 |
Bible-Discussion.com Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
habeshaw Growing Guppy

Joined: 18 Jun 2008 Posts: 41
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: 30 Proofed reasons why Jesus is God. |
|
|
Hi All, Thanks to God i got something for you about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, i will mention 30 reasons of why Jesus is God.
I got these reasons from the Coptic Orthodox patriarch,
H.H Pope Shenoda 3.
You might want to discuss in each reason, so i just post one at a time.
THE FIRST PROOF
Explicit Verses On the Divinity of Christ
This proof consists of the following:
(A) Proof that the Lord Jesus Christ is God
(B) Proof that there is only One God, that is, God
(C) Conclusion: Christ is This One God, that is, He is God
(A) Christ Is God
(1) (Rom. 9:5):
St. Paul the Apostle said in his discourse
about the Jews: "and from whom, according to the flesh,
Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. " The phrase 'over all ' gives power to Christ's Divinity; He is not God of certain people only, as the pagan gods are. The expression 'eternally' signifies the continuity of His worship and the infinity of His Divinity.
(2) (John 20:28):
When Thomas said to the Lord: "My
Lord and my God!", the Lord Jesus Christ accepted the title and reproached Thomas for believing only after seeing when he should have believed without seeing.
(3) (John 1:1):
"In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. "Although
Jehovah's Witnesses, in their heterodoxy, say: "and the Word was a God", yet they do not deny the Divinity of Christ and consider Him second to Jehovah. In order not to enter into translation controversies with them, we say that their mere belief that He is a God leads to the fact that He is God, because there is only One God.
(4) (Matt. 1:23):
The angel was referring to Isaiah's prophecy: "'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel" which is
translated, 'God with us"' (Is. 7:14). The fact that Christ is 'God with us' is an obvious profession of His Divinity. That is why the prophet Isaiah explains this meaning when he says:
(5) (Is. 9:6): " For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". It is probably the phrase 'Mighty God' in this verse that has made Jehovah's Witnesses say that Christ is a Mighty God, although in their opinion, He is not God. Strangely enough, this verse is from the Book of Isaiah in which the clauses: "I am the Lord and there is no other; there is no God besides Me", are repeated many times (Is. 45:5,6,21,22).
(6) (Heb. 1:7,8): When St. Paul the Apostle explained how the Lord Jesus Christ is greater than the angels, he said: "And of the angels He says: 'Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire. 'But to the Son He says: 'Your throne,0 God, is for ever and ever. ' " St. Paul quoted this verse from Psalm 45, verse 6, where the reference to the Divinity of Christ is very clear.
(7) (1 Tim. 3:16): "And without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory. " It is obvious, from this verse, that Christ is God who was manifested in the flesh. But the heresy of Jehovah's Witnesses presents another translation: "Great is the mystery of godliness which was
manifested in the flesh", which is incompatible with the
continuation of the same verse. Because how could the
mystery of godliness be seen by angels? Or how was it
received up in glory? Was it not Christ who was seen by
angels, ascended to heaven in glory, preached among the Gentiles and believed in the world? However, the theological facts are not based upon one verse: (1 Tim. 3:16) is similar to another verse:
(8) (Col. 2:9): St. Paul the Apostle says about the Lord
Jesus Christ: "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily. " The phrase "all the fullness of the Godhead" adds to the power of this verse. If all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in the Lord Jesus Christ, then He lacks nothing and He is God, and there is no other God but Him, because there is nothing outside the fullness. The expression 'bodily' signifies that This Godhead took a body or was manifested in the flesh as the previous verse (1 Tim. 3:16) explains, and as is
explained in the following verse:
(9) (Acts 20:28): "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." It is known that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and a spirit has no blood. So, God did not purchase the Church with His blood unless He had taken flesh and sacrificed His blood for her. Here, we reach the same meaning of "God was manifested in the flesh".
(B) There is only One God
(1) This is clear from the first of the Ten Commandments: "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Ex. 20:3);(Deut. 5:7).
(2) And from other verses in the Book of Deuteronomy,
such as: "the LORD Himself is God,. there is none other
besides Him" (Deut. 5:35), and: "Hear, 0 Israel.. The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut. 6:4)
(3) The doctrine of One God is also clear in many verses in the Book of Isaiah, among which are:
(a) (Is. 43: 1 0,1 I): "I am He. Before Me there was no
God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, and besides Me there is no Saviour." This is the chapter from which Jehovah's Witnesses extracted the phrase: " 'You are My witnesses,' says the LORD" (Is. 43:10,12).
(b) (Is. 44:6): "I am the First and I am the Last; besides
Me there is no God."
(c) (Is. 45:5,6): "I am the LORD, and there is no other;
there is no God besides Me."
(d) (Is. 45:21,22): "Have not I, the LORD? And there is
no other God besides Me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides Me. For I am God, and there is no other."
(e) (Is. 46:9): "For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me."
(4) Another testimony on the Oneness of God is in the
Book of Hosea the Prophet: "Yet I am the LORD your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me, for there is no Saviour besides Me" (Hos. 13:4).
(5) We find the same testimony in the New Testament:
(a) (Rom. 3:30): "...since there is one God"
(b) (1 Cor. 8:4): "...there is no other God but one"
(c) (James 2:19): "You believe that there is one God.
You do well. Even the demons believe - and tremble!" This means that even the demons, unfruitful as they are, know very well that there is one God and tremble from His Judgment.
If there is mention in the Holy Bible of the word 'gods', it does not at all mean Deity. Sometimes it means the pagan gods as is mentioned in the Psalms: "For the LORD is great and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols" (Ps. 96:4,5), and: "Worship Him, all you gods" (Ps. 97:7). Naturally, those who worship another
are not true gods.
Another example, said by the Divine Inspiration in Psalm 82, is: "I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."' (Ps. 82: 6,7). Naturally, he who dies and falls can not be a God. But it is a symbolical expression signifying power and authority, as when some of the Jews' enemies were afraid from the return of the Ark of the Covenant and said: "
Woe to us! Who will deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods? These are the gods who struck the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness" (1 Sam.4:8). They described all the people as gods which has a symbolic or a metaphoric meaning.
(C) Conclusion: Christ is God
If there is only one God, by the testimony of the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible, and if Christ is a God by the same testimony, then Christ is This One God.
God says in the Book of Isaiah: "And there is no other God besides Me", and in the same Book the Divine Inspiration says that Christ is a "Mighty God." What does this mean other than the Two are One?
That is the First Reason why Christ is God. There are 29 other reasons
and i will put them later, but you can discuss the first reason now.
I will put One Reason after a few comments...
"Jesus,My Lord and my God!" Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
habeshaw.
I don't have any problem with saying that Jesus is theos ("god"). The judges of Israel were called theoi ("gods") in scripture and no one thought they were YHWH. It was understood that they were YHWH's representatives or agents.
If an individual judge of Israel could be identified as theos, then the Messiah (who is YHWH's supreme judge) may certainly be called theos. I think scripture presents Jesus to us not as YHWH but as YHWH's shaliach (i.e. as God's supreme agent/representative).
Many Trinitarian scholars have conceeded that the scriptures you are posting do not prove that Jesus is YHWH. I will be happy to share their reasons for making these concessions with you, as time allows. ( No doubt other non-Trinitarians will as well.)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dabmci House Cat

Joined: 27 Jan 2008 Posts: 160 Location: Wylie
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mattathias wrote: | habeshaw.
I don't have any problem with saying that Jesus is theos ("god"). The judges of Israel were called theoi ("gods") in scripture and no one thought they were YHWH. It was understood that they were YHWH's representatives or agents.
If an individual judge of Israel could be identified as theos, then the Messiah (who is YHWH's supreme judge) may certainly be called theos. I think scripture presents Jesus to us not as YHWH but as YHWH's shaliach (i.e. as God's supreme agent/representative).
Many Trinitarian scholars have conceeded that the scriptures you are posting do not prove that Jesus is YHWH. I will be happy to share their reasons for making these concessions with you, as time allows. ( No doubt other non-Trinitarians will as well.)  |
Mattathias,
Please share your sources (Trinitarian scholars) so they can be read.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dabmci wrote: | Please share your sources (Trinitarian scholars) so they can be read.
Thanks |
| Mattathias wrote: | | Okay. But do you think it will make any difference? |
habeshaw and james have made it clear that it hasn't made a difference to them. (I'm okay with that but I dislike the hypocrisy.)
Has it made any difference to you, dabmci? Would you like for me to address the other scriptures habeshaw postulates as proof or nay?
Last edited by Mattathias on Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
habeshaw Growing Guppy

Joined: 18 Jun 2008 Posts: 41
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
hi Mattiass,
I agree with u.
of caurse it is known that there are many saints and prophets called titeled 'God',
but this title is given by the One True God, like mose was God over 'Egyptian King, Fereon',
All prophets, and Saints, who receive the Words of the True God, will be called God, according to the Bible, and Jesus's Word.
Now, But when we come to Jesus, we are saying, and the post's meaning is, The True God, who created Heaven and Earth, who created all humans, saints, and Prophets becames flesh, and called Jesus.
it Means, God was Manifested in the flesh, That God, who was there at all times becames flesh
and crucified, died, and raise, ....
This is clearly described in the verse in Rom. 9.5 " and from whom, according to the flesh,
Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blesses God.Amen"
See Mattiass, this verse clearly indicate Jesus, and said 'Who is Overall,the eternally'... Since
there is One God who is Over all and eternal, And that God is Called Jesus.
That is the total meaning of the above post, it is not similar title like, Mose
is God over Feron.
But any way, since you belive Prophets and Saints, who recieve the Word of God
will be called God, do you praise them?, song for them?
like, do you praise Virgin Mary? since she recieve the word of God, and titled God!
regarding our religion,Orthodox, of caurse we Praise Her, and all Saints.
But you, Answer for your self, since this is not the correct place to talk about Saints.
God Bless Us.
(Is. 9:6): " For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will
be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| habeshaw wrote: | | Now, But when we come to Jesus, we are saying, and the post's meaning is, The True God, who created Heaven and Earth, who created all humans, saints, and Prophets becames flesh, and called Jesus. |
The creator of the heavens and the earth is YHWH, not Jesus. (See Isaih 44:24).
| Quote: | This is clearly described in the verse in Rom. 9.5 " and from whom, according to the flesh,
Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blesses God.Amen"
See Mattiass, this verse clearly indicate Jesus, and said 'Who is Overall,the eternally'... Since
there is One God who is Over all and eternal, And that God is Called Jesus. |
Raymond E. Brown was a Roman Catholic scholar, and he was absolutley convinced that the God of scripture is Triune. He authored a book titled Jesus God and Man. He analyzes Romans 9:5 in a section of the book subtitled TEXTS WHERE THE USE OF "GOD" IS DUBIOUS."
He offers three possible ways for the verse to be punctuated and concludes,
| Quote: | | This passage is a famous crux, and we cannot hope to reach a decision that will be accepted by all. Distinguished scholars are aligned on both sides. Among those who think that Rom 9:5 applies to Jesus are Sanday and Hedlam, G. Findlay, Boylan, Nygren, Lagrange, and O. Michel. Among those who think the reference is to the Father are H. Meyer, Dodd, Bultmann, J. Knox, Barrett, and Taylor. Personally, we are inclined to accept the grammatical evidence in favor of interpretation (c), but at most one may claim a certain probability that this passage refers to Jesus as God. | (P. 21-22)
The three punctuation options he considered were:
(a) "He who is God over all be blessed forever;" or "He who is over all blessed forever."
(b) "...the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. God be blessed forever."
(c) "...the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever."
A few observations:
(1) Brown personally prefers the third option but admits that it isn't a certainty.
(2) Brown refers to himself as "we." (I don't for one minute believe that you think Brown was claiming to be three persons!)
(3) Trinitarian scholars are divided on which option is the one intended by Paul.
(4) The CEV (Contemporary English Version) rendering of Romans 9:5 presents a very different view of the verse from the one you hold. The CEV Footnotes nicely demonstrate the options for us.
| Quote: | "They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of Jesus Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever![a] Amen."
Footnotes:
Romans 9:5 Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever: Or " Christ, who rules over all. I pray that God will be praised forever" or " Christ. And I pray that Christ, who is God and rules over all, will be praised forever." |
Link |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
habeshaw.
I presume that you are familiar with the famous Trinitarian scholar, Erasmus. He wrote the following in regard to Romans 9:5:
| Quote: | | Those who contend that in this text Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture; deny all understanding to the Arians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father. |
(Works, ed. Jean Leclerc, 10 vols., (Leiden, 1703-1706), 6:610, 611)
Last edited by Mattathias on Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
habeshaw.
I feel certain that you are aware of the Arian controversy. Don't you find it interesting that the Trinitarians never used Romans 9:5 against the Unitarians? Why do you think that is? (I suggest that it was probably due to the reasons that Erasmus spoke about.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
habeshaw.
The Trinitarian scholar F.F. Bruce writes in The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, p. 186, 187:
| Quote: | | Who is over all, God blessed forever. The relation of these words to those which precede is a disputed point. It is equally permissible to construe the Greek phrase...as being in apposition to 'Christ' (so AV, RV, RSVmg., NEBmg.), or to take it as an independent ascription of praise to God, prompted by the mention of the Messiah as the One in whom God's many blessings to Israel have reached their climax - 'Blessed for ever be God over all.' (Cf. RVmg., RSV, NEB)...the legitimacy of the alternative punctuation must be conceded, and it is outrageous to cast doubt on the orthodoxy of those translators or commentators who prefer it here... |
I don't think Romans 9:5 is the clear proof that you sincerely believe it to be. And neither do many Trinitarian (not to mention non-Trinitarian) scholars. (Of course, there are many Trinitarian scholars - including F.F. Bruce - who do prefer the punctuation that you find preferable.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
habeshaw.
