Scriptural Evidence For Jesus And Yahweh Being The Same Person

[shw11]

Right so I have a pretty basic question, I was wondering if anyone more knowledgable about biblical stuff could help me out

 

where in the bible does it say that Jesus actually is God as opposed to the son of God? I can't seem to get my head round how christians can believe them to be the same person. I mean there are a bunch of points where Jesus seems to refer to the 'father' as a separate person to himself, and I know there is a bit where he says 'me and the father are one' or something to that effect, but couldn't that be taken as metaphorical or something? I know this seems like a bit of a stupid question, I just can't seem to get my head round what Christians actually believe on this point (I know Catholics have the trinity idea, this is more about protestants). Also how to they get round the fact that if Jesus is indeed the same person as Yahweh, then he undergoes such a massive personality change btween the Old Testament and the new?

[mymistake]

The way I remember it, it comes from only one book.  John 1:1 states that the word (Jesus) was with God and the word was also God.  John 10:30 is where Christ claims he and the Father are one.

 

 

If somebody else remembers a different Bible passage please share.  Perhaps from the Old Testament there is a passage about a babe being named "God with us".  But that is a bit symbolic.

[miamia]

It never does, as far as I know, there also seems to be a great deal of confusion between who jesus claimed to be, and who god claimed he was. This was always something I found extremely confusing. Especially about Jesus being "the word" of god.The bible is the word of god so jesus =the bible? was the first draft inadequate or something? Also the verses where he refers to himself as the "son of man". What? Whenever I would bring this up as a kid I was told "Its symbolic, it refers to jesus's human body, man as in humankind, the son of his human mother" which is all well and good, If the bible were originally written in English. I would be extremely curious to find out what the exact original text was because this whole subject seems fraught with misunderstanding. All of the verses concerning it seem extremely convoluted, to an even greater extent than the rest of the bible. Seriously! they always reminded me of some sort of weird vague jedi mind trick. "and the word was with god, and the word was god, he was with god in the beginning" As far as I remember It really never gets much more descriptive than that. That sounds like a poor translation at best.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

There are various references from the apostles, not so much from the gospels, except John 1:1 which was likely a concept that arose later in Christianity. The "son of god" theme was not original, given the proximity of Roman and Greek religions which had the gods mating with humans and producing Hercules and such. But to combine that with a monotheistic religion makes things odd. So some have him being "a god" but that can't be if there is only one, so he had to somehow be God at the same time as not being the father.

 

Matt 1:23 They shall call his name Emmanuel, meaning God with us.

Isaiah 9:6 He will be called Wonderful counselor, mighty God, prince of peace,

Rev 1:17-18; 2:8 First and the last, a title God claims for himself in Isaiah 43

Col 1:16 Jesus made all things, but God says he made the world by himself Isaiah 44:24

John 8:58 Jesus uses the sacred name of God "I Am" in reference to himself.

John 10:30-33 Jesus making statements that he is equal to God

Phil 2:5-7 He didn't think it improper to be equal with God.

Col 2:9 In him dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily

Heb 1:8-9 To the Son he says, "Your throne O God is forever and ever"...

 

There are others.

[Geezer]

The first thing that should be addressed, for any question relating to Christianity, God, Jesus, or the Bible, is to determine if the source, in this case the Bible itself, is factually true & historically accurate. If there is no evidence that will validate that the Bible is factually true & historically accurate it's laws, commands, & teaching are meaningless. In other words it has little meaning & no authority & therefore should not be taken seriously.

 

I am unaware of any evidence that would validate the Bibles claimed inerrant status. Even believers acknowledge the Bible must be accepted on faith, in other words they acknowledge their is no evidence that validates the Bible is actually true. Since that is true why do people continue to inquire about the meaning & ways to interpret various passages of scripture?

 

If it isn't true it doesn't matter what it says.

[miamia]

The first thing that should be addressed, for any question relating to Christianity, God, Jesus, or the Bible, is to determine if the source, in this case the Bible itself, is factually true & historically accurate. If there is no evidence that will validate that the Bible is factually true & historically accurate it's laws, commands, & teaching are meaningless. In other words it has little meaning & no authority & therefore should not be taken seriously.

 

I am unaware of any evidence that would validate the Bibles claimed inerrant status. Even believers acknowledge the Bible must be accepted on faith, in other words they acknowledge their is no evidence that validates the Bible is actually true. Since that is true why do people continue to inquire about the meaning & ways to interpret various passages of scripture?

 

If it isn't true it doesn't matter what it says.

Perhaps for the sake of having some semblance of logical discourse with someone whose only source of reason is religious scripture; the same reason one might seek a degree in early child development. Meticulously picking apart fallacies like this might play an important role in helping society move forward. Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it type thing. Some cannot accept that there is no evidence that the bible is true. Often the first "aha!" moment for these individuals is one of the smaller inconsistencies in the bible that are impossible to deny, even within the context of religious belief. So I would say for reasons of debate, it's important to know.  Because statistically, you're more likely to be having that discussion with someone under the sway of religion. I think that what the bible says doesn't matter. But knowing what it says can make a big difference. It's been THE defining difference to many ex-christians. It was the starting point for me.

[Geezer]

Miamia, debunking the Bible was the starting point in my de-conversion journey and that is true for many who leave the faith. Based on my experience I am convinced exposing the Bible as nothing more than a collection of myths & legends is the key to overcoming the indoctrination that has captured the believers mind.

 

Personally I don't debate believers anymore because that has proven to be a pointless exercise. Debating a brainwashed person is counterproductive & usually a waste of everyone's time. Before I would agree to discuss the Bible with a believer I would require they present valid evidence the Biblle is true & historically accurate. They can't do that. They can only say the Bible must be believed & accepted on faith. At that point I acknowledge I do not possess "faith". That leaves nothing on the table to discuss.

[miamia]

Geezer,I would agree that in some cases it is beyond pointless to discuss it. But you don't believe that it is ever productive to discuss the contradictions in the bible with someone while leaving faith out of it all together? Even for the purpose of potentially galvanizing them into questioning things more? I understand that with people firmly rooted in their faith it's not going to to any good, but there is a huge spectrum where faith, beliefs, and stubbornness are concerned. If that person is already questioning, perhaps discussing these smaller inconsistencies can be a used as an exercise in helping them break away, if their faith is not set in stone. Thus, the potential need to be well educated on the subject. Obviously butting heads with a fundamentalist is going to accomplish nothing more than migraine. I'm not refuting that. 

[FlowerDemon]

Even as a Christian I could not fully wrap my mind around the concept. I mean there's a part in the NT where Jesus prays to God. So Jesus is praying to himself? Some people would say that Jesus was setting an example for all Christians by praying to God, to show how faithful Christians are to be. That kind of makes sense except I'm confused. Is it better to pray to God or Jesus if you're a Christian? Jesus says they are the same, but he also refers to God as a separate entity from himself. Honestly, as a Christian I would usually pray to God, because I felt more comfortable calling the higher power by a non specific name. Which goes to show that the whole time I believed in a Higher Power that has many faces, aka there is more than one way to connect to the Divine. But my religion taught me otherwise, and I tried to force myself to believe that Jesus is the only way to God. 

 

I also studied about the trinity, and how it has been around longer than Christianity has (as many of it's other concepts, lol). In Hinduism, for example, Devi (divine feminine) manifests herself as a trinity: the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer. 

 

I studied many more aspects of Christianity and I concluded that I did not believe in this and I had to be true to myself by leaving the church. There were so many ideas in my head that were seen as "unholy" or "against god/the bible", and now I can freely look into those ideas and hold whatever beliefs I want with no guilt.

 

The whole trinity thing kinda makes sense, but it's still confusing since Jesus wasn't clear about whether or not God was the same person as him, and made confusing statements about it. I'm sure there are some Christians out there who do believe they are separate, while other Christians believe they are the same. 

[FlowerDemon]

Some verses where Jesus implies that he is not god:

 

Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good?  No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)

 

Matthew 24:36 

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. 

 

Matthew 26:39 

My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me, yet not as I will, but as Thou will. 

 

 Mark 10:18 

Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone. 

 

John 14:28 

The Father is greater than I. 

 

John 5:30 

By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me. 

 

[Guest Furball]

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? john 14:9

[Geezer]

Geezer,I would agree that in some cases it is beyond pointless to discuss it. But you don't believe that it is ever productive to discuss the contradictions in the bible with someone while leaving faith out of it all together? Even for the purpose of potentially galvanizing them into questioning things more? I understand that with people firmly rooted in their faith it's not going to to any good, but there is a huge spectrum where faith, beliefs, and stubbornness are concerned. If that person is already questioning, perhaps discussing these smaller inconsistencies can be a used as an exercise in helping them break away, if their faith is not set in stone. Thus, the potential need to be well educated on the subject. Obviously butting heads with a fundamentalist is going to accomplish nothing more than migraine. I'm not refuting that. 

 

I don't disagree with your thoughts. I also agree that until a person of faith see's the inconsistencies and contradictions for themselves it isn't likely they will be receptive to anything that challenges their beliefs. An indoctrinated mind is a closed mind. If I sense interest I refer the prospect to a specific religious historical scholar and a specific book that scholar wrote. That tends to eliminate the "that is just your opinion response". I've found Dr. Bart Ehrman a good scholar to reference. He writes to at a level that is easily understood by the novice bible believer, and his books tend to be eye opener for the average believer. 

 

I taught bible classes for more than thirty years and was trained in personal evangelism (how to convert people to Christ). I was trained in techniques designed to manipulate people into professing faith in Christ. An indoctrinated mind is a tough nut to crack. The average Christian willingly professes their faith but they rarely know what it is they actually believe or why. If you can communicate with them on a level where they don't feel like they are being attacked it is possible to poke some holes in their "beliefs", but that takes skill, knowledge, and preparation. 

[themonkeyman]

Actual according to the gnostics the Word was Sophia .... The female holy spirit who is also called mother

[miamia]

Geezer, thank you for the info!

[Blood]

The Pauline Epistles state very clearly that there are two entities, "God the Father" and "his son, Jesus Christ."

[shw11]

hi guys- thanks for the info i know that if the bible is just man made its slightly irrelevant anyway- i was just curious to know how chirstians would rationalise the god/ jesus issue. anyway the vibe i'm getting is that it is just another massive inconsistency in the bible which should get christians to question their beliefs 

[amateur]

I thought they had to make god, jesus and the holy spirit one entity so that xians could say they worshiped only one god, as opposed to three.

 

Then in church they always tried to explain it by saying the trinity was like ice, liquid water, and gas -- three different things that are still one thing.

 

Then they tried to say it was one of those "mysteries" they like to talk about in church.

 

Because they had made it all up.

[Guest Furball]

What I never got was how if the father, son, and holy spirit are all the same person, then why is speaking a word against the holy spirit unforgivable, but speaking a word against jesus is forgivable? 

 

If they are both the same, then....?

[amateur]

What I never got was how if the father, son, and holy spirit are all the same person, then why is speaking a word against the holy spirit unforgivable, but speaking a word against jesus is forgivable? 

 

If they are both the same, then....?

Now THERE'S a mystery!  I never saw that bible verse when I was a xian, or even an agnostic.  That would have really confused me to no end if I had.

 

It was strange enough reading it as an atheist.  

 

It's so completely random!  I can say "fuck you god" and "fuck you jesus" and I can be forgiven.  But don't say "fuck you holy spirit."  Oh shit, that's that, I'm in hell now.  WTF?

[readyforchange]

There's also the issue of the Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:7-8. The King James Version has the verses as "7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

 

In the past, I understand these were once two of the more popular verses cited in the New Testament to support the concept of the Trinity. However, this reading of 1 John 5:7-8 is only found in late manuscripts, and the consensus opinion is that the portion from "...in heaven" in verse 7 through "...bear witness in earth" in verse 8 is not authentic.

Related articles from Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum and Bible.org - https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

[FlowerDemon]

The Bible was a game of "telephone" for a very long time. Some of it was written down but a lot of it was spoken words told to other people . the printing press didn't come out until WAY later, and if you read about how the 4 gospels were placed in the Bible canon, there were like 40 or 50 of them to choose from. There is no denying the fact that the original manuscript of the Bible has been re-translated, re-written, re-arranged, and is now very different than what it was. Many books that were considered a part of the Bible are no longer a part of the Bible. It's been under the hands of many men who interpreted it in different ways. That's why there are so many confusing aspects taught in the Bible that seem to contradict with each other. It just doesn't add up, and in turn, there are many different denominations of the same religion due to the varying interpretations.

 

Is this what God wanted? To confuse his followers with a book that he supposedly blessed mankind with? If the Bible was God's way of sharing who he is with humanity, then why has it caused all of these wars, disputes, disagreements, and chaos? 

 

Here's more info on the formation of the NT canon: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

[Blood]

The Bible was a game of "telephone" for a very long time. Some of it was written down but a lot of it was spoken words told to other people . 

 

 

 

I personally believe the "oral history" theory of the Bible has been greatly overstated. It lends a false and dubious air of "authenticity" to the stories: they may possibly be more "real" or based on "real beliefs" if traditional, the theory goes. This is clearly wish-fulfillment on the part of the Bible believer, but curiously, it also serves the purposes of the secularist, which is why the (I think) more plausible theory of literary pseudo-history invented by anonymous authors does not enter much into the discussion. Somebody sat down at a desk one day and wrote "The Gospel of Mark" from their imagination. The single author's "sources" were entirely literary: the LXX, the Bacchae, Homer, perhaps the Pauline Epistles. The same is true, I think, of the rest of the Bible: authors sat down at a desk and wrote the stories. Their "sources" were primarily their imagination and older literature. It was almost entirely a literary process. 

[readyforchange]

I personally believe the "oral history" theory of the Bible has been greatly overstated. It lends a false and dubious air of "authenticity" to the stories: they may possibly be more "real" or based on "real beliefs" if traditional, the theory goes. This is clearly wish-fulfillment on the part of the Bible believer, but curiously, it also serves the purposes of the secularist, which is why the (I think) more plausible theory of literary pseudo-history invented by anonymous authors does not enter much into the discussion. Somebody sat down at a desk one day and wrote "The Gospel of Mark" from their imagination. The single author's "sources" were entirely literary: the LXX, the Bacchae, Homer, perhaps the Pauline Epistles. The same is true, I think, of the rest of the Bible: authors sat down at a desk and wrote the stories. Their "sources" were primarily their imagination and older literature. It was almost entirely a literary process.

I also have to think this is the most probable explanation. An eye-opener for me was learning about the ending of the Gospel of Mark, and that the original ending was at 16:8, with the women running from the empty tomb and saying nothing to anyone because they were too frightened. I remember thinking that Mark was not there at the tomb with the women, so how did Mark know what happened at the tomb in the first place - where did he get his information from? The women did not tell anyone, so if 16:8 is the true ending, there could not have been an oral story that eventually was passed along to Mark. And if Mark got his account directly from God (or from the angel/man that was at the tomb), then why did God have him end his gospel in this way, if God planned to give Matthew, Luke, and John resurrection accounts with the women telling the disciples what happened.

[mymistake]

Oh the Telephone game analogy works great.  The game doesn't start with facts.  It starts with a message.  Blood is right that the gospel stories didn't start off as history.  What we see is a quickly changing theology that evolved from quickly changing religious sects.  If you have not yet I strongly recommend reading the Gospel of Thomas to see how the story evolved on a different path.  Thomas and the Synoptics share a few passages nearly identically so they probably all came from an common "predecessor" story.

[TextualCritic]

The big problem with scriptural evidence is nobody knows what the "original Bible" says Because the original Bible does not exist. No one has ever seen one and there is not a 100% consensus on what what even define a written original Bible anyway. If you want an answer to your question, you will find the answer by reading "misquoting Jesus" or listening to the Audiobook. Textual criticism is very important to understanding Scripture because it is undeniable and indisputable that the Bible was changed so many times. And again the biggest fundamental problem with the Bible is The original could be 1000 times different Than the current canon we have. Since there is no single authority on earth apparently who can say for sure, this is a question that will never be answered.

 

I think there is a pretty general consensus though that although so-called Jesus is God Scriptures were added much later by scribes Who had an agenda to promote the Trinity doctrine.

 

The old and New Testament contradict each other completely, Jesus is not even a candidate for being the Messiah for so many reasons

 

Criteria for  the successful candidate. 1. He will come from the tribe of Judah2 . Gen 49:10  The sceptre shall not depart  from  Judah, nor a lawgiver  from between his  feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Micah 5;2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of [clans of] Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. 2. He will be a descendant of both David and King Solomon.  Psalm 89:35, 36  Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want for a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy (David's)  days be fulvilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will  set up  thy seed after  thee, which shall proceed out  of  thy bowels, and  I will establish his kingdom. 1 Chron 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee (David), ….... for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. 10. …....  and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. 3. He will be fertile and have sons. 1 Chron. 17:11….......  that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. Psalm 89:29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. 4. He will be anointed as a real  king. 1 Chron 22:10.  I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. 1 Chron. 17:14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore. The  Messianic Agenda   5. He will rebuild the  Temple in Jerusalem3 . Micah 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall vlow unto it. 2 The Jewish people are divided into 12 tribes, Judah being one of them. 3 The 1st Temple was built by King Solomon of which there is no archeological evidence. The 2nd temple was built by King Herod the Great and it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. The Messiah will build the 3rd Temple. 1 Chron. 17:12 He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever. 2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 6.  He will gather the Jewish people from exile4  and return them to Israel. Isaiah 27:12 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel.13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem. Isaiah 11;  11  In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people..... and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. 7. He will bring world peace. Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning‐hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Micah 4:3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning‐hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 8. He will establish One World religion.     Isaiah 11:  9 …....... for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 40:5, And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all vlesh shall see it together:   Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent. 9. The Messianic atonement for Sins. Ezekiel 45:21‐22  In the virst month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall celebrate the feast of Passover, and for seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten. On that day the prince shall “provide for himself” and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering." Ezekiel 45:23‐25  "And on the seven days of the festival He shall provide as a burnt offering to the Lord seven young bulls and seven rams without blemish, on each of the seven days; and a he‐goat FOR A SIN OFFERING...In the seventh month, on the vifteenth day of the month and for the seven days of the feast, He shall make the same provision  for sin offerings, burnt offerings, and cereal offerings, and for the oil." 4 After the Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem the Jewish people were exiled from the Land of Israel and were scattered all around the world including India. The 1st independent Jewish state after the exile was established in Kerala by the local Maharaja. Due to infighting and the incursions of the Portuguese, the state was dismantled and the Jews were given refuge in Cochin by the King of malabar. The Characteristics of the Messianic Era 10. The Messiah will kill the Moabites and be victorious over all his enemies.  Num 24; 17   "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a sceptre will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Sheth. Habakkuk 3:13 "Thou went forth for the salvation of thy people, for the salvation of thy anointed. Thou didst crush the head of the wicked..." 11. All nations will  become vassals of Israel or perish. Isa 60: 10‐12  "Foreigners will rebuild your walls, and their kings will serve you. Though in anger I struck you, in favour I will show you compassion.  Your gates will always stand open, they will never be shut, day or night, so that men may bring you the wealth of the nations — their kings led in triumphal procession. For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish; it will be utterly ruined. 12. Brightness of the Moon and the Sun to increase. Isa30:26  The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he invlicted. ...... 31   The voice of the LORD will shatter Assyria; with his sceptre he will strike them down. 13. Messiah to come after a universal earthquake; and the second temple to be more glorious than the virst. Haggai 2: 6‐9   "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land.   I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will vill this house with glory,' says the LORD Almighty. 'The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD Almighty. 'The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,' says the LORD Almighty. 'And in this place I will grant peace,' declares the LORD Almighty." 14. There will be Universal inspiration.  Joel 2; 27‐29  Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.  "And afterwards, I will pour out my  Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.  Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. All of these criteria for the Messiah are best summed up in the book of Ezekiel, Chapter 37:24‐28: “And My servant David will be a king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them5 , and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant …............ and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctivies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.” If a candidate fails to fulvil even one of these conditions, he cannot be the Messiah.