The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[pearl]

It is written that Luke was a close companion of Paul and had accompanied him on his journeys.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the Gospel was penned by an unknown author after the death of the Apostles.

It is always possible that a copier made a mistake.

 

[The Anointed]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the Gospel was penned by an unknown author after the death of the Apostles.

It is always possible that a copier made a mistake.

And what makes you think that the gospel of Luke was penned by an unknown author?

 

[pearl]

And what makes you think that the gospel of Luke was penned by an unknown author?

The authors' names were attributed by the Church, with the exception of John who does name himself.

 

[The Anointed]

The authors' names were attributed by the Church, with the exception of John who does name himself.

And which church do you refer too?

 

[pearl]

And which church do you refer too?

The one that selected and canonized them.

 

[The Anointed]

The one that selected and canonized them.

Oh! You mean the church that claims to be the shepherd of Gods people which was raised up in the land after the Lord had abandoned the Jews. The popes who claim to sit in the throne of Christ and are in fact Christ in the flesh.

Popes who claim to be God

 

[pearl]

the Lord had abandoned the Jews.

God has never abandon the Jews,

 

[The Anointed]

God has never abandon the Jews,

As God drove the 10 lost tribes from the promised land and dispersed them throughout the world, so too did he drive the Jews from their land in 70 AD. Although he is now gathering them back in preparation of the war that will end all wars.

 

[kjw47]

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

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
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. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

The capitol G GOD in the last line of John 1:1 = error. The Father was called-HO THEOS( The God) in the nt, like in the 2nd line of John 1:1 Plain Theos was in the last line. It was NOT calling the Logos The God. a god is correct. Meaning--- has godlike qualities Because did it all through Jesus( Acts 2:22) Jesus gives all credit to his God and Father-John 5:30)--Jesus calls the Father--( one who sent Jesus( John 5:30)John 17:3--THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Proving the above is accurate.
Paul teaches the same-1Cor 8:6--There is one God to all the Father.

 

[kjw47]

God has never abandon the Jews,

You are mistaken-Matthew23:37-39

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
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. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

I see Baha'u'llah has now explained the connection of God and His Messengers in great detail.

I see Baha'u'llah (Glory of God), is the Father of the New Testament and Jehovah of the Torah, promised in all scriptures, to come at the end of ages. Thus Christ has returned as the Father.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Matthew 11:27"All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Thus Christ the Son, is Baha'u'llah the Father, no one has seen God. Both Christ and Baha'u'llah are Messengers from God just as Muhammad corrected the Christain doctrine that had made Christ God, as told to us in the Quran in this way;

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah,and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (4:171, Yusif Ali)

Regards Tony

 

[Ellen Brown]

The capitol G GOD in the last line of John 1:1 = error. The Father was called-HO THEOS( The God) in the nt, like in the 2nd line of John 1:1 Plain Theos was in the last line. It was NOT calling the Logos The God. a god is correct. Meaning--- has godlike qualities Because did it all through Jesus( Acts 2:22) Jesus gives all credit to his God and Father-John 5:30)--Jesus calls the Father--( one who sent Jesus( John 5:30)John 17:3--THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Proving the above is accurate.
Paul teaches the same-1Cor 8:6--There is one God to all the Father.

Your evil, twisted theology proves nothing.

 

[pearl]

You are mistaken-Matthew23:37-39

A denunciation of Pharisaic Judaism doesn't mean that God has abandoned the Jews.

 

[kjw47]

A denunciation of Pharisaic Judaism doesn't mean that God has abandoned the Jews.

Reality--The Israelite religious leaders have outright refused to do Matthew 23:39 for over 2000 years. The Israelites follow them.
The renting of the banner, the precise moment Jesus died signified the cutting off.
Do you think they will do verse 39?

 

[74x12]

The capitol G GOD in the last line of John 1:1 = error. The Father was called-HO THEOS( The God) in the nt, like in the 2nd line of John 1:1 Plain Theos was in the last line. It was NOT calling the Logos The God. a god is correct. Meaning--- has godlike qualities Because did it all through Jesus( Acts 2:22) Jesus gives all credit to his God and Father-John 5:30)--Jesus calls the Father--( one who sent Jesus( John 5:30)John 17:3--THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Proving the above is accurate.
Paul teaches the same-1Cor 8:6--There is one God to all the Father.

My OP remains unchallenged. Just offering a counter point doesn't mean you've actually addressed my argument. It's just two people trying to talk over each other.

You misunderstand Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He claims there is one Theos for us(the church) the Father. So how do you have two Theos?

You interpret John 1:1 as speaking of two separate Theos. So you have two Theos for the church instead of one like Paul teaches.

 

[pearl]

Reality--The Israelite religious leaders have outright refused to do Matthew 23:39 for over 2000 years. The Israelites follow them.
The renting of the banner, the precise moment Jesus died signified the cutting off.

This speech reflects an opposition that goes beyond that of Jesus’ ministry and must be seen as expressing the bitter conflict between Pharisaic Judaism and the church of Matthew at the time when the gospel was composed. The complaint often made that the speech ignores the positive qualities of Pharisaism and of its better representatives is true, but the complaint overlooks the circumstances that gave rise to the insult. Nor is the speech purely anti-Pharisaic. The evangelist discerns in his church many of the same faults that he finds in its opponents and warns his fellow Christians to look to their own conduct and attitudes.

 

[columbus]

So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity.

This sort of assertion is one of the reasons that I don't believe that Christians know any more about the divine than I do.

Mistaking "John (whoever that is) says that Jesus claimed this." for "Jesus claimed..." demonstrates to me that your beliefs are based on human authority, not God. And also that you don't recognize that fact.
Tom

 

[74x12]

This sort of assertion is one of the reasons that I don't believe that Christians know any more about the divine than I do.

Mistaking "John (whoever that is) says that Jesus claimed this." for "Jesus claimed..." demonstrates to me that your beliefs are based on human authority, not God. And also that you don't recognize that fact.
Tom

Well we do put some trust in the messengers of God. As it was prophesied how beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring the gospel. And again God said of them, they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. So if you want to hear God then you hear them. They're His messengers the ambassadors of Christ. God speaks through them and even me also sometimes and everyone who speaks the truth of God.

If you're Christian you have no choice but to believe in prophecy and the existence of truth and a God who speaks and that's how we have the scriptures.

But, if the holy Spirit in us didn't affirm the truth of the scriptures then we'd have a problem. But the holy Spirit assures us of the truth. So thats why I believe the Bible.

 

[kjw47]

My OP remains unchallenged. Just offering a counter point doesn't mean you've actually addressed my argument. It's just two people trying to talk over each other.

You misunderstand Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He claims there is one Theos for us(the church) the Father. So how do you have two Theos?

You interpret John 1:1 as speaking of two separate Theos. So you have two Theos for the church instead of one like Paul teaches.

Actually the Father was called-HO THEOS in greek. Jesus never was called HO THEOS( THE GOD) just plain theos= a god. It did not call the Logos-Ho THEOS.

 

[kjw47]

This speech reflects an opposition that goes beyond that of Jesus’ ministry and must be seen as expressing the bitter conflict between Pharisaic Judaism and the church of Matthew at the time when the gospel was composed. The complaint often made that the speech ignores the positive qualities of Pharisaism and of its better representatives is true, but the complaint overlooks the circumstances that gave rise to the insult. Nor is the speech purely anti-Pharisaic. The evangelist discerns in his church many of the same faults that he finds in its opponents and warns his fellow Christians to look to their own conduct and attitudes.

The reason God sent Jesus was with a new covenant= LOVE--- lacking by the Israelite religious leaders. Don't get me wrong. they loved their families and friends, so did Adolf. Its not the love Jesus spoke of. That love goes to ones enemies as well.