Using the chart below is one of the easiest way to refute those that deny Jesus is God. The chart has two categories, unmade and made, they are all encompasing and mutually exclusive. Jesus can only be placed in one box. A person who does not believe Jesus is God would put in the made category, the problem is readily apparent because everything in the made category was made by Jesus as the arrow indicates with reference to John 1.3. So for the one who believes Jesus is made they would have to believe Jesus made himself, which is logically absurd. Its impossible for Jesus to be created given he is the creator of "all" creation.
Who was Jesus praying to if he is God?
The question assumes that the one God is unipersonal (one person) when scripture reveals that the one God is a trinity of person, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son, neither is the Holy Spirit the same person as the Father or the Son. Because God is triune he has loved eternally.
"My Father is greater than I"
You have heard it said by those that deny Christ that John 14:28 means Jesus is can't be God. Jesus says the Father is greater in this passage. Why did he say that? For someone who wasn't God to say God is greater, is truly a redundant statement to make. Jesus was clearly alluding to something else. Consider that in Hebrews 2:9 during the incarnation, Jesus was made lower than the angels. So if Jesus was made lower than the angels by taking on the flesh of man, is it really surprising he said the Father was greater?
Not only that but Jesus was sent to minister not to be ministered to. Jesus became a suffering servant for the purposes of our redemption. What is it Jesus said about the one sent and the one who serves? In any of the examples Jesus gave, would you conclude that the servant is less human, or the one sent less human than their masters?
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Hebrews 2:9,14-16
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. [14] Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; [15] And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. [16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Matthew 20:27-28
And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: [28] Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
Matthew 23:11
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
ONLY BEGOTTEN-MONOGENES
Some will reject Jesus as God because he is referred to as the only begotten (MONOGENES) Son. Does "only begotten Son" mean Jesus was literally begotten? In Hebrews 11:17 the phrase "only begotten son" is applied to Abrahams second son Isaac through his wife Sarah(Genesis 21:1–3). Ishmael was Abraham's first through his wife’s Egyptian maid Hagar, (Genesis 16:1–4). Abraham later married Keturah, who brought him six more sons - Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. So it is clear already that the usage of "only begotten" here is not describing a literal begetting. It is talking about a unique kind/relationship.
Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his ONLY BEGOTTEN son , [18] Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: [19] Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
FIRSTBORN- PROTOTOKOS
The term firstborn is applied to Christ in as in Colossians 1.15. Firstborn can mean the first one literally born or it can mean preeminent. Jesus is not first literally born as the heretics falsely teach. How can we know this? Simply by reading the next two verses (16-17) that state that Jesus created all things.
Another example of the firstborn being applied in this way is in relation to King David, who was the youngest in his family.
Psalm 89:27
Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
The title of FIRSTBORN was transferred from Manasseh to Ephraim.
Genesis 41:51-52
And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he , hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. [52] And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction.
Jeremiah 31:9
They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Exodus 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord , Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
The context demonstrates how the term firstborn is to be understood. When Christ is referrred to as FIRSTBORN and the surrounding scriptures describe his preeminence and him creating all things,it is obvious that the scripture is not talking about a literal firstborn. Yet some will stop at nothing to deny Jesus is God. For example the heretics known as "Jehovah's witnesses" added the word "other" four times to Colossians 1.16-17 to deny Jesus made all things and teach he made all [other] things. Not only that, they also removed the brackets so that the reader would believe it was a part of the original text. The Greek has two words for other, heteros and allos, neither are used.
Colossians 1:15-18
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: [16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: [17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Jesus is described as the beginning in verse 18. Who is the beginning according to Revelation 22.13? God almighty.
Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
ARCHE - BEGINNING
In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is described as "the beginning of the creation of God". Some will claim that Jesus is created based on this. God is called the beginning in the Bible and he is the beginning of his creation, he is the origin of it. The Greek word arche has a few definitions, which include, a beginning in terms of origin, source of a thing, authority, ruler, archetype to name a few.
In Revelation 3.14 Jesus is clearly being described as the source of all creation as understood by such passages of John 1.3, Colossians 1.16-17, Isaiah 44.24. He is the alpha and the omega, the BEGINNING and the END, the first and the last who brought all creation into existence. He is the beginning of creation because he is the source of it not because he is a part of it. To say the creator of "all" creation is created defies the law of noncontradiction.
God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility. A person that rejects God can make no justified epistemological argument at all. In other words an atheist cannot claim to know anything.
In the atheistic world view a person is reduced to a materialistic perspective, naturalism, which is the belief that only matter and energy exist, however this is automatically false given the laws of logic are immaterial and universal. They are not conceptual, if someone were to disagree they would be be appealing to the law of noncontradiction which they are arguing against given their conceptual beliefs. The atheist is reduced to absurdity. If the atheist was consistent they would acknowledge that if materialism was true, they would not be able to know materialism was true,based on its own presuppositions that teach thoughts are merely the byproduct of random unintelligent natural phenomenon bound by physics. Chemicals simply react, they do not provide reason.
