Tim: Now why do I believe in the Deity of Jesus:  He goes a small sample from the entire Bible:
There are several lines of evidence that convince me and many others that Jesus did claim to be God.  This can be seen from his claims to be the Jehovah of the OT, from his acceptance of the titles of Deity, from his messianic claims, from his acceptance of worship, from the implications of many of his actions, from the authority of his commands, and from the reaction of the first century monotheistic Jews to his claims and actions.

Tim: JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE JEHOVAH. [note:  Jehovah does not mean only Father - you must understand this vital concept so that you can get beyond the simple questions like "Who ran the universe the three days while Christ was in the grave?" and "Did Jesus pray to himself?" and "Did Jesus forsake himself?" etc.]

Tim: The most forthright claims of Christ to be God are revealed in his indentification with the Jehovah of the OT.  "Jehovah" or (YAWEH) as you know is the spelling given to the tetragrammaton or designation for God (ie. JHWH, or YHWH) in the OT.  As you know, this word for God is spelled many different ways in different Bibles.  In every case this name JHWH is only refering to Deity unlike ADONAI - which can be used of humans (Gen 18:12) and other times to God.  So sacred was the name, JWHW, that devout Jews would not pronounce it, as you know.

Tim: Many scholars take the name to mean "underived existence" or "HE WHO IS" from the "I AM" of Ex. 3:14, but the meaning NOR THE PRONOUNCIATION OF THE TERM IS NOT CERTAIN.

Tim: It is known for sure that Jehovah is the "I AM" of Ex. 3:14 and that for the Jews he alone is God.  Everything else in an IDOL or FALSE GOD [Moses is not a God by nature - neither are the rulers of Israel Ps. 82 - neither is Satan - all are Idols as IS 43:10-11 confirm].  Nothing else was to be worshiped or served, nor were sacrifices to be made to them (Ex. 20:5).  Jehovah was a "jealous God" and would NOT SHARE EITHER HIS NAME NOR HIS GLORY WITH ANOTHER.  Isaiah wrote, "Thus said Jehovah...I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is NO GOD" (44:6) - no other IDOL - NO OTHER REAL god/GOD - not a junior demi-god or absolute GOD - none no other God!  Again, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my GLORY I WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, neither my praise unto graven images" (Isa. 42:8 cf. 48:11).
In view of the fact that the Jehovah of the Jewish OT would not give his name, honor, or glory to another, it is little wonder that the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth drew stones and cries of "blasphemy" from first century Jews.  The very things that the Jehovah of the OT claimed for himself Jesus of Nazareth also claimed, as the following verses reveal:  Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd" (Jn 10:11), but the OT declared "Jehovah is my Shepherd" (Ps. 23:1).  Jesus claimed to be the judge of all men and nations (Jn 5:27 f. and Matt. 25:31 f.) but Joel, quoting Jehovah wrote, "For there I will sit to judge all the nations round about" (Joel 3:12).  Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12) whereas Isaiah says, "Jehovah will be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory" (60:19).  Jesus claimed in prayer before the Father to share his eternal glory, saying, "Father, glorify thou me with the glory I had with you before the foundation of the world [or before the cosmos began] (Jn 17:5). I think that the strongest and most direct claim that Jesus made was the I AM statements in Jn 8:24, 28, 58.  These are key.  The reaction of the first century Jews - knowing what Jehovah had said concerning his nature in the OT - they did not have a perfect understanding of the OT for they failed to recognize their Messiah - but this in no way means that they possesed all wrong understandings of the OT.  Certainly we can learn much concerning the OT from Jewish sources and we should not conclude that based on that the Jews made some mistakes regarding Jesus that they got everything wrong. For example, they understood that he claimed to be Messiah - King of the Jews.  They understood that he claimed to be able to forgive sins.  They knew that he claimed
that all had to get to the Father through belief in him.  And they also knew that he claimed equality with God in Jn 8:58.  And Jesus did not correct them.  When they picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy - why did he not correct them as he did on numerous other occations when they got things wrong?  This claim in Jn 8:58 is either blasphemy or a claim to share the nature of Jehovah. Jesus left no doubt as to which interpretation he wished them to take.  He not only claimed pre-existence to Abraham, but also equality with God.  This fits well with Jn 5:18, 10:30, 17:5, 20:28, 1:1[in you take a qualitative non-indefinte rendering as Wallace and Don Hartley domonstrate is the best.].  This claim to be "I AM" is repeated in Mk. 14:62 and in Jn 18:5, 6.  In the latter case the effect on those around Christ was dramatic:  "they drew back and fell to the ground."  The OT declares
that "Jehovah is our light" (Ps. 27:1), but Jesus said "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12).

Tim: Recal my argument concernig the eternality of the Word.  He you have no way out - Christ had some kind of glory before the COSMOS began.  Now science has just about demonstrated what philosophy has known for a long time - that when the COSMOS "began"  Space, TIME, matter and energy all came into existence - remember the impossibility of an actual number of things existing as well the impossibility of traversing an infinite amount of time.  He were have Christ declaring that he had some kind of Glory before the space, time, matter and energy came into existence.  This makes a nice parallel to Jn 1:1-3, where Christ was said to be in the absolute begining with the Father and that HE created all things (Jn 1:3 NWT).  He thus demonstrates that he is eternal and that is a quality of God alone.  And remember Jehovah said that he would not give his glory to another (Isa. 42:8).  Jesus spoke of himself as the coming "bridegroom" (Matt. 25:1), which is exactly how Jehovah is depeicted in the OT (cf. Isa 62:5; Hos. 2:16).  In the book of Revelation Jesus is quoted by John saying, "I am the First and the Last" (1:17), which are precisely the words of Jehovah in Isa. 42:8.

"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:
Wisdom was created before them all,
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)

The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9

Then the Creator of all gave me his command;
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT).

"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8

Tim JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD

    On numerous occations Jesus claimed to be equal with God in other ways than assuming the titles of Deity.  Jesus said to the scribes, "That you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins...I say to you [the paralytic], rise, take up your pallet and go home" (Mk 2:10,11).  Jesus had just said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven" (v. 5), to which the outraged scribes retorted, "Why does this man speak thus?  It is blasphemy!  Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 7).  Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins, the scribes
understanding of that calim, and Jesus' healing of the man are all evidence of his authority, and make it clear that Jesus was claiming a power that God aloned possessed (Jer. 31:34).
    Jesus solemnly claimed another power that God alone possessed, namely, the power to raise and Judge the dead: "Truly, truly, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and has now come, when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God, and those who hear will live...and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the reserrection of judgement" (Jn 5:25, 29).  Jesus removed all doubt of the intentions of his claim when he added, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, so also the Son give life to whom HE will" (v.21).  According to the OT, however, Jehovah alone is the giver of life (1 Sam 2:6; Deut. 32:39) and can raise men from the dead (Ps 2:7).  Hence, Heinz, in the face of orthodox Jewish belief that
God alone could resurrect the dead, Jesus not only boadly proclaimed his ability to bring the dead back to life but also his ability to Judge them.  The Scriptures, however, reserved for Jehovah the right to Judge men (Joel 3:12; Deut. 32:35).
  Another way in which Jesus claimed Deity for himself was in his statement in Jn 5:23 that "All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," adding, "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father."  In this same catagory, Jesus exorted his disciples, "believe in God, believe also in me" (Jn 14:1).  the pretensions of this claim to a monotheistic people were evident.  The Jews knew well that no man should claim honor and belief with God.  They reacted with stones (Jn 5:18)  You must come face to face with this.  Jesus claimed honor with God and belief in himself as on par with the Father.  This is very important in light of the aforementioned OT texts.

Tim: JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE THE MESSIAH-GOD.
    The OT Foreshadowings of the Messiah also point to his Deity.  Hence, when Jesus claimed to fulfill the OT messianic
predictions here thereby also claimed the Deity attritbuted to the Messiah in those passages.  For example, the famous Christmas texts from Isa. speaks of the Messiah as the "Mighty God" (9:6).  The psalmist wrote of the Messiah, "Thy throne o God, is for ever and ever" (45:6 quoted in Heb. 1:8).  Psalm 110:1 relates a converstion between the Father and the Son: "Jehovah said unto my Lord (Adonai), sit thou at my right hand."  Jesus applied this passage to himself in Matt 22:43-44.  Isa. the prophet, in a great majestic prophecy, exhorted Israel, "Behold your God" (40:9).  Indeed, the great messianic passage from Dan 7:13, quoted by Jesus at his trial before the high priest, as a text implying the Deity of the massiah.  In Daniel's vision, the Son of Man (Messiah) is also called the "ancient of days" (7:22), a phrase that is used twice in the same passage to describe God the Father (vv. 9,13). When Jesus quoted this passage to the high priest who demanded that Jesus whether or not Jesus was Deity, the high priest left no doubt as to how he interpreted Jesus' claim.  "Are you the Christ [Messiah], the son of the Blessed?" the high priest asked.  "And Jesus said to him, 'I am; and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" At this the high priest tore his garment and said, "why do we still need a witness?  You have heard his blasphemy!" (Mk 14:61-64).
    In short, the OT not only predicted the Messiah but also proclaimed him to be God.  And when Jesus claimed to be a fulfullment of the OT messianic passages, he laid claim to possessing the Deity in these passages ascribed to the Messiah.  Jesus removed all doubts of his intentions by his answer before the high priest at his trial.

Heinz: First, let us look at Isaiah 9:6. For the sake of time I will let my friend Kazz handle this one: "I don't believe that it can be stated with any conviction that this
offers support to trinitarianism, for, Jesus is called 'G-god' in a
limited sense, bearing reference to his role as Messiah. This is not
just the opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses, but of some fairly reputable
trinitarian scholars. Raymond Brown, the renowned Catholic scholar,
said of the "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "'God' may have been looked on
simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the Davidic
Messiah"–(Jesus, God and Man, New York: Macmillan, 1967, p. 24,25).

Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all trinitarians as
a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to King Hezekiah, the son of
Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some
trinitarians from former years have said regarding this account:
 

"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage
is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee
interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more
excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et
Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian,
1583-1645).

"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER]
maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of
Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale;
Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his
authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other
places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not
being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the
Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it
should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's
rendering])

"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God,
but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does
not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually
gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT
[as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])

"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been
differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is
in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels,
heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but
brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as
quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])

"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong,
powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king
Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the
heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6
vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at
Leipzig; d. 1836])
Moffatt
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us;
the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he
bears––"A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for
all time, a peaceful prince!"

Steven T. Byington
"For we have a child born to us, a son given to us,––and
dominion rests on his shoulder, and he is named
Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of
Peace, for ample dominion and for endless peace"

Revised English Bible
"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he
will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his
title will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal
Father, Prince of Peace."

New Revised Standard Version
"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful
Counselor, Mighty god, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Other translations might be offered, but these should be adequate to
show how the words of Isaiah have been understood. It will be noted
that Christ is considered a 'divine' or 'mighty hero' or 'champion' in
some cases."

Now on to Ps. 45:6/Heb 1:8. I am always surprised that you Trinitarians use this to prop up support for your triune deity. Heb. 1:8 is earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps 45:6. What that means is that Jesus is God insofar as as King Solomon is. I do not remember King Solomon sharing a triune nature/essence/homoousian with anyone. Even the Jews, whom you understand as having a special knowledge of God have translated Ps. 45:6(7) as  "Your divine throne is everlasting;"(JPS) with a c.f. to 1Chron 29:23.
Again, I will let my friend Kazz (Sean) handle the rest:
Hebrews 1:8, as you well know, is a quotation taken from Psalms 45:6. There are two problems with asserting that these verses are calling Jesus *God*, at least in the trinitarian sense.  One problem is the rendering  itself, which is either "Thy throne, O God" (a vocative), or "God is thy throne" (God as subject), or "Thy throne is God" (God as predicate).  In favor of the non-vocative are The Twentieth Century New Testament,Goodspeed, Moffatt, Byington, RSV footnote, NRSV footnote, Alternate rendering offered in the Translator's NT (p 523), NEB footnote, REB, Harkavy, Gerard Wallis, F. Fenton, Andy Gaus (translator of "The Unvarnished NT), Newcome (the Improved Version), Cassirer, and B.F. Wescott (no doubt there are others).  If we accept "God" as either the subject or the predicate, these verses do not call Jesus God.  However, even if we take "God" as a vocative, nothing astonishing need be inferred; certainly nothing comparable to trinitarianism.  Indeed, as B.F. Wescott acknowledged (see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews" ad loc cit), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly King (probably Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice but to conclude that Solomon was also God Almighty.  A far more reasonable understanding of these texts was expressed by Vincent Taylor, as referred to by Raymond Brown --to wit:

                     "Vincent Taylor admits that in v. 8 the expression "O God" is
                     vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of
                     Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its
                     terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting
                     that Jesus is God.  It is true that the main point of citing the
                     Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the
                     Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but
                     servants.  Therefore in the citation no major point was being
                     made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God.  Yet
                     we cannot presume that the author did not notice that his
                     citation had this effect.  We can say at least, that the author saw
                     nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar
                     situation in Heb. 1:10, where the application to the Son of
                     Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord.  Of
                     course, we have no way of knowing what the "O God" of
                     Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews when he applies it to
                     Jesus.  Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and on the analogy of the
                     "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "God" may have been looked on
                     simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the
                     Davidic Messiah."--Taken from Jesus, God and Man (New
                     York: Macmillian, 1967, pg 24 & 25.)

                 You may also find George Wesley Buchanan's remarks on these verses
                 interesting, which are found in his "To The Hebrews", part of the superb
                 Anchor Bible series.
 

Tim: JESUS' ACCEPTANCE OF WORSHIP
    The OT forbids worship of anyone but God (Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9).  In the Bible men were not to accept worship (see Acts 14:15) and even angels refused to be worshiped (Rev. 22:8-9).  And yet, Jesus received worship on at least nine occations without rebuking his worshipers.  The healed leper worshiped Jesus (Matt 8:2) and the ruler knelt before him with his petition (Matt. 9:18). After Jesus had stilled the storm, "those in the boat worshiped him saying, 'Truely you are the Son of God.'" (Matt. 14:33).  The Cananite women bowed before Christ in prayer (Matt. 15:25), as did the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matt. 20:20).  Just before Jesus commissioned his followers to diciple all nations, "they worshiped him" (Matt. 28:17).  Earlier in the same chapter the women who had just been at the tomb met Jesus "and they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him" (v. 9).  Again look at Mk 5:6; Jn 9:38; 20:28.  Not to rebuke these people who nelt before him, prayed to him, and worshiped him was not only utterly pretentious but it wa blasphemous, unless Jesus considered himself to be God.  The same word that is translated "worshiped" is also used of the Father (Lk 4:8) and by the actions of the people must be seen as worship.  I would not do any one of these activities just mentioned to anyone else - other than Jehovah.  This is not just obeisance or honor as you would give to a man of high standing -but really honoring and worshiping as one is only supposed to do toward Jehovah.  In Rev. 4:10 cf. Rev 5:11-14 proskuneo is used to describe the worship of the Father and the Lamb [the Son].  They receive the exact same worship.  I have the 1961 edition of the NWT and it has no problem saying "worship" in Heb1:6 so there must be some chance to this translation.  According to the Bible, you cannot worship angels or men or anything but Jehovah God.  So with the Father telling all the angels to worship Christ it can been seen as the Father affirming the Deity of the Son.  See also Rev 22:8-9 - same word used.  From all the above, it is at least reasonable to conclude that Jesus accepted some form of reverence/worship/honor that was unusual to give to a mere man in that
day and that by this worship the people of that day recognized him as somehow being equal with the Jehovah of the OT.

Tim: THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS' Commands
    Jesus not only accepted the titles and worship due Deity alone but he often placed his words on a par with God's.  "You have heard that it was said to men of old, ... But I say to you..." (Matt. 5:21, 22) is repeated over and over again.  "All authority in havean and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make diciples of all nations..." (MAtt. 28:18-19).  God had given the Ten Commandments through Moses, but Jesus added, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another" (Jn 13:34). Jesus once taught that "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" (Matt. 5:18).  Later Jesus put his own words on par as the OT LAw of Jehovah saying, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matt. 24:35).  Speaking of those who rejected him, Jesus declared, "The word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (Jn 12:48).  In view of his categorical and authoritative pronouncements we are left with but one conclusion:  Jesus intended his commands to be on the level with those of God.  His words are equally authoritative with God's words.

Tim: JESUS REQUESTED THAT MEN PRAY IN HIS NAME
 Jesus not only asked men to believe in him (Jn 14:1) and to obey his commandments (Jn 14:15), but, but he asked men to pray in his name.  "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it," he said (Jn 14:14). Later, Jesus added, "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you (Jn 15:7).  Indeed, Jesus insisted that "no man comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6).  It is interesting to note in this regard that not only did the diciples of Christ pray in Christ's name (1 Cor 5:4) but that they also PRAYED TO CHRIST (Acts 7:59).  There is no doubt that both Jesus intended and his diciples understood it was Jesus' name that was to be invoked both before God and as God's in prayer.  Remember what Jehovah said in the OT - I will never share any of my glory (the glory of absolute Deity - which includes being prayed to - with another!?).  This for me alone is proof positive that Christ must share the absolute Divine nature with his Father.

Heinz: Actually Tim, Stephen's words in Acts 7:59 are not a prayer to Jesus. It is the same Greek word that Paul used Acts 25:11, 12 , 21 in reference to Caeser. Just like Paul's word were an appeal, so were Stephens. Stephen had a vision of heaven. Did he see Jesus sitting on God's throne? No. He was sitting at the "God's right hand". Acts 7:56 I think you missed the point of John 14:6. Most of the translations I have render it, "no man comes to the Father, except THROUGH me". This is a very important point as Jesus is the mediator between God and Men (1 Tim 2:5). Since when is a mediator the same person as the one he is mediating for? Jesus taught us to pray to the Father at Matthew 6:9. What else did Jesus say? "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you", "if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name." John 15:16, 16:23 If there was any doubt about Jesus words in John 14:14, it all but removed 14 verses later when he says, "the Father is greater than I" John 14:28. Does any of the above prove a trifold God? Absolutely not!

Tim: Throughout Jesus' claims several point that are of key importance emerged.  First, there is no question that Jesus often accepted and sometimes even emcouraged the appellations and attitudes appropriate only for God.  Second, Jesus himself unquestionably affirmed by words and actions these characteristcs and preogatives appropriate only to Deity.  Third, the reaction of those around him manifests that they too understood him to be claiming Deity.  The disciples responded with "you are the Chrsit, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16) or "my Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).

Heinz: "In the words of Jesus and in much of the NT the God of Israel (Gk ho theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the Word was with the God [= the Father], and the Word was a divine being." Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, "My lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).....It should be understood that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ." p. 317, 318 Dictionary of the Bible by J. L. McKenzie, S. J.

Tim: Unbelievers exclaimed, "Why does this man speak thus?  It is blasphemy!" (Mk 2:7).  When Jesus claim to be one with the Father, the Jews, who are not as dumb as you make them out to be, picked up stones to stone Christ.  They said they did this because Christ blasphemed.  He made himself equal to God because he initiated calling God his Father - thus also implying Deity because he by default the unique Son of God - not a created son as many would so carelessly conclude today but "of the the order of" (see 1 Kgs 20:35; Neh 12:28).

Tim: Ancient Semitics and Orientals were very aware of this usage of "Son of" and it is this parallel that should be understood as Christ claims to be Gods Son.  The high priest of the time also reacted towards Jesus with accusations of blasphemy when Christ claimed Divinity (Mk 14:62-64).  Whatever you may want to think, the point is crystal clear - the Jesus of the NT claimed equality with the Jehovah of the OT.  Thus, so far, the two person, while differing in person, are equal in Nature, and make up two/thirds of the One God.

Heinz: Even in Mark 14:62 we have Jesus explaining that he sits "at the right hand of power". Why does he not sit on the throne, if they are in equal in nature? Where, pray tell, does the Bible ever use the term "son of" to describe a sharing of essence, or two that are "equal in nature"? Where is the "son of" ever used to describe 2/3 of one being? I keep asking this question and I NEVER get an answer. I keep getting directed back to Jesus as Jehovah as the Son of God which is supposed to explain everything. Even the angels were called "sons of God" at Job 1:6, 38:7, Gen 6:2 and Dan 3:25. The latter scripture has your Orientals describing an angel as a "son of the gods." I wonder if these Babylonians understood this angel to represent 1/3 of your Triune God? Probably not.

Continued in Part 2

Back to Main Page