Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

What I see is that Jesus was claiming God to be his direct birth Father (Virgin Birth) and the Jewish where calling Jesus a *******. However, Jesus is called Jehovah in other parts of the bible and I disagree with your John 1:1 rendering as "a god".

if you look back to John 5:18 the Jewish leaders said Jesus was claiming "equality with God". So clearly they were not saying Jesus was "a god" like an angel but God on a equal level as the Father as seen here.

Do you know what "Equality" means?

You can disagree with John 1:1c all you want, but there is plenty of scholarly reason to read it as an anarthrous Theos. Jesus is never called Jehovah, I don't know where you get this from, probably from a misunderstanding that "Lord" is always without exception a translation for the Name. If you're talking about the OT where it says "His name is YHWH righteousness", I've probably shown you several times by now how the name is "IS righteousness", otherwise Ezekiel and Obadiah and others are named God too.

They said he was claiming equality by making God his own Father. There's nothing more to do it. By claiming God as his Father, he was claiming such "Equality". Gills explains this perfectly:

making himself to be equal with God; to be of the same nature, and have the same perfections, and do the same works; for by saying that God was his Father, and so that he was the Son of God, a phrase, which, with them, signified a divine person, as they might learn from Psalm 2:7, and by ascribing the same operations to himself, as to his Father, they rightly understood him, that he asserted his equality with him; for had he intended no more, and had they imagined that he intended no more by calling God his Father, than that he was so by creation, as he is to all men, or by adoption, as he was to the Jews, they would not have been so angry with him; for the phrase, in this sense, they used themselves: but they understood him otherwise, as asserting his proper deity, and perfect equality with the Father; and therefore to the charge of sabbath breaking, add that of blasphemy, and on account of both, sought to put him to death; for according to their canons, both the sabbath breaker, and the blasphemer, were to be stoned (d).

Jhn 5:18 So the Jewish leaders tried all the harder to find a way to kill him. For he not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God.

1. Jesus did not break the Sabbath, as many antinomians try to say, that would make Jesus a sinner. What he broke was the Pharisee traditions. Even the Trinitarian Antinomian heavyweight Gills agrees:

because he had not only broken the sabbath; as they imagined; for he had not really broken it: and if they had known what that means, that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice, they would have been convinced that he had not broke it by this act of mercy to a poor distressed object:

This is why he asks them if they would pull their donkey out of a ditch or let their livestock out to water. He's explaining what is and isn't permissible on Sabbath all this time.

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? | Magazine Article | Tomorrow's World

Jesus Performed Seven Sabbath Miracles

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. trust the Holy Spirit for guidence

I don't believe everything I Read on the internet. I believe the facts behind what the internet says.

I do trust the Spirit for guidance, and I love when people think that whatever they believe is what the Spirit has told them, even if the Spirit has apparently told others differently. Such a drastic resort may very well be "blaspheming the Spirit".

All Greek to English Bibles render "God" and not "a god", but thats not the point. If you look back at john 5:18 you will see that the Jewish leaders saw Jesus claims as to being "Equal" to God. Now ask yourself a question: is "a god" Equal to "God"? Now you can claim they are in error by thinking this, but its clearly what they meant to say. What makes you think the Spirit gives you guidance and not me?

 

[Shermana]

In post 7807, please note this gospel citation that quite clearly negates the following of the Law, and the citations from Paul and the author of Hebrews continues in that vein. One simply cannot say that they are upholding the Law if they're ending it. OTOH, there are citations dealing with the keeping of the Law, so what goes here?

Paul and the Gospels are two different subjects altogether. If you read old Christian history, there was indeed a reaction against Paul by many early Christian Jews. Several Torah keeping gentile Christians today reject Paul. Many Messianic Jews reject Paul as well.

