learner Daniel
Member
Revelation 1:8
Darby Translation
8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith [the] Lord God, he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus is not God
- Thread starter andy
- Start date
Darby Translation
8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith [the] Lord God, he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
learner Daniel
Member
wife is kicking me off
Oeste
Well-Known Member
That's hard to do when no scriptures are given, and the one that are given are misquoted.
Examples?
And please, not strawmen. I need full examples. Quote rather than paraphrase what I said.
Honestly Soapy, I think you are reading things that are not there. Remember, it was you who claimed that I thought the Father is not God, and I still have no idea how or why you would come to that conclusion, nor can I find anyone that even remotely suggested I've made such a charge.
And since you know I am Trinitarian, and that Trinitarians see the Father as God, you know better than this which makes your statement all the more disappointing.
I read what you wrote and gave you an opportunity to clarify what you meant by asking you a question. You miswrote? Fine, its happened to all of us. You clarified it and there's really nothing to worry about.
JerryMyers
Active Member
Dimi95 said:
Yes , it is.
Again , JerryMyers does not decide that.
And… let me guess, Dimi95 decide that???! What a joker!!
Dimi95 said:
Hahaha
You have many translations because there are many variations in the manuscripts.
You can see that in the footnotes
Now why would there be many variations in the manuscripts??
Dimi95 said:
If you don't have the written language to understand it , how would you translate it?
Are translationst better then the written language?
Not a smart question! You think all the readers here are scripture translators who need to have and understand the written language??!
We are not here to do any translations of the written language, buddy.
Dimi95 said:
And you can do that only by textual criticism , not solo.
If you do it solo , you are like anyone who gets hands on Scripture.
If you want to speak about biblical narrative , then you should learn Koine and how Social Science deals with it.
Like most of the readers here, the biblical narratives here come from the English-translated bibles, NOT the Koine-language scripture.
And for the umpteen times, textual criticism context is NOT the same as biblical context.
For someone who tries to project herself as ‘knowledgeable’, you sure seem lost in this forum.
Dimi95 said:
No , your way to dismiss that without any clarification is quote mining.
You mean like the way you have been dismissing comments not to your liking??
Dimi95 said:
Hahaha
Textual criticism deals with contex in general my friend , doesn't matter if it is biblical or quranic or else..
Textual criticism context and biblical context are NOT the same, buddy. Similar, maybe, but, definitely NOT the same.
So much for someone who tries hard to ‘sound’ smart!!
Dimi95 said:
We are literally discussing the text within the manuscripts , and trying to determine their original form.
I am trying to explain that to you , but you write some jumbo-mambo non-sense.
And then you present this which tells that you are wrong.
Biblical context is the texts within the manuscript that is mentioned in the previous quotation.
You are wrong and probably lost here.
We are NOT discussing the text within the manuscripts, we ARE discussing the text within the English-translated bible, and trying to determine the correct meaning and the context of the text, but you write some jumbo-mambo nonsense.
Dimi95 said:
Friend , you wrote a bunch of non-sense about textual criticism.
More proof that you have to start from the begining.
Ok, so let me say it again…I don’t think you even understand the things you are explaining.
Dimi95 said:
Yes , your explenations are factually incorrect since they represent your bias.
Likewise, buddy, your explanations are factually incorrect since they represent your bias.
Dimi95 said:
Again , this is vague.
Not one of , but the one for this particular passage.
It’s vague to you because you have a ‘vague mind’ – every comment you made in this thread is vague.
Dimi95 said:
This is again quote mining.
In John it states
was the Word
was with God
Word was God.
Do you know why the Word WAS God and not IS God??
Dimi95 said:
Hahahaha
The term. Lexi c o l o g y has two Greek morphemes:
-lexis meaning 'word, phrase'
-logos which denotes 'learning, a department of knowledge'.
Sure, if you want to split the term, but that does not change the fact that lexicology is the study of the complete set of words in a language. Lexicology is also closely associated with lexicography, that is, the practice of compiling dictionaries.
Are you in the ‘compiling dictionaries’ business??
Dimi95 said:
Exactly , so start from the begining and you can always come back and ask different questions.
OK. Started from the beginning same conclusion - if you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about in this thread, let me know. Try to be yourself, ‘cos trying to sound ‘smart’ only will expose the opposite.
Dimi95 said:
Nothing changes
Ad-hominem
Sure nothing changes. You will always lack maturity in your understanding because it’s in you, so your response here is understandable.
Dimi95 said:
You need English to explain it.
I don't.
I know Koine.
Grammar is always in play , because it is always part of a sentence.
You sound silly.
In case you have not realized the obvious, this forum is in English and we do need English to explain anything in this forum.
You sound silly.
Dimi85 said:
Buddy , i am telling you for the last time , the word Logos does have particular meaning in every sentence.
The meaning depends on the grammar and how the word is placed in that sentence.
In John 1 and John 14 is Principle of Reason.
Sure, buddy. If you want to understand the Word as spoken by God @Word of God as the Principle of Reason of God, I have no problem with that.
So in John 1:1,
'In the beginning was the Word' –
yes, in the beginning was the Principle of Reason of God.
'And the Word was with God and the Word was God' –
yes, the Principle of Reason was with and was God as it was God’s Principle of Reason, not Dimi95’s or JerryMyers’ Principle of Reason.
.. and in John 1:14,
The Word became flesh…… - Yes, the Principle of Reason of God now became flesh,
that is, became a human being/man.
Likewise, the Principle of Reason of Henry Ford (the creator/inventor) became the car (the created result), but that does not mean the car (the created result) and Henry Ford (the creator/inventor) one, and the same.
Dimi95 said:
This is what happens when yoi are limited with English.
Really?
So, how do you interpret Matthew 15:6 – “you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition”, if it’s not “you nullify the Commands of God for the sake of your tradition”??
Dimi95 said:
Says JerryMayers.
Irrelevant
Yes, that’s what I was trying to tell you – the comments you made are irrelevant in this thread.
Dimi95 said:
Where does intelligence come from?
Haha , so your principle of reason is intelligence , and where does that intelligence come from?
Where does morality come from?
Hmmm.. where does intelligence come from? Where does morality come from??
Do you want a philosophical response or a theological response??
Dimi95 said:
Matthew 13:13 does not say so.
Matthew 13:13 does NOT say what??
Dimi95 said:
In most parables Jesus makes comparison , but for thosr to be discussed you need to present any knowledge in Social Science.
Because History studies the New Testament , not JerryMyers or Dimi95.
I am just using the criteria.
Parables are not just about comparisons, parables are meant to be a message/a lesson to anyone who can understand it.
For someone who tries hard to project herself as knowledgeable in Social Science, you sure have shown little, if not, nothing to justify your so-called knowledge.
Dimi95 said:
I will not discuss verses with you.
That's for sure.
LOL! That’s one way to say you don’t know enough to discuss verses!
Dimi95 said:
Good , you admit that you known nothing about what i am studying.
Why would I want to know what you are studying?? I don’t make conclusions based on what you claimed you have been studying, I make conclusions based on what you said/wrote here.
Dimi95 said:
No , i don't teach.
But you do , and that is sad.
Well, if you see my comments as ‘teaching’, that’s you, NOT me… so deal with it.
Yes , it is.
Again , JerryMyers does not decide that.
And… let me guess, Dimi95 decide that???! What a joker!!
Dimi95 said:
Hahaha
You have many translations because there are many variations in the manuscripts.
You can see that in the footnotes
Now why would there be many variations in the manuscripts??
Dimi95 said:
If you don't have the written language to understand it , how would you translate it?
Are translationst better then the written language?
Not a smart question! You think all the readers here are scripture translators who need to have and understand the written language??!
We are not here to do any translations of the written language, buddy.
Dimi95 said:
And you can do that only by textual criticism , not solo.
If you do it solo , you are like anyone who gets hands on Scripture.
If you want to speak about biblical narrative , then you should learn Koine and how Social Science deals with it.
Like most of the readers here, the biblical narratives here come from the English-translated bibles, NOT the Koine-language scripture.
And for the umpteen times, textual criticism context is NOT the same as biblical context.
For someone who tries to project herself as ‘knowledgeable’, you sure seem lost in this forum.
Dimi95 said:
No , your way to dismiss that without any clarification is quote mining.
You mean like the way you have been dismissing comments not to your liking??
Dimi95 said:
Hahaha
Textual criticism deals with contex in general my friend , doesn't matter if it is biblical or quranic or else..
Textual criticism context and biblical context are NOT the same, buddy. Similar, maybe, but, definitely NOT the same.
So much for someone who tries hard to ‘sound’ smart!!
Dimi95 said:
We are literally discussing the text within the manuscripts , and trying to determine their original form.
I am trying to explain that to you , but you write some jumbo-mambo non-sense.
And then you present this which tells that you are wrong.
Biblical context is the texts within the manuscript that is mentioned in the previous quotation.
You are wrong and probably lost here.
We are NOT discussing the text within the manuscripts, we ARE discussing the text within the English-translated bible, and trying to determine the correct meaning and the context of the text, but you write some jumbo-mambo nonsense.
Dimi95 said:
Friend , you wrote a bunch of non-sense about textual criticism.
More proof that you have to start from the begining.
Ok, so let me say it again…I don’t think you even understand the things you are explaining.
Dimi95 said:
Yes , your explenations are factually incorrect since they represent your bias.
Likewise, buddy, your explanations are factually incorrect since they represent your bias.
Dimi95 said:
Again , this is vague.
Not one of , but the one for this particular passage.
It’s vague to you because you have a ‘vague mind’ – every comment you made in this thread is vague.
Dimi95 said:
This is again quote mining.
In John it states
was the Word
was with God
Word was God.
Do you know why the Word WAS God and not IS God??
Dimi95 said:
Hahahaha
The term. Lexi c o l o g y has two Greek morphemes:
-lexis meaning 'word, phrase'
-logos which denotes 'learning, a department of knowledge'.
Sure, if you want to split the term, but that does not change the fact that lexicology is the study of the complete set of words in a language. Lexicology is also closely associated with lexicography, that is, the practice of compiling dictionaries.
Are you in the ‘compiling dictionaries’ business??
Dimi95 said:
Exactly , so start from the begining and you can always come back and ask different questions.
OK. Started from the beginning same conclusion - if you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about in this thread, let me know. Try to be yourself, ‘cos trying to sound ‘smart’ only will expose the opposite.
Dimi95 said:
Nothing changes
Ad-hominem
Sure nothing changes. You will always lack maturity in your understanding because it’s in you, so your response here is understandable.
Dimi95 said:
You need English to explain it.
I don't.
I know Koine.
Grammar is always in play , because it is always part of a sentence.
You sound silly.
In case you have not realized the obvious, this forum is in English and we do need English to explain anything in this forum.
You sound silly.
Dimi85 said:
Buddy , i am telling you for the last time , the word Logos does have particular meaning in every sentence.
The meaning depends on the grammar and how the word is placed in that sentence.
In John 1 and John 14 is Principle of Reason.
Sure, buddy. If you want to understand the Word as spoken by God @Word of God as the Principle of Reason of God, I have no problem with that.
So in John 1:1,
'In the beginning was the Word' –
yes, in the beginning was the Principle of Reason of God.
'And the Word was with God and the Word was God' –
yes, the Principle of Reason was with and was God as it was God’s Principle of Reason, not Dimi95’s or JerryMyers’ Principle of Reason.
.. and in John 1:14,
The Word became flesh…… - Yes, the Principle of Reason of God now became flesh,
that is, became a human being/man.
Likewise, the Principle of Reason of Henry Ford (the creator/inventor) became the car (the created result), but that does not mean the car (the created result) and Henry Ford (the creator/inventor) one, and the same.
Dimi95 said:
This is what happens when yoi are limited with English.
Really?
So, how do you interpret Matthew 15:6 – “you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition”, if it’s not “you nullify the Commands of God for the sake of your tradition”??
Dimi95 said:
Says JerryMayers.
Irrelevant
Yes, that’s what I was trying to tell you – the comments you made are irrelevant in this thread.
Dimi95 said:
Where does intelligence come from?
Haha , so your principle of reason is intelligence , and where does that intelligence come from?
Where does morality come from?
Hmmm.. where does intelligence come from? Where does morality come from??
Do you want a philosophical response or a theological response??
Dimi95 said:
Matthew 13:13 does not say so.
Matthew 13:13 does NOT say what??
Dimi95 said:
In most parables Jesus makes comparison , but for thosr to be discussed you need to present any knowledge in Social Science.
Because History studies the New Testament , not JerryMyers or Dimi95.
I am just using the criteria.
Parables are not just about comparisons, parables are meant to be a message/a lesson to anyone who can understand it.
For someone who tries hard to project herself as knowledgeable in Social Science, you sure have shown little, if not, nothing to justify your so-called knowledge.
Dimi95 said:
I will not discuss verses with you.
That's for sure.
LOL! That’s one way to say you don’t know enough to discuss verses!
Dimi95 said:
Good , you admit that you known nothing about what i am studying.
Why would I want to know what you are studying?? I don’t make conclusions based on what you claimed you have been studying, I make conclusions based on what you said/wrote here.
Dimi95 said:
No , i don't teach.
But you do , and that is sad.
Well, if you see my comments as ‘teaching’, that’s you, NOT me… so deal with it.
JerryMyers
Active Member
That’s God Almighty talking (‘saith the Lord God’), NOT Jesus Christ.
Here, God Almighty is saying He is the Alpha and the Omega, He who is (now), and who was (the past), and who is to come (the future).
In other words, God Almighty is saying – He will always be the Almighty in the present, the past, and the future.
JerryMyers
Active Member
Hahaha... she needs help???
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Are you. I believe, referring to your dispute with other posters…. I do not ‘misquote’ my verses so you must be talking about others who may actually misquote as, say, JW, ONENESS, BAHAI… etc… Yes, they, I believe, do misquote!
You love your ‘Strawman’ thing… what is a ‘Strawman’?
Every time I post I give full and honest and true information about what we are disputing. You choose not to accept it in my belief as it speaks against you… You cannot deny this, imo, as your responses are hardly related to the exact position I set out for you - which highly suggests you are forestalling (there’s a more derogatory word did that term!).
What I am ‘Reading’ is that you are making HUGE errors in your presentation which you are furious with yourself for making when it’s pointed out to everyone to see.
You CLEARLY made an error claiming something you later regretted and then tried to deflect it by claiming it is I who mistook what you THOUGHT you were saying or did say!…. Just hold up your hands and say, ‘Yeah, I did make an error… of course I believe the Father is God… I’m trinitarian afterall… BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS GOD, too!’
I’ll take that on board but note that you only claim TWO persons as your ONE THREE PERSON GOD… wow!!!!! I’m sure that’s why Einstein decided not to believe in GOD… can’t blame him with that kind of confusing trinitarian (oops… Binatarian, no, Uni-God-tarian) mindset!
Ah, yes, see previous comment.
‘You gave me an opportunity to clarify… Ok, and you accepted the clarification- Great! Perhaps you could accept other clarifications on the matter if the scriptural truth instead of scuppering it with age-old trinitarian rehearst rhetoric that makes no sense. You want examples, you NEED EXAMPLES??:
- ‘I and the Father are One’
- Jesus walked on water’
- Jesus raised the dead
- Did an Apostle call Peter, ‘Christ’, when he quoted ‘The ROCK that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness WAS CHRIST’
Oh, I hear you, I hear you…. So then why do you say that ‘I AM’ is Jesus’ TITLE…
NO NO NO… ‘I Am’ is THE DESCRIPTIVE MEANING of the NAME, “YHWH”, just as ‘THE ROCK’ is the descriptive MEANING of the NAME, ‘Peter / Petra /Petros’ (arbitrary spelling…!).
So, NO, PETRA was not THE MAN … nor is Jesus [Christ?] YHWH. Jesus was not CLAIMING TO BE ‘I AM’ any more than the man born blind, when questioned if he truly was that man but now seeing fully, replied, ‘I AM’…
Jesus ANSWERED the Jews who asked him: ‘Are you greater than our great forefather, Abraham?’. He replied, in short, ‘YES, I Am’… and elaborated: ‘Because Abraham spoke about me in vision seeing my day, and was glad knowing that God made THE SAVIOUR TO COME FROM HIS LOINS!’ (Paraphrased)
- ‘There are three in Heaven who testify: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and all three testify as one’ (paraphrased)
- Jesus Christ, after suffering disbelief, pain, scourging, spat on, humiliation, ‘hung on a tree!’, and DEATH… was RAISED UP AGAIN by GOD and taken up to Heaven to be seated AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD… and lastly GIVEN THE KINGDOM OF CREATION OVER EHICH TO RULE
Please explain how, if he is almighty God, that this could ever be true???
Examples… please respond with your honest, truthful, and God-Given responses. Thanks.
learner Daniel
Member
Jesus is the one coming back, not the Father.
Matthew 24:42–44
Jesus says, "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh"
3. John 5:28–29
Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
1 Thessalonians 4:16–17
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
Revelation 1:7
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
learner Daniel
Member
learner Daniel
Member
A straw man fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument by oversimplifying or exaggerating it, and then refutes that distorted version. The term "straw man" comes from the idea that a scarecrow is a weak opponent that can be easily destroyed.
learner Daniel
Member
This verse is often used by Trinitarians as proof of the essential unity and equality of Jesus with His Father. Some Trinitarian commentators and many non-Trinitarians argue that Jesus is simply speaking about a unity of purpose, of His union with God's design and plan for His people. Still others cite this verse as teaching that the Father and Jesus are actually the same divine Person.
The word translated "one" is in the neuter gender, not the masculine, and specifies "unity" in a general, not personal, sense. The precise nature of this unity must be derived from context.
Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father's purpose, but with His Father's power (vv. 28 - 29). Jesus has said that no one can snatch those the Father has given Him from His hands. He has said that He gives eternal life to His sheep - a claim to Divine prerogative in itself. He then repeats what He has said about no one being able to steal His sheep, but this time, it is the Father's hands who hold them - the Father who is "greater than all." Thus, Jesus equates Himself to His Father in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to "hold" them fast. It is in this context of Divine salvation and preservation that Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."
Thus, Jesus is not asserting that He is the same person as the Father (which would have demanded the masculine "one"); nor is He claiming unity in purpose or plan. In this context, He can only be asserting His unity with His Father as the author of eternal life and equal in power to Him who is "greater than all." This view is supported by several additional facts:
1. The Jews understood Him to be claiming to be God. (vv. 31 - 33).
2. Jesus does not deny their accusation (vv. 34 - 36).
3. Jesus repeats His original assertion in slightly different language (vv. 37 - 39).
This claim in an overt declaration of Jesus' Deity.
I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", esmen, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him (Gill).
It seems clear that the unity spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father's hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power (Westcott).
The oneness of will and task, in this context, is so transparently a divine will, a divine task (viz. the saving and preserving of men and women for the kingdom) that although the categories are formally functional some deeper union is presupposed (Carson, John).
learner Daniel
Member
A
M
M
A
T
I
C
A
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
egw kai `o pathr `en esmen.
EGO KAI hO PATHR hEN ESMEN
I and the Father one are.
hEN (1520)
To be united most closely (in will, spirit), Jn x. 30 (Thayer).
In contrast to the parts, of which the whole is made up ... J 10:30 (BAGD).
One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. in Gal 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note hen used in 1 Cor 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11, 23 of the hoped for unity of Christ�s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ�s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (RWP).
ESMEN (2070)
First person plural (present indicative active), "we are"
The present indicative asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement.
M
M
A
T
I
C
A
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
egw kai `o pathr `en esmen.
EGO KAI hO PATHR hEN ESMEN
I and the Father one are.
hEN (1520)
To be united most closely (in will, spirit), Jn x. 30 (Thayer).
In contrast to the parts, of which the whole is made up ... J 10:30 (BAGD).
One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. in Gal 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note hen used in 1 Cor 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11, 23 of the hoped for unity of Christ�s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ�s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (RWP).
ESMEN (2070)
First person plural (present indicative active), "we are"
The present indicative asserts something which is occurring while the speaker is making the statement.
learner Daniel
Member
The Greek word "one" (heis) in reference to two persons or things may be used to specify many types of unions. It can signify "unity of purpose," as the Watchtower suggests in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff (SYBT, p. 24), where Paul says that he and Apollos (as "planter" and "waterer") are "one" in the purpose of saving and sanctifying God's people. In John 17:21ff, however, "one" means more than simple "unity of purpose." Jesus prays that the disciples may enjoy a fellowship of intimacy in Christian love so complete ("perfected in unity") that the world would know that they belong to Christ and His Father. This is more than "one" in the sense of sharing common goals and plans. It is a union so profound that it "perfects" or brings to full maturity and completion the believer's love and fellowship with his brothers and sisters through their shared unity in Christ - just as Jesus Himself enjoys a perfect intimacy with His Father. Further, in verse 23, Jesus grounds this unity in His power to indwell His followers ("I in them") while His Father indwells Him ('You in me") and He His Father ("I in you").1 The power to indwell His disciples, regardless of where they are, is a claim to Divine omnipresence, which further militates against the Watchtower's position. In Matthew 19:5, Jesus uses "one" to signify the spiritual union of man and woman in marriage - in God's sight, the two have become "one."2
The significance of "one" in each of these verses is not determined by how it is used in other verse - it is derived from the immediate context. Thus, the fact that "one" may mean "one in fellowship" in John 17:21ff or "one in purpose" in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff has no bearing on how it should be understood in this verse.3
The context of John 10:30 fully supports the traditional understanding that Jesus is claiming equality with His Father in terms of Divine Prerogatives and Power. As noted in the Commentary, above, Jesus has just said that He gives eternal life to His sheep. He has equated His power to keep His sheep safely in His hands with His Father's power to do the same. The Jews knew that the Father was greater than all, but they rebelled at Jesus saying that He and His Father shared this power to preserve the saints and - in this very sense - proclaiming that He was "one" with His Father.
This view is also supported by the Jews' reaction and Jesus' subsequent statements, particularly those in vv. 37ff where He repeats His claims to do His Father's works and enjoy a profound unity with Him.
If the Watchtower is correct, the only explanation for the Jews reaction is that they misunderstood Jesus, for they could have no objection to anyone being "one in purpose" with the Father. But given what Jesus has just said, how else could they take "I and the Father are one?" And the only explanation for Jesus' previous and subsequent remarks, given that He knew the hearts of his listeners, is intentional deception of the highest order. Jesus could give the Jews difficult answers to their questions, but it simply is not possible for Him to deceive them about the sense in which He was "one" with His Father.
objection: The Watchtower continues:
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father" (Ibid.).
response: When Calvin's comments are taken in context, it is clear that while he does not understand this passage to be referring to Christ's "unity in essence" (Greek: homoousias) - a technical term used by the "ancients" (that is, the Nicene church fathers) - Calvin does accept that Jesus is laying claim to God's power and therefore is proclaiming His true Deity:
I and my Father are one. He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of God did not at all belong to him...
And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles...
Do you say that I blaspheme? The Arians anciently tortured this passage to prove that Christ is not God by nature, but that he possesses a kind of borrowed Divinity. But this error is easily refuted, for Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh. For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us. Besides, we ought to remember what I have formerly suggested, that Christ does not, in this passage, explain fully and distinctly what he is, as he would have done among his disciples; but that he rather dwells on refuting the slander of his enemies.
And I am in my Father; that is, "I do nothing but by the command of God, so that there is a mutual connection between me and my Father." For this discourse does not relate to the unity of essence, but to the manifestation of Divine power in the person of Christ, from which it was evident that he was sent by God.
Notes
1. The NWT translates the Greek preposition en ("in") with the paraphrase "in union with" in this and several other verses that speak of Christ being "in" the Father or "in" His disciples. It is possible to interpret en in these verses as more or less meaning "in union with," so long as it is understood to mean an intimate, personal relationship or spiritual union - not merely a general association or unity of goals and purpose. Thayer, for example, says of en in these verses:
Of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to whose power and influence he is subject, so that the former may be likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves. So used in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of intimate relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that union.
Other lexicons similarly stress that en in these verses means more than "in union with" in the sense of mere association:
A marker of close personal association - 'in, one with, in union with, joined closely to' (Louw & Nida)
The en of religious fellowship, often with einai (Jn 10:38; 1 Jn 2:5b, etc.) or menein (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 2:6, etc.). Reciprocity is frequently stressed (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 3:24, etc.). The Father is brought into the relationship, either with Jesus (Jn 10:38) or with us (1 Jn 4:12 - 13). We thus have a triangle (Jn 14:20; 17:21; 1 Jn 2:24). The formulas are neither ecstatic nor eschatological but mystical in a very broad sense with a strong personal and ethical reference (TDNT).
This fully nuanced meaning is particularly true in John 14:17 - 18, where Jesus specifically equates the Spirit being "in" the disciples with the Spirit being "with" them, and then affirms that this indwelling is the means by which Jesus can affirm His promise not to leave His disciples as orphans. A similar thought permeates Jesus' prayer in John 17:21ff.
2. "One" in this verse is the Greek mian, the feminine form of eis. This form is grammatically required because "one" modifies "flesh," which is also feminine in Greek.
3. D.A. Carson identifies the juxtaposition of texts like these as a "target rich" environment for interpretive errors:
Consider the Arian efforts to link John 10:30...and John 17:20 - 23.... What gives interpreters the right to link certain verses together and not others? The point is that all such linking eventually produces a grid that affects the interpretation of other texts. There may be fallacies connected not only with the way individual verses are interpreted, but also with the way several verses are linked - and then also with the way such a link affects the interpretation of the next verse that is studied! (Carson, Fallacies, p. 139).
The significance of "one" in each of these verses is not determined by how it is used in other verse - it is derived from the immediate context. Thus, the fact that "one" may mean "one in fellowship" in John 17:21ff or "one in purpose" in 1 Corinthians 3:6ff has no bearing on how it should be understood in this verse.3
The context of John 10:30 fully supports the traditional understanding that Jesus is claiming equality with His Father in terms of Divine Prerogatives and Power. As noted in the Commentary, above, Jesus has just said that He gives eternal life to His sheep. He has equated His power to keep His sheep safely in His hands with His Father's power to do the same. The Jews knew that the Father was greater than all, but they rebelled at Jesus saying that He and His Father shared this power to preserve the saints and - in this very sense - proclaiming that He was "one" with His Father.
This view is also supported by the Jews' reaction and Jesus' subsequent statements, particularly those in vv. 37ff where He repeats His claims to do His Father's works and enjoy a profound unity with Him.
If the Watchtower is correct, the only explanation for the Jews reaction is that they misunderstood Jesus, for they could have no objection to anyone being "one in purpose" with the Father. But given what Jesus has just said, how else could they take "I and the Father are one?" And the only explanation for Jesus' previous and subsequent remarks, given that He knew the hearts of his listeners, is intentional deception of the highest order. Jesus could give the Jews difficult answers to their questions, but it simply is not possible for Him to deceive them about the sense in which He was "one" with His Father.
objection: The Watchtower continues:
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father" (Ibid.).
response: When Calvin's comments are taken in context, it is clear that while he does not understand this passage to be referring to Christ's "unity in essence" (Greek: homoousias) - a technical term used by the "ancients" (that is, the Nicene church fathers) - Calvin does accept that Jesus is laying claim to God's power and therefore is proclaiming His true Deity:
I and my Father are one. He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of God did not at all belong to him...
And this would be a just definition of blasphemy, if Christ were nothing more than a man. They only err in this, that they do not design to contemplate his Divinity, which was conspicuous in his miracles...
Do you say that I blaspheme? The Arians anciently tortured this passage to prove that Christ is not God by nature, but that he possesses a kind of borrowed Divinity. But this error is easily refuted, for Christ does not now argue what he is in himself, but what we ought to acknowledge him to be, from his miracles in human flesh. For we can never comprehend his eternal Divinity, unless we embrace him as a Redeemer, so far as the Father hath exhibited him to us. Besides, we ought to remember what I have formerly suggested, that Christ does not, in this passage, explain fully and distinctly what he is, as he would have done among his disciples; but that he rather dwells on refuting the slander of his enemies.
And I am in my Father; that is, "I do nothing but by the command of God, so that there is a mutual connection between me and my Father." For this discourse does not relate to the unity of essence, but to the manifestation of Divine power in the person of Christ, from which it was evident that he was sent by God.
Notes
1. The NWT translates the Greek preposition en ("in") with the paraphrase "in union with" in this and several other verses that speak of Christ being "in" the Father or "in" His disciples. It is possible to interpret en in these verses as more or less meaning "in union with," so long as it is understood to mean an intimate, personal relationship or spiritual union - not merely a general association or unity of goals and purpose. Thayer, for example, says of en in these verses:
Of a person to whom another is wholly joined and to whose power and influence he is subject, so that the former may be likened to the place in which the latter lives and moves. So used in the writings of Paul and of John particularly of intimate relationship with God or with Christ, and for the most part involving contextually the idea of power and blessing resulting from that union.
Other lexicons similarly stress that en in these verses means more than "in union with" in the sense of mere association:
A marker of close personal association - 'in, one with, in union with, joined closely to' (Louw & Nida)
The en of religious fellowship, often with einai (Jn 10:38; 1 Jn 2:5b, etc.) or menein (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 2:6, etc.). Reciprocity is frequently stressed (Jn 6:56; 1 Jn 3:24, etc.). The Father is brought into the relationship, either with Jesus (Jn 10:38) or with us (1 Jn 4:12 - 13). We thus have a triangle (Jn 14:20; 17:21; 1 Jn 2:24). The formulas are neither ecstatic nor eschatological but mystical in a very broad sense with a strong personal and ethical reference (TDNT).
This fully nuanced meaning is particularly true in John 14:17 - 18, where Jesus specifically equates the Spirit being "in" the disciples with the Spirit being "with" them, and then affirms that this indwelling is the means by which Jesus can affirm His promise not to leave His disciples as orphans. A similar thought permeates Jesus' prayer in John 17:21ff.
2. "One" in this verse is the Greek mian, the feminine form of eis. This form is grammatically required because "one" modifies "flesh," which is also feminine in Greek.
3. D.A. Carson identifies the juxtaposition of texts like these as a "target rich" environment for interpretive errors:
Consider the Arian efforts to link John 10:30...and John 17:20 - 23.... What gives interpreters the right to link certain verses together and not others? The point is that all such linking eventually produces a grid that affects the interpretation of other texts. There may be fallacies connected not only with the way individual verses are interpreted, but also with the way several verses are linked - and then also with the way such a link affects the interpretation of the next verse that is studied! (Carson, Fallacies, p. 139).
learner Daniel
Member
way too long shorten it and state your point
Oeste
Well-Known Member
@learner Daniel gives a good explanation here.
I believe you are giving us what you believe is true, but you often mischaracterize your opponent's argument.
I also believe you could cut down on this immensely by using the forum's quote feature. It's relatively easy to use
Not everyone 'sees' the same as you Soapy. It might help if you could point out these 'HUGE' errors by quoting rather than paraphrasing them.
No, I made no such error. If I had made an error I would simply correct it in a subsequent post.
Again, if you could quote this supposed error it might help.
I believe the Father is God and I believe Jesus is God. I do not see the error.
Very good Soapy!
I do claim a triune God. The topic is whether Jesus, the 2nd person of the triune God, is God, and of course scripture says He is.
The Father is God, and the Spirit is God, but this thread is specifically about Jesus.
If only you had been around at the time. Surely you would have convinced him otherwise!
As for those other verses (Jesus raising the dead or walking on water), I don't recall using them to support Trinity doctrine.
JerryMyers
Active Member
Yes, God Almighty is not coming back because He NEVER left!
God Almighty is always with us just as He said in Rev. 1:8 – He is ETERNAL! Alpha and Omega, He is the Almighty as who He is now, as who He was in the past, and as who He will come/be in the future.
Jesus is the one who left, and he will come back as how he left – a man, NOT God (never is, never was).
JerryMyers
Active Member
way too long shorten it and state your point
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Oh that’s interesting… so it is actually OESTE who is the ‘Strawman’, pretending that I AM the ‘strawman’!
Thank you, learner Daniel… you made my day!!!
Soapy
Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
learner Daniel, to whom have you addressed your post?