Where is commanded that I must believe Jesus is God?

[rainerann]

I think it is severe to say he is god or he isn’t god the way people will do in a thread like this because both stance’s are based on translation to the English word and definition of ‘god’.

If we look at the New Testament references to god, which would often be translated from the Greek word for creator like it is in John 3:2. We know that this is often referring to the Hebrew word Elohim, which is plural in a way that is still unable to be translated into Greek as a separate plural “gods” so they didn’t translate Elohim into gods in Greek in order to maintain the plurality of this word. It lost this plural connection in the process of translation and there has never been a word in another language that has corrected this in order to more accurately translate the text.

John 3:2 is very appropriate in response to questions like this as a result.

“Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.”

We know that there are some things beyond our understanding regarding who Christ is and how all things fit together so that no one knows the son but the father and vice verse as Christ says. I don’t see why this isn’t enough.

Again, the the singular noun God is translated from the Greek word meaning creator which drops the plurality of Elohim, which is the word used when referring to the creator in the book of Genesis.

In addition to this, I do not think our understanding of the ancient text is complete and many things are lost to us from the time of the destruction of Israel and subsequent time of captivity.

If all these things were perfected so that language could flow seamlessly from one to another, we might not end up in discussions like this, but it doesn’t.

So I think we all have to accept that we all fill in the holes that are created by this with whatever we want from time to time no matter how orthodox we think we are.

If we were really to become truly orthodox, we would stop trying to fill these holes ourselves and simply say I don’t know when it is appropriate or it is not time for us to have understanding regarding the questions that you are asking.

Questions regarding the son of god would seem to be like one of those situations where there is only so much I can say. I know Jesus is the son of god. I know that the Holy Spirit lives in me so that I have experienced transforming according to the gifts of the spirit. I honestly think the study of Quantaum physics is going to be able to answer these questions better than I can one day. In other words, I think math is a study of spiritual things that is neglected and replaced too often with man’s philosophy.

That is the long answer to the question. The short answer would be no, the Bible does not command anyone to believe that Jesus is god.

That doesn’t mean that people don’t try to conclude that he is god based on the scriptures in order to have an understanding of who Jesus is, but that is all it is—an attempt to understand the son of god in a more complete form. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this, but These verses are not a command to believe in the interpretation that has been formed of them.

I also consider Todd a Christian according to his own statement of faith in accordance with scripture. People who call other people wolves should take a hard look in the mirror from time to time. It would be good for them.

 

[Thunderian]

I also consider Todd a Christian according to his own statement of faith in accordance with scripture. People who call other people wolves should take a hard look in the mirror from time to time. It would be good for them.

I do not consider Todd a Christian because of John 8.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.​

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.​

 

[rainerann]

I do not consider Todd a Christian because of John 8.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.​

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.​

Right, but you are conveying that you believe that "he" is translated into the singular noun "God." However, "he" is referring to the Hebrew Elohim, which is translated into English best according to John 1.

A dictionary should look like this.

Elohim---plural form of El. Definition: In the beginning the word was with God and the word was God and the word became flesh.

This is the best English definition of Elohim available.

Todd agrees that Christ is the word made flesh according to John 1, so your accusation that he is not a Christian is based on your presumption that you are accurately applying these texts from the perspective of a different language as your primary and native language.

I would be more inclined to agree that presumption on matters on like this is the criteria for determining whether or not someone was a Christian or not. It would seem that being conformed in the image of Christ is to be removed of presumption. We are talking about the Son of God who is the word from the beginning and the one who is resurrected and sitting at the right hand of the father; and you are acting like you teach a course or write a book to explain everything about how this relationship coexists in unity. I would call that presumption. You may draw your own conclusions on what else I think at this point I am sure.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I do not consider Todd a Christian because of John 8.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.​

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.​

Perhaps Daniel's 70th week will be as much about grace as it is about judgement?

 

[rainerann]

In English, the description given of Elohim in John 1 is not appropriately translated as god or messiah. If you use god, the definition forces a different definition for the unity between Christ and the creator.

It sandwiches them and creates comparison with other gods like Zeus or Baal. So it is really not accurate to call Jesus god. It is really not accurate to call the creator god either, but this is what is done at the present time.

Or you could call Jesus the messiah to maintain the plural aspect of Elohim. This would not mean that you are denying Christ and not a Christian because scripture made this discussion much simpler in Romans 10:9. The unity of Christ and the creator exist in a plurality that would appropriately cause Jesus to be called the messiah rather than God, which is the way scripture refers to him as a result of this.

I don’t see how this warrants vivacious comments.

King Saul was guilty of presumption. I can’t help but feel that when we are discussing the unity of Christ and the creator that causes some to also refer to Jesus as god, there is the same presumption.

We are waiting for Christ’s return May we not become impatient in our pursuit of understanding things that we are presently waiting to understand.

“For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” 1 Samuel 15:23

 

[rainerann]

I actually do like @Red Sky at Morning reference to 1x1x1 equals one to explain this concept. However, I still don’t like using the word god.

The word god is like the feet in Nebuchadnezzar dream that were partly made of iron and partly of clay. It is a word that suffers division. The word “god” is a man made way to describe identitfying a source of authority beyond what can be seen even though it mirrors what can be seen so that gods often act, talk, walk, dress, and think like men; but men with superpowers.

In some cases, the same word “god” has probably been used to actually describe living, breathing men with a sort of supreme, dictatorial authority over others.

Then it is also being used to used to identify the creator of 1x1x1 equals one, which is a sort of mystical question if people weren’t always trying to seperate the subjects of math and science from spiritual discussions.

We think a mathematical equation like this is easy only because we can easily memorize the answer is one.

However, there is a complexity to this that we take for granted and if we take this complexity for granted. How much more do we take for granted the comparison we are making when we are using it to explain the unity of Christ, the creator and the Holy Spirit.

How can spiritual beings exist in unity in the same way if the unity between a mother and their child still equates to one plus one equals 2?

There is something missing here so that Jesus, the creator, and the Holy Spirit exist as 1 x 1 x 1 equals one, but there is something wrong with our present understanding of unity to understand beyond this

In fact, this may even be a better way to describe them than by calling any one of them God individually.

So what we should do is name this equation and use it as a way of referencing Christ instead, and we would probably all be better off.

If this equation makes Jesus “god”, then we are practicing polytheism because according the definition of “god” does not contain a discussion on unity so that two are able to be described as one using this word. The word god does not describe unity without becoming the plural form “gods”. So that if we say Jesus is “god” we are saying we believe in “gods” by default. This is accurate, but then this has its own meaning as well that describes a sort of seperateness so that Christ and the creator become separated by referring to them in a combined way as “gods”.

So what the church is trying to do is change the definition of God to fit the description we are given in scripture. Then we are expecting other people to accept that “god” doesn’t mean what they think it means instead of using a different word that gives someone the opportunity to learn a new definition.

God means exactly what they think it means which is more than likely a major reason Jesus is called the son of god and the messiah in scripture rather than directly referring to him as god one time, in order to avoid making this inaccurate connection to a word that does not contain the potential to be used to describe unity of some kind, which it needs to be able to do to be used as a label for the description of Christ in scripture.

Son of god describes unity with the creator. Messiah deacribes unity with the creator. God describes a singular being usually outside of the physical realm that can only be in one place at one time. You cannot use a word with this definition to describe Christ or the creator.

It all becomes a hinderance to the prospect of teaching and understanding the spirtual meaning of unity, which is a subject we have been given the opportunity to grow in our understanding of as the body of Christ is supposed to grow in unity with one another.

In discussions like these, people pretend to have more understanding of these things than they actually do more often than not.

 

[phipps]

We don't need a commandment to tell us to believe Jesus is God. It should be something we do automatically as we get to know Him through His word. As the Holy Spirit transforms our hearts, we get to know and understand just how much Jesus loves us and gave up for us. We should get to love Him with all our hearts, souls, minds and strengths.

Do you know that even demons know and believe Jesus is God and tremble?

Matthew 8:28-34
"When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way. And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding. So the demons begged Him, saying, “If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine.” And He said to them, “Go.” So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region."

Luke 8:26-37
Then they sailed to the country of the Gadarenes, which is opposite Galilee. And when He stepped out on the land, there met Him a certain man from the city who had demons for a long time. And he wore no clothes, nor did he live in a house but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, fell down before Him, and with a loud voice said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me!” For He had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For it had often seized him, and he was kept under guard, bound with chains and shackles; and he broke the bonds and was driven by the demon into the wilderness. Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?”And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss. Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them. Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned. When those who fed them saw what had happened, they fled and told it in the city and in the country. Then they went out to see what had happened, and came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. They also who had seen it told them by what means he who had been demon-possessed was healed. Then the whole multitude of the surrounding region of the Gadarenes asked Him to depart from them, for they were seized with great fear. And He got into the boat and returned.

The Bible tells us in James 2:19, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Demons who are higher beings than us would not tremble at a mere created being. They know the difference. They are fallen angels who once lived in heaven before they were thrown out because of their disobedience. Obviously believing is not enough, we have to have faith too which the demons don't have. If the demons know and believe, how can we not? Can any of us be saved if we don't believe Jesus is God? Who but God can save us? Its rejecting Jesus' free gift to save us if we don't believe He is God.

Phillipians 2:10, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;" Only God deserves worship so this verse is clearly saying Jesus is God.

 

[Douglas Summers]

In this thread I am not looking to argue whether Jesus is God or not. I am simply asking where it is commanded that one must believe Jesus is God to be saved.

In the Christianity idolatry thread, this question is being ingnored so I thought I would ask it here hoping to get it answered.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ, He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. He that denieth the Son hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son have the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23). In the beginning was The Word, and the word was with God and the word was God. And the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him (Christ incarnate). And without Him (Christ) was not made anything made that was made. (John 1:1-3). ...……. I say unto you, "before Abraham was, "I am" (John 8:52-58) with (Ex. 3:13-15) God says He is "I am". (Study the Epistle of 1 John) Christ incarnate is the God of the OT. (1 Cor. 10:1-5).

 

[Todd]

I do not consider Todd a Christian because of John 8.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.​

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.​

Why don't you include the whole context of verse....where he clearly defines himself as the Son of Man, a reference that he is the Messiah sent by God and not God himself. I beleive that Jesus is the Messiah, so my belief and emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah more properly fits the meaning of John 8:24 then your emphasis in Jesus as God.

But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up[a] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him.

If Jesus was God why would he have need of the Father to teach him?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Why don't you include the whole context of verse....where he clearly defines himself as the Son of Man, a reference that he is the Messiah sent by God and not God himself. I bleive that Jesus is the Messiah, so my belief and emphasis on Jesus as he Messiah more properly fits the meaning of John 8:24 then your emphasis in Jesus as God.

But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up[a] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him.

If Jesus was God why would he have need of the Father to teach him?

Daniel 7

13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

 

[KoncreteMind]

In this thread I am not looking to argue whether Jesus is God or not. I am simply asking where it is commanded that one must believe Jesus is God to be saved.

In the Christianity idolatry thread, this question is being ingnored so I thought I would ask it here hoping to get it answered.

Well in theory it seems that you do believe Jesus is God. Dont you believe he is your savior? Believe he saved you from condemnation from God? Dont you give glory to him AND God? Dont you pray in his name?

I mean you may not explicitly believe him to be God, but these beliefs kinda make him into being God or close to it. And not until the NT was written could any of this fly....

 

[Thunderian]

Right, but you are conveying that you believe that "he" is translated into the singular noun "God." However, "he" is referring to the Hebrew Elohim, which is translated into English best according to John 1.

"He" is added by the translators in John 8. The straight reading of John 8:24 in Greek is "if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." I am is how God referred to himself to Moses, and how Jesus referred to himself with the Pharisees when he told them he was around before Abraham's time. Jesus is I Am.

It takes some pretty dedicated ignorance and twisting of scripture to come up with the theology that Todd has. I'd be careful about making excuses for his warped interpretation.

 

[Thunderian]

If Jesus was God why would he have need of the Father to teach him?

Christ Jesus, who, 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:​

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Thunderian

I noticed the "I am he" as well. Puts a different light on the significance of those words!

 

[Thunderian]

@Thunderian

I noticed the "I am he" as well. Puts a different light on the significance of those words!

A person has to be pretty determined the believe that Jesus is not God to read the Bible the way Todd does.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

A person has to be pretty determined the believe that Jesus is not God to read the Bible the way Todd does.

Not aimed at Todd in particular but I was thinking this morning about the way in which this forum can provide people with a form of immunity from the truth...

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-spiritual-immunity-pharmacy.4585/

 

[TokiEl]

It doesn't look good... coffee shop Christians debating if God is God or not.

 

[rainerann]

"He" is added by the translators in John 8. The straight reading of John 8:24 in Greek is "if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." I am is how God referred to himself to Moses, and how Jesus referred to himself with the Pharisees when he told them he was around before Abraham's time. Jesus is I Am.

It takes some pretty dedicated ignorance and twisting of scripture to come up with the theology that Todd has. I'd be careful about making excuses for his warped interpretation.

Unfortunately, it leads to the same conclusion. "I am" is referencing something that would be closer to the definition of Elohim, which exists as a plural that has no Greek or English equivalent. So I will just end up repeating the same answer that I just gave essentially using a different verse for my explanation.

Elohim could also be defined as love if love were defined as a noun rather than a verb in the same way that some people are named Grace or Faith.

John translates the meaning of Elohim into English well in 1 John 4:8.

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

What the scripture is saying is basically that there is beginning and end to the Creator, where Jesus would begin where the creator ends the way our present understanding of the definition of God conveys. God means that one is separate from the other so that if Jesus is God, then there are two Gods and not one.

However, Love has no beginning or end, and this is the way we understand and define love. Love could be compared to the three states of water better than the definition of God can. It expands and has no limit in the gas or a love for community, as a liquid or a love for your friends, as a solid as a love for your family. You can modify this however you wish. The point is that the definition is flexible. Love conveys the definition of the relationship between Christ and the Father in a better way that "God" is not able to do.

God defines one person. I don't see why it is so important to convince people that this is not what the word God means when there are other ways of conveying what the scripture is teachings about Christ that are easier to understand. Making something easier to understand should be the goal rather than forcing other people to accept the way you are trying to change their understanding of the word God.

"I Am" conveys unity. God does not, so that when I Am appeared to Moses, he referred to himself this way as opposed to saying that he was God for a reason. I Am can be understood to be a statement of constant existence. If something exists as a constant, it has no beginning or end, which could be understood by using the word "love" in its place. We also do not recognize love as a singular or plural form so what Jesus is saying is that He has a constant existence that is not recognized as a separate existence. He is "I Am" in constant unity with the creator that is not capable of being translated into the word "God" because God does not contain an understanding of unity and this unity expressed in the Gospel between Christ and the Creator is completely unique to our faith.

I really don't think your description and attempt to defend the message of scripture regarding Christ is accurate. It is rather forced and it is interesting how frequently you will blatantly ignore what Todd is saying about accepting passages like you are referencing here. I can't speak for what Todd believes, but I have seen him convey of understanding and acceptance of verses like this before so I know what you are saying is not accurate.

What you are saying is actually what is not accurate, because I Am does not actually translate into the English word "God". Many people seem to think that this is the best way to get people to understand what Christ says about Himself in the Gospel, but this seems to create more problems than it solves because unity is not included in the definition of "God".

Like I said already, unity is what we should be trying to gain a better understanding of in order to understand Christ's relationship with the Father rather than forcing people to accept a different definition of God than the one they are familiar with. I just don't think we need the word God and we could get rid it without sacrificing anything in order to make peace (Matthew 5:9). Discussions trying to defend that Jesus is God are a waste of time. All the time people spend trying to force others to explain this in the same way, could be spent actually sharing the message of the Gospel.

The really tough question to ask ourselves is, does Christ need you to defend that He is God, or do you need to defend that He is God because it becomes difficult to repent of our own inaccurate conclusions at some point as a Christian? Humility becomes more and more challenging the longer we walk with Christ especially when we have already expressed a specific statement of faith. These statements can work against us and are likely the reason that people will stop growing at some point, which is one reason that the road is described as narrow.

For example, how hard is it for a professional athlete to lose a competition versus an amateur? How hard is it for a pastor to confess his sin before a congregation as it would be for a member of the congregation? It is easier to fail when there are less expectations for us, which is why humility becomes difficult as we seek to become proficient in any subject.

People develop habits along the way. I think sometimes responses in discussions like this are more from habit sometimes than from trying to defend a position, which is why the discussions become somewhat circular around here sometimes. People develop habits that are difficult to change. For example, how many times have you had this discussion with this same poster? At least 10 just since this board has been running, I would imagine. In any of those times, can you honestly say that you have truly tried to listen to what he is saying or is it that you are simply offended that he hasn't listened to what you said before so you feel obligated to repeat it because of this injustice against you?

Listening is a skill that is honed through practice.

 

[rainerann]

A person has to be pretty determined the believe that Jesus is not God to read the Bible the way Todd does.

God is a singular noun.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

God is a singular noun.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/echad-or-yachid.4500/