Originally posted by RJHindsSo what? Are you that out of tune to not know why I said that?
Yes, I understand the idea of an ambassador representing a country and agree the the Son came from Heaven as God's representive to man on Earth. So what?
The Instructor
Jesus is called the word or spokesman of God his "Father" Jehovah.
Just as there can be a spokesman for another human being, Jesus is his "Fathers" spokesman.
But now the really hard part for you to grasp, is Jesus is not his
"Father" Jehovah.
You do or don't understand what those two terms mean, you know the "Father & Son" ones that are used in any language on the planet?
Apparently not....
1 edit
-Removed-Wolves in sheeps clothing are of various kinds and are a simple occupational hazard. You load your questions and then cry about it when no one answers them because they are loaded and then make some kind of fanfare about it afterwards, bizarre behaviour really, but if its really the best you can do then its the best you can do. I understand it may be the extent of your spirituality.
4 edits
-Removed-why atre you asking me, i am not a amster of your faith, if you dont knwo the answer to thse questions why are you asking me?
1. I dont think the Bible is explicit but it is clear that God dealt with organisations in the past, the nation of Israel for example, the Christian congregation of the first century. I have already stated many times that i think therefore that it will preclude you from gaining eternal life for I believe that we are Gods earthly organisation that he is using to declare the Biblical message to people, in fact i can think on no other organisation that does it.
2. I have many spiritual fathers not just Jehovah and Jesus as i have answered more than three times, why you seem to limit it to only two is because of the loaded nature of your question that you cite in the hope that it creates some ambiguity that you can use, its transparent and see through but does not apply to me because i have many spiritual fathers as i already explained.
now you will stop wasting my time. Your questions remain answered to the best of my ability and in accordance with my understanding. Your assertion that they remain unanswered is another lie.
The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.
In my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the word used in John 17:21,22 is indicated as Entry# 1520
1520 eis [heis]; (include. the neut. (etc] ev hen a ); a prim. numeral; one: - (-n, -nv, certain), abundantly, man one (another), only, other, some. See 1527, 3367, 3391, 3762.
I see nothing particularly forbidding an understanding of man uniting with God and God with man in this particular definition though some of the particulars I don't understand.
I see nothing in the Greek definition insisting that God and man cannot be made one as Christ the man and God are one. Such oneness would of course include purpose and intentions.
Besides the believers are said to be "one spirit with the Lord" -
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
This is the same word as defined in Entry # 1520.
Think on it. God is a Spirit. And man has a human spirit. And the Christian who through redemption and regeneration is "joined to the Lord" has his human spirit and the Holy Spirit Who is God "joined" to become "ONE spirit".
That is the TWO become one mingled and united spirit. Therefore the Apostle can close all his words in the New Testament with his most important final reminder to Timothy -
"The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (Second Timothy 4:22)
7 edits
So we move on.
The discussions between trinitarians are extensive and full of arguments and counter arguments. The experience of the Trinity is really what the New Testament mentions most rather than doctrinal formulas for theological debate.
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.”
And just because John Calvin had a problem with something does not mean that all other Bible scholars have to have the same opinion.
John 1:1,14 prologue is the governing statement about the relationship between the Word and God.
1.) He was with God
2.) He was God.
3.) He became flesh.
Discussions on disputes about John 10:30 do little to effect this.
This does not make Robbie's case that the Word is not God and the Word being God did not became flesh.
Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.
Neither does this ANYTHING to Isaiah's prophecy that the child born is called Mighty God and the son given is called Eternal Father.
Jehovah is the Mighty God - "The Mighty One, God Jehovah, Speaks and summons the earth" (Psalm 50:1 RcV)
" Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible. " (Webster Bible Translation)
"Thou shalt not fear them, because the Lord thy God is in the midst of thee, a God mighty and terrible: " (Douay Rheims Bible)
Nehemiah 9:32 - "And now, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God ..." (RcV)
And of course there is only one divine Father who is eternal.
Verse 35 says "If He said they were gods, to whom the word of God cane, and the Scripture cannot be broken, Do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God ? "
This is significant on two grounds.
1.) Scripture cannot be broken. Therefore the child who is Mighty God and the Son who is Eternal Father is ALSO a scripture that cannot be broken.
2.) God did call angels gods in Psalm 82:6. He exposes their hysteria and ignorance of their own scripture in their over reaction.
But I think what is more important to the meaning of John 10:30 - "I and the Father are one" and them RIGHTLY asserting that He was making Himself God is what Jesus says in the following verse 37 -
"If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; But if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father."
In other words if He ACTS like God then they can believe that He is God.
What Jesus stresses is His life is manifested as being one with God.
He lives like His Father. So they should believe based on the testimony of His living. He does the things that God does.
If they cannot fathom how the Son of God is there they should believe the works that He does. But so doing they will also come to realize that He and the Father are one - they mutually co-inhere one another.
It is evident by the testimony of His life that He has been consecrated and sent into the world by the Father as His Son.
Nothing in Robbie's appeal to verse 35 undermines John's foundational prologue that the Logos was with God and was God and became flesh.
Originally posted by galveston75That is your strawman argument that I have referred to. I have never said that Jesus was His Father. That is ridiculous. Also I have never said that the Father was "Jehovah" either. I don't even like the name "Jehovah" because it represents a destroyer and not a creator.
So what? Are you that out of tune to not know why I said that?
Jesus is called the word or spokesman of God his "Father" Jehovah.
Just as there can be a spokesman for another human being, Jesus is his "Fathers" spokesman.
But now the really hard part for you to grasp, is Jesus is not his
"Father" Jehovah.
You do or don't understand wh ...[text shortened]... Father & Son" ones that are used in any language on the planet?
Apparently not....
Jesus represents the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. He is God manifest in the flesh. Jesus is the Son of God as well as the Son of Man.
I have said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God in three persons in unity of purpose. That in no ways says that the Son is the same person as the Father, nor is the Son the same person as the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons working in harmony as one God to fulfill His purposes. That is the Trinitarian view of God.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor