Jesus is equal to God

[rrobs]

Well if the son of goat is goat and,
the son of horse is horse and,
the son of man is man, then
the son of God is _________?

All goats have a goat nature, but not all goats are somehow one goat.
Ditto for a horse or a man. Why any different for Jesus?

An offspring indeed has the nature of it's parents, but it is never it's own parent. Jesus is the son, God is the father. Therefore they can't be one person any more than all the goats that ever lived are really one goat.

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
​

As sons and daughters of God, we share in the divine nature, since father always passes his own nature to his offspring. Jesus also had the same divine nature (in fact, he was the first to have it), but that didn't make him God any more than it makes us God. It makes us both children of the one true God. What a privilege it is!

1John 3:2,

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

We were made His sons, by seed.

1Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.​

Jesus is our brother.

Heb 2:11,

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Jesus was made just like us.

Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.​

Whatever Jesus was, we are.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

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.

Wasn't these people who were saying Jesus broke the Sabbath and was reasoning Jesus was making himself equal to God because he said God was his Father, Pharahsees

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.

We're not the people who were saying Jesus was breaking the Sabbath and saying Jesus was making himself equal to God because he said God was his Father, Pharisees? Didn't Jesus say that the Pharisees as a class or group (organization) were disciples of Satan? Should we believe anything such a class or organization says about God or his only begotten Son to be true? After all we know they(the Pharisees) were wrong in saying that Jesus had broken the Sabbath simply because he healed a man on the Sabbath, the Pharisees wound save their sheep or goat or whatever if it were in danger even on a Sabbath, yet they say it's breaking the Sabbath law if you save a human. This shows how unreasonable the Pharisees were as an organization.

Also Jesus never said he was God or that he was equal to him. Jesus simply said that God was his Father, which is true.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

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.

At John 8:58 all Jesus said was that he existed before Abraham, which is true. It doesn't mean simply because he existed before Abraham that means he is God, otherwise we would have to believe any Angel is God because they were in existence before Abraham too, but that doesn't mean any Angel is God.

 

[exchemist]

At John 8:58 all Jesus said was that he existed before Abraham, which is true. It doesn't mean simply because he existed before Abraham that means he is God, otherwise we would have to believe any Angel is God because they were in existence before Abraham too, but that doesn't mean any Angel is God.

He used the present tense, remember: "Before Abraham was, I am." If he had just been created earlier, like an angel, why use a mysterious tense that suggest being outside time in some way?

But I did say it was cryptic.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

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 disagree because so far every trinitarian I've met tells me I have to believe Jesus is the God who created all things and is the source of all life. I can't believe that Jesus is the Only begotten Son of the God who created all things and is the source of all life. They tell me I must believe it was God who became flesh and therefore deny that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh. People can ramble on all they want believe what they want, but I will always believe Jesus to be the only begotten Son of the God who created all things and who is the source of all life
I will always believe that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to this world.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

I am endeavouring to understand what you are saying? Are you trying to disprove the Trinity by attempting to reinterpret one use of a word in one Scripture in the Bible? That argument would hardly succeed. The Trinity is taught right throughout the Bible.
You said:-
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?" (John Chp.5)
MY REPLY
The definition of the Trinity is that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, they are all separate entities, but there is only one God. God the Father never wanted to make Jesus God, because He always was God, is God, and always will be God. Whether we like it or not, that is the way He has revealed Himself in the Bible. God can manifest Himself in any way He sees fit. Who are we as limited and flawed finite beings to dictate to the infinite and perfect God as to how He is to reveal Himself because it doesn’t conform to our finite and faulty logic. If we are to say that God cannot reveal Himself as this or that, are we not setting ourselves up as God in His stead?
You said:-
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.
MY REPLY
The Bible is a book of history. It is a book of facts, both good and bad and it tells it like it is. He included them because they are what was said. It must be noted that Jesus did not come back with a denial. He did not say “No that is not what I was saying’, or try to clarify the matter.
You said:-
This word isos is used in Matthew chapter 20
MY REPLY
It seems to me that your understanding is based on a superficial study of a single word. If you are experienced and educated in employing all the principles of Biblical interpretation, then you would know that the same word does not mean the same in every passage of Scripture. The same word used in a different way can mean something completely different. Very quickly, the reason that this word is translated as ‘equal’ is twofold.
Firstly, consider what a wide range of reliable commentaries have to say. For example let me cite the authoritative Strong’s which includes Vine’s:-
Greek Word: ἴσος
Transliteration: isos
Phonetic Pronunciation: ee'-sos
Root: probably from <G1492> (through the idea of seeming)
Cross Reference: TDNT - 3:343,370
Part of Speech: adj
Vine's Words: Agree, Agreement, Equal, Equality, Like, Like (as to; unto), Like (be), Like (make), Like (things), Liken
Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:
equal 4
agree together + <G2258> 2
as much 1
like 1
[Total Count: 8]
probably from <G1492> (eido) (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind) :- + agree, as much, equal, like.
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
Secondly consider the context. This is where you will need to read the whole chapter.
1) He was calling God His own Father (v20)
2) He broke the Sabbath, because He is Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus Christ was working on the Sabbath and He told the Pharisees as such. (v17)
3) He exercised the power of God by healing a man who had been lame for 38 years, on the Sabbath. (v9)
4) He could only do what the Father in Heaven told Him to do. (v19)
5) He has the power to raise the dead, this power was given to Him from His Father. (v21)
6) He is the One who has the power of eternal life which only God has. (v24)
7) Moses the great prophet of old wrote about Jesus coming. (v46)
And so on it goes right throughout the chapter. Through everything Jesus said, He was plainly making Himself out to be God. This is powerful evidence that the word should be translated as ‘equal’ and the Pharisees were upset that this upstart Jesus was plainly making Himself equal with God whom they claimed to represent. The Pharisees had hardened their hearts against the Messiah to their own destruction, and that is a warning that we should not fall into the same trap. Certainty for eternity.

 

[rrobs]

Wasn't these people who were saying Jesus broke the Sabbath and was reasoning Jesus was making himself equal to God because he said God was his Father, Pharahsees?

Also Jesus never said he was God or that he was equal to him. Jesus simply said that God was his Father, which is true.

Precisely! You are quite right.

Jesus did not say he was God, but God's son. However, the Pharisees understood the equality (isos) of a father and son in their culture. They were quite right in saying that by Jesus claiming to be the son of God, he therefore saying he was equal (isos) to God. They did not think he was claiming to actually be God. They were smarter than that. They understood the meaning of the word isos. Claiming to be the son of God was extremely taboo to the Pharisees. That's all they needed to get rid of him. They never understood him to intimate that he was God.

The point of my post was just to show that two things that are isos are not actually one thing. I thought a lot of trinitarians used this verse to prove the trinity, but maybe I'm wrong on that. Nonetheless, I know I've talked to at least a few who use this verse. I'm just trying to speak the word of God, maybe help someone understand something.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

He used the present tense, remember: "Before Abraham was, I am." If he had just been created earlier, like an angel, why use a mysterious tense that suggest being outside time in some way?

But I did say it was cryptic.

You are still taking this scripture out of context I believe because Jesus wasn't talking about his identity, he was talking about his age. I will never agree with taking any scripture out of context. You can talk about tenses all you want.

 

[rrobs]

1) He was calling God His own Father (v20)

He is our father also.

2) He broke the Sabbath, because He is Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus Christ was working on the Sabbath and He told the Pharisees as such. (v17)

We also work 7 days a week for our heavenly father.

3) He exercised the power of God by healing a man who had been lame for 38 years, on the Sabbath. (v9)

We can do the same. We can even do greater works than Jesus (John 14:12)

4) He could only do what the Father in Heaven told Him to do. (v19)

God tells us to do the same. We're just not as good at it as Jesus!

5) He has the power to raise the dead, this power was given to Him from His Father. (v21)

So do we! See reply to point #3.

6) He is the One who has the power of eternal life which only God has. (v24)

Only God has it? Is there a verse that says that?

7) Moses the great prophet of old wrote about Jesus coming. (v46)

Yes he did, as did many others.

