The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[Rick B]

Orthodox Christian doctrine defines God succinctly as: Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the Son, also called the Word (Rev.19:13; the Word was God Jn.1:1) the doctrine of the incarnation describes that event when the eternal Word (the pre-incarnate Christ) took on human nature, sin excepted, (Jn.1:14). Further describing this event Theologians teach the hypostatic union - an attempt to explain the divine nature and human nature coming together in the one person of the God-man Jesus Christ. Jesus will forever possess these two inseparable yet distinct, unmixed, undiluted, natures uniquely qualifying Him as the Mediator between God and man. This also explains those references which refer to Christ as divine or human for He is both.

In eternity past the Persons of the One Being of God covenanted that the Father would send and give a people to the Son, the Son willingly would go and accomplish their redemption, and the Holy Spirit would empower Jesus and apply His redeeming work to a particular people. (Ps.2; Isa.53:10-12)

Jesus' physical death on the cross accomplished the propitiatory (satisfaction) sacrifice in behalf of the elect, paying the penalty of all their sins. Being fully God and having no sin of His own death could not hold Him in punishment. Therefore God, being satisfied with the full payment of His broken law (Heb.2:17; Rom.6:23), God raised Him from the dead (Acts 13:22-41). Because of who He is and what He has done we have the "Carmen Christi":

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in the appearance of a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him a name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus 'Every knee will bow', of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil.2:5-11

Reminiscent of Isaiah 45:23: Almighty God speaking in the Old Testament says: "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me, every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance."

 

[Rick B]

If its the exegesis that concerns you I think you would have considered the entire Gospels and not the special circumstances of John. Texts where the implication is that the title God was not used for Jesus. Texts where the title was at best dubious. Texts where Jesus is clearly called God and then evaluate the evidence.

By an exegetical response I mean that I would like to see a direct response to the texts and context of the Biblical passages presented, demonstrating how the expositions offered are contrary to the translation and intention of the original, inspired author. Not, for example, as @MJFlores, who simply presents rabbit-trails, misdirection, strawmen, pictures, gifs, memes, cartoons, and repetitive indoctrinations of the INC cult (no ad hominem but as defined by all Christian organizations) which openly reveals the absurdity of their heretical system.

Go to the texts. Refute, if you can, by grammatical, historical, scholarly means that the Bible isn't saying what it's saying.

 

[Repox]

I suggest everyone check some references. Read The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mark. In his remarkable analysis, following in the tradition of other brilliant Bible scholars, he shows how the Jesus movement leaders didn't declare Jesus to be the son of God until about 40 to 50 years after his death. Also, the crucifixion of Jesus wasn't mentioned until about the same time. Prior gospels show Jesus was regarded as a divine wise-man or sage. As an example, see "The Gospel of Thomas."

 

[Rick B]

I suggest everyone check some references. Read The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mark. In his remarkable analysis, following in the tradition of other brilliant Bible scholars, he shows how the Jesus movement leaders didn't declare Jesus to be the son of God until about 40 to 50 years after his death. Also, the crucifixion of Jesus wasn't mentioned until about the same. Prior gospels show Jesus was regarded as a divine wise-man or sage. As an example, see "The Gospel of Thomas."

There is no evidence, whatsoever, of the supposed "Lost gospel of q". A book written from the subjective imagination of a canonical rejector. A fictional fantasy.

As for the "Gospel of Thomas" it is a Gnostic gospel promoting Gnostic Christianity which is, once again, heresy.

Instead of engaging in fallacious argumentation, by creating rabbit-trails and presenting a non-response (according to rules of logical debate), respond directly to the texts. If one cannot then they have no legitimate argument.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Did you read the inspired statements describing the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ?
"Declare" - Pronounce or assert (a person or a thing) to be something specified. en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/declare
Clearly "declare" is an acceptable word considering the context.

This section in Revelation is dealing with the coming of Christ. The Apostle John assigns a descriptive name to Jesus “The Word of God” (Gr. ho logos ho theos). This identifying Christ as “Logos”, the “Word”, is also used by John in the Prologue to his Gospel: John 1:1-18

This right here does not track. Let me break down how I read John 1.

John 1 begins with "In the beginning was the Logos (word)" an allusion to Genesis 1. John 1 through John 3 is a unit not really three separate chapters, and in 3 Jesus talks about the light that enters the world and separates the evil from the good -- a clear allusion to the separation of Day from Night in Genesis 1. The light in John 1 is also the light in John 3. So first of all, Jesus and John are saying that now judgment is based on who steps into the Light of Jesus ministry, which divides night from day. This is the new baptism he's talking about. Now you don't need to be Jewish and follow Jewish customs in order to receive the Logos. That is what he's talking about. There is a bigger ark now, and you need to be baptized by the Holy Spirit which no human controls, as opposed to water baptism which is controlled by Moses. (I am not suggesting that he is doing away with Judaism.)

John chapter one has a specific progression: Light is the Life, which is in the Logos, which is with God and which is God. God --> Logos --> Life --> Light. He says "In it the Logos (translated the word) was life, and that life was the light of men....the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it..." So John says here that Jesus is in the Logos, but not that he is the Logos as you have suggested. John says he is the Life which is the Light of men. Instead the suggestion is that the Logos has come to be tabernacled in all people, unrestricted by water baptism. To emphasize the symbolism of the gentiles receiving a greater ministry than the Jews, Jesus (the greater prophet) is baptized by John (the lesser prophet) in imitation of Elishah and Elijah.

Jesus ministry is the light (not the Logos), however the Logos is sent down to all of us men and is tabernacled among us. (John 1:14). We are flesh, but now the Logos is in us (John's Jewish audience but also whomsoever enters the light). John says that now the Logos dwells among us. This is a claim to the fulfillment of Abraham's wildest dreams, the beginning of peace on Earth, the hope of Israel enacted, the end of lawlessness. It is a claim that now the Torah is written upon the heart and more. I refer you to Jeremiah 31:34 "...No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” That is the meaning of the "Word came and dwelt among us" in John 1.

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NIV John 1:14) So what John 1 says is that the Logos has come and now is tabernacled in us. The Greek word is the same used for Tabernacle in the LXX. This specific wording should remind us of the story of Israel in the Wilderness and that they had to keep following the glory of God around with the tabernacle. It did not follow the tabernacle. Continuing the thought Jesus says to Nicodemus in chapter 3 "The spirit goes where it will. You do not know where it comes for or where it is going. So it is with everyone 'Born of the spirit'." From that conversation and the above, those born of the spirit are Sons of God, and the Logos is in them. They are the tabernacle, so they must follow the glory. It does not follow them, however the implication of John 1 is that the glory has finally come to rest in one place, because he says the glory is tabernacled among us, and we have power to become sons of God (whereas before most of us did not).

 

[Repox]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, of the supposed "Lost gospel of q". A book written from the subjective imagination of a canonical rejector. A fictional fantasy.

As for the "Gospel of Thomas" it is a Gnostic gospel promoting Gnostic Christianity which is, once again, heresy.

Instead of engaging in fallacious argumentation, by creating rabbit-trails and presenting a non-response (according to rules of logical debate), respond directly to the texts. If one cannot then they have no legitimate argument.

Yours is an answer based on a strong bias against historical facts. It is not based on logic. If you don't like the sources, you say it is heresy. How convenient. If you had read Mack's book you would know there is a Gospel Q, it was found by outstanding and well-known Bible scholars. Religions, of course, reject ideas contradicting their beliefs. THEY DONT DO RESEARCH! Here is another scholarly book to read, The Missing Gospels by Darrel L. Bock, PH.D. Have you read Mack's book? Sorry, maybe you don't read books.

As for "The Gospel of Thomas," it is recognized by reputable Bible scholars.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

Oh, yes, here is another factual idea for you to ignore. None of the gospels preceding the four NT gospels mention a single "Jesus story" written by NT authors. Those books are about "Jesus sayings." Oh, that's my discovery, they invented those stories. It is also interesting to learn about early church leaders. In order to promote the four gospels, they destroyed as many of those other gospels they could find. Fortunately, a few were not destroyed, which questions the legitimacy of the four NT gospels. As a scholar, I have conducted a lot of research on the NT gospels. So, be prepared for a long debated, unless you are not up to it. Historical research can be disheartening when findings contradicts strong biases.





,

 

[Deeje]

Instead of engaging in fallacious argumentation, by creating rabbit-trails and presenting a non-response (according to rules of logical debate), respond directly to the texts. If one cannot then they have no legitimate argument.

Was this not a legitimate argument? Is there a reason why you ignored it?

The Bible declares that Jesus is God

 

[Rational Agnostic]

This post is intended to address a subject which has been argued a number of times. I have read some and briefly engaged some of those who reject the deity of Christ because they say that the Bible does not state the words “Jesus is God”. I believe this argument is fallacious, violating the word-concept fallacy. Also it demonstrates a presupposed bias when so many Scriptures identify Christ as divine, attributing to Him many of the divine names given to God. I do not intend to deal with the many New Testament texts ascribing Old Testament references of Jehovah to Jesus Christ. Nor the many references equating Him as Lord in the N.T. with Kurios (Lord) in the Septuagint. I will only use the Apostle John in this post in whose writings reveal the Deity of Christ.

Revelation 19:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

This section in Revelation is dealing with the coming of Christ. The Apostle John assigns a descriptive name to Jesus “The Word of God” (Gr. ho logos ho theos). This identifying Christ as “Logos”, the “Word”, is also used by John in the Prologue to his Gospel: John 1:1-18

John 1:1-18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Witness John

6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Word Made Flesh

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Note verse 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi). The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. “and the Word was with God…the Logos has been in communion and communication with God for eternity as well. The verb is the same as the first clause, and the preposition pros (“with”) pictures for us face-to-face communication. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. We have the same situation in 1.1c.The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase “and God was the Word” for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term “God” is the predicate nominative, the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term “God” by placing it first in the clause – this is not just a “divine nature” as in something like the angels have – rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as “Deity”). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity.”

What he wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from “God” (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa – there are two persons under discussion here.

John 1:1 tells us some extremely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John’s mind – the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God.

John goes on to gives to Jesus another descriptive name: “The Light”, the “True Light”, the “Light of the world”.

Verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The Word did not eternally exist in the form of flesh; rather, at a particular point in time He became flesh. This is the incarnation.

Verse 18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB

He first asserts that no one has “seen God at any time.” Now, the Old Testament tells us that men have indeed seen God in the past – Isaiah saw God on His throne in Isaiah 6; Abraham walked with Yahweh in Genesis 18. So what does John mean? He defines for us that the one he is speaking of here is the Father – that is, no one has seen the Father at any time. OK, then who was it that was seen by Isaiah or by Abraham?

John tells us – the unique God. Here the phrase is monogenes theos. There is a textual variant here. Many manuscripts have monogenes huios (unique Son) – and the KJV follows this tradition. But the strongest reading is “unique God.” How are we to understand this?

The term “monogenes” is used only of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Jesus is here described as the “unique God” – John is not asserting a separate deity from the Father. Rather, this ‘unique God” is the one who is eternally in fellowship with the Father. Even when discussing the “separateness” of the Father and the Son as persons, John is quick to emphasize the unity of the divine Persons in their eternal fellowship together. Here John teaches, again, the eternal and central fact of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The unique God makes the Father known – He “explains’ Him. What we know of the Father we know because of the revelation of the Son. We know what the Father is like because we know what Jesus Is like. Here the Son’s function as the revelator of the Father is clearly set forth, and this is directly in line with the usage of the term Logos in the Prologue. Other New Testament writers use the same theme – for Paul Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” and for the writer of Hebrews Jesus is ‘the express image of His (the Father’s) person…” Both writers (or maybe just one writer if Paul indeed wrote Hebrews) are emphasizing the role of Jesus as the revealer of the Father. In the same way, this answers the above question regarding who it was, in John’s opinion, that was seen of Abraham and Isaiah. We have already had occasion to note that John will directly assert that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in the person of Yahweh (12:39ff), and could it be that this is the explanation for Jesus’ statement in John 8:56? Did Abraham “see the day of Jesus” when he walked with Him by the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1)?

The conclusion is obvious throughout these few verses:

If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

And if that same Word is God. Jn.1:1-18

Then Jesus is God.

Special thanks to James R White

It's not a fallacy, and even as a non-believer it is quite obvious to me that the bible does not teach that Jesus is God. We read in the bible that Jesus states "Trust in God; trust also in me." Clearly, he is speaking of himself and God as distinct entities. He also is recorded to pray to God on numerous occasions. Does it make any sense to pray to an external "God" entity if you are God? Of course not.

 

[Repox]

Following my post #23, I would like to propose Jesus was God, but my reasons are different from others who have written on the topic.

I suggest everyone check some references. Read the Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mark. In his remarkable analysis, following in the tradition of other brilliant Bible scholars, he shows how the Jesus movement leaders didn't declare Jesus to be the son of God until about 40 to 50 years after his death. Also, the crucifixion of Jesus wasn't mentioned until about the same time. Prior gospels show Jesus was regarded as a divine wise-man or sage. As an example, see "The Gospel of Thomas."

Prior gospels presented Jesus sayings, not Jesus stories. According to "The Gospel of Thomas," Jesus was a divine wise-man or sage. According to Mack's Lost Gospel of Q, Jesus movement leaders did not declare Jesus to be the son of God 40 to 50 years after his death. Based on prior gospels, and the historically unsubstantiated NT gospel claims for Jesus being the son of God, there is evidence to support the idea of Jesus being God.

• The more you research the NT gospels the more you find them to be unreliable. Unfortunately, almost all claims about Jesus are based on the NT gospels. Most prior gospels were destroyed by church leaders. Once they had decided Jesus was the son of God, they launched a campaign to destroy all other gospels. Apparently, those other gospels didn't proclaim Jesus to be the son of God. Without the son of God salvation story, Christianity probably would not have become a popular religion.

 

[pearl]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, of the supposed "Lost gospel of q". A book written from the subjective imagination of a canonical rejector. A fictional fantasy.

"Q" is a hypothetical source posited by most scholars to explain what is referred to as a double tradition, (agreements between Matt and Luke on material not found in Mark) At the root of the hypothesis is the plausible assumption that the Matthean evangelist did not know Luke and Luke did not know Matthew, they must have had a common source. As interesting as the Q collection is there are cautions; Meier, A Marginal Jew, proposes that every morning exegetes should repeat, "Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community, and stages of composition cannot be known.'

 

[pearl]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, of the supposed "Lost gospel of q". A book written from the subjective imagination of a canonical rejector. A fictional fantasy.

"Q" is a hypothetical source posited by most scholars to explain what was is referred to as a double tradition, (agreements between Matt and Luke on material not found in Mark) At the root of the hypothesis is the plausible assumption that the Matthean evangelist did not know Luke and Luke did not know Matthew, they must have had a common source. The existence of Q remains the best way of explaining the agreements between Matt and Luke in material they did not borrow from Mark. There are cautions offered as by Meier, 'the Marginal Jew', "Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community and stages of composition cannot be known.'

 

[pearl]

Go to the texts. Refute, if you can, by grammatical, historical, scholarly means that the Bible isn't saying what it's saying.

Throughout the Gospels Jesus is portrayed as praying to his Father, the God revealed in the Old Testament. Jesus in the early sermons of Acts, Jesus was a man attested by God, (Acts 2:22) God preached to Israel through Jesus(10:36). The NT offers a distinction between God the Father and Jesus. Answering the one who calls Him 'good teacher' Jesus says 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." "I a ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (Jn20:17).

Jn 17:3--"Eternal life consists of this: that they know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

1 Cor 8:6--:For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all thing and through whom we exist."

Eph 4:4-6--"....one Spirit....one Lord...one God and Father of us all."

1Tim2:5--"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Mk 13:32--"Of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Phil2:5-10--....Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name...that every tongue....that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'

 

[Rick B]

This right here does not track. Let me break down how I read John 1.

John 1 begins with "In the beginning was the Logos (word)" an allusion to Genesis 1. John 1 through John 3 is a unit not really three separate chapters, and in 3 Jesus talks about the light that enters the world and separates the evil from the good -- a clear allusion to the separation of Day from Night in Genesis 1. The light in John 1 is also the light in John 3. So first of all, Jesus and John are saying that now judgment is based on who steps into the Light of Jesus ministry, which divides night from day. This is the new baptism he's talking about. Now you don't need to be Jewish and follow Jewish customs in order to receive the Logos. That is what he's talking about. There is a bigger ark now, and you need to be baptized by the Holy Spirit which no human controls, as opposed to water baptism which is controlled by Moses. (I am not suggesting that he is doing away with Judaism.)

John chapter one has a specific progression: Light is the Life, which is in the Logos, which is with God and which is God. God --> Logos --> Life --> Light. He says "In it the Logos (translated the word) was life, and that life was the light of men....the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it..." So John says here that Jesus is in the Logos, but not that he is the Logos as you have suggested. John says he is the Life which is the Light of men. Instead the suggestion is that the Logos has come to be tabernacled in all people, unrestricted by water baptism. To emphasize the symbolism of the gentiles receiving a greater ministry than the Jews, Jesus (the greater prophet) is baptized by John (the lesser prophet) in imitation of Elishah and Elijah.

Jesus ministry is the light (not the Logos), however the Logos is sent down to all of us men and is tabernacled among us. (John 1:14). We are flesh, but now the Logos is in us (John's Jewish audience but also whomsoever enters the light). John says that now the Logos dwells among us. This is a claim to the fulfillment of Abraham's wildest dreams, the beginning of peace on Earth, the hope of Israel enacted, the end of lawlessness. It is a claim that now the Torah is written upon the heart and more. I refer you to Jeremiah 31:34 "...No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” That is the meaning of the "Word came and dwelt among us" in John 1.

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NIV John 1:14) So what John 1 says is that the Logos has come and now is tabernacled in us. The Greek word is the same used for Tabernacle in the LXX. This specific wording should remind us of the story of Israel in the Wilderness and that they had to keep following the glory of God around with the tabernacle. It did not follow the tabernacle. Continuing the thought Jesus says to Nicodemus in chapter 3 "The spirit goes where it will. You do not know where it comes for or where it is going. So it is with everyone 'Born of the spirit'." From that conversation and the above, those born of the spirit are Sons of God, and the Logos is in them. They are the tabernacle, so they must follow the glory. It does not follow them, however the implication of John 1 is that the glory has finally come to rest in one place, because he says the glory is tabernacled among us, and we have power to become sons of God (whereas before most of us did not).

Thank you for your response. Although it is somewhat rambling and consists of disjointed suppositions, you did, at least, attempt to address a couple of statements in my opening post. But I must correct one of your deductions.

You state: "In it the Logos (translated the word) was life, and that life was the light of men..."Then deduce: "So John here says Jesus is in the Logos, but not that he is the Logos", deriving your assertion from a mistranslation.

I don't know from what version you derived that quote. You offer no substantiation. The text, again, states: "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:4

To base your whole unsupported, misrepresenting argument upon an unverified, and by all accounts, false translation of the proposed Biblical texts is self-refuting.

 

[Rick B]

Throughout the Gospels Jesus is portrayed as praying to his Father, the God revealed in the Old Testament. Jesus in the early sermons of Acts, Jesus was a man attested by God, (Acts 2:22) God preached to Israel through Jesus(10:36). The NT offers a distinction between God the Father and Jesus. Answering the one who calls Him 'good teacher' Jesus says 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." "I a ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (Jn20:17).

Jn 17:3--"Eternal life consists of this: that they know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

1 Cor 8:6--:For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all thing and through whom we exist."

Eph 4:4-6--"....one Spirit....one Lord...one God and Father of us all."

1Tim2:5--"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Mk 13:32--"Of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Phil2:5-10--....Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name...that every tongue....that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'

I appreciate your quoting of true Biblical texts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thank you for your response. Although it is somewhat rambling and consists of disjointed suppositions, you did, at least, attempt to address a couple of statements in my opening possible. But I must correct one of your deductions.

You state: "In it the Logos (translated the word) was life, and that life was the light of men..."Then deduce: "So John here says Jesus is in the Logos, but not that he is the Logos", deriving your assertion from a mistranslation.

I don't know from what version you derived that quote. You offer no substantiation. The text, again, states: "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:4

To base your whole unsupported, misrepresenting argument upon an unverified, and by all accounts, false translation of the proposed Biblical texts is self-refuting.

I'm glad I could entertain you for a few minutes. Its true that Bible translations do not mention Logos except in footnotes, and tossing out those footnotes is a fair debate tactic. You have proved to be good at throwing away things that you do not agree with.

 

[Rick B]

"Q" is a hypothetical source posited by most scholars to explain what was is referred to as a double tradition, (agreements between Matt and Luke on material not found in Mark) At the root of the hypothesis is the plausible assumption that the Matthean evangelist did not know Luke and Luke did not know Matthew, they must have had a common source. The existence of Q remains the best way of explaining the agreements between Matt and Luke in material they did not borrow from Mark. There are cautions offered as by Meier, 'the Marginal Jew', "Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community and stages of composition cannot be known.'

I think "the best way of explaining the agreements between Matt and Luke in material they did not borrow from Mark" is the Holy Spirit' infallible plenary inspiring of the texts of the 66 books of the Bible.

 

[Repox]

"Q" is a hypothetical source posited by most scholars to explain what was is referred to as a double tradition, (agreements between Matt and Luke on material not found in Mark) At the root of the hypothesis is the plausible assumption that the Matthean evangelist did not know Luke and Luke did not know Matthew, they must have had a common source. The existence of Q remains the best way of explaining the agreements between Matt and Luke in material they did not borrow from Mark. There are cautions offered as by Meier, 'the Marginal Jew', "Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community and stages of composition cannot be known.'

This is an excellent summary of Q. It was found after researchers discovered common verses in Matthew and Luke which could not be explained except with reference to a common reference. Thus, we have a logical argument based on a provable hypothesis. Also, Mack and others discovered four stages in the development of Gospel Q. Stories about the son of God emerged in the third cycle, which means Jesus was not regarded as the son of God until Jesus movement leaders decided it. The time period for this transformation in the definition of Jesus occurred about 40 to 50 years after Jesus died. Immediately following his death, Jesus was regarded as a sage or wise divine leader.

 

[Rick B]

I'm glad I could entertain you for a few minutes. Its true that Bible translations do not mention Logos except in footnotes, and tossing out those footnotes is a fair debate tactic. You have proved to be good at throwing away things that you do not agree with.

I believe you missed the point altogether. Logos is there in the Greek manuscripts.
I nowhere dismissed it's usage, even if in a footnote. The point I was clearly making is that you misquoted the text of Jn.1:4 in an attempt to further your bias against the truth explicitly stated in the prologue of John, wittingly or unwittingly.

 

[pearl]

I appreciate your quoting of true Biblical texts.

If only it were that simple. The question is what was the intent of the authors who ultimately penned the NT. Did the Evangelists believe that Jesus was God? The later the writing more time has passed and it must be recognized that under the guidance of the Paraclete what they wrote was not some kind of dictation, but there own theology and Christology.

 

[Jason0047]

Question

What is your understanding of the below verses. (They are after Jesus died)

Rev 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name. 13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." This is Jesus talking after his death.

1 Corinthians 11:3" But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."

The Trinity is true.

1 John 5:7 says,
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

It is also true that Jesus is God, as well.
But what about John 20:17?

Lets look at the verse.

"Jesus saith unto her,
"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.""
(John 20:17).

Is Jesus (Who is God) really saying He has a God?
In other words, does God have a God?

Well, in the beginning of the gospel of John, it says this...

John 1:1-2 KJV - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God. The same was in the beginning with God."

In other words, John 20:17 is speaking in a similar way as John 1:1. The Word (Jesus - who is God) was with God the Father.

So when Jesus says... "I ascend unto... my God..." He is acknowledging that He is ascending to the Father who is God in essence in being (as a part of the plurality of the Godhead).

Yet, how can God have a God? Doesn't that imply a possession?
Yes, but Jesus says elsewhere, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Also, when Jesus uses the word "my" in the words "my God" He is also referring to whom He always obeys, too (Sort of like how a loyal servant always obeys His ruling King).

For Jesus says elsewhere, "... for I do always those things that please him." (John 8:29).
Also, when Jesus claimed to be God, and the Pharisees wanted to kill him for it, Jesus quoted Old Testament Scripture that says, "ye are gods." (i.e. gods = kings) as a way of protecting His mission in going to the cross (John 10:34).

Anyways, confusion on this topic arises because people need to know that the Lord our God is one God and yet He also has a plural nature to Him, as well.

For the Bible teaches that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) (1 Timothy 2:5) (Isaiah 45:5).

Yet, the Bible also teaches that there are distinctions within the Godhead or that there is a plural nature to God.

Here are a couple of quick points:

#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalm 2:1-12) (Psalm 45:6-7) (Psalm 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24).

However, if anyone here is in doubt that Jesus is God Almighty, I will provide some Scripture that declares that Jesus is God and that He is the Almighty in my next few posts.


...