Review of Chapter 1 in Josh McDowell’s, More than a Carpenter

review by Kermit Zarley

joshmcdowellmorethanacarpenterJosh McDowell is an evangelical Christian, a public evangelist, and an apologist. For decades, he was a traveling speaker for the para-church organization Campus Crusade for Christ, that ministers mostly to college students. I was involved in CCC during my college years.

Josh McDowell has now authored over a hundred books. Early in his ministry, he wrote a little book about Jesus entitled More than a Carpenter. Tyndale House published it in 1977. The book size is only 4” x 7,” and it consists of 128 pages. My old copy says on the front cover, “MORE THAN 10,000,000 IN PRINT WORLDWIDE.” This may indicate Josh has given many away free.

Of course, Josh McDowell means in More than a Carpenter, that before Jesus undertook his public ministry at about thirty years of age, he was a professional carpenter. But what does Josh mean about Jesus being more than a carpenter? He doesn’t only mean that Jesus also became a prophet and a Torah teacher. McDowell means that Jesus also was fully God, and that is mostly what Josh tries to prove in this little book.

McDowell makes this same, more extensive, argument in other books. One was a bestselling, nearly 400-page book entitled Evidence that Demands a Verdict (1972). Due to its success, out came More Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Josh presents his arguments, yet both books are known for being mostly full of quotations by scholars and others to support his thesis. Josh also co-authored a book devoted entirely to this theme, Jesus: A Biblical Defense of his Deity (1982).

McDowell mentions me in his first Evidence book. A few years ago, I met Josh for the first time. I afterwards challenged him to publicly debate whether or not Jesus is God, but he declined.

For more than the past fifty years, Josh McDowell has been one of the main ministers in the U.S. who proclaims this traditional view held by the post-apostolic, institutional church that Jesus is God. I disagree. Yet I greatly respect Josh McDowell for his evangelistic work and his emphasis on calling especially young people to the biblical standards for sexual morality.

I used to believe like Josh McDowell, that the Bible teaches Jesus is God and even that the New Testament (NT) gospels cite Jesus claiming to be God. But then, one day during my personal Bible reading, I read Jesus’ statement about his yet future return in which he said, “But about that day and/or hour no one knows, neither the angels of/in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24.36/Mark 13.32 NRSV), with “Son” referring to himself. I knew this saying well.

Like almost all Christians, due especially to the Catholic Church’s Nicene Creed (AD 325), I had been taught that Jesus was just as much God as the Father was God. But I also had been taught, due to the statement of the later Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), about the so-called hypostatic union. It explains how Jesus was both man and God by having two natures: a human nature and a divine nature. Plus, I was taught that whenever we read something in the NT gospels about what Jesus said or did, that occurred due to the source of one of Jesus’ two natures. In this case about Jesus indicating he did not know the time of his return, I was taught that he said that from the source of his human nature, but he really did know the time of his second coming in his divine nature. How? If the Father knows it then Jesus, in his divine nature, must know it too.

In Josh McDowell’s book, More than a Carpenter, he begins chapter 1, “What Makes Jesus So Different,” by saying, “Men and women down through the ages have been divided over the question, ‘Who is Jesus?’” On the next page Josh says, “How is Jesus different from other religious leaders? Why don’t the names of Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius offend people? The reason is that these others didn’t claim to be God, but Jesus did. That is what makes him so different from other religious leaders…. It became clear that his own claims were identifying him as more than just a prophet or teacher. He was obviously making claims to deity…. the issue is … who did Jesus claim to be.”

This is Josh McDowell’s main argument in More than a Carpenter, that Jesus claimed to be God. Yet Josh doesn’t provide any evidence that Jesus made this claim. C. S. Lewis does likewise in his celebrated bestseller, Mere Christianity (1943). He asserts that Jesus claimed to be God, and then he fails to defend this assertion by quoting any saying of Jesus from the NT gospels. This omission seems to be characteristic of these traditionalist apologists—they assert categorically that Jesus claimed to be God, and then they don’t try to prove it from scripture. This procedure makes it appear that they think it is a given that Jesus made such claims. No it is not! And to a person who knows the NT gospels well, it smack of a glaring ignorance of the sayings of Jesus.

On the next page, p. 12, McDowell states unequivocally, “The New Testament clearly presents Christ as God.” At least Josh then provides the major NT texts that traditionalists (those who believe Jesus is God) cite to support their view that Jesus is God. But Josh doesn’t do much more than that. Here are the texts he cites, in his order: Titus 2.13; John 1.1; Hebrews 1.8; Romans 9.5; 1 John 5.20, 21.

Josh soon mentions doubting Thomas saying to the risen Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20.28). Thus, McDowell here insists on the traditional understanding that Thomas here identifies Jesus as “God.” But I contend that Thomas was merely reflecting the truth that Jesus had taught him days earlier, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father…. I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14.9-11).

In this same context, McDowell quotes three NT figures—Peter, Martha, and Nathaniel—saying to Jesus that he is “the Son of God” (Matt. 16.16; John 11.27; 1.49). Josh is unclear here, but it is obvious that he means, as most traditionalists do, that Jesus being “the Son of God” means that he is God. But distinguished traditionalist NT scholars now deny this. Indeed, this reasoning comes from Greek metaphysics, not the Hebrew Bible that applies the appellation “son of God” to angels, the king of Israel, and Israel itself. Some NT applications of this title to Jesus are accompanied with “the Christ,” suggesting that they therein are used synonymously (Matt. 16.6; 26.63; John 11.27; cf. 1.49; Psalm 2.2-7).

On p. 15, McDowell cites John 5.18 and says of it that Jesus calling God “my Father” indicates he “made himself equal with God.” Quite the contrary; this was the conclusion of unbelieving Jews, and the text then records Jesus’ lengthy rebuttal, in vv. 19-47. Then in the next sentence Josh commits a surprising gaff by saying, “The Jews did not refer to God as ‘my Father.’ Or if they did, they would qualify the statement with ‘in heaven.’ However, Jesus did not do this.” A simple Bible concordance reveals that in the Gospel of Matthew alone, it quotes Jesus saying seven times, “my Father who is in heaven,” and five times, “your Father who is in heaven.”

On pp. 16-17, McDowell quote Jesus saying, “I and the Father are one” (John 10.30). Josh then offers the typical fare of traditionalists about this saying by arguing that it means, “one in ‘essence or nature.’” He adds, “Jesus continually spoke of himself as one in essence and nature with God.” He then cites Jesus’ sayings in John 5.23; 8.19; 12.45; 15.23. He concludes from these, “Jesus looked at himself as being more than just a man; rather, he was equal with God.” On the contrary, these sayings of Jesus merely indicate his honor of being God’s agent par excellence. Jesus’ divine agency—being sent by God—is a primary theme in the Gospel of John, and traditionalists have confounded it by asserting it means that Jesus is God.

On p. 19, McDowell declares, “Christ, since he forgave sins, was God.” Jesus did acknowledge to the Jewish crowd who saw him heal the paralytic that he possessed this attribute as “the Son of Man” (Mark 2.10). But this characteristic was not inherent in any nature of Jesus; rather, it was a privilege given to him by the Father (John 5.22, 27), thus certainly not indicating he was God. Thus, Josh is thus wrong in stating, “in no way can anyone forgive sins committed against God except God himself.”

On p. 20, McDowell says of the Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus, “Those trial proceedings are one of the clearest references to Jesus’ claims of deity.” Quite the contrary; if they thought Jesus ever made such a claim, they would have accused him of this far greater infraction than merely admitting to being “the Messiah, the Son of God” (Matt. 26.63). On p. 23, Josh concludes in this first chapter, “The trial of Jesus ought to be sufficient to demonstrate convincingly that he confessed his divinity.” To make matters worse, Josh insists, “on the day of his crucifixion, he enemies acknowledged that he claimed to be God come in the flesh.” He then cites this in which they said he said, “I am the Son of God” (Matt. 27.43). But again, McDowell confuses being the Son of God with being God.

In chapter 2, “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?” McDowell presents C. S. Lewis’ well-known trilemma argument, that either Jesus is a liar, a lunatic, or he is God. I have already written about this and opposed it in my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ. See my post on this on 6/19/2013, “Was Jesus a Liar, Lunatic, or God?”

In the rest of Josh McDowell’s More than a Carpenter, he does well in attempting to argue for the historical reliability of the NT gospels, that Jesus arose from the dead, and just generally that he was the Messiah of Israel. But again, he repeatedly conflates Jesus being the Son of God with it being synonymous with being God.

Josh McDowell could have just as well titled this book, More than a Conqueror. Why? He and all traditionalists to some extent harm the story of Jesus as a conqueror or overcomer with their unbiblical assertion that he is God. For Jesus said, “I have overcome the world” (John 16.33 NASB, NIV, ESV). Some English versions translate this, “I have conquered the world” (KJV, NRSV). Also, in each of Jesus’ messages to the seven churches in the book of Revelation, he predicts a special blessing will come to those who overcome (Rev 2.7, 11, 17, 26; 3.5, 12, 21). In the last message his says, “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat with my Father on his throne” (3.21).

If Jesus was God, he didn’t overcome anything. For Jesus’ brother James states unequivocally, “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1.13). So, if Jesus was God he could not have been tempted and thus could not have overcome. Yet James begins this letter by distinguishing God from Jesus, saying, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1.1). This brother, one of Jesus family members, certainly did not believe that Jesus was God.

So, if Jesus was God, the devil’s temptations of him were not real, but a farce. Yet two gospel writers give detailed reports that Satan tempted Jesus three times (Matt. 4.1-11; Luke 4.1-13).

What do we lose by believing that Jesus is God? We lose him being our model for overcoming sin and temptation. For people say it is easy for God not to sin. Yet the writer of Hebrews says of Jesus, “Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,… Therefore HE HAD TO BECOME LIKE HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN EVERY RESPECT [emphasis mine] so that he might be a merciful and faithful IN THE SERVICE OF GOD, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested” (Hebrews 2.14-18). The capitalized words reveal that Jesus could not have been God.

Categories: Bible, Books, Christianity, God, Recommended Reading

54 replies

  1. Paul,
    Excellent review!!


  2. Zarley fails to see the combination of both Jesus’ Divine nature and His human nature. Jesus is both God and Man.
    Jesus claimed Deity many times – besides McDowell quoting John 5:17-18 and 10:30 and the quote by the NT Greek scholar A. T. Roberstson, that “one” points to “one in essence or nature” ( page 16), Jesus clearly claimed Deity by John 8:24 and 8:56-58.

    Zarley also left out a lot of information on pages 18-23 that conclusively shows that Jesus claimed Deity; and the Jews understood that claim and crucified Him for blasphemy. He totally avoided the information from Mark 14:60-64, which proves Jesus’ claim to Deity. He mentions the parallel in Matthew 26, but does not deal with the evidence.

    It was a very weak review; Zarley’s method is just bare assertion,

    “On the contrary, these sayings of Jesus merely indicate his honor of being God’s agent par excellence. “

    The “Son of God” means the same nature as the Father, as Luke 1:34-35 shows us. “for this reason the holy offspring will be called the Son of God” – why? Because He had no physical human father, and because the Holy Spirit – the pure Spirit of God and the power of the Most Hight caused the conception in the womb of Mary. There was no physical touching or sex and it was all by the unseen, invisible, Spiritual essence of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Father.

    The quote by Robert Anderson on page 21, along with the details of Mark 14:60-64 and the 2 quotes from the OT, is devastating to Zarley’s assertions.

    “No confirmatory evidence is more convincing that that of hostile witnesses, and the fact that the Lord laid claim to Deity is incontestably established by the actions of His enemies.” (page 21)

    The eternal Son became human and in His perfect sinless human nature, was tempted and overcome the temptations without sin. Zarley’s assertions don’t make sense, since Jesus humbled Himself, became human (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11) and overcame and then conquered and was exalted again to the Father’s right hand.


    • Ken you believe Jesus was God, so when he died God died right?


    • Jesus as the God-man died, and then rose Himself up from the dead. John 10:18; John 2:19-22

      We have already covered all that before. Abdullah Kunde admitted it was a beautiful and amazing doctrine.

      In Abdullah’s closing statement at the end:
2:25:56 – “ how God gave Himself, according to the Christians, and you know, I mean, that is beautiful . . . “ but you know what, we have so much more to be thankful for . . . air, food . . . ability to stand here and speak . . . we need to be more thankful . . . for existence itself . . . “

      “Now, I certainly do appreciate . . . I do appreciate the idea God being so holy that we must have a mediator is beautiful, in fact its quite humbling, and I will be quite frank with you, I find it hard to listen to that 15 or 12 minutes of sermon, and not feel emotionally impressed.” Abdullah Kunde


    • So you believe God died. But how is this possible given the bible’s teaching that God is immortal and eternal? Makes no sense.


    • If Jesus is BOTH God and Man, it makes perfect sense.


    • It makes no sense. It is a contradiction, to say God died is to defy your own bible.


    • Already refuted you on this many times.


    • “Spiritual essence of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Father.” Very creative Ken.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Luke 1:34-35
      English Standard Version (ESV)

      34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

      35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

      It is all right there, nothing “creative” about what I wrote.


    • That is when Jesus came into existence. No incarnation in Luke, no pre-existent son.

      Liked by 1 person

    • John 1:1-5: 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; John 17:5 – all prove pre-existence. Boom!

      Liked by 1 person

    • lol Ken you just don’t understand what I am saying. LUKE knew nothing of a pre-existent son, or incarnation, get it? Luke is not John. Luke is not Paul. Think before you comment further.


    • I understood that at the time. I was thinking. It does not matter, both Luke and John are God-breathed truth. Case closed. The reason we have 4 gospels is to give us all the truth about the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Like 4 witnesses of a traffic accident, one witness at each corner.


    • Ken, come on, what’s the “spiritual essence of the Holy Spirit”?

      By the way in Christianity Jesus created his own mother. Absolute creative storytelling. I can see where you get your ideas from.


    • But Luke was a single individual – historically the 4 gospels did not exist in a single book called the NT till much later. When Luke wrote his gospel he knew nothing of a pre-existent son, or incarnation.

      This is very significant. It proves that first century Christians had radically different ideas about Jesus on some issues.


    • As a traveler and missionary-doctor on the apostle’s Paul missionary team, Luke knew the same theology that the apostle Paul taught, and he clearly taught the pre-existance and Deity of Christ – Philippians 2:5-8. Luke teaches Christ died on the cross – Luke chapters 22-24; therefore it refutes Islam and Surah 4:157, also.

      It (your assertion) is not significant since Luke is affirming the nature of Jesus as the same as the Holy Spirit and the Father.


    • Where does Luke ‘affirm the nature of Jesus as the same as the Holy Spirit and the Father’?


    • In this debate , James failed miserably to explain or to Justify how God can become a created being!

      Liked by 2 people

    • No he did not fail; he explained and proved the Scriptures true and that God can become human and be both God and human. John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11.


    • So the creator has become a created being?
      Who created that “god”?


    • 2nd person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, the eternal Word, became flesh.

      The Father did not become human.
      The Holy Spirit did not become human.


    • Ken

      “God can become human and be both God and human.”

      The opposite is also true. God cannot become human and be both God and human. The Father and the HS cannot become human and be both God and human.

      I bet you wish it was the other way round. If Muslims held paradoxical beliefs like that, I can hear the Christians go: Look at these irrational Muslims, how can they believe absurdities like that!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abdullah

      “In this debate , James failed miserably to explain or to Justify how God can become a created being!”

      WHy would james white have to justify that something that christians don’t believe? Jesus is god incarnate, not god created. That’s as basic of a chritsian concept as you can get.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Burhauddin1

      “The opposite is also true. God cannot become human and be both God and human.”



    • @ُTrey!
      No … no…
      You start playing with words as James did.

      Did God become a human? Christians’ Answer is YES.
      Is the human a created being ? Christians’ Answer is YES.
      Can God become a human being? Christians’ answer is YES.
      As a result, you say firmly that God became a (created being).
      I just removed the veil of what you are really saying.


    • Abdullah

      ‘No … no…
      You start playing with words as James did.

      Did God become a human? Christians’ Answer is YES.
      Is the human a created being ? Christians’ Answer is YES.
      Can God become a human being? Christians’ answer is YES.
      As a result, you say firmly that God became a (created being).
      I just removed the veil of what you are really saying.”

      There’s no veil to remove. And there’s no game. God became incarnate, he was not created. I don’t know how why you can’t understand that, but there it is.


    • And I’m still waiting for burhanuddin to tell us why god is incapable of becoming man and being god.


    • Trey you can read. No?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Burhamuddin1

      Yes, I can read. ANd why don’t you explain why god is incapable of becoming a man and remaining god?


    • Dude, you have been spoon fed already


    • It’s simple!
      (Man) by definition is a (CREATED BEING) so that’s why God wouldn’t become a man whatsoever.


    • Abdullah

      “It’s simple!
      (Man) by definition is a (CREATED BEING) so that’s why God wouldn’t become a man whatsoever.”

      Jesus, god incarnate, by definition is not. So why can god not incarnate into human flesh? Does allah say in the quran that he cannot incarnate?


    • Oh! So God dwelt in Jesus’ body as the demons did with that man in (John 8:49)?
      If the answer is Yes, then still Jesus is a human being who is created .


    • Abdullah

      “Oh! So God dwelt in Jesus’ body as the demons did with that man in (John 8:49)?
      If the answer is Yes, then still Jesus is a human being who is created .”

      No jesus is god incarnate, not god created. It isn’t hard Abdullah.


    • Then welcome to the group of those who ( failed miserably ) with Dr White .

      Look man, you have to acknowledge that you have a serious issue although I’m semi sure that you have already acknowledged that , yet you can’t do it in public. Ask that one whom Jesus used to ask…. ask him to open your heart.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abdullah

      He already opened my heart to the truth that mohammed is not of god.


    • that was not God, but satan who told you this


    • There’s a story in Quran about my father Abraham which is not found in your bible . I hope to benfit you
      Quran translation Surah 21

      And We had certainly given Abraham his sound judgement before, and We were of him well-Knowing

      When he said to his father and his people, “What are these statues to which you are devoted?”

      They said, “We found our fathers worshippers of them.”

      He said, “You were certainly, you and your fathers, in manifest error.”

      They said, “Have you come to us with truth, or are you of those who jest?”

      He said, “[No], rather, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth who created them, and I, to that, am of those who testify.

      And [I swear] by Allah , I will surely plan against your idols after you have turned and gone away.”

      So he made them into fragments, except a large one among them, that they might return to it [and question].

      They said, “Who has done this to our gods? Indeed, he is of the wrongdoers.”

      They said, “We heard a young man mention them who is called Abraham.”

      They said, “Then bring him before the eyes of the people that they may testify.”

      They said, “Have you done this to our gods, O Abraham?”

      He said, “Rather, this – the largest of them – did it, so ask them, if they should [be able to] speak.”

      So they returned to [blaming] themselves and said [to each other], “Indeed, you are the wrongdoers.”

      Then they reversed themselves, [saying], “You have already known that these do not speak!”

      So, please Don’t ( Reverse yourself ) .
      The prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said :
      (( The sinful conduct is that which turns in your heart ( making you feel uncomfortable) and you disapprove that people should come to know it ))
      Sahih Muslim.


    • Abdullah

      Firstly, that is an intensely poor piece of writing – it is unclear who is speaking and when. It reads like it was written by a novice, not some deity. All of those “they said, they said they aids” that refer to different “theys” is extremely poor writing. Secondly, that story of Abraham was lifted off the Jewish Midrash Genesis which was believed to have been written at least 100 years before mohammed. It is the work of jewish biblical interpreters, not god.

      Also, why does allah use a plural pronoun to describe himself? Who is this “We” character he keeps talking about?


    • Listen form ( 13:27)


  3. Trey
    Abdullah can not answer because the veil is on him. As Jesus said quoting the great Prophet “so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'”


    • For you and Trey,
      I wouldn’t find better than these verses in Quran to describe your situation as many christians who are in denial .
      Quran translation
      Rather, man, against himself, will be a witness,

      Even if he presents his excuses.


    • Abdullah

      The problem is that you guys just want to change the definition and meanings of words because that is the only way that you can hope to challenge the truth of the gospels. “Incarnation” does not mean “created” no matter how much you delude yourself.

      And that quran quote is likely to be derived from the words of jesus that Abd Yeshua recited but was altered due to the nature of the islamic oral tradition.


    • “Incarnation” does not mean “created” no matter how much you delude yourself”

      In contrast, incarnate = creaed exactly according to your belief .
      Othewise you have to stop telling us that your god became a man eating , sleeping, and dying or even arguing that god can become a man as James tried to do, yet he failed .


  4. “More than a Carpenter”. ?

    Correct title should be “More than a Carpenter and the opposite both at the same time.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I cannot believe this insane fringe conspiracy post, claiming that the Holy Bible, nor Jesus, claimed to be God. I have already debunked this.

    The arguments here are truly nonsensical. For one, one needs to be historically illiterate to assume that the Council of Nicaea was what started the divinity of Jesus, such a thing is entirely fabricated. Your response to Thomas clearly, unequivocally calling Jesus God is also ridiculous! For one, John 14:9-11 itself proves Jesus is God. This is what the full thing says, including the 8th verse which you left out.

    John 14:8-11; ““Lord,” said Philip, “show us the Father, and that’s enough for us.”Jesus said to him, “Have I been among you all this time without your knowing Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on My own. The Father who lives in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves.”

    So Phillip asks to see the Father, and Jesus identifies Himself as the Father! Also, your excuse for Thomas’s statement is ridiculous, again, you could explain away the most obvious God reference with such an obvious nonsensical response. There are too many errors here. Jesus forgiving sins also proves He is God, because we are clearly told only God forgives sins in Mark 2:7. The link I posted makes it obvious. This position is not a serious one that you hold.


    • The disciples can also forgive sins. Have you not read the gospels?


    • “I cannot believe this insane fringe conspiracy post, claiming that the Holy Bible, nor Jesus, claimed to be God. ”

      You are quite right, the Bible does not claim to be God.


    • I’m sorry my brother but you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Thomas unequivocally called Jesus God right there, and I could point to countless other instances where Jesus is clearly God — which is why I posted the link to my blog post.

      Believers cannot forgive sins.

      This is a really basic Christian doctrine, it’s not exactly debatable.


    • Yes it IS debatable. Most Christians would disagree with you.

      John’s gospel has Jesus say:

      “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (20:19–23)

      And yes I read the article, a very weak attempt to dodge the plain meaning of this text.


    • Not at all. Never do we see anyone other than God forgiving sin (which includes Jesus). The HCSB has put a footnote on this verse, crossing it in comparison to Matthew16:18 and 18:18.

      However, even if you were right, and this is a “weak attempt to dodge the plain meaning of this text”, it would be utterly synonymous with your very weak attempt to dodge the plain meaning of John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God!”

      Most Christians disagree with me? I doubt it. Anyone who is aware of verses like John 20:28, John 5:58, Mark 1:11, the 80+ times where Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man (whom is a divine figure), the countless times Jesus is outright called God in the epistles like 2 Peter 1:1-2 and Colossians 2:9, unequivocally know Jesus thought of Himself as God, as did His followers.


  6. “Never do we see anyone other than God forgiving sin (which includes Jesus).”

    I do. Just visit your local Catholic Church. Read their understanding of the forgiveness of sins here:

    The largest Christian church in the world is the Catholic church – so yes most Christians disagree with you.

    Regarding Jesus being God, watch this:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: