Does Jesus Christ have a God?

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your germane response.

I think you have made a significant contribution in pointing to the matter of Jesus' testimony and his miraculous activities. It seems to me that Jesus would not work a miracle out of his own Godhood, because that would violate or vitiate his having human nature. Furthermore, there is no miracle of Jesus that outstrips those of Moses and Elijah or Elisha, so the works of power do not demonstrate divinity per se. But Jesus could be the lightning rod for a miraculous action of God's, just like Moses or Elijah. This might tend to undergird whatever claims Jesus made for himself (assuming that the miracles were legitimately performed and perceived).

This shifts us to an important question. Where do we find, in Jesus' own words, a claim to Godhood? Granted, of course, that we have none of Jesus' own words except by secondhand (at best), and not every account of Jesus' words is equally reliable. But given what we do have, where is the evidence for his claim to Godhood?

I would like to put a fine point on this, too. It is easy enough to demonstrate from the Hebrew bible and from contemporary (Second Temple) literature that the descriptor "son of God" did not necessarily qualify as a claim to divinity. It is likely to be a messianic title that was accorded as an honorific to the king of Israel (cf. I Chronicles 28:6), and/or an honorific assigned to a pious wonderworker in the Second Temple period (cf. Hanina ben Dosa). So we need to find a place where Jesus is clearly claiming to be God.

You've mustered a great starter, in my (sincere) opinion.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

JF,

Luke 23:43 (NASB) says, “And he said to him, ‘Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise,’” indicating that Jesus will be with the malefactor in Paradise later that same day. But if the comma is moved to the other side of “today,” an entirely different emphasis results: “Truly I say to you today, you shall (in the future) be with me in Paradise.” This is, in fact the correct rendering.

Perfect example of the work of your "scholars". They have interpreted the passage by analogy of faith, in other words they relocate the comma to fit with their bias. You are wasting your time.

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,
I'm new here but, I believe I can answer your question in regards to the claim Jesus made about being God. I am going to assume from your postings that you don't question the writings of the old testament. So I have quoted Exodus 3:14 for you.

Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

I think you and I can both agree that it was God speaking to Moses from the burning bush.

Now, In John 8:58 Jesus claims that he is the "I AM" I quoted the verse for you below.

John 8:54-58
8:54 Jesus answered, "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.
8:55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, 'I do not know Him,' I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word.
8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
8:57 Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
8:59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It seems to me that the Jews at the time understood the claim he was making.

I don't recall anywhere else in the Bilble where any Old or New Testament Prophits make claims like those Jesus made about his own nature and relaionship to the father.

Robin

[Guest]

Homer, there are no punctuation in the original manuscripts, the translators made the call. Are you saying that Jesus did not die and raise three days later according to the scripture, but went to Paradise? Paradise is always a future kingdom on Earth, not heaven. Then how would you explain Jesus statement to Mary, ' don't touch me for I have have not yet ascended to My God and your God'. Try using the scripture and not your religious teachings, you will be better off. I think you better give up the religious teachings of men, that are so entrenched in your thinking it is clouding your mind from the truth.

roblaine,
You may have missed this since the people here do their best to cover the truth,

John 8:58b
Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.” [23]

2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

3. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquerors the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. We are not the only ones who believe that Jesus’ statement does not make him God:

To say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). [24]

4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Buzzard, pp. 93-97

Dana, Letter 21, pp. 169-171

Morgridge, pp. 120-21

Norton, pp. 242-246

Snedeker, pp. 416-418

[Guest]

JF,

roblaine,
You may have missed this since the people here do their best to cover the truth,

I am not sure what you mean by your statement, but I do my best to cover the truth as well.

Regarding whether Jesus is God or not, I could take your word for it, or I could read what the Apostle Paul wrote and take his word for it.

Romans
9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
9:2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

I think I will go with Paul.

Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response.

I am going to assume from your postings that you don't question the writings of the old testament.

In my earlier postings, I have made clear that I do question writings of the Hebrew bible. But I do not expect that you should have plowed through my entire backlog!

In this case, the authenticity of the narrative in Exodus is irrelevant, because the question is whether or not Jesus was referring to a commonly accepted passage in order to communicate his thoughts about himself. We are concerned at this point with what Jesus communicated, not the authenticity of Exodus 3. So your citation is appropriate.

I think you and I can both agree that it was God speaking to Moses from the burning bush.

I will agree that this is the upshot of the narrative in Exodus 3.

In John 8:58 Jesus claims that he is the "I AM"

Although this has been claimed often enough, the fact of the matter is far from apparent. JF has already pointed out that the Hebrew text reads "I will be what I will be," which is a different nuance from "I am." This statement on the part of God is an expression of his sovereign, self-determinate choice. It is also a foreshadowing of God's future activity on behalf of Israel.

It is also interesting to take a look at the Septuagint text for Exodus 3, since this was a major Greek translation used by Jews in the time of Jesus. Although it is not necessary that Jesus should have conformed to the rendering of the Septuagint, it is still worth considering its precedent.

The Septuagint makes an interpretive move and has God tell Moses "ego eimi ho wn" - "I am the Being One" (or "I am the Existing One"). This rendition shifts to the present tense, and seems to me like a sop to philosophy. But although ego eimi appears in this Septuagintal phrase, it is not the ego eimi portion that is considered referential. This is apparent when, later in the verse, God instructs Moses to tell Israel that "ho wn" has sent him. In the Septuagintal Greek precedent, ho wn is therefore the explicit cognomen of God, rather than ego eimi. Of course, in John 8, Jesus does not introduce the "ho wn" nomenclature.


Now, Jesus may be making some claim to pre-existence before Abraham. Some commentators will understand this pre-existence to be conceptual in the mind of God. Others may understand it as pre-existence in the form of the impersonal Logos, per John 1. But regardless, a claim to pre-existence does not necessarily constitute a claim to Godhood. Many things pre-existed Abraham, in various forms.

On the other hand, given the grammar of John 8:58, Jesus may be saying something like "Before Abraham is to be, I am [being/to be]." The tense for "to be" is aorist, indefinite in terms of past/present/future. If such a rendering is to be explored, then Jesus may be making a comment about relative prestige or honor, which is the issue of controversy in the latter part of chapter 8. In verse 52 and 53, the Jewish opponents speak of Abraham and the prophets. Jesus may face difficulty in trying to trump the honor of these men, by virtue of their preceding him chronologically; their antiquity and ancestral position would have carried tremendous weight in the Jewish culture of the time. However, Jesus could trump their honor in the future by preceding them chronologically in resurrection. This would tie into the point of debate in verse 51 over the tasting of death. The Jewish audience reacts to Jesus claiming a privilege over death that neither Abraham nor the prophets enjoyed. Jesus responds by implying that God is the one who authentically bestows honor, and follows this up by perhaps indicating that he is to be before Abraham is to be (in the resurrection).

This should be considered in light of verse 56, where the grammar is interesting. Here again, the verbs are aorist, and non-indicative of past/present/future status. This opens the question of when exactly Abraham rejoices and sees the day of Jesus.

One may then object that, in any case, the Jewish audience picked up stones to throw at Jesus, so they must have understood his reference to be pretension to Godhood. However, it is a recognized facet of Johannine style to have Jesus' audience misunderstand the point that he is making (cf. Nicodemus on being "born again," and the Samaritan woman at the well). The Jewish audience's response to Jesus should not be considered indicative of Jesus' actual intention.


Beyond this, I routinely carp at the introduction of John as reliable evidence for the actual words of Jesus. At this point in the discussion, I will not press that matter. However, I will be more impressed by evidence from the Synoptics.

Thank you again for your response, Robin!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

In my earlier postings, I have made clear that I do question writings of the Hebrew bible. But I do not expect that you should have plowed through my entire backlog!


You are correct, I have not reviewed all your post, so I apologize for making an assumption that was incorrect.

I am not one who believes that the doctrine of the trinity is essential in order to be considered a Christian. However, it is my personal belief and it is based on more than one piece of scripture. I look at what the four Gospels tell us about the life of Christ, the mericals he preformed, In many occasions Jesus forgave sin, he resurrected the dead (Lazarus), he laid own life down and took it up again. It seems to me that the Apostles believed that Jesus was God as well. Seeing since they were closes to him, I have to assume their testimony is credible.

I must say that I appreciate your response. Even when you disagree with someone you are always polite.

[Guest]

Hi, Robin!

Thank you again for your response.

I have not reviewed all your post, so I apologize for making an assumption that was incorrect.

No worry. I do not expect people I dialogue with to plow through whatall I have posted earlier. That would be egotistical and/or unrealistic. And you did not claim anything more than an assumption in the first place.

It seems to me that the Apostles believed that Jesus was God as well. Seeing since they were closes to him, I have to assume their testimony is credible.

If you will forgive my sallying a point - perhaps you might be appealing to the apostles because there is a dearth of statements on Jesus' own part, claiming to be God?

If such is the case, then which statements do we have to that effect from the apostles (excepting, if you will, Paul, who was not "closest to him," except perhaps in some mystical fashion)?

Also, how are we to fairly gauge the credibility of these apostles?

Thank you for your time and your dialogue.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

If you will forgive my sallying a point - perhaps you might be appealing to the apostles because there is a dearth of statements on Jesus' own part, claiming to be God?

Perhaps I can provide a couple more scriptures for you and then I would love to see what you think.

