The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[74x12]

Huh? Since God can Not die (Psalms 90:2) because God is from-and-to everlasting, then how can Jesus die and be his own God ____________
Dead Jesus did Not even resurrect himself - Acts of the Apostles 2:24; 3:15; 13:30,37; Romans 4:24; Colossians 2:12

Dead Jesus did not resurrect Himself? Are you sure? That goes against everything in the scriptures. If Jesus did no raise Himself; then we're doomed because The Son of man has no power over the grave.

Jesus received a commandment from the Father giving Him(Jesus) the power to take His life back from the dead. See John 10:18. This means Jesus raised Himself.

Your reasoning also goes against what is obviously the implication when Jesus says "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

The implication being that Jesus is given power of death itself so that He can at will raise people from the dead. (John 5:25) This is how Jesus raised Himself from the dead.

Then you must contend with how Jesus says "I am the resurrection and the Life". So Jesus Himself is the resurrection. There is no other.

And of course you must explain how Jesus can destroy death if He didn't overcome death. (1 Corinthians 15:26)

Jesus has the keys to death and Hades. (Rev. 1:18)

Finally, Even Acts 2:24 which you cite shows us that it was not possible for death to hold Jesus. He had to prevail.


Now you say Jesus didn't raise Himself because the scriptures show us clearly that the holy Spirit raised Jesus. But you're using circular reasoning. Of course in my belief the holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Himself. So there is no contradiction. You on the other hand have to deal with various contradictions. Because sometimes the scriptures say that Jesus raised Himself (as I show) and other times they say that God raised Him.

So to be clear I have no contradictions. You do.

 

[74x12]

Huh? Since God can Not die (Psalms 90:2) because God is from-and-to everlasting, then how can Jesus die and be his own God ____________
Dead Jesus did Not even resurrect himself - Acts of the Apostles 2:24; 3:15; 13:30,37; Romans 4:24; Colossians 2:12

Jesus is the Word of Life. (1 John 1:1) That's why John says "The Word was made flesh ..." But so long as He lived the Word remained in silence. It was only after He died that the Word of Life could speak. Because the silence is broken like His body was broken. That's how He speaks. The minute He spoke He rose from the dead. That's how Jesus is the Word of Life.

 

[moorea944]

Your Question: Scripture tells us that he is the offspring and root. Why would you want to change that? And that makes him God?

I am not trying to change that. I am asking you to explain in what way he would be the root (signifying before) David. We both know he was the offspring of David. God has always existed, so he was before David, Then he took on a fleshly body that was a descendant of David, which explains how he is the offspring.

Your Question: Do you really think that David thought that Jesus was God and pre-exisited? No, of course not. Then why you?

David knew God had promised him to raise up one of his descendants to sit on the throne forever. Not sure of what all details he would know. The body did not pre-exist except in the mind and plans of God, but YHWH has always existed.

Your Question: How could Jesus creat things if he wasnt born yet? How can you pre-exist before you were born?

The body did not exist until it was born. The Spirit of God has always existed. God created all things. Then he later took on a body. So the one dwelling in that body had created all things.

Your Question: Why are you saying the the fullness of the Godhead/Deity was dwelling in him?

Because the scripture says so. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9 To wit that God was in Messiah reconciling the world unto himself. 2 Corinthians 5:19 He was the image of the invisible God. I and my Father are one. If you have seen me you have seen the Father. The Father that dwells in me does the works. John 14:7-10
God was dwelling in that body. The flesh itself wasn't God, it was a human body he took on to dwell in and sacrifice for sins. But it was still his body. Once it was sacrificed and resurrected, it became his permanent glorified spiritual body, and he ascended and took the throne.

Your Question: How could Jesus creat things if he wasnt born yet? How can you pre-exist before you were born?

The body did not exist until it was born. The Spirit of God has always existed. God created all things. Then he later took on a body. So the one dwelling in that body had created all things.

Your Question: Then who was Jesus then? Why call this body that YHWH was in called another name other than YHWH.

To make a distinction between the flesh and the Spirit.

Your Question: When you say that it was Yahweh dwelling in the flesh, are you talking about incarnation?

Incarnation is not a scriptural word. Not sure what your definition of the meaning is.

Jesus is the offspring of David... no question.

The manner in which he is the "root" is that Jesus has been the plan from the beginning. He was promised in Gen. 3:15 as the descendant of the woman (indicating a virgin birth) that would crush the head of the serpent. Jesus was promised to Abraham in God's promise of the "seed" (Galatians 3:16). David identifies God's promise of his descendant that would inherit his throne and rule forever as the "direction of Adam"... referring to the promise of the seed of the woman that would save mankind. David says in his prayer of thanks for the promises: And is this the manner of man, O Lord God? (2 Sam 7:19). This is very poorly translated. The Hebrew says.... Is this the "torah" of "Adam". The word torah means direction. David asks if this incredible promise of his descenant that would rule from his throne forever indicates the direction of Adam. Is this promised descendant the answer -the solution - promised to Adam and Eve. Jesus was always the template for salvation. That didn't mean he had to actually exist, as that would have completely destroyed his capacity to save. Immortals do not have the capacity to sin or die. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) but immortals cannot die... as that is the very meaning of the word. If they could sin then they would have to die, which is impossible for an 'immmortal'. If Jesus were immortal before his supposedly fake birth then he could not be tempted or sin or die an it was all fake and worthless and completely ineffective.

In the same sense Jesus is defined as the first and the last (Rev 1:17). He is the original design and the finished product... the perfect manifestation of God in human form.
Jesus says in his prayer to his Father that he is ready to be glorified with the glory he had with his Father before the world was. This is the same application of a yet unborn child. That child has a glory with its future parents, who are planning the things they will do for him or her, the clothes they will wear, the room in which they will live. They fall in love with their expectant child before it is born.

