Is Jesus truly God?

[Vishvavajra]

Although one fact I take for independent evidence for Jesus is the dozen authors of the NT. When I hear "You only have the NT" I remind people it's not a book but plural books from plural sources.

It's evidence of a growing tradition. It's not evidence of anything in particular about Jesus the man, since none of the authors of the NT had first-hand knowledge of him. Nor were they all writing independently, unaware of the works that came before. I'm not disputing Jesus as a historical figure, but the NT books are not independent evidence. They're not even independent of each other. That's just not a useful line of argumentation.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I get the reference to judges as 'little gods' (in the sense that they pass judgement, uphold justice and are appointed by the big 'God'), It just seems an odd response to their specific issue.
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion on the trinity ... if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and talks like a duck ...

It looks like a duck because people read their present belief structure back into the text. The orthodox formulation of the Trinity begins with Turtullian around the end of the 2nd century, beginning of the 3rd. He presents it as a new idea and has to explain it to folks. Even then it's not until the early 4th century that it becomes the orthodox view, pushing out Arianism and others that had been considered thoroughly mainstream up until that point.

At least one early proponent of orthodoxy regarded the Trinity as a Gnostic contrivance, and he was probably correct. It ultimately comes from the Platonism of the day and its Three Hypostases, which is pretty much how the Valentinians regarded it. What the orthodox did was to take the Trinity out of its original emanationist context and put it into a creationist one, where it doesn't fit as well. Or rather, it can fit if one views it in terms of modalism, but then that was declared a heresy, leaving three coeternal and coequal persons, which is a concept not found anywhere in the NT. Nobody reading John without a developed Trinitarian doctrine in mind would ever arrive at one based on the first chapter, but nowadays people use their present doctrine to explain the first chapter, which is the opposite activity.

What I'm saying is that while there's a lot we don't know about the early church, it's not such an utter mystery that we can't trace the origins of things like Trinitarian doctrine, and we know it was not there from the beginning but rather a development intended to solve some problems in what was slowly evolving into orthodox theology.

 

[Kolibri]

Statements like "the Messiah isn't God before the late 2nd century CE" contradict with statements like Isaiah 9, "the child who is born will bear the government on His shoulders [Jesus bore the cross there], will be called Prince of Peace, the Mighty God..."

Not necessarily. Note that all 4 titles, do not need to pertain to the Almighty.

They can all be applied to a agent of the Almighty instead. For one mighty is not necessarily almighty but can denote someone of lesser but still significant might. Also because Jehovah has granted this one the power and authority to give humans the prospect of eternal life in perfection on earth he could be rightly called an Eternal Father. Likewise prince, in Prince of Peace, denotes a secondary position of authority. And of course, counsel based on Jehovah's wisdom would always be timely and appropriate making such an individual expressing these things a Wonderful Counselor.

 

[atpollard]

It's evidence of a growing tradition. It's not evidence of anything in particular about Jesus the man, since none of the authors of the NT had first-hand knowledge of him. Nor were they all writing independently, unaware of the works that came before. I'm not disputing Jesus as a historical figure, but the NT books are not independent evidence. They're not even independent of each other. That's just not a useful line of argumentation.

I see this claim a lot around here.
Can this actually be proven?
(I assume that the proof would be in some analysis of the texts)

If this claim is based solely on no surviving first century copies of the manuscripts, then it means that I cannot use the physical manuscripts to prove that the author was a contemporary of Jesus ... But the date on a copy cannot prove a definitive date on the original.

So can someone point me to a source for this proof of late second century authorship?

 

[Vishvavajra]

I see this claim a lot around here.
Can this actually be proven?
(I assume that the proof would be in some analysis of the texts)

If this claim is based solely on no surviving first century copies of the manuscripts, then it means that I cannot use the physical manuscripts to prove that the author was a contemporary of Jesus ... But the date on a copy cannot prove a definitive date on the original.

So can someone point me to a source for this proof of late second century authorship?

The canonical Gospels have a late 1st century authorship, not 2nd century. There's some 40 and 50 years between the first of them and the death of Jesus, so a couple of generations have passed, and major figures such as Paul, Peter, and James are dead by that point, and the temple has been destroyed. The scholarship behind that is vast, and it has been the consensus for at least a century now. The only people who still think the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses are a few fringe holdouts of the evangelical fundamentalist variety, who have basically seceded from the scholarly discourse altogether. This is stuff you'd learn in any reputable seminary and is in fact the mainstream Christian understanding of the subject.

I'd love to give you a full run-down of all the evidence, but I'm not even sure that would be possible in this medium. I can tell you that it's not based on the age of manuscripts but entirely on the contents of the texts themselves, what we know about the history of 1st century Judea, and our vast knowledge of ancient literary works and genres. The Gospels don't exist in a vacuum by any means. I have to step out now, but maybe later this weekend I'll have time to give a few examples. But you shouldn't take my word for it in any case. There's a ton of stuff out there on this subject.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have not denied that the Christ is God's Son. I also will not deny that the Christ is God, One with God, etc.

Do you deny what gospel writer John wrote about Jesus at Revelation 1:5; 3:14 ?______
Did God have a beginning according to Psalm 90:2 ?_______
If the answer is ' No ' then only God was ' before the beginning '.
No where does it say Jesus was ' before ' the beginning.
So, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

Who is the Greater One according to Jesus at John 14:28 B ? _________
Who is ' greater than all ' according to Jesus at John 10:29 ?_________

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's evidence of a growing tradition. It's not evidence of anything in particular about Jesus the man, since none of the authors of the NT had first-hand knowledge of him. Nor were they all writing independently, unaware of the works that came before. I'm not disputing Jesus as a historical figure, but the NT books are not independent evidence. They're not even independent of each other. That's just not a useful line of argumentation.

A number of the writers cite that they themselves, the authors are eyewitnesses. Peter even says the writers of the NT were eyewitnesses. Please also understand that the books were often dictacted to scribal transcribers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you deny what gospel writer John wrote about Jesus at Revelation 1:5; 3:14 ?______
Did God have a beginning according to Psalm 90:2 ?_______
If the answer is ' No ' then only God was ' before the beginning '.
No where does it say Jesus was ' before ' the beginning.
So, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

Who is the Greater One according to Jesus at John 14:28 B ? _________
Who is ' greater than all ' according to Jesus at John 10:29 ?_________

There are reasons why church leaders have affirmed Jesus's divinity for millennia, and most of the reasons are scriptural reasons. There is some confusion here and you are taking some things out of context, for example, the same chapter Rev. 1 you've quoted establishes that Jesus IS the beginning and the end!

 

[Vishvavajra]

A number of the writers cite that they themselves, the authors are eyewitnesses. Peter even says the writers of the NT were eyewitnesses. Please also understand that the books were often dictacted to scribal transcribers.

What have you got aside from works that are generally understood to be pseudoepigrapha? The "scribal transcribers" explanation doesn't get around the pseudoepigraphic problem in the least. The author of 2 Peter is very keen for the reader to think he's the Peter who studied under Jesus, but that sort of thing was hardly uncommon. Cf. the tradition by which Buddhist scriptures all claim to have been spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha and recorded by his scribe Ananda, even when we know they were composed 500 years later. Pseudoepigrapha say exactly what you'd expect pseudoepigrapha to say, which isn't evidence of anything, aside from one common means of establishing authority in the ancient world. Are we to accept the Gospels of Thomas as having been written or dictated by Jesus's disciple Thomas? it claims it was and that its author was eyewitness to the events it describes and heard its teaching first-hand from the mouth of Jesus.

Even then, no NT text refers to the NT as such, which is unsurprising, since nothing of the sort existed when they were written, just a bunch of individual texts. The formation of a canon was a gradual process from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. They refer to other texts that came before (as for example, 2 Peter refers 1 Peter and makes extensive use of Jude and the Pauline epistles), but not collectively. It's not possible for the Petrine author (or one of them, as it's not clear they're the same person) to have said that the NT writers were eyewitnesses, and in fact that's not what he says. He says "we" were eyewitnesses, and only as a preface to a sectarian polemic against an unnamed group who seem to have been causing the author's sect some consternation. It's a naked appeal to authority.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There are reasons why church leaders have affirmed Jesus's divinity for millennia, and most of the reasons are scriptural reasons. There is some confusion here and you are taking some things out of context, for example, the same chapter Rev. 1 you've quoted establishes that Jesus IS the beginning and the end!

Yes, Jesus is the beginning. The beginning of the creation by God - Rev. 3:14
No where does it say Jesus is ' before the beginning ' as God was before the beginning. - Psalm 90:2
At Rev 22:13 first and last, beginning and end are all in lower-case letters.
First, God will have Jesus begin or act or take the action of Rev. 19 vs 11,14,15
Last, to reward the sheep of Matthew 25 vs 31,32 with the end benefits or blessings of Rev. 22:2.

Revelation 1:5 says that Jesus is ' the faithful witness ' and ' the firstborn from the dead ' and ' the ruler of the kings of the earth'.

Isaiah gives Jesus the title of ' Mighty God ' but No where is Jesus as ' Almighty God '.
God is a title and Not a specific name. Just as Lord is a title and Not a specific name.
Like the two (2) LORD/ Lord's mentioned at Psalm 110:1 ( Douay Psalm 109:1 )
One is superior to the other.
The Tetragrammaton - YHWH - is never applied to Lord Jesus - Psalm 110:1
The Tetragrammaton is only applied to the God of Jesus.
Does Jesus still have a superior or a God over him according to Revelation 3:12 ?

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, Jesus is the beginning. The beginning of the creation by God - Rev. 3:14
No where does it say Jesus is ' before the beginning ' as God was before the beginning being from eternity. - Psalm 90:2

Indeed, Jesus is the beginning of Creation, as He is the One Who begins creation. He is not the first thing created in the process of creation, but the means by which it occurs.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Indeed, Jesus is the beginning of Creation, as He is the One Who begins creation. He is not the first thing created in the process of creation, but the means by which it occurs.

According to Colossians 1:15 Jesus IS the firstborn of every creature or creation. Not that Jesus began himself, or created himself.
God had No beginning - Psalm 90:2 - whereas Jesus had a pre-human heavenly beginning - Rev. 3:14

 

[BilliardsBall]

What have you got aside from works that are generally understood to be pseudoepigrapha? The "scribal transcribers" explanation doesn't get around the pseudoepigraphic problem in the least. The author of 2 Peter is very keen for the reader to think he's the Peter who studied under Jesus, but that sort of thing was hardly uncommon. Cf. the tradition by which Buddhist scriptures all claim to have been spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha and recorded by his scribe Ananda, even when we know they were composed 500 years later. Pseudoepigrapha say exactly what you'd expect pseudoepigrapha to say, which isn't evidence of anything, aside from one common means of establishing authority in the ancient world. Are we to accept the Gospels of Thomas as having been written or dictated by Jesus's disciple Thomas? it claims it was and that its author was eyewitness to the events it describes and heard its teaching first-hand from the mouth of Jesus.

Even then, no NT text refers to the NT as such, which is unsurprising, since nothing of the sort existed when they were written, just a bunch of individual texts. The formation of a canon was a gradual process from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. They refer to other texts that came before (as for example, 2 Peter refers 1 Peter and makes extensive use of Jude and the Pauline epistles), but not collectively. It's not possible for the Petrine author (or one of them, as it's not clear they're the same person) to have said that the NT writers were eyewitnesses, and in fact that's not what he says. He says "we" were eyewitnesses, and only as a preface to a sectarian polemic against an unnamed group who seem to have been causing the author's sect some consternation. It's a naked appeal to authority.

I wouldn't say I'm appealing to authority. I'm saying I take documents whose authors attest that they are writing truth, not panegyrics, and then asking if there is textual or historical evidence that they are pseudepigrapha. For example, Paul will say, "This letter comes from Paul and X and Y, writing to you from location Z," and later, "I tell you the truth in Christ, I'm not lying."

Note that with your post, I think automatically, "Vish" wrote it. I know all about Poes, hosted IP addresses, software viruses, etc. but the post says you wrote it. In scholarship, history and law precedent, the first document stands and the second document has the burden of proof against it. Since Muhammed makes claims in the Koran against certain Bible facts, and since the Koran comes later, he needs some facts and etc. to make his case.

You may reject my stance that a dozen authors wrote the NT scriptures. How many do you think wrote them? The OT says to accept two or three witnesses when building a case/facts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, Jesus is the beginning. The beginning of the creation by God - Rev. 3:14
No where does it say Jesus is ' before the beginning ' as God was before the beginning. - Psalm 90:2
At Rev 22:13 first and last, beginning and end are all in lower-case letters.
First, God will have Jesus begin or act or take the action of Rev. 19 vs 11,14,15
Last, to reward the sheep of Matthew 25 vs 31,32 with the end benefits or blessings of Rev. 22:2.

Revelation 1:5 says that Jesus is ' the faithful witness ' and ' the firstborn from the dead ' and ' the ruler of the kings of the earth'.

Isaiah gives Jesus the title of ' Mighty God ' but No where is Jesus as ' Almighty God '.
God is a title and Not a specific name. Just as Lord is a title and Not a specific name.
Like the two (2) LORD/ Lord's mentioned at Psalm 110:1 ( Douay Psalm 109:1 )
One is superior to the other.
The Tetragrammaton - YHWH - is never applied to Lord Jesus - Psalm 110:1
The Tetragrammaton is only applied to the God of Jesus.
Does Jesus still have a superior or a God over him according to Revelation 3:12 ?

Position isn't authority or power. It's merely position. The Bible says the thoughts of God are in the Bible, that the Bible is the Word(s) of God. I don't look at a book of paper, however, and feel it has the presence of God or the power of God, although it bears the authority of God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

According to Colossians 1:15 Jesus IS the firstborn of every creature or creation. Not that Jesus began himself, or created himself.
God had No beginning - Psalm 90:2 - whereas Jesus had a pre-human heavenly beginning - Rev. 3:14

This is a common statement, but "firstborn" refers to resurrection, as in the Psalms, prophecies and in Revelation, "the firstborn from the dead [in the eternal resurrected state]. Lazarus died again as did other resurrections. Prophecy-power-proof. Jesus is the firstborn of the eternally resurrected, not the first-created thing who is not God.

Of course, Hebrews has 1) God 2) Angels 3) Man - Jesus a man and lower for bit then men and Jesus judging angels. But since the author of Hebrews is clear that Jesus is more than a mere man or mere angel...?

 

[Shiranui117]

According to Colossians 1:15 Jesus IS the firstborn of every creature or creation. Not that Jesus began himself, or created himself.
God had No beginning - Psalm 90:2 - whereas Jesus had a pre-human heavenly beginning - Rev. 3:14

Then what does Scripture mean when it says that Jesus is the firstborn of the dead?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then what does Scripture mean when it says that Jesus is the firstborn of the dead?

Jesus informed us at John 3:13 that No one has ascended to heaven ...... that included King David - Acts 2:34
So, the first person resurrected to heaven- firstborn from the dead - would be Jesus.
In other words, No one would go to heaven before God would resurrect Jesus back to his previous spirit body - Colossians 2:12 B.

Unlike Jesus, Adam had No previous spirit body but only a physical body.
Adam was only offered everlasting life on earth as long as Adam kept God's Law.
Adam went from non-life, to life, and returned to non-life - Genesis 3:19
A person can Not ' return ' to a place he never was before. Adam returned to the dust.

In a nut shell, Jesus opened the way to heaven for some - Revelation 20:6; 5 vs 9,10
They have first or earlier resurrection than the majority of mankind.
The majority of mankind will have a future resurrection on earth during Jesus' coming 1000-year reign over earth.
That is why Acts 24:15 uses the ' future tense ' that there ' is to be ' a resurrection....'
The majority of mankind will have the same original opportunity that was offered to father Adam before his downfall.
Jesus will undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon mankind. - Rev. 22:2

We are nearing the coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25 vs 31,32 when the humble ' sheep' can remain alive on earth, and continue living on earth right into the start of Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over earth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is a common statement, but "firstborn" refers to resurrection, as in the Psalms, prophecies and in Revelation, "the firstborn from the dead [in the eternal resurrected state]. Lazarus died again as did other resurrections. Prophecy-power-proof. Jesus is the firstborn of the eternally resurrected, not the first-created thing who is not God.
Of course, Hebrews has 1) God 2) Angels 3) Man - Jesus a man and lower for bit then men and Jesus judging angels. But since the author of Hebrews is clear that Jesus is more than a mere man or mere angel...?

Hebrews 2:9 mentions God highly exalted Jesus and give Jesus a name which is above every name.

At 1st Thess. 4:16 the Lord Jesus himself has the voice of who ?

Also, according to Luke 22 vs 29,30 Jesus will not rule over earth alone.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hebrews 2:9 mentions God highly exalted Jesus and give Jesus a name which is above every name.

At 1st Thess. 4:16 the Lord Jesus himself has the voice of who ?

Also, according to Luke 22 vs 29,30 Jesus will not rule over earth alone.

God/Jesus are also in scripture wisdom, like a nursing mother, a lion, an eagle, etc. First rule of Bible interpretation, don't build doctrines off unclear or metaphorical/poetic statements.

In the Greek, Jesus says "You will die in sin unless you trust that I AM." There is no "he" in the Greek.

 

[Desert Snake]

We read in Matthew 27:46:
“Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me ?’ ”

Why did Jesus say and think this if he himself truly was God?

I have readed a answer that sound like: "Jesus was fully human. He fully experienced the pain of death and the feeling of separation." But i dont think this answer alone can give a real answer for this question. Im very interested in what you have to say about this.

It's a good question. The first thing to understand is that, Jesu is considered God by xians. That is a major aspect of the religious beliefs. The Bible, therefore, should be read in that light. So, we can surmise that Jesu is not saying these words completely literally, in fact, they are probably the words of a hymn or such. I have created a thread asking this same question, however the ''literal'' interpretation, is unlikely, imo, whatever the actual answer is. I simply avoid the issue altogether by only using a gospel that doesn't contain these words, as I believe they are confusing, and since unexplained in the text, not clear enough to be in my included Scripture.