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

[sojourner]

When we look at the gospels, we see that Jesus throughout was referring to himself as the Son of Man, which means a human being, that he had human limitations, he did not know everything.

That's consistent, though, with the doctrine, which states that Jesus was fully human.

Throughout, Jesus is deferring to God, and in fact, he falls on his face and he prays to God.

Jesus was fully human, and, as such, deferred to the Father.

But, Jesus is also fully Divine, a fact to which several passages in the NT allude.

 

[sojourner]

The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was lifted up to heaven.

Throughout this period they never refer to Jesus as God.

They continually and consistently use the title "God" to refer to someone else other than Jesus.

Again: So what?! It... just... doesn't... matter that the equation with God isn't explicit.

 

[sojourner]

But I also know from doing psychology and a little bit of law that an implicit statement can never override an explicit statement.

An explicit statement always takes precedence. So if Jesus said "God is one" and he allegorically may have alluded to God being more than one, than the clear statement overrides that each and every single time.

"Tacit" and "explict" aren't the same thing. Therefore, what is implicit (being stated and not tacit) does take precedence.

Of course Jesus says that God is One. God is One -- even within the definitions of the Trinity doctrine. I don't care how much law or psychology you've studied, you don't get to rewrite the doctrine to suit your own agenda.

 

[sojourner]

Can you please stop calling me names? Let's just stick to this debate. Thank you!

you'll have to demonstrate where in the referenced quote:

that's not what I said. I said that twisting the bible into something it was never intended to be isn't reality. Here, you hope to make the bible into the definitive statement about everything that has to do with God or Jesus. That simply isn't the case. That's why the OP is a failure.

I "called you names." Otherwise, your accusation is simply subterfuge.

 

[Animevox]

1) Even according to the Trinity doctrine, God is still one. Now you're twisting the Trinity doctrine into saying something it does not say.
2) The Trinitarian concept is based upon both biblical and cultural tenet. That seems to be solid enough grounds for any other theological construction. Why do you hold the Trinity doctrine to higher standards?
3) It was not a "later idea." While it was not fully developed, there was always some idea that Jesus was -- in some way -- Divine, if for no other reason than Luke's birth narrative, which mirrors that of Augustus in nearly every way (who was seen as a god by Roman Gentiles).
4) It isn't "God's" holy bible. It is our holy bible. Once again:
a) The bible isn't the sole method of revelation
b) Teachings don't have to be explicit; they can be implicit, which is the case here.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus isn't God. In the Bible, God is always someone else other than Jesus.

You might say that something Jesus said or something he did while on earth proves that he's God. Well then, I'll show that the disciples never came to the conclusion that Jesus is God. These disciples are people who lived and walked with Jesus and thus knew first hand what he said and did. Furthermore, we are told in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible that the disciples were being guided by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is God, surely they should know it. But they did not. They kept worshipping the one true God who was worshipped by Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (see Acts 3:13).

All the writers of the Bible believed that God was not Jesus. The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.

 

[NIX]

I didn't say they were authentic through inspiration. I said that they are the texts whose inspiration is determined to be authentic.

(BTW: Aren't the claims made by the Quran the same ones you list here?)

In other words, it has been determined that the texts were authentically inspired by 'God'.

Determined by who?

 

[Animevox]

Jesus was fully human, and, as such, deferred to the Father.

But, Jesus is also fully Divine, a fact to which several passages in the NT allude.

That doesn't make any sense. He can't be divine and human at the same time. That's like saying that something is a square-circle.

He can't be both because to be human means to have limitations, and to be divine means to have none.

You can't be limited and non-limited at the same time, unless you're schizophrenic in which you have two different personalities here.

 

[Animevox]

Determined by who?

My words exactly.

 

[Animevox]

"Tacit" and "explict" aren't the same thing. Therefore, what is implicit (being stated and not tacit) does take precedence.

Of course Jesus says that God is One. God is One -- even within the definitions of the Trinity doctrine. I don't care how much law or psychology you've studied, you don't get to rewrite the doctrine to suit your own agenda.

Anything either "tacit" or "implicit" in the Bible still isn't the same as "explicit".

Everything in the Bible referring to Jesus as God or referring to the Trinity is either "tacit" or "implicit" therefore does not get the precedence as the explicit statements.

Here is one of the explicit statements that override the "tacit" and "implicit" one's:

Jesus says: "Hear O' Israel, You're lord, Our lord, Is ONE Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4).

If that isn't "explicit" enough for you. Here's another verse:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).

Jesus is clearly/explicitly saying that God is one. Notice how he said "Our God", this is clear evidence that Jesus isn't God and not part of a trinity.

There is not a single verse in the Bible about the trinity or Jesus himself claiming to be divine that is more explicit than these two verse's.

 

[sojourner]

In other words, it has been determined that the texts were authentically inspired by 'God'.

Determined by who?

some by Tradition, others by apostles.

 

[sojourner]

That doesn't make any sense. He can't be divine and human at the same time.

he can't? I say he can.

That's like saying that something is a square-circle.

Or, it's like saying that Atlas could hold the world on his shoulders.
Or, it's like saying that we can't fly because we don't have wings.

You know what? We say that because we are human beings and our ways are not God's ways; we cannot fully understand God, or the nature of God. To name a thing is to conquer a thing. We are not God's conquerers. We cannot see God's face. God remains largely a mystery.

It's also mysterious how sinful humans can be reconciled to God. Even a host of good works cannot make up for sins committed. We can not become clean enough for God, so God becomes dirty for us. God becomes incarnate. Isaiah says that the Messiah will be called "Everlasting Father" -- God.

He can't be both because to be human means to have limitations, and to be divine means to have none.

Jesus had limits. Jesus died. Jesus has no limits. He reigns as Pantokrator.

You can't be limited and non-limited at the same time, unless you're schizophrenic in which you have two different personalities here.

Apparently God cannot eradicate suffering. That's a limitation. yet God is limitless. We have limitless imagination. Yet we are limited.

How much more wondrous the possibilities and the growth potential when we don't "know it all" about God?

 

[Muffled]

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

"I and myFather are one."

 

[sojourner]

Anything either "tacit" or "implicit" in the Bible still isn't the same as "explicit".

So?... and?...

Everything in the Bible referring to Jesus as God or referring to the Trinity is either "tacit" or "implicit" therefore does not get the precedence as the explicit statements.

Not everything has to be in-your-face explicit in order to be real.

Here is one of the explicit statements that override the "tacit" and "implicit" one's:

Jesus says: "Hear O' Israel, You're lord, Our lord, Is ONE Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4).

If that isn't "explicit" enough for you. Here's another verse:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).

Doesn't override anything. God is one. But since we can't see God's face -- in other words, since we can't know everything about God, hence, there are some mysteries -- there are things that remain tacit or implicit.

Jesus is clearly/explicitly saying that God is one.

That's because that's a side of God we see clearly.

Notice how he said "Our God", this is clear evidence that Jesus isn't God and not part of a trinity.

I guess you're very conveniently ignoring the part of the doctrine that says one God, three Persons. The Trinity very clearly lays out that God is One.

There is not a single verse in the Bible about the trinity or Jesus himself claiming to be divine that is more explicit than these two verse's.

OK. Great. God is One. God is also three Persons.
And it pi$$es you off because you can't understand it -- just as it ******** off Eve that she couldn't eat the fruit of knowledge. and look what happened to her...

 

[Shermana]

"I and myFather are one."

A repeat from the other post for this repeated claim.

Which isn't at all saying that Jesus is God.

John 17:21 "Let them be one AS we are one".

It's most clearly just saying that it's a union of purpose and mindset.

Trinitarian scholars are aware of this well.

‘One’ also expresses the unity between Christ and the Father (Jn 10:30), the union between believers and the Godhead, and the unity which exists among Christians (Jn 17:21; Gal. 3:28). ‘One’ further expresses singleness of purpose” - p. 844, New Bible Dictionary, (2nd ed.), 1982, Tyndale House Publ.

Commenting on John 10:30, J. H. Bernard, D.D. says in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John:

“A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel..., and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of ousia [Greek for ‘substance,’ ‘essence’], is to introduce thoughts that were not present to the theologians of the first century."[1]

Even the very trinitarian New Testament Greek scholar W. E. Vine when discussing the Greek word for “one” says: “(b) metaphorically [figuratively], union and concord, e.g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22....” - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809.

Trinitarian Professor William Barclay writing in his popular Daily Study Bible Series, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, The Westminster Press, 1975, pp. 74, 75, 76 says:

“Now we come to the supreme claim [of John 10:30]. ‘I and the Father are one,’ said Jesus. What did he mean? Is it absolute mystery, or can we understand at least a little of it? Are we driven to interpret it in terms of essence and hypostasis and all the rest of the metaphysical and philosophic notions about which the makers of creeds fought and argued? Has one to be a theologian and a philosopher to grasp even a fragment of the meaning of this tremendous statement?
“If we go to the Bible itself for the interpretation,” continues Barclay, “we find that it is in fact so simple that the simplest mind can grasp it. Let us turn to the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel, which tells of the prayer of Jesus for his followers before he went to his death: ‘Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:11). Jesus conceived of the unity of Christian with Christian as the same as his unity with God.”

“Here is the essence of the matter”, says Barclay. “The bond of unity is love; the proof of love is obedience. Christians are one with each other when they are bound by love, and obey the words of Christ. Jesus is one with God, because as no other ever did, he obeyed and loved him. His unity with God is a unity of perfect love, issuing in perfect obedience.[2]

"When Jesus said: ‘I and the father are one,’ he was not moving in the world of philosophy and metaphysics and abstractions; he was moving in the world of personal relationships. No one can really understand what a phrase like ‘a unity of essence’ means; but any one can understand what a unity of heart means. Jesus’s unity with God came from the twin facts of perfect love and perfect obedience. He was one with God because he loved and obeyed him perfectly....”

Examining the Trinity: ONE - John 10:30

 

[Animevox]

he can't? I say he can.

Or, it's like saying that Atlas could hold the world on his shoulders.
Or, it's like saying that we can't fly because we don't have wings.

You know what? We say that because we are human beings and our ways are not God's ways; we cannot fully understand God, or the nature of God. To name a thing is to conquer a thing. We are not God's conquerers. We cannot see God's face. God remains largely a mystery.

It's also mysterious how sinful humans can be reconciled to God. Even a host of good works cannot make up for sins committed. We can not become clean enough for God, so God becomes dirty for us. God becomes incarnate. Isaiah says that the Messiah will be called "Everlasting Father" -- God.

Jesus had limits. Jesus died. Jesus has no limits. He reigns as Pantokrator.

Apparently God cannot eradicate suffering. That's a limitation. yet God is limitless. We have limitless imagination. Yet we are limited.

How much more wondrous the possibilities and the growth potential when we don't "know it all" about God?

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17).

They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).

Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God’s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

 

[Animevox]

"I and myFather are one."

If you read the next six verses, you will find Jesus explaining that his enemies were wrong to think that he was claiming to be God. What Jesus obviously means here is that he is one with the Father in purpose. Jesus also prayed that his disciples should be one just as Jesus and the Father are one. Obviously, he was not praying that all his disciples should somehow merge into one individual (see John 17:11 and 22). And when Luke reports that the disciples were all one, Luke does not mean that they became one single human being, but that they shared a common purpose, although they were separate beings (see Acts 4:32). In terms of essence, Jesus and the Father are two, for Jesus said they are two witnesses (John 8:14-18). They have to be two, since one is greater than the other (see John 14:28).

When Jesus prayed to be saved from the cross, he said: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42).

This shows that they had two separate wills, although Jesus submitted his will to the will of the Father. Two wills mean two separate individuals.

 

[Shermana]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17). They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).

Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation (see Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:6). Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God’s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying: “...the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28). And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

^^^ Epic win.

 

[Animevox]

So?... and?...

Not everything has to be in-your-face explicit in order to be real.

Doesn't override anything. God is one. But since we can't see God's face -- in other words, since we can't know everything about God, hence, there are some mysteries -- there are things that remain tacit or implicit.

That's because that's a side of God we see clearly.

I guess you're very conveniently ignoring the part of the doctrine that says one God, three Persons. The Trinity very clearly lays out that God is One.

OK. Great. God is One. God is also three Persons.
And it pi$$es you off because you can't understand it -- just as it ******** off Eve that she couldn't eat the fruit of knowledge. and look what happened to her...

Actually, everything does have to be explicit. Otherwise, you're just blindly following it without reason.

Jesus never said he was God therefore you shouldn't believe that he's God.

You are relying upon the implicit statements in the Bible and that's whats your putting your faith in. That isn't how faith works.

Jesus performed many miraculous wonders, and he without a doubt said a lot of wonderful things about himself. Some people use what he said and did as proof that he was God. But his original disciples who lived and walked with him, and were eyewitnesses to what he said and did, never reached this conclusion.

Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying:

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by wonders, miracles, and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22).

It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.

In fact, the way Peter refers to God and to Jesus makes it clear that Jesus isn't God. For he always turns the title "God" away from Jesus. Take the following references for example:

“God has raised this Jesus...” (Acts 2:32)

“God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

In both passages, the title "God" is turned away from Jesus. So why did he do this, if Jesus was God?

For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God. Peter said: “God raised up his servant...” (Acts 3:26).

The title "servant" refers to Jesus. This is clear from a previous passage where Peter declared: “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13).

 

[sojourner]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17).

Did they? How much time have you spent in actual exegetical work with these texts? Or are you simply doing a surface reading to glean fodder for your preconceived notions about them?

The very birth narrative in Luke tells a different story.

They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person.

No. They believed he was more than that, or they wouldn't have written about him.

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

I don't think so. They struggled to know, exactly, what Jesus was, but it's abundantly clear that he was more than simply "a man," and it's also clear that he was not an angel. As I've made more than abundantly clear, the bible is not the sole source of revelation. The bible also makes a pretty clear case for slavery, yet further light shows that slavery simply is not acceptable. The bible makes a clouded case for subjugation of women, yet further light shows that equality between the sexes is far more cogruent with Jesus' teachings.

It simply does not matter that the concept of God as Trinity is not explicit in the texts.

 

[sojourner]

Two wills mean two separate individuals.

Obviously you do not understand the doctrine you have wasted everyone's time trying to refute.
Obviously you do not understand that there are three distinct and individual Persons. No one's trying to meld Father and Son into one person. they remain distinct and individual.

Sheesh!