Not one person (cf. εις in Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature.
"Essence or nature" cannot be derived from any Greek grammar or vocabulary. All your "expert" does is say indeed that the word used is one, and then they go off to just parrot their bias.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
(John 5:18 KJV)
Yet,
wouldn't you yourself say that God is your Father? Does that make YOU equal with God? Did not Jesus preach to all that we should pray to our Father who art in heaven? Does that mean EVERYONE who does so makes himself equal with God?
Where specifically did Jesus break the Sabbath? (Give me the verse from the TORAH.)
And who claimed that he did? The Jeeewwwssss?? The Jeewwss "sought all the more to kill him"? The Jews did? Or certain of the Jewish Religious leaders? Obviously certain Jewish Religious Leaders, whose rules
about the Sabbath were broken by Jesus. So why did they seek to kill him? Because
they believed he was "making himself equal with God" when saying that God was his Father. But Jesus openly taught that everyone should believe this:
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 5:16 KJV)
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
(Matthew 6:9 KJV)
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 10:32 KJV)
This was no secret. One of the key principles of the Gospel that
Jesus taught is that God is your Father in heaven. Nor would saying that God was your Father mean you were calling yourself that. It was only the viewpoint of certain Jewish Religious Leaders who got their panties up in a twist on that one.
Don't let the Jews tell you who Christ is. Why would you? He had come unto his own, and his own did not receive him.
Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30)
You need to re-read this section, because in no wise does this text admit or prove any claim that Jesus called himself God.
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
(John 5:19 KJV)
Yes, same with us.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
(John 5:20 KJV)
Yes, same with us.
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
(John 5:21 KJV)
Yes, same with us. (And I've done so.)
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
(John 5:22 KJV)
Unique circumstances here (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:2), but in no wise does Jesus say he is God in this verse.
That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
(John 5:23 KJV)
If Jesus was God, why doesn't this verse say that "all men should WORSHIP the Son, even as they WORSHIP the Father" ??
The text says honour (even in your NRSV), and are we not commanded to honour our own mother and father?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
(John 5:24-25 KJV)
Again, there is nothing in this section where Jesus supposedly "admitted and proved this claim" to be GOD.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
(John 5:26 KJV)
And
this verse, verse 26,
proves that you're just not reading what is written.
For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself;
(John 5:26 NRSV)
If Jesus was GOD, then why would the Father NEED to grant (give) the Son also to have life in himself. If Jesus were God (as I understand the Trinity you espouse co-equal, co-eternal) he would ALREADY have had life in himself to begin with.
I'm not denying the divinity of Jesus (
@Christ4Ever). I'm saying that your claim (through quoting Robinson) with regards to John 5 verses 19-30 is demonstrably wrong. (But we still have four more verses to go.)
READ -
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
(John 5:27-30 KJV)
Why doesn't this text say, ... "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is GOD." ???
=============================================
They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.
RWP, A. T. Robertson
Of course it does. The Pharisees were religious bigots who made stuff up (cf. Mat15:3 see below). Again, do not let them tell you who Christ is. Why would you?
Being a particular Baptist, I like John Gill on John 10:30
I and [my] Father are one. Not in person,
That's the whole point. There is no answer to "One WHAT?" So Gill cannot answer "Not in person." He doesn't know that, and Jesus did not NOT say that. Gill did. And I am not a disciple of Gill. He strikes me as a Christian Rabbi, wanting to make his own Talmud.
ALL THESE BOOKS, Dylan, and no wisdom.
"we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections
Like I said, a Christian Rabbi, adding his own words to things. You shouldn't be following people who add their own words into scripture.
"In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was. He was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; without him no created thing came into being." (John 1:1-3 REB)
So then, abandoning your precious NRSVue ???
REB's a piece of crap, and NONE of the supposed translators have ever studied Greek philosophy in depth. Were they, or you, to have done so, you would understand the style of the Gospel named John and understand just what
αρχη means in this context.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that John 1:1 is easily translated without a deep understanding of Philo and the Greek philosophical underpinnings of his work. And without reproducing the some odd hundred pages of my PhD thesis, this is how John 1:1 reads -
(John 1:1) The Pattern (λογος) was suffused throughout the cosmic protoplasm, and the Pattern has continued on for the Divine Good, and Sovereign still is the Pattern.
But I'm sure you'll just dismiss this, because it would take too much work for you to grasp it all.
However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God.
That's why he ought to have written "sovereign."
a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός
Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary is an expert on New Testament Greek. If you knew of his work, (somewhere you must have a book.. no?) you would KNOW that
he states after decades of study, he has found no rhyme or reason to the use of the definite article in Greek. And anybody telling you differently is speaking out of the opposed end of his mouth, especially if a principle doctrine is to be based on such.
Even today, the definite article is used differently in England than in America. WE go to THE hospital. The Brits go
to hospital. The word hospital is anarthrous, as is the British word doctor. So bloody what ??? And in America there is a difference between going
to church and going to
the church. One indicates attending a religious service. (I'll let you figure out which is which.) So... anarthrous this, and anarthrous that. A bogus argument.
"No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." (Joh 1:18 NRSVue)
So then this proves that Jesus is NOT God. If no one has ever seen God, and people SAW Jesus, ...
C'mon Dylan... do the math.
Concerned,
Rhema
He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
(Matthew 15:3 NRSV)
