The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[Clear]

@Oeste said : "Only from context. We can't forget the first two clauses. But that's boring and we'll probably put anyone reading this to sleep (perhaps with the exception of @Clear). We'll look at a much more broader context tomorrow (again it's nearly 2 am!)." (Post #480)

Hi Oeste – I admit I was yawning at the various claims regarding dueling and conflicting grammatical "rules" that were supposed to provide the clear interpretation. I very much agree that grammar was never going to determine clear meaning in this case, but instead, the early context of the writer that was going to determine the meaning of John 1:1c.

John 1:18 and it’s reference to “the only begotten God” is another difficult passage for strict monotheists and for strict polytheists. I think it works best for henotheists.

In any case @Oeste, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful

See you

Clear
ακσεφυσιω

 

[Oeste]

I am sure everyone here knows that the early Christians were considered “atheists”, a threat to the Roman Empire because they refused to acknowledge other gods.

I am also sure everyone here recognizes the WT considers only itself as "true" or "pure" Christianity, whilst all other Christian churches are considered "so-called" or "false".The WT claims there are plenty of gods (mighty people) to whom Christians gave "obeisance" whilst only God the Father was worshiped.

I mention this because we must all consider “What if the Watchtower’s position was true? How would that have affected the church and its early history?

Sometimes the best way to argue against something is to simply argue for it. I recall the cartoon where Daffy and Bugs were arguing as to whether it was Duck season or Rabbit season:

Bugs out thinks his opponent by suddenly claiming it was “Rabbit Season” which lead Daffy to declare it was “Duck Season!” Bugs eventually relents and agrees with Daffy it is indeed Duck season, and the rest is unfortunate history for Daffy.

Such appears to be the case here. So let’s assume it’s “a god” (don’t get upset @74x12, we’re just playing!). How would this have played historically? Would it be in accordance to what we know or would a little revisionism be in order?

Perhaps the best way to explain “a god” and our new Watchtower history is to offer an illustration:

Magnus: “Tertius, it has begun. The Romans have arrived and demand everyone assemble in the square. We must acknowledge the Emperor is a god or they will declare us atheists to be escorted to the arena. I fear what will happen next but we must all remain strong.”

Tertius: “I don’t know why you worry so much Magnus. Gather the people in the square and let’s get this over with.”

Magnus and his fellow Christians are first to gather in the square. They refuse to bow or acknowledge the emperor as a god. Their refusal clearly marks them as “atheists” and a threat to the empire. The soldiers quickly shackle them to the back of a cart destined for the arena. Their land will be confiscated and their lives martyred by the morrow.

Then the JW’s are brought forward into the square. One by one they bow before the emperor as they publicly acknowledge the emperor is a god.

The Christians are dumbfounded and in shock. “Tertius!” Magnus implores, “How can you do or say such a thing? Know ye not we have but one God?!”

Tertius begins to shake his head. Out of earshot of the emperor he slowly turns towards his misguided, and soon to be unnecessarily martyred friend.

“Silly Magnus, are you and your so-called Christians as blind as the Emperor, unable to distinguish obeisance from true worship? Besides, we never proclaimed the emperor God with a capital “G” we simply proclaimed him god with a small.”​

Given what we know and have verified about the early Christians, I think anyone looking from a broader historical context would instantly recognize the WT's position as untenable. There is simply no way "true Christians" could bow before Caesar while agreeing he was a god, while the "so-called" or "false" Christians denied it and were marched off to an arena. It simply spins everything you ever learned in history class on its head. Yet the above illustration is not beyond possibility because the Watchtower claims they have "restored" the proper theological position of the Christian church!!

The WT position is not only a challenge to grammarians but to established World history as well. And while I understand there are those who have been convinced there was an insidious plot that successfully deleted and replaced the Divine Name, without trace, from every ancient Greek manuscript we have in our possession, one must wonder if this...for any reasonable person...is simply a bridge too far.

