John 1:1c -:- Is Jesus God or a god?

[apostoli]

Hi Viv,

Actually, I find we are pretty much saying the same thing. But there is a difference perhaps that can be discribed as the level of faith, or will, or fruit produced or all of the above?!?

I'm not sure that we are saying the same thing. Fairly or unfairly, what I am hearing from you is a first Adam perspective (If I do this...). Whereas my view (which I seem not to be communicating very well) has a second Adam perspective (I will not do this...). Both perspectives require activity from us, but one relies on self, the other surrender.

Sometimes I think we have reached the same conclusions about personal activity and obedience, other times not. Maybe it is the language you are using, which imo seems to over complicate things.

I think above you said that he [Jesus] did not have to learn obedience the way we do, and now are saying that we do not have to really learn obedience at all. Yes?

No!

I'll put it this way: Adam was created perfectly but didn't persist in his perfection. Jesus was born perfect man (as we all are) and persisted in his perfection. Through the sin of Adam, we are inclined to be imperfect. Jesus was inclined to remain perfect. Thus we think we can strive for perfection through works (eg: the rich young ruler).

However, when "reborn" we receive the gift of a renewal, a new heart, and strive not to repeat Adam's mistake by remaining obedient. Imu, the "learning" we under go after rebirth is the same as that experienced by Jesus (we experience the benefits of being obedient = reciprocal love). Before we accept the renewal, our "I" focus requires us to acquire "head knowledge". Imu, the rebirthing causes us to desire surrender and obedience.

Do you see what you are doing? You are twisting scripture so that it no longer compels or inspires us to right action, but making us content to sit in our bestial natures, like a dog.

Nope. I'm talking about surrender. It is easier to attempt control of self than surrender self. The later takes a lot more effort and persistence.

As far as I know there is no scripture that says "we ought to walk as Jesus walked". However, there are plenty that say we should walk in the light, and to walk in truth etc. We can't bear Jesus' cross but we can endure our own. Knowing such is found in the heart not the head.

1 John 2 3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Sorry, I wasn't listening properly. I was interpreting your earlier post as saying become a replica of him. Something we can't really do. Our strides are much smaller than his ;-)

However, we can immitate him which is what A.John is saying.

Matthew 18:3 just came to mind "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Which says to me, trust and obedience, but most importantly trust which causes obedience.

Imo, the learning bit is reflected at John 17:3. The thing that motivates us to be obedient = an emotive knowledge.
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I am not sure what you mean about emotive knowledge. In my experiencing it is actual knowledge/experiencing, indwelling, manifesting of God we are gifted with in response to our self restraint.

Emotive knowledge is of the heart not the head. The word used at Jn 17:3 is used elsewhere to describe intimacy eg: 1 Cor 8:2-3 uses it four times "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God."

The word is also used in scripture to describe the intimacy between a man and a woman.

Not exactly. Notice in 1 Peter 1:21-24, which I previously quoted. hagnizō is a ceremonial cleansing. In 1 Peter this hagnizō leads to "obedience to the truth". Titus 2:14 gives the general idea: "[Jesus] gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify (hagnizō) unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

In no way does this scripture say since Jesus gave himself for us, he can then automatically redeem us - we just have to accept the redemption. All scripture taken together says that we have to restrain ourselves, deny ourselves. Jesus made himself the redeemer through his actions, and we have to make ourselves redeemable through ours. Jesus can only redeem, can only give God (purify, make a holy peoples zealous of good works) and give eternal life, to those who have restrained the self, denied the self, by becoming living sacrifices.

Your words (if not your comment) opposes those scriptures which say all mankind is already redeemed (repurchased) 1 John 2:2; Gal 3:13-14; 1 Peter 1:18.

Eph 2:8-9 says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast."

The operative bit in Titus 2:14 is "zealous of good works". This opposes performers of good works who zealously seek a reward. The later is how I am understanding your comment/s. The way I see things: those who accept the gift remain zealous of good works, not needing a reward for the works they perform.

Works are involved in both scenarios but the motivation is different.

It is clear as offered above, that we have a calling, a responsibility to deny self, restrain self

Any moralists would agree. It is the basis of all human law, pagan or otherwise, and not exclusive to the Abrahamic faiths. Imo, the difference with Christianity: it teaches that nothing we do makes a difference in our salvation = we can't save ourselves. However, our "works", example etc can influence others to accept the gift of salvation.

Below you say "Does our understanding produce good fruit?" By which I am understanding you as meaning "in the self", and I think that is an excellent question. The answer I think is in 2 Peter 3:14 = "found...at peace"

It is clear as offered above, that we have a calling, a responsibility to deny self, restrain self, and interpreting these verses to take away that responsibility is, imu doing just what Peter warned us of in (2 Peter 3:14-18). Logically how can one twist scripture to their own destruction? Perhaps by failing to be convicted to a certain action or thought that is necessary for eternal life?

Imu, there is only one action required of us to gain eternal life and that is repentence. All other actions (eg: taking in knowledge) either lead us to repentence or sustain/confirm our choice.

In 2 Peter 3:16 we learn...

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

No offence intended, merely a brotherly admonishment, read the bit I've bolded and think on the source of the teaching that your avatar represents. The Kabbala's Ein Sof Ohr or the Buddhist Shunyata (?)

This is the the difference, imo, between what we are seeing: Does our understanding produce good fruit? Does it compel us to right action? Or does it take away our inclination to right action which will lead us to destruction?

Yep, action is required! But imu we are judged by our motivation, not by our actions. Many call Lord, Lord but are rejected.

Actually what I experienced [in church] is try to be obedient but it is ok if you are not. You are not required to produce good fruit. Loving others would indicate that Christ is in you, but don't worry or fret if you find it hard to love.

The teaching I received: obedience at first is hard. When it is a habit, you won't even know you are being obedient. Likewise with love. Unless you love, don't expect to be loved.

I see obedience to Christ as actually freedom from the bestial self! For this obedience is natural and will simply happen, but only after we overcome the bestieal self. For it is our true nature to obey, we just have to let be born again and 'raised' to fruition within us. And this cannot occur without our fiirst practicing self-restraint.

Hmm. Man was created in the image and likeness of God, not the beast. Unlike the beast man has a rational mind. Imo, the first step is to subdue the rational mind, to have it submit. "the truth sets you free" comes to mind, so I don't view constraint of the will as an option. Imu, we renew our will to be right minded. Possibly you mean the same thing (?)

No. In both cases we have functionality not activity.

I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps you mean potential and not fruit? Or our role is perfection but our actions are not perfect? Or we are set aside for perfection, but not expected for to manifest it through us?

Again, I feel your are taking scripture and twisting it in a way that it no longer compels us to right action. In effect deflating its ability to produce good fruit.

Well thats probably because you've read your prejudices into what I wrote, rather than reading what I wrote. My words set functionality in opposition to activity.

Functionality: think of a vessel made for a particular purpose. Right action (the vessel performs its function) is presupposed. eg: The tree that always bears good fruit, is not expected to bear bad fruit. Though that can change if it is uprooted, or it is not tended properly.

As you put it below: perfection = "functioning as we are meant to function"

Again, I do not disagree with this. I though get the impression that you did not read what I said about the meaning of perfection.

I may have misunderstood you.

It does not mean, imu, not to make mistakes or mess anything up, etc. It means to be healed, whole, complete, functioning as we are meant to function!

the bit I bolded is where we agree. The "healed, whole, complete" part is where we seem to diverge in our opinions. These I see as the processes that occur prior to cleansing. Like removing a dent on the bottom of a pot so it works the way it was designed to work.

Being perfect humans is being the human that God wants us to be. Jesus and Paul talk about fulfilling the Law. When we have fulfilled the Law (which does not mean obey all the ordinances, but love God and others as we were meant to - without the obstruction caused by our bestial self) we will be perfect humans - functioning as we are meant to function.

I'm not sure if we are in accord here...

Think on Adam. God found no need to give him and Eve the Law. Instead he was given an instruction and told the consequences if he failed to carry out the instruction. All Adam had to do, to live eternally, was to be obedient. Imo, same with us. Imo, there is only one rule (Law) we have to follow "Love your neighbour as yourself", do that and you prove your love for God. In short follow Jesus' example.

Is this what you are saying?

We certainly can become what we are meant to become. And yes, faith is crucial and eventually God will take us to deeper and higher faiths.

This is where our opinions seem to be in opposition. To me there is only one Christian "faith" that motivates all we do = God sent his only Son to save us. Nothing deeper, nothing higher. The appreciation of that faith may mature as we go through the trials of life, but in my experience the level of faith remains the same. "Be like the children", "God chose the foolish" echoes in my head. In short: there is nothing mystical about "faith" and nothing higher to strive for.

Self improvement, whether it be increased knowledge, being more sensitive towards others etc, imo, is external to "faith". Though in my case (and I presume most other people) it is "faith" that motivates self improvement.

But if anyone uses the concept of faith to remove responsibility, instead of giving more, they are twisting scripture.

I'm not sure how "concept of faith to remove responsibility" could work. To me it would be like saying "watch the man with no legs walk".

I'm guessing you are protesting against the "once saved, always saved" lobby. In my experience, many speak the speak but their actions belie what they speak.

The more faith God gives us, the more responsibility we have.

Luke 12:42-48 For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Again I think we are in opposition. I believe God gives everyone the same "amount" of faith. Whether they mature in it is another question and so A.Paul tells us we have someone to help us (Rom 8:26)

It is interesting you cite Luke 12:42-48. I emphasise Luke 12:35-37. Notice that all the servants are treated equally.

Possibly you are making a protest about church leadship. For this is what Luke 12:42-48 infers. It is not a matter of faith, but of responsibility. As A.paul says there are some that a granted practical gifts (teaching ability etc) but there is only one faith and one body.

Maybe we could move on to other points in my previous post?

OK

Peace

[Vivian]

Hello again Incrus,

If I might second this, as a help to InRus.

I was thinking the same thing, that you (InRus) think there is only One God, but this One God makes (using your word) himself other forms?

But then you seem to even be arguing against that at times and I really have no idea what your basic thought about the nature of God is.

You obviously seeks to dialogue on this forum, but I find it extremely difficult to engage you, because you are unclear regarding where you are coming from, and give the impression that you are simply trying to prove your self right (not what you discern from scripture - because I cannot decipher what that is) and everyone else wrong.

Perhaps if you just clearly say, I think, or I know, or I understand, or Scripture says this and this and this, leaving out all the declarations of falsity in others' words.

If someone has trained you to communicate this way, representing your religion, I would throw away their instruction book!

Shalom.


Viv

[Vivian]

Hi Viv,

Hi Paul!

I'm not sure that we are saying the same thing. Fairly or unfairly, what I am hearing from you is a first Adam perspective (If I do this...). Whereas my view (which I seem not to be communicating very well) has a second Adam perspective (I will not do this...). Both perspectives require activity from us, but one relies on self, the other surrender.

Interesting that you would discern this and say that one is right and the other wrong.

Such a distinction is worthy of much prayer and contemplation, methinks, for this is the inner struggle which we all go through when we truly follow Christ! And this is a case certainly, where scripture alone is insufficient in such a teaching, for it requires a daily personal relationship.

Lord what would you have me do? Or not do!

And I would agree that most of what Christ teaches us, at least early on, is more of a not doing than a doing. Not doing in terms of first not reacting to our thoughts and feelings, learning to become a watcher instead of a doer. This brings our reactive sin to a screeching halt - turning our focus inward.

But interwoven with this is a doing. Which without going into detail can be summed up in these words...

Luke 11 :9 So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

This commandment certainly falls within the 'doing' category, imu.

And all of this is learning to restrain the bestial self, so that Spirit can be born and brought to maturity within us.

If I were to summarize the doing I think we are called to do, it would be to step aside!

Sometimes I think we have reached the same conclusions about personal activity and obedience, other times not. Maybe it is the language you are using, which imo seems to over complicate things.

Yeah, as said I agree this is a difficult distinction, and one that can only be found in our personal journey with Christ. Right now I am more in the phase of doing - of active seeking and asking and knocking.

No!

I'll put it this way: Adam was created perfectly but didn't persist in his perfection. Jesus was born perfect man (as we all are) and persisted in his perfection.

Yes. I find no disagreement in these words.

(I would just offer something that took many years of seeking before seeing, and I am sure many more years of seeking before seeing clearly and that is that what happened to Adam is included in the All is very Good declaration in Genesis 1. Adam was indeed created perfectly - to be made perfect by walking through imperfection. When we consider the Power and Authority that will be given the sons of God, why do we think there is not a training program of some sort?

God is in the process of creating full-self willed beings who will always chose what is beneficial for all. And that takes a lot of work!)

Through the sin of Adam, we are inclined to be imperfect. Jesus was inclined to remain perfect. Thus we think we can strive for perfection through works (eg: the rich young ruler).

I turn to Hebrews 2 for understanding, where it says that Jesus partook of the same imperfection that we partook of, to show us the Way to being made perfect. [And I have a different take on the rich young ruler that can be found in Karen22's thread on Perfection.]

However, when "reborn" we receive the gift of a renewal, a new heart, and strive not to repeat Adam's mistake by remaining obedient. Imu, the "learning" we under go after rebirth is the same as that experienced by Jesus (we experience the benefits of being obedient = reciprocal love). Before we accept the renewal, our "I" focus requires us to acquire "head knowledge". Imu, the rebirthing causes us to desire surrender and obedience.

Yes, I do not disagree. But offer that Jesus went through the same re-birthing process hence he was baptized by John the Baptist. I offer as shared before that being baptized is being anointed - one of the many anointings we must go through in the journey as we learn to become self-willed beings embodying Spirit in its fullness. The measure of our self denial will determine the measure of anointing of Spirit we will receive.

Nope. I'm talking about surrender. It is easier to attempt control of self than surrender self. The later takes a lot more effort and persistence.

I think we are mincing with words. Of course we will each describe the learning process a bit differently. Some might see their surrender as a sort of control - grabbing hold of the bestial self and bringing it to the altar, for example! We are all unique and will have unique ways of describing what we go through.

And again, I am not sure why you are standing in disagreement with me? You know this reminds me Paul, when I would argue vehemently with another poster on Tweb who had learned and was trying to share with us that all is indeed Good, even humanity's fall! just as God declared. In my intellectual understanding, I have again and again returned to Genesis 1 and 2, for this always seemed to me the foundation of our intellectual understanding. And now that God has shown me what this poster was trying to communicate, I offer him the greatest of apologies.

And perhaps this is one reason what I am saying is not clear? for I am not clinging to the traditional idea that the fall was not part of God's declaration that All is very Good, and that the fall is bad, and God and his Son are simply trying to fix what we messed up!

If we see that this all has been part of the plan all along - to create true sons of God who can manifest in fullness the Spirit of God, then everything changes! Well, at least it did for me!

Sorry, I wasn't listening properly. I was interpreting your earlier post as saying become a replica of him. Something we can't really do. Our strides are much smaller than his ;-)

However, we can imitate him which is what A.John is saying.

Mincing words here it seems, and since I am not a replica nor do I fully imitate Jesus, I am not the one to say what is what. I just know that Jesus came to show us the way and if we walk as he did, going the way that he went, if we go all the way, what then? What will we have become? Certainly his strides are much larger than ours so he made the journey much faster than we. But who can truly say what we will become until we become it?

This is what John said:

1 John 3 :2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Matthew 18:3 just came to mind "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Which says to me, trust and obedience, but most importantly trust which causes obedience.

Oh yes. I agree! And this is a key revelation that aids us in our personal journey, in that inner struggle mentioned above. But again, such is not clear solely in the words themselves.

Emotive knowledge is of the heart not the head. The word used at Jn 17:3 is used elsewhere to describe intimacy eg: 1 Cor 8:2-3 uses it four times "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God."

Yes, I agree! And knowledge shared that is learned by the heart and not the mind will have a different feel to it, for Spirit is behind the sharing of all emotive knowledge.

The word is also used in scripture to describe the intimacy between a man and a woman.

This is way way beyond the topic of this thread and Tweb, but yes at some point we come to see that our physical intimacies are patterned or in the image of our intimacies with Christ.

Your words (if not your comment) opposes those scriptures which say all mankind is already redeemed (repurchased) 1 John 2:2; Gal 3:13-14; 1 Peter 1:18.

Oh I love to look at scripture!

2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

I understand that your conclusion from these verses is what is taught by some religions and I even I can show you that such a conclusion is incomplete, I doubt if I can sway you. But I will so that at least it was offered to you...

The first verse talks about Jesus being an propitiation for sins, or an atoning sacrifice. If one makes the assumption that all we need is to be forgiven and God will wave his magic wand and correct the mistake Adam and Eve made, then I suppose one can take these words to mean that.

But if one assumes that it was God's intention all along that we walk through imperfection, or the valley of the shadow of death, or the outer darkness, becoming perfect while surrounded by the imperfect, making us unto self willed sons of God who know and will always choose the good, then we see that the propitiation of sins does not equal eternal life, but aids us in becoming free from the debts of our sin (which our embedded in our soul according to Law), so that we might seek God and find God without having to reap all the negative stuff that we have sown, then this verse is not saying that the whole world was redeemed.

And we see this exact verity described by Paul in the next verse - that Jesus redeemed us for the curse of the law, or freed us from having to reap all the negative stuff we have sown because of our sin.

And the what applied to the first also applies to the third.

Eph 2:8-9 says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast."

Yes, I agree. I am not talking about good works and instead of taking up space here explaining, I will direct you what was already shared on the Karen22 perfection thread..

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=125217

(see post 57 specifically)

The operative bit in Titus 2:14 is "zealous of good works". This opposes performers of good works who zealously seek a reward. The later is how I am understanding your comment/s. The way I see things: those who accept the gift remain zealous of good works, not needing a reward for the works they perform.

Exactly. Eternal Life is not something that is earned with 'good works' nor is it earned with belief.

Works are involved in both scenarios but the motivation is different.

Yes, I agree and am addressing this very issue on the perfection thread.

Any moralists would agree. It is the basis of all human law, pagan or otherwise, and not exclusive to the Abrahamic faiths. Imo, the difference with Christianity: it teaches that nothing we do makes a difference in our salvation = we can't save ourselves. However, our "works", example etc can influence others to accept the gift of salvation.

I would clarify - imu, nothing we do outwardly makes a difference in our salvation, for salvation is not something that we can earn. Earnings - rewards and punishments, have to do with the Law ( not Torah but divine Law - of which Torah and all commandments of God are a reflection), and by design are intended to aid in the formation of sons of God, but the Law does not grant or give 'Eternal Life' .

However, Eternal Life is very much related to or a by-product of our inner journey, our inward spiritual life.

Again my thoughts on this are explained on Karen's thread.

Below you say "Does our understanding produce good fruit?" By which I am understanding you as meaning "in the self", and I think that is an excellent question. The answer I think is in 2 Peter 3:14 = "found...at peace"

Indeed, Eternal Life is the culmination of our inner spiritual journey.

Imu, there is only one action required of us to gain eternal life and that is repentence. All other actions (eg: taking in knowledge) either lead us to repentence or sustain/confirm our choice.

Ha! Repentance another topic of the perfection thread!

Repentance is turning away from our bestial nature, denying self, sacrificing or offering up bestial nature, restraining bestial nature so that our spirit nature can be born and brought to life within us.

In 2 Peter 3:16 we learn...

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

No offence intended, merely a brotherly admonishment, read the bit I've bolded and think on the source of the teaching that your avatar represents. The Kabbala's Ein Sof Ohr or the Buddhist Shunyata (?)

My avatar represents Dante's eight heaven, so it is a Catholic depiction of a heavenly sphere.

And I would ask you, if Christ has already redeemed the whole world and I put my trust and faith in him, how can my interpretation of scripture lead to my destruction?

Perhaps because I do not 'do' or 'not do' something that I need to 'do' or 'not do'?

Yep, action is required! But imu we are judged by our motivation, not by our actions. Many call Lord, Lord but are rejected.

Above you speak of an intimacy similar to that of a man and woman?!? So I would say that being known by Christ and knowing Christ is way more than simply our motivation! But our motivation is indeed important and significant. For if we are not seeking and knocking we cannot find.

The teaching I received: obedience at first is hard. When it is a habit, you won't even know you are being obedient. Likewise with love. Unless you love, don't expect to be loved.

Indeed this is very important. What Christ has taught you is of the utmost importance. Follow him, not me. But perhaps in my words you might better be able to see something that he is or will try to teach you?

This has occurred over and over for me, which is why I post for others' benefit.

Hmm. Man was created in the image and likeness of God, not the beast. Unlike the beast man has a rational mind. Imo, the first step is to subdue the rational mind, to have it submit. "the truth sets you free" comes to mind, so I don't view constraint of the will as an option. Imu, we renew our will to be right minded. Possibly you mean the same thing (?)

This is key, imu! This is the revealing that is promised to true believers! John 3 - true belief is coming to the Light and having our bestial nature revealed (see perfection thread!).

This same verity is spread all across Paul's letters, which those who are untaught have twisted to their own destruction - making the incorrect assumption that the antichrist or the man of perdition, is something outside of themselves.

The beast is man. The beast is the old man that Paul describes in Romans 7.

Well thats probably because you've read your prejudices into what I wrote, rather than reading what I wrote. My words set functionality in opposition to activity.

Functionality: think of a vessel made for a particular purpose. Right action (the vessel performs its function) is presupposed. eg: The tree that always bears good fruit, is not expected to bear bad fruit. Though that can change if it is uprooted, or it is not tended properly.

As you put it below: perfection = "functioning as we are meant to function"

Yes.

I may have misunderstood you.

the bit I bolded is where we agree. The "healed, whole, complete" part is where we seem to diverge in our opinions. These I see as the processes that occur prior to cleansing. Like removing a dent on the bottom of a pot so it works the way it was designed to work.

I'm not sure if we are in accord here...

Think on Adam. God found no need to give him and Eve the Law. Instead he was given an instruction and told the consequences if he failed to carry out the instruction. All Adam had to do, to live eternally, was to be obedient. Imo, same with us. Imo, there is only one rule (Law) we have to follow "Love your neighbour as yourself", do that and you prove your love for God. In short follow Jesus' example.

Is this what you are saying?

Not exactly, as shared above. We are to be made into sons of God, being brought back as self-willed righteous individuals into unity with Christ. And all that has happened and will happen is for that end. This, I know is difficult to accept and understand, and it takes a faith that most of us do not yet have.

Truly trusting Christ and that all is very good, and all will work for good.

This is where our opinions seem to be in opposition. To me there is only one Christian "faith" that motivates all we do = God sent his only Son to save us. Nothing deeper, nothing higher. The appreciation of that faith may mature as we go through the trials of life, but in my experience the level of faith remains the same. "Be like the children", "God chose the foolish" echoes in my head. In short: there is nothing mystical about "faith" and nothing higher to strive for.

We probably, as mentioned above, disagree as to what role Jesus plays in our salvation.

Self improvement, whether it be increased knowledge, being more sensitive towards others etc, imo, is external to "faith". Though in my case (and I presume most other people) it is "faith" that motivates self improvement.

It is a very difficult journey with a very narrow gate that few can find. (Matthew 7:14) The historical Jesus is easy to find. Mental assention to ideas is easy to find and follow. What is hard to find and difficult to follow is the inner Christ. This is how I feel we distort the teachings of Paul to our own destruction. We come up with ideas such as all are already saved, or I am already redeemed, and never go looking nor find the inner Christ.

I'm not sure how "concept of faith to remove responsibility" could work. To me it would be like saying "watch the man with no legs walk".

Finding the inner Christ is like the man with no legs suddenly sprouting legs.

I'm guessing you are protesting against the "once saved, always saved" lobby. In my experience, many speak the speak but their actions belie what they speak.

Addressed already.

Again I think we are in opposition. I believe God gives everyone the same "amount" of faith. Whether they mature in it is another question and so A.Paul tells us we have someone to help us (Rom 8:26)

Just looking at Jesus' responses to those he encountered reveals this to be untrue. He often talks of those with little faith, or those with great faith.

It is interesting you cite Luke 12:42-48. I emphasise Luke 12:35-37. Notice that all the servants are treated equally.

Now this is interesting, because, and correct me where I do not understand, it sounds as though you are contradicting yourself. First you say that we do not have to 'do' anything. And then you cite verses that speak of God blessing those who are found watching, who have girded themselves and set their lamps burning.

Perhaps we though are in agreement, that these verses are speaking of a required inner state or inner action, and not outward. (And do not not see him treated all the servants equally! There is deep meaning to these verses, as to what is required of us, deep esoteric meaning pointing to our inner journey with Christ.)

Possibly you are making a protest about church leadship. For this is what Luke 12:42-48 infers. It is not a matter of faith, but of responsibility. As A.paul says there are some that a granted practical gifts (teaching ability etc) but there is only one faith and one body.

OK

Peace

I am speaking of the inner journey, the difficult path, the gate that is hard to find.

Perhaps I have shared enough, and you do not see anything worthy to consider in my words.

I would rather not debate or argue over scripture, because we will all be losers in the end with that.

Peace to you my friend.

Viv

[apostoli]

Hi Viv,

I won't reply to all your post. Merely the bits I feel need addressing...

I would rather not debate or argue over scripture, because we will all be losers in the end with that.

I don't debate. I discuss...no winners, no losers, all we have with questionable scripture, in the end, is opinion.

And again, I am not sure why you are standing in disagreement with me?

Basically I'm hearing a lot of Kabbalah and Hindu/Buddhist and Stoic philosophy, and an interpretation of scripture on those basis.

In all probability there has been cross fertilization between religions over the centuries - the "How do we explain this?" Possibly that is your intention, but imo you are battling against the scriptures as traditionally understood since the day dot, in defence of these philosophies.

I don't perceive Christianity as a mystic religion, imo, there are no mysteries that we need to solve that would be profitable to us. And no higher learning than that which is plainly taught in scripture. So I hold to the KISS principle - keep it simple = be like the children.

If I have misinterpreted you, I apologise.

My avatar represents Dante's eight heaven, so it is a Catholic depiction of a heavenly sphere.

Actually it isn't Catholic teaching, merely Dante's novelization of Greek thought (the Commedia & Convivio). In most Catholic circles his perception of things, especially angels as beings with no potential and no memory, are considered heretical.

In any case Dante accounted for nine heavens, not eight! Aristotle, the Kabbal and Hindus/Buddhist have eight, celestial cycles.

And perhaps this is one reason what I am saying is not clear? for I am not clinging to the traditional idea that the fall was not part of God's declaration that All is very Good, and that the fall is bad, and God and his Son are simply trying to fix what we messed up!

The traditional view is God being omnipotent (therefore omniscient) knew that granting free will would cause problems in man. So the education of man was in the creation design = basically, allow mankind to demonstrate to itself that in doing their own thing, they just bury themselves deeper and deeper into the mud.

On another thread I have argued that God has never once punished anyone for anything ie: when someone (eg: the Israelites) rejected his protection, they occasioned the consequences.

If we see that this all has been part of the plan all along - to create true sons of God who can manifest in fullness the Spirit of God, then everything changes! Well, at least it did for me!

Well! God already had the angels in this regard. What need he of man?

I'll stop at this point. My aim is simply to demonstrate to you that the mystic religions do not have the answers. And I fear that you are heading off into the mystic mist...

Peace

[Vivian]

Hi Viv,

Hi apostoli!

Likewise just a few points -

In all probability there has been cross fertilization between religions over the centuries - the "How do we explain this?" Possibly that is your intention, but imo you are battling against the scriptures as traditionally understood since the day dot, in defence of these philosophies.

In my journey I have found that many religions have two faces - the outer face and the inner face - just like the temple in Jerusalem - the outer court where folks gathered from time to time and discussed the things of God, and then inside the temple where devotees were actually drawing near to God. Actually entering into the temple. [And good study as well is the difference between the Tabernacle of Moses and the Tabernacle of David - the former being where the children came and through ritual learned the hows and whats of drawing near to God, and the latter, the 'advanced' temple, where there were no ritual or animal sacrifices, where those who had learned sufficiently the hows and whats actually came and drew near on their own to God. (Interesting that during this era, the Ark of the Covenant was kept in the Tabernacle of David and not the Tabernacle of Moses, where the rituals continued. The Psalms, actually, are written from the spiritual (mystical) experiences that occurred within the tabernacle of David.]

And so what I offer in my posts is the understanding that is found on the inner side or inner face of multiple religions. When one traverses there, they find that most of the world religions, at their center or heart or first revelation, say the exact same thing, just using different imagery and language, according to the culture. And so one discovers then a warehouse of differing language and images to describe the same verities.

Of course we are all different in what language or imageries we are most comfortable or most inspired to share with.

I don't perceive Christianity as a mystic religion, imo, there are no mysteries that we need to solve that would be profitable to us. And no higher learning than that which is plainly taught in scripture. So I hold to the KISS principle - keep it simple = be like the children.

If I have misinterpreted you, I apologise.

No you did not misinterpret. And I offer that the outer face of Christianity (what most people in this world consider 'Christianity') is not mystical, just as you surmised. However, the Bible and all the messengers and prophets and characters of the Bible are/were.

Go figure. God teaches us about creation and himself through mystical means but the religion that is founded is not mystical itself? Mystical merely meaning connection with the Spiritual. All of God and Christ is Spiritual, and Jesus even said that the Father is looking for those who will worship him in Spirit and Truth, but the outer face of the religion founded on these verities is not spiritual or mystical?

I offer that this is because most of humanity has not developed sufficiently to be mystical (imu, eyes that see and ears that hear are the ability to perceive the spiritual, the things of heaven). But when a soul is ripe, God will call the personality out of the outer church, with a mystical experience! As he did with Paul and with so many others in the Bible. And as he continues to do this day, with me and so many others.

Actually it isn't Catholic teaching, merely Dante's novelization of Greek thought (the Commedia & Convivio). In most Catholic circles his perception of things, especially angels as beings with no potential and no memory, are considered heretical.

In any case Dante accounted for nine heavens, not eight! Aristotle, the Kabbal and Hindus/Buddhist have eight, celestial cycles.

Yes, I would imagine that the church would consider it heretical! I mean if someone claims to be experiencing God and you are not, what is the human typical human response? Just look at how the Jewish Authority responded to Jesus, and to Paul!

Anyway, my son I think told me it was a depiction of Dante's eight heaven, not sure but found this description...

Illustration to Dante's Divine Comedy, Paradiso by Gustave Doré.

Dante and Beatrice staring the *Empyrean and the Nine Angelic Cicles in the form of a rose

But you are right, we will find the same sort of image in the inner faces of a myriad of spiritual traditions because the devotees are all having the same vision and revelation of heaven.

The traditional view is God being omnipotent (therefore omniscient) knew that granting free will would cause problems in man. So the education of man was in the creation design = basically, allow mankind to demonstrate to itself that in doing their own thing, they just bury themselves deeper and deeper into the mud.

On another thread I have argued that God has never once punished anyone for anything ie: when someone (eg: the Israelites) rejected his protection, they occasioned the consequences.

Awesome. I will look for the thread. Very few among the tweebers are able to see this!

Well! God already had the angels in this regard. What need he of man?

What is an angel, Paul?

Think bigger. An angel is a being of God that has already entered into the Kingdom. Angel in biblical terms simply means messenger. It is a being from another world, or higher worlds in creation who come to assist humanity in their work - or assist the Father in his work among and within humanity. When one begins to have mystical experiences it is from angels or messengers coming to you in the Name (Power and Authority of Christ). But when one looks into the first realms of heavens, there are also dark beings there, and so, as advised often in scripture, one has to learn to discern between the light and the dark of the mystical. Spirit AND Truth, both, are required.

I'll stop at this point. My aim is simply to demonstrate to you that the mystic religions do not have the answers. And I fear that you are heading off into the mystic mist...

Peace

As shared above, the mystical is simply the inner face or side of a spiritual tradition - where the answers are found. But again if one is not having these experiences themselves, what is the expected human reaction?

The reality, in my experience, is that most of humanity has not developed sufficiently for the mystical - which is a good thing, for just as in the physical there is an admixture of light and darkness in the spiritual and we must be able to discern, just as Paul and others warn us (Galatians 1:8, Ephesians 6:12)

But the Bible itself, and all the messengers, prophets and characters of the Bible are mystical, or spiritual.

I mean just read all this, and then tell me that the Christianity is not mystical.

Genesis 3:8 (and all the encounters between Adam and God)

Genesis 5:24

Genesis 17 (and all the encounters between Abraham and God)

and Moses

ans Samuel (this one is very dear to me 1 Samuel 3)

and Daniel

and David, and on and on and on

and Elizabeth, and Mary, and Joseph

and Pentecost (2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.)

and Paul (his first encounter with Jesus and the years of teaching)

2 Corinthians 12:1-6

and Stephen (55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” )

and Peter (Acts 10)

and John

Acts 2 :14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 ‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
21 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.’



Shalom and may God grant you, and all, these Spiritual gifts as well (Luke 11). Amen.


Viv

[IncRus]

Hello again Incrus,

A quick amplification to my previous post...

1 John 5:20, which says that:

Jesus came to give us understanding; 1) that we may know him who is true (referring to the Father); 2) that we are in him who is true (referring to the Father), and 3) we are ALSO in his (referring to the Father) son, Jesus Christ. 4) This (referring to the Father) is the true God and eternal life (refer to John 17:3).

You are a tricky little devil aren't you

I didn't notice you were now advocating a Sabellian (Oneness Pentecostal) view: that the Father and Son are the same person!

I had noticed that you added to the scripture with your "ALSO" which doesn't occur in the Greek nor any valid translation. But I decided I'd let that slip. But I can't let your unbiblical teaching go by = your addition of "ALSO" makes 4) apply to 3) = your interpretation that Jesus is the Father,

Naughty, naughty boy. Pretending you are a unitarian when you obviously think Jesus is his own Father.

The King James Version renders 1 John 5:20 thus: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, (1) that we may know Him who is true, and (2) that we are IN HIM who is true, (3) EVEN IN HIS SON, Jesus Christ.

(4) This (referring to Him who is true) is the true God (refers the Father - John 17:3) and eternal life (refers to the attainment or eternal life by KNOWING the Father and KNOWING Jesus Christ whom the Father SENT; and by being "in the Father" AND "in His Son, Jesus Christ").

Here, the word EVEN is taken to mean ALSO, i.e., that we are ALSO "in His Son Jesus Christ."

The Today's English Version renders 1 John 5:20 thus: "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (1) so that we know the true God. (2) We live in union with the true God - (3)in union with his Son Jesus Christ.

(4) This is the true God (refers to the Father) and this is eternal life (refers to the attainment of eternal life BY knowing the ONLY true God and BY knowing Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God SENT; and by being IN UNION with the true God; and (even/also) being IN UNION with His son Jesus Christ).

1 John 5:20 is retelling what Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17:3 that we attain eternal life:

(1)KNOWING the ONLY true God (the Father) and KNOWING Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God (the Father) SENT;

(2) by living IN UNION with the ONLY true God; AND (also/even)

(3) by living IN UNION with the son of the true God, Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry but I don't know how else can I make 1 John 5:20 any simpler to make myself go down to the level of your comprehension!

[IncRus]

Hello Incrus,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post #110...

And you say that the "Church (RCC etc.) knows exactly that ....(the Father of Jesus Christ), is WITHOUT comparison true God." And "Monos" primarily means "ALONE." If you truly understand what you read, why do you INSIST that Jesus is ALSO God IN ADDITION to the Father, who the RCC knows is "WITHOUT comparison true God ALONE?

Because I do understand what I read, and more particularly I check the Greek when the English rendition of a text appears to have an internal contradiction. For instance: If John 17:3 is to be read "know you as the only true God" as you want, then why isn't eternal life and the knowledge restricted to the Father?

Your SPECULATION that Jesus is ALSO God IN ADDITION to the Father because "eternal life and the knowledge is not restricted to the Father" is FALSE. Knowing the Father who is the ONLY true God and knowing Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God SENT does NOT make Jesus ALO God IN ADDITION to the Father.

Any Greek scholar will point out the sentence structure prohibits the rendering "know you as the ONLY true God". The text is an affirmation not a definition or a qualification; and is exclusive to the subject "you" thus "you, the only true God".

What any Greek scholar points out doesn't influence my belief one way or another. But, of course, you are correct in saying that the phrase, "you, the only true God" is an affirmation that the "you" who is the Father, is the ONLY true God.

It does NOT matter whether their God is "3 aspects of the same person" or "3 persons of the same essence" or "3 beings of the same person" or "3 beings of the same essence," they are as Trinitarian as any true-blooded Trinitarian who worships a TRIUNE God.

Which proves how ignorant and foolish you are - all of your formulations are rejected by Niceans = Trinitarians. It is telling that you excluded the one definition (which I provided you), by which Nicean Trinitarians identify themesleves "3 persons with one aspect" hence the Nicean Creed uses the term homoousia and not ousia in regard to the Father and the Son.

The term "3 persons with one aspect" does NOT make your Trinitarian God any different from the other definitions of a Trinitaran God. It is still a TRIUNE God which is DIFFERENT from the ONLY true God whom Jesus DECLARED in John 17:3.

Sure does matter. Oneness believers deny the distinction of the Father, Son and Spirit as God. In fact oneness believers, do not believe in a Triune God, thats why they are called "ONENESS believers". They teach that the Father, Son and Spirit are three aspects of the same person.

Nicenes teach the Godhead, made up of three distinct persons. The Father is the first principle, the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. Thus, the Father is the only true God.

ONENESS Pentecostals call their TRIUNE God "THREE aspects in ONE person" while Nicene Trinitarians call their TRIUNE God "THREE persons in ONE aspect." I see NO difference in their being BOTH unbelievers of Jesus who said that the Father is the ONLY true God.

I have yet to meet a Pentecostal who DENIES being a Trinitarian or a believer in the TRIUNITY of their God.

Probably not. But Pentecostal oneness believers are outside of the Church - a significant portion of those idependent denonominations that you often make reference to. They teach a different gospel. So it is pointless refuting their point of view to most here. Most here will agree that Pentecostal oneness believers are wrong in their opinion. It certainly isn't taught in mainstream Christianity.

Anyone who believes in a TRIUNE God is OUTSIDE the church that Christ built. Jesus is the HEAD of the church that he built (Col. 1:18). Jesus TAUGHT that the Fatrher is the ONLY true God. Therefore, what Jesus TAUGHT was a UNITARIAN God - NOT a TRIUNE God.

As I keep telling you no one teaches a Triune God. Oneness believers teach one God, three aspects. Tri-theists = subordinationists teach three Gods. Nicenes (Trinitarians) teach a unified Godhead, headed by the Father and comprised of the Father, Son and Spirit.

As Colossians 1:19 says "For it pleased [the Father] that in [the Son] should all fulness dwell;"

Whether one believes in "One God, three aspects" or "unified God headed by the Father and comprised of the Father, Son and Spirit," BOTH beliefs are FALSE because this is NOT what Jesus TAUGHT. Jesus TAUGHT that the Father is the ONLY true God.

Trinitarians or believers in the TRIUNITY of God or believers in a TRIUNE God outnumber UNITARIANS within the Christian community. They must be the "MANY who have entered the wide gate and the broad way that leads to destruction."

Nope! Thats like saying there are more Christians than Jews, and more liberal Jews than hasidic Jews, so religiously following the Law, in the strictness of the Pharisees is the narrow gate (definiely not what Jesus had in mind).

Jesus was talking to his followers or disciples who were first called "Christians" in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). Thus, Jesus was referring to himself or his "body" (Eph. 1:22; 4:24) as the "narrow gate and difficult way that leads to life." All OTHER groups or religions are the "wide gate and broad way that leads to destruction."

And your point is? Do you think you are the narrow gate? Do you think your religion is the narrow gate? If it is the INC then it seems access to the narrow gate is limited to a particular South East Asian ethnicity! So much for Jesus dieing for the whole world.

God calls people into the fellowship of Jesus (1 Cor. 1:8) by the gospel preached by His messengers (2 Thes. 2:14). Hence, we invite people of any race, nationality or gender to listen to the gospel preached by ministers of our church. But the gate is narrow and the way to eternal life is difficult and VERY few are called. It seems that only East Asian ethnic people are glad to receive the word and heed God's call for fellowship into Christ's body.

Imo, the narrow gate simply means imitating Jesus, walking in his foot steps. Imu, thats up to us, not the churches.

As usual, your opinion is FALSE. To enter the narrow gate and difficult way is to "enter the fold by Jesus" (John 10:9,7). The "fold" is the "flock" (Luke 12:32) or "disciples of Christ" which is his "body," the "church" (Eph. 5:23, 25) Therefore, one NEEDS to be BAPTIZED into the ONE body (1 Cor. 12:13) and BECOME the "body of Chist and member individually" (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:27).

Which will you have: Jesus is the narrow gate, or your religion is the narrow gate?

As usual you link together a list of texts that have no correlation. But by and large I agree that the flock and the church refer to the same thing. If you have a read of all the occurances of baptized in Acts you'll find that no one was initiated into a club (a church). The baptized formed their own ekklēsia.
Historically these ekklēsia were home churches. There was no formal "church" with central administration. This is why A.Paul found it neccessary to remind his flocks that they were not seperate organisations.

ekklēsia rendered church simply means a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place.

1 Cor 1:13 comes to mind "were ye baptized in the name of Paul?". In other words we are not baptised into a church! But in Jesus Christ.

Those who gladly received the words preached by Peter were "baptized and about 3,000 were ADDED to their GROUP" (Acts 2:41). Their "GROUP" is the CHURCH (Acts 2:47).

Today, this "GROUP" is found in a "church" which is called INC by requirement of law. And just as in the first century "GROUP" where there was a central administration situated in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2) where James, the highest leader, rendered a decision (Acts 15:13), today's "GROUP" also has a central administration where disputes are resolved and policies for the orderly administration of the whole "GROUP" are laid out.

No, the scripture does not contradict itself. But we have to COMPARE scriptures with scriptures to come to the knowledge of the truth INSTEAD of arbitrarily ADDING to it our own words to make scripture IMPLY what we believe. By ADDING the word "like," (even if it's enclosed in a parenthesis), you have ALTERED what the verse EXPLICITLY intended to convey to what you want it to IMPLY.

Exodus 15:3 is part of a song that was sang by Moses and the children of Israel (Exo. 15:1). Therefore, we could take this as an ALLEGORY to praise God. On the other hand, Num. 23:19 is a COMMAND of God to Balaam to SAY to Balak (Num. 23:16). If we apply common sense, we should have NO hesitation in taking the DIRECT command of God to Balaam as having higher authority over the song of Moses and the children of Israel. I believe this is simply one of God's way of testing who among His people TRULY trust Him and have faith in Him.

So now you are telling us that we can arbitrarily read scripture (?) Why would Numbers 23:19 not be allegory? Balak definitely thought it was! We says to Balaam "Come...I will bring you to another place; perhaps it will please God that you mayest curse them for me from there". Heh, Balak tries three times to have Israel cursed! Was he thick or what.

I see that you have a comprehension problem.

Nope! But it seems you do. Num 23:18a "And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; Hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:"

According to the Lexicon the Hebrew word rendered "parable" is "mashal" meaning...

1) proverb, parable

a) proverb, proverbial saying, aphorism
b) byword
c) similitude, parable
d) poem

So using your argument for Exodus 15:3: "Num 23:16 is part of a poem delivered to Balak by Balaam. Therefore, we could take this as an ALLEGORY to praise God.

The Today's English Version renders Num. 23:18a thus: "...And Balaam uttered this prophecy: This precedes verse 17 where Balak asked what the Lord has said. Or as the KJV renders Num. 23:17, "And Balak said unto him (Balaam), What hath the Lord spoken?"

The KJV says "parable" while the TEV says "prophecy." Both refer to what God has SPOKEN to Balaam to say to Balak in Num. 23:16. Hence, this is NOT an allegory UNLIKE Exo. 15:3 which is a song addressed to God as a doxology or praise.

[Vivian]

So yeah or nay, IncRus.

You believe that following Christ IS interpreting scripture accurately? That one cannot follow Christ unless they have all the right ideas? That our knowledge of what and who God is or isn't is foundational in our ability to obey the commandments of Christ? That keeping Christ's word is different for those who think he God than for those who think he not?

I would answer yeah to the last two questions, for I find that many Christians think of him as God in a way that distorts what he teaches leading them to the conclusion that they do not have to actually obey him.

Odd don't you think? If one thought he actually was God wouldn't they be more inclined to obey?

Human nature is baffling.

Just to be clear though, I don't just think, but know that the path that is difficult and the gate that is narrow is not right doctrine, but an actual journey - a inner, spiritual, mystical journey. It is a path and gate that our soul, or consciousness must find. This is 'entering into the Kingdom'. It being most difficult and hard to find because it is within us.

Shalom.

Viv

[jahrule84]

In reply to this post by jahrule84
Last edited by xcav8tor : Yesterday at 03:47 PM .
Hello jahrule84,

I am not saying all other gods are "false," but that NONE OF THEM are "REAL," that none of them are "God" in a way that really matters. I have explained my view of the Bible's claim that there is only ONE GOD in more detail on the Basketball Court. See: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=142

Just because it doesn’t matter TO YOU doesn’t make it trivial. If it’s in Scripture, then it’s important! Once in Scripture, then they ALL matter to me; don’t blame me because some parts of God’s word don’t seem relevant to you. Maybe if they did not refute your beliefs, then they would seem important!

When the Bible speaks of the Son as God, it does so in the sense of a Supreme Being (The Creator for example - John 1:1-3 NIV / Heb. 1:1-3 NIV / Col. 1:15-17 NIV / Heb. 1:8-12 NIV)

The first three passages you gave have the Son as an instrument THROUGH whom creation is done. Not by him, but THROUGH him. Gr, dia = through. Secondly, creating, in itself, does not and is not what makes Jehovah BE God; he was God before he created anything Ps 90:2. Similarly, Jesus’ role in creation does not make him God. When a man and a woman fort a child, they are creating a living person, that doe not make them Almighty!
Jesus himself was created; want proof? Cause there is so much proof that that would be a whole other post; maybe another thread! Maybe we can request that only the 2 of us be on that forum. Or I can give you my email. Whatever.
When these verses say “all things” it is not without exception. The Bible uses this expression all the time, and it ALWAYS has exceptions.
I suggest you actually read Heb 1 from the beginning. You’ll get a whole different picture if you let the text speak for itself instead of INTERPRETING the text!



The context is the question of Christ's identity (verses 24 and 53), to which Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am.”

NO! Notice you jumped all the way to vss 24 and 53 for a question answered in 58. The question Jesus was answering was in 57. What was that about? LISTEN to the Scriptures instead of pulling the PARTS that YOU want, to formulate YOUR doctrine.

That they understood His words as a claim to deity is clear by their response - they attempted to stone Him for claiming to be God (blasphemy).

Is this the only time the Jews MISUNDERSTOOD Jesus? Sometimes his own disciples didn’t understand him. See the last chapter of John!

Note that if Jesus merely wanted to claim a pre-human existence as you suggest, all He had to do was say "before Abraham WAS (Greek, genesthai - came into being) I WAS (genesthai - came into being) - this wording would also prove that Jesus thought of Himself as a created being.

INSTEAD, He said "before Abraham WAS, I AM (Greek, ego eimi - the verb TO BE). In other words, Christ was CONTRASTING His timeless and uncreated existence with Abraham's temporal existence, and by applying to Himself the Divine Name of Exo. 3:14 - I AM - the Jews understood all too well that Christ was claiming to be YHWH, and because they did not believe His claim, they took up stones to cast at Him. There was no other LEGAL CAUSE for them to try to stone Him.

And the Jews ALWAYS obeyed the law? They ALWAYS had legal right? Why not examine Christ’s trial and see how many laws they broke? And who are you to presume upon what Jesus would have or would not have said? That’s like me saying, that since YHWH had always declared his Godship in clear, undeniable words all over the OT saying: “I am God, I am the Lord they God, I am God Almighty, etc” that if Jesus was the same God, he too would have simply said in reply to the Jews in John 8, “I am God.” Why the vague speeh? Why doesn’t Jesus EVER come out plainly and say “I am God” like YHWH always used to do from GEN to Mal? I too can speculate on what God would have said were he here in the flesh, and I knowhe would not be scared to say :I am God," but I don't want to come down to your level!

The Jews were strict legalists. Claiming to be greater than Abraham was not one of the 5 allowable stoning offenses (1. having a familiar spirit; 2. blasphemy; 3. false prophet; 4. stubborn son; 5. adultery). As I said above, if Jesus wanted to claim merely to predate Abraham, He would not have said "I AM," but "I was."

They were legalist TO THEIR OWN TWISTED ADDITIONS TO, AND INTERPRETATIONS OF, THE LAW. Was it unlawful to heal on the Sabbath or not? They had a law saying that it was. I doubt you’ll find it in the OT!

It's not a matter of "hiding behind" anything. It is simply the truth of the matter. Jesus took upon Himself the FORM of a servant (Heb. 2:14-18 NIV). He voluntarily HUMBLED HIMSELF and LAID ASIDE THE USE of His royal prerogatives as God (Phil. 2:5-8 NIV). He instead focused on glorifying His Father (John 17:1-5 NIV) and left it to the Father to glorify the Son (Phil. 2:9-11 NIV).

Verse 28 tells us that Jesus passed on what the Father had taught Him (as a human being, since His birth - Luke 2:52 NIV / Heb. 5:8 NIV). There is nothing here that says the Father taught the Son anything prior to the incarnation.

The OT reveals that God does not give His Inherent Glory TO ANY CREATURE (Isa. 42:8 NIV), yet Jesus SHARED GOD'S GLORY before He created the earth (John 17:5 NIV). In fact, Jesus IS the Glory of God the Father (Heb. 1:3 NIV). This shows He cannot be a created being. The apostle John confirms this when He tells us that when Isaiah saw YHWH's glory (in Isa. 6:1-10 NIV) that it was Christ's glory that Isaiah witnessed (John 12:37-41 NIV).

Says who that Isa 42:8 was referring to INHERENT glory? Sounds like you imagine that Isa was talking about literal shining light. Is that what the context tells you? God does not share his worship with others. Worship belongs only to him. I don’t subscribe to this idea that the glory God doesn’t share is some glowing light. Do you?


Regarding John 17:22, John is speaking here of the Glory Jesus received as the Messiah (2 Pet. 1:16-17 NIV) - not His Divine Glory which He alone shares with the Father (Rev. 21:23 NIV) - and it is THE FORMER which He shares with His disciples (Rom. 8:16 NIV), NOT THE LATTER. We merely REFLECT Christ's glory back to Him (2 Cor. 3:18 NIV). It does not come from within as in Christ's case.

Rev 21:23; again you seem to ASSUME that this glory is a literal bright light. The city itself is symbolic of the Lamb’s bride, the church. Rev 21:9,10,2; 19:7; 1 Cor 6:13-20; Eph 5:22-32; 2:19-22; 1 Pet 2:5
Maybe you think it’s a literal bulding with a literal light shining out of it. But just read what the pillars are at Rev 3:12. The whole bulding is symbolic of the church 1 Cor 3:9, 16,17. So why argue that this glory is God’s inherent glory as if its some literal part of his body shining light or something? You are too literal when it comes to God.

Just FYI - A straw-man argument is where you misrepresent the other person's POV and then attack it. I could hardly misrepresent your view as you have not even come out and stated what it is. You attack both JWs and Trinitarians without clearly stating your own position. How would you like to let everyone know where you are coming from so we can formulate our responses in a more meaningful manner?

God is my Father by CREATION and by ADOPTION. I am NOT BY NATURE His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON as Jesus is. THAT is the difference. Because Jesus is BEGOTTEN by God, He shares the SAME DIVINE ESSENCE or NATURE AS DEITY as God the Father (just as our children partake in our HUMAN nature).

And since you take BEGOTTEN so literally that you get the same essence or nature, take the first step of being BEGOTTEN before you get that! For to be begotten, RESULTING in having the same nature as the one who BEGAT you, you must be GIVEN LIFE! Just as Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac therefore had the same nature as his Father. See how illustrations go? And further, the only proof you have that when Jesus called God his father, he was referring to NATURE, is the Jews’ reaction; and they were silly unbelievers who accuse Jesus of many other things of no sense!

When John said Jesus' calling God His Father was "making Him EQUAL to God," he was giving his own inspired explanation of the meaning of Jesus' words, not telling us per se what the Jews in the crowd were thinking. That this was also the common understanding of the Jews in his day is however proven at Jesus' trial where the High Priest insists that Jesus tell Him under oath whether or not He is The Son of God (Mat. 26:63-65 NIV). Christ's affirmation that He was God's Son was interpreted as being EQUAL to God which in turn was taken as an admission of blasphemy.

Matt 26:63-65 says nothing about equality with God. The blasphemy was claiming to be THE PROMISED Son of God that they were looking for. If John was giving his own inspired interpretation, then you are saying that Jesus BROKE THE SABBATH! Jesus never broke the law, else he is a sinner and cannot save you anyway! So the extremes that you go to are so obvious. What Jesus broke was, not God’s law that was still in force, but the wicked Jews’ traditions that they added to the law, making it a burden! Similar comments can be make about his so-called equality with God. It was about what they Jews believed.

Jesus claimed that the Father is GREATER THAN ALL. John 10:29. That includes Jesus 1 Cor 15:24-28; John 14:28.
Subordination in FUNCTION or RANK does not prove INFERIORITY of NATURE. You seem to have no understanding of the implications of the INCARNATION, or the VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION within the DIVINE PERSONS of the Trinity.

A soldier in an army is under the authority of his commander, but they are both men - equal in nature though they are assigned different roles. Same in a marriage, where both a man and woman are equal in nature (both are human beings) but the man has been put in authority over the woman. Within the Godhead, The Father is "first" (the Originator), the Son is "second" (the Executor), the Holy Ghost is "third" (the Facilitator) yet they are ONE BEING sharing ONE DIVINE ESSENCE and therefore co-equal and co-eternal. While each fills different ROLES, none of these examples show an inferiority OF NATURE.

The soldier and the commander have the same nature, doesn’t make them ONE BEING. Arguing that these 3 persons have the same nature doesn’t prove that they are the same being. What is God’s nature anyway? Can you prove that Jesus has it?

THE FATHER is "GREATER than All" IN RANK - PERIOD (INCLUDING JESUS).

If the Father and Son are the same being, then anything originating with the father originates with the Son; this is a pointless argument! And where does it say that the word ‘greater” was referring to rank only and not to other things? You assume too much.

GOD (Father, Son and Spirit) is "BETTER than All" BY NATURE - PERIOD.

THE FATHER is "BETTER than All" BY NATURE EXCEPT THE PERSONS OF SON AND THE SPIRIT (because they are the same ENTITY).

Where doe the Bible say they are the same entity? You assume what has to be proven.

THE FATHER is "BETTER than All" BY NATURE INCLUDING the HUMAN NATURE of the Son (keeping in mind the exception noted above as to Christ's DIVINE NATURE)

Do at least make an attempt to understand what I am saying before you dismiss it.

I understand that this god of your creation is not the God of the Bible. Heb 1:2. if Jesus is God Almighty, why did he not own what he created and need to be APPOINTED to INHERIT them? You keep arguing about ROLE and FUNCTION; so you believe that the Jesus who created these things. It was not his ROLE/FUNCTION to own his own creation? That here we have 3 equal persons, and only one HAS THE RIGHT BY ROLE to worship, etc? Sorry. So sorry.

No. This is speaking of a different "oneness" - a oneness of cooperation, not one of essence.

And where did Jesus ever say that his oneness with God was one of ESSENCE? You assume what is yet to be proved.

We use the word "nature" to describe what something is made of (Gal. 4:8 NASB / Rom.11:24 NASB), it's qualities (Rom. 2:14 NASB), attributes (Rom. 1:20 NASB) or behaviour (Eph. 2:3 NASB). I am just using common terminology to explain what the Bible is teaching. For example, it doesn't matter whether or not the word "trinity" is in the Bible, only whether or not the Bible teaches it. I am assuming nothing about "nature."

So you are arguing that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ARE MADE OF THE SAME THING? That their organism is the same? What words does the Bible actually use to teach that nonsense? That’s not Scripture, that’s your INTERPRETATION!!!!



Now how would you feel if I stole money from you and a third party - himself unaffected by the crime - forgave me? This is what Jesus was doing which caused the Jews to be so offended. He told another that his sins were forgiven - AND THIS IS A PREROGATIVE OF GOD ALONE. Believers can pronounce God's forgiveness of another's sin based on Christ's work on the cross and provided the person give evidence of repentance, but Jesus took it upon Himself to act as the injured party and UNILATERALLY FORGIVE OTHERS. Only God Himself can do this.

John 13:3; 17:2 Everything Jesus has he has, not by virtue of being God, but because it was GIVEN to him by his father, including the right to forgive sins. John 20:23 Jesus is not the only one who forgave sins; Matt 9:8 says that this same authority Jesus demonstrated on that occasion was given to MEN. The only reason I would not forgive your blasphemy is because I am not one of those men, but they certainly do exist! And you have shown me no verse what says ONLY GOD can forgive sins, except the OPINIONS OF UNBELIEVING PHARISEES who’s mad theology you seem to take for your own.
Will deal with the other half of your scriptural distortions later. I am so busy these days.

[IncRus]

So yeah or nay, IncRus.

You believe that following Christ IS interpreting scripture accurately? That one cannot follow Christ unless they have all the right ideas? That our knowledge of what and who God is or isn't is foundational in our ability to obey the commandments of Christ? That keeping Christ's word is different for those who think he God than for those who think he not?

I never said that "following Christ IS interpreting scripture accurately, did I? Neither did I say that "one cannot follow Christ unless they have the right ideas."

What I'm saying is, following Christ means HEARING what he says, first of all, then OBEYING or DOING what one HEARS Jesus says. Jesus said it himself when he said:

"My sheep HEAR my voice, and I KNOW them, and they FOLLOW me. And I give them eternal life" (John 10:27-28).

"Therefore whoever HEARS these sayings of mine and DOES them, I will liken to a WISE man who built his house on the rock.

Now everyone who HEARS these sayings of mine and does NOT do them, will be like a FOOLISH man who built his house on the sand" (Matt. 7:24, 26).

I would answer yeah to the last two questions, for I find that many Christians think of him as God in a way that distorts what he teaches leading them to the conclusion that they do not have to actually obey him.

Odd don't you think? If one thought he actually was God wouldn't they be more inclined to obey?

Human nature is baffling.

I have never said nor will I ever say that "our knowledge of what and who God is or isn't is foundational in our ability to obey the commandments of Christ," and that "keeping Christ's word is different for those who think he is God than for those who think he is not."

However, I agree with you that most people seem to do just that, and as you say, "distrort what Jesus teaches." Whether that leads them to the conclusion that they do not have to actuallly obey Jesus is a matter of opinion.

I believe that If one truly believes that the Bible is the "word" of God and the "word" of God is telling us to BELIEVE Jesus in order to be saved, the SAYINGS or "words" of Jesus must be the foundation for whatever knowledge we have of what or who God is or isn't.

I also believe that there is only one way to "keep Christ's word," i.e. by OBEYING his commandments or SAYINGS. And KEEPING Christ's word leads us to an accurate knowledge of whether Jesus is God or not - not the other way around.

Thus, one who THINKS Jesus is God does NOT keep Christ's word because Christ's word says that Jesus is MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). One who THINKS Jesus is NOT God is he who keeps Christ's word.

Just to be clear though, I don't just think, but know that the path that is difficult and the gate that is narrow is not right doctrine, but an actual journey - a inner, spiritual, mystical journey. It is a path and gate that our soul, or consciousness must find. This is 'entering into the Kingdom'. It being most difficult and hard to find because it is within us.

Of course, you are correct in saying that "the path that is difficult and the gate that is narrow is not right doctrine." Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE...." (John 14:6). "Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the DOOR of the sheep. I am the DOOR. If anyone ENTERS in BY me, he will be SaVED..." (John 10:7,9).

Jesus is the "narrow gate and difficult way that leads to lfe." And ONLY the "right doctrine" can lead anyone to ENTER the narrow gate and difficult path.

The Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God is proof that VERY few indeed find the narrow gate and difficult way to life. As you said, it is rather odd that hose who believe that Jesus is God CANNOT make themselves to OBEY the teachings of Jesus.

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

The King James Version renders 1 John 5:20 thus: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, (1) that we may know Him who is true, and (2) that we are IN HIM who is true, (3) EVEN IN HIS SON, Jesus Christ.

(4) This (referring to Him who is true) is the true God (refers the Father - John 17:3) and eternal life (refers to the attainment or eternal life by KNOWING the Father and KNOWING Jesus Christ whom the Father SENT; and by being "in the Father" AND "in His Son, Jesus Christ").

Here, the word EVEN is taken to mean ALSO, i.e., that we are ALSO "in His Son Jesus Christ."

The Today's English Version renders 1 John 5:20 thus: "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (1) so that we know the true God. (2) We live in union with the true God - (3)in union with his Son Jesus Christ.

(4) This is the true God (refers to the Father) and this is eternal life (refers to the attainment of eternal life BY knowing the ONLY true God and BY knowing Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God SENT; and by being IN UNION with the true God; and (even/also) being IN UNION with His son Jesus Christ).

1 John 5:20 is retelling what Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17:3 that we attain eternal life:

(1)KNOWING the ONLY true God (the Father) and KNOWING Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God (the Father) SENT;

(2) by living IN UNION with the ONLY true God; AND (also/even)

(3) by living IN UNION with the son of the true God, Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry but I don't know how else can I make 1 John 5:20 any simpler to make myself go down to the level of your comprehension!

For you I'll make the point as simplistic, as absolute, as unequivocal, as unargueable as humanly possible = the Greek word "kai" does not occur in the Greek at the point you need. Your "ALSO" is an addition to the biblical testimony!

Simple fact you needed to add more than one word to the text plus you had to reshuffle the text to reinterpret it. Why do you have to resort to such falsification?

Here are the four parts of the text in the Greek and the word for word literal English...

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει
We have known. but. that. the. Son. of the. God. is come.

καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν
and. he has given. to us. perception. that. we know. the. true.

καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ
and. we are. in. the. true. in. the. Son. of him. Jesus. Christ.

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος
this. is. the. true God. and. life. everlasting.

As should even be clear to you, the Greek text is in full accord with John 17. We are not directly in the Father but directly in the Son! No if buts or whatevers. As any unitarian will tell you the Greek is plain and uncontrovertable.


The TEV which you misrepresent does not accord with your opinion. It simply emphasises the unity of the Father and the Son (cp. NWT John 17:23).

The KJV and others insert "even" as a sense word. In archiac language it means "that is" not "also". As I said above it does not occur in the Greek. Translators include the "even" to give the sense of the Greek and prohibit silly people from adding to the original text.

______________________

You can take issue with the last clause of 1 John 5:20, and if you argue that it refers to the Father I will support you. But, please, please don't falsify scripture...

Peace

[Vivian]

I never said that "following Christ IS interpreting scripture accurately, did I? Neither did I say that "one cannot follow Christ unless they have the right ideas."

What I'm saying is, following Christ means HEARING what he says, first of all, then OBEYING or DOING what one HEARS Jesus says. Jesus said it himself when he said:

"My sheep HEAR my voice, and I KNOW them, and they FOLLOW me. And I give them eternal life" (John 10:27-28).

"Therefore whoever HEARS these sayings of mine and DOES them, I will liken to a WISE man who built his house on the rock.

Now everyone who HEARS these sayings of mine and does NOT do them, will be like a FOOLISH man who built his house on the sand" (Matt. 7:24, 26).


I have never said nor will I ever say that "our knowledge of what and who God is or isn't is foundational in our ability to obey the commandments of Christ," and that "keeping Christ's word is different for those who think he is God than for those who think he is not."

However, I agree with you that most people seem to do just that, and as you say, "distrort what Jesus teaches." Whether that leads them to the conclusion that they do not have to actuallly obey Jesus is a matter of opinion.

I believe that If one truly believes that the Bible is the "word" of God and the "word" of God is telling us to BELIEVE Jesus in order to be saved, the SAYINGS or "words" of Jesus must be the foundation for whatever knowledge we have of what or who God is or isn't.

I also believe that there is only one way to "keep Christ's word," i.e. by OBEYING his commandments or SAYINGS. And KEEPING Christ's word leads us to an accurate knowledge of whether Jesus is God or not - not the other way around.

Thus, one who THINKS Jesus is God does NOT keep Christ's word because Christ's word says that Jesus is MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). One who THINKS Jesus is NOT God is he who keeps Christ's word.



Of course, you are correct in saying that "the path that is difficult and the gate that is narrow is not right doctrine." Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE...." (John 14:6). "Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the DOOR of the sheep. I am the DOOR. If anyone ENTERS in BY me, he will be SaVED..." (John 10:7,9).

Jesus is the "narrow gate and difficult way that leads to lfe." And ONLY the "right doctrine" can lead anyone to ENTER the narrow gate and difficult path.

The Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God is proof that VERY few indeed find the narrow gate and difficult way to life. As you said, it is rather odd that hose who believe that Jesus is God CANNOT make themselves to OBEY the teachings of Jesus.

OK so you believe that contained within Jesus' admonitions is one to find the correct interpretation of scripture. That is fine. There are many like you thinking the same, and many of those are here on Tweb arguing their interpretation (or their church's).

I though am not sure how one does a correct interpretation of scripture??!!! When I see the word 'does' I think more of action. But I would agree, and thank you for offering this scripture, that there is a certain action or response required of us if we are to find eternal life.

As shared in other posts though, the action required of us is not an outward action, but an inward one - which is what Paul was struggling against with the Jewish authority of his day. The Jews believing purification and obtaining eternal life were all about one's outward appearance ( and I would include correct interpretation as something outward).

And so I just don't see Jesus saying anything at all about a correct interpretation of scripture. Sorry. I see him condemning those who arrogantly erroneously assumed they alone had the correct interpretation of scripture.

Even when he said believe in me, he is referring to believing in His Name - which in that day meant to believe in someone's Power and Authority. Simply meaning to have faith in Christ's Power and Authority. And it does not matter what we think about him or call him, as long as we have faith in Him and whose Power and Authority he has, whose Name he came in, and that is obvious, simply by his own name. Yeshua is YHWH saves.

I offer IncRus, that no human, not even you and your church, has the ability to accurate interpret scripture, so sorry. I ain't buying that you know more than anyone else.

In fact our words to describe things simply do not exist in Heaven. So making human words our 'God' will most definitely bind us, or get us into trouble down the road.

Peace and Blessings to you, and to all.

Viv

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

The King James Version renders 1 John 5:20 thus: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, (1) that we may know Him who is true, and (2) that we are IN HIM who is true, (3) EVEN IN HIS SON, Jesus Christ.

(4) This (referring to Him who is true) is the true God (refers the Father - John 17:3) and eternal life (refers to the attainment or eternal life by KNOWING the Father and KNOWING Jesus Christ whom the Father SENT; and by being "in the Father" AND "in His Son, Jesus Christ").

Here, the word EVEN is taken to mean ALSO, i.e., that we are ALSO "in His Son Jesus Christ."

The Today's English Version renders 1 John 5:20 thus: "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, (1) so that we know the true God. (2) We live in union with the true God - (3) in union with his Son Jesus Christ.

(4) This is the true God (refers to the Father) and this is eternal life (refers to the attainment of eternal life BY knowing the ONLY true God and BY knowing Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God SENT; and by being IN UNION with the true God; and (even/also) being IN UNION with His son Jesus Christ).

1 John 5:20 is retelling what Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17:3 that we attain eternal life by:

(1) KNOWING the ONLY true God (the Father) and KNOWING Jesus Christ whom the ONLY true God (the Father) SENT;

(2) living IN UNION with the ONLY true God; AND (also/even)

(3) living IN UNION with the son of the true God, Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry but I don't know how else can I make 1 John 5:20 any simpler to make myself go down to the level of your comprehension!

For you I'll make the point as simplistic, as absolute, as unequivocal, as unargueable as humanly possible = the Greek word "kai" does not occur in the Greek at the point you need. Your "ALSO" is an addition to the biblical testimony!

Simple fact you needed to add more than one word to the text plus you had to reshuffle the text to reinterpret it. Why do you have to resort to such falsification?

It does NOT matter if the word "kai" does not occur in the Greek. I used the word "ALSO" - NOT as an addition but simply to clarify the word "EVEN." Before you FALSELY accuse me of "reshuffling the text and resorting to falsification" please go over my post again lest you sin.

Here are the four parts of the text in the Greek and the word for word literal English...

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει
We have known. but. that. the. Son. of the. God. is come.

καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν
and. he has given. to us. perception. that. we know. the. true.

καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ
and. we are. in. the. true. in. the. Son. of him. Jesus. Christ.

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος
this. is. the. true God. and. life. everlasting.

As should even be clear to you, the Greek text is in full accord with John 17. We are not directly in the Father but directly in the Son! No if buts or whatevers. As any unitarian will tell you the Greek is plain and uncontrovertable.

I did NOT say that we "are directly in the Father," did I? What I said is, Jesus, the son of God, came to give us understanding that (2) we are IN HIM who is true; (3) EVEN (also) IN HIS son, Jesus Christ. Whether we are "in the Father" directly or indirectly is out of the question.

The TEV which you misrepresent does not accord with your opinion. It simply emphasises the unity of the Father and the Son (cp. NWT John 17:23).

Your understanding of the TEV's rendering of 1 John 5:20 is WRONG! Jesus, the son of God, did NOT come to "emphasize his unity with the Father."

Apostle John clearly states that Jesus came to give us understanding that (2) we are IN UNION with the Father - (3) IN UNION with the son.

The KJV and others insert "even" as a sense word. In archiac language it means "that is" not "also". As I said above it does not occur in the Greek. Translators include the "even" to give the sense of the Greek and prohibit silly people from adding to the original text.

I did not say that "also" is the ONLY meaning of "even," did I? While the word "even" also means "that is," as in John 8:41 (NKJV/i]), the word "even" also means "just as" or "also" as in John 5:23 ([iNKJV).

John 8:41 (KJV) - Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, EVEN God.
John 8:41 (NKJV) Then they said to him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father - God). Here, the hyphen takes the place of the phrase "that is."

John 5:23 (KJV) - "That all men honour the Son, EVEN as they honour the Father.
John 5:23 NKJV) - "That all should honor the son JUST AS they honor the Father. Here the words "just as" means "the same way." Since the son is honored in the same way as the Father, that means that the son is ALSO honored in the same way as they honor the Father. I don't believe that the use of "also" distorts the meaning of the verse.

The New King James Version renders 1 John 5:20 as follows: "....and we are IN HIM who is true, IN HIS Son Jesus Christ...." Clearly this tells us that Jesus gave us understanding that "....we are IN HIM who is true, (we are ALSO) IN HIS son Jesus Christ.

My use of the word "also" is simply to clarify what the word "even" means - NOT an addition to the word of God.

You can take issue with the last clause of 1 John 5:20, and if you argue that it refers to the Father I will support you. But, please, please don't falsify scripture...

Of course, I will argue that the last clause refers to the Father because it is what Jesus declared in John 17:3 and I'm glad you support me in this.

But I have never and will never falsify scripture because I DON'T gain anything, materially or spiritually, by defending a FALSE doctrine to the extent of falsifying scripture.

[IncRus]

Originally posted by IncRus
I never said that "following Christ IS interpreting scripture accurately, did I? Neither did I say that "one cannot follow Christ unless they have the right ideas."

What I'm saying is, following Christ means HEARING what he says, first of all, then OBEYING or DOING what one HEARS Jesus says. Jesus said it himself when he said:

"My sheep HEAR my voice, and I KNOW them, and they FOLLOW me. And I give them eternal life" (John 10:27-28).

"Therefore whoever HEARS these sayings of mine and DOES them, I will liken to a WISE man who built his house on the rock.

Now everyone who HEARS these sayings of mine and does NOT do them, will be like a FOOLISH man who built his house on the sand" (Matt. 7:24, 26).

I have never said nor will I ever say that "our knowledge of what and who God is or isn't is foundational in our ability to obey the commandments of Christ," and that "keeping Christ's word is different for those who think he is God than for those who think he is not."

However, I agree with you that most people seem to do just that, and as you say, "distrort what Jesus teaches." Whether that leads them to the conclusion that they do not have to actuallly obey Jesus is a matter of opinion.

I believe that If one truly believes that the Bible is the "word" of God and the "word" of God is telling us to BELIEVE Jesus in order to be saved, the SAYINGS or "words" of Jesus must be the foundation for whatever knowledge we have of what or who God is or isn't.

I also believe that there is only one way to "keep Christ's word," i.e. by OBEYING his commandments or SAYINGS. And KEEPING Christ's word leads us to an accurate knowledge of whether Jesus is God or not - not the other way around.

Thus, one who THINKS Jesus is God does NOT keep Christ's word because Christ's word says that Jesus is MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). One who THINKS Jesus is NOT God is he who keeps Christ's word.

Of course, you are correct in saying that "the path that is difficult and the gate that is narrow is not right doctrine." Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE...." (John 14:6). "Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the DOOR of the sheep. I am the DOOR. If anyone ENTERS in BY me, he will be SaVED..." (John 10:7,9).

Jesus is the "narrow gate and difficult way that leads to lfe." And ONLY the "right doctrine" can lead anyone to ENTER the narrow gate and difficult path.

The Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God is proof that VERY few indeed find the narrow gate and difficult way to life. As you said, it is rather odd that hose who believe that Jesus is God CANNOT make themselves to OBEY the teachings of Jesus.

OK so you believe that contained within Jesus' admonitions is one to find the correct interpretation of scripture.

Did I say that? I don't believe I said that. Please read my post again so you won't be attacking a strawman.

I though am not sure how one does a correct interpretation of scripture??!!! .

Many scriptures are self-explanatory and should be taken literally. However, there ae also scriptures which are allegorical and must be interpreted in a way that does not CONTRADICT self-explanatory scriptures relating to the subject. To enable us to do this, we must "compare scriptures with scriptures as the Holy Spirit teaches" (1 Cor. 2:13).

When I see the word 'does' I think more of action. But I would agree, and thank you for offering this scripture, that there is a certain action or response required of us if we are to find eternal life

Indeed, the word "does" indicates action, and there are certain actions or "work" that are required to "make our faith perfect" (James 2:22).

As shared in other posts though, the action required of us is not an outward action, but an inward one - which is what Paul was struggling against with the Jewish authority of his day. The Jews believing purification and obtaining eternal life were all about one's outward appearance ( and I would include correct interpretation as something outward).

Of course, there are outward actions manifesting love of brotherhood in the church like giving and sharing and inward actions like "esteeming others better than ourselves in lowliness of mind (Phil. 2:3), and having the mind of Jesus (Phil. 2:5). However, actions, whether outward or inward or inaction, are greatly influenced by HOW one interprets scripture.

And so I just don't see Jesus saying anything at all about a correct interpretation of scripture. Sorry. I see him condemning those who arrogantly erroneously assumed they alone had the correct interpretation of scripture.

In the verses I cited, Jesus was NOT saying anything about correct interpretation of scripture. Neither was he condeming those, who you say, "are arrogantly erroneously assumed they alone had the correct interpretation of scripture."

There is NOTHING in these verses that need interpretation because what Jesus was saying is self-explanatory.

In Matt. 7:21, Jesus was TELLING his audience what they NEED to DO in order to ENTER the kingdom of heaven. They NEED to DO the WILL of the Father in heaven. This does NOT need any interpretation at all. The only thing his audience NEED to ask themselves is "What is the WILL of the Father that they NEED to DO?"

Matt. 7:24 and 26 do NOT require any interpretation either because these too are self-explanatory. Jesus was simply saying, "HEAR what I say and DO them (obey) and I will liken you to a WISE man. If you HEAR what I say and do NOT do them (disregard/reject/disobey) you are a FOOLISH man.

These sayings of Jesus are quite simple and clear, aren't they?

Even when he said believe in me, he is referring to believing in His Name - which in that day meant to believe in someone's Power and Authority. Simply meaning to have faith in Christ's Power and Authority. And it does not matter what we think about him or call him, as long as we have faith in Him and whose Power and Authority he has, whose Name he came in, and that is obvious, simply by his own name. Yeshua is YHWH saves.

Now, that's what I call erroneous INTERPRETATION of a simple, and self-explanatory phrase, "believe in me." To "believe in Jesus" or "believe in his name" means to HEAR what he says and DO it (Matt. 7:24).

In simple terms, it means, "OBEY his teachings." In Luke 6:46, Jesus said, "But why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do NOT do the things that I say?"

What does it profit a man who believes in Jesus' Power and Authority and professes "faith in him" but does NOT obey his teachings and commands? Nothing!

Whoever transgresses and does NOT abide in (obey/keep) the doctrine of Christ does NOT have God.... (2 John 9). When Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do NOT know God, and on those who do NOT obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. They shall be PUNISHED with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power" (2 Thes. 1:7-9).

I offer IncRus, that no human, not even you and your church, has the ability to accurate interpret scripture, so sorry. I ain't buying that you know more than anyone else.

I am NOT selling the idea that I know more than anyone else. On the contrary, I esteem others better than myself as apostle Paul exhorted the early Christians to do (Phil. 2:3).

However, I don't agree with you that "no human has the ability to accurately interpret scripture." Listen to what apostle Paul wrote the first-century Christians in Corinth:

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:9-13).

There are people in this world today who have received the Spirit who is from God that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. We can know these people by the doctrines they teach.

As Jesus said: "My doctrine is not mine but His who SENT me. If anyone wants to DO His WILL, he shall know concening the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority. He who speaks from himself seks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of the One who SENT him is TRUE, and NO unrighteousness is in him" (John 7:16-18).

In other words, "he whom God has SENT speaks the word of God (John 3:34) and the word of God is the Bible.

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

I did not say that "also" is the ONLY meaning of "even," did I?

We didn't discuss it! I merely pointed out: "The KJV and others insert 'even' as a sense word. In archiac language it means 'that is' not 'also'. As I said...it does not occur in the Greek." You seemed to have missed a very important thing: the word "even" in the English at 1 John 5:20 is not in the Greek, therefore you have to adopt the translators meaning, not some fabrication of your own.

While the word "even" also means "that is", as in John 8:41 (NKJV)

John 8:41 (KJV) - Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, EVEN God.
John 8:41 (NKJV) Then they said to him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father - God). Here, the hyphen takes the place of the phrase "that is.

When there is a word equivalent in the Greek which the KJV renders "even" it usually has the idea of equivalence "just as", "samewise" etc

When there is no word equivalent in the Greek but "even" is inserted into the English text the word exclusively has a "that is", "who is" emphasis. Thus while its insertion into John 8:41 is unnecessary, it is used in the KJV for emphasis. The NKJV omits the word "even", because it is not in the Greek text and not required to bring out the sense of the Greek.

the word "even" also means "just as" or "also" as in John 5:23 ([iNKJV).

John 5:23 (KJV) - "That all men honour the Son, EVEN as they honour the Father.
John 5:23 NKJV) - "That all should honor the son JUST AS they honor the Father. Here the words "just as" means "the same way." Since the son is honored in the same way as the Father, that means that the son is ALSO honored in the same way as they honor the Father. I don't believe that the use of "also" distorts the meaning of the verse.

In John 5:23 the Greek word translated "even" in the KJV is "kathōs". It has the meaning "just as".

1 John 5:6 demonstrates the transparency of your attempt to falsify scripture "This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ..." Will you have us believe that the water and blood are seperate from Jesus?

The TEV which you misrepresent does not accord with your opinion. It simply emphasises the unity of the Father and the Son (cp. NWT John 17:23).

Your understanding of the TEV's rendering of 1 John 5:20 is WRONG!

The TEV is a paraphrase not a translation. And it clearly says...

"We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God---in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life. "

I may not like the TEV's interpretation (it makes the last clause apply to the Son) but I certainly didn't misrepresent it. The bit I bolded makes it very clear what their emphasis is! So it seems you misunderstand what the TEV's authors are saying.

Jesus, the son of God, did NOT come to "emphasize his unity with the Father."

Hmm. Guess you ignore all those places he emphasises his unity with the Father, and just believe in his works like the other faithless Jesus criticised (eg: John 14:10-13).

Apostle John clearly states that Jesus came to give us understanding that (2) we are IN UNION with the Father - (3) IN UNION with the son.

Almost. Now have a read of 1 John 5:11-13 "And this is the testimony [of God], that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

I did NOT say that we "are directly in the Father," did I?

You sure did. Your order of precedence and your addition of an emphasised "ALSO" says just that. Which is a very unbiblical teaching.

What I said is, Jesus, the son of God, came to give us understanding that (2) we are IN HIM who is true; (3) EVEN (also) IN HIS son, Jesus Christ. Whether we are "in the Father" directly or indirectly is out of the question.

And yet you keep making it the issue. Your slight of hand above, which continues to misrepresent "even" as meaning "also" is plainly unscriptural.

And your interpretation that "the Son came to give us understanding that we are IN HIM who is true" is falitious, removing what scripture plainly attests.
"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true".

But I have never and will never falsify scripture because I DON'T gain anything, materially or spiritually, by defending a FALSE doctrine to the extent of falsifying scripture.

I would believe you except first you add to scripture, now in your last post you both add and delete scripture.

Your addition to scripture may have been unintentional = your misunderstanding of archiac English as used in the KJV. And your lack of knowledge regarding the Greek. And possibly English is not natural to you, so you have comprehension issues. However, you persist in your delusion and make things worse by resorting to the deletion of plain text because it doesn't suit you.

1 John 5:20 simply teaches: we are in the Son, and because we are in the Son, we are in the Father. The Son is true, it is he who has given us an understanding of his Father, who is the true God and source of eternal life (cp. 1 John 5:11-13; John 17:1-3).

If you reject such, then be aware, you either have to add to scripture (as you have done), delete from scripture (as you have done) or...

Peace