Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?

[Great I am not]

Just to tell you "Greatest" this thread is about "Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?" . Use biblical evedince rather then just emotional out bursts which are leading this thread off topic.

Ok but to use the words Bible and evidence in the same phrase, is rather novel.


There has never been any evidence for god at all. The bible certainly has no proof of anything.

I found God but I had to look elsewhere than a Bible. The proof is out there for all to see. Not in a book.

If you want proof, it will have to come from reality, not from fiction.

The Bible is fiction unless you believe in talking snakes and seven headed monsters.

Do you?

Regards
DL

 

[Zafran]

Ok but to use the words Bible and evidence in the same phrase, is rather novel.


There has never been any evidence for god at all. The bible certainly has no proof of anything.

I found God but I had to look elsewhere than a Bible. The proof is out there for all to see. Not in a book.

If you want proof, it will have to come from reality, not from fiction.

The Bible is fiction unless you believe in talking snakes and seven headed monsters.

Do you?

Regards
DL

Depends on the definition of "evedince" - Besides the thread is about "Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?"

So the thread is specifically focuing on the bible and what it says about Christ - Its not about subjective emotional outbursts if you think the bible is fiction or not. If you want to talk about that make another thread.

 

[aamirsaab]

Short reminder:
Please stay on topic.

As you were.

 

[Walter]

Now, turning back to the actual topic of the thread, I wish to ask this of the OP.

Given that historic orthodox Christian theology has stated in its ecumenical creeds that Jesus is divine.
And given that the primary source for Christian theology is the Bible.
And given that you propose that no where in the Bible is Jesus presented as being divine.
Then it must be that the compilers of those ecumenical creeds adapted this view either out of their own imaginations or some other source.


This poses the following set of questions:
1) If the creators of those creeds didn't find the substantiation for their beliefs in the Bible, then where do you propose that they found it?
2) Why would they have altered their Bible-based faith to include something that was not found in the Bible?
3) Why did the church continue to teach these views, which is not Biblical would be heretical, throughout all subsequent history?
4) Why would the reformers, who were so intent on returning to Biblical Christianity from which they thought the Church has strayed, accept rather than re-examine the divinity of Jesus?

Hi Grace Seeker:

Your questions are all answered in Brothers Kept Apart. However, I will try to summarise; however, you should read the book for a complete answer.

1. There are over 20,000 pages of early church manuscripts between the time of Jesus and Mohammed which describe the development of Christian religious taditions. They are all described in the book, which is the culmination of 30 years of research. It is these traditions that were around during Mohammed's lifetime that Mohammed was responding to rather than what is written in the Bible.

Justin Martyr was the first to explicitly, and without dispute, write that Jesus was God around 150 AD in his "Dialogue with Trypho".

2. The reports of the church councils in which these creeds were developed, confirm that there was no opportunity to verify the assumptions upon which the interpretations of various evidence was based. Those who attempted to verify such assumptions were deemed a heretic, denounced, accursed, excommunicated, exiled, impoverished, had property confiscated, beaten, murdered, and had their writings burnt, and their opinions misconstrued. Therefore, it is easy to see how unpopular teachings could forcibly become established traditions and doctrines.

You asked why? Let Jesus tell you.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20)​

3. It is only recently that people have started to scientifically examine theological evidence without fear of persecution, although it depends where you live. It is still very dangerous in Islamic countries.

4. Dittio. It should be noted that the Apostles Creed, which is believed to have been recited by the apostles, does not teach nor imply that Jesus is God.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, thank-you for your answers. While I don't find them satisfactory in terms of answering my questions in such a way that would lead me to agree with you, and therefore still dispute the conclusions you present, I will acknowledge that you did try to answer the questions and did not evade them. They are your answers to those questions and that is all that I was asking for.

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

If our goal is to seek the truth, then please consider that what I have written is easily verifiable. None of the writings of the first disciples of the apostles suggested, or even implied that Jesus is God. Not Clement and Barnabus, whose works were included in the early Bibles, nor Mathetes, Papius or Polycarp.

As I previously mentioned, Justin Martyr was the first, and he was a third generation follower of Jesus. Still, where could he have learnt this? It appears that he did not learn it from anyone, but he deuced it himself. He was a philosopher who converted to Christianity. Rather than simply accepting what was taught, his philosopher trained mind seemed to want to know the how and why. This is also how the Achillas/Arias debate appeared to start during the time of Constantine almost two centuries later - persons, not content to accept the explicit teachings of the Bible, but wanting to speculate on the how and the why.

Such speculations are OK, provided that they consciously remain in the realm of speculation. However, as the centuries go by, and the originators of the speculative ideas become conferred with special status and authority after their deaths, especially if they happened to be martyred, as Justin Martyr was, then their speculative ideas can develop into authorised teachings.

The problem is when such authorised teachings become universal creeds and doctrines with violent consequences for any who simply try to verify the assumptions upon which such speculative interpretations were based.

History shows that we have had a relatively short 200 year window do engage in this type of scientific analysis without the previous harmful persecution. We can see this window of opportunity closing – simply examine the integrity of any ‘debate’ on any topic with an influential political agenda, and the subsequent vilification of the person on the politically incorrect side. Grace Seeker, you will probably never see another book, with the integrity of the research being carried as honestly as you will find in Brothers Kept Apart, for quite some time.

Regards,
Grenville

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:18-19)

 

[Jenny]

The Bible does NOT teach in any place,that Jesus was God.He always calling himself "son of God",never God.Of course,not the physical son,God is a ghost,He has no body,so He cannot have sex-so Jesus was a spiritual son,not physical.

 

[Walter]

The Bible does NOT teach in any place,that Jesus was God.He always calling himself "son of God",never God.Of course,not the physical son,God is a ghost,He has no body,so He cannot have sex-so Jesus was a spiritual son,not physical.

Dear Jenny:

We seem to agree that the Biblical support for Jesus being God is very weak, and has been an unnecessary Christian religious traditional barrier that has kept Christians and Muslims apart for the past 1.300 years. However, I trust that we also agree that the Biblical evidence for Jesus being the Son of God and Messiah, who will return to judge the world, is indisputable.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)​

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Jenny]

Stop going round in circles

FYI 3 --> tri --> trinity

Definitions of trinity on the Web:

• three: the cardinal number that is the sum of one and one and one
• the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead
• trio: three people considered as a unit
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Trinity does not mean in any way,that Jesus was God.God gave The Holy Ghost to Jesus,to enable him to fulfil his mission.The Holy Ghost is a power and a wisdom coming from God,it`s God`s gift and His way of expression in Jesus.That what we admire in Trinity,is God and His wisdom,power and ways of acting.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

If our goal is to seek the truth, then please consider that what I have written is easily verifiable. None of the writings of the first disciples of the apostles suggested, or even implied that Jesus is God. Not Clement and Barnabus, whose works were included in the early Bibles, nor Mathetes, Papius or Polycarp.

The problem with this argument is that simply to make the assertion that Jesus was the Son of God was in fact understood by their contemporaries as an assertion that Jesus was God. John thought that he was explicitly saying as much when he wrote his Gospel.

And there are plenty of places where Jesus' divinity is implied. One of them ia a passage that many here on LI like to use as evidence against it, the story of Jesus and the rich young ruler (found in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18). Jesus is approached by one who addresses him as "Good Teacher" to which Jesus responds asking the man why he (the man) called him (Jesus) good as only God is good. Now many see in this evidence that Jesus is saying that he is not good. But never, in even one of these accounts, does Jesus say any such thing. But what they then fail to do is consider the rest of the conversation. The man is seeking information from Jesus as to how to achieve eternal life. Jesus asks him what he knows of what God requires, and the man answers by identifying of God that we are all to submit to. (That should no doubt please Muslims.) The man then goes on to claim that he has kept them. And this then is where the story takes a twist (Muslims would no doubt say that this is where it gets corrupted). Jesus tells the man that he still lacks something. That which he lacks is that he needs to give up all that he has and follow Jesus. Now, remember that this is a key to eternal life. Following the commandments is NOT enough. Rather, following Jesus is. Why, not because following Jesus helps us to be more submissive to God's commands -- this man was already perfect in that aspect of what he was doing, and it wasn't enough. No, because following Jesus is following God, and ultimately that is what we are called to do. Not submit to a list of things, but to submit to God. That is the implication of that passage. And the best way for us to do that is to follow Jesus, because to follow him is to follow God.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Trinity does not mean in any way,that Jesus was God.God gave The Holy Ghost to Jesus,to enable him to fulfil his mission.The Holy Ghost is a power and a wisdom coming from God,it`s God`s gift and His way of expression in Jesus.That what we admire in Trinity,is God and His wisdom,power and ways of acting.

Your definition does not jive with that which you yourself just quoted from the internet that Trinity is "the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead". And it certainly does not jive with the teachings of historic, orthodox Christianity for the last 2000 years.

 

[Walter]

No, because following Jesus is following God, and ultimately that is what we are called to do. Not submit to a list of things, but to submit to God. That is the implication of that passage. And the best way for us to do that is to follow Jesus, because to follow him is to follow God.

Dear GS:

You are making the unverified assumption that Jesus is God since to follow Jesus is to follow God. Please note that Jesus did exactly what God asked Him to do. Hear Jesus for yourself.

I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. (John 5:30)​

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear GS:

You are making the unverified assumption that Jesus is God since to follow Jesus is to follow God.

Indeed I am. How else is it that keeping the commandments that God has giving results in the man still lacking one thing? And how is it that by following Jesus that it results in eternal life, unless there is more to following Jesus than in just keeping the commands that God has given us? The only thing different about the man keeping the commands of God himself, and keeping them because he is following Jesus as Jesus keeps the commands of God is that in following Jesus he is doing more than just keeping commands. What more could that be? I suggest that in following Jesus he is actually not just keeping God's commands, but is doing something more than that. It must be, because just keeping God's commands, at least according to Jesus, is not sufficient for receiving eternal life. The only thing that I can conceive of as being of a higher order than God's word is God himself.

 

[Great I am not]

Jesus the so called God doesn't have knowledge about the last day
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32

Jesus the so called God cries to himself when he was crucified
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (hebrew) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (english)
Mathew 27:46

Regards
DL

 

[Walter]

And there are plenty of places where Jesus' divinity is implied.

Dear Grace Seeker:

You seem to keep arriving at your interpretations by implying and speculating rather than an effortless common-sense reading of the passage. Perhaps you could ponder and then respond to the following queries.

1. Do you agree that doctrines should not be based on verses that are vulnerable to diverse interpretations?

2. Do you agree that the verses that are used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are subject to diverse interpretations?

3. What are the consequences of Jesus not being God?

4. What Biblical verses are damaged by Jesus being exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible – the Messiah and Son of God?

5. Are you actually defending the Bible or a religious tradition?

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Jesus the so called God doesn't have knowledge about the last day
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32

Jesus the so called God cries to himself when he was crucified
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (hebrew) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (english)
Mathew 27:46

Regards
DL

Dear DL:

While you clearly do not accept the religious tradition that Jesus is God, do you accept the explicit Biblical teaching that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God?

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

You seem to keep arriving at your interpretations by implying and speculating rather than an effortless common-sense reading of the passage. Perhaps you could ponder and then respond to the following queries.

1. Do you agree that doctrines should not be based on verses that are vulnerable to diverse interpretations?

No. As all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations, we would have nothing left on which to base any doctrine.

2. Do you agree that the verses that are used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are subject to diverse interpretations?

I just said that all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations. I don't think that the verses used to suppoert the teaching that Jesus is God are any more so than any other verses in scripture, in fact I think people who approach the scriptures without a pre-formed view of what they hope to find would see that they do point to Jesus being understood by the writers of the NT as divine.

3. What are the consequences of Jesus not being God?

That we are left unreconciled to God.


[quiote]4. What Biblical verses are damaged by Jesus being exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible – the Messiah and Son of God?[/quote]None. The only damage is being done by your interpretation that Son of God means something less than God incarnate.

5. Are you actually defending the Bible or a religious tradition?

Neither. The Bible stands as it is. It doesn't need me to defend it. Nor do I care one whit for religious tradition. What I am defending the integrity of the meaning of the original writers of the scripture which I believe you have discarded to arrive at the conclusions you have reached.

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

1. I asked you whether you agreed that doctrines should not be based on verses that are vulnerable to diverse interpretations. You replied.

No. As all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations, we would have nothing left on which to base any doctrine.

While all verses can have more than one interpretation, all verses are not vulnerable to diverse interpretations. Vulnerability exists where there is insufficient corroborating evidence to verify the assumptions upon which the interpretation was made.

Therefore, beliefs that are based on verses which easily lend themselves to diverse interpretations (because the assumptions cannot be verified) should not become doctrines.

2. I also asked you whether you agreed that the verses that are used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are subject to diverse interpretations?

I just said that all verses are vulnerable to diverse interpretations. I don't think that the verses used to support the teaching that Jesus is God are any more so than any other verses in scripture, in fact I think people who approach the scriptures without a pre-formed view of what they hope to find would see that they do point to Jesus being understood by the writers of the NT as divine.

Please note that the verses used to support the following teachings are not vulnerable to diverse interpretations:

• Jesus was born
• Jesus did many miracles
• Jesus raised the dead
• Jesus was crucified
• Jesus died
• Jesus was resurrected

Perhaps you could explain the diverse interpretations on the many verses that are used to support and corroborate those teachings. In contrast, you can then try to find the many diverse interpretations of the single or relatively few verses that are used to support the following teachings:

• Baptism for the dead.
• Alcoholic wine served at communion.
• Baptism of infants.

3. I asked you what are the consequences of Jesus not being God?

That we are left unreconciled to God.

Perhaps you could explain your answer. The Bible teaches that:

• we are separated from God;
• Jesus is the Messiah sent to reconcile us to God;
• Reconciliation is possible by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

“but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)​

You have added to the Biblical requirement by determining that reconciliation to God is also dependent upon believing that Jesus is God. This determination is entirely dependent upon your fundamental assumption that “Son of God” means “God”. You have not tried to verify your fundamental assumption.

There is a host of conflicting evidence which disallows the verification of your fundamental assumption, yet, you confidently proclaim your unverified assumption as fact. Why do you want to put such an unnecessary burden on those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, including the Muslims. Remember Jesus' warning.

And He said, “Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs....

“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

And as He said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail Him vehemently, and to cross-examine Him about many things, lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch Him in something He might say, that they might accuse Him. (Luke 11:46-54)​

Please reconsider GS.

4. I asked: What Biblical verses are damaged by Jesus being exactly as He is explicitly described to be in the Bible – the Messiah and Son of God?

None. The only damage is being done by your interpretation that Son of God means something less than God incarnate.

None GS? What of these ones from Jesus, who is a credible witness:

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3)​

5. Finally, I asked: Are you actually defending the Bible or a religious tradition?

Neither. The Bible stands as it is. It doesn't need me to defend it. Nor do I care one whit for religious tradition. What I am defending the integrity of the meaning of the original writers of the scripture which I believe you have discarded to arrive at the conclusions you have reached.

GS. Please re-read this thread. You seem to simply dismiss any evidence contrary to your view, while I have examined all of the evidence provided and have presented my findings. Have you read the works of the Apostles’ first disciples, some of which were included in the early Bibles? Do you see any explicit references to Jesus being God, or that explain that “Son of God” means “God? Do you see any such verification evidence in the Bible?

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

You have added to the Biblical requirement by determining that reconciliation to God is also dependent upon believing that Jesus is God. This determination is entirely dependent upon your fundamental assumption that “Son of God” means “God”. You have not tried to verify your fundamental assumption.

As I've said to Yusuf, I have more going on in my life than to spend it in never ending debate. For more on the use of "Son of God" by John as a way of pointing to Jesus' divinity, I simply encourage you to read the literature related to the phrase. I good starting point would be A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd. You might also want to subscribe to Christian History magazine. You claim that I'm working out of assumptions, but at least they are ones that I share with the early church, whereas you are just a guilty of working from assumption, but they are ones you share with Islam not the Church of Jesus of Christ.

 

[Grofica]

The bible says over and over that Jesus was the SON of god. Yet never once does it say he actually is god. He was supposed to be a messenger of god’s words

Jesus was said to be the son of god on top of being a messenger...

If you look at Greek mythology (or religion as they would have said back then) the gods had children with mortals all the time (or Mary for example) and some of those children had extraordinary qualities… however, they themselves were not gods. Perhaps you could even say “1/2 god” or “godly” but yet not a god.

Most all religions also define gods as immortals. From the ancient Egyptians and the Aztecs to even modern day religions... it’s sort of an unspoken prerequisite. Jesus supposedly died for our sins and I understand the why and how of the story but the point is he died. A god is for all time and is not subject to mortality, or in other words mortal… to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang.