Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
I've refrained from responding to this post, as I wanted to see where it went, and more importantly, what conclusions were drawn. Putting aside any previous differences we may have had...
There is no arguing that Jesus was (at the very least) a "good man", or "wise teacher", etc...but was he in fact God incarnate on earth?
Josh McDowell has addressed this topic much more eloquently than I could ever hope to, so rather than try to put this all into my own words, I'll let him explain it.
Yes, this is very long, but please take the time to read it.
The Trilemma--Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
Jesus' distinct claims of being God incarnate eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Him as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
C.S. Lewis, who was a professor at Cambridge university and once an agnostic, understood this issue clearly. He writes:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who is merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg__or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your own choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or somethign worse."
He goes on to say:
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a Demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Jesus claimed to be God. He didn't leave any other option open. His claim must be either true or false, so it is something that should be given serious consideration. Jesus' question to His disciples; "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15) has several alternatives.
First, suppose that His claim to be God was false. If it was false, then we only have two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false. We will consider each one seperately and examine the eidence.
Was He a liar?
If, when Jesus made his claims, he knew that He was not God, then He was lying and deliberately deceiving His followers. But if He was a liar, then He was also a hypocrite because He told others to be honest, whatever the cost, while He Himself taught and lived a colossal lie. More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny. If He couldn't back up His claims and knew it, then He was unspeakably evil. Last, He would also be a fool because it was His claims to being God that led to His crucifixion.
Many will say that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic. How could He be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at the most important point of His teaching--His own identity?
You would have to conclude logically that He was a deliberate liar. This view of Jesus, however doesn't coincide with what we know either of Him or the results of His life and teachings. Wherever Jesus had been proclaimed, lives have been changed for the good, nations have changed for the better, thieves have been made honest, alcoholics are cured, hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become just.
If Jesus wanted to get people to follow Him and believe in Him as God, why did He go to the Jewish nation? Why go as a Nazarene carpenter to a country so small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering the undivided unity of God? Why didn't He go to Egypt, or, even more, to Greece, where they believed in various gods and various manifestations of them?
Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a lair. What other alternatives are there?
Was He a lunatic?
If it is inconceivable for Jesus to be a liar, then couldn't He have actually thought Himself to be God, but been mistaken? After all, it's possible to be both sincere and wrong. But we must remember that for someone to think himself God, especially in a fiercely monotheistic culture, andd then to tell others that their eternal destiny depended on believing in him, is no light flight of fancy but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense. Was Jesus Christ such a person?
Someone who believes he is God sounds like someone today believing himself Napoleon. He would be deluded and self-decieved, and probably would be locked up so he couldn't hurt himself or anyone else. Yet in Jesus we don't observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually go along with being deranged. His poise and composure would certainly be amazing if He were insane.
Noyes and Kold, in a medical text, describe the schitzophrenic as a person who is more autistic than realistic. The schitzophrenic desires to escape from the world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be God would certainly be a retreat from reality.
In light of the other things we know about Jesus, it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed. Here's a man who spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated many individuals from mental bondage.
Was He Lord?
I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The only other alternative is that He was the Christ, The Son of God, as He claimed.
When I discuss this with most Jewish people, it's interesting how they respond. They usually tell me that Jesus was a moral, upright, religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share with them the claims Jesus made about Himself and then the material in this chapter on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord). When I ask if they believe Jesus was a liar, there is a sharp "NO!"
Then I ask "do you believe He was a lunatic?"
The reply is "of course not."
"Do you believe He is God?"
Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a resounding, "Absolutely not."
Yet one has only so many choices.
The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious that all three are possible. Rather, the question is, which is more probable? Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be an idle intellectual excercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice.
"But," as the apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and"--more important--"that believing you might have a life in His name." (John 20:31)
The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord. Some people, however, reject this clear evidence because of moral implications involved. They don't want to face up to the responsibility or implications of calling Him Lord.
Did Jesus think He was the Messiah?
2 Samuel 7:14 also contains a prophecy about the Messiah: "I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son." This verse marks the beginning of a coming Messiah who is the son of God.
Another declaration of Jesus that He was the Messiah occoured at His trial before the high priest Caiaphas, the chief priests, and the elders and scribes (Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-63).
In Mark's account, the high priest finally asked Jesus directly, "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed One?" Jesus responded, "I am; and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Notice that Jesus clearly spoke of Himself.
Did Jesus really believe He was God?
In Matthew 12:6, Jesus says to the Pharisees, "I say to you, that something greater than the Temple is here." How much greater? Look at verse 8. Referring to Himself, Jesus asserts, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." How can anyone be Lord of the Sabbath except God who instituted it? This is a direct claim to deity.
In Matthew 23:37, Jesus speaks as though He has personally observed the whole history of Jerusalem:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."
In Mark 2:1-2, Jesus tells a paralyzed man, "My son, your sins are forgiven." Some scribes sitting there caught the obvious intent of Jesus' words and reason:
"Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Jesus challenged them:
"Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, `Arise, and take up your pallet and walk'? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..."
And then Jesus healed the paralytic.
The implication was obvious. No one forgives sin but God. Anyone can say he is able to forgive sin; but Jesus proved He had the authority to forgive sin when He healed the Paralytic. Jesus was clearly claiming deity for Himself.
Back again to Matthew, at the end of the Sermon On The Mount (7:21-23), Jesus speaks of Himself as the ultimate judge who will have authority to deny entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
In the next paragraph, rather than say, "Everyone who hears the words of God or Torah will lay a strong foundation for their lives," Jesus states, "Everyone who hears these words of Mine..."
David Biven, a researcher of the Hebraic background of the Gospel accounts, concludes:
"It was not the way He taught or even the general content of His teaching that made Jesus unique among the Rabbis. What was unique about Jesus was who He claimed to be, and He rarely ever taught without claiming to be not only Gods Messiah, but more startlingly, Immanuel, `God with us'."
It is suprising how critics try to reject Jesus' constant references to Himself as a deity.
Ian Wilson, for example, writes:
"In the Mark Gospel, the most consistent in conveying Jesus' humanity, a man is represented as running up to Jesus and addressing Him with the words "Good Master." Jesus' response is a firm rebuke: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)
Wilson's interpretation is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Seen within the context of the situation, Jesus is using obvious irony.
In essence, He is arguing: 1) If no one is good but God alone, and 2) If I am good, then 3) I must be God.
Often Jesus recieves worship and does nothing to discourage it (see Matthew 14:33, John 9:38). You would think one who severely rebukes Peter for trying to keep Him from Gods will of being crucified would also severely rebuke someone offering worship to Him which is rightly ought to be given only to the one true living God.
Paul severely reacted against being deified at Lystra (Acts 14:8-18). How much more should Jesus have reacted if He were only a mere man? Did He not quote Deuteronomy 6:13 to Satan during His temptation, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only"?
One noteable occourence of Jesus accepting worship is in Matthew 21:15-16. Children cried out, "Hosanna to the Son of David," in praise to Jesus. "Hosanna" is used here as a cry of adoration, but some critics insist on interpreting "Hosanna" in a stiffly literal sense, rendering the statement "Save us, Son of David."
This interpretation cannot be accurate, though, because 1) it would actually read: "Save us to the Son of David," which makes little or no sense; 2) the chief priests and scribes who saw Jesus recieving the praise "became indignant and said to Him, `Do you hear what these are saying?'" as though Jesus should have silenced the crowd (something He would be expected to do only if the crowd were worshipping Him); and most important, 3) Jesus replied by attributing to Himself something which was meant for God alone.
He asked the chief priests and scribes, "Have you never read, `out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou [God] hast prepared praise for Thyself [God]'?"
Did you catch what Jesus said?
Basically it was, "when those children praise me, they are praising God."
Of all the Gospel writers, John most clearly perceived the cues Jesus gave about His identity. For his effort to report those cues, he has been the most criticized Gospel writer of all, allegedly falling under Hellenistic influence.
Scholars today, however, have begun to realize the inaccuracy of this charge. In John 8:58, when Jesus proclaimed to a Jewish crowd, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am," He was claiming two aspects of deity for Himself:
The eternal existence of God; and
The name of God.
Jesus was referring His listeners back to Exodus 3:13-14 where Moses tells God:
"Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, `What is His name?' what shall I say to them?
God answered Moses,
I AM WHO I AM...thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.'"
Any Jewish person would have heard Jesus' claim to deity loud and clear. That is why the very next verse in Johns account says: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him" (John 8:59).
In all, Jesus uses the term "I AM" (Gr. Ego eimi) more than 19 times in reference to Himself in the Gospel according to John. Often it is used to make claims about Himself that would normally be thought appropriate only for God.
For example,
"I am the bread of life, he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst" (6:35);
"I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (8:12);
"Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins" (8:24);
"I am the good shepherd" (10:11-14);
"I am the resurrection, and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies" (11:25)
In John 14:9, Jesus admonished Phillip, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." In Isaiah 42:8, God said, "I am the LORD, that is MY name; I will not give My glory to another." But in John 17:5, Jesus prayed, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."
Was Jesus the God He thought He was?
The question, Is Jesus God? is fundamentally different from the question, Is God Jesus? In the latter, God is limited to earth during the earthly life of Jesus. In the former, God simply manifests Himself in human flesh. Of course this means that a trinitarian theology (or at least a dual-personality theology) must be adopted in order to keep God from vacating His sovereign rule over the universe during the life of Jesus.
Many Jewish scholars today no longer criticize Christians for being tritheists. Though these scholars most universally reject the doctrine of the trinity, they do not generally deny the logical possibility of a single God manifesting Himself in more than one personality.
This is not the place to demonstrate the doctrine of the trinity, but it is necessary to see that such a concept is not ruled out by the Old Testament Scriptures. If the Old Testament did rule out such a doctrine, it would be ridiculous to think of Jesus possibly being God.
The fact is, the Old Testament suggests a plurality of personalities in one God from the very beginning. Genesis 1:26 states: "Then God said, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.'"
Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch have reviewed the arguements proposed against this verse and found them wanting. It is enough to say that if the passage doesn't demand the multiple person view, it certainly allows for it, and the most natural reading of the passage supports it.
One of the greatest objections to the trinity usually comes from the most recited verse among the Jewish people, Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" The Hebrew word used here for "one" is echod, meaning a "composite unity." It is the same word used in Genesis 2:24 where the husband and wife are commanded to become one flesh. Had the writer of Deuteronomy 6:4 wished to express an absolute unity, he could have used the Hebrew word, yachid.
In Zechariah 12:10, God says, "They will look on Me, the one they have pierced." How can one pierce God unless He manifests Himself in the flesh?
It is remarkable enough that a Jew like Thomas would come to the point of calling Jesus "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) But then there is Paul.
It is unbelievable how critics tend to forget he was a Jew par excellence. He was trained in Judiasm by none other than Rabbi Gamaliel. He was so zealous for his monotheistic faith that he began persecuting the Christians. His goal in life was to help to bring to pass Isaiah 45:22,23 where God says through the prophet, "I am God, and there is no other...to me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance" [emphasis ours].
And then Paul discovered that this One had stepped out of eternity and into time.
Now Paul writes of Him:
"He existed in the form of God...but emptied Himself...being made in the likness of men...He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the very point of death, even death on a cross...that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:6-11, emphasis ours).
That Paul meant "God" by the term Lord is clear from Romans 10:13 where he quotes Joel 2:32: "Whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered." In Joel 2:32, the LORD is clearly God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot more information I could provide, but this post is already long enough. If you (or anyone else, for that matter) would like to research the subject more, I would strongly advise picking up most any of author Josh McDowell's books. I used his book "A Ready Defense" as my source for this post, but there are 3 other superb referenes he has written as well: "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" (2 volumes) and "He Walked Among Us"...the latter being rather intense reading, but well worth the effort.
This post is intended as a response to your statement in your thread as follows:
quote:
Originally posted by primetime21
Have you ever studied the bible? And while he did deliver gods message, he also did a lot more than just that.
(to which you responded) "I am not a theologian and I do not care to be."
I don't wish to start an arguement; I'm just trying to shed a little light on the subject that people might be a little more informed before they make decisions on a subject which bears eternal implications.
There is no arguing that Jesus was (at the very least) a "good man", or "wise teacher", etc...but was he in fact God incarnate on earth?
Josh McDowell has addressed this topic much more eloquently than I could ever hope to, so rather than try to put this all into my own words, I'll let him explain it.
Yes, this is very long, but please take the time to read it.
The Trilemma--Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
Jesus' distinct claims of being God incarnate eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Him as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
C.S. Lewis, who was a professor at Cambridge university and once an agnostic, understood this issue clearly. He writes:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who is merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg__or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your own choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or somethign worse."
He goes on to say:
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a Demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Jesus claimed to be God. He didn't leave any other option open. His claim must be either true or false, so it is something that should be given serious consideration. Jesus' question to His disciples; "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15) has several alternatives.
First, suppose that His claim to be God was false. If it was false, then we only have two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false. We will consider each one seperately and examine the eidence.
Was He a liar?
If, when Jesus made his claims, he knew that He was not God, then He was lying and deliberately deceiving His followers. But if He was a liar, then He was also a hypocrite because He told others to be honest, whatever the cost, while He Himself taught and lived a colossal lie. More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny. If He couldn't back up His claims and knew it, then He was unspeakably evil. Last, He would also be a fool because it was His claims to being God that led to His crucifixion.
Many will say that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic. How could He be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at the most important point of His teaching--His own identity?
You would have to conclude logically that He was a deliberate liar. This view of Jesus, however doesn't coincide with what we know either of Him or the results of His life and teachings. Wherever Jesus had been proclaimed, lives have been changed for the good, nations have changed for the better, thieves have been made honest, alcoholics are cured, hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become just.
If Jesus wanted to get people to follow Him and believe in Him as God, why did He go to the Jewish nation? Why go as a Nazarene carpenter to a country so small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering the undivided unity of God? Why didn't He go to Egypt, or, even more, to Greece, where they believed in various gods and various manifestations of them?
Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a lair. What other alternatives are there?
Was He a lunatic?
If it is inconceivable for Jesus to be a liar, then couldn't He have actually thought Himself to be God, but been mistaken? After all, it's possible to be both sincere and wrong. But we must remember that for someone to think himself God, especially in a fiercely monotheistic culture, andd then to tell others that their eternal destiny depended on believing in him, is no light flight of fancy but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense. Was Jesus Christ such a person?
Someone who believes he is God sounds like someone today believing himself Napoleon. He would be deluded and self-decieved, and probably would be locked up so he couldn't hurt himself or anyone else. Yet in Jesus we don't observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually go along with being deranged. His poise and composure would certainly be amazing if He were insane.
Noyes and Kold, in a medical text, describe the schitzophrenic as a person who is more autistic than realistic. The schitzophrenic desires to escape from the world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be God would certainly be a retreat from reality.
In light of the other things we know about Jesus, it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed. Here's a man who spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated many individuals from mental bondage.
Was He Lord?
I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The only other alternative is that He was the Christ, The Son of God, as He claimed.
When I discuss this with most Jewish people, it's interesting how they respond. They usually tell me that Jesus was a moral, upright, religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share with them the claims Jesus made about Himself and then the material in this chapter on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord). When I ask if they believe Jesus was a liar, there is a sharp "NO!"
Then I ask "do you believe He was a lunatic?"
The reply is "of course not."
"Do you believe He is God?"
Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a resounding, "Absolutely not."
Yet one has only so many choices.
The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious that all three are possible. Rather, the question is, which is more probable? Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be an idle intellectual excercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice.
"But," as the apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and"--more important--"that believing you might have a life in His name." (John 20:31)
The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord. Some people, however, reject this clear evidence because of moral implications involved. They don't want to face up to the responsibility or implications of calling Him Lord.
Did Jesus think He was the Messiah?
2 Samuel 7:14 also contains a prophecy about the Messiah: "I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son." This verse marks the beginning of a coming Messiah who is the son of God.
Another declaration of Jesus that He was the Messiah occoured at His trial before the high priest Caiaphas, the chief priests, and the elders and scribes (Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-63).
In Mark's account, the high priest finally asked Jesus directly, "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed One?" Jesus responded, "I am; and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Notice that Jesus clearly spoke of Himself.
Did Jesus really believe He was God?
In Matthew 12:6, Jesus says to the Pharisees, "I say to you, that something greater than the Temple is here." How much greater? Look at verse 8. Referring to Himself, Jesus asserts, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." How can anyone be Lord of the Sabbath except God who instituted it? This is a direct claim to deity.
In Matthew 23:37, Jesus speaks as though He has personally observed the whole history of Jerusalem:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."
In Mark 2:1-2, Jesus tells a paralyzed man, "My son, your sins are forgiven." Some scribes sitting there caught the obvious intent of Jesus' words and reason:
"Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Jesus challenged them:
"Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, `Arise, and take up your pallet and walk'? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..."
And then Jesus healed the paralytic.
The implication was obvious. No one forgives sin but God. Anyone can say he is able to forgive sin; but Jesus proved He had the authority to forgive sin when He healed the Paralytic. Jesus was clearly claiming deity for Himself.
Back again to Matthew, at the end of the Sermon On The Mount (7:21-23), Jesus speaks of Himself as the ultimate judge who will have authority to deny entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
In the next paragraph, rather than say, "Everyone who hears the words of God or Torah will lay a strong foundation for their lives," Jesus states, "Everyone who hears these words of Mine..."
David Biven, a researcher of the Hebraic background of the Gospel accounts, concludes:
"It was not the way He taught or even the general content of His teaching that made Jesus unique among the Rabbis. What was unique about Jesus was who He claimed to be, and He rarely ever taught without claiming to be not only Gods Messiah, but more startlingly, Immanuel, `God with us'."
It is suprising how critics try to reject Jesus' constant references to Himself as a deity.
Ian Wilson, for example, writes:
"In the Mark Gospel, the most consistent in conveying Jesus' humanity, a man is represented as running up to Jesus and addressing Him with the words "Good Master." Jesus' response is a firm rebuke: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)
Wilson's interpretation is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Seen within the context of the situation, Jesus is using obvious irony.
In essence, He is arguing: 1) If no one is good but God alone, and 2) If I am good, then 3) I must be God.
Often Jesus recieves worship and does nothing to discourage it (see Matthew 14:33, John 9:38). You would think one who severely rebukes Peter for trying to keep Him from Gods will of being crucified would also severely rebuke someone offering worship to Him which is rightly ought to be given only to the one true living God.
Paul severely reacted against being deified at Lystra (Acts 14:8-18). How much more should Jesus have reacted if He were only a mere man? Did He not quote Deuteronomy 6:13 to Satan during His temptation, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only"?
One noteable occourence of Jesus accepting worship is in Matthew 21:15-16. Children cried out, "Hosanna to the Son of David," in praise to Jesus. "Hosanna" is used here as a cry of adoration, but some critics insist on interpreting "Hosanna" in a stiffly literal sense, rendering the statement "Save us, Son of David."
This interpretation cannot be accurate, though, because 1) it would actually read: "Save us to the Son of David," which makes little or no sense; 2) the chief priests and scribes who saw Jesus recieving the praise "became indignant and said to Him, `Do you hear what these are saying?'" as though Jesus should have silenced the crowd (something He would be expected to do only if the crowd were worshipping Him); and most important, 3) Jesus replied by attributing to Himself something which was meant for God alone.
He asked the chief priests and scribes, "Have you never read, `out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou [God] hast prepared praise for Thyself [God]'?"
Did you catch what Jesus said?
Basically it was, "when those children praise me, they are praising God."
Of all the Gospel writers, John most clearly perceived the cues Jesus gave about His identity. For his effort to report those cues, he has been the most criticized Gospel writer of all, allegedly falling under Hellenistic influence.
Scholars today, however, have begun to realize the inaccuracy of this charge. In John 8:58, when Jesus proclaimed to a Jewish crowd, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am," He was claiming two aspects of deity for Himself:
The eternal existence of God; and
The name of God.
Jesus was referring His listeners back to Exodus 3:13-14 where Moses tells God:
"Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, `What is His name?' what shall I say to them?
God answered Moses,
I AM WHO I AM...thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.'"
Any Jewish person would have heard Jesus' claim to deity loud and clear. That is why the very next verse in Johns account says: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him" (John 8:59).
In all, Jesus uses the term "I AM" (Gr. Ego eimi) more than 19 times in reference to Himself in the Gospel according to John. Often it is used to make claims about Himself that would normally be thought appropriate only for God.
For example,
"I am the bread of life, he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst" (6:35);
"I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (8:12);
"Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins" (8:24);
"I am the good shepherd" (10:11-14);
"I am the resurrection, and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies" (11:25)
In John 14:9, Jesus admonished Phillip, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." In Isaiah 42:8, God said, "I am the LORD, that is MY name; I will not give My glory to another." But in John 17:5, Jesus prayed, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was."
Was Jesus the God He thought He was?
The question, Is Jesus God? is fundamentally different from the question, Is God Jesus? In the latter, God is limited to earth during the earthly life of Jesus. In the former, God simply manifests Himself in human flesh. Of course this means that a trinitarian theology (or at least a dual-personality theology) must be adopted in order to keep God from vacating His sovereign rule over the universe during the life of Jesus.
Many Jewish scholars today no longer criticize Christians for being tritheists. Though these scholars most universally reject the doctrine of the trinity, they do not generally deny the logical possibility of a single God manifesting Himself in more than one personality.
This is not the place to demonstrate the doctrine of the trinity, but it is necessary to see that such a concept is not ruled out by the Old Testament Scriptures. If the Old Testament did rule out such a doctrine, it would be ridiculous to think of Jesus possibly being God.
The fact is, the Old Testament suggests a plurality of personalities in one God from the very beginning. Genesis 1:26 states: "Then God said, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.'"
Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch have reviewed the arguements proposed against this verse and found them wanting. It is enough to say that if the passage doesn't demand the multiple person view, it certainly allows for it, and the most natural reading of the passage supports it.
One of the greatest objections to the trinity usually comes from the most recited verse among the Jewish people, Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" The Hebrew word used here for "one" is echod, meaning a "composite unity." It is the same word used in Genesis 2:24 where the husband and wife are commanded to become one flesh. Had the writer of Deuteronomy 6:4 wished to express an absolute unity, he could have used the Hebrew word, yachid.
In Zechariah 12:10, God says, "They will look on Me, the one they have pierced." How can one pierce God unless He manifests Himself in the flesh?
It is remarkable enough that a Jew like Thomas would come to the point of calling Jesus "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) But then there is Paul.
It is unbelievable how critics tend to forget he was a Jew par excellence. He was trained in Judiasm by none other than Rabbi Gamaliel. He was so zealous for his monotheistic faith that he began persecuting the Christians. His goal in life was to help to bring to pass Isaiah 45:22,23 where God says through the prophet, "I am God, and there is no other...to me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance" [emphasis ours].
And then Paul discovered that this One had stepped out of eternity and into time.
Now Paul writes of Him:
"He existed in the form of God...but emptied Himself...being made in the likness of men...He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the very point of death, even death on a cross...that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:6-11, emphasis ours).
That Paul meant "God" by the term Lord is clear from Romans 10:13 where he quotes Joel 2:32: "Whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered." In Joel 2:32, the LORD is clearly God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a lot more information I could provide, but this post is already long enough. If you (or anyone else, for that matter) would like to research the subject more, I would strongly advise picking up most any of author Josh McDowell's books. I used his book "A Ready Defense" as my source for this post, but there are 3 other superb referenes he has written as well: "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" (2 volumes) and "He Walked Among Us"...the latter being rather intense reading, but well worth the effort.
This post is intended as a response to your statement in your thread as follows:
quote:
Originally posted by primetime21
Have you ever studied the bible? And while he did deliver gods message, he also did a lot more than just that.
(to which you responded) "I am not a theologian and I do not care to be."
I don't wish to start an arguement; I'm just trying to shed a little light on the subject that people might be a little more informed before they make decisions on a subject which bears eternal implications.
