THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT: GOD, JESUS, AND THE BIBLE

Sunday, October 18, 2026

The Trilemma Argument - Part 6: Three Passages from the Synoptic Gospels

WHERE WE ARE

In Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus, the McDowells provide five passages from the Gospel of John in support of the key historical claim upon which the Trilemma Argument is based:

5. Jesus claimed to be God.

In Part 4 of this series, I argued that Jesus never claimed to be God. In Part 5 of this series, I argued that the five passages quoted by the McDowells from the Gospel of John fail to provide any significant support for premise (5).

However, the McDowells also put forward three passages from the Synoptic Gospels in support of premise (5). I will critically examine those three passages in this post.

1. MARK 14:60-62

On the very first page of the chapter “Did Jesus Claim to Be God?”, the McDowells quote this passage from the Gospel of Mark:

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 Jesus said, “I am, and

‘you will see the Son of Man

seated at the right hand of the Power’

and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’ ”

(Mark 14:60-62, NRSV Updated Edition)

The McDowells then make this comment about that passage:

The first two words of Jesus’ response were enough to establish his deity. (EFJ, page 41)

Obviously, Jesus’ response to the question from the high priest does not establish that Jesus was God.

Even if Jesus had shouted “I am God! I am the creator of the world!” that would not establish that Jesus was God. That wouldn’t even be significant evidence that Jesus was God. What the McDowells should have said here is that Jesus’ response “I am” was enough to establish that Jesus claimed to be God.

However, they are wrong to take this passage as establishing that Jesus claimed to be God.

First, it is doubtful that there was any Jewish trial of Jesus.[1]

[Summarize reasons here]

Second, if there was a Jewish trial of Jesus, it is doubtful that this passage in the Gospel of Mark provides an accurate and reliable account of the words spoken by the high priest and by Jesus at the trial.[2]

Finally, if the historical Jesus had actually been asked if he was “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus would have understood that the expression “the Son of the Blessed One” meant the same thing as “the Messiah”, as the Evangelical New Testament scholar William Lane points out in his commentary on the Gospel of Mark:

In the formulation “the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One,” the second clause stands in apposition to the first and has essentially the same meaning. In Jewish sources contemporary with the NT, “son of God” is understood soley in a messianic sense. Jewish hopes were situated in a messianic figure who was a man. The question of the high priest cannot have referred to Jesus’ deity, but was limited to a single issue: do you claim to be the Messiah?[3]

So, if the historical Jesus answered “I am” to that question, he would only be claiming to be the Messiah. Even if the account of the Jewish trial in the Gospel of Mark were historically accurate and reliable, it does not show that Jesus claimed to be God.

2. MATTHEW 11:27

In addition to the passage from Chapter 14 of the Gospel of Mark, the McDowells point to a verse from Chapter 11 of the Gospel of Matthew:

27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27, NRSV Updated Edition)

According to the McDowells, in stating that “his own knowledge of God the Father is reciprocally exceptional…”, Jesus “makes a remarkable claim of equality with God.” (EFJ, page 45).

First, Jesus does not explicitly claim “I am equal with God” in this passage. That is an inference or interpretation of Jesus’ statement by the McDowells.

Second, even if Jesus had claimed “I am equal with God”, that is not the same as saying “I am God.” The idea of being equal with God, is an unclear idea.

Normally, the equality of two people is understood in terms of some particular aspect or characteristic. For example, equality of wealth, equality of skill or expertise in some area, equality of fame, equality of power or authority, etc. If I say “I am equal with Bruce Springsteen”, a reasonable response would be this:

In what way or aspect are you equal with Bruce Springsteen? Are you claiming to be as good a musician as him? Or to be as famous as him? Or as wealthy as him? Or to have the same basic rights as him?

Apart from such clarification, the statement is unclear. In any case, the claim to be "equal with" Bruce Springsteen does not imply the claim that “I am Bruce Springsteen”.

Furthermore, it is literally false that “no one knows the Son except the Father”, if we understand “the Son” to be Jesus, and “the Father” to be God. Obviously, the twelve disciples knew Jesus, and his mother Mary knew him too. So, Jesus is speaking metaphorically or hyperbolically here. What does he actually mean by the statement “no one knows the Son except the Father”?

A plausible interpretation is that only God knows Jesus deeply, only God knows the inner thoughts and motivations of Jesus. In that case, Jesus is indeed making a remarkable claim, a claim to know God deeply, to know God’s thoughts and motivations, in a way that other people don’t deeply know God.

However, claiming to have a deep knowledge God, and to know God’s thoughts and motivations is not the same as claiming to be equal with God, and this does not imply a claim to be God himself.

Finally, it is uncertain whether the historical Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him in Matthew 11:27. The N.T. scholar James Dunn makes the point simply and clearly:

The difficulty here is that scholars cannot agree on this verse, on whether it is a straightforward transcription of Jesus’ actual words, or an example of the kind of elaboration which we saw so well developed in John’s Gospel.[4]

A number of N.T. and Jesus scholars have concluded that Matthew 11:27 does not provide us with words that were spoken by the historical Jesus.[5] The argument of the McDowells here is based on a dubious historical assumption.

3. MATTHEW 5:21-22

The McDowells also point to a passage from the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew:

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment, and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council, and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22, NRSV Updated Edition)

The McDowells argue that in this sermon, Jesus “repeatedly cites the Old Testament law and then asserts his own authority as supreme.” (EFJ, page 45).

First, Jesus does not make any clear claim about himself in this passage. Jesus does not say “I am God” or “I am the Son of God” or “I am the creator” or “I am Yahweh”, etc. Nor does Jesus claim to be all-knowing or all-powerful or perfectly good here. The McDowells appear to be desperately grasping at straws in using this passage as proof that Jesus claimed to be God. At most, Jesus is suggesting something about his authority in theological and ethical matters.

Second, the phrase “but I say to you” can reasonably be understood in terms of Jesus believing himself to be a prophet, to be a messenger for God. If Jesus believed that his views about righteousness and morality were inspired by God, that Jesus was speaking the words of God, just as the Old Testament prophets supposedly spoke the words of God, then Jesus would believe that his teachings had the authority of God behind them. This authority comes from being a prophet and does not require that Jesus be God himself, nor that Jesus be God incarnate. Therefore, Jesus can reasonably be interpreted as implying that he was a prophet, and thus was not claiming to be God in the Sermon on the Mount.

Third, Jesus is not contradicting the Old Testament law here.[6] So, he is not implying that his authority is “supreme” over the Old Testament law. In fact, in the passage just before the above quotation, Jesus makes this statement about the Old Testament law:

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19, NRSV Updated Edition)

Jesus was clearly not trying to correct or revise the laws of Moses!

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was actually showing great respect for the Old Testament law by emphasizing the need for people to watch over their thoughts and motivations, not just their actions. This is a lesson that was clearly taught by Moses in the Ten Commandments:

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

(Exodus 20:17, NRSV Updated Edition)

“Coveting” is an attitude or motivation, not an action. Moses taught that in order for people to avoid becoming thieves and adulterers, people need to watch over their thoughts and motivations. Jesus is simply applying this insight of Moses to the commandment against murder.

Finally, Jesus does not use the phrase “you have heard that it was said” in any other Gospel, nor in any other Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. And Jesus does not use the phrase “but I say to you” outside of Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew, except once in the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus is not contrasting his teaching with an Old Testament law or teaching (see Luke 6:26-28).

Jesus also does not condemn saying “You fool” to “a brother or sister” in any other Gospel. Jesus does not use the phrases “liable to judgment” or “liable to the hell of fire” in any other Gospel passage. Because the language attributed to Jesus in the quoted passage from Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew is not found in other Gospels, that casts doubt on the authenticity of this alleged saying of Jesus. In any case, no other Gospel corroborates Matthew 5:21-22 as being an authentic saying or teaching of the historical Jesus.

The Jesus Seminar has analyzed and evaluated every alleged quotation of Jesus in the four Gospels and has assigned a color to each verse (or in some cases parts of a verse) indicating the degree of likelihood that the quote is authentic or came from the historical Jesus. In Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew, there are 46 verses with alleged quotations of Jesus, and only 5 of those verses were designated as red (meaning: “Jesus undoubtedly said this or something very like this.”), and only 10 verses were designated pink (meaning: “Jesus probably said something like this.”).[7] Thus, according to the Jesus Seminar, only about 33% of the quotations of Jesus are likely to be authentic words of the historical Jesus.

Furthermore, the specific passage that the McDowells quote does not contain any words that are designated as red or pink by the Jesus Seminar:

21 “As you know, our ancestors were told, ‘You must not kill’ and ‘Whoever kills will be subject to judgement.’ 22 But I tell you: those who are angry with a companion will be brought before a tribunal. And those who say to a companion, ‘You moron,’ will be subject to the sentence of the court. And whoever says, ‘You idiot, deserves the fires of Gehenna.[8]

The words designated as black were evaluated as “Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.”, and the words designated as grey were evaluated as “Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.”[7]

The two key phrases that are the basis of the argument by the McDowells about this passage are:

You have heard that it was said…

But I say to you…

Note that both of those phrases are designated in black, meaning that the Jesus Seminar concluded that “Jesus did not say this” (In the translation by the Jesus Seminary the phrases are “our ancestors were told…” and “But I tell you…”).

Given that the language used by Jesus in this passage is unusual compared to his language in the other Gospels, and given that the Jesus Seminar evaluated only 33% of the verses in Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew as being likely to be the authentic words of the historical Jesus, and given that neither of the verses quoted by the McDowells were designated by the Jesus Seminar as likely to be the authentic words of Jesus, and given that the two key phrases in this passage were judged to not be the words of the historical Jesus, there is a good chance that this passage in Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew does not contain the words of the historical Jesus, and that the argument of the McDowells is based on a dubious historical assumption.

END NOTES

3. William Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), page 535.

Other Evangelical NT scholars agree that the phrase “the son of the Blessed One” used by the high priest meant “the Messiah”:

The high priest is only asking “Do you claim to be Messiah?” not “Do you claim to be divine?”

Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), page 384.

…on the lips of the high priest “son of God” need not signify more than “son of David.” Israel’s kings were sometimes called sons of God (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26-27), and the messiah was looked upon as a new king of the line of David.

James Brooks, The New American Commentary, Volume 23: Mark (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991), page 243.

Both Witherington and Brooks argue that Jesus’ quote from Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1 show that Jesus was claiming to be something more than just a warrior-King of the Jews:

Both statements imply some sort of divine or quasi-divine status for the Son of Man.

Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark, page 384.

If the historical Jesus had actually responded to the high priests with the words attributed to him in the Gospel of Mark, then Jesus was claiming a “quasi-divine status” by claiming to be the judge of humankind, but that does not imply that Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus believed that God could delegate the authority to be the final judge of humans to somebody else. In fact, according to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus planned to delegate the authority to be the judge of many humans to his disciples:

27 Then Peter said in reply, “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my name’s sake will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

(Matthew 19:27-29, NRSV Updated Edition)

29 and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

(Luke 22:29, NRSV Updated Edition)

Jesus did not believe, and did not claim, that any of his disciples were God.

Paul believed that at least some of the final judgment of humans and of angels would be delegated to Christian believers (“the saints”):

¹When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? ²Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we are to judge angels, to say nothing of ordinary matters?

(1 Corinthians 6:1-3, NRSV Updated Edition)

Paul did not believe and did not claim that Christian believers are God.

4. James Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville, KY: The Westminster Press, 1985), page 48.

5. Here are some scholars who don’t think the historical Jesus spoke the words attributed to him in Matthew 11:27:

· Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2014), in Chapter 3, see the section called: “Did Jesus Claim to be God?”

· Gerd Ludemann, Jesus After 2000 Years (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), page 174.

· Marcus Borg, “Chapter 4: Jesus Before and After Easter” in The Meaning of Jesus (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), pages 54 to 58, and the footnotes #1, #5, and #10 to Chapter 4 on pages 255 and 256.

· Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), page 554.

· M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,1995), page 275.

· Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Volume 1 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994), page 482.

· Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), page 182.

· Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981), page 201.

· Gunther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960), Chapter VIII (pages 169 to 178), and page 226.

6. The point I’m making here has also been made by a devout Christian who promotes careful study of the Bible:

Peter Krol, “Context Matters: You Have Heard That it was Said…But I Say to You”, post published July 27, 2018:

https://www.knowableword.com/2018/07/27/context-matters-you-have-heard-that-it-was-said-but-i-say-to-you/ (viewed 10/7/26)

7. Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993), page 36.

8. Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels, page 141.

Friday, October 16, 2026

The Trilemma Argument - Part 5: Five Passages from the Gospel of John

1. JOHN 10:24-33, NRSV Updated Edition

In Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus, the first passage the McDowells reference in the section called "Jesus' claims of Divinity" is this one from the Gospel of John:

24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered, “I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me, 26 but you do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, in regard to what he has given me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 The Father and I are one.”
31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself God.”

The Gospel of John is a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.
Jesus never says “The Father and I are one” or “God and I are one” or “The Father and the Messiah are one” or “God and the Messiah are one” or “The Father and the Son are one” or “God and the Son are one” in any of the other three Gospels.
Paul never says “The Father and Jesus are one” or “God and Jesus are one” of “The Father and the Messiah are one” or “God and the Messiah are one” or “The Father and the Son are one” or “God and the Son are one” in any of his letters.
In the New Testament, outside of the Gospel of John, nobody ever says “The Father and Jesus are one” or “God and Jesus are one” or “The Father and the Messiah are one” or “God and the Messiah are one”.
If Jesus did actually claim to be one with God, he did not mean that he was God himself. This is clear from Jesus’ discussion of oneness in Chapter 17 of the Gospel of John:

20 “I ask not only on behalf of these but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Jesus is “one” with the Father, because the Father is in him, and Jesus is in the Father (verse 21). But Jesus prays that “they [Jesus’ followers] also be in us” and “I [Jesus] in them”. If we assume that Jesus is God, then Jesus is praying that his followers will be in him (i.e. God) and that he (i.e. God) will be in them. But that would mean that the followers of Jesus would, just like Jesus, be one with God.

Thus, if being one with God makes a person God himself, then every follower of Jesus would be God. Obviously, nobody, not even Jesus, believed that every follower of Jesus was God. Therefore, being one with God does not imply being God.

2. JOHN 5:17-18, NRSV Updated Edition

In Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus, the second passage the McDowells reference in the section called "Jesus' claims of Divinity" is this one from the Gospel of John:

17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is still working, and I also am working.” 18 For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.

The Gospel of John is a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.
Jesus never says “I am equal to God”, or “I am equal to the Father”, or “I am equal with God”, or “I am equal with the Father”, in any of the Gospels, including the Gospel of John.
Jesus never says “the Messiah is equal to God” or “the Messiah is equal with God” or “the Son of God is equal to God” or “the Son of God is equal with God” in any of the Gospels, including the Gospel of John.
Paul never says “Jesus is equal to God”, or “Jesus is equal to the Father”, or “Jesus is equal with God”, or “Jesus is equal with the Father” in any of his letters.
Paul never says “The Messiah is equal to God” or “The Messiah is equal with God” or “the Son of God is equal to God” or “the Son of God is equal with God.”[1]
In the New Testament, outside of the Gospel of John, nobody ever says “Jesus is equal to God”, or “Jesus is equal to the Father”, or “Jesus is equal with God”, or “Jesus is equal with the Father” or “the Messiah is equal to God” or “the Messiah is equal with God” or “the Son of God is equal to God” or “the Son of God is equal with God.”
Although the historical Jesus probably did refer to God as his “father”, this does not mean that Jesus was claiming to be equal to God. Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God this way: “Our Father in heaven…” (Matthew 6:7-15). Jesus believed that God was the father of Jesus' disciples, but Jesus did not believe that his disciples were equal to God, nor that any of his disciples was God himself.

3. JOHN 8:57-59, NRSV Updated Edition

In Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus, the third passage in the section called "Jesus' claims of Divinity" is this one from the Gospel of John:

57 Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

The Gospel of John is a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.
Jesus never says “before Abraham was, I am” in any of the other three Gospels.
Jesus never claims to have existed before his own birth in any of the other three Gospels.
There is no explanation by “the Jews” who picked up stones to throw at Jesus as to why they objected to what Jesus said, and there is no explanation by the author of this Gospel about why “the Jews” objected to what Jesus said. We can only speculate about why they were offended by Jesus’ response.
Even if Jesus did claim to have existed before Abraham, that does not imply that Jesus claimed to be God. Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth all existed before Abraham (according to the Bible), but nobody believes that any of them were God. The angels, including the devil, existed before Abraham (according to the Bible), but nobody believes that any of the angels are God, and certainly nobody believes that the devil is God.
Some Jews in Jesus’ time believed that the Messiah existed in heaven prior to being sent by God to lead the Jewish people, but they did not believe that the Messiah was God. So, Jesus could have believed the Messiah would exist in heaven prior to being born, and also believed that he was the Messiah, and therefore that he must have existed in heaven before he was born even though he had no memory of being in heaven before he was born. Being the Messiah, however, does not imply being God. So, if Jesus believed he was the Messiah, he might well have inferred that he must have existed in heaven prior to his birth and yet did not believe himself to be God.
Alternatively, Jesus might not have believed himself to be the Messiah nor believed he existed in heaven before he was born, but after his death and alleged resurrection some of his followers imposed this already existing concept of the Messiah on Jesus, and shaped the words and teachings of Jesus to conform with their belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

4. JOHN 5:22-23, NRSV Updated Edition

In Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus, the fourth passage in the section called "Jesus' claims of Divinity" is this one from the Gospel of John:

22 The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

The Gospel of John is a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.
Jesus never uses the phrase “honor the Son” anywhere else in the Gospel of John or anywhere in the other three Gospels, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Jesus never uses the phrase “worship the Son”, or “worship the Messiah”, or “worshipped the Son” or “worshiped the Messiah” anywhere in the New Testament.
Paul never uses the phrase “honor the Son” anywhere in the New Testament.
Paul never uses the phrases “worship the Son”, or “worship the Messiah”, or “worship Jesus”, or “worshipped the Son” or “worshipped the Messiah” or “worshipped Jesus” anywhere in the New Testament.
Apart from this one verse in the Gospel of John, nobody ever uses the phrase “honor the Son” anywhere in the New Testament.
Nobody in the New Testament ever uses the phrases “worship Jesus”, or “worship the Messiah”, or “worship the Son”, or “worshiped Jesus”, or “worshiped the Messiah”, or “worshiped the Son”.
If the historical Jesus actually claimed he would be the judge of all humankind, that would not imply that Jesus claimed to be God. God can delegate his authority to a human being. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus planned to delegate the judgment of humans to his disciples. But nobody believes that each of Jesus' disciples is God. According to Paul, God planned to delegate eternal judgment of humans and angels to Christian believers (1 Corinthians 6:2), but nobody believes that all Christian believers are God.
If the historical Jesus actually claimed that he should “receive honor” just as God should “receive honor”, that would not imply that Jesus claimed be God. Jesus believed that prophets of God should receive honor (Mark 6:4 and John 4:44), but nobody, including Jesus, believes that every prophet is God. According to the Gospel of John, God will honor those who are followers or servants of Jesus (John 12:25-26), but nobody, including Jesus, believes that God will worship the followers of Jesus.

5. JOHN 14:7-9, NRSV Updated Edition

In Chapter 5 of Evidence for Jesus, the fifth passage in the section called "Jesus' claims of Divinity" is this one:

7 If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

The Gospel of John is a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.
Jesus does not in any other Gospel claim that those who saw him saw God.
Jesus does not use the phrase “seen me”, or “seen the Messiah”, or “seen the Son”, in any other Gospel.
Jesus never uses the phrases “seen the Father” or “show us the Father”, or “show the Father”, or “show us God” in any other Gospel. Jesus does use the phrase “see God” just once, but he uses it as a roundabout way of saying some people who are good will go to heaven (Matthew 5:8).
Paul never uses the phrases “seen the Son”, or “seen the Messiah”, or “show us the Father” or “show the Father” or “show us God” or “show God”, or “seen the Father”, or “seen God” in the New Testament. Paul uses the phrase “seen Jesus” just once (1 Corinthians 9:1), and this is not a reference to seeing the historical flesh-and-blood Jesus, but refers to an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul, which was probably a vision or hallucination.
Outside the Gospel of John and the letters attributed to John, nobody in the New Testament ever uses the phrases “seen the Son”, or “seen the Messiah”, or “show us the Father” or “show the Father” or “show us God” or “show God”, or “seen the Father”, or “seen God”, and the phrase “seen Jesus” occurs only once, in a letter by Paul (see the previous bullet).
If the historical Jesus actually claimed that people who saw him saw God, this does not imply that Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus might well have believed that his words and actions were in accordance with God’s will, and thus that his words and actions clearly revealed God’s will and God’s character to the people who heard his words and observed his actions. The claim that those who have seen Jesus have seen God might well mean that Jesus’ words and actions were fully in accordance with the will of God, not that Jesus himself was God.

END NOTES

1. There is a passage in a letter of Paul’s to the Philippians (2:5-7) where Paul quotes a Christian hymn that talks about Jesus and “equality with God”, but Paul doesn’t have to agree with every theological implication of that hymn to make his point, and it is unclear that the hymn asserts or assumes that Jesus is God or that Jesus is equal with God.

The Trilemma Argument - Part 4: Did Jesus Claim to be God?

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (1)

The core of the Trilemma Argument is clear (see Part 2 of this series):

1. Either (a) Jesus is God, or (b) Jesus lied about being God, or (c) Jesus was seriously mentally ill.
2. It is not the case that: Jesus lied about being God.
3. It is not the case that: Jesus was seriously mentally ill.

THEREFORE:

4. Jesus is God.

Most of the Trilemma Argument is concerned with supporting premise (1), the claim that we are limited to just three options concerning Jesus.

Here is a diagram of the Trilemma Argument that shows the logical structure of the sub-argument supporting premise (1):

Based on my analysis of the sub-argument supporting premise (1), that sub-argument is based on a key historical claim:

5. Jesus claimed to be God.

This historical claim is false, so the entire Trilemma Argument is based on a false historical claim.

According to the McDowells, Jesus claimed to be God:

Among the great religious leaders, Jesus uniquely claimed to be God in human flesh. (EFJ, page 39)
The Gospels record many examples of Jesus claiming to be God. (EFJ, page 47)
ONCE I (JOSH) CONCLUDED THAT JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD, I realized I had only so many options left. (EFJ, page 64)
Jesus’s claim to be God must be either true or false. (EFJ, page 65)

Despite the confident assertions by the McDowells, Jesus never claimed to be God. The McDowells come close to admitting this historical fact:

CRITICS OF CHRISTIANITY ARGUE THAT JESUS NEVER uttered the words “I am God.” Technically, they’re right! But while Jesus is not recorded in the Bible as having said those three words, that doesn’t mean Jesus did not claim deity. (EFJ, page 41)

The problem, however, is not that Jesus never said the three words “I am God”. The problem is that there are at least fifty different ways that Jesus could have claimed to be God, but Jesus never made any of these fifty different statements.

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST PREMISE (5)

In the New Testament, Jesus never says:

1. “I am God.”
2. “I am the eternal God.”
3. “I am the everlasting God.”
4. “I am the immortal God.”
5. “I am the living God.”
6. “I am the mighty God.”
7. “I am the Almighty God.”
8. “I am the all-wise God.”
9. “I am the holy God.”
10. “I am the true God.”
11. “I am the great God.”
12. “I am the supreme God.”
13. “I am the Most High God.”
14. “I am the God of heaven.”
15. “I am the God of heaven and earth.”
16. “I am the God of glory.”
17. “I am the God of peace.”
18. “I am the God of love and peace.”
19. “I am the God of hope.”
20. “I am the God of all grace.”
21. “I am the God of faithfulness.”
22. “I am the God of our ancestors.”
23. “I am the God of Abraham.”
24. “I am the God of Isaac.”
25. “I am the God of Jacob.”
26. “I am the God of Israel.”
27. “I am the God of the Hebrews.”
28. “I am the God of gods.”
29. “I am the God of the spirits of the prophets.”
30. “I am the God of the spirits of all flesh.”
31. “I am maker of heaven and earth.”
32. “I am the creator.”
33. “I am the creator of the world.”
34. “I am the creator of all things.”
35. “I am the creator of the ends of the earth.”
36. “I am the creator of Israel.”
37. “I am Yahweh.”
38. “I am the Almighty.”
39. “I am the Mighty One.”
40. “I am the Mighty One of Israel.”
41. “I am The Lord of the earth.”
42. “I am the Lord of all the earth.”
43. “I am the Lord of the whole earth.”
44. “I am the Lord of heaven.”
45. “I am the Lord of heaven and earth.”
46. “I am the Lord of hosts.”
47. “I am the Lord God.”
48. “I am the Lord God Almighty.”
49. “I am the Lord God the Almighty.”
50. “I am the Lord God of Israel.”

From these facts, it is clear that Jesus never claimed to be God.

Furthermore, the earliest Christian writings we have are the letters of Paul (particularly the seven letters that NT scholars view as authentic letters that were actually written by Paul), but Paul never writes that “Jesus is God”, and Paul never uses any of the above fifty different ways of stating this claim. So, Paul also never claimed that Jesus is God. If Jesus frequently claimed to be God, why didn’t Paul ever make this claim about Jesus?

Finally, nobody in the New Testament ever uses any of the above fifty different ways of claiming that Jesus is God. This is powerful evidence that Jesus never claimed to be God. Otherwise, some of the followers of Jesus would have made some of those fifty claims about Jesus.

Jesus also does not claim to have the divine attributes of God:

I am eternally a bodiless person (or a spirit).
I am eternally an omniscient person (or all-knowing).
I am eternally an omnipotent person (or all-powerful).
I am eternally a perfectly morally good person (or morally flawless).
I am eternally an omnipresent person (present in every location).
I am the creator of the universe.

Thus, Jesus neither claimed to be God nor claimed to possess the key attributes of God.

OVERVIEW OF THE MCDOWELL'S EVIDENCE FOR PREMISE (5)

What evidence do the McDowells provide to support their key assertion that Jesus claimed to be God? In Chapter Five of EFJ (called “Did Jesus Claim to Be God?”), they focus on eight passages from the Gospels. Five of those eight passages, however, are from the Gospel of John. But the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus, so most of their evidence can be tossed aside, because it is very dubious.[1]

In fact, one of the main reasons that N.T. and Jesus scholars view the Gospel of John as being historically unreliable, is that Jesus frequently makes exalted claims about himself in that Gospel, but not in the previous three Gospels. It is precisely the sort of passages that the McDowell’s quote from the Gospel of John that leads most scholars to view that Gospel as being unreliable.[2]

Furthermore, Jesus does not clearly claim to be God in any of the five passages quoted from the Gospel of John. All five passages can be reasonably interpreted in a way that they do not imply that Jesus is God[3], and given that it is also dubious that the historical Jesus spoke the words attributed to him in those five passages, the evidence from those passages fails to provide any significant support for the assertion that Jesus claimed to be God.

The McDowells also provide two quotations of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew, and one quotation of Jesus from the Gospel of Mark.

Aware of the serious problem with their assertion that Jesus claimed to be God, the McDowells appear to slide into making a weaker claim:

Even if Jesus never explicitly stated that he is God, he certainly made many implicit and indirect claims to deity. (EFJ, page 63)

If Jesus “made many implicit and indirect claims” to be God, then perhaps some modified version of the Trilemma could get off the ground, based on that weaker assertion.

The problem with "implicit and indirect claims" by Jesus is that such "claims" are usually dubious because they require a significant degree of interpretation, thus allowing believers and Christian apologists to exercise subjective bias grounded in their wishes or desires that Jesus was God and claimed to be God. This is clearly the case with the Gospel passages put forward by the McDowells.

END NOTES

1.The Gospel of John is a historically unreliable source of information about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. There are a number of good reasons supporting this skeptical view of the Gospel of John:

The Gospel of John was the last of the four canonical gospels to be written, according to most NT scholars.
The Gospel of John was written about 90-100 C.E., sixty to seventy years after Jesus was cruciﬁed, according to most NT scholars.
The Gospel of John was probably not written by an eyewitness of the life, ministry, and cruciﬁxion of Jesus, according to most NT scholars.
The Gospel of John was written in Greek by a Greek-speaking author for a Greek-speaking audience, but Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek.
The Gospel of John disagrees with the earlier Gospels on a number of points (e.g. what Jesus said about himself, exorcisms by Jesus, whether Jesus was cruciﬁed on Passover, and whether the ﬁrst time the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples took place in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday or in Galilee a week or more after Jesus was cruciﬁed).
The “sermons” of Jesus in the earlier Gospels are just collections of various short sayings of Jesus, while the “sermons” of Jesus in the Gospel of John are actually long, coherent sermons. Short sayings repeatedly spoken by Jesus could have been accurately remembered by his followers, but it is very unlikely that his followers would be able to accurately remember a long sermon that Jesus delivered only once or twice. Most NT scholars do not believe that the “sermons” of Jesus presented in the Gospel of John represent accurate memories of what Jesus actually said.
The Gospel of John features a number of dramatic one-on-one conversations between Jesus and speciﬁc individuals. An omniscient narrator tells us about these private conversations, which is a lovely literary device, but this casts serious doubt on the historicity of those private conversations. Who was there to hear and remember these conversations?
The Gospel of John contains some of the finest writing in the NT and is known for its extensive use of theological metaphor and symbolism. Some of the most notable passages in this gospel, especially in John’s passion narrative, were clearly written as short plays, with distinct scenes. The pronounced theological and dramatic emphasis of this gospel indicate that historical accuracy was not a high priority for the author of the Gospel of John.
For nearly two centuries, scholars who specialize in studying the historical Jesus have focused their attention on the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and have largely ignored the Gospel of John because they view the Gospel of John as historically unreliable.
For a more in-depth case for the historical unreliability of the Gospel of John, see my posts on this subject:

The Unreliability of the 4th Gospel - Part 14: Summary and INDEX

2. The Gospel of John is considered by Jesus and NT scholars to be significantly less historically reliable than the other (“synoptic”) gospels.

Marcus Borg is a leading Jesus scholar, and he writes this about the Gospel of John:

Cumulatively these differences [in how the Gospel of John portrays Jesus vs. how the other gospels portray Jesus] have persuaded scholars that a foundational choice must be made: The historical Jesus was either more like the Jesus of the synoptics [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] or more like the Jesus of John. The differences are so great that the synoptic and Johannine portraits of Jesus cannot be harmonized into a single whole. For mainline scholars the choice is the synoptics.

(“The Historical Study of Jesus and Christian Origins” by Marcus Borg, in Jesus at 2000, p. 132, edited by Marcus Borg)

E.P. Sanders is a leading NT scholar, and after pointing out a number of differences between the 4th Gospel and the synoptic gospels, he writes this about the Gospel of John:

It is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents, and that there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50 per cent of what he said and another one the other 50 percent, with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years scholars have had to choose. They have almost unanimously, and I think entirely correctly, concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic gospels [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] and that John [the Gospel of John] represents an advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them.

(The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders, p. 70-71)

Dwight Moody Smith is a leading scholar on the Gospel of John, and his view of the Gospels agrees with that of Borg and Sanders:

Because the Synoptics [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] do not generally present Jesus as proclaiming himself, i.e. presenting Christological doctrine, and because the issues they portray him dealing with are largely indigenous to early first-century Palestinian Judaism, historians have rightly preferred their renditions particularly of Jesus’ teaching but also of his healing activity and his death [over those of the Gospel of John].

(“John, the Gospel According to” by Dwight Moody Smith in The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition, edited by Paul Achtemeier, p.533-534)

3. In the next part in this series of posts on the Trilemma Argument, I will examine each of the five passages from the Gospel of John that the McDowells put forward as evidence that Jesus claimed to be God.