Religion Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh?

[Stargazer]

Continued from

https://the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/republicans-race-and-the-great-replacement.8213/page-4#post-287684

is he one of pilots who died staying on topic?
And @Stargazer we have citation for Peter getting keys to heaven,but where exactly Jesus said that he is Jahwe?

There is of course the prologue to John, where speaks of the Word, which is God, and became flesh, meaning Jesus. That should be enough to identify Jesus as God. But let's go a little deeper, and connect Jesus specifically to the God Yahweh spoken of in the Old Testament.

But though He had performed so many signs in their sight, they still were not believing in Him. This happened so that the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke would be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they will not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and be converted, and so I will not heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him.
John 12:37‭-‬41 NASB2020

John here is referencing the prophet Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10. Isaiah 6 is the passage where Isaiah has a vision of Yahweh:


In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.
Isaiah 6:1 NASB2020

So, Isaiah saw Yahweh. But, notice what John said. "These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him." Who is John referring to as "His" and "Him"? Jesus. John is speaking as though Isaiah saw Jesus. Isaiah saw and spoke of Yahweh, and in doing so saw and spoke of Jesus. They are the same.

And one more:

But regarding the Son He says, “Your throne, God, is forever and ever, And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom. “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your companions.” And, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will wear out like a garment, And like a robe You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.”
Hebrews 1:8‭-‬12 NASB2020

Here the author of Hebrews is quoting two Psalms, first Psalm 45 and then Psalm 102, and saying that they are talking about the Son (Jesus). Of course you have Psalm 45 talking about God, thus Hebrews already identifies Jesus as God. But let's go a little further. How does Psalm 102 start?

Hear my prayer, Lord! And let my cry for help come to You.
Psalms 102:1 NASB2020

"Lord" there is the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton, Yahweh. The name of God. Psalm 102 is a prayer addressed to Yahweh, and the author of Hebrews says it speaks of the Son, who is Jesus. They are the same.

There ya go, @ATP. Clear teaching from the New Testament showing that Jesus is Yahweh. No church tradition and authority needed.

 

[ATP]

Continued from

https://the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/republicans-race-and-the-great-replacement.8213/page-4#post-287684

There is of course the prologue to John, where speaks of the Word, which is God, and became flesh, meaning Jesus. That should be enough to identify Jesus as God. But let's go a little deeper, and connect Jesus specifically to the God Yahweh spoken of in the Old Testament.

But though He had performed so many signs in their sight, they still were not believing in Him. This happened so that the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke would be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they will not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and be converted, and so I will not heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him.
John 12:37‭-‬41 NASB2020

John here is referencing the prophet Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10. Isaiah 6 is the passage where Isaiah has a vision of Yahweh:


In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.
Isaiah 6:1 NASB2020

So, Isaiah saw Yahweh. But, notice what John said. "These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him." Who is John referring to as "His" and "Him"? Jesus. John is speaking as though Isaiah saw Jesus. Isaiah saw and spoke of Yahweh, and in doing so saw and spoke of Jesus. They are the same.

And one more:

But regarding the Son He says, “Your throne, God, is forever and ever, And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom. “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your companions.” And, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will wear out like a garment, And like a robe You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.”
Hebrews 1:8‭-‬12 NASB2020

Here the author of Hebrews is quoting two Psalms, first Psalm 45 and then Psalm 102, and saying that they are talking about the Son (Jesus). Of course you have Psalm 45 talking about God, thus Hebrews already identifies Jesus as God. But let's go a little further. How does Psalm 102 start?

Hear my prayer, Lord! And let my cry for help come to You.
Psalms 102:1 NASB2020

"Lord" there is the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton, Yahweh. The name of God. Psalm 102 is a prayer addressed to Yahweh, and the author of Hebrews says it speaks of the Son, who is Jesus. They are the same.

There ya go, @ATP. Clear teaching from the New Testament showing that Jesus is Yahweh. No church tradition and authority needed.

Jesus said to Peter that he gave him keys to Kingdom.So,you could take existence of popes from NT.
Where he said,that HE,JESUS,is God?
HE never said such thing.Those who belive that HE is GOD belive that becouse catholic church say so long after Jesus go to Heaven.
You do not like catholic church? fine,but you have no any proofs that Jesus considered himsalf as God.

 

[Stargazer]

Jesus said to Peter that he gave him keys to Kingdom.So,you could take existence of popes from NT.
Where he said,that HE,JESUS,is God?
HE never said such thing.Those who belive that HE is GOD belive that becouse catholic church say so long after Jesus go to Heaven.
You do not like catholic church? fine,but you have no any proofs that Jesus considered himsalf as God.

It feels like you didn't even read what I posted. I believe Jesus is God because the New Testament clearly teaches that he is. As I just showed. The Roman Catholic church is in no way the source of that belief.

 

[King Arts]

It feels like you didn't even read what I posted. I believe Jesus is God because the New Testament clearly teaches that he is. As I just showed. The Roman Catholic church is in no way the source of that belief.

None of those directly say Jesus is God though? And even if we granted you that they did, the concept of the trinity is nowhere in the Bible. You need extrabiblical holy tradition to arrive at that basic Christian position.

 

[Stargazer]

None of those directly say Jesus is God though? And even if we granted you that they did, the concept of the trinity is nowhere in the Bible. You need extrabiblical holy tradition to arrive at that basic Christian position.

They teach that Jesus is Yahweh, the God spoken of in the Old Testament. John said that the one who Isaiah saw, and spoke of, is Jesus. Isaiah saw Yahweh. Thus he is making the claim that whenever Isaiah speaks of Yahweh, he's actually speaking about Jesus.

I didn't say anything about the Trinity, I started this thread for the specific question given in the thread title. Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God spoken of in the Old Testament, Yahweh? My position is yes, and I provided some texts in support of my answer. Only Biblical texts, no "extrabiblical holy tradition".

I also think the Trinity is the result of both that New Testament teaching and a few others, no "holy tradition" required. But I'm just focusing on this one question right now.

 

[King Arts]

They teach that Jesus is Yahweh, the God spoken of in the Old Testament. John said that the one who Isaiah saw, and spoke of, is Jesus. Isaiah saw Yahweh. Thus he is making the claim that whenever Isaiah speaks of Yahweh, he's actually speaking about Jesus.

I didn't say anything about the Trinity, I started this thread for the specific question given in the thread title. Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God spoken of in the Old Testament, Yahweh? My position is yes, and I provided some texts in support of my answer. Only Biblical texts, no "extrabiblical holy tradition".

I also think the Trinity is the result of both that New Testament teaching and a few others, no "holy tradition" required. But I'm just focusing on this one question right now.

But John just says that the jews did not believe Jesus. Not that Jesus made a claim of being God. The Jews think that Jesus is not just not god, but is also not a holy prophet as well. That quote about John can be interpreted as them denying that Jesus is a prophet.

 

[Stargazer]

But John just says that the jews did not believe Jesus. Not that Jesus made a claim of being God. The Jews think that Jesus is not just not god, but is also not a holy prophet as well. That quote about John can be interpreted as them denying that Jesus is a prophet.

If you claim it can be interpreted that way, I have two questions for you:

"These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him." John 12:41

Question 1: Who did Isaiah see in the Book of Isaiah?
Question 2: Who is the person the pronouns "His" and "Him" refer back to, in the context of John 12?

 

[LordsFire]

John 14: 7-9, starts with Jesus speaking:

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

That not clear enough for you?


John 10:29-33, again starting with Jesus speaking:

"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

Jesus replied to them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”


Jesus explicitly claims to be one with God the Father, and the Jews, recognizing that claim, move to stone him for blasphemy.

Holding the idea that you need teachings from Catholic tradition to conclude that Jesus is God, just demonstrates how ignorant of scripture one is.

 

[Scottty]

Jesus said to Peter that he gave him keys to Kingdom.So,you could take existence of popes from NT.

No.
The RCC takes that one verse, and tries to hook a big pile of non-biblical tradition onto it, taking ideas that were developed only centuries later, and pretending that was what Jesus was talking about.

And nowhere in the rest of the New Testament do we ever see Simon Peter behaving as if he had the sort of authority that Roman Catholics claim for the "Pope".

