Was Jesus God?

So if the Bible says Jesus was God, who did Jesus pray to? We know according to the Bible that Jesus prayed to God, but if he was God, who did he pray to. Correct me if I am wrong, but not once in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God.
balkantraveler.com

 

It claims that Jesus is the son of God, not God himself.

 

According to the Scriptures, God does not exist as one person. It takes three persons to make One God. This can be seen in First John Chapter 5 verse 7.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, (Jesus)
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE.
They are kind of like the atom. You have a Proton, Nutron, an eletron, yet they all equal one Atom. The Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost all equal one God.

 

Jesus prayed to the Father. Both were ontologically God, but Christ was (and is) functionally subordinate to the Father. A lot like a husband and wife, really. Both are ontologically equal (they are both human), but when one submits to the other in love (i.e. when she goes to see that action movie she has no interest in seeing simply because he asks her to or vice versa) then one spouse or the other is being functionally subordinate. In essence, Christ lovingly and voluntarily submits Himself to the loving authority of the Father although He is ontologically equal to the Father.

The other key concept is the idea of hypostasis or the hypostatic union. The short version is that a deity can have attributes that are independent persons. That personhood is formed and completed on the basis of the attribute's relationship with the deity. There are multiple examples of this concept in several cultures. In Judaism, God's Wisdom makes claims of being a separate person (i.e. "I was with the Father in the beginning. I came forth from the Father before the Creation of anything." paraphrased, or course). Christianity (the first chapter of John in particular) asserts that Jesus is God's Wisdom incarnate, even though most Christians don't know it.

Sure thing

Christ said "I and the Father are One." and "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." and "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was I AM." He claimed to forgive sins. He claimed to be Daniel's "Son of Man". He spoke as though He had authority over the scriptures. Futher, He was accused to His face more than once of claiming to be God, and did not deny it.

So yeah, He claims it in several places.

Not really, no. Not like an atom at all, really. God doesn't have three parts, nor is He divisible.

No, God is more like a lit lamp. The concept of a lit lamp means that Heat (the Spirit) and Light (Jesus) come forth from the Lamp (the Father). All three are essential to the lit lamp and none can exist without the other two within the concept. Yet while the Heat and the Light find their source and substance within the Lamp (they are ontologically equal, being just as much a part of a lit lamp as the lamp itself), they are functionally subordinate (as the lamp dicates the amount of light and heat it will release).

More complicated, but a much better analogy.

 

Good call Alsharad.
I understand all analogies will fall apart eventually so I did get where the Atom one meant to go.
but,
The lamp analogy is probably the best one yet.

Years ago a popular one was along the lines of 'ice in a hot pan' and I think the teacher intended to show how the ice could become water and the water steam.... and yet they were all essentially the same H2O.
Same essense.

I always considered it a bizarre question (the trinity) when its been put forward by critical theists. (muslims for example).
It asks how God could 'be in two places at once' or how could God exist outside His own Incarnation.
Well of course those are not really very good questions to make if you are already accepting God is omnipotent, omniscient and exists above the limitations of time and space.
Of course God most certainly could present himself as three 'persons' at the same time.
He certainly can talk to himself.

Also its a good point that Jesus does indeed get asked if he is God and some hebrew scholar pointed out to me once that its not just that Jesus only 'doesnt deny' but in fact he responds with a royal affirmative.
'As you say'.
Our modern vocabulary has a bad habit of transliterating that to 'yeah.. whatever you say'
or
Whateva?
We have thought of it as having a 'coy' or even 'sarcastic' ininsuation sometimes.
Yet Im told this is actually a 'solemn yes' and think more in the terms of responding to a King with 'As you wish' or 'as you please'.
So in this sense Jesus gives a truly affirmative 'yes' answer to the question.
This says one scholar anyways.

Another one worth looking at is Thomas who upon examining the physical evidence for the Resurrection exclaims "My Lord, My God"
I have heard this interpreted in the sense he is saying 'My Lord (to Jesus) and then 'My God' (as if to God above).
Ive never done a study on that other than hearing commentators suggest the former has to be the best understanding.

I have to strongly suggest that the very reason Christians believe Jesus is God is simply because thats where the scriptures eventually take you.
Its not a case of saying so.. then looking or hoping something will come up to confirm it.
You cant really get out of it when you get all the scriptures together on this.
In a real logical sense the teachings and accounts will 'eliminate' all other possibilities until you are left with what we have:
Jesus is 100% God incarnate in a 100% human being.

I really do understand and totally appreciate how and why this would seem baffling and complicated to a non-christian.
When you do get whats going on it really is entirely apprehendable.
Its just not 'comprehenable'.
Niether is Omniscience, Omnipotence or Eternity for that matter heh.

 

The three parts of the three and one God can be seperated from each other, and need not be together. They all have seperate funtions, and they all agree. And that is why God is omnipresent. God has the ability to be in more than one place at one time. I used the Atom to simply point out how you can have a single component, yet requires three elements to make that component whole. I could of used an egg as well as a simple example of a three in one, I was not attempting rocket science.

 

Well now, that doesn't sound contradicting in the least.

 

Atoms are composed of quarks and leptons; only some of which equate to protons, neutrons, and electrons.

 

Jesus is not God but he is God's only son & only through him can you reach God & have everlasting life.

 

So if I have to go through Jesus to get to God, r u saying that God cant hear me if I just pray to him? Doesnt that limit the power of God? I thought God was all powerfull. That makes Jesus like an opperator, conecting calls all day long.

 

Then Jesus was a liar.

 

Ok, lets just stick with the egg. White, yoke, shell. And i will never bring up the atom again.

 

Sorry, physics is my coup de grace, I couldn't morally sit quiet.:&

 

In the O.T. the Father claims to of created all things alone and by himself, in the New Testament Jesus is said to of created all things. So either jesus and the Father are one God, or one of them are lying about their activities during creation. And this is why when the Father in the first Book of the Bible states let US make man in OUR image. This is because at that moment in time, the Father was speaking to the other two in the Godhead. There are three that bare record in heaven, and these three are one. Jesus is not the Father, but Jesus makes up one third of the Godhead, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, but the Father makes up one third of the Godhead, The Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but the Holy Spirit makes up one third of the Godhead. Put them all together, and you have one God.

 

Now that we cleared that up, how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

 

The concept of the Trinity is complicated, but not some sort of divine mystery. Needless to say, however, I believe that Campbell's explanations are truly inadequate to explain the intricacies of the hypostatic union nor does it address Wisdom theology which, IMHO, does a far more complete and robust job of providing an understanding of the Trinity.

The egg analogy falls apart for the same reason the atom does. God is not composed of three "parts." The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all equally God. They share the same nature. The three parts of an egg are divisible from the egg. This is not the case with God. Further, the egg really fails to demonstrate the nature of the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead, nor does it show how one part of the egg could be completely God.

It isn't a great analogy, but it is a start. For people that ask more difficult questions or can take the analogy apart, there needs to be substance beneath the analogy. Unfortunately, most Christians don't ever get that far. They understand the analogy and think that they have a grasp on the Trinity. Most Christians don't.

In reality, what makes Christians monotheistic trinitarians is that we believe (whether we know it or not) that Christ and the Spirit are incarnations of the Father's Wisdom and Action Principle, respectively. The Father's Wisdom and Action Principle have ontological equality with the Father (just as our thoughts and actions are ontologically "us"), yet are complete persons formed on the basis of their relationship with the Father and each other. This idea naturally flows from Judaism of the first century.

I don't like using analogies because people who don't understand attack the analogies and then, when the analogy breaks, they think that they have 1) understood the concept and 2) defeated the idea. Neither of which is true.

 

The Father does hear your prayers, but as Jesus points out, no man comes to the Father but by Him. It's like haveing one of those old style crank telephones, and you decided rather then speak into the extended microphone, your going to speak into the earphone. God has an order to things, and if want to reach God with your message, you have to speak to Jesus. Jesus did not just die on the cross, because he had nothing better to do that day. The Father tells us, that all authority has been given to Him.

The day is coming when we will all stand before God, and some might say, "well God I helped those people, and even when I was tired I took care of that other problem down the street, and after that," and God might interupt you and then say. "What did you do with my Son?" For those who say, "I asked Him into my life, and lived my life for Him" God will say to them, "well done, thou good and faithful servent enter into the joy of the Lord." And others will say, "what about your Son?" Then God will say to them, "depart from Me, I never knew you."

 

but the only problem with that is that Jesus did not die on the cross. You seem to believe that the only people going to heaven are the ones who believe that Jesus was the son of God. Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet, just like all the other prophets before him. Is it not true that a new book was discovered, written by Judas. In this book, Judas says that he did not betray Jesus but Jesus asked him to inform the people of his upcoming death. Jesus wanted Judas to bring them to him. The people then mistakenly said Judas betrayed Jesus. New book, and that’s what it says. Im sure you will agree with me that the bible you read today is not the same bible that was written initially. I mean the bible was written a while after the death of Jesus by people who never knew Jesus. So would you agree that over time, people took parts out and changed parts of the bible to suit their own needs. Example: All the different sects of Christianity changed the original bible and wrote their own to suit them. The old and new testaments. The original bible actually states that a prophet will come after Jesus, and his name is to be Muhammad. You probably do not believe this because I can not prove it to you. The reason I can not prove it to you is because the pope and the church are hiding the original version of the bible and not allowing it to be released. Why would they do that? So when you claim that only Christians who believe that Jesus was the son of God will go to heaven, think about your sources and how many people used and changed the bible to win warrs, scare people, gather money to build buildings armies and churches. hmmmm

 

I don't know about JDFU and Campbell, but I am aware of Islam's treatment of Jesus.

The book is severly lacking in textual credibility. There is no evidence that the book of Judas that we have now has not been altered or edited. There is no way to test the textual purity (or lack thereof). In short, comparing the "gospel" of Judas to the Gospels of Mat, Mark, Luke, and John is ludicrous. New doesn't mean better. In fact, when dealing with ancient history, "new" is decidedly disadvantageous.

That would be a bold and baseless assumption.

No, I would not agree. Please state your source and support for this allegation. Please provide the documented evidence that indicates that any of the text of the New Testament was changed significantly over time. And no, scribal errors or minor insertions (like the end of Mark) don't count. Show me a change that significantly altered the meaning of the text.

Now there is some fine reasoning there. You make a strong assertion regarding the "original" bible and then in the next statement, you say that you cannot prove it. Then what is the grounds and support for your assertion? If you cannot prove it, why do you believe it?

The nature of your post tells me that you either are a Muslim or you are a Muslim sypathizer. Neither of these things are bad, but let's call a rock a rock. Meaningful debate and conversation arises when we know each other's posistion.

In any case, you seem to have some sort of conspiracy theory regarding the formation of the canon of the New Testament. Little could be further from the truth. I encourage you to look at the Formation of the Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. It is, IMHO, the authoritative work on how the New Testament was assembled. Take it or leave it, but please be prepared to support your assertions before continuing this line of reasoning.