Is Jesus also God?

[dim2]

You provided the verse in the first post of the thread.

In John 17.11, Jesus prays to the Father that we (the members of the Church) would be "one". That doesn't mean every Christian suddenly becomes the same individual. It doesn't mean we somehow share the same mind and thoughts and knowledge. John 17.21 provides a clarifying statement on both John 17.11 and John 10.30. The Father and the Son are "one" in the sense that the Father is "in" the Son, and the Son "in" the Father, and likewise, the Church is to be "one", so that the Father may be "in" the Church and the Church "in" the Father.

Jesus' statement in 10.30 does not mean that the Son and the Father are the same "person", it means that they are one, united in purpose, desire, will, love, mercy, justice, etc.

So Jesus and God are not united in knowledge?
That is knowledge of the date of judgment day.

[markedward]

They are together One God. But they are distinctly personal from one another. The Son only knows what the Father wills for him to know, in accordance with the Son's obedience to the Father's will.

[dim2]

They are together One God. But they are distinctly personal from one another. The Son only knows what the Father wills for him to know, in accordance with the Son's obedience to the Father's will.

Okay, thanks for the answer.
What do you think of the word "Son" in that verse, should it be capitalized or should it stay in small letters according to the Greek as some suggest that
the lower case is appropriate. If that's the case then the son could refer to satan - the son of perdition.

[markedward]

Capitalized or not, I don't believe it refers to the "son of perdition".

The phrase is only found in two places in Scripture... once in the gospel of John, and once in a letter of Paul. The first instance refers explicitly to Judas Iscariot. The second instance refers explicitly to a human being (whose exact identity is debatable). Nowhere else is this "son of perdition" ever mentioned, let alone without the qualifying "of perdition". The authors of Scripture (it seems to me) knew it would be too confusing to use the phrase extraneously, let alone without the qualifying "of perdition".

Since Jesus' statement includes all men and all angels, and clearly portrays the Son in comparison to the Father, the context requires that "the Son" (capitalized or not) be a reference to Jesus, not the so-called "son of perdition".

[TomH]

Okay, thanks for the answer.
What do you think of the word "Son" in that verse, should it be capitalized or should it stay in small letters according to the Greek as some suggest that
the lower case is appropriate. If that's the case then the son could refer to satan - the son of perdition.

I believe you could use lower case when speaking of the son incarnate, in association with the Father.

When speaking of the Son in the context of the Triune God, then it's more appropriate, and in my opinion demanded, that it would be God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

[John146]

Hi people, what are your understandings of whether Jesus is God as well?
If Jesus and God are the same then does not this verse contradict itself?

Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. When He spoke of not knowing the day or hour He was speaking only from His human perspective.

[Gilligan]

Hi people, what are your understandings of whether Jesus is God as well?
If Jesus and God are the same then does not this verse contradict itself?

While Jesus was in human form, He did not know, but in His deity He does.

[starscream]

I find the whole Jesus was God thing hard to believe. There is to much of a lack of eyewitnesses, archaeological evidence and a failure of other works at that time that do not mention him for him to be a God. Romans killed lots of people so there is probably not a lot of evidence for them but if a "crazy" guy was walking around saying he was the Messiah and they killed him don't you think they would of written something about him? What about the big crowds following him surly that would be important enough surely enough for a historian to write down at that time.

[Vhayes]

I think Josephus did.

[watchinginawe]

I find the whole Jesus was God thing hard to believe. There is to much of a lack of eyewitnesses, archaeological evidence and a failure of other works at that time that do not mention him for him to be a God. Romans killed lots of people so there is probably not a lot of evidence for them but if a "crazy" guy was walking around saying he was the Messiah and they killed him don't you think they would of written something about him? What about the big crowds following him surly that would be important enough surely enough for a historian to write down at that time.

starscream, you are at first excluding all the eye witnesses who did write about Jesus as biased or something. Let me ask you this. Were Christians strung up as lamp posts and ignited on fire by the Romans or not? What does history say about the persecution of Christians? How do you explain that we have a New Testament Church that did not exist before Jesus and that remains to this day? I propose that any "inventions" that you appeal to in explanation of these facts outside of a real person Jesus Christ will have far less historical fact than the person of Jesus Christ.

Also, the Romans did not believe they were killing God. Looking through the history books for when God was killed by the Romans will not yield anything. To the Romans, Jesus and His case was much more a dispute between the Jews and was largely a civil matter. A good example of this in the Bible is presented in the Apostle Paul's defense before the Romans. Consider Paul's defense to Festus in the following passage from Acts. First, a few verses introducing the matter. They are straightforward and I have underlined Festus' understanding of the matter. (Note: king Agrippa was the Roman appointed "king" over the people of Judaea, the Jews.):

Acts 25:13 And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus.

14 And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix:

15 About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him.

16 To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.

17 Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth.

18 Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:

19 But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

20 And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters.

21 But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar.

22 Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. To morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.

So we see Festus not understanding the charges against Paul because they seemed of a religious nature and not a Roman matter. Festus notes that the dispute revolves around a dead man, Jesus, who Paul insisted was resurrected. Thus, Festus brings the matter up to Agrippa. In the hearing, Paul sums up the matter to Agrippa in his introduction:

Acts 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers:

7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

Paul offers a defense along lines which Agrippa understood existed among the Jews. The Parisees believed in a resurrection and the Saducees did not. Paul extends this argument to His knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He concludes his defense with the following:

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

Festus, the Roman, didn't know of these things and Paul didn't appeal to him on that basis. Instead, Paul makes use of Agrippa in attendance since he would be aware of all of these controversies that existed among the Jews and would be able to confirm Paul's defense to Festus.

starscream, are Luke (the author of the Gospel of Luke and of The Acts of the Apostles, the latter being excerpted above) and the Apostle Paul real people? When did they live? What did they testify to?

Doubt does not require the substantiation that belief does. Reasonable doubt takes a little more effort though. Often these kinds of things are presented as a shotgun blast of conspiracy theories without reconciliation of a common argument. They sometimes go something like: Jesus is nothing more than a myth derived from the ancient (insert mythical figure here). Like Jesus, (insert figure 1 here) sacrifices Himself. Like Jesus, (insert figure 2 here) is born of a virgin. Like Jesus, (insert figure 3 here) is raised from the dead. When about a dozen of these things are strung out, the pointing out that one of them has no basis still leaves eleven. Then twelve more are offered.

It doesn't matter whether these doubt "hooks" are substantiated or not. These are cast forth for the seeding of doubt and only one of them or the impact of the sum of them need only cause one to question whether the truth can be known at all for them to be effective.

You are faced with a problem starscream. You know who Jesus claims to be. You can let the doubters set the hook in your jaw and pull you from the truth or you can submit to the truth. You are here posting, so something has to be playing out in your mind about all of this. Consider it carefully.

[Hunter121]

I say no here are some examples,

* 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."

* Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

* Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him,'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'"

* John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

* John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

And so on, Jesus clearly states he is not god almighty but the son of god, whom god sent.

Also if you read Luke, it states Jesus went up a hill every day and prayed to god, and his desciples asked him how they prey to god and jesus responded, our father in heaven, hallowed by the name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, give us day by day our daily bread, and forgive us of our sins, as we forgive everyone who is in debt to us, and do not lead us into temptation but deliver us from the evil one, amen. As you probably know.

Hope this helps, god bless

[watchinginawe]

I say no here are some examples,

* 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."

Later on in the same discourse, Jesus says:

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

From Jesus' prayer after this discourse:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him with "thine own self"; Jesus says this would restore His previous eternal state. Jesus praying to the Father establishes both existing simultaneously, so Jesus is not the Father incarnate in a new existence. But simultaneous existence is best expressed as one existence in differing persons (see John 1:1-2, 14 below). Thus, the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost) have always existed as the Godhead, and because of this Jesus understood His state of existence even before the world was (even before He created it: John 3:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.) Can we make such a claim? Do we ask God to give us the glory to which we had before the world was?

* Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

The simultaneous existence of the persons of the Father and the Son continues even after the ascension.

Jesus says in John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

No man could qualify to sit at the right hand of God. That is why God had to work salvation the other way, becoming man Himself, and thus that man able to reconcile mankind. He would ascend back to heaven from whence He came. The result:

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

* Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him,'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'"

Hunter, have you ever noticed how Satan approached Jesus at first?

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Jesus, the man, is hungry. But to who does Satan make the appeal to "command that these stones be made bread"? Satan doesn't tempt me in that fashion. (Probably a good thing too, because I would probably turn them into steaks or something. ) Anyway, we see Satan wih a pitiful attempt in the temptation to both natures of Jesus Christ: Human and Divine.

Also, in the verse you quoted, Satan desires Jesus to "worship" him. Jesus states in Matthew 4:10 that "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. "

Take a look at these other verses in the book of Matthew and see how Jesus is worshipped. Matthew 2:2, 2:8, 2:11, 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, 28:17, and I will quote here:

Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.


If Jesus says that we should worship the Lord thy God alone, then how do we explain Jesus' acceptance of worship?

* John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

* John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

And so on, Jesus clearly states he is not god almighty but the son of god, whom god sent.

See the above on these from the Gospel of John. The whole Gospel of John begins with:

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

2 The same was in the beginning with God.
...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This is complicated stuff. How can the Word be WITH God and BE God at the same time? However, this would have to be true if later, when the Word was made flesh, that God would continue to exist as He has eternally.

With the Word made flesh we have Jesus Christ, one person(ality), with full 100% human nature joined with full 100% divine nature. We have in the person of Jesus Christ man born without any separation from God. This man could accomplish God's divine purposes on the behalf of mankind.

[Dani H]

There are many Scriptures that testify of the deity of Jesus. Thomas called him "my Lord and my God" and Jesus didnt' correct him. When elsewhere in Scripture, even angels decline the worship of men and always redirect it towards God. We can't treat the Bible as a buffet and pick and choose what makes sense to our personal understanding. We have to let the Bible teach us, as it's consistent in all it says, and ask God for revelation of its many great truths. The Bible wasn't written to cater to our brains. It was written to reveal God to us, and how He relates to us fallen human beings, and of His great redemption through Jesus specifically. It's not for us to dissect and opine over and approach with our human understanding, because we often do so to our own peril. It's for us to believe and act upon and live accordingly and obey and adjust our lives around its truths.

And yes, Josephus did mention Jesus in his writings.

[janitor]

Originally posted by dim2
Hi people, what are your understandings of whether Jesus is God as well?

Hello dim2. If the story of Mary being impregnated by God is true, Jesus would have to be both Divine and human. I believe the story is true.

[NewDayRising]

The holy trinity, as well as the basis for the "Jesus as God" theory, came from the decision at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, about the same time the new testament was subsidized by Constantine. A group of men got together to unify christian beliefs.....over 300 years after the death of Jesus.

In reading the new testament, its obvious some contributing authors thought he was god, and others didnt. Some of you are reading way too much into bible verses in order to fit them into your own agenda and belief in god, that much is obvious. The bible and its authors are not consistent in all ways, and to claim this is sheer ignorance. As everyone knows, the new testament is not an account from eye witnesses, but is a collection of accounts told and re told over extended periods of time, with some books not being written until hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. As such, consistency cannot be expected or demanded from such haphazard documentation. This is where that "leap of faith" comes in. So take it, or dont.