Is there any Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God?

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Let us continue. Again, please try to examine the evidence from another perspective, and see if it can be interpreted differently without damaging any of the evidence.

In whom do we have the forgiveness of sins?

We have forgiveness of sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Who is it that makes things grow?

God created and established the seasons etc that facilitated growth.

Who created the heavens and the earth?

God created, through His Word.

Who created the ends of the earth?

God created, through His Word.

Who is the Alpha and the Omega?

The evidence suggests that it is God.

Who is the First and the Last?

The evidence suggests that it is God.

Who is the beginning and the end?

The evidence suggests that it is God.

When did God first become God the Father?

We can only speculate. Perhaps after creating Adam.

Does God live in human beings? If so, is it God the Father or God the Spirit or God's spirit that lives in us? Or how would you term it? Or do you say that it is not God but something else from God/sent by God that lives in us? Or perhaps nothing lives in us at all?

The evidence is that Jesus prayed that we will all be One. I do not completely understand the “how”. And it is in trying to speculate on the “how”, while specifying violent consequences for those who have interpreted the evidence differently, that has typically led to conflict.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20-23)​

We seem to forget that we do not have perfect understanding at this time.

For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. (I Cor 13:12)​

We are also aware that at the end of the age, all will be known.

but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets. (Rev 10:7)​

Therefore, we should be careful making doctrines out of evidence which lends itself to more than one reasonable interpretation. I would again suggest that you read “Brothers Kept Apart”, which details the Christian and Islamic traditions that have unnecessarily divided Christians and Muslims.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, how fantastic that you had your responses saved. :thumbs_up

 

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

You compare the two Greek versions, one shorter the other longer. Despite the differences in Greek translation, the substance is the same. To say Jesus is the Son of God, begotten before time began, is the same as saying Jesus is God.

Yes Sojourn. Christian religious tradition has made the unverified assumption that “Jesus is God” is the same as “Jesus is the Son of God”.

There is no doubt the early Church believed Christ to be God. When Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (62-113AD) discovered a large segment of his citizens were practicing a new religion, he decided to inquisition several followers to discover what they believed. This is what he reported to the Emperor Trajan:

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god”

Sojourn, there is much relevant useful information that can be obtained from the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny. However, using it to settle or support theological doctrines is to misuse such evidence. The Roman torturers also believed that Christians were cannibals, etc. But we believe that they simply misunderstood the Communion and other rituals.

It's useful to reminder the letter to the Ephesians is among those recognized as authentic, lest readers be misled.

Yes, but the evidence suggests that it was tampered with. You have interpreted this evidence to mean that no tampering took place. This interpretation is based on the assumption that “Jesus is God” is the same as “Jesus is the Son of God”. This assumption has not been verified. If this assumption fails under scrutiny, then the interpretation is false and the passage was tampered with.

Why not just say the writings of Justin Martyr were tampered with?

Because we have no evidence to show that it was, and much to show that it was not.

Why evade defining your beliefs? Heresy thrives in broad statements.

Oh dear. So quick to carelessly throw around that word. I have never failed to define my beliefs. You simply have to ask how much detail you wish me to provide.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Sojourn]

Oh dear. So quick to carelessly throw around that word. I have never failed to define my beliefs. You simply have to ask how much detail you wish me to provide.

I've asked you several times to be specific about your beliefs but you just quote me Biblical passages. We both believe Jesus is the "Son of God" but obviously our understanding of the title differs. I recall asking you whether you can be the son of God the way Jesus is the Son of God, and your answer was that Jesus is unique. So in what way is His Sonship unique? Is He a mere human being? Is His nature *like* the Father's, or something totally different?


Take care,
Sojourn

 

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

I've asked you several times to be specific about your beliefs but you just quote me Biblical passages.

Yes Sojourn, I do quote the Bible to support what I believe. Why? Because I believe that a Christian’s core beliefs should be supported by the Bible, and certainly should not contradict Biblical teachings.

When we go outside of what the Bible explicitly teaches about Jesus, we enter the realm of speculation and never-ending debate. I am too busy at this time to enter that realm.

As I have explained repeatedly, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible teaches Him to be; and I have found that this teaching is consistent with the Qur’an’s teaching about Jesus.

We both believe Jesus is the "Son of God" but obviously our understanding of the title differs.

You have correctly identified the problem. Rather than simply believe and accept the title as provided, and acknowledge that there is insufficient Biblical evidence to accurately define it, Christian tradition has attempted a speculative interpretation. To interpret “Son of God” to be equivalent to “God” can be done by damaging the integrity of several verses and ignoring many conflicting verses.

When the Jewish religious leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be equivalent to God, Jesus appeared to correct their claim, stating that He was instead the Son of God.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:30–36)​

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Hi Grenville

Yes Sojourn, I do quote the Bible to support what I believe. Why? Because I believe that a Christian’s core beliefs should be supported by the Bible, and certainly should not contradict Biblical teachings.

Your views do contradict the Bible. Although you may quote the Bible you empty it of it's meaning.

As I have explained repeatedly, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible teaches Him to be; and I have found that this teaching is consistent with the Qur’an’s teaching about Jesus.

How can you say that knowing that the Quran explicitly contradicts the Bible concerning the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Mission of Jesus Christ? The Quran teaches Jesus to be an ordinary human being called by God to be a prophet to restore tawheed and bring a merciful law, is that what you believe?

You have correctly identified the problem. Rather than simply believe and accept the title as provided, and acknowledge that there is insufficient Biblical evidence to accurately define it, Christian tradition has attempted a speculative interpretation.

What does it mean to be Son of God? Even in human terms a son bears a likeness to it's father in nature, and proceeds from him. God the Son not only bears a likeness, but possesses the same exact nature, and proceeds from the Father. You have yet to explain what "Son of God" means.

To interpret “Son of God” to be equivalent to “God” can be done by damaging the integrity of several verses and ignoring many conflicting verses.

Jesus said only He knows the Father, and only the Father knows Him, this reveals a unique relationship. The Gospel of John calls Jesus "the only begotten God" from the bosom of the Father. So "my" understanding of the title is supported not only historically, but also Biblically.

When the Jewish religious leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be equivalent to God, Jesus appeared to correct their claim, stating that He was instead the Son of God.

Please note that the Jewish leaders understood full well that Jesus' was claiming equality with God, that is why the High Priest tore his vestments and yelled, "Blasphemy!!!" when Jesus replied to His question about being the Son of God.

Regards,
Grenville

So yet again you evade defining your beliefs. Are you basically unsure of who/what Jesus was? Or is it that you just don't want to answer?


Pax,
Sojourn

 

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

Are you basically unsure of who/what Jesus was? Or is it that you just don't want to answer?

Who is Jesus?

First, a preamble.

The Bible and the Qur’an teach that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, performed many miracles including raising the dead, preached the Gospel, was raised to God, and is the Messiah.

The Qur’an states that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews, and implies that He was crucified by others. The Qur’an rejects the concept of God having a son by sexual intercourse with a wife, which was the teaching at the time.

This reveals one of the challenges in interpreting the Qur’an, where the answer is recorded but not always, the question. Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be properly interpreted without knowledge of the Christian religious teachings that were being preached at the time and in the region. They are provided in ‘Brothers Kept Apart’.

To ensure that readers do not misinterpret its intent, the Qur’an instructs believers to believe the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel, which happens to be the standard of Truth for Christians. Therefore, any teaching that does not contradict the Bible may be true. But any teaching that is consistent with the Bible is true.

I have found that Mohammed’s teachings are consistent with those of the Bible. Therefore, he appears to have been a prophet of God. However, there are Islamic teachings that are in conflict with the Bible and I have presented some of them on the sister thread. There are all provided in ‘Brothers Kept Apart’. There are Christian religious teachings that are in conflict with Biblical teachings, and one of them is presented on this thread.

One more thing before I respond to your main concern.

There are essentially two ways of approaching an issue. One is to pre-determine that nothing will dissuade you, and so you are simply going to debate the issue by defending your position, principally using rhetoric. The other is to accept that all Truth is not known; therefore, you enter into a discussion in order to learn more of the truth, and to present what you believe to be true to the light of rigorous scrutiny.

I have no interest in debating you, or responding to your unsupported rhetorical statements. If you wish to discuss any issue, then you will find me to be a willing partner.

Who is Jesus to me?

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He has reconciled me to God and is therefore my Saviour. He has been given temporary authority, by God, of things in Heaven and on Earth, and is therefore my Lord. He will judge me at the end of the age and is therefore my Judge. At the end, He will deliver the kingdom to God.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

The interpretations provided above do not damage the integrity of Biblical verses, and is therefore reasonable. The Christian doctrinal interpretation that Jesus is God damages the integrity of many verses, many of which have been described in this thread.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yes Sojourn, I do quote the Bible to support what I believe. Why? Because I believe that a Christian’s core beliefs should be supported by the Bible, and certainly should not contradict Biblical teachings.

When we go outside of what the Bible explicitly teaches about Jesus, we enter the realm of speculation and never-ending debate.

As I have explained repeatedly, I believe that Jesus is exactly who the Bible teaches Him to be.

Rather than simply believe and accept the title as provided, and acknowledge that there is insufficient Biblical evidence to accurately define it, Christian tradition has attempted a speculative interpretation. To interpret “Son of God” to be equivalent to “God” can be done by damaging the integrity of several verses and ignoring many conflicting verses.

I find it interesting that the one who says the above is his belief and practice can, in such a short space of time, also say the following:

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

I believe your interpretation of "the Word" does do damage to the rest of scripture. The Word is to be identified as God. Not a part of God. Not as something that comes forth from God. Not as something that changes once spoken. But as God. And then that Word (which is God) came and dwelled among us.

No person can accept this and the Qu'ran at the same time. So it is understandable that no Muslim can accept this. Further, no Christian can accept what you have perverted the Word to be through your unique (and certainly, despite your protestations to the contrary, non-literal) understanding of the passage.

 

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Hi Grenville

The Qur’an states that Jesus was not crucified by the Jews, and implies that He was crucified by others.

Our Muslim readers are the better judges of such a statement, but in my opinion the Quran makes no such implication. It says He was not killed nor crucified, period. I've never come across a Muslim commentary, other than perhaps from the Ahmadis, that suggest Jesus was infact crucified.

The Qur’an rejects the concept of God having a son by sexual intercourse with a wife, which was the teaching at the time.

Who was teaching such a thing?

Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be properly interpreted without knowledge of the Christian religious teachings that were being preached at the time and in the region.

You're assuming the Quran is referring to actual Christians. As an aside, I think it's important to note that the Quran does not address mainstream Christianity.

To ensure that readers do not misinterpret its intent, the Qur’an instructs believers to believe the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel, which happens to be the standard of Truth for Christians.

What is the Quran referring to when it speaks of the Injeel? The Gospel of Mark? The apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel? Keep in mind you yourself acknowledge the importance of understaning the Quran in its own context.

I have found that Mohammed’s teachings are consistent with those of the Bible.

You have to twist Muhammad's teachings and ignore many a portion of the Bible to make them consistent. One example is your rendering of the aya that speaks of Jesus not being crucified.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

You keep evading the question.

How is Jesus the *Son* of God?

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.

So what is the Word? A lesser god?

The interpretations provided above do not damage the integrity of Biblical verses, and is therefore reasonable.

First you have elucidate your beliefs. So far you've told us what we already know, that you believe Jesus is not God, but you haven't told us anything about what Jesus is. Sure, you keep quoting that Jesus is the Word and the Son of God, but we both accept these titles, the question is what do they *mean*? The Bible says the Word *is* God, but you say this is not the case, so you're already damaging the integrity of the Bible. Id like to see you interpret John 1:1 in a way that means exactly the opposite, but in all honesty, I'd be more interested in finally finding out what you believe about Jesus.

Regards,
Grenville

You can't expect to have a dialogue without revealing what you believe, so once again, please define what you believe.


Pax,
Sojourn

 

[Walter]

Dear GS:

I believe your interpretation of "the Word" does do damage to the rest of scripture. The Word is to be identified as God. Not a part of God. Not as something that comes forth from God. Not as something that changes once spoken. But as God. And then that Word (which is God) came and dwelled among us.

No person can accept this and the Qu'ran at the same time. So it is understandable that no Muslim can accept this. Further, no Christian can accept what you have perverted the Word to be through your unique (and certainly, despite your protestations to the contrary, non-literal) understanding of the passage.

You have given me little to respond to. You have presented nothing to substantiate your opinion of “damage to the rest of scripture” or anything else that you have written. That is not good enough GS.

Please note that the Bible does not state that the Word is God as you have asserted. The Word is described as God only once, and only at one period of time – in the beginning. I have interpreted this evidence to be in harmony with the rest of the Bible. But rather than discuss this interpretation, you simply dismiss it and claim, without any support, that it is a perversion. Not good enough at all.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

There is no need for me to respond to your unsupported opinions, however, let me correct your blatant errors.

It says He was not killed nor crucified, period.

No Sojourn. The Qur’an never states that Jesus was not crucified, only that He was not crucified by the Jews.

That they [Jews] said, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: (4:157)​

The Bible says the Word *is* God, but you say this is not the case, so you're already damaging the integrity of the Bible.

No Sojourn. Both your quotation and your accusation is false. The Bible explicitly states that the Word was God, and the context was “in the beginning”. If the Bible stated that Jesus is God as you have pontificated, then clearly there would be no dispute. However, for over 1800 years, your religious tradition has corrupted the explicit teachings of the Bible, much like you have done here. Perhaps the time has come to ask you why?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)​

Regarding your other queries, I have already referred you to Brothers Kept Apart. For example, the Injeel referred to in the Qur’an appears to have been the Diatessaron of Tatian.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Sojourn]

Hi Sojourn:

Grenville,

I see you are unwilling to share your beliefs about Jesus, other than what you think Him not to be. I suppose you're more comfortable with criticizing what others believe about Him, because were you to put your own beliefs up for scrutiny, they wouldn't last a chance. Eitherway, if you sincerely wanted to correct error you wouldn't be hiding what you believe.

There is no need for me to respond to your unsupported opinions, however, let me correct your blatant errors.

We'll see whose opinions are unsported and blatantly wrong.

No Sojourn. The Qur’an never states that Jesus was not crucified, only that He was not crucified by the Jews.

First of all niether you nor I are in the position to say what the Quran says. Muslims are more than capable of interpreting their own book, and this is what the renowned scholar Ibn Kathir has to say regarding surah 4 aya 157:

"When `Isa ascended, those who were in the house came out. When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like `Isa, they thought that he was `Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. The Jews then boasted that they killed `Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason. As for those who were in the house with `Isa, they witnessed his ascension to heaven, while the rest thought that the Jews killed `Isa by crucifixion. They even said that Maryam sat under the corpse of the crucified man and cried, and they say that the dead man spoke to her. All this was a test from Allah for His servants out of His wisdom. Allah explained this matter in the Glorious Qur'an which He sent to His honorable Messenger, whom He supported with miracles and clear, unequivocal evidence."


Clearly this great commentator on the Quran felt Jesus was never crucified, but that He was raised to heaven before any harm could befall Him.

No Sojourn. Both your quotation and your accusation is false. The Bible explicitly states that the Word was God, and the context was “in the beginning”. If the Bible stated that Jesus is God as you have pontificated, then clearly there would be no dispute.

Disputes will always exist because some can't see, and others are unwilling to see.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

The Word was with God in the beginning, the "beginning" is before anything was made. Thus far it appears there are two eternal beings, but then it explicitly says the Word was God, and therefore there is only one being.

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

In other words, through Jesus all things were made, and without Him nothing would exist, and that includes *you*. Tell me Grenville, can this be said of a creature?

However, for over 1800 years, your religious tradition has corrupted the explicit teachings of the Bible, much like you have done here. Perhaps the time has come to ask you why?

If I had to choose between an 1,800 year old tradition and your personal invented tradition -- which you are too shy to share -- then I'd have to side with the former. But the fact is what Christians have always believed, and this goes beyond 1,800 years, is *fully* consistent with the Bible. Trust me, it's very hard to turn any ordinary man into a God that people are willing to die for.

Regarding your other queries, I have already referred you to Brothers Kept Apart.

So I ask you to share your beliefs and you refer me to a book? Is it that you can't personally defend what you believe? Whatever it may be, I'm not interested in a book that suggests Muslims and Christians have been wrong about what they believe for thousands of years, especially if it's something basic like the nature of Jesus or the fact that Muslims don't believe He was crucified.

For example, the Injeel referred to in the Qur’an appears to have been the Diatessaron of Tatian.

I have no idea how you come to this conclusion, personally I think it's more likely to have been the apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel, since there are many parrallels between the two.

Regards,
Grenville

Pax,
Sojourn

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grenville, I assumed I didn't have to quote the exact verse to you as I was sure you were already aware of the reference: εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1, Young's Literal Translation)

My assertion that you damage scripture is not so much that you do harm to scripture itself, after all neither of us can actually have any effect on scripture itself, that was just your turn of a phrase. But rather that you damage your on credibility by simply choosing to ignore those parts of scripture that don't lend support to your own particular point of view. By doing so, you have convinced yourself of theological views that are actually contrary to the overall picture of Jesus as painted in scripture as being indeed God incarnate. I understand that there are also certain passages that speak to the human side of Jesus. I don't dispute the validity of those, but there is more than just those. Thus the reader of the Bible must decide what the Bible is. Is it a divinely inspired holy writ? Or a humanly constructed concoction? If the latter, we can simply dismiss the whole thing as the Muslim does. But if you accept it as divinely authoritative, which is how you have presented yourself thus far, then you have to wrestle with the very real conundrum that it presents Jesus as a very human being and as the incarnation of God himself, both at the same time.

For some seeing scripture present both perspectives, of a divine and a human Jeuss, and having an apriori assumption that one cannot be both at the same time, they have decided that it is proof of errors in the text. There are many theories that a put for with regard to the origin of those supposed errors: the imposition of later theologies that corrupted the text or of evidence of the influence of pagan religions are but a few of them. But in the end, the result is that they return to view the text as a very human document filled where one can discount that which one disagrees with and cherry pick those portions one is willing to accept as having validity. Such a practice does do damage to the integrity of the text, but this is not what you have done.

What you have done is different. You claim that the text is still valid, but whenever it says something different than what you believe, you merely close your eyes to it. As such, when it says, as it does very clearly in John 1:1 that the Word was God, you simply claim that it means something else and ask those who hold to what the text says to substantiate our point of view that it means what it says. I submit that it is because you have willed to see something different (something that is not there) that you fail to see the substantiation that you seek is in the text itself, none other need be presented.

But to humor you, I share with you what can be found in the Abingdon Commentary on this passage of scripture:

That the Word was, and is, closely related to God is not only stated (v. 1), but reiterated (v. 2). Even God does not antedate the Word. Indeed, "the Word was God."

...the Word's being present with God in the beginning betokens his equality with God.

At this point first-time readers would not know that the Word was to be identified with the Incarnate One (v. 14), Jesus Christ (v. 17). The evangelist slowly opens the curtain onto who this person is. One could read through verse 11 or even 13 or the assumption that the Word was not identical with a single person, but was perhaps personified by the prophets. But by verse 14 it becomes clear that the Word has become flesh in a single individual, to whom John the Baptist has testified (v. 15). Probably most readers or hearers would have known the gospel, or at least the Jesus story, and would have recognized the allusion to Jesus, at least as early as verse 5 or 10. If, in fact, the prologue was based on an early Christian hymn, recited or sung by congregations, this would have been all the more likely. That the reader would not have found the idea of the preexistence of Christ, and even his role in creation, strange or unfamiliar is proven by the existence of similar hymns or hymnlike passages (Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20). Early Christianity did not begin with a low Christology and move by degrees to a higher one. Within the first generation the apostle Paul writes that through Jesus Christ we and all things exist (cf. also 1 Cor 8:6), even as he identifies Jesus Christ with the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24).

The concept you present wherein the term "son of God" is a reference to Jesus being something more than human and less than God is neither Christian nor Muslim, it is Arianism. But it doesn't fit the evidence of scripture any more today than it did when proposed 1700 years ago.

 

[Sojourn]

Peace Grace Seeker,

The concept you present wherein the term "son of God" is a reference to Jesus being something more than human and less than God is neither Christian nor Muslim, it is Arianism. But it doesn't fit the evidence of scripture any more today than it did when proposed 1700 years ago.

This was a very good post, the only point I wanted to touch on was that of Arianism. Many a Muslim think the Arians were closer to the truth because they rejected the Trinity, but what they don't realize is that Arians didn't necessarily reject the Divinity of Christ, they rejected His unity with the Father. So what you're actually left with is a polytheism that includes a supreme God known as the Father, and a lesser deity known as the Son. This of course contradicts monotheism. Ultimately only the Trinity can adequately explain the whole of Scripture without doing any damage to it.

Just my two cents.

Pax Christi,
Sojourn

 

[Walter]

Hi Sojourn:

I see you are unwilling to share your beliefs about Jesus, other than what you think Him not to be. I suppose you're more comfortable with criticizing what others believe about Him, because were you to put your own beliefs up for scrutiny, they wouldn't last a chance. Eitherway, if you sincerely wanted to correct error you wouldn't be hiding what you believe.

Oh dear. Back to your baseless accusations again? I have already explained who I believe Jesus to be in my post No.207. Let me repeat the salient parts.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He has reconciled me to God and is therefore my Saviour. He has been given temporary authority, by God, of things in Heaven and on Earth, and is therefore my Lord. He will judge me at the end of the age and is therefore my Judge. At the end, He will deliver the kingdom to God.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.​

Sojourn, you appear to be so determined to defend your position, rather than to know the truth, that you have entered a realm of fantasy. First you corrupt the scriptures by misinterpreting “the Word was God” to be “the Word is God”. Then, you write “Disputes will always exist because some can't see, and others are unwilling to see.” Clearly, you are referring to yourself.

Why don’t you explain, in detail, how my explanation of John 1:1 is inconsistent with the context.

Further, your assertion that Christians have always believed in Jesus as God is not supported by the historical record. The documented Church history is filled with examples of Christian religious tradition conflicting with what the majority of believers believed that the scriptures taught. One example from Tertullian follows.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οiκονομiα [dispensation]. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. (Against Praxeas, Chapter 3)​

So the religious leaders held a minority view, which they forced on Christians through violence.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Once again, you have used a lot of rhetoric to state that you do not agree with me, but you have not shown where my explanation is inconsistent with either the context of John 1:1 or the rest of the Bible. You just made baseless accusations. I will repeat the explanation below for your convenience.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.​

Simply using rhetoric to try to convince others that my explanation is incorrect is not good enough GS. You can do much better than that.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Grace Seeker:

Once again, you have used a lot of rhetoric to state that you do not agree with me, but you have not shown where my explanation is inconsistent with either the context of John 1:1 or the rest of the Bible. You just made baseless accusations. I will repeat the explanation below for your convenience.

Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Word was with God at the beginning of creation. The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they are separate from me but represent me. God created things through His Word, which He allowed to have life in itself.​

Simply using rhetoric to try to convince others that my explanation is incorrect is not good enough GS. You can do much better than that.

Regards,
Grenville

See, I think you are the one using rhetoric: "The Word can be said to be God much like my words, not yet spoken, can be said to be me." That statement does not reflect what is being said in John 1:1. What scriptures says is "the Word was God" -- no simile, no metaphor, just a simple declaratory statement. It further states, John 1:14, "the Word (who was God) became flesh and made his dwelling among us." As clear of a declaration of the incarnation as one could have. Jesus doesn't just represent God, we who are Christ's ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20) do that as as though God were making his appeal through us. No, Jesus is not just a representative of God, Jesus is "God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18).

Sojourn gets it. I hope our Muslim friends here get it as well. The idea that God generates another (albiet lower order) divine being as you have suggested is indeed polytheism. Neither Christian nor Muslim has any room for your theology. That is one thing on which we can agree.

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker/Sojourn:

You have defined a position, attributed it to me, and then criticised it. That is a typical debating tactic which can be effective to a lay audience, but you must know that it is intellectually dishonest. Please desist.

Our search for Truth is a search for a reasonable interpretation of all of the evidence, including resolving any apparent conflicting evidence. Where only one interpretation is likely, then a doctrinal statement can be made of it. Where more than one interpretation can be made, then to make a doctrine of it is to invite controversy.

GS. You have indicated that God being repeatedly described as the Father and God of Jesus is a legitimate challenge to Jesus being God. Why not investigate the evidence further to see what you find?

Now on to your salient points. I think that I understand where we differ. The evidence follows.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1–2)

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3)

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4–5)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)​

This can be interpreted in several ways. The two extremes follow.

The first interpretation is that since the Word was God in the beginning, then the Word remained as God during creation, and when the Word became flesh.

The second interpretation is that the Word was God at one time only – in the beginning. But, how could this be? Well, I provided an explanation of how this could be. A thought in the ‘mind’ of God and a Word in the ‘mouth’ of God can be said to be with God, part of God, and therefore God. However, once the Word is spoken, then it can no longer be called God, but it represents God.

You provided two scriptures to support the first interpretation. The first follows.

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:20)​

However, let us examine the context.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:18-19)​

Now let us be clear. Earlier in this letter, God is identified as the God and Father of Jesus.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor 1:3a)​

Jesus explained the concept of God being in Him.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (John 17:20–23)​

So Jesus prays that all believers may be one with the Father, just as He and the Father are one (Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus). The original Greek word used for one (hĕis) in Jesus’ statement “I and the Father are one [hĕis]”, is the same word used when Jesus prayed that His disciples may be “one [hĕis] in us”. Since believers are not meant to become gods through becoming one with the Father, then Jesus being one with the Father is not sufficient evidence that Jesus is God.

Your second supporting verse follows.

"God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18)​

Please let me know which version of the Bible translates John 1:18 this way. The verse, as you quoted it, appears to be severely corrupted.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Your second supporting verse follows.

"God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18)​

Please let me know which version of the Bible translates John 1:18 this way. The verse, as you quoted it, appears to be severely corrupted.

Regards,
Grenville

That is my own translation. The phrase "the one and only" (also found in the NIV when translating John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) is more often translated "only begotten", both are translations of the Greek term "monogenes". While on the surface mono=one and genes=from the verb to become would seem to render only begotten in a literal sense, there are reasons to prefer the more dynamic translation I provided when one sees how the term is used in the few other places that it is found in scripture. The use of the translation "only begotten" goes back to Jerome who unigentius in the Vulgate to counter Arian claims that Jesus was generated in the sense of being made and a part of creation. In reality the term "monogenes" reflects the Hebrew term "yahid" used of Isaac (Genesis 22: 2, 12, 16) of whom it is used in Hebrews 11:17 -- "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son." But since we know that Isaac was neither Abraham's one and only son, nor his only begotten son -- there also was Ishmael as our Muslim friends here will be quick to remind us -- the meaning of the term needs to be understood as centered on the Personal existence of the Son, and NOT on the generation of the Son. It is used to mark out Jesus as being uniquely above all earthly and even heavenly beings. In its most literal sense it means "of a single kind" and could even be used in that sense of the Phoenix (see 1 Clement 25:2), as it is only distantly related to gennao (to beget).

So, whether your prefer my translation, the NIV's "God the only" [with the term "Son" being inserted as implied], or the KJV's "only begotten", the idea still is not about the generation of Jesus, but about his uniqueness -- namely that there is none other that can compare with him. For John, who uses this term as a Christological title for Jesus, Jesus as the monogenes is the only One who can say "I and the Father are one [hen esmen]" (John 10:30). And I submit that this therefore is indeed what you sought -- Biblical evidence that describes Jesus as God. You may choose to interpret the evidence differently than I do, but you yourself have noted:

This can be interpreted in several ways. The two extremes follow.

The first interpretation is that since the Word was God in the beginning, then the Word remained as God during creation, and [t]hen the Word became flesh.

There you have it. You admit that the evidence is there. You admit that it can be interpreted as I have interpreted it. What you won't admit is that I or any other orthodox Christian theologian/commentator is right in our interpretation. So be it. I likewise don't believe you to be right in yours, and find all of your writing to the contrary to be not logic but (in your words) just so much rhetoric.

 

[Walter]

Hi Grace Seeker:

I think that I understand the frustration that Mohammed felt when discussing this issue with Trinitarians. No evidence, regardless of how compelling, will ever be enough. The Qur’an notes an appropriate way forward - let God decide who is correct.

However, the problem is that Trinitarians have insisted that people must believe that Jesus is God in order to be accepted by God. This is an insurmountable barrier to Muslims, and it is not what the early Church taught. Peter’s first message to the gentiles follows.

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:38-43)​

Please note that God is described as the one who: anointed, was with, raised, and ordained Jesus. Please also note that Peter does not tell the gentiles that they must believe that Jesus is God. As you may be aware, Christians were forced to believe that Jesus was God approximately 300 years after Jesus’ resurrection, not before.

GS, we should not try to put this burden, that was violently forced on early Christians, and which early Muslims rejected, on this current generation of Muslims?

Regards,
Grenville