But it's like you just admitted that for you as a Papist, the pope is more important to you than Jesus.

Where he said,that HE,JESUS,is God?

Does He have to say it in some specific set of words for you? There are statements He made in which He is clearly claiming Divine status.
"Before Abraham was, I Am" for example. Because "I Am" is one of the names of God, used in the Book of Exodus when talking to Moses.

 

[ATP]

It feels like you didn't even read what I posted. I believe Jesus is God because the New Testament clearly teaches that he is. As I just showed. The Roman Catholic church is in no way the source of that belief.

Yes,i read.Not even in one place Jesus said that HE IS GOD.
When he clearly said that he gave Keys to Kingdom to Peter.

John 14: 7-9, starts with Jesus speaking:

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

That not clear enough for you?


John 10:29-33, again starting with Jesus speaking:

"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

Jesus replied to them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”


Jesus explicitly claims to be one with God the Father, and the Jews, recognizing that claim, move to stone him for blasphemy.

Holding the idea that you need teachings from Catholic tradition to conclude that Jesus is God, just demonstrates how ignorant of scripture one is.

Dear ignorant,Jesus do not say my father is Jahwe,and i am God,too.
When HE said that he gave Keys to Peter.

No.
The RCC takes that one verse, and tries to hook a big pile of non-biblical tradition onto it, taking ideas that were developed only centuries later, and pretending that was what Jesus was talking about.

And nowhere in the rest of the New Testament do we ever see Simon Peter behaving as if he had the sort of authority that Roman Catholics claim for the "Pope".

But it's like you just admitted that for you as a Papist, the pope is more important to you than Jesus.



Does He have to say it in some specific set of words for you? There are statements He made in which He is clearly claiming Divine status.
"Before Abraham was, I Am" for example. Because "I Am" is one of the names of God, used in the Book of Exodus when talking to Moses.

One verse which say about Keys.And other about giving Peter Jesus lambs.
When not even one verse show that JESUS actually said that HE is GOD.

And Before Abraham existed not only GOD,but angels.
So no,you need to find verse where JESUS said that HE is GOD.

You protestants are funny - where NT say that Key to Kingdom belong to first pope,you deny that.
But,at the same time,you claim that JESUS is GOD - when HE never said so.

I belive that JESUS IS GOD AND PART OF TRINITY becouse CHURCH teach so.But - it is part of TRADITION,not NT.

You want sola scriptura? fine,but then you could not claim that GOD is TRINITY,or that JESUS is GOD.
Becouse NT only imply taht,and all that verses could be interpreted other way.

When giving Keys to Kingdom to Peter no need to be interpreted,becouse JESUS SIMPLY GAVE THEM - BUT,YOU STILL DENY THAT PART OF NT.

In other worlds - you deny those worlds of Jesus which you do not like,and imply something which HE never said.

 

[Scottty]

Yes,i read.Not even in one place Jesus said that HE IS GOD.
When he clearly said that he gave Keys to Kingdom to Peter.



Dear ignorant,Jesus do not say my father is Jahwe,and i am God,too.
When HE said that he gave Keys to Peter.



One verse which say about Keys.And other about giving Peter Jesus lambs.
When not even one verse show that JESUS actually said that HE is GOD.

And Before Abraham existed not only GOD,but angels.
So no,you need to find verse where JESUS said that HE is GOD.

You protestants are funny - where NT say that Key to Kingdom belong to first pope,you deny that.
But,at the same time,you claim that JESUS is GOD - when HE never said so.

I belive that JESUS IS GOD AND PART OF TRINITY becouse CHURCH teach so.But - it is part of TRADITION,not NT.

You want sola scriptura? fine,but then you could not claim that GOD is TRINITY,or that JESUS is GOD.
Becouse NT only imply taht,and all that verses could be interpreted other way.

When giving Keys to Kingdom to Peter no need to be interpreted,becouse JESUS SIMPLY GAVE THEM - BUT,YOU STILL DENY THAT PART OF NT.

In other worlds - you deny those worlds of Jesus which you do not like,and imply something which HE never said.

No, you are wrong. Simply wrong. We get the teaching of Jesus being both Divine and human from the New Testament. It's there in the Gospel of John, and the Pauline Epistles, just to start with. Read the first chapters of the Letter to the Hebrews, for example.
I seriously suggest here that you try actually reading through the New Testament yourself, rather than repeating talking points.

And you can say "Jesus gave the keys to Peter" over and over until you are blue in the face, but that does not prove that Jorge Bergoglio has them, or that Jesus meant what the RCC claims He meant by that.

The Protestant Reformers would tell you that the keys to the kingdom represented the authority to preach the Gospel - to open the door to God's kingdom by teaching people about Jesus. Which Peter did, along with all the other Apostles.

 

[Scottty]

Another point before I go AFK for the afternoon: as anyone who studies the history of the early church Councils, - the ecumenical meetings in which such advanced concepts as the Doctrine of the Trinity were thrashed out - will know, none of those debates were resolved with any sort of "Thus saith The Pope!". None of them.
The fourth-century Bishop of Rome would have been laughed out of the room if he'd tried claiming any such authority. That gig only took on much, much later.

Seriously... there is literally more reason to believe that Father Christmas showed up in person at the Council of Nicea and punched Arius in the face, than to believe that any so-called "pope" had anything to do with it.

The one time the Bishop of Rome did weigh in on the topic, he endorsed the Arian position! And later had to walk it back, because St Athanasius did not back down, because he knew that he was right, and that your "infallible pope" had it wrong.

And the "pope" had to hastily eat his words before a flying sled showed up.

 

[ATP]

No, you are wrong. Simply wrong. We get the teaching of Jesus being both Divine and human from the New Testament. It's there in the Gospel of John, and the Pauline Epistles, just to start with. Read the first chapters of the Letter to the Hebrews, for example.
I seriously suggest here that you try actually reading through the New Testament yourself, rather than repeating talking points.

And you can say "Jesus gave the keys to Peter" over and over until you are blue in the face, but that does not prove that Jorge Bergoglio has them, or that Jesus meant what the RCC claims He meant by that.

The Protestant Reformers would tell you that the keys to the kingdom represented the authority to preach the Gospel - to open the door to God's kingdom by teaching people about Jesus. Which Peter did, along with all the other Apostles.

am i?
You still do not showed me fragment of NT when Jesus say that HE is GOD.Becouse such fragment do not exist.
And ,when Jesus say that he gave Keys to Peter,you counter that some dudes 1500 years later claimed that it mean nothing.
Becouse they clearly knew better waht Jesus wonted then JESUS HIMSELF.
What is more important to yoy,worlds of Jesus,or some dudes who wanted other people property 1500 years later ?

You still do not take worlds of Jesus,claim something which HE do not say..

Another point before I go AFK for the afternoon: as anyone who studies the history of the early church Councils, - the ecumenical meetings in which such advanced concepts as the Doctrine of the Trinity were thrashed out - will know, none of those debates were resolved with any sort of "Thus saith The Pope!". None of them.
The fourth-century Bishop of Rome would have been laughed out of the room if he'd tried claiming any such authority. That gig only took on much, much later.

Seriously... there is literally more reason to believe that Father Christmas showed up in person at the Council of Nicea and punched Arius in the face, than to believe that any so-called "pope" had anything to do with it.

The one time the Bishop of Rome did weigh in on the topic, he endorsed the Arian position! And later had to walk it back, because St Athanasius did not back down, because he knew that he was right, and that your "infallible pope" had it wrong.

And the "pope" had to hastily eat his words before a flying sled showed up.

So? it still do not change fact,that JESUS NEVER SAID THAT HE IS GOD. And said that he gave KEYS of Kingdom to Peter.

But protestants 1500 years later declared,that:
1.Only NT matter.
2.Becouse of that,they recognize Jesus as God althought it is catholic Church teaching,not NT.
3.And cenzored NT,so according to them Jesus do not gave Keys to Kingdom to Peter when HE gave it.

They,at least,get stealed church property for their lies.You get nothing.

 

[Scottty]

am i?
You still do not showed me fragment of NT when Jesus say that HE is GOD.Becouse such fragment do not exist.

Revelation chapter 1, verses 17-18
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

And ,when Jesus say that he gave Keys to Peter,you counter that some dudes 1500 years later claimed that it mean nothing.

