Divinity of Jesus

There are only two things that exist:(1) Created things, such as the heavens and the earth, plants and animals that can reproduce, and angels (both good and bad), and(2) Non-created things, which only includes the eternal God - who was, who is, and is to come in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.When Christ returns, 1 Cor 15 will come to pass,

Peg,Before I write about the Aaron / Christ priesthood matter I would like to address this: My concern here is not with Christ being from now on. It is what Russell teaches about Christ being "not always". Arius and Russell say there was once God but not the Logos. So immortality or eternality as to the future is not the issue. It is eternality of Christ's past.The Bible intends us to understand that Jehovah always was, is eternal from the past: FROM ETERNITY in the past unto eternity in the future God is. Now what about Christ ? I believe therefore that the "child ... born" who is to be called "Mighty God" (Isa. 9:6), and who was born in Bethlehem as the baby Jesus was "FROM THE DAYS OF ETERNITY."As God in Psalm 90 is from eternity so is the One born our Savior in Bethelehem from eternity.Hebrews alludes to the mysterious Genesis character Melchisedec in comparing Christ to him. Hebrews 7:3 emphasizes the eternality of Christ in this way: I have to ask myself "How is the writer using this figure Melchesidek to clarify what and who Jesus Christ is?" Well the writer should not be trying to point out that Jesus had no mother because clearly the virgin Mary was the mother of Jesus.And if the writer simply wanted to say that Jesus seems, like Melchisedek to kind of come out of nowhere, it would be sufficient to say Christ appears without father, mother, or geneology. But the added words "without beginning of days", I think convey the eternality of Christ. This High Priest after the order of Melchisedek always lived from eternity. He may have been born but He had no beginning.Arius and Russell use a polytheistic belief to teach that Christ HAD a beginning in being the first creature Jehovah created. The truth is that Christ IS Jehovah.Furthermore, Jehovah God says that He is the First and the Last (Isa. 44:6; 41:4; 48:12 ) No one preceeds the FIRST. For Jehovah to be the First means that there was no God before Him (or after Him for that matter). Now the resurreced and glorified Man Whom John saw in Revelation also said that He is the First: 1.) Christ cannot be another First besides Jehovah.
2.) Christ cannot be the Second here because He says He is the First.
3.) Christ cannot be a god formed after Jehovah the First because Jehovah says that after Him there is no God formed (Isa.43:10).
4.) Christ cannot be another God because Jehovah says "Besides Me there is no God" (Isa. 45:5)So I believe that this One who became dead and lives forever is Jehovah God become a Man. Man was created by God (Genesis 1:26). So Christ is the mingling of God and man. And as to being Jehovah God He is from eternity and had no beginning. No God is formed before Him. No God is formed after Him.The point of this post Peg, is to establish not just the immortality of Jesus Christ as to the future nor His eternality as to the future. It is to prove His eternality as to the past.So the Word Who was with God was so as long as there was God. And that would be from eternity.

Yes, your right. Jehovah is shown to always have been eternal.
Yet 1 colossians 1:15says about Jesus that "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;how can Jesus be said to have a birth, if he is 'eternal'
To be born, he is being shown to have had a beginning...IOW he is not being expressed as an 'eternal' being the same way that Jehovah is called 'eternal'Also Jesus was actually dead for 3 days. How can we continue to call him eternal if he had died for a short period of time. That is NOT eternity or what eternal means. I agree with you to a point. Jesus is from a very long time ago. But not eternity as this implies that he had no beginning and the bible does not present Jesus as not having a beginning....for example in this proverb:Proverbs 8:22"Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth."this verse can only be talking about Gods only begotten son, Jesus and according to this, he had a beginning. He was the first and only direct creation by Jehovah. So this was a very long time ago, but not from eternity. do you think that proverbs fits in with the eternalness of Christ?

John, can i just ask how it is that, if Jesus and God are absolute equalshow is it that this verse says that Jesus subjects himself to the father?Can this godhead be divided by subjection...which implies inferiority/superiority?

This Dilemna you propose is very easily answered with Phillipians 2:5-11

quote:

---

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

---

The key part is in the beginning. Jesus and God are, by nature, exactly equal. But Jesus voluntarily took on the lower position of a servant.The concept of trinity can be translated to the (biblical) concept of marriage. Because the man and the woman, although still two 'centres of consciousness', still become one flesh.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

i like that translation. I also like your example of likening the trinity to a marriage. The two are separate and distinct individuals, who become one.However, the trinity teaching goes beyond that. If you translate your marriage example to the trinity there would not be one man and one wife who unite as one, rather there would be just one person who acts as both man and wife.

It is the New International Version (from biblgateway.com)But I have to disagree with your concept of what the trinity is. Even in the doctrine of the trinity, there are three centres of counsciousness. And all of them are God, but not each other (The father, the holy spirit, the son)Maybe this image will make what I'm trying to say a bit clearer:

The Hebrew expression 'firstborn' does not represent priority in time, as we would interpret it today. In the Hebrew culture, it was a refenrece to the pre-eminence in rank. This can also be seen when David is called the 'firstborn' (psalms 89 I think) although he was actually the youngest son.Another expression where it is important to have the original Jewish meaning of it is 'the son of', which actually meant 'of the order of' or 'having the very nature of'. For example, 'sons of the prophets' (1 Kings 20:35) meant 'of the order of the prophets. Same thing with sons of the singers (Nehemiah 12:28).The Jews of the time of Jesus understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for Blasphemy (John 19:7), which you can't explain if you argue that Jesus was actually saying that he was some sort of Angel-being, since the Jews would not have called it Blasphemy.

i agree that it did give one pre-eminence in rank, but that rank was based on prodigy. As an example, the law at Deut regarded the firstborn son as the one to whom the inheritence went even if the man did not like him.
Deut 21:15 "In case a man comes to have two wives, the one loved and the other hated...he will not be allowed to constitute the son of the loved one his firstborn at the expense of the hated one's son, the firstborn... because that one is the beginning of his generative power. The right of the firstborn's position belongs to him. it is more likely that Psalm 89 is prophetically referring to Jesus. This is because part of the psalm says "I myself shall place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth." David was not a firstborn son but Jesus, Gods own 'firstborn' Son certainly was. And Jesus is the one who became King of Kings and Lord of Lords, not David. I hear lots of people using that verse to argue that Jesus claimed he was God. But the verse actually reads:The Jews answered him: "We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son. NWT

​

The jews insisted "We have a law and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God" NIV

​

The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God" NRSV

​

The Jews answered him, "We have a law and by our law he ought to die, becasue he made himself the Son of God" KJV Can you see the claim is that of being 'Gods Son'?
What am i missing??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

The difficulty you have in understanding Scriptures that declare the Deity of Jesus lies with whether or not you believe the Scriptures we have today are God's truth given to those He inspired to write the Scriptures, and to those He is calling to Himself (John 6:44). Those that don't believe they are God's truth will forever struggle with the Deity of Jesus.Paul declares this of Jesus in Phil 2, Either Paul received this truth directly from the Lord Jesus, or he didn't. If he didn't, then your JW beliefs are just as good as Muhammad's Quran, Buddhism, or any other ism.

I am amazed that this whole discussion going on does not have more impact on these fundies arguing whether their God is unitarian or trinitarian. Is the irony lost on them?They are all using the same book, but they all claim that THEIR interpretation is the only and correct reading. Instead of acknowledging that there may be other ways to read or interpret they proclaim the others to be heretics and cults.Then they have the gall to criticize and demonize atheists that don't believe any of the mumbo-jumbo. If they could get together and present one mumbo-jumbo, I might give them the benefit of the doubt and listen to them.Might but probably not.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What do you want, miracles? The point you make is valid. I agree, how can they criticize Atheists when they can't even get their own act together?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Yes. He is the First and the Last. And Jesus says He is the First and the Last. I feel that I must say "Amen" to this much revelation. I must resist the natural mind's temptation to twist the truth presented. Prayer, praise, and thanksgiving are the proper response.If I accept the light God will grant more light. That is my experience. If Firstborn in verse 15 and verse 18 only relate to TIME, then Paul could not say Christ is Firstborn from the dead because some other people were raised from the dead before Christ. The very first person recorded raised by God was probably someone raised through an Old Testament prophet like Elijah. We might say that Samuel's spirit came up from the dead. Certainly Lazarus was raised before Jesus.If TIME is not the deciding factor in Christ being Firstborn from the dead in verse 15, we should not insist that TIME must be the deciding factor in Christ being Firstborn of all creation in verse 15. It may be. But we certainly cannot insist on it.I take Paul's concluding word that Christ would have first place in all things (v.18) to inform me that Paul is using Firstborn in the way of preeminence.Firstborn, for example is applied to Ephraim in Jeremiah 31:9

​

I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My first-born." But timewise Manasseh his brother was born first Genesis 48:17-19. Manasseh was the eldest, yet Ephraim was declared the "firstborn" and received the blessing of the firstborn because Jacob assigned to him preeminence. He was not literally "born first".Reasons for this I will not elaborate on now. But it has to do with Jacob's own experiencee how he was born second after Esau but under God's sovereignty became preeminent over Esau.So what makes Christ the Firstborn of all creation ?Man, without dispute, is an item of God's creation. God always was. Man was created. So for us to say Christ is God and Man means that He united these two natures into one Person. Theologians have called this incarnation.Now in Colossians Christ is discribed as the Firstborn in TWO aspects.1.) He is the Firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15)
2.) He is the Firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18) These two births concern different things. Verse 15 concerns Christ's incarnation to become a man. Verse 18 concerns Christ in resurrection.In incarnation Christ partook of flesh, bones, blood, etc. He took on humanity and became a man (Hebrews 2:14). In incarnation He became part of the creation of God.Of all items in the entire created universe, earthly, heavenly, visible, invisible, etc. NO part of creation exceeds the preeminence of this Man. All creation came into being through Him and for Him. So in being incarnated Christ has become the preeminent item among all creations. He is therefore the Firstborn of all creation.Russell's error is in thinking that "Firstborn" here means that in time Christ was created first. In other words He was created before heaven, before angels, before the stars, before the earth, etc. So that is why JW's think "Firstborn" here is in relation to time.I believe that this is "Firstborn" in terms of preeminence. For Paul stresses at the end of His accolades that Christ has the preeminence in all things - "that He Himself might have the first place in all things." (v.18) Christ did die. But He did not cease to exist. In the overall realm of reality physical death is not annhilation. He told the thief next to Him that on that day he would be with Him in Paradise. And during the time of His death He proclaimed victory to some spirits in prison in that realm: .The main point here is that death for the Godman Jesus did not mean annhilation or non-existence. He came out victorious from that realm having passed through it. And He came out with "the keys of death and of Hades". You say you agree. But you really don't. Or you agree only partially.I believe judging from the Scriptures I quoted you before that Christ was from everlasting. You really only need to ask yourself."Was there a god formed after Jehovah or not?" Isaiah says after Him there is no God and besides Him there is no God (Isa.43:10; 44:6; 44:8; 45:5; 45:22)He knows of no other God. So whatever He created, whether angel or archangel that is not another created God.Satan may be called " the god of this age " (2 Cor. 4:4). But that is in a totally illegal sense of Satan's rebellion and opposition to God. Of course we can find the words "gods" (plural), in the Bible. To me none of these passages can nullify God's word that no God was formed before or after Him.And insisting that the Logos is that Divine Mighty God who is created by and different from the Almighty God, is wrong. Russell departs from monotheism into polytheism. Jesus was born. And I don't mind saying that as a born child the man Jesus began. But at the same time the Logos, the Christ is from everlasting as Micah chapter five said. That is Jesus before He was incarnated as a Man.Now the Proverbs verse in my Recovery Version reads as thus: Here it says that Jehovah POSSESSED this One. You are thinking in your mind "Jehovah CREATED" this one.This Wisdom of God quite understandably was with God as long as God was. And that would be from eternity. Otherwise you have to postulate that God was once without His Wisdom."I was set up from eternity" is what is written there for me. But you are reading into that that God created this Wisdom FIRST. So I think there is a difference in what is written and what you desire to read into the passage.And if God was without His WISDOM then how would He have had the Wisdom to CREATE Wisdom ? So I must understand that this attribute of God is as eternal as God Himself and He was never without it.Similarly, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God" Yes. The evidence is accumulating on the side of the eternality of Christ. And if I were you I would humbly submit to the revelation of the Bible. If you say "Amen" you will get the blessing I do believe.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You are missing the paragraph right before the one you quoted For the Jews, hearing Jesus say that he was the son of God was equal to hearing him say that he had the very nature of God. Thus why they called it blasphemy.They would not have called it blasphemy if Jesus was announcing to be an Angel-like divinity, even if he would have claimed to be the only one directly created by God. As long as your not saying you are God, its not blasphemy.

Well, the example was given to demonstrate to you how unchristian you are. 'Let Christ Shine Through You' is there to remind the students that their actions reflect on Christ. If onlookers see these students being unkind it reflects on their faith, but it is much deeper than this as well, it reflects just how much THEY honour Christ.Your actions John are not Christlike at all, I doubt very much whether anyone seriously considers you to be a Christian. You are filled with hatred, which is very well demonstrated here with your interaction with another person claiming to be a Christian.Do you think anyone will read your posts and think that you are a good example of how Christianity can change your life? No chance. Thye are more likely to avoid Christianity like the plague, so John 10:10 good buddy, you are no Christian and you are chasing more people away from Christianity than I could ever hope to achieve, keep up the good work. No it isn't. You don't even know the basics of the faith you CLAIM to follow. Where is Christ's sacrifice about, where is the acceptance of Jesus as you lord and Saviour, and even if we take you misinformed idea look closely at what you say there.A Christian is one who speaks the truth in love Hell a couple of days ago you were trying to run Peg out of EvC! Where is the love there John?What a hypocrite you are, I am more Christ like than you are! Its nothing to do with my 'perception' John, it is strikingly obvious that you have no love for anyone except yourself. One thing for certain is that Jesus was no god, there's no doubts about that. Or found and seperated from God.We all find the truth is different places John, some of us find it in an ancient collection of texts, some of us find it in the freedom from religion. You may find it one day, let us know when you do.