Which is risker?

[Elijah John]

Which approach is riskier?

a) To worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is not?

b) Or to not worship Jesus as God, and it turns out that he is?

Why?

[The Tanager]

4. Jesus has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2)

This is coming out of a different thread that needs to be moved here to be more fully talked about. Mark 2 shows Jesus being able to forgive sins. The question is how that ability comes about. I am aware of two ways in Scripture that talk about how someone becomes able to forgive sins.

(1) This is what I called the S-conditional. If someone has God literally present within them via the Holy Spirit, then they can forgive sins. This comes from John 20:19-23.

(2) This is what I called the G-conditional. If someone is God, then they can forgive sins. This comes from Micah 7:18 and the whole witness of the Tanakh.

I am aware of no verses that speak of Jesus receiving the ability to forgive sins through the S-conditional. The same author that gives us the S-conditional way, and so is obviously aware of it, speaks of Jesus in the G-conditional way. John 1:1 says Jesus is God. The most straightfoward way of reading 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8 also show us this. And then you also have all the other verses we are talking about as well.

5. Jesus doubles down when accused of blasphemy (John 10:22-42, Mark 14:53-65)

My last post on this is #20. I'll repost the pertinent part here:

Jesus forgives sins, which everybody believes can only be done by God (Mark 2).

That statement is blatantly false; EVERYONE doesn't believe that. The Pharisees believed that; everyone that agrees with that Pharisaic belief believes that, but it is a fact that not everyone believes that.

I think you are taking my statement out of context. Obviously, I didn't mean everyone in the world. Atheists don't believe even God forgives sins, for instance. Are you saying the context around the event in Mark 2 itself shows some people present who would have disagreed with this belief?

As to tigger's post in that linked thread, when do the disciples get the ability to forgive sins according to John 20:19-23? It's after the resurrection. Jesus gives them the Holy Spirit. Only because of that, of having God residing within them, can they forgive sins.

On John 10, in that discussion you linked to, you said John 17:21 shows that Jesus was not claiming to be God in John 10:30. The reasoning you gave was:

He used the same Greek word [hen] for his disciples as he did for himself and God. Obviously Jesus was not saying his disciples were Almighty God and part of a trinity!

Quote:
Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977 states:

“The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...�

In John 17:21, I do think he is talking about being one in will, purpose, counsel with the Father. That prayer is about Jesus' disciples being one in will, purpose, counsel with each other so that the world will be attracted to God who unifies them. John 10:30 is where this comes in John 10. And I'm fine interpreting that in this same way. Jesus and the Father are unified in the sense of having one will, purpose, counsel regarding Jesus' sheep. But that's not why I think John 10:31-39 shows Jesus to be God.

Jesus said more than verse 30. The Jews there were wondering if Jesus is the Christ (v. 24). Jesus says he has already told them and they haven't believed (25). He then says his works done in the Father's name/character show that he is, but that they didn't believe because they aren't his sheep (26). Jesus claims to give them eternal life (28). Eternal life was thought to have been found in the Law, given by God only. Jesus says no one can snatch his sheep out of his hand (28) and then says no one can snatch them out of the Father's hand (29) and then talks about them being of one will and purpose here (30). The Jews stone him for the totality of all he said. They accuse him of blasphemy.

If Jesus was not claiming to be God, then he would have said, no I'm not claiming to be God, I'm just saying I'm following God's will. Didn't you all notice the neuter gender I used? It's written in Greek of course, but I think Aramaic has that feature as part of it's language as well. Look at John 8:49 that you brought up in your linked to post. You said that religious leaders misinterpreted Jesus' words many times. I agree. What does Jesus say in response to the misinterpretation in John 8:49? "I am not possessed." He denies it! But does Jesus go on to deny these charges of blasphemy in John 10? No!

He first says that people to whom the word of God came have been called gods before (34-35), so maybe he is just saying he is a 'god' in that same sense. But then he distinguishes himself from that. Even note that this is written by John, who from the very outset, called Jesus the word of God. Jesus has just said the Hebrew bible has called people gods to whom the word of God came. But John says Jesus is the word of God. Jesus then says he is "him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world" and said "I am the Son of God" (36). That is why they are accusing him of blasphemy. Does he deny the blasphemy there? No, he says that if he does works that disprove what he is claiming, then don't believe him (37).

He then goes on to say, using the neuter gender en again, to say that even if you don't believe what he is saying, at least believe that he is working in one will with the Father (38), but they won't even believe that. They know his works testify to at least being on God's side, but are trying to stone him because they are not on God's side at all. And then (40-42) we have John talking about how many people believed in him because of his works/signs. They are not just believing in his works, they believe in him and who he has claimed to be which has caused other Jews to want to stone him for blasphemy.

6. Various authors directly say Jesus is God (John 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8)

We haven't talked about this unless I missed it.

[The Tanager]

7. Jesus claims the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:48-59)

And who decides when something is literal?

The author decides that. We decide what we believe the intent was and share our views with each other so that each other can have a better drawing board from which to base their view.

We are not examining the properties of God; that is not the absurdity. The absurdity is that a young man is claiming to be the God whom he addresses as Father. You cannot assume deity when this is what you are trying to show. It is you who are begging the question.

I think there are two questions we need to keep clear here: what does the text claim about Jesus and could that claim actually be true. I'm talking about the first; I wonder if you are really talking about the second.

But if you are talking about the first, you would be saying that the author of John can't possibly be saying that Jesus claimed to be eternal. Why not? If the author thought Jesus was eternal it makes perfect sense for Jesus to answer the Jewish leaders who are saying that he's not even 50, that he's actually eternal. Especially since the context of John 1 says Jesus is eternal. If you are eternal (or you think you are, or your biographer thinks you are), then it is not logically absurd to make a claim that would point out that you are eternal.

And not only is it not logically absurd, it is a straightforward reading of the text. There are no textual indications that the author has Jesus speaking metaphorically here. You brought up Nicodemus in John 3, but notice the difference. In that we have actual text from the author where Jesus clarifies that "being born again" is meant to be taken metaphorically. We don't have that here.

It's your job to justify the suggestion that Jesus claimed to be God; all I have to do is show that it is reasonable to take his words as figurative. If Jesus sees himself as the Word he figuratively did come before Abraham. The only reason you would say this interpretaion is flawed is because it makes Jesus unacceptably human. If you are to take texts as evidence of Jesus being God then they must not admit other possible interpretations.

It's my job to give the reasons I think my interpretation is more plausible than yours. The context of 8:48-59 flows with my interpretation without changing any parts of speech or word order or adding words. You, on the other hand, change adverbs into nouns, rearrange the order of the sentence and add words that aren't there (like 'since' and 'that God has given me'). Then you probably also have to reinterpret "my day" in v. 56 to be referring to Jesus' truth when it would make more sense for the author to use 'truth' there. I don't think you have shown it is reasonable to hold your interpretation at all. Notice that nowhere in there am I saying your interpretation is flawed because it makes Jesus unacceptably human.

Paul expresses an opinion that he did not get from Jesus, so this doesn't provide evidence that Jesus claimed to be God. If you want to claim infallibility for Paul, that's another matter.

That's a largely different issue than what we are talking about in this thread. Here we are talking about what the Bible says. Not just what Jesus says in the Bible, but what does the Bible claim about Jesus. I would not try to prove to you that Jesus claimed to be God solely from sharing interpretations of Bible passages. In this thread, Elijah John's question to me assumes the Bible speaks truth, so the debate is just about what the Bible says.

Basically Christ is claiming human superiority over Abraham. That claim would be sufficient to have people stone him, given that Abraham was revered.

Where is an action like this shown to be a stoneable offense?

And his refusal to deny some claim is evidence of nothing. He may well have thought: "How silly of them!" but politely said nothing. You are not entitled to make statements from silence especially in support of such a vast claim.

When the same author has other occassions where Jesus expressly denies certain claims (including just a few verses prior) I think the most reasonable thing is to expect John would have had Jesus correcting them if they were way off. Proof from silence, definitely not, but it's the most reasonable course to take given the overall context.

8. Jesus allows and accepts people's attempts to worship Him (Matt 14:33, 28:9 and John 20:28)

I am unaware of any responses to my post 45 concerning this point. Marco was talking about it, I said simple Jewish fisherman knew only God was to be worshipped. As a rabbi that was supposedly just worshipping God, Jesus would certainly know that and stop them.

9. Jesus is said to be the Creator (Col 1:15-20)

We haven't talked about this unless I missed it.

10. The fullness of Jesus is said to dwell in Jesus (Col 1:15-20)

We haven't talked about this unless I missed it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus is claiming something for Himself that is rightly God's alone.

You have yet to prove that.

Outside of pure mathematics, I doubt anything can be proven

Well if you can't prove your point I'm sure you understand when people reject it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you suggesting God cannot give/assign glory (ie glorify) whomever he so choses?

No.

Well then your point can be rejected based on Jesus numerous explicit statements that all he had he received from the Father.

Are you suggesting God cannot give/assign glory (ie glorify) whomever he so choses?

... I don't see how that is relevant..

How convenient for you! Of course it's relevant it is the central point of debate; if Jesus received his glory from Almighty God he cannot be equal to Almighty God and cannot therefore BE Almighty God. He could also once given authority to do so, exercise any abilitities attributed to him (including to forgive sins)


Since Jesus said all he had, he received from Almighty God his Father, the onus on you is to prove that his (Jesus) glory is the exception to his own rule. You don't get to make an ad hoc rule that says this one title cannot be assigned to the son by the Father. Pointing to the Hebrew scriptures will not prove this since the Son only arrived on the world scene in Christian times, and nobody prior to Jesus could possibly have been given such a position.

Making the assumption based solely on prior use is like saying that woman cannot possibly be Mrs Smith, since prior to his marriage there is not a single reference to Mr Smith sharing his name (Smith) with anyone.

Jehovah indicated in the Hebrew bible that a future LORD would indeed arrive, but that one would have his position by assignment (see Psalms 110:1). As I demonstrated there is nothing in the title Lord of Glory itself which imposes it has to be restricted to the Almighty, as someone can be appointed as Lord in any domain by God. Only Almighty (omnipotence) cannot by definition be assigned to another. Any attempt to argue otherwise is both logically and biblically baseless.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

But Jesus is asking for glory for himself in the Father's presence ...

Yes, nobody is suggesting Jesus is not superior to all the angels and certainly to any human. Does this mean however that Almighty God cannot be superior to Jesus? Does this mean that Jesus glory cannot be received?

• Note that Jesus requests glory from his Father, so the glory Jesus gets is RECEIVED. If it were innate then he would only need to pray to return to his former position. In short, if Jesus were Almighty God, returning to his position as Almighty God, he automatically would have been reattributed with all the attributes thereof. Any request for glory from the Father therefore becomes redundant. . Jesus asked for glory, he didn't pray "Get me back to being Almighty God so I will be the source of all glory" (Further notable it's absence, is the request for the glory that belongs to Almighty God alone. Jesus asked for glory, he didn't pray "Can I please have YOUR glory").

It seems clear that Jesus would not have prayed the way he did if he was Almighty God. His prayer, far from supporting the idea that Jesus shared HIS FATHER'S glory, supports the conclusion that Jesus enjoyed received glory and any title he is attributed in this regared has been GIVEN TO him by his superior.




JW

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 61 by JehovahsWitness]

How convenient for you! Of course it's relevant it is the central point of debate; if Jesus received his glory from Almighty God he cannot be equal to Almighty God and cannot therefore BE Almighty God.

Isaiah 6 refutes this conclusion:

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.�

4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

5 “Woe to me!� I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.�

Isaiah sees Jehovah Almighty. John 12:41 quoting this passage explicitly states that Isaiah see Jesus.

If you want to argue it was the Father Isaiah saw then you'd have to argue against Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18 that states no one has ever seen the Father.

Therefore Jesus is explicitly called Jehovah Almighty in Isaiah 6:5

[JehovahsWitness]

John 12:41 quoting this passage explicitly states that Isaiah see Jesus.

No he doesn't.

John said Isaiah saw the glory "of him" . WHO the "him" is is a matter of opinion, but since Isaiah explicitly states he saw YHWH Jehovah, and John is refering to the incident, we can reasonably conclude the "him" of John 12:41 is YHWH Almighty God and not Jesus.


In any case the name JESUS does not appear in the original Greek text at John 12:41
https://biblehub.com/text/john/12-41.htm

[The Tanager]

Well if you can't prove your point I'm sure you understand when people reject it.

You seem to be holding a double standard here. You fault me for saying I can't 100% prove (on par of proving 2+2=4) my interpretation, yet in your latest response to dakoski you talk of "reasonably concluding" that your interpretation of John 12:41 is correct. Which standard are we to use in assessing each other's views in this thread? Certainty or what is most reasonable or plausible?

If certainty is the standard you want to hold people to, then I concede my interpretations do not meet that standard and am thrilled to see you meet that standard with your interpretation of any of these verses.

If certainty is not the standard, we'll consider this post of yours a hiccup and move on with a reasonable discussion.

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

No he doesn't.

John said Isaiah saw the glory "of him" . WHO the "him" is is a matter of opinion, but since Isaiah explicitly states he saw YHWH Jehovah, and John is refering to the incident, we can reasonably conclude the "him" of John 12:41 is YHWH Almighty God and not Jesus.


In any case the name JESUS does not appear in the original Greek text at John 12:41
https://biblehub.com/text/john/12-41.htm

1) The context makes it clear this is refering to Jesus. v37-38: 'Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet'

After quoting Isaiah 6 he then states in v41: 'Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.'

The context makes it clear the glory being spoken of is Jesus'. Since John is quoting Isaiah 6 to show this was the expected reaction to Jesus.

2) John 1:18 and Exodus 33:20 make clear no one has seen the Father. Yet Isaiah 6 speaks of Isaiah seeing Almighty Jehovah. The person Isaiah sees according to these verses cannot be the Father - the burden is on you to show otherwise given these verses.

[JehovahsWitness]

JOHN 12:41


QUESTION Does the context of John 12:41 support the reading that the writer in this specific verse is a reference to Jesus rather than YHWH?

No. While it is correct that Verse 37 is indeed speaking about Jesus, verse 41 is not. John comments that the people of his day were hard- hearted and didn't put faith in JESUS (verse 37)

Although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him [Jesus] - verse 37

The writer then quotes Isaiah 53:1, and Isaiah 6:10 to prove that the rejection of the Messiah had been previously predicted by YHWH (see verse 38-40).

Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, who said: “Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?� The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: “He [YHWH] has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.� -38-40

Then the writer states Isaiah was in a position to say the above because saw "His" glory* (verse 41)

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.- verse 41

So the writer concludes, returning to his original point, that prophecy was fulfilled with some putting faith "him" [Jesus], others preferred glory from humans to glory from God. (verses 42, 43)

All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men even more than the glory of God. - verses 42, 43

So verse 38- 41 are the writers proof that the people's attitude was in fact part of prophecy. He doesn't claim that Isaiah saw Jesus, only that Isaiah saw The "him" that had predicted the people's bad attitude towards Jesus. In the absence of Isaiah or John explicitly stating the predictions (about Jesus) were made by Jesus, the context does not establish this.

To illustrate:


My brother [1] was brilliant but totally without morals. My dad [2] always said he [3] would end up either as president or a crook. He[4] ended up President

Is [4] the brother or the Dad? Does [4] have to be the Dad because that is who is mentioned in the clause directly preceding?

In short:

#1 The people rejected "him" [Jesus]

#2 the "him" that Isaiah saw, predicted that the chosen Messiah would be rejected.

#3 The majority indeed did rejected "him".

A reasonable conclusion then is that: "him" #1 & 3 = Jesus ; #2 = whoever Isaiah stated he "saw".

ISAIAH 6:1
I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne

* NOTE Like Moses, Isaiah didn't literally see the person of Almighty God, he saw a glorious representation or vision of God


JW

FURTHER READING SFBT # 2 share his glory #3 see his glory (scroll down)
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... dence.html




RELATED POSTS

Is the name JESUS specifically mentioned in the original Greek text at John 12:41?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 811#937811

INDEX So called trinity "proof texts" debunked
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 594#936594