JESUS IS NOT GOD

[onewithhim]

I would very much like to get opinions on this subject. I'll provide several verses from the King James Version of the Bible, and I ask you to give me feed-back.


Jesus' words:

1) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19)

2) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

3) "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42)

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

5) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say....Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50)

6) To his Father in prayer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

7) "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

To John in the Revelation:
8) "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God..." (Revelation 3:12)



Do these quotations show that Jesus was NOT God?

Do YOU believe that he claimed to be God?

[Capbook]

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

This speaks to the future when the Word will rule forever over the earth which He created.

It actually must read, "Thy throne is God." See post #1588. And do you forget that Jesus hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, once all enemies have been placed under his feet? (I Corinthians 15:24-28)

I did offer you a challenge, I suppose you missed to read it. It's below.
Do you agree to settle this Heb 1:8, as what majority Bible version understand it. Not just a few?

I answered that. The majority of Bible versions' take on that are wrong. You haven't said anything about my post #1588.

And even the prior verse 3 says Jesus is God.
Barnes and Adam Clark believes that Jesus is equal with Father and of the same essence with the Father.

Hebrews 1:3
The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as "he has spoken to us" (Heb 1:1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh;
(from Barnes' Notes)

Who has spoken to us in verse 1? It is God, not Jesus. In verse two it states that God has spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things. There is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father. If Jesus is God, why would he have to be appointed by anyone? He would already have the privilege. Someone's imagination has taken off into left field.

You did not address verse 3's understanding of Barnes and Clark that describes Jesus as equal of the Father.

Yes I did, on one of these threads that you participated in. I got a little tired of repeating myself on every thread. Barnes' and Clark's opinions don't jive with the truth of the matter. I see you don't want to address my post above.

You state that in verse 1 and 2 "there is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father". But in verse 3 there is.
"Adam Clarke's commentary is a valuable resource for Christians seeking a deeper understanding of the Scriptures". (quoted online.)
"Charles Spurgeon recommended Barnes' notes, calling them “Thoroughly good.”(quote online)

Is it not good to seek deeper understanding of the Scriptures?

That's what I say to you.

There is not anything in verse 3 to indicate that the Father and Son are equal. It says that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, the Father's image. An image is not the thing that it is reflecting. And Jesus sat down at his Father's right hand, his Father being called "the Majesty." It is clear that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. This doesn't take anything away from Jesus. Being the Son of God is a high honor. He is just not God, but God's reflection.

Aside from Adam Clark and Barnes exegesis of verse 3, Calvin is of the same understanding with them.
The phrase interpreted as it referred to Jesus divinity and has the same essence with the Father.
So Jesus is God, according to the interpretation of Clark, Barnes and Calvin Commentaries.

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, etc. These things are said of Christ partly as to his divine essence, and partly as a partaker of our flesh. When he is called the brightness of his glory and the impress of his substance, his divinity is referred to; the other things appertain in a measure to his human nature. The whole, however, is stated in order to set forth the dignity of Christ.

But it is for the same reason that the Son is said to be "the brightness of his glory", and "the impress of his substance:" they are words borrowed from nature. For nothing can be said of things so great and so profound, but by similitudes taken from created things. There is therefore no need refinedly to discuss the question how the Son, who has the same essence with the Father, is a brightness emanating from his light.
(from Calvin's Commentaries, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2005-2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

[onewithhim]

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

This speaks to the future when the Word will rule forever over the earth which He created.

It actually must read, "Thy throne is God." See post #1588. And do you forget that Jesus hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, once all enemies have been placed under his feet? (I Corinthians 15:24-28)

I did offer you a challenge, I suppose you missed to read it. It's below.
Do you agree to settle this Heb 1:8, as what majority Bible version understand it. Not just a few?

I answered that. The majority of Bible versions' take on that are wrong. You haven't said anything about my post #1588.

And even the prior verse 3 says Jesus is God.
Barnes and Adam Clark believes that Jesus is equal with Father and of the same essence with the Father.

Hebrews 1:3
The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as "he has spoken to us" (Heb 1:1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh;
(from Barnes' Notes)

Who has spoken to us in verse 1? It is God, not Jesus. In verse two it states that God has spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things. There is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father. If Jesus is God, why would he have to be appointed by anyone? He would already have the privilege. Someone's imagination has taken off into left field.

You did not address verse 3's understanding of Barnes and Clark that describes Jesus as equal of the Father.

Yes I did, on one of these threads that you participated in. I got a little tired of repeating myself on every thread. Barnes' and Clark's opinions don't jive with the truth of the matter. I see you don't want to address my post above.

You state that in verse 1 and 2 "there is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father". But in verse 3 there is.
"Adam Clarke's commentary is a valuable resource for Christians seeking a deeper understanding of the Scriptures". (quoted online.)
"Charles Spurgeon recommended Barnes' notes, calling them “Thoroughly good.”(quote online)

Is it not good to seek deeper understanding of the Scriptures?

That's what I say to you.

There is not anything in verse 3 to indicate that the Father and Son are equal. It says that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, the Father's image. An image is not the thing that it is reflecting. And Jesus sat down at his Father's right hand, his Father being called "the Majesty." It is clear that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. This doesn't take anything away from Jesus. Being the Son of God is a high honor. He is just not God, but God's reflection.

.

[Capbook]

It actually must read, "Thy throne is God." See post #1588. And do you forget that Jesus hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, once all enemies have been placed under his feet? (I Corinthians 15:24-28)

I did offer you a challenge, I suppose you missed to read it. It's below.
Do you agree to settle this Heb 1:8, as what majority Bible version understand it. Not just a few?

I answered that. The majority of Bible versions' take on that are wrong. You haven't said anything about my post #1588.

And even the prior verse 3 says Jesus is God.
Barnes and Adam Clark believes that Jesus is equal with Father and of the same essence with the Father.

Hebrews 1:3
The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as "he has spoken to us" (Heb 1:1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh;
(from Barnes' Notes)

Who has spoken to us in verse 1? It is God, not Jesus. In verse two it states that God has spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things. There is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father. If Jesus is God, why would he have to be appointed by anyone? He would already have the privilege. Someone's imagination has taken off into left field.

You did not address verse 3's understanding of Barnes and Clark that describes Jesus as equal of the Father.

Yes I did, on one of these threads that you participated in. I got a little tired of repeating myself on every thread. Barnes' and Clark's opinions don't jive with the truth of the matter. I see you don't want to address my post above.

You state that in verse 1 and 2 "there is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father". But in verse 3 there is.
"Adam Clarke's commentary is a valuable resource for Christians seeking a deeper understanding of the Scriptures". (quoted online.)
"Charles Spurgeon recommended Barnes' notes, calling them “Thoroughly good.”(quote online)

Is it not good to seek deeper understanding of the Scriptures?

That's what I say to you.

There is not anything in verse 3 to indicate that the Father and Son are equal. It says that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, the Father's image. An image is not the thing that it is reflecting. And Jesus sat down at his Father's right hand, his Father being called "the Majesty." It is clear that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. This doesn't take anything away from Jesus. Being the Son of God is a high honor. He is just not God, but God's reflection.

.

Jesus is God, I wonder how would you interpret this again.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus is God, I wonder how would you interpret this again.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

Jesus is God over all creation; meaning his FATHER Jehovah (YHWH) has given Jesus authority over all created things. Jesus has obviously not been given authority over the uncreated ALMIGHTY God the Father.

[Capbook]

Jesus is God, I wonder how would you interpret this again.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

Jesus is God over all creation; meaning his FATHER Jehovah (YHWH) has given Jesus authority over all created things. Jesus has obviously not been given authority over the uncreated ALMIGHTY God the Father.

Barnes understand the phrase in appellation that belongs only to the true God.

[Who is over all] This is an appellation that belongs only to the true God. It implies supreme divinity; and is full proof that the Messiah is divine: Much effort has been made to show that this is not the true rendering, but without success. There are no various readings in the Greek manuscripts of any consequence; and the connection here evidently requires us to understand this of a nature that is not "according to the flesh," i.e., as the apostle here shows, of the divine nature.
(from Barnes' Notes)

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus is God, I wonder how would you interpret this again.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

Jesus is God over all creation; meaning his FATHER Jehovah (YHWH) has given Jesus authority over all created things. Jesus has obviously not been given authority over the uncreated ALMIGHTY God the Father.

Barnes understand the phrase in appellation that belongs only to the true God.

Barnes was wrong. Jesus identified the Father as the The Only True.

[Capbook]

Jesus is God, I wonder how would you interpret this again.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

Jesus is God over all creation; meaning his FATHER Jehovah (YHWH) has given Jesus authority over all created things. Jesus has obviously not been given authority over the uncreated ALMIGHTY God the Father.

Barnes understand the phrase in appellation that belongs only to the true God.

Barnes was wrong. Jesus identified the Father as the The Only True.

I prefer Barnes understanding as," Charles Spurgeon recommended Barnes' notes, calling them “Thoroughly good.” (quoted online)

[JehovahsWitness]

I prefer Barnes understanding ...

I prefer God's understanding.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16

All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight

[onewithhim]

I did offer you a challenge, I suppose you missed to read it. It's below.
Do you agree to settle this Heb 1:8, as what majority Bible version understand it. Not just a few?

I answered that. The majority of Bible versions' take on that are wrong. You haven't said anything about my post #1588.

And even the prior verse 3 says Jesus is God.
Barnes and Adam Clark believes that Jesus is equal with Father and of the same essence with the Father.

Hebrews 1:3
The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as "he has spoken to us" (Heb 1:1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh;
(from Barnes' Notes)

Who has spoken to us in verse 1? It is God, not Jesus. In verse two it states that God has spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things. There is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father. If Jesus is God, why would he have to be appointed by anyone? He would already have the privilege. Someone's imagination has taken off into left field.

