Jesus Christ is God

John 1:18 Con accuses me of ignoring his rebuttal on this matter when in fact, I repeatedly wrote arguments about the said verse. I, therefore, extend my arguments about John 1:18: John 1:18 proves that Jesus is God by nature because in the Greek, it is clearly said that he is the "only-offspring who is God by nature" ( monogenes theos). This Greek phrase functions as a "substantive" and the word "theos" therein is anarthrous and hence, qualitative in sense. SOURCE: http://www.forananswer.org...John 5:19 Con uses the following verses to prove that Jesus is not God by nature because everything he has (e.g. authority ,doctrine and ability) was given to him by the Father:John 17:6-8: 6 “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; 8 for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.Con thought that these verses are against the doctrine of the Trinity when in fact, it reinforces that Jesus is "God's own Son" ( Romans 8:3)because for Jesus to be a Son denotes to be under the authority of his own Father whom he is equal with in nature ( John 5:18).Even the godhood of Jesus came from the Father and was given by the Father based on John 5:26 and John 1:18. This means the Son has an origin but has no beginning of existence for he is eternally begotten from the Father. The Son is God by nature because he was given divine nature by God himself through eternal begetting ( Hebrews 1:3-7, John 1:18,5:26).Source: http://www.forananswer.org...On the IncarnationCon wrote: "The reason why Jesus call his Father as his "God" is because he's the incarnate Son based on John 1:14."If indeed Jesus was the incarnate son then should have said only 'Father' otherwise your statement is fallacious.Response: It isn't mine but it is Con's statement that is fallacious because he restricts the incarnate Son to call his Father "God" when in fact, it is natural for him to do so because he became real human "under the Law" ( Galatians 4:4). Jesus isn't an atheist!In fact, the Father himself calls Jesus " God" in Hebrews 1:8.Hebrews 1:2-7Con wrote: Again these are the words of Paul, not Jesus, we are talking about Jesus, also Hebrews 1 doesn't say that the Father and son are the same in nature, or same in any way.Response: Why is Con against using Hebrews by reason of Paul wrote it so? Is he against the epistle? He accepted the gospel of John and the epistle of Colossians throughtout the debate. May I remind Con that the epistle to the Hebrews is part of the Canon. Con is wrong when he said that "Hebrews 1 doesn't say that the Father and son are the same in nature, or same in any way" because on the contrary, Hebrews 1 is talking about that very subject.Hebrews 1:2-8 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” 7 Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:2 says that God created everything through his Son.Hebrews 1:3 says that God and his Son are of same nature because the Son is "the exact imprint of his nature."Hebrews 1:5-7 says that the angels are created while the Son is begotten from the Father. To beget is to have an offspring " of same nature."Hebrews 1:8 says that the Father himself calls the Son "God."Conclusion: Con's argument on Hebrews 1 is null and void. Matthew 24:36 The Father alone knows at that time because the Son hasn't yet given authority to know it. This doesn't mean he's not God by nature but rather, it only means that he is Son by nature.After his ressurection, Jesus was given all authority ( Mt. 28:18) that's why he now has an access to his divine mind:He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep (John 21:17).Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.(John 16:30)Of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:3) Colossians 2:9 Con insists that I'm wrong. He did not put all the definitions but hence, only include the definitions that suits his argument.Here's the dictionaries. See for yourself: de·i·ty (dē′ĭ-tē, dā′-) n. pl. de·i·ties 1. A god or goddess. 2. a. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity. b. Deity God. Used with the.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. deity (G2;de=8;t=8;; G2;diH0;=8;-) n, pl -ties 1. a god or goddess 2. (Theology) the state of being divine; godhead 3. (Theology) the rank, status, or position of a god 4. (Theology) the nature or character of God Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 god·head (g!5;d′hĕd′) n. 1. Divinity; godhood. 2. Godhead a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity. b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Godhead (G2;ɡ;4;dG6;hɛd) n (sometimes not capital) 1. (Theology) the essential nature and condition of being God 2. (Ecclesiastical Terms) the Godhead God Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003Psalm 146Con wrote: The source he provided for Pslam, was Psalm 145 not 146, I further seen the Psalm 146 in Greek [1] but nowhere I find the supposed Greek word for "Trust" which is πιστεa3;ω [2], further Psalm 146 describes the return of Jesus that is nowhere near the topic of "Jesus Christ is God".Response: Con thought that I am wrong when I provided Psalm 145 as a source. Based on his demeanor shown, I see that he is ignorant of the Septuagint Greek for he is not aware of its numbering as different from the Hebrew Scriptures. The Greek word "πεποθατε " of Psalm 146:3 ( 145:3 in LXX) and " πιστεa3;ω" of John 14:1 has same origin ( "πε^3;θω") with same meaning (have confidence, persuade, affirm, faith, trust). SOURCE:http://en.katabiblon.com...... http://biblehub.com...... Con wrote: Regarding Job 25:4, it shows that Con indeed isn't accepting Paul's authority. The fact that he's talking about soteriology shows that he's off-topic here. Regarding Job 25:6 I already given rebuttal to this in Round 3 which Con hasn't yet refuted and hence, I extend my argument about it. John 14:28 Con insists that all of the definitions of "greater" must be included to define the Father's greatness over the Son. This argument is absurd. Con is explicitly imposing the meaning on the texts without its proper context and hence, his argument is really a pretext. Let Con re-read my argument regarding this for I extend my argument to it. Concluding Statement: Con has may blunders in throughout the debate. I have completely given all the rebuttals he wants and that I need to. I even extended arguments to Con and I hope he would refute all of that. Arguments that I have stated that Con has yet to refute :John 1:18,Hebrews 1,John 5:19,Colossians 2:3,John 1:1, Philippians 2:6,and Colossians 2:9.The one who has a cogent and logical argument from the scripture wins this debate.