Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

To insist Ephesians is 100% guaranteed to have been written by Paul when 80% of scholars, even conservative scholars say otherwise, is a tactic of desparation to avoid intellectual consensus on an issue and expect one to go by the same blind faith you do on the issue. I don't know where you got the idea that the majority of scholars link him to it. According to Raymond Brown, one of the top most authorities on the issues, his count was that 80% don't. Please double check your sources. I can provide links saying Ephesians is mostly doubted, can you do the same with your position?

I never said anything about 100% of scholars and have never even thought that. Less than 100% of scholars ever agree on anything. So the issue actually seems to be what the percentage is. Every site I trust and checked gives Paul credit. Here are some cites that add to that.

The Epistle to the Ephesians, often shortened to Ephesians, is the tenth book of the New Testament. Its authorship has traditionally been credited to Paul the Apostle, but it is considered by some scholars to be Deutero-pauline, that is, written in Paul's name by a later author strongly influenced by Paul's thought.[
According to tradition, the Apostle Paul wrote this letter while he was in prison in Rome (around AD 62). This would be about the same time as the Epistle to the Colossians (which in many points it resembles) and the Epistle to Philemon.
Epistle to the Ephesians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do see it says some scholars question it but it does not say most or many. It does later on say most CRITICAL scholars questions it dating.


The book claims to be from Paul. That is not proof but however bad it is, it must be the best evidence of authorship until a better one is known. The earliest is always the best unless shown to be false in no uncertain terms. It is what the earliest and best evidence suggests. Paul's authorship is part of the earliest traditions known.

External evidence. Attributions by patristic writers, by orthodox and heretical alike, are unanimous in favor of Paul. (For the importance of this, see Glenn Miller's item here.) Ephesians is quoted in 1 Clement (95 AD), Ignatius, and Ploycarp, three late first century/early second century writers.
Textual evidence. If this and the patristics were all we had, the case would be open and shut. While manuscripts vary on the destination, all agree that Paul is the author.
We now move to the evidence of vocabulary and tone, and we begin by repeating some points stressed in our study of the Pastorals. As we noted there, things like choices of words should be disregarded forevermore as a determination of authorship. Word choice and writing style are NOT suitable criteria for saying that a person did or did not write a particular piece of literature - especially when we are dealing with writing samples as small as the Pastorals, or Ephesians. In this regard, conservative scholars rightly cite the work of Yule [Knig.PE, 39; Oden.12TT, 13], who notes that samples of at least 10,000 words are needed to make such determinations - and Ephesians is rather short of that mark.
What about a scribe? The odds that a scribe did most or all of Ephesians is quite high. Paul is a prisoner at this time (3:1, 4:1) and likely in chains, unable to write himself.
Ephesians. Authorship
This is one of the best sites I know of for any Biblical issue and I use it all the time.

Let me ask you something. I can provide sites like this that give reason after reason to believe Paul it author. How many are enough? Since you have adopted a view that justifies what you wished to think you will most likely reject any number I post. How can this be resolved?

Let me add that the canonization of books was a minimalist method. They only wanted the most certain, most apostolic, and most authentic. They chose risking non-inclusion of much that was valid to prevent the inclusion of any that wasn't. Revelations took hundreds of years to make it just because it was so fantastic. Every reason exists to think they checked and rechecked everything and when in doubt punted the text out of the Bible.

Either way, you cannot use Ephesians 2:8-9 to completely contradict and overturn and trump and negate virtually everything else Paul says on the issue.

Now this one can be resolved. I claim Paul wrote time and time again about grace. Use of the word grace mandates the capacity to receive that which is not merited or deserved. Do you claim Paul did not write on grace beyond this one verse?


Because it is the same subject. What is your opinion on the authorship of the Pentateuch (especially Deuteronomy)?

 

[Shermana]

I actually use Tektonics for a few things even though I grossly disagree with them on 90% of things, however their defense of Ephesians is in the minority, not the majority you speak of. Their arguments essentially minimize and brush aside the linguistic arguments against Ephesians. Either way, I fail to see how you resolved the blatant glaring contradiction between Eph 2:8-9 and 99% of everything else Paul wrote on the matter.

But we can see you are now changing your reply from "Most authorities" to "I can give you site after site, how many are enough"? I can reverse the question on you. I can give you hundreds of authorities who say otherwise, how many is enough on that issue?

For instance, try Galatians 5. Those who engage in those sins will not inherit the Kingdom. So you may want to adopt the anti-Ephesians position, it's much easier than trying to explain how one little verse trumps everything else Paul says. Besides, use of 2:8-9 essentially negates everything in else in Ephesians as well.

Can you possibly defend your position without using Ephesians?

 

[1robin]

I actually use Tektonics for a few things even though I grossly disagree with them on 90% of things, however their defense of Ephesians is in the minority, not the majority you speak of. Their arguments essentially minimize and brush aside the linguistic arguments against Ephesians. Either way, I fail to see how you resolved the blatant glaring contradiction between Eph 2:8-9 and 99% of everything else Paul wrote on the matter.

And this would be a brushing aside of their brushing aside. How was the former wrong but the latter right?

But we can see you are now changing your reply from "Most authorities" to "I can give you site after site, how many are enough"? I can reverse the question on you. I can give you hundreds of authorities who say otherwise, how many is enough on that issue?

We can both produce pro and con sites for just about every claim in the Bible. That is the reason I checked up and asked how many are enough. I think I have far more but let's say they are equal and cancel out. I also have the earliest traditions and the book it's self. I think my evidence better in every category but I do not think you will grant it in any. So I have no idea how to resolve this.

For instance, try Galatians 5. Those who engage in those sins will not inherit the Kingdom. So you may want to adopt the anti-Ephesians position, it's much easier than trying to explain how one little verse trumps everything else Paul says. Besides, use of 2:8-9 essentially negates everything in else in Ephesians as well.

Can you possibly defend your position without using Ephesians?

Yes I can and have said so at least 3 times. Do you wish to switch to that subject since I have no idea how to resolve the former one?

BTW you have a hard time supplying answers to questions many times. This goes back with me for some time. Why is that?

What is your take on the Pentateuch's authorship and especially Deuteronomy?

 

[Shermana]

And this would be a brushing aside of their brushing aside. How was the former wrong but the latter right?

The point is that Ephesians' authorship is not cut and dry, and you said it was a "Tactic" to not accept its validity. I see no reason to entertain arguments that use it as an indisputable piece of scripture when they try to get it to contradict and negate and trump other parts of what is more universally accepted as scripture. The only way to resolve this would be to accept that without Ephesians, your point collapses.

BTW you have a hard time supplying answers to questions many times.

I believe I've answered most all of your questions and the last time you accused me of such, I asked you to quote it and you didn't or couldn't or something.

As for Deuteronomy, I believe most of it is authentic but much of it is, "Deuteronomic" as its name clearly suggests.

I actually believe the entire Law was once considered to be a single volume, "The Book of Moses" as its referred to in the Singular.

 

[#H.E.B.Knowledge]

Most Christians believe that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Oh, and Kadzbiz, this is not a court.

If this is the case, then that means that Jesus could have been a sinner. How can one be divine but also be a man. Man are sinners and if Jesus never sinned, then he wasn't a man.

 

[1robin]

The point is that Ephesians' authorship is not cut and dry, and you said it was a "Tactic" to not accept its validity. I see no reason to entertain arguments that use it as an indisputable piece of scripture when they try to get it to contradict and negate and trump other parts of what is more universally accepted as scripture. The only way to resolve this would be to accept that without Ephesians, your point collapses.

Nothing in faith claims are cut and dry. The standard is sufficient evidence to logically justify faith. There is sufficient evidence for me to believe Paul wrote Ephesians. It must be a tactic. Every poster I see who tries to limit Paul's impact is a works based salvation person. It is far to consistent to be evidence based. I could not say I know it is a tactic of your for certain but it is a tactic of those who hold your views. Most try and get rid of poor old Paul altogether. I also deny the Ephesians contradict the rest of the NT. IN fact one of the strongest arguments that Paul wrote it is the consistency with other epistles or letters.

Here is a commentary from someone who is even sympathetic about Pauls not being the author.
I. Introduction

A. The Author

Except for the pastorals, Ephesians has the worst credentials for authenticity, in critical circles, among all of Paul’s epistles. The argument against Ephesians’ authenticity, however, rests exclusively on internal evidence, for as even Kümmel admits, “without question Ephesians was extraordinarily well attested in the early Church.”1

• 1. External Evidence
  

Ephesians is found in the two earliest canons, Marcion’s (who gives it the title “Laodiceans”) and the Muratorian canon. Clement of Rome, Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp all allude to it. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all quote from it. Further, it is found in •46, the earliest Pauline MS, normally dated at c. 200 CE (though recently one scholar has dated this papyrus in the 70s CE!2).

• 2. Internal Evidence
  

Our discussion will follow (roughly) the lines of Wood’s essay: traditional arguments for authenticity, arguments against Pauline authorship, and responses to the critical assessment.3

• • a. Traditional Arguments for Authenticity
    

There are three traditional internal arguments used for authenticity.

• • • 1) Explicit Statements
      

“In the introduction the author identifies himself and then proceeds in typically Pauline fashion to ascribe his apostolic authority to the will of God (Eph 1:1; cf. 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Col 1:1). Paul’s name reappears later (3:1) as in his undisputed letters (2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:2; Col 1:23; 1 Thess 2:18).”4 This, of course, is not to say that the letter must be by Paul, but it is to argue that without such internal testimony, no such claim could be made.5

• • • 2) Literary Affinities
      

Both in terms of structure and vocabulary, Ephesians “smells” Pauline. Structurally, we see the same sequence of salutation, thanksgiving, doctrinal exposition, moral appeal, final courtesies, and benediction. This outline, of course, represents the usual practice in letter-writing in Paul’s day, but a comparison with the non-Pauline documents underlines his distinctive approach, particularly in his treatment of ethics as an extension of theology.6
In terms of vocabulary, “many words not found elsewhere in the NT occur both in Ephesians and in the rest of Paul’s letters. . . . [Indeed,] the vocabulary approximates more closely to that of the earlier Pauline correspondence than does that of Colossians, the authenticity of which is scarcely questioned.”7

• • • 3) Theological Consistency
      

This epistle is thoroughly consistent with Paul’s undisputed letters in its theology. Yet, this consistency is not wooden: the language is different, sometimes a new angle on an old theme is developed, there is a detachment involved (as seen by the lack of personal references). Even Mitton, the great champion of inauthenticity in this century, starts his argument with the remarkable concession, “Pauline authorship can rightly be assumed until it is disproved.”8

• • b. Arguments Against Pauline Authorship
    

The arguments against authenticity can be grouped into three large categories: historical, linguistic/literary, theological.

• • • 1) Historical Arguments
      

There are two historical arguments: (1) assuming the salutation “to the saints in Ephesus” in 1:1 to be genuine, Paul could not have written this letter because he betrays no personal acquaintance with his audience (cf. 1:15); (2) the author’s personal references are forced and artificial (cf. 3:4 where he speaks of the “holy apostles” which, since it includes him, seems pretentious).

https://bible.org/seriespage/ephesians-introduction-argument-and-outline
There is plenty more at the site.

I believe I've answered most all of your questions and the last time you accused me of such, I asked you to quote it and you didn't or couldn't or something.

You did not even attempt a response to my question about the Pentateuch until you did here after being reminded.

As for Deuteronomy, I believe most of it is authentic but much of it is, "Deuteronomic" as its name clearly suggests.

I actually believe the entire Law was once considered to be a single volume, "The Book of Moses" as its referred to in the Singular.

I expected more detail from you but it is not worth pressing.

 

[1robin]

If this is the case, then that means that Jesus could have been a sinner. How can one be divine but also be a man. Man are sinners and if Jesus never sinned, then he wasn't a man.

His natural will (man) was subordinate to his divine will. No other man has had a perfectly divine will so no lessons from man apply to Jesus.

 

[#H.E.B.Knowledge]

His natural will (man) was subordinate to his divine will. No other man has had a perfectly divine will so no lessons from man apply to Jesus.

Ok, if that's the case, then what really makes Jesus, man? Is it because he had a physical body? Or is it that Jesus was a man with a Higher Conscienceness of the Source than most people? I can accept the latter but to say that His divinity trumped over his human nature, not quite sure. Like every Christain believes, man is not perfect. But they choose to accept the fact that a perfect God reincarnated himself in an imperfect form.

I think the best way to justify Jesus being both God and man is (just my opinion) that all God's creation is perfect including man. This will make more sense to believe God actually coming to Earth as a man. Then Jesus will be looked at as a Divine man which will explain his teachings and way of life. But that can't be the case.

 

[1robin]

Ok, if that's the case, then what really makes Jesus, man? Is it because he had a physical body? Or is it that Jesus was a man with a Higher Conscienceness of the Source than most people? I can accept the latter but to say that His divinity trumped over his human nature, not quite sure. Like every Christain believes, man is not perfect. But they choose to accept the fact that a perfect God reincarnated himself in an imperfect form.

Your original idea of 100% man and 100% God explains most of this away. Jesus was 100% man in that he had all the desires of a man, he had many of the limitations (Jesus voluntarily gave up some of his omnipotence etc...) but he was also fully divine is essence. Now if you have a man who is not divine he will have the same trouble refusing his weaknesses and fallibilities that we all do. But is that same man also has a divine will present then he would not have the same problems. You would have to show why the stronger divine will would ever be weaker than the natural will to claim it ever would fail to control it. The closes it ever came was Jesus greatest test. His weaker natural will recoiled so much from death and leaving his loved ones behind that only his incessant dependence on his divine will could subdue it. The Garden scene is the dichotomy in microcosm. He was tempted by his reliance on divine will never let him give in.

I think the best way to justify Jesus being both God and man is (just my opinion) that all God's creation is perfect including man. This will make more sense to believe God actually coming to Earth as a man. Then Jesus will be looked at as a Divine man which will explain his teachings and way of life. But that can't be the case.

The one thing that history makes absolutely certain is we are not perfect and have a horrible problem with morality. We are the opposite of divine, when we had the divine we were so un-divine the only response we had was to first betray it and then to kill it. There is nothing that can make less sense than this. You I think are drawing too much from Jesus' role as the son of man. That refers to his being a role model for man not his being a man as we are. There is little about any concept of God that will be known by pondering him. If he did not reveal himself then we will never know much about him. The most evidenced revelation is Biblical and what I said I believe is consistent with it. I gave up trying to riddle God out myself using my faulty and finite brain. God is God, we are not and if he did act like us then how would he be God. His ways are not our ways. I thank God they are not.

C.S. Lewis > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”






BTW what does your name mean?

 

[Shermana]

You did not even attempt a response to my question about the Pentateuch until you did here after being reminded.

The subject was getting off topic as it was, and wholly unrelated to the issue of Ephesians' authenticity, which is a tangent of the issue of Paul, which is a tangent of the issue of...whatever it was... even if the subject is about authenticity questions.

I expected more detail from you but it is not worth pressing.

Maybe on another thread that's actually on topic to the subject perhaps?

If you want to go over the arguments of Ephesians in your attempt to use it to say that works are not needed for salvation, in stark contrast to everything Paul teaches, in an attempt to trump and negate what Jesus and Paul and Jude and John and James all teach on the subject, make an appropriate thread. All I did was point out that you can't use Ephesians as rock-solid "scripture" and call people who dismiss it as using a "tactic". The "tactic" is to accuse people who side with the majority scholarly opinion of not playing the Evangelical party line game.

 

[1robin]

The subject was getting off topic as it was, and wholly unrelated to the issue of Ephesians' authenticity, which is a tangent of the issue of Paul, which is a tangent of the issue of...whatever it was... even if the subject is about authenticity questions.

So three tangents fine, but the fourth is a bridge too far. I have since I last posted investigated Ephesians quite a bit. I am now convinced that any position that it Paul is not it's author is unreasonable. The position he is, is not a certainty but supported by far more of the best evidence than what is used to claim he is not.

Maybe on another thread that's actually on topic to the subject perhaps?

Then why did you not just say that? I have asked you many questions, most perfectly appropriate and maybe 50% or less are answered. I ask because I value your opinion about a few matters even if I do not agree. Not responding is rude if it is not for a specified reason which is stated. The worst poster I have to deal with I go out of my way to explain why I am no longer going to answer this or that long before I do so. It is no big deal but it has been so common I wanted to know why?

If you want to go over the arguments of Ephesians in your attempt to use it to say that works are not needed for salvation, in stark contrast to everything Paul teaches, in an attempt to trump and negate what Jesus and Paul and Jude and John and James all teach on the subject, make an appropriate thread. All I did was point out that you can't use Ephesians as rock-solid "scripture" and call people who dismiss it as using a "tactic". The "tactic" is to accuse people who side with the majority scholarly opinion of not playing the Evangelical party line game.

I have said at least 4 times I do not need Ephesians at all to demonstrate that from Paul alone much less the rest of them. It is even in the OT. I have asked you if you wanted to discuss that alone several times. I can argue for Paul's authorship of Ephesians the case is better than I even believed previously. Or I can use Jesus words as they are purported in the NT for grace. I do not care. However much evidence for grace alone exists, works are impossible standards for salvation which is why every one I ask for a specific standard does anything and everything but actually provide one, just as you did. Pick one if you want.

 

[Shermana]

I do not need Ephesians at all to demonstrate that from Paul alone much less the rest of them. It is even in the OT... Or I can use Jesus words as they are purported in the NT for grace. I

Why don't you start a whole thread on this and I'll meet you there.

So three tangents fine, but the fourth is a bridge too far.

I should have steered it back when it was first about Paul's doctrine of grace. Yes, the fourth bridge was a bridge too far.

I have asked you many questions, most perfectly appropriate and maybe 50% or less are answered.

I'll have to recheck what those were exactly but I'm pretty sure they would be great to be reposted in the new thread.

 

[1robin]

Why don't you start a whole thread on this and I'll meet you there.

It will have to be Monday I am out of time.

I should have steered it back when it was first about Paul's doctrine of grace. Yes, the fourth bridge was a bridge too far.

It was for Montgomery as well.

I'll have to recheck what those were exactly but I'm pretty sure they would be great to be reposted in the new thread.

IT is not important other than a context for why I asked and said what I did. Have a good weekend.

 

[Muffled]

But God rested on the Sabbath.

I believe what God did then does not bind God to do the same now. And who would know what God is doing other than Himself? Jesus stated that God was working on the Sabbath and he doesn't even have to say "I believe."

 

[1robin]

I believe what God did then does not bind God to do the same now. And who would know what God is doing other than Himself? Jesus stated that God was working on the Sabbath and he doesn't even have to say "I believe."

God's action on that first Sabbath was a single event. He did not need rest, he did so to establish a tradition for man. Most Christians think even that tradition was negated by the cross. Regardless the Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath. This was not primarily directed at you. I just used your post to throw it out there.

 

[Muffled]

God's action on that first Sabbath was a single event. He did not need rest, he did so to establish a tradition for man. Most Christians think even that tradition was negated by the cross. Regardless the Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath. This was not primarily directed at you. I just used your post to throw it out there.

I believe knowing what the Sabbath is for reveals that Jesus is God in the flesh, since men have so often misconstrued its true purpose. It is set aside as a holy day so it is not a question of what one does or does not do but whether what one does is holy. Healing is a holy act.

 

[1robin]

I believe knowing what the Sabbath is for reveals that Jesus is God in the flesh, since men have so often misconstrued its true purpose. It is set aside as a holy day so it is not a question of what one does or does not do but whether what one does is holy. Healing is a holy act.

The Sabbath is a pretty simple issue in my view. God (for our own good) desired us to spend one out of 7 days thinking of and on him. As every believer knows, faith requires maintenance. What the Sabbath was not IMO was another law in a long series of laws that some think can be obeyed enough, to earn salvation. It was meant to help us stay close to God not to save us nor obtain for us what Christ's actions have no need of help to provide.

 

[metis]

I believe knowing what the Sabbath is for reveals that Jesus is God in the flesh, since men have so often misconstrued its true purpose. It is set aside as a holy day so it is not a question of what one does or does not do but whether what one does is holy. Healing is a holy act.

Not to travel on Shabbat outside the limits of one's place of residence (Ex. 16:29).

To sanctify Shabbat (Ex. 20:8)

Not to do work on Shabbat (Ex. 20:10)

To rest on Shabbat (Ex. 23:12; 34:21) -- Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

You also may want to check this out: Judaism 101: Shabbat

Please note that only Jews are obligated to observe the Sabbath.

 

[Shermana]

The Sabbath is a pretty simple issue in my view. God (for our own good) desired us to spend one out of 7 days thinking of and on him. As every believer knows, faith requires maintenance. What the Sabbath was not IMO was another law in a long series of laws that some think can be obeyed enough, to earn salvation. It was meant to help us stay close to God not to save us nor obtain for us what Christ's actions have no need of help to provide.

So what's the point of putting the Israelite who disobeys Sabbath to death?

Why does God say that if Israel obeyed one Sabbath and called it a delight that he'd put them in a position of great power?

Why does Nehemiah go so far out of his way to stop the merchants from selling in Jerusalem on Sabbath?

Do you think no one has to do anything God asks in order to earn "Salvation"?

 

[ZooGirl02]

How does Jesus make it abundantly clear he is God?
There is No Scripture where Jesus straightforwardly says that he is God.
At John 5v18 the 'Jews' began seeking to kill because the 'Jews' were saying that Jesus broke the Sabbath [Jesus did not], and the 'Jews' were saying Jesus was calling God his Father, making himself equal to God.
But is that what Jesus said?
Continuing in the 5th chapter at vs 26 it mentions that the Father [God] has life in himself [immortal Ps90v2] and that God grants or gives to Jesus to have life in himself [immortality]. God can not die. Jesus died. Who resurrected Jesus? Did Jesus resurrect himself from hell? Acts 2v27,31,32 Or according to Scripture, did the living God resurrected the dead Jesus?

Continuing at verse 30 doesn't Jesus say he seeks Not his own will?
Jesus seeks the will of him [God] that sent Jesus. [Jn 6v38; Mt26v39;Lk22v42]

At John chapter 10v36 doesn't Jesus clearly state to the Jews, "I am the Son of God."? This is after verse 29 where Jesus clearly says his Father is greater than all. Isn't that clearly in harmony with John 14v28 where Jesus clearly states his Father is greater than I -[Jesus]?

Going back to John chapter 5 in verse 17 Jesus says that his Father works and Jesus works. So in verse 18 the Jews could refer to Jesus work saying he was equal to work with his Father's work. Verse 19 Jesus lets the Jews know that the Son [Jesus] can do nothing of himself. [nothing of his own initiative] but only what he sees his Father do. So Jesus was not acting of his own accord or his own will but doing his Father's will ahead of his own will.

Of course Jesus existed before Abraham. Wasn't the spirit world created before the material physical world? Since Colossians 1vs15,16 says Jesus is 'firstborn' in the heavenly realm and all things came 'through' Jesus, then Jesus would have to come before Abraham and even before Adam.
Isn't that why the resurrected Jesus could clearly state at Rev 3v14 b that he [Jesus] is the beginning of the creation by God?

The resurrected Jesus is also clear in stating who he is at Rev 2v18.
Doesn't the heavenly Jesus still clearly think he is: the Son of God?
Doesn't Jesus still believe he has a God to worship at Rev 3v12?
Doesn't Jesus have his own separate throne at Rev 3v21?

People saw Jesus. So just as John believed at John 1v18 that: No man has seen God at anytime [Ex33v20], and 'for the record' John wrote that he bare record at John 1v34 that Jesus is: the Son of God.

I believe it is obvious when you look in the Gospels that Jesus is God. He did not explicitly come out and say "I am God." but He did allow Saint Thomas to worship Him after His resurrection from the dead and Jesus did not rebuke him for it.

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe." Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
(John 20:24-29 RSV-CE)

As a matter of fact, Jesus Christ even called those who believe without seeing Him blessed. Surely Jesus is clearly implying here that He is God, right?