Is Jesus God?

[zach_dunn]

In your way of thinking of God, yes. Father and Son are both God.
Now that I understand how you think of God thanks to Sunflower15, I can see your point of view.
But when I read John 8 I understand it like this:
Jesus is speaking with great authority which the people don’t realise He has been given by God. But He has (John 3:35). Before Jesus came along, God had said, “Who is my equal?” Isa 40:25 & Isa 46:5. So they thought the authority Jesus was speaking with was blasphemy e.g. v 51.

The Jews knew that God had given Jesus much authority:

John 3:2
"2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.”

They knew He had His authority from God. After all, He is God.

So they say in John 8:53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Are you greater than the prophets, who died? Who do you think you are?"NLT
then He speaks of Abraham as if He’s met him and they respond in verse 57: The people said, "You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham? NLT then in verse 58 Jesus answered, “The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!” NLT

So their reasons for wanting to stone Him are:

1. They think He’s possessed by a demon (v 52)

They didn’t stone people for having demons.

1. He thinks He’s greater than Abraham (v 53)

Why didn’t they start to stone Him right then?

1. He claims to be the Messiah, Son of God (v 56)

They were expecting the Messiah to come, many followers came to Him because they thought He was the Messiah, they’re problem was the whole “Son of God” thing which He doesn’t actually claim in this verse.

1. He claimed to be without sin (v 46)

The Pharisees probably thought they were sinless too [Phil 3:5-6], why would they object to someone else claiming it?

1. He insulted them calling them children of the Devil (v 44)

They obviously don’t care what Jesus thinks of them, they don’t even mention Him saying that. And again, if it really offended them so much, why not stone Him right then and there?

1. He tells them they are not God’s children (v 47)

Once again, they don’t care if Jesus insults them (I wouldn’t call it that, I’d call it more of an exposing accusation), they are religious Jews, they think they are the holiest people around, what do they care if a carpenter’s son says they aren’t of God? They know they are.

If they were really offended they would have stoned Him right then. But, not surprisingly, they only got upset when Jesus claimed God’s name. Which means He was claiming to be God.

Regarding verse 58, I know you prefer the translation, “Before Abraham was, I am.”
But if you look up the word for “I am”, it’s “εἰμί” meaning to be, to exist, to happen, to be present. Which is how the NLT translates it and it does answer the previous verse - How can you say you have seen Abraham?
The word “εἰμί” is used 146 times in the Bible and doesn’t always refer to the name of God.

It is true that εἰμί means “to be” but it can’t just be translated in any tense. The actual phrase that is used to translate as I am is this: ἐγὼ εἰμί. This phrase can ONLY mean “I am.” Nothing else. That’s why the NLT is deficient, it does this in several areas. The translators know what it says, but they tried to put it in modern English, which just doesn’t work, at least not for the NLT. If you’re going to use a Protestant Bible, I would suggest the NIV, or the KJV at least. Also try the RSV if you’re going for accuracy. Anything but the NLT and the Message.

 

[Martin_R]

Going back a bit, I know, but I’ve just found the verse that caused my comment:
"zach dunn:

So God the father says that he is the only God and as such is the only one to be worshipped (See the first commandment). And then he says to worship this Jesus person, who is not God? Doesn’t make any sense, does it?

When the commandments were given, there was no Jesus (on earth at the time).
When Jesus came, he did away with the law.

That’s a no no Martin, :tsktsk:.

Matthew 5:17
“17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Zach

Here’s the verse I was thinking of :
Galatians 3:24-25 (New Living Translation)

24 Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. 25 And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.

 

[zach_dunn]

Going back a bit, I know, but I’ve just found the verse that caused my comment:

When the commandments were given, there was no Jesus (on earth at the time).
When Jesus came, he did away with the law.

Jesus is God therefore He created the commandments in the first place.

Here’s the verse I was thinking of :
Galatians 3:24-25 (New Living Translation)

24 Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. 25 And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.

See, just another reason the NLT is deficient.

Galatians 3:24-25
“24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian.” [RSV-CE]

It says nothing about not needing the law, we are just not under it anymore. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law. We are still under the Ten Commandments, as are everyone. Those rules are sometimes known as the natural law, that is, we all have a natural tendency to obey them. Would you need the Commandment “You shall not kill” to know that murdering is wrong? I doubt it. We are all still bound by the Ten Commandments Martin.

The NLT adds words that aren’t in the Greek Martin. Like the word God in verse 24. The word theos doesn’t appear anywhere in this passage. The NLT just can’t cut it.

P.S. I don’t mean to offend you with my utter disdain for the NLT. I just think it is not a good translation and think you should use a new one.

 

[Martin_R]

Two more verses along the same lines:

1 Corinthians 6
12 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything.

1 Corinthians 10:23
23 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”[a]—but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is beneficial.

