cyberjosh
Member
It is well known that there are participants on this board which deny that Jesus is God and some do so on more Biblical pretenses than we realize, simply because they look for explicit mention of Jesus saying he was God, and in such things they are indeed in the right to be cautious, but I put forth that they guard too much to their own detriment in that they blind themselves to many otherwise obvious implications and conclusions drawn from the text itself, not to mention even, yes indeed, explicit references to Jesus as God.
I will try to take a different approach than has been taken in the past (atleast for an OP) and attempt to preemptively address the claims of those who believe Jesus is not God. This will be lengthy, in which I will divide this into several posts, on account of the multitudinous errors and misconceptions which abound with this issue. A short list of common objections follows:
#1 There is no reference to Jesus as being God in the NT, nor a suggestion of it.
#2 Jesus is called 'son', and thus it is to be taken in the strictest sense of offspring, as being seperate from God.
#3 (Tied to #2 above) Jesus being "begotten" proves he was created and not pre-existant.
#4 Jesus' subordinate role to the Father shows Jesus is not to be honored as God.
#5 Jesus helped/helps the Father with such things as Creation, Salvation, Ruling, etc. but yet is not equivalent to God.
#6 Jesus is not equivalent to the Logos.
#7 Jesus never calls himself God, so he must not be God.
#1 The claim that there is no reference to Jesus as being God is a false one. For the particular objection of Jesus never calling himself God see #7. Now there are two rather obvious and well known instances in the Gospels in which people refer to Jesus as God, or strongly suggest it, and both are in the Gospel of John. The first is located in two places, two occasions of similar incident, in which the Jews saw Jesus was making himself equal to God in John 5:18 and John 10:33. The second is when Thomas calls Jesus God. Beyond these two narrative form instances of calling Jesus God, the Epistles more than once refer to Jesus as Lord and God, which skeptics often overlook because they do not understand the basics of Greek grammar & syntax in the form of the Granville Sharp Rule, which stands unrefuted in its field and is used in all forms of Greek writing, not just as some "tool" for NT exegesis alone.
Now the instances where the Jews saw Jesus was making himself as God will bear some looking at. In the context of John 5:18 Jesus has been giving authoritative statements on the Sabbath and doing works on the Sabbath with authority and justifying it by saying that He must be about his Father's business since His "Father has been working until now" (vs. 17). Then the Gospel of John makes a phenomenal interpretation and explanation for those who the implications of Jesus actions might be lost on, and indeed the Jews understood the Biblical implications of what Jesus did and said and displayed himself to be more than most of us do today, by then saying as a matter of fact, "He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God". This is not a statement saying, "The Jews thought he was making himself equal with God" but that rather "He was making himself equal with God". This point will also be important in evaluating #7 in that the equation of calling God his Father implies not created subordination but rather eternal equality, thus showing the common conception of the Jesus's Sonship to His Father as being disunified in nature as God is indeed false.
The second instance the Jews said with their own mouth, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (John 10:33). Jesus then makes a clever remark which avoids the direct assertion by showing a limited scope example where in the Book of Psalms God spoke to rulers (in specific) and called them 'gods' (elohim), and in so doing made the Jews reevaluate the basis of their assertions. Jesus averted direct assertions, accusations, or questions more than once such as with his reply to the people with the issue in the stoning of the adulteress, and when the man approached Jesus and called him 'good' without evaluating what he really was confessing of Jesus (thus he countered 'Why callest me thou good? Only one is good' - not a denial that he really was good, but a forcing of reevaluation of what the man said), etc, etc... Jesus was skilled and wise in the making of such responses that dig beneath the surface and deal with other issues that needed to be dealt with first, above the immediate direct assertions.
The Jews also were correct in their interpretation of the implications of Jesus forgiving a man's sin, "Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" (Luke 5:21), and indeed we shall see it consistantly throughout this topic that Jesus would be the chiefest of blasphemies on all counts if he were not God with the level of worship, praise, and dedication given to Christ in the Scriptures and which we presently give him, and which he will ultimately be given in Glory. He would be the chiefest of counterfits in Glory of God who said, "I will not give my Glory to another" who by being the summation of all things (Ephesians 1:10-11) would be the biggest idol and detraction from God of all. And most importantly we shall also see that we do not have a transparent Jesus can can be used and seen only as a means to the Father, when infact our Chief pursuit in life (as it was Paul's) should indeed be knowledge of Jesus, in his person, not just what he has done for us.
As for this instance in the Gospel of Luke we see also that the power to forgive sin lies with God alone. When challenged he asked which was easier: to heal or to forgive sins, and they could answer neither because both were by the power of God alone. The power given to the disciples however was different in nature in that the Spirit relegated that authority by Christ upon them, through Jesus only did they have the right or ability (and the "right to become sons of God" [John 1:12]), for he gave them that ability and commisioned them for it. Their ability to forgive on earth and it be forgiven in heaven is not a justificationary forgiveness but a covering over and amending of wrongs among men, not among man and God, which Jesus alone does as our High Priest. Such a function of man's covering of sins is seen in James 5:20, "Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins". By bringing them to Christ they are given credit for amending their past sins, on the basis of the consequent forgiveness and reconcillation of God to man, which the Apostles could not claim credit for. But they are accredited the saving of such a soul from destruction by turning them aside to the source of salvation.
_______________________________________
Continued below...
I will try to take a different approach than has been taken in the past (atleast for an OP) and attempt to preemptively address the claims of those who believe Jesus is not God. This will be lengthy, in which I will divide this into several posts, on account of the multitudinous errors and misconceptions which abound with this issue. A short list of common objections follows:
#1 There is no reference to Jesus as being God in the NT, nor a suggestion of it.
#2 Jesus is called 'son', and thus it is to be taken in the strictest sense of offspring, as being seperate from God.
#3 (Tied to #2 above) Jesus being "begotten" proves he was created and not pre-existant.
#4 Jesus' subordinate role to the Father shows Jesus is not to be honored as God.
#5 Jesus helped/helps the Father with such things as Creation, Salvation, Ruling, etc. but yet is not equivalent to God.
#6 Jesus is not equivalent to the Logos.
#7 Jesus never calls himself God, so he must not be God.
#1 The claim that there is no reference to Jesus as being God is a false one. For the particular objection of Jesus never calling himself God see #7. Now there are two rather obvious and well known instances in the Gospels in which people refer to Jesus as God, or strongly suggest it, and both are in the Gospel of John. The first is located in two places, two occasions of similar incident, in which the Jews saw Jesus was making himself equal to God in John 5:18 and John 10:33. The second is when Thomas calls Jesus God. Beyond these two narrative form instances of calling Jesus God, the Epistles more than once refer to Jesus as Lord and God, which skeptics often overlook because they do not understand the basics of Greek grammar & syntax in the form of the Granville Sharp Rule, which stands unrefuted in its field and is used in all forms of Greek writing, not just as some "tool" for NT exegesis alone.
Now the instances where the Jews saw Jesus was making himself as God will bear some looking at. In the context of John 5:18 Jesus has been giving authoritative statements on the Sabbath and doing works on the Sabbath with authority and justifying it by saying that He must be about his Father's business since His "Father has been working until now" (vs. 17). Then the Gospel of John makes a phenomenal interpretation and explanation for those who the implications of Jesus actions might be lost on, and indeed the Jews understood the Biblical implications of what Jesus did and said and displayed himself to be more than most of us do today, by then saying as a matter of fact, "He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God". This is not a statement saying, "The Jews thought he was making himself equal with God" but that rather "He was making himself equal with God". This point will also be important in evaluating #7 in that the equation of calling God his Father implies not created subordination but rather eternal equality, thus showing the common conception of the Jesus's Sonship to His Father as being disunified in nature as God is indeed false.
The second instance the Jews said with their own mouth, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (John 10:33). Jesus then makes a clever remark which avoids the direct assertion by showing a limited scope example where in the Book of Psalms God spoke to rulers (in specific) and called them 'gods' (elohim), and in so doing made the Jews reevaluate the basis of their assertions. Jesus averted direct assertions, accusations, or questions more than once such as with his reply to the people with the issue in the stoning of the adulteress, and when the man approached Jesus and called him 'good' without evaluating what he really was confessing of Jesus (thus he countered 'Why callest me thou good? Only one is good' - not a denial that he really was good, but a forcing of reevaluation of what the man said), etc, etc... Jesus was skilled and wise in the making of such responses that dig beneath the surface and deal with other issues that needed to be dealt with first, above the immediate direct assertions.
The Jews also were correct in their interpretation of the implications of Jesus forgiving a man's sin, "Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" (Luke 5:21), and indeed we shall see it consistantly throughout this topic that Jesus would be the chiefest of blasphemies on all counts if he were not God with the level of worship, praise, and dedication given to Christ in the Scriptures and which we presently give him, and which he will ultimately be given in Glory. He would be the chiefest of counterfits in Glory of God who said, "I will not give my Glory to another" who by being the summation of all things (Ephesians 1:10-11) would be the biggest idol and detraction from God of all. And most importantly we shall also see that we do not have a transparent Jesus can can be used and seen only as a means to the Father, when infact our Chief pursuit in life (as it was Paul's) should indeed be knowledge of Jesus, in his person, not just what he has done for us.
As for this instance in the Gospel of Luke we see also that the power to forgive sin lies with God alone. When challenged he asked which was easier: to heal or to forgive sins, and they could answer neither because both were by the power of God alone. The power given to the disciples however was different in nature in that the Spirit relegated that authority by Christ upon them, through Jesus only did they have the right or ability (and the "right to become sons of God" [John 1:12]), for he gave them that ability and commisioned them for it. Their ability to forgive on earth and it be forgiven in heaven is not a justificationary forgiveness but a covering over and amending of wrongs among men, not among man and God, which Jesus alone does as our High Priest. Such a function of man's covering of sins is seen in James 5:20, "Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins". By bringing them to Christ they are given credit for amending their past sins, on the basis of the consequent forgiveness and reconcillation of God to man, which the Apostles could not claim credit for. But they are accredited the saving of such a soul from destruction by turning them aside to the source of salvation.
_______________________________________
Continued below...
) I will then continue.
) was fearful and grateful and amazed that he had "seen the face of the Lord" and lived. That is the meaning & context of the verse, not what you make it out to be.