Tell me where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God

[Animevox]

What you "think" is immaterial. I don't need to prove you wrong, since the fact that Jesus worked miracles isn't evidence that he's God Incarnate. Moses worked miracles. In fact, every saint since Peter has worked miracles. None of them are God Incarnate -- and none of them worked miracles "on their own." Working miracles has nothing to do with being God Incarnate.


At all.

If Jesus is really God, then he would surely be able to save everyone, yet the Bible claims that Jesus could not save anyone:

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:1-8).

So Jesus cried to the one who could save him from death, this means Jesus could not save himself from death, therefore this also means Jesus cannot save anyone else from death.

How can Jesus be God when he cannot save anyone? This also shows that Jesus is not in control of life and death, God however is in control of everything, including life and death:

"Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection" (Ch. 25:3)

This verse is from the Noble Qur'an. I guess this sums it all up, doesn't it?

 

[Animevox]

Another example of eisegesis. That's not the "son of man" the OT passage is talking about. It doesn't refute Jesus' Divinity in the least. Although you'd like us to think it does.

The OT clearly says not to put our trust in the Son of Man, and it clearly DOES refute Jesus Christ's divinity. The Old Testament and The New Testament make it VERY clear that Jesus IS the Son of Man:


"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20).

"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house" (Matthew 9:6).

"Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men" (Luke 9:44).

"Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day" (Luke 9:22).

"And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (John 5:27).

"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help" (Psalms 146:3).

As you can plainly see, we cannot put our trust in the Son of Man. God clearly says in the Bible that there is no help from the Son of Man.

It refutes Jesus Christ's divinity because Jesus is a man, so we cannot put our trust in him in the sense that he's God.

Don't even bother telling me that he's also fully God, this isn't mentioned anywhere clearly, therefore you have no evidence to prove he's God.

 

[sojourner]

If Jesus is really God, then he would surely be able to save everyone, yet the Bible claims that Jesus could not save anyone:

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:1-8).

But that clearly isn't what this passage says.

So Jesus cried to the one who could save him from death, this means Jesus could not save himself from death, therefore this also means Jesus cannot save anyone else from death.

An indefensible fallacy.

How can Jesus be God when he cannot save anyone? This also shows that Jesus is not in control of life and death, God however is in control of everything, including life and death:

"Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection" (Ch. 25:3)

This verse is from the Noble Qur'an. I guess this sums it all up, doesn't it?

It certainly does! What it sums up is that you can't produce a simple biblical argument.

 

[sojourner]

The OT clearly says not to put our trust in the Son of Man, and it clearly DOES refute Jesus Christ's divinity. The Old Testament and The New Testament make it VERY clear that Jesus IS the Son of Man:

Since the OT clearly doesn't mention Jesus, I'd have to say that your argument clearly holds no water.

"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help" (Psalms 146:3).

As you can plainly see, we cannot put our trust in the Son of Man. God clearly says in the Bible that there is no help from the Son of Man.

First of all, God didn't write the bible, so God didn't say anything. This alone blows your argument out of the water. Second (just to further twist the argumentative knife), you're confusing the general term "sonof man," with the specific title, "Son of Man."
Third, just to put a nail in your coffin, none of the references have anything to do with each other.

It refutes Jesus Christ's divinity because Jesus is a man, so we cannot put our trust in him in the sense that he's God.

Don't even bother telling me that he's also fully God, this isn't mentioned anywhere clearly, therefore you have no evidence to prove he's God.

This is the popular, "Talk to the hand" defense. I shall "bother" to tell you that Jesus is also fully God. Yet again (you seem to have trouble tumbling to this concept), it doesn't matter that the bible doesn't specifically mention it, since the bible is not the only source of revelation.

 

[sojourner]

Religion actually degrades Jesus when it teaches that he was God in the flesh. How so? Consider an illustration. Some workers make a request of their supervisor, but he says that he does not have the authority to grant it. If his statement is true, the supervisor has wisely displayed an awareness of his limitations. If it is not true—if he can grant the request but simply chooses not to—he has been deceptive.

You're conveniently forgetting that Jesus "emptied himself" in becoming Incarnate. Your illustration has nothing to do with the paradigm of Trinity.

The truth is, Jesus never claimed to be God, but he repeatedly spoke of himself as “God’s Son.”

When Jesus spoke, he was fully human, after all. I just don't see this as problematic in any way concerning the nature of Trinity.

Jesus never even suggested that he was God or was equal to him. So to teach such a thing dishonors Jesus.

For a fully human being to suggest so would be... wrong, yes? Jesus was fully human, having willfully emptied himself in the Incarnation. Why, then would he state otherwise?

 

[sojourner]

In his book The Church of the First Three Centuries, Dr. Alvan Lamson states that the doctrine of the Trinity “had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”

Again: I just don't see a problem here. As everyone is aware, doctrine is not formulated from scripture alone -- never has been.

They were apostate clerics who were infatuated with the teachings of pagan Greek philosopher Plato.

Arguably, so was Paul. You gonna oust him from the bible, as well?

 

[sojourner]

is the Trinity found in the Bible? No.

What is this infatuation with sola scriptura???

 

[Muffled]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17).

They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).

Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God’s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

In Mark 10:18 Jesus implies that He is God because He is called good. Mat 19:17 is a parallell verse.

I believe that is a misinterpretation. It actually means that Jesus is the creator of everything born. Also I believe as the image of God, He is evidence of God

I believe this verse states that Jesus is the creator. I believe the creator concept also ties both ends of the "and" so that Jesus can be seen as the one God.

I believe this is true because Jesus is body and Spirit but the Father is Spirit. I believe it is never a question of whether the body is part of God but it is simply a matter of the fact that the Spirit of God within the body defines the person.

I believe this also is stated by Jesus that the Father is the final authority. However I believe there is no suggestion of diversity between the two. In fact I believe Jesus states the opposite that everything He says is what God says.

I respect your opinion but I believe you should try proving it because I beleive the opposite is true ie that other's misconstrue the meanings of the Biblical verses.

 

[Animevox]

Since the OT clearly doesn't mention Jesus, I'd have to say that your argument clearly holds no water.

First of all, God didn't write the bible, so God didn't say anything. This alone blows your argument out of the water. Second (just to further twist the argumentative knife), you're confusing the general term "sonof man," with the specific title, "Son of Man."
Third, just to put a nail in your coffin, none of the references have anything to do with each other.

This is the popular, "Talk to the hand" defense. I shall "bother" to tell you that Jesus is also fully God. Yet again (you seem to have trouble tumbling to this concept), it doesn't matter that the bible doesn't specifically mention it, since the bible is not the only source of revelation.

I never said that God wrote the Bible. I said "God said THIS in the Bible" meaning God's words. There's a difference. You're very manipulative, aren't you? Don't twist my words.

As of Jesus not being mentioned in the Old Testament, that doesn't matter because the Old Testament CLEARLY says not to put our trust in the son of man, and Jesus IS fully human, so I think that applies to him too.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to what I said earlier. If Jesus is really God, then why was he sent to preach to a specific nation only? and not mankind? One would expect him being sent to all of mankind if he really was God. But what we really find is that Jesus, just like all other prophets, was sent to a specific nation only:

I'm going to copy & paste what I said earlier, hopefully you won't be too scared to reply to it:

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

So as we see, Jesus was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel. His main duty was for them, not the gentiles or the world. Christians often like to say Jesus told his disciples to go preach to the gentiles, however so this doesn't change anything. Jesus's real mission as we see was for the children of Israel, not the gentiles, the verse I posted cannot be refuted. The verse is very clear, Jesus is SENT for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles, Jesus saying go preach to Gentiles does not mean he was sent for gentiles.

So the reason he was preaching to the lost sheep of Israel was to clear this misconception that he was God. He clearly NEVER said he was God, and when people did make this claim, Jesus replied "You say that I am" so clearly, Jesus isn't God.

 

[Shermana]

The verse is very clear, Jesus is SENT for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles, Jesus saying go preach to Gentiles does not mean he was sent for gentiles.

How I wish more understood this.

 

[Animevox]

But that clearly isn't what this passage says.

An indefensible fallacy.

It certainly does! What it sums up is that you can't produce a simple biblical argument.

That passage clearly says that Jesus was crying to God to save him from death. Stop looking for another interpretation. Accept it for what it is.

Now, moving on:

One of the greatest Christian myths is that Jesus's followers believed he was God. However, this isn't true, the Bible says otherwise:

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets" (Matthew 16:13-14).

So as we can plainly see, the believers out of the population did not take Jesus as God, they took him for a great man, such as John the Baptist, or Elias, or some others. None of them said he is God. Now please, let us read on and see what his own disciples took him for:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ" (Matthew 16:15-20).

So note, now Jesus asks his disciples about what they take him to be for, they respond by saying he is the SON OF GOD, Jesus agrees with them and tells them: "tell no man I am the Christ". So note, Jesus's disciples do not say you are God, Jesus himself does not say he is God.

Now both the "son of God" and the term "Christ" do not mean God. They never have, and never will. The term "Christ" means Messiah, the definition of Messiah is not God, and the Jews who were awaiting their Messiah did not believe the Messiah would be God.

 

[Animevox]

How I wish more understood this.

One glaring problem with Christians is that Jesus prayed, and had a God himself. This logically lets us conclude that Jesus cannot be God. The logical thing to do is worship and pray to the one Jesus prayed to.

If Jesus told you that he had a God, would you honestly take Jesus as God? The logical answer is no, but Christians throw all logic out when it comes to their Bible.

 

[Me Myself]

In Mark 10:18 Jesus implies that He is God because He is called good. Mat 19:17 is a parallell verse.

So any human that is called good in the bible is God? this will get interesting very quickly...

I respect your opinion but I believe you should try proving it because I beleive the opposite is true ie that other's misconstrue the meanings of the Biblical verses.

You want to say evidence, not prove. Also, you have proven nothing of what you said. All your claims go with "I believe" . Well, you believing something is no evidence of said something being true.

I definetely believe you miscontrue the meanings of what Jesus said. Where is your evidence? that he was "good" ? Cause that is mighty weak.

 

[Animevox]

Since the OT clearly doesn't mention Jesus, I'd have to say that your argument clearly holds no water.

First of all, God didn't write the bible, so God didn't say anything. This alone blows your argument out of the water. Second (just to further twist the argumentative knife), you're confusing the general term "sonof man," with the specific title, "Son of Man."
Third, just to put a nail in your coffin, none of the references have anything to do with each other.

This is the popular, "Talk to the hand" defense. I shall "bother" to tell you that Jesus is also fully God. Yet again (you seem to have trouble tumbling to this concept), it doesn't matter that the bible doesn't specifically mention it, since the bible is not the only source of revelation.

"Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."
He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.". Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.
"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, SAYING THE SAME THING". (Matthew 26:36-44).

So are you going worship the one Jesus prayed to? Or are you going to worship Jesus? Logically, you worship the one Jesus prayed to.

Secondly, just say you were alive at Jesus's time and you were with him, and you knew he prayed to God and so on, would you honestly believe he is God? Of course not!! It gets worse as Jesus himself claims he has a God:

"Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 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. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her" (John 20:16-18).

Now tell me, if a man came to you and told you he has a God, would you honestly believe that man is God? No, you would not. Logic tells you if a man has a God then that man is not God, however Christian's throw all logic out the window it seems. What a shame.

So Jesus prays and has a God, how un-Godly is that?

 

[sojourner]

I said "God said THIS in the Bible" meaning God's words.

God didn't say that, though, in Psalm 146. It's not a quotation. The writer says it. Therefore, in order for God to have said it, God would have to have written it. so, by asserting that God didn't write it, you're further asserting that you're wrong in saying God said it. God clearly didn't say it.

As of Jesus not being mentioned in the Old Testament, that doesn't matter because the Old Testament CLEARLY says not to put our trust in the son of man, and Jesus IS fully human, so I think that applies to him too.

The Psalmist clearly had no concept of the Incarnation -- that it was possible for God to be Incarnate.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to what I said earlier. If Jesus is really God, then why was he sent to preach to a specific nation only? and not mankind? One would expect him being sent to all of mankind if he really was God. But what we really find is that Jesus, just like all other prophets, was sent to a specific nation only:

I'm going to copy & paste what I said earlier, hopefully you won't be too scared to reply to it:

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

So as we see, Jesus was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel. His main duty was for them, not the gentiles or the world. Christians often like to say Jesus told his disciples to go preach to the gentiles, however so this doesn't change anything. Jesus's real mission as we see was for the children of Israel, not the gentiles, the verse I posted cannot be refuted. The verse is very clear, Jesus is SENT for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles, Jesus saying go preach to Gentiles does not mean he was sent for gentiles.

Religion is culturally-based. God is God of the Hebrews -- not the Gentiles. Therefore, using your criterion, if God is really God, then God would be God of everyone, not just the Hebrews. Which means that God (Allah) isn't really the God of the Arabs. Which we know is wrong. So your attempt here is a major fail.

He clearly NEVER said he was God, and when people did make this claim, Jesus replied "You say that I am" so clearly, Jesus isn't God.

Thomas made the claim, and was not refuted.

 

[sojourner]

That passage clearly says that Jesus was crying to God to save him from death. Stop looking for another interpretation. Accept it for what it is.

That passage isn't concerned with "saving from death." It's concerned with Jesus setting a new order of priesthood. They are, theologically, different issues. I will not accept passages taken out of their context and twisted to proof-text an uninformed eisegetical stance.

Now both the "son of God" and the term "Christ" do not mean God. They never have, and never will. The term "Christ" means Messiah, the definition of Messiah is not God, and the Jews who were awaiting their Messiah did not believe the Messiah would be God.

First of all, you can't take one passage from one gospel and apply it universally to either the nature of God or the nature of Jesus. Second, of course the Jews don't think the Messiah would be God. That's what makes Xy fundamentally different from Judaism: The Incarnation -- the establishment of a new covenant based upon God's reconciliation of humanity, rather than the atonement of humanity. As I said in the beginning: You fail to understand what Xy is, therefore, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

 

[sojourner]

Therefore, if we want God’s approval, we need to ask ourselves: What does God say about himself? How does he want to be worshiped? What are his purposes, and how should we fit in with them? An accurate knowledge of the truth gives us the right answers to such questions. Then we can worship God on his terms.

God doesn't say anything about God's Self that isn't said by someone else. God speaks through God's people (including, but not at limited to, the bible). The apostles have asserted that God can be best understood through Trinity. I believe them as much as I believe any of the biblical writers.

Does it honor God to call anyone his equal?

Who's claiming that anyone is equal to God? Since Jesus is God, Jesus has equality with the Father.

No one is his equal; nor did he have a fleshly mother, since Jesus was not God.

The preponderance of the Church says otherwise.

 

[sojourner]

So are you going worship the one Jesus prayed to? Or are you going to worship Jesus? Logically, you worship the one Jesus prayed to.

I worship both, since both Father and Son are God.

Secondly, just say you were alive at Jesus's time and you were with him, and you knew he prayed to God and so on, would you honestly believe he is God? Of course not!!

Thomas was there. When Thomas saw him after the resurrection, Thomas claimed him as God and got no argument.

Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD

When "LORD" is found all caps, it uses "LORD" as a substitution for the tetragrammaton.
See? There are all kinds of implications that Jesus is Divine.

 

[sojourner]

Beyond a doubt, the Trinity doctrine has confused and diluted people’s understanding of God’s true position.

Beyond a doubt, the Trinity has added a dimension of depth to our understanding of God.

It prevents people from accurately knowing the Universal Sovereign, Jehovah God, and from worshiping him on his terms.

It allows people to reconnect with God in a reconciliatory way, that speaks to our true nature as being loved by God, being created good by God, and standing in a position of being deeply loved by God and, by nature, aligned with God.

As theologian Hans Küng said: “Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?” But that is what belief in the Trinity has done.

Kung was a Trinitarian, so his understanding of God's oneness and uniqueness was within the scope of a three-in-one God. Using him here doesn't help your argument. It hinders it.

Those who believe in the Trinity are not “holding God in accurate knowledge.” (Romans 1:28) That verse also says: “God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.”

Paul wasn't talking about the Trinitarian concept here. You can't make a round passage fit into a square theology.

Verses 29 to 31 list some of those ‘unfitting’ things, such as ‘murder, strife, being false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless.’ Those very things have been practiced by religions that accept the Trinity.

They've also been practiced by religions that don't...

What could be more ‘unfitting’ than Catholics killing Catholics, Orthodox killing Orthodox, Protestants killing Protestants—all in the name of the same Trinitarian God?

I'm sure more than a few Muslims died on 9/11, too...

 

[sojourner]

Yet, Jesus plainly said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) God’s Word expands on this, saying: “The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother.” It likens those who kill their spiritual brothers to “Cain, who originated with the wicked one [Satan] and slaughtered his brother.
Christendom’s spiritual condition fits what the apostle Paul wrote: “They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort.”—Titus 1:16.
Soon, when God brings this present wicked system of things to its end, Trinitarian Christendom will be called to account. And she will be judged adversely for her God-dishonoring actions and doctrines.—Matthew 24:14, 34; 25:31-34, 41, 46; Revelation 17:1-6, 16; 18:1-8, 20, 24; 19:17-21

Uh huh. And, obviously, it's the Trinity part of that equation that makes it all bad.