"JESUS IS LORD"/ "JESUS IS GOD" controversy

[Shakuhachi]

What does it mean to “be” God?

 

[whyeyeman]

The correct translation from the Greek should read “Take courage, I Am. Fear not.”

False. “Ego eimi” means “it is I” in this context, hence why every translator translates it such. Just because somebody says “I am” does not mean they are using the divine name.

 

[whyeyeman]

Notice that he didn’t say “you are my Lord and my God”

Notice also Jesus says “if you see me you see the father”

See what Thomas is proclaiming here?

 

[whyeyeman]

In this same chapter when you read in verse 48 it says “He meant to pass them by.” Well in the Old Testament God did this same thing with Moses and Elijah.

John 14:10 - the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Acts 2:22 - Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

 

[Crusader13]

False. “Ego eimi” means “it is I” in this context, hence why every translator translates it such. Just because somebody says “I am” does not mean they are using the divine name.

It’s not false! “Ego eimi”, according to Strong’s Greek Concordance and several others as well, all show that it means “I am” or “I exist”, which when read in the proper context have the same meaning.

Young’s Literal Translation of Scripture says " for they all saw him, and were troubled, and immediately he spake with them, and saith to them, `Take courage, I am [he], be not afraid.’

You’re right though, just because somebody says “I am” doesn’t mean they are using the diving name. However, when Jesus said those words, especially in the verses I quoted, it doesn’t make sense that He would respond in that way, if he wasn’t intending to use the divine name.

John 14:10 - the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Acts 2:22 - Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Notice that he didn’t say “you are my Lord and my God”

Notice also Jesus says “if you see me you see the father”

See what Thomas is proclaiming here?

I’m confused as to what you’re trying to imply? These verses point to what we read in Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the unseen God”

Are you saying that Jesus is merely the Father in the flesh? Or something similar to what the Oneness Pentecostals believe? I ask this because your posts on this thread would suggest that you don’t believe Jesus is God and He never claimed to be God or you believe that He is God, but He just never actually said that He was God.

I’m just trying to understand what position you’re arguing from.

 

[whyeyeman]

Ego eimi can be translated as either “I am”, “I am he” or “It is I” depending on the context. The reason translators do not translate it as “I am” is because that is not what the context demands.

Are you saying that Jesus is merely the Father in the flesh? Or something similar to what the Oneness Pentecostals believe? I ask this because your posts on this thread would suggest that you don’t believe Jesus is God and He never claimed to be God or you believe that He is God, but He just never actually said that He was God

The latter. Although he may have claimed to be God, it is not written in the gospels. Though there are some writings of St Paul that seem to say such.

What I was trying to say about John 20:28 is that it is Thomas coming to understand that Jesus is the one who has been sent to make the Father known to the world.

Acts 2:22 says that God abiding in Jesus did the miracles. Hence the argument that Jesus walked and water and is therefore God cannot be used.

 

[Crusader13]

Ego eimi can be translated as either “I am”, “I am he” or “It is I” depending on the context. The reason translators do not translate it as “I am” is because that is not what the context demands.

Well we may disagree as to what the context of this passage is inferring and I can see the reason why many bible translations use “It is I”, but when read in its entirety, “I am” makes more sense. Especially when you read the verse “He meant to pass them by.”

Where exactly was he going??? They were in the middle of the sea during a storm, if the verse had said “He was walking towards them or towards the boat” I would understand the translation of “It is I”, but what we read instead is “He meant to pass them by”. When I read this passage in connection with the passages of the OT in EX & 1 Kings, then it makes even mores sense. I see a theophany in play and this is a perfect example of how Jesus, as God, is manifesting Himself to His followers.

The miracle of walking on water, by itself, is no indication of his being God. However, we find multiple passages in scripture that attest to this. I don’t find your claim that this wasn’t spoken of in the Gospels to be accurate. In Mark 14 we read that Jesus is plainly telling the high priest and the council, that they will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven. Both references to Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13. In the OT, no one, not even the angels, come in the clouds. It is only God who does so and for Jesus to apply this prophecy to Himself was His way of telling the council that He was in fact God. The term sitting at the right hand of power is a euphemism for authority and sovereignty, which belongs to God alone and as King it isn’t’ a power that is shared with another.

I’m curious as to why you would believe that Jesus is God if He never actually claimed it in the Gospels, as you say? The only other argument I’ve heard, similar to what you’re saying is the claim that Jesus is God the Father, but merely in a role as the Son, as the Oneness Pentecostals believe.

I don’t want to make assumptions as to what you believe in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, but your arguments give me reason to believe that Jesus was merely an instrument that God used to bring glory to the Father. Which begs the question, Who or what exactly is Jesus in relation to our salvation and his existence?

 

[whyeyeman]

the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven.

What about this passage says anything about divinity? Authority can be given to others, it was given to King David for example. He was how the Israelites got to God, hence why they bowed down before him.

I have no doubt that the three earlier gospels teach that Jesus was the greatest of all men, and he exercises great authority. But if the authors actually knew that he was a coequal and coeternal person of a triune God, then I think they would have gone out of there way to at least mention it.

With regard to Mark 14, in verses
29-31, we are told that Peter initially was able to walk on water too, and would have carried on just as Jesus had if it weren’t for his lack of faith. Are we to assume Peter is divine from this also?

 

[purestmoney]

we are told that Peter initially was able to walk on water too, and would have carried on just as Jesus had if it weren’t for his lack of faith. Are we to assume Peter is divine from this also?

you are correct, so you will agree with me that there are many complications in the Bible, humanly speaking

 

[Crusader13]

Crusader13:

the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven.

What about this passage says anything about divinity? Authority can be given to others, it was given to King David for example. He was how the Israelites got to God, hence why they bowed down before him.

I have no doubt that the three earlier gospels teach that Jesus was the greatest of all men, and he exercises great authority. But if the authors actually knew that he was a coequal and coeternal person of a triune God, then I think they would have gone out of there way to at least mention it.

It seems to me that you are merely focusing on the NT verses independently from the OT. Jesus was telling “those who had ears to hear let them hear” that he was God. He used imagery and OT scripture when talking about verses that applied to the prophecy of the coming Messiah and to God. Authority can be given to others, as in David’s case. Yet, the kind of authority that refers to the right hand of power, wasn’t given to David, Psalm 110 isn’t referring to David, Daniel 7 isn’t referring to David. You can’t generalize every case of authority or miracles or healings and say, “well so and so did this too” and somehow infer that Jesus is just another man in a long list of created men to have powers.

Peter is a perfect example, which you alluded to. In the case of Peter, Jesus gives him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, but that doesn’t mean that Peter is now the ruler of Heaven. We know this because we look back in the OT and we see instances of Kings entrusting “keys” to their prime ministers, which even with this elevated position of “authority”, they still did not share the throne of the King. Not to mention the fact that in the OT, only the King could give the “keys” to another, so who is Jesus, if not God, that He has the right/authority to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, which is God’s Kingdom?

Jesus is sitting at the right hand of power, this is alluding to his divinity. It doesn’t mean a separate throne seated right next to the “One throne” in Heaven. Plus your entire premise is predicated on the notion that in the Gospels, Jesus never said He was God therefore He is not God. If we are to believe that Scripture can’t contradict itself, then it would be false for us to believe that Jesus never claimed to be God and therefore did not want his followers to believe He was God, yet somehow, his followers came to this conclusion on their own makes no sense.

If the authors of the Gospels simply teach that Jesus was merely the “greatest of all men” as you claim, then at what point did the rest of His followers make the jump to “He must be God”?

 

[Kts1816]

God himself,Holly spirit and son,(love,nature),( some Orthodox thinkers also state Wisdom)Dont understant your comment,what you dont like about mine…As for these Vishnu,Brahma I dont know about this Indian strange things(some Gods…)

 

[whyeyeman]

Psalm 110

You quote this verse, but it clearly differentiates between the LORD (Adonai) and My lord (adoni). The latter being Jesus, sitting on the throne of Yahweh.

Jesus is sitting at the right hand of power, this is alluding to his divinity. It doesn’t mean a separate throne seated right next to the “One throne” in Heaven

Correct. It means he is seated on God’s throne. Like king David and King Solomon:

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.” - 1 chronicles 29:23

If the authors of the Gospels simply teach that Jesus was merely the “greatest of all men” as you claim, then at what point did the rest of His followers make the jump to “He must be God”?

Well, if you read the early church fathers, preexistence was definitely being taught around 100 AD, for example in the epistle of Barnabas. He taught that Jesus was the one to whom God said “let us create man in our image”. However, despite going into great detail about the nature of Christ and how he was sent down from heaven and so forth, he doesn’t say anything about Jesus being God.

However, at around the same time, Ignatius of Antioch wrote various letters that directly called Jesus God.

So it seems that there were various beliefs floating around at this time. When exactly it was taught, I know not.

 

[Crusader13]

I’m not arguing that authority cannot be conferred on another. Even in the example of David, a man after God’s own heart, he was still not given the authority that belongs to Jesus alone.

So, I still don’t understand how one believes that Jesus is God, but not because Jesus claimed to be God. As you stated in your earlier posts? This gives rise to a huge contradiction in scripture. In fact, many of your arguments are almost taken right out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Theology playbook. Preexistence doesn’t equate with divinity, as you claim. So, if Jesus existed since the beginning of creation, than who exactly do you believe He is? The Witnesses will you tell you that He is an angel, Michael the Archangel to be exact, but what do you believe? Because I honestly can’t tell from what position you’re arguing from.

If you believe that He is God, than what brought you to that conclusion if you are so adamantly opposed to the idea that Jesus ever claimed to be so? Because that for me is the problem I keep running into. Why would someone believe that Jesus is God, if that same person also believes that Jesus never claimed to be God.

I hope you see my confusion.

 

[Crusader13]

whyeyeman:

we are told that Peter initially was able to walk on water too, and would have carried on just as Jesus had if it weren’t for his lack of faith. Are we to assume Peter is divine from this also?

you are correct, so you will agree with me that there are many complications in the Bible, humanly speaking

There aren’t complications in the bible, at least not the way I’m understanding them from your perspective. Contradictions cannot exist in Scripture and I don’t believe for one minute that Jesus would allow his followers to believe something about Himself that was in direct opposition to what the Father has also revealed. Either Jesus is God or He is not, no passage in scripture is going to prove both points true at the same time.

The problem stems from, as you said, our human error in properly understanding what has been revealed to us. This error has been plaguing the Church since it’s foundation. Many groups and sects have been popping up for centuries, each claiming that they have “figured out” or “discovered” the truth about who God is and what that means for His Church.

This is why we have hundreds of different Christian denominations today and thousands of different interpretations of scripture. If there is One Faith, One Lord, and One Baptism, then logically they can’t all be true.

 

[whyeyeman]

I’d start by saying that Jesus did not give us a book to guide us in the truth, he gave us the spirit. Just because something is not in scripture does not mean it is not true.

I’m not going to say “I believe it because…” Because I am unsure about this topic. But if I were to believe it, it would be because the church taught it, not because it was written in the scriptures.

I must say I think my initial stubbornness at suggesting I knew that Jesus didn’t claim to be God in the first three gospels was unjustified. Their are certainly some instances that I shall ponder further.

That being said, I don’t think there is anything in the catholic understanding of the Bible that would mean it’s necessary for it to be taught in the Bible that he is God.

 

[HarryStotle]

God himself,Holly spirit and son,(love,nature),( some Orthodox thinkers also state Wisdom)Dont understant your comment,what you dont like about mine…As for these Vishnu,Brahma I dont know about this Indian strange things(some Gods…)

You said Jesus was one of “many representations” of God. He was much more than that, according to Christian theology. He is one of only three ( not “many”) Persons of the Godhead.

Here is what you wrote…

Jesus was one of the many representations of the almighty God.
In human nature better understandable by Us.

Your words describe almost exactly what many Hindus believe about the Supreme One who would be something like but not exactly what Christians would call God. The Supreme One in Hinduism cannot be known by humans but represents or manifests himself in many ways including as many persons.

 

[Kts1816]

God himself,Son,Holly spirit,Wisdom(for some orthodox philosophers).
Didnt God created life,nature…he is everywhere…Jesus was son of the God.
He wanted to recreate a relationship.
You didnt ubdetstand me.
Please stop with these hinduistic Vishnu,Brami etc things

 

[Kts1816]

Wasnt a Jesus God himself in a flesh,arw you sure you read and understood my comment as a whole?

 

[Kts1816]

God in a human nature better understanable by us…

 

[HarryStotle]

I’d start by saying that Jesus did not give us a book to guide us in the truth,…

That would be untrue. God gave us both a book inspired by his Holy Spirit and gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us.

That is what the Church herself, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, tells us. To deny THAT is to deny that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church.

Are you sure you want to go there?