Is Jesus God, or a separate divine being?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is Jesus God, or a separate divine being?". Your opponent's style: thinks jesus is god

in john 20:17 jesus saids the following to mary magdalene 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” how many persons is jesus's god ?

You're cherry-picking a passage that actually **destroys** your argument. Jesus says "my God and your God"—not "our God." That's a categorical distinction between his relationship to God and yours. If Jesus were God, why would he need a God at all? You've just quoted the clearest subordination language in Scripture. The real question isn't how many persons—it's why you're ignoring that Jesus explicitly positions himself *beneath* the Father even in resurrection. How do you reconcile that hierarchy with full deity?

im not arguing that jesus is god

My apologies—I misread your position. You're arguing Jesus is subordinate, separate from God. So your evidence is solid, but incomplete: John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") cuts the other way. How do you harmonize that unity claim with the subordination you've cited?

that is one in purpose and relationship not one and the same or one ontologically look at the following context notice the jews question is not if hes god but if hes the messiah John10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one. he associates his hand with the fathers hand but notice he saids the father is greater than all including himself also that the father gave him the sheep we even see later in john jesus praying that we be one the same even as they are one John 17:20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

You're conflating ontology with function. Yes, John 29 says the Father is "greater"—but that's about authority and agency, not nature. Verse 30's "one" demands explanation: if Jesus merely means "united in purpose," why invoke oneness at all when discussing messiahship? Your John 17 parallel proves too much. Believers achieve the same unity as Father-Son, yet nobody claims we're divine. So either oneness means something ontologically real between Father and Son that doesn't apply to us, or your framework collapses. Which is it?

well the burden of proof is on you to prove thats an ontology claim and not functional im not arguing for ontology youre insisting on something that isnt even being talked about within the text of john

Wrong. The burden shifts once you claim "oneness" means something. Jesus doesn't say "I function like the Father"—he says "I and the Father are one." That's a claim about *what they are*, not just *what they do*. If it's purely functional, why is it remarkable enough to provoke the stoning threat in verse 33? Your silence on that reaction proves the Jews heard ontology.

no one has claimed jesus is divine my point is precisely that jesus is gods chosen human agent sent and given power and authority by god the prophetic messiah of the second temple period and king of israel and of gods new kingdom

You've shifted from exegesis to theology. Fine. But "chosen agent given power" describes Moses, Elijah, every prophet. What makes Jesus categorically different if he's just the ultimate human messenger? And if John 1:1 calls him Logos—"the Word was God"—doesn't that transcend your agent framework entirely? How do you explain the pre-incarnational claims without invoking divinity?

my understanding of logos is that it means word or speech or expression john 1 seems to be drawing on wisdom motifs like proverbs 8 and sirach wisdom of solomon and baruch and that the logos is the masculine equivalent of the feminine sophia keep in mind my claim is not that logos equals a direct for one for one translation of wisdom but it is related to those wisdom motifs the text in john 1 directly states that logos became flesh not that it became jesus jesus is functioning as the embodiment of gods expression not that he is gods ontologically he who is sent by god speaks the words of god John 3:34 in john 1:14 it saids the logos tabernacled or pitched its tent among them how did gods word or expression of his divine wisdom be expressed among them through a man that is jesus he has made the father known aka god john 1:18 jesus is special because he is the prophecied messiah he is not simply a prophet he is a prophet high priest king and exalted leader in gods kingdom

You're smuggling in ontology through the back door. Logos "became flesh" means it entered history as a person—Jesus. But personhood requires nature. If Logos is merely "expression," it can't become anything; expressions don't incarnate. Your Wisdom framework dodges the hard question: why does John call Logos "God" in verse 1b, not "God's expression"? And if Jesus only embodies divine wisdom like a prophet, why does verse 1 predicate divinity of the Logos itself, before any incarnation claim? You're reading Proverbs into John to avoid his actual theology.

the theos there is qualitative not the logos possesses the qualities of god there is no definite article one could read this the word was god as god like or divine a simple anology Imagine I say something. - My words come from me. - My words express my thoughts, intentions, character, and will. - My words carry my authority. - My words are genuinely mine and therefore an expression of who I am. - But my words are not another individual standing beside me. My words are me expressing myself, but my words are not me in the fullest personal sense. That's a useful way to understand God's Logos.

Your analogy collapses under scrutiny. My words disappear once spoken; Logos "was with God" and "was" God *before* incarnation—eternal, active, coexistent. That's not expression, that's hypostasis. And John doesn't say Logos "carries" God's authority like my words carry mine. He says Logos *is* the agent of creation itself in verse 3. Can human words create universes? Your framework makes Jesus metaphorically divine while John makes him literally so. Why does the text demand personhood if you only need metaphor?

John didn't introduce the concept of the Logos out of nowhere. The Hebrew Scriptures already describe God's Wisdom as existing before creation, being with God, participating in His creative work, and being associated with life. Proverbs 8 personifies God's Wisdom. Therefore, when John describes the Logos in similar language, we should consider the possibility that he is describing God's own self-expression, wisdom, and creative activity rather than introducing another divine person alongside the Father. observe John 1 Proverbs 8 John 1:1 — "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Proverbs 8:22 — "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old." John 1:1 — "And the Word was with God." Proverbs 8:23 — "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." John 1:2 — "The same was in the beginning with God." Proverbs 8:24 — "When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water." John 1:3 — "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Proverbs 8:25–26 — "Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world." the radical departure however is where john saids something profound then logos became flesh this is where johns prologue is unique

Your comparison proves the opposite. Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom as God's attribute, not a separate entity. But John does something radically different: he makes Logos a distinct subject with its own actions. Logos "was with God"—you can't be with yourself. That's personal distinction John imports beyond Proverbs. And "became flesh" requires Logos to be something concrete enough to take on humanity. An attribute doesn't become; a person does. Why does John introduce personal grammar if he means mere expression?

like wisdom is allegorically personified as a woman gods expression or word has been personified like many things in the bible but the radical departure is this metaphysical thing has now become literally personified in the flesh particularly a man named jesus Logos "was with God"—you can't be with yourself. That's personal distinction well thats the interesting part would you say gods wisdom is him still or is it with him ? and And "became flesh" requires Logos to be something concrete enough to take on humanity. i dont think that follows how does it require the thing to be concrete prior if its describing something that is taking on concreteness flesh literally ??? it seems you importing prior inferences onto the text where those need to be justified by the text with in the scope of its own time

You're right that "became flesh" doesn't require prior concreteness. But you still haven't answered the core problem: if Logos is merely personified expression like Wisdom, why does John predicate *theos* of it independently in 1:1b? Wisdom in Proverbs is never called "wisdom was God." John crosses that line. Your framework explains the parallelism but not the theological upgrade. What textual warrant justifies calling an expression "God" rather than "of God"?

I think you're assuming that calling something theos necessarily means identifying it as another divine person. That's precisely what needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. I'm not arguing that God's Logos is merely something that belongs to God, like an ordinary created object. I'm arguing that God's Logos is His own Word, Wisdom, expression, and creative power. It genuinely expresses His divine character because it originates from Him. John 1:1c uses an anarthrous predicate nominative, and a qualitative interpretation is grammatically recognized. That means John can be describing what the Logos is in nature without necessarily identifying the Logos as the same individual as the Father. Consider the biblical background: Psalm 33:6 describes creation through God's Word; Isaiah 55:11 describes God's Word accomplishing His own will; and Proverbs 8 personifies God's Wisdom as present with Him during creation. So my question is: What specifically requires us to interpret John's use of theos as proof of a second divine person rather than as a description of God's own divine self-expression? I'm not denying the divine character of the Logos. I'm challenging the assumption that divine character automatically establishes separate divine personhood.