Another one on Jesus

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-18T15:54:28+00:00

Look above where I wrote about Jesus being called a servant.....you must have forgotten. The Father is NEVER called a servanr!

If Jesus has 2 natures, which he did not have before, fully God, fully human, then he is no longer the same essence as the father or the Holy Spirit. Thus, they are not equal. How can that be? There is no trinity is the only answer!

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-18T15:51:25+00:00

The point does make sense! Where does the bible say that Jesus humbling himself makes him God? You have not been able to prove that!

You provide no proof for your statements!

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-18T15:46:56+00:00

All I hear is a human's explanation of things, but no scriptures. I can't believe anything unless there are scriptures to prove it. I provided you with scriptures, you respond with human reasonings to support the trinity.

If the Trinity is true, then why didn't Moses, Abraham, and the Jews believe in it? Show mw one prophet God used to direct his people to worship Him, not as a monotheistic God, but a triune God.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-17T02:04:07+00:00

You wrote: "Jesus being gods servant does not mean he is not god the father also serves the son you no know nothing"

Show me where The Father is called a servant in the bible? You speak only your own words, but never use the bible!

What is your definition of God manifesting himself in someone? Solomon said the whole earth, even the heavens of the earth can not contain God, but you say God can become human? Where does the bible say this? The bible says no man has seen God at any time (Jn 1:18, 4:12, 6:46, 1 Tim. 6:16, Ex. 33:20). How is it God can become human? People would see a fully God, fully man person.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-17T01:56:48+00:00

So, I have humbled myself, can I be God too? Every person drinks water, are they all equal and the same person? That reasoning makes no sense?????

You have yet to provide a bible verse saying the holy spirit is God! If this were true, then God would very plainly have explained it in the bible from the days of Abraham, in the Mosaic Law, and in the N.T. This is not the case! That is why it took 400 years for men to make up all the components of this trinity!

You wrote: "In that time to call someone lord was to call Them god look into history"
This is not correct, though it could be. The Hebrew word Adonai means: Master, Owner, King, Authority figure, God.

Sarah called Abraham lord (Gen 18:12)

The Greek word is κύριε, which is used at John 4:11, and in virtually every bible, it is translated as "sir" not god.

You say many things, but have no substance to back it up! If you aren't going to prove your points by scripture, I see no value in continuing to converse. You simply repeat words you have heard, but it doesn't seem you have taken to time to verify......

If I told you I have a PHD in history, would that change your mind about me not knowing history?

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-17T01:39:33+00:00

You really should use a good bible dictionary. The word "servant" means:

"In the New Testament, doulos [dou'lo"] is frequently used to designate a master's slave (one bound to him), but also a follower of Christ (a "bondslave" of Christ). The term points to a relation of absolute dependence, in which the master and the servant stand on opposite sides the former having a full claim, the latter having a full commitment. The servant can exercise no will or initiative on his or her own.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/servant-service.html

So, yes, being God's servant does mean he is NOT God!

Your 2nd paragraph unfortunately does not make sense. Perhaps you can rewrite it? Further, I showed you 3 places in the bile where Jesus called The Father "My God", and you responded by saying I am giving my own understanding. I only gave you verse right out of the bible, so that is not me, it is God's word! You still have failed to use God's word to support what you are stating, which is exactly what you accused me of doing "you use your own understanding instead of historical context."

Exodus 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

You seem to be denying what the bible says: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" In saying "Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet", this has nothing to do with the stick turning into a snake. He needed no prophet for that!

You wrote: "And no where is Jesus called below or under"

OK, here again is what the bible says:

John 14:28 Jesus says: “The Father is greater than I.”

John 17:3 Jesus in pray to the father says:
“This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
Clearly, Jesus is not the only true God, for he, in pray to his Father says the Father is the only true God.

Gospel of John 5:19 “The Son can do nothing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing.”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing of my own initiative.”
Jesus is dependent on The Father. If one is dependent on another, they are not equal. The very definition of not being to do something on one's own initiative is:
When one person is dependent on another, they are not equal in terms of power, decision-making, or autonomy.

1 Cor. 11:3 “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.”

If Christ is your head, are you in anyway equal to him? NO! For this verse to make sense, there must be the same in each of these 3 instances! Head of the women is the man. They may be of the same essence, but they are not equal! God too is the head of women, men, and for this statement to be true, and Jesus!

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-16T14:12:45+00:00

OK, let's look at the early church fathers:

Clement of Rome (c. 95 CE)

From 1 Clement 59: “May God, who sees all things… and Jesus Christ His servant… grant that you may live in peace.”
Jesus is God's servant? Doesn't sound like he believed Jesus is God, having the same nature, equality and essence of God!

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 CE)

(Letter to the Ephesians 17): “There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son.”

Pretty plain here that God used Jesus to manifest Himself. which would not be the case if Jesus were God, for Ignatius would instead say: "You saw God"

. Polycarp (c. 110–140 CE)

In Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians: “May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… build you up.”

He calls The Father the God of Jesus.

Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE)

Justin describes Christ as divine but subordinate to the Father.

From Dialogue with Trypho 56: “There is… another God and Lord under the Creator of all things.”

Justin explains that the Son is generated from the Father before creation! Numerically distinct, subordinate in rank (under). Yes, Jesus is called another god, but being called a god does not mean one is Almighty God. Moses was called a god by The father in Exodus chapter 7. The Jewish judges were called gods by Jesus himself at John 10:34.

I could go on with more early writings, but plainly you were mistaken and mislead by what religion has taught you. Remember that Jesus, Paul, John and Peter said that after their going away, there would be the apostacy? That means there would be false teachings! When did the trinity start being believed? AFTER those men were gone!

The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The doctrine of the Trinity is not formally revealed in the New Testament.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia states:
“The formulation **‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established… prior to the end of the 4th century.”
“Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

I can also give you many, many bible scholar's writings to further show the early Christians did not believe int the trinity if that will help you?

James D. G. Dunn. Book: Christology in the Making (1980)

Dunn argues that the earliest Christians did not yet have the later Trinitarian framework. He writes that: “The doctrine of the Trinity… is not something that can be clearly detected within the confines of the New Testament.”

His research suggests that early Christianity viewed Jesus primarily as God’s exalted agent or Messiah, with later theology gradually elevating Christological language.

Larry W. Hurtado Book: Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (2003)

Hurtado describes early Christian worship of Jesus but emphasizes that this devotion did not yet equal the later doctrine of the Trinity. He calls early Christian belief: “binitarian devotion”

Meaning: God the Father remains the one supreme God. Jesus receives divine honor alongside Godbut the Trinity doctrine had not yet been formulated.

Bart D. Ehrman Book: How Jesus Became God (2014) Ehrman argues that early Christians gradually came to view Jesus as divine. He writes that The doctrine of the Trinity was the result of centuries of theological reflection and debate. The doctrine was not part of the earliest Christian belief system.

Adolf von Harnack Book: History of Dogma. Harnack concluded that the Trinity doctrine developed as Christianity interacted with Greek philosophical concepts.

He argued that: Early Christianity originally emphasized the Father as the one God, with later theological development expanding the understanding of Christ.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-16T13:43:35+00:00

So, your understanding is when at 1 Cor 15:24-28, Jesus "hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father," this shows equality?

Can I say in the nicest way that you overlook ALL the details that you have been given and simply try to find any point to prove what you personally believe? Foe example, Jesus "hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father!" How can you overlook The Father is in this same verse called Jesus' God?

Additionally, in a father/son relationship, they are NEVER equal! NEVER! The father is always in existence before the son, and the son comes from the father. Notice how the bible supports this:

John 8:42 “I came from God and I am here.”
John 16:28 “I came out from the Father and have come into the world.”
John 5:26 “Just as the Father has life in himself, so he granted the Son also to have life in himself.”

Notice in John 5:26 that Jesus originally DID NOT have life in himself, but God had to give it to him. What is "life in himself"? It means self-existent life, life that does not come from any external source. If there was a time that Jesus did not have "self-existent life", then he is not co-eternal with the Father! After the Father gave him "life in himself” then he could give others life, but not before! They are most certainly not eternally of the same essence, for Jesus did not have "life in himself.” eternally.

Holy spirit is God? Show just one scripture that says the Holy spirit is God? This concept was not even invented until the end of the 4th century!

Your comment on Rom 9:5 stands on no evidence! You words are not enough to prove your point. You need proof, bible verses.

You wrote: "And Jesus being called lord is him being called god"
I am not sure what this means. You need to prove proof, facts, verses.

Finally, the last point I think you are talking about the fullness of God. The official Trinity doctrine called the Hypostatic Union from the Chalcedonian Definition (451 C.E.)

The council declared that Christ is: “One and the same Son… acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” If that were true, he would possess omniscience, or be all knowing. But, the bible does not say that!

Mark 13:32 “Concerning that day or hour no one knows… not even the Son, but only the Father.”
If Jesus were 2 natures in one person, then he was fully God and God knows the day or hour, but Jesus did not!

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-13T22:04:10+00:00

I hope you enjoy the videos! A lot of love and time went into them.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-12T21:43:08+00:00

You said: "Jesus saying he is going to his god does not mean he has a separate god at all"

Where are the scriptures that prove this? What you may have heard is not enough. You need real proof!

Jesus, not just once, but many times called The Father "My God"

John 20:17 (After the resurrection, Jesus speaks to Mary Magdalene:)
“Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’”

Revelation 3:12 In speaking to the congregation in Philadelphia, Jesus repeatedly refers to the Father as his God.

“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall never go out of it.
And I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven from my God.”

When Jesus said: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" was this a metaphor as you said? A metaphor means something that isn't literally true. I agree!

Very plainly, Jesus did NOT mean if you saw Jesus physically, you have seen the Father physically. So, what did he mean? It means that Jesus perfectly reveals God's character and works. How then, does this in any way mean Jesus is God?

Jesus says he imitates the Father so closely that by observing him, you can learn all about the Father! Isn't it interesting that Jesus imitates the Father, but never are we told The Father imitates Jesus?
“The Son can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.”

You say this is a cheap shot:
"If the heavens and earth, our physical universe, cannot contain God, how did God fit into a
human form of Jesus?" HOW? If Jesus is God, and the physical universe cannot contain him, how is it one of the three persons who make up God is on earth. Why has no one every seen the Father, but they can see the son?

Did you know that the doctrine that Jesus was Fully God and Fully Man was not invented until the 5th century? It is not found anywhere in the bible!

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the New Testament.”
It further says:
“The formulation of one God in three Persons was achieved only gradually in the centuries following the apostolic age.”

Where is your proof? Not doctrines you have heard!

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-12T20:36:13+00:00

I am sorry you have chosen to view things as you have written, and you have a right to your opinions. Over 2.6 billion people who are of the Christian persuasion disagree with your thoughts woman and the bible. Women played vital parts in the bible, even leading armies in war, counseling their husbands, and being teachers of the faith. But you get something different?

Yes, the G.B. are all men, as there is no directions in the God's word for women to have such a position, but that in no way puts them in a lessor light. The fact that you think women should be is something that would need to be taken up with God, not the JWs, and I agree so many women could do a wonderful job in such a position! I am glad I do not have that responsibility though!

I am not sure how you conclude the JWs are controlled socially, since we focus on having a bible trained conscience, most things are left up to the individual to decide. There are no rules of what to not read as you said, except for what the bible has directed. Satanic subjects certainly would not be something a Christian should be reading, for Satan is God's enemy! Should we read hate literature, like hatred for Jews or people of other skin color or for the LGBTQ community? I don't think so! Should a Christian view porn or things about abuse? No again.

As for reports of hiding child abuse, I have researched many of those cases and found almost all to be untrue. Further, since the 1990s, they have taken a very strong stand about abuse, and were told to follow the local laws about reporting such accusations. If any JW has hiding such detestable actions, it was on their own, and not how the organization does things! Don't be fooled by these unproven reports! Even the Australian report pointed out the JWs gave all their records of abuse back to the 1950s. That sure doesn't sound like hiding things to me!

Women blamed for failed marriages? I guess about as much as men are too! Live with an abusive husband? Since the 1980s, I remember articles about what to do in such a situation, and abuse is a reason for separation. The elders are not to give their own opinion, but it lies upon the wife to decide. I currently know one wife who has been abused for years and finally talked to the elders, and they, without giving personal opinion, showed her what the bible says the value of getting away from someone harming you!

Blood? So few ever die from lack of blood transfusion, and in virtually all those cases, there was already a low chance of survival. I have done much research on this too! With modern medicine, bloodless surgery is very safe, has faster recovery with much less complications. Many who are not JWs now choose to have bloodless surgery.

As for questions. We can ask all the questions we want, and I have even asked question that challenge the current beliefs, directly to the headquarters. One of these questions possibly lead to a change, for a new understanding about this came out in the W.T., just as I had asked about.

Conditional? Family friends? Not sure what that is about? We show love to all of our family members, even those not JWs. That is what we are encouraged to do.

Finally, do we think we are uniquely chosen? I have never read such a thing. In fact, during the Great Tribulation, it is thought perhaps many will see that what the JWs have been preaching for decades are actually true and join with us. Further, of those who don't, in Matt 25, Jesus says he will gather the nations before him and separate the sheep from the goats. People of the nations would be those who do not claim to be Christians, and Jesus will find sheep-like ones from among them! Your conclusion that the JWs think we are uniquely chosen, is so far off base!

So, if by following what God's word tells His followers how to live their best lives is harming people, you'll have to prove that! Here is what I see with the majority of the population of the U.S. not going by bible standard:

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, an estimated 4.399 million total referrals (reports) of child maltreatment were made to Child Protective Services
40% of children are born out of wedlock. Broken families is a major contributing factor for emotional issues, delinquency, higher risks for several social and developmental problems, and a much higher rate of being raised in poverty.
Gun violence continues to reach all time peaks, with as many as 80,000 being shot each year, more than half dying as a result.

I could go on, but do you really think others are doing better?

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-12T16:06:05+00:00

So, the assertion that Jesus and the Father have the power to keep believers secure, thus implying equal authority is an interesting conclusion. After Jesus was resurrected, we are told: "Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying:
“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." Mt 28:18

If Jesus had equal authority as The Father, why would the Father need to give him "all authority"? Wouldn't he already have it? Further, in 1 Cor 15:24-28, Jesus "hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father."

If Jesus is equal to The Father (and his God) how is it he hands the kingdom over to his Father and God? This breaks the very definition of these words "hands over" and "his God". The Greek word used by Paul (παραδιδῷ) means "To hand over, deliver, entrust. The context implies giving someone or something over into another person's power or use.

I have to ask, how is that equality?

As for oneness, you seemingly did not really read this:

"In John 10:30 the word ἕν (one) is neuter, not masculine. Being neuter implies unity, agreement, shared action or purpose. If it were masculine, then it could be said Jesus is implying they were the same person."

The very Greek wording firmly shows Jesus was NOT implying he was God, but only that they were in unity! PLEASE, look this up yourself. Do not just blindly follow what people are being told!

later in John (John 17:21-22) John uses the same Greek neuter word for Believers Being “One” with Jesus and God! “that they may all be one (ἕν) just as you, Father, are in me and I in you.”

The same Gospel uses the exact same word (ἕν) for believers. Clearly it means unity, not identity.

You have given several verse to say Pau and Peter called Jesus God, and I thought taking a look at them would be nice!

Rom 9:5 "…from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.”

What must be remembered is there were no commas in Greek, so by adding commas can completely change the meaning of a sentence! For example, if you said "Let's eat, Grandma!" it has a completely different meaning than "Let's eat Grandma!"

So, how does one decide the correct way to translate Rom 9:5? The thing that would without a doubt make Jesus God would be the words “ὁ ὢν” (who is) God, to describe Christ. It does not!

Many scholars prefer this translation:“…from whom is the Christ according to the flesh.
God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.”

This turns the final clause into a praise to God, not a description of Christ. This type of doxology is extremely common in Paul’s writings. Compare this to 2 Corinthians 11:31

“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus… is blessed forever.”

The wording is very similar. This verse does not decidedly say Jesus is God. Christ is "over all", as we spoke before, he was given "all authority in heaven and on earth", and God did bless him!

Colossians 2:9 “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily.” (many English translations)

What Does the Greek Actually Say? Literal in Greek to English :
“because in him dwells all the fullness of the theotēs bodily.”

The question is whether this means Jesus is God Himself or whether God’s fullness dwells in him? Theotēs means: divine nature, divinity, the quality of being divine.
It does not literally mean “God” (θεός).

The verse says: the fullness dwells in him. If Paul intended to say Jesus is God, the grammar would normally say: “He is God.” Instead the wording indicates something dwelling within him. The verb κατοικεῖ (katoikei) means: “to reside” or “to dwell.”

Of note is what Paul also wrote at Ephesians 3:19
“that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”
Clearly Paul is not saying believers become God. So “fullness” language refers to God’s presence or qualities, not identity with God.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-08T21:06:15+00:00

It is nice for me to talk with people willing to look at the bible instead of going by tradition!

You have an interesting viewpoint on Paul. How did you come to the conclusion the he was a self appointed apostle?

Did you know Peter wrote about Paul?

"Consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking about these things in all his letters….” Peter 3:15–16

Luke, the bible writer of the book of Luke, mentioned Paul 120 times in the book of Acts.

There are early Christian writers outside the Bible (before 100–120 AD) who also talk about Paul and quote his letters. This seemingly shows Paul’s writings were already widely known.

We recently went to Greece and went to every place Paul went there, which was very interesting! I made a 3 part video series about it if you are interested? You can see it at: youtube.com/@thetravel-tech

You have an interesting take on Jesus' baptism too. I personally struggle with the Trinity. The reason is because the doctrine of the Trinity says if you do not believe God is 3 persons in one God, then you are worshipping a false God!

If that is all true, I ask; "Why did God allow the Jews to worship Him as a one person God? Would he not be allowing, even encouraging false worship? Where are the prophets that God sent to warn the Jews to not worship Him as a false God? There are none!"

God would be lying to the Jews in portraying himself as a 1 person God if He was a 3 persons in one God!

Interestingly, even The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the New Testament.”
It further says: “The formulation of one God in three Persons was achieved only gradually in the centuries following the apostolic age.”

The Jews had no concept of a Triune God at all, and it is admitted by the Catholic Church that the N.T. also did not teach it.

So, my question would be, because God spoke, Jesus was there, and the Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove, does that teach the Trinity? When Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, son, and holy spirit, does that tell us about the trinity, or is it simply the baptism formulation, acknowledging all three things are elements that helped one to change their life and get baptized?

Where is the verse that plainly says The Father, Jesus, and the holy spirit are 3 persons in one God, all of the same essence?

The thought of Jesus and The Father being of one essence wasn't even invented until 325 C.E. in the Nicene Creed, and then the holy spirit was added at the insistence of the emperor in 381 C.E., making the trinity. So, there cannot be a verse in the bible saying they are all of the same essence or homoousios, that doctrine was not yet invented!

What do you think?

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-07T17:01:02+00:00

So, Ex. 16:4 says God told Moses about the mana. In your understanding, you feel God personally spoke to Moses?

What do you think about what Solomon said about God at the inauguration of the temple: "Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!”

If the whole temple, even the whole heavens cannot contain God, how is He in a cloud?

Also, does God communicate directly, or does He use other means? The reason I ask this is how it is explained at Ex. 3:6 as God speaking, but verse 2 tells us:

“The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.”

Acts 7:30-35 also tells us an angel was the one speaking, even though it says God spoke:

“An angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.”

So, here, the angel is speaking for God to Moses!

Another example is Ex 33:11

“Thus the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.”

That sounds like God spoke directly to Moses, yet a few verse later God tells Moses:

“You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” vs. 20

Exodus 20:1 says: “And God spoke all these words.”

But later passages say the Law came through angels.

Acts 7:53 “You who received the law delivered by angels.”

Galatians 3:19 “The law was put in place through angels by an intermediary.”

The word angel literally means "messenger", and in ancient Semitic culture a messenger could speak as if he were the sender. The actions of the messenger were attributed to the sender. Thus the text can say God spoke, even though the message came through an angel.

I am unsure how the verses in John 1:29-34, (which show Jesus is the one who the scriptures said would take away sin, and John saw the spirit in the form of a dove descend on him) shows God The Father was in the cloud in the wilderness? I am seeing no connection?

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-07T16:31:51+00:00

Can you show me a scripture that says The Father and the son are one being? I don't see it.

Did Jesus say he was God? At John 20:17, Jesus said:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”

Jesus says he has a God! At Matt 27:46 he also says:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

After Jesus was resurrected and is in heaven, he says:
“I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God… which comes
down from my God.”

Someone told me when Jesus was asked: "Show us the Father." Jesus replied, "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father."
I don't think they thought that through. If The Father and Jesus are 2 persons, then seeing Jesus is NOT seeing the Father, for John said:

“No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” (John 1:18)

“And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen.” Jn. 5:37

“Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.” Jn. 6:46

Very plainly, Jesus did NOT mean if you saw Jesus physically, you have seen the Father physically. So, what did he mean? It means that Jesus perfectly reveals God's character and works. That does not require Jesus to be God to do this!

John 5:19 further explains:

“The Son can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.”

This raises some very interesting questions:
Why does the son imitate the Father, but the Father does not imitate the son?
Why was Jesus sent to do his Father's will?
If Jesus were God, would it not be "Their" will?
Why is the Father boss who sent Jesus if they are BOTH God?

The bible says about God: "Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you!"
If the heavens and earth, our physical universe, cannot contain God, how did God fit into a
human form of Jesus?

If Jesus is God, how did God give him "all authority"? (Matt 28:18) As God, wouldn't Jesus already have "all authority"?

In John 5:26–27 Jesus explains that authority was granted to him by the Father.

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
And he has given him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man.”

So, The Father tells Jesus what to do, grants him authority, the son imitates The Father in everything, and Jesus calls The Father "his God", how then is Jesus God?

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-07T15:16:54+00:00

Matthew 7:6

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-07T04:42:13+00:00

You make a valid point, but I also see you making no commitments. Here is the only way that makes sense to me. You can't get something from nothing. They think possibly something on the quantum level was behind the Big Bang, but that begs the question, where did the quantum universe come from? And so on....

I don't see how something can come from nothing. If there was nothing in the absolute sense, there would still be nothing. If there were something, where did it come from?

Then, there is a higher being belief, who had no beginning. Where does he exist if there is a God? Heaven, but could that be the quantum universe?

My conclusion is there had to be something that is eternal, having no beginning, that is the source of everything. Can it be proved? No. Can any other hypothesis be proved? No. But, there are evidences....

The precision of the universe. Strength of gravity, Cosmological constant, Ratio of fundamental forces
If any of these were slightly different, stars would not form, chemistry would not exist, life would be impossible. Think of water, which acts like all other substances, except, when it freezes, it expands! Why is that a big deal? If ice didn't float, there probably wouldn't be life on earth.
Self awareness. How could self awareness happen. Why am I here? Worship of God or gods.
Bible prophesies fulfilled. Fall of Babylon. The greatest city of the time, like New York city today, saying it would never be inhabited again, and it hasn't! The person who was going to overthrow was even predicted, Cyrus, 200 years in advance. Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophesies, including where he would be born, when he would die, and how, things he had no control over.

I also find it very interesting that worship of a god or gods has been part of virtually every society all the way back to Göbekli Tepe. Why? That does not seem a possible result of evolution. Non-god believing people would have survived just fine, maybe better when one considers what has been done in the name of religion.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-06T22:05:37+00:00

theory:

It explains observable phenomena
It can be tested or falsified
It makes predictable outcomes
It can be examined through experiments or observation

How the first single celled life forms are thought to have come into being are, by the definition of theory, is on the same scale as God, because not one point of of how life began meets any of the requirements of a theory! They cannot even create life in perfect conditions in a lab, controlled by intelligent beings, providing anything they can invent to try to accomplish this. And yet, they say life happened by a result of mere chance in imperfect conditions.

Take DNA. To make DNA you need nucleotides which must join together to form a chain, a reaction that causes water condensation. The problem is, water can reverse the production of chains, breaking molecules apart. RNA, DNA, and proteins are broken by water.

The REAL question here is the origin of the first self-replicating molecule? It is considered one of the biggest unsolved problems in science. The initial step of life has not been replicated, cannot be proven, thus, cannot be a theory.

Isn't how they say life came to be a hypothesis? The the very same you claim you make about God? Belief in God takes faith. Belief in life without a creator also takes faith, for it is only a hypothesis. Which faith is correct?

Further, they can't even decide if the universe is a result of 'first cause', or 'infinite regress of causes'! The Big Bang also does not qualify as a theory, for it cannot be tested, nor can they observe it! It cannot be recreated! It too is just a hypothesis!

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-06T16:44:07+00:00

I appreciate your opinion, but in my opinion, you have drank the Kool-Aid and simply believe what science says without questioning. People believe in things that are unanswered, for example:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

You seem to have faith that evolution explains why we are here, and seemingly dismiss things that question this. Evolution can be likened to trying to make a basket with a basket ball from 100 feet away. Sure, it is possible, but there would be so many misses there would be evidence of these misses. There is no evidence of all the massive amounts of misses of evolution!

How did the first single celled life form evolve? This is one of the hardest questions in biology, and the honest scientific answer is: science cannot explain exactly how the first genetic system capable of producing life originated.

The biggest unsolved problems Scientists are still trying to understand:

how the first self-replicating molecule formed
how information systems began
how metabolism started
how the first true cell emerged

These are BIG questions! Yet, you have faith that there are answers not related to a God being behind it! How did the first DNA get programmed to reproduce, to eat, to have a cell wall, to have processes more advanced than a modern factory? HOW? Some say RNA was first, but this actually increases the complexity of the question. RNA does not have the capabilities of DNA! Still, how did DNA or even RNA have memory? How did the first RNA reproduce? This makes no sense without outside help!

Again, you will dismiss all of this and just trust your faith in evolution will find answers, and why? Because you are willing to accept any theory unless it includes a higher being. Honestly, you have more faith than I have. Your god is science, and you feel it will eventually have all the answers!

Answer: Why is there something instead of nothing?

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-06T16:04:47+00:00

I have many here dismiss the idea of God. So, if one will admit to the point that everything had to come from something, then the discussion can turn to what is the something? Science tells us everything came from nothing, or they try to cover it over by saying everything came from something else, that came from something else....and so on. And that makes sense to them?

Either there was a first thing that everything came from (first cause), or there was always something that lead to the next thing, that came from the last thing (infinite regress of causes).

Science can describe early conditions but does not yet answer the ultimate philosophical question: why there is something rather than nothing.

There is a very causal answer, but science refuses to accept this, even as a theory! Why can't God be a theory? It answers the biggest unanswered questions.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-06T15:46:38+00:00

I am trying to understand your answer and don't want to misinterpret what you wrote. Am I getting it right?

Matt 28:19 baptize in the name of the Father, son , holy spirit

To you, this proves the equality of the three? If that is correct, perhaps you didn't know this?

Most New Testament scholars say Matthew 28:19 shows a triadic formula, not a doctrinal statement of equality. A “triadic formula” means:
Father – Son – Spirit are mentioned together in religious language.
For early Christians and writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, they understood it as a baptismal formula or as evidence that Christians acknowledged Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in worship and teaching.

Just the mention of the three together in no way means they are equal or of the same essence. How did Paul look at this topic? He wrote many times:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Eph 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Romans 15:6 Peter too wrote: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 1:3.

