The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I agree. And I think this fits the overall pattern of the four Gospels: the later the Gospel was written, the more grandiose the claims about Jesus.

In the oldest Gospel, Mark, Jesus is described as sent by God and he does only a few miracles, mostly in private, and he tells people to keep them secret. The original version is even missing the Resurrection: in the oldest manuscripts, Mark ends with the tomb empty, Jesus's body just missing, and his followers confused and afraid.

Over the course of several decades, by the time we get to the Gospel of John, the story has snowballed: now Jesus is performing miracles in front of huge crowds and he isn't just sent by God; he *is* God.

FWIW, I see this pattern as supporting the existence of a historical Jesus. I do think it's telling that the Biblical authors waited until all the eyewitnesses would have beem dead to start making truly outlandish claims about him. If he was purely fictional, there would have been no need to wait.

 

[74x12]

I agree. And I think this fits the overall pattern of the four Gospels: the later the Gospel was written, the more grandiose the claims about Jesus.

I think Matthew is the earliest gospel and has greater claims about Jesus than Mark. As some people have pointed out already in this thread; Matthew links Jesus with Emmanuel and he emphasizes the fact that Emmanuel is interpreted as "God with us".

So we should not just be looking at the fact that the author links Jesus to Emmanuel, but also note the author's intentional translation of the name. Taking this into account gives us an idea of what the author thought about Jesus.

In the oldest Gospel, Mark, Jesus is described as sent by God and he does only a few miracles, mostly in private, and he tells people to keep them secret. The original version is even missing the Resurrection: in the oldest manuscripts, Mark ends with the tomb empty, Jesus's body just missing, and his followers confused and afraid.

How do you know Mark is the oldest Gospel? I've heard that Matthew is the first.

And how do you know what's in the original version? Only because you find an older manuscript; doesn't mean you have found the correct manuscript. It's still a copy and a copy could be wrong, tampered with or edited. Therefore, it's best to stick with the most trustworthy manuscripts rather than simply always finding the "oldest" one.

Over the course of several decades, by the time we get to the Gospel of John, the story has snowballed: now Jesus is performing miracles in front of huge crowds and he isn't just sent by God; he *is* God.

FWIW, I see this pattern as supporting the existence of a historical Jesus. I do think it's telling that the Biblical authors waited until all the eyewitnesses would have beem dead to start making truly outlandish claims about him. If he was purely fictional, there would have been no need to wait.

Glad you can see what the book of John claims about Jesus; even if I do disagree with the rest of your points.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know Mark is the oldest Gospel? I've heard that Matthew is the first.

I've heard it from several places. Here's one example:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Notice the date ranges:

- 65-80 Gospel of Mark
- 80-100 Gospel of Matthew
- 80-130 Gospel of Luke
- 90-120 Gospel of John

And the vast majority of Biblical scholars support Marcan priority (i.e. the theory that Mark was written first and used as a source for the other synoptic Gospels), most of them supporting the two-source hypothesis.

If Mark was used as a source for Matthew, then Mark must have been written first.

And how do you know what's in the original version? Only because you find an older manuscript; doesn't mean you have found the correct manuscript.

It's not just a matter of one manuscript; it's many.

It's still a copy and a copy could be wrong, tampered with or edited. Therefore, it's best to stick with the most trustworthy manuscripts rather than simply always finding the "oldest" one.

The most trustworthy manuscripts do not have the long ending of Mark. Many Bible versions call attention to this with footnotes and the like. For instance, the New American Standard Bible has this footnote for Mark 16:9:

Later mss add vv 9-20

(i.e. "later manuscripts add verses 9-20")

In the NIV - the online version, at least - they draw a big horizontal line after verse 8, give the following note, and put everything after in italics:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

Google it if you don't believe me. It's a big enough issue that plenty of Christian sources acknowledge it and grapple with how to handle it. For instance, in one article by a pastor advising other pastors, he suggests promoting the idea that even though the passage is a later insertion, God was behind inserting it:

1. Help your people understand this is an issue of the original text’s transmission, not its inspiration.

God guaranteed the inspiration of the text of Scripture (Matt. 5:17–18; John 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16–17; 2 Pet. 1:20–21) in a way he did not guarantee its transmission.

Nevertheless, help your church family to not lose confidence in the reliability of the text they hold in their hands. God was providentially involved in preserving the text of the Bible to a stunningly remarkable degree of certainty. Explain that there are more than 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, making the Bible the greatest preserved document of antiquity. Nothing else comes close. Let them know that no reputable scholar, Christian or non-Christian, denies this point.

... but he still acknowledges that the passage simply wasn't there, and then it was added by a different author:

Explain that some ancient manuscripts of Mark 16 have verses 9–20, but others do not. This is why virtually all modern translations place the verses in brackets and provide an explanatory footnote. The longer ending of Mark is not present in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, which is important. These verses contain words and phrases uncommon to Mark and his style of writing, and read much like a compilation of other texts of Scripture.

Preacher’s Toolkit: Should I Preach the Longer Ending of Mark?

But in any case, I defer to the consensus of Biblical scholars on things like the dating of books of the Bible, the order in which they were written, and whether the ending of Mark was a later addition. None of what I'm saying on this is controversial.

 

[74x12]

I've heard it from several places. Here's one example:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Notice the date ranges:

- 65-80 Gospel of Mark
- 80-100 Gospel of Matthew
- 80-130 Gospel of Luke
- 90-120 Gospel of John

And the vast majority of Biblical scholars support Marcan priority (i.e. the theory that Mark was written first and used as a source for the other synoptic Gospels), most of them supporting the two-source hypothesis.

If Mark was used as a source for Matthew, then Mark must have been written first.


It's not just a matter of one manuscript; it's many.


The most trustworthy manuscripts do not have the long ending of Mark. Many Bible versions call attention to this with footnotes and the like. For instance, the New American Standard Bible has this footnote for Mark 16:9:

Later mss add vv 9-20

(i.e. "later manuscripts add verses 9-20")

In the NIV - the online version, at least - they draw a big horizontal line after verse 8, give the following note, and put everything after in italics:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

Google it if you don't believe me. It's a big enough issue that plenty of Christian sources acknowledge it and grapple with how to handle it. For instance, in one article by a pastor advising other pastors, he suggests promoting the idea that even though the passage is a later insertion, God was behind inserting it:



... but he still acknowledges that the passage simply wasn't there, and then it was added by a different author:


Preacher’s Toolkit: Should I Preach the Longer Ending of Mark?

But in any case, I defer to the consensus of Biblical scholars on things like the dating of books of the Bible, the order in which they were written, and whether the ending of Mark was a later addition. None of what I'm saying on this is controversial.

I agree it's not controversial for the mainstream; but to me it is because for various reasons I don't agree.

Maybe people are under the impression that a spurious text is just one that someone has added something to that wasn't originally there. What people aren't acknowledging is that people are probably more likely to take things out they don't like than they are to add new things in there. Just take Thomas Jefferson's Bible for example. Thomas Jefferson didn't like miracles so he took all of them out and just kept the teachings of Jesus which he did like.

And we know from Ignatius' epistle that he was arguing with people in his day and when he quoted a scripture from one of the gospels; they showed him it was not in their copy. He replied to them that it was indeed there in the original. So, that's evidence that they have been taking things out since the earliest days. (Ignatius was a contemporary of Paul) I can look up the exact verse if you want me to. Anyway, on that issue I stand with the likes of Ignatius.

As for Mark coming first. I don't agree; but I'll see if I can be convinced by the evidence when I look into it.

 

[kjw47]

One simply cannot believe in Jesus if they refuse to not judge others.

The bible has already passed judgement. sharing them does not make that one the judge.