 

[Clear]

@Oeste

I very much agree that the Jehovahs Witness theology has many very, very strange and untenable points to it that make it incompatible with and inconsistent with early Judeo-Christianity. I simply don't feel animosity towards them because of my disagreements and want to support any religion on points where they are correct. My points so far have been to simply support their rendering of John 1:1c as being grammatically correct and consistent with early Christian worldviews. IF the O.P. had spoken of the J.W. and their interpretation of "sleep death" or the inappropriate additions of the Name Jehovah to New Testament verses where it never existed, then I would have argued against the Jehovahs Witness claims.

I do not mind supporting a specific true point even if I disagree with substantial portions of the remainder of another persons religion. I do NOT think the New World Translation is a legitimate translation in many instances, I simply supported them on this specific point of John 1:1c. Honestly, I don't really know much about the J.W. nor any other of the more modern Christian movements with their accompanying interpretations of scriptures. My interest really is in early Judeo-Christianity and their descriptions of their religion.

In any case, I honestly hope the lives of the J.Ws are as good as they can be and I hope yours is as well.

Clear
ακσιακδρω

 

[SugarOcean]

Then explain Psalms 110:1.

Who 'gave' Jesus all authority in Matthew 18:18, which made him Lord?

Jesus, Messiah, figures prominently in the OT. The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.

Psalms 110:1
EXPOSITION
Psalm 110:1 Commentary - The Treasury of David
Verse 1. The LORD said unto thy Lord. -- Jehovah said unto my Adonai: David in spirit heard the solemn voice of Jehovah speaking to the Messiah from of old. What wonderful intercourse there has been between the Father and the Son! From this secret and intimate communion springs the covenant of grace and all its marvellous arrangements. All the great acts of grace are brought into actual being by the word of God; had he not spoken, there had been no manifestation of Deity to us; but in the beginning was the Word, and from of old there was mysterious fellowship between the Father and his Son Jesus Christ concerning his people and the great contest on their behalf between himself and the powers of evil. How condescending on Jehovah's part to permit a mortal ear to hear, and a human pen to record his secret converse with his coequal Son! How greatly should we prize the revelation of his private and solemn discourse with the Son, herein made public for the refreshing of his people! Lord, what is man that thou shouldest thus impart thy secrets unto him!

Though David was a firm believer in the Unity of the Godhead, he yet spiritually discerns the two persons, distinguishes between them, and perceives that in the second he has a peculiar interest, for he calls him "my Lord." This was an anticipation of the exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God," and it expresses the Psalmist's reverence, his obedience, his believing appropriation, and his joy in Christ. It is well to have clear views of the mutual relations of the persons of the blessed Trinity; indeed, the knowledge of these truths is essential for our comfort and growth in grace. There is a manifest distinction in the divine persons, since one speaks to another; yet the Godhead is one.

Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Away from the shame and suffering of his earthly life, Jehovah calls the Adonai, our Lord, to the repose and honours of his celestial seat. His work is done, and he may sit; it is well done, and he may sit at his right hand; it will have grand results, and he may therefore quietly wait to see the complete victory which is certain to follow. The glorious Jehovah thus addresses the Christ as our Saviour; for, says David, he said "unto my Lord." Jesus is placed in the seat of power, dominion, and dignity, and is to sit there by divine appointment while Jehovah fights for him, and lays every rebel beneath his feet. He sits there by the Father's ordinance and call, and will sit there despite all the raging of his adversaries, till they are all brought to utter shame by his putting his foot upon their necks. In this sitting he is our representative. The mediatorial kingdom will last until the last enemy shall be destroyed, and then, according to the inspired word, "cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father." The work of subduing the nations is now in the hand of the great God, who by his Providence will accomplish it to the glory of his Son; his word is pledged to it, and the session of his Son at his right hand is the guarantee thereof; therefore let us never fear as to the future. While we see our Lord and representative sitting in quiet expectancy, we, too, may sit in the attitude of peaceful assurance, and with confidence await the grand outcome of all events. As surely as Jehovah liveth Jesus must reign, yea, even now he is reigning, though all his enemies are not yet subdued. During the present interval, through which we wait for his glorious appearing and visible millennial kingdom, he is in the place of power, and his dominion is in jeopardy, or otherwise he would not remain quiescent. He sits because all is safe, and he sits at Jehovah's right hand because omnipotence waits to accomplish his will. Therefore there is no cause for alarm whatever may happen in this lower world; the sight of Jesus enthroned in divine glory is the sure guarantee that all things are moving onward towards ultimate victory. Those rebels who now stand high in power shall soon be in the place of contempt, they shall be his footstool. He shall with ease rule them, he shall sit and put his foot on them; not rising to tread them down as when a man puts forth force to subdue powerful foes, but retaining the attitude of rest, and still ruling them as abject vassals who have no longer spirit to rebel, but have become thoroughly tamed and subdued.



Matthew 18:18 Commentaries: "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Jesus was given all authority by the Father because Jesus was the Father manifest in flesh.


John 3:31
The One who comes from above is above all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks as one from the earth. The One who comes from heaven is above all.

Matthew 11:27
"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

 

[Oeste]

Hi Oeste – I admit I was yawning at the various claims regarding dueling and conflicting grammatical "rules" that were supposed to provide the clear interpretation.

Well at least no one decided to diagram sentences.

Honestly, I don't really know much about the J.W. nor any other of the more modern Christian movements with their accompanying interpretations of scriptures. My interest really is in early Judeo-Christianity and their descriptions of their religion.

JW’s are interesting, more so for me because I used to study with them when I was younger. Within the community that identifies as Christian here we have Oneness, Socinians, Arians, fellow Trinitarians and still others that would be difficult to classify. You can’t find all that at the local coffee shop much less get them to talk. I find some ideas and beliefs expressed here incredibly strange as I’m sure others have found mine.

In any event we're all the more richer because of our willingness to cordially engage.

In any case, I honestly hope the lives of the J.Ws are as good as they can be and I hope yours is as well.

Good sentiments, and ditto for you as well @Clear.

Take care!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Though David was a firm believer in the Unity of the Godhead.....

Oh my goodness! Statements without references are just words without meaning.
David as a Jew worshipped Yahweh, as did Jesus. John 20:17. Are you now going to claim to all the Jews on this forum, that they too are 'firm believers in the Godhead'?

I'm sorry, but you can't gain "knowledge" of a concept that has been described, by its very creators no less, as a "mystery".

Jesus perfectly represented his Father...that's a far cry from saying he actually was the Father! He and his Father were "one" in the same sense as his disciples were one with Jesus and God: in unity of purpose. John 17:20-22.

Jesus was / is "the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4), not God. God is the Father (1 Corinthians 8:5-6), in Hebrew His name is Yahweh (Deuteronomy 6:4), Jehovah in English (Psalms 83:18).

I tell ya....Getting humans to remove God's Own Name from His Book (because "it's too holy to pronounce" [King David didn't think so, neither did the prophets]), was a master stroke by the Master Deceiver! How skillfully he has kept people from learning about Jesus' Father, which is imperative for eternal life! John 17:3

Put His name back where it rightfully belongs, and many of these arguments would deflate.

 

[SugarOcean]

Oh my goodness! Statements without references are just words without meaning.,,,,,,,,,

Missed the links to references you did, you did.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Missed the links to references you did, you did.

Well, I saw the 'BibleStudyTools.com' site, from which you copied & pasted.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Wish you the best in your searches, my cousin.

 

[SugarOcean]

Well, I saw the 'BibleStudyTools.com' site, from which you copied & pasted.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Wish you the best in your searches, my cousin.

No , we won't agree to disagree. You said: Oh my goodness! Statements without references are just words without meaning.

Which was a false statement wherein you admit here you saw the links to the reference site from which I copied and pasted the information.
Therefore, the statements were fully referenced.