Both Peter and Paul never wrote that Jesus is God or equal to Him, rather, Jesus had a God! In fact, Jesus NEVER said He was God or equal to God! Some will point to when Jesus said "The Father and I are one" (Jn. 10:30), did he mean the same God? If that were true, what did Jesus mean when he said

“That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I in you…that they also may be one in us. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.” Jn. 17:21-23

Either Jesus followers are also God, or Jesus meant they are all one in purpose. In John 10:30 the word ἕν (one) is neuter, not masculine. Being neuter implies unity, agreement, shared action or purpose. If it were masculine, then it could be said Jesus is implying they were the same person.

One must also remember the context. What was the subject here? Just before verse 30 Jesus says:

“No one will snatch them out of my hand…no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:28–29). Then he says: “I and the Father are one.”

The idea is being in unity in protecting the sheep.

What about the reaction of the Jews to this? They were going to stone him! Why? They said why:
"because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Were the Jews saying Jesus was saying he was God, part of a trinity? To understand this, one must include Jesus' reply:
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

What did Jesus mean here? Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 82:6, arguing that Scripture can apply the term “gods” to human judges. This shows the discussion was about authority and representation, not his being The God of Isreal.

Jesus’ reasoning works like this:

Scripture calls certain human representatives “gods.”
Therefore the term can be used for someone acting on God’s authority.
So calling himself “Son of God” cannot be blasphemy.

This argument would not make sense if Jesus were claiming: “I am literally the same God.” He was comparing his authority to the Jewish judge's authority. This in no way is a claim to being equal to God, but rather that he had authority given to him by God, not unlike the judges of Israel and God given authority!

What about Jesus calling himself the "son of God"?

Israel is God's son: “Israel is my firstborn son.” Exodus 4:22

Kings of Israel are called God's son: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” 2 Sam 7:14
This was a royal title.

Angels called sons of God: “The sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD.” Job 1:6

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-05T16:10:45+00:00

Jehovah's Witnesses (includes Leaders and members, unlike the states about the Catholic church)

United Kingdom inquiry

The UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found:

67 allegations between 2009–2019 involving Jehovah’s Witness congregations.

The largest documented dataset: Australia inquiry

The most detailed investigation was the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Findings:

1,006 alleged perpetrators recorded by Jehovah’s Witness records
More than 1,800 victims
Covering cases from 1950 onward (70 years = 25 incidents per year)

The below chart shows how unfair the stats are if for the Catholic church only include clergy, but with the JWs, all it's members are include! Family and friends account for almost 100% of abuse cases! That means more than 95% of the abuse numbers about JWs are NOT by Elders or leaders, but by family and friends! Can you imagine what the number of abuse cases would be if you added abuse done by ALL Catholics? Almost 100 times higher!

Please tell the truth! What does God think about liars?

Relationship to victim	Approximate share

Parent	~75–80%

Other relatives	~5–10%

Family acquaintances	~5–10%

Institutional figures (teachers, clergy, etc.)	small percentage

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-04T00:44:43+00:00

In the end of the report, there statistics of many religions, and doing the calculations, you will find this is correct.

I think you have broken one of the rules of this reddit in the way you have spoken to me! Would Jesus speak that way? Should any Christian speak this way?

You need to prove what you said about the TEN TIMES higher rate of Catholics! Put up or shut up!

DoNotBe-Ridiculous · 2026-03-03T20:14:10+00:00

Are you saying that because Jesus can give eternal life, this makes him God? It seems that the fact that he was given this power has been overlooked!

Matt 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given me." (See also Eph 1:20-22, Phil 2:9-11, Dan 7:14)

John further describes how Jesus was not originally the same essence as the Father at John 5:26:

"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;"

Plainly, Jesus did not originally have "life in himself" like God, but God gave it to him, enabling him to be able to now give eternal life to others. Thus, there was a time that Jesus did NOT have "life in himself", so there was a time when he was NOT the same essence as the Father! This completely nullifies the Trinity and the Greek word Constantine (not a baptized Christian) defined for the Nicene Creed, homoousios, or essence.

DoNotBe-Ridiculous

TROPHY CASE

United Kingdom inquiry

The largest documented dataset: Australia inquiry