And so on it goes right throughout the chapter. Through everything Jesus said, He was plainly making Himself out to be God. This is powerful evidence that the word should be translated as ‘equal’ and the Pharisees were upset that this upstart Jesus was plainly making Himself equal with God whom they claimed to represent. The Pharisees had hardened their hearts against the Messiah to their own destruction, and that is a warning that we should not fall into the same trap. Certainty for eternity.

There is not one verse in that chapter that says anything about Jesus being God. You are reading something into it that simply isn't there. If it were possible for someone who never heard of the trinity to read this chapter, I can't imagine how they would come up with the conclusion that Jesus is God. It just doesn't say that.

Just read what's written and stop adding aberrant ideas to the text.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

Precisely! You are quite right.

Jesus did not say he was God, but God's son. However, the Pharisees understood the equality (isos) of a father and son in their culture. They were quite right in saying that by Jesus claiming to be the son of God, he therefore saying he was equal (isos) to God. They did not think he was claiming to actually be God. They were smarter than that. They understood the meaning of the word isos. Claiming to be the son of God was extremely taboo to the Pharisees. That's all they needed to get rid of him. They never understood him to intimate that he was God.

The point of my post was just to show that two things that are isos are not actually one thing. I thought a lot of trinitarians used this verse to prove the trinity, but maybe I'm wrong on that. Nonetheless, I know I've talked to at least a few who use this verse. I'm just trying to speak the word of God, maybe help someone understand something.

Yes I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your reasoning. Jesus always used the Father son concept when talking about his relationship with his Father. A Father was older has more authority, wiser and the son was subject to his Father. Even the Jews understood that. It was these Pharisees who used the word equal in this Father son concept not Jesus. Just as they were wrong in thier reasoning by saying Jesus broke the Sabbath law they were wrong in claiming Jesus was making himself or trying to make himself equal to God. You talking about how these Pharisees reasoned on the word (isos) equality shows how far in unreasonableness they would go.

 

[rrobs]

You are still taking this scripture out of context I believe because Jesus wasn't talking about his identity, he was talking about his age. I will never agree with taking any scripture out of context. You can talk about tenses all you want.

"Before Abraham was, I am" might have something to do with Genesis 3:15. That's when God promised the seed of the woman, i.e. Jesus, would solve the problem of sin. In fact Jesus, as well as the rest of us, were in God's plan all along, from before the world was ever made (Eph 1:4).

That plan, the logos, is what John 1:1, really speaks about. Blindly substituting the word "Jesus" for "the word" is a huge mistake. It only makes the story of redemption virtually beyond comprehension.

It's a pity so few can get past the trinity and see the true work Jesus accomplished for us. Nothing he did would be a big deal had he been God. But, doing at all as a man truly deserves our recognition.

 

[rrobs]

Yes I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your reasoning. Jesus always used the Father son concept when talking about his relationship with his Father. A Father was older has more authority, wiser and the son was subject to his Father. Even the Jews understood that. It was these Pharisees who used the word equal in this Father son concept not Jesus. Just as they were wrong in thier reasoning by saying Jesus broke the Sabbath law they were wrong in claiming Jesus was making himself or trying to make himself equal to God. You talking about how these Pharisees reasoned on the word (isos) equality shows how far in unreasonableness they would go.

I think you are totally misunderstanding what I've said.

In the ancient Middle East, a son and his father had a much different relationship than we have in the modern West have today. A son was indeed equal to his father in many ways in that culture. But it didn't make them identical, just isos. I believe that's what the Pharisees understood. At least that's what they said quite plainly, "making himself equal with God." They said that because Jesus claimed to be the son of God. There was really no argument between Jesus and the Pharisees on that point. Jesus also understood that as the son of God he was "isos" with God. It just came with the territory

Does that make better sense?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I disagree because so far every trinitarian I've met tells me I have to believe Jesus is the God who created all things and is the source of all life. I can't believe that Jesus is the Only begotten Son of the God who created all things and is the source of all life. They tell me I must believe it was God who became flesh and therefore deny that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh. People can ramble on all they want believe what they want, but I will always believe Jesus to be the only begotten Son of the God who created all things and who is the source of all life.
I will always believe that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh and came to this world.

There are two views. Some are jesus as the creator made flesh (source/image same) others see they are different (source and image)

They both express the same relationship but the former takes metaphors literally; the other, doesn't see metaphors on scripture. The Bible talks about both views. It depends on the Christian to whom that view best describes their preference.

Whichever view you fall under is alright. They are both in scripture. I just see no use of both sides fussing over interpretation when most aren't even reading the full Bible without bias and not fluent in culture and languages in which the the Bible were written in.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

He used the present tense, remember: "Before Abraham was, I am." If he had just been created earlier, like an angel, why use a mysterious tense that suggest being outside time in some way?

But I did say it was cryptic.

The expression “I AM” at Exodus 3:14 is there used as a title or a name, and in the Hebrew this expression is the one word Ehyéh (אהיה). Jehovah God was there speaking to Moses and sending him to the children of Israel. Well, then, in John 8:58, was Jesus claiming to be Jehovah God?

We must remember, that when Jesus spoke to those Jews, he spoke to them in the Hebrew of his day, not in Greek. How Jesus said John 8:58 to the Jews is therefore presented to us in the modern translations by Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek into the Bible Hebrew, as follows: Dr. Franz Delitzsch: “Before Abraham was, I have been.”* Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg: “I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.”* In both of these Hebrew translations the translators use for the expression “I have been” two Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, namely, aní hayíthi; they do not use the one Hebrew word: Ehyéh. So they do not make out that in John 8:58 Jesus was trying to imitate Jehovah God and give us the impression that he himself was Jehovah, the I AM.


In what language did John write his life account of Jesus Christ? In the Greek language, not in Hebrew; and in the Greek text the controversial expression is Egó eimí. Just by itself, without any introductory material ahead of it, Egó eimí means “I am.” Now this expression Egó eimí occurs also in John 8:24,28; and in those verses the Authorized or King James Version and the Douay Version and others render the expression into English as “I am he,” the pronoun he being put in italics to indicate that the pronoun he is added or inserted. (AV; AS; Yg) But here, in John 8:58, those versions do not render this same expression as “I am he,” but only as “I am.” They evidently want to give us the idea that Jesus was not simply referring to his existence but also giving himself a title that belongs to Jehovah God,* in imitation of Exodus 3:14

When writing John 8:58, the apostle was not quoting from the Greek Septuagint Version, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, Egypt, before the birth of Christ.

Let anyone who reads Greek compare John 8:58 in Greek and Exodus 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint, and he will find that the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:14 does not use the expression Egó eimí for God’s name, when God says to Moses: “I AM hath sent me unto you.” The Greek Septuagint uses the expression ho Ōn, which means “The Being,” or, “The One who is.” This fact is clearly presented to us in Bagster’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING [ho Ōn]; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING [ho Ōn] has sent me to you.” According to Charles Thomson’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, Exodus 3:14 reads: “God spoke to Moses saying, I am The I Am [ho Ōn]. Moreover he said, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, The I Am [ho Ōn] hath sent me to you.”* Thus this comparison of the two Greek texts, that of the Septuagint and that of John 8:58, removes all basis for trinitarians to argue that Jesus, in John 8:58, was trying to fit Exodus 3:14 to himself, as if he was Jehovah God.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

"Before Abraham was, I am" might have something to do with Genesis 3:15. That's when God promised the seed of the woman, i.e. Jesus, would solve the problem of sin. In fact Jesus, as well as the rest of us, were in God's plan all along, from before the world was ever made (Eph 1:4).

That plan, the logos, is what John 1:1, really speaks about. Blindly substituting the word "Jesus" for "the word" is a huge mistake. It only makes the story of redemption virtually beyond comprehension.

It's a pity so few can get past the trinity and see the true work Jesus accomplished for us. Nothing he did would be a big deal had he been God. But, doing at all as a man truly deserves our recognition.

Here again you are still taking this scripture out of context by talking of an identity when Jesus was speaking only how old he was, meaning he was in existence before Abraham.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

I think you are totally misunderstanding what I've said.

In the ancient Middle East, a son and his father had a much different relationship than we have in the modern West have today. A son was indeed equal to his father in many ways in that culture. But it didn't make them identical, just isos. I believe that's what the Pharisees understood. At least that's what they said quite plainly, "making himself equal with God." They said that because Jesus claimed to be the son of God. There was really no argument between Jesus and the Pharisees on that point. Jesus also understood that as the son of God he was "isos" with God. It just came with the territory

Does that make better sense?

No because again you saying the Pharisees were right to speak out against Jesus for what he said in some sense, and your wrong, just as they were wrong in reasoning that Jesus had broken the Sabbath day law, they were wrong in their reasoning when they said Jesus was making himself equal to God. You are basically saying these Pharisees were right in accusing Jesus of these crimes, because the Pharisees did believe he was committing crimes against God. You are wrong in your reasoning just as the Pharisees were. Just as Jesus had broken no Sabbath day law, no matter how the Pharisees were reasoning on the scripture, Jesus was also not guilty of trying to make himself equal to God no matter how they were reasoning their reasoning was wrong.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

There are two views. Some are jesus as the creator made flesh (source/image same) others see they are different (source and image)

They both express the same relationship but the former takes metaphors literally; the other, doesn't see metaphors on scripture. The Bible talks about both views. It depends on the Christian to whom that view best describes their preference.

Whichever view you fall under is alright. They are both in scripture. I just see no use of both sides fussing over interpretation when most aren't even reading the full Bible without bias and not fluent in culture and languages in which the the Bible were written in.

I still disagree because like I said trinitarians that I have met tell me I must believe the trinity or I will not be saved. They believe at least the ones I've met so far that it was God who became flesh, not the only begotten Son of God. I have always believed that it was the only begotten Son who became flesh and came to this world and died for me and was resurrected 3 days after his death and this is why I have forgiveness of sins.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I still disagree because like I said trinitarians that I have met tell me I must believe the trinity or I will not be saved. They believe at least the ones I've met so far that it was God who became flesh, not the only begotten Son of God. I have always believed that it was the only begotten Son who became flesh and came to this world and died for me and was resurrected 3 days after his death and this is why I have forgiveness of sins.

What do you disagree with?

Unless you have no belief in jesus god of not, what you say describes one of the two views adopted by non-trini or Trini, unless you don't believe in Christ, where do you disagree?

 

[rrobs]

Here again you are still taking this scripture out of context by talking of an identity when Jesus was speaking only how old he was, meaning he was in existence before Abraham.

What in the context makes you say Jesus was only speaking about his age? I'm I wrong in thinking you are speaking about actual, physical age?

As I said Jesus was a central player in God's plan, the logos, which was indeed with God in the beginning, well before Abraham. However the part Jesus played in God's plan, i. e., when he was born, was some time after Abraham.

How is it any different with us having been chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Certainly you are not suggesting you are over 6,000 years old!

Don't be so quick to dismiss the connection with what Jesus said and Gen 3:15, which was indeed well before Abraham. He understood his role in the plan of Redemption. When he read Gen 3:15 he knew that was the starting point for what he was sent by God to accomplish, our redemption.

 

[BARNEY E BRIGHT]

What in the context makes you say Jesus was only speaking about his age? I'm I wrong in thinking you are speaking about actual, physical age?

As I said Jesus was a central player in God's plan, the logos, which was indeed with God in the beginning, well before Abraham. However the part Jesus played in God's plan, i. e., when he was born, was some time after Abraham.

How is it any different with us having been chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Certainly you are not suggesting you are over 6,000 years old!

Don't be so quick to dismiss the connection with what Jesus said and Gen 3:15, which was indeed well before Abraham. He understood his role in the plan of Redemption. When he read Gen 3:15 he knew that was the starting point for what he was sent by God to accomplish, our redemption.

The only thing you are showing me is that you believe it ok to take things out of context and you and I will disagree on this. I will always believe to keep things in context.