One God Worship

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Walter

Active member
Jul 20, 2022
373
212
43
75
Washington
#21
Anthony Buzzard isn't the publisher of the One God Worship website, but the sites administrator has gotten their information from him, because they have almost verbatim regurgitated his arguments.
Who Is the author of One God Worship website? - Google Search ,

Who is God - One God Worship
https://onegodworship.com › category › who-is-god





Oct 12, 2021 — Award winning author, Rabbi Reuven Hammer, writes regarding the meaning of this Jewish creed: Briefly, the first paragraph,…
 

Walter

Active member
Jul 20, 2022
373
212
43
75
Washington
#22
You posted a Unitarian (of the Socinian persuation) website. What exactly is the purpose of posting it? Is there a particular text you'd like to discuss? I read through several articles in the "Common Verses" section, particularly in regards to John 1:1 and am less than impressed. It seems like the administrator of the One God Worship website is regurgitating information from Anthony Buzzard. The articles on John 1:1 can easily be dismantled. I'd like to talk about it if you have time.
Ok William, what you wanted to talk about above?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
19,137
9,919
113
#23
Oct 12, 2021 — Award winning author, Rabbi Reuven Hammer, writes regarding the meaning of this Jewish creed
What could a Jewish rabbi with a name like Hammer possibly have to say to any Christian? And why would any Christian even post a nonsensical thread when there is plenty of good material to post?
 

Walter

Active member
Jul 20, 2022
373
212
43
75
Washington
#24
What could a Jewish rabbi with a name like Hammer possibly have to say to any Christian? And why would any Christian even post a nonsensical thread when there is plenty of good material to post?
Seems to me you have a bit of indignation.
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
7,418
3,308
113
#25
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Hosea 11:9
9I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Luke 18:19
19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

John 14:28
28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
 

Pilgrimshope

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2020
7,533
2,796
113
#26
Jesus' claim to be "the Son of God" is the reason the Jews attempt to stone Him, hence Mark 14:61-64,



And again in John 19:7,



The Jews did not falsely accuse Jesus of being God, but understood "the Son of God" title in a way that places Him on par with God. In the John 10 discourse Jesus calls God His own "Father" at least seven times prior to the events that lead up to v. 31. What are the implications of Jesus calling God, "Father"? John 5 has the answer, "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

The Jews thought of Jesus as no more than a man who claimed for Himself an exalted status. Comparably, there is an interesting account found in the intertestamental literature of 2 Macc. 9:12, where Antiochus IV Epiphanes acclaimed such a status for Himself,



What the OT says about YHWH in Psalm 95, Jesus alludes to and attributes to Himself. You can go back to the previous post to see the allusions. The precise language underlying John 10:28 parallels that of Isaiah 43:13 LXX and Deuteronomy 32:39 LXX,





This language found on the lips of Jesus comes from contexts (i.e., Isaiah 43:13, Deut. 32:39), which speak of YHWH alone being God.



The association with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication (also known as “Second Tabernacles”) provides us with some context to Jesus’ statements. Jesus’ run in with the Jews unfolds at the heel of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:1-10:21); the very occasion Ps. 95 and Deut. 32 would have been sung by the congregations of Israel (Deut. 31:21-32:43). Given this context, Jesus' words would resonate with His audience. They hear Jesus attributing language to Himself that Deut. 32:39 attributes to God. Elsewhere the NT authors utilize language from Deut. 32 with reference to Jesus; therefore, it is not so strange to find Jesus doing this very thing.

For example, the question raised in 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 (“Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”) is an allusion to the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:21, “They have provoked me to jealousy with what is no god”), the very place Paul alludes to when he speaks of Christ as “the rock” (cf. Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 31). Of course, Paul’s reference to “the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:22) is a reference to Jesus. The “cup of the Lord” and “table of the Lord” are a reference to the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-28, 10:16-17). On this point, there is an interesting parallel found in Malachi 1:7-12, where “the table of the Lord” expression is used for the altar which the prophet Malachi warned against defiling, something the Corinthians were also warned against by Paul.

Another example is found in Hebrews 1:6, where the author attributes language from Deut. 32:43 LXX to speak of the worship due to Jesus:
“Jesus' claim to be "the Son of God" is the reason the Jews attempt to stone Him, hence Mark 14:61-64,”

because they knew this was his claim to be the fulfillment of this

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭9:6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

they understood who the promised son of God was that he was God manifest in the flesh

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭43:10-13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

a Jesus didn’t just say “I’m the son of God “
He said “I Am “ and actually revealed it

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

thats a claim

“and the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭40:5, 9-11‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭43:15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

We know because of the gospel who the lord is , the holy one the creator and king he’s the same one who spoke from heaven beforehand and said he would come and accomplish all these things

Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭48:12‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭1:17-

awe know who loves and died and rose forever his name is Jesus the first and the last the aloha and omega beginning and the end the one true God

“And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2:8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭22:12-13, 16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

when the argument is “ Jesus claimed to be Gods son “ it means this

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:20-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

no one ever really knew God until he came to dwell Among us made himself known in the son

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:1-3, 14, 18‬ ‭KJV‬‬


In the ot they saw God but there was a veil hiding him so they never saw him clearly only a shadow , never actually knew and understood him until he came and was born among man and then returned after to heaven becoming all we needed to be saved

The son of God is the full manifestation of God in the flesh the father son and holt spirit together in one man Jesus Christ the fullness of God

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The ot didn’t know the son or the spirit the New Testament is the father in the son who gives his Holy Spirit to believers

The son is how we know the father
 
Feb 24, 2009
2,212
588
113
#27
would you mind pointing out what in particular is wrong in Walter’s link that merited a rebuke in Jesus’ name?

I see you provided a passage and bolded a verse that I assume is key to you in some way, but I’m not sure what that is exactly.

Please note, the false accusation made against Jesus was a pretense to stone Him and it wasn’t because He outright claimed to be Lord God Almighty. The Jews interpreted “I and my Father are one” to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God, but that isn’t exactly what He said. He claimed to be God’s Son, but they didn’t want to hear any of that by then.

Here’s a snippet from Jesus’ prayer that should clear up what He was talking about exactly:

John 17 KJV
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

When Jesus is referring to His disciples all being “one” and “one in us” He wasn’t saying that they become God when they are one in them. He’s talking about the spiritual union that comes from belief and obedience to Jesus as Lord.

To be one with Jesus is a very good place to be and it will shelter us from the wrath of God in the end, but being one with Jesus doesn’t make us Jesus anymore than Jesus being one with His Father made Jesus His Father.

Make a bit more sense now? This isn’t milk of the word and Christians sometimes go their whole life missing this crucial understanding of the Trinity.

God bless.
Running man-- do you know the Jewish concept of agency?

It's when a man talks to someone and the message they are giving is-- as if it were the originators. They are an agent for another but their message is the originators.

When Jesus says I AM.. and I and the Father are one.. to the Jews.. that is saying 'I am God'

Let there be no doubt. Plus Son of God.. means God. Son as in 'image'.. 'expression'
 
Feb 24, 2009
2,212
588
113
#28
Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Hosea 11:9
9I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Luke 18:19
19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

John 14:28
28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
The Father is greater than I....

After saying this Jesus ascends to be equal-- one with the Father! Read the whole context man! It's like me saying.. the president of the USA is greater than I. The president is not actually a superior being.. but is in a greater POSITION. Same thing here. The father in heaven.. Jesus on earth.. but that is very shortly about to change.
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
7,418
3,308
113
#29
The Father is greater than I....

After saying this Jesus ascends to be equal-- one with the Father! Read the whole context man! It's like me saying.. the president of the USA is greater than I. The president is not actually a superior being.. but is in a greater POSITION. Same thing here. The father in heaven.. Jesus on earth.. but that is very shortly about to change.
1 Corinthians 15
27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.
 
Feb 24, 2009
2,212
588
113
#30
1 Corinthians 15
27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.
That doesn't look like a great translation Runningman.. but anyway, God the Father and God the Son are distinct in the Trinity. Different personas of God. So.. we can have God being referred to distinctly from Jesus, because of the context of the passage. Doesn't mean the Father is superior.

In Revelation, Jesus is speaking to the churches.. which is also the Holy Spirit speaking to the churches. And Jesus is referred to as the Alpha and Omega.. which is a term used for the Father in the OT. There are many many other verses. You gotta put them in context.

Jesus did things 'by the hand of the Father' .. again.. to the Jews.. that would be like saying 'I am equal to the Father.'

There is no inferiority in the trinity. One triune God. All personas of the one God equal.
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
7,418
3,308
113
#31
That doesn't look like a great translation Runningman.. but anyway, God the Father and God the Son are distinct in the Trinity. Different personas of God. So.. we can have God being referred to distinctly from Jesus, because of the context of the passage. Doesn't mean the Father is superior.

In Revelation, Jesus is speaking to the churches.. which is also the Holy Spirit speaking to the churches. And Jesus is referred to as the Alpha and Omega.. which is a term used for the Father in the OT. There are many many other verses. You gotta put them in context.

Jesus did things 'by the hand of the Father' .. again.. to the Jews.. that would be like saying 'I am equal to the Father.'

There is no inferiority in the trinity. One triune God. All personas of the one God equal.
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 KJV
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Matthew 24:36 KJV
36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

John 5:30 KJV
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Hebrews 4:15 KJV
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

James 1:13 KJV
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Hebrews 5:7-9 KJV
7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
 
Feb 24, 2009
2,212
588
113
#32
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 KJV
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Matthew 24:36 KJV
36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

John 5:30 KJV
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Hebrews 4:15 KJV
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

James 1:13 KJV
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Hebrews 5:7-9 KJV
7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Well, at least for one of these passages so far... Jesus being without sin...

That means He is God.

And Him being sent by the Father... Jesus was pre existent before being as Jesus, as the Word whom all things were made.

Still equal to the Father.
 
Feb 18, 2015
222
28
28
#33
What’s different from the words of His accusers and the words of Jesus is that He didn’t claim to be God in those verses. That means the ones who are not telling the truth are His accusers. He claimed to be God’s Son.

They may have rightly understood that to mean Jesus was equal to God in the sense He was perfectly sinless, but they took that a step further because they were looking for a reason to stone Him.

Jesus did everything He saw His Father do and that made Him one with God. We believe in Jesus and do everything we see Him do and that makes us one with Jesus. It isn’t that we are literally perfectly sinless, but rather we receive substitutionary righteousness through Christ and become viewed as without sin in a legal sense.

This verse seems to sum it up pretty good.

2 Cor. 5:21
21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Even though your post is not all that long, there is a lot to address, so because there is a max limit on the characters you can use in a post, I am going to have to split this up into two halves.

Let’s start by addressing the elephant in the room: We are speaking two very different languages here. You have claimed twice that Jesus never claimed to be God, but then go on to conflate “God” with "the Father,”

So claiming to be a son of God isn’t the same thing as claiming to be God which is something the Pharisees desperately wanted Jesus to say, but He never outright said it because Jesus isn’t the Father.
And again,

It was definitely a false accusation to take leaps and bounds from being the Son of God to laying on Him the false charge of claiming to be His Father.
While no one denies the Father is God, it would be an error to think that by calling Jesus “God,” that this is the same thing as calling Jesus “the Father.” This assumes that I’m arguing for a Modalistic interpretation, which is contradictory in and of itself, because Modalism is a form of Unitarianism. Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are polar opposites.

In John 10:30, when Jesus says, “I and the Father we are one,” no Jew is going to hear those words and accuse Jesus of claiming to be the Father. Why? Because the use of ἕν ἐσμεν (“we are one”). The verb ἐσμεν is plural; thereby, the distinction between Jesus and the Father is maintained. Further, as the One God Worship website acknowledges,

What does it mean that Jesus and the Father are one? Is it one in purpose as I have suggested or one in essence as Trinitarians claim? The Greek language here gives us insight into Jesus’ meaning. The word “one” in the Greek is either “hen” or “heis” depending on the context. Hen (or en) is used to describe one thing, while heis is used to mean one person. For example, Mark 12:29 says, “…Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord…” The “one” here in the Greek is heis because “one” refers to a person, not a thing. If in John 10:30 Jesus was trying to communicate that he and the Father were both God, he would have said, “I and the Father are one (heis)” because “persons” are what is united. However, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one (hen), because they are united in their purpose or function which is a “thing.”
While I don’t agree entirely that εἷς refers to “one person,” the term does carry the connotations of a numerical one. Jesus does not use this term when He says, “I and the Father we are one.” So to argue that the Jews understood Jesus’ words in this way when the language doesn’t seem to suggest it, requires stretching of the narrative to make it work. What’s rather interesting is that in Post #8, you cite John 17:22 as a counter to John 10:30, yet you suggest that John 10:30 (which uses the exact same term) is supposed to be understood completely different so as to conform to the notion that the Jews were falsely accusing Jesus of being the Father. This requires quite a bit of flip-flopping.

Jesus’ claim to be “the Son of God” is very different from the way angels or men can be called sons of God. For example, in Hebrews 1:5, the question is raised,

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”?
The question is a rhetorical one, designed with the intent of drawing its reader to a dramatic, thought-provoking conclusion. Simply put, God never said this of any angel. Yet, we read in the OT that angels are referred to as “sons of God” (Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). The difference, however, is one of royal Sonship: Angels are not God’s sons in the sense that David and the physical heirs of David who sat on David’s throne were God’s sons. This type of Sonship that Jesus possesses was given to David and his household (2 Samuel 7, 1 Chron. 17, Psalm 89); whereby, God authorizes His chosen representative to occupy His throne on earth, mediating His presence. This is not what the Jews claimed of themselves.

With that in purview, I want to address the comment you made,

Claiming to be the Son of God or a son of God isn’t a problem, nor is it blasphemy, but in the verses you mentioned it was used as a false accusation for blasphemy.
If it were anyone other than Jesus claiming to be “the Son of God” in the way He attributes such title to Himself, would that be blasphemous? Take for example the words of Jesus in Matthew 26:63-66 (cf. Mark 14:61–64),

But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I place You under oath by the living God, to tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his [b]robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
Notice how v. 63 places “the Son of God” in juxtaposition with “the Christ” (or “the Messiah”). This goes hand-in-hand the royal Sonship idea expressed above. Had I claimed to be the royal Son of God, the Christ, who is seated at the right hand of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven, would you charge me with blasphemy? It is not blasphemous only if it applies to the true recipient of God’s divine appointment. Jesus’ audience thought He was some kind of usurper trying to claim for Himself a lofty and exalted status, not recognizing Him for who He truly is: God’s anointed.

(Continued...)
 
Feb 18, 2015
222
28
28
#34
This is the second half of my previous response (from Post #33).

Lastly, I think you are missing the point in John 8. You cite John 8:41, but just one verse prior (John 8:40), Jesus states,

“But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God; this Abraham did not do” (John 8:40)
Pay particular attention to the language. Jesus states that, unlike the Jews of Jesus’ day, Abraham did not try to kill Him. But there remains a question: At what point in time would Abraham even had seen Jesus to have the opportunity to do so? The immediate context, and the overall context of John’s gospel sheds quite a bit of light. In the immediate context, we find the answer in John 8:58-59,

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I am.”
In John 8:58, Jesus expresses an existence of a different order than that of Abraham by contrasting between Abraham, who “came into being” (genesthai), and He, who simply is (ego eimi). As I have expressed elsewhere on various forums,

By itself, ego eimi does not imply eternal pre-existence; however, when placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai (“came into being”), ego eimi or its related forms (because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb “to be”) stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of “coming into being.” It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 that ego eimi implies eternality, not merely temporal priority. Jesus’ words closely echoes Psalm 90:2, which speaks of the eternal being of God in contrast to those things that “came into being” — “Before the mountains came into being (genethenai) and the earth and world were formed, even from age to age, You are (su ei, second-person equivalent of ego eimi),” Psalm 90:2 (see LXX).
Further, in case you didn’t catch it the first time (and as expressed in my previous post), what is so ironic about the ego eimi statement of Jesus in John 8:58, is that it occurs in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:1-10:21). The Feast of Tabernacles is the very occasion the Song of Moses was to be recited (Deut. 31:21-32:43), and it is here that we read (according to the LXX),

Behold, behold that I am (ἐγώ εἰμι),
And there is no god besides Me.
I kill, and I will make alive;
I will smite, and I will heal;
And there is no one who shall deliver out of My hand. (Deut. 32:39 LXX)
Additionally, in further answering the quesion, “At what point in time would Abraham even had seen Jesus to have the opportunity to do so?”, the overall context of John’s gospel provides us with more details.

The prologue of John’s gospel speaks of the Word existing “with” God. The term used here for “with” is the Greek word πρὸς (pros), which, when followed by a noun in the accusative case, speaks of face-to-face communion, interaction. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g., 1:29, 42, 47). Of course, this comports well with John 17:5, where Jesus speaks of His pre-existence with the Father. This πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (John 1:1b) language or some slight variation thereof, is used throughout the Testaments — some (17) occurrences of the phrase found within the NT, according to NA28 (Jn. 1:1, 2, 13:3; 1 Jn 3:21; Rev. 12:5, 13:6; Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Phillippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT/LXX (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). Also, similar phraseology (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα) is found in John 5:45; 14:6, 12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 20:17; 1 John 1:2. In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communication with one another.

Later in the prologue (John 1:18) we are met with an admittedly curious phrase, “No one has ever seen God.” Yet, throughout Scripture men are said to have seen God, even “face-to-face.” For instance, Genesis 15:1 states,

“the Word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision” (Genesis 15:1 LXX)
The language here is similar to what’s found in John 1:1b — ῥῆμα Κυρίου πρὸς Ἀβρὰμ — but instead of “the Word” being “with God”; it is “the Word of the LORD” that came to (or was “with”) Abram. Hence, Abram had a visionary experience where he saw the Word, and addressed Him as none other than YHWH (Genesis 15:2; also see Jeremiah 1). Abraham was not experiencing some mental disorder (i.e., psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder); he was not interacting with voices he heard in his head, but was interacting with someone other than himself.

In John 1:18 we are met with an OT allusion to 1 Samuel 3. In the account of 1 Samuel 3, we read,

Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, nor had the Word of the Lord yet been revealed to him. So the Lord called Samuel again for the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, ‘Here I am, for you called me.’ Then Eli discerned that the Lord was calling the boy… And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, because the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the Word of the Lord. (1 Samuel 3:7-9, 21)
Everyone who has ever seen YHWH, has in fact seen the “one and only God” through or by means of the Word; for He is the one who exposits God to men (ἐξηγέομαι) — He who is “the image of the invisible God.” Similarly, the prologue of John refers to Jesus as “the Word,” and attributes to Jesus actions performed by the mysterious “the Word of the LORD” figure in the OT. It is because Jesus (as the Word) is, as to His nature, God; He is then thereby qualified to perfectly reveal/exegete the Father (cf. John 12:45, 14:9), as He is the exact reflection of God's very being.

To further illustrate that “the Word” in John 1:1 is personal, John 1:3a uses the δια + the genitive construct,

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
All things came into being through Him
The significance of this is brought out on pg. 373 of Daniel Wallace’s, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics,

An intermediate agent, usually expressed by δια + the genitive, is an agent who acts on behalf of another or in the place of another. This agent is not, strictly speaking, used by another as an instrument would be” (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 373)
This sort of construct (δια + the genitive) is typically used to express or denote agency. Hence, in John 1:7, 1:10, 3:17 — it is used to express real, personal agency.
 
Feb 18, 2015
222
28
28
#35
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 KJV
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Matthew 24:36 KJV
36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

John 5:30 KJV
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Hebrews 4:15 KJV
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

James 1:13 KJV
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Hebrews 5:7-9 KJV
7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
One observation, if I may. This is not necessarily a criticism for you per se, but also for other users on this forum: Citing a litany of passages is not fruitful to discussions. It seems certain threads get hijacked by people posting so many passages to proof-text what they think favors their position, and in doing so makes a fruitful dialogue almost impossible.

With that tid-bit out of the way, I want to address some of these passages. I am trying to avoid writing another 10,000+ word post(s), so I’m going to respond in part.

Let’s first consider Matt. 24:36,

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
Keep in mind just thirteen chapters earlier in Matt. 11:27, Jesus says,

All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Jesus says, no one knows the Son except the Father. And no one knows the Father except the Son. Jesus’ knowledge of the Father is reciprocal. The same way the Father knows the Son, the Son knows the Father. And no one is qualified, or can know Jesus except the Father. Who does Jesus think He is? No one is able to know the Son; only the Father has that ability and capacity. Only someone who is incomprehensible by nature, is beyond the ability of another to know, which is why only God can know, because the Father has a divine mind and can comprehend the incomprehensible. The Father knows the Son inside and out — knowing every thought and tittle He’s had, have, and will have — and Jesus says He knows the Father in that exact same way, which is why He alone is qualified to make the Father known. Not only does Jesus claim to have an omniscient mind (which is required to know the Father truly as He is), but that He is also incomprehensible (for only the Father can know the Son). Long before Jesus speaks the words in Matthew 24:36, Jesus claims to be the incomprehensible, omniscient Son, who knows the Father to the same degree and extent that the Father knows the Son, and therefore, is equal to the Father in understanding, wisdom, and knowledge.

Additionally, there is an OT parallel to the Second Coming of Jesus found in Zechariah 14:1–7,

Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the East; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from East to West by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the North and the other half toward the South. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light.
In this text the day of the Lord is referenced (the second coming of Christ). We are told YHWH will stand on the Mount of Olives and split it upon His advent (v. 4), and that this Lord’s day is known to Him (v. 7). However, Acts 1:11-12 proves that it is Jesus who will come on the Lord’s Day and stand on the Mount of Olives:

They also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.’ Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. (Acts 1:11-12)
Since Jesus is the LORD mentioned in Zechariah 14:4 who stands on the Mount of Olives on the Lord’s Day as Acts 1:11-12 establishes, He is by implication likewise the LORD who knows the unique day in v. 7. Thus, Christ does know the day of His return in His full divine consciousness, contra the false understanding of those who misuse Matthew 24:36.

You cite James 1:13,

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
Your purpose for citing this text is to show that God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was (Matt. 4:1-11); therefore, Jesus is not the eternal Son, who is God in essence. However this raises a question: How could the Israelites tempt God when He was in their presence, and He’s not in the flesh? For example, consider Ps. 106:14 (cf. Numbers 14:22, Deut. 6:16),

But craved intensely in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert.
How do the Israelites tempt God in the desert? Does that mean God is not God, because He was tempted by human creatures?

You can be tempted externally, or internally. “Internally,” meaning you have desires that can cause you to succumb to temptation. For example, if you’re a single man that struggles with intimacy, a woman comes before you, and she tempts you – that’s “external.” But now you have desires for her — that’s “internal.” She’s tempting you externally, and you begin getting tempted internally and you succumb. In the OT many people tempt God, but because God is God — upright and holy — there is nothing inside Him that would cause Him to desire those temptations and succumb/fall to them. Any time a creature does something against God’s will and does something that grieves and angers God — that’s tempting God.

The Holy Spirit is even said to be tempted in Acts 5:9,

Then Peter said to her, 'Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.'
Ironically, even in the very context which you allude to about Jesus being tempted, Jesus cites Deut. 6:16 (Matt. 4:7), which is a reference to the Israelites tempting (or “testing”) God. Additionally, recall what I said in an earlier post regarding 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 (which is relevant to this topic),

For example, the question raised in 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 (“Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?”) is an allusion to the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:21, “They have provoked me to jealousy with what is no god”), the very place Paul alludes to when he speaks of Christ as “the rock” (cf. Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 31). Of course, Paul’s reference to “the Lord” (1 Cor. 10:22) is a reference to Jesus. The “cup of the Lord” and “table of the Lord” are a reference to the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-28, 10:16-17). On this point, there is an interesting parallel found in Malachi 1:7-12, where “the table of the Lord” expression is used for the altar which the prophet Malachi warned against defiling, something the Corinthians were also warned against by Paul.
Given this, there seems to be a connection between "provoking the Lord" (1 Cor 10:22), and "testing Christ" (1 Cor. 10:9).
 
Feb 18, 2015
222
28
28
#36
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 KJV
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Matthew 24:36 KJV
36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

John 5:30 KJV
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Hebrews 4:15 KJV
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

James 1:13 KJV
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Hebrews 5:7-9 KJV
7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Regarding the citations in Hebrews (both, 4:15 and 5:7-9), I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Did you miss the entire chapter of Hebrews 1?

Within the very same chapter of the Book of Hebrews, Jesus is described as the eternal one who existed before all time,

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the aeons (or ‘ages’). (Hebrews 1:2)
The term here rendered as “aeons” (or “ages”) is αἰῶνας (aiōnas), which is the accusative masculine plural of αἰῶνα (aiōna), and refers to all epochs of time, whether past, present, or future. If all epochs of time were created by the Father “through the Son,” then by necessity, it follows that “the Son” was there before time itself began, and is thereby timeless.

Further, in Hebrews 1:7 there is a reference to Ps. 104:4 LXX. In this text Ps. 104:4 LXX is specifically used to distinguish between the angels who were “made,” or “created” (ποιῶν) in contrast to He who is “forever and ever.” In it’s original context, YHWH is contrasted to the heavenly celestial beings. The angels are as variable as the wind; they are changeable. They are transitory like flames of fire and can pass off the scene at some point, but YHWH is immutable and unchanging. Whereas the Psalmist is contrasting between created celestial beings and YHWH, who is eternal; the author of Hebrews utilizes this text to draw a contrast between created celestial beings and Jesus. And notice how Hebrews 1:7 (cf. Ps. 104:4-5 LXX) is linked to what follows in Hebrews 1:10–12,

You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, and like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.
In Ps. 104:5 LXX it speaks of YHWH as, “He established the earth upon its foundations.” Yet we hear that very same echo in Hebrews 1:10–12. According to Ps. 104, “He” who “established the earth upon its foundations” is the one whom “wisdom” is said to subside with (Ps. 104:24 LXX). Yet, with it’s reference to Ps. 102, the epistle identifies the Son as that one — whom, according to Ps. 104 — carried out the very specific action of laying the foundation of the earth. Psalm 102:24-27 LXX was originally about the immutable and unchanging characteristics of YHWH, but the author of Hebrews applies it to none other than Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:10–12). That Ps. 104:4 (cf. Hebrews 1:7) is used to distinguish between the “created” celestial beings, and the eternal and unchanging Lord, Jesus Christ; and that Ps. 104:5 is thematically and intertextually connected to Ps. 102:24–27 — the use of both texts cohesively speak to the eternal nature of Jesus Christ.

One cannot argue that Hebrews 1:10-12 refers to anything but the Genesis creation, because the text explicitly says that heaven and earth will "perish." This is consistent with Matt. 24:35, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Revelation 21:1.
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
7,418
3,308
113
#37
While no one denies the Father is God, it would be an error to think that by calling Jesus “God,” that this is the same thing as calling Jesus “the Father.” This assumes that I’m arguing for a Modalistic interpretation, which is contradictory in and of itself, because Modalism is a form of Unitarianism. Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are polar opposites.
I'm pointing out the false accusations of Jesus' accusers who obviously were non-trinitarians. I don't see that the Pharisees believed in either Trinitarianism or Unitarianism, but rather in purer kind of monotheism. They essentially believed God is one entity and literally no one else is or can be God.

You may have noticed, it had to be asked who Jesus was referring to when he mentioned his Father. It wasn't intuitive to them that when Jesus spoke of his Father that he was talking about Lord God Almighty. The idea of a Son of God being part of a Trinity God was entirely foreign to them. Hence why it wasn't considered blasphemy to call oneself "The Son of God" since the Pharisees themselves also laid claim to that title as God's people of the covenant.

In John 10:30, when Jesus says, “I and the Father we are one,” no Jew is going to hear those words and accuse Jesus of claiming to be the Father. Why? Because the use of ἕν ἐσμεν (“we are one”). The verb ἐσμεν is plural; thereby, the distinction between Jesus and the Father is maintained. Further, as the One God Worship website acknowledges,
Actually that's exactly what they did after what Jesus said in John 10:30. They thought when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" that he was saying that he is claiming to be God. At this point they understood who Jesus was referring to when he mentioned his Father. They knew Jesus was calling YWHW his Father. The charge of blasphemy was a false accusation, but it gave them the pretense they needed to kill Jesus.

John 10:33
30I and the Father are one.”

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”




While I don’t agree entirely that εἷς refers to “one person,” the term does carry the connotations of a numerical one. Jesus does not use this term when He says, “I and the Father we are one.” So to argue that the Jews understood Jesus’ words in this way when the language doesn’t seem to suggest it, requires stretching of the narrative to make it work. What’s rather interesting is that in Post #8, you cite John 17:22 as a counter to John 10:30, yet you suggest that John 10:30 (which uses the exact same term) is supposed to be understood completely different so as to conform to the notion that the Jews were falsely accusing Jesus of being the Father. This requires quite a bit of flip-flopping.
When Jesus said "I am the Father are one" he was referring to spiritual union. If we can understand what it means to be one with Jesus, one united body, then we can understand what it means for Jesus and his Father to be one. Again, it doesn't mean that when we are one united body that we become each other, but rather we are connected. Jesus used parables of trees with branches and vines to try to explain this.

Jesus’ claim to be “the Son of God” is very different from the way angels or men can be called sons of God. For example, in Hebrews 1:5, the question is raised,
It's not different at all. Compared John 3:16 to Hebrews 1:15 for starters. However, the relationship is different. Jesus as the "only begotten" Son of God refers to offspring. Sons of God in the sense of angels and mankind refers to either sons by creation or by adoption.


The question is a rhetorical one, designed with the intent of drawing its reader to a dramatic, thought-provoking conclusion. Simply put, God never said this of any angel. Yet, we read in the OT that angels are referred to as “sons of God” (Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). The difference, however, is one of royal Sonship: Angels are not God’s sons in the sense that David and the physical heirs of David who sat on David’s throne were God’s sons. This type of Sonship that Jesus possesses was given to David and his household (2 Samuel 7, 1 Chron. 17, Psalm 89); whereby, God authorizes His chosen representative to occupy His throne on earth, mediating His presence. This is not what the Jews claimed of themselves.
Yes and no. I would like to reiterate that being a "begotten Son" refers to offspring.


If it were anyone other than Jesus claiming to be “the Son of God” in the way He attributes such title to Himself, would that be blasphemous? Take for example the words of Jesus in Matthew 26:63-66 (cf. Mark 14:61–64),
No it wouldn't be blasphemy. As I showed you before, John 8:41 shows that the very Pharisees who called themselves sons of God later condemned Jesus for blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God.

John 8:41
41You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

John 19:7
7The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

Because they couldn't get Jesus to claim to be God, they took the next best thing which was false charges.

Notice how v. 63 places “the Son of God” in juxtaposition with “the Christ” (or “the Messiah”). This goes hand-in-hand the royal Sonship idea expressed above. Had I claimed to be the royal Son of God, the Christ, who is seated at the right hand of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven, would you charge me with blasphemy? It is not blasphemous only if it applies to the true recipient of God’s divine appointment. Jesus’ audience thought He was some kind of usurper trying to claim for Himself a lofty and exalted status, not recognizing Him for who He truly is: God’s anointed.
That isn't really how Jesus described himself to the Pharisees when he was teaching in the temple. He may have confided in his disciples some of these particular things, but in general Jesus spoke in parables and somewhat cryptically to those who weren't his followers. Normally he was just trying to teach them as they often were testing his words to find cause for blasphemy.
 

Pilgrimshope

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2020
7,533
2,796
113
#38
I'm pointing out the false accusations of Jesus' accusers who obviously were non-trinitarians. I don't see that the Pharisees believed in either Trinitarianism or Unitarianism, but rather in purer kind of monotheism. They essentially believed God is one entity and literally no one else is or can be God.

You may have noticed, it had to be asked who Jesus was referring to when he mentioned his Father. It wasn't intuitive to them that when Jesus spoke of his Father that he was talking about Lord God Almighty. The idea of a Son of God being part of a Trinity God was entirely foreign to them. Hence why it wasn't considered blasphemy to call oneself "The Son of God" since the Pharisees themselves also laid claim to that title as God's people of the covenant.



Actually that's exactly what they did after what Jesus said in John 10:30. They thought when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" that he was saying that he is claiming to be God. At this point they understood who Jesus was referring to when he mentioned his Father. They knew Jesus was calling YWHW his Father. The charge of blasphemy was a false accusation, but it gave them the pretense they needed to kill Jesus.

John 10:33
30I and the Father are one.”

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”






When Jesus said "I am the Father are one" he was referring to spiritual union. If we can understand what it means to be one with Jesus, one united body, then we can understand what it means for Jesus and his Father to be one. Again, it doesn't mean that when we are one united body that we become each other, but rather we are connected. Jesus used parables of trees with branches and vines to try to explain this.



It's not different at all. Compared John 3:16 to Hebrews 1:15 for starters. However, the relationship is different. Jesus as the "only begotten" Son of God refers to offspring. Sons of God in the sense of angels and mankind refers to either sons by creation or by adoption.




Yes and no. I would like to reiterate that being a "begotten Son" refers to offspring.




No it wouldn't be blasphemy. As I showed you before, John 8:41 shows that the very Pharisees who called themselves sons of God later condemned Jesus for blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God.

John 8:41
41You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

John 19:7
7The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

Because they couldn't get Jesus to claim to be God, they took the next best thing which was false charges.



That isn't really how Jesus described himself to the Pharisees when he was teaching in the temple. He may have confided in his disciples some of these particular things, but in general Jesus spoke in parables and somewhat cryptically to those who weren't his followers. Normally he was just trying to teach them as they often were testing his words to find cause for blasphemy.
what they told Jesus

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.””

they were wrong brother they believed that but

what jesus told them

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8:44‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Who is the father son and holy ghost manifest in one person ?

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:9‬ ‭KJV‬‬

when the father son and Holy Ghost come together and are revealed in the one God , you have Jesus the lord
 
Feb 18, 2015
222
28
28
#39
I'm pointing out the false accusations of Jesus' accusers who obviously were non-trinitarians. I don't see that the Pharisees believed in either Trinitarianism or Unitarianism, but rather in purer kind of monotheism. They essentially believed God is one entity and literally no one else is or can be God.

You may have noticed, it had to be asked who Jesus was referring to when he mentioned his Father. It wasn't intuitive to them that when Jesus spoke of his Father that he was talking about Lord God Almighty. The idea of a Son of God being part of a Trinity God was entirely foreign to them. Hence why it wasn't considered blasphemy to call oneself "The Son of God" since the Pharisees themselves also laid claim to that title as God's people of the covenant.



Actually that's exactly what they did after what Jesus said in John 10:30. They thought when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" that he was saying that he is claiming to be God. At this point they understood who Jesus was referring to when he mentioned his Father. They knew Jesus was calling YWHW his Father. The charge of blasphemy was a false accusation, but it gave them the pretense they needed to kill Jesus.

John 10:33
30I and the Father are one.”

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”






When Jesus said "I am the Father are one" he was referring to spiritual union. If we can understand what it means to be one with Jesus, one united body, then we can understand what it means for Jesus and his Father to be one. Again, it doesn't mean that when we are one united body that we become each other, but rather we are connected. Jesus used parables of trees with branches and vines to try to explain this.



It's not different at all. Compared John 3:16 to Hebrews 1:15 for starters. However, the relationship is different. Jesus as the "only begotten" Son of God refers to offspring. Sons of God in the sense of angels and mankind refers to either sons by creation or by adoption.




Yes and no. I would like to reiterate that being a "begotten Son" refers to offspring.




No it wouldn't be blasphemy. As I showed you before, John 8:41 shows that the very Pharisees who called themselves sons of God later condemned Jesus for blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God.

John 8:41
41You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

John 19:7
7The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

Because they couldn't get Jesus to claim to be God, they took the next best thing which was false charges.



That isn't really how Jesus described himself to the Pharisees when he was teaching in the temple. He may have confided in his disciples some of these particular things, but in general Jesus spoke in parables and somewhat cryptically to those who weren't his followers. Normally he was just trying to teach them as they often were testing his words to find cause for blasphemy.
This is going to be another two-parter.

You do understand the difference between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism, right? Unitarianism is the idea that God exists as one sole individual. That’s what differentiates it from Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism isn’t the idea that Jesus is the person of the Father, but that they are truly distinct persons, existing alongside one another, communicating with one another, and sharing in the divine nature. But even in your latest response it seems that you are conflating this idea with a form of Unitarianism referred to as Modalism,

“When Jesus said "I am the Father are one" he was referring to spiritual union. If we can understand what it means to be one with Jesus, one united body, then we can understand what it means for Jesus and his Father to be one. Again, it doesn't mean that when we are one united body that we become each other, but rather we are connected.”
As if this is even what I’m arguing for. Modalists cite John 10:30 to teach that Jesus and the Father are the same person. They believe that prior to the incarnation Jesus existed as the Father, and that it was the Father that came down from heaven in flesh. So your comments here are out of place.

Monotheism is simply the belief in one God, not that God is necessarily one “entity.” By “entity” I think we can safely assume you’re using the term as a synonym for “individual,” or “person.” “Entity” is a rather ambiguous word and could be construed in various ways. Unitarians often conflate the meaning of “Unitarianism” (the idea that God exists as one sole individual) with “monotheism.”

You keep insisting that the Jews are falsely accusing Jesus of being the Father (John 10:30); however, you are not interacting with what I have put forth as arguments against your interpretation. I will repeat those arguments here:
  • Prior to His statement made in John 10:30 (“I and the Father, we are one”), Jesus refers to God as His “Father” seven times.

  • The neuter adjective ἕν (“one”) is used, indicating a unity of essence, not personal identity.

  • The plural verb ἐσμεν (“are”) is used. Thus, 10:30 is rendered, “I and the Father, we are (ἐσμεν) one.” This requires a distinction to be made between Jesus and the Father.

  • The narrator nowhere indicates that the Jews falsely accused Jesus of being “the Father.”

  • In John 10:36, Jesus reiterates and clarifies what the Jews are accusing Him of in v. 33 — “you say… ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Notice the emphasis on the words “you say,” and “because.” Jesus is not correcting the Jews, rather, He restates what the Jews are already accusing Him of: blasphemy for claiming to be “the Son of God,” which is equivocal with “making Himself equal with God” (cf. John 5:18, 19:7). So it’s not that the Jews understood Jesus “incorrectly” in v. 33. The Jews understood this the application of “the Son of God” in a sense that made Jesus functionally on a par with God.

  • Though the usage of θεὸν in John 10:33 could be construed as definite, given the earlier account in John 5:18, and the echoes of Ps. 95 and Deut. 32 in the John 10 discourse, I suggest that the anarthrous θεὸν in v. 33 is probably best understood as carrying a qualitative nuance.

  • The reason for wanting Jesus dead remained consistent from John 5, through John 8 and 10, all the way to John 19: they regarded the claim to be the Son of God to be blasphemy.
Your interpretation is not driven from the language; and requires quite a bit of pretexting. You can either interact with these points or you can continue to insist upon your interpretation. As it stands, I do not find your argument convincing for these reasons.

(Continued...)
 
Feb 18, 2015
222
28
28
#40
(Continuation from Post #39...)

You comment on a portion from my post (#33), where I say,

The question is a rhetorical one, designed with the intent of drawing its reader to a dramatic, thought-provoking conclusion. Simply put, God never said this of any angel. Yet, we read in the OT that angels are referred to as “sons of God” (Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). The difference, however, is one of royal Sonship: Angels are not God’s sons in the sense that David and the physical heirs of David who sat on David’s throne were God’s sons. This type of Sonship that Jesus possesses was given to David and his household (2 Samuel 7, 1 Chron. 17, Psalm 89); whereby, God authorizes His chosen representative to occupy His throne on earth, mediating His presence. This is not what the Jews claimed of themselves.
You respond,

It's not different at all. Compared John 3:16 to Hebrews 1:15 for starters. However, the relationship is different. Jesus as the "only begotten" Son of God refers to offspring. Sons of God in the sense of angels and mankind refers to either sons by creation or by adoption.
It is a huge misstep on your behalf to cite John 3:16, because it refers to Jesus as the “only begotten Son,” with emphasis on the word “only.” Therefore, this further goes to show that Jesus is “the Son of God” in a much different way than that of the Jewish rulership. I will give more reasons momentarily, but I want to address the connection you’re attempting to establish between John 3:16 and Hebrews 1:5.

The term used in John 3:16 to refer to Jesus as the “only begotten” Son is μονογενῆ. Undoubtedly the author of Hebrews was familiar with this term, as he uses it to refer to the relationship between Abraham and Isaac (Hebrews 11:17, of which is a typology of Jesus). However, this is not the term used in the Hebrews 1 discourse. The author would have had every opportunity to use μονογενῆ, but instead—citing Ps. 2:7—uses γεγέννηκά when referring to Jesus as “begotten.”

The significance of Ps. 2:7 is that it is a coronation psalm—the ceremony of crowning the Davidic king (and by extension, all the physical heirs of David, and ultimately finding its culmination in Jesus). The Apostle Paul interprets Ps. 2:7 as a reference to the coronation process initiated by the resurrection of Christ when He was “begotten” by the Father in the sense of giving Him life from the dead (Acts 13:29-33, cf. Romans 1:4). Similarly, the author of Hebrews cites Ps. 2:7 in the context of Jesus providing purification for sins and sitting at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven (Hebrews 1:4). Conjoined together in its citation of Ps. 2:7, the author of Hebrews cites 2 Samuel 7:14. In 2 Samuel 7:12-16, God promises to establish the throne of David’s offspring’s kingdom forever. The third quotation (Hebrews 1:6) is introduced with an allusion to Ps. 89:27 (“I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”), a psalm which includes the promise of an eternal throne (Ps. 89:29, 36-37). This “firstborn” language in 1:6 corresponds with the “begotten” language of 1:5—one of the many thematic links. In 1:8-9 there a reference to God’s anointing of His Messianic king. And finally, in 1:13 there is a reference to a classic Messianic text: Ps. 110:1.

Additionally, the author of Hebrews cites Ps. 2:7 a second time in Hebrews 5:5. The point in saying all this is simple: There is no connection with the “begotten” language of John 3:16 and Hebrews 1:5. And if there were a connection to be made, one would be required to understand that connection in light that Paul’s apostolic interpretation of Ps. 2:7, which raises a problem for you.

That being said, there are multiple senses in which Jesus is referred to as “the Son of God,” which is why I made the comments in Post #11,

Jesus’ application of the title “Son of God” carries with it its fair share of nuances, but might I suggest that one of the more prominent nuances in NT usage is an extremely Jewish one? What I mean by that, is that the “Son of God” epithet is used frequently of the Davidic King, who is God’s vicar, God’s “right hand man,” who mediates God’s presence, and is in that sense (by way of extension), “equal with God.” But I also understand that Jesus’ application of such title runs even deeper than that of the Davidic King motif, for even the Jews of Jesus’ day understood Jesus’ application (what I would consider a more personal application), as going beyond the scope of what any man could rightfully claim for themselves without the charge of blasphemy being brought against them (hence the, “you being a man make yourself out to be” tid bit).
For example, in Matt. 22:41-46, Jesus asks the Pharisees,

“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David by the Spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying,

‘The Lord said to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet”’?

If David then calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one was able to answer him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question him any longer.
Of course, Jesus is the son of David, but the context seems to suggest that Jesus is even greater than just the “son of David,” for what ancestor calls his descendant “Lord”? In response to Jesus’ rhetorical question in v. 41 (“Whose son is He?”) and v. 45 (“If David then calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”), there can be little doubt that Matthew and his readers would have supplied the answer, “the Son of God.”

Further, Jesus spoke of his unique relationship with the Father (“no one knows the Father except the Son”) and went on to add that as the unique Son he mediates that filial relationship to others (“and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him"), Matt. 11:27.

Lastly, regarding John 8:41, which you have mentioned multiple times, I will leave you to interact with Post #34.