Posted by: Nick Norelli | February 4, 2008

I am God

I just watched a video where James White defended the deity of Christ against the argument from a couple of Muslim apologists (Ahmed Deedat & Zakir Naik) that Jesus never said: “I am God.”  I’ve heard this argument literally hundreds of times in conversations with Muslims (Orthodox & NOI), Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so-called “Biblical” Unitarians.  Of course Jesus never used the exact words: “I am God” (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεός) but why should that be evidence that he never claimed deity?  Many people who use this argument might be interested to learn that Jesus also never spoke the words “I am a man” (ἐγώ εἰμι ἄνθρωπός) either.  Would we assume from the lack of such a specific statement that Jesus was not a man?  Of course not, so why assume such from the lack of the other statement? 

The fact remains that Jesus’ audience thought he claimed to be God enough to want to kill him for making himself equal with God (Jo. 5:18) and stone him for blasphemy (Jo. 10:33).  They must have had some basis for doing so, even if Jesus didn’t use a specific phrase that some people argue he must have to claim deity.  Time for a new argument…

B”H

Posted in Apologetics, Christology, Cults, Islam, Unitarianism

« Caption Contest
Context People, Context… »

Responses

I agree.

You know, on a related note, one of the reasons I don’t much care for apologetics is because of it’s selective, picking and choosing of Biblical scholarship. It reminds me of how creationist will reject the consensus and findings of science until they come across something that kind of supports their views and then they’re all over it. I find that annoying.

Just thought I’d bring that up. Have you ever noticed that or has that ever bothered you?

Bryan

By: Bryan L on February 4, 2008
at 11:15 am

That hasn’t really bothered me. There’s always going to be some picking and choosing, and of course people are likely to emphasize the work of those in agreement with them, but I think that the really good apologists are those who deal with the best of their opponents arguments and engage the scholarship that runs contrary to their position.

What bothers me about apologetics is that it’s basically just preaching to the choir. I’ve realized that I can’t convince anyone to believe anything that they don’t want to believe, but I can sure tell them the reasons for the hope that is in me. I like to think of apologetics as a means of witnessing. But a lot of works that I read (both online and in print) are really just aimed at believers who already agree with what is being said.

By: Nick Norelli on February 4, 2008
at 11:22 am

One problem with this argument is that it is focused on John’s Gospel, and historians have to make sense of why Jesus says precisely these sorts of things in that Gospel, and not in the other three. So the historical question (assuming that is what one is asking) cannot be answered by quoting John’s Gospel, without further discussion.

By: James McGrath on February 4, 2008
at 1:07 pm

James,

So leave off the last paragraph. My point is that Jesus’ non-use of a specific phrase is not evidence that he is not God, and if it is, then it is equally evident that he is not man.

By: Nick Norelli on February 4, 2008
at 1:25 pm

“I’ve realized that I can’t convince anyone to believe anything that they don’t want to believe, but I can sure tell them the reasons for the hope that is in me.”

Ah, spoken like a true presuppositionalist! ;-)

By: Esteban Vázquez on February 4, 2008
at 1:26 pm

Ah, spoken like a true presuppositionalist! ;)

May it never be!

By: Nick Norelli on February 4, 2008
at 1:27 pm

face it Nick, Esteban is right on that one…

By: Mike on February 4, 2008
at 1:47 pm

Mike,

I shall face nothing! That simple fact of life is not unique to presuppositionalism. Us evidentialists believe it too!

By: Nick Norelli on February 4, 2008
at 1:55 pm

Problem in the Synoptics is the Messianic secret especially in Mark, but Jesus’ pronouncements of the Kingdom of God and his special role as one who reveals it and also as the one who fulfills it identifies him with God in a special way as Lord. Anyone who is looking for Jesus to say “I am God” has no sense of metaphor along these lines which is prevalent in his revelatory activity among the disciples.

You also cannot separate these pronouncements with the eschatological prnouncements of Jesus as in Matt. 24 when he clearly identifies himself against “other Christs” and with the “coming of the Son of Man”. And on and on and on…

I think Rudolf Schanckenburg does a fantastic job of delineating these pictures of Jesus.

Nick, if you have not read Jesus in the Gospels by Schnackenburg, buy it right away. Fantastic.

By: Drew on February 4, 2008
at 4:16 pm

Drew,

I agree! I’ve often said that Jesus’ “I am” statement in Mark 16:62 carries more weight than those in John. This messianic/eschatological claim was enough to convict him of blasphemy.

And I have heard about Schnackenburg’s work for some time now but have not gotten around to buying it. Your recommendation has pushed me over the edge and as soon as I can appropriate the funds I will be getting a copy. :)

By: Nick Norelli on February 4, 2008
at 4:29 pm

that little fact is what presup is built up around.

By: Mike on February 5, 2008
at 12:07 am

Jesus did say he is a man. Kindly read John 8:39-40. It says “They answered and said to him, ‘Our father is Abraham;’ Jesus saith to them, ‘If children of Abraham ye were, the works of Abraham ye were doing; and now, ye seek to kill me—a man who hath spoken to you the truth I heard from God; this Abraham did not;”. It is quite clear what he has said, he is a man, who has spoken the truth he heard from God. It seems your claim that Jesus never said he is a man is itself unbiblical. And Jesus’ audience understanding of him that he is claiming to be a God does not make their understanding correct, it is in fact a misunderstanding.

By: vagabonddrifter on May 17, 2008
at 5:26 am

vagabonddrifeter: Yet he didn’t use the exact phrase “I am a man” (ἐγώ εἰμι ἄνθρωπός). The point of this post is that if his not using the exact words “I am God” is enough to conclude that he is not God, then the same can be said about his being a man.

Also, their understanding was quite correct, which is why Jesus never corrected them.

By: Nick Norelli on May 17, 2008
at 9:52 am

“I am a man” would be most likely realized in Greek as ἐγώ ἄνθρωπός with the copula dropped.

By: Mike on May 17, 2008
at 3:58 pm

Mike: Thanks. We don’t find Jesus saying that either.

By: Nick Norelli on May 17, 2008
at 5:12 pm

yeah…just throwing some nerdy-ness into the mix…by the way, nice new picture.

By: Mike on May 17, 2008
at 10:33 pm

Mike: I really appreciate it. I remember when I composed the post originally, I went back and forth over whether to write ἐγώ εἰμι ἄνθρωπός, ἐγώ ἄνθρωπός, or ἐγώ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι (or list all three). I figured I’d air on the side of caution, but I guess I should have opted for ἐγώ ἄνθρωπός.

And thanks! What’s better is that I actually get to read those books in the picture!!!

By: Nick Norelli on May 18, 2008
at 12:12 am

thinking about it, depending upon the emphasis of the statement it could also read:

εἰμι ἄνθρωπός or ἄνθρωπός εἰμι

By: Mike on May 19, 2008
at 12:36 am

[...] June 2008 This post is in reply to Nick Norelli who claims that it is not proper to assume that Jesus is not a God even if he did not say “I am a [...]

By: Reply to Nick Norelli’s “I am God” Post « Raчraч Ŋuɲan’s (Rara Nguñan) Weblog on June 1, 2008
at 12:45 am

Hello Nick. I too love a good argument. Now, have a look at my post and I would love to hear your reply. I just hope I satisfied your criteria for a good apologist: “I think that the really good apologists are those who deal with the best of their opponents arguments and engage the scholarship that runs contrary to their position.”

By: vagabonddrifter on June 1, 2008
at 12:45 am

Forget to leave the address. Here it is :http://vagabonddrifter.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/nick-norelli/. Cheers.

By: vagabonddrifter on June 1, 2008
at 12:47 am

vagabonddrifter: Thanks for pointing it out. I’ll give it a look.

By: Nick Norelli on June 1, 2008
at 3:55 pm

[...] doing a master’s in linguistics and has a BA in Greek, posted this comment on my post about Nick Norelli’s “I am God” post: “For one your description of the dependent clauses of verse 40 is methodologically flawed. [...]

By: Reply to Mike’s Comment « Raчraч Ŋuɲan’s (Rara Nguñan) Weblog on June 6, 2008
at 10:59 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories