Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?

The overwhelming majority of grammarians agree that Colwell’s rule has no relevance to John 1:1, so I don’t understand why you’re still talking about it. There are grammatical reasons for not translating it “the word was a god” which have nothing to do with Colwell’s rule, and Colwell’s rule does not get you to the translation “the word was God” because it simply doesn’t apply to John 1:1. That’s why grammarians overwhelmingly approve of “the word was divine”.

I am not saying they both share some lesser quality either. I believe the word of God is an attribute of God, so it’s just as divine as God. But just as you don’t call your arm “a human” or “Bill Smith”, it also doesn’t make sense to describe an attribute of God, as God. Divine yes, God no.

I am sorry but you are simply wrong on this. Second Temple Period Jews describe archangels and attributes of God with the same exalted language, including giving them God’s name (Yahweh), and titles. Hurtado describes it thus.

“Jews were even willing to imagine beings who bear the divine name within them and can be referred to by one or more of God’s titles (e.g., Yahoel or Melchizedek as elohim or, later, Metatron as yahweh hakaton), beings so endowed with divine attributes as to make it difficult to distinguish them descriptively from God, beings who are very direct personal extensions of God’s powers and sovereignty. About this, there is clear evidence.” [1]

Hurtado of course tells us that the earliest Christians saw Jesus as the unique agent of God (the very point you have just denied).

“But this perfectly illustrates my point that, characteristically, earliest Christian devotion to, acclamation of, and claims about Jesus are all framed with reference to the one God. They all have a clear monotheistic tone, although this unquestionably is a monotheism with a novel feature for which we have no genuine analogy elsewhere in Jewish tradition of the time: Jesus as the unique principal agent of God.” [2]

You are of course at liberty to disagree with Hurtado on this matter.

Quite apart from the fact that if it was God’s aim to inspired writers to describe the Holy Spirit with masculine gender in order to tell us that the Holy Spirit is a (male), person then we might expect God to have done it in more than a couple of verses (and you might want to explain why the Holy Spirit is feminine throughout the Old Testament), if we actually read a real grammarian, who knows the Greek better than you or I, we find your claim simply isn’t true.

“The ἐκεῖνος reaches back to v 7, where παράκλητος is mentioned. Thus, since παράκλητος is masculine, so is the pronoun. Although one might argue that the Spirit’s personality is in view in these passages, the view must be based on the nature of a παράκλητος and the things said about the Comforter, not on any supposed grammatical subtleties. Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which πνεῦμα is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender.” [3]

He adds in a footnote “Besides the Johanine texts, three other passages are occasionally used for this: Eph 1:14; 2 Thess 2:6-7; and 1 John 5:7. All of these have problems”, [4] and explains why these three passages can’t be used for the purpose either.

So what? It doesn’t personify the Spirit anywhere nearly as consistently or extensively as it personifies wisdom, yet, you don’t claim wisdom is a person. The only reason why you think the Spirit is a person, is Trinitarian tradition.

No I don’t assume that. I know full well that they didn’t understand everything they wrote. But when Jesus asks Peter who he thinks he is, and Peter replies “The Christ, the son of the living God”, Jesus praises him and says that this has been revealed to Peter by God Himself. He does not say “No Peter, you are wrong, why do you not understand that I am both the LIVING GOD and the SON OF THE LIVING GOD?”. Likewise, when John is inspired by God to write at the end of his gospel that “these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”, I see no reason to believe that he was wrong, and that he should have written “these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, AND IS ALSO GOD”.

Threats of hellfire? Seriously, it’s the twenty first century, Bible knowledge isn’t stuck in the medieval era anymore; those myths have long been destroyed. The Bible never says that the test of orthodoxy is believing that Jesus is God. On the contrary, John tells us specifically that the true test of orthodoxy is believing that Jesus came in the flesh and that Jesus is from God (1 John 4:2-3), which is the opposite of what you’re saying. Why didn’t John tell us that the spirit of antichrist is denying that Jesus is God, instead of saying that the spirit of antichrist is denying that Jesus came from God? He just doesn’t say what you’re saying.


[1] Larry W Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005), 128-129.

[2] Larry W Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005), 44.

[3] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Harper Collins, 1996), 332.

[4] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Harper Collins, 1996), 332.

I am applying it because as I already explained, it does apply if John 1:1 is showing both definiteness and quality, which makes perfect sense as I already explained above.

The word of God is not an attribute of God. John 1:1 does not say the word was a divine abstract idea, like a ‘divine command’ or a ‘divine characteristic’. It says the word was with God. Abstract ideas do not sit around the throne with God nor do parts of his nature. It says the word was with God and later became flesh. Attributes do not become flesh (unless you are a gnostic with emanation ideas). (By the way, this gets a little tricky here because we are talking about the Trinity and no one understands this.)

You are also forgetting that John could have used theios to maybe get closer to your ideas(although even that probably wouldn’t work), but he used theos, which fits much better with what I have said. It can be used to show both his identity with the one and only God and his nature (quality) as the one and only God.

I am simply right on this. I don’t much care how Talmudists and Kabbalists used the term elohim. The Bible clearly puts Jesus in a class that can only identify him as Yahweh. ‘A representative’ does not fit the biblical description.

It doesn’t matter if ekeinos reaches back to v7, (if that were true it would mean that it would be reaching 19 verses back which is a ways back). In either case it is still obviously talking about the Holy Spirit in v26 (in the same verse both ekeinos and Holy Spirit appear) and it calls him ‘he’, not ‘that thing’.

As for the Holy Spirit being feminine throughout the OT, it is both feminine and neuter in the OT in the greek because it uses feminine(psuche) and neuter(pneuma) word forms. It is feminine in the Hebrew because it uses a feminine word form ruach.

Proverbs is obviously poetical language about wisdom. The many passages about the personality traits of the Holy Spirit are prose.

Peter got it right. When he said Jesus was the son of the living God, he was identifying him with Yhwh.

‘AND IS ALSO GOD’ would have been redundant.

John 14! I’m guessing you’re also a fan of David Wood?

And hell will still be there a million years from now.

No it doesn’t. Harner’s conclusion does not apply Colwell’s rule. He agrees that the noun is qualitative, not definite (as it would be if Colwell’s rule applied). However he also asserted (without evidence), that although it is qualitative it also has some kind of definite sense. This “I want to have it both ways” argument has failed to convince the majority of grammarians.

The rest of what you have said is simply repeating your own claims again, without evidence, and without addressing the evidence supplied.

  1. Yes, the word of God was understood as an attribute of God. There is plenty of precedent for this in the Old Testament, as well as the Second Temple Period literature.

  2. It has already been explained to you that theios would not have suited John’s context here. Grammarians and commentators agree with this.

  3. As I pointed out, in the Second Temple Period angels and the word of God were not simply identified with “elohim”, but also with “Yahweh”. This is even in the Old Testament. In the face of Second Temple Period evidence (which you wrongly describe as “Talmudists and Kabbalists”, who belong to the early medieval era, not the Second Temple Period), and in the face of scholars such as Hurtado and Bauckham, you simply assert that you are right, and that they are all wrong. This is simply not credible, especially since you never address the evidence. If you want to be taken seriously you need to write a scholarly paper and submit it to a journal.

  4. Likewise, in the face of a professional grammarian (Wallace), explaining why your idea about the Spirit in John isn’t being identified as masculine, you simply claim he is wrong, without any evidence at all.

  5. Thank you for at least acknowledging that the ruach in the Old Testament is feminine. Yes, this is because of the grammar. But your claim was that God, in John, simply ignored the grammar in order to ungrammatically but more accurately identify the Spirit as masculine in a couple of verses. If God could do that in one place, He could have done it in all places. However, He did not. This is just one of several reasons why your ad hoc argument fails.

  6. Of course Proverbs is poetic, but you are ignoring the fact that wisdom was personified in non-poetic Second Temple Period literature, and is also personified in the New Testament, by Jesus himself, in prose. John’s use of the logos in John 1 matches the Second Temple Period usage of Jewish writers such as Philo. The Spirit is personified even less than wisdom and the logos in the Old Testament and Second Temple Period literature.

  7. You seem to be under the impression that “son of God” means “Yahweh”. Leaving aside what a mess this would make when applied to people like Adam, this is simply so badly wrong it’s like the YEC of theology. The fact is that I can make the same confession Peter made, and the same confession with which John concluded his gospel, and know that I am saying exactly what the apostles taught was a good Christian confession.

I don’t think that Christadelphians believe in any sort of hell or underworld. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I am not familiar with David Wood. You’ll have to tell me about him.

You’re asking for verses worded a specific way. We’re going to have to make inferences. As for the handful of verses, do you really think I’m done? Why, I’ve just gotten started! But I’ll be going slowly.

I don’t see wisdom being sent as the Counselor, or bringing to mind what Jesus taught, or helping us in our weakness, or interceding for us when we don’t know how to pray.

And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God’s will.

My.that.is.interesting!

1 Like

We don’t believe in the immortal soul, we’re mortalists. So no, we don’t believe anyone goes to heaven or hell when they die. We don’t believe in a place of eternal torment for disembodied spirits.

Since you’re making specific claims, then yes I want to see specific evidence for them. If you’re just going to be making inferences, then that’s a very different matter. In that case it will be clear that you don’t have any specific evidence for your specific claims.

Giving me a handful of verses in which the Spirit is personified, won’t prove that the Spirit is actually the third person of the Trinity. You need to demonstrate that this is different to the way Second Temple Period Jews personified wisdom and the word of God, which were spoken of as intermediaries and given divine titles, and said to be with God, and said to have existed before creation, and said to have been the creator of the universe. Pointing to verses and giving me your opinion about what they mean, doesn’t prove that’s what they mean. You also need to address the counter arguments against your position.

Why wouldn’t a single clear verse prove beagles point?

You have a lot of good stuff ahead of you. For the time being, this is the video you’ll want to see.

1 Like

A single clear verse of what? A single clear verse saying God is three persons in one being, or that God is three persons, or that the Holy Spirit is a person, or the test of orthodoxy is that we must believe Jesus is God, or that the test of orthodoxy is that we must believe God is three persons, or that Jesus is “God the Son”, would be great. Do you have any? Even one single verse which says any of these things?

I’m halfway through and he’s making all the claims about Jesus which Hurtado says aren’t true.

No, I said a single clear verse unequivocally distinguishing between the Holy Spirit and the Father. So they’re not the same.

I’m halfway through and he’s making all the claims about Jesus which Hurtado says aren’t true.

And Hurtado doesn’t think your claims are true at all either.

Very good! Like the creationists demanding to see a dinosaur hatching a brood of birds. Or demanding to see a transitional species. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! But a tap-dancing champion can get around anything.

Again, we have to make inferences.

A supposedly critical doctrine like this, and it can only be arrived at through inferences?

How would a single clear verse unequivocally distinguishing between the Holy Spirit and the Father prove that the Holy Spirit is a person? I myself distinguish between the Holy Spirit and the Father. I likewise distinguish between my arm and myself; my arm is not me, and I am not my arm. That doesn’t prove my arm is a person.

The issue is that supporters of the doctrine of the Trinity make a great deal of very dogmatic and specific claims about it, but when pressed all they can provide is a bunch of “inferences”. It’s a pretty basic principle of logical thinking and argumentation that if you can’t provide specific evidence for specific claims, you shouldn’t be making those claims dogmatically.

Which claims? Let me know which of these claims (of mine), Hurtado disagrees with.

  1. Jesus is represented in the New Testament as the uniquely appointed principal agent and representative of God.
  2. Jesus’ disciples started to worship him after his resurrection because they believed this is what God wanted them to do, not because of anything they believed about “what” Jesus was; not, for example, because they believed Jesus was God.
  3. The Synoptics never represent Jesus as receiving or requesting worship, nor declaring his divine status, and it would have been inappropriate for them to do so since he had not yet achieved a status which entitled him to such treatment.
  4. Even in John, Jesus is differentiated from God, and is genuinely human, and is depicted as a man who worked entirely as empowered by God, who is dependent on and subordinate to God, even though his divine status is affirmed (a status which derives from God, and was bestowed by God).
  5. The New Testament consistently distinguishes God and Jesus (not “God the Father” and “God the Son”).
  6. The New Testament speaks of Jesus’ relationship to God as relational and transactional, not as ontological; ontological statements about Jesus cannot be read into New Testament statements about him.
  7. The New Testament identifies Jesus as functionally divine (not ontologically divine), as a result of having been exalted by God after his resurrection.
  8. Paul treats Jesus as divine in some sense.

For those who are confused regarding the Trinity:

John 14:4-11 (KJV)
Jn 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 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?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

1 Like

Why can’t the Bible be more clear on a whole range of issues? Why can’t Jesus be more clear on a whole range of issues? Why all the enigmatic sayings? Why do we have to ask what Jesus meant when He said this or that? Especially concerning the Eucharist, the central act of worship in the church? Why not just spell it out, for pete’s sake.

As for the Spirit, The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

We’ll be getting back to the Spirit.

1 Like