How can Jesus Christ be the One True Almighty God?

[pacloc]

A covenant with a false god, however, is not a covenant. I realize what you are saying, however the deeper question is, why do people of relatively equal intelligence who have access to the same information come to different conclusions regarding truth? That is what I want to know. The fact that one might enter into a covenant means that they, at least at some point, believed it to be true.

It has to do with our sense of what is right or wrong. Pride makes some people, however intelligent, set their own standards of what is right and wrong and try to find a religion that speaks to their own standards. Also, with little groups like JWs that consider themselves “elite”, people that like to stand out as different and swimmers against the current really find it attractive to stand against mainstream Christian understandings. That is why the religion creates so many differences and 50% of their energy is used to emphasize those differences, such as not using the cross, no birthdays, no holidays, no blood, no icons, refering to God as Jehovah, not using the word Church, not using the word grace, etc. A lot of these things used to be used, but slowly have been dropped over the short lifespan of the religion to further distinguish themselves from Christendom.

The perfect example of this is one of the main reasons my mom converted to the JW religion from the Church. She would always use this story in her comments at meetings, but now I realize the problem she had in her decision. The story she said was, “I never felt good enough for Heaven, but I knew I wasn’t bad enough for Hell, so when the witnesses showed me that I could live forever in paradise Earth, it just felt right.” A lot of things are wrong with that reasoning, but the #1 thing is choosing what you think sounds right instead of researching and praying to God to help to understand why Heaven didn’t sound possible. Obviously her understanding of Grace was not right, and the gift aspect of the hope was not at the forefront as well.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

A covenant with a false god, however, is not a covenant. I realize what you are saying, however the deeper question is, why do people of relatively equal intelligence who have access to the same information come to different conclusions regarding truth? That is what I want to know.

The answer to your question lies in the fact that this is less a religious trait and more a psychological factor to be dealt with. Consider:

**A classroom of students get the same access to the same information from the same teacher but none of the students come out understanding the information in exactly the same way.

A government instructs persons living in hurricane-prone zones what to do in case of a storm emergency, but every year people fail to heed the information with cost to life.

The Church tells its members how to live morally without ambiguity but this doesn’t end debates, and no two Catholics are alike.**

First off, there are more variables involved than people realize when it comes to sharing information, let alone teaching religious doctrine. The greatest obstacle to mutual understanding is the inability to ensure replication of another’s framework in which they reason through data and come to a conclusion.

In plain words, we might try to step outside into the other’s shoes, but we rarely if ever employ an outside party to prove that we have truly done this. And if you aren’t really understanding things from another’s view, then your chances of understanding what another needs to comprehend something are limited.

And it is usually the fault that we are often too sure of ourselves that we are capable of understanding things when we shouldn’t be.

There are great variables too, such as different means of going through the steps of reasoning (not everyone approaches problems the same way), factors of culture, experience, lack of experience, pride, fear, health, and IQ–just to name a few–that can play a factor in preventing people all exposed to the same information from coming to the same conclusion.

Can you guarantee that I will understand something the same way someone with my exact same IQ will? Could other factors like natural talents, imagination, or lack of these be a considerable variable?

It’s hard enough to try to get people to be “on the same page” regarding a subject that isn’t religious in nature. Can you imagine trying to get someone to deny their understanding of what it means to be faithful to God by introducing information that they find religiously repulsive? Thus loyalty to one’s religion can also play a factor in shutting down the reasoning process.

That is why we do not give up in trying to correct error.

And this is also why we don’t rely on debate or the apologetic method as the definitive answer to preaching the gospel. Sometimes prayer is more effective because we may be dealing with more variables than we even know are there. And often it is the life we lead that proves doctrines more than data.

 

[gazelam]

No. it doesn’t make sense. Jesus is the ONLY one God. So is the Father and So is the Holy Spirit. The Persons are distinct, but not separate. There is only one God and if Jesus is God then he is the ONLY one God (with the Father and the Holy Spirit).

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV) For God is not the author of confusion…

This response illustrates perfectly the problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. SteveVH is attempting to describe it and can’t do it. The words “distinct” and “separate” are synonyms. To say something is “distinct, but not separate” is the same as saying it’s “separate, but not separate”. That statement sheds no light on the nature of God. It’s just confusing. You can’t have it both ways. Also confusing is the statement that Jesus is the only one God, and the Father is also, and the Holy Spirit is also.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV) For God is not the author of confusion…

This response illustrates perfectly the problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. SteveVH is attempting to describe it and can’t do it. The words “distinct” and “separate” are synonyms. To say something is “distinct, but not separate” is the same as saying it’s “separate, but not separate”. That statement sheds no light on the nature of God. It’s just confusing. You can’t have it both ways. Also confusing is the statement that Jesus is the only one God, and the Father is also, and the Holy Spirit is also.

That’s the argument the Jehovah’s Witnesses use: “You can’t have it both ways.”

But why can’t you? Because it goes against human reasoning, the JWs state. And “God is not the author of confusion,” is the text from Scripture they also use.

First that is NOT what the text at 1 Corinthians means. It is not referring to God being or doing something that can confuse the human mind.

For instance, at Genesis 11:7 God states: “Let us go down and confuse their language” at the Tower of Babel. If 1 Corinthians means what you say it means, why does Genesis say that God confounded humans?

For instance, how can God never have had a beginning? Think about that. Can you give an answer as to how that is possible? Doesn’t it confuse the mind to try to understand that? It does, doesn’t it?

God does not limit himself to what does or does not confuse the human mind.

Besides the type of “confusion” being spoken of at 1 Corinthians is not about God himself. It is about how people can do confusing things. The word in Greek for “confusion” is “akatastasias” and is the opposite of the word for “resurrection,” namely “anastasis.”

It doesn’t mean “confusion” but “to collapse turbulently,” or the result of a body that has fallen in death, when the bones are piled up on one another “out of order” than what they should be when the person is alive.

That is why the Catholic NABRE translated this as: “He is not the God of disorder but of peace.” The “disorder” being spoken of here is the way people were speaking out of turn during a time of worship. It is not speaking about God not being of a nature that can cause confusion to the limits of the human mind. Just the fact that we can’t fully understand God not having a beginning is confusing to the human mind.–1 Corinthians 14:29-33.

To say God can’t be two different things at once is to say that God is limited by what we as humans can see as different. God is spoken of as a warrior in Exodus 15, but in the Sermon on the Mount God is spoken of as loving even the unrighteous. How can God make war with people he loves? How can God say “love thy enemy” while being a “warrior”?

Ah, we CAN have it both ways with God!

God is spoken of in Scripture many other ways that conflict to humans. God can be what we cannot understand or conceive.

God can be in heaven and always present. God can be what we can’t be. It can be both ways and more. God is not limited to one thing or the other.

God is not limited, period.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Oh, one more point.

Genesis also states that “man and wife” become “one flesh.”

How can they be “one flesh”? They are two different entities, each with its own flesh!

The answer: Man and woman always remain “distinct” individuals but when married become “one flesh” and are no longer “separate.”

Man and wife: distinct individuals but not separate.–Genesis 2:24.

 

[SteveVH]

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV) For God is not the author of confusion…

This response illustrates perfectly the problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. SteveVH is attempting to describe it and can’t do it. The words “distinct” and “separate” are synonyms. To say something is “distinct, but not separate” is the same as saying it’s “separate, but not separate”. That statement sheds no light on the nature of God. It’s just confusing. You can’t have it both ways. Also confusing is the statement that Jesus is the only one God, and the Father is also, and the Holy Spirit is also.

Man is made of spirit and flesh, Together they make up a human being. So while my soul is distinct from my physical being, it is not separated from my physical being or I would be dead.

You understanding of the words “distinct” and “separate” are in error.

 

[minkymurph]

God is spoken of in Scripture many other ways that conflict to humans. God can be what we cannot understand or conceive.

God can be in heaven and always present. God can be what we can’t be. It can be both ways and more. God is not limited to one thing or the other.

God is not limited, period.

This pretty much answers the question you posed.

God is not human and as such, is not restrained by the limitations of a physical human body. God can exist in whatever way He wants.

No one who believes in God would argue anything is impossible for God. As such, it cannot be said it is impossible for God to become Incarnate and being an impossible thing for God to do can be ruled out. Therefore, the question is can He but did He?

You have been given plenty of information here in relation to that question, so what I would say may have been said already. However, there are a few basis points I would make.

When Jesus became human he ceased to know he was God. That is what Paul describes as the kenosis or the ‘emptying of God.’ If Jesus had known he was God, then he would not have been fully human - Incarnate - and as such, would not have been subjected to the same temptations, weaknesses etc. of actually being human. This should not be too difficult to explain irrespective of whether or not the person you are talking too believes it. For instance, I think JW’s believe Jesus ‘pre-human’ existence and his purpose in coming to earth was fully revealed at his baptism. That being the case, it cannot be argued it was not possible for Jesus not to know something.

I won’t go into too much detail on this point or the hypostatic union, as I think much has already been said on this point. Suffice to say and put simply, the fact Jesus did not explicitly say he was God and refers to himself as ‘Son’ is not in itself indicative of the fact he was not. There has been some discussion among Catholic theologians in regard to at what point during Jesus life did he know he was God, and some say it was fully revealed to him on the Cross, at the point of death.

If it can be agreed it is not impossible the next question for someone who professes to follow Christianity and the bible is, is it true? The Apostles believed he was the Incarnate God, and much has already been said on that. However, I don’t know how you would reason on this point with someone who is a Muslim.

The point about understanding God, no one can say they know everything about God in terms of what He ‘thinks,’ why He does things, what He looks like or how He physically exists. We cannot fully comprehend God did not have a beginning and is eternal. We accept it in spite of that so we don’t reject something simply because we don’t understand it.

 

[minkymurph]

What puzzles me and kind of scares me at the same time is that intelligence seems to have nothing to do with a person’s beliefs. How, I wonder, can anyone believe what they believe and be living in the same world as me? But they do live in the same world and they are as intelligent as the next person. And they draw completely different conclusions as to what is true. That aspect of human nature frightens me.

So what is the deal? Are we all susceptible to falling into false doctrine or is there something lacking in those that do? They seem to have all of their faculties. And they can look across the room and say the same thing about me. How can Steve really believe all that Catholic stuff? What is it within us that allows people of the same intelligence, in the same culture, with access to the same information, to view truth in such dramatically different ways? I wish someone could answer that question.

There isn’t a straight answer. In my experience there are not so much answers but reasons that are very complex.

To be brief:

Prejudice/bigotry - there are many reasons why someone would be prejudiced or a bigot and it blinds them to reason. Not because they can’t understand, they just don’t want to.

If one is a JW, and of course other faiths, there are pretty unpleasant consequences of rejecting their beliefs so its easier not to question.

Some people don’t want to their beliefs challenged as it pushes them outside their comfort zone.

I also think some people don’t actually believe certain teachings of their religion, but profess it for their own gain - power, social standing, prestige, their own ego and the opportunity to control others.

In my part of the world people usually stick with the religion they were brought up in and just accept it is true and all others are wrong.

The other thing I would say is persuasive reasoning is an art. It is often the case we assume what seems perfectly logical and reasonable to us will be viewed as such by others. The reality is it will not, and there are all sorts of reasons for that. People are not going to accept what we say simply because we think it is true and will not be persuaded by arguments we find satisfactory. People who are very skilled in the art of persuasion are often exceptionally good at putting themselves in someone else’s shoes irrespective of the fact they don’t agree with them, and communicate their ideas accordingly. Most of us happy with our own shoes and don’t want to try someone else’s on.

 

[gazelam]

Man is made of spirit and flesh, Together they make up a human being. So while my soul is distinct from my physical being, it is not separated from my physical being or I would be dead.

You prove my point. Death is when the spirit leaves the body, and that could not happen if the two were consubstantial. But since they are distinct they can separate at death.

You understanding of the words “distinct” and “separate” are in error.

Hmmm. Here are three on-line dictionaries that use a form of “distinct” to define “separate”.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate
thefreedictionary.com/separate
wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=separate

And here are three on-line dictionaries that use a form of “separate” to define “distinct”.

wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=distinct
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinct
thefreedictionary.com/distinct

 

[univac]

This is the question I’ve been hearing so much lately: How can Jesus possibly be the One True God?

This is coming from their (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Remenant Fellowship members, Pentacostals & Muslims) point of view that:

1.God is All-Knowing yet Jesus “learned” and also specifically admitted to Not Knowing things, like when the end of the world would be

1. Jesus never once (in plain language) ever claimed to be God - they say if that were the case, He would have said it clearly so that there would never be any confusion as to Who He claimed to be
2. His Apostles, through St. Peter’s mouth, when asked directly said that they knew Him to be the Son of God (not God Himself), the exact same term used for King David and the ancient Israelists

Lord Jesus is not God Almighty Himself Lord Jesus is the Light from the Light of God Almighty.
Lord Jesus is the reconciliation of the meaning of God Almighty that all creation came through.
Lord Jesus is the word of God.
Lord Jesus is the master builder of God.

In Jesus name

 

[DelsonJacobs]

You prove my point. Death is when the spirit leaves the body, and that could not happen if the two were consubstantial. But since they are distinct they can separate at death.

Hmmm. Here are three on-line dictionaries that use a form of “distinct” to define “separate”.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate
thefreedictionary.com/separate
wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=separate

And here are three on-line dictionaries that use a form of “separate” to define “distinct”.

wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=distinct
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinct
thefreedictionary.com/distinct

While these words can be used to define one another in American English, it does not mean they do the same in the original ecclesiastical Latin in which the Trinity doctrine was written up (the exact phrase in the Latin is “discreti non separati”).

To illustrate: the word “distinct” is translating the Latin “distincti” which refers to a “distingishing” characteristic, i.e., a quality or facet of a particular person.

The word “separate” from “separati” refers not to a quality like “discreti” but describes the relations and relationships of the persons in the Godhead. It literally means “spaced apart” whereas “discreti” means “unique” as in a feature which sets apart or distinguishes.

Discreti non separati can also be translated, “different but not divided” or “individual but not set apart.”

Since this comes from the Latin and not the English, the English words don’t carry the exact precision the early Church Fathers used in describing the Trinity.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Lord Jesus is not God Almighty Himself Lord Jesus is the Light from the Light of God Almighty.
Lord Jesus is the reconciliation of the meaning of God Almighty that all creation came through.
Lord Jesus is the word of God.
Lord Jesus is the master builder of God.

In Jesus name

All these points have already been very well discussed in favor of the Trinity teaching by my fellow Catholics in the many pages of this thread before your post.

Repeating these things suggests you have not read what came before, and while that is not just bad “netiquette” it also might make others not take you or your arguments seriously.

 

[LivingWaters7]

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV) For God is not the author of confusion…

This response illustrates perfectly the problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. SteveVH is attempting to describe it and can’t do it. The words “distinct” and “separate” are synonyms. To say something is “distinct, but not separate” is the same as saying it’s “separate, but not separate”. That statement sheds no light on the nature of God. It’s just confusing. You can’t have it both ways. Also confusing is the statement that Jesus is the only one God, and the Father is also, and the Holy Spirit is also.

You prove my point. Death is when the spirit leaves the body, and that could not happen if the two were consubstantial. But since they are distinct they can separate at death.

Hmmm. Here are three on-line dictionaries that use a form of “distinct” to define “separate”.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate
thefreedictionary.com/separate
wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=separate

And here are three on-line dictionaries that use a form of “separate” to define “distinct”.

wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=distinct
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinct
thefreedictionary.com/distinct

You’re misunderstanding how the words “distinct” and “separate” are being used within the specific Trinity doctrine. This is a quite common error found amongst both Trinitarian believers and critics, since they don’t understand that this is a theological definition, an is using theological and philosophical language, as well as the fact that this doctrine was not formally defined in modern English (hence why LDS, and some Trinitarians themselves, frequently mischaracterize the issue of “persons” vs “beings”).

Yes, something can be distinct yet not separate. Within the specific theology of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons. They are not each other. They are not faces or masks of one entity. They are really distinct from each other. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. The Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son. Etc. Yet, they are not separate. More precisely, they are inseparable. This means that you cannot have the Father without the Son. You cannot have the Son without the Father. You cannot have the Holy Ghost without the Father. They have eternally existed in this relationship with each other. There never was a time when a Person of the Trinity did not exist as a member of the Trinity. The Trinity has eternally existed as such. That is how the Persons are distinct yet not separate.

In contrast, the LDS belief results in the Godhead not eternally existing as such. While ignoring the issue of the Father progressing to Godhood (and that we follow His example), it is clear that LDS belief teaches that Jesus/Jehovah was a spirit child of the Father, just like we all are. He was the first born spirit son of the Father. He was spiritually begotten by the Father (and Heavenly Mother), just like all of us. The same goes for the Holy Ghost. The Godhead was formed at some point, in contrast to the Trinity.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

SteveVH;10855631]A covenant with a false god, however, is not a covenant.

In the divine order of the Covenant from which we speak here; Only a death concludes the divine covenant. That is why God sent His Son Jesus to fulfill the covenant of the law and the prophets and provided the sacrifice Himself to pay the price of the divine covenant which held humanity bound in death. No angel, prophet, or holy man could ever suffice the Covenant, only God the testator of the Covenant could suffice the payment with His flesh amen.

A covenant with a false god, has to be revealed to the person holding to such a covenant. A covenant of a false god, does not require a death to conclude it in the true divine order of things. Such a person holding to a false god covenant may have other reasons for remaining in such a covenant, such as wealth aquired among such believers, social recognition etc. Such carnal standards may keep such an individual in a false god covenant.

I realize what you are saying, however the deeper question is, why do people of relatively equal intelligence who have access to the same information come to different conclusions regarding truth? That is what I want to know.

In particular the LDS information or teachings is not the same true historical recorded information of the Church. They believe the Church fell into full apostacy, but they can never tell you when this event occurred. Why? because there were no LDS members in existence. LDS reject the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and hold to their “another gospel of Jesus Christ”.

I would like to agree with you that they have access to the same information, but they don’t allow their members to this access. Because they deny it and reject it and have replaced it with their own revelations of late. Their whole doctrine is based on being the community chosen by their supreme being to carry on their new revelations 1800 years after the resurrection. Yet they cannot answer historically correct what happened to the Christians for the first 1800 years before their founder Joseph Smith got his own revelations that contradict what God has already revealed.

So the second answer can be found with in the covenant, that will either excommunicate or disown a member for disobeying their commandments to deny and reject the Truth of Christianity that never went into full apostacy. When an LDS member logically explores this Truth for himself, risk being removed from their covenant family.

The fact that one might enter into a covenant means that they, at least at some point, believed it to be true.

That may be one reason why one enters a covenant, but a covenant is a family bond that cannot be broken until death by divine law, not necessarily by LDS laws.

After the covenant is established, now comes obedience to the community so as not to break the covenant. If an intelligent person of his/her own freewill takes it upon themselves to seek the Truth and measure their faith or teachings to the Truth. A conversion will soon take place. But for the member to gain the freedom to access such Truth remains to be seen by the intellectual. And if viewed, he/she is commanded to reject it.

Everything falls under the covenant relationship with in the community of believers in obedience. That is why it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and why it is much easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle

peace be with you

 

[marlo]

What kind of question is this? You have converted to Eastern Orthodox from being a Catholic and you could not even find a bible text that would specifically state that Christ is God? And you are asking Catholics so give you an answer? What happened to all your readings on the Church Fathers? I can give you a specific bible verse if you send me a PM

This is the question I’ve been hearing so much lately: How can Jesus possibly be the One True God?

This is coming from their (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Remenant Fellowship members, Pentacostals & Muslims) point of view that:

1.God is All-Knowing yet Jesus “learned” and also specifically admitted to Not Knowing things, like when the end of the world would be

1. Jesus never once (in plain language) ever claimed to be God - they say if that were the case, He would have said it clearly so that there would never be any confusion as to Who He claimed to be
2. His Apostles, through St. Peter’s mouth, when asked directly said that they knew Him to be the Son of God (not God Himself), the exact same term used for King David and the ancient Israelists

 

[SteveVH]

You prove my point. Death is when the spirit leaves the body, and that could not happen if the two were consubstantial. But since they are distinct they can separate at death

And be joined together at the resurrection. Why? Because that is what makes us human

Consubstantial has to do with “substance”. They are the same divine substance which distinguishes God from all else that exists. Nothing else has divine substance of its own nature. Only the Father, Son and Holy spirit are divine by nature. It is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who make up the one, true God and God cannot exist if He is divided. He will never be divided because is eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

If a chair lost its legs, or its seat, or its back, it would no longer be a chair. If the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit were ever separated, there would be no God. Trinity is God’s nature. Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God’s name.

 

[gazelam]

And be joined together at the resurrection. Why? Because that is what makes us human

Consubstantial has to do with “substance”. They are the same divine substance which distinguishes God from all else that exists. Nothing else has divine substance of its own nature. Only the Father, Son and Holy spirit are divine by nature. It is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who make up the one, true God and God cannot exist if He is divided. He will never be divided because is eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

If a chair lost its legs, or its seat, or its back, it would no longer be a chair.

A chair with some missing parts is a broken chair.

If the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit were ever separated, there would be no God. Trinity is God’s nature. Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God’s name.

Matthew 27:46 (KJV) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

A chair with some missing parts is a broken chair.

Matthew 27:46 (KJV) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Did not God inspire the Scriptures?

Isn’t that the reason why we call the Scriptures “the Word of God”? Don’t Mormons believe it is God’s word too? They do. Just like Catholics. They hold God as the Author, just like Catholics.

And in the Bible there are many prayers to God, are they not?

Whose words are really in those prayers? Are they the compositions, words, and thoughts of men, or are they really of God?

Guess what–all the prayers to God have God as their Author. The author of all the prayers to God found in Scripture is God himself.

So if God could say “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” the first time through the psalmist without it changing the fact that it was God who actually said it, why can’t God be saying it again on the Cross? He said it to himself via the psalmist centuries before, right? Or do Mormons deny that?

And before you bring up more arguments, I suggest you go back and counter all the other replies made to your other points that you have been silent on first. Jumping from argument to argument works against settling any issue.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you far from saving me,
so far from my words of anguish?
O my God, I call by day and you do not answer;
I call by night and I find no reprieve.–Psalm 22:1-3

Had God really left the psalmist who composed this prayer? No. In fact the prayer/psalm itself was inspired, showing that God was really there with the psalmist despite the fact he felt alone.

Feeling alone, feeling as if one is abandoned by God, is a very human experience. It isn’t a reality because as Jesus said: “Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”–Matthew 10:29-31.

So when Jesus himself called out to God in prayer, using the words of Psalm 22, he was not saying he was abandoned by God. And the fact the Jesus used the words “My God, my God” doesn’t in any way prove he isn’t God since God is the real author of that psalm. This prayer did not originate with any human but came from God. God was the one who originally said these things through the psalmist of Psalm 22.

Our God shared everything about humanity, except sin. (Hebrews 4:15) The fact that Christ called out with words He originally inspired prove even the more he is God to us who have been graced to understand this. Jesus is here proving that he is the same God who told Moses: “I have witnessed the affliction of my people . . . I know well what they are suffering.”–Exodus 3:7.