IF Jesus is God

[Elijah John]

If indeed Jesus is God that seems like an extraordinary claim, especially in the context of the Judaism from which Jesus emerged. Even Jesus repeated the Shema in Mark that God is One.

And the Shema is literally driven into the heads of Jewish folks from the time of Moses, written on tiny scrolls, and attached to their foreheads. And also on their doorposts, to literally drive the point home: "HEAR O ISRAEL, YHVH OUR GOD, YHVH IS ONE!"

So it seems only natural for folks bein' suspicious of ANY claims made on behalf of ANY mortal to be God Himself, in the flesh. And any claim to the contrary would be an extremely controversial and extraordinary claim.

Even Moses was not Divinized.

Which leads to the questions for debate.

Why isn't such a spectacular claim repeated in each of the four Gospels? Why is it not made unambiguously clear? Why is it only hinted at in John, and the letters of Paul? And for every verse in John or Paul that SEEMS to indicate that Jesus is God, there are verses in each of their writings that indicate that he is NOT (John 17.3 and I Timothy 2.5, for example).

Why, if Jesus in fact is God, is that not shouted from the rooftops in the Bible itself, but only in churches,creeds and personal testimonies?

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

Why isn't such a spectacular claim repeated in each of the four Gospels? Why is it not made unambiguously clear?

The claim that Jesus is God is made unambiguously clear in the gospels over and over again. Consider Mark 14:61-64:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?�

62 “I am,� said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?� he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?�

They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Jesus makes the following claims about himself:

1. That he is the “Son of Man�

2. That the Son of Man will be coming on the clouds

3. That the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of God.

The term “Son of Man� refers to a divine personage. That’s the way Jesus uses it and that’s the way the High Priest clearly understands it because he calls Jesus a blasphemer. That’s why the Pharisees say he deserved to die. Scholars agree on this. See Darrell Bock’s Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65, for example.

The term Son of Man, as it is used in Daniel 7:13, 14, refers to a pre-existent divine figure who is not God the Father. First-century Jewish literature (1 Enoch and 4 Ezra) refers to the Son of Man in Daniel as one who accepts worship and shares the throne of God, meaning that he is divine.

Jesus paraphrases Daniel 7:13, 14 when he referred to himself as the Son of Man in the gospels and he used the term to describe himself dozens of times. This means he thought of himself as divine and, by using the title, communicated to others that he was divine. The Jews who heard him speak would have been very familiar with the Daniel 7 passage and what the designation meant.

The phrase “coming on the clouds� ALWAYS refers and ONLY refers to YHWH. This is how Jesus says he will come. Therefore, he was stating unequivocally that he is God.

The phrase “sitting at the right hand of God� is a euphemism for sharing God’s throne, something that he does as the Second Person of the Trinity. Again, it speaks to his deity.

The Jews of that day and age would have understood clearly that Jesus was saying he was God. When Mark recorded it, he would have known that he was writing about Jesus calling himself God.

Mark also shows his understanding that Jesus is God by the way he opens his gospel.

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,
the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way�—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’�

4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

The original passage from Isaiah 40 (and also Malachi 3) speaks of God (YHWH). Mark uses it of Jesus which means that he is saying Jesus is God.

Then there is this passage from John 10:30-33:

30 I and the Father are one.�

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?�

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,� they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.�

The Jews recognized that Jesus was saying he and God are identical in essence, not simply aligned in purpose. That’s why they accused him of blasphemy and wanted to stone him to death.

John knew when he recorded this that Jesus was calling himself God. Those who read or heard his gospel knew that Jesus was calling himself God.

In John 8:58, Jesus calls himself I AM which is what YHWH called himself. Once again, it is obvious that his audience knew he was calling himself God because, once again, they wanted to stone him to death for blasphemy.

Then consider Matt. 9:2-5:

2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.�

3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!�

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.�

Again, he calls himself Son of Man, thereby claiming that he is divine. Then he forgives the man’s sins which is something that ONLY God can do. So when he forgives sins, he is saying he is God. And it is obvious that his audience KNEW that he was saying he was God because, once again, they accused him of blasphemy. Blasphemy = claiming to be God.

There are numerous other examples I could cite, but that’s all I have time for. Let me reiterate what I have said before elsewhere on this forum. God stated clearly that he was one. Jesus declared that he was God. Following his resurrection, those who saw him recognized him as God and also understood that the Holy Spirit (who Jesus described as another "paraclete" like himself and is referred to as a person in Scripture) is also God. But, knowing that God was one because he said he was, they realized that God was one God existing in three persons. God is not three separate gods. He exists as a Triune Godhead -- always has, always will.

I conclude with this:

When attempting to understand the Bible, it is important to grasp how its first audience would have understood it. I hope I have shown clearly that Jesus thought of himself as God and communicated that to those around him and that the Pharisees, fully understanding him, wanted him put to death for daring to say he was God. And none of it is hidden. It is written right there on the page. As Jesus said, let those who have ears to hear, hear.

As C. S. Lewis said, we are left with a choice with regard to the identity of Jesus. Either he was a liar and just stringing everybody along for his own self-centred reasons or he was a lunatic who mistakenly thought of himself as God or he was truly God Incarnate. If you don’t think he was the latter, that leaves only liar or lunatic and, quite frankly, if he was one of those, why would you pay attention to anything he said? And why would you want to wear the label “Christian�?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Overcomer]

Not Matthew, not Mark, not Luke not even John have Jesus saying "I am YHVH thy God" in any conversation, THAT would have been clear and unmistakable. Nor do any of those Evangelists make that claim on Jesus' behalf....Clearly.

The closest is John, but even HE has Jesus saying that the FATHER is the ONLY True God. (17.3) in Jesus prayer TO the Father. And for each verse in John that he hints at Jesus Divinity, there is another that indicates that Jesus is entirely human.

I will agree that there are verses that HINT at Jesus Divinity, but none come right out and say "I am God" or "He is God". I think the NT writers were toying with the idea, but had not fully developed it. That came later with the statements born of RCC councils and Church Creeds..."God from God, Light from Light, True God, from True God". Why did the Church feel the need to clarify and emphatically declare Jesus Divinity if it was clear and unambiguous in the Bible all along?

I will agree, that Jesus may have claimed to be the Messiah, but that is not in and of itself a Divinity claim.

Jews are not waiting for an incarnation of God as their Messiah, not even the Orthodox.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Why, if Jesus in fact is God, is that not shouted from the rooftops in the Bible itself, but only in churches,creeds and personal testimonies?

Where beliefs are informed from ignorance, well there we go.

If it be told, I'm the "son of God", insofar as if it is, he's Adam's daddy, well how 'bout that.

I find nothing in the phrase to indicate divinity, but a great big bunch of pride.


If only to me, the progression from "God's up there", to "and don't it beat all, here he is down here" is rather predictable. Folks'll listen to ya for a time, but once they get to they don't wanna, you gotta up your tale so's they will.

Where the "spirit" god is unseen, to some, it may be they need them a direct, physical, earthly, human manifestation in order to set to believing in the spirit god there. Who'd believe some alien come chopped down all them trees, but that Paul Bunyon did?

Then there's the notion of the first to tell the tale, well he gets believed. Think of it this way - I say it that the generic you stole that apple, and it was you who ate it once ya did.

From then on, there's some folks'll cuss ya for having stole it, when here it is, I done digested it.


We see this play out in the Abrahamic religions, where the Jews there, and God love 'em, but they set the story into motion. Then comes along another Jew, and he thinks he's right fancy, and sets to telling it, that here I am. Then, some time after that, a dude says that that'n there is, and I am too, pretty much.

Considering the likely intelligence / educational level of folks from them days, well, does it really strike so odd folks'd believe 'em?


What kills it for me is the either being dead for a weekend, or riding up to Heaven on whatever it is you said it was you rode up there on.


Alas, as long as the god concept is invoked, folks'll believe all kinds of stuff.

[kayky]

The claim that Jesus is God is made unambiguously clear in the gospels over and over again. Consider Mark 14:61-64:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?�

62 “I am,� said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?� he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?�

They all condemned him as worthy of death.

There is no reason to interpret these verses as a claim on the part of Jesus to be God himself. The Jews had no belief that their Messiah would be God himself. In the Old Testament, King David is referred to as the son of God. While I'm sure such claims coming from a Jewish peasant would have been considered outrageous, we must remember that it is Mark who places these words in the mouth of Jesus; and we cannot be certain that the event even occurred at all. Mark was written nearly forty years after the death of Jesus and not by an eyewitness. The only thing this story points to is that the writer of Mark believed Jesus to be the Messiah.

Jesus makes the following claims about himself:

1. That he is the “Son of Man�

2. That the Son of Man will be coming on the clouds

3. That the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of God.

The term “Son of Man� refers to a divine personage. That’s the way Jesus uses it and that’s the way the High Priest clearly understands it because he calls Jesus a blasphemer. That’s why the Pharisees say he deserved to die. Scholars agree on this. See Darrell Bock’s Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65, for example.

The term Son of Man, as it is used in Daniel 7:13, 14, refers to a pre-existent divine figure who is not God the Father. First-century Jewish literature (1 Enoch and 4 Ezra) refers to the Son of Man in Daniel as one who accepts worship and shares the throne of God, meaning that he is divine.

Jesus paraphrases Daniel 7:13, 14 when he referred to himself as the Son of Man in the gospels and he used the term to describe himself dozens of times. This means he thought of himself as divine and, by using the title, communicated to others that he was divine. The Jews who heard him speak would have been very familiar with the Daniel 7 passage and what the designation meant.

The phrase "son of man" actually means the exact opposite. It is a reference to the humanity of Jesus. The Messiah was to be a human being--not divine in any way.

The phrase “coming on the clouds� ALWAYS refers and ONLY refers to YHWH. This is how Jesus says he will come. Therefore, he was stating unequivocally that he is God.

The phrase “sitting at the right hand of God� is a euphemism for sharing God’s throne, something that he does as the Second Person of the Trinity. Again, it speaks to his deity.

The Jews of that day and age would have understood clearly that Jesus was saying he was God. When Mark recorded it, he would have known that he was writing about Jesus calling himself God.

You may WANT this to be the interpretation of these verses, but the Jews (it is after all THEIR book) would not have interpreted them that way. Ask any modern day Jew. There is no belief that the Messiah would be God himself, so your interpretation makes no sense.

Mark also shows his understanding that Jesus is God by the way he opens his gospel.

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,
the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way�—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’�

4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

The original passage from Isaiah 40 (and also Malachi 3) speaks of God (YHWH). Mark uses it of Jesus which means that he is saying Jesus is God.

Mark is saying no such thing. He is simply pointing out that the Messiah is to be God's "way."

Then there is this passage from John 10:30-33:

30 I and the Father are one.�

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?�

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,� they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.�

The Jews recognized that Jesus was saying he and God are identical in essence, not simply aligned in purpose. That’s why they accused him of blasphemy and wanted to stone him to death.

John knew when he recorded this that Jesus was calling himself God. Those who read or heard his gospel knew that Jesus was calling himself God.

In John 8:58, Jesus calls himself I AM which is what YHWH called himself. Once again, it is obvious that his audience knew he was calling himself God because, once again, they wanted to stone him to death for blasphemy.

John is the ONLY Gospel in which Jesus claims to be God himself. It is as far removed from the Synoptics as a Gospel could possibly get and, as the youngest Gospel, was written nearly seventy years after the death of Jesus. It would be easy at this point to simply dismiss this Gospel as some pagan deification of the Jewish Messiah. But I do not. I think John was written by a Jewish mystic who understood that Jesus found his true identity in God and we could too.

