Jesus is A God.
Did Jesus imply he was...God or a God by reference?
Starting with John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Now read his convoluted reply to the mob that is threatening to stone him for blasphemy. I am using the NIV Bible.
30 I and the Father are one."
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.
38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
My input:
32 Jesus points to his works.
33 the mob corrects him and tells him they are going to stone him for blasphemy and not his miracles.
34 Jesus ask them to look at examples in their law where god called people gods.
35 He says if god can call them gods and the scriptures are true.
36 Jesus says then what is wrong when I claim I am also god. Here he is making himself equal to god by saying if god can call them gods he can also call himself god. But there is a difference between god calling them gods and he calling himself god. Jesus did not point to where god called him a god but rather usurped the right to do so. Is that being arrogant or presumptuous?
37 Jesus says he is only doing what god did ie. calling people who gods. Like he just did in John 10:30
38 But here he is back to pointing to his miracles which the mob corrected him for in John 10:33.
Isn't that what they call convoluted circular logic?
My expanded explanation of John 10:34
John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?
It is clearly written God called many of his agents and messengers Gods. So in that context Jesus could make claim to be like them. But that does not equate to being God himself. Why didn't Jesus just say outright he was God himself instead of saying by scriptural reference he was also a God. It is this very verse that the JW use to support their reading that Jesus is a God.
Did Jesus imply he was...God or a God by reference?
Starting with John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Now read his convoluted reply to the mob that is threatening to stone him for blasphemy. I am using the NIV Bible.
30 I and the Father are one."
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.
38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
My input:
32 Jesus points to his works.
33 the mob corrects him and tells him they are going to stone him for blasphemy and not his miracles.
34 Jesus ask them to look at examples in their law where god called people gods.
35 He says if god can call them gods and the scriptures are true.
36 Jesus says then what is wrong when I claim I am also god. Here he is making himself equal to god by saying if god can call them gods he can also call himself god. But there is a difference between god calling them gods and he calling himself god. Jesus did not point to where god called him a god but rather usurped the right to do so. Is that being arrogant or presumptuous?
37 Jesus says he is only doing what god did ie. calling people who gods. Like he just did in John 10:30
38 But here he is back to pointing to his miracles which the mob corrected him for in John 10:33.
Isn't that what they call convoluted circular logic?
My expanded explanation of John 10:34
John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?
It is clearly written God called many of his agents and messengers Gods. So in that context Jesus could make claim to be like them. But that does not equate to being God himself. Why didn't Jesus just say outright he was God himself instead of saying by scriptural reference he was also a God. It is this very verse that the JW use to support their reading that Jesus is a God.
Last edited:
