The Trinity

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I have no idea what or where you are going with this. Jesus is the true Image of God, Gods own visible image is Jesus. Jesus is the Image we can Worship!

So when Man was created and God said "Let us make man in our image" was he talking about Jesus?

 

[icebuddy]

So when Man was created and God said "Let us make man in our image" was he talking about Jesus?

My thoughts are that Gods image is that of Jesus. So in effect, we are created by Jesus and in Jesus's Image.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

But it could be that we are Body, soul, and Spirit as well

 

[Shermana]

My thoughts are that Gods image is that of Jesus. So in effect, we are created by Jesus and in Jesus's Image.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

But it could be that we are Body, soul, and Spirit as well

The better translation is that all things were made THROUGH him.

New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

New Living Translation
God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.

English Standard Version
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

New American Standard Bible
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

The word "by" works but not in the sense of "originated by" but "Served as the vehicle of".

 

[kjw47]

I have no idea what or where you are going with this. Jesus is the true Image of God, Gods own visible image is Jesus. Jesus is the Image we can Worship!

Gods word teaches its the Father looking for such to worship him in spirit and truth.

 

[Shermana]

For a couple reasons. First, in the full context...John 5:17-18..

17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

Even if it was a true interpretation, Jesus said "The Father is greater than me". And the word "Greater" here does not just mean "In authority", because he says "No man was "Greater" than John the Baptist. This greaterness has nothing to do with the relationship between Principals and students, or bosses and employees. Did John the Baptist have similar kind of authority? No. It was clearly about glory and earned esteem, not mere "Authority". Likewise, he says "One greater than Solomon is here" in relationship to the ability to cast out demons. Did Solomon have power over demons because he was a king? No. Did he have it because of the esteem he had earned? More like it.

I just don't see how you can interpret verse 18 as the Jews false interpretation of what Jesus meant. These Jewish officials ate, slept, and BREATHED the law

Again, the very point of Jesus's berating of the Pharisees was because of their misunderstandings of the Law and their own traditions which went against the original intention in the first place.

and it would have been foolish for them to think that just by calling God his own Father, that Jesus was implying he was equal to God. That is just flat out naive. I call my father, MY OWN FATHER...but that is no way implying that I am equal to him in any way. There is just no correlation between calling someone your father and equality...

Depends on what kind of equality exactly in the first place you're talking about.

I know you "Don't do links", but here's for everyone else.

The Trinity Delusion: John 5:18

As you can see, this interpretation clashes directly with the way you interpret another Trinitarian favorite verse, Phil 2:5-6.

Unless we look at verse before it, verse 17, at which Jesus said that he is working just like his Father. In Numbers 15:32-36 a man was put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (God commanded no work on the Sabbath). So the Jews, in keeping the law, wanted to put Jesus to death for working on the Sabbath. Jesus said his Father works on the Sabbath, and so should he is working too, which is in fact making it seem as if he is equal to God, and if Jesus was just an "ordinary" man, he would have deserved to be put to death under Jewish law.

No, first off no one really worked on the Sabbath. Healing is not work. And he pointed out that the Pharisees themselves let out their animals to eat and drink, and that any of them would strenuously pull their donkey out of a ditch if need be. If Jesus broke the Sabbath, he wouldn't be sinless.

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

So either Jesus committed an act worthy of death or he didn't. If he didn't, then he is in fact equal to God.

He didn't, but I don't see how you correlate that he in fact equal from that. Especially again, since he says the Father is "Greater" than him, in the same sense that John the Baptist was "Greater" than all other men.

What? Sherm, that is by far the most faulty interpretation I've ever seen. He was "placing himself at the top of Angelic hierarchy? Aw man that is just doing to much Sherm. There is no scriptural evidence that suggests that Jesus is/was angelic. None. I bet you've been to quite a few Kingdom Halls with that interpretation.

Never been to a Kingdom Hall. But you're not understanding what the whole point of the difference between "a son of god" (Angels) and THE son of god.

Jesus was saying that if there is any sense that we can call mere men "god", then how much more can the term be used for him. In any case, he never denied being God and one would think he would adamantly deny being God if he was accused of such a blasphemous thing, if he wasn't. In other words "I am not saying I am, and I am not saying I am" kind of thing.

There's a huge difference between "God" and "god" as a title of being. Hence, that's why he responds as he does. And that's why it should read "You a mere man call yourself "a god". Obviously John 10:34 would make no sense (unless Jesus was dishonestly changing the subject) if they meant "God" as most Trinitarian translations state. He is stating that it's not wrong to call him "A god" as in "gods", not "God" as in THE god.

At school, the principal is greater than the teachers. Look, the Father is greater than the Son and Phil 2:5-9 states why. Jesus surrendered his equality with the Father in terms of rank. There is a heirarchy at which Jesus is second to the Father, but that is only in terms of rank, but that says nothing about their nature as both share the same nature of Deity.

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

As I mentioned, if Jesus was saying he was equal with the Father while on Earth, there goes your interpretation of Phil 2:6. So pick one or the other.

And Phil 2:6 is a very difficult verse to understand. Let's see how some established scholarly Trinitarians have viewed it before:

"The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, says:


"Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) .... After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) .... But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28)." - p. 80, vol. 2."

Well in John 21:17, Jesus apparently have the attribute of omniscience so that isn't even the question.

Of course it's in question. Jesus still receives "Revelation" in Rev 1:1.

The question is what did John mean in Rev 1:1.

It means that Jesus learned something he didn't know.

Notice the scripture begins with "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"...but if God gave it to him, why not say "the revelation of God which he gave to Jesus Christ"?

Because "The revelation of" means that which was given. It's the revelation that God gave him. Quite simple.

In what way is it Jesus'?

The fact that it says God gave to him perhaps?

Maybe even after Jesus ascended to heaven the hierarchy is still in effect.

Maybe it shatters the whole rabbit hole of saying that Jesus was just "in human form" and thus didn't have TRUE ominscience?

Either way, if Jesus doesn't know everything, then why would Peter say so and why would Jesus not deny it in all honesty?

Because either "know all things" may mean something other than what you think it means, like "You are given knowledge of all immediate things", or you have to deal with a major bible contradiction. Take your pick.

 

[Muffled]

We have free will to think and say as we will. Human thought is never either pure or perfect.

Well Mr Nicodemus, next you will be asking if you can be reborn in your mother's womb. Why is it that you strain at such a simple concept? Jesus is in control of my mind, so He speaks what He wills. My mind is not free to think as it wills but must think as the Spirit compels. My spirit can also compel my mind to think as I wish. Granted if Jesus and I release my mind it can wander off into strange places but i certainly don't do anything but give Jesus my mind on this site.

 

[Muffled]

Yes they are one in purpose--because it goes on to say we all would be one with them--not in being--but in purpose--living to do Gods will, just as Jesus did to be one with him as well--afterall Jesus also taught-- the Father is greater than i.

This is true because the verse is true but the verse does not limit it to purpose and the word "purpose" isn't in the text. (As I said, I believe JW's believe in scriptue but not the meaning of it)

Again I believe you are in error because you misinterpret the text: Joh 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

This is true in me. When I am on RF I am one with God not just in purpose but He has control of my mind and what I say is what He is saying.

I believe you are in error on this. Even my JW brother-in-law admits that he stopped smoking by the power of the Holy Spirit which had to have taken control because if my brother-in-law was in control he would have smoked.

I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. He doesn't have to try to do God's will because His will is God's will. He does have to overcome the will of the flesh which is what the 40 days in the desert was all about. I don't believe you will find one supporting verse that states Jesus is trying to do God's will.

I believe that is due to the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh, which is only a concept of God in a locality when in truth God is everywhere. However God has only one consciousness wherever He is.

 

[Muffled]

I got back from my summer vacation and had some free time and saw this post... What is Jesus saying here? Well we all know Jesus is One with the Father in many ways, but in which way are we to be one like they are? Some people will say Jesus is one with the Father is no different than us believers being one with them...

Be careful on what is being said because we are not The Image of the invisible God who expresses the Father by his very being, the root and offspring of David. (many more) We are to be one with God as Jesus's humanity is one with God. Yet we can never be the root of David, creator of all things as Jesus is with the Father. We can never be called Jehovah God as Jesus is... So be carefull in grouping everything together when reading John 17:21 because we can never be one in every way Jesus is one with the Father. We can be one in the way Jesus gave us as an example in his human state of being. We can never be One as they where in creation and this alone should prove you cannot group everything together here...

In Love,
tom

I believe this is in error. Otherwise Jesus is praying for something that can never be. Do you believe God prays fruitless worthless prayers?

I believe one who is a Christian this way is only a nominal Christian. To be a real Christian I believe one has to be born again.

 

[icebuddy]

The better translation is that all things were made THROUGH him.

Of course I believe God would create through his Image... Im not sure where you are going with this... Though, by, with, it shouldn't matter, ALL things where created because of Jesus and not 1 thing created was created apart from him. (John 1:3)

Isa 48:13 It was my hand that laid the foundations of the earth,
my right hand that spread out the heavens above.
When I call out the stars,
they all appear in order.”

Jesus is the Image of God and God created by means of his own Image, with his own hand. (Jesus is part of God not to be separated)
Jesus is also the Eternal Word of God...

Isa 44:24 This is what the LORD says—
your Redeemer and Creator:
“I am the LORD, who made all things.
I alone stretched out the heavens.
Who was with me
when I made the earth?

The Eternal Word of Life is God with the Father

The word "by" works but not in the sense of "originated by" but "Served as the vehicle of"

You think Trinitarian's are the only ones with weird ideas? you are playing and spinning "English" words to fit into your belief in my opinion. I notice my NWT inserts the word [other] in brackets to also help this kind of understanding, but clearly its just not there. 1John1:1-5 calls Jesus the Eternal Word of Life, and Our belief is that Almighty God (Father, Word, Spirit) created all things.

 

[icebuddy]

Gods word teaches its the Father looking for such to worship him in spirit and truth.

Rev 5:12 And they sang in a mighty chorus:
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered—
to receive power and riches
and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and blessing.”
Rev 5:13 And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea. They sang:
“Blessing and honor and glory and power
belong to the one sitting on the throne
and to the Lamb forever and ever.”
Rev 5:14 And the four living beings said, “Amen!” And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped the Lamb.

Jhn 5:23 so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent him.

Ask yourself, do you "Really" honor Jesus as you honor the Father...

 

[icebuddy]

Even if it was a true interpretation, Jesus said "The Father is greater than me". And the word "Greater" here does not just mean "In authority", because he says "No man was "Greater" than John the Baptist. This greaterness has nothing to do with the relationship between Principals and students, or bosses and employees. Did John the Baptist have similar kind of authority? No. It was clearly about glory and earned esteem, not mere "Authority". Likewise, he says "One greater than Solomon is here" in relationship to the ability to cast out demons. Did Solomon have power over demons because he was a king? No. Did he have it because of the esteem he had earned? More like it.

John 14:28 - First off, Jesus could have said the Angels are greater than him at this point, could he not?

Hbr 2:9 What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position “a little lower than the angels”; and because he suffered death for us, he is now “crowned with glory and honor.” Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone.

You are also looking at a "Humbled" Jesus, one who Emptied Himself to become a servant. (Made like you and me) In order to die for us.

Do not look to Jesus in his Human state, lower than the angels, humbled and point to that as his Ranking order of things. That is why we see the Father crowning Jesus with everything he emptied himself of. That is why we are to honor them the same.

We are to see a Jesus Crowned with Glory, not lower than the angels. We should be saying "Worthy" is the Lamb and honor him as we honor the Father with our Worship. Rev 5:12-14 with John 5:23

Dont forget that Jesus is "BOTH" the offspring and Root of David. Rev 22:16 and before that Jesus said he is the Alpha and Omega Rev 22:12

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Even if it was a true interpretation, Jesus said "The Father is greater than me". And the word "Greater" here does not just mean "In authority", because he says "No man was "Greater" than John the Baptist. This greaterness has nothing to do with the relationship between Principals and students, or bosses and employees. Did John the Baptist have similar kind of authority? No. It was clearly about glory and earned esteem, not mere "Authority". Likewise, he says "One greater than Solomon is here" in relationship to the ability to cast out demons. Did Solomon have power over demons because he was a king? No. Did he have it because of the esteem he had earned? More like it.

Well if you are going to make a case that John the Baptist is/was greater than Jesus, you might actually be in the 0.1% because no one actually believes that . John the Baptist said that he is not worthy to even worthy to untie Jesus' sandals (Mark 1:7). Second, Jesus did say no man born of a woman is greater than John, and that obviously doesn't apply to Jesus because Jesus transcended the virgin birth himself.

As you can see, this interpretation clashes directly with the way you interpret another Trinitarian favorite verse, Phil 2:5-6.

Sorry Sherm, but that Phil 2:5-9 scripture is FIRE.

No, first off no one really worked on the Sabbath. Healing is not work. And he pointed out that the Pharisees themselves let out their animals to eat and drink, and that any of them would strenuously pull their donkey out of a ditch if need be. If Jesus broke the Sabbath, he wouldn't be sinless.

I was ready to grant your point, until I read verse 17 where Jesus said that he is working too. If healing is not "work", why would he say he is working just like his Father? As both you and the context indicates, the thing in question is healing. So obviously, healing is a certain kind of work that should be distinguished from the more manual kind of labor, and apparently the Jews didn't make the distinction.

Hmm, but even as I typed the above, I still may grant your point. It could be said that we can all be "equal" to God if we to help others in their time of need, regardless if it is on the Sabbath or not. It is in this sense that we can be said to be equal to God.

The John 5 verse in question may not be Trinity Proof after all.

He didn't, but I don't see how you correlate that he in fact equal from that. Especially again, since he says the Father is "Greater" than him, in the same sense that John the Baptist was "Greater" than all other men.

Well again, Phil 2:5-9 states why the Father is Greater than him. If you want to discuss Phil, we can. As far as John is concerned, that could only mean in a moral sense considering the fact that John didn't seem to have an earthly authority over anyone except maybe his own disciples.

Never been to a Kingdom Hall.

I really couldn't tell.

But you're not understanding what the whole point of the difference between "a son of god" (Angels) and THE son of god.

I thought it was "son of a god"?

There's a huge difference between "God" and "god" as a title of being. Hence, that's why he responds as he does. And that's why it should read "You a mere man call yourself "a god". Obviously John 10:34 would make no sense (unless Jesus was dishonestly changing the subject) if they meant "God" as most Trinitarian translations state. He is stating that it's not wrong to call him "A god" as in "gods", not "God" as in THE god.

But if they were claiming him to only be "a god", and not "the God", then why would they try to stone him in the first place, when as Jesus said that according to the Law, man is called god, which is what they would have knew?

However, I completly understand where you are coming from. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically saying that it would be no point in Jesus mentioning the Law (Ps 82:6) since it is in a different context than what he seemingly is accused of in verse 33.

But then again, as I mentioned, if that is what Jesus was claiming, then that would not have been worthy of death, because as Jesus said, elsewhere, mere men are called "god" in other places.

It sounds as if Jesus was saying if mere man can be called gods in any sense, how much more can I be called god. That is what it sounds like to me, because he said if they can be called gods than "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world."

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

As I mentioned, if Jesus was saying he was equal with the Father while on Earth, there goes your interpretation of Phil 2:6. So pick one or the other.

Equal as far as nature, not as far as rank/position.

And Phil 2:6 is a very difficult verse to understand. Let's see how some established scholarly Trinitarians have viewed it before:

It is hard to get out of the Phil 2:5-9 implications, Sherm.

Of course it's in question. Jesus still receives "Revelation" in Rev 1:1.

How about commenting on my response regarding this.

It means that Jesus learned something he didn't know.

According to Peter, he knew everything (John 21:17). I mean there just isn't any reason for him to make that statement if it wasn't true.

Because "The revelation of" means that which was given. It's the revelation that God gave him. Quite simple.

It is all how we look at things. As believers, we know that when we pray we are in communion with God. Now, God knows everything that we are gonna say, right? But does that stop him from wanting us to communicate with him? Does not God still take in information that he already knows, despite it is nothing "new" to him? If God can get information that is not new to him, why can't Jesus get information that is not new to him.

The fact that it says God gave to him perhaps?

Maybe it shatters the whole rabbit hole of saying that Jesus was just "in human form" and thus didn't have TRUE ominscience?

No because we have scriptural evidence that proves otherwise, in John 21:17 as I keep mentioning. And when I said the heirarchy, I wasn't talking about ominiscence, I was talking about the fact that it was "given" to him, just like Jesus said all power and authority was given to him. That is why we have scriptures like Phil 2:5-9, that indicate exactly why certain scriptures are stated the way that they are regarding Jesus subordination to the Father.

Because either "know all things" may mean something other than what you think it means, like "You are given knowledge of all immediate things", or you have to deal with a major bible contradiction. Take your pick.

It can only be a contradiction if there are no plausible explanations, which they are, and which I've offered.

 

[kjw47]

Rev 5:12 And they sang in a mighty chorus:
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered—
to receive power and riches
and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and blessing.”
Rev 5:13 And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea. They sang:
“Blessing and honor and glory and power
belong to the one sitting on the throne
and to the Lamb forever and ever.”
Rev 5:14 And the four living beings said, “Amen!” And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped the Lamb.

Jhn 5:23 so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent him.

Ask yourself, do you "Really" honor Jesus as you honor the Father...

Rev 5:14 doesn't mention the lamb.

Yes honor to Jesus as well as to his God and Father, but not worship--obeisance goes to a king, not worship.

rev 5:12--- Jesus had to be worthy to receive those blessings.

 

[kjw47]

This is true because the verse is true but the verse does not limit it to purpose and the word "purpose" isn't in the text. (As I said, I believe JW's believe in scriptue but not the meaning of it)

Again I believe you are in error because you misinterpret the text: Joh 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

This is true in me. When I am on RF I am one with God not just in purpose but He has control of my mind and what I say is what He is saying.

I believe you are in error on this. Even my JW brother-in-law admits that he stopped smoking by the power of the Holy Spirit which had to have taken control because if my brother-in-law was in control he would have smoked.

I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. He doesn't have to try to do God's will because His will is God's will. He does have to overcome the will of the flesh which is what the 40 days in the desert was all about. I don't believe you will find one supporting verse that states Jesus is trying to do God's will.

I believe that is due to the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh, which is only a concept of God in a locality when in truth God is everywhere. However God has only one consciousness wherever He is.

Luke 22:42-- John 5:30,--- rev 4:11

 

[Shermana]

John 14:28 - First off, Jesus could have said the Angels are greater than him at this point, could he not?

No, because the "Greater" meaning is not just about authority but earned merit.

Hbr 2:9 What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position “a little lower than the angels”; and because he suffered death for us, he is now “crowned with glory and honor.” Yes, by God’s grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone.

In this case, "A little lower" may in fact be referring to authority since obviously it has nothing to do in context about merit

You are also looking at a "Humbled" Jesus, one who Emptied Himself to become a servant. (Made like you and me) In order to die for us.

He emptied himself of rank and authority and power, not merit.

Do not look to Jesus in his Human state, lower than the angels, humbled and point to that as his Ranking order of things. That is why we see the Father crowning Jesus with everything he emptied himself of. That is why we are to honor them the same.

If the Father crowns him, that means Jesus was GIVEN it by the Father, thus separate beings.

We are to see a Jesus Crowned with Glory, not lower than the angels. We should be saying "Worthy" is the Lamb and honor him as we honor the Father with our Worship. Rev 5:12-14 with John 5:23

Again, it's all about authority in this case, not earned merit.

Dont forget that Jesus is "BOTH" the offspring and Root of David. Rev 22:16 and before that Jesus said he is the Alpha and Omega Rev 22:12

Jesus is not the Alpha and Omega. Once again, this is the "Speaker Confusion issue". Only the Father ever says He is the Alpha and Omega, and the Angel bearing the Father's message. Rev 22:12 is not Jesus speaking.

 

[Shermana]

Well if you are going to make a case that John the Baptist is/was greater than Jesus, you might actually be in the 0.1% because no one actually believes that . John the Baptist said that he is not worthy to even worthy to untie Jesus' sandals (Mark 1:7). Second, Jesus did say no man born of a woman is greater than John, and that obviously doesn't apply to Jesus because Jesus transcended the virgin birth himself.

I have no problem being in the .0001% if need be. 99.9999% of Christians are going to be rejected as doers of lawlessness and idolators, so I have no problem being in the minority, my case stands just fine. There are many scholars who are in the .1% with me.

Sorry Sherm, but that Phil 2:5-9 scripture is FIRE.

And it will burn Trinitarians when they are revealed its true interpretation.

I was ready to grant your point, until I read verse 17 where Jesus said that he is working too. If healing is not "work", why would he say he is working just like his Father? As both you and the context indicates, the thing in question is healing. So obviously, healing is a certain kind of work that should be distinguished from the more manual kind of labor, and apparently the Jews didn't make the distinction.

Then Jesus sinned and was not the Christ. Quite simply. And if your argument is that God made it no longer a sin, then there goes the whole argument that "The Law was in effect until Jesus died on the cross". So take your pick.

What kind of work was such healing exactly? The whole point of Jesus saying that it was permissible for them to perform circumcisions and let their cattle out to eat and dig donkeys out of their ditches was his point. His "work" that the Father "works' was not the kind of "Work" that was prohibited. He called them hypocrites for a reason. Not because they were interpreting the law correctly.

Hmm, but even as I typed the above, I still may grant your point. It could be said that we can all be "equal" to God if we to help others in their time of need, regardless if it is on the Sabbath or not. It is in this sense that we can be said to be equal to God. The John 5 verse in question may not be Trinity Proof after all.

Precisely. This kind of "Equality" is more or less along the lines of "being one".

Well again, Phil 2:5-9 states why the Father is Greater than him. If you want to discuss Phil, we can. As far as John is concerned, that could only mean in a moral sense considering the fact that John didn't seem to have an earthly authority over anyone except maybe his own disciples.

By "Moral sense" it is "earned merit" or "greatness" in terms of morality and character, whereas in Phil 2:5-9 it is more along the lines of "Equality of authority". However, it does not exactly mean what you think either. Read the link I provided for a breakdown of the Greek. With that said, the word "Greater" used there can only be of the "greatness of morality and character" meaning.

I really couldn't tell.

Believe it or not, the JWs were not the first or only people to believe what they do in this regard.

I thought it was "son of a god"?

No, it's Huion Tou Theou, the Article is clearly there, it's literally "Son of THE god".

But if they were claiming him to only be "a god", and not "the God", then why would they try to stone him in the first place, when as Jesus said that according to the Law, man is called god, which is what they would have knew?

He was pointing out that they didn't quite understand their own law. Like he often did.

However, I completly understand where you are coming from. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically saying that it would be no point in Jesus mentioning the Law (Ps 82:6) since it is in a different context than what he seemingly is accused of in verse 33.

Right.

But then again, as I mentioned, if that is what Jesus was claiming, then that would not have been worthy of death, because as Jesus said, elsewhere, mere men are called "god" in other places.

And again, Jesus was explaining to them that they didn't quite interpret their own scriptures right, as he did time and time again.

It sounds as if Jesus was saying if mere man can be called gods in any sense, how much more can I be called god. That is what it sounds like to me, because he said if they can be called gods than "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world."

Right. They just didn't comprehend correctly that it wasn't necessarily wrong to be considered "a god".

Equal as far as nature, not as far as rank/position.

Define "nature".

It is hard to get out of the Phil 2:5-9 implications, Sherm.

If you read my link you'll see it's not hard at all.

How about commenting on my response regarding this.



According to Peter, he knew everything (John 21:17). I mean there just isn't any reason for him to make that statement if it wasn't true.

I explained, Peter was saying that Jesus knew all things in the sense that he had immediate understanding. Otherwise you have a blatant contradiction.

Besides, guess what, John 21 is considered a later-added "Epilogue" by most scholars. And you may want to take this position so you don't have such a blatant contradiction in your own interpretation. Unless you don't mind blatant contradictions of course.

Westcott summarized it as: "It is impossible to suppose that it was the original design of the Evangelist to add the incidents of chapter 21 after the verses which form a solemn close of his record of the great history of the conflict of faith and unbelief in the life of Christ."

The Sacred Page: John 21: Later Addition or Epilogue?

It is all how we look at things. As believers, we know that when we pray we are in communion with God. Now, God knows everything that we are gonna say, right? But does that stop him from wanting us to communicate with him? Does not God still take in information that he already knows, despite it is nothing "new" to him? If God can get information that is not new to him, why can't Jesus get information that is not new to him.

You're comparing a Revelation from God to a person praying?

No because we have scriptural evidence that proves otherwise, in John 21:17 as I keep mentioning. And when I said the heirarchy, I wasn't talking about ominiscence, I was talking about the fact that it was "given" to him, just like Jesus said all power and authority was given to him. That is why we have scriptures like Phil 2:5-9, that indicate exactly why certain scriptures are stated the way that they are regarding Jesus subordination to the Father.

When you read Phil 2:5-9 correctly, you'll see it doesn't quite say what you think it does. And seriously, you may want to consider the scholarly position of John 21:17 so you don't have such a blatant contradiction.



It can only be a contradiction if there are no plausible explanations, which they are, and which I've offered.[/QUOTE]

 

[icebuddy]

Well if you are going to make a case that John the Baptist is/was greater than Jesus, you might actually be in the 0.1% because no one actually believes that . John the Baptist said that he is not worthy to even worthy to untie Jesus' sandals (Mark 1:7). Second, Jesus did say no man born of a woman is greater than John, and that obviously doesn't apply to Jesus because Jesus transcended the virgin birth himself.



Sorry Sherm, but that Phil 2:5-9 scripture is FIRE.



I was ready to grant your point, until I read verse 17 where Jesus said that he is working too. If healing is not "work", why would he say he is working just like his Father? As both you and the context indicates, the thing in question is healing. So obviously, healing is a certain kind of work that should be distinguished from the more manual kind of labor, and apparently the Jews didn't make the distinction.

Hmm, but even as I typed the above, I still may grant your point. It could be said that we can all be "equal" to God if we to help others in their time of need, regardless if it is on the Sabbath or not. It is in this sense that we can be said to be equal to God.

The John 5 verse in question may not be Trinity Proof after all.



Well again, Phil 2:5-9 states why the Father is Greater than him. If you want to discuss Phil, we can. As far as John is concerned, that could only mean in a moral sense considering the fact that John didn't seem to have an earthly authority over anyone except maybe his own disciples.



I really couldn't tell.



I thought it was "son of a god"?



But if they were claiming him to only be "a god", and not "the God", then why would they try to stone him in the first place, when as Jesus said that according to the Law, man is called god, which is what they would have knew?

However, I completly understand where you are coming from. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically saying that it would be no point in Jesus mentioning the Law (Ps 82:6) since it is in a different context than what he seemingly is accused of in verse 33.

But then again, as I mentioned, if that is what Jesus was claiming, then that would not have been worthy of death, because as Jesus said, elsewhere, mere men are called "god" in other places.

It sounds as if Jesus was saying if mere man can be called gods in any sense, how much more can I be called god. That is what it sounds like to me, because he said if they can be called gods than "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world."



Equal as far as nature, not as far as rank/position.



It is hard to get out of the Phil 2:5-9 implications, Sherm.



How about commenting on my response regarding this.



According to Peter, he knew everything (John 21:17). I mean there just isn't any reason for him to make that statement if it wasn't true.



It is all how we look at things. As believers, we know that when we pray we are in communion with God. Now, God knows everything that we are gonna say, right? But does that stop him from wanting us to communicate with him? Does not God still take in information that he already knows, despite it is nothing "new" to him? If God can get information that is not new to him, why can't Jesus get information that is not new to him.

The fact that it says God gave to him perhaps?



No because we have scriptural evidence that proves otherwise, in John 21:17 as I keep mentioning. And when I said the heirarchy, I wasn't talking about ominiscence, I was talking about the fact that it was "given" to him, just like Jesus said all power and authority was given to him. That is why we have scriptures like Phil 2:5-9, that indicate exactly why certain scriptures are stated the way that they are regarding Jesus subordination to the Father.



It can only be a contradiction if there are no plausible explanations, which they are, and which I've offered.

I agree with Call of the Wild on these posts. However i would like to add that the Sabbath was written for mans benefit not Gods. And Rev 1:1 we read "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", now is this the title of the book or what? Because when we read, it says Which God gave Him to show his servants? Who is God and who is the him, because when we keep reading we see that "God"(he) gave it to his angel to give to John. I simply read this as follows:

The Revelation of Jesus, Which God gave to his angel to pass on to John.

BTW - Call of The Wild, nice calming spirit you have!

 

[icebuddy]

Rev 5:14 doesn't mention the lamb.

Yes honor to Jesus as well as to his God and Father, but not worship--obeisance goes to a king, not worship.

rev 5:12--- Jesus had to be worthy to receive those blessings.

You need to seriously take a second look at what you are saying here and look at context. There are no verses in the original text, they are for us to look up only.

Rev 5:12 And they sang in a mighty chorus:
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered—
to receive power and riches
and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and blessing.”
Rev 5:13 And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea. They sang:
“Blessing and honor and glory and power
belong to the one sitting on the throne
and to the Lamb forever and ever.”

kjw47,
everything is being directed at the Father and Son. Then in the next verse the 4 living creatures said "AMEN" to all of everything just said and sang and fell down and worshiped the Father and the Lamb. For you to say it doesnt mention the lamb is crazy for it plainly says it in all of my bibles... Do not Deny Jesus!

Remember that there will come a point when Jesus says, "He knows you or He doesnt know you", do not get caught in the devils snare of saying with your mouth Jesus is worthy of all glory and honor and then in your heart deny him at some level. God the Father gave us an Image of himself to Worship, Honor, and glorify.

Think about it: Who would want you to look to the Image of God, the one who expresses him exactly by his very being and to see him is to see the Father and you look to that image and say "NOT GOD" and "NOT MY WORSHIP"?

I dont know if you are a JW that follows the WTBS, but did you know the JW's of past use to worship Jesus then changed their belief? All while claiming Jesus returned in 1914 and was running their organization?

 

[icebuddy]

No, because the "Greater" meaning is not just about authority but earned merit

I have looked up the word and John uses it exactly the way I see it in many other parts of his writings. I understand you have a belief and this is how you back up your claim, but any way, i have no Problem saying the Father is the "head" of Jesus in the
Hierarchy of the God Head or in the way I view God Almighty as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.



Jhn 1:50 Jesus asked him, “Do you believe this just because I told you I had seen you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this.”

Jhn 4:12 And besides, do you think you’re greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his animals enjoyed?”


Jhn 5:20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he is doing. In fact, the Father will show him how to do even greater works than healing this man. Then you will truly be astonished.

Jhn 8:53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

Just a few...

In this case, "A little lower" may in fact be referring to authority since obviously it has nothing to do in context about merit

This is why when we read phil 2:6 we read he was in the Form of God or as some bibles put it, In the very nature of God and then emptied himself.

If the Father crowns him, that means Jesus was GIVEN it by the Father, thus separate beings.

This is where we have our disconnect between each other. The Eternal Word of God is also Jehovah. He emptied himself to become like you and me, and died for our sins. He then is crowned with glory by the Father who tells us that Jesus is not just a creation, but rather is the Rock of the Jews. That Jesus is the one spoken about in Psalms 102:25-28. Who everyone knows to be the God of the Old Testament we are calling Jehovah today. Everything that God is, Jesus is also... You look to this great mystery of God becoming flesh as a weakness, when in fact its the very power of God and love shown to us. So much so that Gods word says he doesnt want us to be ignorant that it was Jesus leading the Jews by cloud and by the parting of the sea, he is the Rock. (1 Cor 10:1-4) and that the devil is blinding people to not see this. For we preach Jesus as LORD Jehovah. For God who shines out of darkness is found in the Face of Jesus who is the Image of God. (2 Cor 4:1-6)

You see these things as a crutch to Jesus, when i see them as the very power of God.

Jesus is not the Alpha and Omega. Once again, this is the "Speaker Confusion issue". Only the Father ever says He is the Alpha and Omega, and the Angel bearing the Father's message. Rev 22:12 is not Jesus speaking.

The name of the book is the "Revelation of JESUS" and he is revealed as the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and End, First and Last. Another person here is telling me that in the middle of Giving Jesus all Honor and Glory and Power that when the Worshiping begins that they totally shut Jesus out of the worship at this point... That is why i warn those that look to The image of God and say, NOT GOD and NOT my Worship. How do you rationalize it in your head that some how you are honoring them the same... John 5:23

That Even if someone where to say directly to Jesus, "The Lord of me and the God of me", would they see something else?

 

[kjw47]

You need to seriously take a second look at what you are saying here and look at context. There are no verses in the original text, they are for us to look up only.

Rev 5:12 And they sang in a mighty chorus:
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slaughtered—
to receive power and riches
and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and blessing.”
Rev 5:13 And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea. They sang:
“Blessing and honor and glory and power
belong to the one sitting on the throne
and to the Lamb forever and ever.”

kjw47,
everything is being directed at the Father and Son. Then in the next verse the 4 living creatures said "AMEN" to all of everything just said and sang and fell down and worshiped the Father and the Lamb. For you to say it doesnt mention the lamb is crazy for it plainly says it in all of my bibles... Do not Deny Jesus!

Remember that there will come a point when Jesus says, "He knows you or He doesnt know you", do not get caught in the devils snare of saying with your mouth Jesus is worthy of all glory and honor and then in your heart deny him at some level. God the Father gave us an Image of himself to Worship, Honor, and glorify.

Think about it: Who would want you to look to the Image of God, the one who expresses him exactly by his very being and to see him is to see the Father and you look to that image and say "NOT GOD" and "NOT MY WORSHIP"?

I dont know if you are a JW that follows the WTBS, but did you know the JW's of past use to worship Jesus then changed their belief? All while claiming Jesus returned in 1914 and was running their organization?

The JW,s only had erred trinity translations to go by--that is why they thought worship to Jesus was right, but after years of careful studies of old writings, Gods word and languages and history--and Jesus' teachings they saw it was error to worship Jesus. Jesus was foretold as the coming messiah--appointed king--not God coming to earth. We do obeisance to our king, as well as learn his teachings and apply his teachings.