Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

QEOS doesn't mean deity or ruler, so what are you talking about?

Nonetheless, you still haven't explained how Jesus' use of Psalm 82:6 helped him prove he was God.
2316 θεός [theos /theh·os/] n m. Of uncertain affinity, a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; TDNT 3:65; TDNTA 322; GK 2536; 1343 occurrences; AV translates as “God” 1320 times, “god” 13 times, “godly” three times, “God-ward + 4214” twice, and translated miscellaneously five times. 1 a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. 2 the Godhead, trinity. 2A God the Father, the first person in the trinity. 2B Christ, the second person of the trinity. 2C Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity. 3 spoken of the only and true God. 3A refers to the things of God. 3B his counsels, interests, things due to him. 4 whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way. 4A God’s representative or viceregent. 4A1 of magistrates and judges.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Why would we have to figure out something Scripture could plainly state?

We didn't have to figure out YHWH is God (because Scripture plainly states it).
We don't have to figure out Jesus is "the Messiah, son of the living God" (as Scripture plainly states it).

These are things that are explicitly stated.
I agree with you. We don't have to figure out Jesus is God scripture explicitly states so. Titus 2:13, 2 Pe 1:1 Jn 20:28, Ro 9:5
There are no "centers of consciousness" in Scripture (since "centers of consciousness" dwell in the brain).
Now you are a neurologist. Tell us, in what part of the brain does consciousness dwell? I have worked in neurology for many years, never have I heard a medical professional, or read a medical publication that stated wherein the brain consciousness can be found.

The Center of consciousness includes the idea of mind, will, and desire. Tells us where in the brain can I locate will or disire? How about feeling such as love, hate, fear, etc?
Instead, the Bible speaks of beings--both human and spirit.

Therefore, the Law is only valid if two beings are witnesses. Jesus presents himself as a witness, and the second witness is God(, his Father).
Without consciousness, there is no cognitive ability to give a testimony. The Key is consciousness. Can you get testimony from an unconscious human? Do individuals on life support with no brain activity give testimonies?
 
Back to being the one verse wonder. As if Jn 4:24 states that God exists in Spirit form only and cannot manifest Himself and the creation is greater than the Creator. Notice the verse does not state that God is confined to spirit form only.
Why would it? The verse is in the present tense, which means God is a spirit (at the time Jesus was speaking)--meaning he wasn't flesh.
Ro 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is overall, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Or:
to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen
Paul is explicit, Jesus is God incarnate. If you disagree argue the verse, immediate text, chapter, book or author. Arguing from Jn is poor scholarship.
I really don't understand your definition of "explicit"--especially when you continue using ambigous verses to prove your beliefs.
 
That also means Jonathon called David "YHWH God of Israel".
Red herring. We are discussing Thomas calling Jesus God not Johnathon and David. As to Johathan and David chapter and verse, please. Otherwise, you have nothing.
More irrelevant red herrings. Exclamatory or not does not negate the statement.
Jesus doesn't even acknowledge the statement(, which argues against Jesus understanding this as Thomas calling him his Lord and God).

Instead, Jesus addresses Thomas' (former) disbelief mentioned in John 20:25--stating that he now believes.
Really? Do truth statements have to be acknowledged vs false statements denied? And if Jesus is addressing vs 25 so what? It does not invalidate Thomas's statement that Jesus is God.
So, you didn't click the hyperlink?
The hyperlink did not work for me. Notice in the amount of time it took you to type the above foolishness you could have typed chapter and verse. BTW proper scholarship cites chapter and verse
Another unsubstantiated claim I see.
Unable to connect simple dots?
Let me help you
My post = What did Thomas say? 'The Lord of me and the God of me." Note thoes carries the definite article "ho" identifying Jesus as his God =YHWH.
Your response :Did not Jonathon say to David: "Lord YHWH of Israel"? Yes. Did that mean Jonathon was calling David 'YHWH God of Israel'? No!
Did not Jesus answer and say to the crowd: "my mother and my brothers"? (Of course.) Did that mean Jesus was calling those in the crowd his 'mother and brothers'? No!


