Jesus denied being God

[TomL]

Comparing the OT With the NT​

Another similar kind of enigma for some comes from comparing OT Scriptures to New Testament (NT) Scriptures. Closely compare the following sets of Scriptures to learn more about the true, hidden identity of Jesus of Nazareth:

The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert a highway for our God (Isa. 40:3).

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’” (Mt. 3:1-3).

According to Matthew, the prophet Isaiah wrote about John the Baptist, who was to prepare the way for the Lord, or as Isaiah wrote the LORD (YHWH). Yet, it was John who prepared the way for Jesus:

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt. 3:11).

John prepared the way for Jesus, according to Matthew, but Isaiah says John, who he called the voice, prepared the way for YHWH!

Lord of lords​

There is more for you to consider. In Dt. 10:17, we read:

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes (Dt. 10:17).

Note: according to the OT Scripture, YHWH is not only God, but also Lord of lords. Yet in the NT we clearly read that Jesus is Lord of lords:

They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers (Rev. 17:14).

Furthermore, the NT reveals that the King of kings and Lord of lords is God:

which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15).

Who then is the Lord of lords? The OT says YHWH is Lord of lords, but the NT claims the same for Jesus! Can there be two who are Lord of lords?

Was YHWH ever pierced?​

Next, let’s consider who was pierced. In the NT, we read the following about Jesus:

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced” (John 19:34-37).

The only Scripture that John could have been referring to when he wrote, “... as another scripture says, ‘They will look on the one they have pierced’ ” is the following one:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son (Zech 12:10).

YHWH spoke those words through the prophet Zechariah, as is apparent if we would read from Zech. 12:1 down through verse 10. Note: YHWH is speaking and uses the word me in conjunction to being the one that gets pierced. Yet the Apostle John referred to the same Scripture (Zech 12:10) and says that it was fulfilled when Jesus was pierced on the cross by the Roman soldier’s spear! Who was pierced, YHWH or Jesus? Since Jesus is YHWH this puzzle is solved, along with John 5:37.

A Stone That Causes Men To Stumble​

Another similar problem for some arises when we compare Isa. 8:13,14 to something that the Apostle Peter wrote! The following is the passage from Isaiah:

The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread, and he will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare (8:13,14).

Question: Did Isaiah the prophet say that YHWH will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall? Clearly he did. Why then do we read the following about Jesus?

Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,” and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for (1 Pet. 2:7,8).

Is YHWH or Jesus a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall? Or why did the Apostle Peter refer to a Scripture that was written about YHWH Almighty and make it apply to Jesus? Are all these contradictions or is Jesus YHWH? d.corner

Conclusion:
Luke attributes Is 40:3 to the ministry of John the Baptist. The context of Luke 3 makes this plainly evident. John the Baptist acknowledges his fulfillment of the Is 40:3, in that, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" is his voice. John 1:23 makes this evident: " He (John the Baptist) said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”"

We know who the messenger/preparer of the Lord/LORD is. But who is the Lord/LORD spoken of?

Given the fact that Luke is a synoptic narrative account of the Son of God, we should be inclined to assume the obvious; that the incarnate Son is the Lord/LORD. John the Baptist supports this notion, because in the same context that he attributes 40:3 to himself, he also attributes the identity of that Lord to the person of the incarnate Son of God. This is evident in Luke 3:16, John 1:26-27, 1:30, Matt 3:11, Mrk 1:7. Therefore all four gospel authors attribute the name YHWH to the incarnate Son of God.

hope this helps !!!

Notice in Isaiah 40

Isaiah 40:3–5 (UASV) — 3 A voice of one calling out, In the wilderness, “prepare the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. 5 And the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken.”

The glory of Jehovah will be seen and a highway made for our God

Mark in appealing to Isaiah

Mark 1:1–3 (UASV) — 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God]. 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet; “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, 3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’ ”

Identifies Jesus as our God and the glory of Jehovah

 

[Wilber]

It might make sense to you. But there's no teaching on that anywhere in the Bible.

It makes sense to a whole lot of Christians. Also, there is indeed a boat load of evidence found in the Bible confirming the Trinty.

The New Testament contains abundant indications of the deity of Jesus. Philippians 2:5–11 is a powerful passage. In verse 6, Paul says of Jesus that “being in very nature God, [he] did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” The word translated “in very nature,” or “in the form of,” is the Greek morphē. It is the word that refers to the full set of characteristics which make something that which it is, as contrasted with the word schēma, which is the external appearance, or facade, which does not necessarily indicate the true nature of the thing.

Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions

 

[civic]

Notice in Isaiah 40

Isaiah 40:3–5 (UASV) — 3 A voice of one calling out, In the wilderness, “prepare the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. 5 And the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken.”

The glory of Jehovah will be seen and a highway made for our God

Mark in appealing to Isaiah

Mark 1:1–3 (UASV) — 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God]. 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet; “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, 3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’ ”

Identifies Jesus as our God and the glory of Jehovah

Amen

 

[Peterlag]

It makes sense to a whole lot of Christians. Also, there is indeed a boat load of evidence found in the Bible confirming the Trinty.

The New Testament contains abundant indications of the deity of Jesus. Philippians 2:5–11 is a powerful passage. In verse 6, Paul says of Jesus that “being in very nature God, [he] did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” The word translated “in very nature,” or “in the form of,” is the Greek morphē. It is the word that refers to the full set of characteristics which make something that which it is, as contrasted with the word schēma, which is the external appearance, or facade, which does not necessarily indicate the true nature of the thing.

Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.f

Other uses of morphē in the Bible support the position that morphē refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphē)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it shows that the people of the time used the word morphē to refer to a person’s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance.

 

[TomL]

Amen

Matthew and Luke do as well

Matthew 3:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Luke 3:4–6 (KJV 1900) — 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; 6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

both appealing to Isaiah 40



Isaiah 40:3–5 (UASV) — 3 A voice of one calling out, In the wilderness, “prepare the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. 5 And the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken.”

 

[TomL]

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.f

Other uses of morphē in the Bible support the position that morphē refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphē)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it shows that the people of the time used the word morphē to refer to a person’s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance.

What has that to do with the invisible God?



μορφή -ῆς, ἡ; (morphē), n. form. Hebrew equivalent: תְּמוּנָה (1).
Noun Usage
1. form (essence)† — the expression of something (such as a visual, spatial, or preternatural expression) that reflects or manifests fully and truly (and permanently) the essence of what something is. Related Topics: Nature; Form.
Php 2:6 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
Php 2:7 ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου
2. form (manifestation)† — a particular mode in which something is existing. Related Topic: Form.
Mk 16:12 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις
Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Lexham Research Lexicons; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

 

[Peterlag]

So then deal with Phil 2:5

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

And stop running from it

Does an impersonal thing have a mind?

Does it have thoughts?

Demonstrate humility?

I can't converse with you if you are going to continue to attack me personally. I'm not running from anything. I post a lot to you and it's not my fault that you do not understand.

 

[TomL]

I can't converse with you if you are going to continue to attack me personally. I'm not running from anything. I post a lot to you and it's not my fault that you do not understand.

You still have not address this

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Does an impersonal thing have a mind?

Does it have thoughts?

Can it example humility?

 

[Wilber]

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.f

Other uses of morphē in the Bible support the position that morphē refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphē)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it shows that the people of the time used the word morphē to refer to a person’s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance.

And yet the Trinity makes sense to a whole lot of Christians. Also, there is indeed a boat load of evidence found in the Bible confirming the Trinty.

 

[TomL]

And yet the Trinity makes sense to a whole lot of Christians. Also, there is indeed a boat load of evidence found in the Bible confirming the Trinty.

Yes there is and the Unitarians seem to offer only bald denial and neglect of context

 

[MTMattie]

Wake up

Your theology denies Christ's pre-existence

Phil 2:5FF discusses the mind of Christ previous to becoming flesh

It talks about him having a mind and considering and making himself of no reputation

These are not things that can be associated an impersonal thing

Apparently you are not capable of dealing with the passage

Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please.

I lost something in translation here.

Almost 1900 posts... and I dont know where or what this impersonal things is.

Can you or someone give me a thread number or a nutshell explanantion of what you are debating.

 

[TomL]

Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please.

I lost something in translation here.

Almost 1900 posts... and I dont know where or what this impersonal things is.

Can you or someone give me a thread number or a nutshell explanantion of what you are debating.

Unitarians claim the word was an impersonal thing

 

[MTMattie]

Unitarians claim the word was an impersonal thing

Thank you.

Since I believe the Word as portrayed in John 1.... that the Word became flesh... I sure cannot see how that would be impersonal.

 

[Peterlag]

And yet the Trinity makes sense to a whole lot of Christians. Also, there is indeed a boat load of evidence found in the Bible confirming the Trinty.

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not.

 

[Peterlag]

You still have not address this

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Does an impersonal thing have a mind?

Does it have thoughts?

Can it example humility?

I did address it. Many times. You reject what I say and then say I did not answer you. The only thing you will accept is me agreeing with you and I don't.

 

[TomL]

I did address it. Many times. You reject what I say and then say I did not answer you. The only thing you will accept is me agreeing with you and I don't.

That is a falsehood

You have never shown how Phil 2:5ff is consistent with the Word being an impersonal thing

 

[Peterlag]

That is a falsehood

You have never shown how Phil 2:5ff is consistent with the Word being an impersonal thing

I have. You will not accept anything from me on that verse unless I agree with you and I don't. And again the verse does not talk about an impersonal thing. You keep saying it. But it's not in the verse.

 

[Runningman]

And yet the Trinity makes sense to a whole lot of Christians. Also, there is indeed a boat load of evidence found in the Bible confirming the Trinty.

To be fair, the Trinity doesn’t make sense to a lot of Trinitarians, especially the really smart, well-read, and doctorate theologians. It doesn’t make sense to me and I’ve studied it a lot. It’s pretty common to just conclude the Trinity in a mystery and a great number of them are on record saying it is such. It’s been a common thought-terminating cliche to call the Trinity a great mystery for hundreds of years now.

 

[Runningman]

Phillipians 2:5 is clearly not proverbs

Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV 1900) — 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

I see you guys are totally desparate

Did the Word not become flesh?

Was He not in the form of God before taking the form of a servant

How can an impersonal thing have a mind, think, show humility

Proverbs 8 is Proverbs. I made several different posts about several different topics in reply to you. Philippians 2:5-8 isn’t about an impersonal being. Whoever said otherwise?

The point of showing you Proverbs 8 was to show you what personification is.

Meyer's NT Commentary on the Word disagrees with you:

“The investigation of the Logos idea can only lead to a true result when pursued by the path of history. But here, above all, history points us to the O. T.,[64] and most directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking. The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hidden, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy. ”

 

[Runningman]

I'm so glad you asked. This can explain it better than I ever could.

Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions

In Making Sense of the Trinity, Millard J. Erickson demonstrates the biblical foundation, logic, and importance of the Trinity as he answers these three questions: - Is the doctrine of the Trinity biblical? - Does the doctrine of the Trinity make sense? - Does the doctrine of the Trinity make any difference?

Ok. Thank you, but I am not sure what he is defining as “Biblical.” There are a lot of people that attach their beliefs to the Bible, cherry pick a one-liner out of context, and say it’s Biblical.

The idea of the bread in the Lord’s supper transforming into flesh is Biblical. A lot of things can be parsed or deduced or inferred from the Bible. There’s a way to argue Paul was in the garden of Eden. There’s a way to infer Pater is Satan incarnate. It’s Biblical. The word must be rightly divided, it must be righty handled, and we can go too far with ideas and then they become unbiblical.

However, not all that is derived from the Bible is what they were trying to suggest.

So you seem to be quoting from a source from Millard J. Erickson. Do you have a link please?