Just a brief listing of a few Bible translations that present what Bruce calls the "alternative punctuation" for your consideration.
| Quote: | | to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. (RSV) |
| Quote: | | promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen. (NEB) |
| Quote: | | promises; the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.) (James Moffatt Translation) |
Of course, there are many translations that contain the punctuation you endorse. I post these merely too demonstrate that there is no consensus among scholars and Bible translators in regard to the correct punctuation this verse. I think the best that you (and I) can claim for this passage is an old fashioned Mexican standoff.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Trinitarian scholar James D.G. Dunn writes in Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 38B, p. 535- 536:
| Quote: | | The thought so moves Paul that he cannot refrain from uttering a doxology; "God who is over all be blessed for ever, Amen." As the syntax stands, the line could very readily, be punctuated to read the doxology as referring to "the Christ according to the flesh who is God..." On the other hand, Paul's syntax is notably irregular and readers who would be conscious of the need to phrase the unpunctuated text would not necessarily read on without a break. The recognition of a doxology in the text would invite a pause as much as the opening relative clause would invite an unbroken phrasing. Again, while Paul was already well used to associating Christ with God and attributing divine functions to Christ (1:7; I Cor. 8:6), it is less likely that he would have intended Christ to be hailed as "God over all" (contrast I Cor. 15:24-28). Just as unlikely is it that the juxtaposition of references to the Messiah of Israel and "God over all" would be read as an identity; the more conscious his readers were of the continuity between Israel's faith and Paul's gospel the less likely they would be to read the ambiguous phrasing as the abrupt departure from Israel's monotheism which the more straightforward syntax would imply. In fact it is probably Paul's desire to stress the universality of God's embrace, Gentile as well as Jew, which results in the unusual phrasing. Just as in 3:29-30 he used Jewish monotheism to make the same basic point, so here rather than the more regular form of doxology to the one God ("Blessed be God...") he chooses to stress that the God he adores is God over all: "he who is God over all, may he be blessed for ever, Amen." |
The reference in his comments to "Israel's monotheism" and "Jewish monotheism" points to unitary monotheism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
habeshaw.
I will be happy to post additional comments from Trinitarian scholars in support of my view, if you wish. (I have Roman Catholic scholar Karl-Josef Kuschel, and others, warming up in the bullpen. )
I readily acknowledge that you could post a veritable mountain of commentary from Trinitarian scholars in support of your view. I wonder though if you could post concessions from Unitarian scholars to support your view? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
habeshaw.
Roman Catholic scholar Karl-Josef Kuschel commented on Romans 9:5 in a book titled Born Before All Time?: The Dispute over Christ's Origin. I will quote him at length for your consideration. I'll do so in a series of posts to make it easier for us to read and digest.
| Quote: | | To whom the praise is directed is one of the most disputed questions in the exegesis of Pauline christology. For there are two way of translating the text. It can be translated '...they (the Israelites) have the patriarchs, and from them according to the flesh comes the Christ who stands over all as God, he is praised for ever...Amen (9.5). This would be an unambiguous expression of praise to Jesus Christ as 'God'. |
(p. 301)
The correct way to translate this verse is greatly disputed among scholars. Why would Trinitarian scholars not present a unified front if the evidence clearly made such agreement possible? I think they would if they could. They don't because they recognize that the evidence is not clear. That is why Raymond Brown, for example, places the the question of Jesus being called "God" in this verse in the dubious category. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuschel continues,
| Quote: | | But it can also be translated: 'To them the patriarchs belong. And from them comes Christ according to his physical origin - God, the Lord over the universe, be highly praised for ever. Amen.' In that case the praise would be given to God alone. For which do we decide? Both options are possible both textually and linguistically, so it is not surprising that the differences in exegesis extend right down to the most recent commentaries. |
(p. 301)
When Kuschel states that this second way of translating the verse would convey the idea that "the praise would be given to God alone," he means that the praise would be given to the Father alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mattathias King Kong

Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 2040 Location: Atlanta
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thus for example Heinrich Schlier opts for a christological interpretation, while e.g. Ernst Kasemann, Ulrich Wilckens and Walter Schmittals support a strictly theological interpretation. |
(p. 301)
By "christological interpretation" Kuschel means the punctuation alternative that would support the idea that Paul calls Jesus "God" in this verse. By "theological interpretation" he means the punctuation alternative that would support the idea that Paul calls the Father alone "God" in this verse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|