Tell me where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God

[Shermana]

I'd argue that we're not "talking about the bible" here. We're talking about the theological framework of the texts, and that's simply a different animal.

The OP says "Where in the Bible", not "Where in the Bible according to Trintiarian frameworks".

Yes, anyone can analyze what the writers were trying to say, but that can't be successfully done without proper exegesis

And "Proper exegesis" means reading it according to the Orthodox standard? Otherwise, where was hie exegesis not proper exactly?

,

part of which is reading past one's own biases.

You have a tendency to accuse others of having biases, but when asked if you admit you have any, you dodge the question.

I don't see evidence of that in the post in question. A person with "knowledge of the bible" wouldn't blithely make the statements that were made.

Oh really? What kind of statements exactly are you talking about that prove a lack of familiarity with the Bible as opposed to Orthodox Tradition and interpretation of the Bible?

To put this simply, we wrote it,

You did? No. Nazarene Jews did. The orthodox most certainly did not write it. Orthodox Trinitarians did not write the NT. And if you think they were, I'll be happy to 1x1 on that.

we compiled it,

Who did exactly? The Roman Church? There were different canons running around, loaded with interpolations, different Church Fathers going by different texts. The orthodox Church compiled their own Bible much after the early Church Fathers compiled their own canons. You do not have some special insight to the texts themselves just because you come from a tradition that evolved hundreds of years after the originals.

we edited it,

We can agree to that at least. And with the Trinitarian interpolations that even found their way into the extra-canonical writings, we see all the more proof that this Trinity doctrine was being shoe-horned it as much as possible and that the originals did not contain much of the text-base that is used in support of it.

we canonized it,

The orthodox Church canonized the Orthodox Bible hundreds of years after the texts were written and being circulated, again, until that time, there were multiple different canons.

it is ours

The Bible is no one's, no one set of Christianity lays claim to it. If anything, I could say it's MINE, being a Nazarene Jew. Who are you to defy my interpretation of my own Nazarene books and tell me I'm wrong by your logic?

, and we do authoritatively

Well I guess I have authority over the Nazarene Gospels then? Whence do you base your authority on? Hundreds of years of post 2nd century orthodox tradition?

construct a theological framework from it

It's constructed, that's for sure.

.

We simply aren't talking about rocks here -- objects that can be objectively studied and tested. We're largely talking about meaning here -- meaning that is imbedded within the community

And apparently different communities gave it different meanings. Obviously they can't all be right. Now you said that the Arian view "Cannot be reconciled Biblically", which is basically calling their view "illegitimate" in a way, so why do they not have the right meaning but you do?

. And no one who stands outside that community has the authority to tell us that the meaning we have constructed out of our own texts is wrong.

And that begs a giant question, what authority do you have to tell them that their accusations of being wrong are wrong? Are JWs outside of this community? Do you only include Orthodox Christians in this community? How about Nazarene Jews who were the FIRST community?

By your logic, my authority on the Scripture should come first and foremost as a Nazarene Jew. As much as I'd like that, I ain't gonna defend my views on that faulty basis.

 

[sojourner]

Indeed, you are right in saying that Jesus is fully human. Not God.

That's only half the equation. Jesus is also fully God.

 

[sojourner]

Just read John's Gospel.

That Gospel in its final form says one more thing about Jesus that was unknown from the previous three Gospels - that Jesus was the Word of God.

John means that Jesus was God's agent through whom God created everything else.

This is often misunderstood to mean that Jesus was God Himself. But John was saying, as Paul had already said, that Jesus was God's first creature. In the Book of Revelations in the Bible, we find that Jesus is:

"The Beginning of God's Creation" (Ch. 3, v. 14; see also 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:15).

Anyone who says that the Word of God is a person distinct from God must also admit that the Word was created, for the Word speaks in the Bible saying:

"God created me" (Proverbs ch. 8, v. 22).

Been there, done that, exegeted the T-shirt. I think you're wrong. John clearly sees Jesus in both a human and a Divine light.

 

[sojourner]

The OP says "Where in the Bible", not "Where in the Bible according to Trintiarian frameworks".

And "Proper exegesis" means reading it according to the Orthodox standard? Otherwise, where was hie exegesis not proper exactly?

,You have a tendency to accuse others of having biases, but when asked if you admit you have any, you dodge the question.

Oh really? What kind of statements exactly are you talking about that prove a lack of familiarity with the Bible as opposed to Orthodox Tradition and interpretation of the Bible?

