Why Jesus is divine only in John?

Duvduv said:

Well, if he did he must have been hiding it from mankind! Because people were acquiring salvation and heaven without needing his crucifixion. And if with an omnipotent omniscient God it was possible to be forgiven without any Jesus, then surely it is the same today. This is the unsolvable paradox of Christianity.

Click to expand...

Again, no. Any and all salvation is only possible due to Christ's sacrifice. Nowhere does the Bible state that anyone's salvation was/is not dependent on Christ's sacrifice. Nowhere has any Christian in this discussion said that anyone's salvation was/is not dependent on Christ's sacrifice. You seem insistent on simply making up straw man fallacies to argue against. There is no "paradox" involved. I don't know how else this needs to be explained to you.

Excuse me, but I don't see the straw man. Everywhere you look you find the doctrine (including in the Epistles) that salvation is available only through Jesus Christ. Nothing is said why this is so only after the year 33 AD. And since the Gospel of John makes it clear that Jesus is the Word made flesh, and he was crucified for the sins of mankind, one can only ask why the same scriptures do not explain why this is necessary now and not for the rest of history in the past, and if it wasn't necessary, then surely it doesn't have to be necessary now either. This is not resolved in the Christian scriptures.

Duvduv said:

If there were any distinction then logically there no distinction at any time in history.
Thus, if Jesus had no role before the first century despite the statement in the Gospel of John, then no role is required now either. Salvation does not require Jesus appearing in the 1st century.

Click to expand...

Understanding History from the Eternal Perspective
Hi Sir,
I think the confusion you may be having is not understanding the difference between the unchanging eternal will of God and His Will for His Creation which definitely unfolds within mutable time. This is the Christian perspective that has been around since the Apostles. I did not want to take a deep dive here into that perspective but find it necessary nonetheless.

1. Time began with the Creation - it is a physical property. It is therefore a mutable property.
2. Eternity, always was, is, and will be. It is not subject to time and is immutable, just as our unchanging God IS, He who has no shadow of turning. When He says "I AM" that statement is irrespective of time. He always WAS, always IS, and always WILL BE.
3. Both Creation and Time itself are both subject to our Eternal God and His Eternal Will. Creation is headed towards a finality when all things, which God has ordained will be fulfilled according to His preordained Will.
4. Irenaeus and Augustine, who were early church fathers, knew time actually began with the created universe. They knew this because Jewish and Christian doctrines taught them this. Fast forward 1900 years to Einstein/relativity, Hubble/expanding universe and the Big bang and we find scientists all now agree with the early Church that time is indeed a physical property. It is a completely inseparable entity called space/time. Physicists now believe time began in the first planck era of the universe, which is less than a fempto-second. What caused space/time or the creation to come into being is scientifically unknowable but has been spiritually discerned for millennia as we believe it was our Eternal God, the Creator of the universe by an act of Will that created the mutable universe.
5. Jesus came to do the Will of the Father for all time. Thus He modeled for us the eternal and temporal perspective in prayer itself when He taught us
   • "Our Father who art in heaven" (heaven being eternal & outside of time)
   • "Hallowed be Thy Name!" (No Name is holier or more precious)
   • "Thy Kingdom come" (we are asking for Father God's Kingdom to come upon us)
   • "Thy Will be done on earth" (We desire that His Eternal Will be carried out in mutable time)
   • "as it is in Heaven" (Heaven is where His Will is already eternally complete.)
   • In other words let the copy be made like the original

As Christians we also know Christ perfectly understood the eternal perspective as well as our temporal perspective for Jesus spoke in both contexts (eternally and in time); this to the utter confusion of His listeners who didn't understand anything outside the temporal. Here is an example where He is stating that Abraham saw the fulfilment of God's promise - something in mutable time had not yet happened but in the eternal perspective had. So Abraham was part of the blessing which Christ (his seed) would fulfill.

• Gen 22:18 “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

• Jhn 8:56 “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
  • Jesus is speaking from the eternal perspective
• John 8:57- Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?
  • They only understood Him from the temporal perspective and thought Him a madman
• John 8:58-Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
  • Jesus, comes right out and says He, like His Father, is eternal
• John 8:59-
• Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
  • They believed He had committed blasphemy but we Christians understand the Son is the Word of God. Early theologians called Him the Wisdom of God or the Logos.
• John 1:1-5 ​
  The Eternal Word (Gen. 1:1—2:3 )
  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Patriarchs, Moses, the Prophets, and all who hoped in the promise, were also part of the body of believers who were in Christ. Now Messiah has come and with Him all the promises of God that are fulfilled in Him. You see we are not won to God by our acts of self-righteousness good deeds but by the provision of God through the promised Messiah (the seed of the Abrahamic blessing) who calls all of us to Himself. Now Jesus prophesied this 1988 years ago to 12 disciples

• Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
• Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Sounded statistically unlikely almost 2 millennia ago, right?
But yet here we are in 2018 on the cusp of completing the above Great Commission. The word nation is the Greek ethne' which really means ethnic tribe or people group not today's modern day geographical borders. There are over 6500 languages spoken on earth and we plan to have the Gospel completed in all of them by the year 2025. Other than conquering the language barrier ethne' or unreached people groups are differ by more than just language. We have also seen that God is of late moving missionaries over there and bringing ethnic peoples where they can be reached with the Good News of the Gospel. This is happening at a much faster clip then we have ever witnessed before.
North American Missionaries used to be the movers and shakers of the Gospel on the planet; now our Korean brothers and sisters, Chinese, Africans, South Americans are sending them out at an exponential clip. So Christ will be preached in all the world just as Jesus said it would and He is using ordinary men, women and children to complete that mission.

In Christ, Patrick

Duvduv said:

Excuse me, but I don't see the straw man. Everywhere you look you find the doctrine (including in the Epistles) that salvation is available only through Jesus Christ. Nothing is said why this is so only after the year 33 AD.

Click to expand...

Why *what* is so only after 33 AD? Salvation through Jesus? It is NOT so "only after the year 33 AD". As already stated several times now, salvation was/is always available solely through Jesus. There was never a time when salvation was achieved any other way.

The only thing that I can imagine your issue to be is that you seem unable to make the obvious connection that, for people before the time of Jesus, salvation by faith in God IS THE SAME THING as salvation by faith in Jesus' sacrifice. Abraham's faith in God brought him salvation ONLY because Jesus was going to die in order to reconcile man to God. The promise of salvation came way back in Genesis 3. That promise of salvation is what people like Abraham had faith in - faith that God, at some point in the future, would provide the salvation He promised.

Thank you, Hypnotoad. However, this doctrine is not discussed in the Christian scriptures. The idea of salvation through the crucifixion in the future before the appearance of Jesus in the world (especially with no explicit scriptural description) seems to beg the question. The fact is that prior to the 1st century, the events associated with Jesus did not happen, and all the faith of people was in God directly, and this was accommodated because of that. And therefore it only seems logical that faith directly in God (without any reference to Jesus) would apply at any time because God is who he is. And prophecies relevant to Jesus attributed to the books of the OT are questionable since there was no Christianity at any time before the appearance of Jesus, and the prophecies can easily be explained in other ways, especially in the traditional Jewish ways. Not the least of which is Isaiah 53, which is misinterpreted because of a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word alma, and the context of the text regarding the Jewish king, Hezekiah to be born to the king Ahaz. But this is a subject of its own thread.

The verses used to explain the historical placement of Jesus with his atonement and salvation through him even in the NT scriptures can be interpreted in more than one way and do not directly address the issue I raised.

Godistruth1 said:

Why don't Matthew, Mark & Luke say something about divinity of Jesus?
I mean I don't know if there is!
Can someone comment if there are any verses!

Click to expand...

It could be argued that since John's Gospels is much later than the others, it incorporates the more mature christology that was associated with many later Christian groups. And it also depends on your interpretations.

