Was Jesus God or is it just a name of a human being used by our Creator?

[Ijaz Ahmad Ahmadi]

If you read the following verse of the Bible, then we believe Jesus was limited knowledge. So, Jesus was not god.
Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"

 

[RJM]

If you read the following verse of the Bible, then we believe Jesus was limited knowledge. So, Jesus was not god.
Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"

The incarnate Christ is God as Man: Emmanuel -- God with us. The Son is the expression of eternal Spirit as corporeal man in nature. It can't be over simlified in the way you would like to do.

You are not expected to understand this, or to know the New Testament -- but your own lack of understanding does not make you correct in your trivial over-simplifcation of what you do not understand.

There's nothing simple or trivial about the Christian mysteries, regardless of what some other faiths try to portray.

If you want to learn more about Christian understanding, you could just ask?

 

[Ella S.]

John is ambiguous about the status of Jesus, presenting him as both as equivalent to God and less than God.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
John 14:28 …for the Father is greater than I.

We can see this ambiguity already in the introductory passage.

The usual translation of John 1:1 runs like this:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is not quite what the Greek says.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
In beginning was the Word

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
and the Word was with the God

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
and god was the Word

In koine Greek, when the referent was something definite and specific, a definite article was used. When the referent was not definite and specific, no article was provided. Koine Greek had no indefinite articles.

τὸν θεόν is ‘the God’. In the New Testament scriptures, this form is used for the one and only God of Jewish and Christian monotheism. When the gods of other religions were meant, no article was provided. ‘The word was with God’ refers to the Jewish/Christian God by virtue of the definite article τὸν. But ‘The word was God’, the usual translation of the next clause, is not what the Greek says. The proper translation would be ‘a god was the word’, supplying the implied indefinite article as per normal translation practice.

What is this supposed to mean? The clue lies in the next verses.

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Word, ὁ λόγος = the Logos, is the term the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria uses for the quasi-divine entity that embodies the power of God in the world. More specifically, the Logos is responsible for the creation of all things and their continued coherence. Philo was attracted to the Platonic concept of God being totally pure and transcendent and therefore would never be directly involved in anything so mundane as creating the material world. In Platonism this is the job of the demiurge, an intermediate divine entity. Philo’s intermediary is the Logos, the Word of Gid whereby creation was accomplished. As Philo was Jewish and therefore a monotheist, he never called the Logos a separate divine entity. Sometimes in his writing the Logos is no different from God. Other times it is some kind of super angel, the first-born of God, that was begotten not made (sound familiar?) and was always with God from the beginning.

Philo also calls the Logos the Son of God, the phrase used by Paul in reference to Jesus. Colossians makes it clear that this is Philo’s creative intermediary.

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The ambiguity John shows about the status of Jesus is the same ambiguity that arises in trying to understand Philo’s Logos. Is Jesus God or not God? Are Jesus and the Father one, or is the Father greater than Jesus?

This is a wonderful explanation of the Logos and its relationship with John's Christology. You have done a great job explaining these complex topics in simple terms here, which shows your understanding of the topic.

 

[Ella S.]

I edit a lot. I used to be a journalist. I like to try to get it right for posterity. Hemingway would not be great if all his original draughts had been published, without his editing ...Lol

I struggle with this, too. So many times I edit while I am writing and realize that the new wording no longer makes sense, only to edit my post again to realize that the new phrasing makes other parts of the post nonsensical. I also often find typos and poor phrases late.

For instance, I have been trying to avoid typing out various transliterations for the Tetragrammaton and other euphemisms for it (such as as a certain "A" word often translated as "L-rd") so that I can avoid unintentionally offending Jews with the blasphemy, but it is a hard habit of mine to break. I am making a more concerted effort to use Elohim as the name for the Abrahamic god, instead. I also prefer that name because it more clearly resembles the Muslim "Allah" and the Canaanite "El" and because this is supposedly the name that Abraham knew the deity by in the oldest texts.

 

[RabbiO]

For instance, I have been trying to avoid typing out various transliterations for the Tetragrammaton and other euphemisms for it (such as as a certain "A" word often translated as "L-rd") so that I can avoid unintentionally offending Jews with the blasphemy, but it is a hard habit of mine to break. I am making a more concerted effort to use Elohim as the name for the Abrahamic god, instead. I also prefer that name because it more clearly resembles the Muslim "Allah" and the Canaanite "El" and because this is supposedly the name that Abraham knew the deity by in the oldest texts.

See my post #35 in the thread, G!d, G-d….. not God, in the Judaism subforum. If you have any questions……

 

[Muckah]

not the place for me...

 

[RJM]

Jesus cannot be God

Well, God can be whatever God chooses. Man cannot dictate to God what God should do? Islam assumptions about God based on the Quran are not shared by everyone else

Scriptures say that God cannot be tempted and cannot sin.

Bingo. Now you're starting to get it. That is why God sent his son: Emmanuel – God with us – who could be tempted and suffer as a man.

Christ deliberately contradicted the expectations. He deliberately showed that God as Man could be tempted, and share in man's suffering. He suffered the accursed death on the cross. It was entirely deliberate. He came to restore the spirit of the law. God close and sharing man's troubles. Not a remote God. That was the very purpose of the Incarnation, imo

that means that he's a fraud and the cross a complete hoax. God/Jesus could not have been tempted to sin anyway.

That's not the Christian understanding of Jesus the Christ: Emmanuel – God with us.

Jesus said the Father is greater. I believe him - you don't! Jesus said he doesn't know the day or hour of his return. IF Jesus was God - he would know!

Yes. He said the Father (Spirit) is greater (than nature), and only the Father knows – that was the purpose of the incarnation of the Christ as nature. Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates the dimension of nature, which is like one room in a greater house.

There may be many other rooms or dimensions -- not just the timespace dimension of nature. Man is confined by his material animal body to the dimension of nature, yet man is Spirit too. That is the symbol of the Christ crucified between heaven and earth. Man's suffering. My Father's house has many mansions. The Christ was incarnate as man into the dimension of nature, in order to be able to reach man's understanding of God as man -- not just by the words he spoke, but by the meaning of his life and death and resurrection.

You are not expected to understand that Christians do not simply believe 'Jesus is God' in the over-simplistic way Islam would like to have it. It's far more subtle. However you should not simply dismiss and trivialize Christian belief. That is arrogant. It is necessary to talk to Christians and acquire a knowledge of their scripture in order to understand what they actually do believe, before deciding to correct them about what you think they believe, imo

The only cop-out Trinitarians have on this is the fabricated 'two natures'. Who did you say is lacking understanding?

It's a nuanced understanding. It's over-simplified by those who do not want to make the attempt to understand what Trinitarians really believe, and usually with only a very thin knowledge of the New Testament and of actual trinitarian belief

Jesus also said he can do NOTHING on his own. I believe him. Do you?

He also said: 'Who has seen me, has seen the Father' and 'Before Abraham was, I Am'. He said a lot of things. It's cherry picking to select isolated NT quotes to support the Islam Jesus, while ignoring or rejecting as 'corrupted' those that do not.

Jesus was fully human in every way.

Well Islam believe Jesus was a sinless and virgin born miracle worker who was taken alive to heaven, so he was a bit different to 'normal' humans? Christians believe Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God as man: Emmanuel – God with us.

The Christian mysteries are deep and profound. They reach everyone, from least to greatest, and across all ages. They cannot be dismissed and trivialized by other faiths and by people who do not properly understand them, or the scriptures from which they derive.

"For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people."

Exactly. God as man: Emmanuel. Paul also said a lot of stuff, and isolating quotes can ignore the obvious overall meaning of his writing.

I have written this response quickly. I am open to correction

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

My humble Satanic opinion on this . . .


Christ is a word to describe a state of consciousness, which was fully manifest in Jesus.
In John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life; no man cometh to the Father, but by me," Jesus didn't mean that he was the only Son of God but that no man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the Father beyond creation until he first manifested the 'Son', or the Christ Consciousness within creation that activates that union with the ultimate Father. Jesus, who had achieved entire oneness with that Christ Consciousness, identified with it completely inasmuch as his own ego had long been dissolved.

A form of spiritual cowardice leads many people to believe that only one man, Jesus, was the Son of God, the only Christ. That Jesus was uniquely created, so how can I, a mere sinful mortal, emulate Him? However, according to Abrahamic beliefs, we have all been divinely created and must someday obey Jesus' command "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48) "Behold what manner of love the Father hast bestowed upon us , that we should be called the sons of God." (1 John 3:1)

Unfortunately, that takes a lot of work and effort and so generally it is much easier to throw it all back on Jesus, with the rationalization that he is unique, He is 'The Christ', He alone can save me. No. The message of Jesus was that he wants you to make the effort and save yourself. And when you make that effort, he will help.

 

[RJM]

My humble Satanic opinion on this . . .

Easier to debate with a Satanist who prefaces his posts with IMO than with certain Abrahamics who believe they have the absolute, inerrant and only truth dictated by God himself

 

[Ella S.]

Under Docetism, which many Gnostics believed, Jesus was essentially the avatar or "player character" of God. It would be like someone who coded their own 3D virtual reality and then made a character to walk around in it. Or a Dungeon Master who played a Cleric that worshiped them, which is something I have done in DnD.

In this sense, Jesus is wholly God but still distinct from God the Father in the sense that the player character and the programmer/DM are technically different. Of course, this is a heresy.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Under Docetism, which many Gnostics believed, Jesus was essentially the avatar or "player character" of God. It would be like someone who coded their own 3D virtual reality and then made a character to walk around in it. Or a Dungeon Master who played a Cleric that worshiped them, which is something I have done in DnD.

In this sense, Jesus is wholly God but still distinct from God the Father in the sense that the player character and the programmer/DM are technically different. Of course, this is a heresy.

How overly complicated . . seems to me the church fathers completely dropped the ball when they were including/omitting gospels in regards to what character/role they wanted Yeshua to play in their Greatest Story Ever Told

 

[Ella S.]

How overly complicated . . seems to me the church fathers completely dropped the ball when they were including/omitting gospels in regards to what character/role they wanted Yeshua to play in their Greatest Story Ever Told
View attachment 2838

The topic is certainly complex with numerous contradictory interpretations, many of which rely on the same scriptures to support their conclusions. The fact that different Christian sects throughout history have pulled from different scriptures does make the conversation particularly more complicated.

 

[powessy]

While reading through this thread, I find so many thoughts that relate to the things minds try to teach me.

To be born to this world Jesus had to be an ordinary man governed by the rules of this universe (sins and temptations also). He was just most likely inside himself. Not one (soul) on this planet is inside themselves here first, he was inside himself here first. You can only accumulate time in the after “nothing here” if you are inside yourself here first.

If you know this fact then you would also know that he could not return after his short lifetime, even if he was inside himself, 33 years is not enough time to become something again. To become something again he would have needed to have lived like 77 or more years. to gain enough time he would need to be reborn again but if he did this he would not be able to figure himself out again.

Being inside himself, this allowed minds to teach him things “the voice of god”. If you understand how large a mind can become and how they teach you things then you would also understand how he was part of nature or all of nature. I find it hard to explain this but to teach a mind like this is to teach it everything inside itself so all living things inside itself. Earth most likely could represent 80 to 90 percent of all life in the universe. If he had learned everything before he became something here then nothing here could teach him inside himself, that he had not already figured out. This is most likely why he was inside himself and was able to find time.

I can say that with about 100 percent certainty he will never find time here again without being born again, and there was no resurrection.

Just sharing my thoughts on this matter from minds that try to teach me inside myself.

Powessy

 

[Muckah]

I apologize so I should explain.

About 6 years ago I burned every bible and resource book I've had since the early 70's. I did so because I was tired of being called a heretic, an evil apostate who is spreading poisonous heresy, etc., and told I'm not a Christian. John MacArthur's teaching condemning non-Trinitarians, and the multiple, judgmental people on other forums who condemn those of us who flat out reject the man-made doctrine of Trinity, drove me over the edge. (as well as my AOG cousin who pastors a local church) I was DONE - So I burned my entire library including 4-5 bibles - probably $2,500 to $3,000 of books if I were to replace them today.

It took a while, but since I've disconnected myself from Christians, I'm at peace. That's why I should have never posted here. I don't want to rekindle any of those emotionally stressful ill feelings. Trinity is a very sore spot with me because Trinitarian's judge and CONDEMN millions of non-Trinitarians. One brother condemning the other over a man-made doctrine that took the bishops of Rome about 300 years to develop - then they murdered thousands for rejecting it. That is anti-Christ.

Quite honestly, I see nothing good in this debacle of a religion called Christianity. Trinity and pre-trib are abominations. Christians can't agree on anything so I'm OUT. I still believe but to maintain any kind of peace and sensibility - I need to stay away from "Christians."

The sad thing is Muslims have a better concept of God than Christians.

 

[Muckah]

The incarnate Christ is God as Man: Emmanuel -- God with us. The Son is the expression of eternal Spirit as corporeal man in nature. It can't be over simlified in the way you would like to do.

You are not expected to understand this, or to know the New Testament -- but your own lack of understanding does not make you correct in your trivial over-simplifcation of what you do not understand.

There's nothing simple or trivial about the Christian mysteries, regardless of what some other faiths try to portray.

If you want to learn more about Christian understanding, you could just ask?

Emannuel doesn't mean Jesus is God - it means God is in Jesus.

 

[Cino]

I apologize so I should explain.

Thanks for the explanation, @Muckah, and for the intro on your background. It sucks that you were hurt like that.

The sad thing is Muslims have a better concept of God than Christians.

What's sad about finding out that your views are shared by billions of other people?

 

[RJM]

Emannuel doesn't mean Jesus is God - it means God is in Jesus.

It means 'God with us'

Good luck with your new faith, brother. It's a pity your pastors turned you away. Those rich American megachurch pastors will have a lot to answer for when they have to meet their Creator, imo

Thanks for sharing your story
Peace

 

[RabbiO]

@Muckah -

I think all of us sympathize with your travails as you’ve outlined them. It is difficult when differences in religious belief morph into negative character assessments of a person. However, just as you resented the attacks on your beliefs and on your person, you in turn……

 

[Muckah]

I've found there's little chance of changing the mind of a Trinitarian. Like so many other Christians, whether it's about Trinity, pre-trib, or any other issue, they believe what they've been taught, consider it truth, and then - CASE CLOSED. So good luck finding truth in this matter because...

"The greatest impediment Christians have obtaining truth is when they think they already have it."

In my view it's an abomination to claim Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. The graph Amir posted in this thread is nonsense and precisely what Trinitarians teach. It's crazy - Jesus IS God but Jesus IS NOT GOD. Jesus IS the holy spirit, but Jesus is NOT the holy spirit. God is Jesus but God IS NOT Jesus. God is the holy spirit but God is NOT the holy spirit. The holy spirit is Jesus but the holy spirit is NOT Jesus. The holy spirit is God but the holy spirit is NOT God. That is absolute absurdity at its finest!

The symbolism of the word Emmanuel is reflected in several scriptures that proclaim the promise of the presence of God, especially during a time of fear and crisis. God being with Israel is often spoken of in the Old Testament. He said to Moses in Exodus 3, "I will be with you."

God being with His disciples is a theme in the New Testament.

"I can do all things through him who gives me strength."

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Emmanuel or Immanuel doesn't mean God became a man, or that Jesus is God. The word is used symbolically to imply God is with us, AKA - God is in Jesus. 'God is with' - individuals, with Israel or with one of Israel's kings, etc. - just like this verse in Isaiah Chapter 8.

Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for 'God is with us'.
James Strong was a Trinitarian and that's reflected in many of his works. In Hebrew the word Emmanuel is TWO words. 'el' - a common word or prefix which means..

god, god-like one, mighty one
mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
angels
god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
God, the one true God, Jehovah
mighty things in nature
strength, power

And the word...

Immanuel
Which means...

Immanuel = "God with us" or "with us is God"

Symbolic and prophetic name of the Messiah, the Christ, prophesying that He would be born of a virgin and would be 'God with us'

NOTE Strong's Comment

STRONGS H6005:
Abbreviations† עִמָּנוּאֵל proper name, masculine Immanuel (with us is God); — י׳ Isaiah 7:14 van d. H. Baer; עִמָּנוּ אֵל Gi; — name of child, symbolizing presence of י׳ to deliver his people (on interpret. see Commentaries) — עִמָּנוּ אֵל Isaiah 8:8, 10 is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God ! (compare Psalm 46:8; Psalm 46:12 [Psalm 46:11]); see H5973 עִם.

In this pic, Strong's QUOTES THE HEBREW-CHALDEAN LEXICON and makes the comment, "a symbolic and prophetical name of the son of Isaiah the prophet -Then he says - [THIS IS UTERLY FALSE...,]"

The issue of Isaiah 7 - Emmanuel being the prophesied Jesus - is riddled with holes. Emmanuel is the name of the middle son of Ahaz. He and his sons and the impending invasion of Assyria is the context of Isaiah 7. Isaiah was speaking about Ahaz's middle son Emmanuel. in verse 17, the word 'virgin' is better translated, "young woman". In the interlinear - the textus receptus - which is ONE of the documents the KJV translators used, (all but one of the KJV translators were Trinitarians) it uses the term 'the·damsel'.

You can learn a lot from Dennis Bratcher about this. I doubt anything would ever change your mind.
_________________________________________________________________
"While there is no specific point made here in Isaiah 7 about the child, it is obvious that his mention here, especially with such a significant name, was part of the message of Isaiah to Ahaz. And the fact that the names of two successive children in these two chapters did play significant roles in Isaiah’s message clues us to an important part of the theology at work in these chapters."
http://www.crivoice.org/immanuel.html

 

[RJM]

I've found there's little chance of changing the mind of a Trinitarian. Like so many other Christians, whether it's about Trinity, pre-trib, or any other issue, they believe what they've been taught, consider it truth, and then - CASE CLOSED. So good luck finding truth in this matter because...

"The greatest impediment Christians have obtaining truth is when they think they already have it."

In my view it's an abomination to claim Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. The graph Amir posted in this thread is nonsense and precisely what Trinitarians teach. It's crazy - Jesus IS God but Jesus IS NOT GOD. Jesus IS the holy spirit, but Jesus is NOT the holy spirit. God is Jesus but God IS NOT Jesus. God is the holy spirit but God is NOT the holy spirit. The holy spirit is Jesus but the holy spirit is NOT Jesus. The holy spirit is God but the holy spirit is NOT God. That is absolute absurdity at its finest!

The symbolism of the word Emmanuel is reflected in several scriptures that proclaim the promise of the presence of God, especially during a time of fear and crisis. God being with Israel is often spoken of in the Old Testament. He said to Moses in Exodus 3, "I will be with you."

God being with His disciples is a theme in the New Testament.

"I can do all things through him who gives me strength."

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Emmanuel or Immanuel doesn't mean God became a man, or that Jesus is God. The word is used symbolically to imply God is with us, AKA - God is in Jesus. 'God is with' - individuals, with Israel or with one of Israel's kings, etc. - just like this verse in Isaiah Chapter 8.

Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for 'God is with us'.
James Strong was a Trinitarian and that's reflected in many of his works. In Hebrew the word Emmanuel is TWO words. 'el' - a common word or prefix which means..

god, god-like one, mighty one
mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
angels
god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
God, the one true God, Jehovah
mighty things in nature
strength, power

And the word...

Immanuel
Which means...

Immanuel = "God with us" or "with us is God"

Symbolic and prophetic name of the Messiah, the Christ, prophesying that He would be born of a virgin and would be 'God with us'

NOTE Strong's Comment

STRONGS H6005:
Abbreviations† עִמָּנוּאֵל proper name, masculine Immanuel (with us is God); — י׳ Isaiah 7:14 van d. H. Baer; עִמָּנוּ אֵל Gi; — name of child, symbolizing presence of י׳ to deliver his people (on interpret. see Commentaries) — עִמָּנוּ אֵל Isaiah 8:8, 10 is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God ! (compare Psalm 46:8; Psalm 46:12 [Psalm 46:11]); see H5973 עִם.

In this pic, Strong's QUOTES THE HEBREW-CHALDEAN LEXICON and makes the comment, "a symbolic and prophetical name of the son of Isaiah the prophet -Then he says - [THIS IS UTERLY FALSE...,]"

The issue of Isaiah 7 - Emmanuel being the prophesied Jesus - is riddled with holes. Emmanuel is the name of the middle son of Ahaz. He and his sons and the impending invasion of Assyria is the context of Isaiah 7. Isaiah was speaking about Ahaz's middle son Emmanuel. in verse 17, the word 'virgin' is better translated, "young woman". In the interlinear - the textus receptus - which is ONE of the documents the KJV translators used, (all but one of the KJV translators were Trinitarians) it uses the term 'the·damsel'.

You can learn a lot from Dennis Bratcher about this. I doubt anything would ever change your mind.
_________________________________________________________________
"While there is no specific point made here in Isaiah 7 about the child, it is obvious that his mention here, especially with such a significant name, was part of the message of Isaiah to Ahaz. And the fact that the names of two successive children in these two chapters did play significant roles in Isaiah’s message clues us to an important part of the theology at work in these chapters."
http://www.crivoice.org/immanuel.html

Thank you.

There are many debates about the Isiaah suffering messiah passage. There are people who devote a lot of time trying to find references to Jesus in the Old Testament. I don't do a lot of scriptural wrangling myself.

Muslims believe Jesus was the sinless Messiah, a miracle worker and born of a virgin. They just don't believe he died on the cross or was resurrected, but that he ascended directly to heaven and is waiting to return in body, to 'kill the pigs and break the cross' and ensure universal equality of income, after which he will die and be buried in the grave already prepared for him beside that of Muhammad (pbuh) in Mecca.

There are many non-trinitarian Christians. I was just trying to explain that the Muslim statement 'Jesus is not God' is an oversimplification about what Christians really believe about Jesus and the risen Christ. There are profound thoughts that should not be over simlified or trivialized, imo

But I would prefer to leave it there.
Peace, brother

@Muckah
I apologise that your post was delayed. It won't happen again