The Trinity/Binity, Part 12 (3): Is There Proof That Jesus Is God? (Jeremiah to John 1)

DOES JEREMIAH 23:6 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

In the prophecy about Jesus at Jeremiah 23:6, Jesus is called "YHWH-Tzidiqnu", meaning "Jehovah [is] Our Righteousness", and some have taken this without "is" to mean that Jesus is God as per the false many names of God doctrine, in which any place name or other name that contains the full name YHWH makes the whole name God’s name. If that were true, would that not make anyone, any thing or any place with your name into you? Can you see how faulty the Trinitarian/Binitarian reasoning is here?

The name given to Jesus at Jeremiah 23:6 is not "Jehovah", but "Jehovah [is] Our Righteousness". In fact, the exact same name is given to a city at Jeremiah 33:16 ^_[pa|in], so does that make that city Jehovah? Obviously not. This name was explained earlier at Isaiah 54:17 ^_[pa|in], saying, "’No weapon formed against you will have any success, and you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness is from me,’ declares Jehovah." So "Jehovah is Our Righteousness" merely signifies that the righteousness of his servants, even Jesus, comes from Jehovah.

Look closely at the first words of Jeremiah 23:5 ^_[pa|in]: "'Look! The days are coming,' declares Jehovah, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous sprout.'" He did not say, "I will come", but said, "I will raise up ... a righteous sprout." Does that sound like he could be talking about himself at all? (Compare verse 4 ^_[pa|in])

You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The name was later given to a city in the same Bible book. The name merely indicates that the righteousness of Jehovah’s servants comes from Jehovah as Isaiah brought out.

DOES THE PROPHECY ABOUT JESUS AT MICAH 5:2 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

It is believed that because this prophecy about Jesus says that Jesus is "from time indefinite" (NWT, 1984 Reference Bible,) or "from ancient times", (2013 Revised NWT,) that it is saying that Jesus is God because God has no beginning. However, does this truly mean that Jesus had no beginning?

In the book of Proverbs, we read of Wisdom: "From time indefinite I was installed, from times earlier than the earth." (Pr 8:23 ^_[pa|in]) So this makes it clear that something could be "installed" at some point in the distant past, called "time indefinite", but this is a period of time that only Jehovah and Jesus knows, as it has no reference point, thus being "from time indefinite" in the same way that we refer to something as "prehistoric", meaning before a historical record could be written. "Time indefinite" from Heb. "olam", is simply a long, undisclosed ("indefinite") period of time.

Prior to the above verse in Proverbs, Wisdom says very distinctly that "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." (Pr 8:22 ^_[pa|in]) This corresponds to the resurrected Jesus’ own words, where he calls himself "the beginning of the creation by God." (Re 3:14 ^_[pa|in]) In fact, Paul refers to Christ as "the wisdom of God". (1Co 1:24 ^_[pa|in]) Thus Jesus Christ himself is the one that was "produced . . . as the beginning of [God’s] way." Can you see what Trinitarians/Binitarians have failed to consider?

You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: "From time indefinite" merely means "from prehistory", and the Scriptures show that Jesus was "produced" and "installed" at some point in the distant past.

DOES ZECHARIAH 2:10, 11 ^_[pa|in] AND LUKE 22:7 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JEHOVAH BECAME JESUS?

Zechariah 2:10 says that Jehovah would reside in the midst of his people, and Jesus said that he would reside in the midst of his disciples at Luke 22:7. However, this does not mean that both cannot be in the midst of Jehovah’s people. Jesus said at Matthew 18:20 ^_[pa|in], "where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." The same goes for Jehovah. In fact, at John 14:23 ^_[pa|in], Jesus said, "If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him."

Thus, wherever Jesus is, there Jehovah is also. This is no more mysterious than Jesus being where his disciples are gathered. Jesus gave this principle when he said, "Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together." What he meant was wherever you behold Christians partaking of the evening meal in the way he prescribed, partaking with understanding, there Jesus will be as well. (1Co 11:29 ^_[pa|in]) Can you see what Trinitarians/Binitarians have failed to consider?

He also said, "If you ask the Father for anything, he will give it to you in my name." (Joh 16:23 ^_[pa|in]) Why? Earlier, he had explained, "whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son." (Joh 14:13 ^_[pa|in]) Thus, they would be in connection with each other, but still be two distinct individuals. Jesus is Jehovah’s representative, so just as an ambassador represents his nation, and the embassy where the ambassador resides is called sovereign soil of the nation to which the ambassador belongs, thus the nation resides there. Likewise, as Jehovah’s ambassador, wherever Jesus goes, Jehovah is there as well, for Jesus has his approval and backing. After all, he represents the kingdom, (Lu 17:20, 21 ^_[pa|in]) however Jesus' physical presence is not needed. (Mt 24:27, 28 ^_[pa|in]) Thus, neither is Jehovah’s physical presence needed. They only need representatives who accurately represent God's will and kingdom.

You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Both may reside in the midst of Jesus’ disciples in just the same way, but separate and without need for them to be there physically.

DOES ZECHARIAH 11:12-13 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS JEHOVAH?

It is assumed by Trinitarians/Binitarians that this prophetic drama about Jesus Christ is saying that Jesus is Jehovah. However, by that logic Zechariah himself would actually have lived hundreds of years to become Judas Iscariot. That, of course, is absurd. So let’s observe the context.

The prophecy continues into Zechariah 13. At Zechariah 13:7 ^_[pa|in], Jehovah very clearly calls the shepherd (Jesus) his "companion". But wait, earlier, in chapter 10, he had Zechariah act as the shepherd, so therefore Zechariah must live to become both Judas Iscariot and Jesus! So if Jehovah is the one who beomes the shepherd as well, then would that not mean that Zechariah is Jehovah God? If Jesus is God and Zechariah becomes Jesus, then Judas Iscariot is also God!

Clearly, the players in a prophecy do not make them to be the ones that the prophecy is about, even if one of the players is Jehovah God himself. Note, too, that when the apostle quotes the prophecy at Mt 27:9, 10 ^_[pa|in], he does not draw the conclusion that Jesus is God.

Note, also, that the law refers to this 30 shekels as the price paid to a slave’s master if the bull gored the slave, then the bull would be stoned. At Ps 22:12, 13 ^_[pa|in], the prophecy about those who mocked Jesus compares them to young bulls. Thus Judas Iscariot was the bull being prophesied in the law of the slave’s price whose guts burst open upon the rocks, thus he was stoned, and Jesus was the slave who was "gored" or pierced. The 30 sheckels were tossed into the temple for the price paid, not to the slave, Jesus, but to his master, Jehovah.

You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: To be consistent with Trinitarian/Binitarian assumptions about Jehovah being Jesus would not only mean that Zechriah himself is both Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ but would also make him Jehovah God. The prophetic law about the same event shows Jesus and Jehovah to be two different individuals. Jehovah is the master and Jesus is his slave, the shepherd and Jehovah’s "constant companion".

DOES THE PROPHECY ABOUT JESUS AT ZECHARIAH 12:10 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

Some believe that the use of the yod in the original Hebrew word "ali" here means "me". However, the Septuagint indicates a modification of use. That is because the use of the "yod" in the Hebrew indicates not just "me", but "this one" when in company with the external indicator "ath" (place), that is "look to me place whom", "to me place" being "to this one". Since "me" is accusative, then "him" becomes the better translation. So if we translate this exactly, it means "look to him whom they have pierced", that is, the subject under discussion, the one referred to as "him" later in the verse, the one they will mourn for, that is. Can you see what Trinitarians/Binitarians have failed to consider? The Septuagint translation, translated by Jews before Christ, reflects the accurate rendering. This is confirmed in that the apostle John uses the Septuagint rendering at John 19:37 ^_[pa|in]. (Once again, we cannot ignore how the apostles themselves interpreted such verses.) It is dangerous to ignore Christ’s apostles just to uphold one’s bias.

You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: The Septuagint, quoted by John, shows how this verse should be translated.

DOES ZECHARIAH 14:3-6 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

It is said that because Jesus stood upon the Mount of Olives, that it fulfilled this text which showed Jehovah to be the one standing on the mountain as indicated by verse 3. However, this prophecy is clearly not literal, since his feet stand on both parts of the mountain as it splits, then his standing on it is clearly just as figurative as the splitting. In Jesus day, no such division occurred, whether physically or metaphorically. When people gathered around him on the Mount of Olives, there was no great division made. Zechariah 14:5 ^_[pa|in] says that Jehovah’s people would flee to the valley, rather than the mountains, so it cannot be when the Chritians fled Jerusalem in 67 CE. The prophecy in Zechariah is in regard to endtime events. Thus, there is nothing in this prophey to indicate that Jesus is God.

You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Since the prophecy has not been visibly fulfilled by Jesus, there is nothing here to prove that Jesus is God.

DOES MATTHEW 9:13 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

Using Jesus’ statement here to support a Trinity/Binity causes one to miss the point of what Jesus said. Jesus was merely quoting the Septuigint rendering of Hosea 6:6 to make the point that Jehovah is merciful before he is procedural, due to their trying to accuse him of healing on the sabbath. If he were trying to assert his godship, they would have responded to such an assertion. He quoted the same verse for the same reason at Matthew 12:7 ^_[pa|in] in a way that clearly shows it to be a quote used for judgment. In fact, the first instance was setting up the second instance, demonstrating that the Pharisees refused to give any consideration to his words because of their hardheartedness. Quoting a scripture does not mean a person is the one being quoted. Do you see how faulty such reasoning is?

You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Jesus was only quoting a scripture, which does not mean he is the one quoted.

DOES MATTHEW 12:7 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

Once again, asserting that Jesus is here claiming to be God distorts the meaning of the text. Being "Lord of the Sabbath" is not a claim to being God. As he explained at Mark 2:27 ^_[pa|in], "The Sabbath came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath. So the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Thus, he is Lord of the Sabbath because he is the one appointed to be Lord over mankind. If he were trying to assert his godship, his reference to the Sabbath being "for man" would be completely meaningless.

You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Being "Lord of the Sabbath" means being a Lord over mankind because the Sabbath is for man, not God.

DOES LUKE 5:20-24 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

Some suggest that because Jesus did not disagree with the Pharisees when they said, "only God can forgive sins," that Jesus was somehow saying he was God. But when you change the subject under discussion, it quickly becomes clear that he was indeed refuting them, even if he did not say succinctly "I am not God". Observe:

When he saw their faith, he said: “Man, your illness is driven from you.” Then the professors and the practitioners started to reason, saying: “Who is this who speaks out of turn? Who can cure illness except Hippocrates alone?” But Aristacles [the apprentice of Hippocrates], discerning their reasonings, said in answer to them: “What are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your illness is cured,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But in order for you all to know that the apprentice of Hippocrates has authority in this city to cure illness—” he said to the paralyzed man: “I say to you, Get up, pick up your stretcher and go to your home.” At that he stood up before them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went to his home, praising Hippocrates. Then one and all were seized with amazement, and they began to praise Hippocrates, and they became filled with awe, saying: “We have seen wonderful things today!”

Clearly, Jesus was not claiming to be God, just like the apprentice here is not claiming to be Hippocrates.

Luke 5:20-24 says, "But in order for you to know that the Son of man has authority on the earth to forgive sins", while at Matthew 28:18 ^_[pa|in] Jesus says "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." So the authority was given to him, not simply inherent, as it is for God.

John 20:21-23 ^_[pa|in] reads:

Jesus said to them again: “May you have peace. Just as the Father has sent me, I also am sending you.” After saying this he blew upon them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain those of anyone, they stand retained."

Clearly, having the authority to forgive sins does not by necessity mean that the one forgiving sins is God. Therefore the Pharisees were wrong. Jesus only claimed authority that was given to him while on earth. He did not claim to be God.

You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Jesus’ authority to forgive sins was granted to him by a higher authority, not something he possessed intrinsically.

DOES JOHN 1:1 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

There is much controversy over John 1:1. There are many besides Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe it should be rendered "the Word was a God," or "the Word was divine", referring to his nature, rather than who he is. The whole Trinity doctrine in English rests upon that Scripture being rendered as "the Word was God", because they cannot get any other rendering in the Bible to agree without versions with spurious additions and erroneous grammar.

The issue resides with Trinitarian/Binitarian bias, as the original language words are clear. The accusative "theon" ("God"), in the phrase "the Word was with God", has the definite article "ton", which indicates uniqueness within the sentence, and could be woodenly translated as "the only God". However, in the concluding phrase of the sentence, the nominative word "theos" ("god") is used where they claim "the word was God", but it is without the definite article, meaning that it is one of a class, thus "a god" or "divine", just as "agathos" without a definite article means "a good one". (John 7:12 ^_[pa|in] in most Trinitarian/Binitarian translations.) Trinitarians/Binitarians try to create all sorts of rules of grammar to explain away the problem, but none are supported by established Koiné Greek grammar.

Is the New World Translation the only Bible that translates John 1:1 ^_[pa|in] other than "The word was God"? No. Observe the following translations:

"and the word was a god." —The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, 1808.

"and a god was the word." —The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, 1864 by Benjamin Wilson.

"and the Word was a divine being." —La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, 1928, by Maurice Goguel.

"and the Word was divine." —The Bible—An American Translation, 1935, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

"and of a divine kind was the Word." —Das Neue Testament, 1946, by Ludwig Thimme.

"and the Word was a God." —The New Testament, 1958, by James L. Tomanek.

"What God was, the Word was."—The New English Bible, 1961, by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press.

"and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." —Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, by Siegfried Schulz.

"and godlike kind was the Logos." —Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, by Johannes Schneider.

Does calling Jesus "a god" conflict with the Scriptures? No. Going to the context of the Scriptures, there are 3 groups of individuals that are called "gods":

1. Psalm 8:5 ^_[pa|in] : This identifies angels as "gods" (Heb., "elohim"), though often translated "godlike ones".
2. Psalm 82:1-6 ^_[pa|in], quoted by Jesus at John 10:34-35 ^_[pa|in] : This identifies human judges as "gods".
3. 2 Corinthians 4:4 ^_[pa|in] : Satan is called "the god of this system of things." (Compare to Matthew 4:8-9 ^_[pa|in]; John 14:30 ^_[pa|in] and 1 John 5:19 ^_[pa|in]) Surely we’re not to believe that Satan is the true God!

Now let’s do a title replacement. If we replace the title "God" with "King", and replace "Word" with "Emissary", suddenly the entire text is rendered incomprehensible with the definite article:

"In the beginning the Emissary was, and the Emissary was with the King, and the Emissary was the King. This one was in the beginning with the King."

As you can see, this sentence structure is awkward, unnatural and contradictory. This would be impossible. But now, let’s look at it with the indefinite article:

"In the beginning the Emissary was, and the Emissary was with the King, and the Emissary was a king. This one was in the beginning with the King."

Thus, if John 1:1 were talking about some king that were not God, and some emissary that was not Jesus, a translator would easily understand that an indefinite article should be used to distinguish the two. But when a person goes in with the preconceived notion of a Trinity or Binity, then they try to justify the Trinity/Binity in the text. Thus, the bias comes from the Trinitarian/Binitarian viewpoint, not from the non-Trinitarian’s/-Binitarian’s viewpoint.

The context indicates which is meant. In verse 16, in the oldest extant manuscripts, he is called “the only-begotten god”. Obviously he cannot be of the same class as “the God” whom he stands next to, and because verse 16 clearly uses “god” in a generic sense. His being a "theos" without the definite article indicates that he is merely of the class that is descended from that one, just as a “Ioudaios” originally refers to a descendant of Judah. (Romans 2:17 ^_[pa|in]) So he is effectively a ’Godite’ or ’Godling’, just as one is a Judean.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not alone in this view. For scholarly quotes, see the From God’s Word blog post, Scholarly Quotes on John 1:1.

Does Rendering John 1:1 as "A God" Cause a Problem?
This verse is not calling Jesus a god in the idolatrous or competitive sense. Keep in mind that the verse calls him "the Word [of God]". This is very important to the meaning of calling him "a god".

In response to the accusation of claiming equality with God, (which Philippians 2:4 ^_[pa|in] says he did not even attempt,) Jesus himself said, "Is it not written in your Law, ’I said: "You are gods"’?" (Joh 10:34 ^_[pa|in]) He was quoting Psalm 82:6 ^_[pa|in], where the psalmist quotes Jehovah God as saying, "I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High." But now let’s look at that. After saying that, Jehovah said, "But you will die just as men do; and like any other prince you will fall!" Now Jesus was truly "the Son of God", making him a prince. In fact, he is called "prince of peace". What happened to Jesus? He died!

Now, the question is, what was meant by the claim that Jesus was "a god"? Turn to Exodus 4:15, 16 ^_[pa|in]. There Jehovah himself spoke to Moses about using Aaron as his mouthpiece, saying, "So you must speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with you and him as you speak, and I will teach you men what to do. He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him."

Did Jesus fulfill such a role? As covered earlier, he was the "Voice of God" (Genesis 3:8 ^_[pa|in]) or "Word of God" just as it says on the same line in John 1:1. Thus, the verse itself is explaining it for us, meaning he speaks in God’s stead. Moses’ speaking for God to Aaron no more made Moses God than it made Aaron Moses to speak for Moses. Aaron was Jehovah’s mouthpiece to the people. Moses was Jehovah’s mouthpiece to Aaron. The prehuman Jesus (The Voice of God) was Jehovah’s mouthpiece to Moses just like he was Jehovah’s mouthpiece in the days of his human existence.

This could never properly be translated as "the true God" as some will try to claim with the question, "How many true Gods are there?" This is a misleading question as it says "true gods", and not simply "gods". To answer that misleading question, one only needs to read John 17:3 ^_[pa|in]. But if asked correctly, one just needs to read John 10:34-36 ^_[pa|in] to find out. Is it really so great that Jehovah considers all those whom he sends as judges to be acting as God to all those who listen to their voice? After all, if they disregard Jehovah’s judges, they disregard Jehovah himself. (Lu 10:16 ^_[pa|in]) That is the whole of the meaning of John 1:1. It is really the simplest truth to grasp. He was Jehovah’s perfect representative, acting on behalf of Jehovah God. Regardless of how it is translated, it still only means that he was God’s mouthpiece and nothing more.

You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Greek grammar, context, other scriptures, and many of Christendom’s own Bible scholars all demonstrate what is meant by the use of "god" in this verse.

DO JOHN 1:3 ^_[pa|in] AND COLOSSIANS 1:16 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

Other translations render Colossians 1:16 similar to the King James Version, saying, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." However, two different words in this verse are being translated as "by", and neither of them mean "by". The first is from the original language, "en", meaning "in", and the other is "di", meaning "through". A precise literal translation of this phrase would be: "that in him were created all the things in the heavens and on the land, the seen and the unseen—If besides thrones, lordships, sovereignties, or authorities—through him and into him have been created."

Thus, it has a very different meaning. Being created "in" Jesus, is not the same as being created "by" Jesus. To say that something is created "by" Jesus would require the Greek "hupo", meaning "under", which is the actual Greek byline designator. However, all things were created "in" Jesus in the same sense that it is created "through" him at the end of the verse. For example, if I say, "the soda was sucked up by the straw", then I am making the straw the one doing the sucking. But if I say, "the soda was sucked up in the straw and through the straw", then I am accurately saying that the straw was the instrument by means of which the soda was sucked up. This also echos John 1:3, which again, other translations change "through" to "by", but should read: "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

This is supported by the fact that the previous verse at Colossians 1:15 ^_[pa|in] clearly calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation". Trinitarians/Binitarians focus on the word "firstborn" and use the defense that "firstborn" does not always mean birth order, but also means first in importance, (Compare Genesis 41:51, 52 ^_[pa|in] with Jeremiah 31:9 ^_[pa|in]) but they overlook the fact that it says "of all creation", meaning that Jesus is a created being. Others claim that it is referring to his being "the firstborn from the dead", the resurrection due to the previous verse, but this ignores the fact that the phrase comes right after mentioning his being "the image of the invisible God", just as Adam was created in God’s image, and right before talking about his role in creating all other things and is concluded in verse 17 ^_[pa|in], thus the more immediate context on both sides wins out; also, Paul uses the term "the firstborn from the dead" in verse 18 ^_[pa|in]. In fact, that same verse explains that all of those things are so that Christ might be "first in all things", not just resurrection, but creation as well, which is the only other first mentioned here.

Some claim that what was created was only the "thrones or lordships or governments or authorities" and cite Romans 13:1 ^_[pa|in] as proof that Jesus is God. However, that line follows the things created that were "invisible", thus those things refer to the invisible things he created, not the visible. A government is an abstraction, not tangible. But that is just a distraction to derail the discussion; it has no bearing upon whether Jesus is God. As explained above, those things were created through Jesus, not by Jesus, and note that they have nothing to do with resurrection, having come long before he was ever on the earth, thereby further undermining the "resurrection" explanation of "firstborn of all creation".

Many Trinitarians/Binitarians try to make a big deal out of the fact that these two scriptures do not use the word "other" in the original text when referring to the things created. Obviously Jesus couldn’t create himself, but was Paul or John supposed to get all technical to clarify "other things" as if their readers could make any mistake in understanding what they meant? If you were to say about an assistant manager that he hired all the employees in the company, would you not be offended if someone corrected you and said, "you mean, he hired all the OTHER employees"? The fact is, most of us don’t speak like that, whether now or in the ancient past. So how is this proof that Jesus is the Creator just because those authors didn’t get anal about clarifying "other"? On the internet, isn’t it only the trolls, the troublemakers and lovers of strife, who make bones about such things while no one else bothers with anxious care over what words they include?

You decide: Are these verses clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Corrupted translations falsely make it look like Jesus created all things. Immediate context shows Jesus was the first created thing. The word "other" is not necessary to the text to indicate that the things created through him were in addition to him.

DOES JOHN 1:14 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

See DOES ISAIAH 42:8 WITH HEBREWS 1:3, JOHN 1:14 OR 17:5 PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD? in Part 12 (2)

DOES JOHN 1:18 ^_[pa|in] PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD?

Many believe that John 1:18 referring to Jesus being "in the bosom of God" in some translations suggests that he is part of God. However, the "bosom" represents, not a metaphysical condition, but the holding of a person or thing against the bosom, a favored position, as expressed at Luke 16:23 ^_[pa|in] and John 13:23 ^_[pa|in], which also use the same Greek expression. Really, did John become part of Jesus or Lazarus part of Abraham? Of course not.

You decide: Is this verse clear proof that Jesus is God? Consider: Similar usage in other scriptures prove that it has nothing to do with being physically part of the other, but is merely a favored position.

Return to the beginning of the Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity series

Go back to: Part 12 (2): Is There Proof That Jesus Is God? (Exodus to Isaiah)

Go to: Part 12 (4): Is There Proof That Jesus Is God? (John 2 to Acts)