Was Jesus sent to the Jews only, or to Mankind?

[Rational_Mind]

Correction noted.

Here is my beliefs: Hi, I haven't been talking about Islam at all nor do I have a 'religious cleric'. Jesus said in the book of John, if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (8:24b). And he said, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (3:16, 18). So, according to Jesus, one who rejects him and does not believe he died and paid for their sins and he rose again will die in their sins, which means they will have to pay for their sins themselves which is condemnation in Hell forever.
Hebrews 9:26b-28 says, now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. So, all men are appointed to die once, even Christ died, however because Christ is in us and our spirits have been made alive, and because he rose from the grave, we know he will raise us up from the grave as well. That is what the Bible teaches, the dead shall be raised incorruptible (see 1 cor. 15), For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. (see 1 Thess. 4)

In John 8 Jesus said, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. But, If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. And Paul said in Romans 6, What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? He goes on to say that those who have believed in Christ are considered dead in Christ, dead to sin, so that we should no longer let it have dominion over us. It is not sinless perfection, for that is not accomplished until the resurrection, but we have the power of God in us to overcome sin and not let it reign and rule our lives. We are not to be slaves to sin, but instead slaves to righteousness unto holiness.
I absolutely do not deserve saving, that is very true. The definition of grace is totally undeserved, unmerited, unearned favor. The Bible says we were dead, dog dead, like a corpse six feet under, with no way of saving or helping save ourselves and we did not deserve salvation when we accepted the free gift nor do we deserve it for one day after. But God, in his great love for us paid the penalty so we can be freely forgiven and the only one who gets any glory for that is the Lord Jesus Christ. That is my beliefs, thanks.

That fails to answer anything. It seems you turn a blind eye to serious flaws in your belief. Everything you state is circular reasoning and avoiding the question. I will not enforce reason onto someone but will let you be.

 

[oldbadger]

I have heard and read that the Gospel of John was partly written by him, but somehow adapted and enlarged by others afterwards. I have read his book a few times in differing translations and I have noticed that the 'feel' of the writing changes at times. The last time I bothered to read John or Paul's writings was in 1994, so I guess that I need to re-investigate all this, and log down exact places, etc. The other gospels, esp Matthews, are fine....... Matthews is brilliant, the earliest book, and written by the surest person present, I think. I hope that doesn't upset too many people. All the best, oldbadger

 

[Godobeyer]

Well, he seems to have been a preacher, yes. He was never ordained by any of the Rabbinical academies, but that didn't stop a lot of people from preaching whatever they pleased. He was a folk movement leader, not part of any institutional authority.

I don't know how the Jews of that time felt about his being killed: presumably, most decent people in ancient Israel were sorry whenever the Romans killed someone. But one doesn't become a folk movement leader without making some enemies along the way, so presumably there was someone, somewhere who wasn't sorry to see him go.

The Romans killed a lot of people: I would expect that they all had those who were grieved at their deaths, and those who weren't so grieved. That's the human experience for you.

as i know the rabbis in that time did not accept him as messanger of God , and they had dispute with him all the time

and for my opinion because he preached that jews changed/edit the message of God , as they do with every prophet (disobey God message ) ,

and for my opinion they denied him because , he preached that the next prophet is not jewish (as revenge from God )

 

[Rational_Mind]

as i know the rabbis in that time did not accept him as messanger of God , and they had dispute with him all the time

and for my opinion because he preached that jews changed/edit the message of God , as they do with every prophet (disobey God message ) ,

and for my opinion they denied him because , he preached that the next prophet is not jewish (as revenge from God )

What verses is your opinion based on. The bible shows that on the contrary that Jesus (as) said he is not to change anything. The prophecies of the OT also indicated that the person, the Holy Prophet (saw), would not be from Isaac but Ishmael.

Then the question comes why he was rejected? Well the Jews said that he cannot be the Messiah as the second coming of Elijah has not happened. Elijah went up in a charriot of fire and was supposed to descend from heaven. So Jesus (as) replied saying that it did happen in the form of John the Baptist. They were not ready to settle that a second coming could be a person born as another Prophet to serve a similar purpose as who he was described as the second coming. They also rejected him because they said that the Messiah was supposed to bring absolute peace and lamb would sit with lion. They took it literally and said you cannot be it. Yet we all know that Jesus (as) was a peace bringer who fit that prophecy. He was purely rejected because the Jews wanted a bloody warrior to bring the to victory over everyone but Jesus (as) on the contrary said that this is not the person God sent to you. Prophets are always sent at a time when reformation is needed, they always meet cruel people not willing to change their ways, good is always opposed by evil. One only needs an excuse/

 

[Levite]

as i know the rabbis in that time did not accept him as messanger of God , and they had dispute with him all the time

and for my opinion because he preached that jews changed/edit the message of God , as they do with every prophet (disobey God message ) ,

and for my opinion they denied him because , he preached that the next prophet is not jewish (as revenge from God )

Well, whatever...I believe I already noted that what he preached was not compatible with anything approaching mainstream Jewish belief, even at that time.

I suppose precisely what his heresy was isn't really important. Doesn't matter to Jews, Christians wouldn't see it as heresy, and in the end, those are the only opinions likely to be relevant.

 

[Shermana]

I suppose precisely what his heresy was isn't really important. Doesn't matter to Jews, Christians wouldn't see it as heresy, and in the end, those are the only opinions likely to be relevant.

It's really only heresy based on a Talmudic view. There are a few iffy parts but they happen to have manuscript issues indicating they may have been placed there by anti-Judaizers. Overall I see no reason how what Jesus says doesn't mesh with the written Torah, only the Rabbiniical commentary. However, most "Christians" indeed wouldn't know where those iffy parts even are and why they are so iffy. The main problem is how "Christians" interpret what the text says, most of their out-of-context views and doctrines are in fact heretical according to Judaism. However, because their views do not represent at all what the text says and represents an extension of dark age intellectual dishonesty in terms of how to interpret the scriptures themselves, one must be careful to avoid comparing "Christianity" as its practiced by billions, most of them who have never read any of the Gospels or Epistles all the way through but only know a key select verses, to the text itself, and even then, one must acknowledge that we don't know for sure what exactly is an interpolation or not, more often than not, when there's a part of the puzzle that stands out from the others in terms of a clash, it happens to have manuscript issues.

 

[javajo]

That fails to answer anything. It seems you turn a blind eye to serious flaws in your belief. Everything you state is circular reasoning and avoiding the question. I will not enforce reason onto someone but will let you be.

(The following is just my beliefs, thoughts) I am sorry you think that way. I kindly tried to give as detailed an answer as I could give in a quick post, with scripture. I don't see any flaws in God's Word, personally, and it makes sense to me. I am sorry if I was unable to explain it in a way that you could understand or meditate on. I did not use circular reasoning at all but tried to explain a complex theological concept to you as to why we still die a physical death even though our spirits have been made alive by faith in Christ. I am sorry you do not want to converse with me anymore. I enjoyed sharing and trying to explain my beliefs to you. May we grow in wisdom, understanding and love. Peace.

I have heard and read that the Gospel of John was partly written by him, but somehow adapted and enlarged by others afterwards. I have read his book a few times in differing translations and I have noticed that the 'feel' of the writing changes at times. The last time I bothered to read John or Paul's writings was in 1994, so I guess that I need to re-investigate all this, and log down exact places, etc. The other gospels, esp Matthews, are fine....... Matthews is brilliant, the earliest book, and written by the surest person present, I think. I hope that doesn't upset too many people. All the best, oldbadger

I read a great deal of John the last couple days, and although I've read it and studied it many, many times and have memorized much of it, it is always fascinating and I always learn something new each time I study it. Great idea to re-read that. I try to ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate the scripture before I begin to read it. I believe it helps alot. Wishing you well in your studies!

as i know the rabbis in that time did not accept him as messanger of God , and they had dispute with him all the time

and for my opinion because he preached that jews changed/edit the message of God , as they do with every prophet (disobey God message ) ,

and for my opinion they denied him because , he preached that the next prophet is not jewish (as revenge from God )

Hi, its true Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah, just as prophecy foretold. Does it say in the Bible that Jesus told them the next prophet won't be Jewish? Or is that in Islamic teachings? I've never come across that in the Bible as far as I understand.

What verses is your opinion based on. The bible shows that on the contrary that Jesus (as) said he is not to change anything. The prophecies of the OT also indicated that the person, the Holy Prophet (saw), would not be from Isaac but Ishmael.

I"m not trying to keep talking to you, I just wanted to comment that in Genesis 17 the child of promise was Isaac, although Ishmael was blessed as well:

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

God told Abraham that his covenant is through Isaac and it is through Isaac's line that Jesus came. In Genesis 22:18 it says, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. The seed is Jesus Christ, whom if one believes in Him by faith, they shall be blessed with the free gift of eternal life:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal. 3

Then the question comes why he was rejected? Well the Jews said that he cannot be the Messiah as the second coming of Elijah has not happened. Elijah went up in a charriot of fire and was supposed to descend from heaven. So Jesus (as) replied saying that it did happen in the form of John the Baptist. They were not ready to settle that a second coming could be a person born as another Prophet to serve a similar purpose as who he was described as the second coming. They also rejected him because they said that the Messiah was supposed to bring absolute peace and lamb would sit with lion. They took it literally and said you cannot be it. Yet we all know that Jesus (as) was a peace bringer who fit that prophecy. He was purely rejected because the Jews wanted a bloody warrior to bring the to victory over everyone but Jesus (as) on the contrary said that this is not the person God sent to you. Prophets are always sent at a time when reformation is needed, they always meet cruel people not willing to change their ways, good is always opposed by evil. One only needs an excuse/

That's pretty much it. After he rose from the grave, Jesus told two of his disciples in Luke 24:

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

was Jesus even sent? He arrived and became what others made him.

I think so. He said so in John 8:

26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man (on the cross), then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.

 

[javajo]

To the opening question. Although Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and said so, he also said he had sheep that were not of this fold in John 10:

14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

 

[Shermana]

He said he was ONLY sent to the Sheep of the House of Israel, so any other fold must therefore be part of Israel in a similar way.

 

[javajo]

He said he was ONLY sent to the Sheep of the House of Israel, so any other fold must therefore be part of Israel in a similar way.

Perhaps, but I believe he said that whosoever believeth in him hath eternal life. And the Bible tells how the gentiles were grafted into the olive tree and the promise was to Abraham by his seed Jesus Christ before Israel existed. So I believe salvation is available to anyone who will call upon the name of the Lord.

 

[Rational_Mind]

Perhaps, but I believe he said that whosoever believeth in him hath eternal life. And the Bible tells how the gentiles were grafted into the olive tree and the promise was to Abraham by his seed Jesus Christ before Israel existed. So I believe salvation is available to anyone who will call upon the name of the Lord.

What does it mean when you say eternal life?
Does that mean that who does not accept Jesus as God will die?

 

[Rational_Mind]

I"m not trying to keep talking to you, I just wanted to comment that in Genesis 17 the child of promise was Isaac, although Ishmael was blessed as well:

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

God told Abraham that his covenant is through Isaac and it is through Isaac's line that Jesus came. In Genesis 22:18 it says, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. The seed is Jesus Christ, whom if one believes in Him by faith, they shall be blessed with the free gift of eternal life:

When Moses went to Mount Horeb under the command of God, he addressed the Israelites saying:
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken (Deuteronomy 18:15).

Hence, Ishmael not Isaac. The bible does contain prophecies about Jesus (as) coming, and it also does of the Holy Prophet (saw). This was what I was referring to. I am not saying that bible never speaks of the coming of Prophet Jesus (as).

 

[javajo]

What does it mean when you say eternal life?
Does that mean that who does not accept Jesus as God will die?

Hi. I will try to explain my beliefs. The Bible says that we are all already spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. But those who have trusted Christ have been 'quickened' or "made alive" spiritually. As I said, since we all have sinned and the penalty is death, and God is just so the penalty must be paid, we are in trouble. This death is physical death, spiritual death, and finally the "second death" which is eternal separation from God in Hell. If we believe God loved us so much that he sent Jesus to pay the penalty for our sins, and Jesus obeyed and did pay that penalty by dying and then he rose again, then God considers our sins paid for in full and we are given eternal life, that is our spirits are made alive toward God and since Christ rose again, we know he will make our physical bodies alive again, too. So, we accept that God was satisfied with the payment so he was still just because he made sure the penalty was paid. So, our spirit is made alive when we first trust Christ even though we live in a body that inherited death and the sinful nature, but because Christ died and rose again and he has made our spirit alive and actually lives in us through the Holy Spirit, he will raise our bodies at the resurrection. Also, at that time some people will still be alive and the Bible says they will be changed from sinful to sinless and from mortal to immortal at that time. This is why we still battle sin in our lives after we are saved, because we still have that corrupt, mortal body, that sin-nature we got from Adam and that won't be changed until that time. But, we do have the power of God in us so sin will not have dominion or reign over us if we don't let it.

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. 1 Cor. 15

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep (are dead), that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. 1 Thess. 4

 

[javajo]

When Moses went to Mount Horeb under the command of God, he addressed the Israelites saying:
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken (Deuteronomy 18:15).

Hence, Ishmael not Isaac. The bible does contain prophecies about Jesus (as) coming, and it also does of the Holy Prophet (saw). This was what I was referring to. I am not saying that bible never speaks of the coming of Prophet Jesus (as).

Hi! The way I understand it is that Abraham had Ishmael who God blessed and he became the father of a great nation. Abraham also had Isaac and the Israelites (and eventually Moses) came from him. So when God told Moses he would raise a prophet from his midst from his brethren, he was referring to the Jews. I believe that Prophet who God said is, "like unto me", is Jesus. You see, Moses told the Israelites he would raise a Prophet from the midst of them. Prophet is normally just, prophet, so Prophet refers to a certain person and is a prophesy of Christ, in my belief from my studies. If God told Isaac that he would raise a prophet from his brother, then I would understand it the way you do. Does that make sense? Have a good night, I am going to go relax soon. Peace!

 

[Shermana]

Perhaps, but I believe he said that whosoever believeth in him hath eternal life. And the Bible tells how the gentiles were grafted into the olive tree and the promise was to Abraham by his seed Jesus Christ before Israel existed. So I believe salvation is available to anyone who will call upon the name of the Lord.

He also said whoever believes in him will do works greater than these. The word "Believe in" is Pisteuon which means more or less "Is convinced by my teachings and obeys what I say". It doesn't mean "Have blind faith in" as a deity but to "believe in" as like "I Believe in him so I'm going to obey what he says". Otherwise, what's the point of actually listening to anything he says? The context of "Believe in" as a deity rather than to "be convinced by" of the logic and teachings is not true to the Greek. If someone says "I believe in you!" does that mean they believe you are God? It would be believing in everything he said was the correct teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven as WELL as the concept of his allusion to being the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53:10, in a Jewish context. Anything outside of this Jewish context is simply ignoring the general concepts.



The root is nonetheless "Faith" but it comes from "To be persuaded", and "To have confidence". Like "I have faith in this company because it's been doing well lately". The faith is justified by direct empirical evidence and it's the skeptic who is looking for reasons to deny the undeniable evidence. It's more or less "Fidelity", like "Unwilling to deny what has been physically witnessed". In this case, it's "faith" in his teachings and commands.

http://concordances.org/greek/4102.htm

 

[javajo]

He also said whoever believes in him will do works greater than these.

I agree. The passage is from here:

14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. John 14:1-12

I think the works are fulfilling the Great Commission and speaking and telling people the Gospel so they will be saved. Now that's a great work, indeed!

The word "Believe in" is Pisteuon which means more or less "Is convinced by my teachings and obeys what I say". It doesn't mean "Have blind faith in" as a deity but to "believe in" as like "I Believe in him so I'm going to obey what he says". Otherwise, what's the point of actually listening to anything he says? The context of "Believe in" as a deity rather than to "be convinced by" of the logic and teachings is not true to the Greek. If someone says "I believe in you!" does that mean they believe you are God? It would be believing in everything he said was the correct teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven as WELL as the concept of his allusion to being the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53:10, in a Jewish context. Anything outside of this Jewish context is simply ignoring the general concepts.

The root is nonetheless "Faith" but it comes from "To be persuaded", and "To have confidence". Like "I have faith in this company because it's been doing well lately". The faith is justified by direct empirical evidence and it's the skeptic who is looking for reasons to deny the undeniable evidence. It's more or less "Fidelity", like "Unwilling to deny what has been physically witnessed". In this case, it's "faith" in his teachings and commands.

Strong's Greek: 4102. ?????? (pistis) -- faith, faithfulness

I believe anyone who has faith in Jesus may be saved. I have faith that God sent Jesus to pay the penalty for my sins, which is death, and I have faith that his death paid that penalty in full. I have faith in Jesus' teachings about himself and why he was sent and how we may be given the free gift of eternal life. I believe one who has accepted that free gift should obey Jesus and the Bible and try and become more like Jesus everyday and that they will manifest the fruits and works brought about by their salvation and growing in grace in Christ.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
42And many believed on him there. John 10

 

[Shermana]

I think the works are fulfilling the Great Commission and speaking and telling people the Gospel so they will be saved. Now that's a great work, indeed!

I think Acts explains that he was being quite literal and direct considering Peter and Paul raised people from the dead and healed and all that. I think the intended message of "Works greater than these" was not about converting people or preaching the gospel but actual miraculous displays to prove the veracity of the faith in his teachings. Besides, in this logic, you are claiming that preaching the Gospel is a "Greater work" than the direct miracles Jesus displayed. Preaching what version of the Gospel? Yours? The Catholic? The Mormons? By that logic, Jesus was referring to Messianic Jews (Nazarenes) preaching the Gospel according to a Petrine, Jewish, pro-Law, pro-works view, non-minimalist and fully in effect of everything he teaches and commands.

To say that preaching the Gospel to someone is a "Greater work" than Jesus healing the sick I'd say is a bit audacious ,just a bit. And it's not a great work at all if you're preaching things that don't mesh with what he actually taught.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Follow me in this sense would mean "Follow what I teach and say", the idea of having blind faith in Jesus as savior without the context of following his teachings is a very recent concept. And what he taught was basically Nazarene Judaism.

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Notice here, with your own underlining, he says "The words that I speak unto you", he is referring to the idea that the Father gave him the message to teach. I don't see how you would use it in your example, since it applies to listening and believing all the teachings and commandments he has been speaking of. Not just that he is the Savior. That would be snipping out the entire context of that passage.

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Unrelated to the OP, for anyone reading, it should in fact read "makest thyself a god", with the anarthrous indefinite. I always feel the need to correct that when I see it.

Also note that Paul says that Repentance "Leads to Salvation". Which means you're not saved unless you repent.

And what does repent mean? It means to no longer sin. What is sin? "Lawlessness". As in Mosaic Law.

Your (extremely Common) minimalist view is directly refuted by Jesus himself in Matthew 7:22-23.

 

[javajo]

I think Acts explains that he was being quite literal and direct considering Peter and Paul raised people from the dead and healed and all that. I think the intended message of "Works greater than these" was not about converting people or preaching the gospel but actual miraculous displays to prove the veracity of the faith in his teachings. Besides, in this logic, you are claiming that preaching the Gospel is a "Greater work" than the direct miracles Jesus displayed. Preaching what version of the Gospel? Yours? The Catholic? The Mormons? By that logic, Jesus was referring to Messianic Jews (Nazarenes) preaching the Gospel according to a Petrine, Jewish, pro-Law, pro-works view, non-minimalist and fully in effect of everything he teaches and commands.

The 'work' Jesus was doing was speaking. Peter and Paul did have sign or confirmation gifts, but the Bible makes it clear we do not all have the same gifts. Paul asked if all do miracles or if all do the works of healing, and the answer was no. Even Peter and Paul did not raise themselves from the grave or walk on water or calm the storm or fed 5,000 from a few loaves and fishes, or healed someone from far away. Only Christ could do certain miracles and forgive sin because Christ is God. Jesus did things no one else did (John 15:24). Peter and Paul in no way exceeded the miracles Jesus did.

He did not say we would do greater miracles than this, but greater works. His main command was to preach the Gospel to all the world. Greater in Greek is meizon which means to a greater degree. So preaching so someone is saved eternally is much greater as I said. Works is ergon, which means to labor. Miracles are semeion (signs), terata, (wonders), and dunameis, (power to do mighty miracles), none of which are in the verse. So, its not about miracles. Its about millions of souls trusting Christ for salvation through hearing the Gospel.

To say that preaching the Gospel to someone is a "Greater work" than Jesus healing the sick I'd say is a bit audacious ,just a bit. And it's not a great work at all if you're preaching things that don't mesh with what he actually taught.

I believe faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. So if one hears the Good News and believes in Christ and is saved from an eternity in Hell, that is indeed a greater work than healing someone or even raising the dead. Besides, works and miracles are two different things.

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10

Follow me in this sense would mean "Follow what I teach and say", the idea of having blind faith in Jesus as savior without the context of following his teachings is a very recent concept. And what he taught was basically Nazarene Judaism.

I believe we trust Christ and his finished work for salvation and we absolutely should obey him and follow his teachings and try to be more like him.

Notice here, with your own underlining, he says "The words that I speak unto you", he is referring to the idea that the Father gave him the message to teach. I don't see how you would use it in your example, since it applies to listening and believing all the teachings and commandments he has been speaking of. Not just that he is the Savior. That would be snipping out the entire context of that passage

That is the works he was referring to, the message he spoke. And he said, I give them eternal life. Eternal life is a free gift. We are to spread the message that Jesus paid our sin debt and offers everyone the free gift of eternal life.

Unrelated to the OP, for anyone reading, it should in fact read "makest thyself a god", with the anarthrous indefinite. I always feel the need to correct that when I see it.

Yeah, yeah, the Deity of Christ, another disagreement. I believe he is God, you don't, I know.

Also note that Paul says that Repentance "Leads to Salvation". Which means you're not saved unless you repent.

I agree.

And what does repent mean? It means to no longer sin. What is sin? "Lawlessness". As in Mosaic Law.

Quitting sinning alone does not save anyone. We also have to "repent and believe the Gospel." We must believe Jesus paid the penalty of our sins and gives us his righteousness and trust him for to have redeemed or purchased us by paying our sin debt.

Your (extremely Common) minimalist view is directly refuted by Jesus himself in Matthew 7:22-23.

I believe in obeying God and not sinning or being lawless. I don't believe in minimizing Christ and his finished work on the cross to have paid my sin debt.

 

[Shermana]

John 14:12 if you examine it objectively, directly refutes what you said.


King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Now notice he says Greater works than THESE. What is the THESE here in this question? Notice he also says the works that I do....preaching to different people I don't think would gramatically be "works" in the plural, preaching in general would be called "a work". But that's irrelevant, because he says works greater than THESE. I think it would be ludicrous to believe that he's talking about his own preaching. Are there any commentaries that back this idea or is this your own idea?

The only preaching Jesus seems to do is about believing in his teachings or believing that he's authorized to teach them. That's not a work. The word "Work" can apply to what makes the "Miracle" and "Sign" to begin with.

Why would preaching be a greater work than those who actually had miracles to back their claims? Why did people back in the day actually get to see Supernatural proof but today we're just forced to take it as they say it? Would the church have expanded without the works of the Disciples which produced miracles?

 

[javajo]

John 14:12 if you examine it objectively, directly refutes what you said.


King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Now notice he says Greater works than THESE. What is the THESE here in this question? Notice he also says the works that I do....preaching to different people I don't think would gramatically be "works" in the plural, preaching in general would be called "a work". But that's irrelevant, because he says works greater than THESE. I think it would be ludicrous to believe that he's talking about his own preaching. Are there any commentaries that back this idea or is this your own idea?

The only preaching Jesus seems to do is about believing in his teachings or believing that he's authorized to teach them. That's not a work. The word "Work" can apply to what makes the "Miracle" and "Sign" to begin with.

Why would preaching be a greater work than those who actually had miracles to back their claims? Why did people back in the day actually get to see Supernatural proof but today we're just forced to take it as they say it? Would the church have expanded without the works of the Disciples which produced miracles?

I think I have explained my beliefs, I have nothing more to say than what I said in my last post.