Jesus Is Not God But A Prophet: The Bible Says So

Within the context of historical Christianity, the traditional elevation of Jesus to divine status is a prevailing theme. However, a closer examination of its central document, the New Testament, reveals a notable degree of ambiguity concerning the concept of Jesus' divinity. The foundational Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not explicitly and systematically articulated by the writers and texts of the New Testament, and the term "Trinity" itself does not appear anywhere in its pages. This sets Christianity apart from other Semitic traditions, as it places a unique emphasis on the divinity of a seemingly mortal individual, albeit without providing robust rational arguments, solid textual foundations, or substantial scriptural support.

The Christian scriptures predominantly maintain a reticence regarding the divine nature of Christ, leading to the necessity of constructing arguments for his divinity through tenuous interpretations, contextual hints, grammatical nuances, and speculative claims. Such frail underpinnings for such a profound assertion, with far-reaching implications, can be criticized as inadequate and open to scrutiny. In fact, the New Testament appears to emphasize Jesus' humanity, subordination, dependence, and derivative status more prominently than his presumed perfect divine nature, independence, transcendence, and godly essence.

Throughout the New Testament, there is a recurring theme emphasizing Christ's role as a prophet, his angelic purity, his subordination to and servitude towards God Almighty. These aspects are articulated frequently and emphatically, contrasting with the indirect, enigmatic, and often manipulated passages that are invoked to establish his divinity, godhood, and the existence of the Holy Trinity. In essence, the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus is multifaceted and intricate, extending beyond the mere assertion of his divinity and godly nature.

The central question “What think you of Christ?” has been answered in several different ways by New Testament writers.

A Prophet

He is referred to as a prophet: “And King Herod heard of him...and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead... Others said, that it is Elias. And others said, that it is the prophet, or one of the prophets” (Mark 6:14–15). The Gospel of Matthew names Jesus as the prophet: “And when he was to come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, who is this? And the multitude said, this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Matthew 20:10–11, see also Acts 3:22, 7:37). Given passages like these many scholars maintain that Jesus was a Jewish prophet, “a first-century apocalyptic prophet who expected the imminent end of his” (world). Like Prophets Amos and Hosea, Jesus struggled to reform the Jewish religion and its tradition; he engaged with contemporary Judaism and its leaders, leveled fierce attacks against the Jewish Temple authorities and their selfish exploitation, and railed against the greedy scribes and the Pharisees. 

And like the Israelite prophets before him he suffered the consequences, his fate being sealed at the hands of the Roman authorities. It was only after his death that some of his enthusiastic followers exalted him, acclaiming the prophet of Galilee to be the Messiah, the Son of God and God’s Anointed One. The renowned New Testament professor Shirley Jackson Case argues that “Jesus was a prophet of God who lived in a relation to God that was essentially a mystical experience. But it was not the type of mysticism that evaporated in an orgy of emotions… On the contrary, the divine seizure was for the sake of increasing righteousness in the world and contributing to human welfare. Its end was to be the establishment of the Kingdom.”

An Angel

In New Testament, Jesus is also depicted as an angelic prince. “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38; also Matthew 13:41 ff; Mark 13:26 ff, 1:13; Luke 22:43; 1 Thessalonians 4:16). The famous New Testament scholar M. Werner argues that the oft-quoted title Son of Man would be best interpreted if we assume “that this Messiah belonged to the (highest) celestial realm of the angels.

The Messiah

Long before Jesus’ advent, the Jews had been expecting the Messiah. Jesus was also given this title by the New Testament writers. He is the Christ, the Messiah, “And he saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him” (Mark 8:29–30). In Matthew 16:16–18 Jesus is said to have approved the title: “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” In a reply to the chief priest and the scribes, Luke (22:67–69) reports Jesus to have said: “Art thou the Christ? Tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, you will not believe: And if I also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.”

Son of Man

Jesus’ most favorite and frequently used title, as the evangelists report, is the Son of Man. The great significance of this Christological title is manifest from the fact that according to the Gospels, it is the only designation Jesus has reportedly applied to himself. “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Matthew 16:27). “Jesus said unto them, the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again” (Matthew17:22–23). The Son of Man passages occur so frequently in the Gospels that to enumerate them all is unnecessary, suffice it to say that they occur 69 times in the first three Gospels alone and over 80 times in the Gospels as a whole; see for instance Matthew 12:8, 26:64; Mark 8:38, 13:26, 14:62; Luke 22:69.

Son of God

The Gospels frequently call Jesus the Son of God. It is a pervasive designation in the Gospels as well as in subsequent Christian thought and dogma. The Gospel of Mark starts with this highly significant title, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). In fact, few passages in the Gospels put this title into the mouth of Jesus himself: (Mark 13:32; Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22). In large part it is either the Spirit of God (Matthew 3:16–17; Mark 1:11) or a voice from the clouds (Matthew 17:5; Luke 9:35) or unclean spirits (Mark1:23–24, 3:11, 5:7) or the high priest (Matthew 26:63) or the Centurion (Mark 15:39) who address Jesus with this title. It is in Matthew 16:15–17 where Jesus reportedly seems to have approved this title, “He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.” In John 10:36 Jesus is reported to have used the title for himself when he says to the Jews, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (See also Matthew 26:63–64; Mark 14:61–62; Luke 22:70; John 5:25, 11:4).

The title, Son of God, in mainstream Christianity, is used to denote Jesus’ divinity as the Second Person of the Trinity. It is maintained that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God for he did not have a human father. Consequently he is declared perfect God and perfect man. The contemporary Systematic theologian Wayne Grudem argues that the title Son of God “when applied to Christ strongly affirms his deity as the eternal Son in the Trinity, one equal to God the Father in all his attributes.” Another acceptable view is that the Synoptic Gospels use this title for Jesus to denote his intimacy and closeness to God Almighty but not his godhead.

Lord (Kyrios)

St. Paul’s favorite title and a central Christological concept is Kyrios a Greek work meaning Lord, master (Romans 1:3, 7, 5:1–11, 10:9, 16:24; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10). Paul introduced the idea of pre-existence and the worship of Christ as Kyrios. Even though the notion of pre-existence is more supposed and less taught, Paul girds it to a concept of universal salvation and provides it with a broader historical and spiritual framework. The title ‘Kyrios’ had been common amongst Judaic as well as Greek circles to denote reverence, lordship, mastership, ownership and authority. Paul seemingly gave it a theological twist by broadening and deepening its implications and adapting it to the Hellenistic worldview. Consequently his use of the word became unique in the sense that it contained more than just the postulate of lordship or exaltation. In the later New Testament books it clearly took a definite form and absolute use, meaning “the Lord”, “for he is Lord of lords and King of kings” (Revelation 17:14).

In the Synoptic Gospels the title is used for Jesus, as well as by Jesus for himself but without any absolute tone. Passages like Mark 11:3, Matthew 7:21, even John 13:13, can be interpreted as meaning “teacher” or “master”. The designation Rabbi, Master or Lord Jesus and the title ‘Kyrios’ received its full or absolute meaning only in Pauline Christology and only after Jesus’ supposed death, resurrection and exaltation. “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (1 Corinthians 8:6). “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36, see also Acts 2:13–14). The pre-existent Word who was with God before the creation is now exalted to the right hand of God “to be a Prince and Saviour...” (Acts 5:31, see also Acts 7:55–56).

God (Theos)

The first three Gospels never used the word God for Jesus. This Christology is found only in the Gospel of John. The beginning and end chapter of John’s Gospel contain references to Jesus which are traditionally translated as “God”.  It is, as Cullmann observes, “the Gospel of John and Hebrews (that) provide the clearest and least ambiguous evidence of the attribution of Oeos to Jesus.” In John 1:1 it is stated: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In John 20 we have: And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:26–28)

To this designation, that is the absolute title ‘God’, the fourth evangelist presents Jesus as not responding negatively. Rather Jesus seems to have approved it when he is quoted to have said: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

Following German biblical scholar A. Harnack’s lead, scholars such as Bart Ehrman and others maintain that the theos (God) Christology was not original to the Gospel of John. It was interpolated into it either by a later author or the original author/authors after an earlier edition of the book had already been published. They contend that the highly poetic style of John 1:1 is missing in the rest of the Gospel. Jesus is never called the “Word” elsewhere in the Gospel. Ehrman concludes that “this opening passage came from a different source than the rest of the account...”

There are additionally problems with the translation. The popular translation “and the Word was God” is disputed by many leading translators. For instance James Moffat, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed translate the phrase as “and the Word was divine.” There also exist multiple other translations and interpretations such as “the Word was a god”, and “godlike sort was the Logos” and “so the Word was divine.” The source of the problem lies in the original Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, which importantly are all in upper case script, that is in capital letters only, meaning that for instance there is no distinction, and no way to distinguish, between “God” and “god”. The original word used in the manuscript is theos and cannot have the definite article in accordance with grammatical rules. Furthermore, the word God had a broader application and could refer to generally people of rank, leadership and authority. John 10:35 for instance uses it for human rulers as “gods”. Origen of Alexandria, third century Church Father and a specialist in Greek grammar, noticed the difference by stating that John uses “the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God… The true God, then, is The God.” The Greek term used is “ho theos” and not just “theos”, ho meaning ‘the’ and theos meaning ‘god’. This observation alludes to the fact that when the anarthrous (meaning occurring without an article) noun “theos” is applied to the Word it is not a definite but an indefinite noun.

These grammatical challenges are quite often used to manipulate meanings and to substantiate specific theological positions. Hence mainstream Christianity prefers the popular rendition as it vindicates its own “Jesus is God” theology. Opposing groups favor the other translations to prove Jesus’ subordination to God the Father. Even some evangelical scholars such as Murry J. Harris, who otherwise support the Johanian theos Christology, do not deny the fact that “from the point of view of grammar alone, [qeos hn ho logos] could be rendered “the Word was a god…””

It seems that once the Church had decided that Jesus was God, especially in light of his supposed crucifixion and resurrection, the theos (divine, godly) of John, which might have been used by John just as a communicative tool, was loaded with the absolute tones of ho theos (the God). The transition highlights the historical fact that the high Christology and hard divinity (Godhead) of Jesus was not the original idea of Jesus or his immediate disciples, but rather owes its origins and substance to the later Christian understandings of Jesus in light of the Easter experience. Its later absolute overtures and gambits being purely theologically motivated.

Like the Prologue, there are numerous issues with John 20:28. Mainstream Christianity has always used this climactic confession of Thomas (“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God”) as the supreme Christological pronouncement of faith in Jesus as Lord and God.

Despite this broader consensus, opinions seem to diverge over the true meanings and implications of this absolute designation. Mainstream Christianity subscribes to the idea that this designation is meant to denote Jesus’ unqualified categorical godhead, that is his being God the Father, as the title My God and My Lord is clearly used for God Almighty in the Old Testament. Some non-traditional scholars contend that this designation was applied to Jesus in a broader sense current in contemporary Judaism. John who did not equate God with Logos in the Prologue could not have then obliterated all distinctions between God and Logos at the end of his Gospel.

There are many Christologies (discussions about real nature, person and role of Jesus) in the New Testament. He is presented as a prophet, an angel, Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, Lord and even God in certain interpretations. Jesus’ prophet-hood is more pronounced in the Gospels than his godhead. Unfortunately, all claims of his divinity are based on dubious words, fanciful interpretations and doubtful contexts. Such foundations are really shallow for a humungous claim like the godhead of a feeble man. That is why Christians have been fighting for centuries over the true nature of Jesus’ divinity, his relationship with God the Father and his role in redemption  

Modern scholarship is more widely divided on the issue of Christ’s divinity as well as interpretations of the person of Jesus, than Christians of past generations. Almost all of the old Christological issues and trends, often declared heresies by the Church teachings, could virtually be traced, finding boisterous expressions in many modern Christological discussions and debates. Many of the old Christological heresies are virtually incorporated into contemporary Christian thought without much hesitation or blame. It has been customary for Christians until the late nineteenth century to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church as well as the general Christian population have always contended that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the Son of God, the second person of a divine Trinity, who lived a completely mortal (yet sinless) life amongst humanity. In this God in Christ, traditional incarnational theology, we reach the apex of a God-Man theology. If God becomes incarnate as flesh in the person of Christ, eating, drinking, sleeping, feeling grieved and eventually being crucified, then in this physical embodiment we have the strongest case for the reality of divine body and manhood in its purest sense. The main problem with traditional Christianity throughout the centuries has been how to maintain the otherworldliness of God and at the same time attain salvation through the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ as God. This is an awkward paradox from which there is no escape. Reason defies it as God cannot be man and God at the same time.

Astonishingly, even in this day and age, there are scholars who maintain that although Jesus was God and in fact conscious of his divine identity, nevertheless this incarnation (God in Man) somehow does not lead to the fact of polytheism or divine corporeality. This would seem to be at variance with human reason. The proofs given for Jesus’ divinity concern reference to four aspects: what Jesus said, what he did, what others said about him, and what others did about him.

