Is Jesus God?

Jesus is declared the First and the Last because He is God incarnate. How could there be a First before "the First"? And how could there be a Last after "the Last".Since both Jehovah God and Jesus proclaim to be the First and the Last, taken with the rest of the Bible's revelation, we are secure to believe that Jesus is Jehovah God incarnate. Compare to Isaiah 44:6To the genuine believers in Christ He is "our Savior God". I will prove it:We see "the command of our Savior God" - Titus 1:3
We see also "Christ Jesus our Savior" - Titus 1:4"Grace and peace from God our Father and Christ Jesus our Savior".But we were just told in verse 3 of "our Savior God".
Christ Jesus is God incarnate to be our savior.Then again Titus 2:10 informs us of "the teaching of our Savior God". This is followed by verse 13 - "the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior, our Savior God.Jesus Christ our great God and Savior - "Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us ..." (v.14)Again we see "our Savior God" in Titus 3:4 - "But when the kindness and the love to man of our Savior God appeared ...". This is followed by verse 6 which says " Whom He poured out [the Holy Spirit] upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior .."Our great God and Savior is the Lord Jesus Christ. Our great God and Savior is the "God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" from Whom we receive "grace and peace" (Titus 1:4)Concerning First Corinthians 15:45 the "life giving Spirit" whom the Last Adam Jesus Christ became, is the same Person as "the Holy Spirit, Whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ" (Titus 3:6)"[T]he last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) means that the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ in His pneumatic form. In His form as "life giving Spirit" which He became, Jesus dispensis the life of God into His redeemed people. He imparts Himself into His lovers. He imparts Himself AND His Father.This is proved by John 14:23 where the Divine "WE" of the Father and the Son come to make an abode with the lovers of Christ: "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)The Triune God as the Divine "WE" will dispense the Father and the Son into the innermost being of the believer of Christ. Yet this dispensing is apparently also the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:6.For the Spirit is " the Spirit of life" (Romans 8:2). The "life giving Spirit" that the last Adam became is "the Spirit of life" .So it is no wonder that Christ is identified as the Spirit - "Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17). And "the Lord" in 2 Cor. 3:17 is definitely "the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 1:2)And of course in the next chapter Paul tells us emphatically - "For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (2 Cor. 4:5)He is the Savior God, Jesus. And His desire is to come with His Father as the Divine We to make an abode with His redeemed people, to be thier divine and eternal life.Paul goes on in Titus to warn of those who oppose the teaching of the apostles: I think you are sinning and are self condemned when you continually deny that Jesus is "our Savior God" . Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am limited this evening on what I can write.However, I for one, never denied that the Father and the Son are distinct. They are not separate. Distinct they are, but not separated.Secondly, I know that the thread is not about whether Christ is or is not the Savior. But it is about whether Jesus is God incarnate or not. And the passages I provided teach that He is our Savior God. (I will consider translation issues latter).How many Saviors are there ?Jehovah God says "I, even I, am Jehovah, And there is no Savior besides Me." (Isaiah 43:11b) He also says that there is no God was formed either before Him or after Him: "Before Me was no God formed, Neither will there be any after Me" (Isaiah 43:10) The polytheism of Russell and Arius was rightly rejected by the Christian church.

