The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament

[togre]

On a now closed the following statements were made:



Jesus doesn't seem to have claimed glory, accepted to be worshipped, or even allowed others to praise him. He didn't have an agenda of his own according to him.

and


So, three gods in one, devinity of jesus, sonship of jesus and all other doctrines have No support in the bible, just forced interpretation and no clear evidence for them.

The purpose of this thread is intended to address one specific claim and to do so in a very focused fashion. I purpose the thesis: The New Testament teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I ask that questions or comments not pertaining to the text be reserved for PM’s or a separate thread. Discussion of the meaning of cited passages and the introduction of additional passages is fair game.


I intend to provide the following evidence in support of the thesis:
1. The Bible gives to Jesus divine names.
2. The Bible ascribes to Jesus divine attributes.
3. The Bible credits Jesus with divine actions.



First, the Bible gives Jesus divine names, that is, the Bible calls Jesus by names that it would be blasphemy to give to any one but God alone and Jesus accepts these names.

--1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (NIV as are all that follow)

--Luke 2:11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

-- Matthew 1:23 (quoting from Isaiah) “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.””

-- John 20:28 Thomas said to him[Jesus], “My Lord and my God!”

-- Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (his own blood—the antecedent of ‘his’ can only be ‘God’ but does God have blood?)



Second, the Bible ascribes to Jesus divine attributes, that is, describes him as having characteristics that are possessed by none but God.

--John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. [He is described as eternal, that is existing before creation, which also shows him to be “uncreated” which is only true of God.]

--John 21:17 shows that he is omniscient, and other passages where he knows the thoughts and hearts of people support this. “The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.””

--Hebrews 13:8 shows that he is unchanging “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

--Matthew 28:20 shows his omnipresence “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” As does Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”



Third, the Bible credits Jesus with divine actions, that is Jesus does things only God can do. I would personally put miracles into this category with the understanding that Jesus did them of his own power and authority which the prophets and apostles did miracles with power given them. But for the sake of argument I’ll concede the miracles Jesus did do not prove his deity. Even still there are plenty of other things Jesus did.

--Matthew 9:6 shows he has the power to forgive sins, which belongs to God alone. “Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins....” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.””

--John 1:3 shows that Jesus was created the world, an action rightly ascribed to God alone. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

--Finally, it would be blasphemy for any but the Lord to receive the same honor as the Lord. Yet, in John 5:22,23 we read “ Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”



I recognize that for many this many be tedious. I also recognize that for many the topic of discussion as well as the source used in the discussion is an object of scorn. Please feel free to ignore this thread if this is the case.

I realize this is just the beginning of the conversation. I again urge every attempt be made to keep the comments focused, but I also recognize that topic creep or drift is inevitable.

Well, have at it!

[JCamilo]

It is only tedious, because it is prententious. You are trying to discuss something took centuries of religious scholars and they at least have the original text to manage to never come to conclusive evidences. But in your case, the arguments are nowhere as good.



First, the Bible gives Jesus divine names, that is, the Bible calls Jesus by names that it would be blasphemy to give to any one but God alone and Jesus accepts these names.

You seem to not understand that those names are not blasphemous. In fact, even someone saying God is not, as the name used in the texts to refer to god was exactly build in a non-blasphemous way. But...


--1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (NIV as are all that follow)

Be called the Son of God, the most bold we can find, that usually is found in John, is not exactly a blasphemy. And it is not divine per si at all.


--Luke 2:11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

Savior is just a reference to the messiah, which is neither divine or a title that was only atributed to Jesus.


-- Matthew 1:23 (quoting from Isaiah) “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.””

about 4% of male population of Jesus's region had the same name as him. And the number of names that made reference as God in their significance is enourmous. Anyways, Immanuel is just another reference to Issaiah, used before Jesus, thus not a title only he could accept and you were just streching, as angel is saying it will justify this prophecy, but not Jesus himself is not called Immanuel. The angel, as most literate man, liked to make references.


-- John 20:28 Thomas said to him[Jesus], “My Lord and my God!”

This is John again, and most people just agree that original words, although very respectful, are not a claim he is God. And that even before, they could be used for other prophets.


-- Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (his own blood—the antecedent of ‘his’ can only be ‘God’ but does God have blood?)

Acts only proof that Paul interpretation is the one you claim. That is all.




Second, the Bible ascribes to Jesus divine attributes, that is, describes him as having characteristics that are possessed by none but God.

--John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. [He is described as eternal, that is existing before creation, which also shows him to be “uncreated” which is only true of God.]

The word is in the begining, not Jesus.



--John 21:17 shows that he is omniscient, and other passages where he knows the thoughts and hearts of people support this. “The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.””

Altougth it is irrelevant that the autorship of this part is controversial, this does not show omniscience. Peter is just being respectful to a wise man.


--Hebrews 13:8 shows that he is unchanging “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

That is an opinion of others about him. It is not like you said, anything Jesus accepted.


--Matthew 28:20 shows his omnipresence “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” As does Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

The first example is not exactly omnipresence. And this is obviously symbolic, not literal but it is certainly not omnipresence, as I am alone writing, not in his name, therefore, he cann't be there, as would an omnipresent being. Plus, there is more than one momment that Jesus was not present in the events of the gospels, or even promisses he will return (someone that is always everywhere, does not return as it never lefts).




Third, the Bible credits Jesus with divine actions, that is Jesus does things only God can do. I would personally put miracles into this category with the understanding that Jesus did them of his own power and authority which the prophets and apostles did miracles with power given them. But for the sake of argument I’ll concede the miracles Jesus did do not prove his deity. Even still there are plenty of other things Jesus did.

That is good, because not only Jesus ever claimed to be god doing miracles, there is certainly a big number of miracle workers before Jesus, so this is not an atribute only he shared. As Matter of fact, God does not need miracles, as he would be himself the very existence and would not need to alter anything.


--Matthew 9:6 shows he has the power to forgive sins, which belongs to God alone. “Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins....” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.””

The Son of Man (why dont you use this in your arguments?) has the authority, not the sole authority. That was basically a rabinic role.


--John 1:3 shows that Jesus was created the world, an action rightly ascribed to God alone. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

There is no reference to Jesus here.


--Finally, it would be blasphemy for any but the Lord to receive the same honor as the Lord. Yet, in John 5:22,23 we read “ Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”

you are ignoring on purpose the previous part that Jesus say that the son cannt do anything without the father, the father gave him those powers, which would show that clearly they are 2 different individuals and all divine power you claim jesus had was a temporary gift from other was working thru him? Pretty much like Moses before?

[Charles Darnay]

I am admittedly confused about your thesis: "The New Testament teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ."

To me, this sounds like proving that "a calculus textbook teaches the importance of calculus"....or to bring it to a less hyperbolic state: "a Platonic dialogue shows the supreme intellect of Socrates above all others."....the answer to both of these, and your thesis...."well, yes...of course it does."

The New Testament, written by Jesus' disciples was written to promote the divinity of Jesus. Is there any way to argue against this narrow point? Bring in history, other texts, &c. and you start to see an argument to Jesus' divinity...but I cannot see a point in trying to defend a book for doing what it specifically sets out to do.

[cafolini]

No doubt, Jesus was indeed a superstar. But I like John Wayne better.

[Electric]

Hey, Hello everyone in this thread, I would like to participate in this useful exchange. I have little time right now, but hope this thread remains open and no one gets personal. We can avoid the site mediators shutting down the thread that way.

Many people don't like religion and feel offended, for those of us interested in it, we must conduct ourselves properly and be an example to others. There is no need to get offensive, upset or angry.

I will be back later. Thanks to the thread intiator. And in the interest of Disclosure, I am a muslim, born to muslim parents and spent most of time in the Unites States.

[cafolini]

Hey, Hello everyone in this thread, I would like to participate in this useful exchange. I have little time right now, but hope this thread remains open and no one gets personal. We can avoid the site mediators shutting down the thread that way.

Many people don't like religion and feel offended, for those of us interested in it, we must conduct ourselves properly and be an example to others. There is no need to get offensive, upset or angry.

I will be back later. Thanks to the thread intiator. And in the interest of Disclosure, I am a muslim, born to muslim parents and spent most of time in the Unites States.

We'll wait for you, Electric. Do you mind if we do other things while we wait?

[Charles Darnay]

We'll wait for you, Electric. Do you mind if we do other things while we wait?

Like composing a poem while standing on my head? Hmm, I should probably get back to work (if only they were one and the same.)

[togre]

I am admittedly confused about your thesis: "The New Testament teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ."

To me, this sounds like proving that "a calculus textbook teaches the importance of calculus"....or to bring it to a less hyperbolic state: "a Platonic dialogue shows the supreme intellect of Socrates above all others."....the answer to both of these, and your thesis...."well, yes...of course it does."

The New Testament, written by Jesus' disciples was written to promote the divinity of Jesus. Is there any way to argue against this narrow point? Bring in history, other texts, &c. and you start to see an argument to Jesus' divinity...but I cannot see a point in trying to defend a book for doing what it specifically sets out to do.

Thank you for your honest criticism. I am aware that I am not making convincing arguments that will not change the minds of people regarding the divinity of Jesus. What you take as a given (that the New Testament teaches Jesus' divinity) was disputed by the quotes I cited. I hope that we can reach agreement on at least what is taught by the New Testament. I have no hope we will agree on the value of what is taught.



Hey, Hello everyone in this thread, I would like to participate in this useful exchange.

I will be back later. Thanks to the thread intiator. And in the interest of Disclosure, I am a muslim, born to muslim parents and spent most of time in the Unites States.

Thank you in turn. I hope we can find some room for discussion. I'll be as patient as I can :)

[JCamilo]

I am admittedly confused about your thesis: "The New Testament teaches the divinity of Jesus Christ."

To me, this sounds like proving that "a calculus textbook teaches the importance of calculus"....or to bring it to a less hyperbolic state: "a Platonic dialogue shows the supreme intellect of Socrates above all others."....the answer to both of these, and your thesis...."well, yes...of course it does."

The New Testament, written by Jesus' disciples was written to promote the divinity of Jesus. Is there any way to argue against this narrow point? Bring in history, other texts, &c. and you start to see an argument to Jesus' divinity...but I cannot see a point in trying to defend a book for doing what it specifically sets out to do.

Simply because the four gospels do not try to prove jesus divinity and are not written with this purpose. Some directly only try to show he is the messias, which is not a divinity. As you may imagine, the gospels are hebraic and they are monoteists, the whole divine interpretation of jesus is something that starts decades after it, based on roman interpretation of the gospels.

[togre]

It is only tedious, because it is prententious. You are trying to discuss something took centuries of religious scholars and they at least have the original text to manage to never come to conclusive evidences. But in your case, the arguments are nowhere as good.

I'll grant that is topic is tedious and that my arguments may well have weakness. So? Does that fact that greater minds than you or I have discussed this mean we aren't permitted to? Does that preclude the possibility of the non-geniuses from knowing or discovering anything?

Furthermore, you make the unsupported assumption that we have no access to "the original text." This is laughable. If you would like to support this claim, I would be happy to engage it in a new thread.




You seem to not understand that those names are not blasphemous. In fact, even someone saying God is not, as the name used in the texts to refer to god was exactly build in a non-blasphemous way. But...

What names (according to the Bible) are reserved for God alone?



Be called the Son of God, the most bold we can find, that usually is found in John, is not exactly a blasphemy. And it is not divine per si at all.

Ah, but that's not the title to which I was referring. Please forgive me for not being more explicit in my use of passages--I was trying to avoid tedium. 1 John 5:20 says "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. " He is the true God. What is the antecedent to 'He'? Following both the train of thought and grammatical usage it is "Jesus Christ". Is calling someone "true God" who isn't God blasphemy or not?



Savior is just a reference to the messiah, which is neither divine or a title that was only atributed to Jesus.

Again, read the whole thing. Luke 2:11 "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord." Christ the Lord. Doesn't that name, Lord, refer to God?




about 4% of male population of Jesus's region had the same name as him. And the number of names that made reference as God in their significance is enourmous. Anyways, Immanuel is just another reference to Issaiah, used before Jesus, thus not a title only he could accept and you were just streching, as angel is saying it will justify this prophecy, but not Jesus himself is not called Immanuel. The angel, as most literate man, liked to make references.

I am missing your point here. Isaiah is never called Immanuel. Isaiah prophesied about one who would be called Immanuel. According to the New Testament that title is giving to Jesus (that's what it means when it says, "they will call his name Immanuel"). How does that not mean Jesus was given the title Immanuel, which mean "God with us?" Yes the angel is quoting Isaiah, but says the prophecy is fulfilled in the events happening.



This is John again, and most people just agree that original words, although very respectful, are not a claim he is God. And that even before, they could be used for other prophets.

What textual evidence do you have for words other than these? Who was an eyewitness to the events, the "most people" to whom you refer or John?

Secondly, really? Calling someone "My Lord and My God!" is just "very respectful"? I'll let the words mean what they say. And note there is no rebuke from Jesus, who told Peter "Get behind me, Satan" when Peter was wrong about something spiritually important.



Acts only proof that Paul interpretation is the one you claim. That is all.

First John can't be trusted because he teaches Jesus is God, now Paul? Boy it's like all the Bible writers were in on this. :out: And Paul didn't write Acts. Strong internal and external evidence has Luke as the author.

If you want to advance an argument about internal disagree within the New Testament and revisionist history, etc, etc, please make your arguments to establish the validity of this school of thought (it might best be in a separate thread).



The word is in the begining, not Jesus.

Read the entire chapter and tell me the word isn't Jesus. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the divinity of Jesus address this passage not by arguing that "the Word" isn't a title for Jesus, but by sloppy grammar on the absence of a definite article [sloppy, because in Greek the predicate nominative in a sentence with a "to be" verb is often identified by the absence of a definite article even while the noun remains definite in nature.]




Altougth it is irrelevant that the autorship of this part is controversial, this does not show omniscience. Peter is just being respectful to a wise man.

I again dispute the "controversial" nature of the authorship. I dispute that Jesus allowed people to suck up by saying things that were untrue about him or even hyperbole. I further support the claim that Jesus is described as omniscient by the numerous other instances where he knew the hearts and minds of people. Such as

--Matthew 9:4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

--Luke 9:47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him.




That is an opinion of others about him. It is not like you said, anything Jesus accepted.

Isn't the scope of the discussion what the New Testament says about Jesus? So you acknowledge that the author of the letter to the Hebrews describes Jesus as "the same yesterday, today and forever." because the author is comfortable stating that Jesus is God? So what books are left that don't explicitly support my argument?




The first example is not exactly omnipresence. And this is obviously symbolic, not literal but it is certainly not omnipresence, as I am alone writing, not in his name, therefore, he cann't be there, as would an omnipresent being. Plus, there is more than one momment that Jesus was not present in the events of the gospels, or even promisses he will return (someone that is always everywhere, does not return as it never lefts).

I admit discussing the mode of presence is a complicated matter. But I'll boil it down a little. Is God omnipresent? Yes. Well, why can't I see him? Because it is not a visible presence or a bodily presence, which makes sense because God is not a corporeal being. Can Jesus be present in the way he promises to be present or are these just warm and fuzzy well wishes? [I'll be there in spirit.] Obviously no mere human can be present in multiple places at the same time. Also, observation (as well as statements about returning visibly) lead us not to expect Jesus presences to be visible or bodily with his people. Yet he seems clearly to be saying he will be present in a way that God is present with his people in their worship and in their lives. I can see no way to deny Jesus' omnipresence that doesn't at the same time strip the Father of the same attribute.



That is good, because not only Jesus ever claimed to be god doing miracles, there is certainly a big number of miracle workers before Jesus, so this is not an atribute only he shared. As Matter of fact, God does not need miracles, as he would be himself the very existence and would not need to alter anything.

As this isn't central to the discussion, I'll not pursue an number of disagreements. Sufficed to say, no man can do miracles by himself (that is, apart from someone who has the power (either God, or at times with false prophets, Satan). No, God does not need miracles, but an interesting side discussion would be the role of miracles in the Bible. (But that would be yet another new thread)


The Son of Man (why dont you use this in your arguments?) has the authority, not the sole authority. That was basically a rabinic role.

Please provide evidence that Jesus was fulfilling a "rabbinic role" in forgiving sins. The teachers of the law present saw this as a usurping of God's prerogatives.

Regarding the Son of Man, I didn't reference it because I was not seeking to support the human nature of Jesus. But now that you bring it up, this title does support Jesus' deity. Why did Jesus use this title most often? Because so many of the other titles (Christ, Savior, Son of David, etc.) had been weighted down with cultural baggage, warping their significance from names of God's Chosen Redeemer from sins into the Guy Who Will Make Our Nation Great Again. "Son of Man" is a lesser known name for the coming Savior that, by virtue of its obscurity, was baggage free. However read the prophecy where it is first used.

Daniel 7:13-14 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. "



There is no reference to Jesus here.

<Sigh> Here is the full context of the verse. Please explain how it does not refer to Jesus

--John 1:1-15
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’” 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.


you are ignoring on purpose the previous part that Jesus say that the son cannt do anything without the father, the father gave him those powers, which would show that clearly they are 2 different individuals and all divine power you claim jesus had was a temporary gift from other was working thru him? Pretty much like Moses before?

Here you have something that bears fleshing out and discussing at length. Are there passages that point to Jesus and his Father as two distinct individuals? Yes, that's part of the understanding of God being three persons and yet one God. There are passages that express this unity as well. Are there passages that speak of Jesus as having limitations or being subordinate to his Father? Yes, that's part of understanding that Jesus had taken on a human nature and understanding that he dwelt here in a humbled state in order to achieve his purpose of salvation.

The point of my argument is not that there no passages conflict with the understanding that the New Testament teaches the divinity of Jesus. My point is to show sufficient evidence for his divinity, that making sense of the other passages can't be done by shrugging off or ignoring the evidence for his divinity. Rather to accurately portray the New Testaments understanding of Jesus one must include that he was portrayed to be divine, that is, to be God. That's not the end, but its something important.

[Electric]

Thank you for your honest criticism. I am aware that I am not making convincing arguments that will not change the minds of people regarding the divinity of Jesus. What you take as a given (that the New Testament teaches Jesus' divinity) was disputed by the quotes I cited. I hope that we can reach agreement on at least what is taught by the New Testament. I have no hope we will agree on the value of what is taught.




Thank you in turn. I hope we can find some room for discussion. I'll be as patient as I can :)




Hi Togre,


My intent is not to malign and belittle Jesus peace be upon him. Also, my intent is not to deny any right jesus has claimed for himself. Doing both would nullify my faith, so for me to remain a muslim, acceptance of Jesus and all previous messengers/prophets is part of faith, total acceptance of what they brought to mankind. With that said, Islam also teaches us that the original message of Jesus was changed and people made new doctrines that are in conflict with the original message of Jesus. It starts with who Jesus was and what was his mission. Was he God? Son of God,? A devine being? In Islam, anything short of Monotheism is considered blasphemy including attribution of Son to God Almighty and setting up equals to His Majesty. Following Jesus's words, am sure you will conclude what I am saying is not something new. So, let us focus on defining Jesus based on his words, his mission based on his words etc. In Islam, A messenger is the only authority whose words count, anyone else(like paul) can be rejected if they contradict what the messenger taught. That logic is a safeguard to religion so no one adds anything to it, or takes something away from it just because they don't like it.

[Electric]

Togre, Question for you, any definition of "The WORD"? How do you define what the "Word" is? In islam, The Word is defined as "Be". To quote a verse from the Quran:3:59 "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam, He created him from Dust, then said to him: Be: and he was"

You can find equal meaning to that from the bible in Genesis 1:3 And God said "Let there be". That is the meaning of the Word. It doesn't say Jesus is the word does it? What is your take on this interpretation?


Also, does a devine being pray to another devine being? Would that make sense to you? And doesn't the act of praying to God indicate a separation of entities? the one praying(Jesus) and the one prayed to(God almighty)? You know Jesus prayed regularly to God which points out who he considered himself to be, a servant of God, a man who served the Will of His creator. A man who follwed his teachings of prayer.

[Charles Darnay]

Simply because the four gospels do not try to prove jesus divinity and are not written with this purpose. Some directly only try to show he is the messias, which is not a divinity. As you may imagine, the gospels are hebraic and they are monoteists, the whole divine interpretation of jesus is something that starts decades after it, based on roman interpretation of the gospels.

I was unaware that there was a difference (in the Christian perspective) between Jesus as Messiah and Jesus as Divine. In Judaism, most (except for a small sect) disregard Jesus as the Messiah, let alone Divine - I thought they were one and the same. Nonetheless, when comparing the gospels to other chroniclers (say, Josephus in Book 18-20 of "Antiquities of the Jews") there is a distinct difference in how the gospels treat Jesus, which in my view (based on what research I have done in this area) is the promotion of Jesus as Divine. He needed to be large enough to get people to follow him, further, he needed to be intrinsically woven into the Mishnah, and the only way to do so would be to put him on a level that while not quite God, exceeded mortality.

[JCamilo]

I'll grant that is topic is tedious and that my arguments may well have weakness. So? Does that fact that greater minds than you or I have discussed this mean we aren't permitted to? Does that preclude the possibility of the non-geniuses from knowing or discovering anything?

Furthermore, you make the unsupported assumption that we have no access to "the original text." This is laughable. If you would like to support this claim, I would be happy to engage it in a new thread.

I would find laughable if the idea that you had the original text and yet opted to build arguments on semantics of the english translation.



What names (according to the Bible) are reserved for God alone?

Absolutely irrelevant. The gospel writers did not come to blasphemy, specially considering they wanted to avoid the accusation against them and Jesus of this samething.



Ah, but that's not the title to which I was referring. Please forgive me for not being more explicit in my use of passages--I was trying to avoid tedium. 1 John 5:20 says "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. " He is the true God. What is the antecedent to 'He'? Following both the train of thought and grammatical usage it is "Jesus Christ". Is calling someone "true God" who isn't God blasphemy or not?

No. Following the train of thought, He is the one that Jesus showed that he is true. The sentence clearly talk about two different Personas: Jesus and the one he showed was true. The text obviously states the difference between the Son and the one who is true. The tittle of true God is not applied to Jesus at all, so the only title to jesus is "Son of God".





Again, read the whole thing. Luke 2:11 "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord." Christ the Lord. Doesn't that name, Lord, refer to God?

No, and that is when having the orginal translation could be handy. Futhermore, Lord is hardly a title that could only be given and was used by Jesus. I thought your claim was to show exclusive divine titles that he accepted.






I am missing your point here. Isaiah is never called Immanuel. Isaiah prophesied about one who would be called Immanuel. According to the New Testament that title is giving to Jesus (that's what it means when it says, "they will call his name Immanuel"). How does that not mean Jesus was given the title Immanuel, which mean "God with us?" Yes the angel is quoting Isaiah, but says the prophecy is fulfilled in the events happening.

Immanuel is commun name (so not a divine name that Jesus accepted), which was used before by Isaiah. There is a couple of names which meaninng has this kind of reference like john which means is Good is generous. And this does not imply it is a divine name or title.
Futhermore, the angel calls Jesus by Jesus and just quoted Isaiah, not exactly calling him Immanuel. And Immanuel is not a divine figure, but a mortal person, even if Jesus adopted the title, which he does not. Jesus name itself means something akim to Lord's Salvation, but it would be a really poor argument towards his divinity.



What textual evidence do you have for words other than these? Who was an eyewitness to the events, the "most people" to whom you refer or John?

Very few scholars believe those days John, the apostle was the writer of the gospel. Anyways, I did not said anything about other words, but that some other authors claim from original source those titles where used for other improtant figures.


Secondly, really? Calling someone "My Lord and My God!" is just "very respectful"? I'll let the words mean what they say. And note there is no rebuke from Jesus, who told Peter "Get behind me, Satan" when Peter was wrong about something spiritually important.

Yes, they are not a claim of divinity just like Jesus didnt claim Peter was a evil spirit by calling Satan. I urge you to use the same reasoning or do you claim Peter is the devil?





First John can't be trusted because he teaches Jesus is God, now Paul? Boy it's like all the Bible writers were in on this. :out: And Paul didn't write Acts. Strong internal and external evidence has Luke as the author.

He does not, albeit he is the most strong source for those claims. But Paul cann't be used (Luke wrote, under Paul influence, the acts are reflections of his doctrine) simple because you claimed you would use evidences that Jesus accept those names and the Acts of Apostles do not show it. Show the Apostles that may be giving to Jesus such atributes.


If you want to advance an argument about internal disagree within the New Testament and revisionist history, etc, etc, please make your arguments to establish the validity of this school of thought (it might best be in a separate thread).

I am not arguing this. I am arguing you claimed you would show us Jesus accepting those titles and the Acts show nothing of his reaction.





Read the entire chapter and tell me the word isn't Jesus. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the divinity of Jesus address this passage not by arguing that "the Word" isn't a title for Jesus, but by sloppy grammar on the absence of a definite article [sloppy, because in Greek the predicate nominative in a sentence with a "to be" verb is often identified by the absence of a definite article even while the noun remains definite in nature.]

No it is not. It is a very hebrewish form to show God is pure being, a thing that is. His manifestation. It is not Jesus at all and I will certainly not use Jehohavan Witnesses over anything that is showing what people in First Century thought.






I again dispute the "controversial" nature of the authorship. I dispute that Jesus allowed people to suck up by saying things that were untrue about him or even hyperbole.

Sorry, but you are preaching or arguing? There is a considerable number of "heretic" gospels, so many people said many things abou Jesus that is untrue. Well, some guys say he never died (take the Muslims for example). Where is Jesus stopping them to say something is not "untrue". Jesus is brazilian. Hey, by your argument he would stop me from writing. So, really, if you believe Jesus is divine, I have no argument against it. But this does not help the case for the Gospels claims.


I further support the claim that Jesus is described as omniscient by the numerous other instances where he knew the hearts and minds of people. Such as

--Matthew 9:4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

--Luke 9:47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him.


Sorry, but Jesus asks him something because he does not know. So he is not omniscient or it is just a rethorical figure and of course, the hundred of times I have used those expressions to people didnt prove I am divine and dialogues that are like Pinky and the Brain will do no good.





Isn't the scope of the discussion what the New Testament says about Jesus? So you acknowledge that the author of the letter to the Hebrews describes Jesus as "the same yesterday, today and forever." because the author is comfortable stating that Jesus is God? So what books are left that don't explicitly support my argument?

Absolutely, but this proofs his followers gave him those atributes, not himself.






I admit discussing the mode of presence is a complicated matter. But I'll boil it down a little. Is God omnipresent? Yes. Well, why can't I see him? Because it is not a visible presence or a bodily presence, which makes sense because God is not a corporeal being. Can Jesus be present in the way he promises to be present or are these just warm and fuzzy well wishes? [I'll be there in spirit.] Obviously no mere human can be present in multiple places at the same time. Also, observation (as well as statements about returning visibly) lead us not to expect Jesus presences to be visible or bodily with his people. Yet he seems clearly to be saying he will be present in a way that God is present with his people in their worship and in their lives. I can see no way to deny Jesus' omnipresence that doesn't at the same time strip the Father of the same attribute.

Jesus just didnt claim to be omnipresent. He claimed he will be present under certain circustances. It is considerably different. And this of course goes against Luke who says Jesus parted from the disciples, something impossible to someone omniscient.





As this isn't central to the discussion, I'll not pursue an number of disagreements. Sufficed to say, no man can do miracles by himself (that is, apart from someone who has the power (either God, or at times with false prophets, Satan). No, God does not need miracles, but an interesting side discussion would be the role of miracles in the Bible. (But that would be yet another new thread)

No denil Jesus perform Miracles. But does he claim it is because he is god or because God gave him the power. Moses perform wondrous feats too, and this does not make him divine but working for the divine.




Please provide evidence that Jesus was fulfilling a "rabbinic role" in forgiving sins. The teachers of the law present saw this as a usurping of God's prerogatives.

Jesus was not a rabi, so he was doing it. Also if recall, they complain because it was sabath, anyways, the entire temple had structures for repentence and forgiveness of sins and the priests talked in name of god, and Jesus talk in name of god. (he clearly claim to receive this incumbence from God, if he had it, why to receive it)


Regarding the Son of Man, I didn't reference it because I was not seeking to support the human nature of Jesus. But now that you bring it up, this title does support Jesus' deity. Why did Jesus use this title most often? Because so many of the other titles (Christ, Savior, Son of David, etc.) had been weighted down with cultural baggage, warping their significance from names of God's Chosen Redeemer from sins into the Guy Who Will Make Our Nation Great Again. "Son of Man" is a lesser known name for the coming Savior that, by virtue of its obscurity, was baggage free. However read the prophecy where it is first used.

He uses this title because it was a usual title used by hebrews, used before for prophets and kings. The others (Savior he uses, Son of David is only relevant at first when he was more linked to the Messiah, the break with Jews made the title awkward, and Christ... well, he was probally not very good to know that 2000 years he would be Jesus Christ, right).





<Sigh> Here is the full context of the verse. Please explain how it does not refer to Jesus

You would first try to show where is Jesus, until he was created by the Word, an reckonized attribute of God, by jewish religious studies. John applied it, the Word is with God (it is not god), and it is the attribute that "made it be" and then made Jesus be. Clearly is not, this is clearly a reference to God and the translation is just truning the Word made flesh to became to flesh.






Here you have something that bears fleshing out and discussing at length. Are there passages that point to Jesus and his Father as two distinct individuals? Yes, that's part of the understanding of God being three persons and yet one God. There are passages that express this unity as well. Are there passages that speak of Jesus as having limitations or being subordinate to his Father? Yes, that's part of understanding that Jesus had taken on a human nature and understanding that he dwelt here in a humbled state in order to achieve his purpose of salvation.

There is? Where? There is even the word plays with Caifas and Pilatos where he got as far as saying it is the Son of God, not God.


The point of my argument is not that there no passages conflict with the understanding that the New Testament teaches the divinity of Jesus. My point is to show sufficient evidence for his divinity, that making sense of the other passages can't be done by shrugging off or ignoring the evidence for his divinity. Rather to accurately portray the New Testaments understanding of Jesus one must include that he was portrayed to be divine, that is, to be God. That's not the end, but its something important.

My Point is in no passage you find Jesus making those claims. You may find his disciples, but so it like you claiming, an matter of faith.

[Electric]

JCAMILO is good. I shouldn't bother contributing to the topic and let the informed brighten the thread with their knowledge.


Togre, thanks for your considerate replies. Hopefully, you will take the time to get to know a muslim. You will find a lot of similarities and fundamental differences between you and that person. You will gain more by getting to know someone different or reading Islamic material. You have got nothing to lose.


I pray for our guidance in general, and for you to find the path Jesus took. Thanks again.

[ShadowsCool]

blah blah

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

:rolleyes5:

[ShadowsCool]

:rolleyes5:

LOL I must be doing something right.

[Scheherazade]

A: Discussion of any and all faiths and spiritualities, and religious and or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to respect the beliefs of others.
Respect the fact that someone might not agree with you.
Respect the fact that there are others with different points of view.
Respect the fact that people are entitled to post their opinion as long as it is done in a way that is not inflammatory or disrespectful to others.
Respect the fact that there are members here representing myriad faiths, religions and spiritualities.

.

B: These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

[cafolini]

The Romans selected the Jesus of Nazareth among the hundreds in the Diaspora and turned him into a divine superstar in the New Testament. There is no doubt about that, regardless of how grotesque it might seem to those who don't believe it.
It is written. Who could be fair and argue against this demonstrable and easy to quote thread?

[ShadowsCool]

The Romans selected the Jesus of Nazareth among the hundreds in the Diaspora and turned him into a divine superstar in the New Testament. There is no doubt about that, regardless of how grotesque it might seem to those who don't believe it.
It is written. Who could be fair and argue against this demonstrable and easy to quote thread?

Thanks for enlightening me. So there are 2 billion Christians in the world because of a Roman myth. Got it.

[cafolini]

Thanks for enlightening me. So there are 2 billion Christians in the world because of a Roman myth. Got it.

I'm glad you got it. It wasn't my intention to enlighten you, but if I did, I'm also glad about that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

LOL I must be doing something right.

Fo sho. :D