There is a protestant denomination that claims that Jesus was not actually God, but merely a “Son of God” just as we are “sons of God.” The claim is based on the simple truth that Christ never states, “I am God” - at least according to their interpretations. Does this stand up to the evidence of Scripture? Let’s take a look.
I believe that Jesus clearly pointed out his divinity while on Earth - and that it is depicted in the Bible. I’ll start with the weaker claims and move towards the stronger arguments.
First, let’s start with the renaming of Simon Peter in Matthew 16:18. First century Jews believed that only God could change the name of a man - notice that it occurs just after Peter acknowledges that Jesus is the Christ. If you look back in the Old Testament, only God changes the name of people (this is true in the New Testament as well). This isn’t clearly spelled out in other Scripture, so I label it as the weakest argument, although it is a valid proof.
Next, it’s important to note that Jesus did not deny His divinity when called “God”:
John 20:26-29. Eight days later, his [Jesus’] disciples were again the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”
If Jesus were merely a “Son of God” and not divine, surely He would have corrected Thomas? Otherwise this bit of Scripture would cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of Christ. I think we’ll all agree that it is more believable to suggest that Jesus accepted Thomas’ statement of faith as truth.
Now we’ll move into the direct words of Christ. Let’s start with a few of the points Jesus made about Himself and His relationship with God. In John 14:9, for instance, Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” This clearly implies that Jesus and God are “one” (which Jesus points out in John 10:30). In addition, Jesus gave us His flesh to eat in John 6:53 and stated that it was necessary to do so if you are to have life in you (who else but God could do this?). And He pointed out that He “is the resurrection and the life” in John 11:25 and goes on to say that he who “believes in me shall never die.” All of these combine to show a clear direction in favor of Christ being God.
But the key passage is the one where Jesus clearly identifies Himself as God:
John 8:58. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
If you look back to Exodus 3:14, you’ll see that this name (“I am”) is how God identifies Himself to the people of Israel through Moses. The Jews of Jesus’ day immediately moved to stone Jesus for this outrage - they clearly understood Jesus was calling Himself God.
When you add these verses together, you can only reach one of three conclusions: Jesus was God, Jesus was a liar, or Jesus was a lunatic. You cannot say Jesus was a “Son of God” and a good man, but not God - Jesus is either God or a liar. Period. He made this abundantly clear.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Once again, you have posted without doing some reading. For the record, if you are talking about JW's, they don't consider themselves as Protestants. Second, Barretts Encyclopedia has them classified as Marginal Protestants along with the Mormons. Barretts also has Catholics classified as either being Roman or non Roman Catholics.
So if you want to make the argument that JW's are still a break off from Protestanism, you have to also look at non Roman Catholics as a break off from Roman Catholicism. We still get back to the same point. There are denominations in Roman Catholicism and Protestanism.
Be blessed
Jeff,
Barretts is obviously a very one sided book. Please go ask a Jehovah's Witness and they will insist they are Christian and extremely non-Catholic, which classifies them as a protestant.
If a group breaks off of the Roman Catholic church, they become protestant by definition. Which is why Baptists, Methodists, etc. are protestant. You're the only person I've heard (besides Barrett, obviously) who tries to claim that Catholicism has "denominations" - I guess this is simply to make you feel better. I recommend you read through some of the other sections of this site that show the clear Catholicism taught in the Bible. Then throw that Barretts book away! Even "encyclopedias" can be wrong.
God bless,
Jay
This all boils down to faith in the end...and basic Church teaching.
We have already gone through putting this type of heresy down in the Catholic Church hundreds (thousands) of years ago. What the Protestants, JW's, etc, think is their own business, I guess. Scripture can be interpreted and stretched by just about anyone to fit their 'needs'.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the 'dual' divinity/humanity of Christ is an infallible Catholic Church teaching....not believing this or preaching otherwise would result in immediate excommunication.
The divinity and humanity of Christ, along with the trinity, are mysteries not meant to be fully grasped or understood by humans...just read St. Thomas Aquinas or others. To me personally, God's mysteries are frustrating and comforting all at the same time.
Jay,
That's all you can say? That Barrett is one sided? Yet you want me to trust in your website and refer to an article? Quite interesting.
First let me address your statement.
"If a group breaks off of the Roman Catholic church, they become protestant by definition. Which is why Baptists, Methodists, etc. are protestant."
You must have not been an educated Baptist. This statement clearly shows this. Baptists, believe and claim that they do not have origins that trace back to Rome or the Reformation. They trace their church back to John the Baptist. Hence, they are Baptists. A Baptist preacher will tell you that he is not a Protestant. Yet you, as a Catholic, will clump them into the Protestant denominations.
However, you find it wrong when I say that Liberal Catholics are division of Catholicism. They may not be Roman Catholics, but they consider themselves Catholic.
Jay, you can go ask 10 Baptist preachers whether they consider themselves Protestant if you don't believe me.
Baptist's do not consider themselves to be Protestants. Neither do JW's.
Jay, you can dismiss Barrett's if you want, that's the only way to support your argument.
Lastly, do you believe that speaking in tongues is evidence that a person is filled with the Holy Ghost? I recommend that you read the Bible, and throw those traditions away;)
Be blessed
Jay,
I don't think the Greek Othodox church considers themselves Protestant.
Jay,
I think it is wise to avoid the "weaker argument" about Jesus' naming Simon "Kepa" as even a valid proof regarding the divinity of Jesus (Jesus = God).
I do however, think it is interesting that every one of your citations from the Gospels to assert Jesus' divinity (as opposed to his being "just" a son of God) all come from the Fourth Gospel.
Is it clear, in your view, that the Jesus of the synoptics is equal to God?...That is, when you read only the synoptics, and this without letting what we already know to be true about Jesus Christ influence your reading, and without letting John's Gospel act as the interpretive lens for the synoptics. Interesting!
Gentlemen,
First, the term Protestant originated from the Protestant "Reformation" or "Revolution", since in truth that is what it was. The Greek Orthodox cannot be compared to the Baptist because they did not attempt to redefine any fundamental doctrine, rather it was a schism, which is a refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff (the Pope). In fact when this break occurred between East and West it was referred to as the Greek Schism. The Greek Orthodox in no way rejected the priesthood, the Eucharist or any other of the sacraments. They still possess a valid priesthood, unlike any Protestant denomination, for they didn't attempt to destroy the fundamental Catholic doctrines. What separates them is there unwillingness to acknowledge the authority of the Chair of Peter or the Magisterium (I know that there is also a disagreement about the wording in the Creed in relation to the Holy Spirit, but it is really a moot point).
On the other hand, the Protestant Revolution was a complete separation namely because it completely did away with the priesthood, and by doing so most of the sacraments. The only two sacraments that do not require a priest to be valid are still held by the Protestant churches; Baptism and Matrimony (both of which the Catholic Church recognizes in most instances).
For the comments about different groups who claim to still be "Catholic" even though they have separated themselves from the Catholic Church I will use a simple analogy. If I attend a university but suddenly decide that I no longer agree with the "teaching authority" of that university and refuse to continue taking classes at that university because of this disagreement, resulting in my dropping out of that university as a student, is it fair for me to walk around telling others that I am a student at such-and-such university? I will let you answer that one Jeff....
Stan - I don't think the Greek Orthodox consider themselves to be Catholic either... So what is your point?
Within the Catholic Church there are various rites:
Please note that "rite" is fundamentally different from denomination in three ways.1) A rite is different from the Catholic (Roman rite) in its liturgy, namely because of the use of a native language during the Mass (but it is still a Mass) without affecting any of the fundamental Catholic dogmas and doctrines. Whereas a Protestant denomination completely changes the form of worship and the doctrines of its individual beliefs.
2) A rite still submits to the authority of the Holy Father and Magestrium something that even Liberal Catholics refuse to do.
3) Rites are recognized by the Catholic Church as valid and in unity with the rest of the Catholic Church throughout the world. This cannot be said for Protestant denominations, nor "Liberal Catholics" for that matter.
I hope this helps to clarify some of the misunderstandings here.
In Christ,
Joe
"For the comments about different groups who claim to still be "Catholic" even though they have separated themselves from the Catholic Church I will use a simple analogy. If I attend a university but suddenly decide that I no longer agree with the "teaching authority" of that university and refuse to continue taking classes at that university because of this disagreement, resulting in my dropping out of that university as a student, is it fair for me to walk around telling others that I am a student at such-and-such university? I will let you answer that one Jeff...."
Joe that is a poor analogy simply because there are Roman Catholic divisions that do no accept all the reforms of the second Vatican, yet the pope recognizes them as part of the Roman Catholic family.
Do all Roman Catholics agree that speaking in tongues is evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit? Charismatic Catholics do, and the pope calls them a blessing to the Roman Catholic body. So to answer your analogy, until the dean of whatever college kicks a student out, that student still belongs to the student body.
"Whereas a Protestant denomination completely changes the form of worship and the doctrines of its individual beliefs."
Once again, what about our Charismatic Catholic brothers? Their worship style emulates Pentecostals.
Be blessed
Jeff,
Poor example. Speaking in tongues is not a matter of faith or morals. Jesus Christ never said unless you accept the gift of speaking in tongues you have no life within you. The Catholic Church, in accordance with St. Paul, has always taught that:
Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit not a doctrine whose validity is necessary for salvation.
Again, I would also disagree with your comment about the university student. Even if he or she went around claiming they were a student no one would take them serious if they weren't actively pursuing academic studies at the university. Active enrollment is necessary to be considered a student at any given university.
Charismatic Catholics accept and hold fast to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They go to Mass just as all practicing Catholics do. They share the same Creed, the same Sacraments, the same unity under the Chair of Peter. So how are they a denomination that is separated from the Catholic Church?
Now please provide a list of these so called "Catholic" denominations that reject the teachings of the Catholic Church yet remain Catholic....
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I'll name one....Traditional Catholics.
They have not been excommunicated by the pope and Mel Gibson is a Traditional Catholic. I am being repetitive here, but the Traditional Catholics point of view is that THEY trace there roots back to the first Vatican and before, they believe that the second Vatican committed heresy. That is why they do not accept all of the reforms of the second Vatican. Their point of view is, that you have been fooled into following the 2nd vatican reforms. However they do recognize the Pope as their authority and they Pope..not you, Jay, or myself...recognizes them as part of the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church. It makes no sense to me, but that nonetheless makes it a denomination in Catholicism.
Now, I am curious, what is your take on speaking in tongues and getting excited in church?
Be blessed
Jay,
Sorry if I did not make that clear. Earlier you said:
If a group breaks off of the Roman Catholic church, they become protestant by definition.
So I asked if you considered the Greek Othodox church catholic or not.
My guess is that you were really only talking about methodist, baptist, etc...
"1) A rite is different from the Catholic (Roman rite) in its liturgy, namely because of the use of a native language during the Mass (but it is still a Mass) without affecting any of the fundamental Catholic dogmas and doctrines. Whereas a Protestant denomination completely changes the form of worship and the doctrines of its individual beliefs."
"Charismatic Catholics accept and hold fast to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They go to Mass just as all practicing Catholics do. They share the same Creed, the same Sacraments, the same unity under the Chair of Peter. So how are they a denomination that is separated from the Catholic Church?"
Last time I checked, the form of worship in a Charismatic Catholic church was different from the style seen in a RCC.
Joe and Jay, what doctrines that are essential to salvation are you talking about when you say that Protestants differ in doctrine?
God Bless
First, I would like an explanation of how a Charismatic Mass is different that any other Mass to the extent that it would be considered a different "form of worship". Sure the music is quite different and there is a substantial amount of "open" praise, but the Mass itself is still structured the same. If you are referring to a Praise and Worship service then that is something completely different, for that is a prayer group that has gathered to praise and worship God outside of the Mass. Believe it or not...the Catholic Church has many different charism of prayer. There is contemplative, personal prayer (private and alone) and then community prayer like the reciting of the Liturgy of the Hours as practiced in monasteries and convents, a Charismatic prayer group, a family that prays the Rosary together, the Stations of the Cross, etc.
Second, there have been Traditional or "Pre-Vatican" Catholics who have been excommunicated in the past. Pope John Paul II has been clear on the danger of adhering to such a group, as have other bishops (read the second article).
ECCLESIA DEI
An challenge to the Society of Pius X
Stan - Catholics do not consider the Greek Orthodox to be Catholic (nor do Greek Orthodox consider themselves to be so), hence the name Greek Orthodox...
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I am not talking about individual members, I am talking about bonafied Catholic churches which the Pope has not yet excommunicated. So until he excommunicates all of these "Traditional Catholics" you still have Catholic denominations.
Be blessed
Boy, Jeff, you must have totally skipped Joseph's last post! Clearly, these groups either are formally excommunicated or they have excommunicated themselves. There are no Catholic 'denominations', Jeff. Sorry.
I don't understand why you're willing to ignore all of the evidence and proofs to cling to an obviously incorrect theory. It reminds me of the famous quote that says "I change. What do you do when you are wrong?" Except you insist that we ignore the evidence and simply believe some book you have . . . it's very odd.
Again, please name one "denomination" of the Catholic Church. Just one. And it can't be those who are excommunicated due to the statements above. Just one.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
What point are you missing? These Traditional Catholics claim union with the Pope, they acknowledge the Pope as their authority and the same time they reject some of the Vatican 2 reforms. They did not excommunicate themselves. They still consider themselves part of the church. So how is the self excommunication? Lastly, the POPE, the POPE, the POPE.....considers them part of the Catholic Church. Even if all the Bishops and Priests argue that these churches should be excommunicated...until the Pope(the head figure of the Roman Catholic Church) says that all Traditional Catholics (Like Mel Gibson) are excommunicated...you still have denominations within Roman Catholicism.
I know this fact does not support your belief that the RCC is unified completely...but do your research. FYI, you might not find the info on the internet. You may need to go to library. I challenge you to go do some research.
Be blessed
Jeff,
What are you talking about??? Show me where these "Traditional Catholics" claim to be united with the Papacy. I am very familiar with groups like the Society of Pius X (Traditional Catholics, as you would definite them) and they do not claim unity with Pope John Paul II. If they do show me where. Did you even read the articles I linked to? Obviously not. What you fail to get is the fact that while Protestant denominations can exist since any individual has the right to interpret Sacred Scripture as they feel the Holy Spirit is leading them to do, but this is not possible within Catholicism because within Catholicism you can't continue to be Catholic and yet reject the teachings of the Catholic Church (Vatican II included). So while you continue to claim, in ignorance, that there can be multiple denominations within Catholicism you fail to understand what it means to be Catholic. Until you understand this you cannot make this claim for it has no foundation. Are you attempting to say that Protestantism is exactly the same? What is the point of this train of thought? What comfort zone does this give you to justify being separated from the Church Christ established?
In Christ,
Joe