You did? No. Nazarene Jews did. The orthodox most certainly did not write it. Orthodox Trinitarians did not write the NT. And if you think they were, I'll be happy to 1x1 on that.
Who did exactly? The Roman Church? There were different canons running around, loaded with interpolations, different Church Fathers going by different texts. The orthodox Church compiled their own Bible much after the early Church Fathers compiled their own canons. You do not have some special insight to the texts themselves just because you come from a tradition that evolved hundreds of years after the originals.

We can agree to that at least. And with the Trinitarian interpolations that even found their way into the extra-canonical writings, we see all the more proof that this Trinity doctrine was being shoe-horned it as much as possible and that the originals did not contain much of the text-base that is used in support of it.

The orthodox Church canonized the Orthodox Bible hundreds of years after the texts were written and being circulated, again, until that time, there were multiple different canons.

The Bible is no one's, no one set of Christianity lays claim to it. If anything, I could say it's MINE, being a Nazarene Jew. Who are you to defy my interpretation of my own Nazarene books and tell me I'm wrong by your logic?

Well I guess I have authority over the Nazarene Gospels then? Whence do you base your authority on? Hundreds of years of post 2nd century orthodox tradition?

It's constructed, that's for sure.

.And apparently different communities gave it different meanings. Obviously they can't all be right. Now you said that the Arian view "Cannot be reconciled Biblically", which is basically calling their view "illegitimate" in a way, so why do they not have the right meaning but you do?

And that begs a giant question, what authority do you have to tell them that their accusations of being wrong are wrong? Are JWs outside of this community? Do you only include Orthodox Christians in this community? How about Nazarene Jews who were the FIRST community?

By your logic, my authority on the Scripture should come first and foremost as a Nazarene Jew. As much as I'd like that, I ain't gonna defend my views on that faulty basis.

It's interesting how much time and energy you spend on my posts. I must really stick a burr under your saddle in some way...

 

[Shermana]

It's interesting how much time and energy you spend on my posts. I must really stick a burr under your saddle in some way...

I'm replying for everyone reading, not just you. What's interesting is the way you :ignore: and :run: once your counter-assertions are countered.

 

[Animevox]

That's only half the equation. Jesus is also fully God.

Notice that the Bible never confirms that Jesus had two natures. What your saying is just a desperate solution offered to those who don't wish to believe what the Bible plainly says.

Besides, this dual-nature solution you speak of only complicates matters further. Take for illustration the fig-tree episode in the Gospels (Mark 11: 12-25)

Mark tells us as follows: "Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs" (Mark 11: 12-14).

Jesus then put a curse on the tree so that no one could eat fruit from it again. By the next morning, the tree withered from it's roots.

Now, it's clear from this passage that Jesus had a lot of power to curse the tree and make it wither from it's roots. But it's also clear that Jesus was ignorant on two accounts:

Firstly, he didn't know that the tree didn't have any fruit until he came to it. Secondly, he didn't know that it wasn't the right season for figs.

Proponents of the dual-nature theory will have to admit that the power to curse was in Jesus's God nature. They will also have to admit that his ignorance was due to his human nature.

They will then have to conclude that the God nature acted at the behest of the ignorance stemming from the human nature. But God doesn't act on ignorance.

Surely He would know, as Mark knew, that it wasn't the season for figs, and that when fig season arrives, that tree will provide fruit for God's creatures.

Why would God curse a good tree which he created? Some would like to believe that the tree was barren and therefore deserved to be destroyed.

But if Mark was right, the reason the tree had no fruit is "Because it wasn't the season for figs" (Mark 12:13).

These Bible reference's clearly show that Jesus wasn't the all-powerful, all-knowing God.

 

[sojourner]

Notice that the Bible never confirms that Jesus had two natures. What your saying is just a desperate solution offered to those who don't wish to believe what the Bible plainly says.

Besides, this dual-nature solution you speak of only complicates matters further. Take for illustration the fig-tree episode in the Gospels (Mark 11: 12-25)

Mark tells us as follows: "Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs" (Mark 11: 12-14).

Jesus then put a curse on the tree so that no one could eat fruit from it again. By the next morning, the tree withered from it's roots.

Now, it's clear from this passage that Jesus had a lot of power to curse the tree and make it wither from it's roots. But it's also clear that Jesus was ignorant on two accounts:

Firstly, he didn't know that the tree didn't have any fruit until he came to it. Secondly, he didn't know that it wasn't the right season for figs.

Proponents of the dual-nature theory will have to admit that the power to curse was in Jesus's God nature. They will also have to admit that his ignorance was due to his human nature.

They will then have to conclude that the God nature acted at the behest of the ignorance stemming from the human nature. But God doesn't act on ignorance.

Surely He would know, as Mark knew, that it wasn't the season for figs, and that when fig season arrives, that tree will provide fruit for God's creatures.

Why would God curse a good tree which he created? Some would like to believe that the tree was barren and therefore deserved to be destroyed.

But if Mark was right, the reason the tree had no fruit is "Because it wasn't the season for figs" (Mark 12:13).

These Bible reference's clearly show that Jesus wasn't the all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Again, your exegetical skills are practically non-existent here. If Jesus was "in perfect accord" with God, why would Jesus destroy one of God's creations? I'm afraid your analysis is lacking in ... analysis.

It's obvious from the texts that Jesus did have two natures. What human has ever been bodily resurrected or ascended? What human being can walk through locked doors and disappear from sight in an instant? What human being has ever been birthed through a miraculous process (closely resembling that of Augustus -- such as we see in Luke)?

Sorry, you're just wrong here. The bible does present Jesus as being Divine and human.

 

[Animevox]

Again, your exegetical skills are practically non-existent here. If Jesus was "in perfect accord" with God, why would Jesus destroy one of God's creations? I'm afraid your analysis is lacking in ... analysis.

It's obvious from the texts that Jesus did have two natures. What human has ever been bodily resurrected or ascended? What human being can walk through locked doors and disappear from sight in an instant? What human being has ever been birthed through a miraculous process (closely resembling that of Augustus -- such as we see in Luke)?

Sorry, you're just wrong here. The bible does present Jesus as being Divine and human.

Well, Christian's and Muslim's can both agree that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, Right? Well, if you actually read the Gospels, it shows that Jesus was not all-powerful and not all-knowing, since he had limitations.

Mark's Gospel obviously tells us that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown except a few things: "He could not do any miracle's there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them." (Mark 6:5).

Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26).

Therefore, although we hold a great love and respect for Jesus, we need to understand that he is not the all-powerful God.

Mark's Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the father alone knows that (Mark 24:36).

Therefore, Jesus could not have been the all-knowing God. You might say that Jesus knew when the last day will occur, but he chose not to tell. But that would only complicate matters further.

Jesus could of said that he knows but he doesn't wish to tell. Instead, he said that he doesn't know. So we must believe him. Jesus is a man of truth.

As for Luke's Gospel, I don't know why you're using that as a reference. Luke's Gospel actually reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge as well. Luke says that Jesus has increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52).

In Hebrews too (Hebrews 5:8) we read that Jesus learned obedience. But God's knowledge and wisdom is always perfect, and God doesn't learn new things. He knows everything always.

So, if Jesus learned something new, that proves that he didn't know everything before that, and thus he was not God.

Can he become God later? No! Because there is only one God, and He is God from everlasting to everlasting (Psalms 90:2).

 

[Animevox]

Again, your exegetical skills are practically non-existent here. If Jesus was "in perfect accord" with God, why would Jesus destroy one of God's creations? I'm afraid your analysis is lacking in ... analysis.

It's obvious from the texts that Jesus did have two natures. What human has ever been bodily resurrected or ascended? What human being can walk through locked doors and disappear from sight in an instant? What human being has ever been birthed through a miraculous process (closely resembling that of Augustus -- such as we see in Luke)?

Sorry, you're just wrong here. The bible does present Jesus as being Divine and human.

You might say that Jesus was God, but he took the form of a servant. Well, that would mean that God changed. But God does not change. God said so according to Malachi 3:6.

Jesus never was God, and never will be. In the Bible, God declares "Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

The Bible CLEARLY shows that Jesus was NOT all-powerful and all-knowing as the true God should be.

 

[Animevox]

Again, your exegetical skills are practically non-existent here. If Jesus was "in perfect accord" with God, why would Jesus destroy one of God's creations? I'm afraid your analysis is lacking in ... analysis.

It's obvious from the texts that Jesus did have two natures. What human has ever been bodily resurrected or ascended? What human being can walk through locked doors and disappear from sight in an instant? What human being has ever been birthed through a miraculous process (closely resembling that of Augustus -- such as we see in Luke)?

Sorry, you're just wrong here. The bible does present Jesus as being Divine and human.

My exegetical skills aren't non-existent, you just lack the knowledge of your OWN Bible. I gave you clear-cut concrete reference's explicitly proving my points.

Nothing is wrong with my interpretations, the verse's I gave you are as clear as it gets, no one could misinterpret them, except Christian's who use them to suit there own agenda.

You just refuse to believe what your Bible plainly says. All you're doing is criticizing me for proving you wrong with verse's from your own Bible. Why not give me some counter-verse's to prove your points why Jesus is God?

You've given NONE thus far, while I've given plenty. I wonder why that is?

Jesus isn't God. It's in your BIBLE. Give it up!

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Give me one unequivocal statement where Jesus Christ unambiguously states his own divinity.

Every human is supposed to be made in God's image. If you tell others, that you are too, will they be interested? Why are you interested, if Jesus proclaimed that he is God's son? That isn't perhaps why, he is supposed to be divine, is what I feel. Why would a person created, be thought to have been created in God's image, when created by God, only, as is said?

 

[sojourner]

Well, Christian's and Muslim's can both agree that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, Right? Well, if you actually read the Gospels, it shows that Jesus was not all-powerful and not all-knowing, since he had limitations.

Mark's Gospel obviously tells us that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown except a few things: "He could not do any miracle's there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them." (Mark 6:5).

Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26).

Therefore, although we hold a great love and respect for Jesus, we need to understand that he is not the all-powerful God.

Mark's Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the father alone knows that (Mark 24:36).

Therefore, Jesus could not have been the all-knowing God. You might say that Jesus knew when the last day will occur, but he chose not to tell. But that would only complicate matters further.

Jesus could of said that he knows but he doesn't wish to tell. Instead, he said that he doesn't know. So we must believe him. Jesus is a man of truth.

As for Luke's Gospel, I don't know why you're using that as a reference. Luke's Gospel actually reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge as well. Luke says that Jesus has increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52).

In Hebrews too (Hebrews 5:8) we read that Jesus learned obedience. But God's knowledge and wisdom is always perfect, and God doesn't learn new things. He knows everything always.

So, if Jesus learned something new, that proves that he didn't know everything before that, and thus he was not God.

Can he become God later? No! Because there is only one God, and He is God from everlasting to everlasting (Psalms 90:2).

None of what you're saying is compelling, since Jesus, according to the doctrine, was also fully human. as Paul says (paraphrasing), "He didn't regard Divinity as a thing to be exploited but emptied himself..."

Plus the fact that the bible portrays God as not being omniscient.

 

[sojourner]

You might say that Jesus was God, but he took the form of a servant. Well, that would mean that God changed. But God does not change. God said so according to Malachi 3:6.

Jesus never was God, and never will be. In the Bible, God declares "Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

The Bible CLEARLY shows that Jesus was NOT all-powerful and all-knowing as the true God should be.

Correct. Jesus was God and emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. So, if we're going to treat the bible as you're treating it, taking things completely out of context and treating them as if they're the crux of truth of the entire collection, then which is right? Malachi, or Paul?

More importantly, which is wrong? Because if you're going to use the bible as the sole ground of doctrine (which, BTW, has never been the case for the church, and is why I said that, being a Muslim, you don't understand how the bible has always been viewed and used), then it must be correct in all its aspects (another fallacy frequently foisted upon the bible by Muslims as a "measure" of its authenticity). Therefore, if the bible is "wrong," then it cannot be used to prove your point.

 

[sojourner]

My exegetical skills aren't non-existent, you just lack the knowledge of your OWN Bible.

Uh-huh. That's the obvious result of over 80 hours of honors graduate work in studying it...

I gave you clear-cut concrete reference's explicitly proving my points.

No, you spewed a bunch of disjointed snippets at me without actually exegeting them. All you've proved is that you're good at eisegesis.

Nothing is wrong with my interpretations, the verse's I gave you are as clear as it gets, no one could misinterpret them, except Christian's who use them to suit there own agenda.

I disagree. Since you failed to exegete them, you've only succeeded in projection.

You just refuse to believe what your Bible plainly says.

I don't think it's quite so "plain" as a cursory, eisegetical reading would suggest.

Jesus isn't God. It's in your BIBLE. Give it up!

You just said it: MY bible. Give it up!

 

[Animevox]

Every human is supposed to be made in God's image. If you tell others, that you are too, will they be interested? Why are you interested, if Jesus proclaimed that he is God's son? That isn't perhaps why, he is supposed to be divine, is what I feel. Why would a person created, be thought to have been created in God's image, when created by God, only, as is said?

You didn't answer my question. Try again.

 

[Animevox]

Correct. Jesus was God and emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. So, if we're going to treat the bible as you're treating it, taking things completely out of context and treating them as if they're the crux of truth of the entire collection, then which is right? Malachi, or Paul?

More importantly, which is wrong? Because if you're going to use the bible as the sole ground of doctrine (which, BTW, has never been the case for the church, and is why I said that, being a Muslim, you don't understand how the bible has always been viewed and used), then it must be correct in all its aspects (another fallacy frequently foisted upon the bible by Muslims as a "measure" of its authenticity). Therefore, if the bible is "wrong," then it cannot be used to prove your point.

God is all-knowing, Jesus fails this main qualification. This alone is enough to prove that Jesus is not God. Also note that Jesus never said he was God.

Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. If you make a claim on someone, then you would expect that someone to back your claim up. If I claim somebody is a king, you would expect that king to say he is a king, at least once.

In the OT, God says he is "God" several times, Why not once with Jesus in the NT? Did God change his ways? I think not, since the OT says that God does not change. Here are some passages from the OT where God says he is God:

"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 20:2).

"Be still, and know that I am God" (Psalms 46:10).

"I am the LORD, and there is no God beside me" (Isaiah 45:5).

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God" (Isaiah 46:9).

"I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them" (Ezekiel 20:19).

So as we can plainly see, God isn't really too shy to say "I am God". So if Jesus is God, then how come he never said it once like the God of the OT? This is not a coincidence.

 

[Animevox]

None of what you're saying is compelling, since Jesus, according to the doctrine, was also fully human. as Paul says (paraphrasing), "He didn't regard Divinity as a thing to be exploited but emptied himself..."

Plus the fact that the bible portrays God as not being omniscient.

The New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus is The Son of Man.

Here are some verse's to back up my argument (Unlike you):

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20).

"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house" (Matthew 9:6).

"For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day" (Matthew 12:8).

"Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men" (Luke 9:44).

"Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day (Luke 9:22).

"And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (John 5:27).

The Old Testament tells us not to put our trust in the son of man:

Psalms 146:

1. Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.
2. While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
3. Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

So note, Jesus is the son of man, the OT tells us not to put our trust in the son of man; therefore we cannot place our trust in Jesus so he cannot be God.

The OT is basically saying that you shouldn’t put your trust in men as you do with God, so hence we cannot put our trust in Jesus in the same way we do with God since Jesus is just a man, and he cannot really save us.

So hence Jesus cannot be God.

1. Jesus is the son of man
2. We cannot put our trust in Jesus as we do with God
3. The OT tells us not to put our trust in the son of man
4. Jesus is not God

So if we can't put our trust in the son of man, and Jesus IS the son of man, then that would basically mean that we can't put our trust in Jesus. Thus, Jesus is not God.

 

[sojourner]

God is all-knowing, Jesus fails this main qualification. This alone is enough to prove that Jesus is not God. Also note that Jesus never said he was God.

Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. If you make a claim on someone, then you would expect that someone to back your claim up. If I claim somebody is a king, you would expect that king to say he is a king, at least once.

In the OT, God says he is "God" several times, Why not once with Jesus in the NT? Did God change his ways? I think not, since the OT says that God does not change. Here are some passages from the OT where God says he is God:

"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 20:2).

"Be still, and know that I am God" (Psalms 46:10).

"I am the LORD, and there is no God beside me" (Isaiah 45:5).

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God" (Isaiah 46:9).

"I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them" (Ezekiel 20:19).

So as we can plainly see, God isn't really too shy to say "I am God". So if Jesus is God, then how come he never said it once like the God of the OT? This is not a coincidence.

I am the bread of life. (Jn 6:35)
I am the good shepherd. (Jn. 10:11)
I am the way, the truth, and the life. (Jn. 14:6)

This is the same John who declared that, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God... and the word became flesh and lived among us...

What more do you need?

 

[sojourner]

The New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus is The Son of Man.

Here are some verse's to back up my argument (Unlike you):

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20).

"But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house" (Matthew 9:6).

"For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day" (Matthew 12:8).

"Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men" (Luke 9:44).

"Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day (Luke 9:22).

"And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (John 5:27).

The Old Testament tells us not to put our trust in the son of man:

Psalms 146:

1. Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.
2. While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
3. Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

So note, Jesus is the son of man, the OT tells us not to put our trust in the son of man; therefore we cannot place our trust in Jesus so he cannot be God.

The OT is basically saying that you shouldn’t put your trust in men as you do with God, so hence we cannot put our trust in Jesus in the same way we do with God since Jesus is just a man, and he cannot really save us.

So hence Jesus cannot be God.

1. Jesus is the son of man
2. We cannot put our trust in Jesus as we do with God
3. The OT tells us not to put our trust in the son of man
4. Jesus is not God

So if we can't put our trust in the son of man, and Jesus IS the son of man, then that would basically mean that we can't put our trust in Jesus. Thus, Jesus is not God.

So... you can't trust your prophet? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Me Myself]

So... you can't trust your prophet? Is that what you're saying?

Yes and no. You should not trust Jesus any more you would trust another prophet, according to him.

This means you give a prophet greater credibility than another man because God chose him to give his messages, but not equal credibility than God.

(not that I agree, but his point is easy to understand if you don't try to distort it )