Immanuel. Jesus was God.
- Thread starter Jim Jones
- Start date
Small, but important tweak: "Jesus is God"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 38
Not sure of the doctrine that was meant to promote but, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
That's not ambiguous like, Jesus was God.
Jesus was God is very weak.
Jesus always was God, is God and always will be God.
There is just too much scripture that says so in no uncertain terms.
That's not ambiguous like, Jesus was God.
Jesus was God is very weak.
Jesus always was God, is God and always will be God.
There is just too much scripture that says so in no uncertain terms.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2017
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
FSSL said:
Just for the sake of discussion, I would point out that to say "Jesus was God" can be distinguished, not in a past tense perspective, but, in the perspective that Jesus the Christ has a beginning point in time, meaning, we look at the significance of the Body prepared for Him, and His taking on the flesh in the Incarnation.
In other words, we can place a beginning upon Jesus the Christ in terms of the flesh, whereas the Son of God is Eternal, the Creator.
The Messiah was prophesied to come, and I view it as important to acknowledge there was a Day in which that occurred. Why this would be important may not stand out immediately, but, if we consider it, we can see that such a consideration has its place. For example, when God manifested in physical form in Genesis 18, was this the Body in which the Son took up residence in Mary? I personally do not take the position it was. There seems to be a creation of that Body in Mary for that specific intent (His Redemptive Work).
God bless.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
S.T.Ranger said:
"Jesus was God" and "Jesus was a man" are not the same claim, though, are they?
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2017
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Ransom said:
No, not if we don't clarify Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, taking on the form of man. We can say "Jesus was a man," for He was, but, we cannot say the Son of God was a man, because it was not until He took on the form of man that the Body created by God in the womb of Mary came into existence. That is my view, anyway. I do not look at the flesh He died in as the same flesh He took on when He visited Abraham in Genesis 18, or, speculatively, when He walked with Adam in the Garden (because I think it just as likely He may have manifested in flesh then to interact with Adam, but that is not something I would be dogmatic about.
The Incarnation is, I believe, unique to all instances of God appearing unto man in human form. The Writer of Hebrews affirms this, in my view:
Hebrews 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
God bless.