Go back to: or of the Trinity/Binity series.
Paul said, "For if you publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth,' that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9 [par|int]) Thus God resurrected Jesus. So was Jesus lying? Of courese not. But Jesus had a very different meaning in mind.
The Hebrew Scriptures reveal that Jesus' resurrection would not be a resurrection of the flesh, when it said, "For you will not leave me in the Grave. You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit." (Psalm 16:10) The Septuagint reveals that the Jews understood the meaning of this to be that he wold not see "corruption". (Acts 13:35 [par|int]) What does that mean?
Paul explained, "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living person.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. . . . we will all be changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed." (1 Corinthians 15:42-57 [par|int]) Thus, Jesus was resurrected by God with a new spirit body, not a physical one. Remember, "spirit" means an invisible active force, such as "wind" or "breath".
So then what did Jesus mean when he said "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."? (John 2:18-22 [par|int]) It was God who raised Jesus from the dead, and he was "changed in an instant", but Jesus raised, not himself, but the temple of his body, but not from the dead because his physical body was not changed. No description is given of any change to his physical body. Thus his physical body was not "resurrected". Jesus made his physical body operative in the company of his apostles, but he did not resurrect it to life. Note that the holes were still in his wrists when he revealed his body to the apostles. (John 20:19-25 [par|int]) If Jesus' physical body were resurrected, especially if it had been changed, we could rightfully expect those mortal wounds would be healed, as he did in many other healings and resurrections, but it was not. Obviously he would not be able to survive with the spear hole in his side.
But did Jesus really mean only his physical body? At Ephesians 4:11-16 [par|int], Paul referred to all the anointed disciples as "the body of the Christ". At 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 [par|int], he wrote, "Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, and you are that temple." Thus, when Christ spoke of raising his body up, he was also referring to the faith of his disciples and making his body operative was part of that. His body was not seen before that and he raised his physica body up to heaven when they last saw him. This did not require his body to be resurrected to life.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Verse 21 makes clear that he was only talking about his physical body. Romans 10:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:42-57 shows that God resurrected, not Jesus' physical body, but Jesus' spiritual body.
Philippians 2:5-8 [par|int].
Why did the Jews make this leap from "Son of God" to "equal to God"? Because they were taking it literally to mean that he was of the same race as God, like a human father and human son are both human, or one Greek god is of the same race as another, but Jesus never claimed such. They were just looking for a pretext against Jesus, and this one was shaky at best. The Psalmist said, "He will call out to me: 'You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation.'" (Psalm 89:26 [par|int]) Jehovah, prophesying through Isaiah, said, "out of Judah the one to inherit my mountains." (Isaiah 65:9 [par|int]) Psalm 2:7-12 [par|int] also prophesied that the messiah would be called God's Son. So clearly, they were expecting someone to come out of Judah calling God his Father. They knew the Scriptures, but sought to use ihis words as a pretext against him.
But does calling God his Father truly make him equal to God? No. Consider Romans 1:7 [par|int] and many others, where Paul said, "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Obviously calling God one's "Father" does not make them equal to God or else all anointed Christians with the adoption as sons could claim equality with God. If someone calls you "Ed's son" or "the son of Ed", does that make you Ed himself? Note Jesus' defense to the Pharisees in the verses that follow after 5:18.
Instead of claiming the equality that they were accusing him of, what did he say in response? "The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative," and "the Father . . . . shows him all the things he himself does," and "the Father . . . . has entrusted all the judging to the Son." and most definitively of all, he said, "I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (John 5:19-24 [par|int]) Why would he claim to get his authority from the Father if he already has that authority? Clearly he did not have that authority to start with. If he was trying to establish himself as God, why would he say that he "cannot do a single thing" without God teaching him? It would make no sense. Obviously he did not have the knowledge to begin with because Jesus is not omniscient. Really, the king of a kingdom is greater than his son, but he gives his authority to the son to rule in his place, but that does not make them one and the same. They are still two different personages.
Likewise, after 10:33, he again refutes them with a defense that equates him with humans rather than God. Why else would he defend himself using Psalm 82:6 [par|int], which calls human judges "gods" if he were trying to say that he is the God of heaven? (John 10:30-36 [par|int]) Again, he is not claiming to be God, or even equal to God, but is claiming to be "God's Son", inferior in knowledge, inferior in authority, and inferior in rank, separate and distinct just as a son is to a father.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The Pharisees did not accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, but of claiming to be "equal to God" when Jesus only claimed to be "the Son of God". Jesus refuted the accusation with a clear statement of his subordination to God and his equality, not to God, but to human judges. Just claiming to be a son does not make one the same as or equal to their father.
John 8:58 [par|int] and John 18:5-8 [par|int] he is God because on Mt. Sinai, in answer to Moses' question about who he was to say spoke to him, according to many versions, God said: "I am what I am".
But there is a severe flaw in their shoehorning the Trinity into this verse. Does it make sense for someone to say "Before Abraham was, Timothy"? Would such a statement really declare that the person speaking is Timothy? No. So if I use the term "I am", that means I'm God?Can you see how flawed the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here?
The original Koiné Greek works differently than our language, as they had no past tense words. Thus the Greek "ego eimi", often translated at John 8:58 as "I am", is actually applied to the past regarding a person that exists at this moment. Because it came in company with "before", the past is indicated, thus it is translated as continuous from the past to mean "I have been". Most Trinitarian/Binitarian versions shoehorn the Trinity into this verse by translating it as "I am", but also ignore dynamic translation in their renderings believing that dynamics adds nothing to the text, instead rendering according to the exact meaning of words independent of grammatical structure or by updating the idiom. However, "most" does not mean all. The New Living Translation says: "I existed." The Contemporary English Version states: "I was, and I am." The Worldwide English version states: "I already was before Abraham was born." The New World Translation states: "I have been."
Regarding John 18:5-8 [par|int], when someone asks about you by name and you use the words "I am", does this mean you are God? Does it somehow magically mean that Jesus is God when he uses the term? Does it make sense, when someone asks for someone, like "who is Darnel?" To say aloud "Jonas"? On the contrary, when someone says, "Who is Daniel" and your name is Daniel, how do you respond? You say, "I am". That no more makes you God than it does me.
There is greater convincing evidence that Paul is actually God, because he uses the entire phrase, "I am what I am" at 1 Corinthians 15:10 [par|int]. But of course, we know that would be ridiculous.
How about all the numerous times that other people in the New Testament say "I am" (ego eimi)?: Acts 9:10; 10:21; 13:25; 17:3, 23; 18:6; 19:15; 20:22, 26; 21:13, 39; 22:3; 23:6, 30; 24:14, 16, 21; 25:10, 11; 26:2, 7, 17, 25-27; Romans 1:11, 14, 16; 3:5; 6:19; 7:1, 14, 22, 24; 8:38; 9:1; 11:13; 15:15, 24, 25; 1 Corinthians 1:14; 4:4, 14, 17; 5:11; 6:5; 7:8, 28, 35; 9:2, 16, 19, 21, 26, 10:30, 33; 11:1; 12:15-16; 13:2-3, 12; 14:14, 37; 15:9-10, 34; 16:5, 8, 10-11; 2 Corinthians 7:4; 8:8; 9:2-3; 10:1-2; 11:2-3, 6, 12, 16, 21-23, 29, 31; 12:6, 10-11, 14, 20; 13:1, 10; Galatians 1:10, 20; 2:2, 20; 4:12, 18-20; 5:10-11, 21; 6:17; Ephesians 5:32; 6:20-22; Philippians 1:6, 8, 16, 23; 2:17, 19, 23-24, 28; 3:12, 14; 4:11, 17-18; Colossians 1:24, 29; 2:1, 4-5; 4:3, 8; 5:27; 1 Timothy 1:12, 15; 2:7; 3:14-15; 4:13; 2 Timothy 1:3, 5, 12; 2:7, 9; 4:6; Philemon 9-10, 12, 21-22; Hebrews 12:21; James 1:13; 2 Peter 1:13; 3:1; 1 John 2:1, 7-8, 12-13; 2 John 12; 3 John 14.
Clearly, there is no sense to the claim and putting it in all-caps does nothing to prove their point.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Simple Greek grammar shows that Jesus' words are nothing more than a timeframe reference. Someone saying "I am" in correct usage does not mean they are God.
John 14:9 [par|int], Jesus says, "He that has seen me has seen the Father also". Why? John 14:8 [par|int] clearly shows that the apostles did not understand Jesus' words to mean that he was God or the Father, but that he could show them the Father, the invisible God, for Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Indeed, in verse 12 [par|int], in answer to Philip's query, Jesus himself said he was going away to the Father, indicating that they were two separate beings. In verse 24 [par|int] he said, "The Father is greater than I am."
Jesus' words in John 10 and 14 are explained by the context that follows John 14:10-11. In verse 20 [par|int], Jesus says: "You are in union with me and I am in union with you." (Compare John 17:21 [par|int] and Galatians 3:28 [par|int]) While in verses 10 [par|int], 12 [par|int], 24 [par|int] and 28 [par|int], Jesus makes a clear distinction between him and God. Thus, Jesus saying he is in union with his Father is no moe mysterious or metaphysical than his saying that he is in union with his disciples. It is, after all, a unity in spirit. (Ephesians 4:3 [par|int]) Really, are we supposed to also believe that we are all more parts of the "Godhead"? Obviously not. (Though the Eastern Orthodox Church might say otherwise.)
(See DOES JOHN 5:18 AND 10:33 PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD? above for more reasoning on John 10:30, 38.)
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The context makes a clear distinction between Jesus and God. The context of 14:9-11 and other scriptures clearly states what is meant by being "in union".
DOES JOHN 14:14 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Several modern translations render John 14:14 [par|int] as "Whatever you ask me in my name, I will do it," or a similar variation, while others omit "me" from the text. This is because there are manuscripts with equal authority having one or the other renderings. NA-27 and NA-28, from which most modern translations are based, has selected the reading without the second me, because the manuscripts with the second "me" and additional words, is not likely the original because "me" would be tautological (unnecessary and overt repitition), and renders the text contrary to the context, so the preferred manuscript is the one that is not contrary to its context and does not perform something that violates grammar in a similar way to a double-negative.
For example, would you bother to say "talk to me in my name"? Obviously not, since they would already be addressing you. Instead, if it is a requirement, you might say, "use my name when you address me and I will do it." But the question still remains why they must be asked to use his name specifically for requests and not in all things? Obviously, asking in his name has a specific meaning and purpose that is not necessary when giving thanks and praise or sharing your feelings. Thus, the reason we must ask is that we have faith in the ransom sacrifice of the only-begotten Son of God for forgiveness of sins through which we make request with a clean conscience. (Hebrews 10:22)
The reason that some give for including the extra "me" is that they claim to favor "ask me" for its being the more difficult reading. However, that is weak reasoning. We cannot assume that a text was discarded in some scrolls just because it was “difficult”. In fact, “difficult” can be a sign of “forced”, as is seen in the addition of spurious texts in some manuscripts. This being no exception.
However, the important thing to consider is the context and consistency. Both John 15:16 [par|int] and 16:23 [par|int] clearly state that we are to pray to the Father, which speaks to the preference of texts that do not include “με” in the reading.
More importantly, verse 13 clearly says that the purpose of asking in Jesus’ name is "in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son." How can the Father be glorified if you are praying to the Son in the Son’s name, excluding the Father? So the rendering of the extra “με” would be counter to the context.
The following versions omit “me” after “ask”: KJV; NKJV; ASV; RSV; JB; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; AB; CBW; NLV; MKJV (Green); Darby; Webster’s; and Young’s. Many of them fail to mention an alternate reading of 'me' in their footnotes and visa versa. So while the NWT does omit “me” from the main text, it does include it in the footnotes, as is the practice of many other translations.
Looking at the context, in verse 10, Jesus says that he does not speak of his own originality, but speaks what he is told by his Father. So there is clear subordination in the context, and along with verse 28 [par|int], he very clearly states “the Father is greater than I am.”
Since there is a dispute in the rendering, this should lead translators to prefer the consistent rendering and to choose the rendering that works according to the context. Any other choice is dishonest and biased.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The context clearly shows the rendering that should be preferred.
DOES JOHN 16:27-30 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Contrary to the claim, the words, "Came out from God", provides no mystical connotation, no indication that he is 'God made flesh,' but simply that he was sent out of heaven from God. The claim Trinitarians make about this text would require the words "out of", that is, "came out of God", but it doesn't say that. If someone says "I came out from the king", does this mean that he is Kenneth? That would be absurd. It clearly means that he was sent rather than suggesting mitosis.
It is also claimed that Jesus is omniscient because of what his disciples said at John 16:30. They said of him: "You know all things. . . . By this we believe that you came from God." But is this knowledge to be taken as absolute? No. He had become their source of knowledge, and thus could answer all their questions. However, when his disciples asked him when the conclusion of the system would be, Jesus himself said: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36 [par|int]; Mark 13:32 [par|int]) If Jesus had said he knew all things and yet did not, that would make him a liar, so the statement of the disciples was conditional. In what way?
They give the answer, saying: "Now you are speaking with plainness, and are uttering no comparison. Now we know that you. . . . do not need to have anyone question you." Thus Jesus, because he knows everything about the things of which he speaks, there is no need to question whether he knows those things or not, and by that it is clear that he was sent from God. Mark 1:22 put it this way: "They were astounded at his way of teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." That is, he was not uncertain about the things he taught. He only taught what was absolutely certain and without self-contradictions.
You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Jesus words do not require a metaphysical connotaion. The context and Jesus' own words show that Jesus is not omniscient.
verse 2 [par|int] says that Jesus receives his authority from the Father. How can he receive authority that already belongs to him? Verse 3 [par|int] distinctly refers to the Father as "the only true God". If only the Father is "the only true God", then obviously the Son is not. If you say that your father is "the only true king", then it means that you are not.
Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? No. It does not say Jesus is God or shares equally in the Father's authority. Immediate context shows subordination to the Father who is "the only true God".
DOES JOHN 20:28 [par|int] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?Why did the apostle Thomas say "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus? (John 20:28 [par|int]) Did he believe that Jesus is God, as Trinitarians and Binitarians claim? There’s a simple solution to the text itself using the method of comparing the grammatical construction to other Scriptures with similar construction.
In other Scriptures where two titles are used in reference to the same person, it never uses the construction that Thomas used here. Instead, those Scriptures use the following construction: “[title] [of prounoun] and [title]” or “[article] [title] and [pronoun] [article] [title]” For example, in 2 Peter, Peter writes, “Our lord and savior, Jesus Christ” two times. (2 Peter 1:11 [par|int]; 3:18 [par|int]) 1 Corinthians 15:24 [par|int] refers to God’s relation to Jesus, saying, “his God and Father.” ([article] [title] and [title]) Speaking of “the Lamb”, Revelation 17:14 [par|int] says: “he is Lord of lords and King of kings.” ([title] [of titles] and [title] [of titles]) Matthew 6:8 [par|int] uses only one pronoun when he says, “God your Father.” ([title] [article] [title] [of pronoun]) That construction has also been used for separate individuals.
However, nowhere do you find the construction “[pronoun] [article] [title] and [pronoun] [article] [title]” in reference to a single individual, place or object. But in other places it uses this construction to undeniably refer to two different people or concepts. Matthew 15:4 [par|int], Mark 7:10 [par|int]; 10:19 [par|int], and Luke 18:20 [par|int] all say, “honor your father and your mother.” Matthew 19:5 [par|int] says, “a man will leave his father and his mother.” John 11:48 [par|int] says "our place and our nation" as two seprate conepts. Acts 21:28 [par|int] says "our people and our law." Thus, its application in the context of Thomas clearly indicates two separate individuals in contrast to the common construction of applying two titles to a single person.
Nowhere else is the double pronoun construction used in regard to a single person, so therefore does not mean it here. This holds in non-Biblical texts as well. Thus, this clearly indicates that Thomas, who was a Jew speaking among Jews in Jerusalem, very clearly meant two different individuals by stating “my Lord and my God”.
Some may try to claim that Revelation 4:11 [par|int] uses this construction because some translations state "our Lord and our God," but it does not. NA-28 shows the constrution as "[article] [title] and [article] [title] [of pronoun]" which when translated is actually, "the Lord and God of us" or "our Lord and God".
Three verses after Thomas' exclamation, John wrote the words, "These have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." (John 20:31 [par|int]) Thus, believing that Jesus is God was not the point of this account.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Standard Koiné Greek grammar demonstrates that it refers to two separate personages. The context also contradicts the Trinitarian interpretation.
Exodus 3:15 [par|int]) So God did not take on a different name. But in the Revelation Jesus says that he has "a new name" after his resurrection. (Revelation 3:12 [par|int]) Therefore he cannot be God.
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The name is "under heaven" and is "given". Also, God's name does not change, but Jesus' name was given at birth and changed after resurrection.
Matthew 6:9-10 [par|int]) His request declared his faith that he had finished his course faithfully and would be resurrected in the end. He was speaking to Jesus in the vision as any of the prophets spoke to angels in their visions. (Daniel 10:8-17 [par|int]) Those prophets were not praying to those angels. His addressing Jesus in that way in the vision was also appropriate because it was Jesus who was going to be the one to resurrect the anointed through the power granted him by his Father. (John 6:40 [par|int])
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Speaking to a personage in a vision is not prayer.
Proverbs 18:4 [par|int]; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11 [par|int]) so too should we expect there to be "the spirit of Jesus". Just as explained in 1 Corinthians, we share the spirit of another by thinking in line with their spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:12, 13 [par|int]; compare 2 Kings 2:15 [par|int]) And Paul further explained that by bringing our thoughts in line with Christ's mind, whom we can come to know, they come in line with Jehovah's thoughts, whose mind we cannot get to know. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16 [par|int])
You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: We share the spirit of another by thinking in line with their spirit. So the apostles simply thought in line with Christ.
Start at Part 1
Coming Soon: Part 12 (5): Is There Proof That Jesus Is God? (Romans to 1 John)