I would say, you' d have t distinguish between the first 3 gospels and the fourth, that of John. John' s gospel is a different animal and that is immediately clear when considering the first few versus of chapter 1.

That said, I was responding to your positive and forcefully posited claim that " Jesus" claimed to be God.

That said, let' s now consider your reply above. The use of the word "So", at the beginning of your sentence, implies a direct logical link between this sentence and the previous one with which you acknowledged my statement, that the Jews had claimed he had made himself equal to God (forgiving sin).

In my view, there is no such logical connection, as there is an entirely different explanation possible. This explanation also looks upon the issue the Christian Church has wrestled with to explain the unity of God and Son.

Trinities are not uncommon. As a matter of fact, the Celts, Dietz, and Nors peoples all have trinities in their belief-systems, that can be considered as preludes to Tertulian gymnastics to explain the unexplainable. (You may be amazed at the use of the word Dietz for German, but I simply detest the Latin labeling as absolute truth and use the words as was used by the peoples themselves, and I am Dietz also.;-))

It would be equal to explaining the spiritual connection between a man and God. This s mystical and meant to not be explained but experienced. And this is the main issue with Christianity. Despite it being an important step forward in the abstraction from, for example judaism, and whereas Islam is a step backward, it is a limiting experience for people because of it rigidity introduced for all kinds of reasons, one of which is most important, and that is control by the Roman State.

Leaving behind therefor all the attempt by actors to impose control of the narrative, I would have to consider the claims of unity by Jesus, as were delivered to us in writing through all kinds of filters and alterations, in the light of a personal experience.

The gospels tell you about Jesus Baptism. And the witness tells us that he saw Gods spirit come upon him like a dove. The inference here is the natural unity between God and Jesus became more intense. However, this is not what Jesus says. This is what a witness says. That is his experience.

Are you starting to cognize what I am saying and going with this? It is far from me to claim what Jesus has claimed or not based on poorly conceived records. The destruction, falsification, and clearly the political agenda in construing the New Testament all testify against a forceful stance on what the man Jesus has claimed or not.

This brings me to another point of contention, which is the Julians and Flavians need to quell rebellious uprisings. Several investigators have pointed to amazing similarities in the live of Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ.

And, Caesar was promoted to the rank of god, after having been the Pontifex Maximus for decades. From this perspective, only a ignorant zealot can have a problem with such an idea. This is quite remarkable on its face, as their scripture clearly indicates Moses becoming a god before Pharaoh.

Apropos pontifex. Pontifex = bridge builder. Within the Christian frame of mind, the Maximus here then should be Christ, as he is the only way, no? The Pope, adhering to this appropriated Roman title, is actually equaling himself to somebody he should not.

So, and this is the logical response to your question, the answer to your question must be: No, I am not claiming Jesus is not God. But neither am I claiming he is.