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?

[Elijah John]

No responses after a day, so can we take this to mean that no one here is up to the task of proving that "Jesus is God" using only the Old Testament and the Synoptic Gospels?

Isn't it reasonable then, to conclude that even in the NT only John and Paul considered Jesus to have been "God"?

[Tcg]

No responses after a day, so can we take this to mean that no one here is up to the task of proving that "Jesus is God" using only the Old Testament and the Synoptic Gospels?

Or that no one had any interest in responding to your question for an almost endless variety of reasons.

Isn't it reasonable then, to conclude that even in the NT only John and Paul considered Jesus to have been "God"?

I would conclude that no one had any interest in responding to your question for an almost endless variety of reasons.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by Tcg]

Convenient dodge.

Just as likely that no one can, at least not without some difficulty. So isn't it fair to conclude that the only Biblical evidence that Jesus is God comes from John and Paul? I think that is what we are left with.

You took the time to post something which did not address the challenge. So, how 'bout you. Are you up to the challenge of proving Jesus is God using only the OT and Synoptics?

Prove the OP wrong on this matter, I doubt you (or anyone) can prove this. At least not without resort to verbal or linguistic gymnastics, or faulty reasoning.

[Peds nurse]

Do you mean prove that he is divine?

[brianbbs67]

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?

I don't think it can be done. A lot of old testament prophecies seem answered but , the kicker, is CHrist never claimed to be God. I am a Thiest. Could he be, yes. Anything is possible. But, since he claimed to be the Son of man, I will take him at his word.

Interestingly, this hasn't changed my beliefs. I always prayed only to God. And belive in Him fully. Which is why I believe that whether Christ was God or not, shouldn't be anything but an aside. Following the Lord is what matters. The rest is window dressing.

[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?

I don't think it can be done. A lot of old testament prophecies seem answered but , the kicker, is CHrist never claimed to be God. I am a Thiest. Could he be, yes. Anything is possible. But, since he claimed to be the Son of man, I will take him at his word.

Interestingly, this hasn't changed my beliefs. I always prayed only to God. And belive in Him fully. Which is why I believe that whether Christ was God or not, shouldn't be anything but an aside. Following the Lord is what matters. The rest is window dressing.

Yes, even if Jesus was/is God, he directed worship to the Father. Even if Jesus was God, he didn't say so. So how could it be wrong not to acknowledge Jesus as God? (rhetorical question addressed to all) No one said he was.

[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.

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.

[Elijah John]

[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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

If that's your best shot, then I'm not concerned about the other evidence you allude to, and remain (mostly) unconvinced.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Jesus] 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.

Can you find your way to explain WHY you thus dimiss this line of reasoning?

Ad hoc is a fallacious debating tactic (also called a "just so story" or an "ad hoc rescue") in which an explanation of why a particular thing may be is substituted for an argument as to why it is; since it is therefore not an argument, it is not technically a fallacy, but is usually listed as one because it is a substitution for a valid argument.

source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc