Yes, it’s a question, not a GD (though I suspect it could become one).
In the christian religions, JC is considered to be god. The early christian religions which made a difference between god and JC (for instance stating that JC wasn’t co-creator or that he was himself created) has been very early rejected and considered as heresies. And of course, christians consider themselves as monotheists.
But for some reason (following a dream I had, actually), I’ve been struck this morning by the fact that Jesus never assess in the gospels that he’s himself god (or at least I’m pretty certain he doesn’t).
I assume it has been decided that JC was god made man, as opposed to merely the son of god made man to reconciliate the old and the new testaments (I’m atheist, so I don’t believe that the people who decided that were divinely inspired or such things). But is there any evidences in the gospels supporting this belief? Would a genuine reader, who has never heard about christianism or read the old testament
before, consider this possibility, or would he assume that there’s actually two gods in this religion, the son and the father (or three, with the holy ghost, though it seems less obvious to me)? Same question about the epistles.
More generally from what part of the scriptures the early theologians (or the modern ones) derived the belief in the unity of the father and son? The old testament? the gospels? the epistles? Quotes welcome in the two last cases.
Jesus never said “I am God and you ain’t so bow down and worship me”.
Jesus did say rather emphatically that God was his father, and he, therefore, the son of God, and, moreover, that, as he put it, “I am in the father, and the father is in me”.
Not Jesus, but the author of the book of John, kicked off his gospel with “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God”, a phrase you’ll see tossed out a great deal alongside of the assertion that “word” means “Jesus” here.
On the other hand, Jesus, when confronted with the charge of blasphemy, replied, “Does it not say, in the Law, ‘I said, you are Gods’? How, then, can you say I commit blasphemy when I claim to be the son of the Most High?” (He also, not incidentally, invited them to be skeptical, not taking his word for it but looking into the business he was about and making up their own minds).
The “Law” to which he referred was of course the item that Christian folks refer to as the Old Testament, specifically Psalms 86: 33-38 if memory serves me correctly, which does indeed rather explicitly state that we are all gods and children of God (although we fail to live up to it most of the time).
My conclusion is that the Christians missed the boat here, that Jesus never set himself up to be worshipped and revered as the “only begotten” Son of God (making the rest of us misbegotten Sons and Daughters of God, I suppose), but instead was trying to upbraid everyone to live up to that which they were supposed to be, to act as God would act…and in that sense was an example to follow, as one of us, which he was, in the normal and mortal and divine like the rest of us sense of the word.
** clairobscur said “More generally from what part of the scriptures the early theologians (or the modern ones) derived the belief in the unity of the father and son? The old testament? the gospels? the epistles? Quotes welcome in the two last cases.” **
The Gospel of John also goes on to say that the Word became flesh and dwelt among men, which cements the assertion of the word being Jesus.
IANAtheologian, but I have it on good authority that even if Jesus didn’t come right out and say, “I’m God, ya know” he did allude quite strongly that he was, in both his words and deeds.
In John 8:56 - 59, Jesus asserts his deity indirectly, although, judging from the reaction, they got his point.
Apparently, he used “I am” the same way God did when addressing Moses, which accounts for them wanting to stone him, which was an appropriate pushishment for blasphemy.
Somewhere in history, that little space betwixt them was lost. One would think that if they were one & the same they would need only one name in the bible, right?
I don’t have the exact citation, but someplace in the gospels doesn’t Jesus say, “I and the Father are one. When you look upon me, you look upon the Father.”
Jesus makes it quite clear that he was God. I’m not a bible expert, and I’m not a bible-quoter, but there are several places where he demonstrates that he can do things only God has the authority to do. The number one thing was forgiveness of sins. Nobody but God has the authority to forgive sins. (I was going to use miracles, but then I remembered a lot of other people were able to perform miracles, with God’s help.)
As for why worshipping both Jesus as God and God seperately from him is still worshipping one God, I can’t explain that. The basic elements of Christianity are hard to understand if you think about them too much. God’s done a lot of incredible things nobody can begin to understand, why can’t he be two people?
Well, Jesus doesn’t say it directly, but in Mark Chapter 8, the following exchange is reported:
Mark is generally regarded as the earliest Gospel, I believe. Interestingly, Jesus seems non-committal in Mark’s telling of this story. However, in a later telling, from the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is not the same shrinking violet. From Matthew Chapter 16:
Even there, Jesus doesn’t explicitly claim to be Christ, but sure seems pleased when Peter says it is so.
On another point, I’m not so sure that Jesus’s use of “father and son” language necessarily means that he was claiming to be Christ. We are all supposed to be children of God, right? After all, didn’t Jesus teach his disciples to begin their prayers, “Our Father, who art in heaven…?”
I must point out that the “office” of Christ did not at that time involve a job description or required qualifications of being God. The term merely meant “anointed one”.
I must also reiterate that although Jesus of Nazareth did at many points emphasize that there was something specifically divine about himself and/or what he was doing at the time, and did also make the claim that he was God / that he and the father were one, these do NOT necessarily add up to a claim that Jesus was uniquely God among the rest of us who are not.
