Is Jesus God?

[JeanneH]

RESPONSE:

You didn’t answer my question. Let me repeat it.

Please cite the passage in the New Testament in which Jesus specifically claimed to be God.

Suggested answer. Jesus didn’t because Jesus isn’t.

John 8:58-59 I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was I Am.

John 20:28 Thomas replied “My Lord and my God”

Thomas is calling Jesus God and Jesus didn’t stop him.

John 8:19
John 10:30-33,*****
John 12:45
John 14:8-12

Who but God can walk on water and calm the seas. Jesus is God
Who but God would have allowed himself to be crucified for our sins. Who could have loved us that much but God.

 

[Dan_Parker]

John 8:58-59 I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was I Am.

John 20:28 Thomas replied “My Lord and my God”

Thomas is calling Jesus God and Jesus didn’t stop him.

John 8:19
John 10:30-33,*****
John 12:45
John 14:8-12

Who but God can walk on water and calm the seas. Jesus is God
Who but God would have allowed himself to be crucified for our sins. Who could have loved us that much but God.

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.

 

[JeanneH]

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.

What is you expert opinion on John 10:30-33

 

[JeanneH]

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.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan Parker;5834048:

Those verses, when examined in context prove Jesus is not the Almighty God

.

Could you tell me where these writing are in St. Augustine so I can read them for myself?
Thanks

Augustine Tractate CXXI

1. "But Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 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. “Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed.” He saith not, Thou hast touched me, but, “Thou hast seen me,” because sight is a kind of general sense. For sight is also habitually named in connection with the other four senses: as when we say, Listen, and see how well it sounds; smell it, and see how well it smells; taste it, and see how well it savors; touch it, and see how hot it is. Everywhere has the word, See, made itself heard, although sight, properly speaking, is allowed to belong only to the eyes. Hence here also the Lord Himself says, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands:” and what else does He mean but, Touch and see? And yet he had no eyes in his finger. Whether therefore it was by looking, or also by touching, “Because thou hast seen me,” He says, “thou hast believed.” Although it may be affirmed that the disciple dared not so to touch, when He offered Himself for the purpose; for it is not written, And Thomas touched Him. But whether it was by gazing only, or also by touching that he saw and believed, what follows rather proclaims and commends the faith of the Gentiles: “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” He made use of words in the past tense, as One who, in His predestinating purpose, knew what was future, as if it had already taken place. But the present discourse must be kept from the charge of prolixity: the Lord will give us the opportunity to discourse at another time on the topics that remain.

 

[NotWorthy]

RESPONSE:

You didn’t answer my question. Let me repeat it.

Please cite the passage in the New Testament in which Jesus specifically claimed to be God.

Suggested answer. Jesus didn’t because Jesus isn’t.

I wasn’t aware that I ever claimed that Jesus specifically claimed that He was God in the Synoptics.

In my opinion, His actions literally screamed it out, but only in John’s Gospel does he reveal this.

My point is, what does that matter?

Now, its your turn to answer my questions.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

Can you show me where St. Augustine taught this?

 

[NotWorthy]

Augustine Tractate CXXI
5. "But Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 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.

I’m not sure if I agree with your interpretation of Auggy’s words. But, rather than argue over that, I’d like to put up some other words on the Divinity of Jesus from St. Augustine. This comes from Corunum Catholic Apologetics:

“But if the Son is said to be sent by the Father on this account, that the one is the Father, and the other the Son, this does not in any manner hinder us from believing the Son to be equal, and consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father, and yet to have been sent as Son by the Father. Not because the one is greater, the other less; but because the one is Father, the other Son; the one begetter, the other begotten; the one, He from whom He is who is sent; the other, He who is from Him who sends.”
Augustine,On the Trinity,4:20(A.D. 416),in NPNF1,III:83

“The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself.”
Augustine,On the Trinity,15:14(A.D. 416),in NPNF1,III:213

 

[JP_Marat]

John 8:58-59 I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was I Am.

John 20:28 Thomas replied “My Lord and my God”

Thomas is calling Jesus God and Jesus didn’t stop him.

John 8:19
John 10:30-33,*****
John 12:45
John 14:8-12

Who but God can walk on water and calm the seas. Jesus is God
Who but God would have allowed himself to be crucified for our sins. Who could have loved us that much but God.

RESPONSE:

First of all, the Gospel of John was written after 95 AD, ten years after the Jesus as God story started. Neither it, nor any of John’s claims are supported by the Synoptic Gospels written earlier.

But let’s look.

John 8:58-59 I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was I Am. (As the first born of all creation, the messiah would be older than Abraham, but he would not be eternal as is God).

John 20:28 Thomas replied “My Lord and my God” (The term “Lord” for someone in power was very common in the Old Testament. It does not mean divinity.

3 Kings 37 “As the Lord hath been with my lord the king, so be he with Solomon, and make his throne higher than the throne of my lord king David.”

3 Kings 43 “And Jonathan answered Adonias: Not so: for **our lord king David **hath appointed Solomon king.”

How deep was the water in this yarn? Did it happen? Perhaps Jesus knew where the rocks were. Jesus was executed by the Roman as an insurrectionist as were some other messiah-candidates. It had nothing to do with anyone’s sins. That story was developed later as an alternate reason for his death.

 

[Canto]

RESPONSE:

Your facts are in error as shown by Act’s 2:2.

The Church was built on the Rock of Peter not Paul Mt 16:18

Did not Jesus say you are Rock (Peter) and on this rock I will build my Church - how is this error?

Peter got the keys not Paul

Does not the Bible record Jesus giving Peter the keys and not Paul - how is this error?

Peter was Bishop of Rome (Pope) but evangelised Christ in other parts of the globe too.

History records Peter as first Bishop of Rome.

He believed Christ rose from the dead 1 Pt 1:3

Didn’t not Peter write that Christ rose from the dead?

He believes Christ is our God and Saviour 2 Pt:1:1

Did not Peter call Jesus “God” ? Or was this epistle just made up or St Peter just very mistaken?

So how are these facts in error?

stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word or by our epistle - Tradtion records that Jesus was and is God.

How does Acts 2:22 contradict any of this this?

From Haydock…

Acts 2:22-23 Jesus, … a man, who suffered as man, though he was both God and man.

Delivered by the determinate decree, or counsel; to wit, by that eternal decree, that the Son of God should become man. He mentions this decree, and foreknowledge of God, to signify that Christ suffered not by chance, nor unwillingly, but what God, and he as God, had decreed. (Witham)

By the determinate, etc. god delivered up his Son; and his Son delivered up himself, for the love of us, and for the sake of our salvation: and so Christ’s being delivered up was holy, and was God’s own determination. But they who betrayed and crucified him, did wickedly, following therein their own malice, and the instigation of the devil; not the will and determination of God, who was by no means the author of their wickedness; though he permitted it; because he could, and did draw out of it so great a good, viz. the salvation of man. (Challoner)

 

[Dan_Parker]

I’m not sure if I agree with your interpretation of Auggy’s words. But, rather than argue over that, I’d like to put up some other words on the Divinity of Jesus from St. Augustine. This comes from Corunum Catholic Apologetics:

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?

 

[Dan_Parker]

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/-] John 20:28 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?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,
may i ask are you a messianic Jew?
Shalom

It depends on what a “Messianic Jew” is for you. If a “Messianic Jew” is the one who believes that Israel is the Messiah, I am a “Messianic Jew.” But of course you mean former Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. So, I am not.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ah, so the prophecy to Abraham and David meant, “… and you would be a light to the Gentiles, but only those who become Jews”. My translation must have left that out.

My bad. But I do seem to recall Jeremiah speaking of a New Covenant. One that would re-unite all the tribes of Israel. And the only Covenant I see that is fulfilling that prophecy is the New Covenant instituted in the upper room during the feast of Passover about 2000 years ago. The only way I see that Israel’s tribes could be reunited is if you let in the Gentiles who had the watered down blood of those rebellious 10 tribes about 3000 years ago.

**Sorry again, NotWorthy, but you are totally mistaken. We have fulfilled, and still do, the prophecy of Isaiah 42:6 to be light to the Gentiles. That’s what we are. But to join the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, the Gentile must convert to Judaism according to Isaiah 56:1-8.

Jesus NEVER established a New Covenant. He would be contradicting his own words in Matthew 5:17-19, when he declared that he had not come to abolish anything but to confirm everything down to the letter for him and for any other Jew. If you insist, you are entangled to explain two contradictions: The first is Matthew 5:17-19; the second is that Jesus was Jewish and according to Jewish law, a Jew cannot celebrate Passover before the 14th of Nisan. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

The Church was built on the Rock of Peter not Paul Mt 16:18
Peter got the keys not Paul
Peter was Bishop of Rome (Pope) but evangelised Christ in other parts of the globe too.
He believed Christ rose from the dead 1 Pt 1:3
He believed that God calls us to eternal glory in Christ 1 Pt 5:10
He believes Christ is our God and Saviour 2 Pt:1:1

sound pretty Catholic/Christian to me

Stop the cop-out Canto, you don’t know what Peter believed. The only testimony you have is from the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels. Even Saint Joseph’s edition of the Catholic NAV of the Bible brings a preface to those Letters attributed to Peter as written by an unknown author.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Who said? Where do you get your authority to say such a thing? You are wrong, what you say can not even be proven.

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.

 

[Ben_Masada]

NotWorthy:
Well… Ben does have a point. A Jewish Man does not claim to be God Incarnate… unless, of course, that Jewish Man IS God Incarnate!

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?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

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.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Yes, I agree, but the Apostles were not Christians or Catholics for that matter. How could Peter become the first Pope if he had nothing to do with Christians?

He was and did as evident in the scripture verse I previously posted to you.

Now, yes, I am ready to hear when Paul fulfilled his call and went to the Gentiles. Would let me know where to find this in the NT?
So much writing for nothing because you haven’t answered any of my questions. Show me when Paul decided to go to the Gentiles.

**No offense but perhaps you need to be more specific with your questions if you are looking for a specific answer. Asking when can be asking in time or in relation to an event. **

****By his own words he did and after ******Barnabas ****requested he accompany him. Many of the Apostles fled to Antioch for their safety so there in all common sense would have been more of their activity there based on what is written. As in any other circumstance, followers of a particular faith or belief system were referenced based on the teacher. Christians were designated for who they followed and such a term distinguishes them by others and from others of different beliefs or ways of life. **

But why? There must have been a reason why they were called Christians for the first time in Antioch and not in Jerusalem or in Alexandria. What happened in Antioch for the disciples to be called Christians for the first time? Believe me, I am ready to accept that it had nothing to do with Paul. What was the background for that change of name? The text is the whole chapter 11 of Acts, and the quote is 11:26 when they are said to have been called Christians for the first time; but the reason, you haven’t told me yet. And I am asking with all my respects for your beliefs. But it is important for me to know. Maybe I have been wrong all the time.

**AGAIN… By Paul’s own words he did and after ****Barnabas ****requested he accompany him. Many of the Apostles fled to Antioch for their safety so there in all common sense would have been more of their activity there based on what is written. As in any other circumstance, followers of a particular faith or belief system were referenced based on the teacher. Christians were designated for who they followed and such a term distinguishes them by others and from others of different beliefs or ways of life. **

You keep repeating the same thing which has nothing to do with my question. How can Catholics evangelize Jews by using such a method?

It depends on the underlying motive of the Jewish individual who is asking the questions.

See the next post if you need time frames…

TWB, I am deeply disappointed at this post of yours, which is SAD for lack of a better word. Not only you but many here ready themselves to answer questions without even an elementary knowledge of your own NT. I wonder what you guys expect to achieve as evangelizing the Jewish People is concern. I have been knocking at this door for some time now and only “ghosts” with nothing to offer welcome me in. That’s a shame!

 

[Canto]

Stop the cop-out Canto, you don’t know what Peter believed. The only testimony you have is from the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels. Even Saint Joseph’s edition of the Catholic NAV of the Bible brings a preface to those Letters attributed to Peter as written by an unknown author.

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.