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 10:23 Greek All things are lawful; also in 10:23b.
   NLT

 

[Newbie2]

Ha! That’s a quite a good point.
That made me think.
I suppose I’d answer that as follows:

I worship God but also His Son because He (God the Father) said we should.
Perhaps I should be called a Godstian-Christian.

No, it started from the “Why Catholics adore Mary” thread.
If Jesus is God, that makes Mary the mother of God, which I think is wrong.

Maybe so, because such a belief surely isn’t protestant.

OK, so think about this next:

If you worship Jesus and he isn’t God, and there is only one God (the Father, as you state), how does that square with God (the Father) saying that you should worship him alone (very plain throughout scripture and especially in the First Commandment)?

I would think that this would be problematic for you, and the solution is to accept the theology that God has more than one nature.

Waddya think?

 

[E.E.N.S]

AMong the many other evidences brought up did anyone mention St. Thomas’ confession in John 20:28, where he says, “my Lord and my God”?

 

[Sunflower15]

So they say in John 8:53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Are you greater than the prophets, who died? Who do you think you are?"NLT
then He speaks of Abraham as if He’s met him and they respond in verse 57: The people said, "You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham? NLT then in verse 58 Jesus answered, “The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!” NLT

Regarding verse 58, I know you prefer the translation, “Before Abraham was, I am.”
.

1. How could Jesus have existed before Abraham unless He was with the Father from the beginning?
2. Does that not imply immortality to you?
3. Is the name of God not ‘I AM’? [Yahweh or Jehowah]
4. Would it not make sense that Jesus keeps answering that He is the ‘I AM’ if He were God? In other words, that would be the proof of the Prime Mover who ‘IS’ without being caused or created…simply exists in ‘BEING’

Also, IF Jesus was accused of ‘BLASPHEMY’ that means that to the Jews whatever HE said [however mis-translated that might be] to the Jews sounded like He was likening Himself with God…whether saying He is the ‘Son of’ [which is the old way of ‘surnames’ or ‘family names’ in many cultures, implying familial status, of the same DNA/substance/inheritance/legacy, etc…not ‘adopted’ as we are]. To the Jews, that meant Jesus was God…since they accused Him of blasphemy.

Sidenote: I once heard that from the point of view of humans, Jesus is the Son of God, but from the point of view of God, Jesus is the Son of Man…which He also claims to be. Notice how both of His natures: fully God, fully Man, are revealed this way.

So, in you tradition, everyone [hundreds of denominations disagreeing about a lot of things, but ALL agreeing about the Trinity] has been mistaken for 2 millenniums?
It’s not that I think that alone would be sufficient, but it certainly makes me take another ‘look’ when I notice that much of a ‘coincidence’!

I was wondering how do you interpret the Transfiguration? Or the Baptism of Jesus? Or the Ascension? In all of these, the Father clearly says that Jesus is His SON.

 

[Sunflower15]

Jesus is God therefore He created the commandments in the first place.

Well,…I just had to make a note here…Jesus is God, but Jesus is NOT the Father - Who CREATES…
Jesus is ‘THROUGH WHOM ALL things were created’ - the WORD/Wisdom. The Commandments are a perfect example of the Father creating through the Son - the Word.

All creation, seen and unseen, is created by the Father, through the Son/Word/Wisdom and for the Son/Word/Wisdom, and the living things were ANIMATED/'given LIFE/‘Breathed Upon’ by the '3rd Person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit.

I think sometimes, we Catholics confuse the truths we are trying to clarify by not being precise. As when we say that ‘Jesus was there at the beginning of Time’…we don’t know that, it may or may not be, all we know is that ‘the 2nd Person of the Trinity -the Word/Wisdom’ was there at the beginning of Time’, and that the 2nd Person became Incarnate in Jesus much later in the history of God’s Covenant with mankind.

I know it sounds petty, but saying that Jesus is God is not the same as saying that God is Jesus…because Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit nor the Father…each PERSON is distinct…though God is a perfect whole, not ‘parts’ put together…

I do think that the more one reads the Athanasian Creed, the more one understands the ''logical puzzle" of the Trinity…and the pieces of the puzzle all come from the Bible and Tradition…it’s just that the name ‘Trinity’ does not appear in the Bible…it is a ‘label’ we put on God…which the Jews traditionally have a definite aversion to do!

 

[Sunflower15]

Among the many other evidences brought up did anyone mention St. Thomas’ confession in John 20:28, where he says, “my Lord and my God”?

This is one of my favorite quotes from the Bible! However, it seems to me that someone who dismisses what Jesus was killed for and that HE admitted [that He was God - which to the Jews was blasphemy], would not very likely accept lowly Thomas’ version of things…though Thomas is the apostle to ‘unbelievers’ due to his doubting nature…

 

[Sunflower15]

No, it started from the “Why Catholics adore Mary” thread.
If Jesus is God, that makes Mary the mother of God, which I think is wrong.

Is this what ‘bothers’ you -
that to accept the Trinity will lead to accepting Mary as Mother of God?

Because there are countless Protestants who accept the Trinity but not that Mary is the Mother of God…some sound quite valid, actually…even if I disagree.

I think the Mary issue is ‘small’ in comparison with negating the Trinity, though!

I am also trying to understand why do you say that you worship Jesus because the Father said to worship Jesus, though you don’t think Jesus is God…I’m confused on this one Could you be more explicit?

 

[Sunflower15]

I wonder why Jesus didn’t explain it to them then.
Maybe He didn’t think of Himself as a trinity either.

Thank you for you explanations.

He did teach it! Where do you think that John got it from? Surely, he wasn’t that creative!
John was VERY devoutly loyal to Jesus and to the Father as a pious Jew ]. John could not possibly have ‘come up’ with his Gospel without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the teachings he learned from Jesus during the years that he followed Him closely.

Jesus taught the Apostles, who wrote the Gospels and taught Tradition, both of which we still have today [Thanks God! ]

Jesus spoke of the Father many times, right? Jesus spoke of Himself as doing ‘His Father’s work’ and as ’ saying what He heard from the Father’ because ‘He did not speak of Himself, but what the He heard from the Father’, and of ‘knowing the Father,’ and of ‘being from the beginning or before others who lived centuries before Him’…and of ‘teaching with authority’ on the Word/Law since He was still a child [because of course, He IS the Word Incarnate!]

Jesus also spoke of the ‘Spirit,’ Whom Jesus would send to ‘comfort’ and to ‘teach’ or ‘reveal’ to us.

The only thing He did not do was to label all three as ‘The Trinity’, if that name is what prevents you from believing, just disregard that name! It is a human ‘label’ for God…just believe in the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit - as God…

I have a question: I thought that all Christians had to be baptized in the name of ‘the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’…in your tradition, don’t you get baptized like that? If not, what words are said instead?

 

[zach_dunn]

Well,…I just had to make a note here…Jesus is God, but Jesus is NOT the Father - Who CREATES…
Jesus is ‘THROUGH WHOM ALL things were created’ - the WORD/Wisdom. The Commandments are a perfect example of the Father creating through the Son - the Word.

All creation, seen and unseen, is created by the Father, through the Son/Word/Wisdom and for the Son/Word/Wisdom, and the living things were ANIMATED/'given LIFE/‘Breathed Upon’ by the '3rd Person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit.

I think sometimes, we Catholics confuse the truths we are trying to clarify by not being precise. As when we say that ‘Jesus was there at the beginning of Time’…we don’t know that, it may or may not be, all we know is that ‘the 2nd Person of the Trinity -the Word/Wisdom’ was there at the beginning of Time’, and that the 2nd Person became Incarnate in Jesus much later in the history of God’s Covenant with mankind.

I know it sounds petty, but saying that Jesus is God is not the same as saying that God is Jesus…because Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit nor the Father…each PERSON is distinct…though God is a perfect whole, not ‘parts’ put together…

I do think that the more one reads the Athanasian Creed, the more one understands the ''logical puzzle" of the Trinity…and the pieces of the puzzle all come from the Bible and Tradition…it’s just that the name ‘Trinity’ does not appear in the Bible…it is a ‘label’ we put on God…which the Jews traditionally have a definite aversion to do!

I understand what you’re saying. Sometimes I just say things fast and don’t think about them! I know that Jesus isn’t the Father, I guess I was just trying to stress that He IS God and that worshiping falsely would fall under the first commandment. I guess I’ll just have word my posts better from now on!!

I think I’ve been doing pretty good so far about the whole persons and nature and distinction stuff…

 

[Sunflower15]

I understand what you’re saying. Sometimes I just say things fast and don’t think about them! I know that Jesus isn’t the Father, I guess I was just trying to stress that He IS God and that worshiping falsely would fall under the first commandment. I guess I’ll just have word my posts better from now on!!

I know you do! We Catholics talk almost ‘in code’ about these things understanding exactly what we mean and don’t mean…however, to ‘others’ we sound a little confusing/contradicting at times…[our behavior does that too!]
For example, though no Catholic nor Orthodox would say that we ‘worship’ Mary, we might in haste say that we ‘adore’ her…absolutely NOT meaning ‘worship’ but a ‘veneration with a connotation of deep love’ for her… which is also what we do with say - the Blessed Sacrament, Whom we ‘adore’ AND ‘worship’…I can see why some might be a little ‘put off’ …though they wouldn’t understand the Adoration of the Eucharist either!

I think I’ve been doing pretty good so far about the whole persons and nature and distinction stuff…

Yes, you have! And you are pretty good at the Bible verse thing!
I am not as good at that! I know I read it somewhere, maybe I know who said it, but I probably don’t remember where exactly to find it!

 

[zach_dunn]

Yes, you have! And you are pretty good at the Bible verse thing!
I am not as good at that! I know I read it somewhere, maybe I know who said it, but I probably don’t remember where exactly to find it!

Haha, thank you. We’re all in this together I guess. We’ve just gotta keep at it until Martin finally understands.

 

[zach_dunn]

Two more verses along the same lines:

1 Corinthians 6
12 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything.

1 Corinthians 10:23
23 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”[a]—but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is beneficial.

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 10:23 Greek All things are lawful; also in 10:23b.
   NLT

1 Corinthians 6:12
“12 ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything.”

It’s obvious that St. Paul is exaggerating here. These verses clear up what He’s saying.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

It’s now clear that people who break the law do not inherit the kingdom of God. So just what does Paul mean in verse 12? He’s just saying that Christians, after being baptized validly, are now free from the Mosaic Law. We must still obey the Law of the New Covenant which is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7). The same goes for 1 Corinthians 10:23.

 

[Sunflower15]

1 Corinthians 6:12
“12 ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything.”

It’s obvious that St. Paul is exaggerating here. These verses clear up what He’s saying.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

It’s now clear that people who break the law do not inherit the kingdom of God. So just what does Paul mean in verse 12? He’s just saying that Christians, after being baptized validly, are now free from the Mosaic Law. We must still obey the Law of the New Covenant which is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7). The same goes for 1 Corinthians 10:23.

Which can also be paraphrased into:
The next level of the Law is Living it…moving from the ‘Letter of the Law’ to the ‘Spirit of the Law’…by action…by following Christ’s example…of ‘BEING’ the Law towards God, self and others…with the help of the Holy Spirit - the Love, in summarizing all the Law and the Prophets, Jesus commands us to :
‘Love God above all else, and to Love others as much as self’…

 

[TheQuestioner]

This is kinda funny cause i’ve been where Martin has been before. Only for me the beginning of John (John 1) was what did it for me. Years later i found out i was reading out of a Jehovah Witness Bible the entire time haha.

Anyway, Martin will come to the realization that Jesus is God but not the Father although the Father is God one day. But i think the problem is that he is seeking to understand. No one can understand the Trinity. It is what it is (anyone get that). God is in the form of the Trinity, and because you do not understand it does not mean it must not thus be real. (otherwise you would be toting the old Muslim argument)

It is a mystery, and when dealing with a mystery (or the how) one should not seek to understand it but to believe it. And its ok to admit when you are wrong, I had to too. It feels so much better than doing scriptural acrobatics and twisting passages in order to make them mean what you say they mean. I leave you Martin with this Chart.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png

Seek not to understand, but to believe.

 

[Sunflower15]

I have a question: I thought that all Christians had to be baptized in the name of ‘the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’…in your tradition, don’t you get baptized like that? If not, what words are said instead?

 

[Martin_R]

The Jews knew that God had given Jesus much authority:

John 3:2
"2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.”

They knew He had His authority from God. After all, He is God.

That doesn’t sound right to me. If He came from God, had God with Him and had been given His authority by God, I’d count that as 3 things showing He’s not God.

 

[Martin_R]

So their reasons for wanting to stone Him are:

1. They think He’s possessed by a demon (v 52)

They didn’t stone people for having demons.

No, I was saying this is* one* of their reasons.

1. He thinks He’s greater than Abraham (v 53)

Why didn’t they start to stone Him right then?

I suspect their anger was building and building with each of these things He said.

1. He claims to be the Messiah, Son of God (v 56)

They were expecting the Messiah to come, many followers came to Him because they thought He was the Messiah, they’re problem was the whole “Son of God” thing which He doesn’t actually claim in this verse.

Sorry, wrong verse. There are several, how about 49?

1. He claimed to be without sin (v 46)

The Pharisees probably thought they were sinless too [Phil 3:5-6], why would they object to someone else claiming it?

Because He’s not one of their special group maybe.

1. He insulted them calling them children of the Devil (v 44)

They obviously don’t care what Jesus thinks of them, they don’t even mention Him saying that. And again, if it really offended them so much, why not stone Him right then and there?

Anger still building.

1. He tells them they are not God’s children (v 47)

Once again, they don’t care if Jesus insults them (I wouldn’t call it that, I’d call it more of an exposing accusation), they are religious Jews, they think they are the holiest people around, what do they care if a carpenter’s son says they aren’t of God? They know they are.

If they were really offended they would have stoned Him right then.
Maybe that was the point at which He stopped speaking and they made their decision after all that He had said.
But, not surprisingly, they only got upset when Jesus claimed God’s name. Which means He was claiming to be God.
No it doesn’t, that was the name He was given by God.