When he bid folks to follow him / follow his example, the example was to be understood as being “of God”, but the important underlying clause here was that all of us are children of God, i.e., that if we did indeed follow the example we too would be one with the father and the father one with us.
To state, as many do, that Jesus of Nazareth was literally God in a sense that the rest of us are not, and that any attempts we might make to follow his example are predisposed to failure, and that when Jesus bid us pray to OUR Father who art in heaven he was using opaque figurative language that we should not take seriously, and that he was again being opaque when he defended his own right to call himself the Son of God by referring to the passage in Psalms where it says ‘God said Ye are gods, and ye are all children of the Most High’, …I dunno, it doesn’t wash with me.
In the Gospel of John Chapter 14, starting at verse 8:
Philip said to Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered, "Philip, how is it that you do not know me, when I have been with you so long? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How then can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’
So, the determined non-believer has three options: to say that Jesus was a fraud, to say that Jesus was a fruitcake, or to dismiss this passage (among many others) and insist that Jesus didn’t really say it.
But the determined non-believer hasn’t got a leg to stand on, if he argues that the Jesus of the Gospels never claimed to be divine
Does being the Messiah count? What’s ambiguous about a passage like John 4:25-26:
The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
Good point. Jesus and his followers had no idea of the concept of Christ, which is Greek. The idea of Jesus being Christ came from Paul, Luke and other Hellanized Jews.
John did say that in the beginning was the Word, but he was the only one of the gospel writers to go that route. Matthew and Luke thought that Jesus started his mission when he was born (virgin birth) and Mark thought he started it when he was baptized by John the Baptist. Paul didn’t care about any of it, until Jesus was on the cross.
If Jesus and God are one in the same (along with the Holy Spirit) then why did Jesus ask “Why do you say that I am good? Only my Father is good.”?
Also up until the second or third century there were many types of Christians. One reason that some books were not accepted was that they did not believe the same things. The book of Thomas is one of these. You will be told that the reason it was not put in the bible is because it tells of Jesus as a child killing birds. Another reason is that it gives the Gnostic belief that there is a part of God in all of us. Remember this is “Doubting Thomas”. In the book of Thomas, Jesus tells only Thomas, because he doesn’t think the others will understand. The story in the gospels I believe is somehow meant to debunk that story.
Again, perhaps Jesus never explicitly made claims to being God, but his actions and his reactions to those around him make it clear that he wasn’t going to deny being God. In other words, he wasn’t going to state it outright, but rather let those who had the faith and vision to realize his divinity accept it. Christianity is faith-based, and I think this is consistent with that.
So, in one way, no, Christ never went around wearing a t-shirt that said “I’m God, folks!”
Still, he didn’t make a fuss when people said, “He’s claiming to be God.” I cited John 8 earlier. Jesus’s use of the term “I am” to describe himself immediately caused a reaction among his audience. They knew what he meant.
Another example is found in Mark 2:1 - 12. I won’t quote the whole thing, but Jesus tells a paralytic his sins are forgiven. When various learned Jews mutter that only God can forgive sin, Jesus tells them, in effect, “Yeah, I said his sins are forgiven. Talk is cheap. But hey, what’s tougher, saying your sins are forgiven (the result of which you can’t see or prove) or saying get up and walk (the result of which can be seen and proven)?”
Now we come to the crux of the thing, so I will quote Mark 2:10 - 12: [Jesus said,] “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” He said to the parlytic, [sub]11[/sub]“I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” [sub]12[/sub] He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all.
Do you see the importance of this? Although Jesus doesn’t address the problem directly by saying, “Yes, I said his sins are forgiven. I’m God, you know,” he provides an example to make his audience think. “Yes, I said his sins are forgiven, but anyone can say that without really absolving someone of their sins. But I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I’m going to tell this guy to get up and walk. When he does, you’ll realize that I’m not just spewing meaningless words around.”
Anyway, this is a teaching technique that is still used (because it works). Instead of just reeling off whatever nuggets of information you want your audience to learn, you make them think about it and come to the conclusion you ultimately want them to arrive at. Some may not get it, but those that do won’t forget it.
Did Jesus claim that there was “a little bit of God in all of us?” Not according to the two cites I’ve used. While Jesus didn’t deny that he could do things only God could do, and was therefore God, he also didn’t widen the scope to include anyone else. The designation “I am” is exclusive to God, and this was understood absolutely by the people of that time. The ability to forgive sins is exclusively God’s, and Jesus makes this point in the verses quoted above. He doesn’t extend it to his audience at large.
As far as Jesus’s claims to be the Messiah, AFAIK, there is no tradition that holds that the Messiah must be divine.
So what’s up with all the “Son of Man” references? Why does he call himself that, and what the heck is it supposed to mean? Aren’t we all “Sons (or Daughters) of Men?”
Well, yeah, “Son of Man” can just mean “man”, but in the book of Daniel, which is taken as a prophetic book talking about the coming of the messiah, Daniel has a vision, and he sees:
So, “Son of Man” was, at the time of Jesus, seen as a messianistic title.