Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?

[Grace Seeker]

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.

Perhaps among pagans immortality is the definition of being a god. But not among Christians, nor do I think among Jews nor Muslims. Don't you believe yourself as having been created either to an eternity with God in paradise or apart from God in hell? If so, then we are immortal beings, yet we are not gods.

So, while that which is mortal could not be God, there is much that is immortal that is also not God; therefore, it is unwise to use the standard of mortality vs immortality to determine whether or not Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) is or isn't God.

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.

To say that Jesus died is not to say that he ceased to exist. Not in the slightest. But more important, one needs to shift your criteria away from mortality completely. It is actually irrelevant. More important is whether Jesus is pre-existent of creation. If he pre-exists creation, then he is not a part of creation nor a created being. On this the Bible and the Qur'an dramatically disagree. The Qur'an believes that Jesus was created by God and placed in Mary's womb. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word who was with God (even was God) and through whom all things that were made are made, that Jesus is himself the Creator and not created. The only reason the discussion is continuing is because Grenville simply dismisses those facts and discounts Jesus as the Word to somehow be ain instrument of God, which is not what we are told about the Word in either John or Colossians. But once one accepts this discounting, then the rest of Grenville's unorthodox theology easily follows suit.

 

[Grofica]

Perhaps among pagans immortality is the definition of being a god. But not among Christians, nor do I think among Jews nor Muslims. Don't you believe yourself as having been created either to an eternity with God in paradise or apart from God in hell? If so, then we are immortal beings, yet we are not gods.

Oh, friend how thee hast twisted the words. I never said immortality is the ONLY definition. I said they are defined as… perhaps… described, characterized or labeled would be a more suited word. Our souls spend the eternity with God in heaven or with Lucifer in hell not our bodies. We can die that’s what makes us mortal.

To say that Jesus died is not to say that he ceased to exist. Not in the slightest. But more important, one needs to shift your criteria away from mortality completely. It is actually irrelevant. More important is whether Jesus is pre-existent of creation. If he pre-exists creation, then he is not a part of creation nor a created being.

In Luke 1:35 it says “The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” thus implying that he was created. If I am not mistaken it’s only mentioned previously that it’s what people were waiting for it, but there is not any mention of his being a soul prior.

On this the Bible and the Qur'an dramatically disagree. The Qur'an believes that Jesus was created by God and placed in Mary's womb. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word who was with God (even was God) and through whom all things that were made are made, that Jesus is himself the Creator and not created.

Actually again you could reference the above mentioned Luke passage. The King James (was well as a few others) state that God will come upon her to impregnate her with child. (I am paraphrasing each bible has it worded just a little different but it’s the same story) I grew up in a pretty religiously strong home (the older members being catholic and the younger ones, like my mother, Christen so to say the least the bible was (almost) “beat” into my head. (my mother also made me attend AWANAS and a few other “youth programs”) And sorry but I don’t remember from any Sunday school at any church anyone ever saying Jesus was god. He was always the son of god sent to sacrifice himself for our sins.

The only reason the discussion is continuing is because Grenville simply dismisses those facts and discounts Jesus as the Word to somehow be ain instrument of God, which is not what we are told about the Word in either John or Colossians. But once one accepts this discounting, then the rest of Grenville's unorthodox theology easily follows suit.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion… However I can find no passage that states Jesus IS god… merely that he is the son of god, a messenger of gods word, and a savior to the people.

 

[Walter]

The only reason the discussion is continuing is because Grenville simply dismisses those facts and discounts Jesus as the Word to somehow be an instrument of God, which is not what we are told about the Word in either John or Colossians. But once one accepts this discounting, then the rest of Grenville's unorthodox theology easily follows suit.

Oh Grace Seeker:

Please be honest. That is a terrible and untrue accusation. Every single verse that you, Follower, or anyone else has presented as evidence supporting the view that Jesus is God I have examined honestly. I have dismissed no evidence at all.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

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.

Ok GS:

If you highly recommend this book as one containing the specific evidence that can verify the assumption that "Jesus is God" means "God", then I shall purchase it and read it. Why? Because I am not engaged in debating in order to defend of promote a position, rather, I want to know the truth, and will engage in discussion in order that the truth may be clarified.

The truth is clarified when verses are interpreted honestly. This means that the interpretation must be supported by the evidence, the interpretation must not damage the integrity of the evidence, and the assumptions used in interpreting the evidence must be verified. In addition to this scientific approach, I am constrained by my religious beliefs not to intentionally or inadvertently mislead others.

If the Catholic tradition has honestly interpreted a verse then I will accept it. If the Anglican, Methodist, or Baptist traditions have interpreted verses honestly, then I will accept them. If Islamic tradition has interpreted verses honestly, then I will accept it. However, if verses are interpreted dishonestly, then I cannot accept them.

As I said, I will read the book that you have recommended and will let you know my findings.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Our souls spend the eternity with God in heaven or with Lucifer in hell not our bodies. We can die that’s what makes us mortal.

Our bodies die; but, as you said, our souls don't. I suppose which ever one you think makes your true self determines whether we are mortal or immortal beings. Since at the age of 52 I recognize that I no longer have the same body that I did at 22 but still have the same soul, I'm pretty sure that who I am is not determined by my mortal body but my immortal soul.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The King James (was well as a few others) state that God will come upon her to impregnate her with child. (I am paraphrasing each bible has it worded just a little different but it’s the same story)

I'm not against paraphrases per se, but your particular paraphrase carries with it specific connotations that risk changing the meaning of the passage. If by "impregnate her" you simply mean that God causes Mary to be with child, then fine. But if you mean that God was engaged in sexual reproduction with Mary, then not so fine. The conception of Jesus within Mary's womb is miraculous, just as much so as the creation of the world itself out of nothingness. Both were by the power of God's Word, which is exactly who Jesus is identified as in the Gospel of John. And that is why we say that in Jesus God became incarnated among us, in accordance with the scriptures.

I grew up in a pretty religiously strong home (the older members being catholic and the younger ones, like my mother, Christen so to say the least the bible was (almost) “beat” into my head. (my mother also made me attend AWANAS and a few other “youth programs”) And sorry but I don’t remember from any Sunday school at any church anyone ever saying Jesus was god. He was always the son of god sent to sacrifice himself for our sins.

Then the problem is with your memory, because that is every bit as much a part of the message as well:

In this chapter we speak of the good news of Jesus, of how He who was born on earth as our Savior is clearly a man like us, our Brother, but is also our God; and of how He is nonetheless but one Person, the eternal Son of God.

source-- The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 81

The Catholic faith steadfastly professes that Jesus is literally and truly God, the eternal Son of the eternal Father. Each Sunday at the Eucharistic liturgy the Catholic family professes its belief in the central mystery of faith, belief, "in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."

source-- The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 83

So, you see, it is indeed the teaching of the Church in which you grew up; you lack of awareness of that not withstanding. Grenville's argument is not that this is not taught by the Church, but that is shouldn't be because he doesn't think such teaching is biblically based. Of course, the Catholic Catechism sees itself as biblically based on continues on:

This is the good news of Christian faith: that He who is almighty, the eternal Lord of all, whose unseen might and mercy sustains all things, "stepped into the tide of the year" and "dwelt among us" (John 1:14) in the visible humanity He had made His own. "The life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us" (1 John 1:2)....

The books of the New Testament record a gradual development in the disciples' recognition of who Jesus was and is. They reflect the Church's development in Christological insight, its continuing growth in understanding the mystery of His person. Already in the New Testament, however, Jesus is explicityly called God:

In the prologue to the Gospel of St. John, for example, Jesus is identified as the Word of God, a Person who was "in the beginnin" and was with the Father in the beginnin. "The Word was God" (John 1:1). Through the Word "all things were made" and "without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3). "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld His glory" (John 1:14). The visible Jesus of whom the Gospel speaks is the eternal Word of the Father, the Word who is God and who has made God known to us. "No one has ever seen God; it is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (John 1:18).

There is much more, but hopefully, even if you continue to challenge the truth of the idea, you can see that the Catholic Church you spoke of does in fact teach what you don't remember having heard while attending Sunday school or in your relgiously strong home.

BTW, though I am not Catholic, I completely concur with this portion of what they teach as being at the core of all Christian teachings regardless of the denomination.

 

[Grofica]

I'm not against paraphrases per se, but your particular paraphrase carries with it specific connotations that risk changing the meaning of the passage. If by "impregnate her" you simply mean that God causes Mary to be with child, then fine. But if you mean that God was engaged in sexual reproduction with Mary, then not so fine. The conception of Jesus within Mary's womb is miraculous, just as much so as the creation of the world itself out of nothingness. Both were by the power of God's Word, which is exactly who Jesus is identified as in the Gospel of John. And that is why we say that in Jesus God became incarnated among us, in accordance with the scriptures.

Then the problem is with your memory, because that is every bit as much a part of the message as well:




So, you see, it is indeed the teaching of the Church in which you grew up; you lack of awareness of that not withstanding. Grenville's argument is not that this is not taught by the Church, but that is shouldn't be because he doesn't think such teaching is biblically based. Of course, the Catholic Catechism sees itself as biblically based on continues on:

There is much more, but hopefully, even if you continue to challenge the truth of the idea, you can see that the Catholic Church you spoke of does in fact teach what you don't remember having heard while attending Sunday school or in your relgiously strong home.

BTW, though I am not Catholic, I completely concur with this portion of what they teach as being at the core of all Christian teachings regardless of the denomination.

But a teachings of Christ book is not the bible.

 

[Grofica]

Our bodies die; but, as you said, our souls don't. I suppose which ever one you think makes your true self determines whether we are mortal or immortal beings. Since at the age of 52 I recognize that I no longer have the same body that I did at 22 but still have the same soul, I'm pretty sure that who I am is not determined by my mortal body but my immortal soul.

This was taken out of context... It was in rebuttal over the definition of mortality... I was not talking about which out of your body and sould defines you as a person i was talking about the definition of mortality.

 

[Grace Seeker]

But a teachings of Christ book is not the bible.

Agreed. But you also said that it wasn't taught in the Sunday schools of any church you attended, or AWANAS or the youth groups you attended, and you speficially brought up the Catholic Church. I'm just showing that it is a part of the teaching of those groups. You might join with Grenville in saying that it shouldn't be. But I highly doubt that it wasn't taught in those groups. If you don't remember it, your words, I suspect it has more to do with your memory than reality, for I find it highly unlikely giving the significance of that teaching that it would have been left out.

 

[Grofica]

Agreed. But you also said that it wasn't taught in the Sunday schools of any church you attended, or AWANAS or the youth groups you attended, and you speficially brought up the Catholic Church. I'm just showing that it is a part of the teaching of those groups. You might join with Grenville in saying that it shouldn't be. But I highly doubt that it wasn't taught in those groups. If you don't remember it, your words, I suspect it has more to do with your memory than reality, for I find it highly unlikely giving the significance of that teaching that it would have been left out.

No, however i feel your wrong. my mothers side family is not only deeply religous but my aunt is somewhat of a fanatic... in all my years i have never heard her mention anything of the sort. The only thing that was ever taught at any church we ever attended was the BIBLE. only the bible and nothing but the bible...

 

[Grace Seeker]

This was taken out of context... It was in rebuttal over the definition of mortality... I was not talking about which out of your body and sould defines you as a person i was talking about the definition of mortality.

You argued that because Jesus died that he could not be God, because immortality is a prerequisite for being 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.

The reality is that even though you and I who are human die, that we are not mortal, rather we are immortal beings. This is so because the reality of who we are is not determined by the life of our mortal physical body, but by our immortal and eternal soul.

Given that we are immortal beings, then even by your own figuring of Jesus as merely a human being, he is also an immortal being.

If Jesus is an immortal being, then your previous argument "to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang." becomes moot because it isn't relevant to the reality of Jesus who by your own understanding is not mortal but immortal. To say that he is mortal (a crucial item in your above arguement that I labelled as being a pagan understanding) is to define his true nature as being determined by his body and not his soul.

 

[Grace Seeker]

No, however i feel your wrong. my mothers side family is not only deeply religous but my aunt is somewhat of a fanatic... in all my years i have never heard her mention anything of the sort. The only thing that was ever taught at any church we ever attended was the BIBLE. only the bible and nothing but the bible...

Aren't these your words:

I grew up in a pretty religiously strong home (the older members being catholic

And you expect me to think that they didn't teach what they publish in their own catechism?

 

[Grofica]

You argued that because Jesus died that he could not be God, because immortality is a prerequisite for being a god:


The reality is that even though you and I who are human die, that we are not mortal, rather we are immortal beings. This is so because the reality of who we are is not determined by the life of our mortal physical body, but by our immortal and eternal soul.

Given that we are immortal beings, then even by your own figuring of Jesus as merely a human being, he is also an immortal being.

If Jesus is an immortal being, then your previous argument "to say a god was capable of dying is like saying that the world was created by the big bang." becomes moot because it isn't relevant to the reality of Jesus who by your own understanding is not mortal but immortal. To say that he is mortal (a crucial item in your above arguement that I labelled as being a pagan understanding) is to define his true nature as being determined by his body and not his soul.

Since when have you ever seen or heard of a god walk with earthly (flesh) feet???? (not as a spector in human form but with actual human flesh) so no it does not negate my privious statement.

and if you cant respond without calling every idea forign to your own pagan dont reply to my posts... i can tell in your tone and conotations that if you had your way every idea forign to your own would begin a new period of "witch trials" please consider other opioions prior to rambling off a brash of round-about (or circling) answers...

 

[Grofica]

Aren't these your words:


And you expect me to think that they didn't teach what they publish in their own catechism?

I grew up in the North-West for the most part (well traveled) but the north west is home... in that part of the country people read the bible... what people do other places is none of my consern...

Where i was born and the area i lived in until i was 8 (my mom moved there before i was born) was a nice small town where every knows each other and you have more family in town (by blood or marriage) then you can shake a stick at. You go to church on sunday, you go to church on Wed evening no questions... (and some people went a little more often)

and there they read the bible and not what some dude wrote who knows how long after. there was confession and communion. or you could go across the street to the "other" church...Awanas i went to from 6-7 i think....once my mother moved to a moderate sized town (which awanas is a christan based youth program... i did mention both)

So yes, during which time we read the bible, with out "outside" teachings. we also still talk to our neighbours and leave our doors unlocked and every year the seasons are marked by which hunting season it is... and each opening day is a national holiday. perhaps its not some smug posh little place that you go but it was a nice wholesome place to grow up.

so now if you dont mind i am taking my conversation else where because i am tired of your borish attitude.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Since when have you ever seen or heard of a god walk with earthly (flesh) feet???? (not as a spector in human form but with actual human flesh) so no it does not negate my privious statement.

Since when? When Jesus walked the earth. That's when. That is exactly what I and your Catholic olders believe happened based on John 1:14.

and if you cant respond without calling every idea forign to your own pagan dont reply to my posts... i can tell in your tone and conotations that if you had your way every idea forign to your own would begin a new period of "witch trials" please consider other opioions prior to rambling off a brash of round-about (or circling) answers...

I haven't done that. I've never called Muslim beliefs pagan. I've never called Hindu beliefs pagan. I've never called Buddhist beliefs pagan. I only used the term because you introduced it in talking about Greek myths, and those I do call pagan.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I feel a little awkward that almost each post of mine so far is links to my articles, but as I intended they cover most of the ground in all Christian-Islamic arguments to begin with.

http://www.xyapx.com/ziggyzag/trilemmarefuted.php

Also, this excerpt from another article of mine pretty much proves the matter:

In my article on the Trilemma...I have gone through all of the blatant misunderstandings of the words of Jesus (peace be on him) which are purported by Christians to be claims to divinity. Now I will show you other, much clearer verses which say the opposite. First, there is his own, express denial:

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" (Mark 10:17-19)

There is nothing hard to understand about this: the negation involved is unmistakable. Someone ran up and knelt and called him good; he said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone”; he then proceeds to answer the man’s actual question. The speech, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” is about the clearest possible negation of both being good and being God I can think of. (Prophets tended to be modest about their own goodness.) The first sentence introduces the idea of him being good in a question. The second sentence then says that no one is good but God. It would be like if you ran up to me and said, “Great surgeon, how do I make a proper incision in the heart?” and I said, “Why do you call me a great surgeon? No one is a great surgeon but someone with the proper training.” Hence, I am denying being a great surgeon. Think about it and you’ll find that you can plug in any number of such scenarios and they all will clearly involve denial. The only other possibility is that I am making the statement in question to get the other guy to realize that he is indeed talking to a great surgeon, but that isn’t plausible since he already knows or else he wouldn’t have called me that. Blatantly, I am denying being a great surgeon. So it is with the scriptural passage. And in addition to denying being God, Jesus (peace be on him) even prayed to God:

And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed. (Mark 1:35)...

Does it not look to you like this is a mere human being that these verses are referring to, especially when he unmistakably said himself that he was nothing more? Christians always respond to this with the incoherent statement that Jesus (peace be on him) was both perfect God and perfect man at the same time. But this is a circular response, since it assumes that there is any reason to think he was God in the first place, which is exactly what I’m pointing out is not the case. You can’t be both perfect God and perfect man if you aren’t God to begin with, never said you were (c.f. “The Trilemma Refuted”...) and even unmistakably said you weren’t, as I established above. (Besides, it’s in my experience that the “perfect God and perfect man” response is nothing more than a cop-out, a paradoxical way to evade doctrinal problems which Christians use only when something threatens their beliefs.)

 

[Grace Seeker]

Also, this excerpt from another article of mine pretty much proves the matter:

While I appreciate the tone of your writings I have to disagree with your conclusion that you've "proved the matter". Rather, I think you've expressed a conclusion that you've drawn.

What I see in reading the Christian scriptures, the only documents that I accept as being authoritavtive in speaking to the above issue, is that they show that on the one hand Jesus appears limited to some degree by his humaness AND also that on the other hand he is presented as assuming divine perogatives and conducting himself in a manner and making statements that would be inappropriate for one who was not God. Further, I believe that other Biblical writers in referring to Jesus present him as divine even if the words "I am God" are never recorded as being spoken by Jesus.

Proving that Jesus was human is NOT the same as proving that Jesus was not God. This would only be true if one operated under the apriori assumption that one could not be both human and God as the same time. As this is the very tenet that Christians hold to be true, the holding of such an assumption is to reject the Christian view before even considering it.

Also, I think your analysis of the Mark 10 passage misses the mark (no pun intended). Jesus seeks to know why the man calls him "good". But not to reject him for making such an assertion, but to disern if the man has done so out of an insight into who Jesus really is or if he is just using flowerly language as a salutation without any import behind it. Jesus never denies that he is God, in fact he tells him that despite his keeping all of the laws of God that the still lacks one thing: "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (vs. 21). Notice this is actually two things: (1) the selling of everything and giving to the poor, and (2) the following of Jesus. Here the man fails the test, for if he had really believed that Jesus was good, then that would have also been the saying that he believed that Jesus was God. If God asks you to sell everything and follow him, what would one do? You would in fact sell everything and follow God. This man claimed he had kept all of the commandments of God, but was unwilling to keep this one spoken to him by a persons that he was claiming was "good". Why would Jesus question being called "good" by this man, because he questioned whether or not this man really believed the words and was willing to put into practice the things that he was saying. The man wasn't. The disciples on the other hand had been willing to put their faith and trust in Jesus. They had left everything to follow him, and they would be rewarded for doing so. When it is following of Jesus that one is rewarded for and not the keeping of God's commanments, then it seems to me that the person of Jesus is actually more important than the commands of God. This would only be true if Jesus was himself God come in the flesh.

You also argue "Jesus (peace be on him) even prayed to God", implying he therefore is not God. But you've not represented the Gospel story correctly. The Gospel presents Jesus not as praying to God, but as praying to "the Father" or "his Father." The distinction is subtle, but significant as it is in perfect keeping with the concept of God as a triune being who would be in fellowship with himself.

So in answer to your question: "Does it not look to you like this is a mere human being that these verses are referring to, especially when he unmistakably said himself that he was nothing more?" My answer is, "No, it does not." And I will add, it is not true that he himself ever said that he was nothing more, again that is something you bring to your reading of the text, but is not actually found in the scripture.

 

[IAmZamzam]

There is nothing in that passage suggesting that the following of Jesus (P) was more important than following the commands of God. They were condition #1 and condition #2, and condition #1 was to ensure that he kept on following condition #2 (as well as give away to the poor the things he would not need for the lifestyle if he did so), because following a prophet (which Jesus [P] explicitly identified himself as in Matthew 10:41 and 13:57) means following God's commandments.

"X person..."
"Why do you call me X? No one is X but God alone."

Plug anything else into that and it's still a denial of being God. Substitute anything for X. Try it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

There is nothing in that passage suggesting that the following of Jesus (P) was more important than following the commands of God. They were condition #1 and condition #2, and condition #1 was to ensure that he kept on following condition #2 (as well as give away to the poor the things he would not need for the lifestyle if he did so), because following a prophet (which Jesus [P] explicitly identified himself as in Matthew 10:41 and 13:57) means following God's commandments.

"X person..."
"Why do you call me X? No one is X but God alone."

Plug anything else into that and it's still a denial of being God. Substitute anything for X. Try it.

Really?

King Richard the Lionhearted was known to travel incognito through his country. On one such travels a man saw him pass by and knelt before him. Richard stopped and asked, "Why do you kneel? No man must kneel before another man in England unless that man be King."

So, in your mind Richard was denying that he was king, but in my mind he was trying to discern if the man recognized Richard for who he truly was.

 

[Walter]

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.

Dear Grace Seeker:

I have been away for the past month because I purchased and reviewed the 760+ page book that you have highly recommended. I can confirm that while George Ladd is clearly a brilliant theologian, he has based his interpretations of Jesus divinity on unverified assumptions that he uncritically accepted to be true. However, when these assumptions are investigated for verification, they have not withstood scrutiny.

Was the book a waste of money? No. The book contained much useful information. However, it is a shame that Mr Ladd died before he could review a rigorous analysis of the assumptions on which he either based his interpretations, or on which he believed the interpretation of others to have been correct. I will try to engage Mr Ladd’s successor at Fuller, Mr Hagner.

I can therefore confirm my previous statement that there is insufficient Biblical evidence for Christian religious tradition to claim, as a Doctrine, that Jesus is God. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus had to be God in order to fulfil his Messianic role in reconciling men and women to God. That is simply another religious tradition that has unnecessarily divided Christians and Muslims.

Regards,
Grenville