Son of God

[hochoithem]

My friend’s opinion is that Mark, Matthew and Luke might not believe Jesus was God when they only used the term Son of God. He maintained it was a blasphemy for them to also believe Jesus was God. How should I approach this issue? Thank you

 

[DavidFilmer]

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. [John 8:12]

FWIW, the phrase rendered in English as “I AM” is the tetragrammaton (literally translated as “five letter word”). Jewish tradition prohibits writing or speaking the “name of God” (for very scrupulous reasons having to do with accidentally committing blasphemy - you cannot take the Lord’s name in vain if you never speak or write it, so it is best if you never actually speak or write the name of God).

But Our Lord’s words could hardly be perceived as accidental. He clearly identified himself with I AM - the name of God. He is likely the only Jew who uttered this name in their hearing - and yet he laid claim to this name. This is why his audience sought to stone him to death.

 

[hochoithem]

Thank you David. I forgot to add that he said only in John that clearly related to Jesus as God, not the Synoptic Gospels. Thus postulated that maybe Mark, Matthew and Luke did not truly believe Jesus was God.

 

[mikeeh]

Your friend sounds like a Johnist, aka a Protestant.

 

[JK8619]

But Our Lord’s words could hardly be perceived as accidental. He clearly identified himself with I AM - the name of God. He is likely the only Jew who uttered this name in their hearing - and yet he laid claim to this name. This is why his audience sought to stone him to death.

The first thing I would like to point out is that the verse you quoted from John is from chapter 8, but it is verse 58, not verse 12. No big deal, I just thought I might mention it to avoid confusion.

Second, if you want to put together an argument for the trinity I would suggest not trying to tie the “I am” statement from God in Exodus with the “I am” statement of Jesus in John. The belief that they are related is a common mistake, but if you try to make this argument w/ someone who knows koine Greek, your argument will be torn apart.

In the original Hebrew, God actually says “I Am that I Am” (Ehyeh asher ehyeh). In the Gospel of John the Koine Greek phrase is “ego eimi.” This phrase can mean “I am he/It is I” or “I exist.” The “I am” statement in John 8:58 is either a reference to the pre-existence of Christ or it could be a claim of Messiahship as it is used later in John. When Jesus is asked by the Samaritan woman by the well if he is the messiah he responds “I am he” (ego eimi).

I hope this clears things up a bit and does not just add more confusion.

JK

 

[thenobes]

The first thing I would like to point out is that the verse you quoted from John is from chapter 8, but it is verse 58, not verse 12. No big deal, I just thought I might mention it to avoid confusion.

Second, if you want to put together an argument for the trinity I would suggest not trying to tie the “I am” statement from God in Exodus with the “I am” statement of Jesus in John. The belief that they are related is a common mistake, but if you try to make this argument w/ someone who knows koine Greek, your argument will be torn apart.

In the original Hebrew, God actually says “I Am that I Am” (Ehyeh asher ehyeh). In the Gospel of John the Koine Greek phrase is “ego eimi.” This phrase can mean “I am he/It is I” or “I exist.” The “I am” statement in John 8:58 is either a reference to the pre-existence of Christ or it could be a claim of Messiahship as it is used later in John. When Jesus is asked by the Samaritan woman by the well if he is the messiah he responds “I am he” (ego eimi).

I hope this clears things up a bit and does not just add more confusion.

JK

Thanks,
I don’t have the time just now to investigate, but if you know, to edify all who are treading this, perhaps you can give/compare the koine greek “I Am” with the septugint greek “I Am Who Am”.
Thanks again.
peace
steve

 

[bsy]

Matthew 1:21-23 She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.”

Jesus is the Emmanuel “God-with-us”

 

[JK8619]

Thanks,
I don’t have the time just now to investigate, but if you know, to edify all who are treading this, perhaps you can give/compare the koine greek “I Am” with the septugint greek “I Am Who Am”.
Thanks again.
peace
steve

I just started studying Koine Greek about a year ago and I am learning on my own, so I’m not very knowledgable on the subject at this point. It would be interesting to see how the Hebrew phrase “ehyeh asher ehyeh” is translated in the into Greek in the Septuagint.

Although one could make a compelling argument only using the Bible for Jesus being God, it can be really difficult. One could also make a compelling argument that Jesus is not God when soley using the Bible. Jesus never was recorded in the gospels saying “I am God” or “I am not God” and the disciples had doubts as to whether or not Jesus was even the messiah up until the resurrection, so there is no way to prove what they actually believed regarding the divinity of Jesus. In addition to that, it took centuries for the trinity doctrine to develope.

IMO, the best way to argue for the trinity is to start out by making a case for infallibility of the Pope/Church. Even a fair number of Protestants will accept divine revelations and the decisions of the councils of the early centuries AD. The early councils (i.e. Nicea, etc) are really where the Trinitarian beliefs are fully developed. Nicea was really just the beginning of the formalization of the trinity Doctrine.

Personally, I do not believe that any of the Disciples or NT writers believed that Jesus was/is God. I was baptized Catholic, but was away from the church from ages 3-16. I returned to the church on my own about 10 yrs ago. Just wanted to let u know where I am coming from.

JK

 

[TimothyH]

My friend’s opinion is that Mark, Matthew and Luke might not believe Jesus was God when they only used the term Son of God. He maintained it was a blasphemy for them to also believe Jesus was God. How should I approach this issue? Thank you

If your friend believes that it was blasphemy to believe that Jesus was God then your friend is on the same side as the Pharisees. If your friend believes that Matthew, Mark and Luke also thought it was blasphemy then your friend places Matthew, Mark and Luke on the same side as the pharisees.

You don’t want to be on the same side as the Pharisees.

Over and over, Jesus claims to be God.

Jesus claimed that there was “something greater than the temple here.” The only thing greater than the Temple was God who dwelled in the Temple.

Jesus claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath. God gave the Sabbath to man. The only one who could be Lord of the Sabbath is God.

Over and over and over, Jesus says, “I am God… I am God… I am God…”

-Tim-

 

[JK8619]

Over and over and over, Jesus says, “I am God… I am God… I am God…”

-Tim-

Could you cite a verse where Jesus makes such a claim?

 

[hochoithem]

Personally, I do not believe that any of the Disciples or NT writers believed that Jesus was/is God. JK

Does that statement do a little over generalization? I thought the Gospel of John making a strong case about the deity of Jesus as God

 

[snarflemike]

What sort of being would the Son of God be? He would be consubstantial with God, would he not? Can a being be consubstantial with God and not be God?

 

[TimothyH]

Could you cite a verse where Jesus makes such a claim?

I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6)

The only one greater than the temple was God who dwelt in the temple.

For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. (Matthew 12:8)

God gave the Sabbath to man. The only one who could be Lord of the Sabbath is God himself.

These two come to mind. I’ll try to remember some other examples later.

-Tim-

 

[Evan]

The Arians professed the Jesus was just a man. They used the bible to support such a view and were condemned for heresy. Not because the bible proved them wrong, but because the Church, at Ecumenical councils determined that, from the evidence, Jesus was God.

AND the councils accepted John as an inspired book.

It is not necessary that Luke believe Jesus was God, but that the Church, who is infallible, teach He is God. If you learn the Church has all truth, then this follows. There is no simple path to knowing who He is. Each of us must find him with the help of other Christians.

 

[hochoithem]

It is not necessary that Luke believe Jesus was God, but that the Church, who is infallible, teach He is God. If you learn the Church has all truth, then this follows. There is no simple path to knowing who He is. Each of us must find him with the help of other Christians.

Thank you. My thinking is along the same line, just throwing the question up to ask for more wisdom.

 

[JK8619]

I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6)

The only one greater than the temple was God who dwelt in the temple.

For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. (Matthew 12:8)

God gave the Sabbath to man. The only one who could be Lord of the Sabbath is God himself.

These two come to mind. I’ll try to remember some other examples later.

-Tim-

There are a lot of verses that can be interpreted for or against Jesus being God, but as far as I am aware, there is not one explicit and irrefutable verse that supports the diety of Christ. I thought you were saying there is, but now I’m not sure if I understood you post correctly.

Taking the verse about the temple as an example:
If you read in the Old Testament, God did not want a temple at all, but after man complained long enough God then decided to indulge their wishes. This would seem to indicate that the greatness of the temple is in man’s eyes not God’s. You don’t need to try to refute this argument (unless you really want to, but I’m sure we could go back and forth all day long). I just wanted to quickly make the point that the verse is not explicitly a claim of diety and it is not irrefutable.

If you can think of an explicit claim of diety by Jesus, I would love to here it.

JK

 

[JK8619]

Does that statement do a little over generalization? I thought the Gospel of John making a strong case about the deity of Jesus as God

Many people (and most Christians) do believe the same as you, but I actually have found, IMO, that John is one of the better books to use to refute the diety of Christ.

I know a lot of people think John 1:1 proves everything, but it doesn’t. Even those who accept the trinity doctrine have vastly different views about what it means, the most common translation is rather suspect, and because of an unusual grammar rule of Koine Greek we really couldn’t say with absolute certainty what it means unless we could ask the apostle John what he meant.

Chapter 17 of John is also frequently used to argue for the diety of Christ, but one could also use that chapter to refute it as well.

If you have complete faith in the Catholic Church, which I must admit I do not, then I can see how one could find the Gospel of John a compelling argument for the diety of Christ.

I know this will not change anyone’s beliefs, but I hope it clears up for you why I feel as I do.

JK

 

[JK8619]

The Arians professed the Jesus was just a man. They used the bible to support such a view and were condemned for heresy. Not because the bible proved them wrong, but because the Church, at Ecumenical councils determined that, from the evidence, Jesus was God.

AND the councils accepted John as an inspired book.

It is not necessary that Luke believe Jesus was God, but that the Church, who is infallible, teach He is God. If you learn the Church has all truth, then this follows. There is no simple path to knowing who He is. Each of us must find him with the help of other Christians.

Although I disagree with the trinity doctrine, I will say that you have made a competent case. I believe that this is probably the best argument for the diety of Christ. As I stated in another recent post, I think you must have complete and absolute faith in the Catholic Church (or for Protestants the early Church councils) to make such a reasonable case. The Catholic Church is my “preferred church,” but I still cannot accept all of its teachings.

JK

 

[hochoithem]

Many people (and most Christians) do believe the same as you, but I actually have found, IMO, that John is one of the better books to use to refute the deity of Christ.
If you have complete faith in the Catholic Church, which I must admit I do not, then I can see how one could find the Gospel of John a compelling argument for the diety of Christ.
I know this will not change anyone’s beliefs, but I hope it clears up for you why I feel as I do.

JK

So, in your opinion, how would the early Church differentiate between Christianity and Judaism, in the early belief of the Apostles, disciples and Jewish? What did the Resurrection of Jesus Christ mean to them about His deity? The early church in Acts? And the whole theology of Christianity?

Hht

 

[EricFilmer]

I know a lot of people think John 1:1 proves everything, but it doesn’t. Even those who accept the trinity doctrine have vastly different views about what it means, the most common translation is rather suspect, and because of an unusual grammar rule of Koine Greek we really couldn’t say with absolute certainty what it means unless we could ask the apostle John what he meant.

I am aware of the nuances of Koine that you are referring to. But I would also like to point out that…

1) The Greek Fathers and the Greek Orthodox Church have historically interpreted John 1:1 as expressing the divinity of Christ. Naturally, in cases of a discrepancy in the Greek language it is helpful to examine how the Greeks themselves have interpreted it down through the centuries. Moreover, what is a problem for translation for us today was not necessarily a problem in the ancient world. A modern scholar has to resort to examining surviving scraps of manuscripts to make parallels and draw conclusions. The ancient Greeks were actually speaking it, writing it and (in a sense) living it, so they enjoyed the broadest possible context for understanding the Greek language. The Greek Fathers and the Greek Orthodox Church have passed along the ancient Greek understanding of the gospel message beyond what the text simply records.

2) You stated that, “…we really couldn’t say with absolute certainty what it means unless we could ask the apostle John what he meant.” Actually, we know what the apostle John meant, seeing as our doctrines of the divinity of Christ stem from apostolic Tradition. The fact that all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches have this belief in common with Catholicism backs this up.