GOD is not Jesus and Jesus is not GOD!
- Thread starter Rxlx
- Start date
- Status
Jesus is not GOD and GOD is not Jesus.Jesus is God.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,774
Dear Brother,
Only because you brought up the previous one.
The surprise of coffee and cookies were enjoyed by all.
Blessings to you as well dear brother.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 4,084
You do know that Arius was a Berber from North Africa, (meaning a black guy).
Many confuse Arian with Aryan.
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 4,084
Yes, a thread from which I should not have been banned.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,774
Which is what almost all say, who it happens to.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
I'm no racist.
I'm Caucasian though Satan's Wikipedia says that is now old fashioned.
Last edited:
Nothing as ignorant, misguided and doomed as Muslims:
Quote: Many Islamic scholars would likely agree that Arianism is their proof for Islam existing before Muhammad.
But Muslim beagan when Muhd wearing his wife dresses was in a cave in around 610 AD and Satan popped in pretending to be , hmm, not sure ...but anyway he convinced Muhd that he would be leader of a new religion based on worship of the black stone in Mecca.
Worship of stones is pagan idolatry but Islams think they are exempt.
So according to Muslim they started almost 600 years after Jesus but claim he's not he son of GOD.
All Muslim are doomed to detruction when Jesus returns.
Quote: Many Islamic scholars would likely agree that Arianism is their proof for Islam existing before Muhammad.
But Muslim beagan when Muhd wearing his wife dresses was in a cave in around 610 AD and Satan popped in pretending to be , hmm, not sure ...but anyway he convinced Muhd that he would be leader of a new religion based on worship of the black stone in Mecca.
Worship of stones is pagan idolatry but Islams think they are exempt.
So according to Muslim they started almost 600 years after Jesus but claim he's not he son of GOD.
All Muslim are doomed to detruction when Jesus returns.
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
NRSV udated edition
Joh 10:30 The Father and I are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—
Joh 10:36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me.
v30, Jesus said "the Father and I are one".
v31, Jews took up stones to kill Him
v32, Jesus asked for what good works where they to stone Him
v33, The Jews who were with Jesus, who know the languages, are certainly competent to know what Jesus meant, that Jesus only a human was making Himself God
Obj. Jews merely misunderstood Jesus. Ans. When Jews misunderstood, John corrects the record see - Jn2:19-21
v34, Jesus refers to religious leaders in OT being called gods
v35, Jesus shows a progression from written word to those called gods in the OT, up to the One Living Word sent next...
v36, Jesus shows increase in majesty from the written word to the living Word who was sent and He shows that saying "I am God's Son?" is the same as saying He is God, "The Father and I are one", proclaiming Himself God.
v37 Jesus claims the works He was doing proved what He had claimed.
** When using the NRSVue, there is not a chance the translators are going to give a slanted rendering toward Trinitarianism. The NRSVue is an academic translation, and it is from an 'anti-supernaturalist' philosophy.
Joh 10:30 The Father and I are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—
Joh 10:36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me.
v30, Jesus said "the Father and I are one".
v31, Jews took up stones to kill Him
v32, Jesus asked for what good works where they to stone Him
v33, The Jews who were with Jesus, who know the languages, are certainly competent to know what Jesus meant, that Jesus only a human was making Himself God
Obj. Jews merely misunderstood Jesus. Ans. When Jews misunderstood, John corrects the record see - Jn2:19-21
v34, Jesus refers to religious leaders in OT being called gods
v35, Jesus shows a progression from written word to those called gods in the OT, up to the One Living Word sent next...
v36, Jesus shows increase in majesty from the written word to the living Word who was sent and He shows that saying "I am God's Son?" is the same as saying He is God, "The Father and I are one", proclaiming Himself God.
v37 Jesus claims the works He was doing proved what He had claimed.
** When using the NRSVue, there is not a chance the translators are going to give a slanted rendering toward Trinitarianism. The NRSVue is an academic translation, and it is from an 'anti-supernaturalist' philosophy.
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
"Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.'” (Joh 8:58 NRSVue)
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (Joh 8:58 ASV)
Before Abraham was, I am] "I am that I am," in regard of mine eternal generation. And as mediator, "I am Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and for ever," Hebrews 13:8 (John Trapp)
Before Abraham was, I am—The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different. The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist." The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as Joh 1:1). In that sense the Jews plainly understood Him, since "then took they up stones to cast at Him," just as they had before done when they saw that He made Himself equal with God (Joh 5:18). JFB
I am - The expression I am, though in the present tense, is clearly designed to refer to a past time. Thus, in Psa 90:2, “From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” Applied to God, it denotes continued existence without respect to time, so far as he is concerned. We divide time into the past, the present, and the future. The expression, applied to God, denotes that he does not measure his existence in this manner, but that the word by which we express the present denotes his continued and unchanging existence. Hence, he assumes it as his name, “I AM,” and “I AM that I AM,” Exo 3:14. Compare Isa 44:6; Isa 47:8. There is a remarkable similarity between the expression employed by Jesus in this place and that used in Exodus to denote the name of God. The manner in which Jesus used it would strikingly suggest the application of the same language to God. The question here was about his pre-existence. The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term (familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God) I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John Joh 1:1, that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. Albert Barnes
58. ] As Lücke remarks, all unbiassed exegesis of these words must recognize in them a declaration of the essential præ-existence of Christ. All such interpretations of πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι , as “ before Abraham became Abraham ,” i.e. father of many nations (Socinus and others), and of ἐγὼ εἰμί , as “ I was predetermined, promised by God ” (Grotius and the Socinian interpreters), are little better than dishonest quibbles . The distinction between γενέσθαι and εἰμί is important. “Antequam nasceretur Abraham, ego sum ” (Erasmus). The present εἰμί expresses essential existence , as in reff., especially Colossians 1:17 , and was often used by our Lord to assert His Divine Being. Alford's Greek NT
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. The third occurrence of the solemn formula ‘Verily, verily,’ marks the highest point reached by the words of Jesus at this time. The substance of the words is in completest harmony with the form. In the clearest possible manner Jesus declares, not only His existence before Abraham, but also the essential distinction between His being and that of any man. Man is born, man passes through successive periods of time: of Himself, in regard alike to past, present, and future, Jesus says ‘I am.’ He claims for Himself that absolute, unchanging existence which is the attribute of God alone. If any argument be needed to enforce that which the words themselves supply, it is furnished in the conduct of the Jews (John 8:59), who clearly understood them to be a distinct (and in their mind a blasphemous) claim of that which belonged to God alone. The thought is distinctly present in the Old Testament: see Psalms 102:27, but especially Psalms 90:2. Schaff's Popular Commentary on the NT
The Jews understood what Jesus was saying to them:
"So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." (Joh 8:59 NRSVue)
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (Joh 8:58 ASV)
Before Abraham was, I am] "I am that I am," in regard of mine eternal generation. And as mediator, "I am Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and for ever," Hebrews 13:8 (John Trapp)
Before Abraham was, I am—The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different. The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist." The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as Joh 1:1). In that sense the Jews plainly understood Him, since "then took they up stones to cast at Him," just as they had before done when they saw that He made Himself equal with God (Joh 5:18). JFB
I am - The expression I am, though in the present tense, is clearly designed to refer to a past time. Thus, in Psa 90:2, “From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” Applied to God, it denotes continued existence without respect to time, so far as he is concerned. We divide time into the past, the present, and the future. The expression, applied to God, denotes that he does not measure his existence in this manner, but that the word by which we express the present denotes his continued and unchanging existence. Hence, he assumes it as his name, “I AM,” and “I AM that I AM,” Exo 3:14. Compare Isa 44:6; Isa 47:8. There is a remarkable similarity between the expression employed by Jesus in this place and that used in Exodus to denote the name of God. The manner in which Jesus used it would strikingly suggest the application of the same language to God. The question here was about his pre-existence. The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term (familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God) I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John Joh 1:1, that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. Albert Barnes
58. ] As Lücke remarks, all unbiassed exegesis of these words must recognize in them a declaration of the essential præ-existence of Christ. All such interpretations of πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι , as “ before Abraham became Abraham ,” i.e. father of many nations (Socinus and others), and of ἐγὼ εἰμί , as “ I was predetermined, promised by God ” (Grotius and the Socinian interpreters), are little better than dishonest quibbles . The distinction between γενέσθαι and εἰμί is important. “Antequam nasceretur Abraham, ego sum ” (Erasmus). The present εἰμί expresses essential existence , as in reff., especially Colossians 1:17 , and was often used by our Lord to assert His Divine Being. Alford's Greek NT
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. The third occurrence of the solemn formula ‘Verily, verily,’ marks the highest point reached by the words of Jesus at this time. The substance of the words is in completest harmony with the form. In the clearest possible manner Jesus declares, not only His existence before Abraham, but also the essential distinction between His being and that of any man. Man is born, man passes through successive periods of time: of Himself, in regard alike to past, present, and future, Jesus says ‘I am.’ He claims for Himself that absolute, unchanging existence which is the attribute of God alone. If any argument be needed to enforce that which the words themselves supply, it is furnished in the conduct of the Jews (John 8:59), who clearly understood them to be a distinct (and in their mind a blasphemous) claim of that which belonged to God alone. The thought is distinctly present in the Old Testament: see Psalms 102:27, but especially Psalms 90:2. Schaff's Popular Commentary on the NT
The Jews understood what Jesus was saying to them:
"So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." (Joh 8:59 NRSVue)
Bill
Loyal
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Messages
- 5,684
"I'm up because the Spirit got me out of bed to spend the hours responding to Butch.
Plus in between typing I was able to make some chocolate chip mini cookies along with a jug of hot coffee!"
This is not fair. You should be making these for all of us
Bill
Loyal
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Messages
- 5,684
Is that like saying love is not compassion and compassion is not love ?
In Revelation 1:17-18, Jesus, in the King James Version (KJV), states, "I am the first and the last; and I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, and have the keys of hell and of death".
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
In John 3:6 of the King James Version (KJV), Jesus states, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit".
Once more, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is indeed God in the Flesh.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
It's very clear throughout the Bible that God is God and that Jesus Is God the Son with God the Father. I don't understand with Words but I know what the Word we are looking at says. It's saying this:
Will you now believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is indeed as the Word says, God in the Flesh? For indeed, He is God in the Flesh. What He did was He gave us His Flesh, and His Blood , for the life of the World. To give life to the world in Him and through Him and for Him. He's God my guy. Look at what the Word says. Glory be to God.
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
In John 3:6 of the King James Version (KJV), Jesus states, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit".
Once more, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is indeed God in the Flesh.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
It's very clear throughout the Bible that God is God and that Jesus Is God the Son with God the Father. I don't understand with Words but I know what the Word we are looking at says. It's saying this:
Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.Matthew 1:23
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.Will you now believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is indeed as the Word says, God in the Flesh? For indeed, He is God in the Flesh. What He did was He gave us His Flesh, and His Blood , for the life of the World. To give life to the world in Him and through Him and for Him. He's God my guy. Look at what the Word says. Glory be to God.
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 4,084
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 4,084
And in the very next chapter, John 9, the blind man says the exact same thing as Jesus did - "EGO EIMI"
εκεινος ελεγεν οτι εγω ειμι
So the blind man is saying he's God too?
The best understanding of this verse is Jesus saying "Abraham was before, I am (now)."
Rhema
Active
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 4,084
One what? (No Trinitarian can ever answer that question.)
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
The following are orthodox Christians, believing in One God existing as Father, Son & Holy Spirit and I accept their Greek knowledge.
One (εν). Neuter, not masculine (εις). Not one person (cf. εις in Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural συμυς (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by υνυμ Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (Joh 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (John 17:11; John 17:21). Note εν used in 1Co 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in John 17:11; John 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ's disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.
RWP, A. T. Robertson
One [εν] . The neuter, not the masculine eiv, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.
Vincent Word Studies
Being a particular Baptist, I like John Gill on John 10:30
I and [my] Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and [my] Father", εσμεν, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him.
"In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was. He was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; without him no created thing came into being." (John 1:1-3 REB)
The Net Bible gives an explanation of how the REB translates John 1:1 -
"From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons."
"No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." (Joh 1:18 NRSVue)
- Status