Almost all Christians are Antinomians, who happen to mainly use Paul while throwing Jesus under the bus for the most part, and many of them outright admit that Paul contradicts Jesus and thus trumps what Jesus says because the Law was "still in force when Jesus was alive but ended when he was on the cross", which is rubbish but still far more honest than those who insist that there is no contradiction between Paul and Jesus.

Please feel free to research the very controversial issue of Paul vs. Jesus.

Paul's Contradictions of Jesus

I think there are at least two items that might account for this. One is that I do believe Paul, and eventually the others, comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to be "one body", as Paul insists, whereas there is actually a division within: Jews and gentiles operating under different rules. How can there be "one body" under these circumstances, especially when you may have intermarriage between them, and then how does one observe the "agape meal"-- kosher of not kosher? Remember Peter's eating cheeseburgers with gentiles when James came on to the scene and reprimands Peter.

Indeed, this is another aspect to the Paul vs Jesus debate. What's clear is that in Acts 21, the Jewish Christians were suspicious of Paul teaching Jews to abandon Moses. Paul underwent a vow to clear his name on this matter. The question is, was Paul just pretending? We don't know for sure....but I think Paul may have been lying. On the subject of Cheeseburgers: 1) We don't know what Peter ate with them. It doesn't say he ate their food. It just says he ate with them. It may be related to the idea of not eating at unkosher restaraunts even if you just order a salad. 2) The idea of not mixing milk with meat altogether as opposed to the calf's direct mother may not be what was originally intended with that commandment.

Also, the issue of the Book of Acts altogether, Acts as seen by quite a few scholars, may have been an attempt to reconcile the antinomian gentile "Christians" of the time with the original Nazarene Jews who were first called "Christians" in Acts 10, who at the time of that writing, were likely at odds.

We see this walking away from the Law long before the end of the century, but as I said previously, how could they do that if Jesus supposedly said they had to follow the entire Law? Well, teaching that Jesus "fulfilled the Law" is obviously the approach that was taken, but stop for a second and think what does "fulfill" mean in this context? Or, to put it another way, is the Law to be followed or not if one's Jewish, and all the apostles were just that?

Yes, the concept of Jesus "Fulfilling the Law" is one of the things that aggravates me most about Antinomian Christians. They are "doers of Lawlessness" whom Jesus condemns that will be rejected. This is one of the most common canards that I'd like to see slain dead in the near future.

Completion: Fulfilling Torah and Prophets (Messianic Judaism)

If Jesus said that they should abandon the Law, that would make him a "false prophet", but to say he "fulfilled the Law" is sort of a way out of it, even though it really does defy logic if one thinks about it because it really doesn't answer the question as to whether Jews still needed to keep it?

Indeed. Their way of saying he "Fufilled the Law" makes it possible for Jesus to not say "abandon the Law" while still saying to abandon the Law. Many Christians outright say that Jesus abolished the Law, even though he specifically said he didn't come to. This is, again, a subject that infuriates me, when people think that "Fulfill" means to do away with and no longer have in place.

Just a reminder: Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.” Now did Jesus actually say these words or was assigned to him later after the church walked away from the Law? I don't know, but the latter is at least a hypothetical possibility.

Read the next verse.

 

[Shermana]

Let me add something to what Sherman posted.

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the "least" of the Laws will be called the least in the Kingdom.

Not obeying laws makes one least in the Kingdom but he is still in the kingdom. Nicodemus obeyed countless laws yet Jesus said he was not even in the kingdom. That is because getting into the kingdom or getting kicked out of it (which IMO is impossible) has nothing to do with obedience but grace and grace alone. If you can out-sin grace then how was it ever grace to begin with. Not that I am for a second suggesting obedience is not very important.

No, Jesus said your righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. Your record of behavior is very much important. If you are not more righteous than them, who were scrupulous to obey the Law even if they were not completely on target with how to interpret it correctly, you will not enter the Kingdom. The issue was that they were themselves not pure in heart and still had evil despite obeying the Law, which diluted their righteousness. The concept of Grace is nowhere taught by Jesus. Only by Paul, and even then, Paul is careful to put behavioral conditions on that. The idea that Christ's righteousness is imputed on anyone who believes in him is full of holes and controversies and is not based on anything he actually taught.

