? I said Jesus is a man...The scriptures say Jesus is a man...
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Nope

The God who is Yeshus' father

If that is the case then Adam is God also. because God made Adam in his image also.

I am denying your false teachings. Satan is your king.
I'm not a Trin to say He was The Father from eternity past. The titles of F & S dipict covenant relationship between God and Israel as His firstborn son.

How many times to tell you What you see in only NT corresponds to the New Covenant with Israel through Representation and Mediator"s Role as The Son of God

God didn't procreate a Son as your carnal mind thinks. Does Israel have God as The Father? So does The Son representing them.

That's why He was miraculously born through the genealogy of Abraham in the beginning of the gospel. It doesn't mean He didn't exist before unless you are blind.

Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

The One Who sanctifies is the brother of all Abraham's children. He came as The Kinsman Redeemer.

16:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

You are coming back to again square one. You can't get the truth that Adam was created in His image and was to come in humility as the True Israel of God.

Same things you repeat He had God as His Father. Who denies it? But we must understand this in overall context of historical Israel. You have no excuse now
 

Anthony

Active member
What is the nonsense? I said Jesus is a man...The scriptures say Jesus is a man...
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Nope

The God who is Yeshus' father

If that is the case then Adam is God also. because God made Adam in his image also.

I am denying your false teachings. Satan is your king.
I'm not a Trin to say He was The Father from eternity past. The titles of F & S dipict covenant relationship between God and Israel as His firstborn son.

How many times to tell you What you see in only NT corresponds to the New Covenant with Israel through Representation and Mediator"s Role as The Son of God

God didn't procreate a Son as your carnal mind thinks. Does Israel have God as The Father? So does The Son representing them.

That's why He was miraculously born through the genealogy of Abraham in the beginning of the gospel. It doesn't mean He didn't exist before unless you are blind.

Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

The One Who sanctifies is the brother of all Abraham's children. He came as The Kinsman Redeemer.

16:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

You are coming back to again square one. You can't get the truth that Adam was created in His image and was to come in humility as the True Israel of God.

Same things you repeat He had God as His Father. Who denies it? But we must understand this in overall context of historical Israel. You have no excuse now
What is the nonsense? I said Jesus is a man...The scriptures say Jesus is a man...
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Nope

The God who is Yeshus' father

If that is the case then Adam is God also. because God made Adam in his image also.

I am denying your false teachings. Satan is your king.
First distinguish between Adam as Man and Jesus as a Man. You are lost in your own world.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
God in the form of Man - indivisible. Man Yeshua Messiah is the form of God.

When scriptures mention about Him as Man - it's not to be mixed up with the first Adam. The 2nd Man was the YHWH/Lord from heaven:

1Cor 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam 's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Adam was the figure/image of Him Who was to come

The Greek word translated as 'Figure'' corresponds to Hebrew word translated as 'Image' in Gen 1:26.

You have to look at Greek (LXX) - Hebrew dictionary.

G5179

G5179 * τύπος (tupos)

tupos H6754 * צֶלֶם (ṣelem) tselem

G5179 - 'Tupos' corresponds to H6754 'Tselem'

It's translated in Gen 1:26 - Let us make man in our IMAGE.

So, Adam was the Figure/Image of the One Who was to come. This proves that Yeshua is God/YHWH in Man's form.

Gen 3: 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

YHWH walking in the Garden? Adam and His wife hid from His presence? Walking needs legs. Voice needs mouth. Presence requires to have a body.

Exod 15: 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Was Moses mistaken to say YHWH is a Man of war?

It corresponds to Rev 19;11

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Scriptures are quite clear:

Phil 2:
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:

.His equality WITH God deals with His being totally transcendent. God is compounded unity - duality of powers. When we see Him we see the invisible God in all fullness.
We also see Him as A MAN.
 

Anthony

Active member
Therefore He is God The Son.
You need to come out of tradition. There is no God The Son Who can call His Father God. The Son represents and Mediates for Israel.

There is only One God Who as Ordinal First is The Father and as The Ordinal Last is The Son.

The Father and Son weren't there before the beginning of creation. There was only God who no titles.

The comparison is between two dimensions and not two Persons. That's why I can't believe in Trinitarianism.

Yeshua Messiah is the same YHWH of the OT. We now call on Yeshua's Messiah on NT side. Who spoke in the OT? The same Person Who spoke in NT except that He came as Servant Israel and in resurrection He Reigns as King David till the last enemy called death is done away with:

Hos 3: 5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

Luke 1:
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;


Acts 2: 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Got to come out of the traditional Christendom

The prophetic clock hovers around only Israel. That's why we need to be part and parcel of spiritual Israel. Replacement theology is not from God but a counterfeit.
 

Anthony

Active member
We also see Him as A MAN.
Did I deny that? God has been only visible in the form of Man

God is not a man that He should lie....Num 23:19.

Uninformed people use Num 23:19 to deny the Deity of Messiah. But here, God speaks of sinful man/Adam.

Always have spiritual discernment.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Why? As man, Jesus was man. As God, Jesus was God. It's that simple.
You haven't proven the later. It's that simple.

Given that I'm interacting with your question of the inner workings of Trinitarianism, Jesus is God is a given.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why on earth would you say "to himself"?
Because if he's truly God, there's no need to pray or bow to anyone.

Sir, you are questioning the internal logic of Trinitarianism. Adding or saying "to himself" in this context is irrational. You are importing ideas foreign to Trinitarianism into Trinitarianism as to produce an internal critique of Trinitarianism. Such fundamentally undermines the rational of such arguments.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sir, if your not a Christian, if you don't believe in the NT, why are you arguing with us about doctrines based upon those Scriptures?
First off, yes I'm Jewish and don't believe in Jesus. I personally like finding discrepancies in the NT and how differently Christians feel about Jesus - some just a man and others divine.

You haven't been finding discrepancies. That would require you only interact with positions held in Trinitarianism.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Belief in the Trinity is based upon the revelation of the NT. One must first submit to Jesus and his revelation before one can interact with the justification for this doctrine.
That's a cop-out. Tanakh doesn't support a God the Son and the Spirit of Holiness is merely the Father, will, or prophetic message.

Nope. You don't accept as Scripture that which teaches Trinitarianism. So, questioning it's justification isn't a matter of revelation or logic, but simply the acceptance of Divine revelation.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nope, because the over arching belief is in the oneness of God.
Oneness is exclusively alone, one. That's how He created, Neh 9:6.

Yes. Have you made a relevant point? Oh yeah, you have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such verses are relevant.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not to mention verses like Matthew 28:19 which distinguishes between the three while expressing the unity of the three in being the one God YHWH.
It's interesting that Tanakh clearly says there's one YHWH, and one alone with that name, not three.

Not really given that we believe there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name.

So, I don't take the NT serious on versus that many Christians take differently and are non-conclusive.

That the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.

You would have a better chance of convincing me from a logical, rational stance outside of the NT.

Which is why I'm not arguing for the Trinity with you from the NT.

God Bless
 

101G

Well-known member
Well, we disagree here because I don't acknowledge the NT as authoritative nor scripture. So you to convince me otherwise
scripture set #1. Revelation 1:12 " And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;" Revelation 1:13 " And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle." Revelation 1:14 " His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;" Revelation 1:15 " And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."

Scripture set #2. Daniel 7:13 " I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him."

now lets see this Ancient of days did sit.

Daniel 7:9 " I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire."Daniel 7:10 " A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."

Scripture set #3, Daniel 10:4 " And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;" Daniel 10:5 " Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:" Daniel 10:6 " His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude."

is these three sets of scriptures are describing the same one person? yes or no.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Given that I'm interacting with your question of the inner workings of Trinitarianism, Jesus is God is a given.
It's not a given. You haven't justified a need nor any support for several persons as God.

Sir, you are questioning the internal logic of Trinitarianism. Adding or saying "to himself" in this context is irrational. You are importing ideas foreign to Trinitarianism into Trinitarianism as to produce an internal critique of Trinitarianism. Such fundamentally undermines the rational of such arguments.
Actually, they're quite rational. God doesn't worship another person as God.

You haven't been finding discrepancies. That would require you only interact with positions held in Trinitarianism.
Of course I have. Does God worship God?

Nope. You don't accept as Scripture that which teaches Trinitarianism. So, questioning it's justification isn't a matter of revelation or logic, but simply the acceptance of Divine revelation.
You shouldn't need scripture if you can prove it rationally or logically.

Yes. Have you made a relevant point? Oh yeah, you have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such verses are relevant.
Yes. The oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You can check the grammar regarding alone in Hebrew, etc.

Not really given that we believe there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name.
And you don't think 3 persons share that name?

That the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.
The NT is inconclusive. Just look at the forum and those for and against Jesus being God.

Which is why I'm not arguing for the Trinity with you from the NT.
Thank you. Can you do it logically?

God Bless
Likewise.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Given that I'm interacting with your question of the inner workings of Trinitarianism, Jesus is God is a given.
It's not a given. You haven't justified a need nor any support for several persons as God.

Listen to what I'm saying. If I'm explaining the logic of my beliefs, then I must be able to assert my beliefs and the relationship between them. That doesn't mean I think such an assertion makes them true. It's only useful to explain my position.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sir, you are questioning the internal logic of Trinitarianism. Adding or saying "to himself" in this context is irrational. You are importing ideas foreign to Trinitarianism into Trinitarianism as to produce an internal critique of Trinitarianism. Such fundamentally undermines the rational of such arguments.
Actually, they're quite rational. God doesn't worship another person as God.

You are mixing up critiquing our internal logic and critiquing our assertions.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You haven't been finding discrepancies. That would require you only interact with positions held in Trinitarianism.
Of course I have. Does God worship God?

Nope. See, no discrepancy.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nope. You don't accept as Scripture that which teaches Trinitarianism. So, questioning it's justification isn't a matter of revelation or logic, but simply the acceptance of Divine revelation.
You shouldn't need scripture if you can prove it rationally or logically.

You are assuming what I am not saying. The sequence of theological enlightenment is: revelation, then interpretation, and finally logical implication. You're stuck at revelation; that's all I'm saying.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes. Have you made a relevant point? Oh yeah, you have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such verses are relevant.
Yes. The oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You can check the grammar regarding alone in Hebrew, etc.

Yes, the oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You still have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such is relevant.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not really given that we believe there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name.
And you don't think 3 persons share that name?

And? What does that have to do with believing there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.
The NT is inconclusive. Just look at the forum and those for and against Jesus being God.

Again, that the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Listen to what I'm saying. If I'm explaining the logic of my beliefs, then I must be able to assert my beliefs and the relationship between them. That doesn't mean I think such an assertion makes them true. It's only useful to explain my position.
Ok, so this is your belief.

You are mixing up critiquing our internal logic and critiquing our assertions.
Ok, so can you provide some proof or logic to your stance?

Nope. See, no discrepancy.
So, God can worship God?

You are assuming what I am not saying. The sequence of theological enlightenment is: revelation, then interpretation, and finally logical implication. You're stuck at revelation; that's all I'm saying.
Ok. So where's the logic?

Yes, the oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You still have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such is relevant.
Distinction isn't exclusively one, alone.

And? What does that have to do with believing there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name?
That 3 persons with the same name isn't one with the name YHWH. Only one can be named YHWH.

Again, that the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.
They argue the same thing of your side. Maybe you should focus on the logic of the trinity so we can make some progress?

Up to you.

God Bless
Likewise
 
Top