Jesus is God?

chrismalan · Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: Jesus is God?

George Vandeman, Josh McDowell, Doug Batchelor, Dwight Nelson and countless others claim Jesus claimed to be God.

I suspect that is because they have only a vague idea about whom the word "God", as used in the Bible, refers to.

I know that in Psalm 84 even rulers are regerred to as "gods". Jesus spoke about it and said the Pharisees were taking this god thing too seriously. But Jesus was not speaking of "God", the Biblical God who cannot be taken too seriously.

So, who is the true "God?" The One and Only. You will all agree that we cannot do much better than a clear answer from Jesus himself.

John 17
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee,
2 since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him.
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

The punchline is in verse 3. I quoted the other verses for context. Note that this verse gets 10/10 for clarity.
Unlike John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

On this unclear verse much theology has been built and many theses and papers written. There is a Doctorate in Theology in every unclear verse in the Bible. No wonder unclear verses are so beloved by members of Theological faculties everywhere.

Let's use variable symbols in John 1:1, as is done in many brances of science ruled by facts.
In the beginning was A, and A was with B, and A was B.

Clearly, that doesn't make much sense. Two variables can refer to the same entity, in which case the quote would be a true but clumsy way of saying "In the beginning was A. However, it is highly unlikely that this verse is meant to be understood as talking about one entity.

So, why the ambiguity? I have noticed that Jesus, too, often did not answer questions directly or very clearly. Nicodemus did not fully understand the answer to his question. What is achieved by an obscure answer?

The fact that people keep on thinking about the question and the answer. The result of a short, clear answer is often that both the answer and the question are soon forgotten. John 1:1 is a case in point. What it really means nobody knows, except maybe my teenage son who knows everything.

As far as John 1:1 is concerned we are left with only three possibilities:
1)John expressed himself poorly
2)An early copyist did not transmit correctly what John had written. Maybe John's manuscript had a smudge,
the writing there was unclear or the copyist made a mistake.
3)John did it on purpose to keep people thinking about the close relationship between God and Jesus.

Whatever the case may be, one cannot use this verse as it is as a foundation stone for dogma, it is just too unclear.

What more did Jesus have to say that may help?

Matthew 16
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Note that Jesus agreed with the answer provided in verse 16. Jesus did not say, "No, no Simon Bar-Jona, I AM the living God."

The passage below is also taken as proof that Jesus is God. The punchline is verse 7.

Mark 2
3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.
4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.
5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."
6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts,
7 "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" /* Also Luke 5:21 */
8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts?
9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'?
10 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the paralytic--
11 "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home."
12 And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

If semi-literates take verse 7 as proof that only God can forgive sins, they can be forgiven. But "learned" members of Theological faculties? They should do an introductory course in mathematical logic at their institutions.

Verse 7 only proofs that the scribes WERE OF THE OPINION that only God can forgive sins. Truly, a slow six year old will see this.

How valid were their opinions on matters related to God? For instance when does one break the sabbath, or is it allowed for someone to give the money they had to use to support their aged parents to the temple and then neglect their parents? Did Jesus differ from them on occasion? Did Jesus criticize their dogma?

Back to who can and who cannot forgive sins.
John 20
21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

The punchline is verse 23. Note that Jesus is here speaking to his disciples. Again, this is a 10/10 verse for clarity. Unless Jesus made a mistake here, which I don't consider for one moment, it puts paid to the scribes' notion that only God can forgive sins.

I have heard that Ellen White said that, despite the clarity of this verse, it really does not mean what it says. Apparently it means something else, not as direct and clear. If Ellen White didn't say this, ignore this paragraph. I know that she said that if the Bible says one thing and she the other, we should go by the Bible.
That means, whether Ellen White advanced a different reading for verse 23 or not, verse 23 stands as it is, even according to Ellen White.

The following quote is also taken as proof that Jesus is God.
John 14
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

Unfortunately, this is very basic. Most of you will have come accross identical twins, to have seen one is to have seen the other. I am not implying that Jesus and God the Father are identical twins, just that they are so alike in many ways that to know the one is to know the other.

Mark 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

If Jesus sat down at the right hand of God it is very clear that he is not God. Anyone who reasons differently must have smoked some potent stuff. The logic here is very basic. Or do you consider for one moment that Jesus sat down at His own right hand?

Are there any differences between Jesus and God the Father? Who better to ask than Jesus.

Matthew 24
36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man.
38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

Verse 36 is the one. The others are just so beautiful I could not resist including them. Obviously, the Father did not share all He knew with Jesus up to the time Jesus said these words.

Things may have changed since Jesus returned to heaven after aquitting himself so marvelously of his task here on earth. I do not know that and it is not important for our salvation. However, it shows that Jesus and God the Father (God) are two entities, not one. And they are not two carbon copies, despite great similarities.

If Jesus is God, He will occupy the same level in the hierarchy. What does Jesus say about this?
John 14
28 You heard me say to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

If the Father (God) is greater than Jesus, how can Jesus be God? Impossible.

I know of the concept of the word God, which while not meaning Jesus or God the Father, really means both of them and the Holy Spirit as well. Not in the sense of a collection (a named entity comprising any number of identical or non-identical entities of a certain kind - a set contains only non-identical entities), but in a weird and confusing way also used to refer to any of these three Personages in the singular form.

Consider this: we have a Mr Smith Jnr named John. Confusingly Mr Smith Snr also has Smith as his first name. Almost like Major Major Major in Catch 22. Now people sometimes refer to Mr Smith Jnr by his last name. Clearly, Smith is Smith and John is Smith. I am sure you can see the excellent opportunites for confusion here. Does anyone really think God is the author of such confusion?

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

Should we revel in the confusion about this subject or go to the Bible for answers?

Below is another quote used to equate Jesus with God.

Collosians 1
13 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Clearly, the He in verse 13 is God the Father and the He in verse 15 is Jesus. The "first-born" may refer to status as well as time. The rest of verse 15 clearly places Jesus as part of creation. I looked at 4 translations, they are all much the same on this. One is not English and translated from the original Greek.

How then can Jesus be created and still be part of the creation of all things and "before all things" and eternal?

Quite simple, really. Augustine, who died in 430 AD, knew that time is an attribute of the universe which, like the universe, was created. Asking modern seminaries and departments of Theology to at least know this much is not asking too much. Obviously, some of them in 2005 are not where Augustine was nearly 1600 years ago. An attribute of anything (your hair colour, for instance) comes into being with whatever it is an attribute of.

Einstein published his special theory of relativity in 1905 and his general theory of relativity in 1916 - enough time has elapsed for the Theology departments to at least take note of them. They should at least know that time came into existence. There is no "before" or "after" in a timeless condition. If Jesus came into existence with time and lasts as long as time, He is eternal. If Jesus is "the first-born of all creation" then he is "before all
things."

Note that in saying all this I am in no way detracting any of the glory of Jesus. He did pay for the sins of all humanity once and for all - a tall order if ever there was one. If it was not for Him we all would be eternally lost. Now we have the opportunity to be saved. But let's get this important matter right. Non-Christians make fun of this.
I worked in Saudi Arabia where I was told we Christians have a pantheon of gods. BTW, nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to pray to Jesus. Jesus himself said we should pray "our Father who is in heaven." No-one in the Bible, except Stephen, as he was dying, addressed Jesus in any way that may pass as a prayer.

The Muslims have a thing that God cannot have any sons. It is in the Koran. Ask them if God is all-powerfull and the answer is aiwa (yes, if you are in Saudi Arabia). Is God all-wise? Aiwa, again. Is god eternal? Aiwa. Then how can someone who is all-powerful and all-wise not have a son if he wants to have one and has all eternity in which to fullfill his own wish?
A perplexed look.

We Seventh Day Adventists should really do better. The answers are in the Bible. We are supposed to have beliefs based on Biblical facts, not on the ramblings of minds who refuse to be shackled by facts because facts limit the wild flights of their baseless conjecturing. They call it creativity.

Chris Malan
_________________
Life is short. Eternity is forever.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:52 pm Post subject:

chrismalan · Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:12 am Post subject:

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 71

"Expertise in Greek means nothing!"

"Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance?
Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism?
Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn?"
Proverbs 1:22.

tall73 · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 04 Aug 2004 Posts: 96

I do think that Jesus frequently refers to Himself as subordinate to the Father. However, I do have a couple of issues with your posting. But the question is, as Eugene hints at, is it a difference of nature, or one of roles?

1. If you are going to deal with the differences of Jesus and the Father you might want to look at texts such as Phil. 2 which deal with Jesus in His state before He came to earth. Since the Bible says that Jesus grew in stature and wsdome as a child, clearly His nature while on earth is not the clearest indication of His actual position either before or after His incarnation. However, I think there is sufficient evidence here too that Jesus seems to indicate that He is subordinate to God the Father.

2. While we may agree that some texts are less clear, or that they might have a symbolic or nuanced meaning, that does not mean the author did not intend for them to be understood. John's purpose statement at the end of the book makes it clear that he definitely wanted his audience to get that Jesus was the Christ and we can have eternal life through Him. To say that he wrote things that they would never understand on purpose goes against what he said his goal was.

It is true that Jesus' statement to Nicodemus was ambigous. Did he mean born again, or born from above? What did he mean by it in either case? I don't think it was really that unclear to Nicodemus though, I think he was just playing a bit dumb because he didn't like where Jesus was going with this.

We also see Jesus statement about living water, made to the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob, was ambiguous. The idea of living water was hardly clear, or some would suggest that to the people of that time it meant living water. But by the end of the conversation I think we would all agree that she knew what he meant.

It might be a way to get people to think, as you said. It seems quite likely. But I do think they got the point by the end. John clearly intended the same.

As to expertise in Greek meaning nothing...I wouldn't say it means nothing. But it is not likely to change the obvious meaning of most texts. Too often people focus on things such as etymology, etc. which really would not have been in the mind of the author. They were not trying to analyze the development of a language. They were just writing a letter, and wanted it to be understood.

chrismalan · Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:06 am Post subject: