Jesus is God

ON PHILIPPIANS 2:6Con has commited a logical fallacy by claiming that the verse didn't say "Jesus is God or Pre-existed as God" verbatim although it is the very message it evinces.Paul does not need to reveal this fact word-for-word because his audiences are all acquainted already with the theological subjects he has by reason of being in the same culture in which their Christian religion exists.Philippians 2:6 explicitly conveys that Christ existed in God's nature before He took on the nature of a human slave. Morphe means "form" ( nature, shape). It's dual meaning is used in the Bible, morphe is used in the New Testament as "nature" for about 5 times ( Phil. 2:6, Romans 12:2, Phil. 3:10 and 21,Gal. 4:19 ) and as "shape" in both Old Testament Septuagint (Daniel 3:19 ) and New Testament ( 2 Timothy 3:5 ). Con believes that both the Greek words " morphe" and "eikon" are synonymous. There is a pretty clear evidence that this is entirely false: Morphe is not synonymous with eikon:ßlm (image) was translated in the LXX as "eikon" (26 X)"homoioma" ( 2X)"typos" (1X)"morphe" (1X) In Daniel 3:19 LXX, the Hebrew "ßlm"( image) is translated as "morphe". Not in the sense of:1) image2) likenessBut rather, in the sense of:1) IdolThe Aramaic counterpart of the Hebrew is used in the sense of “appearance" here in Daniel 3:19. Theodotion also avoids eikon here by using opsis (“face” or “countenance”), a word which, likemorphe, is nowhere else in the LXX used to translate ßlm. This suggests ratherstrongly that morphe is used, not because it is synonymous with eikon, butbecause it covers a rare portion of ßlm’s semantic @257;eld that eikon does not. SOURCE: http://www.etsjets.org...ON JOHN 1:1 The Greek word " logos" means various things like "word, account, reason etc" which basically shows " expression from the inside out."When we think, we produce a word in our minds and this word is called the "word within" but once this word is spoken out,then, it is now called the "word expressed."This is how the early church interpret the "logos" and nowadays, it is quite obvious that they were right because of its accuracy albeit we define it with other terms than repeating the word "word." Now, we use " knowledge, idea" as a substitute for the "word within" and "communication, message" as substitute for "word expressed". What this means is that the concept of Logos has always been existing. It means that we are not far in grasping its meaning. In fact, we're so close to grasp it for is understandable today as it is before.There's three clauses in John 1:1 and all of it contains the Greek Phrase " ho logos" ( English: the word).The occurence of the Greek definite article shows that it is used as a title/appelation just like the "ton theon" ( English: the God)in the second clause of the said verse. Later, we will find out if ho logos is referring to a thing or a person because if it is a thing then we must translate it in English with the lower case ( e.g. the word) but if it is referring to a person then we should translate it with the upper case as a Proper Noun (e.g. the Word).We will find this out in the third clause.In third clause of John 1:1, the Apostle John wrote that the Logos is " God by nature." The Greek reads like this: KAITHEOSEENHOLOGOS The underlined Greek word is "theos." It is a Greek Noun and in the sentence, it functions as a Greek adjective because it lacks the Greek definite article [ anarthrous].It is qualitative in sense. Therefore, it means " God's qualities in totality i.e. God's nature.Now, going back to the "ho logos", we are now having a very cogent evidence that it is referring to a person because God's nature only subsists in a person not on inanimate things.Example: Premise 1:The Father is a person. Premise 1: The Father is God by nature.Conclusion: Therefore, God's nature includes personality.Regarding the "ho logos" :Premise 1:The "ho logos" is God by naturePremise 2:God's nature includes personality.Conclusion:Therefore, the "ho logos" is referring to a person and hence, we ought to translate it as a Proper Noun (i.e. the Word).Now that we are sure that the Word is a person for he's God by nature, let us now find out who is this person who is called "the Word" and is " God by nature."Only the context of the text could tell us who's this so let us scrutinize it:John 1:1 The Word was with God and was God by nature. Both are in the beginning.John 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning.John 1:14 The Word became flesh. He has a glory as of the only-offspring [ Greek: monogenes] of a Father.John 1:18 The only-offpring,God by nature [ Greek: monogenes theos] He is in the bosom of the Father.John 3:16 The only-offspring,Son [ Greek: monogenes huios].Based on context, we found out that the Word is the Son and the God he was with is the Father and that they are of same nature [ consubstantial]. Conclusion: Therefore, the Apostle John clearly used the Greek word "logos" to teach us that Jesus is the only-offspring who is God by nature, that he's the Son of the Father, that is, they are of same nature and hence, proving that there exists more than one in person who is identified as God while remaining only one in identity and nature.ON COLOSSIANS 2:9In Christ all the fullness of the divine nature dwells bodily ( Colossians 2:9). The Greek word for the English phrase "divine nature"in this verse is "theotetos" and it means "the very nature of God himself."On the otherhand, Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians are to be "filled to the measure of all the fullness of God." The Greek word for the English Noun "God" in this verse is "theos" and it means " God himself as person" NOT his nature.\Furthermore, to address Con's argument, is null and void because the Incarnation is highly implied not on the word "dwells" but on the word " bodily."Source: http://books.google.com.ph...ON HEBREWS 1:3The early church used this verse as an irrefutable proof for the divinity of Jesus and the clause it contains: "and the exact imprint of his nature ( ESV)" is what deemed to be explicit affirmation of the godhood of the Son without being an another god.The Greek word for "exact imprint"in this verse is " character" and it means " an engraving tool, to impress as a stamp" and the Greek word for " nature" in this verse is " hupostaseos" and it means " an standing under, substance."Therefore, the natural meaning of the clause is that the Son is perfect God as the Father because the Son is of same nature with his Father just like a stamp on a coin or letter.I agree with Malachi 2:10 that God the Father creates but I also agree with Colossians 1:16 that he creates THROUGH his Son. ON COLOSSIANS 1:16I already refuted your argument on this. Please scrutinize the past tense verbs in Colossians 1:16 ( creat-ed) and the future tense verb in Ephesians 2:10 ( will). These two doesn't cohere at all. It shows that your interpretation is wrong and an obvious eisegesis.ON JOHN 17:3In John 17:3, the Father was contrasted by the Son to the false gods at that time which are known today as the Greek and Roman Myths.The Son said that his Dad is the only real deity. He must have been contrasting the Father to persons for he is a person. The Father alone is the true God in both identity and nature and other gods aren't real ( 1 Corinthians 8:5). Paul also agree:"You were slaves to those who by nature are not gods" ( Galatians 4:8).This shows that Jesus is not an another God aside from the Father but one in him for he has the same nature his Father has.The Son is God because his Father is God. They are equal in nature. Everyone knows that an offspring always has the nature of its parent(s). This is not something philosophical but rather, biblical ( John 1:1, 5:18, 10:28-38, Hebrews 1:3).Those gods whom Jesus was talking about when he mentioned the adjective "true" in identifying the Father shows that he identifies himself with the Father in unity of nature.The Son of him is his very Widom and Power that is why it is not separate to him in being but is in his being. Therefore, his Son is not an another God nor a second God but rather, truly God for he is in God who is his own Father ( John 1:18, 1 Corinthians 1:24).ON JOHN 1:14I already explained in my " On John 1:1" ( on this Round) that the Word is a person as his divine nature shows. Now, on John 1:14, this Word who is God by nature "became flesh." Note that the word used is "flesh" not "spirit." Flesh means the physical part of the human body. Why did John wrote this? It is to reveal that the Word has a real human body, a fleshy body like ours albeit without sin( Romans 8:3).This is explicitly againts the proto-gnostics of his day.That's the reason why.Con implies that the "logos" isn't a person but a literal word who became flesh. This interpretation is obviously wrong because if a literal word became a flesh then it means that a human body came into existence. So what? Based on Moses and James, A human body without a human spirit is not alive, it is not a human person. How terrible is the argument of Con. A created flesh has no consciousness.It will never move. A flesh is just flesh.A human body, nothing more, nothing less. So, if it is true that the word became flesh then it means that we have a human body not a human person.The Apostle John did not use the Greek word "anthropos" but "sarki (sarx)." The former, human being and the latter, human body.