Did Jesus Claim To Be God In The Bible?
Round 2, 3, 4 - Rebuttal
Round 5 - Conclusion
John 8:24 - "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.". (Note: I took the word "He" out because the Greek word for "He", is not in the original text.)
Jesus claimed to be the I Am that God claimed to be in Exodus 3:14)
John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
He claimed to be the I Am, and claimed to exist before Abraham.
Matthew 28:18 - ""And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
Only God has all power over Heaven and Earth.
Yahweh said in Isaiah 44:6 - "I [am] the first, and I [am] the last".
Jesus said in Revelation 22:13, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
For my opponent to make a well-grounded argument, they would have to:
Firstly, Refute all my claims about the verses above.
And secondly, has to show verses where Jesus claimed he wasn't divine.
You must do both of those things to have a well-grounded argument.
 - http://biblehub.com...
Thank you for allowing a restart Pro.
On to my arguments and some verse rebuttal.
My argument is that Jesus never claimed to be God. There is no verse that reads “I am God” or “We are the same” or anything that simply states that Jesus is God and that God is Jesus.
For example the verse in John 12:44, which reads “Then Jesus cried out, "Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.”
Why would Jesus separate himself from God in that verse?
Indeed, the debate is on whether or not Jesus claimed he was God, not if he claimed to be divine. Jesus certainly claimed to be divine, but never to actually be the creator.
Keeping with famous John 12:
“For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me. I have come as a light to shine in this dark world, so that all who put their trust in me will no longer remain in the dark."
“No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!"
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied."
Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"
That exchange is the closest Jesus gets to claiming he is God, and yet he never directly says it. He never says “I am God”. He says things like “For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me.”
The Father is still separate, even when he “claims to be God”.
So to follow up on your verses:
Exodus – an ancient OT book devoid of Jesus.
John 8:58 – Jesus claims to be ancient, never to be God.
Matthew 28:18 – Jesus claims to be powerful, never to be God.
Isaiah is an ancient book of prophesies, not the word of Jesus.
Revelation 22:13 – Jesus claims to be ancient again, not to be God.
Jesus never claimed that he was the creator, just his “Son”. Another key verse in this line of logic is Matthew 24:36, which reads “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.”
Again Jesus separates himself from the Father. In fact, he is so separate, he doesn’t even know what the Father knows.
Why does the Old Testament God never mention Jesus? Why does the God of the OT never say “we”. As in: Jer 32:27 “Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?”
John 13:3 “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God”
God is clearly a different being in that verse.
Jesus obviously not God. God, the creator, the God is a different entity in the bible and even Jesus said so.
64bithuman forfeited this round.
Thank You Pro,
I apologize for being late in my response, I have been preoccupied with school.
I’m not “misunderstanding” the Old Testament. The OT is devoid of the living Christ. This point is not controversial, and if you believe it should be discussed farther then I am happy to oblige next round. Indeed, I dispute the claim that one would need the Old Testament to understand the New Testament. Other than occasional references to prophecies the NT stands quite separate. There is no “lock and key” between the two volumes.
Your alleged connection between John 8:24 and Exodus 3:14 is hardly a bulletproof declaration of being the creator. The full context of that section is essential. Jesus is predicting his death.
(Continued) John 8:25-29
“Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”
And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.”
They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father.
Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.”
This passage in its entirety is illuminating. Jesus isn’t God because how could the Father have sent him, and how could the Father still be with him if he wasn’t a different being, that is, “the son”.
Note that he states “then you will know that I am He” and in the same breath continues by saying “and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.” Is Jesus saying he literaly is God or is he simply saying that by acting out his Father’s will he is representing his Father?
Exodus 3:14 is a message from God, true, but it isn’t about Jesus. It’s Moses in the desert (after fleeing Egypt and the oppressed Jewish population) and God is telling him to go back to Egypt. In fear, Moses says in verse 13, “…Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
God’s response is about his rescue of the Jewish population in Egypt. It has nothing to do with Christ, and to say that it does is a true stretch of logic.
Prophecies are hardly proof of being God. They speak of a savior. Perhaps even a son; but not a God.
Your verse from Zechariah shows nothing about being a God. He might be a “King” but not a God.
Your connect-the-dot patchwork bit of logic about the bits and pieces from Isaiah meaning that Jesus is Yahweh because he “brought salvation” and was “fair and just” is ludicrous.
Equally as ludicrous is your explanation of Matthew 24:36.
Again, the verse (in another translation for accuracy): “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
Jesus only seperates himself from the Father because he was in the form of a servant when he was on Earth and Jesus didn't know then because he was in the form of a servant then.
Where in the bible does it mention that Jesus would “change forms”?
You say Philippians 2 (and you do not mention a verse, simply all of Philippians 2). I am familiar with the chapter. I assume you mean:
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.”
I’ll remind you that the debate topic is “Did Jesus claim to be God?” Philippians wasn’t quoting Christ. The Apostle Paul wrote Philippians as a letter to as an example of Christ to the Church of Phillipi in 62 AD, some 30 years after Jesus was dead. In fact, Paul never even met Jesus. Ever. The incident on the road only describes bright light and a voice. Paul didn’t even know what Jesus looked like.
This means that example is completely useless in this debate.
I say the Burden of Proof sits on your side to prove that Jesus said he is God. There are far more verses saying that the Creator, that is, Yahweh, is a different person. He calls himself the son, having been sent by his Father. It is quite clear.
For example, someone who only reads the New Testament will have no clue what Jesus is talking about when he calls himself the Son of Man. They could only know what that means if they read the Book of Daniel. Similarly, to fully understand what Jesus was saying about himself, you need to know what the Old Testament says.
"Exodus 3:14 is a message from God, true, but it isn"t about Jesus."
I never said the verse was about Jesus, I said that God clamed to be the "I am" here. That makes Jesus' claims of being the "I am" (It's all over the Greek for John 8), as him making himself equal with God, since Jesus was a Jew and knew full well who the "I am" was. He knew who the I am was (Yahweh), yet claimed to be the I am, thus he is making himself equal with the I am (Yahweh)
"Your verse from Zechariah shows nothing about being a God. He might be a "King"" but not a God."
The Tanakh says that the King and Savior of Zion (Israel) will come on a Donkey, and that the King and Savior of Zion (Israel) is Yahweh (Isaiah 44:6). Anyone who came across these two verses (Zechariah 9:9 & Isaiah 44:6) would realize that Zechariah 9:9 is talking about God, since God spoke through Isaiah the prophet that he was Israel's King and Savior, and then spoke through Zechariah that the King and Savior of Israel would come to them on a Donkey and a Colt the foal of a Donkey. When Jesus fulfilled this (He self-fulfilled it according to Matthew 21:1-9), he was claiming to be the King and Savior of Zion/Israel (Yahweh), through his actions.
There's no possible way to refute these points: All of your refutations do not erase the points I've brought up. Your interpretation of Matthew 24:36 doesn't match up with what other parts of the Gospels.
Matthew 24:36 - In the context of all of the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, it isn't wrong to say that Jesus was humbling himself at a human level when he said those things, and after he rose from the dead his power as God returned to him. Jesus himself said he came to Earth to serve (Mark 10:45), and while he was on Earth he said he didn't know all things (Matthew 24:36), yet after he rose from the dead he said he had all authority over Heaven and Earth (Matthew 28:18), and in John 21:17 Peter says Jesus knows all things, and Jesus never corrects him.
And even before Jesus died and rose, the disciples said Jesus knew all things, and Jesus never corrected them (John 16:30). Since, while on Earth, Jesus was God and man, you could say that when Jesus implies he doesn't know all things, he is referring to his manhood, and when he implies he does, he is referring to his Godhood.
I understand your logic in bringing up the OT. I went to a bible school for many years. I know the bible well. I am saying that what apparently seems logical to you is utterly ludicrous, especially in context with the debate topic.
You continue to quote the OT, but I’ll remind you that the debate topic is “Did Jesus Claim To Be God In The Bible?” not: “Can you make a case that Jesus claimed to be divine?”
Isaiah might say that the King of Israel would ride on a donkey, but I can just as easily make the point that Isaiah 44:6 (“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God”) is a weak way of linking the donkey rider to being Yahweh. I could just as easily say that those verses are completely different, especially being that they are found in different places. Not everything is intimately linked across the bible.
I could make the case that Jesus wasn’t even the saviour using the prophecies.
Because in Isaiah 11:1-10 it speaks of Jesus: “And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious.”
And also in 2 Samuel 7, quite famously: “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.”
And yet Jesus was supposedly a virgin birth, making his only connection to the “Root of Jesse”, that is, the line of David, impossible. As in Matthew 1:16 – “And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.”
Not that any of this matters, as I said before the debate topic is about Jesus personally claiming to be God.
So let’s follow this logic. In Exodus, when God says the words “I am”, this somehow makes Jesus’ words in John 8, that is, the verse that reads “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Mean that he meant to say ‘I am God’?
I dispute that. Interesting that you brought up the Greek translation because in the Greek Jesus says “eg!3; eimi” literally, ‘I am’, and yet in the Hebrew text of Exodus (I am) the translation is “’eh·yeh”. The difference is that ’eh·yeh is an active verb that can also mean become. It’s an interesting word because it’s used often in phrases like “I am that I am”. That phrase in English seems contradictory but in the Hebrew it translates to “ehyeh ašer ehyeh”. It literally means “I will be what I will be”, or as I said before, I become, in a progressing way.
The Hebrew word is always in relation to God. The Greek eg!3; eimi has no holy value, it’s just the same as if I said, “I am debating you”, or “I am a carpenter”.
You tell me how strong a link that really is. Why wouldn’t Jesus take more care with his words? Why wouldn’t he just say it? Why does it take such a lengthy series of examples and call-backs and references to the OT to try and prove something he never just came out and said? He again never said “before Abraham, I created the world” or “before Abraham, I was God”. It’d be so easy to do but he never just says it.
Your interpretation of Matthew 24:36 doesn't match up with what other parts of the Gospels.
Yes it does. Prove it doesn’t. Jesus always keeps God as a separate person. His Father, as Jesus himself nearly always referred to him. Also, it’s interesting that you choose the words “my interpretation”. It seemed quite clear to me. He said that God knows things he doesn’t know, therefore how could they be one and the same?
All of this hair splitting is distracting from the main point. Did Jesus claim to be God?
I still do not see irrefutable proof that Jesus said he was God.
1. Isaiah 11:1-10, 2 Samuel 7, and Matthew 1:16 don't even refute Jesus being the Savior. The first two are saying he is a King (this doesn't contradict being a Savior), and Matthew 1:16 is saying Jacob begat Jospeh, who's wife Mary bore Jesus who is called Christ. This is a bad comparison to my argument, because Isaiah 44:6 undeniably says Yahweh is the King and Savior of Israel, and Zechariah 9:9 undeniably says the King and Savior of Israel will come to Zion on a Donkey.
2. It says, "Ego eimi" in the Greek, and it isn't exactly like the Hebrew ""eh"yeh", because the Greek had to be written in Greek, and they had to be the closest to Hebrew as possible (But it won't be the exact same). The Septuagint says in Exodus 3:14, "O52;^7;P61; ^9;O84;_6;_3; P01; P36;_7;.".
Jesus never said, "before Abraham, I created the world" or "before Abraham, I was God", even though it was easy to say, but he worded it to mean exactly that.
3. I already proved your interpretation was wrong. Jesus said that the greatest would serve, and said he came to serve, which could be interpreted as saying Jesus was humbling himself. After he rose, he claimed to have the authority of God.
You don't see any irrefutable proof because you either don't want to see it, or you are not looking at the whole picture.
1.This entire section shouldn"t be used for this debate. It again disregards the fact that the debate is about whether Jesus himself claimed to be God. OT sections are not the word of Jesus himself, and should not be considered.
2.Why would the translation not use a Greek word like aeon, a word separate by meaning eternal? The problem persists. Why would Jesus not just simply say it? Why does God know things Jesus doesn"t? How can you honestly prove that they are the same if they think and act differently?
3.You refuse again to find proof that Jesus himself claimed to be God.