According to the Bible (Old & New Testament) Jesus Christ is God
This debate is contending the issue of whether or not the Bible (the Old and New Testaments) contains evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is God. This is the second time I am holding this debate, but with an extra round, and I hope to use different points each time I partake in this debate.
Please read the rules cafefully before asking to be considered for the debate, thank you! Also; I will consider any additional requests from challengers so long as they comply with the rules I have established here.
(1) Evidence should primarily be from the Bible as we are debating a theological issue. All theological issues should be grounded in the bible. The bible, as defined above, consists of the New and Old Testament. Evidence outside of the bible such as Watchtower publications, or commentaries, will not be accepted as valid evidence. You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using.
(2) This debate is not discussing other theological issues such as the doctrine of the trinity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic union of Christ, etc. This debate also presupposes the authority of scripture, the exsistence of God, and the existence and humanity of Christ. The matter should be focused on the issue of Christ's divinity.
(3) No semantics, personal attacks, or any other games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate.
(4.1) There are four rounds.The first round is acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed.The second round will be where the first arguments will be presented.The third and four rounds are simply for more arguments, rebuttals, and conclusions.
(4.2) In this debate rebuttals are not necessary. It is up to the individual to decide what would be more profitable for their debate. If the opponent wishes to move on, without rebuttals, and present more evidence than it is permitted.
(5) All definitions will firstly be valid in accordance to orthodox biblical theological terms. If there is any reason to define a term it will firstly be in accordance with the theological definition. All secondary definitions will be based on definitions provided by dictonary.com.
I only ask that the person who ends up partaking in this challenge will take it seriously. I will open the debate to the person whom seems geniune in ther desire to debate appropriately to the rules as well as someone who will be a challenge on the matter.
Just something to keep in mind, I believe that you, as the instigator of this debate, have the right to open the debate with your scripturally-reinforced arguments as to why you think the Old and New Testaments, collaboratively conclude the status of Jesus as God.
Hello everyone! I look forward to this debate as I am attempting to debate this topic from a variety of different angles.
I thank Con for his introduction and in light of it I will provide an introduction as well.
In the beginning of the Christian church, before the political institution established by Constantine and Pope Gregory, the question of Jesus was, “is he human?” His divinity was not questioned, but instead the struggle was on how could the divine be human as well? Heresies came and left such as Gnosticism, which questioned the divinity of Christ, but the church moved beyond them. In the 19th century several movements developed, which not only rejected Christ’s divinity, but also labeled themselves as Christian and led Christian theology down a path of liberal license, which have led many on the outside to confusion.
It is my duty as a man who used to attack Christianity as an anti-theist/atheist, to now defend it, which includes defending the bedrock of the Christian faith, the Gospel. The Gospel begins with the coming of Jesus Christ and knowing who Jesus Christ is essential for if you do not know who Jesus Christ really is, than you simply have a fake Christ. We should all be interested in the objective claims of Jesus and what scripture shows us all. We should be interested in the real Christ so that we can understand the real implications of true Christianity.
This round will mainly focus on Jesus’ Self-consciousness, some of Paul’s understanding, “Noteworthy pieces”, and lastly a Greek term used often with Jesus. In my next argument I will focus on Jesus’ attributes, and works. At this current time, I am not sure as to whether or not I will be providing any rebuttals. As per the rules, rebuttals are not necessary, leaving Con and I with the choice of using rebuttals on the basis of whether or not it is beneficial for our position. Ultimately, this debate is boiled down to the weight of the evidence. Some of the conclusions become difficult to wrestle with, but the beginning of theological development starts with considering all aspects of scripture no matter how difficult they are.
The ESV is being used unless otherwise stated & all Greek and Hebrew terms are pulled from Strong’s concordance and dictionaries as well as Thayer’s Greek definitions:
In looking at Jesus’s self-consciousness, it should be noted that Jesus did not make an explicitly and overt claim to deity, saying in so many words, “I am God.” However, we do find claims that are inappropriate if made by someone who is less than God. For example Jesus said that he would send “his angels” (Matthew 13:41), but elsewhere they are spoken of as “the angels of God” (Luke 12:8-9; 15:10). This reference is significant as Christ also calls the kingdom of God “his kingdom.”
There are more examples such as Jesus claim to forgive sin, which, rightly so, results in a charge of blasphemy. “Any when Jesus say their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:5-7) Notice what God says to Israel, “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins” (Isaiah 43:25). It is important to understand that the scribes were trained in the law, and understood that God is the lawgiver, and the judge, and thus the only one with authority to forgive sins.
The authority, which Jesus claimed and exercised, is seen in regards to the Sabbath as well. The Sabbath was established as sacred by God (Exodus 20:8-11) and only God could abrogate or modify this regulation, which we see Jesus doing exactly that in Mark 2:23-28, and states in verse 27-28, “And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”’ The Greek here for “lord” is kurios which simply means, supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; God, Lord, master, Sir. How is it that Jesus makes the claim that he is the “lord” (kurios) of the Sabbath, when God is the establisher of the Sabbath, in the mosaic covenant no less? It is worth noting that he changed the status of the Sabbath as well “made for man, not man for the Sabbath”, a right which belongs only to someone virtually equal to God.
Jesus also claims to be one with the Father (John 10:30), and that to see and know him is to see and know the Father (John 14:7-9)/ There is also a claim to preexistence in his statement in John 8:58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Note that rather than saying, “I was”, he says, “I am.” Jesus also alludes to the “I Am” formula by which God identified himself in Exodus 3:14-15. For in this case, as in Exodus, the “I am” is a formula denoting existence. After this statement the immediate reaction of the Jews was to take up stones to throw at him, “So they picked up stones to throw at him” (John 8:59). There is no doubt that they knew the implications thus resulting in stoning according to the law which warrants stoning for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16). If they had attempted to stone him out of anger, however, they would be guilty of attempted murder.
Jesus also accepted the attribution of deity from his disciples, the clearest cases being from Thomas who says, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) Jesus could have easily corrected the misconception if it was one, but Jesus did not do so. Jesus also juxtaposes his words with those of the Old Testament. Time and again he says, “you have heard that it was said…but I say to you” (for example see: Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28). Jesus places his word as the same level as the Old Testament, which was considered the ultimate authority to the Jewish people as the Word of God.
Jesus also indicates that he has power over life and death. In John 5:21 he says, “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” Furthermore, when speaking to Martha he says, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25).
The title “Son of God” is capable of various meanings, but Jesus clearly used it in a manner differently than before. This is seen in John 5:2-18 when the Jews reacted with extreme hostility when, in defense of having heaved on the Sabbath, Jesus linked his worked with that of that Father. John explains in verse 18, “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
Throughout Jesus’ life, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Jesus understood himself as equal with the Father, and as possessing the right to do things only God has the right to do, and can do.
Paul frequently witnesses to a belief in the deity of Jesus. In Colossians 1:15-20 Paul writes that the Son is the image of the invisible God (v. 15); he is the one in whom and through whom and for whom all things hold together (v. 17). In verse 19 Paul brings the argument to a conclusion: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” In Colossians 2:9 he states a very similar idea: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
Philippians 2:5-11 is a clear assertion of the deity of Jesus. It speaks of him as being or existing in the “form” (morphe) of God (v.6). In biblical and classical Greek this term refers to the set of characteristics, which constitutes a thing what it is. The passage presents Jesus, being God, emptied himself, became human, and then was again exalter to the status of deity or equality with the Father.
In Hebrews 1:8 the writer states the superiority of Christ to angels and ascribes Psalm 45:6-7 to Christ. The superscription to the quotation from Psalm 45:6-7 is, “But of the Son He says”; then He quotes the psalm, saying, “Thy throne, O God, is forever” and “therefore God”. Both designations “God” have reference to the Son. Hebrews 1:8 below (my emphasis added):
“But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus as “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” The Granville Sharpe rule of Greek grammar states that when two nouns are joined by kai (and) and the first noun has the article and the second does not, then the two nouns refer to the same thing. Thus, both great God and savior are referring to Jesus.
The Term “Lord” (kyrios):
Kyrios is used in the New Testament to designate both God the Father, the sovereign God (Matthew 1:20; 9:38; 11:25; Acts 17:24; Revelation 4:11), and Jesus (Luke 2:11; John 20:28; Acts 10:36; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Philippians 2:11; James 2:1; Revelation 19:16). This identification of Jesus as Lord leaves ambiguity in passages as to whether the Father or the Son is meant (Acts 1:24; 2:47; 8:39; 9:31; 11:21; 13:10-12; Romans 14:11etc). To the Jews particularly, the term kryrios suggested that Christ was equal to the Father.
This concludes my first series of arguments. My next set of arguments will focus on Jesus' attributes and his works. I look forward to Con's argument.
- Logic In Life
persianimmortal forfeited this round.
It appears as if Con has no argument to present. I extend my arguments for the previous round in hopes that Con will produce something for his role the debate. If Con does produce an argument or an attempted rebuttal, I simply ask that our voters consider Con's arguments instead of his forfieture.
-Logic In Life
My fellow opponent has referred to the relationship between the title Son of God and Son of Man. He has touched on important points but I will also provide my perspective before addressing his arguments.
I think it would important to share with you the description of Christ, as it is provided in the Baha'i Writings:
"Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole of Creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent spirit...He it is who purified the world. Blessed the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him."
The above passage from the Baha'i Writings specifically affirms the title Son of Man (or Son of Humanity, as some modern Christian theologians prefer to translate it) as referring to Jesus Christ.
The Humanity of Jesus:
We have to understand that, Christ, despite His status as Messenger of God, had a very human side as well. The trials Jesus had to endure, ultimately shows us His sacrifice for us, but it confirms His station as being separate from God who had sent Him to share His Message. In the Bible, there are multiple instances where we see Jesus praying to God, asking permission from God, pleading with God and so on.
One such example is Mk 6:46, where Jesus is going to the mountain to pray. When prayer is being done, there is a logic behind such an action that relates to the simple concept of conversation. Prayer, is spiritual conversation, in this case with God, so when Jesus takes the time to go to the mountain to pray, He is not praying to Himself, but rather a Greater Authority that has chosen Him (Christ) to be His Messenger.
Another example that covers the humanity of Jesus is in Mk 15:34, where the fear in Jesus' voice echoes as He proclaims Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? This fear of abandonment is likened unto a child forgotten by his parent in an endless forest. It wouldn't be appropriate to portray the Messenger of God as a fearful one but the only humanly-close example that can be given is a child forgotten in a forest. The question is, "who is He talking to?". The answer is clearly not Himself because I would be very doubtful that you would agree that Jesus had some kind of "divine monologue". The only scriptural and logical answer would be a second party, which is a recipient to such a question. This recipient is undeniably God.
The most significant of these verses attesting to His humanity is Matt 26:36-44, where He is in the garden of Gethsemane. In Mk 15:34, He displayed his fear of of abandonment, but now He displays His natural fear of death, a fear which any human has. This can be confirmed when Jesus Himself says, not only to God, but to Peter and the 2 sons of Zebedee, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death". He then proceeds to fall on His face in Submission and begging (not asking), but begging, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt". He tells Peter that His actions is a result of His weak flesh in conflict with His willing spirit to do God's Will. Jesus did this 3 times repeating the same thing, but to no avail.
In conclusion of this section, Jesus Christ has displayed his humanity and devotion to the Will of God, by praying (Mk 6:46), displaying fear of abandonment (Mk 15:34), and His fear of death (Matt 26:36-44). He justifies His actions to Peter by explaining that His flesh can't handle the will of His spirit to proceed with the Will of God, the Sender of His Message. Logically and psychologically, it would be quite useless for a Messenger of God to have a monologue with Himself on the matters that surround Him, when He has a direct source of Abundant Info which is God who sent Him.
Jesus as a Prophet and Apostle:
This section is quite important, because just as He was the Son of God and Son of Man, He was also a Prophet and an Apostle. Interestingly enough, the Jews were waiting for their Messiah to return as explained in the Book of Daniel, and in multiple areas of the OT it refers to the next Messenger of God who is to come as a Prophet. But let's focus on the OT for a minute here. If we compare Moses to Jesus, in relation to this debate topic, it would be make more sense to call Moses God, and not Jesus because while Paul is recounting the events and stories concerning Jesus Christ, we have God Himself reassuring Moses that He is like God unto the Pharaoh, and Aaron is His prophet. So in terms of the whole situation, Jesus does not get the firsthand treatment like Moses got because we have to remind ourselves that in Exodus 4:16, God Himself is showing Moses what it's like to run things as God with Aaron as His right-hand man.
With that being said, I'm sure you disagree with Moses being God and all, but if that is the playing field we're playing on, Moses clearly wins the "God" title over Jesus. But let's look at it this way. Jesus was a Prophet and Apostle as explained in Hebrews 3:1, Luke 4:22-24 and Acts 3:19-22. If all these verses confirm the OT in the sense that Jesus is a Prophet, it would make sense if the OT had said the Messiah would be God as well. Given that Jesus never made no connection, it would be safe to say that scripturally, Jesus was not God. Remind yourself about reason behind the death of Christ and how it was the title Son of God that stirred up the pot. If death was the result of Him saying Son of God, I'm sure His end would have much much worse if He had actually said such a thing as He being God.
One Father, Our God, Above All
This section will touch on the Biblical reasoning as to the separation between Jesus Christ and God. In the time of Christ, there were individuals that followed many things other than the One True God. This can be confirmed in 1 Cor 8:5-6, where says there is One God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.In order to understand this I will provide you with an example that will hopefully describe this. Let's say you meet someone in the coffee shop, and decide to sit down and have a good solid convo with them. You start talking about your jobs and families then decide to show him a pic of your family. He asks "who's that" pointing to your father and you say, "my father". This person, who you've never met before, can only know who your father is through your explanations and descriptions. Do you become your father? No. Do you inherit your father's possessions? No. Do they know your father? Yes, but not to the extent you do. The same goes for Jesus in the sense that, in Palestine (coffee shop) the only mediator between us (the friend) and God (your father) is you (Jesus)...This process is explained in 1 Tim 2:5.
In addition to this, James 2:19 says, ""Thou believest that there is one God." It doesn't add "and that God is Jesus Christ". That would be quite strange to think that, given that it is not in the Bible, and it is a point that Jesus Himself gets quite frustrated over when He says in Jn 8:42-43, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say." If this doesn't scream Divine frustration to any reader, then Idk what does because Christ starts yelling in Jn 7:28, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him,.." This is another human attribute of Christ for He is clearly cheesed-off.
Here are some other verses to consider:
We cannot know God:
This is an important point to consider that no matter how hard us humans try, our relationship to God will be as close as a coffee table is to it's carpenter. The table will never know the carpenter the way the carpenter knows his creation. But the only way we can is through His Messengers. In Jn 4:24, it states that "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." There is nothing really to comment on this given that Spirits are not physical and God is a Spirit. Jesus is flesh which He has described as weak, so it would be quite odd fore me to take you interpretation over this debate topic than that of Christ Himself.
I have almost no characters left but I will be talking about more sections then I will collectively address your arguments one by one. It is fair I do this given that you might want to hear my side of the debate as well. I will leave you with this to think about:
In John 8:14 it says, Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going." Jesus says that He knows where He came from and where He's going, but we don't because we don't know Him like He does (Jn 7:28). So the final point is that if Jesus Himself knows that the Father had put all things under His power, and that He had come from God and was returning to God (Jn 13:3), there is no reason why we should refute the things Jesus Himself says He knows. So either you side with yourself, or you trust Christ and side with Him. I choose the latter but what would you choose?
Welcome back everyone. I thank Con for his argument. For the final round I will present rebuttals of Con’s argument and then present whatever I can manage within the character limits.
Firstly, Con appeals directly to his religion to formulate an opinion on what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. May I remind Con that we are discussing what the bible teaches not what the late 19th century teachings of Baha’I says the bible teaches. We are looking at scripture itself, in all of the proper context (i.e. historical, cultural, etc.) Furthermore, using 19th century Persian spirituality, which stemmed from Islam, to understand B.C.E. second temple Judaism context makes little sense. The context of the New Testament begins within the context of second temple Judaism, which preceded Con’s beliefs and their formulations of the N.T. by more than 1900 years. In addition, using his belief instead of the Bible is problematic as Baha’I rejects blatant claims of scripture such as the virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, and so forth.
So I remind Con that we are letting the Bible speak for itself, in proper context, and nothing more. This is established in the rules and therefore Con is expected to adhere to it. Furthermore, I have never heard a Christian theologian translate “Son of Man” to “Son of Humanity”. There is no reason to translate it that way as theologians refer to it exactly as it translates into English, “Son of Man”. Regardless, his point, makes no case (see why below).
Con on the Humanity of Christ
Con goes into the humanity of Jesus, which is all well, but rule #2 makes it clear, “This debate also presupposes the authority of scripture, the existence of God, and the existence and humanity of Christ. The matter should be focused on the issue of Christ's divinity.”
Con’s efforts here are wasted as we have established the humanity of Christ in the rules. His argument is going into discussing the role of Jesus in contrast to the Father, but it was made clear that we are not dwelling into doctrines of the Trinity or Hypostatic Union. We are discussing whether or not the Bible claims Jesus is God.
Jesus’ prays…to Himself?
Con brings up a common issue that most people have to wrestle with when confronting the claims of Jesus’ divinity. Part of this is explained through understanding of Who God is opposed to What God is. But it is further understood by the preexistence of Christ as he was the Son of God before the world. The relationship between the Father and Son are pre-time, creation, etc. John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus Christ is known as the living Word of God and a read through of chapter one of John confirms that “Word” refers to Christ. Not only does this passage say “the Word (Jesus) "was God”, but that Jesus is preexistent to time/creation.
The Sons role in his humanity is not only meant as an example, as followers of Christ are to be conformed to Christ, but to further prove his humanity. This issue is cleared up in Philippians 2:5-8, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Emphasis added)
In order to be fully human, untainted by sin, Jesus had to “empty himself by taking the form of a servant” and “becoming obedient”. Obedience includes communication with The Father for seeking of wisdom, his will, and guidance. This is showing that Christ was indeed human, but even more so – a picture of what Humans were intended to be, an example of how those who follow Christ should be. Interestingly enough, in making my case I have presented a text, which indicates that God took on the additional role of humanity in the person of Christ. This passage also shows that Christ, in his humanity, assumed a role of a “servant”. Christ’s humanity is necessary for the goal of salvation as Christ is established as a high priest, which would require too much explanation for the purpose of this debate.
This passage single handedly dismantles Con’s section “humanity of Jesus”. I would also ask Con, is God limited to the logic he created? He certainly is not limited to the laws of the materialistic realm he created as we see throughout the Old Testament. God created a logical and orderly world, but we must be careful lest we put God in a box subject to his own creation.
Jesus was a prophet of God’s full self-disclosure
Christ was not an apostle, (http://www.dictionary.com...) as an apostle is “any of the early followers of Jesus who carried the Christian message into the world.” Is Jesus a disciple of Jesus?
The role of a prophet is to provide revelation of God and so yes, Jesus was a prophet, but the last in special revelation. Jesus is also the ultimate prophet as his message included the full self-disclosure of God, "Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?'" John 14:8-9
In fact, in this self-disclosure Jesus tells Phillip, when he asks to see the Father, that seeing him has meant that he seen the Father.
Con goes into the argument that “Moses was like God unto Pharaoh”, which is common argument stemming from two problems (a) historical context and (b) semantics of eliminating the analogy in place. In the historical context, Pharaohs were seen as God, and thus Pharaoh could not, would not, be subject to anyone but himself. Moses role not only shows Pharaoh that he is not in control, but within the analogy shows that there is A God who rules over pharaoh. The New Testament says that a husband is like Christ and his bride is like the church. Does that mean that I am Jesus Christ? Or is my wife the Church of Christ? Of course not. It would be silly to say so and this is basically the argument Con is formulating because the Old Testament has Yahweh telling Moses, “You will be like a god unto pharaoh.”
Con states, “If all these verses confirm the OT in the sense that Jesus is a Prophet, it would make sense if the OT had said the Messiah would be God as well.” To which I reply with a Messianic Prophecy in Isaiah 9:6, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Emphasis added).
In the end of Con’s argument in this section he makes historical error as the crucifix and flogging was considered the most dishonorable form of execution in that time. Not only was it extremely painful, and my passages in the previous round show that the Jews understand himself to be calling himself God, but the Jews continuously made it a point that the Romans execute Jesus, not themselves. Remember Pilate did not want to kill Jesus because it was a religious execution, but was later forced to because of possible political turmoil. Regardless, there must be a rebuttal of the Jew’s understanding of Christ’s words in order for Con’s case to hold any weight.
Con also states, “We cannot know God”, which is contrary to scripture. We are observing what the Bible teaches, again, not what Con’s interpretation of the Bible says.
Again, "Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?'" John 14:8-9
My last argument:
In this passage Jesus has just finished his public ministry, and the writer of John is speaking on those who heard Jesus teaching and did not believe. The writer gives explanation as to why people refused to believe Jesus’ words and teachings by quoting Isaiah 6:10.
The chapter of Isaiah 6 focuses on Isaiah’s encounter with the throne of God and of course, God being on that throne. John 12:40 is a direct quotation from Isaiah’s encounter with God in the throne room. The writer of John is speaking of Jesus’ ministry here and verse 41 goes on to say, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.” (Emphasis added). So we have the writer of John saying that while Isaiah encountered God in the throne room he “saw his glory and spoke of him”, but here he is speaking of Jesus. The question then is whom did Isaiah see? Jesus or God? Or is Jesus God?
Here is John 12:37-43 in its entirety with verse notations to show verse 40, which is the quote from Isaiah 6,
“37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.”
It is important to also note in verse 37 that John establishes that the following verses are attributed to Jesus as he speaks on many people not believing in him despite the “many signs before them.”
persianimmortal forfeited this round.