As J. Budziszewski points out in his book What We Can’t Not Know, “The motto ‘Reason Alone!’ is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.“
Atheists cannot not live in accordance with their own world view. Atheists can often be heard requesting evidence for God, yet not realising that the proof of God comes from the impossibility to the contrary. An atheist has no basis to know anything without God, no justification in trusting their senses, reasoning, or brain; for all they know they are a brain in a vat being fed information, comparable to the Matrix scenario. An atheist has no way of knowing that they are not in the Matrix. Yet atheists don't live that way, they cannot be consistent. Even if the atheist asserted that they knew nothing, or nothing with certainty, that would also contradict the law of noncontradiction. If they knew nothing or knew nothing for certain then they could not know that they could not know any thing or anything for certain.
Knowledge can only been known by the following
1. The person is omniscient (all knowing)
Or
2. That a person has received revelation from one who is omniscient.
There is no alternative. Therefore whoever rejects God cannot claim to know anything, not one single thing. Yet atheists do know things, and they make truth claims all the time which is does not comport with their worldview. Atheists trust their reasoning based on their reasoning, their senses based on their senses which begs the question how do they justify trusting them?
Proverbs 1:7 KJV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Atheists are inconsistent and cannot live in accordance with their world view, perhaps the most perspicacious example would be that of morality. There is no absolute morality if atheism is true, no ontic referrant, no objective standard to make any moral judgment. God is the moral standard, not man. But those that reject God are reduced to the absurdity of person relative, subjective morality which is not only hypocritical but it defies the law of non contradiction. For example, If person 1 says x is morally bad and person 2 says x is morally good then the concept of morality being determined by humans is obviously proven false. Subjective morality does not exist. Only with God is there objective morality.
In atheism, killing and stealing from people is no different than buttering toast, its simply a different chemical reaction in the brain that causes the body to react differently.
Morality does not exist in atheism. One at best can say something is good based on a benerifiery effect but this does not mean it is morally good; a person who steals from others benefits himself by gaining what they had lost.
If an atheist was consistent they would hold to their presuppositions that they are nothing more than random meat machines that have no value, meaning or purpose, that they are incapable of freewill and rational thought, that they simply respond to stimuli by the determination that came from random chemicals and random physics, and that morality does not exist.
1.An atheist cannot account for any knowledge without God. They have no justification for claiming to know anything at all.
2. An atheist cannot claim anything is morally good or bad without God. To do so would be to contradict their first premise that morality is subjective which in itself is contradictory, thus making themselves hypocrites also.
If this wasn't foolish enough atheism is left with believing the universe was brought into existence out of nothing, that life came from non life, that information such as found in DNA can appear by itself and increase by itself.
All of this contradicts what can be demonstrated by empirical science.
The question assumes that the one God is unipersonal (one person) when scripture reveals that the one God is a trinity of person, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son, neither is the Holy Spirit the same person as the Father or the Son. Because God is triune he has loved eternally.
"My Father is greater than I"
You have heard it said by those that deny Christ that John 14:28 means Jesus is can't be God. Jesus says the Father is greater in this passage. Why did he say that? For someone who wasn't God to say God is greater, is truly a redundant statement to make. Jesus was clearly alluding to something else. Consider that in Hebrews 2:9 during the incarnation, Jesus was made lower than the angels. So if Jesus was made lower than the angels by taking on the flesh of man, is it really surprising he said the Father was greater?
Not only that but Jesus was sent to minister not to be ministered to. Jesus became a suffering servant for the purposes of our redemption. What is it Jesus said about the one sent and the one who serves? In any of the examples Jesus gave, would you conclude that the servant is less human, or the one sent less human than their masters?
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Hebrews 2:9,14-16
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. [14] Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; [15] And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. [16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Matthew 20:27-28
And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: [28] Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
Matthew 23:11
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
ONLY BEGOTTEN-MONOGENES
Some will reject Jesus as God because he is referred to as the only begotten (MONOGENES) Son. Does "only begotten Son" mean Jesus was literally begotten? In Hebrews 11:17 the phrase "only begotten son" is applied to Abrahams second son Isaac through his wife Sarah(Genesis 21:1–3). Ishmael was Abraham's first through his wife’s Egyptian maid Hagar, (Genesis 16:1–4). Abraham later married Keturah, who brought him six more sons - Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. So it is clear already that the usage of "only begotten" here is not describing a literal begetting. It is talking about a unique kind/relationship.
Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his ONLY BEGOTTEN son , [18] Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: [19] Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
FIRSTBORN- PROTOTOKOS
The term firstborn is applied to Christ in as in Colossians 1.15. Firstborn can mean the first one literally born or it can mean preeminent. Jesus is not first literally born as the heretics falsely teach. How can we know this? Simply by reading the next two verses (16-17) that state that Jesus created all things.
Another example of the firstborn being applied in this way is in relation to King David, who was the youngest in his family.
Psalm 89:27
Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
The title of FIRSTBORN was transferred from Manasseh to Ephraim.
Genesis 41:51-52
And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he , hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. [52] And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction.
Jeremiah 31:9
They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Exodus 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord , Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
The context demonstrates how the term firstborn is to be understood. When Christ is referrred to as FIRSTBORN and the surrounding scriptures describe his preeminence and him creating all things,it is obvious that the scripture is not talking about a literal firstborn. Yet some will stop at nothing to deny Jesus is God. For example the heretics known as "Jehovah's witnesses" added the word "other" four times to Colossians 1.16-17 to deny Jesus made all things and teach he made all [other] things. Not only that, they also removed the brackets so that the reader would believe it was a part of the original text. The Greek has two words for other, heteros and allos, neither are used.
Colossians 1:15-18
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: [16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: [17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Jesus is described as the beginning in verse 18. Who is the beginning according to Revelation 22.13? God almighty.
Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
ARCHE - BEGINNING
In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is described as "the beginning of the creation of God". Some will claim that Jesus is created based on this. God is called the beginning in the Bible and he is the beginning of his creation, he is the origin of it. The Greek word arche has a few definitions, which include, a beginning in terms of origin, source of a thing, authority, ruler, archetype to name a few.
In Revelation 3.14 Jesus is clearly being described as the source of all creation as understood by such passages of John 1.3, Colossians 1.16-17, Isaiah 44.24. He is the alpha and the omega, the BEGINNING and the END, the first and the last who brought all creation into existence. He is the beginning of creation because he is the source of it not because he is a part of it. To say the creator of "all" creation is created defies the law of noncontradiction.
God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility. A person that rejects God can make no justified epistemological argument at all. In other words an atheist cannot claim to know anything.
In the atheistic world view a person is reduced to a materialistic perspective, naturalism, which is the belief that only matter and energy exist, however this is automatically false given the laws of logic are immaterial and universal. They are not conceptual, if someone were to disagree they would be be appealing to the law of noncontradiction which they are arguing against given their conceptual beliefs. The atheist is reduced to absurdity. If the atheist was consistent they would acknowledge that if materialism was true, they would not be able to know materialism was true,based on its own presuppositions that teach thoughts are merely the byproduct of random unintelligent natural phenomenon bound by physics. Chemicals simply react, they do not provide reason.
As J. Budziszewski points out in his book What We Can’t Not Know, “The motto ‘Reason Alone!’ is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.“
Atheists cannot not live in accordance with their own world view. Atheists can often be heard requesting evidence for God, yet not realising that the proof of God comes from the impossibility to the contrary. An atheist has no basis to know anything without God, no justification in trusting their senses, reasoning, or brain; for all they know they are a brain in a vat being fed information, comparable to the Matrix scenario. An atheist has no way of knowing that they are not in the Matrix. Yet atheists don't live that way, they cannot be consistent. Even if the atheist asserted that they knew nothing, or nothing with certainty, that would also contradict the law of noncontradiction. If they knew nothing or knew nothing for certain then they could not know that they could not know any thing or anything for certain.
Knowledge can only been known by the following
1. The person is omniscient (all knowing)
Or
2. That a person has received revelation from one who is omniscient.
There is no alternative. Therefore whoever rejects God cannot claim to know anything, not one single thing. Yet atheists do know things, and they make truth claims all the time which is does not comport with their worldview. Atheists trust their reasoning based on their reasoning, their senses based on their senses which begs the question how do they justify trusting them?
Proverbs 1:7 KJV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Atheists are inconsistent and cannot live in accordance with their world view, perhaps the most perspicacious example would be that of morality. There is no absolute morality if atheism is true, no ontic referrant, no objective standard to make any moral judgment. God is the moral standard, not man. But those that reject God are reduced to the absurdity of person relative, subjective morality which is not only hypocritical but it defies the law of non contradiction. For example, If person 1 says x is morally bad and person 2 says x is morally good then the concept of morality being determined by humans is obviously proven false. Subjective morality does not exist. Only with God is there objective morality.
In atheism, killing and stealing from people is no different than buttering toast, its simply a different chemical reaction in the brain that causes the body to react differently.
Morality does not exist in atheism. One at best can say something is good based on a benerifiery effect but this does not mean it is morally good; a person who steals from others benefits himself by gaining what they had lost.
If an atheist was consistent they would hold to their presuppositions that they are nothing more than random meat machines that have no value, meaning or purpose, that they are incapable of freewill and rational thought, that they simply respond to stimuli by the determination that came from random chemicals and random physics, and that morality does not exist.
1.An atheist cannot account for any knowledge without God. They have no justification for claiming to know anything at all.
2. An atheist cannot claim anything is morally good or bad without God. To do so would be to contradict their first premise that morality is subjective which in itself is contradictory, thus making themselves hypocrites also.
If this wasn't foolish enough atheism is left with believing the universe was brought into existence out of nothing, that life came from non life, that information such as found in DNA can appear by itself and increase by itself.
All of this contradicts what can be demonstrated by empirical science.