Does Jesus Claim to be God?

Hey all, I'm going through some personal faith-based struggles right now, and one of the big ones is based on the fact that I can't find a clear point where Jesus claims to be God. Obviously, he never says "I am God," but even all the scriptures that people commonly cite as claims to his own divinity seem to be ambiguous or to have multiple interpretations. If Jesus claims he is God, then I'll believe it; my concern is that throughout time, Jesus' status evolved into one of Godhood when really, that was never something that he claimed to be.

Thanks,

Soseke

In Luke 18:18-19 Jesus states that only God is good.*

Twice in John 10, Jesus does, in fact, call Himself "good" ("I am the good shepherd").

If Jesus says only God is good, and then calls Himself "good", ...

I'm also curious why you restrict this to Jesus' words only. John 1 gives a simple logic progression stating Jesus' divinity. Verse 1 states the Word is God, and verse 14 states that Jesus is the Word. If the Word is God, and Jesus is the Word, then Jesus must be God. Do you see all Scripture that isn't a direct quote of Jesus as somehow less than God's Word? Less accurate?

*the statement in Luke is not a denial of divinity; see this comment -
http://www.kingdavid8.com/FAQs/JesusGood.html

Soseke said:

Hey all, I'm going through some personal faith-based struggles right now, and one of the big ones is based on the fact that I can't find a clear point where Jesus claims to be God. Obviously, he never says "I am God," but even all the scriptures that people commonly cite as claims to his own divinity seem to be ambiguous or to have multiple interpretations. If Jesus claims he is God, then I'll believe it; my concern is that throughout time, Jesus' status evolved into one of Godhood when really, that was never something that he claimed to be.

Thanks,

Soseke

Click to expand...

this is why they tried to stone Him -- His claim was recognized

First, Jesus is a Jew. That is rather obvious, but Jesus the Jew was rooted in His culture. His culture was a eastern mindset. The eastern mindset always talked in pictures. Over and Over again Jesus laid claim to the picture that symbolized God where actually His.

Matthew 11:27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

In the walking on water narrative of Mark 6 (busy chapter, really...), Christ uses the divine title I AM in speaking.

Moreover, while Jesus never claims the title theos or theon, he repeatedly claims for himself divine authority- the ability to forgive sins, the ability to speak with more-than-prophetic authority, the authority to challenge the priesthood and the temple.

@XianJedi

I like that explanation, but I have a few problems with it.

I guess I find it strange that the Good Shepherd passage occurs only in the Gospel of John, and no where else does Christ refer to himself as good. Obviously, I'm not ready to discredit that Jesus actually said that -- but it just makes me uneasy that such a strong claim to Godhood appears only in one canonized Gospel -- the one that has several other "claims" to Godhood that are not found in the synoptic gospels. I'm not refuting this entirely, it just makes me uneasy.

And yes, that is part of my concern -- that anything that Jesus didn't directly say might have been a misinterpretation of his teachings, because I'm not so sure the narrators are reliable. For example:

Luke 23:50 states, "Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man..." Luke also records the "No one is good but God" claim that Christ makes. So, if Luke notes that Jesus refers to himself as good, and Luke refers to Joseph as good, but only God is good, then I have four options. One, I can believe that Joseph and Jesus are God. Two, I can believe that Luke is more accurate than Jesus in calling someone "good", and therefore his words should be trusted more than Christ's. Three, I can believe that Luke slipped up and called someone good that he didn't mean to call good. Or four, Luke intentionally used a different definition of good than Christ used.

Unless you would like to discuss the first two options, I think we can safely throw them out. Either of the second two options show that Luke is an unreliable narrator -- he either has not applied Jesus' definitions accurately by accident or has purposefully ignored them.

Therefore, I find it difficult to trust the authors' own words and interpretations. While it is possible to misrecord Jesus' words, I find it would be far easier to make a bad interpretation of what was originally said than to not record what was said faithfully.

@ Thekla

My concern is that they misinterpreted his claim -- I know the Jews believed that he was claiming to be God, but I wonder if he was, or if they were once again confused by his rhetoric.

@ dvd_holc

Regarding the "all things have been committed to me" passage, I see no need for this to indicate a claim to deity. I think this need mean no more than God has given Christ *authority*, much like a king might give a regent. So anything that God can do, Christ can do -- I don't see the necessity of them being the same person. At first I thought that maybe, if the Father conferred all things to the Son, that one of the things conferred was the status of deity -- because, after all, it was a "thing". But I soon realized that "all things" can't truly mean "all that is," or else wouldn't the Father have conferred to the Son the status of Fatherhood, as well as the status of Godhood?

I don't really know if that makes logical sense, and I appreciate any thoughts you might have. Because, honestly, I want to believe that Jesus claimed to be God. But more importantly, I want the truth, and so far I've seen little to prove that Christ ever made that claim. For sure, he is Lord, and Christ, and Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God -- but is he God?

Thanks,

Soseke

Let me...make this more clear....God said in Exodus that the Glory of God would provide "rest" and everyone knew that the Glory of God was God....then Jesus said He will provide "rest"...Jesus said He is God.

Yes, I can see how that would allow him to be God, or would point in the direction of a claim to deity... but again, I don't see why Jesus claiming to function similarly to God is a claim to be God.

Soseke said:

Yes, I can see how that would allow him to be God, or would point in the direction of a claim to deity... but again, I don't see why Jesus claiming to function similarly to God is a claim to be God.

Click to expand...

There is no "similarly function" in the first century. No prophet or rabbi would have said this...and why many Jews would not accept Him...This is just one thing...there is more.

Soseke said:

For sure, he is Lord, and Christ, and Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God -- but is he God?

Click to expand...

If Jesus is the Son of God, then He must be God. In the first chapter of Genesis, we are taught that every living thing reproduces after its own kind.

Who was Jesus' Father? The Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Who is the Holy Spirit? He is God (Acts 5:3-4).

Just as my father was a man, I am man. Jesus' father was God, so Jesus is God. Jesus is the Son of God, because He is God.

In the same manner, Jesus' mother was a woman, so Jesus is a man. Jesus is the Son of Man, because He is a man.

Birthed by both God and mankind, Jesus is both God and man.

A kind begets like kind.

Soseke said:

Hey all, I'm going through some personal faith-based struggles right now, and one of the big ones is based on the fact that I can't find a clear point where Jesus claims to be God. Obviously, he never says "I am God," but even all the scriptures that people commonly cite as claims to his own divinity seem to be ambiguous or to have multiple interpretations. If Jesus claims he is God, then I'll believe it; my concern is that throughout time, Jesus' status evolved into one of Godhood when really, that was never something that he claimed to be.

Thanks,

Soseke

Click to expand...

If the Messiah 'never claimed to be God incarnate as a man' but the idea simply 'evolved over time', as many assert, then why did those Jews who refused to believe the Messiah's claims about Himself and His unique relationship with His Father (cf. Jn.20:17(b)) want to stone the Messiah to death for blasphemy (Jn.10:30-33)?!

Judeo-Christianity teaches that the second Person (the Son) of the ONE Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, Immutable, Tri-Personal Creator God, YHWH ('I AM') has incarnated as a finite temporal human creature (known as the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth) in order to atone for the sin of His Creation by being crucified upon the cross and then being resurrected from the dead in order to vindicate Him alone as being God, incarnate as a human creature, who has overcome death and the everlasting Lake of Fire for the benefit of all Mankind.

That means that the Messiah is ONE PERSON (the Son) simultaneously existing in TWO DIFFERENT WAYS as TWO DIFFERENT NATURES [those Natures being distinct from each other but NOT separate], one Infinite and Divine, the other finite and human. The Infinite Divine Nature ALWAYS exists, without time, whilst the finite human nature had to be brought into existence by being created within time. Thus, the Son ALWAYS exists as the Divine Creator whilst also having to come into existence as a finite human creature, Jesus of Nazareth.

Now that the Son does exist as the finite creature, Jesus of Nazareth (whilst also Immutably existing as the Infinite and Eternal Divine Creator, YHWH) He will continue to do so forever.

Thus, the Messiah now simultaneously exists eternally (i.e. without time) as the Divine Creator YHWH and everlastingly (i.e. within time) as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth.

Whilst the Son ALWAYS exists as the Infinite Divine Creator YHWH, He only came into existence as the finite human creature Jesus of Nazareth from the historical point when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and the Power of the Most High came upon her and the subsequent Virgin Birth. Because of this it is not correct to say that 'Jesus did not exist prior to this point' because the Person of the Son who became the human, Jesus of Nazareth, clearly did exist prior to this point, just not as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth. What should be said is that the Son did not exist as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, prior to this point but He DID exist (as He ALWAYS exists) as the Infinite, Divine Creator, YHWH.

God has NOT 'changed' from being God to being human since that is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE (for both God and humans) and neither has a human changed from being human to being God, since that is also ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE (for both God and humans). No, what has happened is that ONE of the THREE Persons of the ONE Tri-Personal (or 'Trinitarian') Creator God has become a human creature WHILST REMAINING ONE of the THREE Persons of the ONE Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, Immutable, Tri-Personal, Creator God, YHWH.

This is the authentic Biblical Truth concerning the Person of the Messiah/Christ.

Happy to discuss (but only with you alone, by means of private messages)?

Simonline.

XianJedi said:

I'm also curious why you restrict this to Jesus' words only. John 1 gives a simple logic progression stating Jesus' divinity. Verse 1 states the Word is God, and verse 14 states that Jesus is the Word. If the Word is God, and Jesus is the Word, then Jesus must be God.

Click to expand...

Verse 14 does not state that 'Jesus is the Word' at all. It states (correctly) that the Word became Jesus, which is not quite the same thing since the existence of one (the Word) is Eternal (i.e. existing without time) whilst the existence of the other (Jesus of Nazareth) is only temporal (i.e. existing within time).

It is absolutely imperative that when dealing with either the Trinitarian Nature of the One True God or His hypostatic union as the Messiah that we get our theological terminology correct otherwise we will be guilty of misleading people.

The Messiah, as Divine, ALWAYS exists (without time). The Messiah, as human, had to come into existence (within time).

Simonline.

Soseke said:

@XianJedi

I like that explanation, but I have a few problems with it.

I guess I find it strange that the Good Shepherd passage occurs only in the Gospel of John, and no where else does Christ refer to himself as good. Obviously, I'm not ready to discredit that Jesus actually said that -- but it just makes me uneasy that such a strong claim to Godhood appears only in one canonized Gospel -- the one that has several other "claims" to Godhood that are not found in the synoptic gospels. I'm not refuting this entirely, it just makes me uneasy.

Click to expand...

The apostle John (who always referred to himself (modestly) as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved') was, in human terms, the Messiah's 'best friend' and therefore would probably have known and understood the Messiah better than the rest of the disciples and certainly the rest of the world. It was for this reason that John chose to focus on the Messiah, as Divine, rather than the Messiah, as human, as the synoptic gospels do

Soseke said:

And yes, that is part of my concern -- that anything that Jesus didn't directly say might have been a misinterpretation of his teachings, because I'm not so sure the narrators are reliable.

Click to expand...

The idea that what the Messiah is recorded as saying whilst walking the Earth is somehow more important/authoritative than the rest of the Bible is a common misconception amongst many people (including believers who should know better)?! The problem is made much worse by being inculcated into people's minds through the 'red-letter edition' bibles which I personally believe cause people to play God off against Himself and are therefore blasphemous and should be burned at the first available opportunity.

The Scriptures themselves declare that they are 100% 'God-breathed'/inspired by God (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13). That means that God (even as incarnate, i.e. Jesus) inspired all of the Scriptures and not just the bits written in red! That means that ALL Scripture (when correctly interpreted and applied) is equally authoritive since it is all inspired by the same Holy Spirit (Jn.16:5-15). That means that the Bible is inerrant (not 'infallible' because only God is infallible and (contrary to the opinion of many cultists (and even some Christians)) the Bible is NOT God).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Covenant

Soseke said:

For example:

Luke 23:50 states, "Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man..." Luke also records the "No one is good but God" claim that Christ makes. So, if Luke notes that Jesus refers to himself as good, and Luke refers to Joseph as good, but only God is good, then I have four options. One, I can believe that Joseph and Jesus are God. Two, I can believe that Luke is more accurate than Jesus in calling someone "good", and therefore his words should be trusted more than Christ's. Three, I can believe that Luke slipped up and called someone good that he didn't mean to call good. Or four, Luke intentionally used a different definition of good than Christ used.

Click to expand...

Yes, Luke's use of 'good' is relative whereas Christ's use of 'Good' with the rich young ruler was absolute. When the rich young ruler flatteringly addressed the Messiah as 'Good Master', the Messiah immediately came back with the retort 'Why do you call me 'Good'? Only God in Heaven is Good!' The Messiah was challenging the rich young ruler's assessment of Him. What the Messiah was really asking was ' By calling me 'Good Master' are you affirming that I am God, incarnate as a man?!' The rich young ruler was not ready to make that affirmation so instead he went on to ask what was the minimum necessary to attain salvation?

Soseke said:

Unless you would like to discuss the first two options, I think we can safely throw them out. Either of the second two options show that Luke is an unreliable narrator -- he either has not applied Jesus' definitions accurately by accident or has purposefully ignored them.

Click to expand...

Au contrare! Luke has a reputation amongst both historians and archaeologists of being incredibly accurate in what he records and his accounts (his gospel and Acts) are regarded (at least by historians and archaeologists of integrity) as being completely trustworthy.

See: Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

Soseke said:

Therefore, I find it difficult to trust the authors' own words and interpretations. While it is possible to misrecord Jesus' words, I find it would be far easier to make a bad interpretation of what was originally said than to not record what was said faithfully.

Click to expand...

Bearing in mind that the authorship of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures was a joint Divine/human effort, to accuse the authors of dishonesty in their writings is a major charge?!

Soseke said:

@ Thekla

My concern is that they misinterpreted his claim -- I know the Jews believed that he was claiming to be God, but I wonder if he was, or if they were once again confused by his rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Unlike us who have existed in both an alien culture and in a totally different time all our lives, so we can be forgiven for arriving at the wrong conclusions, that was not the case for the Jews of first century Israel.

Unlike us, they both knew and understood exactly what the Messiah was claiming both for God, Himself and ultimate reality (Jn.14:6). This is why the Messiah polarized first century Israelite society into two camps, those who were willing to take His claims seriously and become mebers of the Nazarene sect within Judaism (the original Jewish 'Church') and those who utterly repudiated His claims and sought instead to have Him crucified. The Messiah left no room for indifference.

Just because, two thousand years later, are totally confused about the Messiah and His claims to Divinity, does not give us the right to project that confusion back on to the world of first century Israel?

Soseke said:

@ dvd_holc

Regarding the "all things have been committed to me" passage, I see no need for this to indicate a claim to deity. I think this need mean no more than God has given Christ *authority*, much like a king might give a regent. So anything that God can do, Christ can do -- I don't see the necessity of them being the same person.

Click to expand...

God is Tri-Personal (Trinitarian) in Nature, not Mono-Personal (Unitarian) therefore, whilst the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are THREE DISTINCT PERSONS they are the ONE Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, Immutable, Tri-Personal, Divine Creator, YHWH and therefore CANNOT be in any way 'separate'.

When one addresses the Messiah one is not addressing 'God's ambassador', 'God's Regent', 'God's Representative', 'God's Jewish Pope' or even 'God's son' (?!). When one addresses the Messiah one is addressing God Himself - directly. The Messiah IS the Divine Creator (YHWH), incarnate as a human creature (Jesus of Nazareth)...Emmanuel - 'God with us' (Isa.44:6; 48:12; Mal.3:6; Jn.8:58; Rom.9:5; Col.1:13-17; Heb.1:8-12; 13:8; 1Jn.4:1-3; Rev.1:8; 21:6; 22:13)

Soseke said:

At first I thought that maybe, if the Father conferred all things to the Son, that one of the things conferred was the status of deity -- because, after all, it was a "thing". But I soon realized that "all things" can't truly mean "all that is," or else wouldn't the Father have conferred to the Son the status of Fatherhood, as well as the status of Godhood?

Click to expand...

Infinite Divinity and finite creaturehood are mutually exclusive. They ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be traversed, either by the Infinite Creator or by any of His finite creatures. The Divine Creator ABSOLUTELY CANNOT 'confer Divinity' on any finite creature...ever! It simply CANNOT be done. Anyone who does not ALWAYS exist as Divine simply cannot become Divine. It is a rubicon that CANNOT be crossed...either way. That which ALWAYS exists as Infinitely Divine CANNOT 'contract to a span' in order to become a finite creature.

This is why the ONE PERSON of the Messiah MUST exist simultaneously as TWO DIFFERENT NATURES (one Infinitely Divine and the other finitely human). The Natures ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be merged, blended or amalgamated into one single 'hybrid' nature. They MUST ALWAYS remain distinct from one another (but not separate) so they MUST be combined in the Person of the Messiah (the Son/Word) rather than with each other.

Soseke said:

I don't really know if that makes logical sense, and I appreciate any thoughts you might have. Because, honestly, I want to believe that Jesus claimed to be God. But more importantly, I want the truth, and so far I've seen little to prove that Christ ever made that claim. For sure, he is Lord, and Christ, and Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God -- but is he God?

Thanks,

Soseke

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely! The Messiah is not a Divine/human 'hybrid' with one single Divine/human nature (the heresy of Monophysitism) and neither is He 'two people' (one Divine the other human) indwelling a single human form (the heresy of Nestorianism).

The Messiah is the Eternal Creator God, YHWH (ALWAYS existing without time) incarnated as a human creature, Jesus of Nazareth (having to be brought into existence within time) Jn.1:1-14.

Simonline.

You should have fun with this one. Both were originally written in Greek.

John 5:17, 18 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

2 Maccabees 9:12 And when he himself could not now abide his own stench, he spoke thus: "It is just to be subject to God, and that a mortal man should not equal himself to God."

He was the obedient son of God, in whom God dwelt...


Jn 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

Jn 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

That is why he could seem to be God, through what he said.
Cliff

He was the obedient son of God, in whom God dwelt...


Jn 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

Jn 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

That is why he could seem to be God, through what he said.
Cliff

Hi Soseke:

Soseke said:

Hey all, I'm going through some personal faith-based struggles right now, and one of the big ones is based on the fact that I can't find a clear point where Jesus claims to be God. Obviously, he never says "I am God," but even all the scriptures that people commonly cite as claims to his own divinity seem to be ambiguous or to have multiple interpretations. If Jesus claims he is God, then I'll believe it; my concern is that throughout time, Jesus' status evolved into one of Godhood when really, that was never something that he claimed to be.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ is the “Son of God” (Mark 1:1, John 1:34) and God raised Him from the dead. Romans 10:9. The question of Christ’s true ‘identity’ (He never changes) comes up with Peter speaking ‘the truth’ like John the Baptist in this example:

“He said to them, "But 'who' do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is IN HEAVEN.” Matthew 16:15-17.

Click to expand...

Right here within these verses we have four witnesses testifying that Jesus Christ is indeed the “Son of God” in Simon Peter (speaking), My Father who is IN HEAVEN, Jesus Christ Himself for blessing Peter and the Holy Spirit by canonizing these accounts in God’s Living Word. 2Tim. 3:16-17. Jesus Christ also claims to be the “Son of God” in John 10:36 and again in Revelation 2:18 after God has raised Him from the dead. God raised Christ “far above all the heavens” (Eph. 4:10 = diagram = into Fig 2), so that the “Son of God” is at the “right hand of God” (Col. 3:1-3) making intercession for the saints (that’s us) this very moment. Romans 8:33-34. All of that being said, then MANY simply do not know the difference between God ‘and’ His Only Begotten Son** (John 3:16-18), which Scripture says makes our Creator* your “Liar.” I will assist you in seeing the difference between God* and His Son ** our Lord Jesus Christ** once again using ‘the truth’ of God’s Living Word:

“If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God* is greater; for the testimony of God* is this, that He* has testified concerning His Son**. The one who believes in the Son of God** has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God* has made Him* a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God* has given concerning His Son**. And the testimony is this, that God* has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son**. He who has the Son** has the life; he who does not have the Son of God** does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God**, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1John 5:9-13.

Click to expand...

The question for everyone here is about whether you believe the testimony that God* has given concerning our Lord Jesus Christ** the Son of God**, or if you are transforming the “one Mediator**” between God* ‘and’ men (1Tim. 2:5 = diagram = under red arrow) into your idol of worship to remove the “one God*” from the equation entirely.

“For there is one God*, and one Mediator** also between God* and men, the man Christ Jesus** . . .”. 1Timothy 2:5.

Click to expand...

Christ Jesus** is the “Son of God**” (2Cor. 1:19) and the ‘one Lord**’ of Ephesians 4:5, while the God* who raised Him** from the dead is the “one God and Father*” from Ephesians 4:6. I explain the differences between God and His Son** (Lord God** of Gen. 2:4+) from another perspective here. The problem for MANY people is they transform the “Son of God**” into “His God and Father*” (Rev. 1:6), which removes the one God* from the equation entirely. Everyone here must realize that replacing the one God* of our Lord Jesus Christ** with ANYTHING is nothing more than IDOLATRY and especially if you replace Him* with His Only Begotten Son** very much ‘in heaven.’ Think about what you are doing very carefully, because Scripture expressly forbids the worshipping of any image of something that is IN HEAVEN (Exodus 20:4) and Jesus Christ claims to be the “Bread which came down out of heaven” (John 6:51) exactly like He returned ‘to heaven’ (Acts 1:9-11). Let us place these key verses side by side and everyone can draw his own conclusions:

“Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven**, but it is My Father* who gives you the true bread out of heaven**. For the bread** of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." John 6:32-33.

“Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him**, because He said, "I am the bread** that came down out of heaven." John 6:41.

"This is the bread** which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am** the living bread** that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread**, he will live forever; and the bread** also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." John 6:50-51.

Here is the clincher:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is IN HEAVEN above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. Exodus 20:4.

Click to expand...

What MANY here fail to realize is that “No one has seen GOD* at ANY TIME . . .” (John 1:18), but even mere men have seen the “Son of God**” (John 1:34). Since nobody is allowed to make themselves an idol of ANYTHING that is ‘in heaven above’ to replace the “Invisible God” (Col. 1:15), then you should realize that “My Father who is IN HEAVEN” (Matt. 10:32-33) is a different Bible Principal than the “Only True God” (John 17:3) that Jesus Christ prays to throughout His ministry. My thread describing the differences between God ‘and’ My Father who is IN HEAVEN** (spirit witness of The Word**) is here.

In Christ Jesus** the Son of God**,

Terral

Hi Toad:

HypnoToad said:

In Luke 18:18-19 Jesus states that only God is good.*

Twice in John 10, Jesus does, in fact, call Himself "good" ("I am the good shepherd").

If Jesus says only God is good, and then calls Himself "good", ...

Click to expand...

So what? :0) Jesus Christ is still the “Son of God” (John 1:34) and the “Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:15-17), according to all of these Bible witnesses like Mark says straight out of the gate in Mark 1:1. Please take a few sentences to explain the reasons why ‘your’ testimony about the "Son of God" is contrary to all of these witnesses including Jesus Christ (John 10:36, Rev. 2:18). This is exactly what I was talking about in answering the Opening Post above that MANY simply DO NOT know the differences between God* and His Only Begotten Son**.

HypnoToad said:

I'm also curious why you restrict this to Jesus' words only. John 1 gives a simple logic progression stating Jesus' divinity.

Click to expand...

This is NONSENSE. There is no Hebrew or Greek term translated into ‘divinity’ even one time (NASB), except in the minds of deluded (2Thes. 2:11) men. The Greek term for ‘divine’ (theios #2304) appears in Scripture only three times in 2Peter 1:3+4 and Acts 17:29. Peter uses this adjective to describe “His divine power” (2Peter 1:3) and men partaking in His “divine nature” (2Peter 1:4). The only other reference calls believers the ‘offspring of God’ saying “we ought not to think that the ‘Divine’ (God) is like gold.” This is God’s Divinity we are talking about where Scripture says even men can partake of His ‘divine’ nature, but that does not make mere men “God!!!” by any stretch of the imagination. The fullness of God’s Deity dwells IN His Son in bodily form (Col. 2:9), which means God was IN Christ (2Cor. 5:19) reconciling the word to Himself, but there is still only “one God” and Christ Jesus is the “one Mediator” between God ‘and’ men. 1Timothy 2:5.

HypnoToad said:

Verse 1 states the Word is God, and verse 14 states that Jesus is the Word.

Click to expand...

No! This is the common error made by those trying to replace the one God with His Only Begotten Son!!! Read John 1:1 again to see if Scripture says Jesus is God!!! No. The Word ‘was’ God, because God and The Word are indeed “ONE” in God’s Infinite Realm (diagram = far left and top of Fig 2). However, John 1:2 shows that The Word (F+S+HS) is indeed “with God,” because God called upon The Word to ‘incarnate’ so that all things in this universe (Col. 1:16-17) could THEN be created IN The Word like this (diagram). God and His Word are ONE and the same exact thing in the golden yellow Infinite Realm that contains The Word (F+S+HS) like Christ Jesus contains this Adamic Universe shown in Tabernacle Form here. Jesus Christ is “The Word” made flesh (John 1:14) with “God” very much IN Him in much the same way that the believers in our gospel have “Christ IN you” (Col. 1:27 = Fig. 2*), so that God can enlarge IN Him (Fig 3*).

HypnoToad said:

If the Word is God, and Jesus is the Word, then Jesus must be God.

Click to expand...

No. God = One God and Christ Jesus = One Mediator** between God ‘and’ men. 1Timothy 2:5. You are trying to replace the “one God” with the “one Mediator” of the same verse using very weak examples of human reasoning.

HypnoToad said:

Do you see all Scripture that isn't a direct quote of Jesus as somehow less than God's Word? Less accurate?

Click to expand...

God sent many witnesses (John the Baptist, Peter, etc.) to testify that Jesus Christ is definitely the “Son of God,” but you are trying to transform “The Word/Son” into the same “God” who raised Him from the dead. Romans 10:9. Toad is ‘misinterpreting’ the truth of a few verses in order to somehow try and justify his idolatry that replaces the “Only True God” with “Jesus Christ” of the same verse. John 17:3.

In Christ Jesus the Son of God,

Terral

Hi Thekla:

Thekla said:

this is why they tried to stone Him -- His claim was recognized

Click to expand...

And this is proof that Jesus = God?? :0) No. Try to take a big step back to visualize exactly what you are saying here. Scripture says that “No one has seen GOD at any time . . .” (John 1:18) and yet these people trying to stone the “Son of God” can obviously see Him! Jesus Christ is “The Logos” or “The Word made flesh” (John 1:14) that Scripture time (John 1:34) and time (Matt. 16:15-17) again calls the “Son of God.” John 1:49. The people were trying to stone the “Son of God,” which is exactly who Christ claimed to be in John 10:36 and Rev. 2:18 and He never changes.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

John 10:30 KJV
I and my Father are one.