- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Yes Ringo you have shown us all the negative scriptures but remember that those are only a few compared with the hundreds of positive ones.
Jesus talked about the church being like a field of wheat with tares in it. The wheat is far more obvious to the eye than the tares or it would be called a field of tares?
When a fishermen pulls in his net to sort the good fish from the useless ones there must be more good ones or who would bother fishing?
At the the wedding feast how many were thrown out from the crowd of guests for not being properly attired? One.
If I could understand your confusing questions I would reply but they seem too random and muddled. Can you try to make it easier for me as I am only a humble vinedresser.
Quote
Yes Ringo you have shown us all the negative scriptures but remember that those are only a few compared with the hundreds of positive ones.Why not take everything into account?? not just what you like??
Quote
Jesus talked about the church being like a field of wheat with tares in it. The wheat is far more obvious to the eye than the tares or it would be called a field of tares?Yes “let them all grow together” is the instruction. Otherwise some of the wheat might be destroyed. That is why GoD leaves us all here, living and diing, both good and evil, untill the coming Judgment.
Quote
When a fishermen pulls in his net to sort the good fish from the useless ones there must be more good ones or who would bother fishing?Your point?? Plus many people go fishing without catching anything.
But yes, when It talks about that in the bible, as “fishers of men” theyre net is them preaching the gospel.Quote
At the the wedding feast how many were thrown out from the crowd of guests for not being properly attired? One.Answered your own question. It is obvious that more than one will not be apart of the Kingdom.
Quote
If I could understand your confusing questions I would reply but they seem too random and muddled. Can you try to make it easier for me as I am only a humble vinedresser.I see…………
*************************************
So you call warnings about men changing scripture Negative???
So you call Jesus warnings negative???
The warnings and encouragement is one package, If you pick and choose what you like, then you are living in a delusion.
I call them truth, and thats the way the truth is, Not in ignorance but staring the uglyness of life, straight down the barrel.
But all things that are warning , rebuke encouragement, are all positive, For they lead to a better standing in the truth given us, we aare not to walk around stumbling in the dark, blindly following other men.
We are to ask for the holy spirit, and submit ourselves to the GoD of jesus christ.
GoD says he will destroy people. And you would protest him??
Seems as though you would rather choose ignorance rather than the facts. That the days are evil.
As Jesus said-
Luke 23
31For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”in my previous post It describes what happens when Jesus leaves. And its not preety, this is the reality we face.
So this is our charge. so we will be able to see through these days, and through the haze.
Philippians 1
9And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ,Ok Ringo .
You accept the God of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit but the rest is over to the individual and his interpretations of the Bible and you have no Faith in the New Testament or it's interpreters.But hang on Ringo. The same Holy Spirit WROTE the New Testament through the Bible writers so if you read it the Spirit will lead you to the true meanings.
All I am saying is that it too is charged with life and wisdom and none of us can afford to not trust it. God can get it's true meaning through to us despite the efforts of men.
Trust God Man
Quote
Ok Ringo .
You accept the God of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit but the rest is over to the individual and his interpretations of the Bible and you have no Faith in the New Testament or it's interpreters.But hang on Ringo. The same Holy Spirit WROTE the New Testament through the Bible writers so if you read it the Spirit will lead you to the true meanings.
All I am saying is that it too is charged with life and wisdom and none of us can afford to not trust it. God can get it's true meaning through to us despite the efforts of men.
Trust God Man
You think that trusting that a book is correct is trusting GoD??
Even the own writings in that book, Warn of the dangers of tampering, that men will do such things. Yet you denigh it!!
It makes no sense!! We are to test all things. So why dont you ask GoD. Whether certain things are right or not.
*******************************
Obey his commands, the basic ones, and he will give you more knowledge.
For GoD does not grant knowledge for knowledges sake, But he grants knowledge for action!!
Most of the original men from as it seems to me, Where under the direction of the holy spirit.
But as for now, We dont have the originals, Only copies of copies, earliest we have is hundreds of years after they were origionally written. Nore can the writers witness, that that was what was origionally intended.
This is why GoD confounds the wisdom of the wise, but reveals truths to little ones. For fools follow what they can hold.
But those who GoD favours, obey his simple word, loves theyre neibour, not just in words but in action. And understand that life comes from GoD, and not through books.
They rely on GoD for theyre knowledge, which he gives exceedingly slowly. For true knowledge is worth alot, But with it comes great responibility.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 25 2004,18:11) Thank you . Clever words indeed but manipulation of the truth ,in my opinion. What do others think?
Hi NH,
In what sense is it a manipulation of the truth? How would you personally translate the word 'harpagmos'?Hi Is,
The manipulation is in the suggestion that Jesus was equal with the Father which is clearly demonstrated to be false by the words of Jesus Himself.“the Father is greater than I”
The word “harpagmos” is unusual in that it only appears once in the NT.It has a root though “harpazo”which means caught up, snatch, take by force. So to say “harpagmos” means to “seize” or “grasp at” or “snatch” is straightforward. It also relates to the words pillage, rob and steal.
So it means to take what is not mine by right or to steal or usurp-these are all evil acts and acts of rebellion.Jesus would have to take what was not his by right-equality with His Father. He did not and would not.
Now they clever manipulators of truth have turned the phrase around to mean “to not hold onto what is rightfully mine”, or “to not insist on my rights and be prepared to let go of something I already have”.That is an evil work.
I am sure that if you looked at any other translation this true meaning would become clearer and this interpretation turns truth on it's head in defence of a human doctrine.
They needed to try to prove equality between Jesus and His Father so they could bolster the weak point of the trinity argument.
That argument is with Jesus.
The Father is greater that I. John 14:28.
Jesus' statement that the Father is greater than I is very important for understanding the relation between the Father and the Son. Arius, who lived in the fourth century, and others who have held views similar to his since then have taken this verse as proof that Jesus is not divine. The teachers of the church rejected this notion, and indeed it is not compatible with other material in this very Gospel. It has been clear from the first verse that the Son is one with God yet distinct from God (especially 1:1-18; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). In fact, this distinctness is now further clarified by Jesus' saying the Father is greater. From the time of the early church this verse has been the focus of much thought (cf. Westcott 1908:2:191-96; Pollard 1970). There have been two main ways to understand this verse that do justice to the oneness of the Father and the Son.
First, some say that the verse's focus is on Jesus' historical mission. The Father is greater in that he is the source and goal of Jesus' mission (for example, Calvin 1959:89-90; Brown 1970:655; Schnackenburg 1982:85-86; Ridderbos 1997:512). Others hold another form of this first view, which says the Father is greater than the Son in reference to his incarnate state (for example, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine; cf. Westcott 1908:2:195). Such focus on the incarnation as such or on Jesus' historical mission are quite compatible with “the belief in the unity of the divine Nature, and therefore with the belief in the equality of the Godhead of the Son with the Godhead of the Father” (Westcott 1908:2:191). Indeed, many of the fathers of the church accepted more than one view. But some also said that while the incarnate Son may be in view here, by itself this interpretation is inadequate. After all, it is no big deal to say that God is greater than a man (Basil Letter 8.5; Gregory of Nazianzus Oration 30.7).
While the words “Father” and “Son” are obviously taken from our human context, they refer, according to the second main interpretation of this verse, to realities within the Godhead itself. Fatherhood is not our projection onto God; rather it is from him that our fatherhood derives (cf. Eph 3:14-15). His fatherhood transcends our limited ideas and experience, but it is not less than that which is reflected amongst us, and indeed it provides a standard of true fatherhood. Now, to be a father one must have an offspring. Jesus is eternally Son; he is not just Son at his incarnation. Such was the faith of the ancient church, as expressed in the Nicene Creed, which refers to Jesus Christ as “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God.” So the Father is understood as the source of Jesus not just in his incarnation and mission, but in his eternal being as Son. “What else does the word Father signify unless the being, cause and origin of that which is begotten of him?” (Basil Against Eunomius 1.25; 3.1). The Father is greater in that he is the origin (eternally) of the Son, but he and the Son are equal in that they share the same nature (Gregory of Nazianzus Oration 30.7). To say that the Father is greater than the Son does not in the least mean that the Son does not share in the deity, since “comparisons are made between things of the same species” (Basil Letter 8.5). As D. A. Carson says, if he were to say, “`Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is greater than I,' no one would take this to mean that she is more of a human being than I” (1991:507). Thus, this passage gives a further glimpse into the relations within the Godhead without denying the oneness of the Father and the Son.
Given the focus in this Gospel on the relation between the Father and the Son it seems likely that the passage addresses this deeper issue. This does not mean that John himself was thinking in the categories the later church used to express the relation between the Father and the Son. But the fundamental mystery, the reality itself, is here revealed. The fact that the deeper relation is in view does not mean the reference to the incarnation is not also appropriate. C. K. Barrett stresses the incarnation view, but he actually captures nicely the two thoughts together in one sentence: “The Father is fons divinitatis [fountain/source of divine nature/Godhead] in which the being of the Son has its source; the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient” (1978:468).
The issues raised by this verse are matters of significant debate today. The false teaching of Arius is still quite prevalent, and thus the issue of Jesus' deity continues to be debated. But even among those who accept his oneness with God there is dispute over the nature of this relationship. Since the life of the church derives from and is to reflect the pattern of the life of God the question of hierarchy and equality within the Godhead has significant implications for our view both of God and of the life to which he calls us. Unfortunately, most of the debate seems to be between those promoting hierarchy on the one side and equality on the other. Few are wrestling with what seems to be the biblical picture of both hierarchy and equality. Fallen human society can understand hierarchy and equality separately, but to have them both at the same time is a concept found rarely if ever in fallen humanity. But then Jesus is quite clear that his kingdom is not of this world (18:36; cf. 8:23; 14:30). The patterns of kingdom life proposed by both hierarchicalists and egalitarians are altogether too much of this world. We need to take more seriously the otherworldly revelation John is passing on to us. We need now as much as ever the Paraclete to instruct us.
biblegateway.com
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 31 2004,22:09) the Son is God sent
Hi Is 1:18,I respect and use the Bible Gateway site, even in this site. But what you quoted to me is definately a personal spin on trying to take the words of Jesus and then making it fit with the predefined Trinity doctrine. This sort of activity is a sad one, yet common and is prophecied in scripture. To hear what their itching ears want to hear.
How many people really just take what Jesus our shepherd says and not fit them into a template of human wisdom or creed.
We are certainly living in the days of the falling away and great deception but that doesn't mean that we have to all be sucked into the philosophies of men. We all have a free will and choices, including the right ones still exist.
If you were willing to just take Jesus words and really seek the truth of their meaning, then you wouldn't keep trying to marry them to the creeds and doctrines of men. I am not saying that you don't have sincerity and a real relationship with God, but what are you really looking for and what is the fruit of your labour in the end?
The wide road is very big and the narrow path is walked by a few, but it is in our choice options which one we choose. Most walk down the wide road.
Did not most of the world (even the religious) take issue with Jesus words and mis-quote him etc. Well nothing has changed really. The religious of this world are still the same. Even Jesus own disciples didn't understand what he said and Jesus even said once, “How long must I suffer you”.
E.g take a look at what you quoted above. It may be easy to sneek it in (you or BibleGateway) but it is not scriptural.
I will reply to your other post further back. I need to re-read and reply. I have been in New Caledonia with limited access to the Internet.
thx
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 26 2004,12:56) This is what the highly-respected Biblegateway.com scholars have to say about this passage: In displaying the mind of Christ, Paul begins with one of those sublime sentences whose essential intent and meaning seem clear as can be yet whose parts are full of mystery and wonder. The reason for this is simple enough; on the basis of what was known and came to be believed about Jesus' earthly life, Paul is trying to say something about what could not be observed yet came to be believed about Christ's prior existence as God. What is essential is this: In his prior existence as God, Christ demonstrated what equality with God meant, not by taking advantage of it for himself but by emptying himself, by taking the role of a slave/servant in becoming one of us. All of this, in the present context, is to portray the ultimate expression of “do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.” What that “mind” entails is spelled out in the narrative that follows.
The details that need special attention are four: (1) Why does Paul say “in the form” of God (NIV margin) rather than simply say “as God”? (2) What does the word harpagmos mean (NIV something to be grasped; put above as “taking advantage of”)? (3) What did it mean for Christ to “empty himself” (NIV made himself nothing)? (4) Why in human likeness rather than “in his humanity” or something similar? Other details of significance will be noted in the process of looking at each of these matters in turn.First, the opening phrase, “who, being in the form [morphe] of God,” expresses as presupposition what the rest of the sentence assumes: that it was the preexistent Christ who “emptied himself” at one point in our human history. Why then did Paul use morphe, which primarily refers to the “form” or “shape” something takes? The answer lies in what Paul is about in this sentence. His urgency is to say something about Christ's “mindset” in both expressions of his being, first as God and second in his humanity. But in the transition from Christ's “being God” to his “becoming human,” Paul expresses by way of metaphor the essential “shape” of that humanity: Christ “took on the `form' of a slave.” Since morphe can denote “form” or “shape” in terms of both the external features by which something is recognized and the characteristics and qualities that are essential to it, it was precisely the right word to characterize both the reality (his being God) and the metaphor (his taking on the role of a slave). On the basis of Christ's resurrection and ascension, his earliest followers had come to believe that the One whom they had known as truly human had himself known prior existence in the “form” of God–not meaning that he was “like God but really not” but that he was characterized by what was essential to being God. This understanding (correctly) lies behind the NIV's in very nature God.
Second, in order to highlight the astonishing nature of the incarnation, Paul resorts to a typical “not/but” contrast. Reading such a sentence straight through without the “but” clause always helps to get at what is essential; in this case, “who, being in the form of God, . . . made himself nothing by taking the form of a servant/slave.” That is glory indeed; but to heighten the glory Paul emphasizes two realities: first, that “being in the form of God” means being equal with God; second, that in Christ's “being in the form of God/being equal with God” he displayed a mindset precisely the opposite of “selfish ambition” and empty glory (v. 3). To accent this second point he uses an extremely rare (negative) word, harpagmos, which depicts the opposite of “in humility consider others better than yourselves” (v. 3).
Harpagmos is a noun formed from a verb that means to “to seize, steal [hence the KJV's `robbery'], snatch, take away.” Although its meaning has been much debated, there is a growing consensus that its probable sense leans toward something like either “a matter of grasping or seizing” or “something grasped for one's own personal advantage.” In the first option the emphasis lies on the verbal side of the noun, on the idea of “seizing” as such. Thus Christ did not consider “equality with God” to consist of being “grasping” or “selfish”; rather he rejected this popular view of kingly power by pouring himself out for the sake of others. The alternative, which is probably preferable, is to see the word as a synonym of its cognate harpagma (“booty” or “prey”), which in idioms similar to Paul's denotes something like “a matter to be seized upon” in the sense of “taking advantage of” it (“he did not think he needed to take advantage of this equality with God,” Bockmuehl 1997:114).
In either case, the clause comes out very much at the same point. Equality with God is something that was inherent to Christ in his preexistence; but he did not consider Godlikeness to consist in “grasping” or “seizing” or as “grasping it to his own advantage,” which would be the normal expectation of lordly power–and the nadir of selfishness.
It is quite clear from scripture that the pre-existant Christ is none other than the Logos. The Logos came from God and was with him in the beginning, before creation. He was born of God (the first), infact the only one to be born directly from God.I have never really understood why men try to hide this truth by saying that Jesus is actually God himself. Perhaps it is to deceive men into breaking the first commandment or to lead men down the road of idolatory which history shows us.
i.e. If Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God and if Mary can be exhalted then why not do the same to special saints called saints. At this stage the true words of Jesus seem to have evaporated away.
It is sad, but this deception has lead most Christians down this idolatorous path. Perhaps over 1 billion people hold to this idolatory, many of those I think may also have a true faith in God too.
Let me make something clear. God cannot take the form of God. He is God. Not of God. He is not of himself. Jesus is of God, yes. Jesus is another person to God. He is of him.
1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.1 John 5:5
Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.John 20:31
But these are written that you may[ 20:31 Some manuscripts may continue to] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.John 6:69
We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.How much more proof does one need? This is the gospel my friend. God sent his son into the world, so that the world may be saved. God didn't come to the world and take a body. The Logos did.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 25 2004,23:35) If this is the case, then why does Paul distinguish the Father as God and the Son as Lord? Paul could have referred to both as God, but this certainly could have been misunderstood as polytheism. So he does the next best thing. He calls the Father God, which He is. He calls the Son Lord, which He also is. Lord is a direct reference to his deity. In fact, every time in Scripture where Jesus is called Lord the writer is emphasizing this aspect of Him. All throughout the Old Testament, the word “Lord” is used and applied to God. In a similar manner, Lord is ascribed to Christ because He is the same Lord as found in the Old Testament.
God Bless
Again a clever way to nullify what scripture teaches and get men to look to creeds and philosophies of Men.The word Lord is not the same as LORD. LORD, YHWH is God. Lord can be applied to many types of authorities. A landlord for example owns the property that you live on. That is a kind of authority, but no one equates a landlord to God.
Just as the Pharaoh ruled Egypt, he made Joseph lord of his kingdom. But Joseph was still subject and under the authority of the Pharaoh.
Joseph was not the Pharaoh. This is what the Trinity doctrine teaches us with regards to God and his son.
Lord and LORD are different.
Acts 2:36
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”He made him Lord. Just as the Pharaoh made Joseph ruler of his kingdom.
Paul correctly teaches us that there is 1 God and 1 Lord. That is simple enough for me and anyone to understand. Do you want Paul to teach you or Trinitarian scholars?
Without the benifit of 2000 years of hindsight, I wonder who you would have listened too. Jesus Christ a man with a poor mans cloak and an odd bunch of disciples, or the established Pharisees arrayed in cloth who had the respect of the religious community?
Hi T8,
Have to go away for a couple of days. Will post later in the week – in the mean time could you please address the Zech 14 issue. You keep writing that Lord is denotative of Jesus and LORD is denotative of the Father but you havent explained the anomoly in Zech 14:1-4 (and Gen 18, I believe). Whats the deal?PS, I posted the Biblegateway.com article to show that there are always several angles to consider when making a judgement on the correct interpretion of any verse, even seamingly clear-cut ones. You should be able to relate to this.
Quote (t8 @ July 31 2004,22:26) Without the benifit of 2000 years of hindsight, I wonder who you would have listened too. Jesus Christ a man with a poor mans cloak and an odd bunch of disciples, or the established Pharisees arrayed in cloth who had the respect of the religious community?
T8,
Getting a bit personal here dont you think. I suggest to you that I would have had less in common with the pharisees than you T8. They too refused to acknowledge Jesus' diety, despite all the evidence presented to them.Sorry if I come across as harsh, but I also question myself with the same vigour. I often ask myself how I would have reacted to a dude clothed in a poor cloke who questioned the religious structure of the day. Bearing in mind that there is so much stuff about Jesus today and many believers. Back then he started from zero reputation and as it is written that there were others who came before Christ but faded into obscurity.
Also I challenge all those who sit their theology from scholars, but I am not adverse to them. They certainly do not provide the foundation for my faith. I believe in reading the scripture myself and asking God to reveal truth to me through his Spirit. I then read the works of others to sharpen what God has shown me and to challenge my conclusions.
I guess I am saying that I do not start and finish with scholars as they are just as human as you and me. I try to check everything out.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 02 2004,09:10) They too refused to acknowledge Jesus' diety, despite all the evidence presented to them.
Where in scripture is this?John 5:18, 8:58 & 59, 10:30-33, 10:38 & 39
In Jn 5:18 the Jews were seeking to kill him because, He was “..making Himself equal with God”. In the other occasions in Ch 10, they tried to sieze and even stone Him for saying:
“I and the father are One” vs 30
“the Father is in me, and I in the Father” vs 38The high level of offense and extreme reactions by the pharisees to Jesus point to the fact that He actually claimed to be God. It seems obvious to me that the pharisees knew exactly what Jesus was implying when he said “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Jn 8:58
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 02 2004,01:35) Sorry if I come across as harsh, but I also question myself with the same vigour. I often ask myself how I would have reacted to a dude clothed in a poor cloke who questioned the religious structure of the day. Bearing in mind that there is so much stuff about Jesus today and many believers. Back then he started from zero reputation and as it is written that there were others who came before Christ but faded into obscurity.
No problem. I think if the poorly-cloaked dude started performing miracles, then your (and my) attention would have been captured. I believe Jesus would have been utterly magnetic and it was only the hardened of heart and prideful (pride, the leaven of the pharisees) who seemed not to be entranced by Him and his teachings. What an amazing privilage it would have been to be there at the time. Guess well have to wait our turn.True,
The miracles, his teaching and authority would have stood out to all those who were searching and open.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 06 2004,21:43) John 5:18, 8:58 & 59, 10:30-33, 10:38 & 39 In John 5:18 the Jews were seeking to kill him because, He was “..making Himself equal with God”. In the other occasions in Ch 10, they tried to sieze and even stone Him for saying:
“I and the father are One” vs 30
“the Father is in me, and I in the Father” vs 38The high level of offense and extreme reactions by the pharisees to Jesus point to the fact that He actually claimed to be God. It seems obvious to me that the pharisees knew exactly what Jesus was implying when he said “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Jn 8:58
Hi Is 1:18,I wrote this a while back.
Taken from
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-5.htm=====
John 10:27-36 (English-NIV).
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all [1]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one.
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'?
35 If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken–
36 what about the one whom the Father set ; Apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?One thing many Trintarians point out with this verse are the words “I and the Father are one”. Later we can see that the Jews thought that Jesus was claiming to be God. Therefore many Trintarians seizing this opportunity, claim that Jesus was saying he was God and this explains the Jews negative reaction. But on closer inspection, this part of scripture reveals the complete opposite. The irony here is that Jesus said earlier in verse 29, “My Father who has given them to me, is greater than all”.
After this accusation by the Jews, Jesus reminds them of the usage of the word “gods” in the Old Testament to correct their assumptions about his words. Jesus was actually referring to Psalms 82:6 which reads:
“I said, `You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.'After Jesus reminds the Jews of this, he then asks them:
…“Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's son'?”
(John 10:36 ).So he was reinforcing the fact that he is the son and we are sons. We can see that he certainly did not claim to be the Almighty God, rather he said that he was the Son of God. If you use this verse to say that Jesus is the Almighty God, then you are making the same error or accusation that the Jews made, and you are ignoring what Jesus said in defense of this accusation.
Now look at the following scripture which repeats the fact that the Father and Jesus are one. But it also says that we are one with them.
John 17:21 (English-NIV)
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.So if Jesus is God because he and the Father are one, then to be consistent, we would also have to be God too or are being invited to become God. Of course I do not hold to this thinking, but I want to point out the connations of interpretting John 5:18 as Jesus saying that he was God.
I hope you can see what Jesus was really trying to say. He was misunderstood or probably misquoted by the Jews many times, and also by by many today. It is the worldly religious spirit that often misquotes Jesus. I am not saying that you practice this, but I am warning you to not heed these worldy doctrines as they are not of God. I admonish you to be wise servant instead. For a wise man heeds the words of Christ and he doesn't change them for a lie or to what his itching ears want to hear.
When read correctly, Jesus was saying that he existed before their so-called beloved Father, Abraham. Jesus was pointing out that he is greater than Abraham, not that he was God or even equal to him.
Quote
In Jn 5:18 the Jews were seeking to kill him because, He was “..making Himself equal with God”. In the otherJohn 5
18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.Interesting you left out the full charge!!!
GoD his own Father.
Now, does Being the son of someone Make you equal??? sounds like the pharasees were triing to make the people think that Being the Son of GoD makes you equal. For we the ones who are saved are all children of GoD. And that does not make us equal to GoD.
This charge is similar to another pharasee charge, that tries to manipulate the people.
John 10:31-33
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”A pharasee's charge. But Jesus responds.
GoD calls others GoD's. But say I am only the Son of GoD.
The Pharasee's accused him of being GoD, to test him, to see if he was insane, So then they could stone him, because, all the people knew there was only one GoD.
But Jesus answers Plainly.
John 10:34-36
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[5] ? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken– 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
