Which text from the Christian Bible uniquely proves that Jesus is Almighty God?

[Betho_br]

1) The majority of texts support the doctrine of unity.

2) The interpretation of John 14:16, 20, 30 is partially as taught by Basil the Great and Saint Augustine, namely, if the relationship is permanent, it proves the doctrine of the Trinity; if it is functional missiological, it proves only the doctrine of unity.

3) The Catholic churches explicitly declare that the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogma developed philosophically in Trinitarian formulas like 2 Corinthians 13:13 {Catechism of the Catholic Church drafted after the Second Vatican Council & 249.}

4) The verses, almost all very ambiguous, that lead one to think that Jesus is "theos" (John 20:28; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:6) may only be saying that Jesus is a christological Elohim akin to (Exodus 21:6; 1 Samuel 2:25), since the Greek term "theos" God/god is interchangeable with the Hebrew term elohim in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint.

 

[jimb]

The OP is worded strangely. Perhaps it should read "Which text from the Christian Bible uniquely proves that Jesus is not Almighty God?"

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God."

 

[Muffled]

I believe there is no such thing as a Christian Bible. There is the Torah and there is the Bible.

I prefer the Torah since there are those who do not like to accept later texts.
Isa. 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

 

[jimb]

I believe there is no such thing as a Christian Bible. There is the Torah and there is the Bible.

I prefer the Torah since there are those who do not like to accept later texts.
Isa. 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

The Torah is a part of the Bible. There is also the prophets -- the Nevi'im (from which you quote) -- and "the writings"-- the Ketuvim.

If you don't accept later texts, why do you quote Isaiah?

 

[TiggerII]

I believe there is no such thing as a Christian Bible. There is the Torah and there is the Bible.

I prefer the Torah since there are those who do not like to accept later texts.
Isa. 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

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

Isaiah 9:6
One way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah, but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [a]"quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

 

[jimb]

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

Isaiah 9:6
One way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah, but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [a]"quick to the plunder; swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God."

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:3, "All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created."

 

[TiggerII]

John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God."

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:3, "All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created."

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

You should always give the reference to your quotes. Which Bible translation has "fully God"?

And many translations mistranslate by capitalizing the last use of theos (god) in this verse, but any complete analysis of John's usage and grammar concerning this verse will show that "a god" was intended. - John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

 

[jimb]

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

You should always give the reference to your quotes. Which Bible translation has "fully God"?

And many translations mistranslate by capitalizing the last use of theos (god) in this verse, but any complete analysis of John's usage and grammar concerning this verse will show that "a god" was intended. - John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

Here is the reference that you requested: John 1:1, "In the beginning[a] was the Word, and the Word was with God,[b] and the Word was fully God.[c]" and the accompanying translator's note for footnote c... from New English Translation, a.k.a, The NET Bible

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

BTW, I got a good chuckle of your use of the word "mistranslate" and the absurd statement that "any complete analysis of John's usage and grammar concerning this verse will show that "a god" was intended".

Also, your citing the obviously biased, unscholarly blog "[that] examines the unscriptural and pagan history of the Trinity Doctrine - often through the admissions from Trinitarian's own sources. This site also provides comprehensive research that exposes the false reasoning behind almost every Trinity 'proof-text'."

Having spent a considerable portion of time in academia, I can guarantee that your obviously-biased, unscholarly "source" would be laughed at (if it even got to the review stage, which I seriously doubt).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here is the reference that you requested: John 1:1, "In the beginning[a] was the Word, and the Word was with God,[b] and the Word was fully God.[c]" and the accompanying translator's note for footnote c... from New English Translation, a.k.a, The NET Bible

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

BTW, I got a good chuckle of your use of the word "mistranslate" and the absurd statement that "any complete analysis of John's usage and grammar concerning this verse will show that "a god" was intended".

Also, your citing the obviously biased, unscholarly blog "[that] examines the unscriptural and pagan history of the Trinity Doctrine - often through the admissions from Trinitarian's own sources. This site also provides comprehensive research that exposes the false reasoning behind almost every Trinity 'proof-text'."

Having spent a considerable portion of time in academia, I can guarantee that your obviously-biased, unscholarly "source" would be laughed at (if it even got to the review stage, which I seriously doubt).

Did you read the reference you posted?

It doesn’t say what you think it does.
Rather, it is more in line with Scholar John McKenzie….

Highly respected scholar and Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Gk (Greek) philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(Italics and bold type are mine.) (New York, 1965), p. 899.



Now, this guy was a trinitarian...he had to be, being a Catholic priest...yet read what he wrote regarding John 1:1 in his 'Dictionary of the Bible'...."Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (1965, NY), p. 317

 

[jimb]

Did you read the reference you posted?

It doesn’t say what you think it does.
Rather, it is more in line with Scholar John McKenzie….

Highly respected scholar and Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Gk (Greek) philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(Italics and bold type are mine.) (New York, 1965), p. 899.



Now, this guy was a trinitarian...he had to be, being a Catholic priest...yet read what he wrote regarding John 1:1 in his 'Dictionary of the Bible'...."Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (1965, NY), p. 317

That is simply your opinion. You have a mindset that prevents you from accepting the truth. That is very, very sad.

I believe what the Bible says. Period. Unlike yourself, I also accept what qualified translators say about Scripture.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is simply your opinion. You have a mindset that prevents you from accepting the truth. That is very, very sad.

I believe what the Bible says. Period. Unlike yourself, I also accept what qualified translators say about Scripture.

I gave you a qualified scholar’s
educated “opinion.”

An unbiased qualified scholar.

Have a good day.

 

[jimb]

I gave you a qualified scholar’s
educated “opinion.”

An unbiased qualified scholar.

Have a good day.

a) You quote a two sentences by a single scholar out of context. Do you actually think anyone would take you seriously? (In academia, you would be laughed at for using such tactics!)

b) You said (probably by accident) that it is his "opinion". Everyone has opinions. That doesn't make anyone's opinion factual!

b) There is no such person as an unbiased scholar.

You would do well to read my "signature" below.

 

[jimb]

Regarding the OP -- Which text from the Christian Bible uniquely proves that Jesus is Almighty God? -- the correct answer is ...

All of it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

1) The majority of texts support the doctrine of unity.

2) The interpretation of John 14:16, 20, 30 is partially as taught by Basil the Great and Saint Augustine, namely, if the relationship is permanent, it proves the doctrine of the Trinity; if it is functional missiological, it proves only the doctrine of unity.

3) The Catholic churches explicitly declare that the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogma developed philosophically in Trinitarian formulas like 2 Corinthians 13:13 {Catechism of the Catholic Church drafted after the Second Vatican Council & 249.}

4) The verses, almost all very ambiguous, that lead one to think that Jesus is "theos" (John 20:28; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:6) may only be saying that Jesus is a christological Elohim akin to (Exodus 21:6; 1 Samuel 2:25), since the Greek term "theos" God/god is interchangeable with the Hebrew term elohim in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint.

No text can prove anything, but the real deal can.

It's really that simple.

 

[Betho_br]

No text can prove anything, but the real deal can.

It's really that simple.

You're right in part when you say that concrete experience holds significant weight, and indeed, lived reality can often speak louder than written words. But by dismissing the "sacred," you're overlooking something essential. The sacred, though not falsifiable like a scientific experiment, goes beyond empirical proof. It doesn't need to be tested or proven, because its truth lies in a different dimension—one that is revealed through faith, tradition, and spiritual experience. Just because something can't be measured or tested doesn't make it any less real; the sacred speaks to the soul in ways that tangible experience never fully can.

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

1) The majority of texts support the doctrine of unity.

2) The interpretation of John 14:16, 20, 30 is partially as taught by Basil the Great and Saint Augustine, namely, if the relationship is permanent, it proves the doctrine of the Trinity; if it is functional missiological, it proves only the doctrine of unity.

3) The Catholic churches explicitly declare that the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogma developed philosophically in Trinitarian formulas like 2 Corinthians 13:13 {Catechism of the Catholic Church drafted after the Second Vatican Council & 249.}

4) The verses, almost all very ambiguous, that lead one to think that Jesus is "theos" (John 20:28; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:6) may only be saying that Jesus is a christological Elohim akin to (Exodus 21:6; 1 Samuel 2:25), since the Greek term "theos" God/god is interchangeable with the Hebrew term elohim in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint.

I find these points both fascinating and difficult. They touch upon the very essence of our faith and human understanding.

Let us acknowledge that matters of faith often transcend our limited human comprehension. The doctrine of the Trinity is a significant mystery that has been contemplated and debated for centuries.

I observe how we, as humans, naturally seek to categorize and define our experiences, including our relationship with the divine. The tension between unity and trinity reflects our struggle to reconcile the complexity of God's nature with our desire for simple explanations.

However, we must remember that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. It is a lived experience of God's love and presence in our lives. Whether we perceive God as one or three, what matters most is how this understanding transforms our hearts and actions towards one another.

 

[jimb]

You're right in part when you say that concrete experience holds significant weight, and indeed, lived reality can often speak louder than written words. But by dismissing the "sacred," you're overlooking something essential. The sacred, though not falsifiable like a scientific experiment, goes beyond empirical proof. It doesn't need to be tested or proven, because its truth lies in a different dimension—one that is revealed through faith, tradition, and spiritual experience. Just because something can't be measured or tested doesn't make it any less real; the sacred speaks to the soul in ways that tangible experience never fully can.

EXCELLENT POST!!! Thanks so much for writing this!

 

[jimb]

I find these points both fascinating and difficult. They touch upon the very essence of our faith and human understanding.

Let us acknowledge that matters of faith often transcend our limited human comprehension. The doctrine of the Trinity is a significant mystery that has been contemplated and debated for centuries.

I observe how we, as humans, naturally seek to categorize and define our experiences, including our relationship with the divine. The tension between unity and trinity reflects our struggle to reconcile the complexity of God's nature with our desire for simple explanations.

However, we must remember that faith is not merely an intellectual exercise. It is a lived experience of God's love and presence in our lives. Whether we perceive God as one or three, what matters most is how this understanding transforms our hearts and actions towards one another.

GREAT POST!!! Thanks!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no such person as an unbiased scholar.

Uh, yes there is.

As a Catholic priest, he believed that Jesus was God.

But he knew that John 1:1 wasn’t saying that!

That’s honest and unbiased.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is simply your opinion. You have a mindset that prevents you from accepting the truth. That is very, very sad.

I believe what the Bible says. Period. Unlike yourself, I also accept what qualified translators say about Scripture.

So when you think of 'God, do you think of three persons?