• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus is equal to God

rrobs

Well-Known Member
John 5:18 is a stock verse used by trinitarians to prove Jesus is God. But is that what it really says?

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
First of all, if God wanted to make Jesus God, then why didn't he just say, "...making himself God" instead of, "making himself equal with God?" Seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity for God to have settled the trinity question once and for all. I for one would absolutely believe Jesus were God had He omitted the words "equal with," but we must assume He included them for a good reason. The word equal is the Greek word isos from which we get our word isosceles triangle. An isosceles triangle is so called because it has 2 equal length sides. Now to make these two sides somehow the same side is not using language in any meaningful way. It has two separate sides that are simply of equal length. It by implication makes the two sides unique and separate, e.g. side 1 and side 2.

This word isos is used in Matthew chapter 20 where Jesus spoke the parable about the property owner paying helpers who worked a few hours the same as those who labored all day. The latter of course protested it as unfair, feeling they should have received more. As part of their plea to the land owner they said,

Matt 20:12,

Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal [isos] unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
Could this be construed as saying that the ones who worked all day were the same ones who came later in the day? Of course not! Two separate people here. Why should the same usage of isos in John 5:18 be any different?

There is another usage of isos I will point out in the Book of Revelations.

Rev 21:16,

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Does this say the length and breath are in fact one thing and not two? No! Length is the length and width is the width; again, two distinctly different things. Making them equal [isos] simply means the two have the same length.

One more for the record.

In Mark 14 the Pharisees were trying to get a few people to give false testimony against Jesus so they could do what they did to him on the cross. They had a problem getting multiple "witnesses" to come up with the same story.

Mark 14:59,

But neither so did their witness agree [isos] together.
So, had they agreed together, would that have then made them one person? I think the trinity struck out here also.

It would be a good study to find out exactly what John 5:18 meant when it said Jesus was equal [isos] to God. As always, any biblical research is best done by using the Bible itself and not tradition as a source of truth.

By the way, it should be noted that Jesus himself didn't claim to be God in John 5:18.

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
He claimed, and rightfully so, to be God's son. Never said, "I am God" anywhere in the scriptures.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
So, in what way do you think Jesus was equal with god, but lacked the nature of god? I assume that being equal, everything that god was capable of thinking or doing Jesus could do as well. In fact, any event A produced by one of them would be indistinguishable from an event A produced by the other. It would be impossible to tell who did what.

It's like, 2 + 3 = 5 is an identity, but obviously the notation "2 + 3" is not the same as the notation "5." In essence, Jesus is indistinguishable from god. Get rid of god, and Jesus would be able to take his place without anyone ever knowing.

For all practical purposes then,

Jesus = god
God = Jesus
.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
John 5:18 is a stock verse used by trinitarians to prove Jesus is God. But is that what it really says?

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
First of all, if God wanted to make Jesus God, then why didn't he just say, "...making himself God" instead of, "making himself equal with God?" Seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity for God to have settled the trinity question once and for all. I for one would absolutely believe Jesus were God had He omitted the words "equal with," but we must assume He included them for a good reason. The word equal is the Greek word isos from which we get our word isosceles triangle. An isosceles triangle is so called because it has 2 equal length sides. Now to make these two sides somehow the same side is not using language in any meaningful way. It has two separate sides that are simply of equal length. It by implication makes the two sides unique and separate, e.g. side 1 and side 2.

This word isos is used in Matthew chapter 20 where Jesus spoke the parable about the property owner paying helpers who worked a few hours the same as those who labored all day. The latter of course protested it as unfair, feeling they should have received more. As part of their plea to the land owner they said,

Matt 20:12,

Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal [isos] unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
Could this be construed as saying that the ones who worked all day were the same ones who came later in the day? Of course not! Two separate people here. Why should the same usage of isos in John 5:18 be any different?

There is another usage of isos I will point out in the Book of Revelations.

Rev 21:16,

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Does this say the length and breath are in fact one thing and not two? No! Length is the length and width is the width; again, two distinctly different things. Making them equal [isos] simply means the two have the same length.

One more for the record.

In Mark 14 the Pharisees were trying to get a few people to give false testimony against Jesus so they could do what they did to him on the cross. They had a problem getting multiple "witnesses" to come up with the same story.

Mark 14:59,

But neither so did their witness agree [isos] together.
So, had they agreed together, would that have then made them one person? I think the trinity struck out here too.

It would be a good study to find out exactly what John 5:18 meant when it said Jesus was equal [isos] to God. As always, any biblical research is best done by using the Bible itself and not tradition as a source of truth.
It seems obvious that John is reporting the inference, made by the Jews in the story who were offended, that by calling God His Father, Jesus was in effect making this equation.

The issue, therefore, seems to me to be why did Jesus call God His Father rather than baldly asserting He was God. He did of course make a further cryptic allusion to his divinity in John 8:58.

It seems to me there is a pattern, in the gospels, of Christ wanting his disciples to make the final leap for themselves, rather than being spoon-fed. I think there is some value in contemplating why this might have been so.
 

Frater Sisyphus

Contradiction, irrationality and disorder
I tend to follow the Islam narrative when it comes to Jesus, I don't buy into the idea that God manifests as individuals (God as Para-Brahman). I just believe that Jesus was a prophet of sorts who transgressed and challenged the society he was in at the time religiously, spiritual and probably socially.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
John 5:18 is a stock verse used by trinitarians to prove Jesus is God. But is that what it really says?

Its simple. They dont understand the context.

The Jews were "accusing" jesus for putting himself equal to god. Jesus did not put himself equal.

Thats like if I was dating and a stranger saw my girlfriend kissing some other woman, and the stranger tells me, I (people) rather listen to the stranger to vilidate the accusation rather than my asking my girlfriend straightforward.

Taking an outsiders word for it than asking the one under accusation.

It takes more than just listing scriptures. I know scriptures that support the trinity and scriptures against it. Its all context.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
First of all, if God wanted to make Jesus God, then why didn't he just say, "...making himself God" instead of, "making himself equal with God?"

It would be a good study to find out exactly what John 5:18 meant when it said Jesus was equal [isos] to God

Wait a second. God is not saying that, for crying out loud. The Gospel is quoting the Jews as saying it!

I agree with you that Jesus is not God....but neither is the Gospel saying that Jesus is equal to God! That was the Jews’ reasoning, not the Gospels’. They were wanting to find fault with him in anything he said...yet they said the same thing, in John 8:41....were they making themselves equal to God? No. They were just twisted in their reasoning.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In nitty gritty dirt band will the circle be unbroken what does the lyric mean in the sky lord, in the sky. I have no idea exactly what this meas. Do they mean Lord of sky,? Lord in sky? And home in the sky I see no home in the sky? Is it a floating home?

Some might think what I have written is not relevant to the thread. I would disagree. Music can be very obtuse with multiple interpretations. The Bible is no exception..
I was standing by my window

On one cold and cloudy day
  1. When I saw that hearse come rolling
    For to carry my mother away
    Will the circle be unbroken
    By and by, Lord, by and by
    There's a better home a-waiting
    In the sky, Lord, in the sky
    I said to that undertaker
    Undertaker please drive slow
    For this lady you are carrying
    Lord, I hate to see her go
    Will the circle be unbroken
    By and by, Lord, by and by
    There's a better home a-waiting
    In the sky, Lord, in the sky
    Oh, I followed close behind her
    Tried to hold up and be brave
    But I could not hide my sorrow
    When they laid her in the grave
    Will the circle be unbroken
    By and by, Lord, by and by
    There's a better home a-waiting
    In the sky, Lord, in the sky
    I went…
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
It takes more than just listing scriptures. I know scriptures that support the trinity and scriptures against it. Its all context.
If, as you suggest, there are some verses that support the trinity and others say there is not a trinity, then the Bible clearly contradicts itself. Why bother going any further if that is what you really believe?

I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God and as such can not contradict itself. I'm not saying anyone else has to do that. It's just my starting point. Otherwise, like I said, I wouldn't bother with it any further. There is plenty of other interesting reading material after all.

Whenever there is an apparent contradiction it is either in translation or our understanding. Part of our job as workmen of the word is to use simple language principles to make all the verses agree.
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
If, as suggest, there are some verses that support the trinity and others say there is not trinity, then the Bible clearly contradicts itself. Why bother going any further if that is what you really believe?

Exactly! Only the interpretations make it seem contradictory. And the number is practically unlimited!
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If, as suggest, there are some verses that support the trinity and others say there is not trinity, then the Bible clearly contradicts itself. Why bother going any further if that is what you really believe?

I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God and as such can not contradict itself. I'm not saying anyone else has to do that. It's just my starting point. Otherwise, like I said, I wouldn't bother with it any further. There is plenty of other interesting reading material after all.

Whenever there is an apparent contradiction it is either in translation or our understanding. Part of our job as workmen of the word is to use simple language principles to make all the verses agree.

Not a contradiction. Its perspective.

Trinitarians (trini): misinterpret analogies as literal

Non-trini: misinterpret literalness as if it only means verbatum

The problem is both sides only see through their glasses and dont want to attempt to see the others point of view.

Take these common overused verses:

Father and son are one
Visible image of an invisible god

Trini: Father and son are one means they are the same

Non-trini: father and son are seperate so they are not the same

Yes, in the first, the father and son are one. Thats what it means to be one unit, one family. Trini- dont differientate son and father for that purpose. You need both. They just take "as one" quite literal even though in English its a conjunction not a literal statement they are each other.

Yes, the father and son are seperate. The problem is non-trini sees the conjunctions (and, etc) verbatum. So, father and son have nothing in common at all because one is a being and the other human. Even to the point of saying jesus has no divinity but then still looks up to jesus, a human, to save the world who believes (that, I find a contradiction)

Its the language.

Take "visible image of an invisible god"

Trini- cannot seperate image from source; they take the analogy literal

Non-trini seperate image and source in their own correct rights; but, then seperate the two insomuch the image is no longer an image because they completely seperate it from its source. So, basically, if the image is not the source, there is no image.

Both parties got to step back and say, "hmm. I get it, Trinitarian! Image and source are the same because one cant be an image without the source."

And the other "hmm, you got a point! Non-trinitarian! The image and source share a relationship but, now I get it, the image, by definition, is not the source."

Its making word salad or something.

Sum up:

Trinitarians: Image is the same as the source (like father, like son)

Non-trinitarians: Image, by strict definition, is not the source (father and son)

But you BOTH are saying the same thing: there is some sort of relationship with father and son just one sees the two under one nature (like twins) the other does not. But you both say the same thing.

If I choose between the two, Id be a non-trinitarian only because it makes more sense to give jesus and his father two distinct references in their own respective nature.

Its the language. Also, the bible isnt written in english. No language can be translated into another verbatum. It goes beyond dictionaries and greek references to understand god related words.

Not a contradiction. Just both sides limit their point of view to argue with each other. Been going on for centuries. Check out the RF search results. The fun never ends.
 
Last edited:

abrother

Member
John 5:18 is a stock verse used by trinitarians to prove Jesus is God. But is that what it really says?

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
First of all, if God wanted to make Jesus God, then why didn't he just say, "...making himself God" instead of, "making himself equal with God?" Seems like this would have been an excellent opportunity for God to have settled the trinity question once and for all. I for one would absolutely believe Jesus were God had He omitted the words "equal with," but we must assume He included them for a good reason. The word equal is the Greek word isos from which we get our word isosceles triangle. An isosceles triangle is so called because it has 2 equal length sides. Now to make these two sides somehow the same side is not using language in any meaningful way. It has two separate sides that are simply of equal length. It by implication makes the two sides unique and separate, e.g. side 1 and side 2.

This word isos is used in Matthew chapter 20 where Jesus spoke the parable about the property owner paying helpers who worked a few hours the same as those who labored all day. The latter of course protested it as unfair, feeling they should have received more. As part of their plea to the land owner they said,

Matt 20:12,

Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal [isos] unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
Could this be construed as saying that the ones who worked all day were the same ones who came later in the day? Of course not! Two separate people here. Why should the same usage of isos in John 5:18 be any different?

There is another usage of isos I will point out in the Book of Revelations.

Rev 21:16,

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Does this say the length and breath are in fact one thing and not two? No! Length is the length and width is the width; again, two distinctly different things. Making them equal [isos] simply means the two have the same length.

One more for the record.

In Mark 14 the Pharisees were trying to get a few people to give false testimony against Jesus so they could do what they did to him on the cross. They had a problem getting multiple "witnesses" to come up with the same story.

Mark 14:59,

But neither so did their witness agree [isos] together.
So, had they agreed together, would that have then made them one person? I think the trinity struck out here also.

It would be a good study to find out exactly what John 5:18 meant when it said Jesus was equal [isos] to God. As always, any biblical research is best done by using the Bible itself and not tradition as a source of truth.
 

abrother

Member
A logical explanation of the relationship of Jesus and his father is that the son is created by the father, or comes forth from the father. The father is the Creator and the son exhibits the qualities and virtues of the father who can then be seen through the son, who can also call upon the father, e.g. to alter the winds and waters and other forces of nature.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Not a contradiction. Its perspective.

Trinitarians (trini): misinterpret analogies as literal

Non-trini: misinterpret literalness as if it only means verbatum

The problem is both sides only see through their glasses and dont want to attempt to see the others point of view.

Take these common overused verses:

Father and son are one
Visible image of an invisible god

Trini: Father and son are one means they are the same

Non-trini: father and son are seperate so they are not the same

Yes, in the first, the father and son are one. Thats what it means to be one unit, one family. Trini- dont differientate son and father for that purpose. You need both. They just take "as one" quite literal even though in English its a conjunction not a literal statement they are each other.

Yes, the father and son are seperate. The problem is non-trini sees the conjunctions (and, etc) verbatum. So, father and son have nothing in common at all because one is a being and the other human. Even to the point of saying jesus has no divinity but then still looks up to jesus, a human, to save the world who believes (that, I find a contradiction)

Its the language.

Take "visible image of an invisible god"

Trini- cannot seperate image from source; they take the analogy literal

Non-trini seperate image and source in their own correct rights; but, then seperate the two insomuch the image is no longer an image because they completely seperate it from its source. So, basically, if the image is not the source, there is no image.

Both parties got to step back and say, "hmm. I get it, Trinitarian! Image and source are the same because one cant be an image without the source."

And the other "hmm, you got a point! Non-trinitarian! The image and source share a relationship but, now I get it, the image, by definition, is not the source."

Its making word salad or something.

Sum up:

Trinitarians: Image is the same as the source (like father, like son)

Non-trinitarians: Image, by strict definition, is not the source (father and son)

But you BOTH are saying the same thing: there is some sort of relationship with father and son just one sees the two under one nature (like twins) the other does not. But you both say the same thing.

If I choose between the two, Id be a non-trinitarian only because it makes more sense to give jesus and his father two distinct references in their own respective nature.

Its the language. Also, the bible isnt written in english. No language can be translated into another verbatum. It goes beyond dictionaries and greek references to understand god related words.

Not a contradiction. Just both sides limit their point of view to argue with each other. Been going on for centuries. Check out the RF search results. The fun never ends.
I think I see what you are saying and you've raised some interesting questions. OK, forget about how people see things. What does God say about the trinity? Isn't that's what really matters? I would assume He is clear in His own mind as to whether or not there is a trinity. It is up to us to figure out what God thinks. That's true about everything in the Bible.

You mentioned that Jesus said he and his father are one. True enough he did say that. But the Bible also says we are one with them.

John 17:11,

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].​

John 17:21,

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.​

Jesus was certainly not praying that you and I would become God along with them. It's a very common figure of speech we use all the time when saying that two or more people are united in their thinking or purpose on a given subject. For example, We all know that by saying, "Regarding the goal to end racism, John and Bill are one" we mean John and Bill are of the same mind. They have the same purpose. It certainly doesn't mean John and Bill are actually Carl!

1Cor 3:6-8,

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth [Paul] and he that watereth [Apollos] are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
Using an ounce of logic and basic grammar, verse 8 doesn't mean that Apollos and Paul were actually one person. No. It is a figure of speech that grabs our attention to really hammer in the fact that Apollos and Paul were united in their goal to move the Word of God.

You also made a good point in another post about understanding the context of John 5:18.

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.
They were not saying Jesus made himself equal to God because he said that he was God, but by saying he was God's son. They knew he didn't say he was actually God. It is a worthwhile study to see the relationship between a father and his son in Bible times. In many ways they are indeed equal in power and authority, but in no way does it make the son and the father one individual. Understanding the culture of the times is critical in rightly dividing the scriptures. After all, the Bible wasn't written last year in New York. People thought a little differently back in the Bible days than they do today in Manhattan or LA. There is a ton of material out there that explains ancient Middle East culture. Having some understanding of their culture clears up a lot of misconceptions about the Bible.

I trust all is well with you...God bless
 
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
God is the Uncreated Creator.
Jesus was a created human being, prophet and messenger of God.
Who died, rose from the dead, and is still alive today. That gives him an edge on all the other prophets that ever lived. He's the one to whom I'd certainly pay attention!
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
The reason there is a problem is that people use the word "God" incorrectly. There is a "father" and a "son". Two separate beings. Together they are God. People use the word God th mean the Father but that is not the correct way. Jesus is not the Fathe and the Father is not Jesus. But together they are God. If your father is Sam Jones and you are Bill Jones then you are not Sam but you are a Jones. Think of it as Father God and Jesus God. Each is separate but both are God.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It was kinda hard to quote since I didn't know which goes to what; so, this may be convoluted. Thank you for the respect.
I think I see what you are saying and you've raised some interesting questions. OK, forget about how people see things. What does God say about the trinity? Isn't that's what really matters? I would assume He is clear in His own mind as to whether or not there is a trinity. It is up to us to figure out what God thinks. That's true about everything in the Bible.

From what I know, the bible says jesus is the son of god; and, through jesus, as god's reflection, he came to be a sacrifice to die for others in order for his father to be in union with his followers. Whether he is god or not isn't the point more so than what his father wanted him to do and what he did for his father. Trinity in the bible means relationship between three people (father/creator, son/salvation, god's spirit/love) It means they are all one unit. That's strict definition of trinity.

You mentioned that Jesus said he and his father are one. True enough he did say that. But the Bible also says we are one with them.

John 17:11,

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].
John 17:21,

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Yes. I was comparing trinitarian thought to non trinitarian thought.

Either jesus is one with the father (image is the same as source)
Or jesus is a reflection of his father (image a reflection of the source)

Trinitarians cant' tell the difference.
Non-trinitarians go by strict definition of the terms.

In the bible, trinity just means unity between three things or people (or whatever). Maybe a better word would be relationship between father and son. Or triad.

Jesus was certainly not praying that you and I would become God along with them. It's a very common figure of speech we use all the time when saying that two or more people are united in their thinking or purpose on a given subject. For example, We all know that by saying, "Regarding the goal to end racism, John and Bill are one" we mean John and Bill are of the same mind. They have the same purpose. It certainly doesn't mean John and Bill are actually Carl!

You gotta read my posts. Yes. I know. I don't see it in a trinitarian view. If I chose, I'd be non-trinitarian because I see it more proficient to speak of god and his son as two distinct people in their own right since that's how the bible defines it.

Trinitarian views just means they cannot tell the difference between image/son and source/father because they are one in purpose. It's a way of relating father and son together in relation to the believer so that jesus isn't just "any old person." It's a way to dictate importance of jesus' role.

1Cor 3:6-8,

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth [Paul] and he that watereth [Apollos] are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
Using an ounce of logic and basic grammar, verse 8 doesn't mean that Apollos and Paul were actually one person. No. It is a figure of speech that grabs our attention to really hammering in the fact that Apollos and Paul were united in their goal to move the Word of God.

You also made a good point in another post about understanding the context of John 5:18.

John 5:18,

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal [isos] with God.

Yes. The Jews were accusing jesus as putting himself with god. Jesus never said he was equal to god. Trinitarians can't tell the difference as mention the reason above. It's not a doctrinal thing. It's personal preference and language differences.

They were not saying Jesus made himself equal to God because he said that he was God, but by saying he was God's son. They knew he didn't say he was actually God. It is a worthwhile study to see the relationship between a father and his son in Bible times. In many ways they are indeed equal in power and authority, but in no way does it make the son and the father one individual. Understanding the culture of the times is critical in rightly dividing the scriptures. After all, the Bible wasn't written last year in New York. People thought a little differently back in the Bible days than they do today in Manhattan or LA. There is a ton of material out there that explains ancient Middle East culture. Having some understanding of their culture clears up a lot of misconceptions about the Bible.

I'm not trinitarian; but, I do understand why they think the way they do.

For example, if you are close to your mother (if you are a daughter) and your mother passed away. Someone who wants to know their mother cannot know her except through you. In your (imaginary) culture, you do not separate yourself from the rest of your family. Whatever one person does to your family member, they do you you; and, vis versa. You guys are a unit. You are all one. So, if that person speaks to you, they are speaking to your whole family. Whatever you say in relationship to your mother is how you know personally what your mother would say.

Trinitarians (many cultures), as a result, see that unit literally as one. They don't differentiate family members. They are all one unit. You speak to the daughter, you speak to the mother.

Non-trinitarians (say Americans) take it verbatim. In our culture, we see independence more than collectivism. As such, if I say something to you as a daughter, whatever you say I'm attributing it to you not to your mother. I take it verbatim.

It's a cultural difference (in reality) as well.

In scripture, it is both depending on who reads it and how they interpret it.

It's really clear in scripture. The problem is the people not the scripture. It's like you both are using the same scripture against itself, without stepping back and seeing what each other means by the scriptures you guys post.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
In scripture, it is both depending on who reads it and how they interpret it.
Interesting discussion, to be sure. I do read your posts as carefully as I can. Sometimes I'm just adding to what you say and not necessarily disagreeing, but in fact totally agreeing. As I said, you raise some very good points.

I know I'm only quoting one sentence out of the many you wrote, but I think it is a key statement you make. It is quite true that it is the norm for everybody to have their own interpretation of the Bible. Among other problems, that always raises the question of whose interpretation is the right one. God says many things in the scriptures and He uses each and every word in a very precise and meaningful manner. He always means one thing. If I say I'll give you $100, then that is what I mean. Different people may hear me say that to you. Someone might say I really meant $150. Another may say I meant $50. Another may say I meant I would loan it to you. Clearly, all three are wrong. When I said I'd give $100, that is exactly what I meant. The other interpretations would be meaningless. None of them would change the truth of me offering to give you $100.

2Pet 1:20,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
The word private is the Greek word idios which simply means, "one's own." So no prophecy is dependent upon my interpretation, your interpretation, or anybody else's interpretation. I have no right to say, "I think John 3:16 means such and such a thing. What do you think it means?" You and I can not give our own meaning to the scriptures. It is no different than reading the evening newspaper or People Magazine. I assume you do not struggle too much trying to "interpret" the things I'm saying. I try to speak plainly and straight forward. Why should God be any different? In fact, since our eternal life is dependent on it, I would think it should be among the simplest pieces of writing ever written. God does not want to trick us.

By the way, the meaning of the word "prophecy" was different in Bible times than in our own. It has come to mean foretelling only as in predicting the future. However in their culture (another case where culture is important) it simply meant forth-telling. The whole Bible is God revealing Himself to us. Some of it does deal with the future indeed, but all of it, every word, is prophecy. That is easily ascertained in our mega information age. Just Google it.

So if you, I, or nobody else can use our own private interpretation, how can anybody know what it says? Simple. Like the aforementioned newspaper or magazine, the Bible interprets itself. Most verses are plain enough in themselves. I mentioned John 3:16.

John 3:16,

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.​

That is about as simple of a sentence structure as can be. There is absolutely no need to "interpret" anything. It's just a matter of believing it or not. That's the only question. However, some verses are not so plain. In that case it may be necessary to look at the context. Other times it is necessary to see how a word or phrase has been used elsewhere in the scriptures that may clearly explain that word or phrase. I mentioned culture as another important consideration in understanding how the Bible interprets itself. There are a few other consideration, but the main thing is that the Bible does interpret itself and does not rely on any person to come up with their own private interpretation.
 
Last edited:

rrobs

Well-Known Member
The reason there is a problem is that people use the word "God" incorrectly. There is a "father" and a "son". Two separate beings. Together they are God. People use the word God th mean the Father but that is not the correct way. Jesus is not the Fathe and the Father is not Jesus. But together they are God. If your father is Sam Jones and you are Bill Jones then you are not Sam but you are a Jones. Think of it as Father God and Jesus God. Each is separate but both are God.
By that logic, not only am I Bill, a Jones, but I'm also my father, Sam. What??????

I am the son of Sam (oh boy, wasn't that the name of some nasty murderer from New York?), but I'm not Sam. Jesus is the son of God, but he is not God. There is one God and that is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Adam was created with innocent blood. He sinned and ruined his blood with sin which meant he died. Every person ever born, with one exception, shares that polluted blood and so we all die (Rom 5:12). The exception was Jesus Christ. God planted His seed miraculously in Mary's womb. That is why Jesus was God's son. The blood Jesus received from his father was just like the original innocent blood God gave Adam. But there is a huge difference between the behavior of Jesus and Adam. Adam chose to disobey God whereas Jesus always obeyed God. Jesus could have disobeyed God at any time had he chosen to do so. It must have been awfully tempting to take the devil up on the promise of giving him all the kingdoms of the world. Had Jesus given in to temptation (God, of course, can't be tempted), we would all still be waiting for redemption. He obeyed all the way to the most horrible death imaginable. He did so because he believed God would raise him up again. That's a heck of a lot of believing for any man to have. How would you answer God if He said to you, "Hey, I need your help. Would you mind letting yourself get tortured and killed to help all mankind? But don't worry, I'll raise you from the dead." That, sir, took some believing. More than I have I must admit. But thank God Jesus, who was just like us in every way, with the same feelings and passions, put his own will on the back burner in order to carry out God's will.

Luke 22:42,

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Jesus had his own will but he chose to ignore it and follow God's will. We all face the same choice. Most, me included, fail miserably but Jesus always did his father's will.

Making Jesus God takes away from the true accomplishment of Jesus Christ. Had he been God what's the big deal? Would God have any doubt if He said He'd raise himself from the dead? Don't think so, but for a man to believe like that is beyond my comprehension. What love the man Jesus must have had for all people!

Making Jesus God also insults God and His brilliant plan to redeem mankind. The scripture is clear that since sin came by man, so must redemption from that sin come by man. God never "controlled" any man. It's always free will. Otherwise, God could have just come down right after Adam sinned and made everything right again. But when He created man He gave Him dominion over all animals, fish, birds, and the whole earth (Gen 1:26). Contrary to non-Biblical belief, God was not in charge. Man held that dominion. Adam sinned and transferred that dominion to Satan, the God of this World, the Prince of the Power of the Air. That is why the devil was quite correct in telling Jesus he had the power and would give it to Jesus. God has never held the dominion in this world. Man got himself into the mess and it had to be another man that got him out of it. That is why God had to wait for 6,000 years before a woman would say, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" and for that son to obey Him 100 per cent of the time. The whole of the OT was to give the information for some man to do the right thing and follow those scriptures. God is not in the business of forcing anybody to do anything or waiving a magic wand to correct every mistake man makes.
 
Top