The "Grace only" mentality is a very "Do as thou wilt" anti-works one.

 

[Walkntune]

Let me add something to what Sherman posted.

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the "least" of the Laws will be called the least in the Kingdom.

Not obeying laws makes one least in the Kingdom but he is still in the kingdom. Nicodemus obeyed countless laws yet Jesus said he was not even in the kingdom. That is because getting into the kingdom or getting kicked out of it (which IMO is impossible) has nothing to do with obedience but grace and grace alone. If you can out-sin grace then how was it ever grace to begin with. Not that I am for a second suggesting obedience is not very important.

Great Post! Obedience of love is always greater than an obedience out of law. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments. Emphasis is on love here and not the commandment of laws. It was a statement of truth.

 

[metis]

Paul and the Gospels are two different subjects altogether. If you read old Christian history, there was indeed a reaction against Paul by many early Christian Jews. Several Torah keeping gentile Christians today reject Paul. Many Messianic Jews reject Paul as well.

Almost all Christians are Antinomians, who happen to mainly use Paul while throwing Jesus under the bus for the most part, and many of them outright admit that Paul contradicts Jesus and thus trumps what Jesus says because the Law was "still in force when Jesus was alive but ended when he was on the cross", which is rubbish but still far more honest than those who insist that there is no contradiction between Paul and Jesus.

Please feel free to research the very controversial issue of Paul vs. Jesus.

Indeed, this is another aspect to the Paul vs Jesus debate. What's clear is that in Acts 21, the Jewish Christians were suspicious of Paul teaching Jews to abandon Moses. Paul underwent a vow to clear his name on this matter. The question is, was Paul just pretending? We don't know for sure....but I think Paul may have been lying. On the subject of Cheeseburgers: 1) We don't know what Peter ate with them. It doesn't say he ate their food. It just says he ate with them. It may be related to the idea of not eating at unkosher restaraunts even if you just order a salad. 2) The idea of not mixing milk with meat altogether as opposed to the calf's direct mother may not be what was originally intended with that commandment.

Also, the issue of the Book of Acts altogether, Acts as seen by quite a few scholars, may have been an attempt to reconcile the antinomian gentile "Christians" of the time with the original Nazarene Jews who were first called "Christians" in Acts 10, who at the time of that writing, were likely at odds.

Yes, the concept of Jesus "Fulfilling the Law" is one of the things that aggravates me most about Antinomian Christians. They are "doers of Lawlessness" whom Jesus condemns that will be rejected. This is one of the most common canards that I'd like to see slain dead in the near future.

Completion: Fulfilling Torah and Prophets (Messianic Judaism)



Indeed. Their way of saying he "Fufilled the Law" makes it possible for Jesus to not say "abandon the Law" while still saying to abandon the Law. Many Christians outright say that Jesus abolished the Law, even though he specifically said he didn't come to. This is, again, a subject that infuriates me, when people think that "Fulfill" means to do away with and no longer have in place.

Thanks for the above, but there's one area where I do disagree with you, and that is with Paul.

If Paul was so out of touch with what Jesus taught, then why did the 12 have anything to do with him, especially considering his past? Yes, I pick up where Paul and James do not seem on the same page, but Acts mentions three times that Paul and the others met and talked, and there was correspondence between them even when Paul was away.

OTOH, I do think that Paul presented the 12 with some different ideas with undoubtedly some being a departure from the norm, but Paul eventually wins out. Again, how could that be if he were such an outcast?

Paul was a very brilliant man who I believe correctly picked up on a problem that could have torn "the Way" apart, namely how can there be "one body" with two distinct parts operating under different rules? Also, I simply cannot see the 12 departing from Jesus' teachings, so there are things that Jesus must have said to open that door, and I think at least part of that is with the Great Commission whereas he eventually may have realized that just trying to convert Jews just wasn't working. Also, he seems to have an inclination for inclusion, thus bringing the "God-fearers" into the fold.

But most of what you wrote above I very much can agree with. BTW, my mention of Peter with "cheeseburgers" was said tongue-in-cheek. However, even being at table with gentiles eating treif would have been a problem then.

 

[metis]

Great Post! Obedience of love is always greater than an obedience out of law. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments. Emphasis is on love here and not the commandment of laws. It was a statement of truth.

But that's working out of an assumption that the two are mutually exclusive, which they are not. There's nothing in the Law that violates the concept of "love" in any way-- quite the reverse since the Law itself helped to establish compassion and justice for us.

 

[1robin]

No, Jesus said your righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom.

Exactly. The standard is not being a little less pathetic at obedience that the Scribes or the Pharisees it is perfection. Perfection was only achieved by one person, Christ. I can only be perfect by substitutionary atonement. All works based salvation models have prohibitive problems even theoretically.

1. To be an effective son of God, Godly Jew, or Christian you must know what it takes to get into the kingdom, you must know when you have crossed from this world into the spiritual kingdom of God, you must know that you remain in it and will.
2. A Christian knows that Christ is the method of entry. A law/salvation person has some unknown quantity of obedience to unknown laws. Some of which can't even be done by an average person. There is no Temple. So in the end you simply invent which laws you obey and an arbitrary level of obedience and call it "right". Can you illustrate your own threshold between enough and not quite enough obedience and what to in detail. A Christian can state in perfect detail what where the line is, can you?
3. A Christian upon being born again has no doubt what just occurred. It is an experience of such quality that no doubt remains of our status with God and none of us reached cross that thresh hold by obedience to law. Obedience to law has no line of demarcation. You might hope you arbitrary standard is enough but you will never know so until it is to late. How effective can you be without assurance. If someone says to a Christian convert of die, the Christ knows his status and may willingly die. A works person would probably frantically his mind for enough laws obeyed and works done and still never know. If I was him I would not take the chance and many have not.
4. If a Christian is asked for his testimony he knows he is a child of God and kept that way by God's power and can speak based on that assurance. A works based person does not know if he is actually good enough and never will this side of the dirt and so they testimony would carry less conviction and is also the message that repels more curious people about the bible than any I know. You must earn it is cold water to every sincere seeker I ever saw come in contact with it.

Your record of behavior is very much important. If you are not more righteous than them, who were scrupulous to obey the Law even if they were not completely on target with how to interpret it correctly, you will not enter the Kingdom. The issue was that they were themselves not pure in heart and still had evil despite obeying the Law, which diluted their righteousness. The concept of Grace is nowhere taught by Jesus. Only by Paul, and even then, Paul is careful to put behavioral conditions on that. The idea that Christ's righteousness is imputed on anyone who believes in him is full of holes and controversies and is not based on anything he actually taught.

The "Grace only" mentality is a very "Do as thou wilt" anti-works one.

No it isn't. Grace only applies only to salvation. Every other form of punishment and negativity is still on the table. Salvation is achieved by God's power and kept by God's power. Christ's forgiveness was total not partial. I may die if I drink and drive. I may go to jail if a steal. However I will be in heaven because I could never earn it anyway. Perfection is the standard whatever level below perfection my record is Christ makes up that difference. Not to mention our desire to do wrong things is substantially reduced when we are born again and we feel more guilt for doing less sinful things than before it and so we live a much more moral life because we are born again. I was church councilor for years and the most devastating thing you can tell a young Christian or a curious agnostic is that you must earn it or that you have lost your salvation. They literally become glassy eyed and hopeless every single time. The only people I have ever seen respond with enthusiasm concerning merit based salvation are those who were saved but thought they were so Good God could not be against them. PRIDE beyond everything else except falsehoods is the deadliest sin on earth. Grace is not grace if it does not provide what is not earned and heaven is a thing no one outside Christ earned or ever could. We all fall short, we have Christ to make up the infinite gap, and we look to him when we fail. A works person can only look inward where no solution lies when they fall.

In order to really demonstrate the irrationality and logical absurdity of merit based salvation please state in detail the exact parameters when effort produces salvation. The Law is vital but it has never saved a single person.

 

[1robin]

Great Post! Obedience of love is always greater than an obedience out of law. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments. Emphasis is on love here and not the commandment of laws. It was a statement of truth.

Well said and I would add that it is always Christ's love for us that saves. We should and do most times love him but we have nothing to offer outside faith in exchange for salvation. Even when our love exists it can fail (as in Peters love trying to keep Christ from the cross), but his love never will. If it could we may as well all give it up because it is the only tie that never fails to bind.

 

[1robin]

But that's working out of an assumption that the two are mutually exclusive, which they are not. There's nothing in the Law that violates the concept of "love" in any way-- quite the reverse since the Law itself helped to establish compassion and justice for us.

It is not an assumption there are 2 billion people who can testify to the experience of being born again without earning it. There is not a single works/salvation witness that can testify to their salvation or IMO of receiving the Holy spirit based on merit. Which specific act of obedience let any of us meet God? The first, the tenth, the millionth? The law is not love but it is consistent with love. It was given to point out what was right and where we have failed so that we are aware of the need of forgiveness. Faith and forgiveness are the only things that save and neither are the law.

Rom.3:28 - A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
Eph.2:8,9 - By grace (undeserved mercy) are ye saved through faith; it is the gift of God: Not of works
Tit.3:5a - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us

It is no wonder why works people treat Paul with such contempt or neglect. However I can make every point those verse did without him. Paul was commissioned by Christ, accepted as an apostle by all the other apostles, wrote as much of the NT as all others combined, and prevailed in every dispute with them. There is no grounds for diminishing Paul sufficient to justify doing so.

The Purpose Of The Law…
The purpose of the Law is to define sin, to reveal its nature; and that is why we are without any excuse at all. The law is in our hearts, but that’s not clear enough, so God made it explicit. He has defined it, He has underlined it, He has shown it plainly in the written Law.
The Law was given to pinpoint sin, to define it, to bring it out of its hiding-place and to show its exceeding sinful character. Nothing shows the exceeding sinfulness of sin as much as the Law itself does; and once a man has seen the real meaning of the Law he sees the sinfulness of his own nature.
What The Law Doesn’t Do…
The Law was never given to save people. The purpose of the Law is to show people that they can never save themselves.
Once a person has understood the Law, and its spiritual meaning and content, he knows that can’t keep it. What’s the summary of the Law? It is: “You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength; and you shall love you neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)
How We Are Saved…
Has anyone done that and kept the Law? No, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). That’s what the Law says. It shows us our utter helplessness and hopelessness, and so it becomes “our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ,” (Galatians 3:24) the only One who, by the grace of God, can save us, and deliver us, and reconcile us to God, and make us safe for all eternity.
http://biblestudyplanet.com/the-purpose-of-the-law/

The law condemns us all, only grace can save us all.

New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh

 

[metis]

Matthew 25[31]:"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

and

1Cor.13[1] If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
[2] And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
[3] If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
[4] Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
[5] it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
[7] Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
[8] Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
[13] So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love[.

The difference is does one believe about Jesus or actually in him, and I'm afraid with too many it's just the former. If faith were the only requisite, than why are the Christian scriptures full of directions on living love? And why is it that the Sermon on the Mount focus in on why it is so necessary to live love and not just mouth it?

In Koine Greek, "agape" is an active noun. IOW, one just doesn't have "agape"-- they must live "agape".

 

[1robin]

Matthew 25[31]:"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

and

1Cor.13[1] If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
[2] And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
[3] If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
[4] Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
[5] it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
[7] Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
[8] Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
[13] So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love[.

The difference is does one believe about Jesus or actually in him, and I'm afraid with too many it's just the former. If faith were the only requisite, than why are the Christian scriptures full of directions on living love? And why is it that the Sermon on the Mount focus in on why it is so necessary to live love and not just mouth it?

In Koine Greek, "agape" is an active noun. IOW, one just doesn't have "agape"-- they must live "agape".

Because love is very important. What it does not say is that we are saved by love. It uses faith, grace, belief, mercy, etc...... but not love as the requirement. It is true that if God did not love us we could not be saved but how could we love something we do not know and we do not know God personally until we are saved? The Bible also says we should be perfect. Are you? I am sure not? Stating worthy goals even of great importance are not conditions for salvation. If Love alone produced salvation then how much? For who? How much of what kind, to whom, over comes how much sin, of what kind, towards whom? Anything but grace alone salvation quickly become a self refuting logical absurdity when put into practice or reality. I think we have agreed that perfection is the standard. Do you love God perfectly and above everything including your family? How could you even know? Love is the chief virtue and supremely important but is not the standard for our salvation unless God's love is what your measuring. I believe that every gain or punishment that love could produce is determined by love outside salvation its self. I love him because I he saved me. He did not save me because I loved him. I didn't know him until I was saved. I knew about him. Maybe that is what you meant, it was hard to tell.

 

[challupa]

Thanks for the above, but there's one area where I do disagree with you, and that is with Paul.

If Paul was so out of touch with what Jesus taught, then why did the 12 have anything to do with him, especially considering his past? Yes, I pick up where Paul and James do not seem on the same page, but Acts mentions three times that Paul and the others met and talked, and there was correspondence between them even when Paul was away.

OTOH, I do think that Paul presented the 12 with some different ideas with undoubtedly some being a departure from the norm, but Paul eventually wins out. Again, how could that be if he were such an outcast?

Paul was a very brilliant man who I believe correctly picked up on a problem that could have torn "the Way" apart, namely how can there be "one body" with two distinct parts operating under different rules? Also, I simply cannot see the 12 departing from Jesus' teachings, so there are things that Jesus must have said to open that door, and I think at least part of that is with the Great Commission whereas he eventually may have realized that just trying to convert Jews just wasn't working. Also, he seems to have an inclination for inclusion, thus bringing the "God-fearers" into the fold.

But most of what you wrote above I very much can agree with. BTW, my mention of Peter with "cheeseburgers" was said tongue-in-cheek. However, even being at table with gentiles eating treif would have been a problem then.

From what I can remember we have only Paul's side of whether or not they accepted him don't we? I recognize he did go and talk to them and he wasn't received well for the most part. I don't know of scripture that comes from any of the 12 that says they agree with Paul. Just Paul saying so.

 

[metis]

Actually there is not only scriptural confirmation of Paul's acceptance beyond just he and Luke, but also we well know that the early church actually used his letters more than even the gospels at first. It would have been pretty hard to pull off Paul lying about his acceptance because he lived as a contemporary with Peter and the others. If Paul was such a fraud, there's not much doubt that the others would have made it abundantly clear of such in their own epistles.

See: 2Pet.3[15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,...

 

[1robin]

From what I can remember we have only Paul's side of whether or not they accepted him don't we? I recognize he did go and talk to them and he wasn't received well for the most part. I don't know of scripture that comes from any of the 12 that says they agree with Paul. Just Paul saying so.

Paul was commissioned by Christ, accepted as an apostle by all the other apostles, wrote as much of the NT as all others combined, and prevailed in every dispute with them. There is no grounds for diminishing Paul sufficient to justify doing so. There exists not one single example of any apostle disagreeing with Paul's textual accounts and they existed very early in many cases and within the lifetimes of those who would have objected strenuously if there had been any objection.

 

[icebuddy]

Do you know what "Equality" means?

ill ask you a question: Do you believe "a god" is equal to "The God"? That should answer what the Jewish leaders where thinking.

You can disagree with John 1:1c all you want, but there is plenty of scholarly reason to read it as an anarthrous Theos.

I look to Jesus and say "My Lord and My God" to the glory of the Father. Most scholars agree with John 1:1 as "The Word was God".

Jesus is never called Jehovah, I don't know where you get this from, probably from a misunderstanding that "Lord" is always without exception a translation for the Name. If you're talking about the OT where it says "His name is YHWH righteousness", I've probably shown you several times by now how the name is "IS righteousness", otherwise Ezekiel and Obadiah and others are named God too.

Ezekiel and Obadiah and others are not the Image of the invisible God, expressing the Father by his very being, only Jesus. Also, Gods word by inspiration of the Holy Spirit directly applies OT passages of Jehovah to Jesus.

1Cr 10:1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea
1Cr 10:3And did all eat the same spiritual meat
1Cr 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Isa 44:8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’”

Jesus is God to the glory of the Father! Don't forget 1 Cor 1:10

They said he was claiming equality by making God his own Father. There's nothing more to do it. By claiming God as his Father, he was claiming such "Equality". Gills explains this perfectly:

The Holy Spirit inspired John to write Jesus was equal to God in John 5:18, I believe Johns writings.

1. Jesus did not break the Sabbath, as many antinomians try to say, that would make Jesus a sinner. What he broke was the Pharisee traditions. Even the Trinitarian Antinomian heavyweight Gills agrees:

i didnt mention this, why are you?

I do trust the Spirit for guidance, and I love when people think that whatever they believe is what the Spirit has told them, even if the Spirit has apparently told others differently. Such a drastic resort may very well be "blaspheming the Spirit".

Do you believe the Spirit to be a living entity (personality) or do you deny this? I am not scared of this accusation, for I look to Jesus as My Lord and My God. I do not deny Jesus nor the Holy Spirit nor God the Father. I pray for Mercy upon those who believe differently.

What makes you think the Spirit gives you guidance and not me?

Do you look to Jesus and say, "NOT GOD"?
Do you deny the Physical resurrection, and the Physical second coming of Jesus?
Do you Deny the Holy Spirit of personality?
Do you honor Jesus as you Honor the Father?
Do you believe Jesus died for your past, present, and future sins?
Do you believe Jesus returned already, but secretly to only those who claim it?
Do you believe the gates of hell over ran Christianity and a new Church needed to arise chosen by Jesus
Would you have any problem calling Jesus God, Lord, Jehovah, Rock, Savior, Eternal, and honoring him as you honor the Father?

2Cr 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (We look to Jesus and honor him as God with the Father)
2Cr 4:5For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord (Jesus is Jehovah), and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake
2Cr 4:6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (We look to Jesus and say My Lord and My God)

I do not want anyone to suffer and not be saved. i want to meet you in the next life and say well done. However, we believe totally different. Someone is blinded by the devil, who we both dislike (One thing we agree on) Most of your beliefs so far seem to match up with WTBS or Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs. Are you a JW?

In Love,
tom

 

[Walkntune]

Well said and I would add that it is always Christ's love for us that saves. We should and do most times love him but we have nothing to offer outside faith in exchange for salvation. Even when our love exists it can fail (as in Peters love trying to keep Christ from the cross), but his love never will. If it could we may as well all give it up because it is the only tie that never fails to bind.

Yep thats true. Honestly though I could take it even further and say that it is not our faith that saves either but it is the faith of Christ! Its better to believe in and trust in the faithfulness of God and not our own.

 

[Shermana]

Actually there is not only scriptural confirmation of Paul's acceptance beyond just he and Luke, but also we well know that the early church actually used his letters more than even the gospels at first. It would have been pretty hard to pull off Paul lying about his acceptance because he lived as a contemporary with Peter and the others. If Paul was such a fraud, there's not much doubt that the others would have made it abundantly clear of such in their own epistles.

Acts 15 (and 21:25)'s authenticity have been disputed by quite a few scholars. For one thing, it seems to outright contradict Galatians 2, and even FF Bruce acknowledges this and gives a shoddy attempt at reconciliation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem#cite_note-13

^ "Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2 and the account of it recorded in Acts have been considered by some scholars as being in open contradiction.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
Jump up ^ "There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council", Esler, "Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology", p. 97 (1989). Cambridge University Press.
Jump up ^ "The historicity of Luke's account in Acts 15 has been questioned on a number of grounds.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
Jump up ^ "However, numerous scholars have challenged the historicity of the Jerusalem Council as related by Acts, Paul's presence there in the manner that Luke describes, the issue of idol-food being thrust on Paul's Gentile mission, and the historical reliability of Acts in general.", Fotopolous, "Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: a socio-rhetorical reconsideration", pp. 181-182 (2003). Mohr Siebeck.
Jump up ^ "Sahlin rejects the historicity of Acts completely (Der Messias und das Gottesvolk [1945]). Haenchen's view is that the Apostolic Council "is an imaginary construction answering to no historical reality" (The Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1971], p. 463). Dibelius' view (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1956], pp. 93–101) is that Luke's treatment is literary-theological and can make no claim to historical worth.", Mounce, "Apostolic Council", in Bromiley (ed.) "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", volume 1, p. 200 (rev. ed. 2001). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

2 Peter as most know, is a fraudulent letter not written by Peter.

Revelation may arguably have called Paul the "False teacher" of Ephesus. For all we know, there may have very well been epistles that condemned Paul that were edited out. According to the notorious Tubingen school (which I have great respect for), the "Clementine Homilies" used "Simon Magus" as code word for Paul, and many scholars agree with this.

With that said, the epistle of James may also be seen as a stern rebuke of this "grace only" anti-law/anti-works theology Paul was going around preaching.

As for the 'early church", you should consider learning some history of the early church itself, there was a major split at some point in the early stages between the gentile antinomians who mainly went by Paul and the Nazarene Jews and Ebionites, many of the Ebionites condemned Paul. The use of the word "Early Church" is dubious at best. The EARLIEST church was entirely Jewish and Torah obedient.

See: 2Pet.3[15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,...

[/QUOTE]

You need to learn some basic Bible scholarship, 2 Peter is nearly unanimously considered a forgery.

 

[Walkntune]

The Purpose Of The Law…
The purpose of the Law is to define sin, to reveal its nature; and that is why we are without any excuse at all. The law is in our hearts, but that’s not clear enough, so God made it explicit. He has defined it, He has underlined it, He has shown it plainly in the written Law.

I believe when God took away the heart of stone and gave us a heart of flesh he was removing the laws(written on stone) and given us Christ( the Word made flesh which is love).By giving us a heart of flesh and love the laws have been written in our heart and are fulfilled in this love. We walk by the Spirit which produces fruit and once we make a" have to" condition on it then it becomes law and works.We change from eating from the tree of life back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and whether you do good or evil it is still the wrong tree.
If the law is to point out sin and sin made man run and hide than that makes it a very questionable method to draw man to God.


The bottom line to the gospel is not that you accepted Jesus but that Jesus has accepted you. The gospel is not you giving your life to Jesus but that Jesus gave His life to you. Isn't it time that we proclaimed the real gospel good news and threw aside all of our religious "do" in favor of His "done"?? Don Keathley.

 

[Shermana]

is not that you accepted Jesus but that Jesus has accepted you.

"Away from me ye doers of lawlessness".

 

[Walkntune]

"Away from me ye doers of lawlessness".

Im not a "doer" at all. I am a "be'er as I know who"I am" in Christ.
If you make a graven image of God, you are in denial that you are in the image of God. You are trying to worship from a place of "doing" instead of "being".