Is there any Biblical evidence that proves that Jesus is God?

[themuzicman]

Dear Michael:

Now, before I investigate your latest claim, let me make sure that I understand you properly. Are you claiming that verse 53 “And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God” refers to Jesus?

Regards.

Yes. While they did not have a developed sense of trinitarian doctrine, they understood that Jesus was God (See John 1:1-18), and when worshiping God they were worshiping Jesus as a person in the Godhead.

That is why these two verse are together. They worshiped Christ when He left, and continued to give thanks and blessing and praise to God, including Christ, in the temple. In fact, it would be inconsistent of them to worship Christ after His departure, and go to worship God, were Christ not a part of the Godhead.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Hi Jaymz

You have offered Titus 2:13 as evidence that Jesus is God.

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)

The unverified assumption was that Paul was referring to Jesus as ‘the great God’. However, Paul could have been referring to one or two persons. In attempting to verify this assumption, we note that Paul identified Jesus and God as two separate entities in his introduction.

To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. (Titus 1:4)

Further, when Jesus returns, He stated that He will be coming, seated at God’s right had.

Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt 26:64)

Therefore, Titus 2:13 is not evidence that Jesus is God.

Regards.

The Father will NOT appear. Jesus said "No man has seen the Father at any time", so how will the "Great God" appear if He can not be seen?

[BrotherSka]

[QUOTE=themuzicman;2763399]1) The end of Mark 16 is not considered by most scholars to be part of the original. So, evidence from Mark 16:9 onward is suspect.
[/QUOTE]

Hi Mark:

I can accept you reason for rejecting the end of Mark’s gospel. However, there is so much other supporting evidence, for example.

Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. (Rom 8:34)

which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places (Eph 1:20)

If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. (Col 3:1)

looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb 12:2)

who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him. (1 Pet 3:22)

2) God has no hands. This is symbolic language referring to God's authority.

OK Michael, I am not trying to prove that God has hands. Although, we can find supporting evidence for that. The verses appear to indicate that Jesus is on the right side of God. I understand that God is omnipresent and therefore has no right side; therefore, to avoid an unnecessary argument, let us agree that Jesus is on the right side of God’s throne – as described in the scriptures.

Regards.

[BrotherSka]

Yes. While they did not have a developed sense of trinitarian doctrine, they understood that Jesus was God (See John 1:1-18), and when worshiping God they were worshiping Jesus as a person in the Godhead.

That is why these two verse are together. They worshiped Christ when He left, and continued to give thanks and blessing and praise to God, including Christ, in the temple. In fact, it would be inconsistent of them to worship Christ after His departure, and go to worship God, were Christ not a part of the Godhead.

Michael

Hi Michael:

Those are some huge unverified assumptions. I will have to analyse your claims later.

Regards.

[Littlejoe]

Hi LittleJoe:

Are you unfamiliar with the KJV? That is what I used.

Sorry,
I usually at least check KJV, but I skipped it this time for some reason. While I love the KJV for it's rich language and it's accuracy (to the Latin), the truth is that it's wording is outdated by 4 centuries of English language "drift". So, it being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, not the original Greek, IMHO, makes it less usful for theology discussions.

If you wish, I can use a version acceptable to you.

Great! I prefer the ESV or NASB for their accuracy and fidelity to the original Greek. Therefore, here is the verse from Titus 2:13 ESV:

Titus 2:13 ESV

13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

© source where applicable

Please address this verse.

You have offered John 1:1 and 1:14 as evidence that Jesus is God. Very good. Let us examine it.

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

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)

Please note that it does not say that Jesus was God or that the Word is God, but that the Word was with God, and was God in the beginning. We will try to discuss this issue without damaging the integrity of the evidence.

But it does say that the Word was God. I highlighted the scripture you posted above.

Can you show biblically that the phrase "In the beginning..." still has relation to "...and the Word was God"? If I say: "In the morning I had water, and the water was in the form of ice and the ice is with water, then the water in the form of ice... is still water. The time frame of "in the morning", doesn't change the basic substance of the water, it's simply in a different form at a different time of day!.

It is possible that words, before they are spoken, can be considered to be part of the person. My words not yet spoken are with me and can be said to be me.

Nothing but supposition plain and simply.

However, once spoken, they represent me, but are separate from me. Let us see whether this explanation maintains the integrity of the evidence.

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)


The unspoken Word was with God in the beginning. This unspoken Word was God.

Please show biblical evidence that this word was "unspoken"

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

The unspoken Word was spoken and creation was the result. Note that God is the Creator, and all things were made by God through the Word of God. Hence, the “Word of God” is essentially the Word that belongs to God and came from God.

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)

The text clearly implies that "The Word" is a person ie "HIM"

Once spoken, the Word became a separate entity with a life of His own.

Again, no biblical evidence that "speaking" was a catalyst for seperation.

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)

The Word, separated from God, eventually became flesh. The idea of the Word having life in Himself, and the Word becoming flesh, is consistent with other Biblical teachings.

Therefore, the Word was God. Seperated from God is eisigesis based on your view, and is not necessary for "...and became flesh" (...a la God in the flesh) to happen. The Word is still God, albeit incarnate.

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:26–27)

Is this the actual interpretation? I do not know; but it is plausible and it does not damage the integrity of the evidence. We must remember that Paul indicated that there exists an element of uncertainty for the time being.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 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. (1 Corinthians 13:9–12)

Therefore, dogmatic (doctrinal) statements should not be made about inconclusive issues. Rather, all of the relevant evidence should be examined, and conflicting evidence must be reconciled. No evidence should be ignored in order to reach a favoured position.

Regards.

The problem here is that anything can be construed as inconclusive.

LJ

[Bill the Cat]

the mere fact that people can confuse the great rabbi with God Almighty shows that they have not grasped his teachings.

"why do you call me good? only God is good" <--- statement of a true worshiper of God

John 10:11(KJV)
I am the good shepherd


So is Jesus good?

[themuzicman]

[OK Michael, I am not trying to prove that God has hands. Although, we can find supporting evidence for that. The verses appear to indicate that Jesus is on the right side of God. I understand that God is omnipresent and therefore has no right side; therefore, to avoid an unnecessary argument, let us agree that Jesus is on the right side of God’s throne – as described in the scriptures.

Regards.

No, I won't agree to that. The use of symbolic language with respect to sitting at God's right hand is consistent. It doesn't refer to a literal sitting on the right side, but refers to power. There is a long and consistent cultural symbol that extends back into the Old Testament, here.

Exodus 15

"6. Your right hand, O LORD, is majestic in power,
Your right hand, O LORD, shatters the enemy.


12. "You stretched out Your right hand,
The earth swallowed them.

Deuteronomy 33

2 He said, "The LORD came from Sinai,
And dawned on them from Seir;
He shone forth from Mount Paran,
And He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones;
At His right hand there was flashing lightning for them

psalm 17

7 Wondrously show Your lovingkindness,
O Savior of those who take refuge at Your right hand
From those who rise up against them.

Psalm 18

35 You have also given me the shield of Your salvation,
And Your right hand upholds me;
And Your gentleness makes me great.

Psalm 20

6 Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed;
He will answer him from His holy heaven
With the saving strength of His right hand.

And there are more. So, no, I don't agree with your assertion, as there is no instance in the bible where anyone is literally at the right side of God.

[BrotherSka]

The Father will NOT appear. Jesus said "No man has seen the Father at any time", so how will the "Great God" appear if He can not be seen?

Dear Bill:

Many persons have seen God and will see God. However, perhaps it is a part of God that John claimed that no one but Jesus, as the Word of God, had seen.

Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank. (Ex 24:9-11)

Are you claiming that God cannot appear as He has appeared, and was seen, in the past?

Regard.

[Bill the Cat]

Dear Bill:

Many persons have seen God and will see God.

Then you call Jesus and Paul a liar.

1 Tim. 6:15-17, "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."


John 6:46 Jesus says, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."

Scripture is quite clear that no one has or can see the Father.

However, perhaps it is a part of God that John claimed that no one but Jesus, as the Word of God, had seen.

Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank. (Ex 24:9-11)

Are you claiming that God cannot appear as He has appeared, and was seen, in the past?

Regard.

This is universally understood as a theophany of the Son. If not, then Jesus told a falsehood and therefore could not be the Truth. Either there is a contradiction in Jesus' and the Father's words or the Father really CAN'T be seen by human eyes.

[John Goddard]

Now, let us examine your interpretation.
...
...or perhaps Mary simply acted as an incubator into which Jesus was placed as an embryo...
...
Now, given the limited available evidence, we can only speculate.
...
You would need to define man. If a man is defined as having an earthly mother and father, then Jesus was not 100% man.

Along those lines, my belief is that Jesus was the son of David and Bathsheba 2 Samuel 12:14 destined to receive promises of 2 Samuel 7:14 that went temporarily to his younger brother Solomon. Sent down from Heaven through resurrection into the womb of Mary, not incarnation, John 6:33.

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (John 17:5)

What was this glory?

I believe it was the glorious plan for Jesus that he asked to be fulfilled soon, not that Jesus existed eternally with glory.

However, in determining that Jesus had powers equal to God’s you would need to define “equal”. Is it equal in both type and magnitude? I do not think so.

In terms of relations between God and us, Jesus is equal to God having all judgment over us.

In terms of relations between God and Jesus, Jesus is still servant of God.

[BrotherSka]

Yes. While they did not have a developed sense of trinitarian doctrine, they understood that Jesus was God (See John 1:1-18), and when worshiping God they were worshiping Jesus as a person in the Godhead.

That is why these two verse are together. They worshiped Christ when He left, and continued to give thanks and blessing and praise to God, including Christ, in the temple. In fact, it would be inconsistent of them to worship Christ after His departure, and go to worship God, were Christ not a part of the Godhead.

Michael

Hi Michael:

Let us review this verse.

And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen. (Lu 24:52-53)

The verse 53 states that the disciples were “in the temple praising and blessing God”.

You have determined that this is equivalent to the disciples being “in the temple praising and blessing Jesus”, and you are basing this interpretation on the assumption that Jesus is God.

I have already provided you with evidence (post no. 48) to show that Jesus is in heaven with God. The interpretation that Jesus is God damages the integrity of too many verses.

What do you think of Stephens final confession?

But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Ac 7:55-56)

Regards.

[BrotherSka]

Titus 2:13 ESV

13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

© source where applicable

Please address this verse.

Hi LittleJoe:

The evidence that you asked me to investigate is that Paul appeared to refer to Jesus as: our great God and Savior.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. (Titus 2:11–14)

The assumption is that Paul was calling Jesus “our great God”. However, Paul could have been referring to one or two persons. In attempting to verify this assumption, we note that Paul identified Jesus and God as two separate entities in his introduction.

To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. (Titus 1:4)

Therefore, it is likely that Paul is repeating this pattern of referring to God first and Jesus second.

Regards.

[BrotherSka]

But it does say that the Word was God. I highlighted the scripture you posted above.

Hi LittleJoe:

The verse says that the Word was God, and was with God in the beginning. I have already provided you with a reasonably explanation of John 1. The Word was with God and was God in the beginning. Once God spoke forth His Word during Creation, the Word became separate from God and was no longer God.

I described my words not yet spoken can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they represent me, but they are not me. This explanation does not damage the integrity of the evidence, and it is plausible. Therefore, John 1 has at least 2 conflicting interpretations.

Regards.

[BrotherSka]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]The problem here is that anything can be construed as inconclusive

Hi LittleJoe:

The problem here is that anything can be construed as inconclusive.

I have found that most if not all of the explicit teachings of the Bible can be honestly interpreted conclusively.

Regards.

[Littlejoe]

Hi LittleJoe:

The evidence that you asked me to investigate is that Paul appeared to refer to Jesus as: our great God and Savior.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. (Titus 2:11–14)

The assumption is that Paul was calling Jesus “our great God”. However, Paul could have been referring to one or two persons. In attempting to verify this assumption, we note that Paul identified Jesus and God as two separate entities in his introduction.

To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. (Titus 1:4)

Therefore, it is likely that Paul is repeating this pattern of referring to God first and Jesus second.

Regards.

Not likely at all. You are really reaching for an interpretation. Using this reasoning, He is referring to one person because in Titus 3:4-6 Paul refers to God as our Savior and Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Titus 3:4-6 ESV

4But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

© source where applicable

Next you'll be telling us that the Holy Spirit isn't God either...


LJ