Why is it a fallacy false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.

Because there is a similarity between Johnathan saying X, Jesus saying X, and Thomas saying X =does not support your conclusion that Thomas means X when he spoke.

It is also a red-herring. Address what Thomas said by analyzing what Thomas said. What Johnathan or Jesus said is irrelevant.


Nothing(, which is why Jesus doesn't acknowledge the statement).
Nothing? What was Thomas calling Jesus when he said 'My Lord and My God?' Who was he referring to. Let me guess, the antiquated JW response. Thomas was speaking about the Father. Even though nothing in the text supports this nonsense.
It was an exclamation.
So what? Exclamation or not does not negate that Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and God.
What is your point?
You do realize MONOGENHS is used in both a figurative and literal way, correct? Hence, Isaac is figuratively the MONOGENHS (with relation to God's promise to his father).
Now you retreat to the figurative, where anything ambiguous can be submitted. Why not use imagination.
Another unsubstantiated claim
Figuratively speaking, he did.
Another unsubstantiated claim. Paul was not claiming that he figuratively fathered this man but this man was highly favored by him. I guess when you are caught in checkmate the 'figurative' card comes out.
It is if you believe both have been in existence for the same amount of time(--that is--eternity).
That is not twins, twins have a beginning.
Naturally(. Hence, it's called "natural selection").
Another unsubstantiated claim. I asked you to point to NS, can you give one example of it operating in nature today? BTW do you believe in NS?
Not in an "economic" setting.
Another unsubstantiated claim.
That's because the Father is God(. Hence the scripture "the Head of Christ is God").

Again, you've proven my point: that in a father/son relationship, the father has authority over his son.
Try again, in this Father/Son relationship the Father has authority over Jesus. A father having authority over a son is not etched in stone. Did you bother to think this one through. Do fathers with dementia living in nursing homes have authority over their sons or vice versa?


 

OldShepherd

Active member
What you quoted only strengthens my argument. (What you highlighted only shows that the author believes Jesus is "God incarnate"--something the Bible doesn't state., especially considering Jesus' own words at John 4:24.)
The author of the Expositor's Greek NT article which you posted and I quoted did not say he believed that Jesus is God incarnate but that "the proofs that St. Paul held Christ to be God Incarnate do not lie in a few disputable texts."
 
2316 θεός [theos /theh·os/] n m. Of uncertain affinity, a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; TDNT 3:65; TDNTA 322; GK 2536; 1343 occurrences; AV translates as “God” 1320 times, “god” 13 times, “godly” three times, “God-ward + 4214” twice, and translated miscellaneously five times. 1 a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. 2 the Godhead, trinity. 2A God the Father, the first person in the trinity. 2B Christ, the second person of the trinity. 2C Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity. 3 spoken of the only and true God. 3A refers to the things of God. 3B his counsels, interests, things due to him. 4 whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way. 4A God’s representative or viceregent. 4A1 of magistrates and judges.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
What you've highlighted is not the meaning of QEOS/QEOI. Those are referents.

(You do know the difference between the two, don't you?)
I agree with you. We don't have to figure out Jesus is God scripture explicitly states so. Titus 2:13, 2 Pe 1:1 Jn 20:28, Ro 9:5
I don't see how ambiguous texts are called "explicit".
Now you are a neurologist. Tell us, in what part of the brain does consciousness dwell? I have worked in neurology for many years, never have I heard a medical professional, or read a medical publication that stated wherein the brain consciousness can be found.

The Center of consciousness includes the idea of mind, will, and desire. Tells us where in the brain can I locate will or disire? How about feeling such as love, hate, fear, etc?
How long have you been out of the field?

You don't have to be a neurologist, though, to know consciousness is a brain function(--which is why, if your brain is damaged, even your subconsciousness fails).

Without consciousness, there is no cognitive ability to give a testimony. The Key is consciousness. Can you get testimony from an unconscious human? Do individuals on life support with no brain activity give testimonies?
Your question "Do individuals on life support with no brain activity give testimonies" just proved my point--that consciousness lies in the brain.
 
Again you post verses that implicitly support your idea but ignore verses that explicitly contradict your idea.
Do you know the difference between "implicit" and "explicit"?
Yes Jesus is the son of Mary and Mary's lineage is traced back to Adam. But one has to ask why did Matthew not follow the pattern of listing the father/son relationship in the lineage when it came to Jesus and Joseph? Notice Matthew gave Joseph's lineage, not Mary's but points out that Jesus is Mary's physical Son and not Joseph's.

Note what you have failed to include in your discussion.
The point of Jesus' lineage being traced from Joseph from David was to show that he was in the line of succession as "king of Israel".
Why Mary?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us, a Son is given, And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Notice a child is born = Mary
a Son is given = God
Who is this Child/Son = Mighty God, Everlasting Father
This is a stretch of the imagination considering the text quoted at Matthew 1:23 is--not Isaiah 9:6, but--Isaiah 7:14.

Nice try though (as you did something that even Matthew himself didn't do).
How do you reconcile this with your idea that "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" implies a Creator /Creation relationship?
There is nothing that needs reconciling (since all sons are created--that is, brought into existence--by their biological fathers).
Red-herring nonsense. Nothing in Scripture states that Jesus is a procreation of God.
Luke 1:35 does(--that is, unless you believe Mary was impregnated by a human being).
Follow the narrative, claiming to be a procreation of God is not blasphemy, claiming to be God is. And that is what Jesus is.
Jesus never claimed to be God in the narrative.

(Claiming to be God's son and claiming to be God are two different things.)
Only if you ignore the fact that they believed Jesus was both.
Why do you use such a bad translation? Is it out of desperation?
How did you determine this was a "bad translation"?
Following your logic one has to ask, how does an eternal, immutable god procreate an eternal immutable god?
He didn't(, which is why he is referred to as the "only born god").
Again 'only-begotten' highly favored.
Even if one translates MONOGENHS as "only begotten", you do realize the meaning of "begotten" still denotes procreation, correct?
Seem to have ignored
“Begotten” denotes unique, blessed, and favored in relation to their parents. It does not at all mean conceived. This is evident in Heb 11:17. Most know that Abraham fathered Ismael and Isaac, but he also fathered six other sons evident by the following verses.

Ge 25:1-2Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.
1 Ch 1:32 Now the sons born to Keturah, Abraham’s concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah…

We conclude from scripture that Abraham had eight sons, therefore one has to ask why did the author of Hebrews identify Isaac and Abrahams's only begotten son if the meaning of begotten is to conceive or father children? John’s word marks the relation to the Father as unique, stating the fact in itself. Μονογενής ‘only-begotten’ distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not ‘become’ (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but ‘was’ (ἦν) such in the beginning with God.

Philemon 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

Following your logic, Paul fathered a grown man while in prison.

Care to address the above, or ignore it as usual.
I addressed this already:
1606088573054.png
Interestingly, you didn't address anything I stated, but (as usual) repeated the same information.

Is this what I should (continue to) expect from you?
Again pointing out the irrelevant. What is relevant is claiming the cloud.
Ex 14:24… in the morning watch, that the Lord looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud…
Ex 16:10 …as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud.
Ex 19:16…that there were thundering and lightning, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud…
Ex 40:34-35 Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.
1 Ki 8:10-12 …when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days…
Mt 17:5While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son…
Mt 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven… and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mt 26:64 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.”
Ac 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
Re 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

In the Old Testament, the cloud theophany was taken as the visible expression of the presence of God. The cloud filled the tabernacle and was there day and night as a witness to the presence of God. God appeared in the cloud on the Day of Atonement, and God’s acceptance of the temple built as His dwelling is shown when the cloud comes at the dedication in 1 Kings and many others. The theme is anyone who claims the cloud is claiming deity.
It seems you missed that Daniel 7:13 states (in part): "one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days".

Clearly then, "the clouds of heaven" didn't represent God's presence because God(ie, the Ancient of Days) was present.

Thus, Jesus was not claiming deity because he said he was "coming on the clouds"--especially when he just stated he will be "sitting at the right hand of the Power"(. Compare Mark 14:62).
Note Jesus at the Transfiguration, when he reveals his own glory, the clouds envelop him.
You might want to read the text again:
While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them...
When being interrogated by the Sanhedrin, Jesus claims the cloud in His reply.
He mentions the "clouds (plural) of heaven" as referred to at Daniel 7:13.
At His ascension, He is received into the clouds,
Clouds are in the heavens after all.
and in Revelation returns on a cloud.
Clouds (plural).
In a nutshell, anyone who claims to ride the cloud claims deity.
Or, they're claiming to be coming out of heaven:
Then the sign of the son of man will appear in the heavens, and then all the peoples of the earth will mourn; and they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30)
I don't see how you associated the "clouds (plural) of heaven" with the "pillar of cloud (singular)" mentioned at Exodus 13:22 et al.
 
Red herring. We are discussing Thomas calling Jesus God not Johnathon and David. As to Johathan and David chapter and verse, please. Otherwise, you have nothing.
Actually, we're discussing whether or not Thomas called Jesus "God".

Right now, the only thing you've shown is that Thomas "answered and said" (something) to Jesus--not that he called Jesus God.
"Answering and saying to" someone doesn't mean you're calling them anything (as demonstrated by Luke 8:21).
More irrelevant red herrings. Exclamatory or not does not negate the statement.
Actually, it does.
Really? Do truth statements have to be acknowledged vs false statements denied? And if Jesus is addressing vs 25 so what? It does not invalidate Thomas's statement that Jesus is God.
Notice Jesus acknowledges those who address him as "son of God", "teacher", "Lord", and the "king of Israel":
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” 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. (Matthew 16:16, 17)
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the son of God; you are the king of Israel!” Jesus said to him, “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” (John 1:49, 50)
You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. (John 13:13)
However, he doesn't acknowledge Thomas' statement at all.
The hyperlink did not work for me. Notice in the amount of time it took you to type the above foolishness you could have typed chapter and verse. BTW proper scholarship cites chapter and verse
1 Samuel 20:12.

(BTW, I'm not sure where you're getting the "proper scholarship" rules from.)

Unable to connect simple dots?
Let me help you
My post = What did Thomas say? 'The Lord of me and the God of me." Note thoes carries the definite article "ho" identifying Jesus as his God =YHWH.
Your response "did not Jonathon say to David: "Lord YHWH of Israel"? Yes. Did that mean Jonathon was calling David 'YHWH God of Israel'? No!
Did not Jesus answer and say to the crowd: "my mother and my brothers"? (Of course.) Did that mean Jesus was calling those in the crowd his 'mother and brothers'? No!
Note all you said was: "what did Thomas say"? "The Lord of me and the God of me". You see, you're assuming Thomas called Jesus his Lord and God because he "answered and said: 'my Lod and my God' to Jesus. Hence, my reply:
Your response "did not Jonathon say to David: "Lord YHWH of Israel"? Yes. Did that mean Jonathon was calling David 'YHWH God of Israel'? No!
Did not Jesus answer and say to the crowd: "my mother and my brothers"? (Of course.) Did that mean Jesus was calling those in the crowd his 'mother and brothers'? No!
Or, in layman's terms: just because someone "answers and says" something to another does not mean they are calling that person anything.

Your statement: "Note thoes carries the definite article "ho" identifying Jesus as his God =YHWH" is also assumptive considering (in layman's terms) you'd never see θεος μου used without the article preceding it(. IOW, hO proceeds QEOS in this case as a grammatical necessity).
Why is it a fallacy false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
That's how grammar works towerwatchman.
Because there is a similarity between Johnathan saying X, Jesus saying X, and Thomas saying X =does not support your conclusion that Thomas means X when he spoke.
It makes the case stronger, however.
It is also a red-herring. Address what Thomas said by analyzing what Thomas said. What Johnathan or Jesus said is irrelevant.
Only to those who do not understand grammar.
Nothing? What was Thomas calling Jesus when he said 'My Lord and My God?' Who was he referring to. Let me guess, the antiquated JW response. Thomas was speaking about the Father. Even though nothing in the text supports this nonsense.
He wasn't calling anyone anything. It was an exclamatory statement.

[Now, you'd have an argument if Thomas said: "You are..." (eg Matthew 16:16; John 1:49). But without "you are", this statement can't be used to say that Thomas called Jesus anything--which is why the text is ambiguous.]
So what? Exclamation or not does not negate that Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and God.
It kinda does(. That's the difference between the nominative of exclamation and the nominative for the vocative).
What is your point?
That we--as TEKNA (children)/hUIOI (sons)--are born/begotten (γενέσθαι):
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves the one begotten by him. (NABRE)
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. Whoever loves the Father also loves the child who is born of him. (WE)
Now you retreat to the figurative, where anything ambiguous can be submitted. Why not use imagination.
No need (as anyone who understands Greek knows that while MONOGENHS carries the connotation of 'special' and 'unique', such is not what the term means).
Another unsubstantiated claim
Only if you ignore Scripture.
Another unsubstantiated claim. Paul was not claiming that he figuratively fathered this man but this man was highly favored by him. I guess when you are caught in checkmate the 'figurative' card comes out.
Paul was definitely claiming that he (figuratively) fathered this man, which is why he is Paul's (figurative) son:
I beseech you for my son Onesimus, whom I begat in my bonds (Philemon 1:10)
That is not twins, twins have a beginning.
Not if both are eternal (in the way you believe both the Father and son are).

(BTW, I find it interesting that you ignore that "son" carries the the connotation of one having a beginning, but can't fathom the thought of "eternal twins".)
Another unsubstantiated claim. I asked you to point to NS, can you give one example of it operating in nature today? BTW do you believe in NS?
Here are examples of natural selection.
Another unsubstantiated claim.
It would be if Scripture didn't support it.
Try again, in this Father/Son relationship the Father has authority over Jesus.
Scripturally speaking, it is God who has authority over Jesus.
A father having authority over a son is not etched in stone.
Yes it is.
Did you bother to think this one through.
The question is: did you? (Or did you not know such is the reason fathers are known as the "head of the household"?)
Do fathers with dementia living in nursing homes have authority over their sons or vice versa?
The fathers still have authority over their sons.

(Yet, the fathers will usually relinquish such authority to another if something like dementia were to befall them.)
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t matter how you punctuate it as God who was seen, heard in the OT and testified by Elisabeth, Mary, the Baptist, John, and Thomas etc was The Lord God who came down from Heaven and became a human for us.
Paul knew this when he was knocked off his high horse.
1 John 4:9:
By this the love of God was made known among us: that God has sent forth His only-born son into the world in order that we might live through him.
 
Mark 1:1
The beginning of the Good News of Yeshua the Messiah, the Son of God.
John 6:69
We have come to believe and know that you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
This shows that Jesus is--not God, but--the son of God.

(You do know there's a difference between a son and his father, correct--that they're two different individuals?)
 

OldShepherd

Active member
While he made this statement(, the problem is), he didn't present any indisputable texts.
Romans 9:5 is, itself, a "disputable text".
Your link requires a subscription. Do you have one that doesn't?
Rom 9:5 did not seem to be disputable to Tertullian
Tertullian [207] Part Second Against Marcion VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. XIII.
But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” (Rom_9:5) For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms72 of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.​
 
Your link requires a subscription. Do you have one that doesn't?
I'm not sure why, but here is what the link linked you to:

1606162936346.png
Rom 9:5 did not seem to be disputable to Tertullian
Tertullian [207] Part Second Against Marcion VII. Against Praxeas. Chap. XIII.

But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” (Rom_9:5) For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms72 of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.
Interesting:

* [9:5] Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.” However, Paul’s point is that God who is over all aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire world through the Messiah. (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/9)
 

Tanachreader

Active member
That's not what Scripture says.

It says he is "the Messiah, the son of God" (eg Matthew 16:16; John 20:31).

Why is it, then, that you're eisegeting Scripture?
Are you ignoring the prophets like you never read them?
Also the disciples.
Yes Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus said He came down from Heaven. He became a human. Who was He before this. The answer is in scripture.
 
Explicit Proof That Jesus Is God.

I could cite many verses in the NT where Jesus claims to be God, and you can counter with other verses where you claim that Jesus states He is not God. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically “I am God.” But also nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically, “I am not God.” The next reasonable step would to search the remaining New Testament, to see if any of the NT writers plainly stated that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is not God. The evidence I am looking for is not a trail of premises that ultimately conclude to either support or deny the deity of Christ. I searched high and low and found nowhere in the New Testament where Jesus or the NT writers explicitly state that Jesus is not God, but I do find verses where it explicitly states that Jesus is God. If you have any counter verses where Jesus or the authors explicitly state that Jesus is not God, please submit.

Titus 2:13 = looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

2 Peter 1:1 = Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have [a]obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Note: any counter would have to rise to the same standard, and produce verses that explicitly state that Jesus is not God.
First off, John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they might know you (Father) The Only True God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent"

Then, John 5:26, "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given unto the Son to have life in himself also"

And then finally, John 6:57, "For just as The Living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats of me, shall live because of me".


Also, I noticed how you cherry picked your translation of Titus 2:13 but actually in the original Greek it is put more like this "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ".


Therefore Paul is not calling Jesus our Great God but rather the glory of our Great God and Savior.

2 Peter 1:1 is quite similar also, for neither in that verse either is Paul actually calling Jesus our God and Savior but rather
"THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOR".



2 Corinthians 5:21

New International Version

21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

In other words, Jesus became what we are that we might become what he is in him and what was that dude?



THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, THAT IS WHAT!


Now here is a scripture that all apostates in their deceitfulness love to quote from Jeremiah 23:5-6 but what they don't know, is that some of us know that Jeremiah 33:15-16 calls Judah and Jerusalem by the same title as Jesus in Jeremiah 23:5-6 and I just gave you a verse by Paul which also calls both "The righteousness of Yahweh as well.


Jeremiah 23:5-6 New American Standard Bible

5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord,

“When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;

And He will reign as king and act wisely

And do justice and righteousness in the land.

6 In His days Judah will be saved,

And Israel will live securely;

And this is His name by which He will be called,

‘The Lord Our Righteousness.’


Jeremiah 33:15-16

New American Standard Bible

15 In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch of David sprout; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety; and this is the name by which it will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.’


While we are at it, suppose you show me from the word of Yahweh OT, where the Jews could have gotten the idea that one being called the Son of God or calling God his Father meant that he was claiming equality with God or that he was the same nature and ontology as God?


Furthermore, where in the OT can it be proven that for one to be called God's Son or to call God their Father meant that they were committing blasphemy?

You can't just make things up, you have to prove it and so why don't you being you want to post threads insisting that the Jews correctly understood Jesus to be making himself equal unto God by calling himself God's Son.


Sir, the truth about Jesus does not depend upon what men say about him but rather about what the Father in heaven reveals through his written scriptures, and if you cannot prove this from the scriptures then it amounts to a lie period.

For God gave this very decree first to King David in Psalm 2:7 "you are my Son, today I have begotten you" and then after him also to David's son Solomon in 2 Samuel 7:14 "I will be to him a Father and he will be to me a Son".

What the idiom "Son of God" really means therefore, is that the one who is called by this Title is God's human heir to rule for him over his people and God promised this to David and his anointed descendants and of which Jesus was born the greatest of and that is why these passages were later applied to him in Hebrew 1:5 also.


What a shame it is, that you can't see the fact that if Jesus truly was God, then the writers of the NT would have openly and plainly taught this about him.

However search as much as you will and start with Acts and you will not see even one sermon where this is presented and nor will you see any disciples of Jesus being persecuted for believing or teaching it either and that should appear odd to you, being you believe that the Jews killed him for it.

That is precisely the problem with what you believe however, for the Jews didn't really kill Jesus for that at all but rather because they hated him for exposing them as the hypocrites that they truly were in the eyes of all of the people of Israel and also because they were envious of him for the crowds that he drew unto himself and Pilot even recognized that.


So why can't you Sir?
 
Last edited:
Top