Is Jesus Christ the "One True God" - part 2

[Robert Plomp]

One_Brow and me (and some others) got a long good discussion about the question if Jesus is "The One True God" according to the Bible in this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=4

I failed to react to his last post due to lazyness.
I give it another try right here.

To all atheists, agnosts, muslims etc. etc.
I know you don't concider Jesus to be the One True God. you can join this discussion, but only base your argumentations on the bible.

First: I'm sorry for not responding to your last post One_Brow.

There we go:

One_Brow: Other gods that they worship, certainly. Since Scripture itself refers to some of God's servants as being gods, the commandment does not mean that there can be no being who are called gods.

CyberShy: The fact that there are other gods doesn't mean we can't anything but "having other gods."
"The God of me" or "My God" is a phrase that morely says that Thomas has Jesus as his god.
It goes beyond plain recognizing, in which case "ho theos" would have done. ("This God")

If Thomas says "the God of me" he either goes against the first commandment or he "has" just One God.

One_Brow: Another possiblity: what Thomas undertands "god" to mean is in some way fundamentally different from your understanding.

That's a possibility. Any reason to see it that way?

One_Brow: Either "before me" or "in my presence" still implies that this commandment is about the primacy and exclusivity of worship, not exclusivity of category.

CyberShy: Exclusivity in general. It does not say "Thou shall not worship other gods before me"
For sure it means "exclusivity in category" as well.
Otherwise it would have said "Thou shall have no equal gods before me"

One_Brow: If the commndment were to refer to exclusvity in category, it could simply be "you will have no other gods".

Partially out of curiousity, what do you ee is the differene between "no other gods" and "no other gods before me"?

Let me quote David Guzik,
"d. The idea behind no other gods before Me is not that it is permissible to have other gods, as long as they line up behind the true God; the idea is that there are to be no other gods before the sight of the true God in our life. Before Me is literally, "to My face"

i. This means God demands to be more than "added" to our lives. We don't just add Jesus to the life we already have; we must give Him all our lives"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...9035-8372.html

To answer your question, I'm not studied enoughin greek to fully understand why the phrase "before me" has been added.
That I don't understand that won't change the fact that the commandment says we shall have no other Gods in front of God's Face.

Since nothing could explain that Thomas' names Jesus his God outside the face of The One True God, we still can only conclude that Jesus either is the One True God or Thomas is breaking the first commandment.

Unless of course you can give evidence why Thomas might mean something else with the word 'god' in this context.

One_Brow: Yes, if you take just those for properties of the five, Jesus is not unique.

The five properties:
1. First
2. Last
3. Living One
4. Died
5. Made alive

1,2,4 and 5 are any Christian. However, humans are not the among the "living ones", because we are mortal. Take a good look at "zao" and how it is used for #3 and #5, it means two different things.

CyberShy: If you agree with me that #3,#4 and #5 are not unique,
how can you still claim that #1 and #2 do not stand alone, but are to be applied at #3, #4 and #5?
If you do apply them anyway, #3,#4 and #5 have to be unique titles of Jesus again, how could he otherwise be either the first and the last.

One_Brow: I'm saying not one of 1-5 is unique to Jesus, but the combination is unique. He is the first (1) and last (2) immortal (3) to have once been dead (4) and currently be alive(5).

1. What does "First" and "Last" add if He's the only one?
2. Your argumentation leads us to nothing else but concluding that this phrase will be undone as soon as the first christians will be risen from death and enter eternal life. Than Jesus won't be "The Last immortal" anymore who has been dead and is currently alive.
3. Besides that does "The Last" imply that there will be no other after Him anymore.

One_Brow: Perhaps instead of filling in the blank for ourselves, we can allow Scripture to do so.

Is 44: 5-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S';
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,'
And will name Israel's name with honor.
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.

Here, He is the First and the Last upon whom His followers will call.

CyberShy: If it applies to anything, it applies to the line after it, which reads "There is no other god besides me"

One_Brow: That reads more like an extension of being first and last in his passage than the object of the description.

Again, note the context -- in vs. 5 we see an incorrect way of calling for aid. Then in vs. 6 we havethe first and last declaration.

The complete declaratoin is
"I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order From the time that I established the ancient nation."

The extension indeed does add the uniqueness of God.
After this declaration of Who's talking, the content of the message comes.
It's not as if the content of the message can be considered to be a part of the author-declaration. If that would be so, the content of the message would be gone and all that would be left over would be an author who declares himself, but doesn't deliver anything after that.

CyberShy: Or, if there's no other God besides God Jehova, how can Jesus be God as well?

if theos is used it's applied on:
- Jesus (Jesus is God)
- Jehova (Jehova is God)
- idols (false gods, thus in fact not-gods) (plural)
- humans (in the sence of divinity, divine beings) (plural)

One_Brow: Note the Hebrew "el", the equivalent of "theos", also referred to angels.

that's true, but in greek the word 'aggelos' is used for angels.

