A Muslim

Moving on to the third topic: 3. " I am in the Father and the Father is in me" and whether it proves Jesus' deity or not. You said: Sorry but I cannot see how this answers my question, you are just stating your belief which is not an evidence against me, as this belief needs evidence in itself. You may believe it and it may be a case that we cannot grasp, but we need first to prove that this belief is really true through scriptures, if it is, then your argument will be understood, but you need first to prove it. Moving to the fourth argument talking about evidence that Jesus is God, the first was about the word "son of God" and whether it means that Jesus is God or not: You need to understand that Hebrew is very nuanced and there are terms that while they appear to the same on the surface, are applied differentlly in different contexts. The phrase "son of" can in certain context refer to a paternal relationship between a human boy and his earthly father. But it is used to simply refer to a earthly man. However, it is also used to denote equality. Jesus once referred to two of His disciples, James and John as the "sons of thunder." It was used to equate their intolerant, violent attitudes with the violent sound of thunder. In the same way, a famous Jewish Zealot was known as "The Son of a star" (Simon Bar Kochba). It was an attempt to equate him with the Messiah and is a veiled reference to the star of Jacob a common messianic reference. When the phrase "Son of God" is applied to Jesus it is equating Jesus with Deity. Jesus applies to Himself denoting Himself as being of the same essential nature as God the Father. Ergo, Jesus is proclaiming Himself to be God. In reference to Solomon, the Hebrew connotation refers to how God will treat Solomon. The idea is not that Solomon will literally be the son of God, but that God will treat Solomon with the same kindness that a man would treat his own son. As for Matt. 5:9 it is again, a figure of speech. It refers to how people will regard them. Those who are peacemakers, who are conduits of God's shalom shall be regarded by their peers as if they were the very offspring of God. So the word "son of God" in itself can be applied to an earthly man, meaning that it is not an independent evidence for deity. You apply it to Jesus as equating him with deity based on your belief. Your faith is not enough to prove it, so you must give another evidence restricting the meaning of the word in case of Jesus that it means he is God. Your evidence was: Being the son of God can mean that he was the chosen one among other sons or that he is the best one, doesn't necessarily tell that he is God in nature. Note that Jesus never said "I am God" in the Bible although he sometimes used the word son of God which is an interesting note regarding the above topic on John 10:3-39, when the Jews accused him of calling himself god, he didn't use the same word for himself although he cited a verse talking about people called gods, but when it came to himself he didn't say I am called god, but son of God. Why didn't he call himself God in this situation although all the arguments are using the word god? Jesus even said it by his own tongue, the Father is the only true God (john 17:3), note, he said the Father not God, which disproves the Trinity as it is talking about the Father only who is the only true God, meaning that he is not God he is not the Father unless you adopt that heresy saying that the father is the son is the holy spirit. Next we move on to another evidence you use which is miracles and forgiving sins, your last reply says: Again, I answer you by a scripture, you answer me by stating your belief with no evidence, you still apply standards with no evidence, Jesus never said that he has a human and a divine nature, but this was a conclusion made by later Christians to hold verses talking about Jesus' humanity with their belief in his deity which needs evidence. So it seems we are going in a circle, I ask you why Jesus is God, you say because he made miracles, I answer you men made miracles and Jesus said he can do nothing by himself, you answer but Jesus is God and has human nature, so when he was doing miracles he was actually doing it under his own power because he is God. I ask you again, what is your prove that Jesus is God? We still need evidence not statement of faith. Again, so what? Do you think that the writers of the Talmud believed that the Messiah will be God? Actually it insults Jesus and Mary. Btw, Moses performed claims that Jesus never performed, does it mean that Moses was God? How could Jesus be in complete control of events when he blames God for forsaking him? Neither Elijah did Jesus do it under their own power. Jesus clearly says: "I thank you Father because you heard from me so that people believe". So if the Father didn't hear from him, could he have done so? Of course not, because he does so by the Father's power not by his. If Jesus knew that his action was a proof that he is God as you try to say, he needn't pray to the Father as his action would have been enough and he needn't God's power. So why did he pray? To show to people that he is sent by the Father and he emphasizes on thanking the Father for hearing from him. He knows that it is not his power but God's power. He is a prophet sent by the Father and he performs miracles by the Father's power not by his. Again, "I can do nothing by myself.

Thanks Shiloh for opening this thread, I was about to do it but you preceded me. Now let's organize our topics first since it seems they have been scattered within our conversation: 1. The word " I and the Father are one" and whether it proves Jesus' deity or not. 2. The context of John 10:30-39 and what it proves. 3. " I am in the Father and the Father is in me" and whether it proves Jesus' deity or not. 4. The evidence you gave that Jesus is God through his miracles, forgiving sins, being called the son of God,...etc. For anyone who wants to go into the conversation, it starts from post 41 here: Now as for the first topic, your last reply was: Well, I have actually addressed that point through John 17:22 that Jesus wasn't talking about deity at all here but aim the same as disciples, look at what Dr. Constable said again: In short, this verse does not say that Jesus was claiming to be of the same essence as God. Here He claimed to function in union with the Father. However the context and other statements in this Gospel show that His unity with the Father extended beyond a functional unity and did involve essential metaphysical unity. So he is saying that this verse in particular is not talking about essence although other verses did, but just as a functional unity. Let's move on to the second point which was talking about the context of conversation between Jesus and the Jews, you said: This wasn't the way to correct understanding, but the way was to prove to them through the OT that the Messiah is God. If they were corrupt leaders, people who will come after and read the gospels are not. So it seems Jesus didn't care about all those who will come after, and this is impossible in case of Jesus. The context doesn't agree with you, the Jews accused him with blasphemy of saying he is god, he answered them with a verse calling other people "gods" and compares this case with himself. Then you said: The context doesn't agree with what you say, the Jews accused him with blasphemy of saying he is god, he answered them with a verse calling other people "gods" and compares this case with himself, so it's clear that he was answering their claim not mocking them. If the case that Jesus meant the meaning of elohim as judges, why didn't the writer of the NT use the word judges instead of gods? According to your case, Jesus is using a logical fallacy as the Jews are talking about Jesus calling himself god, and Jesus answers them with a verse telling about judges, and compares himself with these judges, which is totally irrelevant. Next you said: First of all, God gave us mind to understand Him and understand His scriptures and seek the truth. I use my mind to understand what God is saying, and if it was proven through true scriptures from God saying explicitly that Jesus is God I will say it, but actually this wasn't proven neither through true scripture nor even through the Gospels, so why I believe it? Back to the verse in question, when the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, his answer was that he quoted a verse from Psalms calling mere men gods, then he says: 'If these people were called gods, why do you blame me for being called son of God', so he is clearly saying that as these people who were called gods are not really gods, he didn't mean to blaspheme, but he compares his case with a case of mere mortals. If he really wanted to affirm their conclusion, he would have quoted one of the verses in the OT you use to prove the Messiah is God (although they really don't like Isa 9:6 to say yes I am really God, but he didn't, just he said other people were called gods by scriptures although they were not, so why do you condemn me of blasphemy being called son of God? So the Jews hailed him as a prophet not as being God, and that's what I believe those who followed Jesus contemporary him believed, no more than a prophet. If Jesus wants to prove to the Jews that he is not blaspheming, he must give a scriptural evidence that he is God, but actually he didn't (according to your view as it's so clear that he denies it through his quotation), so actually he didn't care about teaching people. What is the difference between your view and pagan and false prophet views then? We are supposed to take our belief through scriptures not miracles, since scriptures judge these claims whether they are true or not, but it seems that Jesus (according to your view), who told them to search the scriptures didn't care about proving the main belief from their scripture although he used it in other minor cases. Yes, I agree with you, but how did they receive him? By believing in the Trinity?