The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[74x12]

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
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. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

 

[Lyndon]

pretty weak argument!!

 

[74x12]

pretty weak argument!!

What's weak is Arianism claiming there are two gods.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
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. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

In the bible, Jesus is depicted as praying to God. If he believed he were God, why would he pray to an entity external to himself?

 

[Ellen Brown]

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
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. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Not all Christians believe the same things on this issue. Others claim that Melchizedek was Jesus, or a "type" of him. As for me, I think we'll just have to wait for an answer.

 

[pearl]

There is also a reference to Jesus as God in Heb1:8,9, in which the author says the God has spoken of Jesus His Son the words of Ps 45:6-7, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever....and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your {his} kingdom. You have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore, O God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness......" It is cited according to the Septuagint, but it is a misunderstanding of the Masoretic Text, which is a problem in psalm exegesis and not affecting the meaning of the citation in Heb.
Beyond the prologue there is the declaration of Thomas, Jn 20:28, "My Lord and My God."

 

[Ellen Brown]

There is also a reference to Jesus as God in Heb1:8,9, in which the author says the God has spoken of Jesus His Son the words of Ps 45:6-7, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever....and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your {his} kingdom. You have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore, O God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness......" It is cited according to the Septuagint, but it is a misunderstanding of the Masoretic Text, which is a problem in psalm exegesis and not affecting the meaning of the citation in Heb.
Beyond the prologue there is the declaration of Thomas, Jn 20:28, "My Lord and My God."

My thinking is hindered by the fact that I have no reason to trust. For me, aside from the four Gospels, I have reservations about Paul as an Apostle. Not attacking your views at all.

 

[pearl]

I have reservations about Paul as an Apostle.

Paul appointed himself apostle.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Paul appointed himself apostle.

And he set the major direction in the newly formed Christian Church. I think the Non-paulean church would have done better.

The same issue happened in Islam. According to what is taught Muslims, Muhammad's doctrine was much nicer than Abu Bakr, and those who followed. I know there are many who will disagree with my assessment.

 

[sojourner]

And he set the major direction in the newly formed Christian Church. I think the Non-paulean church would have done better.

The same issue happened in Islam. According to what is taught Muslims, Muhammad's doctrine was much nicer than Abu Bakr, and those who followed. I know there are many who will disagree with my assessment.

Well, gee. The Muslims have Abu Bakr, and the Christians have Jim Bakker...

 

[sojourner]

And he set the major direction in the newly formed Christian Church. I think the Non-paulean church would have done better.

The same issue happened in Islam. According to what is taught Muslims, Muhammad's doctrine was much nicer than Abu Bakr, and those who followed. I know there are many who will disagree with my assessment.

We know that it didn’t. The Jerusalem church died out; the Pauline crowd flourished. That’s because the Church always flourishes on the fringes.

 

[Ellen Brown]

We know that it didn’t. The Jerusalem church died out; the Pauline crowd flourished. That’s because the Church always flourishes on the fringes.

Perhaps you are right? The Jerusalem church was perhaps a Jewish "Christian" church and wanted the new Christians to not only follow Jesus, but be observant Jews too. And, there are those who want folk to jump through all the hoops, thus the leadership put themselves between the God/Jesus and the believer. And look how that has been abused, with Catholics, and Mormons and perhaps other sects that I am not familiar with.

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps you are right? The Jerusalem church was perhaps a Jewish "Christian" church and wanted the new Christians to not only follow Jesus, but be observant Jews too. And, there are those who want folk to jump through all the hoops, thus the leadership put themselves between the God/Jesus and the believer. And look how that has been abused, with Catholics, and Mormons and perhaps other sects that I am not familiar with.

Well, yes. Paul’s argument (watershed moment in the Movement) was that you didn’t have to be an observant Jew in order to be an anointed-believer. The Jerusalem church finally conceded that point.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Well, yes. Paul’s argument (watershed moment in the Movement) was that you didn’t have to be an observant Jew in order to be an anointed-believer. The Jerusalem church finally conceded that point.

And, yes, frankly all this squabbling between "God's People" has undermined my belief in the whole mess! Don't worry, the Muslims sects do the same sort of "sibling rivalry". Having raised a family, sometimes the things I see cause me to feel that I am in the middle of my Children's squabbling. My mother used to whip us, all six, with a green willow switch. I'm still very sure of the existence of a Creator, but humans are dismal at ordering their own lives. Perhaps we were not created to ever govern ourselves? Did the Creator always know that a superior being was going to have to come and do that?

Meanwhile, the Jews have been quietly devising many/most of the world's scientific advances, and smugly allowing the Gentile Dogs to wreck the house.

 

[sojourner]

And, yes, frankly all this squabbling between "God's People" has undermined my belief in the whole mess! Don't worry, the Muslims sects do the same sort of "sibling rivalry". Having raised a family, sometimes the things I see cause me to feel that I am in the middle of my Children's squabbling. My mother used to whip us, all six, with a green willow switch. I'm still very sure of the existence of a Creator, but humans are dismal at ordering their own lives. Perhaps we were not created to ever govern ourselves? Did the Creator always know that a superior being was going to have to come and do that?

Meanwhile, the Jews have been quietly devising many/most of the world's scientific advances, and smugly allowing the Gentile Dogs to wreck the house.

Western culture has given us much in the way of advancement. It has also done much to wreck things, while, at the same time, managing to quash whatever benefits Eastern culture has devised.

 

[Muffled]

In the bible, Jesus is depicted as praying to God. If he believed he were God, why would he pray to an entity external to himself?

The Spirit is God but the mind is not. So the mind can still pray to the God who is within as easily as the one without because the spirit of God is one. I have the same situation. The Spirit of God is in me but I pray to Him anyway.

 

[Muffled]

Not all Christians believe the same things on this issue. Others claim that Melchizedek was Jesus, or a "type" of him. As for me, I think we'll just have to wait for an answer.

I believe the others are wrong. So who are you going to believe people who understand the Bible and have the Holy Spirit or people thinking thoughts out of their own head?

 

[Muffled]

Paul appointed himself apostle.

I believe that is incorrect. Jesus told Paul what his mission would be and the Church at Antioch appointed him an apostle as well as Barnabas.

 

[pearl]

I believe that is incorrect. Jesus told Paul what his mission would be and the Church at Antioch appointed him an apostle as well as Barnabas.

I should have stated that Paul 'considered' himself an apostle equal to the others due to his encounter with the risen Christ.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And he set the major direction in the newly formed Christian Church. I think the Non-paulean church would have done better.

It would have been better morally, but you get lower ratings if you don't appeal to people's selfishness. Why focus on helping others when you can be promised eternal life for yourself?