Evidence for God from Science

I think we need to distinguish Jesus' followers understanding of Jesus when he was with them and AFTER he was resurrected.
The Gospels and letters and creeds ALL being written AFTER his resurrection, hence their more correct understanding not only of Jesus' identity BUt also of the prophecies of the past.

Here I asked if Mathew, Mark, and Luke ever said that Jesus ever claimed to be God, if so where and if not why not?

I wish I could find a link to a study on this. It covers each Gospel, and it's purpose. The purpose statement in John was, John 20:31.

The Four Gospels:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The 4 living creatures in the Bible are found in: Ezekiel 1; Ezekiel 10; Rev. 4

The four living creatures have 4 faces: A lion, an Ox, a Man, and an Eagle.

The four gospels each represent one of the faces:
Matthew - Lion
Mark - Ox
Luke - Man
John - Eagle

Each of the four gospels describe Jesus in a different way:
Matthew - King
Mark - Servant
Luke - Man
John - God

All that to say this. The question often comes up, did Jesus actually ever claim to be God. The answer is yes. Or, in this case the question is asked except to exclude the Gospel of John. Not sure why.

PaulSacramento wrote:To a first century Jew, Son of God or Messiah did NOT mean "God incarnate", no expected that of the messiah.

Was this considered a Messianic prophecy to a first century Jew?
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.
Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

B. W. wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:Cheez, see this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... n's_Gospel

If this link does not work please tell me. Or if you cannot get from it what I am talking about.

Yes, we get the drift but the premise of the article is wrong. How? First, like I stated earlier, the OT explains who and what the Messiah will be...

Next Did Jesus in Mark, Luke, Matthew ever stated He forgave sins? Saved? Shared power/glory with God the Father?

What does the bible say?

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.

Mat 18:11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.

Luke 9:56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village.

Isa 45:21, 22 Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. 22 "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.


Who only can Forgive/blot out the root issue of indwelling sin?

Mark 2:6, 7 And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Luke 5:24 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"—He said to the man who was paralyzed, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house."

Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins.

Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.


Share God's Glory with another - what does God say about this? and then what did Jesus say?

Luke 22:69, 70 Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God." 70 Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God?" So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."

Isaiah 48:11 For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.


There is enough in the gospels to convict Jesus as being God manifest in human flesh from his own recorded words without using John’s Gospel. Therefore, the ‘Son of’ terms identify Jesus as the servant mentioned in Isaiah and not the average Joe. This is God doing this: become a man so as to join you (who believe) to Himself as adopted sons into His household. Son of Man – Son of God - The term in the context Jesus used referred to this: God and man reconciled…

Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isa 49:1 "Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The LORD has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.
Isa 49:2 And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has hidden Me."
Isa 49:3 "And He said to me, 'You are My servant, O Israel, In whom I will be glorified.'
Isa 49:4 Then I said, 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and in vain; Yet surely my just reward is with the LORD, And my work with my God.' "
Isa 49:5 "And now the LORD says, Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, So that Israel is gathered to Him (For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, And My God shall be My strength),
Isa 49:6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' "
Isa 49:7 Thus says the LORD, The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, To Him whom the nation abhors, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also shall worship, Because of the LORD who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel; And He has chosen You."

Isa 42:1 "Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.

Isa 50:10 "Who among you fears the LORD? Who obeys the voice of His Servant? Who walks in darkness And has no light? Let him trust in the name of the LORD And rely upon his God.

Isa 52:13 Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high

Isa 53:11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.

It may be true, but right now I just don't buy the following:


You enter the realm which perplexed the First Century Jews – it is the context in which the phrase is used and to whom it refers. These phrases are not linear but rather contextual.

For example: What does the word – might – mean?

Some words have several totally different meanings but the context which they are used defines and brings clarity.

Several people responded to you based on contextual meaning to specific verses referring to Jesus Christ."If you would like to look at the context as pertianing to mere faliblle mortals, then please note context and also how the Lord himself said there will never be any gods besides Him.

The term, son of God, as applied to us or other persons mentioned in the bible refers to a title by adoption. It is a title sort of Like – John Doe – (now) Son of Henry Lee of the family of Lee household.

Another example would be: As a Christian, Dr Norman Geisler is (now) Giesler - Son of God of the household of Christ Jesus.

That is how it applies to people. The bible makes it clear, Jesus was both God and Man just as the OT describes – coming to adopt believers into his Kingdom…

You cannot just apply the phrases how it pertains to us, or Solomon, as the same when applied to Christ. The First Century Jewish leaders and their respective followers did so with trying to define the Messiah and made the same error: avoiding the context and by not letting scripture interpret scripture.
-
-

I believe Jesus is God. I would be glad if IMO the Syntoptic Gospels say so. But despite what you have said, I am not convinced they do.
-

I believe Jesus is God. I would be glad if IMO the Syntoptic Gospels say so. But despite what you have said, I am not convinced they do.

I do not understand...the whole point of the gospels written was to give an account of Jesus. They could have easily said "Jesus was the son of God" rather they showed his life, his works, his power, so as to present him as a messiah, healer, God incarnate, so on and so forth. Second, the people writing these gospels clearly knew for a fact that Christ was God's son, so they never really had to prove this, this was understood among his followers. And John was written in the end and he reiterated the message using bold words and analogies. As a matter of fact you can study the Pauline epistles about Christ's work and crucifixion and then relate those to the synoptic gospels and you will understand that his divine son-ship was not in question. Its a matter of perspective writing. And I think this is the reason why they never mentioned him as being son of God directly from their own pen rather than they showed it through his works and words.

You should also know that the gospels writers might have been careful as to not use the title "son of God" for Jesus, as to not give the Jews and the roman authorities an excuse to persecute them.

You should also know that making a written copy of the gospel was a real troubling task and if so, in between travel if one was lost or confiscated, it should not be showing anything as to warrant its destruction.

There could be many more reasons we simply do not know about.

I mean, I wish God could have just shown his face to every one on Earth and we wouldn't be needing to explain this much...but then it is just my wish, right?

Was this considered a Messianic prophecy to a first century Jew?
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.
Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Sure but NO 1st century Jew interpreted like that UNTIL after Jesus' resurrection.

There are "blatant" views of Jesus being "God incarnate" in Paul's epistles and the GOJ, that the synoptics don't EXPLICITLY state it needs to be understood in relation to what types of works they are- basically biographies accounting what happened and was said DURING the ministry of Jesus and what happened at his death and that he rose again.
Pauls letters and John's letters don't focus on that and the GOJ is most certainly the most christological of all gospels.

PaulSacramento wrote:Sure but NO 1st century Jew interpreted like that UNTIL after Jesus' resurrection.

And by what authority and evidence do you make that claim? Paul, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but only asking how you can make exclusive claims like this. Are you saying that you know for certain that say, Simeon and Anna, who were expecting the Messiah didn't read Isaiah's words that way?

The term, son of God, as applied to us or other persons mentioned in the bible refers to a title by adoption. It is a title sort of Like – John Doe – (now) Son of Henry Lee of the family of Lee household.

OK, let's look at this and see if this 'title' used in this sense. Huious tou Theou
John 1:49 Then Nathanael exclaimed, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God--the King of Israel!"
Matthew 4:3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
Luke 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
John 1:34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." (A son of God? No, THE Son of God.)

And by what authority and evidence do you make that claim? Paul, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but only asking how you can make exclusive claims like this. Are you saying that you know for certain that say, Simeon and Anna, who were expecting the Messiah didn't read Isaiah's words that way?

Can I suggest the works of NT Wright, his mammoth trilogy:
The New Testament and the People of God Volume 1 (Christian Origins and the Question of God)
Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2)
The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)

The notion of a CRUCIFIED messiah was unheard of to 1st Century Jew, it was only Jesus resurrection that proved not only His messiahship BUT that he was THE Son of God in the total "Incarnate" sense and not just the OT honorific title sense.

PaulSacramento wrote:

And by what authority and evidence do you make that claim? Paul, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but only asking how you can make exclusive claims like this. Are you saying that you know for certain that say, Simeon and Anna, who were expecting the Messiah didn't read Isaiah's words that way?

Can I suggest the works of NT Wright, his mammoth trilogy:
The New Testament and the People of God Volume 1 (Christian Origins and the Question of God)
Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2)
The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)

The notion of a CRUCIFIED messiah was unheard of to 1st Century Jew, it was only Jesus resurrection that proved not only His messiahship BUT that he was THE Son of God in the total "Incarnate" sense and not just the OT honorific title sense.

Jonathan ben Uziel (early 1st century), in his Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible), paraphrasing Isaiah 53, wrote: “My servant, the Messiah, will be great, who was bruised for our sins.” Furthermore, the Talmud (in the Midrash Tanchumi) states with reference to Isaiah 52:13 that “He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Moses; higher than the angels.”

Sure, but does that mean that you can say NO one first century Jew interpreted that the Messiah would be divine?
Seems like you are moving the goal post. When did a crucified Messiah become the context of the discussion? The context is a divine Messiah. Sure, the resurrection does confirm this, no question.
I don't deny that a post resurrection perspective is different. In fact I hold strong to the fact that the message Christ preached in His earthly ministry (Israel/Kingdom) was different than a post resurrection Gospel from Paul. (Acts 17:2-3) But, does that mean that NO Jewish contemporaries of Jesus' anticipated a divine Messiah? Can you say exclusively that Simeon and Anna didn't read the text this way?

I looked up some of your references. Before I spend $45 on a book, can you tell me for example where in "The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)" this would be specifically addressed?

ultimate777 wrote:In Mathew, Mark, and Luke do they say that Jesus ever claims to be the Son of God, if so, where, and if not, why not?

I have read this thread and all through has been shown where Jesus refered to Himself as the Son of Man, and even though you did not ask it and for the only reason was because Jesus refered to Himself as the One and same as at the burning bush, The Father said, I Am that I Am. Jesus called Himself or said I am, the Bread of Life, I am the Living Water, and therein lies your answer but you chose for whatever reason to omitt that Book. This by the way was found in John 5 through John 9, but in John 7 we find there in these verses excatly what you want but like those in His day reject it also.

John 7: 28) Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29) But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me

. That is as to the pint as one can get.


Sir I want to point out in Matthew 12: in answer to the subject labor on the Sabboth Jesus said these words;

8 "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."

In this verse we find not only the mention as the Son of Man, but also, Lord of the Sabboth. How much more profetic must you have it than that? Jesus is calling Himself Lord even of the Sabbath Day. Not only does it cover that day but He is saying "I Am Lord of All" everything. If this is not your answer then you will not find what you are looking for and even if you did you would not except it or know it. Sorry to be so forth right with my speaking but, you where so with everyone who tried to answer your question. I will say no more for I am a simple man with a simple mind forgive me if I speak out of line but all these Scriptures where written so as show that Jesus was indeed God in the Flesh. He left heaven with all it's splender to come meet us in our setting in order that He might win us back to Him, no forcing, no making just asking and showing us His Love through the Cross and it was through the Cross He knew was the only way and by Him being one of us, yes a special One of us but none the less One of us so that that Bridge could be built for us to cross over to get back to Him. The sad part of it all, only a small few will make it and a small few will want to make it and that is so sad for The Father, our Father, the Father of Jesus who gave His Life for us. Yes I am a simple man that is not ashamed of being called a Christian and will stand up to say it no matter where. God Bless and have a Great Day!

jlay wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

And by what authority and evidence do you make that claim? Paul, I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but only asking how you can make exclusive claims like this. Are you saying that you know for certain that say, Simeon and Anna, who were expecting the Messiah didn't read Isaiah's words that way?

Can I suggest the works of NT Wright, his mammoth trilogy:
The New Testament and the People of God Volume 1 (Christian Origins and the Question of God)
Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2)
The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)

The notion of a CRUCIFIED messiah was unheard of to 1st Century Jew, it was only Jesus resurrection that proved not only His messiahship BUT that he was THE Son of God in the total "Incarnate" sense and not just the OT honorific title sense.

Jonathan ben Uziel (early 1st century), in his Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible), paraphrasing Isaiah 53, wrote: “My servant, the Messiah, will be great, who was bruised for our sins.” Furthermore, the Talmud (in the Midrash Tanchumi) states with reference to Isaiah 52:13 that “He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Moses; higher than the angels.”

Sure, but does that mean that you can say NO one first century Jew interpreted that the Messiah would be divine?
Seems like you are moving the goal post. When did a crucified Messiah become the context of the discussion? The context is a divine Messiah. Sure, the resurrection does confirm this, no question.
I don't deny that a post resurrection perspective is different. In fact I hold strong to the fact that the message Christ preached in His earthly ministry (Israel/Kingdom) was different than a post resurrection Gospel from Paul. (Acts 17:2-3) But, does that mean that NO Jewish contemporaries of Jesus' anticipated a divine Messiah? Can you say exclusively that Simeon and Anna didn't read the text this way?

I looked up some of your references. Before I spend $45 on a book, can you tell me for example where in "The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3)" this would be specifically addressed?

Will, I agree that it is incorrect to say that NO Jew expected a divine messiah, but divine as in God Incarnate, I don't think they did, no.
At least not from my discussions with Jewish experts.
The moment that Jesus was crucified, the notion of HIM as Messiah was pretty much disproved UNTIL he was resurrected ( dead people can't be the messiah).
What I am saying is that:
WHile alive He was viewed as the Messiah, the Son of God ( honorific title not meaning God Incarnate or Logos Incarnate) by his followers.
On his death via crucifixtion they no longer viewed Him as such.
Upon his resurrection he was not only viewed as the Messiah BUT the Divine Messiah, The Word of God incarnate.

CaseyMc2 wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:In Mathew, Mark, and Luke do they say that Jesus ever claims to be the Son of God, if so, where, and if not, why not?

I must have mispoke myself. I meant to say: In Mathew, Mark, and Luke do they say that Jesus ever claims God, if so, where, and if not, why not?


I am maintaining that up until the Gospel of John Son of God did not neccesarily mean God.
But people here have taken it upon themselves to change around my question, as they almost always do
and blame me for not liking it. I think this is a bad reflection on them and a poor reflection on Christ and if they don't start answering my questions without changing them I may soon have to give up these forums as a bad job.

Maybe I am too harsh. Maybe it's not venality, but just plain stupidity.
Sometimes I wish Jesus had provided some of his dedicated followers
with more sense, but I suppose He has His reasons.

ultimate777 wrote:

CaseyMc2 wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:In Mathew, Mark, and Luke do they say that Jesus ever claims to be the Son of God, if so, where, and if not, why not?

I must have mispoke myself. I meant to say: In Mathew, Mark, and Luke do they say that Jesus ever claims God, if so, where, and if not, why not?


I am maintaining that up until the Gospel of John Son of God did not neccesarily mean God.
But people here have taken it upon themselves to change around my question, as they almost always do
and blame me for not liking it. I think this is a bad reflection on them and a poor reflection on Christ and if they don't start answering my questions without changing them I may soon have to give up these forums as a bad job.

Maybe I am too harsh. Maybe it's not venality, but just plain stupidity.
Sometimes I wish Jesus had provided some of his dedicated followers
with more sense, but I suppose He has His reasons.

Actually I thought it was answered...
Jesus never claimed to be God EXPLICITLY in the Synoptics but does seem to say that in John.
In John Jesus is viewed as God ( in regards to sharing the same nature as God but NOT as being God the Father) quite openly by the writer and is accused as doing such more than once.
But if you are looking for the words coming from Jesus that " I am GOD", no, you will not find that anywhere.

As for why He didn't come out an say it.
Well, they had a hard enough time grasping the "obvious" stuff he was saying, can you imagine how they would have reacted to " I am God Incarnate, and God is NOT as you know him to be but a Triune being, a spiritual perfect union of Father, Son and HS, etc, etc"
Yeah, that would have went over well !
Through out the bible God has ALWAYS accommodated His revelation to the people He was speaking to.