Miscellaneous Lane
[↑↑↑ mostly apologetics related ↑↑↑]
[↑↑↑ mostly apologetics related ↑↑↑]
Table Trinity Notes
Saturday, December 31, 2050
Friday, December 30, 2050
The Most Important Blogposts in This Blog
This blogpost lists what I (subjectively) believe to be the most important blogposts in this blog. There are three sections. The first section is on the Deity of Christ. The second section is on the Trinity or the Plurality of God. The third section is on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Each section has links to blogposts where the most important links (as I perceive it) are above, and with the lesser links below. For example, in the section on The Deity of Christ my blog "Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah" (which is nearer the top) is much more important than my blogpost "The Spirit of Jesus" (which is near the bottom of the section).
Here's my main Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
Here's a link to my blogpost where I've collected links to outside blogs where I've commented and interacted with others on the topic of the Trinity: Blog Comments on the Trinity
The Deity of Christ
Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Son by John Gill
Markan Christology
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah
Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah Resources
The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg
The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh
"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18
Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity
Jesus as God by Murray J. Harris
The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns
Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
The Requirement to Love Jesus Is Evidence of Jesus' Divinity
The Tempting/Testing of Christ Is Evidence of Christ's Full Deity
The "Cup and Table of the Lord" As Evidence for Christ's Full Deity
Concerning 1 John 5:20 ( from The Trinity: Evidences and Issues)
Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity
Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds
Doxologies to Christ
The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings
Jesus the True and Proper SON of God
The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"
Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father
Jesus Lord of the Sabbath
John 20:28 And Its Proximity To John 20:30-31
God in the Midst
Lord [Jesus Christ] Willing? God's Will and Christ's Will
The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah
Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah
The Spirit of Jesus
The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective
Matthew 1:23 and "ho theos"
Concerning the Magnificent and August Names and Titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament by John Gill
Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ
Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted
God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39
Is the "Oneness" of John 10:30 a "Oneness" of Purpose or Being?
Jesus' Omniscience
Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics
Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy
The Trinity or Plurality of God
The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated by John Gill
Links to John Gill's Chapters on the Trinity in His Work "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity"
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God
Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead
Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill
Edward Henry Bickersteth's Books In Defense of the Trinity
All Three Persons of the Trinity Mentioned In Scripture (Directly or Indirectly)
Omniscience of the Persons of the Trinity
The Aaronic Blessing Is Highly Suggestive of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity
Quotations from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern
The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? [The Trinity in Early Judaism]
Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity
Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner
F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel
The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint
Speculative Arguments In Defense of the Trinity
Miscellaneous Speculative and/or Suggestive Arguments In Defense of the Trinity
Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity
The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective
A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity by William Lane Craig
The Trinity At the Beginning of Creation
Interactions with Mike Gantt
Part One: F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel
Part Two: Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner
The Deity of the Holy Spirit
The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit
Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Holy Spirit by John Gill
Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit
The Witness of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality
The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns
Do the Father and Son Love the Holy Spirit?
Some eye opening articles from the Jews for Jesus website:
Jewishness and the Trinity
The Trinity: Questions and Answers
A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective
Kabbalah's Best Kept Secret?
Sunday, July 1, 2018
Jewish Scholar Benjamin Sommer's Comments on the Doctrine of the Trinity
In another blogpost I quoted Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity. Dr. Sommer is a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary. The following video records audio from Sommer's lectures series on his book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel where he concedes that the Christian understanding of the Trinity is technically consistent with Judaism.
Here's a link to my previous blogpost where I quoted Dr. Sommer.
http://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2014/09/regarding-jewish-professor-dr-sommers.html
The above blogpost also provides links to Dr. Sommers full lectures that are relevant to the topic of the Trinity.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics
The following are my comments in Steve Hays' blogpost God Incognito. Typos corrected. Make sure to read the blogs my links refer to.
Speaking of the Synoptics...
Jesus is worshipped both before and after His resurrection Matt. 2:11; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52 [cf. John 5:23; John 20:28; John 9:38]. Some instances before the resurrection might plausibly be translated "do/did obeisance" as Unitarians do, but the post-resurrection one's seem to better be interpreted as true religious worship. Something which would be uncharacteristic for Second Temple Jews to do if Jesus weren't fully Divine.
Matthew's use of "ho theos" for Jesus in Matt. 1:23 might plausibly be teaching Christ's full deity given the rest of what Matthew says of Christ.
Matthew has Jesus being greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6). How could Jesus claim to be greater than the temple when it's the place were YHVH resides unless God resides in the body of Christ as well [cf. John 1:14]?
Matthew's statement that Jesus is present whenever/wherever two or three gather in His name is an allusion to a famous passage in the Mishnah about the Shekinah glory and presence of YHVH (Mishnah, Pirke Aboth 3:2).
Both Matthew and Luke imply that Jesus' "Wings" are YHVH's "Wings".
The Synoptics uniformly teach Jesus' (apparently favorite) self-indentification of being "the Son of Man". As Steve said, that has clear divine implications as many have argued [and which I've argued in brief in one of my blogposts].
Matthew's concluding command to baptize in the Name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit suggests the Trinity. As Steve wrote in a recent blog, to which I added my own comments in the combox. See Dale's excellent interview with Robert Bowman. One of the things I can complement Dale on is his great interviews. Unlike other interviewers, Dale allows the guest to give his full comments with little interruption. Then Dale's latter interactions often get to the heart of the issues.
All three Synoptics quote Isa. 40:3 and/or Mal. 3:1 which was originally in reference to YHVH [Mark 1:2,3; Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4; Matt. 11:10].
Apologist Tony Costa has said that Mark 1:1ff (esp. v. 2) alludes to Exodus 23:20 which refers to "the angel". Specifically, Costa says Mark 1:1ff is likely a cluster of three (3) quotations/allusion, not merely two (2). That's because Mark 1:2 in the Greek most closely resembles Exodus 23:20 (in the Septuagint) which refers to an angel/Angel whom God promised He would send. If 1. Mark really is alluding to this passage in Exodus, and 2. if that angel is The Angel of YHVH, then Mark is likely connecting Jesus with the Angel of YHVH. If so, then that kills at least two birds with one stone. It undermines versions of Unitarianism that 1. deny Christ's Preexistence and 2. versions of Unitarianism which affirm Jesus is only/merely a human savior.
The "I have come" sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics is consistent with Christ's preexistence. Though, Dale gave a link to Dunn's critique of Gathercole which made some good points that weakened Gathercole's case [I'd link to Dunn's book review, but I can't find the url].
All three Synoptics refer to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in contrast to sins against the Father and Son [Matthew 12; Mark 3; Luke 12]. This implies the personality of the Holy Spirit and that the blasphemy is a sin against Him. I've addressed this issue and how it's consistent with and hints at the Trinity in my blogs [e.g. here, or here].
The Synoptics teach Jesus is the bridegroom of the future church in a way that parallel's YHVH's marriage to Israel. Since the Church is the fulfillment of spiritual Israel, Jesus would seem to be the eschatological fulfillment of YHVH's receiving back His divorced and/or estranged wife.
All three Synoptics teach Jesus is the "Lord of the Sabbath" even though one would think that only YHVH, who instituted the sabbath, could be its Lord [Matt. 12; Mark 2Luke 6].
All three Synoptics have Jesus applying Ps. 110:1 to Himself [Matt. 22; Mark 12; Luke 20]. The Masoretic vowel pointing of "adoni" was standardized after the beginning of the Christian era and so may not be the correct pointing and reading [as non-Messianic Jews would have a vested interest in pointing it "adoni" rather than "adonai"]. But if some Christian apologists are correct that verse 5—which does have "Adonai"—interprets verse 1, then that would imply Jesus is Adonai. See McLatchie's blogposts on Ps. 110:1 HERE and HERE. The second link has my comments in the combox which slightly weakens McLatchie's line of argument. But I make them for the sake of full disclosure.
I've also got an ENTIRE BLOGPOST focused on the VERY HIGH Christology of the Gospel of Mark. I meticulously comb through the entire gospel looking for every possible passage that I can find where Jesus is plausibly being taught to be YHVH. Ignore the text highlighted in yellow which I have to seamlessly trim away in the future. Many of observations I made in Mark can be seen in Matthew and Luke as well (sometimes amplified). Nevertheless, the assumption of Markan Priority enhances their authenticity and earliness in a way that GMatt and GLuke don't. Most scholars think Mark has the lowest Christology of the four Gospels. But I think Mark's is definitely higher than Luke, and either equal with or higher than Matthew's. I haven't combed through Matthew like have with Mark and Luke.
Both Matthew and Luke teach Christ to be the future eschatological Judge [e.g. Matt. 19:28; Matt. 25; Luke 22:30; cf. John 5:22]. When one would think that only the omniscient [and therefore all fair/just] and all-authoritative YHVH would or could render such Judgment(s).
All three Synoptics teach Jesus can forgive sins [Mark 2, Matt. 9; Luke 5]. Some/all of them refer to Jesus as the Son of Man on earth [presumably in contrast to in heaven as in Dan. 7]. Some/all say that the Jews thought only God could forgive sin, AND that Jesus was blaspheming for presuming to do so.
All three Synoptics have Jesus being explicitly [Mark & Matthew] or implicitly [Luke] charged with blasphemy during His trial before the Jewish council and condemned as being worthy of death. The charge most plausibly was the [alleged] blasphemy for claiming to be on par with YHVH and to be the 2nd divine figure in Dan. 7 who was the Son of Man [divinely] "riding the clouds".
More could be said about the high Christology of the Synoptics, but that should do as examples.
Steve wrote: In addition, this has a counterpart in the OT. A "man" might turn out to be an angel, while an angel might turn out to be Yahweh!
There are many passages like that in the OT. For example, the interactions with the Angel of YHVH or the Word of YHVH by Hagar, Manoah, Gideon, Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel, Samuel etc. In some of those passages the entity is called the Angel of YHVH, then also called or predicated to be YHVH a few moments later without the qualifier of "the Angel/Messenger OF". Or it says YHVH looked or turned or had a form as if the Angel were YHVH Himself.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre
I'm an Evangelical and former Roman Catholic. So, I clearly have disagreements about Catholicism. However, one point of general agreement among Evangelicals and Catholics is the doctrine of the Trinity. I've been reading Catholic scholar Brant Pitre's book The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ and he makes a very good introductory case for a conservative view of Jesus. Including Jesus' divinity. Here's a lecture by Pitre that he give based on his book. The case he makes for Jesus' divinity is worth watching if you're not inclined to read the book.
See especially his discussion of Jesus walking on water which is recorded in Mark 6, Luke 14 and John 6 [at 42 minutes for about 10 minutes].
Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
The following are my main comments [with expansion] in Steve Hays' blogpost HERE. Steve's comments in that blogpost and in Ipsissima verba were in response to Lydia McGrew's blogpost: Transcript and commentary: The "I am" statements, again
The pressing issue for the conservative Christian position on the historicity of the "I Am/am" sayings is not whether Jesus could have uttered them, but why they aren't recorded in the Synoptics if they were historical? Especially since they are so theologically important.
The following are some of my "solutions" to account for this apparent problem.
First off, it's incorrect to say that Jesus doesn't refer to Himself as "I Am" in the Synoptics in a way, and in a context, that might reasonably suggest a claim to full Deity. See for example Anthony Rogers' excellent article contribution Mark My Words; or my synopsis Here which shows Mark recording it twice and Matthew once. One of the great points Rogers makes is that Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 and John 6:20 are parallel passages, and that if you're going to be consistent and say that the "I am" saying in John 6:20 is a self-indentification of Deity on Christ's part, then Mark 6:50 and Matt. 14:27 might also plausibly indicate such a self-identification as well [I phrased it more modestly than Rogers].
But why aren't they more numerously recorded in the Synoptics? One would think that Luke would record them because he did intensive research after others had already written gospels, and wrote at a time late enough that early strains of Christian tradition would have spread more uniformly throughout the church. Yet, also early enough that skeptics couldn't too easily chalk up any high Christology in Luke/Acts to development [at least to the degree they foist on GJohn].
I suspect that maybe Matthew and Luke just didn't recognize the significance of the "I am" sayings as a claim to Deity. Otherwise they would have included both of Mark's "I Am" sayings which are explosively suggestive of that. Remember that most skeptics accept Markan priority and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Besides Rogers' article, see (Catholic) Brant Pitre's video HERE (at 42:47 for about 10 minutes) where he describes the Divine implications of Jesus statement of "I am" when was walking on water in GMark. See my blogpost HERE regarding Jesus' "I am" statement at His trial in GMark. Matthew may have unintentionally, but fortuitously, preserved Mark's historical "I am" statement [Mark 6:50] into his own Gospel in Matt. 14:27. Unfortunately, he didn't do so in the case of the trial of Jesus. Interestingly, Matthew's account of Jesus walking on water ends with Jesus and Peter entering the boat and the passage saying, "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.' " Matthew is clearly is implying Jesus more than an ordinary human being irrespective of whether you translate the Greek as "did obeisance" [as Unitarians would prefer] or "worshiped" [as Trinitarians would prefer].
It must also be realized that Luke and Matthew are among the largest books in the New Testament [Luke, I believe, being the largest]. With so much to record, it's easy to leave out things that are important. Not just easy, but inevitable because it would have been financially, physically and practically prohibitive to write books much longer than they did [See this video HERE at 12:46]. Books that were also meant to be short enough that they could be quickly copied repeatedly and distributed throughout the Roman empire.
Matthew and Luke were meant to be much more exhaustive than Mark. Yet interestingly, Mark records two contextually conspicuous "I am" sayings EVEN THOUGH it's the shortest Gospel and the earliest Gospel [and so likely to be more historical by comparison, given skeptical assumptions attached to Markan Priority, which is itself not necessarily a skeptical position to take].
Also, it should be recognized that Luke wrote for a Gentile audience, and so the "I am" sayings would not be as significant to Gentile readers [even given the fact that Gentile converts would eventually read the LXX which does have Divine "I am" statements]. Skeptics often claim Luke was written relatively late. Most scholars accept Markan priority and often also think Luke wrote his gospel after the finalized version of Matthew was more universally published. Yet, interestingly, Luke's Gospel [and possibly with the inclusion of Acts] has the lowest Christology of the canonical Gospels (IMO). That's contrary to the versions of theological and christological development popular among skeptics. Conservatives too can consistently affirm development, but not of the magnitude and type skeptics claim.
I already said that Matthew may not have recognized [or at least fully appreciated] the significance of the "I am" statements, but we should also take into consideration the fact that his target audience were Jews. For Matthew to too frequently have Jesus use them would likely have been too shocking to their Jewish ears. It would have been too incredible. Instead, Matthew only hints at Jesus' full Divinity in his Gospel [STRONG hints as they are, and as I've argued many times in my blogs on the Trinity].
When the church fathers talked about there not being any secret teachings/doctrines, they wrote those statements after the first generation of Christians had passed, and so everything by then was completely open to the public. I say that because I don't think it's impossible that there were deeper theological teachings of Jesus which John records and which the Synoptics didn't record precisely because the earlier Gospels were meant to be introductions to Christianity to ease people into the shocking claims of Christianity. Shocking to both Jews and Gentiles, but for different reasons. None of the Gospels wanted to give the impression that Jesus was just like the others pagan gods who came down to earth. They wanted to distance themselves from all that. Whereas John was written at such a late time that it would have been culturally and theologically safe, and apologetically necessary to proclaim the inner teaches of Jesus, which included the "I am" sayings. I don't think this contradicts Jesus teaching to preach openly what He taught, since there can be different levels of teaching. Even at the present time we talk about introductory level, intermediate and advanced levels of teaching regarding modern secular subjects.
What about the epistles? Why don't they contain Jesus' "I am" sayings? In most instances, there would have been no occasion needed to quote Jesus as having claimed to be the I Am. Though, they did regularly attribute or apply Old Testament passages concerning YHVH to Jesus [see my blogpost on this topic HERE]. Thus showing very high Christologies in Christian writings/communities PRIOR to the writing of the canonical Gospels. At the same time they also wanted to affirm, and not deny, Jesus' functional subordination to the Father. There was a theological balancing act all early Christians were attempting when addressing Jesus' divinity AND submission to the Father. Different Christian communities made that attempt, and voiced it, differently. So, we shouldn't expect a Pauline community to sound like a Johannine community, or vice versa. Even today, pastors and theologians who have virtually the same theology will still express it differently and have different emphases in their sermons.
See also my blogpost Markan Christology which shows how the earliest of the canonical Gospels teach Jesus full Deity. I'll post below an excerpt of my comments regarding the two "I am" saying in Mark.
Regarding Mark 6:48-52 (see especially verse 50)
However, with Jesus, there was no immediate need for a miracle. Jesus could have waited out the storm. Instead, for His own sake, and without an intention to showboat or show off His powers and authority before an audience, Jesus walks on the water like a god. Or like God, viz. Jehovah/Yahweh. In fact, in verse 50 Jesus uses the Greek phrase "ego eimi" which can be translated as "I am" or "I AM." Here's what Bowman and Komoszewski wrote concerning this passage:
"As various scholars, both conservative and liberal, have observed, the Gospel accounts of Jesus walking on the sea [Mt 14:23-33; Mk 6:47-52; Jn 6:16-21] allude rather clearly to the account in Exodus 14-15 of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea. The Israelites walked in `the midst of the sea' (Exod. 14:16, 22, 27, 29 NASB) and crossed to the other side (Exod. 15:16). Likewise, the disciples' boat was `in the middle of the sea' (Mark 6:47 NASB) and they also `crossed over' the sea (Mark 6:53). A strong wind from the east blew across the Red Sea and, close to daybreak, the Egyptians found it increasingly difficult to drive their chariots as they attempted to follow the Israelites (Exod. 14:21, 24-25). Likewise, an adverse wind blew across the Sea of Galilee and, based on the geography, it also would have been blowing from the east; this wind also blew close to daybreak and made it difficult for the disciples to row their boat (Mark 6:48). According to Mark, the disciples had the same problem as the Egyptians: their hearts were hardened (Exod. 14:4, 8, 17; Mark 6:52). ... in this miracle account `Jesus is portrayed as filling the role ... of a greater Moses and of Yahweh. Jesus' response to the disciples' fear encompasses both roles. Moses had told the Israelites, `Take heart!' (tharseite, Exod. 14:13 LXX) and Jesus told the disciples the same thing: `Take heart!' (tharseite, Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50). But then Jesus added, `It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid' (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). This statement echoes statements by the Lord God in Isaiah, where he speaks of a kind of `new Exodus' when the Jews would be restored to their land: `Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; Do not fear, for I am with you; ... so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he [ego eimi] ... I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King:' Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters. (Isa. 43:1-2, 5, 10, 15- 16)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, p.205).[copy and pasted from this blog HERE]
Regarding Mark 14:62 and Mark 13:26 which allude to Dan. 7:13
This passage refers to the son of man "coming in the clouds." This is a clear reference to a divine being since in Semitic cultures only the gods (e.g.YHWH, Baal and other deities) rode on the clouds. They were the vehicles and chariots of the gods. According to Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser, Baal was the primary pagan God described and understood by pagans as the god who rode the clouds. [cued up at 1:29:32]. Everyone in the Semitic world knew about Baal. Baal was a major God. The cult of Baal was so pervasive and long lasting it endured till the time of the Romans. The Jews were in constant theological war against Baal worship. The Jews, in order to assert and make clear that YHWH (the God of Israel) was the true God rather than Baal, began describing YHWH in the Old Testament as the one who rode the clouds. Heiser goes on to say that in every instance of the Old Testament where a figure is riding the clouds it refers to YHWH (Deut. 33:26; Ps. 68:4, 33; Ps. 104:3; Isa. 19:1). With the one exception being Dan. 7:13 where the son of man is the one riding the clouds. This therefore strongly implies the divinity of the "Son of Man." Yet, Jesus applies that "Son of Man" passages to Himself. Jesus claimed to be the one who would be "coming with the clouds of heaven." The Septuagint in Dan. 7:13 states that people would "serve" the "son of man." According to James White (in his debate with Adnan Rashid) the underlying Greek word used in the LXX for "serve" refers to the highest kind of worship and service which only belongs to God. It's true that the Septuagint isn't an inspired translation of the Hebrew. Nevertheless, many of the 1st century Jews and Christians would have known this passage as it's found in a textual variant in the LXX and have known how Mark's claim that Jesus applied the passage to Himself is an indirect claim to full deity. This is why the High Priest and chief priests charged Jesus with blasphemy. He was claiming deity. Also, as noted previously, Mark 2:10 has Jesus referring to the Son of Man "on earth." The phrase "on earth" may be in contrast to the Son of Man "in heaven" or as Dan. 7:13 puts it "with the clouds of heaven."
It should also be noted that in Mark 14:62 Jesus says "I am" (ego eimi in Greek). It's true that Jesus could merely be saying "I am [the Messiah]" without claiming to be deity. However, it's possible that the author of Mark is having Jesus use the Greek phrase "ego eimi" in order to have Jesus claim absolute deity, as the author of John in John 8:58 almost certainly did. Especially since Jesus uses the phrase in the context of claiming to be the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13. When Jesus responded in the way He did, the high priest charges Jesus with blasphemy.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"?
In the following video David Wood answers some Islamic objections to Jesus' Divinity.
Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"?
by David Wood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)