jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (75 posts)

Is jesus god?

  1. profile image0
    riddle666posted 4 years ago

    I Christian told me Jesus is 'split' from god, hence he is god, another told that Jesus is not god.
    So is Jesus a 'full' god?
    Part god?
    or not a god?
    If he is not god, who is he, a human or an angel?
    How does his death, absolve the sin of humans?

    1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
      Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you a Rastafarian? Rastafarians believe we are all one, so when they refer other people, they say "I'". For instance, a typical greeting would be,"I am so glad to see I. I have not seen I in so long. How are I doing? Well with Jah . . . this I know.

      1. profile image0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        typo!

    2. kc-go-getter profile image60
      kc-go-getterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The Bible can be interpreted in so many ways. I believe man, even without religion, knows right from wrong. You knew stealing, killing, lying, and cheating aren't right. That's the spirit of God making you aware that negative actions cause negative reactions! Providing you are of sound mind...

      1. profile image0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is not the spirit but experience. A cannibal kills and eat human without remorse.

        1. kc-go-getter profile image60
          kc-go-getterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That makes him an animal

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Humans are animals.

            1. kc-go-getter profile image60
              kc-go-getterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well go eat another human and c what happens lol I can't argue with stubborn atheists. Some people will bite their nose off to spite their face.

          2. profile image0
            riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The spirit choose only educated modern man?

    3. dove777 profile image61
      dove777posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus is God who came to the world in human form so that we could understand the Mind of God.

  2. pennyofheaven profile image81
    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago

    When Jesus says, I and my father are one, this alone seems to solve that dilemma.

    As for dying for our sins. I have asked that many times and no one has come up with an answer I can understand. If sin according to the Christian understanding still exists then..that he died for our sins... makes no sense.

    That is like me saying my Mum died to remove all my flaws. That would be a false statement because I still have my flaws. My point being we can make any persons death meaningful in our own minds. The reality of this meaning could however be entirely different to what we make it in our minds.

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not Sure my answer will satisfy, but I found the following very useful.

      A young woman faces a judge for speeding.
      He pronounces a fine of $500.00 for the offence.
      He then steps down from the bench and pays the clark of the court the money himself.
      It turns out the woman was his daughter.
      He had to, by law, to impose the fine,
      but chose to "pay the price", so she could "go free".

      Unlike your hypothetical, the woman is not free from bad driving,
      she is merely "free" from the penalty of it.

      And, like the woman, (we) Christians are not sinless. We can (and do) still do wrong.
      And as the Apostle Paul put it, does this mean we just go on sinning? Obviously NO, but we
      don't do it blatantly, deliberately.

      It's an attitude of the heart.

      1. profile image0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In you example, the penalty is paid to the government, and the judge is merely interpreting the law, the law is by the government.
        In jesus case, it is god the government and judge is god. Why god made such a stupid rule in the first place?
        Second it is not paying a penalty, it is murder.
        Take your example, the women is tried and convicted of murder,
        Is it ok that the judge die in place of the women?

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes!

          1. profile image0
            riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Then why any of the MODERN justice system does not allow the murder's kins to take the penalty for him? Why it do doesn't allow accused to 'buy' a person to take the punishment?
            By the same logic, we can punish the murder's child if we cannot get the murderer, can't we?
            Or as example,
            You in a did some wrong to your neighbour and now he wanted revenge and according to the law you can be either killed or put behind bars for life and you are facing the prospect. Is it ok that your son take it instead of you?
            Second case,
            Your neighbour did the wrong and he is facing the prospect, is it ok that YOUR son take it instead of him?

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What game are you playing?

              You posed a hypothetical, putting Biblical principle in question.
              I answered you.

              Now, you want to use more scenarios??
              Why?

              Are you looking to corner me (or someone else) to prove some kind of point,
              or "catch me/us out"?

              1. profile image0
                riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I was asking for a  clarification, to your yes with a slightly altered but a real comparison. As your answer was an yes, it should be the same to the first scenario. The second is the corresponding biblical analogy, which you have subtly altered.
                So if your answer is yes to first, I would like to know your opinion about why modern world does not think so.
                And I would like to know whether your answer is same regarding the latter scenario.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That would then show Christianity to be useless in driving moral behavior. If one believes they are a sinner, they'll act like one. If one understands they are not sinners, they'll figure out moral behavior on their own.

        It's an understanding and use of the brain.

        Hearts only pump blood.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Please get to the heart (blood pump) of the matter.

          Some people are heartless. (Without a blood pump)!

          Some fighters are said to have "heart", yet they ALL have a blood pump.

          So, what is your point??? hmm

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Seems obvious, you focus on this rather than the point of how Christianity is useless in driving moral behavior, hence you must agree with that.

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Moral behaviour is each individual's personal choice.

              However, if that choice does not fit the society, or culture he or she is in, there will no doubt be problems.

              Whether that's driven by Christianity, Islam, Secularism, or whatever, is not the point.
              It's what's driven by the society and culture that's key.

              Christianity was counter cultural in it's infancy, and it still is in those that are clearly contrary.

              I'm sure you display very "Christian" morals yourself, as I assume you live in a culture that is largly Christian influenced. (IE western world)

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, but Christianity does not teach morals, it commands its followers to worship and obey. A Christian society could only be described as one that would burn you at the stake for not worshiping and obeying. But, since we have now laws, Christians can only alienate and threaten them, instead.

                1. Arox profile image59
                  Aroxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  We need these people instead lol lol

                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7360473_f248.jpg

                2. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sadly, this is merely YOUR view. (along with too many others).

                  I have yet to find Jesus teachings about burning someone at the stake.

                  Maybe you can direct me to where that is.

                  In fact, direct me to where Jesus teaching is IMMORAL.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And, you can't see for yourself the obvious contradiction of that statement?



                    While I seriously doubt you'll read anything placed in front of you, here are some links to articles that already discuss the immorality of Jesus teachings...

                    http://www.bandoli.no/whyimmoral1.htm

                    http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.ca/200 … gs-of.html

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7UImBPq4WI

                    http://www.infidels.org/library/histori … jesus.html

      3. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok so the penalty was taken away? If so, I get that. So the penalty of sin is death according to the Christian understanding. Now if this is death metaphorically speaking as in death of awareness. I understand. If Christians understand it as Death literally I do not understand it. Sinners and saints have all died since Christ's death so it makes no sense that the penalty of sin was removed? At least literally it doesn't.

        1. jacharless profile image81
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This in fact is the root of many issues within the theology. The term death used in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek is a literal: death in body. It is not spiritual death, because a spirit cannot die. Hence the act of resurrection. A visible -touch me, feel me, eat with me, see me glow with light proof, so those there and ages to come would follow in those footsteps [translated:through him]. Remembering, the human spirit is Creator [Himself] breathed into them. Creator, who is spirit, cannot kill himself.

          One of the profound elements of these events is coming to understand what exactly was happening and why -the end goal. Summed up simply: Moshiach [whom some call Jesus, Joshua ben Joseph, son of Zeus] was born to show that all humans can be restored to immortality. There was a need for someone to be able to do this, so others would follow suit. The other things done, as for cross, infliction, ridicule, etc was to remove the entire problem with the ineptness of Laws, Temple, animal Sacrifice and Prophecy, since neither could redeem a human to immortality, nor remove the divide called ego//reason//good-evil, which is what sin actually is: dividing wisdom aka reasoning.

          James.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have never viewed it as spiritual death either. Nor do I see it as a physical death. It is interesting that the writers would all understand it as a physical death? That which blinds us from our true nature can be deemed as a type of death. Death of awareness of what is.

            I agree too that Jesus mission on this earth was for that reason.  It seems that revealing the eternal nature of our being-ness  has not been that successful.  Perhaps that is because many try to reveal it in others. Redeeming another to immortality cannot be done except by oneself becoming more aware of the eternal aspect of oneself. It requires removing that gap between the divide.

            1. jacharless profile image81
              jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is interesting. and probably explains many of the doctrines changes [compensations] for this "fear" by adding afterlife -good or bad- ideas and such.

              And, yes, I too agree lack of awareness is a type of death. I recall somewhere Moshiach stating they were already dead -because of this lack awareness.

              Unfortunately, you're right, this revealing of the eternal nature has not been thoroughly successful. But, that seems to be changing. The apex of Reason is already here and humans are beginning to break away from the aesthetics of the sciences and sensationalism -even as both are uniting. Both sides, I feel, have truly tried to accomplish this in many ways using outward techniques. Science tries to reverse aging, stop sicknesses even bring people back from the dead. Sensationalism tried too, but seemed to give up and "settle" for a happy resting place, realizing they were unable to reveal that nature by doctrine and ritualism.

              But, perhaps now is the "time" and that evolution -or restoration- will root itself individually. I think you know this already, but I am of the mind that this is long overdue.

              James.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Agree, long overdue.

        2. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Literally" I suppose you mean dying physically?
          In which case, you make a valid point. Christians still die, like non-Christians.

          Spiritually, it's a slightly different meaning.
          Spiritual death is better described as a "separation".
          So, in that sense, once the body and spirit are separated, the body dies.

          Equally, sin IS death (spiritually) because, it (the person's spirit) is separated from God
          who IS life, and therefore "dead" (to life in/with God).

          The death of Christ, then atones for (replaces, or stands in place of) the separation from the life of God, and the person is made righteous (in right standing with God, as if he/she had never sinned).

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Makes sense to me. Glad someone could finally explain what it meant in the Christian understanding. Thanks!

    2. profile image0
      riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It can also mean me and my father are in perfect agreement. A child cannot be his own father!!

      1. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes indeed it can. If there is no perfect agreement, the awareness of being one would not be present. It would appear that we are separate.

        A child cannot physically be his own father no.  Energy wise why not?

        I will try to illustrate what I mean by that by way of an analogy.

        Our DNA is a blueprint for the whole body. It contains information so a cell can replicate. Every cell has a DNA blueprint contained within it. Every time it splits it copies that DNA blueprint. The DNA can be likened to the father in the bible. The new cell can be likened to the son.

        Are they one or separate?

        1. profile image0
          riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Like and being one are not the same. Even clones are different.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not sure you got the point of the analogy. Will try to clarify. I wasn't pointing to the replication process so much as I was to the structure of the cell. The DNA that is within the nucleus of the cell. It is the blueprint of that cell within that cell. The cell and the DNA are not separate they are one cell.

            1. profile image0
              riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I also meant the same thing. The DNA may be an exact copy but still is different, am I right? The one that retained in the original cell may be considered as father, but ??? A cell became two which are identical in all respects. A father became two kids, then the father is gone. But we do not call that father and kids, do we?
              God extracted an exact part of himself, but after that they are separate??

              1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh I see what you are getting at. That would depend how you view it. Why would the father have gone? The father has just been divided but still exists, only in two halves now. Remember in this analogy the cell is the child the DNA is the father.  (Had to chuckle at the nature of our conversation)

                When the cells divide each takes half of the DNA blueprint and then goes about replacing the other half that it didn't get. So in every cell is a strand of the original DNA.

                So the question now would be where is the whole original DNA stored if in fact there is one?

                1. profile image0
                  riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Can we call the cell that has divided into half as father and child? Suppose I amputate my arm can the arm be my child?
                  Then not only the DNA alone that is dividing, but the cell as well. The cell is dividing just like the DNA but as the structure is more complexes we cannot see the same clear division compared to DNA.

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And there you seem to have it in a nutshell. Half father, half child all contained within the one cell. The cell (Jesus, said to be the son of God), The DNA (God). They are not separate, they are one cell.

                    Agree though the complexity of the cell shows no clear division depending on it's function in the body. The RNA will only take what it needs to from the copy of the DNA in order for the cell to do whatever it does in the body. So the cell alters in complexity depending on it's function but the DNA remains the same throughout the process.

                    Humans are complex too and organize themselves in such a way that makes them function in the world in the way that they do.

                    Have not known arms to grow back, but using the same analogy, you divide when or if you reproduce a child.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps, in the Bizarro universe, but in reality that is complete nonsense.



      Now, you're actually starting to think and make sense. Well done.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok

    4. Drive By Quipper profile image60
      Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Lean not upon your own understanding" . . . trust.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As each should I agree.

        1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
          Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Our sin (past, present and future) was nailed to the cross. How can we understand how or why? We can only be thankful.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What do you mean nailed to the cross? Are you talking figuratively or literally? What must we be thankful for?

            1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
              Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I thought you have read the Bible.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Obviously not that bit.

                1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
                  Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It is in Colossians:

                  "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete. He is the head over all rule and authority. In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us. He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him."

                  I don't see how you missed it.

                  1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                    pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    As you can see I did. I often do not remember everything that is written. Your version is different to the KJV. It says (at least the part that is relevant to your other post) ...

                    14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

                    15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

                    What that meant to me, is that man's written laws (including the doctrines of man) that were against or contrary to the teachings of Jesus were taken away and nailed to the cross. He openly demonstrated that man's law nor the churches law of the time did not need to be obeyed in your walk with God. Only Gods law applied. This resulted in his death.

                    In other words and simply put, things of the flesh should not take precedence over things of the spirit. That is where one must dwell (in spirit) while living in the rudiments of the world.

                    Where in either versions does it say sins were nailed to the cross?  Where in either version does it say past present and future sin?

          2. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Because there is nothing to understand, it is pure nonsense.

    5. cam8510 profile image92
      cam8510posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The quote of Jesus when he says "I and the Father are one,"  needs careful scrutiny.  Go back and look at  John 10:30 where this phrase appears.  This reference must be interpreted in light of John 17:11, 21, 22 and 23.  In John 10 Jesus says that he and the Father are one.  In John 17 he further explains this oneness.  He asks the Father to make his followers one, just as he and the Father are one.  So, if Jesus is claiming to be God when he says that he and the Father are one, then he must be saying that his followers also are God when they are one with Jesus and the Father. 

      I do not deny or defend the deity of Christ, but it is clear to any objective student of the Bible that these verses do not teach that doctrine.  I have a presently unpublished hub on this very subject in which I spend more time on the explanation.  I'm trying to not self promote, but at the same time let you know that I have spent some time on this subject.

      1. profile image71
        Robertr04posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, thank you, thank you.

        1. cam8510 profile image92
          cam8510posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          haha, you are welcome.

      2. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is how I understand it too. Will keep checking your hubs. Sounds like it be a very good read.

      3. Claire Evans profile image89
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thinking about what you said carefully, Jesus must have meant by "becoming one" that they all shared a common purpose to serve God. 

        1 Corinthians 1:10.

        10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

        1. cam8510 profile image92
          cam8510posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I believe that is exactly what he meant.  In John 17 Jesus mentions repeatedly the job he came to do.   It is the unity of purpose that he was speaking about.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh I misunderstood your post then. We do not understand it in the same way. That means then it will be very intriguing to read your hub.

            1. cam8510 profile image92
              cam8510posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have noticed that you always read with an open mind.  That will help here.  The interpretation that I gave is held by some Christians as well.  It is not a death blow to the doctrine of the deity of Christ because there are other places in the Bible where Christians go to make that case.  What I have done here is to simply let the context interpret the statement.  That is the way we handle communication all the time.  You are interpreting every comment I give in light of larger context of the discussion.  Jesus could not have been claiming to be God in these verses. If the meaning of his oneness with the Father is that he is God, then the meaning of Christians' oneness with him is that they also are God.  Jesus' use of the word oneness to describe his relationship with the Father, cannot be suddenly changed to mean something entirely different when he uses it in reference to his disciples.  When a word is used multiple times in one context, the same meaning must be applied each time, otherwise communication becomes impossible.

              1. pennyofheaven profile image81
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think Jesus was claiming to be God either. I and my father are one can be like the hand or the foot saying I and the body are one. But the hand is not aware of what the foot does except by the communication that occur between cells inside the body. If the hand could see the foot it would see the connection they both have to the whole..the body. Jesus therefore seemed to be pointing to his connection to the greater whole...God. Our connection to the greater whole can only be realized internally via the spirit and is not an external event that helps this realization come to the fore. Which is why I think he was always pointing to the God within and advocated the Kingdom of God is in you type thing.

                If we are taught in what context it was intended then I understand what you say. In my view we may never know what context he/she intended because this would depend highly on how the writer understood what he/she was writing. Something we might never know.

                For instance: How is a Lawyer, a father, a rugby player, a son, a Christian, a thief, and a musician connected?

                In relation to this thread the answer might be obvious. In relation to any thing else, not so obvious.

            2. cam8510 profile image92
              cam8510posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I republished the hub I mentioned.  Go to my profile and you will see it titled "What Jesus Meant By 'I and the Father are One.'"

          2. Claire Evans profile image89
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There is something quite interesting about John 17:5 which alludes to Jesus being God.

            "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

            They cannot be two separate entities because Jesus was not born before the world began.  It meant He has always existed in the form of the Holy Spirit that is Jesus and God being one.  However, John 17:11, for example were were discussing, does not mean Jesus was referring to Him being one with the Father but Him and the Father being in complete unity just as the church must share a common purpose to glorify Jesus.

        2. jacharless profile image81
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds very much like the foundation of Universal Consciousness.

          To that end, it clears up the "we are one" issue, as I recall the text also mentioning: [He], that is the Anointing, the Spirit, is in all, through all and in you all. So, all are of [Him] and [He], again the Spirit, is in all and is the all. Which matches perfectly with over 1000 textual references. Therefore, no matter the state of expression: flesh, fish, star, galaxy, it all comes back to the same. Namaste as they say: The Divine spark {spirit/anointing} in me, recognizes//acknowledges//bows the Divine Spark {spirit/anointing}  in you.

          This, then, would be a step toward "Christ Consciousness" or Adamic Pre-Inception. A stasis known by two flesh and blood men. The elevating of a flesh and bone man to god-in-totality does not make much sense then, if one or more are able to achieve such a stasis.

          James

          1. pennyofheaven profile image81
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            +1

    6. dove777 profile image61
      dove777posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      God sees all time at once. Jesus suffered the sins of the world while he dwelled among us, look at what happened to Him, the wounds, the betrayal, the abandonment, the misunderstanding of his goodness and love, the unappreciation for his love, the mocking of His pure innocence. This is the battering we all get in our lives from our sins and the sins of others. Jesus showed us how to carry our crosses.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image81
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes.

  3. pisean282311 profile image59
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    ordinary human being who lived in volatile times and like most jew youths believed god would intervene....god didnt and he was hanged but his legend continued...Romans erred to have hanged him...if they wont have had , we wont have had cult of jesus ...his virgin birth,walking in water and rising from death r  borrowed concepts from other folk tales...

  4. ro-jo-yo profile image86
    ro-jo-yoposted 4 years ago

    No, in 325 AD Constantine raised the status of Jesus to the same level as the Father. It is an introduced false doctrine. There is only one God and his name is Yehowah, and there is only one begotten Son and his name is Yehowshuwa.

    1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
      Drive By Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Playing the name game, again?

    2. Claire Evans profile image89
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That is not true.  These writings were not written after 325 AD:


      Colossians 1:15-20
      New International Version (NIV)
      The Supremacy of the Son of God

      15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

      Here it is said Jesus is the creator of all things.  Isn't the Father the creator of all things? The only way to reconcile this is to believe they are one and the same.

      I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. Isaiah 44:24

      Here are other scriptures that indicate Jesus is God.

      "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11

      ...the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14

      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1

      ..the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...John 1:14

      Jesus saith...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? John 14:9

      .. Then saith Jesus unto him... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:10

      And again, when [God] bringeth in the first begotten [Jesus] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Hebrews 1:6

      I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another... Isaiah 42:8

      And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5


      Other:

      "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, BELIEVED ON in the world, RECEIVED UP into glory."
      --1 Timothy 3:16

      "...CHRIST JESUS...being in the FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL WITH GOD: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

      --Philippians 2:5-8

      "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: and THESE THREE ARE ONE."

      --1 John 5:7

      http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm

  5. ro-jo-yo profile image86
    ro-jo-yoposted 4 years ago

    There is only one God, the Old Testament states that his name is Yehowah (replace by the word LORD in most bibles). To say that Jesus is God you have to apply the trinity doctrine which is made by man. There is no trinity.

 
working