Is Jesus God? IMO no. He is the manifestation of God though..

"What you need to see is the original Greek to the scriptures we read today. This will highlight the fact that Jesus did not mean that he is God. Deepen your research and you will find out for yourself."

​

Ah, we have a Jehovah's Witness on DP! Boy, we could have a lot of fun, but I don't want to move the conversation away from the original talk.

BTW, when you can show me where Jesus is the archangel Michael, then we'll have something to discuss, for that I am sure.

 

Here's the part about Jesus and him as the Archangel Micheal:

Who Is Michael the Archangel?

THE spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In the book of Daniel, Michael is battling wicked angels; in the letter of Jude, he is disputing with Satan; and in Revelation, he is waging war with the Devil and his demons. By defending Jehovah’s rulership and fighting God’s enemies, Michael lives up to the meaning of his name—“Who Is Like God?” But who is Michael?

At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon. (Genesis 49:1, 2; Matthew 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. Let us consider Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion.

Archangel. God’s Word refers to Michael “the archangel.” (Jude 9) This term means “chief angel.” Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term “archangel” occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural. Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.

Army Leader. The Bible states that “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon . . . and its angels.” (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.

The 2nd part:

MICHAEL

(Mi′cha·el) [Who Is Like God?].

1. The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called “archangel.” (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as “one of the foremost princes”; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by “the prince of the royal realm of Persia.” Michael was called “the prince of [Daniel’s] people,” “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that “Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body.”—Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.”

 

An army has many generals.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the litmus test for believers. It is an invented word which definition is God Himself. It came about because of all the confusion and silly doctrines going around about there being three gods and Jesus not being God, etc.

Rejecting the definition of the Trinity is rejecting God himself. A lot of very smart people sat down and studied the Bible and came up with a word to help understand God: Trinity. They're smart because they accepted what the Bible said despite not really being able to comprehend it.

How can Jesus be 100% man and 100% God? Nobody knows but that's what the Bible says.

A lot of silly people try to cram God into their limited understanding and out pops Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, etc.

They try to turn God from something we can't understand and make him into a human.

If your god does not fit the definition of Trinity then your god is not the god of the Bible.

The Trinity is also found in the Old Testament. Do a concordance search for "the angel of the Lord." In the OT three seperate and disctinct entities all claim to be God. IIRC it can also be discovered by searching for "I AM"

 

You have made conflicting statements there. Would you like to rephrase?

 

Well, that is odd because Jesus clearly allowed people to worship Him while you only need to look at Revelation 22:8 to read the angel's reply to when John attempted to bow down and worship the messenger who came to him:

"Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

Clearly, if Jesus were but an angel then He was wrong to allow people to worship Him. No wonder the Jews of that time were angry with His I AM statements.

What say ye?

 

MattKNC,

You are not the first one of those who believe Jesus=God and can give no answer to those two questions.

I don't want you to believe in what I believe.
The branches of the tree have different length and size and position.
Yet they are set right.
Belive that Jesus is God freely. I think you won't lose anything in believing that.


Jesus Christ is the man of the Abundant Power, Jesus Christ is the man of the Abundant Faith, Jesus Christ is the man of the Abundant Love.

 

What conflicting statements?

You can also look up "Ancient of Days."

It's amazing how many names Jesus had even before he became a human. That's what scholar's realized when they came up with the term "Trinity." Both Jesus and God are credited with creating everything. How can that be if they aren't one and the same?

The problem is that if Jesus was not God, you aren't saved by him. You cannot be saved by men. The false doctrine that Jesus was just a man is used to try to justify the equally false doctrine that we can be perfect of ourselves just like Christ was perfect.

 

Nice try, Free Stuff. You haven't answered my questions so I won't answer yours, as easy as they are to answer. Please go back and take a look at the gospel of John, the I AM statements, and then we'll discuss how Jesus who was veiled in flesh could be tempted and why He communicated with God.

 

If Jesus was 100% man then he could be tempted just like every other human. If Jesus was 100% God then he could conquer death for us. God cannot be killed. Men cannot raise themselves from the dead.

The facts simply point to, whether you can understand it or not, that God was both fully human and fully God. It's one thing to reject something because the facts don't fit. It's quite another to reject something because you don't understand the facts.

 

The statement you made

and

I don't think you have thought this through correctly. I never try to make God into a human. You are the one saying so.

As far as the "angel of the lord" goes. That was not in the original writing's of John's gospel. That was added later to try to give meaning.

Here's some info on that:

Observe the dash in the above quotation of John 5:2-9. Some Bibles include an extra passage that is numbered John 5:4. That addition says something like: “For an angel of the Lord would come down into the pool from season to season and disturb the water; the first one then to step in after the disturbance of the water would become sound in health from whatever disease it was by which he was afflicted.”

However, a number of modern Bibles, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, omit this passage. Why? Because in all probability it was not in John’s Gospel. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible observes that the “best witnesses” omit this passage. The “best witnesses” meant are ancient Greek manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vatican 1209 (both of the 4th century C.E.), and early versions in Syriac and Latin. After mentioning ‘the absence of verse 4 from the best manuscript texts,’ The Expositor’s Bible Commentary adds: “It is generally regarded as a gloss that was introduced to explain the intermittent agitation of the water, which the populace considered to be a potential source of healing.”

So the Bible does not really say that an angel from God performed miracles at the pool of Bethzatha. Well, did miraculous healings occur when the water was disturbed? No one today can say for sure. Maybe a tradition somehow developed that ill or crippled persons had been healed there. Once stories of supposed healings spread, desperate persons hoping to be cured may have begun congregating there. We know that this has occurred at various locations in our time, even when there is no documented proof of divine healings.

We should not, though, be skeptical about the healing that the Son of God performed at the pool of Bethzatha. Why, without even entering the water, the man was instantly cured by the Great Physician. His documented ability to do this should give us reason to look forward to the healings that he will perform during the approaching Millennium. He will heal and help faithful humans back to perfection.—Revelation 21:4, 5; 22:1, 2.

Col

 

I think the point you are missing here is that Jesus uses the power of God to do God's will and not his own. This is how he can conquer death. Without God's Holy Spirit, Jesus has no power to do anything. This is also what the Bible teaches.

Col

 

Without God's love we are dead.
God's love for us gives us life.



" For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16)."

 

Why ask a question you apparently feel you know the answer too?

 

I said "the angel of the Lord" not "angle of the Lord" and it is found in the Old Testament along with "I AM" which demonstrates the Trinity even in the OT.

Jesus is both human and God so talking about Jesus in a human sense is 100% accurate and talking about him in the God sense is also 100% accurate. There is no contradiction in making Jesus human but God not human. If Jesus was not God then why couldn't we just all die for ourselves?

God became human through Christ but that didn't make him any less God.

 

John 1:1 says - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All these things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines ni the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Later, in verse 14 - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

Jesus is the Word. This is very clear scripturally and the doctrine that Jesus was God is one of the central doctrines of Christianity.

 

i saw some program saying jesus had a child... so some where on this earth lies the path to him or something... its all weird to me but was on some discovery channel i think??

 

Don't believe everything you watch. That's neither Biblically or historically accurate. (and off topic)

 

Anyone who claims Jesus was married, had kids, whatever is making stuff up. It's certainly not Biblical. I think Jesus would have to be a pretty big jerk to know he's going to be dead at about 30 years old but still get married and have a kid.

LPSpider:

People claim those verses are "added in" but the problem is that those verses are a summary of what the rest of the Bible says.

 

To be quite honest, I've never heard that before.

 

If you talk to people enough about those verses you will. It's one of the many reasons I see the Bible as a tossed salad. People try to pick out things here and there ("that verse is mistranslated" etc) to make it something else but it doesn't work.