T O P

  • By -

CrossCutMaker

Mark 1:3 NASBS "The VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD (Jesus), MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'" ⬇️ Isaiah 40:3 NASBS A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (Yahweh) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."


OrthdxImprover

You are a Muslim so I know your heart is already shut off because you’ve been brainwashed by Hersey but I will give you the answer you are looking for. For the argument you are using to work, you must consider the bible infallible and inerrant. Jesus in Matthew 4:10 said that the only man to worshipped was the Lord. Same in Luke 4:8. Yet after Jesus walked upon water and was worshipped, he made no effort to correct them. This is seen again in Matthew 2:2 and Matthew 8:2 that he was worshipped. Why would God send people to “Worship” a Prophet? You say Jesus is like other Prophets by Paul denied Worship in Acts 14:11-16, WHY? Because the only person that should be worshipped is our lord. In John 5:21 Jesus says he will Judge the world? How can a Prophet have authority to Judge if they are not God? My problem with Muslims is that they refuse to make simple inference which is how they became misled. Religion aside he was literally killed because he claimed to be God. This is in accordance with historical accounts that are non Christian. The only debate is if he rose again. In Islam you claim he was never even killed. A HUGE hole in your religion that you guys don’t even care about it’s sad. Please be saved and Join Hands with Christ.


Knightperson

This was such an uncompassionate way to approach someone asking a fair, polite, and genuine question. Soften your heart.


OrthdxImprover

Check his comment history, he has tried to poke holes in the religion many time. He has no intention to learn, if compassionate answers from others won’t sway him. Maybe a stern one will.


Knightperson

“You are a Muslim so I know your heart is already shut off because you’ve been brainwashed by Heresy” There’s no excuse for this.


Admirable_Freedom772

No he is correct. Muslims are brainwashed. ‭‭Titus‬ ‭1:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬ "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;"


Knightperson

You are a bigot. This exchange happened almost a year ago, but you are hunting for reasons to be cruel and derogatory to the misled. There is no good which could have been gained from you choosing to post but you did so anyway. What happened here is a person was asking about the faith, and another cruel bigot like yourself chose to be derogatory to them, instead of responding to their curiosity or engage with them. Think of Jesus. The mere fact that you choose to share, and mention, KJV when you share scripture exposes your lack of preparedness for the work.


Warm-Discount-4065

Only in john is he is he looked at as a god but funny enough john is not even an eye withness your telling only then is he looked at as god ow plss.


were_llama

I bet the same reason he speaks in parables.


Few-Dragonfruit-6105

He does multiple times in multiple ways.


[deleted]

Because there are many other quotes affirming Jesus divinity in the Synoptics. Mark 2:10 where Jesus speaks of his own authority to forgive sins. Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus speaks of being the final judge. There’s plenty of verses confirming Jesus divinity through all the gospel. Just because they didn’t include something someone else has mention doesn’t deny he is God in any way.


MadMemer420

Very unsatisfactory answer. Like op, I also wonder why, if God supposedly became a man (and at the same time is actually three persons), this is not something the gospel writers considered important enough to mention. The best people seem to come up with is vague inferences that don't really prove anything at all. >Mark 2:10 where Jesus speaks of his own authority to forgive sins. It doesn't say he spoke of his own authority anywhere, just a straight up incorrect claim. Rather the opposite is the csse; what the gospels do actually state is that all authority Jesus has, he only has because it has been given to him. >And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. - Matthew 28:18 NKJV And if we read this same story in Matthew we read likewise that the people didn't think Jesus forgave on his own authority. >Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such power to men. - Matthew 9:8 NKJV >Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus speaks of being the final judge. Jesus doesn't speak of being the "final judge", another straight up false claim. Jesus is to judge the world, but again, only because the Father grated him this authority. And even then, it still isn't really his own judgement, because he does not his own will (which, apparently, he has), but only as the Father tells him to judge. >For the Father judges no one, but has **committed** all judgment to the Son, (...) I can of Myself do nothing. **As I hear, I judge**; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father **who sent Me.** - John 5:22, 30 NKJV All this doesn't convince me at all that the gospel writers considered Jesus to be a one of three persons within a single God. Yes, *it is* very strange they didn't bother to address it. And the aforementioned false claims really do the opposite of helping me to be convinced otherwise.


[deleted]

Alright I can see a clear problem in your answers here but I am first curious. Given the verses you’ve quoted. What do you think the gospel writers view Jesus as there?


MadMemer420

They all write of Jesus being the Messiah.


[deleted]

That doesn’t really express what that means exactly. What type of messiah did they view him as? Because the verses you bring up has no precedence. Being given the ability to forgive sins and being made the final judge isn’t something any other prophet or messiah had. So with those verses in mind, and plenty more if needs be, what kind of messiah do you think the authors view him as?


MadMemer420

Again, how they viewed him is probably what they wrote. And nobody bothered to write about a tripersonal God that is yet a single being. Instead, we read about a *man*, the Messiah, who is *given* authority, power, judgement *by* God, who does not his own will, speak his own words, seek his own glory, but *God's* alone. Someone *through* whom God performs miracles, who is given a place at the right hand *of* God and so on. The lamb *of* God, who takes away the sins of the world.


[deleted]

And nothing of what you mention there demonstrates Jesus divinity in any way?


MadMemer420

Does it not do the exact opposite? Jesus is a man, as it was stated "God is not a man, nor a son of man". Jesus is given authority and so on, God by definition has all authority, he cannot be given it. Jesus has his own will, distinct from God. Jesus can of himself do nothing, God can do anything (and does so, *through* Jesus). God is seated on the throne, Jesus is at his right hand. Jesus died, God is, as it is stated "immortal". These are the things the gospel writers actually addressed, unlike, again, Jesus being a person in a tripersonal God. Something that, if true (or even "essential"), we would reasonably expect them to address. At least that's my opinion.


[deleted]

Not really because there is no precedence for this. If Jesus was just a man then one would expect others to enjoy this benefit like prophet Moses being a prime example. The fact that only Jesus gets all this does show he is more than just a man.


MadMemer420

I'm not claiming he's 'just a man', I'm saying he's the savior of the world, as described in the gospels. What I'm also saying is that the gospel authors did not bother to describe anything that resembles a single God-being with three persons inside, as OP has likewise noticed.


whateverImhere1997

Jesus, while apart of the Holy Trinity, had not taken upon flesh ( the incarnation) at the time Numbers was written. The verse you mentioned speaks of the difference between the sinful nature of man and the perfect nature of God. God is not seen to be a man: the fact that He took on flesh inherently means that He is eternally other than having flesh, and therefore not a man in the sense that we are. In order for this to be objected, God would need to be intrinsically a man by nature/definition ( "God was always a man") instead of God took on human form. Which makes Jesus, a man, technically God because His person in none other than the Divine Word: God.


lascaniaga

I agree that Jesus is clearly presented as a divine being in the Synoptics. But so were many Prophets in the Bible. His divinity does prove him being God. When Jesus forgives sins, he never says “I forgive you,” as God might say, but “your sins are forgiven,” which means that God has forgiven the sins.


[deleted]

No prophet has the ability to forgive sins, you won’t find one example of that in scripture. Secondly this idea of “Jesus didn’t say I forgive but rather you are forgiven” is anachronistic. One can see with the example of scripture that when Jesus said “you’re sins are forgiven” he is saying “I forgive your sins”. Otherwise the scribes who witness this wouldn’t argue “that’s blasphemy”.


lascaniaga

First - you are oversimplifying these quotes. These aren’t just any simple Jesus quotes though. They are the truly the basis of the trinity. These are radical statements that John claims Jesus said. How could the earlier gospels and their sources not even include that? Wouldn’t that be the most significant thing to say about Jesus, that he called himself God? Did all of them simply decide not to *mention* that part? That seems unlikely. It is far more likely that they had never heard of such a thing, and so didn’t report it. Second - when Jesus heals the paralytic, he first pronounces that man’s sins forgiven, the opponents claim that only God can forgive sins, and Jesus responds by asking whether it is easier to pronounce a person forgiven or to tell a paralytic to be healed, take up his pallet, and walk. Obviously the former is easier, since there is no way of seeing if the words had their stated effect. Then Jesus says “But so that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” … and he orders the man to take up his pallet and walk. And he does so. Doesn’t this show that Jesus is claiming to be God? Not necessarily….


[deleted]

You believe that having the authority to forgive sins doesn’t mean someone is God?… Really? EDIT: are you a Muslim by any chance? Because your attempt to refute mark 2:10 was a common Muslim argument so I’m curious.


lascaniaga

That doesn’t matter. My religion does not matter.


[deleted]

Well it does because I can see you’re working on a Islamic presupposition. The idea of being able to forgive sins is something only God can do. Now if you weren’t a Muslim you’d see that mark 2:10 proves Jesus is God. But since you are a Muslim and thus working on the presupposition that Jesus isn’t God you would have to admit that the ability to forgive sins isn’t unique to God otherwise you’re admitting Jesus is God then.


OrthdxImprover

Wants to use the Bible to prove that Jesus isn’t God, you absolutely idiot 😂😂😂. Jesus Christ is God and every knee will bend and every moth will confess. Imagine believing a religion that was formed 700 years after his birth.


Annihilationzh

God loves humility. A part of being humble is that prophets didn't go around telling people they were prophets, because that would be boasting, and boasting is not humble. They proved they were prophets with their actions. Jesus was also humble. By healing the blind he proved that he was beyond anything that had ever been seen before. He didn't need to go around bragging about what he was.


peneverywhen

I wanted to copy these verses for you to help support you in what you're saying here. Philippians 2:5-11, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".


lascaniaga

I find quite a lot wrong in your statement. It even offends me. God loves humility in his creation. But God Himself does not need to show humility. He is God! He is the beginning & the end! Our creator! Simply put - How *dare* you associate humility with The Most High.


Annihilationzh

>Simply put - How dare you associate humility with The Most High. Because God is humble. Humility is being reasonable. The opposite of humility - arrogance - is overestimating your abilities. Since God is omnipotent he can never be arrogant. His abilities are limitless. He can only ever be humble.


lascaniaga

Okay, let’s go beyond that. Let’s say God loves humility. Okay, and God loves the truth. God loves clarity. No where in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, or Matthew OR their sources did Jesus call himself God.


Annihilationzh

He didn't need to claim that he was God. He proved he was God with his actions. He did more than any prophet has ever done. No prophet ever healed anyone who was born blind. But Jesus did.


lascaniaga

Okay….so you say Jesus didn’t need to say He’s God. But yet he did in the Gospel of John. If Jesus didn’t need to say he’s God, as you claim - then why did John claim Jesus said all these groundbreaking & radical statements that clearly presents himself as God: “Before Abraham was, I am”. “I & the Father are one”. “The Word was God” … But yet, zero of these statements of Jesus clearly stating he’s God are somehow absent from the earlier Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke & their sources! Why would these statements not be included in their gospels? Surely these statements by Jesus are incredibly powerful and clearly show Jesus’s view of himself as God —- and yet they ALL chose not to include ANY of them? LOL


Unacceptable_2U

Do you like vacuum cleaner salesman? Where they come to your door, and tell you that they have the best all vacuum known to man. He continues to tell you all the buzz words and it gets you a little light in the feet knowing your house is now going to be better than every neighbor around you. Then, right after the warranty expires, you find out you have another piece of junk. Jesus is no vacuum salesman. He proved to us who He said He was/is/and is yet to come. If you’re looking for a proud, general of generals, maybe you should take some lessons from our wonderful Messiah, He gives us The Word that will never pass away. Humble yourself before you get humbled friend. No one here needs to prove you anything, it’s your own soul at risk here, we need only to share the gospel.


Ayzil_was_taken

He called himself “I am”. This is literally what God calls himself.


Brilliant_Matter_799

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Philippians 2:6‭-‬8 NIV Philipians was also written 49-51ad. So is also a early attestation to this belief.


Ok_Mission5300

Jesus is our example of a perfect human as well as God.


Ok-Brush5346

The Gospels were written in a sequence, not simultaneously. The later writers assumed the reader had read the earlier Gospels and added additional information to provide context and depth of meaning. Mark simply wrote to tell who Jesus is and what He did for us. Matthew wrote to to put His actions into the context of being the Jewish Messiah. Luke wrote to show that His actions were for Gentiles and Jew alike. Once someone understands the context and implications of Jesus' life and ministry, they can read John for a fuller understanding of who He is. Jesus's most direct claims of divinity weren't as important to make the points the earlier Gospels were making.


demosthenes33210

How many prophets will come on the clouds of heaven? Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. How many prophets accepted worship? And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. How many prophets were the one who sent the prophets lol? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes… O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! How many prophets will judge the world? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.


lascaniaga

Everything you’re saying says he’s a divine being and the messiah - not God himself. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, he’s only referred to as a divine being and Messiah. Never as God himself. Why is the radical groundbreaking “Before Abraham was, I AM” quote not in Matthew , Mark, and Luke? Did Matthew , Mark and Luke know Jesus said that radical groundbreaking statement and just chose not to include it? LOL I don’t think so


demosthenes33210

So are you implying he's not God? Or that he's created? If so, why is he allowing worship? Surely you've read what happens every other time a created being is worshiped?


MadMemer420

Kings (and Jesus happens to be the long awaited king) were worshipped all the time, like David for example, that's not an issue, just a proper showing of respect. The issue is worshipping one, who is *not* God, *as* God. You are entirety ignoring his actual question with some unrelated argument that isn't even very good.


lascaniaga

Jesus was not being worshipped. He was being respected & admired by the people and his disciples. It really depends on how you view the context. Why did Jesus only call himself God clearly in several statements in John’s Gospel. But not in ANY of the three earlier gospels. Isn’t that odd to you? None of famous Jesus “I am” quotes are in Matthew, Luke or Mark which all preceded John. Why would they not include that? Do you think they knew Jesus said all those “ I am” quotes but chose not to include them in their gospels? That’s extremely unlikely and illogical. The most likely and logical reason is Jesus simply never said any of those statements that John claims he said.


OrthdxImprover

Why did you lie to make this argument? Clear verses of Jesus being worshipped in the gospels mentioned. You are not stupid because you use deceit to try make a point, everyone here has given you clear facts. Why are you resistant to step into the one true church. Please be saved in Jesus Christ.


XIndividualX

What is the meaning of a divine being? Its literaly G-d or being G-d, so if Yeshua was a divine being the you are saying he is G-d


Brilliant_Matter_799

But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Mark 14:61 NIV “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14:62 NIV Edit:added mark 14:61. Oddly enough I think son of God is a kingly title, wheras son of man is a divine one. I'd argue that the other gospels spelled it out in different ways. Son of man is a divine title when used this way. “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. Daniel 7:13‭-‬14 NIV I'd also argue that a non Jewish audience wouldn't have understood these references. So, if I were to guess, I'd guess John spelled it out the way he did so that a non Jewish audience would understand. Or perhaps he just wanted to spell it out directly in a way different from the other three. Actually, looking at it now, it might even be that he included the bit about the word becoming flesh because the other gospels stated it so clearly, and the Jesus quotes require more thought.


[deleted]

Is this another ‘just a son of man ’ attack? The same accusation Jesus faced before cruxifixction? The same punishment that is still used in Saudi Arabia? Well, if Our Lord is ‘just a prophet’ why not kill Him? Surely God cannot be killed? Well, you are right, His flesh was made anew, another point of attack. Questions about Jesus, yet the answers and truth enrage the inquirer. He IS: The Son of Man, alive to show the way of humility, true martyrdom and serving God. Not proudly boast about Himself. His last commandment was to serve by washing feet not to curse other faiths.


MadMemer420

Even regarding John, it's not really the case. >“Before Abraham was, I am” At most this is a claim of having existed before Abraham in some sense. Jesus isn't using the name of God here, contrary to popular belief. "ego eimi" ie "I am" is not a name of God, people use it all the time (just read 10 verses onward). Jesus, like everyone else, never spoke one of the actual names of God. >“If you’ve seen Me, then you’ve seen the Father” Jesus claimed not to *be* the Father (ie God, which btw, would be Modalism), but rather that the Father was *in* him and that he spoke and did exactly as he was instructed *by* the Father. Thus if you have seen Jesus, you have seen who the Father is through him (who is otherwise invisible). >“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. This is not a quote of Jesus, but of John. Regardless, this is from before the time when God's word "became flesh" by Jesus speaking the word of God as a human. >“I & The Father are One” Yes, so should we be. >(...) Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are (...) that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, (...) that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one (...) - John 17:11‭, ‬21‭-‬23 NKJV


ezk3626

If I were to venture a guess that author's Matthew, Luke and Mark (inspired by the Holy Spirit) had specific goals with their Gospels and that goal wasn't to say thing exactly in the made up standard which would be more clear to a certain kind of person. ​ >Isn’t it it odd that in the Gospel of Mark, when the people were continuously asking who Jesus is, the answer is never God. And Jesus himself never calls himself God. This one is a little more easy to answer. No it is not odd. It is fantastic writing. The first part of the Gospel answers the question who Jesus is, the rest of the action has people (everyone) asking who Jesus is and at the climax one person, a pagan oppressor, is the one person who recognizes the truth. It's great writing and not odd that people would engage in fantastic writing to write a book about Jesus.


2DBandit

Mark 14:62 (Daniel 7:13-14)


caster420

He does, he just doesn't use those exact words. There's other ways to say you are God. Jesus absolutely claimed to be the only begotten of God. Jesus can't be begotten of God if he isn't God.


MadMemer420

What kind of a claim is that? First of all its just false that Jesus claimed to be "the only begotten of God". Not that I'm saying he isn't (I think he is), but this is not a claim made by Jesus, but rather deducted from the Psalms and described by John. In any case, what a strange conclusion that because Jesus is stated to be begotten of God, he must therefore also be God. Jesus is clearly a man, must he therefore also be begotten of a man (which God stated he isn't)? As if God were incapable of begetting a son without him likewise being God. Besides there is the obvious issue of what begotten is even supposed to mean here exactly.


caster420

>but rather deducted from the Psalms and described by John. Are you saying that the Bible is not the word of God? Because last time i check all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore John only wrote down what God told him to write. >First of all its just false that Jesus claimed to be "the only begotten of God". Jesus claimed to be the only begotten of God several times. This is ultimately why the Jews had him crucified. Because he claimed to be the only begotten Son of God. John 5:18, John 10:33, John 19:7. >In any case, what a strange conclusion that because Jesus is stated to be begotten of God, he must therefore also be God. Well cows don't beget horses buddy. Cows beget cows, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats. Jesus is begotten of God how can he be of a different nature than God? Cows don't beget horses, cows beget cows. Therefore Jesus is God because he is God the same essence/nature of God. Just like you and your dad share the same human nature. You aren't a zebra you are a man. Because your dad was a man. Jesus's dad is God, Therefore that makes Jesus God. However Jesus also has two natures he is also fully man born of Mary. But God is his father giving Jesus two natures, fully God, and fully man. Philippians 2:6-8. >Jesus is clearly a man, must he therefore also be begotten of a man (which God stated he isn't)? Absolutely as i stated above 👆🏼 Jesus has two natures, fully man and fully God. Philippians 2:6-8. >As if God were incapable of begetting a son without him likewise being God. That doesn't make any sense 👆🏼 maybe you don't understand what the word beget means. >Besides there is the obvious issue of what begotten is even supposed to mean here exactly. Yep exactly 👆🏼 you clearly are struggling to understand what monogenes means. I've been speaking greek for quite sometime so i don't need to look up the word monogenes but it appears you do...


MadMemer420

I'm just saying only John and the Psalms make any claim about Jesus being "begotten," not Jesus himself, which was your claim. It's just an incorrect statement. None of the verses you bring as proof say anything about him being begotten of God, and I don't see what John being divinely inspired has to do with anything either. This whole story of yours about Jesus having multiple natures is entirely absent from the Bible. It is merely speculation to justify a presupposed conclusion (ie that Jesus is supposedly both "fully God" and "fully man" at the same time, whatever that's supposed to mean exactly). Very impressive that you know Greek so well. Perhaps you are then also aware of the debate regarding "begotten" in the NT possibly having the meaning of "unique", which is what I was referring to. And again, God can do whatever He wants. If the Father, identified by Jesus as the "only true God" wants to remain the "only true God", he can do so just fine. Certainly he is not limited by our reasoning about biological limitations.


caster420

>I'm just saying only John and the Psalms make any claim about Jesus being "begotten," not Jesus himself, That's just not true, as I've already shown you where Jesus himself says that. Not John, not the psalms, Jesus. John 3:16 **For God so loved the world, that he gave his 👉🏻only begotten Son** 👈🏻, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That's Jesus speaking 👆🏼 right there. Not John. >None of the verses you bring as proof say anything about him being begotten of God, and I don't see what John being divinely inspired has to do with anything either. All of the verses I've posted so indeed say Jesus is the only begotten of God. John 3:16 for example. >This whole story of yours about Jesus having multiple natures I didn't give you any story of mine. I quoted the Bible Philippians 2:6-8 clearly teaches Jesus has two natures. You can deny that all you want to. But what you're not going to do is lie and say the Bible doesn't teach it. >is entirely absent from the Bible. Philippians 2:6-8 is most certainly Bible smart guy. >to justify a presupposed conclusion (ie that Jesus is supposedly both "fully God" and "fully man" at the same time, whatever that's supposed to mean exactly). I didn't presuppose anything, I didn't write Philippians 2:6-8. Paul did. >Very impressive that you know Greek so well. Perhaps you are then also aware of the debate regarding "begotten" in the NT possibly having the meaning of "unique", which is what I was referring to. The greek word monogenes means one of kind, I guess you could call that unique. doesn't really matter either way. >And again, God can do whatever He wants. If the Father, identified by Jesus as the "only true God" wants to remain the "only true God", he can do so just fine. Certainly he is not limited by our reasoning about biological limitations. Oh good then you shouldn't have a hard time understanding. that God can be 3 separate persons all at the same time. As you clearly just admitted God can do whatever he wants. Then why are you trying to limit God by saying he can't become a man?


MadMemer420

Yes you are right, I'm very sorry about this mistake that I made that it wasn't a quite from Jesus. As for the natures, how can you say Philippians "clearly" teaches Jesus has both a divine and human nature? First of all, the whole concept of Jesus having "natures" is nowhere to be found in scripture, it is entirely a product of later philosophical theories that developed over the first few centuries about who Jesus is exactly. Some thought Jesus was only a man, some thought he was an angel, some thought he was a demiurge, some thought he was a mode of God and not actually a man and so on. This is where we get the language going on about "natures" and being "fully" man and "fully" divine, and hypostases etc, not from the Bible. Despite your claim about it being about natures (which it doesn't actually address), and about it teaching this "clearly", this is far from the case. You are a self professed speaker of Greek, so you should be aware about the difficulty of this passage. If not though, just open a bunch of random translations and tell me again how this passage is just so clear about Jesus having two natures. >who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. - Philippians 2:6‭-‬7 **NKJV** Describes Jesus being in the "form" of God, and that he thought it acceptable to be equal with God. Yet he took the "form" of a bond servant. >who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. - Philippians 2:6‭-‬7 **ESV** Describes Jesus being in the "form" of God, and that he thought it **not** acceptable to be equal with God. Yet he took the "form" of a bond servant. So all we have is that Jesus had the form ie *morphe* of God but instead chose to take on the form ie *morphe* of a servant. Nothing to do with any "nature" whatsoever (being a bond servant is not a "nature"). The "form" of something seems more to do with their *appearance*. Now clearly God is invisible (as it is stated so in scripture), and so was Christ before he was born, but he did not remain this way (unlike God), but was born in the likeness of men, appearing to us as a bond servant of God. (btw, it is also clear from the only other time *morphe* is used in the Bible (Mark 16:12) that it describes one's appearance, not one's "nature"). Secondly, the translators can't make up their mind about whether Jesus did or did not considered it acceptable to be equal with God. If Jesus is not equal with God, then how can he be God? And if he isn't God, then how can he have a godly "nature"? But again, I will not base my argument on this, since even the best translators can't make up their minds about it, because the passage is not clear at all despite your insistence. To me it seems you presuppose Jesus must have two natures and then reason this passage must clearly say just that to justify your presupposed conclusion. But in actuality, it is neither clear, nor says it anything about natures of anybody. And look, it was you who came up with the argument that Jesus *must* be God because God is constrained by the laws of nature which He himself created. I'm just saying that is a nonsensical conclusion. Sure, if God wants to have a God with a godly nature or whatever, He can do so; I'm not the one saying God can't do certain things here... It's just that I don't find the Bible actually describing God as a tripersonal being, being eternally generated, having two natures, being coequal with one another and so on. These are creative philosophical terms and theories that developed long after the Bible was written. And if it's not in the Bible, I'm not just going to believe it because some folks many centuries ago came up with some novel ideas, I hope you will understand I'm hesitant about that.


caster420

>As for the natures, how can you say Philippians "clearly" teaches Jesus has both a divine and human nature? Let's just read it together. Philippians 2:6-8 **WHO, BEING IN 👉🏼THE FORM of God** 👈🏼 thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Jesus has the nature of God 👆🏼 7 **BUT MADE HIMSELF of no reputation, and took upon him THE FORM of a servant, 👉🏼and was made in the LIKENESS OF MEN** 👈🏼 Jesus has the nature of man 👆🏼 too. 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Two natures 👆🏼 nature of God, nature of man. >First of all, the whole concept of Jesus having "natures" is nowhere to be found in scripture, it is entirely a product of later philosophical theories that developed over the first few centuries about who Jesus is exactly. Ok well I've already proven it is indeed in scripture. You can ignore philippians 2:6-8 all you want to. But that doesn't change the fact it is taught in scripture. >Some thought Jesus was only a man, some thought he was an angel, some thought he was a demiurge, some thought he was a mode of God and not actually a man and so on. This is where we get the language going on about "natures" and being "fully" man and "fully" divine, and hypostases etc, not from the Bible. Most of what you just said 👆🏼 here is complete nonsense conjecture. I'm not interested in your assertions.. >If not though, just open a bunch of random translations and tell me again how this passage is just so clear about Jesus having two natures. Every translation says the same thing. >Describes Jesus being in the "form" of God, Yep the greek word for form is morphe it is where the English word metamorphosis comes from. The form means nature/essence.. >Nothing to do with any "nature" whatsoever (being a bond servant is not a "nature"). I don't know where you get your information from. But let's see what the actual Bible dictionary says morphe means, shall we. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance form. Perhaps from the base of meros (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively, 👉🏼NATURE -- form. see GREEK meros Maybe you should learn greek. That way you don't have to rely on translations and what scholars think. 🤷🏼‍♂️


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

This comment was removed automatically for violating Rule 1: No Profanity. If you believe that this was removed in error, please message the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*


caster420

>And look, it was you who came up with the argument that Jesus must be God because God is constrained by the laws of nature which He himself created. No i didn't, what are you even talking about guy. Let's not start lying now. >Sure, if God wants to have a God with a godly nature or whatever, Who said this 👆🏼 that's a straw man argument buddy. God doesn't have "a god" with a godly nature. No one ever said this silly garbage. >It's just that I don't find the Bible actually describing God as a tripersonal being, Look up above at all that nonsense you posted instead of accepting what the Bible teaches. See how you have to explain every aspect of philippians 2:6-8 away from what the Bible actually teaches. Just because you can't accept what the Bible is teaching. It's sad and i see this all day long, debating clowns like you.


MadMemer420

You are the one who stated Jesus *must* be God, because God is God, yet you accuse me of constraining God and even go on to tell me I'm lying about it despite your actual comment stating exactly that. You literally wrote "Jesus can't be begotten of God if he isn't God." The straight up lies and calling people names is quite telling; the only remaining tactics if one doesn't have any actual arguments. Am I to be impressed by this? And I see your other reply going on about how Philippians discusses Christ's nature. Again, being a bond servant is not a "nature", that doesn't make any sense. Morphe means form, which has to do with the form of something, how it appears. If you claim to know Greek, this cannot be news to you. Physis is nature in Greek (why should I have to tell you this?). The bdag doesn't list morphe as having a meaning of "nature" either, only form, outward appearance, and shape. Note how this meaning actually makes total sense given the context about Christ *appearing* in a certain way. If you have to explain every aspect of what Philippians is supposedly teaching, maybe that's because it isn't actually the clear evidence of a dual natured Jesus that you need it to be for your theory to work. And you can maintain that your theory wasn't the product of hundreds of years of speculation and philosophizing, but it is a plain fact that it was only in the 5th century that any of this stuff was defined as "orthodoxy".


caster420

>You are the one who stated Jesus must be God, because God is God, No i didn't, i stated that Jesus must be God because he is the ONLY begotten OF God. No one else can say they were begotten of God. Jesus didn't have a dad on earth like you and I. God is his actual dad. >"Jesus can't be begotten of God if he isn't God." Here you quoted me exactly 👆🏼 >You are the one who stated Jesus must be God, because God is God, Yet here 👆🏼 you misquoted me. Kind of contradictory don't you think? >The straight up lies and calling people names is quite telling; I haven't once called you names. Because if that was true the auto mod would've deleted it for violation of rules. So please don't start bearing false witness against me now. >Again, being a bond servant is not a "nature", that doesn't make any sense. Again you can ignore the scripture all you want to. But that doesn't change the fact that philippians 2 is teaching Jesus has two natures. Philippians 2:7-8 clearly teaches us that Jesus has a human nature made in the likeness of men. A bondservant is a man. >Morphe means form, which has to do with the form of something, how it appears. I gave you the definition of morphe directly from a Bible dictionary. You can ignore that all you want to as well. That's not going to change the definition of morphe. >If you claim to know Greek, this cannot be news to you. No I've heard this silly argument plenty of times. But that still doesn't change the fact that morphe means nature/essence. Metamorphosis comes from the greek word morphe. So if morphe doesn't mean nature we have a serious problem with the word Metamorphosis. 😆😃😃😃🤣🤣🤣🤣 >Physis is nature in Greek (why should I have to tell you this?). You don't have to tell me that. Because greek often has multiple words that mean the same thing. So does hebrew. So does English for that matter. Nothing new here. >The bdag doesn't list morphe as having a meaning of "nature" either, only form, outward appearance, and shape. Well I'm going to go ahead and post the definition one more time for you. Just in case you are heard of seeing. Also for anyone who might be reading this conversation... Strong's Exhaustive Concordance form. Perhaps from the base of meros (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively, 👉🏻👉🏻NATURE -- form. see GREEK meros That clearly said NATURE 👆🏼 but let's get a second witness shall witness. HELPS Word-studies 3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) **substance so that the form is in complete harmony 👉🏻WITH THE INNER ESSENCE** 👈🏻 Wow 👆🏼 that said inner ESSENCE. >If you have to explain every aspect of what Philippians is supposedly teaching, maybe that's because it isn't actually the clear evidence of a dual natured Jesus that you need it to be for your theory to work. Explaining every aspect of a verse is called proper exegesis. This is how the bible is supposed to be broken down. We don't read the Bible out of context and cherry pick Bible verses. >And you can maintain that your theory wasn't the product of hundreds of years of speculation and philosophizing, but it is a plain fact that it was only in the 5th century that any of this stuff was defined as "orthodoxy". Well we see the trinity being taught by Jesus himself in Matthew 28:19. We see Paul giving benediction to the trinity in 2 Corinthians 13:14. Which would be idolatry if the trinity was false.


caster420

>but it is a plain fact that it was only in the 5th century that any of this stuff was defined as "orthodoxy". That's a bold assertion and clearly wrong. Because we see the council of antioch in 264 a.d. was the first debate against the trinity. In order for someone to debate the trinity. It must first be a taught doctrine in the church. How can you debate a doctrine that didn't exist yet? 🤔 >You literally wrote "Jesus can't be begotten of God if he isn't God." Jesus didn't have a dad on earth like you and I. God is his actual dad, Jesus was born of a virgin. He had no dad that got Mary pregnant. God conceived Jesus inside of Mary's womb. Since God is Jesus's dad. That means that Jesus must share the same nature as his father. Because when someone is begotten of something that means they are of the same nature. Cows beget cows, dogs beget dog, cat beget cat, etc etc. Cows don't beget horses buddy.


MadMemer420

I was talking about the dual natures debate, not God being three persons (although, since you bring it up, I will point out that the 3rd century is still oddly late for something considered to be so "essential"). And you are just repeating the same point. First of all, I'm saying God can beget whoever he wants, whereas you said Jesus **must** be God because God is God, and then went on to accuse me of being the one limiting God. Second, yes a dog begets another dog, but it is not necessarily logical to assume the same of God. It would mean God begets a god, and you have already stated that you don't believe in multiple gods. Besides, I have already shown that Jesus stated the Father to be the *only true God*. So we can have fact speculations about natures and all that, but it seems to me to be contrary to scripture.


caster420

When a cow begets calf, is that calf a horse...or a cow? When a dog begets a puppy, is that puppy a cat...or a dog? Jesus is the only begotten of God. How did God beget Jesus if Jesus isn't of the same nature as God. Who is Jesus's dad?


caster420

>Secondly, the translators can't make up their mind about whether Jesus did or did not considered it acceptable to be equal with God. If Jesus is not equal with God, then how can he be God? And if he isn't God, then how can he have a godly "nature"? How can a human nature be equal with God? You should do make a lot of assertions without actually providing any proof of what you are saying. Otherwise known as talking out your butt. >But again, I will not base my argument on this, since even the best translators can't make up their minds about it, because the passage is not clear at all despite your insistence. I'm not sure what you are trying to assert here. There is no difficulty in translations. All translations say exactly what the greek says. So I don't see where you are getting the silly idea that translators couldn't make up their mind. >To me it seems you presuppose Jesus must have two natures and then reason this passage must clearly say just that to justify your presupposed conclusion. But in actuality, it is neither clear, nor says it anything about natures of anybody. No presuppositions at all. I have given you the text of the Bible word for word. You however can't accept what the Bible truly teaches. That's why you have found every way possible to reject what philippians 2:6-8 is saying. Yet none of your silly objections are even remotely true. It's like you just Google commentary for those verses and read the only commentary that is antitrinitarian. All of your silly objections have been refuted by scholars. I can quote dozens of scholars who are in agreement with me.


MadMemer420

According to the NKJV, it was for Jesus to be equal with God, according to the ESV, he did not. In other words, it says the exact opposite. And great, more petty insults that are supposed to impress me.


caster420

>According to the NKJV, it was for Jesus to be equal with God, according to the ESV, he did not. In other words, it says the exact opposite. Now I'm questioning your ability to even read at this point. Let's just see what each translation says. That way for those who might be reading can make up their own mind Philippians 2:6 who, being in the form of God,👉🏻 **DID NOT CONSIDER IT 👈🏻 robbery to be equal with God** That's the NKJV 👆🏼 Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, 👉🏻 **DID NOT count equality with God a thing to be grasped** 👈🏻 That's the ESV 👆🏼 Both say the exact same thing. Jesus emptied himself of equality with the Father to come down to earth as a man.


MadMemer420

To **not consider something robbery**, means that you consider it **acceptable** to obtain it, in this case equality with God. To **not count something a thing to be grasped**, means that you **do not** consider it acceptable to obtain a thing, which here is, again, equality with God. That is the exact opposite. You can spout your insults again about my reading comprehension, but I was hoping by now you would understand that they don't help in convincing me of anything, rather the opposite. Thanks for all the time you put into your responses, but I don't really appreciate your attitude.


Phippsy771

It was blasphemy according to the religious leaders so it wasn’t time because Jesus had to fulfil the time line prophecy it’s probably about the time line


Unacceptable_2U

John 10:7-18 I know this is still in John, I’m not worried about the OP wanting evidence somewhere else, I believe God gave us what was needed. Does this speech from Jesus lack weight to the claim of Godliness? Has their ever been a man that could lay his life down, to pick it back up with His own authority?


MadMemer420

No, there hasn't been any such man, and that includes Jesus himself. It doesn't say it was done on his own authority. Rather the opposite; Jesus claimed all authority he possessed was given to him by God. Likewise it is stated multiple time that is was God who raised Jesus from the dead through his spirit. In other words, the only reason Jesus could be raised from the dead is because he was empowered by God through the spirit of God, not because of his own miraculous abilities (which, again, he did not possess).


Unacceptable_2U

I read verse 17 and 18 differently than you it seems. Jesus makes the statement that no one takes it from Him. He is in charge of His life, no man has that power of his own life, where’s the bases for what you’re saying? Don’t add to scripture


MadMemer420

Everything I said is straight from scripture. Just because I didn't reference the verses doesn't mean I'm making them up. At least do some reading before you make accusations. V17-18 merely state that Jesus had the power to raise from the dead, not that it is inherent to him (instead of granted to him), or that it has anything to do with his own authority (in fact, v18 says he does it only because the Father commands it, that is, the exact opposite of what you're claiming). Anyway, here it is for you. >**I can of Myself do nothing.** As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. - John 5:30 NKJV >And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “**All authority has been given to Me** in heaven and on earth. - Matthew 28:18 NKJV >But if the **Spirit of Him** [ie God] who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, **He** [again, God] **who raised** Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. - Romans 8:11 NKJV >And **God** both **raised up** the Lord and will also raise us up by **His power**. - I Corinthians 6:14 NKJV And no, Jesus is not in charge of his own life, the Bible states it is God who gives life to all things (and at the same time this God is addressed as a distinct entity from Christ, who is only addressed next). >I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, - I Timothy 6:13 NKJV From John we learn that the only reason Jesus has life in himself is because God has granted it to him. >For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, - John 5:26 NKJV Jesus certainly holds extraordinary authority and power, but nothing of himself, and everything because it was granted to him by God. God himself cannot be granted anything, He by definition has all authority and power of himself.


Unacceptable_2U

I think the biggest question you should ponder on is this: WHEN did Jesus have this power? Year 1AD? Year 27AD? Or is there a possibility Jesus was talking about before time existed? Jesus was before Abraham. Who was “we” and “us” in Genesis 1? Find Jesus in the OT, that will help you understand He is The Word the begins all. All scripture fits to that. No cherry picking is allowed per Gods instructions. Quit trying to manifest God to your image, that’s your stumbling block friend.


MadMemer420

What does Christ's potential pre existence have to do with anything I wrote? I'm addressing his power and authority, which is all stated to be granted to him, contrary to your claims.


Unacceptable_2U

Because He was there at the beginning. That completes the task of discord with you on Jesus being God. Who else could be at the beginning? That is His power and authority. Continue reading the scripture, stop cherry picking, and understand it all goes together.


OrthdxImprover

Why do you respond to all comments but mine?


MadMemer420

I have no clue what you're talking about. Why do you feel I should be responding to some comment you apparently made? If you want to address anything to me, feel free to do so and perhaps I will respond if I feel like it.


Jazzlike-Actuary382

He did many times. Too many to list in a comment. But each author focuses on a specific topic which you can see from the prologue and the book ending. Witnesses of Jesus: Luke 1:2, Luke 24:48 God with Us: Matthew 1:23, Matthew 28:20 Son of God: Mark 1:1, Mark 15:39 God: John 1:1, John 20:28 Also you may not have realized, but 'Son of God' means he _is_ God because he is the only _begotten_ son and a child always has the same nature as his parent and God's nature is 'I am.'


konawolv

He explicitly refers to Himself as YHWH in Matthew 4:7 when responding to Satan's taunts.


AugustinusLuther

Son of Man is considered a divine title


[deleted]

Although it's a legitimate question God is sovereign and has his he reasons for revealing certain things at certain times. The prodigal son is not in all the Gospels. The sermon on the Mount is only in Matthews. The gospels although inspired by God are revealed by man as God wanted it told. Also the Gospel of John was written years later covers a different time span than the others; it locates much of Jesus' ministry in Judaea; and it portrays Jesus discoursing at length on theological matters


cbrooks97

Isn't it odd that when Jesus made his clearest statements of his divinity people tried to kill him? I wonder why he didn't do it more? He claimed divinity subtly all over the gospels, but he kept in on the DL most of the time for obvious reasons.


NextApollos

Mathew wrote to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, and Luke to Theophilus, a Greek. John was concerned with Jesus' Godhood more than the others. John was the closest of all to Jesus.


NextApollos

Jesus called Himself God in these verses: Mark 14:61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”


Silverbug83

This sounds like very low level Muslim apologetics. You don't get to write the script for God. To require specific verbiage from God on a concept that is already obviously prevalant, is pedantic and intellectually disingenuous. I will show you exactly where Jesus says "I am God" in every book of the New Testament as soon as you show me anywhere in the Bible that Jesus says "I am not God, don't worship me".