You did not address verse 3's understanding of Barnes and Clark that describes Jesus as equal of the Father.

Yes I did, on one of these threads that you participated in. I got a little tired of repeating myself on every thread. Barnes' and Clark's opinions don't jive with the truth of the matter. I see you don't want to address my post above.

You state that in verse 1 and 2 "there is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father". But in verse 3 there is.
"Adam Clarke's commentary is a valuable resource for Christians seeking a deeper understanding of the Scriptures". (quoted online.)
"Charles Spurgeon recommended Barnes' notes, calling them “Thoroughly good.”(quote online)

Is it not good to seek deeper understanding of the Scriptures?

That's what I say to you.

There is not anything in verse 3 to indicate that the Father and Son are equal. It says that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, the Father's image. An image is not the thing that it is reflecting. And Jesus sat down at his Father's right hand, his Father being called "the Majesty." It is clear that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. This doesn't take anything away from Jesus. Being the Son of God is a high honor. He is just not God, but God's reflection.

.

Jesus is God, I wonder how would you interpret this again.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

Nope. Read the OP again. Can you answer those points? The KJV says : "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." (Romans 9:5, KJV) Whoever looks at that and thinks that it means that Christ is God already believes in the idea that Jesus is God. Someone else could get another meaning from it, that God blessed Christ who is "over all." God gave Christ the position of being over all. That is true, but he is not God.

Young's Literal Translation puts it this way---not saying that Christ is God, as well. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen." Can it not mean, again, that God blessed the Christ? Not that Christ is God.

The NASB: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever."

This verse does not mean that Jesus is God.

The margin in the NIV, which you quoted, says that these words can be entered instead of "Christ who is God": Christ who is over all. They admitted that their translation could be in error, and it doesn't say that Christ is God. You don't like reading margins, do you?

[Capbook]

I answered that. The majority of Bible versions' take on that are wrong. You haven't said anything about my post #1588.

And even the prior verse 3 says Jesus is God.
Barnes and Adam Clark believes that Jesus is equal with Father and of the same essence with the Father.

Hebrews 1:3
The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as "he has spoken to us" (Heb 1:1), and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God-the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him "as he actually is" - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh;
(from Barnes' Notes)

Who has spoken to us in verse 1? It is God, not Jesus. In verse two it states that God has spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things. There is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father. If Jesus is God, why would he have to be appointed by anyone? He would already have the privilege. Someone's imagination has taken off into left field.

You did not address verse 3's understanding of Barnes and Clark that describes Jesus as equal of the Father.

Yes I did, on one of these threads that you participated in. I got a little tired of repeating myself on every thread. Barnes' and Clark's opinions don't jive with the truth of the matter. I see you don't want to address my post above.

You state that in verse 1 and 2 "there is nothing to tell us that Jesus is the equal of the Father". But in verse 3 there is.
"Adam Clarke's commentary is a valuable resource for Christians seeking a deeper understanding of the Scriptures". (quoted online.)
"Charles Spurgeon recommended Barnes' notes, calling them “Thoroughly good.”(quote online)

Is it not good to seek deeper understanding of the Scriptures?

That's what I say to you.

There is not anything in verse 3 to indicate that the Father and Son are equal. It says that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, the Father's image. An image is not the thing that it is reflecting. And Jesus sat down at his Father's right hand, his Father being called "the Majesty." It is clear that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. This doesn't take anything away from Jesus. Being the Son of God is a high honor. He is just not God, but God's reflection.

.

Jesus is God, I wonder how would you interpret this again.
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

Nope. Read the OP again. Can you answer those points? The KJV says : "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." (Romans 9:5, KJV) Whoever looks at that and thinks that it means that Christ is God already believes in the idea that Jesus is God. Someone else could get another meaning from it, that God blessed Christ who is "over all." God gave Christ the position of being over all. That is true, but he is not God.

Young's Literal Translation puts it this way---not saying that Christ is God, as well. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen." Can it not mean, again, that God blessed the Christ? Not that Christ is God.

The NASB: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever."

This verse does not mean that Jesus is God.

The margin in the NIV, which you quoted, says that these words can be entered instead of "Christ who is God": Christ who is over all. They admitted that their translation could be in error, and it doesn't say that Christ is God. You don't like reading margins, do you?

Adam Clark understand that Jesus the Messiah is God, and even more clear in God's Word Translation.
Romans 9:5
[And of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came] These ancestors were the more renowned, as being the progenitors of the human nature of the MESSIAH. Christ, the Messiah,
kata sarka, according to the flesh, sprang from them. But this Messiah was more than man, he is God over all; the very Being who gave them being, though he appeared to receive a being from them.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)

Rom 9:5
5 The Messiah is descended from their ancestors according to his human nature. The Messiah is God over everything, forever blessed. Amen.
(from GOD'S WORD Copyright © 1995 by God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. All rights reserved.)