Is Christ God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

God proclaimed David to be his "son" too. Plus, the Book of Job speaks of the many "Sons of God".

And then there's that time when Jesus admonished Mary Magdeline, saying "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

a reply to: Sookiechacha
I stand by the argument from John ch1 v3, which I've already given.
Our understanding of anything Jesus said needs to be compatible with that.

All the apologists are operating from a faithbased standpoint with semantics, twisted and manipulated to fit their personal
dance card. imo...you pays your money and takes your chances that you are right. If you don't Tithe, all bets are off.

Therefore I have decided to put my faith in the Holy Mother, the Virgin of Guadalupe and call into question the need for all the debate.

I'm not a Catholic btw...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Smigg
No, because- as I've said already- it was the Father who spoke at the baptism.
The disinction between the Father and the Son is a distinction within God, not between God and something else.

You are shamelessly pertinacious, aren't you? I point out that you have been angaged in a slightly misleading piece of word-switching, and you just repeat it.

No what I'm saying is why do people who believe Christ is God dismiss unequitable proof that he isn't such as....

John 11:41
So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
Jesus praying to God a separate being.
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
Again Jesus praying to God.
Luke 23:34
“Jesus said, ’Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing’”
And again.
Just three of many many verses that without any strange interpretation point to Christ and God being two separate beings, it's unequitable. So in order to believe Christ is God one must dismiss verses that are clear in there rhetoric and believe verses that are not, how can this be so ?

a reply to: Smigg

John Chapter One, read it.

John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

In other words the WORD or JESUS or YESHUA is the WORD which is GOD from GOD and Through HIM all things that were created (Creation) were CREATED but BY THE FATHER THROUGH HIS SON so Jesus is the Saviour, the Word of God but not the ultimate Creator that is God the Father whom he is FROM and to whom we can only come by him and through him and there is no other way to God than by Yeshua so yes Yeshua is GOD.

John 15:9
So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

In Short YES HE IS GOD but he is the WORD and the SON of the Father.

The Father is God ALMIGHTY, the Son is ALSO GOD ALMIGHTY and so too is the Holy Spirit.

See also John 14:9

The Witnesses Deny Christ is God and in that they are wrong (and perpetuating a blasphemy of the Muhammadans as well BUT they still accept him so are still our brothers in Christ).

See also John 6:46

The WAY and the LIFE and the RESURRECTION.

How can we mere people wrap our heads around this.

Faith.

And of course he PRAYS to his Father but he also perfectly obeys' his father, he saves us but his fathers will is paramount, he suffered on our behalf, God's Anger is Almighty as is his Love and it took an ALMIGHTY Sacrifice to save us think about that.

originally posted by: Smigg
So is Jesus Christ God Himself creator of the universe ?
I believe the answer is no, Jesus was The Son Of God in the flesh, a separate entity with His own identity and free will. Just as our children are genetic copies of ourselves with their own identity Christ is a spiritual copy of God with His own identity separate from Gods. I'm not saying Christ Isn't a God, He is, He's God of this Earth or at least He soon will be, just not God of the universe. He is a representation of God because He's actually related to God and so is of God and how God is....for us so we can relate to Him.

When Christ used the term "I Am" He was being truthful in the sense that God has always existed and if Christ is from God then so Has Christ, His birth on Earth doesn't necessarily mean that's when He came into existence. Many prophets stand on the right hand of God but none sit as Christ does and that's because Christ is of God and the prophets are not.

No god has ever been killed with man made weapons, otherwise they should never have been classified as godly. Clarke's third law strongly suggests that divine properties are a matter of relativity, not an absolute. In other words, being regarded as a god will always depend on who or what you stand next to.

a reply to: Smigg
The short answer is in the first line of my original reply.
In the teaching of the church, Christ is BOTH God AND man.
Besides being God, he is fully human.

Every quotation you can give pointing out that Jesus is human only confirms what the church has always said; that Christ is also human;
"Equal to the Father as touching his Godheaad; and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood" (Athanasian creed again).
You have done nothing more than give me a list of references confirming the "inferior to his Father as touching his manhood" part.

And two of your examples of "Jesus praying to God" are actually of Jesus addressing his Father. We're back at the old point -The distinction between Father and Son is a distinction within God, not a distinction between God and something else.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Sookiechacha
I stand by the argument from John ch1 v3, which I've already given.
Our understanding of anything Jesus said needs to be compatible with that.

You're referring to "The LOGOS", or "The Angel of the Lord". That's not the same a "Christ" or "Messiah".

It's pretty poetry, but a finite description of Jesus of Nazareth, it is not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
The description of the LOGOS continues down to v11 (and indeed v18), and that continuity identifies him firmly as becoming the same person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You make a fundamental error in your assumption, the same as the Muhammadans whom deny that even the crucifixion took place and include yet another garbled account based on blasphemous infancy Gospel of Thomas
- (which has nothing to do with St Thomas the Apostle and included a Garbled account of an even earlier story from Coptic Egypt, in that one he was a very small child at the bank's of the Nile and made two DOVES from the clay of the Nile breathing life into them and by the time it got to the heretical and GNOSTIC Infancy Gospel which was written at it's earliest late second century it had turned into a flock of sparrows by a completely different river in a Palestine and he killed two bully's one in a perversion of the story of the Fig Tree he caused to wither in the REAL gospels - and NO to those that believe that Gnostic text Jesus NEVER killed those Children, Pretty sure he would have become a pariah and been hated and feared if he had and seen as a devil child perhaps even murdered by the Rabbi's of the time - or they would have tried to - so it also makes no sense and was written by Gnostics whom were known liars) - Jesus said God is a Spirit, he is the Word of God Made FLESH so he is SPIRIT MADE FLESH get it, no let me explain.

DIVINE as in GOD's Spirit made Flesh can not REALLY die except as FLESH, his mortal form was KILLED, no REALLY KILLED on that cross but he only LET IT DIE when it had been ACOMPLISHED, before that the scourging alone would have killed you and me never mind the blood loss from that scourging.

There are those that deny the Turin Shroud which shows a man with Jewish orthodox wrapping on his arm and forehead as well as the injury's and the crown of thorns and the NAIL HOLES it he UPPER HAND between the lower bones of the wrist were it would hold the weight and not tear the flesh perfectly.

When he ASCENDED after appearing rather more spiritual than physical and able to simply disappear from sight or appear different so that even his closest apostles did not immediately recognise him until he revealed himself he ascended with cloud's, now have you ever seen a spirit that looks like mist because I most definitely have, He ascended and turned back into spirit as he entered back into the HIGHEST spiritual realm.

Also you make the common mistake of saying it can not be done but GOD can do ANYTHING even DIE and take back up his life.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Smigg
The short answer is in the first line of my original reply.
In the teaching of the church, Christ is BOTH God AND man.
Besides being God, he is fully human.

Every quotation you can give pointing out that Jesus is human only confirms what the church has always said; that Christ is also human;
"Equal to the Father as touching his Godheaad; and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood" (Athanasian creed again).
You have done nothing more than give me a list of references confirming the "inferior to his Father as touching his manhood" part.

I'm not pointing out that Jesus is human I'm pointing out that Jesus is a separate being from God and not God the creator of the universe, so when a Christian prays he or she should pray to God and not Jesus for example.

a reply to: Smigg
No, what you are showing is that the Son is a separate person from the Father.
Which is an essential element in Christian teaching.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Smigg
No, what you are showing is that the Son is a separate person from the Father.
Which is an essential element in Christian teaching.

That's your interpretation of what I'm showing because you believe Christ and God are the same, what I'm actually showing in verse is clear evidence that Christ is a separate being physically and spiritually from God.
Take Luke 22:42 for example
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done”

This shows that they had two separate wills, although Jesus submitted his will to the will of the Father. Two wills mean two separate individuals.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Sookiechacha
The description of the LOGOS continues down to v11 (and indeed v18), and that continuity identifies him firmly as becoming the same person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Like I said, it's pretty poetry. But everything past verse 3 is John's commentary on the LOGOS, which he borrowed from Jewish scholars, such as Philo. This is where some Christians violate the 1st Commandment.

John's LOGOS only applies to "mankind". Philo's LOGOS refers to all of creation, where the LOGOS is a reflection of Heaven, projected upon the Earth.

God is bigger than a light for mankind and more than just a reflection from Heaven.

Yes, Jesus Christ is God.
Begotten, not created

John 10: 30 ”The Father and I are one."

a reply to: Smigg
My interpretation is the standard interpretation of the church and is consistent with the moral of John ch1 v3, that the Son is not to be listed in the category of "created things".
"He is inferior to God as touching his manhood".

Your interpretation feels better to you because you have decided that this is what you want to believe. There is no really effective way of getting past what somebody doggedly wants to believe, so there's no point in putting too much work into it.

I can only re-iterate; there is a distinction, and it lies in the fact that the Father is distinct from the Son. As the church has always taught.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
The Christian church has accepted John's gospel, along with the rest of the New Testament, as authoritative.
That makes it one of the determining elements in Christian teaching. My theology can only be establiched on that basis.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Smigg
My interpretation is the standard interpretation of the church and is consistent with the moral of John ch1 v3, that the Son is not to be listed in the category of "created things".
"He is inferior to God as touching his manhood".

Your interpretation feels better to you because you have decided that this is what you want to believe. There is no really effective way of getting past what somebody doggedly wants to believe, so there's no point in putting too much work into it.

I can only re-iterate; there is a distinction, and it lies in the fact that the Father is distinct from the Son. As the church has always taught.

When you say the church are you referring to the Catholic church ?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Smigg


Your interpretation feels better to you because you have decided that this is what you want to believe. There is no really effective way of getting past what somebody doggedly wants to believe, so there's no point in putting too much work into it.

No my interpretation is based on clear examples that God and Christ are separate beings, there is no other way to interpret it unless there's a narrative you want to pursue, I've noticed you completely ignore the examples I have given.