“The Son is equal to his Father”

[Dimi95]

It's an old prophecy restated in a letter to a church. The chapter is using that old prophecy mixed in with jesus and the requirement to accept their opinion on the resurrection (belief system)

What is strange to me is the claim without any evidence.

But If we did not have Josephus’s writings we would know very little about Roman Judaea in the first century, outside of the New Testament writings and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.It is simply not possible to overstate the significance of Josephus in this respect.

Three notable figures, two in Roman Judaea, and one in Rome, about whom Josephus says very little:

-Caiaphas: the longest serving High Priest of the first century.
-Gamaliel the Elder: the influential leader of the Pharisees in the first century.
-Martial the poet: the most popular writer in Rome during Josephus’s residence there.

Martial said terrible things about Jews. He also mocked Jews about the destruction of Jerusalem, an event about which Josephus had intimate knowledge. Both Martial and Josephus lived in Rome and were part of a wider literary culture, but Josephus says not a word about Martial.One most notable moment little commented upon is Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem (c. 57 CE) and the almost certain likelihood that both Josephus and his father were in Jerusalem at the time when Paul was arrested, as Acts tells the story.
What is often not mentioned by New Testament scholars who comment on Romans 15:31, where Paul describes his anxiety about his impending visit to Jerusalem, is that Josephus had entered public life in Jerusalem among the Pharisees shortly before Paul made his fateful last visit. It is, therefore, almost certain that both Josephus and his father knew about Paul’s presence in Jerusalem and what ensued in the Temple precincts, if Acts is to be believed.

So my focus is on Josephus’s historical silences about what he knew in Roman Judaea and what he knew in Rome, where he lived after the end of the Jewish War well into the end of the first century, during which time he wrote all the works that have defined him as the Jewish historian of Jerusalem and Roman Judaea in the first century.
Josephus was a native of Jerusalem, a priest, the son of a priest named Matthias, who, according to Josephus, was one of the leading men of Jerusalem. That makes Josephus’s father Matthias a contemporary of Paul.
And if we accept what Paul says about himself in Galatians about his life in Jerusalem prior to and immediately after his conversion and call as an apostle of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then Matthias almost certainly knew something about Paul before 37 CE when Josephus was born. And most likely, Matthias would have been aware when Paul returned to Jerusalem two decades later in c. 57 CE shortly after writing the Letter to the Romans in Corinth.
As it was, Paul got arrested for some disturbances in the Temple precincts (according to Acts).

Even more curious is the fact that in his autobiography Josephus deliberately says nothing about the six-year period covering his first foray into public life, a period that includes the year of Paul’s arrest.

It seems as if Josephus did not want his readers to know anything(or a whole lot) about his activities during that time period.

If we take the example with Martial , then we can assume why he did not mention Paul.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is strange to me is the claim without any evidence.

But If we did not have Josephus’s writings we would know very little about Roman Judaea in the first century, outside of the New Testament writings and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.It is simply not possible to overstate the significance of Josephus in this respect.

Three notable figures, two in Roman Judaea, and one in Rome, about whom Josephus says very little:

-Caiaphas: the longest serving High Priest of the first century.
-Gamaliel the Elder: the influential leader of the Pharisees in the first century.
-Martial the poet: the most popular writer in Rome during Josephus’s residence there.

Martial said terrible things about Jews. He also mocked Jews about the destruction of Jerusalem, an event about which Josephus had intimate knowledge. Both Martial and Josephus lived in Rome and were part of a wider literary culture, but Josephus says not a word about Martial.One most notable moment little commented upon is Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem (c. 57 CE) and the almost certain likelihood that both Josephus and his father were in Jerusalem at the time when Paul was arrested, as Acts tells the story.
What is often not mentioned by New Testament scholars who comment on Romans 15:31, where Paul describes his anxiety about his impending visit to Jerusalem, is that Josephus had entered public life in Jerusalem among the Pharisees shortly before Paul made his fateful last visit. It is, therefore, almost certain that both Josephus and his father knew about Paul’s presence in Jerusalem and what ensued in the Temple precincts, if Acts is to be believed.

So my focus is on Josephus’s historical silences about what he knew in Roman Judaea and what he knew in Rome, where he lived after the end of the Jewish War well into the end of the first century, during which time he wrote all the works that have defined him as the Jewish historian of Jerusalem and Roman Judaea in the first century.
Josephus was a native of Jerusalem, a priest, the son of a priest named Matthias, who, according to Josephus, was one of the leading men of Jerusalem. That makes Josephus’s father Matthias a contemporary of Paul.
And if we accept what Paul says about himself in Galatians about his life in Jerusalem prior to and immediately after his conversion and call as an apostle of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then Matthias almost certainly knew something about Paul before 37 CE when Josephus was born. And most likely, Matthias would have been aware when Paul returned to Jerusalem two decades later in c. 57 CE shortly after writing the Letter to the Romans in Corinth.
As it was, Paul got arrested for some disturbances in the Temple precincts (according to Acts).

Even more curious is the fact that in his autobiography Josephus deliberately says nothing about the six-year period covering his first foray into public life, a period that includes the year of Paul’s arrest.

It seems as if Josephus did not want his readers to know anything(or a whole lot) about his activities during that time period.

If we take the example with Martial , then we can assume why he did not mention Paul.

Very interesting, thanks for that. Which also shows me that the denial of the sojourn of the Jews in the wilderness does not have to be true. In other words, just because ancient Egyptian documents have nothing about it does not mean it did not happen.

 

[Bthoth]

What is strange to me is the claim without any evidence.

But If we did not have Josephus’s writings we would know very little about Roman Judaea in the first century, outside of the New Testament writings and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.It is simply not possible to overstate the significance of Josephus in this respect.

Three notable figures, two in Roman Judaea, and one in Rome, about whom Josephus says very little:

-Caiaphas: the longest serving High Priest of the first century.
-Gamaliel the Elder: the influential leader of the Pharisees in the first century.
-Martial the poet: the most popular writer in Rome during Josephus’s residence there.

Martial said terrible things about Jews. He also mocked Jews about the destruction of Jerusalem, an event about which Josephus had intimate knowledge. Both Martial and Josephus lived in Rome and were part of a wider literary culture, but Josephus says not a word about Martial.One most notable moment little commented upon is Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem (c. 57 CE) and the almost certain likelihood that both Josephus and his father were in Jerusalem at the time when Paul was arrested, as Acts tells the story.
What is often not mentioned by New Testament scholars who comment on Romans 15:31, where Paul describes his anxiety about his impending visit to Jerusalem, is that Josephus had entered public life in Jerusalem among the Pharisees shortly before Paul made his fateful last visit. It is, therefore, almost certain that both Josephus and his father knew about Paul’s presence in Jerusalem and what ensued in the Temple precincts, if Acts is to be believed.

So my focus is on Josephus’s historical silences about what he knew in Roman Judaea and what he knew in Rome, where he lived after the end of the Jewish War well into the end of the first century, during which time he wrote all the works that have defined him as the Jewish historian of Jerusalem and Roman Judaea in the first century.
Josephus was a native of Jerusalem, a priest, the son of a priest named Matthias, who, according to Josephus, was one of the leading men of Jerusalem. That makes Josephus’s father Matthias a contemporary of Paul.
And if we accept what Paul says about himself in Galatians about his life in Jerusalem prior to and immediately after his conversion and call as an apostle of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then Matthias almost certainly knew something about Paul before 37 CE when Josephus was born. And most likely, Matthias would have been aware when Paul returned to Jerusalem two decades later in c. 57 CE shortly after writing the Letter to the Romans in Corinth.
As it was, Paul got arrested for some disturbances in the Temple precincts (according to Acts).

Even more curious is the fact that in his autobiography Josephus deliberately says nothing about the six-year period covering his first foray into public life, a period that includes the year of Paul’s arrest.

It seems as if Josephus did not want his readers to know anything(or a whole lot) about his activities during that time period.

If we take the example with Martial , then we can assume why he did not mention Paul.

Are you still talking with someone else?


You quoted my reply and then off into strange.



That scripture 1 corinthians 15 has nothing to do with josephus.


""
The First Epistle to the Corinthians[a] (Ancient Greek: Α΄ ᾽Επιστολὴ πρὸς Κορινθίους) is one of the Pauline epistles, part of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The epistle is attributed to Paul the Apostle and a co-author, Sosthenes, and is addressed to the Christian church in Corinth.[3] Despite the name, it is not believed to be the first such letter. Scholars believe that Sosthenes was the amanuensis who wrote down the text of the letter at Paul's direction.[4] It addresses various issues that had arisen in the Christian community at Corinth and is composed in a form of Koine Greek.[5]

"""

 

[Dimi95]

Are you still talking with someone else?


You quoted my reply and then off into strange.

What is strange is you claiming what The Chapter is using.
Paul did not have time to make conspiracy , because he was persecuted.

That scripture 1 corinthians 15 has nothing to do with josephus.
""
The First Epistle to the Corinthians[a] (Ancient Greek: Α΄ ᾽Επιστολὴ πρὸς Κορινθίους) is one of the Pauline epistles, part of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The epistle is attributed to Paul the Apostle and a co-author, Sosthenes, and is addressed to the Christian church in Corinth.[3] Despite the name, it is not believed to be the first such letter. Scholars believe that Sosthenes was the amanuensis who wrote down the text of the letter at Paul's direction.[4] It addresses various issues that had arisen in the Christian community at Corinth and is composed in a form of Koine Greek.[5]

"""

Which Historians?

Give me Books , Pages , references

Do you know how many 'historians' have been debunked because of their inconsistent analogy?

1 Corinthians 15 is about "Death has been swallowed in victory"

Why on Earth would Jesus predict his own death in Mark 9 and Matthew 17 then?

The question is why Paul?

Mark 9
'They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, 'What were you arguing about on the road?' But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, 'Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.'

I assume that you know what Paul said about himself , so no need to explain it.

-Aurhor and Co - Author:
The Gaelic war doesn't have Ceasar name on the title,but we know that it was written by Ceasar , because the contemproraries of Ceasar atributed it to his name and the following generations did the same thing.

-Sosthenes is either one person mentioned in the New Testament twice, or he’s two people with the same name in the same city.
In Acts,Sosthenes is not down with Paul or Jesus. He gets together all the Jewish folk of Corinth and drags Paul to court. They complain to the local tribunal that Paul is teaching people to worship contrary to Jewish law (pretty much the standby complaint for Paul and his crowd).But before Paul can defend himself, Gallio,the local ruler,brutally shuts them down. He basically says, 'Sounds like a Jewish problem, so you deal with
This is a humiliating defeat for the Corinthian Jews.
You have to understand that Sosthenes and his crew were probably preparing for this day for a while. They had a legal case to present, and instead of their grand display, the court threw the case out of court. Dismissed it before opening remarks out of apathy. This isn’t just a legal defeat; it’s a public slap in the face.The crowd responds by beating Sosthenes in front of the tribunal. Just straight up kicks the crap out of him in court. It’s further humiliation because the court doesn’t even care. Then…we don’t hear about him ever again. Paul sticks around Corinth for a little longer, then bounces around on his tour again.What is interesting is next in 1 Corinth which we Christians regard as the most important epistiles of the Bible.
Here’s what Paul says in the opening passage of the letter:
"Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God that is in Corinth…"

Here’s why that inclusion is a huge honor
1.Paul is straight up giving co-author credit for 1 Corinthians to a guy named Sosthenes.That gives us a few clues: one, this guy was well known to the Corinthians, at least as well known as Paul. He doesn’t even need to tell the church who he is; they know him.
2.Paul considers him a theologian and Jewish scholar of equal standing.
So we have two mentions of a Sosthenes who is a prominent figure in Corinth, a well-regarded Jewish scholar, and someone Paul would have wrote the letter with to add weight and credibility to his harsh rebuke of the Corinthian church.

It is compelling enough evidence to look at the possibility that the Sosthenes who tried to get Paul arrested (or worse) is the same Sosthenes who co-wrote one of Paul’s most monumental letters.
Why? because Paul most probably witneassed his beating.

And we are talking about the same Paul who writes 'when your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink'.

So my question is : Why would Paul not go to Sosthenes?

 

[Bthoth]

What is strange is you claiming what The Chapter is using.
Paul did not have time to make conspiracy , because he was persecuted.

No conspiracy mentioned.

Letters between church are not gospel nor standard setting.

Which Historians?

Give me Books , Pages , references

Why you know the letter is between church.

Do you know how many 'historians' have been debunked because of their inconsistent analogy?

1 Corinthians 15 is about "Death has been swallowed in victory"

What the heck is that, 'death has been swallowed in victory'? No wisdom there.

Why on Earth would Jesus predict his own death in Mark 9 and Matthew 17 then?

The question is why Paul?

OK. Not a part of the conversation.

Mark 9
'They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, 'What were you arguing about on the road?' But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, 'Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.'

Finally. the attempts to quote jesus.

I assume that you know what Paul said about himself , so no need to explain it.

-Aurhor and Co - Author:
The Gaelic war doesn't have Ceasar name on the title,but we know that it was written by Ceasar , because the contemproraries of Ceasar atributed it to his name and the following generations did the same thing.

-Sosthenes is either one person mentioned in the New Testament twice, or he’s two people with the same name in the same city.
In Acts,Sosthenes is not down with Paul or Jesus. He gets together all the Jewish folk of Corinth and drags Paul to court. They complain to the local tribunal that Paul is teaching people to worship contrary to Jewish law (pretty much the standby complaint for Paul and his crowd).But before Paul can defend himself, Gallio,the local ruler,brutally shuts them down. He basically says, 'Sounds like a Jewish problem, so you deal with
This is a humiliating defeat for the Corinthian Jews.
You have to understand that Sosthenes and his crew were probably preparing for this day for a while. They had a legal case to present, and instead of their grand display, the court threw the case out of court. Dismissed it before opening remarks out of apathy. This isn’t just a legal defeat; it’s a public slap in the face.The crowd responds by beating Sosthenes in front of the tribunal. Just straight up kicks the crap out of him in court. It’s further humiliation because the court doesn’t even care. Then…we don’t hear about him ever again. Paul sticks around Corinth for a little longer, then bounces around on his tour again.What is interesting is next in 1 Corinth which we Christians regard as the most important epistiles of the Bible.
Here’s what Paul says in the opening passage of the letter:
"Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God that is in Corinth…"

Here’s why that inclusion is a huge honor
1.Paul is straight up giving co-author credit for 1 Corinthians to a guy named Sosthenes.That gives us a few clues: one, this guy was well known to the Corinthians, at least as well known as Paul. He doesn’t even need to tell the church who he is; they know him.
2.Paul considers him a theologian and Jewish scholar of equal standing.
So we have two mentions of a Sosthenes who is a prominent figure in Corinth, a well-regarded Jewish scholar, and someone Paul would have wrote the letter with to add weight and credibility to his harsh rebuke of the Corinthian church.

It is compelling enough evidence to look at the possibility that the Sosthenes who tried to get Paul arrested (or worse) is the same Sosthenes who co-wrote one of Paul’s most monumental letters.
Why? because Paul most probably witneassed his beating.

What's the point?

And we are talking about the same Paul who writes 'when your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink'.

great line of wisdom, I did not hear paul say it.

So my question is : Why would Paul not go to Sosthenes?

No idea, but the quote is from a letter, not gospel and likewise is mentioning an old prophecy about raising the dead and convoluted with jesus resurrection.

I am not sure where you are at on the subject matter but the old dialogue is suspect.

If you like jesus take per bible:

The Rich and the Kingdom of God​

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[d]”



a.... how to earn life
b.... follow the fricken rules.

c...... as good in the past as now.

 

[Soapy]

I believe God reads the hearts and He will do what He will do. No doubt about it.

“The word that goes out of my mouth will not return to me until it has fulfilled that which it was sent out to achieve.”

Happy is the lamb who hears the voice of the good shepherd. They will be led to safety in the Penfold of God. But the lamb that listens to the voice of false shepherd will be led to destruction in the mouth of the wolf.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And still John 10:30 "The Father and I are one"

You really believe that literally?

Then who was Jesus praying to? Himself?
Or could they be “one” as Jesus stated in John 17:11,22?
It has to be… because Jesus stated “the Father is greater than I am.” - John 14:28.

 

[Soapy]

You really believe that literally?

Then who was Jesus praying to? Himself?
Or could they be “one” as Jesus stated in John 17:11,22?
It has to be… because Jesus stated “the Father is greater than I am.” - John 14:28.

What makes them want to believe that two persons are one person?

Even if they say that the two are ‘EQUALLY GOD’, what sense does it make for there to be TWO EQUAL RULERS in one kingdom?

We are ‘Image of God’… Do we have a rulership of TWO RULERS, let alone two EQUAL rulers who are THE SAME AS EACH OTHER?

GOD is one PERSON. God created ONE Man in his image… Man is also ONE PERSON. The physical mirrors the Spiritual.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If God had wanted His Word the Bible to imply Jesus and his Father were equals, He would have had it written down that they were brothers.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I have been trying to research from the Christian Bible the idea that:

• ‘A son is equal to his Father’

I can, nowhere, find such a schema from Judaism or Christianity but it is relevant to a part of trinitarianism and other ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ type of ideological beliefs, wherein it is claimed that:

1. ‘Jesus is equal to God because he is the Son of God’
2. ‘Jesus had the same nature as God so he, too, is God’
3. ‘Jesus received all things that the Father had therefore jesus is God’

These are a few of the reasonings I have heard but which carry no evidence from the scriptures... and it is from the scriptures that I seek the answer to:

• Where is this belief shown in the Old and New Testaments

I am asking:

• If the Son receives what he has from the Father, how is the son equal to the Father who gave him what he has?
• Jesus is given all power and authority BY the Father ... but only did a period of time - and even so, the ‘all things’ did not mean ‘absolutely all things’ because the Father’s “Seat of Power” was not part of the deal. This is illustrated by the stories of:

1. Joseph in Egypt given all power and authority to rule over Ha roads Kingdom ... for a period of time until the famine was over’ whence he ‘HANDED BACK POWER AND AUTHORITY TO’ Pharoah. And, Pharoah said to him, ‘EXCEPT FOR MY THRONE, you are to be Pharoah to my people’
2. Mordeciah in Persia (Book of Esther) in which King Xerxes handed over his Rulership to Mordeciah so that Mordeciah could save the Jews on the day of Purim where the Jews in that kingdom were edicted to be destroyed by the wicked Haman who tricked kings Xerxes.
3. Moses, also, was ‘GOD’ for a period of time under Pharoah. THE GOD, YAHWEH said to him that he was to be ‘God to Pharoah’ (read that as you may) and Moses even was given a high priest to mediate between himself and the people (there’s more to this than I’m saying but times and attention doesn’t warrant right now)

What these show is that even if a Father (or God) gives ‘ALL’ or designates another (obviously, a SON OF MAN) to ACT on his behalf, this still doesn’t make the trusted ‘Son’ EQUAL to the Father, to the God, who entrusted him.

Furthermore, what is it then when the Father has more than one Son - are they both (all) equal to each other ... I don’t think any scriptures credits that reasoning - does it?

Lastly, Adam, the first human, (until he sinned) is credited as being:

• ‘SON OF GOD’ (Luke 3:38)

How is it no one say that:

• ‘Adam was equal to God’

And we know the holy angels are:

• ‘Sons of God’

Why are they not said to:

• ‘Be equal to God because they are Sons of God’

And Jesus prays to the Father that the apostles should also become ‘Sons’ of God...

• ‘Equal to God’???

I’m searching for the reasoning behind ‘Son is equal to Father’ in Christianity or tradition of the Jews - or that it is a myth to substantiate a falsehood of trinitarianism.

Yes I found that also. Christ is God’s Spokes person but is not God in essence. Like a mirror reflecting the sun. We say the sun is in the mirror but the sun itself does not descend into the mirror. The mirror and the sun are separate entities.

 

[Kenny]

And also if Jesus is God what need is there for a mediator between God and Man?

Because we needed redemption fulfilled in the sacrifice.

 

[Kenny]

If God had wanted His Word the Bible to imply Jesus and his Father were equals, He would have had it written down that they were brothers.

No, cousin. Trying to understand God with a finite mind, might make it a little difficult. The His Word didn’t imply… it stated:


John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

 

[Kenny]

Yes, Jesus and his Father are one: One in purpose, one in unity, one in goal, one in belief that is why Jesus prayed that his followers be one just as he and his Father are one - see John 17:11; John 17:21-23
Surely Jesus was Not praying that his followers also become God !

No… but because we are His body, He invited us to experience God as one. When Jesus said that scripture declares we are gods, He meant that we are participating in the God gift of rulership and authority.

 

[Kenny]

Yes I found that also. Christ is God’s Spokes person but is not God in essence. Like a mirror reflecting the sun. We say the sun is in the mirror but the sun itself does not descend into the mirror. The mirror and the sun are separate entities.

But Jesus doesn’t reflect nor is He a mirror… He is the light and the light of the world and His light is the life of man

 

[Soapy]

Yes I found that also. Christ is God’s Spokes person but is not God in essence. Like a mirror reflecting the sun. We say the sun is in the mirror but the sun itself does not descend into the mirror. The mirror and the sun are separate entities.

Not God in any way…

It could hardly be that Jesus is almighty God and says that he puts himself last…

A king does not put himself last in any situation - A king has many aides and protectors and their job is secure HIS WELFARE as the ruler of them.

However, the HERO puts himself last in order to make sure all people around him are secured - and the one who is to protect the king the most… hence, on earth, Jesus Christ is the protector of word, and the belief in, the king, almighty God: The Father.

 

[Soapy]

Because we needed redemption fulfilled in the sacrifice.

What need would there be for a mediator between God and Man, the Man, Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ IS GOD all along?

• “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5)

Jesus was born as the second Adam, a true image of God, just as Adam was (The Adam who sinned):

• “For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” (Hebrew 2:17)

God is not a high priest. A high priest is in SERVICE to God: The Mediator - a man considered as PURE (IS PURE, in Jesus’ case) and able to commune between sinful man and sinless Almighty God.

 

[Kenny]

What need would there be for a mediator between God and Man, the Man, Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ IS GOD all along?

• “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5)

As always, you address the parenthetical manifestation of The Word as Jesus forgetting that He left His eternal position and capacity to come as a man. And then you want to speak as if it is the same.

Jesus was born as the second Adam, a true image of God, just as Adam was (The Adam who sinned):

• “For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” (Hebrew 2:17)

Yes! and Amen! That is the reason The Word had to become man.

God is not a high priest. A high priest is in SERVICE to God: The Mediator - a man considered as PURE (IS PURE, in Jesus’ case) and able to commune between sinful man and sinless Almighty God.

Yes! and Amen! - 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Only God has neither beginning of days nor the end of life

 

[Dimi95]

You really believe that literally?

Then who was Jesus praying to? Himself?
Or could they be “one” as Jesus stated in John 17:11,22?

John 17
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:
'Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

The question is : How did Jesus had the glory before the begining of the world?
That means that Jesus existed forever,or?

It has to be… because Jesus stated “the Father is greater than I am.” - John 14:28.

Let's see John 14

"Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?'
Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life.No one comes to the Father except through me.If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.'
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: 'Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

So the question is : Why did Jesus said:

-'have seen him'
-'Don't you know me,Philip,even after i have been among you such a long time
?

 

[Soapy]

As always, you address the parenthetical manifestation of The Word as Jesus forgetting that He left His eternal position and capacity to come as a man. And then you want to speak as if it is the same.


Yes! and Amen! That is the reason The Word had to become man.


Yes! and Amen! - 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Kenny, doesn’t the text say:

• ‘RESEMBLING THE SON OF GOD’

So Jesus Christ is a resemblance to the Son of God? And he IS the Son of God, AND IS GOD?

And he is a high priest TO GOD while being God at the same time???

Only God has neither beginning of days nor the end of life

Kenny, you mean that when Jesus WAS MADE TO BE IMMORTAL at his resurrection, it mesns that he was already immortal before hd was made immortal:

• ‘I WAS DEAD, BUT NOW am alive forevermore’

 

[Kenny]

Kenny, doesn’t the text say:

• ‘RESEMBLING THE SON OF GOD’

So Jesus Christ is a resemblance to the Son of God? And he IS the Son of God, AND IS GOD?

When he came on the earth… he was “made” in the form of man. So He became both God and Man to exercise legal authority over the earth according to Genesis and the words of Jesus to take back the authority that the god of this world had stolen from Adam.

And he is a high priest TO GOD while being God at the same time???

Think about it. Can God be in all place at the same time? Can God hear and answer all the prayers at the same time? And now you are suggesting that God can’t be and do two things at the same time? It is The Word that is both High Priest for man even as He received back the glory of God that He had with the Father before He came in the form of man.

Kenny, you mean that when Jesus WAS MADE TO BE IMMORTAL at his resurrection, it mesns that he was already immortal before hd was made immortal:

• ‘I WAS DEAD, BUT NOW am alive forevermore’

That is correct… now, what does “dead” mean to you vs what it means as per the biblical definition. Kind of like when Jesus said… “You say… but I say…” situation.