To this day, Christians distinguish between God the Father and Jesus the Son, while still believing they are one and the same.  And that’s not mentioning the Holy Ghost.  In fairness, Hinduism can be even more confusing.

Nobody in the first century after the crucifixion believed Jesus was co-equal with God.  But some, like Paul and the author of John, believed he was a pre-existent divine spirit briefly veiled in the flesh.  

Please note, however, that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, though he met Peter and James the Just.  Paul avoids biographical details, in part, because they distract from his vision of Jesus, which for him is more important than the real man.  The author of John, unlike Paul, would have been able to read some or all of the previous gospels–and clearly objected to the more human Jesus depicted in them, paricularly Mark and Matthew.  So he wrote his gospel to correct the earlier accounts, give the world his Jesus, the one that lived in his imagination.

Therefore, it seems very unlikely to me that the author of John ever knew Jesus.  Not impossible, since people can idealize those they have known.  But there’s something very unreal about that gospel.  Powerful.  But not rooted in this world.  

This seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. 

Bart has pointed out many times that in this era, divinity was not such a cut and dried thing.  Humans could have divine aspects to them, gods could seem very human.  Judaism drew a sharper line between man and God, but there are still things about Moses, Elijah, etc, that seem more than human.  The gospels were probably all written by pagan converts, so that fluidity would be part of their understanding of divinity.  But Jesus probably did think that anyone who had perfect faith in God would be one with God, and therefore able to do almost anything. 

And even Ireneaus, in the second century (a very mainstream figure, not some wacky Gnostic), said God had taken on human form so that humans could become like God.  Divinization was very much a part of early Christianity, and therefore, we can’t assume statements like this from Jesus–whether original to him, or invented later–are meant to say he is ‘one in being with the Father.’  It isn’t that simple.  It’s about trying to remove the barrier between mortal and immortal, temporary and eternal, created and creator.  To make them one.  Which honestly, probably is something Jesus believed in.  But I still don’t think he said that. 

Steefen, I think you may be unfamiliar with the word ‘metaphor’?  

And anyway, if Jesus never existed, then obviously he never said to drink his blood (which nobody does in the gospels, he’s right there, alive and breathing, when he blesses the bread and wine), how can you use that as an argument for why he wasn’t God? Occam’s Razor would demand that you just say he didn’t exist, since that renders all other arguments moot.  But let me tell you, people who do exist, right now, say way crazier things than ‘drink my blood’, and and you are living proof.  

(Also, as a matter of strict science, what we eat and drink does end up becoming our flesh and blood and bone, the broken-down nutrients conveyed throughout the body by our circulatory system, because that is precisely how digestion works.  Somebody wasn’t paying attention in biology class.)

That guy you talked to was wrong.  So are you.  Two sides.  Same coin.

davidpneff said

My view on the Gospel of John is that it teaches Arianism. Arianism, of course, holds that Jesus may have pre-existed from before his incarnation, but was not God. Let’s consider a few things.

Arianism taught that God begot Jesus at some point in time (contrary to orthodoxy) – that there was a time when Jesus did not exist. But having been begotten, Arius taught (agreeing with orthodoxy) that Jesus was the son of God, God, and the God that created the universe.  ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Whatever John was he was not an Arian – “In the beginning was the Word”.

1. In John’s Gospel, Jesus has a God

In John’s Gospel, Jesus actually acknowledges YHWH as his God:

John 20:17, “Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” 

John states his paradoxical belief on Jesus’s nature right at the very start. The Word is both with God and is God. Jesus is paradoxically both the Son of God, and is God.

2. In John’s Gospel, Jesus acknowledges God as the only true God

One of the places often quoted to support Jesus’ Divinity is the prayer he gives in John 17:5 “And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.” 

But hold up! Go back to verse 3 and you read this in Jesus’ prayer: “Now this is eternal life[ —that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,  whom you sent.”

This here is pretty unambiguous. In Jesus’ own prayer, he acknowledges that God alone is the true God and that this is eternal life. Notice he did NOT say “This is eternal life that they know you, God the Father, and me, God the Son…” 

Jesus says in John 17:3 the father is the only/one true god. He does not say “only the father is God”.

3. Jesus denies being God’s Equal

John 14:28 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 5:19 “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

The Son doing whatever the father does expresses equality. The son is paradoxically both equal to and lesser than the father.

4. Jesus refutes the Pharisee’s charges

What about the stories where the Pharisee’s charge Jesus with blasphemy? Pay close attention! Jesus actually refutes the charges.

John 10:33-39

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[** you do not have permission to see this link **]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

 

OK, I want everyone to pay VERY close attention to Jesus’ reply. The Pharisees accused Jesus of claiming to be God, but Jesus used their own scripture against them. The passage in question is Psalm 82:6, “I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.”

You have to understand that in Hebrew, the word “Elohim” can refer not to just God, but to rulers and judges. Take, for instance, Exodus 7:1 where God says that he made Moses a “God” to Pharoh. 

So in this case, Jesus appears to be refuting the Pharisee’s charge.

He’s pointing out an inconsistency in their thinking. If they believe scripture which states that those to whom the word of god came were “Elohim”, how much greater must the one whom god set apart as his very own be called.