This morning I do not have time to supply passages. But I will comment briefly.It is true that Jesus is sent, or that the Son of God is sent. However, He does not seem to LEAVE the One who sent Him. The one who sent Him comes with Him.So there is distinction. There is not separation. It is true that Christ came to do the will of His Father. But if you examine the chapter closely this divine life which is God Himself is on a kind of transmission from the Father through the Son into man.So Jesus say as He lives because of the Father, so everyone who eats Him will live because of Him. I think that is John 6:57.This matter of Father and Son and Spirit is therefore a branching out of God into man. It is a transmission from the source of the Father through the course of the Son by the transmission or flow of the Holy Spirit.For God to dispense His life and His Spirit into man He is triune. And no one can deny that all three are called God in the Bible. The Father is called God. The Son is called God. And the Holy Spirit is called God. It is true that 1 Cor. 15 does speak of the Son being subject to the Father after the millunnium. However, at what stage was the Son NOT subject to His Father?We should not assume that His being subject to the Father at the end of the millennium is really a brand new development? Was the Son not subject to His Father throughout the 33 and a half years of His life? Was He not subject to the Father at baptism, in the wilderness, throughout His ministry, on Calvary, in resurrection ?While I gladly acknowledge His being submitted to the Father at the close of the millennium that God may be all in all, it really is not an introduction of anything that has not already been.Besides, being subject to the Father only causes the Father to exalt the Son more and more. Therefore in the closing scenes of eternity in Revelation 21 and 22, we see the SINGULAR "throne" of God and of the Lamb.That is not two thrones of authority. That is one throne of God and of the Lamb. The truth is that God is IN the Lamb. This is proved because Revelation says that the Lamb is the LAMP and God is the LIGHT. This means that the Redeemer is indwelt with God the Father and God the Father lives in and shines out of God the Son.Again, no one can deny that in the New Testament all three are called God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.The truth is that Jesus Christ is the mingling of God and humanitty. He is God incorprated in a man. And the union of humanity and divinity is total, universal, and complete in Him.All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily. Paul did not say that one third of the fulness dwells in Him. Nor did Paul say 33.33333% of the fulness dwells in Christ.Rather the Apostle Paul say all the fulness was pleased to dwell in Christ. So our God is the man Jesus. Again, but point out when the Son was NOT subjected to God the Father. You cannot use this passage to deny that Jesus is God incarnate. He is distinct. He is not separate. Yes He is. And there is NO other Savior except Jehovah per the book of Isaiah.Jehovah's Witnesses teach Polytheism.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your explanation of John 1:1 calls for two Gods.And your explanation of God Almighty being Jehovah and the Mighty God being another inferior God.This is polytheism. I also pray only to Jehovah. And I would not pray to any deceased or living saints.But, calling on Jesus and praying to Jesus is calling on and praying to Jehovah God.You teach polytheism in John 1:1 because the Word that was with God and was God is to your organization another God. You have two Gods in John 1:1.If you accepted that the Logos is the God with also Whom He is WITH, then that would be monotheistic belief. As it stands you have to teach polytheism to deny the incarnation of Jehovah as the man Jesus Christ.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Whatever the interpretation of who wisdom is in Proverbs 8, it only says that Jehovah possessed this entity. It does not say that Jehovah created this entity. You cannot extrapolate from Proverbs 8 that Jehovah CREATED another God first, called Wisdom.Then there is the question that, if God DID create Wisdom how did God have the Wisdom to do so before Wisdom was created ?If Wisdom is an attribute of the eternal God then Wisdom was as long as God was.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Whether or not these multiple Gods are worshipped is beside the point. The fact that they are taught is polytheism.And "A God" in John 1:1 I do not believe is a good translation of the Greek.Besides, to suggest that John opens his Gospel with a teaching of more than one God would contradict the Son's summary of His mission in His prayer in John 17: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3)In Christ's great prayer before His crucifixion there is no hint that His mission was that of "A God" coming to make known another God. There is really no need to go over new issues. You have ignored the issues that I raised which you could not answer.Namely that Jehovah and Jesus both say of themselves "the First and the Last" - (Isa. 44:6 comp. Rev. 1:17) .How could the First be preceeded by another the First? How could the Last be followed by another the Last ?And other than the fact that there was a speaking of God within the Godhead, a kind of council in Genesis 1:26 you have no idea Who was speaking to Who ?You insist - "Obviously he was speaking to his Son Jesus. The one who has been with him from before the time that Abraham lived. But you don't even know if it is the other way around and Jesus (the Son) speaking to the Father.Jesus, by the way, was the man who had His birth in Bethlehem. That was the beginning of the man Jesus. But as to the Son of God, He is addressed as God in Hebrews 1:8.While I understand what you mean by saying God was speaking to Jesus, I would not press that too far.1.) The MAN Jesus had not been born yet.2.) Genesis 1:26 just says God said.Since the Son is called "God" in Hebrews 1:8 you really cannot ascertain Who initiated the speaking. It was a speaking within a council of the Triune God.Whether you worship two or more Gods or not is beside the point. Jehovahs' Witnesses teach of multiple Gods. So you teach polytheism and not monotheism.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is one of the poorer defenses of their polytheism that I notice Jehovah's Witnesses continue to use.Notice that Paul uses the phrase "so called" - "For even if there are SO-CALLED gods ..." (my emphasis)It should be clear that "so-called gods" are the misunderstanding of the outsiders to the Christian church. The pagan has many "so called gods" . These deities are either fallen angels or demons or simply false idols.Paul specifies that "Yet to us there is one God ...". The "US" is the Christian church, the brotherhood of faith. The "US" is the Body of Christ. And towards the church there is one God.The question I would have for you Peg, is are you part of the "us" Paul mentions or not ? If you offer as an explanation that the Bible speaks of many gods and many lords therefore Jesus is one of those many other gods, then I doubt that you are in the brotherhood of Christian faith that Paul indicates as the "us" ... "Yet to us there is one God ..."Jehovah's Witnesses teach pagan polytheism and excuse their polytheism by offering 1 Cor. 8:5,6 as proof that Scripture gives them the right to teach that there are many gods.In effect they are saying "For US Jehovah's Witnesses there are many gods". They must not be a part of the "us" of the brotherhood of the Christian church to which there is one God. You need not be afraid to "break it" to me. I consider the passage very carefully. And my response is:Yes, this passage, like many passages speak of TWO. The TWO are distinct. But they are not separate. For where ONE is the OTHER is always within or there also.This is called by some "co-inherance". The Father lives in the Son and the Son lives in the Father.So the phrase triune became useful to grasp this side of God's nature. There is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as THREE. Though they are distinct they are not separated.Now I notice that you did not say WHAT was two. You simply said that they were TWO. I agree with putting it this way because human language is limited to specify exactly WHAT is two.And in the Triune God it is a limitation of human language to specify exactly WHAT is being said is THREE. We may borrow the term Persons, ie. three Persons. But even "persons" should not be stressed too far. For "three persons" can easily mislead to "three gods" then.So some of us prefer to leave it blank - "three _____". So I am by no means devastated that John 17:3 or the whole chapter for that matter, speaks of TWO ________. The fact of the matter is that the entire revelation shows them never to be separate though they are distinct. And each ______ of the Triune God lives in the other.In the formula "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19 it is ONE NAME. Jesus did not say "into the NAMES [plural] of the Father ... Son ... Holy Spirit" but into the [singular] NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.The name of the one into whom new believers are baptized is then really "Father - Son - Holy Spirit", one NAME. And Scripture stresses that there is only one God. Especially, "to us" the Christian church. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There is no limit set by Paul establishing that Christians AFTER the first century were NOT to heed the truths set forth in the epistle. That is your selective and arbitrary limitation imposed on First Corinthians to twist it to justify your polytheism.The epistle is addressed as follows: " ... to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, [who] is theirs and ours." (1 Cor. 1:1,2)There is no hint that the church in Corinth should no longer pay attention to the epistle after the immediate time is ended, ie. after the close of the century.There is the indication that the letter is also to those in every place who call on the name of Jesus Christ.There is the indication that the letter is generally to "saints" who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus. Two thousand years from this writing, Jesus Christ is both "theirs and our" . Time has not changed that. Place has also not changed that.So I catagorically reject that the exhortation that for the Christians there is one God is no longer applicable. With this flimsy misunderstanding every point of faith could be dismissed as being no longer applicable. For instance, Paul's whole discussion of the resurrection of Jesus in chapter 15, could be dismissed with a false hope that Paul was only speaking to first century Christians.These are not culturally enfluenced norms of some temporary nature. They are major tenets of the Christian faith. So 1 Cor. 8:5,6 is truth for the Christian church in that century and in all subsequent centuries as well. Of course. And Paul is still teaching us today if we are Christians and opened to his epistles. Are you saying that Paul is NOT a teacher for you ? The word "trinity" may indeed have not been used by the contempararies of Paul. The FACTS that the the Son is called God, the Father is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God is particular to the New Testament before the coining of the word "trinity".The FACT of the Triune God was from eternity. The invention of the theological term "trinity" did not do anything but provide a human language expression for such a revelation. It is quite ironic that you appeal to the Catholic Enyclopedia when you well know that Jehovah's Witnesses have so much to criticize Catholicism for.Would this Catholic Encyclodpedia therefore also be an authority for you on matters of Mary worship, crosses, Easter, Christmas, All Saints Day (Halloween), as well ?Isaiah 9:6 has the child born called the Mighty God. Compare to Psalm 50 - "The Mighty One, God Jehovah, ..." (Psa. 50:1)The Mighty God Jehovah is the same one as that little child born in Isaiah's prophecy. Isaiah didn't get his clue from the church fathers or any Christian council or creed.The Mighty God that the child is called is also the same Mighty God in Jeremiah 32:18 - "the great, the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his name ..."So the phrase "Three-One God" was only invented to discribe the facts of Scripture that had been there for centries. Had the truth not been so attacked by Arius and others seeking to deny the incarnation of God, then perhaps the theological defense terms may not have been invented.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't know of any triune gods in Egyptian religion.I know of the polytheism taught down at your Kingdom Hall where they taught you that there is Jehovah the Almighty God and another God, the Mighty God - polytheism.And I know that the Bible contradicts this Watchtower polytheism by specifying that Jehovah is both the Mighty God and the Almighty God.The little child born in Isaiah 9:6 unto us, is called "Mighty God". So God was incarnated as a human child.Now if you worship the true God He desires the worship in spirit and in reality. God is Spirit and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in reality.So you should seek to be born again in your human spirit. But to do that you have to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior God.But you resist that because the Kingdom Hall taught you that Jesus Christ is the angel Michael. You are being deceived Peg.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks. But may take me a few to master that technique.I try to keep it simple and my multiple nestings are sometimes done in error and unintentionallythanks again

So what ?Next you could show a picture of Mt. Rushmore and claim that is proof of the worship of a Four in one God by a country.

I used Paul's words to confirm the fact that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God.I used Scripture to confirm the revelation of the Triune God. The FACT of it in the Bible is confirmed in the words of prophets and apostles and of course in Christ's words and deeds as well.The New Testament speaks of the enjoyment and experience of the Triune God. And the verses that I usually use to confirm the Three-One God are along the lines of the experience of the Christians, for example Romans 8:9-11.The Trinity is not that man may have a doctrine to puzzle over. The Trinity is for the dispensing of God's life into man for His expression and man's enjoyment.For example, the following passage is not a doctrinal or creedal statement. But it is a statment about the experience of the Triune God: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Cor. 13:14) This is a passage on the dispensing of the Triune God's life into His people. The emphasis is experience and enjoyment rather than a creedal doctrinal thesis for objective theological consideration.I know this is on the Triune God in experience because the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is elsewhere called "the grace of God " (Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 3:10; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 8:1; Heb. 2:8; Jude 1:4).I also know that for the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to be with my spirit is for Christ Himself to be with my spirit: " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." (Phil. 4:23 "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim. 4:22)So I know that when I experience inwardly the grace of God I am experiencing the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact I am experiencing the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.I know that this passage is on Christ being dispensed into His people because for Paul to live Christ was to live by the grace of God.Compare: " ... it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me ..." (Gal. 2:20)"I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Cor. 15:10)One passage says "Not I ... but Christ that lives in me" and the other says "Not I ... but the grace of God which is with me" So I know that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in subjective experience is simply the experience of Christ Himself dispensed into my being.This grace is also the grace of "the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29) So the Holy Spirit also embodies this divine grace.So there are many passages which stress the subjective enjoyment of the Triune God.Probably you have not experienced the indwelling of Christ so that these things seem like nonsense to the natural mind. JWs capture such scoffers into their cult. So you have become their spoil.Let me ask you this. Is Michael the angel in your being ?Can you find me a passage saying that Michael the angel will come to make his home in the believers?But we have the Father and the Son coming to His lovers to make an abode with them: Where does it say that Michael the angel will come and live in the Christians ?But we see Jesus Christ living in the Christians: So there is hope for you if you would receive Jesus Christ into your innermost being. The hope of glory is Christ in the believers: " ... the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the hope of glory." ( Colossians 1:27) The Trinity is spoken of in the NT for imparting God as life into man.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Peg writes: The crowd took up stones to stone Him at the point where He said - "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am." That was the last straw, when this Man before them identified Himself as the I AM, the preexisting and ever existing God.It is not a pretty sight to see someone like Peg in denial. It might be argued that if Christ was a created angel whose creation pre-dated the birth of the human Abraham, that might explain what Jesus meant.However, it was Jehovah God Who appeared in the burning bush in Exodus 3, speaking the words to Moses - "I AM WHO I AM..... you shall say to the children of Israel I AM has sent me to you." (Exo. 3:14)So for Jesus to say that He was the I AM Who existed before Abraham came into being was to make Himself Jehovah God who has spoken to Moses in Exodus ( Exo. 3:4;,6,7,11,12,13,14; 4:2,4,6,10,11,19;8:1, 3,10, 13) This was neither the first or last time the Jews sought to execute Jesus for saying that He was God, though being a man. They also sought to seize Him for execution because He said that the Father was in Him: "If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; But if I do [them] even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father.

​

Then they sought again to seize Him, yet He went forth out of their hand." (John 10:37-39) Jesus was and is the mingling of God and man. And He came to mingle God with man. In this salvation He remains the Head of this union and His saved people become the Body of this union.
So to the church He is our Person to worship but also our Elder Brother.Jesus is God-Man by incarnation and resurrection. The church becomes God-men by Christ's salvation.Peg writes: Peg is saying that Jesus was persecuted because He tought what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, that He was a created angel, ie. a created heavenly being.But, Jesus saying Before Abraham came into being, I AM implied to them that He was God Himself.It is true that created angels existed before Abraham came into being. It is also true that the One who spoke to Moses in Exodus 3 is first identified as the Angel of Jehovah (Exo. 3:2). But the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah God are used interchangeably in the passage: "And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a thornbush ... And when Jehovah saw that he had turned aside to look, God called to him out of the midst of the thornbush ... And He said , I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. And Jehovah said, I have surely seen the affliction of My people ..."" (See 3:2-7)The bottom line is that the I AM WHO I AM is Jehovah God. And Jesus the Man totally identified Himself with that God. He was not saying He was simply a heavenly creature or an angel Michael but Jehovah the ever existing, self existing eternal God.It is interesting that the vision of God was given as a thornbush on fire. Moses marveled that the bush burned but was not consumed. This is probably a prophetic symbol of the incarnation of God as a man.We would think that God and man could not be one. As the bush should be consumed by the flame so how could the created humanity co-exist with the glory, holiness, and righteousness of God Almighty.The thornbush may have been a symbol of the fallen man. Thorns and thistles were the result of man's fall. And Jesus came in the likeness of the flesh of sin yet without sin (Romans 8:3)"God, sending His own Son in the LIKENESS of the flesh of sin ..." Jesus came in the form of a fallen man. He came in the form of one of the cursed fallen descendents of Adam. Yet He had no sin in Him.The burning thornbush was a great sight which Moses had to turn aside to examine. And the mingling of God and a man in the form of a fallen son of Adam is also a great sight and revelation for us to see. Jesus is the real thornbush indwelt with the flame of God. He is the mingling of God and man.The opposing Jews of John 8 and the opposing Jehovah's Witnesses of today cannot accept the incarnation of Jehovah God as a man.Jesus said He lived in the Father and the Father lived in Him. And Moses refered to God as the One who dwelt in the bush (Deut. 33:16). When you compare verse 16 with verse 11 it appears that the whole blessing on Joseph involves Jehovah.So Jehovah God is the one who dwelt in the bush in Deut 33:16. And the Father is the One Who dwelt in the Son. And the Son given is even called Eternal Father in Isaiah's prophecy. The identification is total and Wonderful.Peg quotes what must be the JW's "translation" of the NT: Peg adds: Every English version I have read usually said that He made Himself God not "a god".Perhaps there are some English versions with "a god". I do not read ancient Greek very well. But I do not think this is what John meant to convey.There are many titles for Jehovah God in the Bible. God Almighty (El Shadai) is but one of many. It is not necessary to find specific passages saying that EACH one of these titles Jesus used to refer to Himself.It is sufficient to see that by saying I AM, the God Who existed before Abraham and Who spoke to Moses, was enough to convey that Jesus was saying He was the Old Testament God.Of course they were mad with Jesus for many things. It is also not necesary that we make every passaged showing the religionists opposition to Jesus had to do with Him teaching that He was God incarnate.The reply of Jesus, that the word of God came to those who were called gods, I think does not downplay that Jesus was making Himself God. Rather, I think, it underscores His mission that He came to bring His saved people into a mingling of God and man as well.He came to eventually be the Firstborn among many brothers (Rom. 8:28) And His longing that as the Father lived in Him the Father would also live in those SAVED by Him was seen.Consider this passage: If we touch the spirit of this passage we see that Jesus is encouraging His disciples that the realm He is in is also the realm for them to be in.If it were that only He could be the mingling of God and man, He would have told them. But He goes to the cross to accomplish redemption so that where He is they also may enter, namely into the reality of God mingled with man.This passage is not about Jesus going to Heaven to prepare mansions. It is about Jesus going to the cross to accomplish redemption to make a way for man to come into the Father. It is not simply that Jesus sought that sinners would be forgiven. Forgiveness is a means to accomplish the end of the union of God and man.Jesus is the object of worship as God / Man by way of incarnation and resurrection. Those for whom He prepares a place, that where He is they also may be, are the union of God and man by way of Christ's great salvation. They are not objects of worship.Jesus is the HEAD of this union of God and man. The church is to be the BODY of this mingling of God and man.If it were that only He could be in this life union with God He would have told us that it is impossible for us. As it stands, He can prepare a place for us to have a standing in God too. That is that where He is as a God-man, the redeemed sinners may also come to be.It is in this spirit that I believe Jesus spoke to the Jews in the passage in question. Do not put Him on such a pedestal that it mean God's people cannot also be God-men.From the creation of man, God placed man before the tree of life, signifying that God wanted to be taken into man to be united and incorporated into man.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I already wrote something about this. Since gods in 35 is plural in the first instance and singular in the second instance, ie " ... he called gods with whom the word of God was ..." it should be clear that the one to whom the word of God came are not God Almighty. It is not that clear to whom He is speaking of. We only can ascertain that they were ones to whom the word of God came.Judging from Psalm 82 angels is a strong possibility. In the case of the Psalm those "gods" are behaving rather badly and are the object of the unique God's rebuke. His word coming to them is a scolding.Jesus, however, is the one Son of God consecrated and sent into the world with Whom the Father is well pleased at all times.I think Jesus is saying something like this:"These misbehaving ones to whom the word of God came were called gods in Psalm 82. You recognize that. But I, the have been consecrated and sent into the world and have behaved in glorious obedience. It is hypocritical for you to condemn Me because I said I am Son of God." "The works that I do in My Father's name these testify concerning Me."He behaves like the Son of God. How could He be blaspheming ? "If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me."In constrast those to whom the word of God came who were called gods were being rebuked, adjusted, and scolded by God in Psalm 82. How could Jesus be blaspheming to say He is Son of God when He obviously is acting like a Son of God?And as I tried to indicate above, Jesus is overjoyed that others could share with Him this expression of God. His heart is not just on being equal with God. His heart is on God being expressed through others like Himself.At any rate the passage, though arguable, is only one of so many others which are quite clearer. It goes without saying in the Jewish mind that there could not be multiple God Almightys [plural]. My Greek / English Intelinear has underneath the Greek in verse 33 - "Concernng a good work we do not stone thee but concerning blasphemy, and becasue thou a man being makest thyself God."Further grammatical issues concerning this passage I will leave to others to discuss, who fluently read and write New Testament Greek. If they would act like gods there would be little problem. Jesus lived as a Son of God. His speaking is backed up by His living. So He is not blaspheming to say He is Son of God.The passage may be arguable. But I think other passages are quite clear that the Son of God was God incarnate. Where is the overall weight of the evidence ?It is with Christ being God incarnate.

I am rather tired to continue tonight.But it sounds like you are thinking of Elohim, but that is Hebrew and not Greek.