 

[kjw47]

Indeed, @kjw47, who are like the Jehovah Witnesses?

"The Witness Pharisee , standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like Christendom other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this so-called Christian tax collector."(Luke 18:11)
​

Sorry for the typos, but I did cross (excuse the pun) them out.

That works for 99% of all religion on earth, except for the one who has Jesus.

 

[kjw47]

Not just in the book of John.
160 Reasons (verses) Jesus Christ is Almighty God
160 Reasons Jesus Christ is Almighty God

His name was Emmanuel=God with us.

Where or when is Jesus ever called Emmanuel? And God with us does not in any way say God came down here. In fact the bible is 100% clear--God SENT Jesus. God did not come down. God was with Jesus.( Acts2:22)

 

[metis]

The bible has already passed judgement. sharing them does not make that one the judge.

A book, no matter how good it may be, cannot judge anyone. Only God can do that, but the JW leaders teach their followers that it's acceptable to play "God" in spite of what Jesus and even Paul said, whereas the latter said that he was even unwilling to judge himself because of some of his innermost thoughts.

IOW, maybe just let God do the judging.

 

[74x12]

Where or when is Jesus ever called Emmanuel? And God with us does not in any way say God came down here. In fact the bible is 100% clear--God SENT Jesus. God did not come down. God was with Jesus.( Acts2:22)

JWs have to dodge a lot of scriptures. Whereas we freely admit that God sent Jesus; we also believe that Jesus is Emmanuel just as the book of Matthew says. So when you have to constantly dodge scriptures you know there is a problem with your theology.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Where or when is Jesus ever called Emmanuel? And God with us does not in any way say God came down here. In fact the bible is 100% clear--God SENT Jesus. God did not come down. God was with Jesus.( Acts2:22)

Over 100 verses and you still don't believe.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call Him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). Matthew 1:23
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel" (which means, "God with us").

 

[kjw47]

A book, no matter how good it may be, cannot judge anyone. Only God can do that, but the JW leaders teach their followers that it's acceptable to play "God" in spite of what Jesus and even Paul said, whereas the latter said that he was even unwilling to judge himself because of some of his innermost thoughts.

IOW, maybe just let God do the judging.

He has--1Corinthians 6:9-11, Galations 5:19-21--both spots teach--will not enter Gods kingdom.

 

[kjw47]

JWs have to dodge a lot of scriptures. Whereas we freely admit that God sent Jesus; we also believe that Jesus is Emmanuel just as the book of Matthew says. So when you have to constantly dodge scriptures you know there is a problem with your theology.

We believe he is Immanuel to.
I checked carefully for years. Its easy to see that trinity translation teach 2 different gods. All trinity translation came from Catholicism translating basically. It has caused much confusion) Mark 3:24-26)
I believe-JESUS above all--John 20:17, Rev 3:12--he has a God, like we do.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

He has--1Corinthians 6:9-11, Galations 5:19-21--both spots teach--will not enter Gods kingdom.

True. And we know Jesus judged. We have but to recall when he took off on the Pharisee's and called them a brood of vipers, etc...
And when Jesus hand fashioned a whip so as to take after the money changers doing business, as Jews, before his father's house.

I notice when people are guilty of certain sins they bring up the scripture wherein they hope to tell us Jesus said judge not lest ye be judged.
They forget the rest.
John 7:24, Jesus said "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

 

[kjw47]

Over 100 verses and you still don't believe.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and she will call Him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). Matthew 1:23
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel" (which means, "God with us").

I know Jesus is Immanuel. But he is not God.

 

[kjw47]

True. And we know Jesus judged. We have but to recall when he took off on the Pharisee's and called them a brood of vipers, etc...
And when Jesus hand fashioned a whip so as to take after the money changers doing business, as Jews, before his father's house.

I notice when people are guilty of certain sins they bring up the scripture wherein they hope to tell us Jesus said judge not lest ye be judged.
They forget the rest.
John 7:24, Jesus said "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Righteous judgement. I shared the scriptures backing truth. Gods truth is what counts. He is clear. 1John 3

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

We believe he is Immanuel to.
I checked carefully for years. Its easy to see that trinity translation teach 2 different gods. All trinity translation came from Catholicism translating basically. It has caused much confusion) Mark 3:24-26)
I believe-JESUS above all--John 20:17, Rev 3:12--he has a God, like we do.

But you don't believe Jesus name, Emmanuel, and what it means. Nor do you believe Jesus when he said he and the father are one. And when you have seen him you have seen the father.
And all those other verses wherein Jesus teaches he is the Father.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

I know Jesus is Immanuel. But he is not God.

When you stand before the judgment be sure to tell him that.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Righteous judgement. I shared the scriptures backing truth. Gods truth is what counts. He is clear. 1John 3

He is. Those scriptures that conflict with your belief that you choose to set aside as you will do not equivocate. Jesus is very clear.
He was God and he commanded judgment be righteous.
Do you know what righteous judgment means?
It means judge based on the teachings of God .
This is why adultery is to be judged. This is why homosexuality is to be judged. Tran-affliction/afflicted. Murderers are to be judged using righteous judgement. This has been the case since the Bible has been offered as an article of truth upon which to swear allegiance to the truth and nothing but the truth when someone is about to testify in court for any manner of sins. Though they are a secular court that which is tried was first that which God judged sin.
Do you understand that scripture passage you posted rebukes your choosing to believe Jesus was not the Father in flesh? No man can look upon God and live. The Bible says that too.

How else would God deliver his new grace covenant to his people but in the body of the son of a man. Jesus was the son of God and having the appearance of that which is seen as the son of man. Your idea of Jesus is that Joseph was his biological father.

Emmanuel was begotten by God upon Mary. God was his father. Do you think something other than the holy spirit that is God could make the flesh of Emmanuel in the woman that was first created by the power and will of God in Eden?
God was Jesus' Heavenly Father. His source. Emmanuel was fully in the flesh, and fully empowered by the holy spirit that is creator. God creates all things of himself. Jesus was God.
When you claim to believe what Jesus says you are false if you deny Jesus meant what he said when he tells us that about himself.
And that scripture you shared was a Godsend. It warns you against not believing the Son.
That's all I can tell you. The rest is up to you. God knows. And when you deny Jesus whom God named so as to tell his people when they met him and heard the name, Emmanuel, by which he was to be called, they knew whom they were encountering. God with us.
If it was meant to be anything else,he would have been named something else. God named him. But you don't believe that either. God with us.
Not, God sent him to us. Not, God is with him. God with us.
Verse 34 *editing to add this* reiterates the truth. God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Emmanuel. God fully filled Emmanuel. He didn't measure a piece of himself to him. Emmanuel was all creation of God by God. Flesh and Spirit are created of and by God when Emmanuel was begat upon Mary. Because God created all things of himself in the beginning. That means there is no thing created that is not of God. The Bible tells us that too.

34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

[metis]

He has--1Corinthians 6:9-11, Galations 5:19-21--both spots teach--will not enter Gods kingdom.

Paul wrote both of those, and he said he will not judge others, including himself.

There's a difference between general teachings versus judging others, and I would suggest playing "God" is simply not our role.

 

[74x12]

We believe he is Immanuel to.
I checked carefully for years. Its easy to see that trinity translation teach 2 different gods. All trinity translation came from Catholicism translating basically. It has caused much confusion) Mark 3:24-26)
I believe-JESUS above all--John 20:17, Rev 3:12--he has a God, like we do.

Forget the trinity. You should focus on the fact Jesus is God in the scriptures. I don't believe the trinity.

Just because Jesus has a God doesn't change things.

Matthew emphasized the meaning of Immanuel as "God with us" for a reason. It's to show us that Jesus was God with us.