Jesus’ claim to being God

[Dave L]

Many not accepting of the Ecumenical Creeds claim Jesus never says he is God. But I've proved them wrong with this simple example. He is God for many other reasons. If he is the Son of Man because Mary was human, he is God because his father is God where he is begotten eternally. And being called Lord Jesus, they are in fact calling him YHWH Jesus. Because the Septuagint calls YHWH Lord. But the most bold statement by him in claiming his divinity I've found so far is this.

Tempted of the Devil and Jesus’ claim to being God.


“And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.” Luke 4:1–2 (KJV 1900)

“And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Luke 4:9–11 (KJV 1900)

“Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” Matthew 4:7 (KJV 1900)

Right away the antitrinitarian will say the Devil meant the Father would bear Jesus up according to Ps 91. And it is the Father whom Jesus referred to.

But look again.

By saying this, does Jesus announce he is God? Yes. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9 (KJV 1900)

So Jesus in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead announced to the Devil he is God.

Further proof? The oldest manuscripts say so too.

And he is God; “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Jude 5 (ESV)

 

[Dave-W]

The phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are misunderstood in our modern mindset and actually are reversed.

"Son of God" actually refers to a human king; and "Son of Man" refers to a divine being. For the latter, please reference Daniel chapter 7, verses 13-14.

 

[Albion]

The phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are misunderstood in our modern mindset and actually are reversed.

I also had the impression that these two terms are not taken, by most skeptics, to nail down the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh. Rather, they think that either or both of them can refer to someone who knew the mind of God or else was a special creation of God but not God himself.

 

[Dave-W]

I also had the impression that these two terms are not taken, by most skeptics, to nail down the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh. Rather, they think that either or both of them can refer to someone who knew the mind of God or else was a special creation of God but not God himself.

That is not how Daniel 7 portrays the "Son of Man" term. For further study on that i suggest reading a book "The Jewish Gospels" by Dr. Daniel Boyarin, an Orthodox Jew and professor of Talmudic Culture at UC Berkley.

https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Gospels-Story-Christ/dp/1595588787

 

[Dave L]

The phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are misunderstood in our modern mindset and actually are reversed.

"Son of God" actually refers to a human king; and "Son of Man" refers to a divine being. For the latter, please reference Daniel chapter 7, verses 13-14.

The point is, Mary produced a human offspring in time. God produced a divine offspring in similar fashion in eternity.

 

[Albion]

That is not how Daniel 7 portrays the "Son of Man" term. For further study on that i suggest reading a book "The Jewish Gospels" by Dr. Daniel Boyarin, an Orthodox Jew and professor of Talmudic Culture at UC Berkley.

https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Gospels-Story-Christ/dp/1595588787

Read my post again. I was referring to what the average skeptic tends to think about those terms.

Presenting these titles to such a person as 'proof positive' of the divinity of Jesus is not as likely to make an impression as are a number of other proofs that are also to be found in Scripture.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If he is the Son of Man because Mary was human, he is God because his father is God where he is begotten eternally.

Are you your biological father?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with your point one way or another, but that doesn't help your case. You would not be your father for the sole reason he was your biological father, you would be you, your fathers son., it's the only thing that stands to reason from that set of circumstances.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The point is, Mary produced a human offspring in time. God produced a divine offspring in similar fashion in eternity.

How does that make him God? Divine or otherwise, if he is offspring, he is offspring and in this case, the son of God.

 

[1213]

… he is God because his father is God …

The problem with that argument is, also disciples of Jesus are children of God.

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

… By saying this, does Jesus announce he is God? Yes. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9 (KJV 1900)…

And God dwells also in disciples of Jesus:

Don't you know that you are a temple of God, and that God's Spirit lives in you?
1 Corinthians 3:16

I hope you don’t think disciples of Jesus are Gods.

 

[Dave L]

The problem with that argument is, also disciples of Jesus are children of God.

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13



And God dwells also in disciples of Jesus:

Don't you know that you are a temple of God, and that God's Spirit lives in you?
1 Corinthians 3:16

I hope you don’t think disciples of Jesus are Gods.

This denies the nature of the trinity. It gives Jesus two persons instead of one. It in fact makes him just another disciple.

 

[1213]

This denies the nature of the trinity. It gives Jesus two persons instead of one. It in fact makes him just another disciple.

Sorry, I don’t see how it gives Jesus two persons. And I think Jesus can’t be called a disciple of himself.