Trinity
- Thread starter surenderer
- Start date
surenderer
Registered Senior Member
786 said:
Oh and also on that note if we look at the book of Psalms this verse is refering to Kind David(pbuh) not Jesus(pbuh):
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (From the KJV Bible, Psalm 2:7)"
Yet we are if we are to believe John 3:16(which refers to Jesus):
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
Who was God's only beggoton son?David?Jesus?
surenderer said:Oh and also on that note if we look at the book of Psalms this verse is refering to Kind David(pbuh) not Jesus(pbuh):
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (From the KJV Bible, Psalm 2:7)"
Yet we are if we are to believe John 3:16(which refers to Jesus):
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
Who was God's only beggoton son?David?Jesus?
Yep interesting point. Jenyar when you answer surrenders question please also answer "how do you beget something?"
Peace be unto you
I''m glad you mentioned Psalm 2:7. Look at the phrase: "...this day I have begotten thee". At that point in time, David had already been born in the natural sense - he was already old enough to "declare a decree". The Psalm describes a decision of God to call David "son" - almost as if David was now born again, into a new family. But he was not a unique (only) son; He would come later. David was a type or "model" for the Messiah, as everyone should know by now.
As for "begotten"...
The Hebrew word is Yalad, to bring forth or give birth. But as you were so kind to point out from the Psalms, it doen not have to mean natural, biological birth. It can signify a new and unique relationship - something so without precedence that it can be called a "birth".
In Greek it is Monogenes, meaning "single of its kind" - from "monos" (alone/only), and "ginomai" (to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being). Also "to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage/of men appearing in public". Christ appeared on stage in a unique relationship with God: monogenes para Pater.
We also know the word "gene" is the root for "generate", "genetic". We're not born from genes, or even created from them, we proceed from them, we are manifestation of genetic material as they are carried from generation to generation. Nobody ever complains that we haven't been "generated", but born - when "generated" is in fact closer to the truth: our parents didn't created us out of thin air.
As for "begotten"...
The Hebrew word is Yalad, to bring forth or give birth. But as you were so kind to point out from the Psalms, it doen not have to mean natural, biological birth. It can signify a new and unique relationship - something so without precedence that it can be called a "birth".
In Greek it is Monogenes, meaning "single of its kind" - from "monos" (alone/only), and "ginomai" (to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being). Also "to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage/of men appearing in public". Christ appeared on stage in a unique relationship with God: monogenes para Pater.
We also know the word "gene" is the root for "generate", "genetic". We're not born from genes, or even created from them, we proceed from them, we are manifestation of genetic material as they are carried from generation to generation. Nobody ever complains that we haven't been "generated", but born - when "generated" is in fact closer to the truth: our parents didn't created us out of thin air.
Last edited:
surenderer
Registered Senior Member
Jenyar said:Therefore, unique - all other "begettings" since creation have been the same.
Ive heard that word "unique" used before in a debate between Jimmy Swaggert and Ahmed Dedaat however as Dedaat said the verse(john 3:16) doesnt say God's unique son is says ONLY BEGOTTEN son. how was David an example for the Messiah? According to the Bible (muslims dont believe this) David was in love with a woman so he sent her husband off to war to be killed so he could marry her.....and when this happened God punished David by killing their children
Thats an example for Jesus??[/QUOTE]=Jenyar]Therefore, unique - all other "begettings" since creation have been the same.
Im sorry but im not sure what this means please explain
Look at that verse again..... Daivd is saying that God said that he is God's son AND that he is begotten so this verse directly conflicts with John 3:16
Last edited:
Read my description of the term "begotten". God has many children, but only Christ is his "only begotten" (one word and one term: monogenes). This meaning also occurs in Gen. 2:22: "Then God said, 'Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah.'" It means "chosen" or "elect" son (Abraham already had Ismael as a son at the time).surrenderer said:
The Septuagint translates ("thine only son") of Gen. 22:2 by "thy beloved son." But in this translation there is apparent a special use of the root , of frequent occurrence in rabbinical literature, as a synonym of ("choose," "elect"); the "only begotten" thus reverts to the attribute of the "servant" who is the "chosen" one. - JewishEncyclopedia: Son of God.
The Messiah would sit on David's throne as a "son of David". David was God's anointed king (what Psalm 2 is about), and God promised his throne would be eternal (Isaiah 9:7). I did not say David was the Messiah himself, did I?Psalm 132:17
"13 For the LORD has chosen Zion,
he has desired it for his dwelling:
14 "This is my resting place for ever and ever;
here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it...
17 Here I will make a horn [signifying kingship] grow for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one.
18 I will clothe his enemies with shame,
but the crown on his head will be resplendent."
"13 For the LORD has chosen Zion,
he has desired it for his dwelling:
14 "This is my resting place for ever and ever;
here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it...