Jesus was the template from the beginning. He didn't have to exist for that to be true, just as a child does not have to be born in order to be loved by its parents and a building does not have to be finished to have a glory with its designer. If Jesus did exist prior to his birth then his death is a fake and he is a liar and the supposed salvation he offers is a joke.

It is the same sense as Jesus being the firstborn. Jesus was not the first to be born as a mortal. However he was given the rights of the one born first... just like Isaac, Jacob and Ephraim... despite all being born second. Jesus was the first to be born as an immortal... from the grave (Col 1:18). If Jesus was an immortal prior to his supposedly fake birth then he was never born in any way at all... he was just putting on or taking off a disguise to fool everyone and nothing was real.

The trinity is all about self-worship. God is degraded into someone who supposedly has to reshape himself into the image and likeness of man to supposedly save his wrecked creation. The original plan was for man to be made in the image and likeness of God. That original plan has never changed... as our Creator is not a failure. We are not the template for God. God is the template for us. And now His son, the only many to ever live a perfectly righteous life as well as never sin once... has been born into a new nature and become the avenue of salvation... not as a plan but as a reality. Jesus Christ is both the template and the finished product. He is both the root and the offspring of David.

Hope this helps

 

[TiggerII]

Dead Jesus did not resurrect Himself? Are you sure? That goes against everything in the scriptures. If Jesus did no raise Himself; then we're doomed because The Son of man has no power over the grave.

Jesus received a commandment from the Father giving Him(Jesus) the power to take His life back from the dead. See John 10:18. This means Jesus raised Himself.

Your reasoning also goes against what is obviously the implication when Jesus says "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

The implication being that Jesus is given power of death itself so that He can at will raise people from the dead. (John 5:25) This is how Jesus raised Himself from the dead.

Then you must contend with how Jesus says "I am the resurrection and the Life". So Jesus Himself is the resurrection. There is no other.

And of course you must explain how Jesus can destroy death if He didn't overcome death. (1 Corinthians 15:26)

Jesus has the keys to death and Hades. (Rev. 1:18)

Finally, Even Acts 2:24 which you cite shows us that it was not possible for death to hold Jesus. He had to prevail.


Now you say Jesus didn't raise Himself because the scriptures show us clearly that the holy Spirit raised Jesus. But you're using circular reasoning. Of course in my belief the holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Himself. So there is no contradiction. You on the other hand have to deal with various contradictions. Because sometimes the scriptures say that Jesus raised Himself (as I show) and other times they say that God raised Him.

So to be clear I have no contradictions. You do.

.....................................

At Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.”

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -


“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV.

John 10:18:

Most trinitarian translations translate John 10:17-18 as

“I lay down my life, that I may take it again .... I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” - RSV.

That Jesus had the “power to take his life again” might seem to be implying that he would actually resurrect himself.

However, we should be aware that, although this translation is understandably the most popular one for trinitarians, it is not the only interpretation. In fact, it is not even the most likely, and, in light of many other scriptures, it is certainly not the most appropriate.

Even some trinitarian Bibles translate lambano in John 10:17, 18 as “receive” instead of “take” (as in the RSV above) and exousia as “right” or “authority” instead of “power” as in the RSV above:

“I have the right [exousia] to lay it down, and I have the right [exousia] to receive [lambano] it back again; this charge I have received [lambano] from my Father.” - New English Bible (NEB); REB; The Emphasized Bible; Weymouth; Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

Such a rendering, of course, is in line with the Father alone actually raising up the dead Jesus as so many scriptures plainly state.

The very trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that exousia can mean several different things including “authority,” “right,” and “power.” It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates exousia as “authority” 65 times, as “right” 11 times, and as “power” only 11 times.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us, Jesus

“has the exousia to give his life and to take it again (Jn 10:18) .... Those who receive him and believe in his name are given exousia to become children of God (Jn 1:12).” - p. 610, Vol. 2, 1986.

　　　 John 1:12 is translated, “are given the right [exousia] or authority to become children of God” in the following trinitarian Bibles: NASB, ASV, NIV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV, AT, GNB, TEV, CEV, NEB, REB, CBW, BBE, LB, GodsWord, Holman NT, ISV NT,　and the translations by trinitarians Young, Moffatt, Rotherham,　and William Barclay.


Also, lambano most frequently means “receive.” The trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that lambano can mean several different things including “receive,” “accept,” and “take.” It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates lambano as “receive” 132 times and all others (including 109 “take”s) only 122 times. Even when translated as “take” in the NASB (and other translations) lambano can often still be in the sense of receiving something that has been offered to those who are worthy - see Rev. 5:9; 10:8, 9; 22:17.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us,


“lambano means to receive (in the more passive sense): e.g. a bite, money, alms. It is important with theological objects: eternal life (Mk.10:30)”. And, “ lambano is theologically significant in its meaning of receive. It corresponds with God’s giving (didomai): God gives - man receives. (i) Jesus himself LIVES by RECEIVING: he has received his commission, the Spirit, power (Jn 10:18; Acts 2:33; Rev. 2:28 [2:27 in most Bibles]). He is the gift of God and lives by receiving.” - p. 748, vol . 3, 1986.



"Nobody takes it from me; I lay it down of my own accord. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back [from the Father] again. This is the command I received from my father." - John 10:18, NTE. [bracketed info added.]

 

[74x12]

.....................................

At Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.”

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -


“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV.

John 10:18:

Most trinitarian translations translate John 10:17-18 as

“I lay down my life, that I may take it again .... I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” - RSV.

That Jesus had the “power to take his life again” might seem to be implying that he would actually resurrect himself.

However, we should be aware that, although this translation is understandably the most popular one for trinitarians, it is not the only interpretation. In fact, it is not even the most likely, and, in light of many other scriptures, it is certainly not the most appropriate.

