Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?

[Wrangler]

John 20:
[28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

People make this exclamatory statement all the time. Doesn't make the person they say it its actually God, the Creator of Jesus.

 

[Wrangler]

The way the Bible reveals the Deity of Christ is by cross referencing Jesus and/with God.

Such juxtaposition proves Jesus is NOT God. Who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son? God, in his unitarian nature (as opposed to 'the Father,' which is a term trinitarians prefer).

 

[David in NJ]

You did not get that idea from the word Elohim. As I said, the plural form designates more than one.

Trust in God's word requires an understanding of what he said.

P.S. Cady, a brother, is writing.

Trust in God's word requires an understanding of what he said.

This is the problem my Brother - we cannot fully understand unless we first place our trust in His Word.

Hebrews 11:1-3
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

God calls us first to FAITH in His every word.

 

[David in NJ]

John10:
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

PERFECT scripture for this TRUTH to be SEEN

 

[Behold]

Such juxtaposition proves Jesus is NOT God. Who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son? God, in his unitarian nature (as opposed to 'the Father,' which is a term trinitarians prefer).

Jesus is not Father God...

Jesus is "God manifested in the flesh".. .as Thomas described as "My Lord and my God".

So, because Jesus is the GOD-Man... this explains why John 1:10 says that Jesus "made the World"... which is confirmed by Colossians 1:16 and Jn1:1

 

[CadyandZoe]

that was not why i was calling them anti christs .

Okay. But it is confusing to others, since that isn't how John defined the term.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Let us take a LOOK at the TRUTH together: John 1:1

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

Who is this "He" who was with God in the Beginning???

It isn't a Who or a he. A "word" is a thing not a person.

 

[Johann]

It isn't a Who or a he. A "word" is a thing not a person.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself.
Joh 1:2 He is the One who was face to face with God in the beginning.
Joh 1:3 It was through Him that everything came into existence, and apart from Him not a single thing came into existence.
Joh 1:4 It was by Him that life began to exist, and that life was the light of mankind.
Joh 1:5 So the light continues to shine in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
Joh 1:3 All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. [Ps 33:6,9; Prov 30:4]
Joh 1:4 In him was Chayyim (Life) and the Chayyim (Life) was the Ohr (Light) of Bnei Adam. [TEHILLIM 36:10 (9)]
Joh 1:5 And the Ohr shines in the choshech [TEHILLIM 18:28], and the choshech did not grasp it. [YESHAYAH 9:1]
tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father. (NET Bible John 1; bold emphasis mine)

Here are the particular English renderings of 1:1 mentioned in the aforementioned note:

“When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.” NEB

“In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was.” REB

Moreover, in his monumental work on Greek NT grammar Wallace wrote the following concerning theos in John 1:1c being a preverbal (before the verb), anarthrous (without the article) predicate nominative (PN), i.e., a noun that is in the subject case and which predicates or attributes specific qualities/characteristics to the subject:

a. Is Theos in John 1:1c Indefinite?

If theos were indefinite, we would translate it “a god.” If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. The indefinite notion is most poorly attested for anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives. Thus grammatically such a meaning is improbable.

As well, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Further, the Evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).

b. Is Theos in John 1:1c Definite?

Although it is certainly possible grammatically to take theos as a definite noun, the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite theos in John 1:1c.

Further, calling theos in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb, it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with logos (i.e., “the Word”=”God” and “God”=”the Word”). The problem with this argument is that the theos in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the theos in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.11

c. Is Theos in John 1:1c Qualitative?

The most likely candidate for theos is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (en arche … theos een [1:1]), and his humanity, which was added later (sarx egeneto [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two sentences mirror; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But theos was his nature from eternity (hence, eimi is used), while sarx was added at the incarnation (hence, ginomai is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence IS IDENTICAL. The idea of a qualitative theos here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.12 (The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar [Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, Abridged edition, 2000], pp. 119-120; emphasis mine)

EXAMPLES OF PREVERBAL PN

I cite some examples of preverbal predicate nominatives from both the Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible (typically referred to as the Septuagint [LXX]) and the NT, which are clearly qualitative in meaning. These cases help illustrate the point that such nouns ascribe the full and essential characteristics of a specific nature or quality to the particular individual in question. I also quote examples where there is no verb at all, and yet the meaning is still the same.