No, they said it did not mean what the Roman Catholics had been claiming that it meant. And it can be shown that the early church did not understand that passage the way you do either.
I think the problem here, is that you are simply not listening. Repeating your silly talking-point over and over.

 

[Stargazer]

Yes,i read.Not even in one place Jesus said that HE IS GOD.

False, as LordsFire and Scottty showed. But what does that have to do with the question of the thread - does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

You protestants are funny - where NT say that Key to Kingdom belong to first pope,you deny that.
But,at the same time,you claim that JESUS is GOD - when HE never said so.

I belive that JESUS IS GOD AND PART OF TRINITY becouse CHURCH teach so.But - it is part of TRADITION,not NT.

You want sola scriptura? fine,but then you could not claim that GOD is TRINITY,or that JESUS is GOD.
Becouse NT only imply taht,and all that verses could be interpreted other way.

False. You do know what the New Testament is, right? It's not just words Jesus directly spoke. It's writings of Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews. All of that is authoritative teaching, and so is the narration of the four Gospels. Jesus doesn't have to directly say something in order for the New Testament to teach it as true.

If part of the NT "implies" that Jesus is God, guess what? That means the NT does in fact teach that. You're admitting the very point I'm making. You are being deliberately obtuse in just refusing to see the meaning of the New Testament texts we're presenting to you.

If you think I'm misinterpreting the verses I quoted, feel free to provide another interpretation and show how it's a valid understanding of the text. KingArts tried with the quote from John 12, but failed to provide a full interpretation answering the questions I posed to him. If you don't, you're just talking out of your butt and you have no valid alternative interpretation. You are just wrong, and you keep spouting misinformation about what the Scripture says.

 

[ATP]

Revelation chapter 1, verses 17-18
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.



No, they said it did not mean what the Roman Catholics had been claiming that it meant. And it can be shown that the early church did not understand that passage the way you do either.
I think the problem here, is that you are simply not listening. Repeating your silly talking-point over and over.

1.Still do not said by Jesus,but Person from Revelation.We belive that it is Jesus,but it is not said there.And belive becouse catholic church teach so.
2.Early church initially do not recognized Trinity,too.We wait with this for Nicea.

False, as LordsFire and Scottty showed. But what does that have to do with the question of the thread - does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.



False. You do know what the New Testament is, right? It's not just words Jesus directly spoke. It's writings of Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews. All of that is authoritative teaching, and so is the narration of the four Gospels. Jesus doesn't have to directly say something in order for the New Testament to teach it as true.

If part of the NT "implies" that Jesus is God, guess what? That means the NT does in fact teach that. You're admitting the very point I'm making. You are being deliberately obtuse in just refusing to see the meaning of the New Testament texts we're presenting to you.

If you think I'm misinterpreting the verses I quoted, feel free to provide another interpretation and show how it's a valid understanding of the text. KingArts tried with the quote from John 12, but failed to provide a full interpretation answering the questions I posed to him. If you don't, you're just talking out of your butt and you have no valid alternative interpretation. You are just wrong, and you keep spouting misinformation about what the Scripture says.

1.Everything - becouse Jesus never said,that HE IS GOD.So,he could not be GOD OF OT,TOO.
2.Indeed.But Worlds of Jesus are more important - and Apostles never named him as God,tor that Trinity exist.
So,you take from NT what in your opinion it imply,but not what Jesus said.
And First you deny Catholic Church ,and then use their dogma,like Jesus being God or existence of Trinity.

Decide what to do - either deny Catholic Tradition,but in that case you do not find in NT place when Jesus said that he is God,or any Apostle teaching that-
Or belive that Jesus id God,but then you must take Catholic Tradition,too..

It is question of logic,not Faith.But - Luder said that Reason is whore,so i undarstandt why you do not use it here.

 

[Stargazer]

1.Everything - becouse Jesus never said,that HE IS GOD.So,he could not be GOD OF OT,TOO.
2.Indeed.But Worlds of Jesus are more important - and Apostles never named him as God,tor that Trinity exist.
So,you take from NT what in your opinion it imply,but not what Jesus said.
And First you deny Catholic Church ,and then use their dogma,like Jesus being God or existence of Trinity.

Decide what to do - either deny Catholic Tradition,but in that case you do not find in NT place when Jesus said that he is God,or any Apostle teaching that-
Or belive that Jesus id God,but then you must take Catholic Tradition,too..

It is question of logic,not Faith.But - Luder said that Reason is whore,so i undarstandt why you do not use it here.

1. That's an argument from silence, it doesn't mean he can't be the God of the OT. The New Testament can teach that Jesus is God without Jesus directly saying so. And it's still not true, anyways. He did make statements identifying himself as God.

2. False.

Paul referred to Jesus as God:

"11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and in a godly manner in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, eager for good deeds." - Titus 2:11-14, NASB

And so did Peter:

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" - 2 Peter 1:1, NASB

I don't need any Catholic tradition to know that Jesus is God. Just the writings of the New Testament. Right there. ^^^ And also the texts I quoted in my first post in the thread, which you have just ignored.

You are wrong, you continue to spout misinformation. Please, explain how Peter and Paul could refer to Jesus as "our God and Savior" but never actually named him as God. You are practically denying Scriptural teaching at this point.

 

[Scottty]

1.Still do not said by Jesus,but Person from Revelation.We belive that it is Jesus,but it is not said there.And belive becouse catholic church teach so.

Oh come off it! That the speaker is Jesus is blazingly obvious from the context! Who else do you imagine it could possibly be?

2.Early church initially do not recognized Trinity,too.We wait with this for Nicea.

We are discussing whether the New Testament identifies Jesus as God.
It does.

1.Everything - becouse Jesus never said,that HE IS GOD.So,he could not be GOD OF OT,TOO.
2.Indeed.But Worlds of Jesus are more important - and Apostles never named him as God,tor that Trinity exist.
So,you take from NT what in your opinion it imply,but not what Jesus said.
And First you deny Catholic Church ,and then use their dogma,like Jesus being God or existence of Trinity.

Decide what to do - either deny Catholic Tradition,but in that case you do not find in NT place when Jesus said that he is God,or any Apostle teaching that-
Or belive that Jesus id God,but then you must take Catholic Tradition,too..

It is question of logic,not Faith.But - Luder said that Reason is whore,so i undarstandt why you do not use it here.

Whatever. The Protestant side of this debate is not the side that is refusing to use their reason.

 

[ATP]

1. That's an argument from silence, it doesn't mean he can't be the God of the OT. The New Testament can teach that Jesus is God without Jesus directly saying so. And it's still not true, anyways. He did make statements identifying himself as God.

2. False.

Paul referred to Jesus as God:

"11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and in a godly manner in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, eager for good deeds." - Titus 2:11-14, NASB

And so did Peter:

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" - 2 Peter 1:1, NASB

I don't need any Catholic tradition to know that Jesus is God. Just the writings of the New Testament. Right there. ^^^ And also the texts I quoted in my first post in the thread, which you have just ignored.

You are wrong, you continue to spout misinformation. Please, explain how Peter and Paul could refer to Jesus as "our God and Savior" but never actually named him as God. You are practically denying Scriptural teaching at this point.

Still,Jesus not said that about Himself.And he said that he gave Keys to Peter.
And,more important,other places of NT do not describe HIM as GOD.
Explain why you support something what Jesus never said,and deny that what HE actually said.

Oh come off it! That the speaker is Jesus is blazingly obvious from the context! Who else do you imagine it could possibly be?



We are discussing whether the New Testament identifies Jesus as God.
It does.



Whatever. The Protestant side of this debate is not the side that is refusing to use their reason.

1.Catholic Church interpretation.Which,for some strange reason,protestants still follow after naming catholics as papist,heretics,etc.
I could follow it as catholic,but why you ?

2.Some parts in NT yes,others - not so.Apostols after getting Saint Spirit do not teach of Jesus as God,after all.
And,more importantly - Jesus never said so.
If you take NT literally and deny what Jesus said about Peter,but claims something Jesus never said,it is kind of funny.
3.So,you have no arguments.You could said that from the start.

 

[Stargazer]

2.Some parts in NT yes,

That's it. You just conceded the debate. GG.