Even some trinitarian Bibles translate lambano in John 10:17, 18 as “receive” instead of “take” (as in the RSV above) and exousia as “right” or “authority” instead of “power” as in the RSV above:

“I have the right [exousia] to lay it down, and I have the right [exousia] to receive [lambano] it back again; this charge I have received [lambano] from my Father.” - New English Bible (NEB); REB; The Emphasized Bible; Weymouth; Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary.

Such a rendering, of course, is in line with the Father alone actually raising up the dead Jesus as so many scriptures plainly state.

The very trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that exousia can mean several different things including “authority,” “right,” and “power.” It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates exousia as “authority” 65 times, as “right” 11 times, and as “power” only 11 times.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us, Jesus

“has the exousia to give his life and to take it again (Jn 10:18) .... Those who receive him and believe in his name are given exousia to become children of God (Jn 1:12).” - p. 610, Vol. 2, 1986.

　　　 John 1:12 is translated, “are given the right [exousia] or authority to become children of God” in the following trinitarian Bibles: NASB, ASV, NIV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV, AT, GNB, TEV, CEV, NEB, REB, CBW, BBE, LB, GodsWord, Holman NT, ISV NT,　and the translations by trinitarians Young, Moffatt, Rotherham,　and William Barclay.


Also, lambano most frequently means “receive.” The trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible tells us that lambano can mean several different things including “receive,” “accept,” and “take.” It further shows us that the equally trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) translates lambano as “receive” 132 times and all others (including 109 “take”s) only 122 times. Even when translated as “take” in the NASB (and other translations) lambano can often still be in the sense of receiving something that has been offered to those who are worthy - see Rev. 5:9; 10:8, 9; 22:17.

As the trinitarian New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us,


“lambano means to receive (in the more passive sense): e.g. a bite, money, alms. It is important with theological objects: eternal life (Mk.10:30)”. And, “ lambano is theologically significant in its meaning of receive. It corresponds with God’s giving (didomai): God gives - man receives. (i) Jesus himself LIVES by RECEIVING: he has received his commission, the Spirit, power (Jn 10:18; Acts 2:33; Rev. 2:28 [2:27 in most Bibles]). He is the gift of God and lives by receiving.” - p. 748, vol . 3, 1986.



"Nobody takes it from me; I lay it down of my own accord. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to receive it back [from the Father] again. This is the command I received from my father." - John 10:18, NTE. [bracketed info added.]

God already has all power but it was necessary that Adam be given power over death. This is why the power over death itself had to be given to a human being. Because it is Adam who is under the "shadow of death" as it is termed in scripture. And it is therefore Adam who must overcome death for his own sake. In this case God sends Jesus to be the "2nd Adam" and overcome death for our sake. Because we were not able to do it on our own. All that being understood (and you'd probably even agree so far); it makes perfect sense to me that God would come Himself in human form to take on our great enemy death.

It can indeed mean "right" but it can also mean power. I think it would be wrong to ignore the full meaning of the word. So we should be comfortable with it meaning both right and power at once. In any case, with the context of other things Jesus said. Such as "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" and "I am the resurrection and the Life" etc. I think it's clear what Jesus meant in John 10:18. He's talking about the power He has been given over death to restore Himself.

Not sure why that's even a problem for a Jehovah's witness since Jesus clearly says the power is "given" to Him.

But of course the "problem" for Jehovah's Witness theology arises when we attempt to synthesize Jesus' claim that He raised Himself with verses like Acts 13:33 where we see that God raised Jesus. For me it makes sense because I believe Jesus is God manifest. For you it needs more explanation.

 

[TiggerII]

God already has all power but it was necessary that Adam be given power over death. This is why the power over death itself had to be given to a human being. Because it is Adam who is under the "shadow of death" as it is termed in scripture. And it is therefore Adam who must overcome death for his own sake. In this case God sends Jesus to be the "2nd Adam" and overcome death for our sake. Because we were not able to do it on our own. All that being understood (and you'd probably even agree so far); it makes perfect sense to me that God would come Himself in human form to take on our great enemy death.

It can indeed mean "right" but it can also mean power. I think it would be wrong to ignore the full meaning of the word. So we should be comfortable with it meaning both right and power at once. In any case, with the context of other things Jesus said. Such as "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" and "I am the resurrection and the Life" etc. I think it's clear what Jesus meant in John 10:18. He's talking about the power He has been given over death to restore Himself.

Not sure why that's even a problem for a Jehovah's witness since Jesus clearly says the power is "given" to Him.

But of course the "problem" for Jehovah's Witness theology arises when we attempt to synthesize Jesus' claim that He raised Himself with verses like Acts 13:33 where we see that God raised Jesus. For me it makes sense because I believe Jesus is God manifest. For you it needs more explanation.

At Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.”

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -


“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV.

 

[74x12]

At Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.”

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -


“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV.

I never contradicted the fact that God raised Jesus. The question is why do the scriptures indicate that both God raised Jesus and that Jesus raised Himself? The answer is self evident.

As for sitting on the right hand of God or power (Mark 14:62). This is a position of authority and power for the Son of man. A human being given "All power in heaven and in earth" is not ordinary. God already is all powerful. But now a human being has all power. This is so that He can put all of humanity's enemies under His (glorified) human feet. (Hebrews 1:13, Psalm 110:1)

By so doing; He will conquer all our foes for our sake. Because Jesus Himself had no need to conquer death or face temptation etc. He did all things for us. (2 Corinthians 5:21, 2 Corinthians 5:18, Colossians 1:20) In order to reconcile all to the Father again. His work is not yet finished. Until ti is; then He sits on the right hand and reigns. When it is done He will deliver the kingdom up to the Father restored. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) So that is why the Son of man sits on the right hand. He still has work left to do and will have work left to do until the last enemy (of mankind) is destroyed which is death.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"... and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Jn 1,1; emphasis added)

How do you understand this verse?

 

[iam1me]

There are a few scriptures in the NT that address Jesus as God, though there are many more that contradict the notion that Jesus is literally God. This is not itself a contradiction, however, providing you apply the term "God" in the manner used elsewhere in the scriptures. Angels have been addressed as God and Yahweh, Moses is said to be God to Pharaoh, and all those who have received the Word of God are called gods. So Jesus being addressed as God is not unique in scripture - and as with these others, there is no reason to interpret the term literally. Rather, we understand that when Moses or an angel are called God that they are called such because they are serving as God's mediators, performing his will and speaking his words. It is no different when Jesus is addressed as God - for he is the sole mediator between God and men under the New Covenant.

 

[moorea944]

There are a few scriptures in the NT that address Jesus as God, though there are many more that contradict the notion that Jesus is literally God. This is not itself a contradiction, however, providing you apply the term "God" in the manner used elsewhere in the scriptures. Angels have been addressed as God and Yahweh, Moses is said to be God to Pharaoh, and all those who have received the Word of God are called gods. So Jesus being addressed as God is not unique in scripture - and as with these others, there is no reason to interpret the term literally. Rather, we understand that when Moses or an angel are called God that they are called such because they are serving as God's mediators, performing his will and speaking his words. It is no different when Jesus is addressed as God - for he is the sole mediator between God and men under the New Covenant.

Wow, that was wonderful. Thank you for that. You are absolutely correct. Certainly Jesus didnt like that he called himself the son of God and in other cases they thought he was making himself equal with God too, which he never did. They really didnt like that he called himself the son of God because, to them, for the Creator of the Universe, to have a son with a woman, was in conceivable!!!!!

But what Jesus stated that in John, werent your forefathers called Gods too? The Judges were called Gods, Levites were called Gods too. Because they were the ones who brought the word of God to the people. Thomas, you are my Lord and my God (elohim). Jesus was another one who brought the word of God to the people. He was the word made flesh. But he wasnt GOD. He came in the "name of God". If Jesus was GOD, why did he have to be glorified? Or even baptized. Plus, why did everyone call Jesus a man?

Look at the angels...... "I am the Lord thy God". But an angel was saying that. So that angel is God too? No, it is God working through an angel. Just like God (2 Corin 5) was working through Jesus all through his life.

Great post my friend. Thank you!!

 

[Oeste]

I never contradicted the fact that God raised Jesus. The question is why do the scriptures indicate that both God raised Jesus and that Jesus raised Himself? The answer is self evident.

Exactly correct, @74x12!

As for the polytheists on this board, the fact Baal was called God certainly does not mean Baal is God.

I think the posters here need to stay focused and look at the OP's statement again. We (and by this I mean both Trinitarians and Sabellanians) do NOT claimJesus is simply called God or "a god", nor that he is simply "like God" (see Moses to Pharaoh). The statement here is that Jesus IS God...and we've demonstrated that with scripture.

I've yet to see anyone show us the same with angels and judges. The fact is, if your God or god sins, is made, or gets judged, it is a FALSE God. That is the decision of scripture, and not a decision of man.

As for the Judges, they were judged, and therefore are not God. The mere fact they acted, considered, or praised themselves as "gods" brought them under judgement as false Gods...because there is only one true God. He is God, not simply called God, and there are no other Gods.

The same is true for every man, women, angel, rock or stick who thinks or is called "God". Anyone who is NOT God comes under condemnation once they make themselves "a god". It doesn't matter if you make, create or call yourself "God" with a capital or small "g".

Any other true "God" or "god" had their chance to speak up at Mount Carmel. If they slept through it or didn't get the memo...well, then that was on them.

Perhaps some posters claim there are other "gods" that men have truly made, but they are all false gods condemned by scripture. I can't actually speak for @74x12 or other Sabellianists, but I'm pretty sure my fellow Trinitarians could get on board with that.

FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION...

I believe we can all agree that Baal was called "a God". But if anyone here believes Baal or anyone else IS truly "a God" or "god" that scripture does not subsequently condemn, please let me know.

Quite frankly, I can call my coat hanger "a god" but it wouldn't truly be "a god" no matter how earnestly I believe my coat hanger is God. It would simply be a man made god, not a scripturally declared God, and that is exactly what is being stated here: The gospel of John declares Jesus IS God. It does this WITHOUT placing Jesus or those who believe in him under condemnation! You simply won't get that type of mileage out of anyone unless it's God. Let's remember:

I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)​

In other words, scripture declares Jesus "IS" God (Yahweh) and not simply "called" a God, like Baal. Telling us someone, someplace, somewhere, somehow was "called" a god is not going to move the goalpost one iota with a Sabellian or Trinitarian.

The gospel does not declare my coat hanger or Baal is god, at least not to Christians, but it would certainly condemn them as "a god" if I were ever to do so. We, as Christians, have only one God which the gospel DOES NOT separate into separate, distinct, numerous big and little "g's", which is exactly what I see some posters here are now willing to suggest. That would be polytheism in the order of the Greeks and Romans.

So if anyone here has another god or God that the gospel declares IS god or God (that is, not condemned) please...let's hear all about them.

If he, she or it IS god or God, do you declare these god(s) true of false, or does scripture? If true, where are they in scripture? If false, why present or bother with them? If scripture calls your deity God and later condemns that same God please explain why any Christian should consider your deity as anything but a false God!?

Perhaps these "Gods" are like my coat hanger, neither good nor evil, true nor false, so the concept "doesn't apply". If so, show us similar, neutral or "non-concept" gods in scripture, and don't be surprised when we ask you to show us again.

Until then, like the other "Jesus is God" folk I'm all ears, even if they don't appear on my emoji:

 

[iam1me]

Exactly correct, @74x12!
I think the posters here need to stay focused and look at the OP's statement again. We (and by this I mean both Trinitarians and Sabellanians) do NOT claimJesus is simply called God or "a god", nor that he is simply "like God" (see Moses to Pharaoh). The statement here is that Jesus IS God...and we've demonstrated that with scripture.

Please note that there is no "like" or "as" in the Hebrew in Exodus 7:1. That is inserted by translators. Of course, we all agree that Moses isn't literally God, but the scriptures do say that he was made Elohim to Pharaoh (not LIKE Elohim). Note how other translations like the KJV translate it as "a god":

Exodus 7:1 (KJV) And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.​

In both cases - whether translating it as "like God" or as "a god" - the translators are actually injecting their own theology into the mix to avoid what is actually stated: "I have made you ELOHIM to Pharaoh"

I've yet to see anyone show us the same with angels and judges. The fact is, if your God or god sins, is made, or gets judged, it is a FALSE God. That is the decision of scripture, and not a decision of man.

Note that Jesus is begotten. Jesus also has a God:

Hebrews 1:8-9
But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of h]">[h]His kingdom. 9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”
​

As for the Judges, they were judged, and therefore are not God. The mere fact they acted, considered, or praised themselves as "gods" brought them under judgement as false Gods...because there is only one true God. He is God, not simply called God, and there are no other Gods.

Note, first of all that Jesus didn't interpret the scriptures as pertaining to the Judges, but to "those to whom the word of God came." This is a far broader category than the Jewish Judges and extends to Christians to this day. Furthermore, it wasn't simply they calling themselves gods, rather it is the scriptures that call them that, it is God who calls them that, and the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:34-35).

I believe we can all agree that Baal was called "a God". But if anyone here believes Baal or anyone else IS truly "a God" or "god" that scripture does not subsequently condemn, please let me know.

You are confounding two different ideas here, it would appear. There are those - like the angels and Moses - who are legitimately called God because they are serving as God's mediators, speaking his words and carrying out his will. Then there are opposing religions and individuals who set themselves up as if God - attempting to take God's place. It is notable that Jesus never once claims to be God, but always God's Son, and is quite clear that the Father is greater than he.

 

[74x12]

Please note that there is no "like" or "as" in the Hebrew in Exodus 7:1. That is inserted by translators. Of course, we all agree that Moses isn't literally God, but the scriptures do say that he was made Elohim to Pharaoh (not LIKE Elohim). Note how other translations like the KJV translate it as "a god":

Exodus 7:1 (KJV) And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.​

In both cases - whether translating it as "like God" or as "a god" - the translators are actually injecting their own theology into the mix to avoid what is actually stated: "I have made you ELOHIM to Pharaoh"



Note that Jesus is begotten. Jesus also has a God:

Hebrews 1:8-9
But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of h]">[h]His kingdom. 9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”
​

Note, first of all that Jesus didn't interpret the scriptures as pertaining to the Judges, but to "those to whom the word of God came." This is a far broader category than the Jewish Judges and extends to Christians to this day. Furthermore, it wasn't simply they calling themselves gods, rather it is the scriptures that call them that, it is God who calls them that, and the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:34-35).



You are confounding two different ideas here, it would appear. There are those - like the angels and Moses - who are legitimately called God because they are serving as God's mediators, speaking his words and carrying out his will. Then there are opposing religions and individuals who set themselves up as if God - attempting to take God's place. It is notable that Jesus never once claims to be God, but always God's Son, and is quite clear that the Father is greater than he.

In the case of Jesus however; it is seemingly and obviously quite literal. As "The Word was with God and the Word was God" or as you prefer "a God". It makes no difference for this point. It's still a literal Divinity. And of course there are other verses that call Jesus God.

Such as Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 45:7 etc.

The fact that John was saying the Word was "God" rather than "a god" is obvious to me because John was a Jew and he believed in only one God for Israel. Sure other nations might have their "gods"(1 Corinthians 8:5) but Israel has only one God. (Deut 6:4)

So John would never introduce another lesser "god" for Israel to serve. Yet, we are indeed supposed to serve Jesus. (Matthew 23:8) Jesus is our Master and yet we are commanded clearly not to have any other gods before God Himself. (Exodus 20:3, Deut 5:7) And even Jesus Himself said "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Mathew 4:10) So, on one hand Jesus claims you should serve no one but God and on the other hand He calls Himself Master. That should make it easy to see that Jesus is God manifest.

So Jehovah's Witnesses and other proponents of Arianism have to do mental gymnastics in order to make their theology work.

• They must agree that Jesus is the Master and Lord.
• They must agree that Jesus is called "god".
• But they must deny He is actually "their" god.

They must do this in order to deny that Jesus is God(the Father) manifest. Frankly, it comes across as intellectually dishonest and it's disturbing that they have to distance themselves from what the scriptures call Jesus: God.

 

[TiggerII]

In the case of Jesus however; it is seemingly and obviously quite literal. As "The Word was with God and the Word was God" or as you prefer "a God". It makes no difference for this point. It's still a literal Divinity. And of course there are other verses that call Jesus God.

Such as Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 45:7 etc.

The fact that John was saying the Word was "God" rather than "a god" is obvious to me because John was a Jew and he believed in only one God for Israel. Sure other nations might have their "gods"(1 Corinthians 8:5) but Israel has only one God. (Deut 6:4)

So John would never introduce another lesser "god" for Israel to serve. Yet, we are indeed supposed to serve Jesus. (Matthew 23:8) Jesus is our Master and yet we are commanded clearly not to have any other gods before God Himself. (Exodus 20:3, Deut 5:7) And even Jesus Himself said "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Mathew 4:10) So, on one hand Jesus claims you should serve no one but God and on the other hand He calls Himself Master. That should make it easy to see that Jesus is God manifest.

So Jehovah's Witnesses and other proponents of Arianism have to do mental gymnastics in order to make their theology work.

• They must agree that Jesus is the Master and Lord.
• They must agree that Jesus is called "god".
• But they must deny He is actually "their" god.

They must do this in order to deny that Jesus is God(the Father) manifest. Frankly, it comes across as intellectually dishonest and it's disturbing that they have to distance themselves from what the scriptures call Jesus: God.

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 highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart."

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35 ....”


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 ...”



Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

The Catholic New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”


Some of these (mostly) 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 same understanding for “a god.”

 

[iam1me]

In the case of Jesus however; it is seemingly and obviously quite literal. As "The Word was with God and the Word was God" or as you prefer "a God". It makes no difference for this point. It's still a literal Divinity. And of course there are other verses that call Jesus God.

I quite disagree, nothing makes it obvious that it is literal - especially in the passage you quote here. Here i would interpret "The Word of God", the Logos, as God's plan. The word becoming flesh = the realization of God's plan in the person of Jesus Christ.

I will give you that there are certain passages that address Jesus as God, and I addressed this matter in my previous post by pointing out that many are called God who are obviously not literally God. If there were any doubt, there are an abundance of scriptures in the NT that quite clearly illustrate that Jesus is not God.

Here's a great passage that I have yet to see a Trinitarian address with any intellectual honesty (usually some non-sense like "the scriptures teach the Trinity, so that passage must be in agreement with it too" - which is a way of turning a blind eye to the fact that the scriptures do not teach the Trinity):

1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”c]">[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

Here, as elsewhere, it is made clear that Jesus has been given his authority and power by God - and that Christ is subordinate to God. He is distinct and subordinate to God.

Another common depiction of their relationship in the NT, Christ is at the right hand of God:

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
​

Clearly Paul did not believe Jesus to be God himself.

The fact that John was saying the Word was "God" rather than "a god" is obvious to me because John was a Jew and he believed in only one God for Israel. Sure other nations might have their "gods"(1 Corinthians 8:5) but Israel has only one God. (Deut 6:4)

John was aware of how freely the OT uses the term "God" when speaking of those who are not literally God - such as in John 10 where Jesus interprets the scriptures as saying that all to whom the Word of God has come are gods. He was no doubt also familiar with angels and Moses being addressed as God. As such, it is most certainly not obvious that when John uses the term with Christ that he meant it to be taken literally.

Rather, John seems very aware of the fact that Jesus was not literally God - but one sent by God to do his will. Hence we get passages like this one:

John 14:9-14 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.​

First let me point out the obvious point of agreement we have over this passage: Jesus is not literally the Father (that would contradict the Trinity).

So when Jesus says that by seeing the him you have seen the Father, he is not making the claim to literally be the Father. Rather, he is saying that because his words are not his own, but the Fathers, and that the work he is doing is not his own - but the Fathers - that by virtue of that he says that if you see him you see the Father. Thus John demonstrates a working knowledge the principle of agency to which I have been referring. Just as angels and Moses in the OT are referred to as God by virtue of being sent by God to speak for him and to do his will, so too Jesus is here equivocated to the Father - though we all agree he is not the Father.

So Jehovah's Witnesses and other proponents of Arianism have to do mental gymnastics in order to make their theology work.

• They must agree that Jesus is the Master and Lord.
• They must agree that Jesus is called "god".
• But they must deny He is actually "their" god.

They must do this in order to deny that Jesus is God(the Father) manifest. Frankly, it comes across as intellectually dishonest and it's disturbing that they have to distance themselves from what the scriptures call Jesus: God.

I'm not going to try to defend JW theology, but I argue that the Trinity involves far more mental gymnatics than anything I've put forth here. That's why the best theologians have tried to defend it as a Mystery - because they know they've tied themselves into a big messy knot and cannot possibly resolve the logical and conceptual problems with their doctrine.

On the other hand, my approach to resolving this draws upon the precedent established by scripture itself. There is no contradiction in interpreting the term "God" when applied to Jesus in the same way as when it has been applied to other men and angels in scripture.

 

[74x12]

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 highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart."

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35 ....”


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 ...”



Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

The Catholic New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”


Some of these (mostly) 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 same understanding for “a god.”

Psalm 82 is more likely about the council/assembly of the angels. These were given authority over the nations(goyim) of the world and unfortunately they sinned and so God tells them they will die like men. There would be no reason to tell humans that they will die like "men". They already know that.

See the following verses for assembly of angels having authority over the world.
1 Kings 22:19-23
Psalm 89:6-7
Daniel 4:17
Job 1:6
Job 2:1

Jesus saying that they were called "gods" to whom the "Word of God" came was specifically speaking of Psalm 82 as a Word sent from God by the mouth of the prophet to the rebellious angels letting them know the judgment of God against them. They had usurped God's place among the gentiles teaching them idolatry. So God admits it. They are indeed gods as they claim to be. But they will die like men.

The Psalm ends by declaring that God will inherit all the nations. Goyim. So God will be the God of all the people; not just the Hebrews. The idols and false gods will be forgotten. (Isaiah 2:20) Those angels who sinned and tried to steal God's glory and be worshiped by the goyim will be destroyed. (2 Peter 2:4)

That people who worship idols are actually worshiping demons is seen in Leviticus 17:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20 and Revelation 9:20.

 

[74x12]

I quite disagree, nothing makes it obvious that it is literal - especially in the passage you quote here. Here i would interpret "The Word of God", the Logos, as God's plan. The word becoming flesh = the realization of God's plan in the person of Jesus Christ.

I will give you that there are certain passages that address Jesus as God, and I addressed this matter in my previous post by pointing out that many are called God who are obviously not literally God. If there were any doubt, there are an abundance of scriptures in the NT that quite clearly illustrate that Jesus is not God.

Here's a great passage that I have yet to see a Trinitarian address with any intellectual honesty (usually some non-sense like "the scriptures teach the Trinity, so that passage must be in agreement with it too" - which is a way of turning a blind eye to the fact that the scriptures do not teach the Trinity):

1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”c]">[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Here, as elsewhere, it is made clear that Jesus has been given his authority and power by God - and that Christ is subordinate to God. He is distinct and subordinate to God.

Another common depiction of their relationship in the NT, Christ is at the right hand of God:

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

You're close to correct. The Word is of course that God would be manifest in the world. Thus you are right that the Word which was with God and yet was God is a plan. It is the plan that God Himself would come into the world. Although it's more than just a plan only.

John was expounding on Genesis chapter 1. Specifically Genesis 1:3. Here we see that the first recorded speaking of God in the Bible is "Let there be Light". This is the manifestation of God into the darkness of the world.

Which is why John says
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Jesus is the Light of God shining in the dark world. The "deep" or the water in Genesis 1 is symbolic of the peoples, nations, tribes etc. (Psalm 65:7, Isaiah 17:12, Revelation 17:15) So when God speaks(the Word) He shines light on the people. And this Light is Jesus Christ.

The people are in darkness and this darkness is spoken of in Isaiah 9:1-2 and Matthew 4:16. Jesus is the "Great Light" and is the Light of God manifest. Because God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

So to really understand John 1, we should realize he is expounding on the mystery set forth in Genesis chapter 1 and we should compare it with 1st John chapter 1 which is about the same thing.

John was aware of how freely the OT uses the term "God" when speaking of those who are not literally God - such as in John 10 where Jesus interprets the scriptures as saying that all to whom the Word of God has come are gods. He was no doubt also familiar with angels and Moses being addressed as God. As such, it is most certainly not obvious that when John uses the term with Christ that he meant it to be taken literally.

Rather, John seems very aware of the fact that Jesus was not literally God - but one sent by God to do his will. Hence we get passages like this one:

John 14:9-14 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
First let me point out the obvious point of agreement we have over this passage: Jesus is not literally the Father (that would contradict the Trinity).

So when Jesus says that by seeing the him you have seen the Father, he is not making the claim to literally be the Father. Rather, he is saying that because his words are not his own, but the Fathers, and that the work he is doing is not his own - but the Fathers - that by virtue of that he says that if you see him you see the Father. Thus John demonstrates a working knowledge the principle of agency to which I have been referring. Just as angels and Moses in the OT are referred to as God by virtue of being sent by God to speak for him and to do his will, so too Jesus is here equivocated to the Father - though we all agree he is not the Father.

Forget the trinity. I believe Jesus is literally the Father. I don't hold to the trinity doctrine.

There is a difference between saying you speak for the Father and saying when someone sees you; they see the Father. A big difference. I don't think anyone can say that. The only reason Jesus can is because He is the Father manifest. But only manifest to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. He only revealed Himself to His close disciples.

Which is what Isaiah 9:6 is all about. Unto us a child is born (human nature of Christ) but then it calls this child the "everlasting Father". So we know that Jesus is physically human but His Spirit is God.

I'm not going to try to defend JW theology, but I argue that the Trinity involves far more mental gymnatics than anything I've put forth here. That's why the best theologians have tried to defend it as a Mystery - because they know they've tied themselves into a big messy knot and cannot possibly resolve the logical and conceptual problems with their doctrine.

On the other hand, my approach to resolving this draws upon the precedent established by scripture itself. There is no contradiction in interpreting the term "God" when applied to Jesus in the same way as when it has been applied to other men and angels in scripture.

I don't believe the trinity. But, the scriptures do claim that how God was manifest is indeed a mystery. There is no denying that.

Let's see the following verses

1 Timothy 3:16 Great is the mystery of piety. Speaking of how Jesus was manifest. So whether it really says "he was manifest" or "God was manifest" either way it's a mystery how Jesus came in the flesh. And indeed I believe it probably says that God was manifest because in 1 John 3:1-6 we see that John is saying the Father was literally in the world.

And 1 John 3:1-6 also shows how it was a mystery and that the world did not know Him even though He was there in the world. So Jesus is always a mystery.

And then Matthew 11:27 is very clear. Jesus is saying that no one knows the Father or the Son unless the Son reveals the Father to us then we won't know Him. So no one can claim they know who the Father is unless they have received it from Jesus Christ. Which is what I have received. So I know. God will hide these things from the wise and prudent of this age. He will reveal them to babes because it seems good in His sight.

 

[74x12]

I quite disagree, nothing makes it obvious that it is literal - especially in the passage you quote here. Here i would interpret "The Word of God", the Logos, as God's plan. The word becoming flesh = the realization of God's plan in the person of Jesus Christ.

I will give you that there are certain passages that address Jesus as God, and I addressed this matter in my previous post by pointing out that many are called God who are obviously not literally God. If there were any doubt, there are an abundance of scriptures in the NT that quite clearly illustrate that Jesus is not God.

Here's a great passage that I have yet to see a Trinitarian address with any intellectual honesty (usually some non-sense like "the scriptures teach the Trinity, so that passage must be in agreement with it too" - which is a way of turning a blind eye to the fact that the scriptures do not teach the Trinity):

1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”c]">[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

Here, as elsewhere, it is made clear that Jesus has been given his authority and power by God - and that Christ is subordinate to God. He is distinct and subordinate to God.

Another common depiction of their relationship in the NT, Christ is at the right hand of God:

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
​

Clearly Paul did not believe Jesus to be God himself.



John was aware of how freely the OT uses the term "God" when speaking of those who are not literally God - such as in John 10 where Jesus interprets the scriptures as saying that all to whom the Word of God has come are gods. He was no doubt also familiar with angels and Moses being addressed as God. As such, it is most certainly not obvious that when John uses the term with Christ that he meant it to be taken literally.

Rather, John seems very aware of the fact that Jesus was not literally God - but one sent by God to do his will. Hence we get passages like this one:

John 14:9-14 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.​

First let me point out the obvious point of agreement we have over this passage: Jesus is not literally the Father (that would contradict the Trinity).

So when Jesus says that by seeing the him you have seen the Father, he is not making the claim to literally be the Father. Rather, he is saying that because his words are not his own, but the Fathers, and that the work he is doing is not his own - but the Fathers - that by virtue of that he says that if you see him you see the Father. Thus John demonstrates a working knowledge the principle of agency to which I have been referring. Just as angels and Moses in the OT are referred to as God by virtue of being sent by God to speak for him and to do his will, so too Jesus is here equivocated to the Father - though we all agree he is not the Father.



I'm not going to try to defend JW theology, but I argue that the Trinity involves far more mental gymnatics than anything I've put forth here. That's why the best theologians have tried to defend it as a Mystery - because they know they've tied themselves into a big messy knot and cannot possibly resolve the logical and conceptual problems with their doctrine.

On the other hand, my approach to resolving this draws upon the precedent established by scripture itself. There is no contradiction in interpreting the term "God" when applied to Jesus in the same way as when it has been applied to other men and angels in scripture.

See my post here for explanation of the Son sitting on the right hand of the Father.

and also this post.

 

[iam1me]

You're close to correct. The Word is of course that God would be manifest in the world. Thus you are right that the Word which was with God and yet was God is a plan. It is the plan that God Himself would come into the world. Although it's more than just a plan only.

John was expounding on Genesis chapter 1. Specifically Genesis 1:3. Here we see that the first recorded speaking of God in the Bible is "Let there be Light". This is the manifestation of God into the darkness of the world.

Which is why John says
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Jesus is the Light of God shining in the dark world. The "deep" or the water in Genesis 1 is symbolic of the peoples, nations, tribes etc. (Psalm 65:7, Isaiah 17:12, Revelation 17:15) So when God speaks(the Word) He shines light on the people. And this Light is Jesus Christ.

The people are in darkness and this darkness is spoken of in Isaiah 9:1-2 and Matthew 4:16. Jesus is the "Great Light" and is the Light of God manifest. Because God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

So to really understand John 1, we should realize he is expounding on the mystery set forth in Genesis chapter 1 and we should compare it with 1st John chapter 1 which is about the same thing.

I find attempts to inject Christ into the OT like this are at best speculative in nature, and are generally justified via circular logic. Another common one is to attempt to interpret the Angel of the Lord as being Christ - though Hebrews 1 clearly contradicts such an interpretation.

However, if we were to go along with this idea that Jesus is the light in Genesis 1, then please note that there was a point before the light, when there was just God and the darkness. The light was created/begotten by God and distinct from him.

Forget the trinity. I believe Jesus is literally the Father. I don't hold to the trinity doctrine.

Oh, my bad

There is a difference between saying you speak for the Father and saying when someone sees you; they see the Father. A big difference. I don't think anyone can say that. The only reason Jesus can is because He is the Father manifest. But only manifest to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. He only revealed Himself to His close disciples.

If you read the passage that I cited, Jesus explicitly explains that he is not speaking by his own authority - but the Fathers, not speaking his own words - but the Fathers, and that it is not he who is doing anything, but rather it is the Father working through him. It is quite clear that Jesus is not the Father, but subordinate to him. He says as much himself:

John 14:28“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
​

Thus you have your work cut out for you to try to argue that Jesus = the Father. Rather, the fact that God is the Father and Jesus is the Son demonstrates that they are very clearly distinct.

Which is what Isaiah 9:6 is all about. Unto us a child is born (human nature of Christ) but then it calls this child the "everlasting Father". So we know that Jesus is physically human but His Spirit is God.

I don't believe the trinity. But, the scriptures do claim that how God was manifest is indeed a mystery. There is no denying that.

Let's see the following verses
1 Timothy 3:16 Great is the mystery of piety. Speaking of how Jesus was manifest. So whether it really says "he was manifest" or "God was manifest" either way it's a mystery how Jesus came in the flesh. And indeed I believe it probably says that God was manifest because in 1 John 3:1-6 we see that John is saying the Father was literally in the world.

And 1 John 3:1-6 also shows how it was a mystery and that the world did not know Him even though He was there in the world. So Jesus is always a mystery.

And then Matthew 11:27 is very clear. Jesus is saying that no one knows the Father or the Son unless the Son reveals the Father to us then we won't know Him. So no one can claim they know who the Father is unless they have received it from Jesus Christ. Which is what I have received. So I know. God will hide these things from the wise and prudent of this age. He will reveal them to babes because it seems good in His sight.

Good references. There are certainly mysteries, but that doesn't mean you can defend doctrine by appealing to mystery. Rather, if something is a mystery and beyond our ability to comprehend, then it is quite unreasonable to demand people accept doctrines built around explaining said mysteries - and certainly not a barrier to salvation. If you say it is a mystery how God was manifested, then don't follow that by asserting that God manifested literally in the person of Jesus Christ - that there is no distinguishing Jesus from the Father. For then you are simply asserting whatever you want and when pressured to defend it you fallback to "oh, its a mystery." That is not intellectually honest (not to say that you have done such so far).

 

[iam1me]

See my post here for explanation of the Son sitting on the right hand of the Father.

and also this post.

I took a look. I see where you mention the Son sitting on the right hand of God, but I don't see anything that addresses the clear distinction being demonstrated by such statements.