Jesus God in the flesh!

Isaiah 9:6, we read that Jesus is called the “mighty God” Yet, Jehovah God is called “mighty God” at Isaiah 10:20-21. Are there two “mighty Gods”? The real issue is not whether other beings are called “gods,” but which category of “god” does Jesus fall under? Does He fall under the category of being the true God or a false god? While Jehovah’s Witnesses assert that there is a category of “gods” that is neither true nor false and that these “gods” hold the title of “god” due to their power and authority, Scripture reveals that this is not the case. For example, at Psalm 82:6-7, Israelite judges were called “gods” in sarcasm because these judges (who thought of themselves a “gods”) were reviling the true God by their unrighteous judgments. Psalm 82 is a psalm of condemnation for these judges who acted as if they were “gods” in that they made life and death decisions for others, but they would ultimately “die like men” —thus proving the infinite difference between the true God and the mightiest of mortals.
At 2 Corinthians 4:4, Satan is addressed as “the god of this world.” Since it is obvious that Satan is a false god, he is addressed as “god” because pagans and unbelievers throughout history have worshipped him by serving false idol “gods” made of wood and stone, powered by demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). Yet, despite Satan’s authority as “god of this world,” the demons recognize that Satan is not a real “god.” At James 2:19, the Bible declares that even the demons recognize that there is only “one God.” Since there is only one true God (John 17:3) who has revealed Himself as the “only God” (1 Timothy 1:17), Jesus is either in the true God category of being Jehovah God Himself, or He is a counterfeit god who is a false god. There is no middle ground. While Scripture reveals that there is only one God “by nature” and that all other “so-called gods” are false gods (1 Corinthians 8:5-6), Jesus is “by nature” the one and only true God. https://www.4jehovah.org/jesus-is-god-chapter-7-yes-you.../
 
We have already established that there is ONE TRUE GOD by nature. Now we ask the Jehovah's Witnesses the key question -- Is Jesus a true God or a false god? They will have to admit that Jesus is a true God. This forces them to believe in more than one true god! You can't believe in two true gods as the J.W.'s do and still be a Christian and a Bible believer! This is a real dilemma for Jehovah's Witnesses.
I remember presenting this concept to one Jehovah's Witness. I then asked, "how many gods do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in?" After thinking over the matter carefully, and pondering at some length, the Jehovah's Witness finally replied, "one and a half!" The explanation was of course, that they believe Jehovah [God one] created Jesus [god two], but Jesus was at the same time the archangel Michael, so Jesus became "sort of a hybrid being, a god/archangel Michael" at the same time! This reasoning also makes them polytheists, as does their rendering of John 1:1 in their "New World Translation" of the bible.
" In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god".
No reputable Bible scholars will endorse this [mis]translation. The text should read "and the Word [Jesus] was God"
 

The Prophet

Member
.”The life appeared, we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the Eternal Life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.” 1 John 1:2 King James

and we are in him who is the true even in his son Jesus, He is the True God and Eternal Life,” 1 John 5:20 King James

Very clear Jesus is The One True God
 
.”The life appeared, we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the Eternal Life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.” 1 John 1:2 King James

and we are in him who is the true even in his son Jesus, He is the True God and Eternal Life,” 1 John 5:20 King James

Very clear Jesus is The One True God
According to Jesus, his Father is the only true God (John 17:3), and he is the one "the only true God" sent forth..
 

The Prophet

Member
According to Jesus, his Father is the only true God (John 17:3), and he is the one "the only true God" sent forth..
 

TibiasDad

Member
According to Jesus, his Father is the only true God (John 17:3), and he is the one "the only true God" sent forth..

We have no problem with John 17:3, nor do we have any problem John's words in his first epistle in which he says that Jesus is the true God and eternal life. You, on the other hand, are saying that John must be either lying in one of the statements, or somehow John changed his mind and yet the Holy Spirit has allowed both statements to be included in the infallible word of God.

The one fact that you seem to be either avoiding or deliberately ignoring is that John says both the Father and the Son are "the true God"! Moreover, Jesus did not say "he is the one" "the only true God", but he did equalize the Father and the Son by saying both are necessary for eternal life. Why would someone less than God be necessary for eternal life? There is indeed only one true God and both Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are equally that God. They are, according to Jesus, "one"! (Jn 10:30) To see one is to see the other! (John 14:9)


Doug
 
We have no problem with John 17:3, nor do we have any problem John's words in his first epistle in which he says that Jesus is the true God and eternal life. You, on the other hand, are saying that John must be either lying in one of the statements, or somehow John changed his mind and yet the Holy Spirit has allowed both statements to be included in the infallible word of God.
The one fact that you seem to be either avoiding or deliberately ignoring is that John says both the Father and the Son are "the true God"!
Let's look at 1 John 5:20: "οιδαμεν δε οτι ο υιος του θεου ηκει και δεδωκεν ημιν διανοιαν ινα γινωσκομεν τον αληθινον και εσμεν εν τω αληθινω εν τω υιω αυτου ιησου χριστω ουτος εστιν ο αληθινος θεος και ζωη αιωνιος". If one translates the text as "and we know that the son of God has come and has given us understanding, in order that we may know the one who is true, and we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life"--gramatically speaking, "this one" (ουτος) could either refer to "the one who is true", (could refer) to "his son Jesus Christ", or refer to both[, ie, "this one is the true God, and (this one) is eternal life"].

Hence, grammatically speaking, 1 John 5:20 is ambiguous. But contexually speaking, it is more probable that "the true God and eternal life" refers to "the true One". Thus, text could(--and probably should) be translated as: "and we have known that the son of God is come and has given us a mind that we may know the true One. And in His son Jesus Christ we are in the true One. This one is the true God and the eternal life".
Moreover, Jesus did not say "he is the one" "the only true God",
He didn't have to since not only did he call His Father "the only true God", but said it was the "only true God" that sent His son(, Jesus Christ): "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the true God alone, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
but he did equalize the Father and the Son by saying both are necessary for eternal life. Why would someone less than God be necessary for eternal life?
Such was God's will (Acts 2:23; 1 John 4:9).
There is indeed only one true God and both Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are equally that God.
1 Corinthians 11:3: "...the Head of Christ is God". (See also Revelation 1:5, 6: "Jesus Christ...who loves us and has set us free from our sins by his blood, and made us a kingdom and priests to his God and Father..")
They are, according to Jesus, "one"! (Jn 10:30) To see one is to see the other! (John 14:9)


Doug
At John 17:22, Jesus states: "I have given them the glory You have given me so that they may be one just as we are one. (Therefore, God and Jesus are not "one" in the way you are trying to imply--especially since we are "one" in the same way as they are(. Compare 1 Corinthians 3:8; 1 John 5:7).
 

TibiasDad

Member
This one is the true God and eternal life"--gramatically speaking, "this one" (ουτος) could either refer to "the one who is true", (could refer) to "his son Jesus Christ", or refer to both[, ie, "this one is the true God, and (this one) is eternal life"].

Grammatically, the true God and eternal life cannot not be divided so they both must refer to "the one", a singular entity, not two distinct individuals. 1John 1:2 in the prologue of 1John 1, John established which individual is the eternal life, saying, "The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. Thus, Jesus is the eternal life, and, since the compound modifier can't be split, he is also the true God. (See also Titus 2:13, and 2 Pet 1:1 for similar compound structures.)


Doug
 
Grammatically, the true God and eternal life cannot not be divided
Are you sure about this(, or are you assuming it)?
so they both must refer to "the one", a singular entity, not two distinct individuals.
If you insist that "both must refer to 'the one', you must realize that "the One" in 1 John 5:20 is the true One" (and the other in the passage is His son. That--my friend--is "two entities").
1John 1:2 in the prologue of 1John 1, John established which individual is the eternal life, saying, "The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. Thus, Jesus is the eternal life, and, since the compound modifier can't be split, he is also the true God. (See also Titus 2:13, and 2 Pet 1:1 for similar compound structures.)


Doug
The texts which you presented are not good examples of your (imaginary) rule that "the compound modifier can't be split" (since in those texts, there is ambiguity due to the fact that--grammatically speaking--the "compound modifier CAN be split").
 

TibiasDad

Member
Are you sure about this(, or are you assuming it)?

Yes, 100%!!!


If you insist that "both must refer to 'the one', you must realize that "the One" in 1 John 5:20 is the true One" (and the other in the passage is His son. That--my friend--is "two entities").

You are again equivocating, because "the one" to which "true God and eternal life" both apply is Jesus in that clause. That clause and the grammar within it is all I was talking about, not any other clause or verse that speaks of "the one". Moreover, both the Father and the Son are called "the true God" so that can only mean that John calls them both God! Since John is a monotheistic believer, he is not saying they are one perso, but one essence, one nature, identical in quality and attributes!


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Member
The texts which you presented are not good examples of your (imaginary) rule that "the compound modifier can't be split" (since in those texts, there is ambiguity due to the fact that--grammatically speaking--the "compound modifier CAN be split").

You evidently are unable to demonstrate the fact of these assertions since you provide absolutely no evidence for their truthfulness! There is absolutely no ambiguity in those texts! God and Savior are predicated on Christ in both. There is no other legitimate option!

Doug
 
Yes, 100%!!!
Are you saying yes(, you're assuming this) 100%? If not, please see here(, where we read in part):

(2.) IMHO, 1 John 5:20 is clearly a delineation of the Father. At the
very least, the Father is hO ALHQINOS and the Son is ZWH AIWNIOS
. One
operative linguistic sign here is hOTI. John emphatically tells us
THAT the Son of God has come (hEKEI). Why has the Son come? To give us
DIANOIAN. About whom?

hINA GINWSKOMEN TON ALHQINON
Admittedly, I thought I was the only one who noticed that--grammatically speaking--"(ουτος) could either refer to "the one who is true", (could refer) to "His son Jesus Christ", or refer to both[, ie, "this one is the true God, and (this one) is eternal life"]"--that is, until I presented the idea on CARM's Biblical Languages board a few years ago (where one Trinitarian also stated such was grammatically possible). Interestingly, this scholar on B-Greek has also shown that such is a grammatical possibility (as B-Greek discusses grammar only rather than theology).
You are again equivocating, because "the one" to which "true God and eternal life" both apply is Jesus in that clause. That clause and the grammar within it is all I was talking about, not any other clause or verse that speaks of "the one".
Do you know what "equivocation" means (because you are misusing the term)? Moreover, you're repeating the (mis)conception that "the clause and the grammar within" this verse "both apply to Jesus" (when it is evident such is not the case).
Moreover, both the Father and the Son are called "the true God" so that can only mean that John calls them both God! Since John is a monotheistic believer, he is not saying they are one person, but one essence, one nature, identical in quality and attributes!


Doug
God is not an "essence" or "nature" in Scripture. God is the God (Revelation 1:6) and Head (1 Corinthians 11:3) and Father (John 20:17) of Jesus Christ.
 

TibiasDad

Member
Are you saying yes(, you're assuming this) 100%? If not, please see here(, where we read in part):

What part of "Yes, 100%" is ambiguous?

Admittedly, I thought I was the only one who noticed that--grammatically speaking--"(ουτος) could either refer to "the one who is true", (could refer) to "His son Jesus Christ", or refer to both[, ie, "this one is the true God, and (this one) is eternal life"]"--that is, until I presented the idea on CARM's Biblical Languages board a few years ago (where one Trinitarian also stated such was grammatically possible). Interestingly, this scholar on B-Greek has also shown that such is a grammatical possibility (as B-Greek discusses grammar only rather than theology).

There are always going to be some who disagree with the majority of opinion, and since I do not know by whom these opinions are proffered, I have no means of adjudicating the credibility of their thinking. Besides, whether or not it is grammatically possible is largely a moot point, for if it is, you do not have the luxury of negating my opinion of this passage, and there are many, many others that do not offer such ambiguity, if indeed such exists!


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Member
Are you saying yes(, you're assuming this) 100%? If not, please see here(, where we read in part):


Admittedly, I thought I was the only one who noticed that--grammatically speaking--"(ουτος) could either refer to "the one who is true", (could refer) to "His son Jesus Christ", or refer to both[, ie, "this one is the true God, and (this one) is eternal life"]"--that is, until I presented the idea on CARM's Biblical Languages board a few years ago (where one Trinitarian also stated such was grammatically possible). Interestingly, this scholar on B-Greek has also shown that such is a grammatical possibility (as B-Greek discusses grammar only rather than theology).

Do you know what "equivocation" means (because you are misusing the term)? Moreover, you're repeating the (mis)conception that "the clause and the grammar within" this verse "both apply to Jesus" (when it is evident such is not the case).

God is not an "essence" or "nature" in Scripture. God is the God (Revelation 1:6) and Head (1 Corinthians 11:3) and Father (John 20:17) of Jesus Christ.

All things that exist (have being) have an essence of quality of said being (existence)!


Doug
 
This tells me nothing! These translations do not disagree with my statements, but rather confirm them!


Doug
This shows me that you either didn't look at them or that you didn't comprehend what you read:

2 Peter 1:1 (NASB): "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (one entity).
2 Peter 1:1 (KJ21): "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (two entities).

Titus 2:13 (NASB): "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (one entity)
Titus 2:13 (KJ21): "looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (two entities)

Thus, your statement:
You evidently are unable to demonstrate the fact of these assertions since you provide absolutely no evidence for their truthfulness! There is absolutely no ambiguity in those texts! God and Savior are predicated on Christ in both. There is no other legitimate option!
is shown to be incorrect.
 
What part of "Yes, 100%" is ambiguous?
The part where you didn't explain what you were referring to as being 100%.

Note you stated: "Grammatically, the true God and eternal life cannot not be divided", and I--in turn--asked a two part question: "Are you sure about this(, or are you assuming it)?""

Saying "yes, 100%" doesn't clarify whether you're (100%) sure about it or that you're (100%) assuming it.
There are always going to be some who disagree with the majority of opinion, and since I do not know by whom these opinions are proffered, I have no means of adjudicating the credibility of their thinking.
This shows that you haven't studied the languages which you are providing statements about. Had you, you would not need to "know" the person or persons who made these statements. You'd be able to decipher for yourself what the grammar can (and cannot) say.
Besides, whether or not it is grammatically possible is largely a moot point, for if it is, you do not have the luxury of negating my opinion of this passage,
There was no need for me to negate your "opinion of this passage". The only thing I set out to show was that "your opinion" was simply an opinion (based on the fact that the text is ambiguous).
and there are many, many others that do not offer such ambiguity, if indeed such exists!


Doug
Actually, there aren't any unambiguous passages. However, if you care to present them, please do so (in another thread as this one is far off from the OP).
 
Last edited:
Top