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?

[marco]

The original is not the noun 'truth', it's the Hebrew adverb amen

Truth is not a noun in the original. It's the Hebrew adverb "amen" which means truly. So, there is no reason to translate the sentence the way you do.

Jerome translated it, not I. He said Via, veritas, vita, possibly attracted to the alliteration but I've no reason to doubt his abilities. However if Christ's divinity depends on a part of speech then it is a weak claim.

And to those questions Jesus compares His own existence to Abraham's. And in doing so he uses the Divine Name as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. God there and Jesus here are talking about their eternal, independent existence. Add to this the reaction of the Jewish leaders of trying to stone Jesus for this obviously blasphemous comment (59).

Well the reaction of the people who wondered if Jesus had a demon in him is no indication that Jesus was God. They were fallible - very much so. Jesus used figurative language so here we can choose between the absurd: Jesus is literally older than Abraham or Jesus means something else. Recall that Jesus said "you must be born again" and one of his audience wondered if that meant a man should jump out of the womb again. The literal interpretation about Jesus being older than Abraham is just as silly as a literal interpretation of being born again. Jesus sees himself as the incarnation of God's word; the living vector of the divine word. In that figurative sense he exists before Abraham. That makes perfect sense and prevents Jesus from being hundreds of years old. In any case, since this interpretation is a good one, the literal one cannot be used as an indication that Jesus claims to be God.

[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?

I don't see why either should be considered a risk of any kind. Perhaps if you worship a petty God who will punish people for not understanding what he never bothered to make clear. The fault is clearly on him.

The first commandment IS clear. "I am YHVH thy God, ...thou shalt have no other gods before me". The first commandment goes on to say that YHVH will not hold idolators blameless.

If Jesus is not God, then Jesus-worship is idolatry. But it is not clear what the penalty for that "soft" idolatry would be.

[The Tanager]

1. Jesus tells His disciples to pray to Him (John 14:13-14)

JW, you asked a question here that I answered and you haven't said anything else.

2. Jesus sharing glory with the Father eternally (John 17:5)

If the meal consists of two stakes, one of which belongs to the Father and one of which belongs to the son, then the son can have a meal with/ alongside his Father without eating that which belongs uniquely to the Father. If Jesus enjoyed glory with ( ie they both have glory while in each other's company) his Father, then he "shared" glory (ie they both had and enjoyed glory).

It is an assumption that Jesus had the glory that belonged to his Father since Jesus never said I shared YOUR glory; only that he had/shared glory. It is also an assumption that Jesus ever had the same glory as that of his Father, since Jesus never said he shared "the SAME glory".

Is there any scriptural reason you make these assumptions?

In a Jewish context, all glory belongs to God. Jesus is claiming something for Himself that is rightly God's alone. Only God gets steak, to put it in the terms of your analogy.

3. Jesus is called the (Lord of) Glory (James 2:1, 1 Cor 2:8)

I don't know what you mean by "connotations of divinity" but if the word "glory"/glorious can apply to that which is Almighty God and that which is NOT Almighty God; and if you are not implying that there is something in the employ of the word in Greek that can ONLY be employed in connection with Almighty God, then how can James 2:1 or 1 Cor 2:8 be relevant in establishing whether Jesus is Almighty God or not? Both refer to Jesus as "The Glorious Lord" so? So what?

Because context matters. Words mean different things in different contexts. Calling someone glorious (or even a glorious Lord) is different than calling them the Lord of Glory. How is it used in our two passages? In 1 Corinthians 2:8, Paul talks about people crucifying the Lord of Glory, a title used in the Tanakh to refer to God. In James 2:1 it is either this same title being used or Jesus is called the Glory, which in the Jewish context brings back to mind the Glory of God that guided the Israelites in the wilderness. Both of those speak of the Divine and connect Jesus to that Divinity.

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

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

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

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

Jerome translated it, not I. He said Via, veritas, vita, possibly attracted to the alliteration but I've no reason to doubt his abilities. However if Christ's divinity depends on a part of speech then it is a weak claim.

While Jerome had great abilities, not even Catholics today see his translation as the most accurate translation, much less Biblical scholars of all persuasions.

As far as Christ's divinity depending on a part of speech, that's not what I'm saying. This is a discussion about what the Bible claims about Christ, specifically in regards to His Divinity. The parts of speech are vital to finding out what the language means. That says nothing about whether the Bible speaks truth or not.

Well the reaction of the people who wondered if Jesus had a demon in him is no indication that Jesus was God.

Jesus directly told them they were wrong there, that he was not demon-possessed. Then he purposefully says something that he knew they would take as a claim to divinity and does not then correct them.

They were fallible - very much so. Jesus used figurative language so here we can choose between the absurd: Jesus is literally older than Abraham or Jesus means something else. Recall that Jesus said "you must be born again" and one of his audience wondered if that meant a man should jump out of the womb again. The literal interpretation about Jesus being older than Abraham is just as silly as a literal interpretation of being born again. Jesus sees himself as the incarnation of God's word; the living vector of the divine word. In that figurative sense he exists before Abraham. That makes perfect sense and prevents Jesus from being hundreds of years old. In any case, since this interpretation is a good one, the literal one cannot be used as an indication that Jesus claims to be God.

Jesus uses different language at different times. The literal interpretation is not absurd, if Jesus is God, since God is an eternal being. So, you can't beg the question by saying that Jesus sees himself as the "living vector of the divine word," so he can't mean something else in this verse. And, more than that, your interpretation is not a good one, textually speaking. It is forcing an interpretation upon it that is not in the text itself.

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

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

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

[marco]

Jesus uses different language at different times. The literal interpretation is not absurd, if Jesus is God, since God is an eternal being.

And who decides when something is literal?
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.

So, you can't beg the question by saying that Jesus sees himself as the "living vector of the divine word," so he can't mean something else in this verse.

You are misusing the term "begging the question." 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.

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.

Basically Christ is claiming human superiority over Abraham. That claim would be sufficient to have people stone him, given that Abraham was revered. If Jesus claimed he was God it wasn't in this statement. 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.


You will have to return to the drawing board since nothing you've brought shows Jesus claimed to be co-equal with the Father. There's plenty of evidence to show he believed he wasn't.

[JehovahsWitness]

In a Jewish context, all glory belongs to God.

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

[JehovahsWitness]

Calling someone glorious (or even a glorious Lord) is different than calling them the Lord of Glory.

You have yet to prove that either one means they posses that which belongs exclusively to Almighty God. Lord of Glory implies that the individual is master or owner of at the very least a degree of Glory. Whether that is by appontment or innate is not intrinsic to the verse. There is absolutely nothing in the statement that imposes that the position was not assigned to him.

You now need to prove with alternative scripture that Jesus could NOT be given or aassigmned the position by a his superior.

ACTS 2:36

"... know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.�

Since Jesus repeatedly implied he received all his authority from his Father and since scripture explicitly states God made Jesus LORD, the onus is on you to prove his position as Lord of anything (including glory) is NOT received.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

... the Lord of Glory, a title used in the Tanakh to refer to God.

Are you suggesting that if a TITLE is applied to someone and also applied to Almighty God they must both be Almighty God? Is that the position you hold?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

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

You have yet to prove that.

[Elijah John]

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

The passage says more about Paul's idolatry, rather than evidence of Jesus' Divinity.

Paul's beleif and opinion does not make Jesus "God".

[The Tanager]

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 100%, if you mean that. I think we are talking about inference to the best explanation. I think my view is the most plausible and reasonable view to hold on what these Scriptures say. I also think they speak truth about reality, but that is an entirely different argument.


Below are the initial ten reasons I gave and my understanding of where the conversation currently is with them:

1. Jesus tells His disciples to pray to Him (John 14:13-14)

JW asked if Jesus was asking the disciples to pray to him or in his name and I answered that it was both.

2. Jesus sharing glory with the Father eternally (John 17:5)

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

No. And I don't see how that is relevant. Yes, kings and young men and others have their 'glory' (see Proverbs 14:28 and 20:29 for those two instances) and these are given by God. But there is a glory that is God's alone in the Tanakh. We can look at Isaiah for that. God shares it or gives it to no one else (42:8 and 48:11). When Isaiah comes into the presence of God in Isaiah 6, angels are covering their faces and crying for the earth to be filled with God's glory (not even a bit of their own) and Isaiah sees how little (although it is still good, but that's not a textual point here) he is in the presence of God. But Jesus is asking for glory for himself in the Father's presence and claimed he had it before the universe existed in his Father's presence. If Jesus is not God, then Jesus would have only asked for the Father's glory to shine forth through him in the prayer. He doesn't.

3. Jesus is called the (Lord of) Glory (James 2:1, 1 Cor 2:8)

Are you suggesting that if a TITLE is applied to someone and also applied to Almighty God they must both be Almighty God? Is that the position you hold?

One thing I'm saying is that if a title has historically only been reserved for God throughout the whole Tanakh, then it's highly, highly doubtful that a Jewish movement that is trying to honor that theology and that God is going to use that title for a human. What example do you have in mind? I'm open to changing my view.

You have yet to prove that either one means they posses that which belongs exclusively to Almighty God. Lord of Glory implies that the individual is master or owner of at the very least a degree of Glory. Whether that is by appontment or innate is not intrinsic to the verse. There is absolutely nothing in the statement that imposes that the position was not assigned to him.

The Lord of Glory does not imply that. It is only used as a title for God Almighty as far as I know. There are not different tiers of lords of glory. And the Glory would specifically recall God's Glory that accompanied the Israelites after the Exodus. These titles are only used for God. If it was a matter of when someone comes by this title, at best you could be concluding that Jesus became God at some point in His life. You don't think that is what Acts 2:36 says anymore than I do. I think Peter is talking about how the Resurrection has confirmed Jesus as Lord and Christ to the Israelites, especially sense the whole talk centers on who they thought Jesus was and who Jesus really is and verse 36 starts with "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain...".

Notice also that Peter calls Jesus Lord in 36 and says "the Lord our God" in 39. You will probably say these are two different Lords, but there is no textual reason to do that. Peter is focusing on Jesus being the Lord in this passage.