One God, One Message

[Abdullah Masud]

If we read the Bible and the words of the prophets, we find that every prophet called people to worship only one God, the Almighty. For example:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
“But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.” (Hosea 13:4)
“The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows! And let Israel know! If this has been in rebellion or disobedience to the LORD, do not spare us this day.” (Joshua 22:22)
“Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:22)
“There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.” (1 Samuel 2:2)

So, isn’t it rational and logical that the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) would also be consistent with those of the previous prophets?

If we look at the teachings of Jesus himself, he too emphasizes the oneness of God and never claims divinity for himself, as seen clearly in the Bible:

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’” (Mark 12:29)
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)

So, isn’t it rational to say that the call of Jesus was the same as that of the prophets who came before him—calling people to worship one God?
But if you see it differently, I would be glad to hear your reasoning.

 

[exchemist]

If we read the Bible and the words of the prophets, we find that every prophet called people to worship only one God, the Almighty. For example:

So, isn’t it rational and logical that the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) would also be consistent with those of the previous prophets?

If we look at the teachings of Jesus himself, he too emphasizes the oneness of God and never claims divinity for himself, as seen clearly in the Bible:

So, isn’t it rational to say that the call of Jesus was the same as that of the prophets who came before him—calling people to worship one God?
But if you see it differently, I would be glad to hear your reasoning.

“Before Abraham was, I AM.”

 

[DaveC426913]

This seems to be stating the blindingly obvious.

One of God's commandments is (paraphrased) "Thou shalt worhship no false gods before me".

So, it seems to me, you are to worship him directly, and not any facade or construct.

Is there any reader of the scriptures, anywhere, ever that thinks otherwise?

 

[Pinball1970]

never claims divinity for himself,

All the way through John actually.

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word WAS god"

"If you have seen me, you have seen the father."

"Before Abraham was I am."

 

[Pinball1970]

never claims divinity for himself,

What the historical Jesus said about himself and what the Gospels say he said are not the same thing.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

What the historical Jesus said about himself and what the Gospels say he said are not the same thing.

Ought to try gospels of Thomas, Phillip, Mary M., and Judas I. to get a different look.

 

[C C]

[...] If we look at the teachings of Jesus himself, he too emphasizes the oneness of God and never claims divinity for himself, as seen clearly in the Bible:

So, isn’t it rational to say that the call of Jesus was the same as that of the prophets who came before him—calling people to worship one God...

By the time of the late Second Temple period, the evolving concept of the Jewish messiah had incrementally acquired too much importance and too many powerful duties to just be another prophet.

The older and enigmatic "son of man" title had become attached to the liberator by then. Combine that with the revised idea that he possessed the supernatural power to bring about the new age itself, along with the momentum of the messiah being a savior who could pay the penalty for human sins and bring about personal redemption, and that required the Jewish messiah to be of deity level (God reinterpreted as a family, trinity, whatever).

Salvation and egalitarian social status in the "new heaven and new Earth" community (after the apocalypse and mass resurrection) turned out to be a genius tactic for eventually converting the entire Roman Empire to Jewish religious texts. Though that later degree of success was not anticipated or planned in advance (Paul might have been the first to partially grasp the magnitude of what placing the emphasis on attracting gentiles could accomplish).

• Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE): Some messianic ideas developed during the later Second Temple period, ranging from this-worldly, political expectations to apocalyptic expectations of an end time in which the dead would be resurrected, and the Kingdom of Heaven would be established on earth. The Messiah might be a kingly "Son of David," or a more heavenly "son of man", but "Messianism became increasingly eschatological, and eschatology was decisively influenced by apocalypticism", while "messianic expectations became increasingly focused on the figure of an individual savior."
  
  According to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, "the Messiah no longer symbolized the coming of the new age, but he was somehow supposed to bring it about." The "Lord's anointed" thus became the "savior and redeemer" and the focus of more intense expectations and doctrines." Messianic ideas developed both by new interpretations (pesher, midrash) of the Jewish scriptures but also by visionary revelations.
  
  Jewish Messianism: The main protagonist might be a military leader, a kingly "son of David," a supernatural figure such as the somewhat mysterious "son of man" mentioned in some books of the Hebrew scriptures as well as in apocryphal apocalyptic texts.
  
  Many scholars think that Jesus deliberately avoided the use of the term messiah because of its political overtones (especially as he was announcing a kingdom that was not of this world) and preferred the unpolitical term "son of man." On the other hand, those responsible for the final redaction of the Gospel of Matthew thought it necessary to provide Jesus with a lineage proving his descent from David in order to legitimate his messianic status, since the mashiaḥ (Gr., christos ) had to be identified as the "son of David."

 

[(Q)]

If we read the Bible and the words of the prophets, we find that every prophet called people to worship only one God, the Almighty. For example:

So, isn’t it rational and logical that the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) would also be consistent with those of the previous prophets?

If we look at the teachings of Jesus himself, he too emphasizes the oneness of God and never claims divinity for himself, as seen clearly in the Bible:

So, isn’t it rational to say that the call of Jesus was the same as that of the prophets who came before him—calling people to worship one God?
But if you see it differently, I would be glad to hear your reasoning.

Jesus fulfills the prophecies of those previous prophets.

 

[Abdullah Masud]

“Before Abraham was, I AM.”

This phrase is worthy of explanation, and one possible understanding—consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teachings—is that he was expressing how his existence and mission were known and planned by God long before Abraham, not that he himself was the Almighty.

This interpretation fits perfectly with many other verses where Jesus clearly distinguishes himself from God, such as:

“My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
“I can do nothing by myself.” (John 5:30)
“The only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3)

So if we take this explanation, there is no contradiction at all, and these verses remain perfectly clear and consistent.

 

[Abdullah Masud]

All the way through John actually.

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word WAS god"

these are not statements of Jesus.

"If you have seen me, you have seen the father."

"Before Abraham was I am."

The two sayings of Jesus mentioned here are not as clear as the many other verses where he directly denies having any divine attribute.

A possible and reasonable understanding of these statements is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about his closeness to God, his divine mission, and his role as God’s messenger—not claiming equality with God Himself. His words reflect oneness in purpose and guidance, not in essence or divinity.

This interpretation keeps in harmony with his clear statements, such as:

“My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
“I can do nothing by myself.” (John 5:30)
“The only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3)

So the consistent message throughout remains that Jesus called people to worship the one true God, just as all prophets before him did.

 

[Abdullah Masud]

What the historical Jesus said about himself and what the Gospels say he said are not the same thing.

Yeah, what the historical Jesus himself said and what the Gospel writers record are not necessarily identical. This distinction is crucial, especially when we consider the early Christian debates.

Take Arius of Alexandria (early 4th century), for example. He argued that Jesus was a created being, a servant and messenger of God, not equal to the Almighty. Arius’s view wasn’t fringe—he had many followers across the Roman Empire, including Africa, Asia Minor, and parts of Europe.

In 325 CE at the Council of Nicaea, Arius personally defended his position before bishops and Constantine the Great. His view was officially condemned, and the Nicene Creed adopted. Yet the story doesn’t end there: by 327–328 CE, Constantine temporarily reinstated Arius from exile, showing imperial politics still weighed heavily in the debate.

This history shows that the clearest and most widespread early understanding of Jesus recognised the oneness of God and maintained a clear distinction between God and Jesus—exactly what the prophets before Jesus taught.

 

[Pinball1970]

Ought to try gospels of Thomas, Phillip, Mary M., and Judas I. to get a different look.

IIRC The early church fathers did not consider the vast majority of those as authentic.

 

[Pinball1970]

these are not statements of Jesus.

We can never be certain when it comes to ancient literature but most scholars seem to think that John is the least historical.

 

[Pinball1970]

There is also John 17:5: Jesus prays, "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed,"

 

[Pinball1970]

So, isn’t it rational to say that the call of Jesus was the same as that of the prophets who came before him—calling people to worship one God?
But if you see it differently, I would be glad to hear your reasoning.

Generally speaking yes, Jesus was a Jew after all and adhered to the law and urged his followers to do also.
The difference between the message of the prophets and Jesus was apocalyptic setting which appeared 100 BCE or so.
The prophets ordered the people to follow the law or god would punish them.
Jesus told the people to repent because the new kingdom was upon them.

 

[exchemist]

This phrase is worthy of explanation, and one possible understanding—consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teachings—is that he was expressing how his existence and mission were known and planned by God long before Abraham, not that he himself was the Almighty.

This interpretation fits perfectly with many other verses where Jesus clearly distinguishes himself from God, such as:

So if we take this explanation, there is no contradiction at all, and these verses remain perfectly clear and consistent.

That is fairly contrived, seeing as I AM THAT I AM was the Jewish term for God. It doesn't get more unambiguous than that.

But St. John's gospel was written later than the synoptic gospels and generally includes more theological ideas, so what we may be seeing there is the evolution of the Christian theology of theTrinity.

 

[James R]

So, isn’t it rational to say that the call of Jesus was the same as that of the prophets who came before him—calling people to worship one God?

The official position adopted by most Christian churches is that there is a Holy Trinity. The Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all the same being. Jesus is both fully God and fully human, simultaneously.

So, from a Christian perspective, worshiping one God doesn't distinguish between worshipping Jesus the Son or God the Father or the Holy Spirit. All three are the One God.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

IIRC The early church fathers did not consider the vast majority of those as authentic.

It's not that they didn't think they were authentic, it is that the stories they told were contrary to the direction the church was taking.

 

[exchemist]

It's not that they didn't think they were authentic, it is that the stories they told were contrary to the direction the church was taking.

…a direction set by those same fathers of the church, based on what they considered authentic.

 

[C C]

…a direction set by those same fathers of the church, based on what they considered authentic.

Since a mere prophet couldn't pay for their sins. So Jesus had to be elevated to an avatar of what supposedly created them, even if that meant placing much emphasis on the Old Testament "us / our" -- literally accepting a plurality of the Godhead.

Isaiah 53:5: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed.”
_