Challenge, prove that Jesus is "God"

[Elijah John]

I have a challenge for Trinitarians. Prove that Jesus Christ is God from Scripture. But here's the rub, do so without using any references from the Gospel of John, or any of the Epistles or the Book of Revelation.

Can you do it?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 14:62). .., for an individual to claim to be the Son of God himself was claiming equality with God the Father.

How can assuming the title of SON be judged to be a claim to equality with the FATHER? It defies the very meaning (whether literal or figuratve) of the words. The word Father refers to the one that gives life, creates or at the very least predates the "son". If Jesus wanted to illustrate his relationship with Almighty God in terms of a family relationship but convey the idea of equality would not TWIN be more fitting?

To say that someone claiming to be a son is claiming equality is like saying someone declaring themsef "student" is claiming equality with the one he calls his "Professor" - it totally ignores the explicit and implicit meaning of the words.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

He was called the Author of Life ...

Do you have a reference for this?

[The Tanager]

bjs wrote:

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33). The common response is that the Greek word for “worship� doesn’t mean “worship,� despite the fact that the normal translation of the word is worship. Throughout the NT the word is almost exclusively applied to God the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. The few times it is applied to anyone else (angels or other men), the one being worshipped always immediately and forcefully said, “Don’t worship me.� Jesus accepted the worship as if it was proper to worship him.

Now that is actually a very good argument. But that could be addressed by the probability that every Gospel evangelist, not just John, took poetic license with Jesus and were not literal biographers. They put words on Jesus mouth, and probably attributed certain actions and responses to him. Do you doubt that Matthew took liberties? Then how do you explain only Matthew recorded the mass resurrection of the saints, a massive event that his fellow evangelists failed to notice it seems, or failed to report. That suggests to me that Matthew was not above fictionalizing his account.

Well, there you go. Whatever anyone says, if you disagree with it, you can simply claim that it was added onto Jesus by fictionalizers. So, in actuality, your challenge for Trinitarians is to prove that scripture shows Jesus thought of himself as being God without using any of the references that actually show this.

[JehovahsWitness]

MATTHEW 28:20

He ... claimed that he would be with his disciples always to the very end of the age (omnipresence)

Code: Select all

REVISED STANDARD VERSION CATHOLIC EDITION (RSVCE)


... and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.� - Matthew 28:20 

Omnipresence is usually understood to mean being "simultaneously everywhere." Is Jesus promise to always be "with" his disciples a claim to omnipresence?

Trinitarians use this verse to argue that Jesus would remain on the earth (presumably standing next to each individual disciple) and at the same time return to heaven to be with his father. If we take this reasoning to its logical conclusion there would be a Jesus literally with a Christian in Africa and the same Jesus sitting with a Christian in Sweden, and a Jesus in heaven.

However Jesus never gave any indication he could be at two different locations at the same time even after his ressurection. Notice what he told Mary Magdalene

Code: Select all

DOUAY-RHEIMS BIBLE


Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for[b] I am not yet ascended[/b] to my Father. - John 20:17 

So Jesus indicated, even in his resurrected form, he was going to change location; something which is redundent if he is simultaneously in every location anyway. Indeed when he spoke of locality he always indicated he would return to be with his Father who he had already explained "art" in heaven.

Notice what Jesus told his disciples on the night before his death

Good News Translation

And after I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to myself, so that you will be where I am.

So again when Jesus refers to locality, he refers to a temporary separation and then being reunited with his friends. If Jesus was literally omnipresent there could be no separation and reunion. So either we make nonsense of many of Jesus declarations or we attribute a very common use of the expression, "to be with someone", namely to support them and/or take care of them and watch over them; all of which Jesus can do as a mighty spirit person in the heavens.

CONCLUSION While trinitarians take Jesus assurance to be "with" his disciples in its most literal sense, this makes nonsense of many of his other statements. A more reasonable reading that he was in fact literally leaving the locality of the earth (to return to heaven) but would continue to watch over and support his people.

JW


RELATED POSTS


Is Matthew 28:19 a "Trinity formula"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 059#936059

INDEX So called trinity "proof" texts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 772#935772



FURTHER READING

SFBT Trinity "proof" texts
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... texts.html[/quote]

[polonius]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Another possibility is that the debate seems futile. We have gone round after round on this one. Even when we include the works attributed to Paul and John, so we have passages that flat out say, “Jesus is God,� then there are still people who insist “That doesn’t mean that Jesus is God.� If we cut out roughly half the NT then that would certainly make it more challenging.

However, the general evidence that they synoptic writers believed that Jesus is God is pretty well known.

Jesus did thing reserved to God. He forgave sins (Mark 2:5), which even his original audience agreed only God can do. The response is usually that God gave Jesus special authority that is otherwise reserved for the Father, which seems like a textbook example of an ad hoc argument.

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33). The common response is that the Greek word for “worship� doesn’t mean “worship,� despite the fact that the normal translation of the word is worship. Throughout the NT the word is almost exclusively applied to God the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. The few times it is applied to anyone else (angels or other men), the one being worshipped always immediately and forcefully said, “Don’t worship me.� Jesus accepted the worship as if it was proper to worship him.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 14:62). In that culture it was a claim to being equal to God. Israel on the whole was sometimes talked about as the son of God (that specific phrase was never applied to them, though Hosea came close). Angelic beings were called the Sons of God. However, for an individual to claim to be the Son of God himself was claiming equality with God the Father. It is also worth noting that the three synoptic writers agree that when people heard him claim to be the Son of God then his audience always thought he was claiming equality with God, his audience just didn’t believe it was true.

He was called the Author of Life, claimed that he would be with his disciples always to the very end of the age (omnipresence), and is said to be superior to the angels in Hebrews 1:4 (not just the most superior of the angels or superior to the other angles, but superior to the angels, meaning he could not himself be an angel).

There is other evidence that they synoptic writers believed that Jesus is God, but these are the highlights.

bjs posted

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 14:62). In that culture it was a claim to being equal to God. Israel on the whole was sometimes talked about as the son of God (that specific phrase was never applied to them, though Hosea came close). Angelic beings were called the Sons of God. However, for an individual to claim to be the Son of God himself was claiming equality with God the Father. It is also worth noting that the three synoptic writers agree that when people heard him claim to be the Son of God then his audience always thought he was claiming equality with God, his aJesus claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 14:62). In that culture it was a claim to being equal to God. Israel on the whole was sometimes talked about as the son of God (that specific phrase was never applied to them, though Hosea came close). Angelic beings were called the Sons of God. However, for an individual to claim to be the Son of God himself was claiming equality with God the Father. It is also worth noting that the three synoptic writers agree that when people heard him claim to be the Son of God then his audience always thought he was claiming equality with God, his audience just didn’t believe it was true. The audience just didn’t believe it was true.

RESPONSE:Really? Perhaps you should quote completely.

Mark 14:60-64 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?� 61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah,[a] the Son of the Blessed One?� 62 Jesus said, “I am; and‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’�(NB Of course he didn;t)


63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?� All of them condemned him as deserving death.

Footnotes:
Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > S > Son of God
“The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation."

Tell me. Do you ever say the Our Father?
As in "Our Father, who are in heaven…." Does that mean you think you are the actual Son of God (like Jesus)?

[tigger2]

bjs:

"....we have passages that flat out say, 'Jesus is God,' then there are still people who insist 'That doesn’t mean that Jesus is God.'"

No, we have passages which most trinitarian translators have chosen to translate as saying or implying 'Jesus is God.' There are honest alternate translations which deny a 'Jesus is God' meaning at those places. These would include John 1:1c; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Ro. 9:5; Hebrews 1:8; Titus 2:13; etc.

bjs:

"However, the general evidence that they [sic] synoptic writers believed that Jesus is God is pretty well known. Jesus did thing[s] reserved to God. He forgave sins (Mark 2:5), which even his original audience agreed only God can do. The response is usually that God gave Jesus special authority that is otherwise reserved for the Father, which seems like a textbook example of an ad hoc argument."

"Only God can forgive (aphiemi) sins,� say certain trinitarians, “and Jesus forgave sin, Mark 2:7. Therefore, Jesus must be God!� So, John 20:20-23 “proves� that the disciples also must be God, right?
If Jesus enabled his followers to forgive sins, why is it "an ad hoc argument" to say that the Father gave Jesus this ability first? (cf., Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13; 2 Cor. 2:10.)

bjs:

"Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33). .... The few times it ['worship'] is applied to anyone else (angels or other men), the one being worshipped always immediately and forcefully said, 'Don’t worship me.'"

The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: “[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another’s feet.�

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:
“PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26.�

“Obeisance,� of course, shows “respect, submission, or reverence� - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:
“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]� - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:
“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …� - p. 941, vol. 4.

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship� is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’� And,
“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).� - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

[JehovahsWitness]

MARK 14:62

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 14:62)

Another contextually unsound and blatantly bias trinitarian arguments is claiming Mark 14:62 as an example of Jesus claiming to be God. The Catholic NAB reads

Code: Select all

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (REVISED)


Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?� Then Jesus answered, “I am -  Mark 14:61, 62

So Jesus affirmation (I AM) is in direct response to the question "Are you the Messiah ... ?" . In the absence of a following noun (or pronoun) "I am" is usually understood to be an affirmation of what was stated or understood to have been alluded to, before. Thus if somebody asked a man, "Are you President Donald Trump?" and the individual answered "I AM" they are affirming to be ....Donald Trump NOT the Queen of England!

Although in this case there is an ellipsis and Jesus does not say "I am [the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One ]", since his reply is in direct response to that enquiry, it would require a spectacular leap in logic to assume he here chose to decare himself, not to be the object of the enquiry but YHWH God the Almighty. Jesus was not asked "Are you YAHWEH the Almighty God?" and the suggestion that Jesus reply was a claim to be The Almighty makes nonsense of the entire exchange.







JW

RELATED POSTS : The "I AM" texts

John 8:58
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 842#935842

John 8:24
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 863#935863

John 13 :19
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 868#935868

John 18:4-8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 870#935870

Mark 14:62
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 192#936192

FURTHER READING

INDEX: So called trinity "proof" texts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 772#935772

Full scripture index SFBT
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... index.html

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Another possibility is that the debate seems futile. We have gone round after round on this one. Even when we include the works attributed to Paul and John, so we have passages that flat out say, “Jesus is God,� then there are still people who insist “That doesn’t mean that Jesus is God.� If we cut out roughly half the NT then that would certainly make it more challenging.

A person could say that about almost any topic here on this debating site. Yes, even if the NT said plainly "Jesus is God" there would still be contrarians who would say "no, it must mean something else". But the Synoptic never say that, only, at best imply it.

Futile? Not completely. At least not with me. My thinking has evolved on the matter. I now believe John and Paul considered Jesus "God in the flesh", though neither had or employed Trinitarian language to say so. And neither were consistent on the matter, (cf. John 17.3 and 1 Timothy 2.5) I believe this now because of Paul's usage. "For me to live is Christ". Idolatry, unless of course Paul really believed Jesus was God, and Jesus really was "God in the flesh".

Fair enough.

However, the general evidence that they synoptic writers believed that Jesus is God is pretty well known.

Please demonstrate. "Well known" you say? I say highly disputed by historical Jesus scholars.

Something can be well known and still disputed by a specific set of scholars. However, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is disputed by some historical Jesus scholars.

Jesus did thing reserved to God. He forgave sins (Mark 2:5), which even his original audience agreed only God can do. The response is usually that God gave Jesus special authority that is otherwise reserved for the Father, which seems like a textbook example of an ad hoc argument.

I would call that a convincing argument, not an Ad Hoc one.

Ad hoc hypothesis: made up for the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other.
In argumentation, an 'ad hoc hypothesis' is usually introduced for the purpose of maintaining a person's belief or position by explaining away anything that's contradictory.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/cri ... thesis.php

The idea that God gave Jesus special authority to forgive other people’s sins seems designed entirely for this specific situation and no other.

Think of it this way: If orthodox Christian had not been saying that Jesus’ act of forgiving sins is a sign that he believed he was Divine, then would the idea of God granting a human the authority to forgive sins be something you would take seriously? Or is it an argument specifically designed to respond to the claim of Jesus divinity; an argument that has no function outside of that setting? If the latter, then is ad hoc.

If the argument does have a function outside of responding to the claim that Jesus is God, what is that function?

Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33). The common response is that the Greek word for “worship� doesn’t mean “worship,� despite the fact that the normal translation of the word is worship. Throughout the NT the word is almost exclusively applied to God the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. The few times it is applied to anyone else (angels or other men), the one being worshipped always immediately and forcefully said, “Don’t worship me.� Jesus accepted the worship as if it was proper to worship him.

Now that is actually a very good argument. But that could be addressed by the probability that every Gospel evangelist, not just John, took poetic license with Jesus and were not literal biographers. They put words on Jesus mouth, and probably attributed certain actions and responses to him. Do you doubt that Matthew took liberties? Then how do you explain only Matthew recorded the mass resurrection of the saints, a massive event that his fellow evangelists failed to notice it seems, or failed to report. That suggests to me that Matthew was not above fictionalizing his account.

You did make the challenge to prove from scriptures that Jesus is divine without using the works of John or the Epistles. For the sake of argument shouldn’t we at least include all that remains of the NT?

If your intent was to make the challenge be “Prove that Jesus is God from scripture without using John, the Epistles, or the passages in the synoptic Gospels that show Jesus is God,� then that would be a different challenge indeed.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 14:62). In that culture it was a claim to being equal to God. Israel on the whole was sometimes talked about as the son of God (that specific phrase was never applied to them, though Hosea came close). Angelic beings were called the Sons of God. However, for an individual to claim to be the Son of God himself was claiming equality with God the Father. It is also worth noting that the three synoptic writers agree that when people heard him claim to be the Son of God then his audience always thought he was claiming equality with God, his audience just didn’t believe it was true.

Now you've gone too far! , The term "Son of God" did refer to those things, yes, but was not understood in a Jewish culture to mean God Himself. I believe the term was also applied to King David, who never claimed any such thing. If the real Jesus did apply the title to himself, it is more likely he meant that he was the expected Davidic King, ie the Messiah.

I remember David, and a few others, being called the messiah. I was not aware that King David (or any other individual in the OT) was called the Son of God. That would certainly be strong evidence against my point here. Could you find that reference for me?

He was called the Author of Life, claimed that he would be with his disciples always to the very end of the age (omnipresence), and is said to be superior to the angels in Hebrews 1:4 (not just the most superior of the angels or superior to the other angles, but superior to the angels, meaning he could not himself be an angel).

Now you're straying far from the Synoptics. I will grant you the writer of Hebrews though of Jesus as God in some fashion, but that author also expected that he and his immedite readership were living in the "last days", i.e. the end times. That was over two thousand years ago.

My mistake. I thought you only intended to remove the works of Paul, not all the Epistles. I will ignore the part from Hebrews.

The statement that Jesus is the Author of Life comes from Acts 3:15.

His claim of omnipresence comes from Matthew 28:20

[The Tanager]

"Only God can forgive (aphiemi) sins,� say certain trinitarians, “and Jesus forgave sin, Mark 2:7. Therefore, Jesus must be God!� So, John 20:20-23 “proves� that the disciples also must be God, right?
If Jesus enabled his followers to forgive sins, why is it "an ad hoc argument" to say that the Father gave Jesus this ability first? (cf., Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13; 2 Cor. 2:10.)

I wanted to share these thoughts here because in another thread JW brought this part to my attention and I shared my response there. In John 20, Jesus has already been resurrected and only gives his disciples the authority to forgive sins after giving them the Holy Spirit. It's only after they have God within them that they have the authority to forgive sins. This, of course, does not mean that the disciples are God, but they have God within them and, because of that, have the authority to forgive sins.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 19 by The Tanager]

So are saying someone can be given the authority to forgive sins without that meaning the person is literally Almighty God?