17 Here I will make a horn [signifying kingship] grow for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one.
18 I will clothe his enemies with shame,
but the crown on his head will be resplendent."
But does God say David is his only begotten? David is only God's son because God had chosen him that day. Even David defers his title of "son" to "his lord":
Psalm 110
Of David. A psalm.
1 The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."
Of David. A psalm.
1 The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."
Last edited:
surenderer
Registered Senior Member
Jenyar said:
Ahh....yes but that my friend is an early example of Jewish propaganda right there because Issac(father of the Jews) wasnt "chosen" over Ishmael(father of the Arabs) remember they mothers both were married to Abraham
Again I am confused by what you are trying to say. Jesus is going to sit on David's throne? Isnt Jesus part of the Trinity? why would he be sitting on anyones throne?
No but John 3:16 says that Jesus is
Psalms 110
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
This verse is refering to the battle between the Isrealites and the Arameans and other wars that David would be fighting as King
peace
But the Quran agrees that Isaac was the child promised to Abraham by God (Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30), and that he was born miraculously from his barren mother Sarah (Surah 11:69-73, 51:24-30). Who chose Isaac's birth, God or Abraham? My intention is not to deny the importance of Ismael, but explain the use of the words here.surenderer said:
David's throne belonged to God, it was "the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord" (1 Chron 28:5). Even David was only a representative of God, the only real King - He did not replace God as King over Israel! The "throne" isn't a physical throne (or it wouldn't be able to last forever), but a symbol of authority, like a crown. This is reinforced by the fact that God chose David himself.
Exactly. I believe that answers your question. However, if you wanted to imply that this is only John's word:Surrenderer: Who was God's only beggoton son?David?Jesus?
Jenyar: But does God say David is his only begotten?
Surrenderer: No but John 3:16 says that Jesus is
Matt 3:17 - "...and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.' "
Luke 9:35 - "Then a voice came [ginomai] out of the cloud, saying, 'This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!' "
Luke 9:35 - "Then a voice came [ginomai] out of the cloud, saying, 'This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!' "
Maybe historically, yes. But is that all it refers to? Parts of it does, but then David starts talking about God's justice again - the eternal significance of what he is doing.
Psalm 110
4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."
5 The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
And it obviously has bearing on Psalm 2:4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."
5 The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Christ.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Christ.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."
Last edited:
Hey, Jenyar
I don't think you answered my question. "how do you beget something?"
I have another qustion.
In those time. Jewish used the words Son of God, to refer to the servents of God. Since the Gospels were written in Jewish time. Then basically Jesus is not the Son, but the Servent.
I don't think you answered my question. "how do you beget something?"
I have another qustion.
In those time. Jewish used the words Son of God, to refer to the servents of God. Since the Gospels were written in Jewish time. Then basically Jesus is not the Son, but the Servent.
surenderer
Registered Senior Member
path said:He answered you here 786
Ya but what the heck does all that mean??
The bible isnt written in Greek.Who cares what it means in Greek? If the word unique was used in the Bible then maybe i would understand your point but it's not. Was Jesus God's ONLY begotten Son or not??The New Testament was written in Greek and Aramaic. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) was written in Hebrew. Therefore those meanings are not only relevant, but crucial. They can only mean that Jesus was a son unlike any other son. What makes Jesus unique is not that He was a son, but the Son - only begotten can only mean uniquely begotten, or it there would have been no sense in saying it at all.surrenderer said:
786,
You asked me how I can "beget" something. I would have to father a child, a woman will have give birth to a child. Alternatively, I could create something, like art or music. In the original sense of the word, I could be "begotten" by simply appearing on stage. But that won't make me unique, will it? It won't make me a creator in the sense that God is the creator, or a father in the sense that God is the Father.
It's a human word for a human activity, so it won't have only a "divine" meaning, but I've attempted to show that it isn't limited to it's traditional human meaning when applied to God.
Sons of God, perhaps:786 said:
"Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.
But:JewishEncyclopedia: Son of God
Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28).
By the time of Jesus, the use of the term "Son of God" came to be associated with the Messiah. Although some Jews deny this, they cannot deny the fact that it was understood this way in the first Christian writings, such as:Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28).
Matthew 26:63
But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
In the gospels, Jesus refers to himself more notably as "the Son of Man", which was a contested title:But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Last edited:
In the verses Matthew 26:63, John 20:21 or which ever the last verse is.
They can all be refered to servent of God. Let me show you.
I have inserted the word Serven instead of Son in the verse verse you provided, below.
Matthew 26:63
But Jusus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Chirst, the Serven of God.
John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Servent of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" (As you see Jesus doesn't deny that John is the servent of God, he doesn't deny that Elijah is the servent of God, but he also doesn't deny that he himself is the servent of God.)
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the servent of the living God."
Peace be unto you
They can all be refered to servent of God. Let me show you.
I have inserted the word Serven instead of Son in the verse verse you provided, below.
Matthew 26:63
But Jusus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Chirst, the Serven of God.
John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Servent of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" (As you see Jesus doesn't deny that John is the servent of God, he doesn't deny that Elijah is the servent of God, but he also doesn't deny that he himself is the servent of God.)
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the servent of the living God."
Peace be unto you
surenderer
Registered Senior Member
Jenyar said:
You are definatly right In my rush to post I did indeed forget that the New Testement was written in Greek.....so I guess my followup question would be wouldnt it be easier and wouldnt Christianity get more followers if people learned the Bible in its original written language? Why leave things to translators with "agenda's"...peace
Most people willing to devote their lives to the art and study of Scripture in order to translate them do so in all sincerity, and with dedication to making it clear what was witten or meant. The exceptions are when the translators have made their agenda clear, like the case of Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses. I don't want to question their sincerity or even scholarship, but they certainly have outspoken agendas. In those cases they will force you to accept certain (their) translations, and I will recommend you be wary and aware of them.Surrenderer said:
Some people, like my father for instance, are able to use a Greek NT in church. For the rest of us it is a matter of study and research. I know the translators of my present Bible personally, and I'm aware of their credentials, scholarship and personalities. I know the truth is their only love and their only "agenda". But translators are people, and sometimes a personal understanding comes out in a choice of words or phrasing. Fortunately the meaning of most things aren't dependent on a mere word or even sentence or two, and definitely not a mere translation or two. The key is wanting to learn, finding out the implication, and test these things against each other.
Which brings me to 786's argument:
Right, except that "Son of God" is one concept, and "servant of God" is another. What happens when you do the same for "Son of man"? It becomes "servant of man", which puts him in an equally special relationship. Can anybody claim he is a servant of man with such authority as Jesus did?
You go out from the assumption that Jesus' special relationship with the Father is only deduced from the word "son", and that God's chosen "servant" would be somehow less signifcant. It isn't. If anything, it makes it even more clear who Jesus was:
Isaiah 42 (quoted in Matthew 12)
The Servant of the Lord
1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations.
2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
3 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his law the islands [nations] will put their hope."
Also, your solution doesn't always work:The Servant of the Lord
1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations.
2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
3 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his law the islands [nations] will put their hope."
Luke 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So [for that reason] the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
Wrong "Son of God" and "Servent of God" are the same arguments. Son of God was used by the jewish to refer to the servents of God. They are both same thing. It is different that we think that "Son" literally means the Son of God. But you cannot use this because we have to know what the Jewish understood as "Son of God". And as I said before they reffered to Servent of God as Son of God. This is how they used their language so you have look at the Jewish understanding in order to understand the concept of "Son of God."
And in the verse Luke 1:35 there is nothing unusual. You put "for that reason" in perenthesis. I see where you are coming from, but you are not interpreting the verse correctly.
Obviously God is going to guide his prophet, or whom ever he sent. In this case it is Jesus. All the prophets were Son of God. They were all servents of God. Since God has sent Jesus "for that reason" he shall be called the Son of God, in other words Servent of God.
When I was discussing the prophesy of 3 days and 3 nights before. They said that we must know how Jewish counted days. They still couldn't prove me wrong though
.But in the same way we must know what Jewish people refered to "Son of God". This we know is Servent of God. Servent of God are all the prophet, may the blessings of God be upon them.Now when you said that "Son of Man". True that they were not servents of man, DIRECTLY. But on the contrary they were DIRECT servents of God, not man.
Why did God send prophets? To show people the way? Then who were they actually here for, indirectly? Were they here for mankind, or God just wanted them to come to the earth? The PURPOSE of all the prophets were to GUIDE the mankind. So you see that they were INDIRECTLY our servents.
I'm still not saying they were are servents. I'm only saying that they served us through God.
For example Moses. Who did he serve? God obviously. But for what purpose? To free the people. So INDIRECTLY they were serving us. They were doing all of this for us. God was doing this for us, right? If God was doing this for mankind then whom he sent was doing this for mankind. Did God come down and take the people to Israel? NO! It was Moses. God did all of this through people. So indirectly they were serving us. Because their pupose was to help, to guide us. In a way they were favoring us.
Peace be unto you
surenderer
Registered Senior Member
Why would a JW or Mormon have more agendas than a Christian or Jew? Even though I am muslim I hear people make quotes or suggestions about Islam that I know arent true even if they paint Islam in a positive light. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of agenda's or personal "slants" in the Bible to propse a political cause. How many people even know who translate the Bibles that they read? I bet you less than 1%. Most people pick up a King James version or whatever and read away......peace
Surrenderer
JW and Mormon's teach things that are outside the Bible, and want to make the Bible sound as if it says what they say. In other words, the interpretation comes first, then the translation. Almost like what 786 is doing above. He wants to prove "Son of God" means the same as "servant of God", and that "servant of God" always refers to the same kind of people, so he finds ways of interpreting the Bible quotes that way.
People say that about the doctrine of the Trinity, and they have a point. I'm the first to admit it, which is why I make an effort to check every detail. But in the case of the Trinity, Scripture itself leaves very little option open to describe the special relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (all three appear in the Bible with specific mentions) any other way. I have no vested interest in using the term, and would discard it if I could, but that would just leave a Trinity-sized gap in my understanding.
PS. In my lifetime I think I have seen one traditional King James version in book form. We're not a primary English speaking country, and even our oldest translation was only done in 1933, from the original texts. The King James was translated from a translation (the Latin Vulgate). But it's still brilliant, and adequate for people who never had any Bible to read before. With the amount of scholarship available in the field of translation now, I doubt any serious student and believer will be content with just one, rather archaic version.
786,
I appreciate your point, and I even agree with you on some point, such as that Jesus was God's servant. The Jews didn't expect to be the Christ to be anything more than a son or servant of God. But you don't acknowledge what it means to say that in the way that it's written about Jesus. The Bible doesn't make the claims for Jesus that the Quran makes about him or about Muhammed.
I agree with you about the role of a servant. But you might as well throw away everything else that was written and known about Jesus if you want to hold onto the idea that He was (and claimed) to be a servant like any other. For one thing, he would not have been accused of blasphemy for claiming to be simply a servant of God.
I can give you an example:
JW and Mormon's teach things that are outside the Bible, and want to make the Bible sound as if it says what they say. In other words, the interpretation comes first, then the translation. Almost like what 786 is doing above. He wants to prove "Son of God" means the same as "servant of God", and that "servant of God" always refers to the same kind of people, so he finds ways of interpreting the Bible quotes that way.
People say that about the doctrine of the Trinity, and they have a point. I'm the first to admit it, which is why I make an effort to check every detail. But in the case of the Trinity, Scripture itself leaves very little option open to describe the special relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (all three appear in the Bible with specific mentions) any other way. I have no vested interest in using the term, and would discard it if I could, but that would just leave a Trinity-sized gap in my understanding.
PS. In my lifetime I think I have seen one traditional King James version in book form. We're not a primary English speaking country, and even our oldest translation was only done in 1933, from the original texts. The King James was translated from a translation (the Latin Vulgate). But it's still brilliant, and adequate for people who never had any Bible to read before. With the amount of scholarship available in the field of translation now, I doubt any serious student and believer will be content with just one, rather archaic version.
786,
I appreciate your point, and I even agree with you on some point, such as that Jesus was God's servant. The Jews didn't expect to be the Christ to be anything more than a son or servant of God. But you don't acknowledge what it means to say that in the way that it's written about Jesus. The Bible doesn't make the claims for Jesus that the Quran makes about him or about Muhammed.
It's not special to call Jesus a "son of God" in the Jewish sense, I agree with you. But the question is whether that was all Jesus was. Who is the promised servant describes in Isaiah 42? Jews recognized him as the messiah - not just anyone. Not just a servant, but the servant - God's "chosen one". How many people can be God's chosen one, who can bring justice to the earth?
I did that because the Greek is dio, "wherefore, on account of", but the NIV doesn't make that clear. Some other translations like the NAS do. The word is also found in Matt.27:8, for instance:
"7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why [dio] it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
It's one unit of thought. There is no reference to God sending a man, but to the Holy Spirit (how do you explain that, by the way) "overshadowing" (much like it hovered over the waters in Genesis) Mary. You're stretching the context too far.I agree with you about the role of a servant. But you might as well throw away everything else that was written and known about Jesus if you want to hold onto the idea that He was (and claimed) to be a servant like any other. For one thing, he would not have been accused of blasphemy for claiming to be simply a servant of God.
I can give you an example:
John 10
28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
OK. Do you see what Jesus claimed? It wasn't just anything! Nothing about 'just doing what every prophet had always done, nothing special'. He also claimed to forgive sins, something only God had the authority to do. Keep that in mind. Now read on:28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Jesus connects the two arguments, mine and yours. He says that if God can call even his normal servants his childen and sons, how much more him who was set apart (as He had told them just moments before)? At the very least it is not blasphemy, so consider the implications of what it means to be one with the Father, His chosen servant and only-begotten son, in its fullest sense. If it is true, and if it isn't blasphemy, then...?Yes, He did serve humanity - God served humanity. He was favouring us. But no glory could go to a mere man, all glory must go to God himself. God always led his people himself, even while Moses or David was in command. But now it is God who is in command himself, there is no King but God, no sacrifices left to make. God loved us personally.
Philippians 2 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross!"
Last edited: