Is this proof Jesus is God, and Jesus is Father God, one being?

I just came across this Golden nugget, and this says alot. I think this is some of the strongest proof I have found. What do you think?

See Isaiah 9,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful , Counsellor , The mighty God ,

The Everlasting Father , The Prince of Peace.



This scripture confirms Jesus is God, and Jesus is Father God incarnate in the flesh.Is this proof Jesus is God, and Jesus is Father God, one being?
You hit it on the head. There are many references in both the OT and NT showing that Jesus is God, He just isn't the Son of God but God the Son. He was there in the beginning when the world was created. He is the Light. He is the word of God, God in the flesh. etc.



Heb 1:5-6 Jesus was the first-born, God the Father begotten Him to mankind.

This means that Jesus was born to man (Son of Man) in flesh. He didn't come here just in His divine nature. We wouldn't be able to see Him, nor look at Him. The Father (God) became incarnate (deity into flesh with keeping all His divine powers) and was born to a human mother, making His flesh and bones. The Father begotten = sent, the Son to earth in flesh.





Jesus is called God - John 1:1, 14; 20:28; Col 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8





Jesus is the image of the invisible God - Heb 7:24



Jesus is before all things - John 1:1-3; Col 1:17



Jesus is omnipresent - Matt 18:20; 28:20



Jesus said that the Father sent Him; to know Him is to know the Father; He and the Father are one.
I read in the Harry Potter books that Voldemort will be reborn. This is some of the strongest proof Voldemort will be reborn that I have ever seen. Naturally if it says something in a book and I happen to believe what that book says, this constitutes proof.



I just ignore the people who say that this isn't proof. They put up silly objections that don't mean a thing to me - since they don't have Wizardry in their hearts they can't possibly understand.Is this proof Jesus is God, and Jesus is Father God, one being?
You just "asked" whether or not a piece of writing qualifies as "proof", and then you finished by saying that the writing DOES qualify as "proof". So what exactly is your question, assuming that you have one?



P.S. EVERY religion has passages in their holy book that are similar to the one you quoted. Do those passages qualify as proof that they're right? No? Then either does yours, hon.
When you study the entire Bible you will understand that Jesus is a Mighty God, but not the Almighty, there is a big difference. Also Jesus is our Eternal Father in the sense that he came to take the place of our father, Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:45
The bible doesnt teach of the trintiy at all. They take the verses out of context. Jesus is not God. that doesnt even make sense.



Jesus is not co-equal with God. He even says that in the scriptures.

If Jesus is God, then he would know everything God knows......

The bible tells us that only God knows when Christ will come back to earth, not even Christ or the angels know that!!!



Jesus prays to his father, not to himself.
That's right!!! You have found the truth!



Jesus said, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father."





EDIT: A poster said Jesus isn't the Almighty, that is incorrect.

Jesus identified Himself as the Almighty in Revelation 1:8.
Bible verses that show Jesus is Divine



http://www.carm.org/christianity/christi鈥?/a>
Absolutely right! You have just gotten the revelation of Oneness!



Keep studying! There are many more such nuggets that will help you understand the Bible teaches an undivided Godhead. In Jesus dwells ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9)



Edit for on my way: I can read Hebrew. The slight discrepancy in translation doesn't alter the conclusion. El gibor and avi-ad still make the same point.
Actually No

This is an inaccurate translation from the Hebrew.

If you would like the correct translation, {to long to explain} e-mail me.

I doubt I will receive any e-mails - nobody really wants the truth
proving the bible with the bible is circular logic
cool, God gave a piece of himself and came to Earth.
As we documented Jesus said I and the father are one. Jesus is true god and true man. they are inseprable this is a mystery. fully human and full divine.

This is one reason why the catholic doctine with regard to blessed mother and her immaculate conception is so important, because to deny her sinlessless and specialness as a human being is to deny the divinity of our lord Jesus. meditate on that nugget



The Immaculate Conception







It鈥檚 important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ鈥檚 conception in Mary鈥檚 womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain鈥攖hat鈥檚 what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God鈥檚 grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.



When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel鈥檚 greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.



The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel鈥檚 visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.



Fundamentalists鈥?Objections







Fundamentalists鈥?chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary鈥檚 consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.



Let鈥檚 take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way鈥攂y anticipation.



Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ鈥檚 grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!



But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can鈥檛 sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).



We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul鈥檚 statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.



Paul鈥檚 comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary鈥攂ut she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.



The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.



The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.



Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18鈥?0; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.





The Assumption







The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It鈥檚 also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That鈥檚 not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn鈥檛 do it under her own power.



The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."



The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52鈥?3: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ鈥檚 resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1鈥?0; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.





No Remains







There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary鈥檚 Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter鈥檚 tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter鈥檚 Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved鈥攖here are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.



It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing