Did we ever get a good answer?

[Elijah John]

For the sake of argument let's assume that Matthew 16.28 proves that Jesus is not God,. If that verse means what it seems to mean, then Jesus did not return in lifetime of his apostles, and that means that Jesus (or the NT) was wrong, so Jesus can not be God.

But that is not the topic for debate, so please do not debate the premise, but accept it at least for the sake of argument].

So if Jesus was wrong, then he cannot be God. And here's the question for debate.

If the New Testament was wrong, and not infallible, then is there any good reason to believe that "Jesus is God"? What are your's, are they subjective? Or is there an objective reason to believe Jesus is God, beyond the New Testament?

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

If the NT is false and Jesus is not God then I cannot see any reason why people would think that Jesus is God. Orthodox Christians have always viewed the Divinity of Christ as a special revelation. We could conclude that there is a God from general revelation, but knowing that Jesus is God can only come from God telling us so.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

If the New Testament was wrong, and not infallible, then is there any good reason to believe that "Jesus is God"? What are your's, are they subjective? Or is there an objective reason to believe Jesus is God, beyond the New Testament?

It depends on whether one is a Jew or a Christian, and then what 'type' of Jew or Christian one is.

An equally relevant question which reflects the OP question would be.

Q: Is the OT GOD really GOD?

See?

In what way has the Jewish GOD shown the world he is the one true GOD?

It become relative.

The OP question is a theological question and nothing more. It is not a question which answered one way or any other, can show the world the truth of GOD.

The question itself derives from competitive theology. It is not established that Jesus was even referring to the OT idea of GOD when he spoke of 'the Father' as his understanding of who and what GOD is, or that when he said to the Jewish religious authorities that their idea of GOD was 'the devil', that he wasn't referring to the idea of the OT GOD.

The idea seems to revolve around the nature of the 'fruit' - as to what 'plant' produced the fruit, and that determines, not what GOD is but what people who behave atrociously in the name of GOD and proclaim themselves to being representatives of the true nature of GOD are.

There is great reason WHY it is necessary for the individual to spend time and effort investigating and examining in order to sort the wheat from the chaff...or to find that pearl trampled in the pigsty.

Asking questions from the premise that the Jewish interpretation of 'what GOD is' as being 'the truth of the matter' really only serves to muddy the waters and darken rather than enlighten.

The consequences of willfully doing so, will be well deserved.

However Jesus was made out to be after the fact, he warned of anyway. It is my understanding he was being representative of the true nature of GOD, but one cannot take everything attributed to being spoken of by him, as the truth of the matter.

Discern as you are willing and able.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

If the NT is false and Jesus is not God then I cannot see any reason why people would think that Jesus is God. Orthodox Christians have always viewed the Divinity of Christ as a special revelation. We could conclude that there is a God from general revelation, but knowing that Jesus is God can only come from God telling us so.

That is a good, honest and refreshing answer. And "God telling us so" seems in this case to hinge entirely upon the veracity and infallibility of the New Testament,

So it would seem that if there is any evidence beyond the NT that Jesus is God, it would stem from personal revelation, deep inner conviction which is most likely subjective.

Seems Deistic rationisits deduced the existence of God from their observation of nature, using their facuties of Reason. And Theistic philosophers seem to stop short in their reasoning that God has a "Son" per se. Unless one wants to equate the Logos with the Son of God. Something that John seems to have done, and the Cburch Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

[bluethread]

Well, whether Yeshua was Adonai in the flesh or not, does not appear to me to be the primary point of the Apostolic Writings. It is significant, but the main point, IMO. For me it is His humanity that is most significant. After all, even Paul tells us that He set aside any divine advantage, when He was here on earth. When Paul reconciles Yeshua's teachings with the Tanakh, he does come to the conclusion that Yeshua was indeed divine. However, even if one were to disagree with Paul on that point, the view of Yeshua being the embodiment of HaTorah still works. What reassures me is the fact that many Christians and Jews are noticing this and coming together on this common ground. They are discovering that it is possible to build community with that question open for discussion.

[Elijah John]

Very interesting, as always. But I'm not sure you address the point of the OP, which I will restate after I address your post point by point.

Well, whether Yeshua was Adonai in the flesh or not, does not appear to me to be the primary point of the Apostolic Writings.

Agreed. Seems the primary point of the NT was to persuade others that Jesus was the Messiah, and the "Son of God". But neither term meant "God incarnate" in Jewish tradition.

It is significant, but the main point, IMO. For me it is His humanity that is most significant. After all, even Paul tells us that He set aside any divine advantage, when He was here on earth.

Agree that it is Jesus humanity which was most important. Disagree with Paul that he "set aside" his "Divine advantage" while on earth. I doubt he had any inherent Divine advantage to begin with. If he did, there would be no merit in his keeping the Torah to the degree that it appears he had done.

When Paul reconciles Yeshua's teachings with the Tanakh, he does come to the conclusion that Yeshua was indeed divine.

I think you're right. But I'm not sure where Paul get's this*, or how he does that. I don't see it. For Paul, his Elohim was not so much YHVH, the Father, but "Christ". He uses the term the way writers and heroes of the Tanakh used HaShem "YHVH". So for all practical purposes, Paul's God was "Christ". Now whether that elevated estimation of Yahshua constitutes a violation of Shema, is another debate. If Paul still venerated the Father, it was only indirectly, through "Christ" who recieved the lion's share fo the glory from Paul. In the words of Thomas Paine, "instead of God, a man is preached".

However, even if one were to disagree with Paul on that point, the view of Yeshua being the embodiment of HaTorah still works..

I do, and it does. You and I may disagree as to the level of perfection Yahshua achieved in this endeavor, but he sure did come to embody the Torah, to the point of personifiying it.

What reassures me is the fact that many Christians and Jews are noticing this and coming together on this common ground. They are discovering that it is possible to build community with that question open for discussion.

It is reassuring to hear that from you, from your experience. I have not seen this. In my experience, and the Jewish books I've read on the subject, Jesus was not Torah observant when all is said and done. But I do not find those writings entirely convincing. When Jesus was in conflict with the Jewish authorities, Priests and Scribes, Pharisee and Saducee, I usually side with Jesus. That is why I continue to call myself a "Christian" much to the dismay of many (given my "heresies"), even here on these boards.

But getting back to the OP, and please clarify if I missed your answer, is there any reason beyond "The Bible tells me so" to believe that Jesus is God?

------------------

*(my theory is that Paul's experience of the Risen Christ was so overwhelming, that in effect, Christ became his "God". It was the resurrection, not his expertise in Torah which led him to this conclusion.)