Duvduv said:

Thank you, Hypnotoad. However, this doctrine is not discussed in the Christian scriptures.

Click to expand...

It *IS* discussed in the Christian Scriptures. Read Romans 4 & 5. You'll find Abraham's faith in God bringing his salvation, and you'll find it directly saying Jesus' sacrifice brought salvation to ALL men. Not all men since Jesus' time - ALL MEN, period.

Starcomet said:

It could be argued that since John's Gospels is much later than the others, it incorporates the more mature christology that was associated with many later Christian groups. And it also depends on your interpretations.

Click to expand...

Hi Sir,
If you read the posts in this thread. Hypnotoad Food4thought , Viacrucsis farouk farok Greg Merrill Chesterton and mine - (there are probably others) then you will see that it has already been clearly disproven that Jesus is not mentioned as being Divine in the other Gospels and Apostolic letters to the early Church. We have no need of a hypothesis that John reflects a developing Christology and theology. That is merely speculative as all authors show Christ to be Divine. Each also adds to our collective theology and understanding of Christ as well but that is always the way when viewed from multiple perspectives.
In Christ, Patrick

John 1720 said:

Hi Sir,
If you read the posts in this thread. Hypnotoad Food4thought , Viacrucsis farouk farok Greg Merrill and mine - there are probably others then you will see that it has already been clearly disproven that Jesus is not mentioned as being Divine in the other Gospels and Apostolic letters to the early Church. We have no need of a hypothesis that John reflects a developing Christology and theology. That is merely speculative as all authors show Christ to be Divine. Each also add to our collective theology and understanding of Christ as well but that is always the way when viewed from multiple perspectives.
In Christ, Patrick

Click to expand...

That idea is a matter of opinion Sir!

Starcomet said:

That idea is a matter of opinion Sir!

Click to expand...

Hello Starcomet,
No, actually it is a matter of fact that many others, as well as myself, have supplied verses that show Divine title being given to Jesus, as well as many theological statements that show Christ as Divine as well - all outside the Gospel of John. I would suggest that you really need to read the many posts on this thread from the people I listed in #49. These prove our assertions of Jesus being viewed as Divine in the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles many times over.

Please remember the OP #1

GodIsTruth said:

Why don't Matthew, Mark & Luke say something about divinity of Jesus?
I mean I don't know if there is!
Can someone comment if there are any verses!

Click to expand...

Also when asked, the originator stated references to Jesus Divinity, which he was aware of in John, would be titles such as Son of God/God.

• Why Jesus is divine only in John?

So many inferences were then supplied. They not only met the criteria he listed but also many other additional proofs were furnished as supplements. All of them are found in the Gospels, and the letters that predate John's Gospel. This should be easy for you to check.

Perhaps if you respond to those posts after you read the posts in this thread and exegete those Scripture references you could then possibly make your case as to why you still believe that is only opinion rather than fact. Until then I feel uncompeled to repeat myself. However, I will say that supplying a blanket statement without any real data really does not help your conjecture that this is merely opinion. Instead of us duplicating posts to impeach your assertion, it is better you address the actual posts where we supplied the evidence that you seemingly have yet to read.
Regards, Patrick

John 1720 said:

Hello Starcomet,
No, actually it is a matter of fact that many others, as well as myself, have supplied verses that show Divine title being given to Jesus, as well as many theological statements that show Christ as Divine as well - all outside the Gospel of John. I would suggest that you really need to read the many posts on this thread from the people I listed in #49. These prove our assertions of Jesus being viewed as Divine in the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles many times over.

Please remember the OP #1
Regards, Patrick

Click to expand...

Sir,

Most of those passages are just interpretations that people infer from. No where in the synoptic gospels does he say he is God and even in John he argued that God is greater than him. The epistles indeed argue that Jesus is a divine being, but it could still be argued that they were not imply he was co-equal with God.

Starcomet said:

Sir,

Most of those passages are just interpretations that people infer from. No where in the synoptic gospels does he say he is God and even in John he argued that God is greater than him. The epistles indeed argue that Jesus is a divine being, but it could still be argued that they were not imply he was co-equal with God.

Click to expand...

Hello Again Starcomet,
Please reference the actual Post and hit "Post Reply" so we know what exactly what passages that you are referencing. That will eliminate the guesswork since there are at least a dozen responses or more and it's hard to know exactly what you are complaining about. If you wish then feel free to utilize my response to the OP and you can tell me why they don't show Jesus as being the Divine Son of God..

• Why Jesus is divine only in John?

Cheers
In Christ, Patrick

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
(Matthew 7:21-23)

Who is going to imagine himself sitting in judgment upon people at the end of time apart from God? Jesus’ divinity may not be explicitly stated in the synoptic gospels, but it is certainly implied.

Godistruth1 said:

Why don't Matthew, Mark & Luke say something about divinity of Jesus?
I mean I don't know if there is!
Can someone comment if there are any verses!

Click to expand...

Because it's about a process of human witnessing, which defines how a truth (of any kind actually) can be conveyed among humans. The first 3 accounts of the gospel are simply to record down what Jesus said and His deeds. It's not a necessity to explain the theory or whatsoever behind His deeds. On top of the testimonies John went deeper into the nature of Jesus Christ as the logos.

Paul on the other hand, gave an theological explanation on what the contents of the New Covenant could possibly be.

Godistruth1 said:

This is denied by Jews that immanuel actually means God will dwell among us

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/#_ftn2

Click to expand...

Today's Judaism is a remake after AD 200. It's nothing similar to the Judaism back in Jesus days in terms of the core Pharisaic concepts.

Judaism 2000 years again is cored on a set of Pharisaic concepts which don't seem to be adapted by today's Jews. Today's Judaism was revived by a group of Rabbis (not Pharisees) after AD 200. Those so-called (or rather self-claimed )Rabbis are not someone authenticated by, say, Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. There was no such a central authority after the AD 70 Jerusalem siege.

Hawkins, the Sanhedrin existed long after 70 AD in the Galilee, Yavneh, etc. I don't think you know enough about Talmudic Judaism.

Duvduv said:

Hawkins, the Sanhedrin existed long after 70 AD in the Galilee, Yavneh, etc. I don't think you know enough about Talmudic Judaism.

Click to expand...

Those at most are the local Sanhedrin, not the central one in Jerusalem. They could be those previously assigned by the central Sanhedrin. So if the central one is gone, they aren't authenticated.

The central Sanhedrin is made of nominees from the 6000 Pharisees and around the same amount of Sudducees, together with some other scribes or law teachers. Those elite Pharisees and Sudducees are no longer there after AD 70.

Moreover the "long after" isn't as long as after AD 200. From what I read, those rabbis decided to revive Judaism seemed to be from Egypt.

No, I'm afraid you are terribly confused. The great Sanhedrin operated under Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rabban Gamliel II, Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva until the time of Bar Kochba and then beyond.

Duvduv said:

No, I'm afraid you are terribly confused. The great Sanhedrin operated under Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rabban Gamliel II, Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva until the time of Bar Kochba and then beyond.

Click to expand...

No, I think that you never read the Bible and Josephus' works. The Great Sanhedrin is basically controlled by the Pharisees and Sudducees. There's not many rabbis in the Great Sanhedrin back in Jesus' days.

Even from Wikipedia and Talmud (Herodian period):
The Talmud tractate Sanhedrin (IV:2) states that the Sanhedrin was to be recruited from the following sources: former High Priests, representatives of the 24 priestly castes, scribes, doctors of the law, and representatives of the most prominent families (those whose daughters were allowed to marry priests)

This fits the description of Sudducees and scribes and law teachers. Pharisees should also be there because they represent the main influence to the Jews. Doctors of the law are more indicative of Pharisees as only Pharisees (not rabbis) were in control of the Oral Law. The Sudducees on the other hand were enforcers of the Written Law.