Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ?

AN ADDENDUM:

The New Testament portion of my daily Bible reading took me to John 7 today, in which John quotes Jesus as follows:

• 16 So Jesus told them, “My message is not my own; it comes from God who sent me. 17 Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own. 18 Those who speak for themselves want glory only for themselves, but a person who seeks to honor the one who sent him speaks truth, not lies.

Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Jn 7:16–18). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

Had Jesus believed himself to be God, this was a perfect opportunity for him to claim co-ownership or at least a role in the creation of the message he's brought to the world. But he specifically rejects any role in the message. His message comes from God, he says, not from himself. He says the discerning will be able to tell whether his message is his own or God's, and implies that the truth he speaks honors God, who sent him. As I have contended multiple times, except in rare circumstances, the one sent is not the one who sends.

In these John 7 verses, every indication Jesus gives as to whether he sees himself as God is that he does NOT see himself as God. So a question begged by these verses is how can Jesus be God if the message he gives in these verses is true?

@CM said: why hold on to Jesus, if he is just a man? Is Jesus like Mary or is Mary like Jesus? CM

Because Jesus is the Christ, God's anointed for the ministry of bridging the gap between God and humanity.

I don't know what this question means. Please say some more.

Jesus and Mary were both human beings, so in that regard, I guess, they were "like" each other. Jesus was Mary's son, so surely some similarities passed along through the family tree. Other than those comments, CM, I have to wait for your elaboration of the question before I can say more.

@Bill_Coley posted:

Bill,

Is Jesus alive today?

Is Mary alive today?

Is Jesus in heaven today?

Is Mary in heaven today?

Do people pray in Jesus name?

Does the Bible teaches praying to Mary?

Do people pray in Mary's name?

Is Jesus the Messiah, our Redeemer?

Is Mary the Messiah, our Redeemer

Did Mary existed before Abraham?

Is Joseph the biological father of Jesus?

Mary is no Jesus! CM

[NOTE: Our posts/responses to each other are reaching impractical lengths!]

In my view, the distinction between Jesus and God in Acts 2-29-33 is clear. Peter describes Jesus as the "descendant" of David (Acts 2.30) whom God "raised up" (Acts 2.32) and "exalted" to God's right hand (Acts 2.33) one who "received" the Holy Spirit from the Father. That's a human being (David's descendant) whom God raised, exalted, and blessed. In my view, that's NOT a description of God.

In Acts 2.36, Peter says God MADE Jesus "Lord." If, as you propose, "Lord" in that verse means God, then Peter's word is that God made Jesus God. I don't see how that's theologically possible.

What you as a modern-day follower of Jesus believe is a "reasonable basis" for Peter to believe Jesus is God deserves attention and respect, but it does not change the fact that Peter does NOT express a belief that Jesus is God. In fact, as I have shown in multiple posts, his words are most reasonably interpreted as a declaration that Jesus is NOT God.

No. My "BOTTOM LINE" reflects the outcome of my encounter with biblical texts, both in their original contexts (the passages of which they're a part) and the wider biblical context (the broader NT and OT witness).

In my view, Jesus' place at God's right hand is the result of God's exalting Jesus. See Philippians 2.5-11.

God IS the only savior, the one who "made" Jesus Lord and Christ - that is, God used Jesus as the conduit for God's saving grace. Paul makes this clear in Romans 3.21-26... (NLT; emphasis added)

21 But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. 22 We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.  23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he makes sinners right in his sight when they believe in Jesus. 

John 11.45 does NOT say people believed Jesus was God; it says people believed in Jesus - likely believed in his identity as a conduit for God's power. The same dynamic arises in Acts 9 with Peter's raising of Dorcas. Note your own take on Peter's act: You claim Peter followed "the example of Jesus." I agree. In raising Dorcas Peter too was a conduit for God's raising power.

God works "through" people throughout the Bible. For example, Abram (Genesis 12.3) and Solomon (1 Kings 6.12).

There is no indication in Acts 10 or anywhere else that Peter believes Jesus is God. Instead, there is every indication that Peter believes God works through Jesus. Therefore, when Peter calls Jesus "Lord" he must mean something other than God. That's the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn, in my view, when Peter says God made Jesus "Lord and Christ." (Acts 2.36)

In my view, your conception of free willed, "intricately linked voices" is rhetorically captivating but without biblical foundation. I respect the creative word choice, but see no biblical warrant for your assertion that God has multiple, free-willed voices.

Jesus is saying that his will is aligned completely, perfectly, with God's.

Note the distinction between God and Jesus in that verse: The confession of Jesus as Lord produces glory to God.

What Paul experienced in synagogue cannot replace the clear meaning of the words he wrote to the Philippians, the Romans, and others.

You offer a "different" interpretation of Luke 18.19, but in my view, not the interpretation that is most reasonable in its particular context or the broader Gospel context, in which Jesus almost universally makes a clear distinction between himself and God.

Yes. Jesus tells the woman that he is the Messiah. He does NOT tell her that he is God. In John 4.34 (NLT) Jesus makes that very distinction: (emphasis added)

34 Then Jesus explained: “My nourishment comes from doing the will of God, who sent me, and from finishing his work.

There is no indication in either of the Matthew passages or the John 9 passage that the "worship" offered is of Jesus as God. As is evident from an examination of the words and settings of those and other passages in various translations, the most reasonable interpretation of the word "worship" is as an act kneeling in respect and gratitude. I acknowledge the challenge of John 20.28, a verse which I have dealt with in other posts, but don't have time for now.

I see no biblical warrant for what you refer to as "implied" and "implicit" assertions of Jesus' divinity, principally because the Gospels are filled with direct and explicit assertions of a clear distinction between Jesus and God, most coming from the mouth of Jesus himself. If the choice is between the direct and explicit and the implied and implicit, I will choose the direct and explicit. In addition, from the lack of biblical support you offer for your analysis in this regard, I propose that what you demonstrate are your own inferences, not Jesus' implications.

My point was and remains that references to "voices" - which we apparently agree Peter does not make - do not and cannot overcome the simple fact that Peter calls Jesus the "man" whom God raised. To my reading of your posts in our exchange, you have yet to respond directly to that fact.

My point in response to which you provided these comments was that the full context of Romans 5 makes clear Paul's distinction between Jesus and God. Do you have any response to the substance of my summary of Paul's Christology as presented in Romans 5?

As for 2 Corinthians 4, note that Paul says Jesus is the "exact likeness" (NLT) or "image" of God (ESV); (2 Cor 4.4) Paul does NOT say Jesus IS God.

For comparison, note that in Genesis 1, God creates humanity in God's "image," and that in Ephesians 4.24 (ESV), the writer commands his readers to put on "the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." Conclusion? Jesus' being the "exact likeness" or the "image" of God does NOT mean that Jesus is God. Rather, it means Jesus better, more completely reflects God than any of other human - particularly as the resurrected and glorified Christ.

You're welcome to the judgments of your choice regarding what you believe is my spiritual blindness evidenced by my take on the meaning of the word "through." In my view, however, such judgments are inappropriate in forums among whose guiding principles is that posters will "criticize ideas, not people." Hence, I have no comments to offer about your spiritual vision as evidenced in your take on the meaning of the word "through."

There is no indication in Paul's NT writings that "contemporary synagogue usage" should affect our take on the the clear meaning of his frequently repeated view of a clear distinction between Jesus and God.

And again you comment on my spiritual vision. For the reasons I just stated, I will not offer comments about yours.

Hebrews 3.1-4 describes Jesus as one God "appointed," (Heb 3.2) one who deserves more glory than Moses. (Heb 3.3). The chapter does NOT describe Jesus as God. What about the "son"? That is Jesus' role - he is God's appointed/anointed son. (Matthew 17.5)

Thank you for sharing part of your personal journey. I honor the candor of your witness, a fact that does not, however, overrule my objection to your commentaries about me and my journey. Those commentaries are inappropriate in these forums. Dispute my ideas all you like; leave my spiritual vision and standing out of our exchange.

The question I asked was whether the prophet Isaiah was wrong when he predicted to King Ahaz the birth of the child as a recent or soon-arriving event. In my view, given the clarity of the historical context of the prophet's word to the king, the 2 Peter 1 text is not germane.

In my view, the text gives us no reason to believe the prophet thought there would any such time period before the fulfillment of his prophecy.

Are you suggesting that in Isaiah's prophecy to Ahaz there is reason to believe Isaiah didn't understand the meaning of his prophecy of the deserted lands of the two nations Ahaz feared? If so, where do you find that reason?

Thanks for your response, but I still don't know the answer to my question. Was the prophet wrong when he predicted to King Ahaz that before the child whose birth he foresaw knew how to choose right from wrong, the lands of the two nations he feared, Israel and Syria, would be deserted? As your formulate your response, recall that in Isaiah 7.7-8, the prophet says the invasion from the two countries will not happen, and that Israel will be destroyed within 65 years of his prophetic word. Was the prophet wrong when he predicted Israel's destruction - by which time the child will know right from wrong - within 65 years?

I take your point about God's intentions in prophetic statements. In the case of the Isaiah 7 prophecy, however, its historical setting almost requires a conclusion that the prophet was wrong if Jesus was the only fulfillment of his prophecy God had in mind.

I disagree with your conclusion that it's challenging to focus solely on ideas. All that's needed is a will to do so, and the proper word choice.

If I don't refer to your spiritual vision - to the question of whether you're "blind" - then I am in no danger of commenting on your spiritual vision. If I refer only to the ideas, analysis, exegesis, observations, and conclusions you include in your posts, and then in my reply respond ONLY to those ideas, analysis, exegesis, observations, and conclusions, WITHOUT extrapolating from your points of view into commentaries about you, your faith, or your spiritual vision, then I am at no risk of violating the "criticize ideas, not people" directive.

Bottom line: In my view, we simply have to decide to constrain the scope of our comments to posters' ideas. It's a matter of choice, not challenge.

Your search criteria and results coordinate to make my point: In most cases, the "worship" offered to Jesus in the Gospels is in the form of kneeling, not divine adoration. There is no sense in most of applicable instances that people kneel because they think Jesus is God. They kneel because they have a need or are grateful for what Jesus has done for them. In my view, that's not "worship" of God.

We read the verses differently. I see no indication in the cited verses that people worship Jesus as God. They "worship" (kneel) in need and out of desperation (the leper and the Syrophoenician woman) or gratitude (the man born blind).

As I pointed out earlier in our exchange, Jesus seems clearly to dispute any identification of himself as God in Luke 18.19, when in response to the adjective "good" he questions why the man would call him good when only God is good. I find no textual basis for the alternative interpretation of that response which you offered at the time I raised it.

In my view, Jesus does not receive worship as God, first and foremost because he does not believe himself to be God, but also because those offering the "worship" in the vast majority of instances offer no indication that they are responding to deity; rather, they are responding to need or gratitude.

Your shortened post does not include responses to several of what I consider to be important points. I understand the reasons for your post reduction, but ask for a direct response to the question I've asked you several times in various forms: When Isaiah predicted that Israel - one of the two nations plotting against Judah at the time - would be destroyed before the child whose birth he proclaimed to King Ahaz in Isaiah 7.14 would know the difference between right and wrong, AND that said destruction of Israel would happen within 65 years of his prophetic word, (Isaiah 7.8) was the prophet right? Did that specific prophecy come true within 65 years of his prophetic word to Ahaz?

Aside from seeking that response from you, I think it's fair to say that we see these issues differently. I am convinced as a matter of faith that Jesus is not and does not see himself as God. You are convinced as a matter of faith that Jesus is and does see himself as God. So be it. The Body of Christ remains as strong. vibrant, and essential as ever despite our disagreement, Glory to God!

Once again the Scriptures you cite make my point.

Notice the context of this word from Jesus: In Matthew 4.9 (cf LK 4.7) the devil offers Jesus the kingdoms of the earth if he will worship him (the devil). In response to that offer Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6.13.

In effect, then, the devil says, "Worship me!" and in response Jesus says, "Scripture tells me to worship only God, and that's what I will do."

Your texts offer another clear, inescapable distinction that Jesus made between himself and God: Jesus sees himself as the worshiper, and God as the one to be worshiped.

I see little textual support for the proposition that Jesus uses the term "Son of Man" to refer to himself as God. He uses the term to describe his human self, and an apocalyptic figure, but I can't find support for the view that by calling himself that he means to call himself God.

As I noted earlier in our exchange: 1) I don't think the prophet Isaiah countenanced a fulfillment of his prophecy to Ahaz as something that would occur 700 years later; 2) I believe Matthew found a new fulfillment of the Isaianic prophecy in the birth of Jesus.

In my daily Bible reading, the Gospels part of which currently has me in John, I continue to find support for my view that Jesus is not God. Thursday's reading, for example, included John 16.25-32. In John 16.31, Jesus asks the disciples, "Do you now believe?" What was it that they had just claimed to believe? That Jesus "came from God." (John 16.30) NOT that Jesus WAS God, but that Jesus had come from God, a claim Jesus makes of himself on John 16.27-28. One who COMES FROM God can't BE God, just as one SENT BY God can't BE God.

Nowhere in John 9 does the man born blind claim to worship Jesus as God. As I explained in a previous post, Jesus uses the term "Son of Man" in multiple ways to refer to himself, most often as a human being, and on occasion, as an apocalyptic figure. None of his uses of the term, in my view, reports a belief that he sees himself as God.

It's worth a moment to look at John 9 more broadly. The chapter begins with the disciples' asking Jesus about the cause of the man's blindness. To introduce the question, they refer to Jesus as "rabbi." (John 9.2) John himself tells us that "rabbi" means teacher. (John 1.38) In our exchange, you have repeatedly referred to the "contemporary synagogue usage" of terms. What was the "contemporary synagogue usage" of the term "rabbi"? I propose it referred to a human teacher, not a divine one.

Then in John 9.3-4, Jesus makes two points critical to our understanding of his self-identification:

1. Due to the man's blindness, what Jesus calls "the works of God" will be "displayed in him." (John 9.3)
2. Jesus says he and his disciples ("we") must "work" those works of God; he identifies God as "him who sent [him]."

So Jesus says he and his disciples must work the works of the God who sent him. Jesus does NOT say he must work God's works alone, or that they must work Jesus' own works, either of which would have offered a bit of rhetorical shelter to the possibility that Jesus considered himself to be God. As the verse reads, however, the clear meaning of his words - which make NO reference or suggestion that he considers himself to be God - is that he is doing the work of the God who sent him. (see John 5.19, where Jesus says he can do "nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing," and John 5.30, where Jesus repeats the contention that he can do nothing on his own, and defends the justness of his judgment on that grounds that he doesn't "seek" his own will, but rather the will of "him who sent [him]." If he saw himself as God, how could his will have been anything other than God's will? Recall his Gethsemane surrender of will in which he prayed "not my will, but your will be done") I respect your interpretations to the contrary, but in my view, the meaning of these verses could not be more clear: Jesus does NOT understand himself to be God.

In my view, you have not demonstrated that Jesus received "worship for God," which means there is no sin against God.

Did Jesus need a savior? Interesting question. I think the textual record is that he believed he had one. (Lk 23.46)

Did Jesus inherit sin? As much as any human being. Did he submit to the sin within himself the way other humans do? No.

Recall that in the original fulfillment of the Isianic prophecy, the child born ALSO was to be named "Immanuel," a name that meant "God with us." Do you also claim THAT child was God? I see no reason to believe the prophet wanted us to think so. I believe Isaiah wants his readers to know that the child's birth is a sign of God's continuing presence with them. Jesus, too, is a sign of God's continuing presence with God's people. The name "immanuel" in that context does NOT mean God was born in Bethlehem.

The texts I've quoted speak for themselves. Consider Jesus' word found in John 5.19,30, which I cited earlier in this post. Jesus says he can do nothing without the Father who sent him. That MUST mean he does not believe he is the one who sent him. My point is simple interpretation of Bible verse word choice, supported by rudimentary logic.

Your analogy appears strong on first reading, but in my view loses power upon notice that what you propose is not specifically analogous to the argument I make. I claim the one entity Jesus is not the same as the one entity (God) who sent him. Your analogy contends that the one entity Jesus can be part of some larger entity (a family). But such is NOT the content or meaning of Jesus' words about himself and the one who sent him. He says he (a single entity) is not the one (single entity) who sent him.

What about Jesus as "Son"? I see no indication that Jesus believes that as "Son" he is deity. The textual support for such a claim is just not there.

And I feel compelled to note that you did not respond to what I think is powerful support for my claim about Jesus and God. It was the following analysis of the "worship" reference in the temptation scene which you had raised, analysis I offered in my previous post:

I hope you'll address those issues directly in your next post.

My read of the John 9 scene is that Jesus asks the man whether he believes in his (Jesus') power and authority over disease, power and authority granted to him by God. After all, it is Jesus whom the man will credit as the one directly responsible his healing. Note, however, that the man knows Jesus didn't heal him on his own. In John 9.33, the man tells the Pharisees that Jesus is clearly "from God." The man doesn't assert that Jesus IS God! He contends that Jesus is FROM God.

One other clue that the man doesn't believe he's confessing Jesus' deity when he proclaims belief in the Son of Man: In John 9.25 the man tells the Pharisees that he doesn't know whether Jesus is a sinner. If he believed Jesus were God, there would be no question as to whether Jesus was a sinner.

As for Jesus' receiving worship. There is no indication in the text that Jesus received the man's response as worship of him as deity. As profound respect and gratitude? Yes! But there's no indication of worship as deity.

I suppose all of our comments in some way express our faith views, but what matters more is that my "proposal" reflects an accurate reading of John 1.38, in which the writer defines "rabbi" to mean "teacher."

Two words used in the same order in different locations do not necessarily have the same meaning. The meaning of "I am" in the declaration "I am the light of the world" is a statement of personal identity, much as the phrases I use: I am a pastor. I am a husband. Those identifications are VERY different from God's personal naming "I AM" statement in Exodus.

We disagree as to whether the three worshiped Jesus as God. All kneeling is not worship, just as all worship is not kneeling.

In my view, there is no textual support for your view. There is no indication that Jesus wants the devil to worship HIM (Jesus) as God. I accept that you see such a statement in the verse "in essence," but I see no such indication whatsoever. The most obvious reading of the text is that the devil wants Jesus to worship him, but Jesus is willing only to worship the Lord, HIS own God.

Look at the second temptation, in response to which Jesus says you can't "test the Lord your God." Clearly, Jesus is NOT the God who's being tested by the devil's temptation, which is "Jesus, throw yourself off this temple, and God will send angels to protect you." Jesus tells the devil he won't test his (Jesus') God. Yet ANOTHER clear distinction Jesus draws between himself and God.

Yes, they should be in the Bible. I read Jeremiah 36.30 as a final judgment against Judah for Jehoiakim's rejection of the prophet's oracle. Basically, the nation - and its leaders - is going to get it in the neck. I don't see the text as reflective of the nation or its legacy 600 years into the future.

My daily Bible reading regularly leads me to texts that support my view of the relationship between Jesus and God. I've made many mentions and written extensive analyses of Peter's Acts 2 sermon. Today the NT portion of my daily reading took me through Acts 4, in which Peter and company defend themselves before authorities after their healing of a lame man in Acts 3.

First, here's Acts 4.7-12: (emphasis added)

Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Ac 4:7–12). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

What better time to declare that Jesus is God! But that's NOT what Peter does. Instead, I contend, Peter offers a clear and undeniable distinction between God and the man God raised from the dead.

Now here's Acts 4.23-31: (emphasis added)

Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Ac 4:23–31). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

In their prayer, the believers twice declare Jesus to be God's "holy servant," the one God "anointed." Further, they ask God for great things to be done through the name of God's "holy servant."

So in Acts 4, Jesus is a man God raised from the dead, and God's "anointed" "holy servant" through whose name believers want God to do mighty acts. In my view, that is NOT a description of one the believers thought was God. That's a description of one the believers thought was God's chosen human servant. My question to you: How do you reconcile these pronouncements from Acts 4 with your view that Jesus was God?