Jesus is certainly divine in the other Gospels, if one understands what they are reading.
1. Matthew 3:3 talks about John the Baptist "preparing the way of the Lord" - Matthew is citing a prophecy from Isaiah 40:3, where "the Lord" in Isaiah's Hebrew is "Yahweh" - the name of God. (Matthew was written to a Jewish audience, so they would have been aware of this.) But who did John prepare the way for? For Jesus. So if John was fulfilling a prophecy about preparing the way for Yahweh by preparing the way for Jesus, then Jesus is being equated to Yahweh.
2. Matthew 14 talks about Jesus calming a storm. The disciples' response in verse 33 was to "worship" Jesus. The Jews were pretty adamant about not worshiping anything but God. Jesus was pretty adamant about not worshiping anything but God. Jesus didn't stop their worship. This would have been a huge sin for all of them had Jesus not been God.
3. Mark 2 talks about Jesus healing a paralytic. Before He heals the man, Jesus forgives his sins. The scribes nearby started thinking that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, since only God has such authority to forgive sins. Jesus replied (note that they didn't speak their concerns, they were only *thinking* it, yet Jesus knew and answered them) that He certainly did have that authority, the same authority God had.
4. Luke 1 talks about the angel Gabriel predicting John the Baptist's birth to Zechariah.
Note the exact words in verses 16 & 17:
"He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah."
Who does the "him" in the second sentence refer to? The Lord their God. Gabriel says John will go out before the Lord God. And then later in chapter 3, there is John, preparing the way for... who? ... Jesus. Again, do the math. Gabriel says John will go out before God. John goes out before Jesus. Kinda sounds like it's saying Jesus is God. (Luke 3:4 also makes the same reference to Isaiah 40:3 we saw in Matthew 3.)
God and His Word are the authority, not Jews, not unbelievers, not ever believers. The Word speaks for itself. Jesus is God with us.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
Additionally, John had a purpose for writing his Gospel that the others did not. The prevailing heresy of John's day was a sort of proto-Gnosticism, and John's writings reflect that. He emphasizes that True God truly becomes true man.John is the latest of the Gospels and reflects a developing Christology not found in the other gospels.
Hi Sir,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!
It's rather unfair to judge Christianity by trying to imagine it without the Gospel of John. That's like trying to argue, "cars aren't very good vehicles, because if you take away the wheels, they can't go anywhere." Well, the fact of the matter is that cars *DO* have wheels, and you have to judge them accordingly. John *IS* part of Christianity, and you have to judge it accordingly.I think it is important to note that the references in the synoptic gospels to Jesus are at most ambiguous, and more likely do not reflect any divinity. They are entirely applicable to statements venerating an individual who is either the promised Jewish messiah or simply a holy man. It is only in John where we find a specific identification of a divine being. How would we imagine the Christian religion without the Gospel of John altogether?! As a great holy man, possibly the promised Jewish messiah? One unsolved question is how such a holy man in Judaism could be unmarried since Jewish tradition teaches the notion of an unmarried man being "plag gufo" (half a body). In any case, it is very likely that the gospel rounded out the outreach to pagan mentalities during the time of Constantine when the new empire in Constantinople was legitimizing a new religion that separated itself from traditional paganism in favor of Jewish ideas that were very popular. In other words it was seeking to create a religion that "had something for everybody" in th Empire.
A thorny question? Since when? This has been addressed by many Christian theologians many times. The Bible itself (in both Testaments) addresses it. It's nothing new, and your notion that it is an unanswered question is simply false. Salvation before Christ was attained in the exact same way as it is attained since Christ: faith in God.I think it is interesting that it is John that directly attributes the existence of Jesus to before the 1st century. If so, this reinforces the question as to how people before the year 30-33 attained salvation and atonement for their sins since the dawn of creation. Nothing in the Gospel of John addresses this, and there is nothing in any other Christian scripture that resolves this thorny question.
Hi Sir,I think it is important to note that the references in the synoptic gospels to Jesus are at most ambiguous, and more likely do not reflect any divinity.
They are entirely applicable to statements venerating an individual who is either the promised Jewish messiah or simply a holy man. It is only in John where we find a specific identification of a divine being.
How would we imagine the Christian religion without the Gospel of John altogether?! As a great holy man, possibly the promised Jewish messiah? One unsolved question is how such a holy man in Judaism could be unmarried since Jewish tradition teaches the notion of an unmarried man being "plag gufo" (half a body).
In any case, it is very likely that the gospel rounded out the outreach to pagan mentalities during the time of Constantine when the new empire in Constantinople was legitimizing a new religion that separated itself from traditional paganism in favor of Jewish ideas that were very popular. In other words it was seeking to create a religion that "had something for everybody" in th Empire.
Hi Jack,The gospels are interpretive narratives written well after the fact. John was about 60 years after the crucifixion and Mark was the earliest at about 40 years.
False.The bottom line is that the same omnicient God who can provide salvation through faith before the first century can do it afterwards too. So the need for Jesus is not logical, especially if mankind were always sinners. John doed not explain the change.
Yes, actually it is. Faith seen from afar or before the atonement is still faith and that faith whether before, during or after resides in the promised Messiah whom we claim has come not only for the Jewish nation but, according to the Abrahamic Covenant, all nations. We have all been blessed through the promised seed of Abraham.That does not explain how mankind from Creation until 33 AD attained salvation and heaven if Jesus was not around on earth. None of this is addressed in any Christian scriptures.
It says you follow Judaism. Is the Judaic God bound by time? Because the Christian God is not. So, Jesus not coming until a later time has no bearing on God being able to apply that sacrifice to people before then.That does not explain how mankind from Creation until 33 AD attained salvation and heaven if Jesus was not around on earth. None of this is addressed in any Christian scriptures.
Who said Jesus didn't have a role? He always had His role as Savior. God being able to apply a future sacrifice to an earlier time is not in any way saying that Jesus didn't have a role. That is a complete non sequitur.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?