Is Jesus God?

I believe if it was not for John 1:1, few would actually come to the conclusion that Jesus is god. He never admitted he was. In fact, he clearly stated he was sent by god, as a messanger of god, who message was not his own-but god's, who is (Jesus) not all powerful, who is but a man, can do nothing without god...There are so many verses in the NT which obviously show Jesus was the messiah, never in fact, god.Two of my favorites:Here are two of my favorites:Jesus in heaven, with god -stating he has a god.Reve. 3:12 "‘The one that conquersI will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine. 13 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’Jesus saying that his father is his god.John 20:17 "...Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

I am not sure if this is allowed, but if its against policy, I will delete it.I do NOT know the author of this work. I gathered it from another debate site awhile ago. I've gone through my "saved" files and although I have a few more works from the same "author", I do not have his name.Here is one page of his work, of three:1. First we need to understand how the NT Greek word theos (and elohim in Hebrew) was understood by the original Bible writers and their readers.Numerous recognized scholars and translators (mostly trinitarian) agree that both these words may be understood as "God" or "a god." Furthermore, they tell us that "god" may be used for angels, certain men who have been appointed to do God's work (such as the judges, kings of Israel), and, of course, false gods.2. Furthermore, most will admit that when the NT writer intended the meaning of "God," he used the definite article with it ('the god' in literal English translation).And since the indefinite article ('a' or 'an') was not used in NT Greek, the word for 'a god' (theos) is the same word as used for 'God' ('the god'- o theos) but without the definite article ('the').3. I have gone through the Gospel of John examining every use of theos and found this to be true for every use (with a very few exceptions, such as an added prepositional modifier: 'of me,' 'to you,' etc., which are explained in grammars of NT Greek) of theos where it is used as a subject/predicate noun (as it is used in John 1:1c).In other words, when John intended the meaning of "God," he wrote "the god" (when used as a subject or predicate noun). When he intended "a god," he wrote "god" (without the article, "the").So when he wrote at John 1:1c: "and god was the word," it literally meant "And the Word was a god [one appointed by God for a special purpose]."4. As for any 'grammatical rules' concerning word order concocted in the last century or two, they are simply false. Consider the following which have the same 'unusual' word order as John 1:1c. Notice that trinitarian Bible translators have not worded these any differently than they would if they were in the 'normal' word order.1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all4. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all5. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all6. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all7. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all8. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all9. John 18:37 a - indefinite ("a king") - all10. John 18:37 b - indefinite ("a king") - in Received TextSo, we can see that the literal translation of John 1:1c is, "And the Word was a god." Although noted trinitarian scholars refuse to admit that this is what John intended, nevertheless many will admit that this is the literal rendering.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

True, only god can actually forgive sins, unless he has given that authority to someone else.Matthew 9:1-8
(1) Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town.
(2) Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
(3) At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
(4) Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
(5) Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?
(6) But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
(7) And the man got up and went home.
(8) When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although noted trinitarian scholars refuse to admit that this is what John intended, nevertheless many will admit that this is the literal rendering.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2 (again, I do not know the author), but to answer your question:5. Coptic was the Egyptian language used in the earliest centuries A.D. An early Coptic manuscript is considered a copy of the very earliest translation of the original NT Greek at a time when both languages were in use and well-known. What is significant about this language is that it does use an indefinite article ('a' or 'an' in English). So this early Coptic manuscript shows how those Christians in the 2nd century understood the NT Greek of John 1:1.
"Here the indefinite article is specifically employed. Thus, whereas some scholars impute ambiguity to the Greek of John 1:1c, this early Coptic translation can be rendered accurately as 'the Word was a god.' This is the careful way those 2nd century Coptic translators understood it. The Coptic expression for 'was a god,' ne-u-noute pe, [as found at John 1:1] is the same Coptic construction as found at John 18:40, where it says of Barabbas that he ne-u-soone pe, 'was a robber'" - An Early Coptic Translation and John 1:1c, Prepared by Solomon Landers, January, 2006. Also see Coptic John 1:1-18 and John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions .Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43,
Hendrickson publ.,1979;7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik - Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible; Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John - Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible)Even distinguished NT scholar (trinitarian) Robert M. Grant, when discussing the writings of the noted 2nd century Christian, Theophilus, said that this respected early Christian wrote that if Adam had remained faithful, he would have become 'perfect' and would have been 'declared a god'! Dr. Grant then added that this corresponds with Jesus being 'declared a god' elsewhere in the Gospel of John! So this highly respected trinitarian NT scholar admits that Jesus himself was called a god in John's Gospel. - p. 171, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for "God"/"a god" about the same time the NT was written.And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many highly respected NT scholars of this century agree.6. In addition to the greatest NT scholar of the first centuries A.D. (Origen), we should add the words of Hippolytus, "the most important 3rd century [he lived from about 170 A.D. - 236 A.D.] theologian of the Roman Church" (p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint), who wrote, showing his understanding of the word "god" in relation to men and the Word [Logos]:"The Creator did not wish to make him [man] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel, -be not deceived,- but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos." - Book X, Ch. XXIX, 'The Refutation of all Heresies' by Hippolytus as translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 151, vol. 5, Eerdmans.In other words, Hippolytus, who is even considered by some to have contributed to the development of the trinity doctrine in Christendom, also considered the Logos (the Word) to be "a god."7. Origen (185-254 A. D.) was "probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church" (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and "the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman." (The History of Christianity, a Lion Book). "Origen, the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age" - p. 89, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Williston Walker, Scribners, 1985. "The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts." - p. 229, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, Eerdmans.Origen's Commentary on John is "the first great work of Christian interpretation." Origen was certainly the most knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early childhood and even taught it professionally from his teens onward.- and this was during a time when it was a living language and, of course, well understood! - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol. X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.Origen had the unfortunate habit (as did most Christian writers of his time) of speculating about scriptural meanings, but when it came to the actual language of the NT manuscripts, he was certainly the most qualified to teach it and did so with greater accuracy than we can even hope for by today's best scholars.Origen distinguishes between those who are called "god" and He who is called "God" by the use of the definite article ("the") being used with theos to mean "God" and by the definite article not being used with theos to

NET Bible writes:
Mt. 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. I think its its pretty clear that there are quite a few verses that show god has given Jesus authority to perform many tasks. I believe the verse below explains perhaps how Jesus can make the claim they're "his" angels.Matthew 18:13: ALL authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to me.

Hello again. I have three "pages" in which I copied initially, so I'm only presenting them as I have them. He (the author, whom I do not recall) is not here to actually debate you. I'll try to go back to the debate site that he posted them to originally (quite awhile ago) and see if I can find the author.Here is part three, which I should have included earlier to answer your question:#5, 6, and 7 show some of the best and earliest authorites which render John 1:1 as "a god" rather than "God." Also,8. Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: "a god was the Word". - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:"A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, 'The Word was a god.' As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.The reason Prof. Dodd still prefers "God" here as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of the rest of John's Gospel.Highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, 'the Word was a god,' but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that "context" will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - p. 54, ('New Covenant' section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: "You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: 'the Word was a God'; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong." - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.Young (and Barclay in the quotation following Young's above) is perfectly aware that "a God" makes little sense. There was no capitalization in the original manuscript nor in the copies that followed for centuries thereafter. We, today, capitalize "god" when we wish to denote the only true creator of everything. Therefore "God" is not a "class" at all but a single individual, and, as we will see, was identified by using the definite article ('the') with 'god.' Therefore, there cannot be "a God," but, instead, John using theos without the article would intend the indefinite meaning "a god."The reason they are compelled to admit that it is the literal translation is that most often a nominative case noun (used as a subject or predicate noun), when it is without the article ('the') in the original language, and is a "non-prepositional" count noun ('man,' lamb,' 'house,' 'prophet,' 'sinner,' 'god,' etc.), will be translated properly into English with the indefinite article ('a,' or 'an').For example, all the uses of the nominative "man" (anthropos) as found in John's Gospel which are used as described above:John 1:6; 3:1; 3:4; 3:27; 5:5; 7:23 [UBS text (3rd ed.) and Received Text]; 7:46; 9:16; 10:33; 16:21 All are properly translated as "a man"!

Deleted bc I gave the wrong scripture. Need to locate the proper one. Sorry.Edited by hERICtic, : In response to "If a high priest can forgive sins"...

Not at all. In fact, its lifted from Pslams 45. The psalmist is writing about King David...but obviously he is not calling David god.1 My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.
2 You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.3 Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness;
let your right hand display awesome deeds.5 Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king's enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

Its almost universal, when a trinitarian uses scripture to show Jesus is god, its out of context. Seldom the reverse though. Its quite concrete that the NT is overflowing with verses that clearly show Jesus is not god. The few verses that perhaps show Jesus IS god, are quite ambigious.If "I AM" means the name of god, does it make sense for Jesus to state Before Abraham, Yawheh? Its quite awkward. But if Jesus was refering to his pre-existance, it makes perfect sense. Also, examine the context.Jesus calls the Jews children of Satan! Do you think they would be quite upset with him? He angers them so that they think he is demon possessed. So already, two reasons why they would want to stone him.Also: "Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order that they might put him to death; .... And the high priest said to him, 'I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.'"If equating oneself with god is a punishable offense, why didnt the chief priests and the council bring this up? Instead they ask if he is claiming to be the messiah. Not once to they accuse him of being god.

But "I am" is never traslated as "I AM WHO I AM". Yet not once does scripture ever state this. Jesus is quite clear- he is the messiah, sent by god, not equal, not all knowing, not all powerful, a man, whos message is not his own but gods, prays to god, admits he has a god and the list goes on. Even in heaven, Jesus admits he has a god.

KB,Does Psalms 45 say that the messiah will be god?Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.Edited by hERICtic, : Two edits for 11 words. Sheesh. Need to wake up here. Coffee!

Mark 10 is quite damning to trinitarians, bc its shows Jesus admitting he is not god. Trinitarians attempt to turn it around by stating, as you have, that he is being called god and bringing this to the mans attention. But lets look at the context.17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is goodexcept God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[d]"Jesus questions why he is called "good". Notice what happens next.20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."After being corrected, does the man exclaim that he is in the presense of god? Is he shocked that Jesus calls himself god? Is he in awe? No. He makes a statement, but DROPS the "good" this time. In other words, Jesus corrected him and he followed what Jesus asked. Only god is good. Jesus is not god.You would think if Jesus was walking about preaching that he was god, the high priests and the council would bring this up in the high court. Instead, they accused him of claiming to be the messiah. They would not have had any difficulty condemning him if he was claiming to be god.Jesus makes the claim over and over he is a man, sent by god. He is the messenger of god, that the message he teaches is not his own. That he is not all knowing. That he is not all powerful. He prays to god. He claims he has a god.Last but not least, you stated that Jesus was the perfect sacrfice. This is different than claiming he is a perfect being.

No, but he infered it. He corrects the man for calling him good". Again, after he is called good, Jesus corrects him. The man drops the "good". Not once does the man acknowledge that Jesus is god. Also, I already asked but you didnt answer: If Jesus was preaching he is god (a certain death penalty for doing so) why didnt the high priests and the council bring it up? They never once claimed Jesus was stating he was god, only that he was claiming to be the messiah.As for the "I am", this has already been covered in great detail by Peg. God is never called "I am" to begin with. Second, it makes little sense in the context to state, "Before Abraham, god".Third, are you suggesting that in this big moment Jesus reveals he is god, then runs and hides???? Please give the scripture from now on so I can look up the passages. Thanks. Your logic though is that Jesus must be god bc he is perfect. Jesus was sinless. Where does it state he was perect? Also, why couldnt god create a being that did not make mistakes? You have not provided any evidence that Jesus was god. All you have done is claim Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. On top of that, you have a habit of ignoring every single verse which states Jesus was not god. There are so many that are quite clear Jesus was not god. Heck, he prayed to NOT be killed! Does this sound like god to you?A simple question: Could god have created a person who was the perfect sacrifice? Yes or no.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KB,
Does Psalms 45 say that the messiah will be god?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello again. Before I go over each verse, just a simple question. The Jews believed the messiah was to be a man. You're claiming the Hebrews stated the messiah will be god. This would be utter blasphemy to the Jews. Why would this book be included? Wouldnt there be an uproar amongst the Jews? Ok, its more than one question, but you get the idea.

A simple question: Could god have created a person who was the perfect sacrifice? Yes or no. I responded to Mea (same letters are your "name" but I'm assuming a different person? Mea stated Jesus was perfect. I asked where in scripture it states Jesus was perfect. I was given verses which state he was sinless instead. They are not the same. I'm also at a loss with your belief that an all poweful god could NOT create a perfect being.Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.Did Job have free will? Paul makes no such statement that Jesus is equal with god.Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 15
28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.Colossians 3
1
Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. You have yet to give a single scripture that states Jesus was equal with god though. I never suggested he was not more than man. I stated he was not god. Jesus prayed to god. He cried out on the cross for god to save him. Hardly the acts of god.Satan offers Jesus the world...would he do that if Jesus was god? Jesus on the cross offers up his spirit to god, yet you're claiming he is god? Im sorry, Im having a hard time following you. Where does it state Jesus always existed? Where did I state a created being is equal to god?Let me rehash what the Bible claims.Jesus is the messiah, granted powers by god, sent by god to preach his message. Nowhere does it state god humbled himself and became human. So god, now human according to you, still god, prays to himself, not to die? Doesnt make a lot of sense. It makes more sense to state Jesus, a man, the messiah prayed to his father (whom he claims is his god).I'm sure you're aware of the three verses in the OT which claim god is not a man.Let me ask you this. I aleady gave the scripture, but in Revelation, Jesus (no longer a man) claims to have a god. How is that possible unless he is not god? Does god sit next to himself? Ok, I'm new here, so I'm not sure if MEA and EMA are the same person. I addressed this to MEA, you responded, so on that alone I'm going to conclude you are. If not, my apologies.If you are one and the same..You are ignoring them because there isnt a single verse in scripture where it states what you are claiming.You believe god is all powerful. God became Jesus. God then limited his own powers.Where does it state this? How does it change the fact that Jesus claimed he was not all powerful? He still would be even if he decided to limit his powers. Can he unlimit his limited powers? If yes, hes still all powerful! Same applies to Jesus not all knowing, etc.Jesus claimed not to have all the answers. So you're suggesting god limited his own knowledge so he wouldnt have all the answers? Does that make any sense? It does not state Jesus was perfect in respect to being perfect like god. It states he was perfect at the task he was given, to shed his blood so that mankind may attain salvation. But again, even if it does claim Jesus was perfect, how does this make him god? Again I ask, can an all powerful god create a being that is perfect in his tasks and sinless?Does Jesus ever claim to be completely perfect? How does one who does not have all the answers, perfect?John 15:2 "My Father takes away every branch in me that bears not fruit; he purges it; that it may bring forth more fruit."I would say Jesus admits he is not perfect. How can a perfect being admit this? If Christ stubbed his toe, he was not perfect. You stub your toe bc you were not paying attention. But again, he could be the perfect sacrfice, but it does not mean he is god. I can see what you're trying to get at, but "context" means everything. Yes, I could say that if Jesus was sinless he most certainly was good. But thats you and I using that term. Jesus, apparently used it in a difference sense. God was good, Jesus himself was not. Jesus also claimed his followers were one with him. Does that make them god? They were "one" in unity and purpose.But to get to your verse above, I forgot about that one. Lets take a look.Some translations have it as "claim to be A god". Of course, there has been much debate as to the correct translation. So lets take a look at the rest of the verses and see the context.33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?Wait a second...why would Jesus respond that all men are gods, when Jesus was called God himself (as per the those accusing him)? How does this help his argument? Its not even a correct response to what is he is being accused of.Think about it.Jews: You are claiming to be Yahweh!
Jesus: But scripture states all men are gods (lower case, refering to beings less than Yahweh himself).It appears it makes more sense if this is the translation:Jews: You are claming to be a god!
Jesus: But scripture states all men are gods.Lets assume that your translation is correct; Jesus after being accused of being god, again does not come out and actually state that he is. Jesus claims again he is the SON of god. Then, Jesus runs away again! God runs away from man?But you didnt actually address my question. If Jesus was actually claiming to be god, when confronted by the high priests and council, NOT ONE suggested Jesus was making this claim. It would have been a piece of cake to get their wish of death, they only had to suggest Jesus claiming to be god. Yet all they accused him of was making the claim of the messiah. Many translations have it as "he" was manifest, refering back to Jesus. This makes more sense than suggesting God was justified in the spirit? Huh? God was seen of angels? It makes more sense if it refers to Jesus being justified in spirit and seen by angels. God received up in glory? Makes no sense at all unless its refering back to Jesus.There are so many verses which clearly show Jesus is not god. A few more:John 5:19 "Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..."John 5:30 "I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me."John 8:42 "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but He sent me.' "Whew. I'm wiped out. If you respond, give me a day or two. Thanks.