Jesus is equal to God

[onewithhim]

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. The Word was later sent to earth to be born as Jesus. The Word was God, the Word became Jesus, therefore Jesus is God.

No. There are quite a few reasons why this rendering of John 1:1 is incorrect, such as: the Word can't BE God and at the same time be WITH God, and, in addition to that, John never intended to present the Word as being God Almighty. He was trying to distinguish between "the" God and the Word. God Almighty in that verse is written with the Greek definite article "ho," or, "the." That is how the Greeks distinguished between something or someone that is the only one and one that is one of many. "The Word was with THE God, and the Word was [no article] god." Now, when there is no article with a word like that, to translate into English the rule is to make it readable to English speakers by providing an article that we understand, to complete the meaning. For example, we wouldn't say "Snoopy is dog." We would say "Snoopy is A dog," even though in the Greek text there was no article. They understand that a thing without the definite article is merely one of many.

Further, "god" to the Greeks did not always mean the Almighty God. Others were commonly referred to as "gods," such as kings, governors, judges, and just about anyone in authority. Jesus brought that to the Jews' attention at John 10:34-36. He referred to human judges as being called "gods" at Psalm 82:1. Therefore we can conclude that John calling the Word "a god" was not at all confusing to his Greek-speaking audience. They understood that he was not calling the Word "the" God, and they had no trouble in thinking of the Word as what John was trying to say: a mighty, important individual, though not God Almighty.

 

[metis]

I was once Catholic and believed in the trinity (despite it not making any sense at all to me). One day someone came to me and said, "I know the church says Jesus is God, but is that really what the Bible says?"

But the RCC refers to this as "the Mystery of the Trinity", thus it is not assumed that they would know the answers. The teaching has long been that as mortals we cannot understand this relationship in any detail, so only those who go to heaven may eventually understand this.

Secondly, the early and later church was highly influence by Greek thought and idioms, therefore one has to consider "essence", which is a form of symbolism found with both Plato's and Aristotle's approaches.

When one applies "essence" to the trinitarian concept, it can indeed make sense, and I can say that as one who is not a believer in that concept or any other concept that deifies anyone or anything. But this can maybe explain how Jesus' "essence" is of God.

 

[Muffled]

John 5:18 is a stock verse used by trinitarians to prove Jesus is God. But is that what it really says?

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
​

First of all, if God wanted to make Jesus God, then why didn't he just say, "...making himself God" instead of, "making himself equal with God?" Seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity for God to have settled the trinity question once and for all. I for one would absolutely believe Jesus were God had He omitted the words "equal with," but we must assume He included them for a good reason. The word equal is the Greek word isos from which we get our word isosceles triangle. An isosceles triangle is so called because it has 2 equal length sides. Now to make these two sides somehow the same side is not using language in any meaningful way. It has two separate sides that are simply of equal length. It by implication makes the two sides unique and separate, e.g. side 1 and side 2.

This word isos is used in Matthew chapter 20 where Jesus spoke the parable about the property owner paying helpers who worked a few hours the same as those who labored all day. The latter of course protested it as unfair, feeling they should have received more. As part of their plea to the land owner they said,

Matt 20:12,

Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal [isos] unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
​

Could this be construed as saying that the ones who worked all day were the same ones who came later in the day? Of course not! Two separate people here. Why should the same usage of isos in John 5:18 be any different?

There is another usage of isos I will point out in the Book of Revelations.

Rev 21:16,

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
​

Does this say the length and breath are in fact one thing and not two? No! Length is the length and width is the width; again, two distinctly different things. Making them equal [isos] simply means the two have the same length.

One more for the record.

In Mark 14 the Pharisees were trying to get a few people to give false testimony against Jesus so they could do what they did to him on the cross. They had a problem getting multiple "witnesses" to come up with the same story.

Mark 14:59,

But neither so did their witness agree [isos] together.
​

So, had they agreed together, would that have then made them one person? I think the trinity struck out here also.

It would be a good study to find out exactly what John 5:18 meant when it said Jesus was equal [isos] to God. As always, any biblical research is best done by using the Bible itself and not tradition as a source of truth.

By the way, it should be noted that Jesus himself didn't claim to be God in John 5:18.

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
​

He claimed, and rightfully so, to be God's son. Never said, "I am God" anywhere in the scriptures.

I believe that omission does not prove your point because He is God anyway.

I believe that is in error because it is not a making of something that is not into something that is but God simply continues as God in Jesus.

I believe this is in error because it was not God speaking but the Pharisees who had a dim view of Jesus although it appears they were able to recognize the claim of Jesus to be God when He said "I am."

I believe then that you prefer to listen to those who were acting as enemies of God than to listen to God.

 

[Muffled]

So, in what way do you think Jesus was equal with god, but lacked the nature of god? I assume that being equal, everything that god was capable of thinking or doing Jesus could do as well. In fact, any event A produced by one of them would be indistinguishable from an event A produced by the other. It would be impossible to tell who did what.

It's like, 2 + 3 = 5 is an identity, but obviously the notation "2 + 3" is not the same as the notation "5." In essence, Jesus is indistinguishable from god. Get rid of god, and Jesus would be able to take his place without anyone ever knowing.

For all practical purposes then,

Jesus = god
God = Jesus
.​

I believe however that Jesus is not equal to God since Jesus has something in addition to God and that is a body.

 

[Muffled]

It seems obvious that John is reporting the inference, made by the Jews in the story who were offended, that by calling God His Father, Jesus was in effect making this equation.

The issue, therefore, seems to me to be why did Jesus call God His Father rather than baldly asserting He was God. He did of course make a further cryptic allusion to his divinity in John 8:58.

It seems to me there is a pattern, in the gospels, of Christ wanting his disciples to make the final leap for themselves, rather than being spoon-fed. I think there is some value in contemplating why this might have been so.

I believe it may be due to the fact that anyone can make a claim. He says examine the words; look at the fruit.

 

[Skwim]

I believe however that Jesus is not equal to God since Jesus has something in addition to God and that is a body.

Well, that would certainly make them different, just like 2 + 3 is different from 5, but still equal.

.

 

[rrobs]

Jesus never said, "I am God," but he DID say plainly that he was the Messiah (John 4:25,26) and that he was the Son of God (John 10:36; Matthew 27:43). I'm sure that if he was God, he would have said so. Yet he never did, and he even went so far as to say that his FATHER was "the only true God." (John 17:3) This is what his disciples believed, as is evident from what they wrote. (John 20:31; Acts 3:13-15; I Corinthians 8:5,6; I Corinthians 11:3)

But it must say Jesus is God somewhere in the Bible. After all, that is what the vast majority of Christians believe. It's just gotta be in there somewhere! But, alas, it is nowhere to be found. Could it actually be true, as the Bible avers almost 50 times, that Jesus is actually the son of God?

In case you haven't already guessed it, the preceding is pure satire. Getting real; Jesus is absolutely not God, nor some pagan god/man grotesque creature. He is the only begotten son of God who loved us and gave himself for us.

 

[rrobs]

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. The Word was later sent to earth to be born as Jesus. The Word was God, the Word became Jesus, therefore Jesus is God.

Do a word study on the word logos which is the Greek word used for "Word" in this verse. What popped in the mind of the Jew who lived 2,000 years ago was vastly different than what pops in out mind. Since God wrote to them using their language, idioms, and customs, so it behooves us to learn how they saw it. Don't let 2,000 years of tradition fool you (matt 15:3). For one thing, by capitalizing Word, the reader is led to believe it is a proper noun and therefor it means Jesus. In the ancient texts all letters were capitalized. The translators therefor had no right to mislead the reader by making some capital and others not. It was a deliberate forgery to make people believe Jesus was a god and existed forever. Never mind John 1:14 saying as plain as day that Jesus had a beginning.

John 1:14,

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

The word "made" is the Greek word ginomai which means to become, or to be born. So you really want to say that God was born at some point? That'll mess up an otherwise great book.

The logos was with God, but it didn't become flesh until much later than John 1:1. It was not Jesus in the beginning, it was the logos. Jesus wasn't around then other than in God's mind, and that which was in God's mind, His plan, is the crux of the word logos. We were in His mind also, but doesn't make any of us God.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

 

[rrobs]

But the RCC refers to this as "the Mystery of the Trinity", thus it is not assumed that they would know the answers. The teaching has long been that as mortals we cannot understand this relationship in any detail, so only those who go to heaven may eventually understand this.

Secondly, the early and later church was highly influence by Greek thought and idioms, therefore one has to consider "essence", which is a form of symbolism found with both Plato's and Aristotle's approaches.

When one applies "essence" to the trinitarian concept, it can indeed make sense, and I can say that as one who is not a believer in that concept or any other concept that deifies anyone or anything. But this can maybe explain how Jesus' "essence" is of God.

The only "mystery" I believe in is the one God revealed to Paul and it's got nothing to do with a three headed god.

I've not seen where the Bible speaks of "essence" so I assume there is nothing to it other than non-biblical verbiage used to promulgate a non-Biblical doctrine.

 

[rrobs]

No. There are quite a few reasons why this rendering of John 1:1 is incorrect, such as: the Word can't BE God and at the same time be WITH God, and, in addition to that, John never intended to present the Word as being God Almighty. He was trying to distinguish between "the" God and the Word. God Almighty in that verse is written with the Greek definite article "ho," or, "the." That is how the Greeks distinguished between something or someone that is the only one and one that is one of many. "The Word was with THE God, and the Word was [no article] god." Now, when there is no article with a word like that, to translate into English the rule is to make it readable to English speakers by providing an article that we understand, to complete the meaning. For example, we wouldn't say "Snoopy is dog." We would say "Snoopy is A dog," even though in the Greek text there was no article. They understand that a thing without the definite article is merely one of many.

Further, "god" to the Greeks did not always mean the Almighty God. Others were commonly referred to as "gods," such as kings, governors, judges, and just about anyone in authority. Jesus brought that to the Jews' attention at John 10:34-36. He referred to human judges as being called "gods" at Psalm 82:1. Therefore we can conclude that John calling the Word "a god" was not at all confusing to his Greek-speaking audience. They understood that he was not calling the Word "the" God, and they had no trouble in thinking of the Word as what John was trying to say: a mighty, important individual, though not God Almighty.

Yea, a voice of reason!

 

[rrobs]

I believe that omission does not prove your point because He is God anyway.

I believe that is in error because it is not a making of something that is not into something that is but God simply continues as God in Jesus.

I believe this is in error because it was not God speaking but the Pharisees who had a dim view of Jesus although it appears they were able to recognize the claim of Jesus to be God when He said "I am."

I believe then that you prefer to listen to those who were acting as enemies of God than to listen to God.

If Jesus is God then John 5:18 says that God had a father. Who would that be? Was it just God the Son who had a father and not God the Father? How could they both have the same "essence" if one had a father and the other didn't? The trinity is a never ending can of worms!

 

[Desert Snake]

So, in what way do you think Jesus was equal with god, but lacked the nature of god? I assume that being equal, everything that god was capable of thinking or doing Jesus could do as well. In fact, any event A produced by one of them would be indistinguishable from an event A produced by the other. It would be impossible to tell who did what.

It's like, 2 + 3 = 5 is an identity, but obviously the notation "2 + 3" is not the same as the notation "5." In essence, Jesus is indistinguishable from god. Get rid of god, and Jesus would be able to take his place without anyone ever knowing.

For all practical purposes then,

Jesus = god
God = Jesus
.​

We note how these theories make no sense.
The problem is actually that these premises present a different theology, than what is believed, and thusly, contradict scripture. Many groups that didn't believe that Jesus is God, simply changed Scripture, instead of trying to make their premises correct via Scripture.

 

[metis]

The only "mystery" I believe in is the one God revealed to Paul and it's got nothing to do with a three headed god.

I've not seen where the Bible speaks of "essence" so I assume there is nothing to it other than non-biblical verbiage used to promulgate a non-Biblical doctrine.

Actually there is as not only found in the Psalms and in Proverbs, but also in Revelation and some of Paul's letters, whereas he speaks in dualistic fashion much of the time. Also, in Deutero-Isaiah, eretz Israel is dealt with as if it's a human.

That areas was affected by several much larger and elaborate cultures, such as Babylon and
Egypt and especially Greek, so there's no doubt whatsoever that they had an effect. In our Jewish tradition, no books written later that 300 b.c.e. were accepted as canon because of especially the Hellenized influence. I doubt very much that Christianity would have much taken hold there and in the diasporah without this influence.

 

[Skwim]

We note how these theories make no sense.

"Theories"? What theories are you talking about?

The problem is actually that these premises present a different theology, than what is believed, and thusly, contradict scripture.

Where?

Many groups that didn't believe that Jesus is God, simply changed Scripture, instead of trying to make their premises correct via Scripture.

But isn't changing scripture part of being Christian? Simply take Isaiah 45:7 where, depending on which Bible one opens, we read god creating:

KJ21
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.​

OR

AMP
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.
​

OR

CEB
I form light and create darkness, make prosperity and create doom; I am the Lord, who does all these things.
​

OR

CJB
I form light, I create darkness; I make well-being, I create woe; I, Adonai, do all these things.​

OR

CEV
I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the Lord, do all of this.
​

OR

ERV
I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause trouble. I, the Lord, do all these things.
​

OR

NIRV
I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all these things. I am the Lord.
​

OR

MEV
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.
​

OR

NLT
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.
​

OR

MSG
I form light and create darkness, I make harmonies and create discords. I, God, do all these things.
​

Obviously, what's said in the Bible is up for grabs.

​

 

[Desert Snake]

"Theories"? What theories are you talking about?


Where?



But isn't changing scripture part of being Christian? Simply take Isaiah 45:7 where, depending on which Bible one opens, we read god creating:

KJ21
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.​

OR

AMP
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.
​

OR

CEB
I form light and create darkness, make prosperity and create doom; I am the Lord, who does all these things.
​

OR

CJB
I form light, I create darkness; I make well-being, I create woe; I, Adonai, do all these things.​

OR

CEV
I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the Lord, do all of this.
​

OR

ERV
I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause trouble. I, the Lord, do all these things.
​

OR

NIRV
I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all these things. I am the Lord.
​

OR

MEV
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.
​

OR

NLT
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.
​

OR

MSG
I form light and create darkness, I make harmonies and create discords. I, God, do all these things.
​

Obviously, what's said in the Bible is up for grabs.

​

That's your best example? They seem pretty similar, however, the mere fact of revised Bibles making mistakes, isn't news to me.

 

[rrobs]

I meant to answer Disciple of Jesus.

But while I'm here, hello.

 

[Skwim]

That's your best example? They seem pretty similar,
Sorrow is similar to evil? You have to be kidding. Doom is similar to discord? You have to be kidding.

however, the mere fact of revised Bibles making mistakes, isn't news to me.

So, are you saying none of these groups that changed scripture believe that Jesus is God, your implication about scripture changers?

,

 

[Oeste]

John 5:18 is a stock verse used by trinitarians to prove Jesus is God.

Hardly ! Trinitarians base their arguments on scriptural evidence, not on “proof texts”. When you see someone waving "proof-texts" on this forum it’s generally someone from a non-traditional Church.

As Sojourner stated on another thread:

It’s funny: every argument I’ve ever heard against the Trinity is based on a misunderstanding of either the doctrine itself, the underlying theology, or both. I’ve heard 0 arguments against based on a thorough understanding of the doctrine and a solid footing in orthodox theology.

If I had to estimate, I think his quote is about 99.9% accurate.

But is that what it really says?

The text says what it says. There are some textual variants of course but not on this verse. We know what it says. What follows will be your interpretation of what it says.

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
First of all, if God wanted to make Jesus God, then why didn't he just say, "...making himself God" instead of, "making himself equal with God?"

I am not aware of any traditional Trinitarian who believes “God wanted to make Jesus God”. Jesus is God, so there’s no need to make another one

Seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity for God to have settled the trinity question once and for all.

Instead he uses the opportunity to end the Arian heresy once and for all. Go figure.

I for one would absolutely believe Jesus were God had He omitted the words "equal with," but we must assume He included them for a good reason.

As HockeyCowboy pointed out, it wasn't God but the Jews who stated this.

The important thing to remember is that unlike those who claimed Jesus did miracles via Beezlebub, there was no reprimand for those who believed he was making himself equal to God, and no correction, like the Samarian woman who believed you had to worship at a particular mountain.

The word equal is the Greek word isos from which we get our word isosceles triangle. An isosceles triangle is so called because it has 2 equal length sides. Now to make these two sides somehow the same side is not using language in any meaningful way. It has two separate sides that are simply of equal length. It by implication makes the two sides unique and separate, e.g. side 1 and side 2...

...Could this be construed as saying that the ones who worked all day were the same ones who came later in the day? Of course not! Two separate people here. Why should the same usage of isos in John 5:18 be any different?

Excellent points RRobs!

Trinitarians raise the exact same points when talking with Seballianists or others with a modalistic theology. However since this thread is about Trinitarians I'm not sure why you make this point here. Trinitarians already believe Jesus and the Father are separate persons.

One more for the record.

In Mark 14 the Pharisees were trying to get a few people to give false testimony against Jesus so they could do what they did to him on the cross. They had a problem getting multiple "witnesses" to come up with the same story.

Mark 14:59,

But neither so did their witness agree [isos] together.
So, had they agreed together, would that have then made them one person?

If your answer here is "no" then we agree, and I'm a Trinitarian.

I think the trinity struck out here also.

The only thing you've struck out here is any ludicrous assertion that Jesus and/or the Father and/or the Holy Spirit are the same person. So while your argument knocks the ball out of any modalist ball park, it does nothing but strike air against Trinitarian theology.

By the way, it should be noted that Jesus himself didn't claim to be God in John 5:18.

Or another way to put it:

By the way, it should be noted that Jesus himself didn't deny he was God in John 5:18[/quote]

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
He claimed, and rightfully so, to be God's son.

Well if the son of goat is goat and,
the son of horse is horse and,
the son of man is man, then
the son of God is _________?

Never said, "I am God" anywhere in the scriptures.

Did Jesus say "I am NOT God" anywhere in scripture, and if not, why do you raise this point?

 

[rrobs]

Did Jesus say "I am NOT God" anywhere in scripture, and if not, why do you raise this point?

My point was this; since it is usually acknowledged that belief in the trinity is bedrock of the Christian faith, you would think somewhere, sometime God would have made it crystal clear as He could by something like Jesus saying, "I am God." I know in and of itself that does not negate the trinity, but when taken with the many clear verses where Jesus claims to be the son of God (understanding that a son can't be his own father), it offers compelling evidence against the trinity.

Still, technically you are right. Nonetheless, there is merit to my argument when taken in context.

 

[rrobs]

Trinitarians raise the exact same points when talking with Seballianists or others with a modalistic theology. However since this thread is about Trinitarians I'm not sure why you make this point here. Trinitarians already believe Jesus and the Father are separate persons.

I always took the trinity to say that the two people were separate in their relationship to each other, that they were separate people. That's what you seem to have just said.

I also think the trinity doctrine says that Jesus and God share the same essence or nature and that is what makes them one (thus avoiding the appearance worshiping of false gods). So I understand they are one in essence or nature while being distinct in relationship. Pretty sure I'm right on that.

If sharing the same nature makes them actually the same identical person, then why aren't we God in light of:

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
​

I don't think this whole idea of "distinct persons but the same essence" means anything at all. There is no real textual evidence of it unless one is willing to take inference upon inference upon inference as textual evidence. There are many, many clear verses that say Jesus was the son and not the father. There are only a few verses that seem to say otherwise. It's not being a good workman of the word to discard the many clear verses and laud the few unclear to the heavens. There is no justification for making the Jesus/God relationship any different than any other relationship. If language means anything at all, a relationship means two different things. We have one God and that is the father of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour who died the most horrible death imaginable for you and I, neither of whom deserved a plug nickel!

He did it all as a man, a man just like you or I. The only difference is that you and I fail miserably day after day whereas he obeyed to the letter. He did it all out of love for us poor beggars. He could have taken the devil up on his offer to get all the kingdoms of the world, but he knew from his father that he ought not do that. But he could have had he, by his free will, wanted to. He could have gotten his kingdom without having to die on the cross. Must have been tempting. Good thing he hung in there!

Give Jesus the credit he deserves. He had to work for our salvation. God didn't just wave some magic wand and make things better. He told his son exactly what to do, what to say, and what to think. Not an easy task! No other man ever came close. Jesus was the one and only champion of following God's will to the letter.

Speaking of free will,

Luke 22:42,

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
​

If Jesus and God are really one person, then He (they?) must have a split personality disorder, given two different wills mentioned in Luke 22:42. No! They have two different wills because they are two separate persons, not one. Jesus, by tireless work, made his will to be the same as his father's, but that doesn't actually make him his own father. Like any other son, he could have told his dad, "Go fly a kite. I'm gonna go have some fun!" That's what free will means, and Jesus had one just like the rest of us.