Jesus was God. Paul does not revoke that in the least.
Did Paul think Jesus was God?
1. Jesus is Yahweh
Perhaps one of the clearest indications that Paul thought Jesus was Yahweh comes from the fact that he used Monotheistic Old Testament passages which uniquely referred to Yahweh and applied them to the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32; 1 Cor. 1:31 cf. Jer. 9:24; 1 Cor. 2:16 cf. Isa. 40:13; 1 Cor. 10:26 cf. Ps. 24:1; 2 Cor. 10:17 cf. Jer. 9:24 for just a few examples). 1 Corinthians 2:16, for example, alludes to Isaiah 40:13 which is in the context of some of the most explicit monotheistic statements in the entire Old Testament (cf. Isaiah 40:13-28; 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5).

Besides the name the Christ was to be given at birth, Immanuel, meaning God with us, as told to Mary prior to her receiving the holy spirits power to conceive the son of God and the son of man within her, Jesus himself said, when you have seen me you have seen the father.
No one could prior to this look upon God and live. With Jesus in the flesh as both God and man, it was possible then to look upon the savior who brought the grace of God's salvation message to the world.

John 1 KJV;MOUNCE - In the beginning was the Word, and the - Bible Gateway
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Which was a false statement wherein you admit here you saw the links to the reference site from which I copied and pasted the information.
Therefore, the statements were fully referenced.

Yes, you used a reference, and I'm sorry for implying otherwise.
However, it was simply gainsaying. There was no Scriptural evidence backing up what the writer of that piece said. There was no Scripture provided that supports the idea that King David "believed in the unity of the Godhead'"! He believed the Shema, however, that "Yahweh is one Yahweh (Deuteronomy 6:4)"....not two, or 3. Otherwise, he'd have been guilty of breaking the 1st Commandment. Exodus 20:1-6. Reiterated at Exodus 34:14.

 

[Desert Snake]

John 1:18 and it’s reference to “the only begotten God” is another difficult passage for strict monotheists and for strict polytheists. I think it works best for henotheists.

Not in a 'literal word sense', presumably for Christians. You might notice that that 'problem' only occurs with certain interpretation and adherence to earlier Scripture, which the Xians wouldn't by, direct religious correlation, have.

So without evidence that there is a problem there, it just doesn't present itself contextually.
[INTERPRETATION OF EARLIER SCRIPTURE

[WORD USAGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE NAME AND WORD 'GOD'

[ONENESS NATURE OF GOD AS NOTED IN NEW TESTAMENT

[CROSS LANGUAGE WORD CORRELATION [[WITH INFERRED MEANING BY USAGE

Cheers

 

[SugarOcean]

Yes, you used a reference, and I'm sorry for implying otherwise.
However, it was simply gainsaying. There was no Scriptural evidence backing up what the writer of that piece said. There was no Scripture provided that supports the idea that King David "believed in the unity of the Godhead'"! He believed the Shema, however, that "Yahweh is one Yahweh (Deuteronomy 6:4)"....not two, or 3. Otherwise, he'd have been guilty of breaking the 1st Commandment. Exodus 20:1-6. Reiterated at Exodus 34:14.

The mistake people make in thinking triune, besides that it isn't biblical, is to imagine God and Holy Spirit are two separate things.
Scripture informs us that God is holy and God is a spirit and must be worshiped in spirit. God is a title for the Holy Spirit.
And since Jesus was God, the unity David was talking about was not a violation of the first command. There is only one.

 

[74x12]

Jesus is head of the church (Ephesians 5:23) and Master of the church. (John 13:14) So if you claim Jesus is "a god" then you have to logically admit He is "a god" of the church. So what you end up with in that case is two gods for the church which contradicts the faithful teachings presented by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

In conclusion, Jesus must not be just "a god" but "the God" of the church.

 

[Muffled]

God and gods

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meaning of theos and elohim ('a god'):

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”

Some of these (most, if not all, trinitarian) sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

Look like a lot more people than you thought are involved in "idolatry and blasphemy." Good luck with that.

I believe I am fine but the others will have to answer to God.

 

[Muffled]

While I do agree that Jesus is God. I don't agree that it's a blasphemy of the holy Spirit to say He was just a man. People really believe that and mean no harm by saying it. If you know He is God though and you say He was just a man then you're denying Him. But it's still not blasphemy of the holy Spirit.

I believe it would be blasphemy to say that God is a man. So since Jesus is God in the flesh it must be blasphemy against God to say Jesus is just a man.

 

[Muffled]

I do not think that the author of John intended to convey idolatry and blasphemy (though to some of the Jews of that day is may have seemed that way) but instead was trying to convey early Christian theology according to his personal belief. You might have written the phrase differently because of your personal beliefs.

This is an example of the point I made. YOUR personal belief (personal context) affects your translations and thus it is with creators of the various bibles. They also translate according to their personal context. IF one uses strict rules of grammar as their context (an agnostic or computer or ancient christian, etc.) then the translation will be different.

This has been part of the difficulty for Christianity in the eyes of non-Christians. It makes a claim that a man (Jesus) is also somehow, a God. Some of the major criticisms of Christianity has been because it makes this claim which seems, to some other religions, as a form of blasphemy. For example, while Islam is perfectly fine with the claim that the man Jesus was a Prophet, they feel that to say a man (Jesus, or any other man...) is a God, then this is, to them, blasphemy.

If Jesus is divine, then it is not particularly blasphemous to say he was "a God". While I think that the context is that he is the God of the Old Testament, your model might be different. I am O.K. with these sorts of discrepancies.

Good luck coming up with your own models regarding the nature of Jesus.


Clear.
ακτζειδρω

I interpret this verse in the context of other verses that support the divinity of Jesus not because I have a personal view.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Scripture informs us that God is holy and God is a spirit and must be worshiped in spirit. God is a title for the Holy Spirit.

Im sorry, but that reasoning falls short, to me....
The Bible also tells us that the Angels are holy, and they are spirit.
And I know they’re not the Holy Spirit, either.

The Holy Spirit is God’s power in action. It’s the only explanation that fits all the Scriptures where it is mentioned.

It comes from God, so it is divine... I know we’ll agree on that. Maybe?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I believe it would be blasphemy to say that God is a man. So since Jesus is God in the flesh it must be blasphemy against God to say Jesus is just a man.

1 Timothy 2:5

BTW, "anthropos" here is without the definite article. That's why some Bible versions say "a human, Jesus Christ" or "a man, Jesus Christ." Check BibleHub.

Do you know what a mediator does? It's a go-between, and it's always a third party. So this verse differentiates between God and Jesus....it doesn't say "the Father'....it says "God".

Why do you (and others) insist on removing from the Father \ Yahweh, what rightfully belongs to Him?
I don't get it.
John 3:16 says that He loved the world so much, that He gave His Son....but you seem to ignore Him in favor of Jesus!
Jesus didnt: Luke 10:21; John 4:23-24.

 

[74x12]

I believe it would be blasphemy to say that God is a man. So since Jesus is God in the flesh it must be blasphemy against God to say Jesus is just a man.

... but surely not blasphemy of the holy Spirit.

 

[steveb1]

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.
<snipped>

John does not view Jesus as "God".

First, the Word "is God/is with God" but Jesus is not the Word "in the beginning". The Word is eternal, but Jesus isn't. Jesus only began to exist as an embryo in his mother's womb. The Word took flesh - assumed a human nature - in its vehicle of incarnation, namely Jesus's human nature. It is therefore unbiblical to say that Jesus was in the beginning with God. The Word is eternal. Jesus is a product of history (if indeed he was historical per the Christ Myth theory).

Second, John explicitly excludes Jesus from the Godhead in John 17:3, where Jesus calls God "You, the only true God". For Jesus the true God is not Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, or even Jesus himself. Only the Father is God.

Third, God cannot hear and obey God, yet Jesus says that he is a man who has heard God's word and obeys it.

Fourth, God cannot have a God, yet the risen Jesus tells Mary Magdalene, "I ascend to your God and my God". Since Jesus himself has a God, Jesus cannot be God.

Examples can be multiplied, but from those provided above, it is clear that John never calls Jesus "God" in any unambiguous manner. The same holds true for Pauline christology, but that's a subject for another post at another time.