Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ?

Thanks for this info!

Here's some information and definition of the word translated "worship" from the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon

You can find the same information in other Greek lexicons as well

It should be obvious that the word does NOT always mean "to worship as God" ... as in the case of people in Scripture who are said to "worship" Jesus Christ. They were not Trinity dogma indoctrinated and were simply showing reverence to Jesus as the Messiah, as the Son of man, as the Son of God ... but in no instance did anyone of them consider themselves to be worshiping God !! (Quite obviously they knew that God is INVISIBLE ... and they also knew that Jesus in front of them was VISIBLE.

@Wolfgang has already offered a substantive response to your post, so what I'm about to provide will unavoidably have some overlap with his basic arguments.

Some observations:

• Nowhere in the NT does any writer say "Jesus is not God." Then again, nowhere does any writer say "Jesus is not a fruit fly." Does the absence of such language mean Jesus might be a fruit fly? No. In my view, NT writers don't even contemplate using the phrase "Jesus is not God" because the thought that he might be God in the first place doesn't occur to them. Why declare something not to be true when you have no reason to believe it's true?
• I agree with Wolfgang's interpretation of the "worship" of Jesus that happens in the Gospels.

As to the verses specified in your OP:

• John 9.16 - As Wolfgang noted, the Pharisees 1) refer to Jesus as "a man," 2) say only that Jesus is not "from" God. They make no claim that Jesus is God. Note that they accuse him of working on the Sabbath, something someone "from" God - or any godly "man" - would not do.
• John 9.33 - The man born blind to whom Jesus has returned sight contends that Jesus is from God; he does not contend that Jesus IS God. We get a clear sense of that in John 9.31, where the healed man appears to assert that God has heard Jesus because Jesus has worshiped God and obeyed God's will. In my view, the verse's distinction between God and Jesus is undeniable.
• 1 John 4.3 - Here we get a different deployment of the "from God" imagery. John says a person who does not acknowledge that Jesus was a real person is not "from God." John clearly does not mean that people who DO acknowledge Jesus are God; rather, they are "from God."
• 2 John 9 - Another verse concerning what must have been a controversy over whether Jesus was a physical human being. At stake for people who accept the reality of Jesus is a relationship with both God (the "Father") and Jesus (the "Son") [See 2 John 3, where John defines God as "the Father" and Jesus as "the Son"]
• Daniel 7.13 / John 9.35-41 - Notice that "son of man" in the Daniel verse is NOT capitalized, adding credence to my contention that the one referenced in this verse is NOT a deity; he is rather like a human... to whom God gives dominion and glory and a kingdom. There is NOTHING in the Daniel verse that suggests the "son of man" is also God. That role belongs solely to the "Ancient of Days." Note also that in John 6.27-29, Jesus makes clear that the Son of Man is the one on whom God has set God's seal (v.27), and that the "work of God" is to believe in the one God has sent, who is Jesus. (v.29) The one sent is not the same as the one who does the sending.

With due respect, there is nothing in any of these verses, or any of the verses you cite in your subsequent post, that contends Jesus is God. Quite the contrary, in my view, the verses by and large support the view that Jesus is NOT God (he is, for example, the "Son of God").

I strongly disagree. For example - and there are literally scores of verses I could cite - the text from which I'm preaching my Easter Sunday sermon is the John 20 story of Mary's encounter with the risen Jesus. In John 20.17, Jesus tells Mary not to cling to him, and to tell the disciples that he is "ascending to (his) Father and (the disciples') Father, to (his) God and (the disciples') God.”

What meaning can we take from that verse as to how Jesus understands the "Father" other than that God is "Father," that he (Jesus) is NOT that God, and God is "Father" to the disciples at least in SOME way(s) just as God is "Father" to Jesus. Further, Jesus says that his "God" is also the disciples' God? How can that mean anything other than that Jesus does NOT believe himself to be God? If Jesus believed himself to be God, why would he tell the disciples that he expected to ascend to the one who was God to both himself and the disciples?

Wolfgang and I share a practice of dealing directly and without evasion or distraction with the verses/passages others propose in our Trinity exchanges. We have done so here in this thread with the many verses you have cited. Please return the kindness now by dealing directly and without evasion or distraction with the just two verses/passages:

John 20.17, ESV

17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”

Acts 2.22-24, ESV

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

In John 20, what does Jesus mean by ascending to his and the disciples' God? In Acts 2, what does Peter mean when he calls Jesus a "man" God had raised, through whom God had done "mighty works and wonders and signs"? Don't both of those verses/passages give far more support to the contention that Jesus was NOT God than to the contention that Jesus WAS God?

The passing reference you make at the end regarding the relationship of worship and Jesus brings to mind a few thoughts I would like to share briefly.   

A quick aside: the majority of uses of the lexeme προσκυνέω in the LXX have to do with worship of God or that of false god’s. I mention this, seeing that the LXX was the translation widely used within the second temple period and early Christianity, the majority of OT quotations by NT writers are from LXX renderings, and that word usage in the NT would be most naturally informed by that of the LXX.  

However, worship in it’s broadest scope entails more than whether the προσκυνέω word group is used in a text and how it is to be defined, as there is the necessary recognition of other elements involved under the category worship; for example, we would realize that the Lord’s Supper, singing of hymns/praise or the offering of prayer either to, or in the name of Jesus – are, in fact, exhibiting worship.  

By way of illustration, church services today begin by hymns of praise and prayer to God and Jesus – this is considered the beginning and initial part of a worship service, with sermon and prayer concluding this worship. I would say, from New Testament and early church documents, that this was the similar case for the early Christians as well.  

From historical writings – mid-third century to early second century:

1. Origen (Contra Celsus CHAP. LXVII. c. 248), who says:  “We sing hymns to the Most High alone, and His Only Begotten, who is the Word and God;”  (Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity, History Of The Christian Church 2; Accordance electronic ed. 8 vols.; (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), paragraph 7456.)

2. “For we worship this one, who is the Son of God,” (“τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ θεοῦ προσκυνοῦμεν,”) (Mpolycarp 17:3 AF) (c. 157))

3. Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (c. 111) excerpt:  “the Christians assembled on an appointed day (Sunday) at sunrise, sang responsively a song to Christ as to God” (Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity, History Of The Christian Church 2; Accordance electronic ed. 8 vols.; (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), paragraph 6151.)

From the New Testament – middle to late first century:

1. “And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, (καὶ προσευξάμενοι εἶπαν· σὺ κύριε (NA28)) who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen” (Acts 1:24 ESV)

(προσεύχομαι impf. προσηυχόμην; fut. προσεύξομαι; 1 aor. προσηυξάμην (on the augment s. W-H., App. 162; Tdf., Prol. 121; B-D-F §67, 1; Mlt-H. 191f) mid. dep. to petition deity, pray (“προσεύχομαι,” BDAG, 879.))

2. “And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, (καὶ ἐλιθοβόλουν τὸν Στέφανον ἐπικαλούμενον καὶ λέγοντα· κύριε Ἰησοῦ, (NA28)) receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.” (Acts 7:59–60 ESV)

(1. to call upon deity for any purpose (‘invoke’ Hdt. 2, 39; 3, 8) to call upon, call out 1 Cl 39:7 (Job 5:1). (“ἐπικαλέω,” BDAG, 373.))

3. “While they were worshiping the Lord (Λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ κυρίῳ (NA28)) and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”” (Acts 13:2 ESV)

(λειτουργέω; λειτουργία, ας f: to perform religious rites as part of one’s religious duties or as the result of one’s role — ‘to perform religious duties, to carry out religious rites. (“λειτουργέω λειτουργία,” L&N, 533.))

4. “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come! 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.” (1 Cor. 16:22–24 ESV) 

Written within these early years of Christianity (c. 50-248) the above examples clearly demonstrate worship, under the fullest sense, being given to our Lord Jesus – a worship that is appropriate for Deity alone. 

So then, Peter was wrong, when he stated that the Lord Jesus was A MAN (cp. Acts 2:22 - "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: ") ... and so was Paul (cp. 1 Tim 2:5 - "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Actually, none of the 4 passages you list from the NT scriptures says anything about people worshiping Jesus Christ AS GOD (DEITY) ... only YOUR interpretation of certain word meanings without considering the context of the passage and other very clear passages - such as the two I mentioned above - appears to give the idea about Jesus is Deity/God which you have in your mind.

The very plain truth of Scripture is that a man can NOT be God, and that God is NOT a man. Scripture is also very plain regarding the truth that Christ Jesus is A MAN. Simple, very simple ...

I don't know what this paragraph means or what function in your post you intend it to serve. I hope you'll explain.

My point was that there was no more reason for NT writers to issue the specific declaration that Jesus was not God than for them to issue a denial that Jesus was a fruit fly because none of those writers had reason to believe Jesus was God. For them he was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Son of Man, but NOT God.

In Isaiah 7.14, the Hebrew word is "almah," which means a young woman of marriageable age. The word does NOT necessarily mean "virgin." Matthew's Gospel collects its Greek word - translated "virgin" - from the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew.

Also, in its own context (esp. Isaiah 7.16-17) it's clear that the child to whom the prophet refers is a child who already has been born or will soon be born: By the time the child knows the difference between right and wrong, the two nations King Ahaz fears - some 700 years BEFORE the time of Jesus - will be destroyed.

As for John 1, we have been down that road many times in these forums. In my view, John says it is the Logos - God's grand idea or plan for humanity - which became flesh in Jesus.

In my view, the fundamental distinction between God and Jesus is that God is God and Jesus isn't. Jesus is the Christ, the chosen one of God, the one whom God raised and glorified in the resurrection. Peter makes the distinction clear in Acts 2.36 (ESV)...

• "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

God made Jesus Lord and Christ. The distinction between the two in my view is clear.

Philippians 2.9-11 says this...

• "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

God exalted Jesus and gave him the name that is above every other name. A clear distinction.

An analogous distinction is made in 1 Timothy 2.5...

• "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Jesus is not God; he is the mediator between God and humanity.

I contend that I showed in my previous post that the "son of man" reference in Daniel 7 is NOT to a deity. In the proper context of that verse, the one called "Ancient of Days" is the deity. I don't see in your response any engagement with that textual observation.

In John 6.30-40, we find...

• John 6.38 - Jesus says he has come NOT to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him. If Jesus thought himself to be God, how could his personal will have been any different from God's will?

I'm a big fan of common ground in CD forum exchanges!

To my reading, there is nothing anywhere in 2 John that contradicts the distinction between God and Jesus made in the third verse of 2 John. Also, I find nothing in the letter that supports your view of a shared "essence" between "distinct voices" of God. Where in the letter do you find support for your view?

No. What "prevents (my) recognition of Jesus being God" are the NT texts to which my posts in this and many other threads have referred. Your citation of verses to insinuate that my heart is hardened and/or my ears/eyes are shut to the truth is not appropriate in these forums where the expectation is that posters will "criticize ideas, not people."

With due respect, John 20.17 says more than your summary gives it credit for. In the verse, the resurrected Jesus says he's ascending to his AND the disciples' God, to his AND the disciples' Father. That is, he is in the SAME relationship with the God to whom he's ascending as are the disciples, and the SAME relationship with the Father to whom he's ascending as are the disciples. God is Jesus' God JUST AS God is the disciples' God! Given that language, I believe it's not possible for the resurrected Jesus to believe himself to be God.

Again I contend that your assessment of a biblical text fails to give sufficient weight to the fullness of its content. In Acts 2.22-24 (cf. Acts 4.11) Peter says...

• Jesus was "a man" attested to by God through the "mighty works and wonders and signs" God did through him. (Acts 2.22) If God did something THROUGH Jesus, doesn't that make Jesus the conduit, not the creator, of divine action?
• Jesus' crucifixion was part of "the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" - NOT Jesus' plan (Acts 2.23)
• "God" raised Jesus. (Acts 2.24)

The distinction Peter makes between Jesus and God in my view is crystal clear. There is NO sense in ANYTHING Peter says in his Acts 2 sermon to indicate that he believes Jesus is God. If you believe Peter DOES express such belief, please cite the verse(s).

Intimacy WITH God is not the same as identification AS God. Nowhere in the Matthew 11 passage you cite does Jesus claims identification AS God.

1. Jesus did NOT ask his disciples "how his Deity was perceived." He asked them who others and who they themselves said he was.
2. Jesus credits Peter's discernment of Jesus' being the Christ and the Living God's son to his "Father," which I believe is Jesus' most common reference to God.

@Bill_Coley

Thank you for your thoughts.  

Whether Jesus did or did not believe himself to be God is not an issue I commented on in my post regarding worship.

So then, after Jesus’ glorification he became deity, and any worship from that time was therefore appropriate and to be considered deity worship – Is this your meaning?

Obviously, I don’t agree that the original language used changed meaning at the glorification of Jesus. It should be remembered that the text of the NT was written post-ascension and post-formation of the early NT church.

The joy of agreement! 😀

Because I read your previous post - the one that ended with the sentence, "Written within these early years of Christianity (c. 50-248) the above examples clearly demonstrate worship, under the fullest sense, being given to our Lord Jesus – a worship that is appropriate for Deity alone." (emphasis added) - to be an indirect affirmation of Jesus' divinity, I included in my response the issue of Jesus' self-understanding of his relationship with God. If you believe the worship given to Jesus in the Gospels is an act reserved for deity only, then in my view, whether he believed himself to be God matters.

This is a fascinating question raised by the imprecision of my previous post. I believe the exalted Jesus has a role in the kingdom of God unlike anyone's in human history. I believe he sits at God's right hand. I think that's a form of divinity, but not to the point of his being God. In my view, never has Jesus been nor will ever be God. God is God. Jesus was, is, and will always be God's chosen one.

I respect your point of view.

While the NT text was written post-resurrection - which no doubt contributes to the tone and direction of its approach to Jesus - its subject matter is often about pre-resurrection events. Notice also that though Peter preaches in Acts 2 AFTER the resurrection, he STILL makes a clear distinction between the "man" Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead.

Amen to that!!😀

So you agree that Jesus is the Son OF God and he is NOT God, the Son !

My point has consistently been all along that Jesus is the Son of God, it was YOU who quoted the verse with the words of the soldiers as seeming proof for your belief that Jesus is God, the Son and as if they had said or meant "God, the Son".

Thank you for clarifying that "God's Son" is not the same in your understanding as "God, the Son" ... which seemed to me to be what you were advocating.

Then by all means, please work through the four texts I provided and provide your results of those texts for discussion. My point is that Jesus is receiving worship (as defined under worship) in those texts which is afforded to only deity.

The weight of the internal textual witness of Acts 1:1-24 is in favor of Lord referring to Jesus, as opposed to God being the referent.  

God is mentioned once Acts 1:3, Father is mentioned twice Acts 1:4, 7, Lord Jesus is mentioned once Acts 1:21, Lord is mentioned twice Acts 1:6, 24, and Jesus is mentioned five times Acts 1:1, 11, 14, 16, 22. Clearly then, chapter one is concerned with Jesus as the person of interest. 

The Lord Jesus (v. 21) and Jesus (v. 22) are in the closest proximity to Lord in 1:24; as well as, the same verb chosen (Acts 1:2 – ἐξελέξατο, Acts 1:24 – ἐξελέξω) having been used of Jesus choosing his disciples in v. 2. Moreover, Lord is only used in conjunction with Jesus in v. 21.

I, as many others, therefore regard κύριε (Acts 1:24) to have Jesus in view.

I think that's a moot question because the texts of which you ask it seem to make clear that "Lord" is NOT a term for God.

• Acts 2.36: Peter says God MADE Jesus Lord and Christ. It makes no sense to contend that God made Jesus God. How could God ever be "made"?
• In keeping with the message of Acts 2.36, in Philippians 2.9-11 Paul says God exalted Jesus and GAVE ("bestowed upon," ESV) him the name that is above all others, so that knees will bow and tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord.

Bottom Line: The glory of Jesus is glory given to him by God, which argues convincingly that Jesus is not God because the giver of glory is by definition distinct from the one who receives it.

I'm not raising a freedom of will issue; I'm raising a content of will issue.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus' will is clearly that he NOT have to accept the cup of suffering he believes awaits him. But that's an outcome that's equally clearly contrary to God's will for him. After acknowledging his personal will, Jesus surrenders to God's will ("...nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." Matthew 26.39c, ESV) How could one who was God EVER have had a will that was at odds with God's will? Isn't it theologically impossible for God's will to be different from...God's will?

Another view is that the God who, according to Peter in Acts 2.36, made Jesus Lord and Christ, could make Jesus "the Father's Son."

Further, the grammar of the verse, in my view, makes a clear distinction between God - who is Father - and Jesus Christ - who is God's (the Father's) Son.

In my previous response to you, I asked for clarification about this paragraph which you had included in a prior post:

I'm still asking you to clarify the meaning and function of those words in our engagement in this thread.

I'd also very much appreciate your response to several other contentions I made in my previous post to you:

• The meaning and historical context of the word "almah" in Isaiah 7.14
• The distinction between God and Jesus made in 1 Timothy 2.5 (the "man Jesus" is the mediator between God and humanity)
• My contention that the "son of man" reference in Daniel 7 is NOT to a deity. In the proper context of that verse, the one called "Ancient of Days" is the deity.
• John 20.17, in which the resurrected Jesus asks Mary to tell the disciples that he is ascending to his AND their God, and to his AND their Father.
• Acts 2.22-24 (cf. Acts 4.11) in which Peter says God did mighty works THROUGH Jesus, making Jesus the conduit, not the creator, of divine action

Unfortunately, theologically it seems possible to produce the gravest of contradictions and declare such to be the true doctrine .... some theologies appear to think that "the more far out their ideas the more spiritual they are". Usually, such then resort to the argument that our human logic is not big enough to understand and it must be understood spiritually ... of course, they sweeü under the carpet the fact that their contradiction theology also is only the product of some human theologian's brains.

Hmn ... so you claim that Jesus is the One Who alone is true God? And I thought Jesus himself had declared that his Father alone was the true God (in otherwords, he did not consider himself to be the true God!! ) .. cp John 17:3

Only,Jesus never received or accepted to be worshiped AS GOD.

Why? Very simple => Jesus and those who showed reverence and paid homage (worshiped) to him knew that he was NOT God

See above ... as I have mentioned before, for almost 40 years I worship a particular woman. In case you or someone else wonders, this does NOT make her a false God nor does it make me an idolator.

• Acts 4.10 - let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well.

Jesus was crucified and died ... God was not crucified nor can God die. God then raised Jesus from the dead ... God did not raise God (Himself) from the dead, nor did an alive God raise a dead God from the dead.

And yet, this is exactly what Trinity believing people believe and even teach ... contradicting flat out what the Scriptures teach in this verse and many others.

• Romans 5.15-17 - But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. 16 And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.

Could the passage from Rom 5 be any more plain and clear in declaring that Jesus Christ was a man, a human being ...and NOT God??

The truth of Scripture is in plain and clear view and very, very simple. And yet, certain theologies flat out contradict the simple and plain truth rather boldly and draw multitudes of followers after them with claims that they are teaching truth ... and millions are following them ... why? perhaps because they follow along by sort of "blind faith"???