Jesus is not 50% God and 50% Man; he is not a hybrid. Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man.
Jesus is indeed not a hybrid, nor was he ever 100% the only true Supreme Being -- ever.
He was, while in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), 100% man -- nothing more, nothing less -- having the sinless glory that is a little lower than the angels.
The title "Mighty God" is also used by Yahweh, not only Jesus.
Jeremiah 32:18 NKJV You show lovingkindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them—the Great, the Mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts.
I, myself, do not believe that "Mighty God" is used of Jesus. According to the traditional way that most Christian translations render Isaiah 9:6, it would seem that way, but I believe that the traditional translation is in error.
In all these verses; Yahweh and Jesus are both "Almighty". Isaiah 6:3 New International Version (NIV) 3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.”
Revelation 4:8 New King James Version (NKJV) 8 The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!” Revelation 15:3-4 New King James Version (NKJV) 3 They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: “Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints! 4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested.”[/quote]
These verses certainly show that Yahweh is Almighty; they do not show that Jesus is Almighty.
John 1:18 is "monogenes theos" meaning "only kind God" or "unique kind God". Monogenes is not "only begotten God". John 1:18 New Living Translation (NLT) 18 No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
There is no indication that monogenes in John 1:18 is meant to say that the one being spoken of was never generated, brought forth into being. If one reads the alleged "dual nature" of Jesus into this, then, to be consistent with this, one would have to conclude that it was the alleged "God" nature of Jesus that revealed "God" to the disciples of Jesus.
In reality, what the trinitarian is forced to do is split the sentence up so as to make it appear to be saying something different than John actually recorded, like: “No one has ever seen the God [The trinitarian has to imagine and assume that "God" here means, not all three persons of the alleged trinity, but rather the alleged "first person" of the alleged trinity, since "God" is here equated with the Father of Jesus]. The only one, himself God [not the human Jesus, but the alleged trinitarian idea of "God Nature" of Jesus; the trinitarian has to imagine and assume that "God" here means the alleged second person of the alleged triune God, but such would require it to not mean the "human nature" as that term is applied to the imagined "dual nature" of jesus], who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has [the trinitarian, in applyng his dual nature to Jesus, has to switch as this point from the alleged trinitarian "God nature" of Jesus to the alleged human nature of the alleged dual nature of Jesus] made God known.” Thus, in mid-sentence, and then out of context of, and even in contradiction to, what John actually wrote, the alleged “dual nature” would change in order to satisfy the added-on trinity dogma. In reality, Jesus, even in the days of his flesh, could be referred to as theos in the sense of having received power from the only true Power in the universe, his Father. (John 17:3) Jesus was the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:13-26), who also, being a man, was made “a god” — one of might — to Pharoah. — Exodus 7:1.
Regardless of all the arguments against the idea, genes (presumed to be a form of genos or genea) in monogenes does indicate a beginning, or being brought forth. Some say it simply means “one of a kind,” and yet, genos/genea means “kind” in reference a race or people who share a common origin or development, which does go back to the idea of being brought forth into existence. The Greek words are never used of people or a kind that was never brought forth into existence, as is claimed for the Son of God. An examination of the usage of genos, as well as genea, all through the New Testament will demonstrate this. studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1085 studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1074
The scripture: “The Lord formed and brought me [Wisdom] forth at the beginning of His way, before His acts of old.” (Proverbs 8:22) AMP is from the Amplified Bible which is showing that Almighty God imparted his wisdom in his first creation in the same way that he imparted wisdom to King Solomon at his request. He is actually wisdom personified. There is nothing there that says "imparted". According to your verse it is "formed and brought forth".
That is why I am giving you guys proofs for the DUAL NATURE OF THE SON.
Since there is absolutely nothing in the Bible about this alleged "dual nature", all one can do is present scriptures that one may read such dogma into the scripture.
Give me all these verses saying that Jesus is an angel
I, of course, do not believe that Jesus is an "angel", as that word is usually used in the Bible. Before becoming flesh, Jesus was above the angels, and after his exaltation, he is even farther above the angels.
Jesus, however, is called "angel" in Malachi 3:1, but this usage does not mean that Jesus was of the class of spirit beings that are called angels. The word "angel", which means "messenger", can be used in an ordinary sense of "messenger" without meaning the angels who are always able to see God's face in heaven. -- Matthew 18:10.
HOW COULD THE "NEPHILIM" BE THE OFFSPRING OF THE SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN, IF BY DEFINITION NEPHILIM MEANS, "THE FALLEN ONES?"
The form Nephilim is given by Strong (Strong's #05303)as being in two verses: Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33.
The form often transliterated as Nephilim (Strong's #05303) is plural and is probably a causitive form of the word often transliterated a Naphal (Strong's #05307). Nephilim is usually given the meaning of "giants", but its root refers to "to fall". In context, it would designate "fellers", that is, they were something like a bully who causes others to fall; evidently since the context seems to designate extraordinary size, the connection has led to the meaning of "giants".
The wording in Genesis 6:4 is confusing, and due that confusion, many different "interpretations" have been given to what is stated. The expression, "sons of God" appears twice, in Genesis 6:2,4. We first need to examine who is meant by these "sons of God", and then see how it fits into the context as well as the rest of the scriptures.
Many believe that the "sons of God" are simply men on earth. Actually, in Genesis 6:2, the expression "sons of God" appears to be distinguished from the men who began to multiply on surface of the earth (Genesis 6:10). This is further confirmed by the fact that the men who multiplied were under the condemnation of the sin of Adam and were "made sinners" through Adam's sin. (Romans 5:12-19) On the other hand, a "son of God" does not sin; if he does sin, he is no longer a "son of God", but rather a child of wrath, son of disobedience. (1 John 3:9; 5:16,17; Ephesians 2:2,3; 5:6; Colossians 3:6) The scriptures would hardly be referring to these "men" as being the "sons of God", as evidently these "sons of God" would not be "sons of God" if they had been, at that point, sinners.
Obviously, "sons of God" in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 refers to the angels who had not sinned, and who, relative to the times being spoken, were always able to see the face of God. (Matthew 18:10) Peter speaks of the "angels" who sinned (2 Peter 2:4), and Jude speaks of angels who did not keep their first domain (the celestial domain), but deserted their own dwelling place. (Jude 1:6) Of course, before these angels sinned, they were sinless "sons of God"; after they sinned, they would no longer be considered "sons of God."
The question is then, are the Nephilim spoken of in Genesis 6:4 the offspring of these "sons of God"? I believe that they are.
Genesis 6:4 reads:
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days [either the days during which "men began to multiply", or the 120 years], and also after that [after the men began to multiply, or after the announcement of the 120 years, the following happened:], when God's sons came to men's daughters, they [the sons of God] bore children to them: the same were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Thus seen, the Nephilim (Fellers) were the offspring of the "sons of God" who sinned when they left their celestial habitation to take wives from amongst the "daughters of men".
Revelation 15:3-4 New King James Version (NKJV) 3 They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: “Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints! 4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested.”
*the song of Moses, the servant of God - SONG FOR THE FATHER *the song of the Lamb - SONG FOR THE SON THIS IS ONE SONG ADDRESSED TO BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON BOTH WERE ADDRESSED AS SINGULAR "LORD GOD ALMIGHTY"
You will find in the bible where people sing for the Father You will find in the bible where people sing for the Son But nowhere you will ever find that the Son ever sing a song to the Father So definitely, "the song of the Lamb" means - SONG FOR THE SON
Definitely, the "song of the Lamb" is used in the same way as "the song of Moses". If "song of the Lamb" means that the Lamb is being sung to, then also "song of Moses" means that Moses is being sung to, which is it is not.
So if you are saying that the "Fallen Ones" are the offspring of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men, then the Sons of God cannot be the Fallen Ones? If the Sons of God are not the Fallen Ones, then the Sons of God are not the angels and your interpretation is wrong, right? If you are saying that Goliath is one of the Nephilim, and there are still other Nephilims existed after the Flood of Noah; how could they still exists if the very purpose of the Flood of Noah according to your interpretation is to wipe all them out?
The nephilim that existed before the flood were indeed wiped out in the flood, as we read that only eight human souls survived that flood (1 Peter 3:20); that does not mean that the word "nephilim" cannot be used of others after the flood. - Numbers 13:33.
No form of the word "nephilim" is ever used regarding Goliath.
Acts 1:6-7 New King James Version (NKJV) 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
Jesus knows the day and the hour of his coming. He said "It is not for you to know times or seasons", he did not say "It is not for us to know times or seasons" indicating that he do know the day and the hour of his coming.
Rephaim The Rephaim occupied the land prior to the Canaanites, but were eventually defeated. The Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim people were related. "In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and subdued the Rephaim" (Genesis 14:5 RSV) "For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits [i.e. about 13 feet / 4 meters] was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit." (Deuteronomy 3:11 RSV) Anakim The Anakim lived in the south, near Hebron. They were defeated by the Israelites under Joshua. "tall as the Anakim" (Deuteronomy 2:21 RSV) "And Joshua came at that time, and wiped out the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel; Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities." (Joshua 11:21 RSV) Emim The Emim were a warrior tribe of giants who were defeated by Chedorlaomer and his allies. Around the time of Abraham, they lived east of the Jordan. "In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and subdued the Rephaim in Ashterothkarnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shavehkiriathaim" (Genesis 14:5 RSV) "The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim." (Deuteronomy 2:10 RSV)
The examination of other words that have been translated as "giants" is not actually relevant to the usage of nephilim in Genesis 6:4.
Jesus Christ is God and Man. When Jesus said that he does not know the day and the hour of his coming; he speaking in respect of his Humanity. When Jesus spoke in Acts 1:6-7, he is speaking in respect of his Deity. He knows the day and the hour of his coming. Both are true statements since he has dual nature.
Yes, Jesus was indeed a man when he stated that he did not know the day and hour, but after being raised, he was no longer a man, but a spirit being. Nevertheless, still Acts 1:6-7 does not say that Jesus at that time knew the day and hour of his coming. This, and the idea that there is something in this that means that Jesus was existing on two levels of being at the same time has to be added to, and read it, what is stated.
YOU ARE WRONG, THEY WERE NOT MISTAKENLY IDENTIFIED. NEPHILIM, REPHAIM, ANAKIM AND EMIM ARE REAL PEOPLE WHO ARE GIANTS; THEY EXISTED DURING THESE TIMES. THEY WERE NOT OFFSPRINGS OF THIS ANGELIC BEINGS AND HUMANS; OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED DURING THESE TIMES SINCE THEY WOULD HAVE ALL WIPED OUT FROM THE FLOOD OF NOAH ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION.
IF THE SONS OF GOD ARE NOT THE FALLEN ONES, THEN THEY ARE NOT THE ANGELIC BEINGS WHO FORSOOK THEIR PROPER DWELLING PLACE WHICH IS HEAVEN. YOU NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH ABOUT THESE "SONS OF GOD" AND "DAUGHTERS OF MEN" OF GENESIS 6:1-4. MORE QUESTIONS: 1) WHERE IS THIS VERSE THAT SAYS ANGELS CAN MARRY?
Angels normally do not marry. The problem is that these angels left their own dwelling places, in some way materialized human bodies capable of reproduction.
2) CAN SPIRIT BEINGS INTERCOURSE WITH PHYSICAL BEINGS?
Normally, no. Then again, normally spirit beings do not partake of food and drink. (Genesis 19:2,3) The privilege of producing bodies of flesh, however, was evidently taken away from the angels that sinned, else we would still see them doing that very thing. Thus, when Jesus produced his former body in the locked room, he stated concerning those spirits, that they do not have a body such that could be seen, felt and touched. --Luke 24:39.
Jesus Christ is God and Man. He is 100% God and 100% Man.
Jesus WAS, during the days of his flesh, 100% man, a little lower than the angels; Jesus is now "god" -- mighty -- only the sense that he has been given might and power, similar to that the godship of the angels, but rather greater than the angels.
Jesus Christ is not a hybrid; he is not half God and half Man. He is not 50% God and 50% Man. His Divine Nature is completely distinct from his Human Nature.
Most definitely, "God" -- the Supreme Being -- the only true God (John 17:1,3), whom the Logos was with (John 1:1), was never made flesh, nor did "God" ever become flesh, as did the Logos. -- John 1:1.
When the Logos was made flesh, he no longer had the glory that he had before he became flesh, as we can see from John 17:5.
The Human Nature of Jesus Christ is not an addition nor a mixture to his Divine Nature.
I am not sure that the above says exactly what was intended. Nevertheless, as written, this would mean -- if it were true that Jesus never had a beginning, that his human nature likewise never had beginning, since, according to what is stated, his human nature is not an addition. In reality, Jesus, before he became Jesus was not flesh, of the earth, earthly, but he had a celestial glory which he did not have while he was in days of his flesh. -- John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Hebrews 5:7.
Additionally, as written, it does not agree with the trinitarian "incarnation" dogma that the alleged "God the Son" "took on" flesh, rather than, as John 1:14, actually states, "became" or "was made" flesh.
There is nothing you can add or mix to someone who is already infinite. God is already infinite; there is nothing you can add or mix to him.
In Acts 1:6-7, the Son knew times and seasons; he definitely know when he is coming back.
Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, are you now restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:7 He said to them, "It isn't for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set within His own authority.
There is nothing at all in Acts 1:6,7 about Christ's return, but rather about his restoring the kingdom to Israel. Evidently, the disciples thought at that time that Christ had already returned, and was about to restore Jerusalem. We should note that the parousia begins before the passing away of this age, for during those days, the scripture says that the people would be ignorant of his parousia. See my studies: Christ's Parousia - Presence or Arrival? binfo.rlbible.com/?p=44 The Parousia, the Seventh Trumpet and the Harvest binfo.rlbible.com/?p=362
Nor was Jesus' earlier statements specifically about the day and hour of Christ's return at the beginning of parousia, but rather Jesus was talking about the day and hour of the passing away of the present heavens and earth. -- Matthew 24:36,37; Mark 13:30-32; -- The phrase "in which the Son of Man is coming" in Matthew 25:36 does not appear in the older manuscripts, although during the parousia, Jesus still, even after his parouia had begun, need to "come" in the sense of bringing about the passing away of the present heavens and earth, and wrapping up the judgment of the church. -- Matthew 24:36; Luke 12:46..
While it is quite probable that God had told Jesus the exact day and hour when he was to return after God raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus never stated that in his words recorded in Acts 1:6,7. If he did know the day and hour after God raised him from the dead, it would only mean that earlier he did not know the day and hour, and that, after his God told him the day and hour, then he knew the day and hour. Again, however, the question asked in Acts 1:6 does not say anything about when he was to return. Jesus went on to explain that there was a work to do (Acts 1:8). When Jesus ascended, they were evidently very puzzled, and "two men" appeared who let the disciples know that Jesus was yet to come again. Thus, they would know that Jesus appearances after his resurrection was not his parousia, but that he was yet to come again. -- Acts 1:9-11.
The Father and the Son have both equality and inequality. The Father is greater than the Son in position of authority. INEQUALITY The Father and the Son are equal in nature being God. EQUALITY Do not mix up authority with nature.
Jesus has already been existing as an infinite, eternal God even before he took on his human nature.
The Bible never says that Jesus had already been existing as the infinite, eternal God even before he "took on his human nature".
Trinitarians like to use the phrase "took on" rather than "became" or "was made" (John 1:14); Jesus, of course, being the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), was indeed at some point in time brought forth into existence. Jesus, however, did not simply "take on" flesh, but he "became" or "was made" flesh. During the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), he no longer had the former glory that he had when he was with his Father, the only true God. -- John 17:1,3,5.
1. “My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) So no ‘equal’ Trinity. 2. “Only ‘one’ is good, God.” (Mark 10:18) So no ‘God the Son’. 3. “No man has seen God at anytime.” (John 1:18) So no God incarnate. To prove this emphatically, these three scriptures completely demolish this man-made Trinity!
1) The Father is greater than the Son in authority. The equality in Trinity is in their nature being God.
2) This statement of Jesus [[Mark 10:18]] is not an exclusion of himself, but rather an affirmation that he is God. He knew that later on, he will be perfect and be qualified to be called good. If Jesus is good and there is none good but God, then that could only mean one thing; Jesus is one God with the Father.
I do not use Mark 10:18 as proof that Jesus is not God, nor do I believe that Jesus was saying that if he is good, then he must be God. Jesus was not saying no one can be "good" except that he be God himself, for such an idea would contradict many scriptures. (Matthew 25:21,23; Luke 6:45; 19:17; 23:50; John 5:29; 7:12) And yet, in Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19, Jesus says that there is only one who is good, that is, his God. Jesus did not, in these verses, use the Greek word "Kalos" as he did in his words recorded at John 10:11; rather he used the word "Agathos" (Strong's #18*). In John 10:11, Jesus used the word "Kalos" to denote the genuiness of his appointment as shepherd, whereas in Matthew 19:17, etc., Jesus used the word "Agathos" to show the innate goodness of his God. "God" is the only one who is "good" -- who is goodness innate. Jesus was certainly not saying that no one is "good" except God, but that any goodness that he (Jesus) has is because he was sent from the source of all true goodness. -- John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The young man had just called Jesus "Good Teacher". The young man's belief was that he was a good man who professed to have been a keeper of the Law. Yet, he realized that his body was still dying. He saw Jesus, whom he considered to be Good, and gave him the title of "Good Teacher. I cannot say for certainty that this young man realized that Jesus was sinless, but the context is about gaining everlasting life. According to the Law, if one obeyed the Law, he should have everlasting life. The young man's reasoning was that he had obeyed the law, but still realized that he was in a dying condition. Jesus pointed out that only God is "good" in and of himself. Everyone else, including Jesus, in some way learns of goodness from God. But to gain life through the Law, one would have perfectly obey that Law, which no one did, until Jesus. Nevertheless, the young man thought of himself as having kept all the law, and thus he reasoned that he should have been made perfect, justified, thereby. Realizing that his body was still dying, he thought that something else must be required, and realizing Jesus as being "good", he must have believed that Jesus woud know the answer. Jesus told him that if he wished to be perfect, then he must sell all he had and become Jesus' follower. This agrees with what Paul later wrote, that no one is justified by keeping the Law, because of the sinful nature of the flesh which is upon man through Adam's disobedience. -- Romans 3:20; 5:12-19; 8:3; Galatians 3:11.
3) Jesus Christ is "God manifested in the flesh," he is not "God manifested as God." While Jesus is one person having two natures, only his human nature was seen by people and not his divine nature.
Jesus certainly made his God manifest in his flesh, which he did by faithfully representing his God and Father, and by his obedience to his God and Father; this does not mean that Jesus is "one person having two natures" -- two planes of existence at once.
Jesus Christ cannot be a created god because the bible is already clear that there is no god formed after Yahweh.
Isaiah 43:10 makes it clear that none of the idols gods of men were formed before Yahweh (since Yahweh has always existed) and that none of them will be formed after Yahweh ceases to exist (since Yahweh will never cease to exist. It does not mean that the gods (angels -- Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7) were never formed, or that they are all the one God Almighty, nor does it mean that the Son of God, although is a mighty one (theos), was not the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), or that he was never brought forth into being. Likewise, the sons of the Most High, who are made sons through regeneration, are also "gods"; they are made so by the power and might given to them as sons of the Most High.
Now, John 1:18 can say that the unique kind God is with God, but this does not make them two Gods since God is one infinite, indivisible being.
God's being one indivisible being actually designates him as being the unipersonal God and Father of our Lord Jesus. This is the way the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is presented throughout the New Testament, and throughout the Old Testament He is always presented as being one person, and not once is He ever presented as being more than one person.
Last Edit: Nov 17, 2013 23:19:11 GMT -5 by ResLight
Do not think God to be like us humans. If one human being is with another human being then there would be two human beings. Why? because humans are finite, divisible beings; they can be counted and added. If God is with another God then there would still be one God. Why? because God is an infinite, indivisible being; he cannot be counted and added.
While we should certainly not think of Yahweh as being like us humans, this does not mean that we need to call upon the spirit of human imagination to add all the rest of what is stated to the Bible.
"Firstborn" here is about supremacy in rank or status over all creation.
The firstborn is given this status because he is the firstborn, whether has the right of firstborn because he was the first one to be brought forth of the group, or whether he, being of the group, received the right of firstborn from another.
In the statement speaks of Christ’s priority to creation and sovereignty over all creation. The words “of all creation” are the object of “firstborn” rather than “firstborn” being the object of “of all creation.” HERE IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE "FIRSTBORN" IS USED AS SUPREMACY IN RANK OR STATUS Psalm 89:27 New King James Version (NKJV) 27 Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.
David was indeed a member of the "kings of the earth." Applying this to Colossians 1:15, then, Jesus is indeed a member of "every creature" of whom he is firstborn, the first one to be brought forth. Nor does anything in this mean that David was not brought forth as a King. The principles of Psalm 89:27 actually supports that Jesus is indeed the firstborn creature, for he would have to be included in the group "every creature", even if he was not the actual first one to brought forth of every creature. Nevertheless, there is nothing in Colossians 1:15, or anywhere else in the Bible, that would indicate that Jesus is not the actual first one to brought forth of every creature.
John 5:18-19,30 Barnes Commentary Making himself equal with God - This shows that, in the view of the Jews, the name Son of God, or that calling God his Father, implied equality with God. The Jews were the best interpreters of their own language, and as Jesus did not deny the correctness of their interpretations, it follows that he meant to be so understood. See Joh_10:29-38. The interpretation of the Jews was a very natural and just one. He not only said that God was his Father, but he said that he had the same right to work on the Sabbath that God had; that by the same authority, and in the same manner, he could dispense with the obligation of the day. They had now two pretences for seeking to kill him - one for making himself equal with God, which they considered blasphemy, and the other for violating the Sabbath. For each of these the law denounced death, Num_15:35; Lev_24:11-14. John 5:19
Barnes, believing the trinity, appears to take the Jews' false "cause" for killing Jesus to mean that Jesus was making himself equal to God; in regarding the charge that Jesus has broken the sabbath, Barnes states: "Had broken the sabbath - They supposed he had broken it." Jesus, of course, had not actually broke the sabbath, but he had broken the Jews' added-on law pertaining to the sabbath. Jesus had already thwarted their claims that he he had broken the sabbath (Matthew 12:10-12; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9). Likewise with the Jews' thought that his being "Son of God" would mean that he was making himself equal to God. Indeed, Jesus explained that he was not equal to God, saying, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel." -- John 5:19,20.
It should be obvious that Jesus is not equal to his God, and that he was disclaiming equality with his God; nevertheless, the trinitarian will twist what Jesus said to make it appear that Jesus was claiming to be equal to his God in power of substance, but not in authority. In reality, the Bible never says this; it is just another way that the trinitarian has to create from imagination to, at least, make it appear that the Bible agrees with the trinitarian dogma. Of course, one can be equal in substantial strength and yet not be equal in authority, but the scriptures indicate that this is not the case with Jesus and his God, for Jesus is exalted in celestial bodily power which he receives from his God. -- Acts 2:33; 5:31; Colossians 2:9,10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:39-41; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Philippians 2:9; 1 Peter 3:22.
To make all of this appear to agree with the trinitarian dogma, trinitarians often imagine, assume and add to the scripture that the power is given to alleged "human nature" of Jesus, by which they would, in effect, deny the basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, claiming that it was the human flesh and bones body of Jesus that is given all this power!!!! This would mean that Jesus still possesses his body, which, in turn, would mean that he never fully sacrificed his body for our sins. -- Hebrews 10:10.
John 5:19 Jesus therefore answered them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. -- World English.
The Son - the offspring of God; the very word Son denotes one who is the offspring of another. Such an idea is never used of the Almighty Yahweh, since Yahweh has always been, and is not the offspring of anyone.
Do nothing of himself - this harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:6, which shows that the Father is the Source; Jesus acknowledges that his God is source of all that he does. One would never says of the Almighty, "he can do nothing of himself."
What he sees the Father doing - In context, the work Jesus had just performed was to heal a sick person. (John 5:5-9) Jesus was not saying that he had seen the Father healing the sick, but rather that he had seen the God's will as expressed in all of His work, which having been foreknown before the foundation of the world of mankind, would involve the healing of all nations in the age to come. (Isaiah 33:24; Revelaton 21:1-5; 22:2) Thus, as Jesus later stated, these works are that "the works which the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, testify about me, that the Father has sent me." (John 5:36) And also stated: "I have shown you many good works from my Father." (John 10:32) There is no doubt that Jesus was saying that his God and Father is the source of the works that he performed. Jesus, could do nothing except that which was given to him to do of his God and Father, that is, whatever it is that is harmony with will of his God and Father. Elsewhere, Jesus showed that his power to perform miracles came from his God and Father through the spirit of his God (Matthew 12:18,28; Luke 11:20), and this was confirmed by Peter. -- Acts 10:38.
Praise Yahweh, my soul! All that is within me, praise his holy name! -- Psalm 103:1, World English.
In addition to my earlier posts, one might consider the following:
The Hebrew word, often transliterated as Yalad (Strong's #3205), has the basic meaning of "to bear, bring forth"; regardless of application, the underlining thought of bring forth into existence prevails. The word does not always refer to the physical bearing of a child.
The corresponding Greek word is often transliterated as "gennao" (Strong's #1080), and by its usage, it carries the same thought as that of its Hebrew equivalent.
The word "procreate" is not actually a biblical word, not unless one simply substiutes it for the Hebrew and Greek words for "beget." Etymologically, the word "procreate" means "create forth"; as such is a close synonym of the Biblical words for beget, meaning to bring forth. In English, however, we generally apply the word "procreate" to terrestrial creation, not to God. God, of course, does not reproduce Himself, but he does bring forth others into existence. The laws of reproduction that God has placed upon man, animals and vegetation, etc., does not apply to himself, although some trinitarians have tried to make such a prinple to apply to God in the expression, "God begets God", although no such thought is ever once presented in the Bible.
Reslight, I have no doubt that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can have unity. Multiple persons can have unity; even the disciples. Even Reslight, bornagainchristian, and Alexander Winslow can have unity. While multiple persons can have unity on some things; they cannot have a perfect and complete unity on everything. PERFECT AND COMPLETE UNITY IN EVERYTHING IS WHAT I AM ASKING YOU.
Obviously, Jesus and his Supreme Being are not in unity as being the Supreme Being who is the Supreme Being of Jesus. (Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) Jesus is not in unity with his Supreme Being as being the only Most High. Jesus and his God are not in unity as being the Father of Jesus. Jesus and His God are not in unity as being the servant who was raised up as the prophet like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26) Jesus and his God are not in unity as being the Son whom God speaks through (Hebrews 1:1,2), and much, much, more.
HOW COULD THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT HAVE PERFECT AND COMPLETE UNITY IF EACH ONE IS A DISTINCT PERSON HAVING HIS OWN MIND, WILL AND EMOTION?
Jesus and the only true God are in unity with each other in the same manner that Jesus prayed for his followers to be in unity with him and with the only true God who had sent him. Nothing really hard to understand about that. -- John 17:1,3,11,21-23.
DO NOT BE CONFUSE WITH AUTHORITY AND NATURE. AUTHORITY AND NATURE ARE NOT THE SAME. WHILE THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE EQUAL IN NATURE; THEY ARE NOT EQUAL IN AUTHORITY.
If by nature one means bodily substance, Jesus and his God are both spirit in bodily substance, but they do not have the same bodily glory, since the only true God has given to Jesus the power that he now has. -- Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 1 Corinthians 15:27.
Post by alexanderwinslow on Nov 19, 2013 21:04:24 GMT -5
Satan's Ploy!
Hello bornagainchristian,
The Trinity is Satan's attempt to introduce equality into creation, which if this was so; the universe would fall apart! Even mankind today, has taken up this ploy which the European Union has 'rubber-stamped'!
When we check God's Word we find that nothing is equal, each has its own place in creation; just like a watch which if all its parts were equal, when wound up it would go like a clockwork toy; but it would never keep time! So the 'key' is not equality but balance!
Alexander
----I removed some objectionable sentences from these comments. -- Ronald Day -----
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2013 20:40:08 GMT -5 by ResLight