Then consider Matt. 9:2-5:

2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.�

3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!�

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.�

Again, he calls himself Son of Man, thereby claiming that he is divine. Then he forgives the man’s sins which is something that ONLY God can do. So when he forgives sins, he is saying he is God. And it is obvious that his audience KNEW that he was saying he was God because, once again, they accused him of blasphemy. Blasphemy = claiming to be God.

All I hear Jesus saying here is that God has already forgiven this man's sins. As the Messiah he is God's messenger. He can indeed speak for God. It is the listeners who misunderstand, as they almost always did. And there are MANY ways to commit blasphemy--not just by claiming to be God himself.

There are numerous other examples I could cite, but that’s all I have time for. Let me reiterate what I have said before elsewhere on this forum. God stated clearly that he was one. Jesus declared that he was God. Following his resurrection, those who saw him recognized him as God and also understood that the Holy Spirit (who Jesus described as another "paraclete" like himself and is referred to as a person in Scripture) is also God. But, knowing that God was one because he said he was, they realized that God was one God existing in three persons. God is not three separate gods. He exists as a Triune Godhead -- always has, always will.

God is one, and all is of God. The Trinity as traditionally understood is false doctrine and not Biblical. Jesus would be appalled.

I conclude with this:

When attempting to understand the Bible, it is important to grasp how its first audience would have understood it. I hope I have shown clearly that Jesus thought of himself as God and communicated that to those around him and that the Pharisees, fully understanding him, wanted him put to death for daring to say he was God. And none of it is hidden. It is written right there on the page. As Jesus said, let those who have ears to hear, hear.

I think you have demonstrated the exact opposite and interpret the Bible instead according to Church doctrine and tradition.

As C. S. Lewis said, we are left with a choice with regard to the identity of Jesus. Either he was a liar and just stringing everybody along for his own self-centred reasons or he was a lunatic who mistakenly thought of himself as God or he was truly God Incarnate. If you don’t think he was the latter, that leaves only liar or lunatic and, quite frankly, if he was one of those, why would you pay attention to anything he said? And why would you want to wear the label “Christian�?

Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic because he never claimed to be God himself. It is the Church that has distorted the Gospels. Their writers would be appalled, and I think this easily accounts for much of the evil committed by the Church over the centuries.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by kayky]

Appaled? Maybe or they could be wrong. (the Gospel Evangelists) The "Lord, Liar, Luntatic trilemma is, I agree, a false one.

[dianaiad]

From the OP:

Why, if Jesus in fact is God, is that not shouted from the rooftops in the Bible itself, but only in churches,creeds and personal testimonies?

Where beliefs are informed from ignorance, well there we go.

If it be told, I'm the "son of God", insofar as if it is, he's Adam's daddy, well how 'bout that.

Er....that would make Him Adam's big brother, not Daddy. Just sayin'.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

If it be told, I'm the "son of God", insofar as if it is, he's Adam's daddy, well how 'bout that.

Er....that would make Him Adam's big brother, not Daddy. Just sayin'.'

I was on the God deal there, not the Jesus, but I respect it was me that confused it.

I've yet to find the first Christian that can show Jesus was the son of God, much less his big brother.

Or that God was there, that he had him some young'ns, such that Jesus was related any closer to Adam then he was to Noah.

[dianaiad]

From Post 7:

If it be told, I'm the "son of God", insofar as if it is, he's Adam's daddy, well how 'bout that.

Er....that would make Him Adam's big brother, not Daddy. Just sayin'.'

I was on the God deal there, not the Jesus, but I respect it was me that confused it.

I've yet to find the first Christian that can show Jesus was the son of God, much less his big brother.

Or that God was there, that he had him some young'ns, such that Jesus was related any closer to Adam then he was to Noah.

[/quote]

Joey, do I really have to prove that my beliefs are TRUE in order to tell you what they are?

I mean, really....if that's so, then you need to prove to me that your beliefs about God (that there isn't one) are true before you can make any comments about it.


Understand, though...I'm not a trinitarian. I don't happen to believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost are all the same Deity.

It makes the New Testament a lot easier to deal with, when one isn't required to explain how all Three can be One God when they are actually talking to one another.