The Son Is Gods Self 1 Hr. Video

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1 God

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;...2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ...


It looks like Paul taught they were not the same exact person to me.

There is One God, the Father.

And Thomas said to Jesus "my Lord and my God".

And Paul said "God was manifest in the flesh".

And John said "and the Word was God... and became flesh, and dwelt among us."

So then the one God - the Father - was manifest in the flesh. The Word was that one God (the Father) and became flesh. Thomas called Jesus his God (the Father) as well as his Lord.

If "there is one God, the Father" means Jesus is not God, then same verse that says "and one Lord, Jesus Christ" must mean God is not Lord. Is God "Lord"?

According to Paul:

Romans 10:9-13 KJV
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [11] For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Believe and confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus... Because whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Which is a quote from this:

Joel 2:32 KJV
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.

The word "Lord" in that verse is YHVH (Jehovah), none other than God.

So confess the Lord Jesus because whoever calls on Jehovah's name will be saved. Obviously, one calls upon the name of Jehovah (the LORD, ie God) by believing and confessing the Lord Jesus. Paul has not only identified the Lord as Jehovah, but as Jesus.

Paul preached:

Acts 17:24 KJV
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Here he explicitly calls God "Lord".

Remember you said "God is a spirit"? Paul spoke of the spirit:

2 Corinthians 3:6 KJV
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

He then claimed the Lord is that spirit:

2 Corinthians 3:15-17 KJV
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. [16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. [17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

He also said there is ONE spirit:

Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

One God, One Lord (even though he identifies both God and Jesus as Lord), and One Spirit (even though he identified the Lord as that Spirit).

In many places Paul identifies the God of the Scripture (Jehovah) as "Lord". So the only way Paul can assert unto us there is ONE Lord (Jesus Christ), and yet recognize God as Lord, and be consistent, is for him to recognise that Jesus is somehow in fact God (while still recognizing that He is also the Son of God). And this is consistent with other statements of his where he takes Scripture that speaks of Jehovah God and applies it Christ, and even bluntly asserts Christ is God.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There is One God, the Father.

And Thomas said to Jesus "my Lord and my God".

And Paul said "God was manifest in the flesh".

And John said "and the Word was God... and became flesh, and dwelt among us."

So then the one God - the Father - was manifest in the flesh. The Word was that one God (the Father) and became flesh. Thomas called Jesus his God (the Father) as well as his Lord.

If "there is one God, the Father" means Jesus is not God, then same verse that says "and one Lord, Jesus Christ" must mean God is not Lord. Is God "Lord"?

According to Paul:

Romans 10:9-13 KJV
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [11] For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Believe and confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus... Because whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Which is a quote from this:

Joel 2:32 KJV
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.

The word "Lord" in that verse is YHVH (Jehovah), none other than God.

So confess the Lord Jesus because whoever calls on Jehovah's name will be saved. Obviously, one calls upon the name of Jehovah (the LORD, ie God) by believing and confessing the Lord Jesus. Paul has not only identified the Lord as Jehovah, but as Jesus.

Paul preached:

Acts 17:24 KJV
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Here he explicitly calls God "Lord".

Remember you said "God is a spirit"? Paul spoke of the spirit:

2 Corinthians 3:6 KJV
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

He then claimed the Lord is that spirit:

2 Corinthians 3:15-17 KJV
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. [16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. [17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

He also said there is ONE spirit:

Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

One God, One Lord (even though he identifies both God and Jesus as Lord), and One Spirit (even though he identified the Lord as that Spirit).

In many places Paul identifies the God of the Scripture (Jehovah) as "Lord". So the only way Paul can assert unto us there is ONE Lord (Jesus Christ), and yet recognize God as Lord, and be consistent, is for him to recognise that Jesus is somehow in fact God (while still recognizing that He is also the Son of God). And this is consistent with other statements of his where he takes Scripture that speaks of Jehovah God and applies it Christ, and even bluntly asserts Christ is God.

Wouldn't Paul be saying Christ is God because of the Col 2:9 effect on his body? This effect would make Christ, God, by default. All of Paul's teachings are about God and the man Christ Jesus...one Divine person inside one omnipresent human spirit man. This unification that Paul taught is the 1st century, true oneness.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The only way we could have a relationship with God, understand Him, communicate with Him is through the manifestation of flesh. If we are to be one with God, we have to be reconciled to Him. We can only do that through the body of Jesus Christ.

II John 1:9 “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.”

Correct. We have both the Father and the son. God inside Christ, inside us.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Look at it again. It would be very like Jesus to say something not quite obvious to them at the moment or to say something to cause them to think. I saw that as a new convert.

It looks to me like Jesus was saying only the Spirit God was good and that the Spirit God was someone other than himself...And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by coksiw

That “we” in John 14:23 is a challenge.
He did say in John 16:25 that He was speaking things in figurative language.
What is is factual is that the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost to indwell the disciples. Paul used language like “Christ in you”(Rom 8:10) as well.

I think “we” there means the Holy Spirit and Christ as in “Christ in you”. It is figurative to emphasize the new dimension in which the Spirit will come to them: in the name of Jesus, under a new covenant in Christ.

He said "we' as in plural. Both of them would make their abode with us. If it would have been only one person, Jesus would have said that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Just as I said above, from the quotes from the Gospel of John. There Jesus used self-referential, or first person singular, pronouns when speaking of the idea that He would later on indwell His disciples.



Because in each instance, there is only only acting agent.

In 1 Thessalonians 3:11, Paul is writing a prayer that he and his team would be allowed to come and visit the Thessalonians (contrast to 1 Thessalonians 2:18 where Paul writes that their earlier attempts at visiting them were thwarted by Satan).

Read it closely, translated literally:

Now may God Himself, even our Father, and also our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you.

If you notice, "and also the Lord Jesus" is situated as a parenthetical, even without the parentheses. We know this, because if you drop the phrase from the text, you still have a complete and independent sentence. Paul is including the Lord Jesus in His prayer to the Father, because He knows the Lord Jesus is one with the Father, at the Father's right hand. So, he isn't identifying the Lord Jesus with God the Father, by using a singular verb form.

How do we know? Because if he had wanted to do, he could have and likely would have written, "Now may God Himself, even our Father, the Lord Jesus, direct our way to you".

The fact that in Greek, there is a second use of kai (rendered as "and also") and a second use of hēmōn (rendered as "our"; more literally translated: of us) shows that Paul did not intend for his audience to think God the Father and the Lord Jesus were the same being.

The singular verb form is then an indication of Paul's understanding of the Father and the Son operating in unity.

It is the same situation in 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 (also a prayer of petition) even in grammatical construction, just reversed. There, the singular agent, instead of being God the Father, as in 1 Thessalonians 3:11 is the Lord Jesus, and the addition of God the Father is the parenthetical.

There are too many instances in Paul's other writings that indicate He thought of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in complementary, but still nonetheless, different categories in terms of their respective identities.

A small samplying:

Romans 15:6,

That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6,

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Corinthians 1:3,

Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

2 Corinthians 11:31,

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Ephesians 1:3 and 1:17,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Colossians 1:3,

We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,



Doubling down on your cop out?

No one is hiding anything. In John 17:5, Jesus said the Father had a different "self" than He, Jesus, had. It's clear enough in the English, but absolutely crystal clear in the Greek. Forget whatever I wrote, ignore it even. Doesn't matter.

Both the Greek and English of the text is still there, waiting to be addressed.

So, if you or anyone else (second invitation here) is willing to tackle John 17:5 and show how Jesus referring to the Father's "own self" does not mean Jesus and the Father are two different selves, meaning therefore, two different persons, be my guest. You don't have to respond to me at all.

Just post the info and I will read it. I am not unreasonable. You might even convert me.

Nobody is denying the clear distinctions Paul (and the other apostolic authors) make between God and Christ. But it seems some are overlooking the clear identification Paul and the other apostolic authors make between God and Christ, which cannot be accepted as truth without accepting the apostles understood Christ, while being the Son of God, is nevertheless also that same God.

Romans 9:5 KJV
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Here Paul says Christ is in fact the most high God, as well as being descended from the fathers according to the flesh.

Bengel addresses all the issues one might try to raise here:

Romans 9:5. Ὧν οἱ πατέρες, κ.τ.λ.) whose are the fathers, etc. Baumgarten has both written a dissertation on this passage, and has added it to his Exposition of this Epistle. All, that is of importance to me in it, I have explained im Zeugniss, p. 157, etc. (ed. 1748), [c. 11, 28].—καὶ ἐξ ὧν, and of whom, i.e. of the Israelites, Acts 3:22. To the six privileges of the Israelites lately mentioned are added the seventh and eighth, respecting the fathers, and respecting the Messiah Himself. Israel is a noble and a holy people.—ὁ ὤν) i.e. ὅς ἐστι, but the participle has a more narrow meaning. Artemonius with great propriety proves from the grief of Paul, that there is no doxology in this passage: Part I. cap. 42; but at the same time he along with his associates contends, that Paul wrote ὧν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς, κ.τ.λ. So that there may be denoted in the passage this privilege of the Israelites, that the Lord is their God; and he interprets the clause, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, thus: that this privilege is the greatest of all the honours conferred upon Israel. But such an interpretation of the ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, with which comp. Ephesians 4:6 (that we may remove this out of our way in the first place), implies a meaning, which owes its birth merely to the support of an hypothesis, and which requires to be expressed rather by a phrase of this sort; τὸ δὴ πάντων μεῖζον. The conjecture itself, ὧν ὁ, carries with it an open violation of the text. For I. it dissevers τὸ κατὰ σάρκα from the antithetic member of the sentence, κατὰ πνεῦμα,[109] which is usually everywhere mentioned [expressed]. II. It at the same time divides the last member of the enumeration [of the catalogue of privileges], before which καὶ, and, is suitably placed, καὶ ἐξ ὧν, κ.τ.λ. into two members, and in the second of these the conjunction is by it harshly suppressed.

[109] i.e., according to His divine nature. The words ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός are equivalent to κατὰ πνεῦμα, and form a plain antithesis to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα = His human nature.—ED.

Artemonius objects: I. Christ is nowhere in the sacred Scriptures expressly called God. Ans. Nowhere? Doubtless because Artemonius endeavours to get rid of all those passages either by proposing a different reading, or by a different mode of interpretation. He himself admits, that too many proofs of one thing ought not to be demanded, page 225. In regard to the rest, see note on John 1:1. He objects, II. If Paul wrote ὁ ὤν, he omitted the principal privilege of the Israelites, that God, who is the Best and Greatest of all, was their God. Ans. The adoption and the glory had consisted in that very circumstance; therefore he did not omit it; nor is that idea, the Lord is the God of Israel, ever expressed in these words, Thine, O Israel, is God blessed for ever. He urges further; Christ is included even in the covenants, and yet Paul presently after makes mention of Christ; how much more would he be likely to make mention of God the Father Himself? Ans. The reason in the case of Christ for His being mentioned does not equally hold good in the case of God. Paul mentions in the order of time all the privileges of Israel (the fathers being by the way [incidentally] joined with Christ). He therefore mentions Christ, as He was manifested [last in order of time]; but it was not necessary that that should be in like manner mentioned of God. Moreover, Christ was in singularly near relationship to the Israelites; but God was also the God of the Gentiles, ch. Romans 3:29 : and it was not God, but Christ, whom the Jews rejected more openly. What? In the very root of the name Israel, and therefore of the Israelites, to which the apostle refers, Romans 9:4; Romans 9:6, the name El, God, is found. He objects, III. The style of the Fathers disagrees with this opinion: nay, the false Ignatius [pseudoignatius] reckons among the ministers of Satan those, who said, that Jesus Himself is God over all. Ans. By this phrase, he has somewhat incautiously described the Sabellians, and next to them he immediately places the Artemonites in the same class. In other respects the fathers often apply the phraseology of Paul respecting Christ to the Father, and by that very circumstance prove the true force of that phraseology [as expressing Divinity]; and yet the apostle is superior to [should have more weight than] the fathers. Wolfius refutes Artemonius at great length in vol. ii. Curar. ad N. T., p. 802, etc.—ἐπὶ πάντων, over all) The Father is certainly excepted, 1 Corinthians 15:27. Christ is of the fathers, according to the flesh; and at the same time was, is, and shall be over all, inasmuch as He is God blessed for ever. Amen! The same praise is ascribed to the Father and the Son, 2 Corinthians 11:31. Over all, which is antithetic to, of whom, shows both the pre-existence (προὗπαρξιν) of Christ before the fathers, in opposition to His descent from the fathers according to the flesh, and His infinite majesty and dominion full of grace over Jews and Gentiles; comp. as to the phrase, Ephesians 4:6; as to the fact itself, John 8:58; Matthew 22:45. They are quite wrong, who fix the full stop either here [after πάντων], (for the comma may be placed with due respect to religion); for in that case the expression should have been, εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός [not ὁ—θεὸς εὐλογητός], if only there had been here any peculiar occasion for such a doxology; or [who fix a full stop] after σάρκα; for in this case τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would be without its proper antithesis [which is, “who in His divine nature is God over all”].—Θεὸς, God) We should greatly rejoice, that in this solemn description Christ is so plainly called God. The apostles, who wrote before John, take for granted the deity of Christ, as a thing acknowledged; whence it is that they do not directly treat of it, but yet when it comes in their way, they mark it in a most glorious manner. Paul, ch. Romans 5:15, had called Jesus Christ man; but he now calls Him God; so also 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:16. The one appellation supports the other.—εὐλογητὸς, blessed) הקבה֞. By this epithet we unite in giving all praise to God, 2 Corinthians 11:31.—εἰς τους αἰῶνας, for ever) [He] Who is above all—for ever, is the first and the last, Revelation 1:17.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1 God

It looks to me like Jesus was saying only the Spirit God was good and that the Spirit God was someone other than himself...And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

So then Jesus isn't good. Right?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1 God

Wouldn't Paul be saying Christ is God because of the Col 2:9 effect on his body? This effect would make Christ, God, by default. All of Paul's teachings are about God and the man Christ Jesus...one Divine person inside one omnipresent human spirit man. This unification that Paul taught is the 1st century, true oneness.

Besides the fact you aren't really making any sense, and besides the fact you are just making stuff up ("the Col 2:9 effect on his body", "omnipresent human spirit man"), the fact that you assent to Christ being God ("would make Christ God by default") overthrows any and all attempts by you to assert Christ is NOT God.

In other words, you capitulated to the point in dispute, whether Christ is God, or not. You have agreed that He is ("by default", even).

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by 1 God

He said "we' as in plural. Both of them would make their abode with us. If it would have been only one person, Jesus would have said that.

I am recognizing that. "We" is plural. Can you have the Holy Spirit without "Christ in you"? No, you need the "we", you need to be in Christ to have the Spirit. The Spirit comes in his name. Do you know that Christ spoke figuratively too? I gave you a verse that says at the end of that discourse that he used figurative language.

You know that people had issues with him speaking like that before?


* The figurative language to teach a spiritual truth:

[Jhn 6:53-57, 60, 63 KJV] 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. ...

* People's head spinning:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? ...

* Jesus explaining the figurative language by going factual:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Besides the fact you aren't really making any sense, and besides the fact you are just making stuff up ("the Col 2:9 effect on his body", "omnipresent human spirit man"), the fact that you assent to Christ being God ("would make Christ God by default") overthrows any and all attempts by you to assert Christ is NOT God.

In other words, you capitulated to the point in dispute, whether Christ is God, or not. You have agreed that He is ("by default", even).

Well, there is either Christ as a microscopic God in Mary's ovaries that eventually became embryonic etc... or a genuine man that God made through Mary's ovaries(involving God and Mary), that was made God via the full indwelling of God inside his post resurrection body. There really is only 2 ways of looking at it.