Many modern evangelists try to prove Jesus’ absolute divinity through the Gospels’ “I am” statements, such as John 8:57 and Mark 14:62 corroborated by Matthew 26 and Luke 22. In the Synoptic Gospels (first three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus is tried for blasphemy having been accused by his enemies (Mark 14:53–65; Matthew 26:57–68; Luke 22:63:71). Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest, demands Jesus to identify himself (Matthew 9:2–6; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). Responding to Caiaphas’ question, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus reportedly answers: “I am; and you shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). The modern Evangelists contend that Jesus, in response to the High Priest’s inquiry, used the divine I am statement of Exodus 3:14: “Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:13–14)

Wayne Grudem, a contemporary Christian theologian, argues that the Jewish leaders recognized at once that Jesus was not speaking in riddles or uttering nonsense; when he said, “I am,” he was repeating the very words God used when he identified himself to Moses as “I am who I am” … When the Jews heard this unusual, emphatic, solemn statement, they knew that he was claiming to be God.  Thus modern Evangelists attempt to draw parallels between the Old Testament’s use of the divine “I AM” statements and its use in the Gospel of John to insinuate that John by these parallels was declaring Jesus’ divinity. For instance, Richard Bauckham, the renowned Evangelist, contends: This [I am] sentence occurs as a divine declaration of unique identity seven times in the Hebrew Bible. … It is certainly not accidental that, whereas in the Hebrew Bible there are seven occurrences of ni hu [the Hebrew version of “I am”] and two of the emphatic variation ‘anoki anoki hu’, in John there are seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings, with the seventh repeated twice for the sake of an emphatic climax. It is also postulated by these evangelists that in using the title “Son of Man”, and by claiming to come on the clouds of heavens and sit on the right hand of God, Jesus was in reality claiming that he was the God of Moses and Abraham. According to Bowman and Komoszewski, “it was one thing to enter God’s presence and yet another to sit in it. But to sit at God’s right side was another matter altogether. In the religious and cultural milieu of Jesus’ day, to claim to sit at God’s right hand was tantamount to claiming equality with God.” To Darrel Bock, another contemporary Christian apologist, Jesus’ claim was “worse, in the leadership’s view, than claiming the right to be able to walk into the Holy of Holies in the temple and live there!”

According to the Evangelists, these phrases and expressions were quite known to the first century Jewish community as the epithets of divinity, which is why Jesus was accused of blasphemy and ordered to be killed. They also assert that to prove his divinity, Jesus prophesized that he would die on the cross and then be resurrected on the third day. Therefore, claim Evangelists, resurrection itself is the direct proof of Jesus’ divinity. For instance, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona argue that Jesus was crucified in public. His disciples believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. Paul believed that Jesus was resurrected and appeared to him. Jesus’ own skeptic brother James believed that Jesus appeared to him. Finally the tomb was empty when the disciples visited it. Habermas states that the “disciples were sure that Jesus’ person had impinged on their visual field. This is what Paul claimed. Peter agreed. So did Jesus’ brother James. Further, the tomb was no longer occupied by his body. As a result, they were changed forever.” Hence evangelists regard the resurrection as an authenticated historical fact proving that Jesus was God and aware of his divine identity. R. E. Brown states that, “Jesus knew his own identity which involved a unique relationship to God that we call the divinity of the Son. Christians of later period were able to formulate Jesus’ identity as “true God and true man,”....The idea that he was divine I find in most Gospel pages…” Ben Witherington III, fully agrees with Brown’s thesis. He writes: Material in the Synoptics hints that Jesus had a transcendent self-image amounting to more than a unique awareness of the Divine. If, however, one means by divine awareness something that suggests either that Jesus saw himself as the whole or exclusive representation of the Godhead or that he considered himself in a way that amounted to the rejection of the central tenet of Judaism, (i.e., monotheism), then the answer must be no. Jesus clearly prayed to a God he called abba, which excludes the idea that Jesus thought he was abba. Jesus’ affirmation of monotheism seems clear (e.g., Mark 10:17–18; Matthew 23:9)

He concludes affirming that the seeds of later Christological development are found in the relationships, deeds, and words of Jesus, and that in these three ways Jesus indirectly expressed some of his self-understanding. In short, he may have been mysterious and elusive at times, but this was because he intended to tease his listeners into thought and ultimately into a response of faith or trust. D. M. Baillie goes further arguing: “Indeed it seems alien to the New Testament writers, in all the varieties of their Christology, not only to say that Jesus became divine, but even to say He was or is divine. That is not how they would have put it, because in the world of the New Testament, even though it is written in Greek, the word God is a proper name, and no one could be divine except God Himself. Therefore it is more congenial to Christian theology to say that Jesus is God (with the further refinements of meaning provided by the doctrine of the Trinity) than to speak of Him as divine; and certainly it will not say that He became divine.”

The arguments used by evangelists as evidence of Jesus’ divinity are both frivolous and precarious. Firstly, the four Gospels do not agree upon the exact words uttered by Jesus in response to the High Priest’s inquiry. Matthew reports: “Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so’” (Matthew 26:64); Mark reports: “And Jesus said, ‘I am…’” (Mark 14: 62); Luke reports: “And he said to them, ‘You say that I am’…” (Luke 22:67–72); and the Gospel of John gives a very different portrayal of the dialogue between Jesus and the High Priest! No question is asked about Jesus’ Messianic role and no mention of the statement “I am” exists (John 18:20–22). Hence, what this illustrates is that aside from Mark, the affirmative statement, “I am”, does not occur in Jesus’ dialogue with Caiaphas, the High Priest, and is either missing in the other three Gospels or paraphrased as “you have said so” or “you say that I am.”

Evangelists have placed an awful lot of faith on this very common and simple verbal sentence concluding immense consequences such as the divinity of a feeble man. For, dangerously ignoring the fact that it does not exist in three of the Gospels and that the word “am” in “I am” is nothing more than a verb of existence, they have built their very case for Jesus’ divinity upon it. Furthermore, in the Gospel of Mark the phrase does not denote Jesus’ pure divinity (as claimed) in terms of his being exactly God or even like God. The question asked of Jesus was whether he considered himself to be Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, and his reported response was “I am”. The most that anyone can prove or deduce from this “I am” statement is that Jesus affirmed his Messianic role, or close affinity with God, by it and nothing more. So to derive a divinity for Christ equal to that of God Himself, with no basis in the Gospel, and a two-word statement only, is not only astonishingly faulty reasoning but too far-fetched for belief. In addition, there was no reason for Jesus to speak in riddles – with mysterious terms such as “I am” – throwing clarity to the winds, especially given the weight of what was at stake, the all-important question of who to worship. He could have openly said, “I am Yahweh or Elohim, the God of Moses, David and Daniel. Worship me alone.” Jesus was quite emphatic in asserting his mortal nature, his weaknesses, his dependence upon God and his subordination to Him, critical because Trinitarianism denies this very obvious subordination. Given Jesus’ clear assertions why on earth would he resort to a jumble of exotic statements, more resonant of Greek philosophical practice, to express something as significant as his supposed divinity?

The “I am” statement is a translation of the Greek phrase ego eimi. Significantly, this phrase is used many times in the New Testament for individuals other than Jesus. For instance, in Luke 1:19 the angel Gabriel uses ego eimi; in John 9:9, the blind man cured by Jesus uses the same “I am” phrase; in Act 10:21 Peter uses ego eimi, and so on. In other words mere usage of the phrase ego eimi (I am) does not qualify the one making it to be designated the equal of, or the great God Yahweh, the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14.

Jesus uses the phrase at least 27 times in the Bible without anyone attaching any significance to it and yet in only one instance do the Jews reportedly attempt to stone him for it, meaning that if the “I am” phrase was considered that blasphemous, surely Jesus would have been stoned a lot earlier. In John 8:12, 18, 24, 28, we have Jesus using ego eimi in front of the Pharisees. John 18 reports that soldiers of the chief priests and Pharisees went looking for Jesus in the Garden. Jesus asked them “Whom do you seek?” They replied, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he” (translation of ego eimi in John 18:4–5). The same soldiers and Pharisees were in attendance when the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas and the Jewish council sought witnesses against Jesus to punish him for blasphemy. Again, if the phrase “I am” was considered to mean equality with God, and therefore ultimate blasphemy, surely Jesus’ use of it would have been enough to convict him, and the High Priest would not have needed to look for false witnesses. His soldiers would have sufficed as evidence for Jesus’ use of it. The fact is that the phrase simply means what it says it means at face value “I am the one” or “I am he” and the circular attempts of modern evangelists to convert it into something of far greater significance, having some tremendous esoteric meaning, is preposterous. The claim of godhood is momentous and could never be based on such a weak foundation.

The Gospels are more emphatic about Jesus’ humanity, prophethood, and servitude to God Almighty than his divinity.

From my book "Concept of God in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic Traditions."