“1. Jesus said He came down from Heaven” (Shane)

That’s not proof he is God – but is ‘from God’. I have stated it clearly that Jesus was created by God and was in the court of God all along – as the Messiah. Now He was ‘sent’ – sent people – sent! That speaks volumes.

“2. Jesus said He was more than just a good man” (Shane)

This one is actually kind of funny – because Jesus in that passage ‘why do you call me good’? Jesus is actually pointing out the very idea he is not God – or at the very least asking the question to point the honor to God for what ‘teaching’ he is doing and this is not of himself. Same thing we do with Jesus in most churches when asked ‘wow you are a good person’.

“Jesus healed on the Sabbath and that really infuriated the Pharisees. He also called God his Father and that also put Him on their “bad” list.” (Shane)

John actually is the only gospel that explicitly points to Jesus as God – depending on one’s interpretation of the majority of what is written – but it is there. It makes me wonder about the veracity of that book from a Jewish viewpoint – or if a Jewish writer actually wrote it.

The term God is Father – actually had existed in rabbincal circles already and was basically a term about God and nation of Israel – God cared for them. Now when Jesus uses it – it’s actually not much different at all – but for some odd reason John 5:18 makes it seem like this is very problematic – and maybe it was – maybe the people did not see Jesus as a rabbi or anyone important (so his claims offended some).

However, the fact Jesus calls God ‘Father’ is also clue to the idea Jesus is not claiming equality with God. When Jesus prays the ‘Our Father’ – he calls God Father there also – alongside everyone else (which was the way the term is used in John)…but he is praying to God (if he is God then no need to pray to God).

“3. Jesus said He is the Son of Man.” (Shane)
The son of man is also a created position by God – that does not appear until the prophet Daniel – some odd 1200 years after Moses’ writings (the Torah). It’s not an original idea from the Torah. Irregardless, this line seals the deal ‘He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power…” – Uhm, yeah – he is not the ‘Ancient of Days’ and is ‘given’ everything he becomes – so how is he God?

Let me point out the absolute obvious fallacy going on here – Christians using Jewish texts (which they still study and live by) to proclaim Jesus is God – Tanakh passages are the proof (this includes the Isaiah idea from Steve also). It’s plain and simple wrong by inclusion of interpretation from a Jewish viewpoint (the rabbinical scholars). It is true, some of these passages are seen messianicly and have some importance on that level. Problem is, they are never seen as messianicly in the sense the ‘son of man’ would be equal to God – that is foreign to Jewish interpretation of the passages – so we obviously in Christian circles have ‘added it in’ – because it can not be found in Jewish circles at all.

“This passage indicates that he isn’t human. He is given messianic dominion and authority. This person is worshiped. David speaks of this person is Psalm 110.” (Shane)

Okay, another passage from the Tanakh (Psalm 110) – the question is beyond obvious – if Jewish people, who still study this and have in the past, do not ever arrive at this conclusion (Messiah is God) from a reading of the text (even when they see Messiah in it) – how is it we can even so much as use that as proof?

But for those who will not listen to line 1 of my argument ‘hear this’: “The Lord says to my Lord” (vs.1) – That line in Hebrew actually can read ‘God/Adonai said to my master/lord’…and has always been viewed by Jewish rabbi’s to mean something in that vein of thinking – based solely on the Hebrew and context. David see’s someone as his master – that is below God on that scale of glory. Worshipped or not, he was ‘sent’ by the Lord/Adonai – ‘The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter’ – God still ordains the Messiah as ‘some authority’ which is the most common theme in all of the gospels and Tanakh passages on this idea of the ‘Messiah’ – that God sends him.

“4. Jesus performed miracles” (Shane)

If miracles were entrance into Godhood – then Elijah and Elisha have the market cornered first and foremost. However, neither Elijah not Elisha ever became gods or anything even remotely close – they were prophets of God – empowered by God. Even Elijah went up in a chariot of fire to God (like the ascension) and never was Elijah ever given god status. He was seen as a person blessed by God.
Jesus actually is seen doing the same miracles of Elijah in many instances – even to the point where people are asking ‘is this Elijah’? Miracles or not proof of Godhood – they are just proof God is working with someone – anointed them even one could say.

“5. Jesus said He is God” (Shane)

In the Mark passage, and in all the other gospels concerning this same scene, Jesus claims to be the Messiah – that is the actual charge. However, there is a problem with seeing this scene as Jesus claiming to be God – cause then the High Priest would be accurate to call for blasphemy – cause Jesus would be breaking the great commandment. However, does not the passages about the Messiah point out ‘his innocence like that of a sheep’?

Jesus had to have been innocent in that trial on all accounts he was blamed for – to be considered the Messiah…and the charge he was given was ‘blasphemy’. Is Jesus innocent of even this charge? I think so. Jesus does claim to be the Messiah – a piece he takes from Daniel in his answer – but I would contend he is innocent of the charge (since he had to be sinless) of blasphemy – and the court bonded the 2 in a rush to judgement.

John 8 can be seen as a direct statement – that Jesus is God. I choose not to see John in that regards – but more word association in the use of the ‘I am’ statements. Jesus is stating he is clearly close to God – no doubt – however John either crosses the line and calls him God (only gospel to do so then) or is doing something unique with the wording.

One has to remember Caesar was seen as the ‘son of God’ also and there is a unique comparison going on here from John’s book – about Jesus and Rome. I think John is making the point that Caesar is not the ‘son of God’ and Jesus is the ‘son of God’ – in that Jesus is the one to be followed and is close to God (actual representative). It was being written in the context of convincing Gentile believers (and anyone else) that Rome was not to be worshipped – and to make this stand would mean your life – but it was backed by good evidence – the life of Jesus.

I personally do not know what to think of John to be honest – if you ask me it reads like a Gentile piece of work – using Jewish terminology – and at times – confusing the actual intents of the Jewish terms for more literal readings. If Jesus is God through and through as the Messiah – then why isn’t this idea backed from all over the place – and the only reference for Jesus being God comes from John’s gospel – and even within that gospel it gets contradictory on the same issue:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser” (John 15:1) – Jesus is the vine/plant and God is the vinedresser/gardener…yeah – totally different roles given by Jesus of himself and God. Almost as if, wait, yes – God is in charge of this whole thing.

“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3) – Firstly, this is Jesus’ prayer to God. Jesus calls God ‘the Only true God’ – and that Jesus was ‘sent’ from Him. Jesus is not explaining how he and God are ‘One’ – no – he states clearly that God is the only God here – but also that all power and glory Jesus contains – comes directly from God’s anointing.

Clear cut and obvious – I think not.