One_Brow: Rev 22:12-13:
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

In the position of rendering to every man according to what he has done, Jesus is indeed First and Last.

CyberShy: Do you say that Jesus is "The Alpha and the Omega who renders every man according to what he has done" as well?
or Jesus is "The beginning and the end who renders every man according to what he has done"

One_Brow: Yes.

I concider your 'yes' to mean "Jesus is The Alpha and the Omega who renders every man according to what he has done"

Than we have the 'author-declaration' and 'message' being mixed up again.

CyberShy: Why should Jesus not say "He's unique in rendering"
But why does he chose to use these titles that have been used by God Jehova earlier in the book?

One_Brow: As indcations that he comes in God's Kingdom.

The Jewish tradition is very keen on not using titles that were being used by God.

One_Brow: I will grant you that in Rev. 1:8, the phrase hangs by itself, without qualification. I haven’t seen this in any other location.

CyberShy: which cannot be explained different than that "The First and The Last" is a title in Rev. 1:8

One_Brow: In that location, yes.

it's identical to the Isaiah part we discussed earlier.

Assume for the moment England has a King and a main heir. Which one would be Lord of Wales? Both, of course, but the Prince's title is a reflection of his servitude to the King.

Both Jehovah and Jesus are described with phrases/titles not applied to the other. They also share phrases/titles.

No, the main heir wil be called "Prince of Wales"
Pherhaps he can be named 'a lord of wales' but he is not the lord of wales.

It's impossible to share a title which implies uniqueness.

One_Brow: The Bible says, in many ways and places, that the Father does give up the title to the Son, with the expectation of it being returned to the Father.

ie. 1Co 15:23-28

"Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

says that Jesus returns the Kingdom to his Father, not His title.

CyberShy: If Jesus is claiming to be "The beginning" and "The ending" he cannot be that while his Father, who begotted him, is that as well. Either both are the beginning, or one of them is the beginning, or they are one being, two persons.

One_Brow: One_Brow: Here you have two beings from beyond time, one having been begotten from the other. They are both from the beginning (one as a self-aware being, the other as a yet-to-be-begotten part of the self-aware being), and now two beings.

CyberShy: You say they are both "from the beginning" but both God and Jesus claim to be "the beginning"

One_Brow: However, not necessarily the beginning of the same thing.

"The beginning" in both cases stand on their own. You must have an argument to claim that Jesus comes from 'another' beginning than The Father.

One_Brow: First of all, we don't even have the definitive "ho" preceding "theos" here, so I don't see why you assume the "theos" of this verse is Yahowah

CyberShy: because it says "who is over all, God blessed for ever."
There can be only one "God, (..) blessed for ever"

One_Brow: I disagree. There can certainly be more than one god who is blessed forever.

like? (besides Jesus)

One_Brow: While they also equate “theos” to “God”, the point that Jesus is “theos” to all creation, as well as forever blessed, is central to JW theology, not in opposition to it.

CyberShy: Which goes straight into against the first commandment.
If God Jehova says "There is no other god besides me" he didn't add "Besides Jesus Christ who is god to all creation, blessed forever"

One_Brow: Actually, God says there is no other god "beside Him", at His side (the Hebrew preposition has both meanings). Jesus, not having a place of equality, would not be at God's side.

Isaiah 45:5a
"I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me"

the word 'zuwlah' that is being used here can mean:
1) a removal, a putting away
2) except, besides, with the exception of, with removal of
3) except that

It doesn't mean "at His side". Not in this context neither at any other place in the Bible.

I don't deserve any reaction from you, since no-one else must ever have responded after such a long time

[DaShi]

Jesus has to be the true god. Why would he lie?

[Q Classic]

mohammed and joseph smith both spoke to the true god. why would they lie?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
mohammed and joseph smith both spoke to the true god. why would they lie?

Yeah, but look what they got out of it: Babes, respect, power.

Jesus was robbed, man.

[Robert Plomp]

Please don't ruin this thread.
If you're eager to make fun, I'm willing to post my entire post in one of your self-started threads, so you can make fun out of it

(no response is needed to this.)

[Ben Kenobi]

mohammed and joseph smith both spoke to the true god. why would they lie.

QCubed:

You hit the nail on the head with the difference between Christ, Joseph Smith and Mohammed.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith do not claim to be God, merely to be his prophet or messengers.

Christ claimed to actually be God. This is why the Jews wanted to stone him, for blasphemy.

Cybershy: Good luck with the thread.

[JCG]

I'd really like to know if there's any place in the main Gospels (not the Acts, the Apocalypse, etc.), where in an unquestionable manner, unmetaphorically, Jesus himself directly claims he's the One True God.

I'm honestly curious about this, as most passages that I know of aren't clear in that regard, requiring some kind of interpretation (or "word play" if you must), to reach that conclusion.

[lightblue]

This might sound slightly ignorant and I am possibly missing some theological nuance here, but I thoguht Jesus was the Son of the judaeic God, rather than being Him it self. The whole "Our Father who art in Heaven" spiel.

I suppose if you think that the assembly of the Trinity forms the One True God, Jesus would be part of it.

[Giant_Squid]

Psalm 82:

God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods":

How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

Point seems pretty clear to me, especially as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36

[Joseph]

Originally posted by obiwan18



Christ claimed to actually be God. This is why the Jews wanted to stone him, for blasphemy.

Cybershy: Good luck with the thread.

Christ did not claim to be God. He spoke of his Father many times and said he was God.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
To all atheists, agnosts, muslims etc. etc.
I know you don't concider Jesus to be the One True God. you can join this discussion, but only base your argumentations on the bible.

Show that the earth is not at the centre of the Universe, using knowledge we had 2000 years ago.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
mohammed and joseph smith both spoke to the true god. why would they lie?

"But I dunno who jebus is!"

maybe they was chillin at jebus' crib.

[Robert Plomp]

Follow the link to 'part 1' of this discussion for argumentations why Jesus is the One True God.

You can read counter-arguments from One_Brow.
the discussion starts on page 2 / 3.

[MikeH]

Could any Christian prove that Jesus WAS the one true god if they weren't allowed to use the bible?

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes, I can.

[MikeH]

Excellent. Thanks.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes, I can.

That will be very enlightening, considering people such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas failed to do so.

[Gary]

IMO we are all the sons an daughters of God. Not sure where this "one true" stuff comes in to it.

I'm not a bible student, but I was of the opinion that Jesus made no such claim, and that this special lineage claim was added by those spreading the word later. Or is that not the case ?

[Robert Plomp]

Read part 1 of the thread to find argumenations for Jesus being God Himself.

[monkspider]

Is Jesus the "one true god"? A tricky question, one that can't be completely answered in just one or two short sentences. Was he God? He was God in that we are all part of God. He was the God in that he lived a perfect life, and therefore became one with God, and spoke with the authority of God. He was God in that he established a paradigm of perfection that we must strive for.
So is he the "one true God"? I suppose he was insofar as he was literally one with the "one true God". But usually this question has religious conotations of Christianity being the only true path, and God dooms any who don't follow it to eternal punishment. So, Christianity isn't the one true path to God, but Jesus was the "one true god." The best religion for an individual is always whatever one brings him closest to God. Whether it's Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. I like Christianity since I think Jesus' recorded teachings are great but whichever one is for you is the best one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cybershy:

Seeing the general ignorance of the posters here.
I'm sorry to detract from the earlier thread, but I might as well rebut in this thread.

Could any Christian prove that Jesus WAS the one true god if they weren't allowed to use the bible?

MikeH:

Why can't we use the bible? The bible is the most reliable historical source we have for this time period.

As per JCP's request, I will confine myself to the Synoptic gospels, starting with Matthew.

Note, I am not trying to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, but only that he believed himself to be the Son of God, and that he told others that he was the Son of God.

Two biblical quotations that verify Jesus of Nazareth believed he was the Son of God.

Matt. 16:13-17

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[2] the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Matt 26:57-68

Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[5] the Son of God."

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

"He is worthy of death," they answered.


There are only two responses to the claim of Jesus of Nazareth.

You cannot say he is a good teacher, because Jesus does not claim to be only a good teacher, but to be God himself.

You either follow him, or stone him as the Jews did for blasphemy.

[Sava]

Jesus was Jewish... it's so sad that his fanatical followers formed a cult and didn't bother listening to anything the man said. He was a wise man... not a god.

[Arrian]

Let them have their thread, guys, it does no harm.

We can make fun of bible thumpers some other time.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus was Jewish... it's so sad that his fanatical followers formed a cult and didn't bother listening to anything the man said. He was a wise man... not a god.

Is this what Jesus said, Sava?

[PeteH]

You may want to check out a book "From Jesus to Christ" by Paula Frederickson. May need ot get it from a college library or academic bookstore (or attend Boston University and take her "Origins of Christianity and the new testament" class) which tracks not only the historical Jesus but the different pictures of him from the gospels and Paul.

As for the topic, I dont agree with the premise so discussion seems pointless

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...382155-9097412

A link to the book and some reviews. Haven't read this myself, so beware.

[Sava]

Jesus never said he was a god...