John 10:25-33
10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
10:30 "I and the Father are one."
10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

In John 10:30 Jesus claims that he and the father are one. The Jews at the time wanted to stone him for this claim.

Mark 14:60-62
14:60 The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
14:61 But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
14:62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

When Jesus refered to himself as the "Son of Man" and that he would be "sitting at the right hand of power" and "coming on the clouds of Heaven" he was refering to Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14

Daniel 7:13-14
7:13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
7:14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and {men of every} language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

By claiming pre-existence, the authority to jugde, and have the people of the world serve him, it is not a stretch to assume that he was also claiming to be God.

Now this might be less convincing for you, but I see this as another claim that Jesus was making in regards to his deity.

If such is the case, then which statements do we have to that effect from the apostles (excepting, if you will, Paul, who was not "closest to him," except perhaps in some mystical fashion)?

John 1:1 In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 Peter
1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

Hebrews
1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Hebrews
1:8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
1:9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."
1:10 And, "YOU , LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

Also, how are we to fairly gauge the credibility of these apostles?

What evedence do you have to bring against the Apostles, or why do you question their credibilty? I find that when the scriptures say someithing that a person does not want to believe they close their mind and assume that the scriptures are wrong, or that the Apostles were misstaken. However, when that claim is made the burden of proof is on the accuser.

thanks again Emmet, I look forward to your responce.

[Guest]

roblaine, pay attention please. I do not want you to take my word for anyhting, I want you being a believer to take the words of God as they are intended and to believe rightly, according to God's purpose. Here you go:

Romans 9:5
Christ, who is God over all, be praised. (NIV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. The student of the Bible should be aware that the original text had no punctuation, and thus in some instances there is more than one way a verse can be translated without violating the grammar of the text (see the notes on Heb. 1:8). Then how do we arrive at the correct translation and meaning, the one that God, the Author, meant us to believe? In the majority of cases, the context, both immediate and remote, will reveal to us what He is trying to say. The entire Bible fits together in such a way that one part can give us clues to interpret another part. The serious student of the Bible will glean information from the scope of Scripture to assist in the interpretation of any one verse. Romans 9:5 is one of the verses that can be translated different ways, and thus the context and scope of Scripture will help us determine the correct interpretation. Note from the examples below that translators and translating committees vary greatly in their handling of Romans 9:5:

RSV: “to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.”


Moffatt: “the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)”


KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”


NAS: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”


NIV: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
Although the exact wording of the above translations differs, they fall into two basic categories: those that are worded to make Christ into God, and those that make the final phrase into a type of eulogy or doxology referring to God the Father. The RSV and Moffatt are outstanding examples of the latter.

2. In The Doctrine of the Trinity, R. S. Franks, a Trinitarian and the Principal Emeritus of Western College in Bristol, writes,

It should be added that Rom. 9:5 cannot be adduced to prove that Paul ever thought of Christ as God. The state of the case is found in the R.V. margin…He [Paul] never leaves the ground of Jewish monotheism. It has been pointed out that Rom. 9:5 cannot be brought in to question this statement. On the contrary, God is spoken of by the Apostle as not only the Father, but also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” [28]

3. There is good evidence from both the immediate remote contexts that the last phrase of this verse is a eulogy or doxology to God the Father. “God over all” and “God blessed forever” are both used of God the Father elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 4:6; 1 Tim. 6:15). In contrast, neither phrase is ever used of Christ. It would be highly unusual to take eulogies that were commonly used of God and, abruptly and without comment or explanation, apply them to Christ.

4. Asking why the words are even in the text gives us a key to understanding them. Paul is writing about the way that God has especially blessed the Jews. The verses immediately before Romans 9:5 point out that God has given them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs and even the human ancestry of Jesus Christ. How blessed they are! No wonder a eulogy to God is inserted: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen.”

5. The entire context of Romans 9:5 is describing God’s blessings to the Jews, who have a heritage of being aggressively monotheistic. An insert about Christ being God seems most inappropriate. This is especially true when we understand that Paul is writing in a way designed to win the Jews. For example, he calls them “my kindred in the flesh” (v. 3 - NRSV), and says he has sorrow and anguish in his heart for them (v. 2 - NRSV). Would he then put into this section a phrase that he knew would be offensive to the very Jews for whom he is sorrowing and who he is trying to win? Certainly not. On the contrary, after just saying that Christ came from the line of the Patriarchs, something about which the Jews were suspicious, a eulogy to the Father would assure the Jews that there was no idolatry or false elevation of Christ intended, but that he was part of the great blessing of God.

Buzzard, pp. 131 and 132

Farley, pp. 67-69

Morgridge, pp. 111-114

Norton, pp. 203-214

Snedeker, pp. 434-440


http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... ge&pid=113

Good luck in your thinking.