In the case of the OT texts I will cite English renderings of both the Hebrew and the Greek translations.

“To you it was shown that you might know that Yahweh, He is God (YHWH hu ha’elohim); there is no other besides Him… Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that Yahweh, He is God (YHWH hu ha’elohim) in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:35, 39 LSB

“So that thou shouldest know that the Lord thy God he is God (houtos theos esti), and there is none beside him… And thou shalt know this day, and shalt consider in thine heart, that the Lord thy God he [is] God (houtos theos) in heaven above, and on the earth beneath, and there is none else but he.” LXX

“for Yahweh our God (YHWH elohenu) is He who brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery, and who did these great signs in our sight and kept us through all the way in which we went and among all the peoples through whose midst we passed.” Joshua 24:17 LSB

“The Lord our God, he is God (houtos theos estin); he brought up us and our fathers from Egypt, and kept us in all the way wherein we walked, and among all the nations through whom we passed.” LXX

“‘Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Yahweh, and the God who answers by fire, He is God (hu ha’elohim).’… Now it happened at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, ‘Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god (elohim hu); either he is occupied or relieving himself, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.’’” 1 Kings 8:24, 27 LSB

JOHN 1:1 REVISITED

According to John’s Gospel, Jesus in his prehuman existence is the Word that has been existing from before creation with God the Father and as God in nature, being the One whom the Father appointed…

answeringislamblog.wordpress.com

How can "a thing" bring this into existence?



J.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is the problem my Brother - we cannot fully understand unless we first place our trust in His Word.

Yes, I agree. Jesus made this exact point. Even so, I take issue with the idea that "faith" is another way of knowing, which is irrational and otherwise incomprehensible. I apologize for thinking that you believed this.

Hebrews 11:1-3
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

This passage is often misunderstood, as if Paul means faith replaces reason. He isn't saying that faith is another way of knowing about things we can't see. He is saying that the presence of faith is evidence of God's justification.

The unseen thing is God's justification. We can't know directly if God has granted justification to a person, but there is a close association between a man (or woman) of faith and God's declaration of Justification in the OT that Paul's assertion is valid.

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

God calls us first to FAITH in His every word.

Faith is based on knowledge and understanding or it isn't faith.

 

[David in NJ]

It isn't a Who or a he. A "word" is a thing not a person.

Ok - let's TEST that theory - Together

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
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.

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become sons of God, to those who believe in His name:
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

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.

The FATHER created all things thru "Him"
In HIM was life - the life was the light of men
the world made thru HIM
HE was rejected by His own people
HE has Power to make us "sons of God"

The HE is the Word that was with God and that became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[David in NJ]

@Scott Downey

Why do you think - Let Us make man in Our image according Our likeness" - is only Two when Spoken 3 Times???

 

[CadyandZoe]

Ok - let's TEST that theory - Together

I don't consider this a test of my theory. John says that in the beginning was the word. Since the term "word" is a thing, the translation of the third person pronoun should be "it," not him.

Suppose John meant "promise," which is one possible translation of the term "logos." The translation would read, "In the beginning was the promise, and the promise was with God, and the promise was God."

Suppose John meant "plan", which is another possible translation. "In the beginning was the plan, and the plan was with God and the plan was God."

Suppose John meant "script", which is another possible translation. "In the beginning was the script . . . and etc.

See. If someone like me, not familiar with Christian Theology, reads the text without presuppositions, my mind goes to the dictionary definition of the word "logos," which is a product of the mind, not a person. That has been my understanding since I was a teenager and I have never changed my mind since.

If one sees consubstantiation in the First chapter of John, they should clean their glasses (so to speak) because it isn't there.

 

[David in NJ]

Yes, I agree. Jesus made this exact point. Even so, I take issue with the idea that "faith" is another way of knowing, which is irrational and otherwise incomprehensible. I apologize for thinking that you believed this.

This passage is often misunderstood, as if Paul means faith replaces reason. He isn't saying that faith is another way of knowing about things we can't see. He is saying that the presence of faith is evidence of God's justification.

The unseen thing is God's justification. We can't know directly if God has granted justification to a person, but there is a close association between a man (or woman) of faith and God's declaration of Justification in the OT that Paul's assertion is valid.


Faith is based on knowledge and understanding or it isn't faith.

I take issue with the idea that "faith" is another way of knowing, which is irrational and otherwise incomprehensible.

Correct in this TRUTH - God's Understanding thru FAITH is irrational to the world's way of logic and comprehension

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God,

Faith is based on knowledge and understanding or it isn't faith.

SAVING Faith is based upon what you or i cannot see with our physical eyes but we can KNOW and SEE thru the WORD of GOD

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God,

so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

1.) the world's logic cannot know GOD
2.) the world's logic is foolishness to GOD
3.) GOD's wisdom is foolish to the world and human logic
4.) Without Faith we cannot know GOD
5.) Faith in the Word of God precedes understanding
6.) Faith is required for us to please GOD
7.) GOD rewards when we place our faith in His Word

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

 

[CadyandZoe]

How can "a thing" bring this into existence?

J.

John does not suggest that the word brought anything into existence. He says all things came into existence through the word. For instance, Genesis opens with "God said let there be light" Light came into existence through God's word.

 

[Johann]

Correct in this TRUTH - God's Understanding thru FAITH is irrational to the world's way of logic and comprehension

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God,



SAVING Faith is based upon what you or i cannot see with our physical eyes but we can KNOW and SEE thru the WORD of GOD

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God,

so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

1.) the world's logic cannot know GOD
2.) the world's logic is foolishness to GOD
3.) GOD's wisdom is foolish to the world and human logic
4.) Without Faith we cannot know GOD
5.) Faith in the Word of God precedes understanding
6.) Faith is required for us to please GOD
7.) GOD rewards when we place our faith in His Word

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

And the Word is a PERSON! Not a concept/plan/an it-or a "afterthought"

J.

 

[Johann]

John does not suggest that the word brought anything into existence. He says all things came into existence through the word. For instance, Genesis opens with "God said let there be light" Light came into existence through God's word.

So is the "Word" a concept/plan/an it -in the mind of YHWH?

I would suggest you read the Scriptures again.

John 1:1-3 (Textus Receptus)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
In this passage, "the Word" (Greek: Logos) is identified as Jesus, affirming that He is the agent through whom all creation came into being.

Colossians 1:16-17 (Textus Receptus)
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Paul asserts that Jesus is the creator of all things, both visible and invisible, and that everything exists for Him.

Hebrews 1:2 (Textus Receptus)
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

This verse emphasizes that God created the universe through Jesus, who is the appointed heir of all things.

Revelation 4:11 (Textus Receptus)
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
While this passage primarily attributes creation to God, it is in line with the Christian understanding that God, in His triune nature (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), created all things, with Jesus as the agent of creation.

Ephesians 3:9 (Textus Receptus)
"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."

Paul teaches that all things were created by God through Jesus Christ, highlighting the role of Christ in creation.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (Textus Receptus)
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
This verse presents the Father as the source of all things, but emphasizes that it is through Jesus Christ that all things exist.

Genesis 1:26 (Septuagint)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."
While not explicitly referencing Jesus, many Church Fathers and theologians interpret the "us" in this passage as a reference to the Triune God, including the pre-incarnate Christ, indicating that Jesus was involved in creation from the beginning.

Grammar and Explanation:
In these references, the verbs used in relation to creation are typically in the aorist or perfect tense in the Greek, indicating completed action or ongoing results of that action. The phrase "by him" (δι' αὐτοῦ in Greek) emphasizes the instrumental role of Jesus in creation, while "through him" shows the means by which all things came into being.

The grammar in these passages helps convey that Jesus, as the eternal Logos, was not merely a part of creation but was the active agent through whom the entire universe was brought into existence. This also supports the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence, meaning that He existed before His incarnation and was instrumental in all acts of creation.

Now tell me @CadyandZoe-was Messiah just a plan in the mind of YHWH? Dia auto-By Him, not an "it"

J.

 

[David in NJ]

And the Word is a PERSON! Not a concept/plan/an it-or a "afterthought"

J.

CRYSTAL CLEAR
NEVER a doubt
Immanuel - GOD manifested in the flesh
the only begotten SON (a Son is not a 'thing') = My wife and i have five sons NOT five 'things'

@CadyandZoe - please review all on here and @Johann is here to help you and me should we go off course on anything

@CadyandZoe, you said that the Apostle John said the Word that was with God was a 'thing' = this is not true

Listen to the Apostle John

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us:
and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

@CadyandZoe, you can have the same JOY as the Apostle John on knowing the Word of Life who is the Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus is not Father God...

Jesus is no God at all since he said the Father is the only true God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So is the "Word" a concept/plan/an it -in the mind of YHWH?

I maintain that the Greek word "logos" indicates a product of the mind. We study God's word, which we agree is recorded in the scriptures and apprehended through the process of reading. His word contains oracles and promises and we know his oracles come true and he never fails to keep his promises.

I would suggest you read the Scriptures again.

I am reading the scriptures. I simply reject the Council of Nicaea syncretism.

I get it. One can form a plausible translation to read John chapter one as a confirmation of Trinitarianism, but nothing about the passage rules out other plausible understandings. I reject the Trinity Doctrine because I reject its philosophical underpinnings. Consubstantiation isn't a valid concept.

The same is true concerning the other passages you quoted. There are other plausible ways to understand each of them, which don't obscure the meaning or the point being conveyed.

Colossians 1:16-17 (Textus Receptus)
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Paul asserts that Jesus is the creator of all things, both visible and invisible, and that everything exists for Him.

Did he? I don't think so. Rather, Paul said that all things are created "in him", indicating that Jesus is the epitome of all other forms and instances of rulership.

This verse emphasizes that God created the universe through Jesus, who is the appointed heir of all things.
Hebrews 1:2 (Textus Receptus)
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

This is a perfect example to make my point. Paul argues that Jesus being a man did not disqualify him from being the Messiah. Thus, the subject of Paul's argument is Jesus-the-man, not a pre-existent second person of a Trinity. Jesus-the-man spoke in the last days. Jesus-the-man is his Son. Jesus-the-man is the one who has been appointed the heir of all things.

Since Jesus-the-man did not exist until he was born to the virgin Mary, then it isn't possible that Paul meant to say that Jesus-the-man played a central role in the creation process. Instead, Paul is saying that Jesus-the-man remained the central focus of God's purpose for History.

Now tell me @CadyandZoe-was Messiah just a plan in the mind of YHWH? Dia auto-By Him, not an "it"

J.

In my view, John is talking about the promise (logos) of God, which became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And the Word is a PERSON! Not a concept/plan/an it-or a "afterthought"

J.

A plan is not an afterthough, it is a prior thought. A concept is not an afterthought either. But a plan often becomes a reality.

I'm retired now, but I once designed houses for a living. My thoughts were translated into blueprints, and eventually, the blueprints were translated into a building through the medium of wood, concrete, stone, and glass. An idea in my head became a physical thing. (What a joy.)

John is saying that an idea in God's head -- living among Israel and ruling over the nations -- was translated into our reality through the medium of a human life. Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise to "tabernacle" among his people.