Is Jesus God?

[Ben_Masada]

---

**An interval of seventeen years — or at least sixteen, counting incomplete years as accomplished — elapsed between the **conversion of Paul and the Apostolic council, for Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18) and returned after fourteen years for the meeting held with regard to legal observances (Galatians 2:1: “Epeita dia dekatessaron eton”). It is true that some authors include the three years prior to the first visit in the total of fourteen, but this explanation seems forced. On the other hand, twelve or thirteen years elapsed between the Apostolic council and the end of the captivity, for the captivity lasted nearly five years (more than two years at Caesarea, Acts 24:27, six months travelling, including the sojourn at Malta, and two years at Rome, Acts 28:30); the third mission lasted not less than four years and a half (three of which were spent at Ephesus, Acts 20:31, and one between the departure from Ephesus and the arrival at Jerusalem, 1 Corinthians 16:8; Acts 20:16, and six months at the very least for the journey to Galatia, Acts 18:23); while the second mission lasted not less than three years (eighteen months for Corinth, Acts 18:11, and the remainder for the evangelization of Galatia, Macedonia, and Athens, Acts 15:36-17:34). Thus from the conversion to the end of the first captivity we have a total of about twenty-nine years.
**Now if we could find a fixed point that is a synchronism between a fact in the life of Paul and a certainly **dated event in profane history, it would be easy to reconstruct the Pauline chronology. Unfortunately this much wished-for mark has not yet been indicated with certainty, despite the numerous attempts made by scholars, especially in recent times. It is of interest to note even the abortive attempts, because the discovery of an inscription or of a coin may any day transform an approximate

**Who on earth asked for the above timetable in the agenda of Paul? I am sure I didn’t. I recall to have asked where to find in the NT that Paul became an apostle to the Gentiles and actually when he decided to go for his mission. Because all that I find is that since his first station in the synagogues of Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Which was exactly MY point, as well. Ben says no “ordinary” Jewish man would claim to be God. You and I both know that Jesus is no “ordinary” Jew.

What happened NotWorthy? Now, you have decided to put words in my mouth which were never in my mind? Would you produce the post when I said that, “No ordinary Jewish man would claim to be God?” I said a Jewish man, period. This is not good for credibility.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, I realize you are the lone wolf on this forum, but there’s no reason not to conduct yourself with a reasonable level of respect. Noteworthy has not insulted you to my knowledge, yet you seem to be ridiculing him on a public forum no less.

God Be With You.

To say that Judaism should accept Gentiles into the New Covenant without conversion is a deep insult to the Faith of Jesus. Jesus himself would never approve as he used to forbid his disciples to take the good news of salvation to Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:5,6.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Cop-out - Is there any point in us quoting from the NT. Every verse seems to be written by some guy, mythology, and oh those dodgy no-nothing gentiles.

Peter called Christ God 2 Peter 1:1 - the New Testament is inspired.

Now unless you want to tell me he never wrote that Epistle (not that we know who wrote every book of the Old Testament) it’s what Peter said.

You may not believe, but I do. We have the scripture and other historical evidence to show that the Church knew full well that Christ was God. Just as we have the Bible and other historical evidence to show that the Exodus happened - but still some dispute it.

By the way - many Catholics do not put too much stock in the notes to the NAB. Even the Vatican rejected the translation for the Mass, requesting numerous edits.

If Catholics don’t put too much stock in the notes to the NAB, blame me not but your Bishops. It was a committee of high Catholic clergy who wrote those notes. And take yourself into account that the version I have, brings the Imprimatur of Pope Paulus VI. This only tells me that even the Pope put a lot of stock to the NAB. Unless there is division in the Catholic Church.

 

[Canto]

If Catholics don’t put too much stock in the notes to the NAB, blame me not but your Bishops. It was a committee of high Catholic clergy who wrote those notes. And take yourself into account that the version I have, brings the Imprimatur of Pope Paulus VI. This only tells me that even the Pope put a lot of stock to the NAB. Unless there is division in the Catholic Church.

Wasn’t blaming you of course.
The NAB contained a Letter of Pope Paul VI not an imprimatur
Some Catholics disagree with some of the notes of the scholars
Is there complete agreement amongst Jewish scholars?
Is there complete unity in Judaism?

 

[NotWorthy]

Dan:
I don’t represent Augustine as not believing in the Divinity of Jesus! I represent Augustine as not teaching that in John 8:58 the word God there referred to Jesus.

Lets look at it closer so that you can explain why you think otherwise:Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged **the God **whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other. Augustine says Thomas did not see or touch God. How can you say that Augustine is calling Jesus God, whom Thomas both saw and touched?

Because Thomas touched, what his eyes saw, a man. Knowing that this was a man that he was touching, and realizing that this man had been Crucified, he knew that this man was his Lord and God. With the wounds that Jesus bore, He couldn’t simply be walking around and talking as if nothing ever happened. There was nothing in Jesus’ appearance that revealed His Godhood other than the fact that he had all these holes in him and was still walking around.

I believe Jesus’ words are the key. “So you have seen and believed, thomas? Blessed are those who haven’t seen and still believe”.

Regarding my sighting of Augustine - I’m just wanting to lay the groundwork that Augustine truly believed that Jesus was God. With that premise, we could talk about your verse.

I don’t understand what Augustine could mean if he didn’t mean Jesus was God. “My Lord and… oh! There is a God!”. That fact was never in question with Thomas and the Apostles.

 

[NotWorthy]

Today is not a good day for NotWorthy. Listen to this sylogism: A Jewish man cannot be God incarnate. Jesus was a Jewish man, and he did not claim to be God incarnate. However, NotWorthy has decided that Jesus was God incarnate anyway. What is this, a joke?

Ben do you simply read what you wish, ignore the rest, and then make these bold proclamations? I can see now how you don’t believe in Jesus.

What did I say, “A Jewish man could not claim to be God… (continue reading, Ben!) UNLESS that man were God incarnate”

 

[NotWorthy]

Ben, I realize you are the lone wolf on this forum, but there’s no reason not to conduct yourself with a reasonable level of respect. Noteworthy has not insulted you to my knowledge, yet you seem to be ridiculing him on a public forum no less.

God Be With You.

I’ve got no problem with Ben’s words. Those words ridicule me only if anyone takes Ben seriously. I think Ben is only belittling himself with these comments.

“Let the leopard reveal his own spots” is what I’m thinking. But thanks for the kinds words!

 

[NotWorthy]

What happened NotWorthy? Now, you have decided to put words in my mouth which were never in my mind? Would you produce the post when I said that, “No ordinary Jewish man would claim to be God?” I said a Jewish man, period. This is not good for credibility.

And the “ordinary” was inserted by me, not to mis-represent your words. Does it mis-direct what you say? I don’t think so. Any Jew could be classified as “any ordinary Jew”.

My point was, Jesus isn’t simply “any Jew” or even “any ordinary Jew”. I’m trying to show you the differentiation between Jesus and all the other Jews. For instance, I don’t see any other Jew being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

If you think, however, that by inserting “ordinary” has tarnished my credibility, then I am truly sorry, my brother! But, in my opinion, this complaint is simply swatting at flies.

 

[JeanneH]

Dan:
I don’t represent Augustine as not believing in the Divinity of Jesus! I represent Augustine as not teaching that in John 8:58 the word God there referred to Jesus.

Lets look at it closer so that you can explain why you think otherwise:
Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged **the God **whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other.
Augustine says Thomas did not see or touch God. How can you say that Augustine is calling Jesus God, whom Thomas both saw and touched?

Boy I only wish that I was as educated as the rest on this thread. Albeit, this is how I would understand the above statement.

I think the emphasis should be put on the word “Acknowledged” the God whom he neither saw nor touched. Thomas is acknowledging that Jesus is both God and man. Even though he is touching Jesus he now knows that he is God too. Even though at the time when Jesus said when you see me you see the father Thomas , I guess, still had his doubts. When he, Thomas, saw the actual wounds of the crucifiction on Jesus body he finally believed that Jesus was both man and God.

He finally put away the DOUBT and beleived that Jesus was both man and God.

Just my thoughts.
Jeanne

 

[Dan_Parker]

Boy I only wish that I was as educated as the rest on this thread. Albeit, this is how I would understand the above statement.

I think the emphasis should be put on the word “Acknowledged” the God whom he neither saw nor touched. Thomas is acknowledging that Jesus is both God and man. Even though he is touching Jesus he now knows that he is God too. Even though at the time when Jesus said when you see me you see the father Thomas , I guess, still had his doubts. When he, Thomas, saw the actual wounds of the crucifiction on Jesus body he finally believed that Jesus was both man and God.

He finally put away the DOUBT and beleived that Jesus was both man and God.

Just my thoughts.
Jeanne

Lets look at the quote again while we discuss it:
Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other.

The word acknowledged here has its object only “the God” who Thomas did not see or touch. You have no basis for asserting that Augustine really meant he acknowledged both, when as you say “Thomas is acknowledging that Jesus is both God and man.”

What Augustine is doing here is explaining how Thomas could speak the words “My Lord and My God” to Jesus without **addressing **him as both. He addressed Jesus as Lord and “**acknowledged **the God whom he neither saw nor touched.” Add to this the last clause “and believed the other.” The other what? The other person who he acknowledged, God.

In conclusion it is only by attempting to change the words of Augustine that one can understand that Thomas was acknowledging both, something Augustine was very careful not to say.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Because Thomas touched, what his eyes saw, a man. Knowing that this was a man that he was touching, and realizing that this man had been Crucified, he knew that this man was his Lord and God. With the wounds that Jesus bore, He couldn’t simply be walking around and talking as if nothing ever happened. There was nothing in Jesus’ appearance that revealed His Godhood other than the fact that he had all these holes in him and was still walking around.

I believe Jesus’ words are the key. “So you have seen and believed, thomas? Blessed are those who haven’t seen and still believe”.

Regarding my sighting of Augustine - I’m just wanting to lay the groundwork that Augustine truly believed that Jesus was God. With that premise, we could talk about your verse.

I don’t understand what Augustine could mean if he didn’t mean Jesus was God. “My Lord and… oh! There is a God!”. That fact was never in question with Thomas and the Apostles.

I believe Augustine made sure that he could not be accused of modalism in his description of this passage. He was explaining how Thomas could say the words “My Lord and My God!” to one person while acknowledging the other, his Father.

 

[adrift]

Those verses, when examined in context prove Jesus is not the Almighty God. As for John 20:28, did you know that Saint Augustine wrote that Thomas was addressing two persons and not one with that statement? He did not teach that Thomas called Jesus God at all in that passage.

You are mistaken to what St Augustine was saying. That you are mistaken is obvious when you read his previous statement.

We know the Son to be equal to the Father; but here we recognize the words of the Mediator.

.

He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other.

What Augustine is saying is that Thomas saw Jesus in His Human form but Thomas put away his doubt about Jesus being God and believed that Jesus is God. I think you are reading into what you want to see not whats there. He wouldn’t have called Jesus equal to the Father unless Jesus is God. Which is what St. Augustine was saying.

 

[Dan_Parker]

adrift:
You are mistaken to what St Augustine was saying. That you are mistaken is obvious when you read his previous statement. .

We know the Son to be equal to the Father;** but **here we recognize the words of the Mediator.

.

Dan:
I am not sure which part of this verse you appeal to make your point. First of all, I agree Augustine would say the Son was equal to the Father and don’t use this passage to claim otherwise. Look at the entire statement. He uses the adversitive particle “but” to introduce his identification of Jesus here as the Mediator and wants to make it clear that he still considers Jesus to be equal to the Father. This leads into the next section (5) where his reference to God in “My Lord and My God” is the Father, the Son being the Mediator.

adrift:

He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other.

What Augustine is saying is that Thomas saw Jesus in His Human form but Thomas put away his doubt about Jesus being God and believed that Jesus is God. I think you are reading into what you want to see not whats there. He wouldn’t have called Jesus equal to the Father unless Jesus is God. Which is what St. Augustine was saying.

Dan:
Augustine can consider Jesus to be equal to the Father even though he considers the phrase “My Lord and My God” to be a reference to two persons and not one. We know Augustine considered the Father to be God and that he considered the Son to be God, so why would it imply that he Son was not God if he called the Father God in John 20:28?

There are plenty of Trinitarians who don’t consider that a particular passage calls the Son “God” without denying their theology. A doctrine does not and should not rest on just one passage.

 

[ready]

I am a living proof of what I say. Besides all my life as a Jew, I have a degree in Judaica of the period of 200BCE to 200CE. That’s Gemara/Mishnah culture. Then, we are talking about Judaism. The chances between you and myself to be wrong, I guess I don’t have to tell you who is.

If a Jewish man can’t be God (for Jews), then why did many Jews believe Jesus was God? You say it is because they were crazy. I say it is because you are wrong to say that the Jews felt a Jew can not be God. You know, some Jews actually believed that the Jew Jesus was also God.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Wasn’t blaming you of course.
The NAB contained a Letter of Pope Paul VI not an imprimatur
Some Catholics disagree with some of the notes of the scholars
Is there complete agreement amongst Jewish scholars?
Is there complete unity in Judaism?

There is no such a thing as anything complete as far as religions are concerned. But we don’t relate to Jewish authorities as you do to the head of Catholicism.
So, for you to disagree with him is a much more serious thing to do.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben do you simply read what you wish, ignore the rest, and then make these bold proclamations? I can see now how you don’t believe in Jesus.

What did I say, “A Jewish man could not claim to be God… (continue reading, Ben!) UNLESS that man were God incarnate”

Yes, I do understand you. But who decided that he was God incarnate, you, Paul? What’s the difference? One of you two has decided that he was God incarnate, because as a Jewish man, he could not be God incarnate. Capicci?

 

[ready]

Yes, I do understand you. But who decided that he was God incarnate, you, Paul? What’s the difference? One of you two has decided that he was God incarnate, because as a Jewish man, he could not be God incarnate. Capicci?

Ben, I really hate how you put restrictions on God. He can do ANYTHING - and that includes being a Jewish man and God at the same time.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And the “ordinary” was inserted by me, not to mis-represent your words. Does it mis-direct what you say? I don’t think so. Any Jew could be classified as “any ordinary Jew”.

My point was, Jesus isn’t simply “any Jew” or even “any ordinary Jew”. I’m trying to show you the differentiation between Jesus and all the other Jews. For instance, I don’t see any other Jew being conceived by the Holy Spirit.

If you think, however, that by inserting “ordinary” has tarnished my credibility, then I am truly sorry, my brother! But, in my opinion, this complaint is simply swatting at flies.

Yes, any Jew is classified as an ordinary Jew before God, including Jesus. What makes you think Jesus was not an ordinary Jew, the information given by the Greeks who wrote the NT? But of course! How could I not think of Replacement Theology? How could the individual replace the collective if he was an ordinary Jew? No wonder he had to be different by being conceived by the Holy Spirit. The reason they fabricated to differentiate Jesus from the other Jews, backfired by making of him a Greek who perhaps happned to have lived in Israel for a few years.

 

[Ben_Masada]

If a Jewish man can’t be God (for Jews), then why did many Jews believe Jesus was God? You say it is because they were crazy. I say it is because you are wrong to say that the Jews felt a Jew can not be God. You know, some Jews actually believed that the Jew Jesus was also God.

They are the moribunds who are perishing for lack of knowledge, according to Hosea 4:6. That’s what happens when one does not know his and the enemy’s territory.
To admit that a Jew can be God is idolatry.