jesus is god

The other side asserts Jesus is not God, but a bare assertion doesn't shift the posterior much. A useful test is this: imagine first-century Jewish monotheists who prayed to, worshiped, and called a crucified man Lord. Paul's letters, our earliest sources, already do this in Philippians 2 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, and the Aramaic maranatha prayer likely predates him. That's a costly practice within strict monotheism. The simplest explanation is that they genuinely placed Jesus on God's side of the line. I'd put maybe 80 percent confidence there, not certainty.

I understand your point. I think you are making a mistake by treating evidence of distinction as though it automatically outweighs evidence of divinity. Those are two questions. Does Jesus relate to the Father as someone from Him? Absolutely. Does that difference prove Jesus does not share God’s nature? That is the conclusion you still need to establish not simply assume. Consider John 20:17, where Jesus says, "my God and your God." I agree that this verse needs an explanation.. You cannot separate that statement from the rest of the chapter, where Thomas calls the risen Jesus "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). Both statements appear in the story. If you use one statement as evidence against Jesus’ divinity you must also consider the statement as evidence for divinity. You cannot ask one side to explain its passages while treating your own hard passages as decisive. The same applies to Jesus saying the Father is greater than Jesus in John 14:28. Greater in what sense? The verse does not explicitly say that the Father has a divine nature. In belief Jesus truly took on human nature and willingly submitted to the Father. That gives an explanation for Jesus’ obedience without forcing the conclusion that Jesus is a created being or a lesser god. John 1:1 is not just an isolated verse that Christians use to ignore other parts of the text. It shows the difference you are pointing out while also affirming the Word’s divinity: the Word was *with God* and the Word *was God*. Both the difference and the divinity appear in the sentence. That means the real question is not whether Jesus is separate from the Father. Historic Christianity already affirms that. The question is whether that difference means Jesus does not share nature and you have not shown that it does. You said clarity is not evidence. That is fair.. Repetition is also not proof. Listing Jesus’ prayers, submission and references to the Father shows a relationship. It does not automatically decide Jesus’ nature. You need an argument that links those observations to your conclusion and that link is exactly what is being disputed. **So here is my question: what exact premise says that if Jesus calls the Father His God or submits to the Father then Jesus cannot share nature?** Because unless you can defend that premise you are treating a difference in relationship as proof of a difference in nature. Those are not claims. I am not asking you to ignore the passages that challenge the position. I am asking you to apply the standard to all evidence. If we agree that the biblical text must be read as a whole then we must explain both Jesus’ relationship with the Father and the passages that clearly give Jesus nature. The presence of a tension to interpret is not, by itself proof that one side of that tension must be discarded.