|
|
Post by Chal™ on Oct 16, 2009 13:04:17 GMT -5
In John 14:6, Jesus speaks of Himself and of His Father as separate entities. (I know he does so in other areas. I chose this because it is one of my absolute favorites.)
My question is, with this passage (as well as others) how can one believe that The Father and Son are one and the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 16, 2009 13:15:11 GMT -5
One can believe they are the same because there are passages like these (and others).
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.
John 10: 38
But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 16, 2009 13:30:40 GMT -5
^^The first one, I can see. For sure.
However, John 10:38 to me, indicates that each may have qualities of the other, but that they are separate (in my mind, for something to be IN something else, it can't be the same as something else).
|
|
|
|
Post by Chal™ on Oct 16, 2009 13:33:48 GMT -5
but passages like these clearly state a difference:
John
14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
14:12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.[13] Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 16, 2009 14:05:01 GMT -5
^^The first one, I can see. For sure. However, John 10:38 to me, indicates that each may have qualities of the other, but that they are separate (in my mind, for something to be IN something else, it can't be the same as something else).
As is the case with all of this, alot of is dependent on how you interpret.
For example. You most certainly have some of your father's DNA, you most certainly have some of your mother's DNA. The resultant DNA is however, uniquely yours. Your father is certainly in you, just as your mother is, but it cannot be said equivalently that you are in them. You are a different creation, not a different form of the same entity.
As I read the passage I see a state of symbiosis between God and Jesus. One in the other, AND vice versa.
Also if you read further, after saying that He and His Father were one, people begin to pick up stones... and why? Well they tell him it's not because of the miracles He performed.
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 16, 2009 14:06:50 GMT -5
so, the Jews misunderstood Jesus to be claiming that he was God, correct? What was Jesus actually saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 16, 2009 14:14:59 GMT -5
so, the Jews misunderstood Jesus to be claiming that he was God, correct? What was Jesus actually saying? |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Oct 16, 2009 14:29:40 GMT -5
Interesting topic. I just know that Jesus was not born like all men, i.e. he was born of a virgin. That to me shows that he isn't like the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 16, 2009 14:38:16 GMT -5
Oh, so the way you see it, perhaps the stoners understood Jesus perfectly well and still tried to kill him. I can see how that is not necessarily counter-intuitive.
For the record, earlier, in John 8:27, it says that "They did not grasp that he [Jesus] was talking to them about the Father." Jesus went on to say in verse 28, "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things." Jesus even lamented that he was talking to them and considered it a waste of time, since they didn't get it. In verse 29, Jesus described himself and his father as separate.
In John 8:42, Jesus said "...for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth."
it was after all this explanation, that the Jews still didn't get it and tried to stone the Lord.
|
|
|
|
Post by Highly Favored on Oct 16, 2009 14:59:58 GMT -5
The following scriptures support my belief that Jesus and God are one and the same:
John 1:1-3, 14-15
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
--------------------------------
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. "
Also, I Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
I think these are self-explanatory, so I am not going to expound unless someone has a specific question.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 16, 2009 15:15:01 GMT -5
John 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.
You interpret that as separate? If so, so be it - as I said earlier much of the disagreement (in general) is interpretation. But I read "with me" and "not left alone" as far from separate. But again, to each their own.
Also for your consideration if you read a little further down in the same passge - after Jesus talks about not coming on His own. He also explains why when He is speaking the truth that they don't understand Him.
John 8:47
He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
Did He distinguish between God and God's Son here? Further down the line Jesus said
John 8:58-59
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Jesus the Messiah who walked the earth was obviously not born before Abraham, so the suggestion that He was divine, and a creation of God at that time, seems in-congruent with the fact that Jesus predates Abraham also. It seems to me that Jesus could not be born after Abraham, and yet predate Him also unless He was indeed God.
Just some food for thought. There are potentially other explanations depending on how you interpret things - obviously - but this is kind of the direction I go in.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Oct 16, 2009 15:29:32 GMT -5
Wasn't Jesus (spirit form) God's first creation before the angels???
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Oct 16, 2009 15:59:20 GMT -5
The following scriptures support my belief that Jesus and God are one and the same: John 1:1-3, 14-15 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. -------------------------------- 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. " Also, I Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." I think these are self-explanatory, so I am not going to expound unless someone has a specific question. Timothy 1 3:16 basically says it in a nutshell for me. And we all know in the bible in Genesis that God is the word, and further along it says that the word was made flesh, which to me is Jesus. That is what has me to believe they are one in the same. Also, in Timothy, what seals the deal in my opinion is when it states "received up to glory" which is talking about the reserection (sp?) of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by **Dea** on Oct 16, 2009 16:37:11 GMT -5
Anybody in here ever read a book called The Shack??
This book, for whatever reason, made this, and the ideal of the Holy Trinity so clear to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 17, 2009 10:07:10 GMT -5
{~~ doesn't think that Jesus and his Father not being the same person negates Jesus' divinity.
Ask me how, if you care, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 18, 2009 17:10:52 GMT -5
I once asked my mother to explain to me the trinity when I was younger. I could not understand how Jesus could be Son of God and God himself. Well my mother gave me the example of an egg. Shell, white, and yoke. All the egg, but separate functions...still one.
Is it safe to say that the God head contains three ways in which it manifests, however still one God? Or were they talking unity here. They are one...in unison...meaning they are three parts of the same spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 18, 2009 17:21:21 GMT -5
Are angels divine? (trying to get your definition of divine) If Jesus were not to be God then that would change the face of Christianity as it generally presents itself. In that event it wouldn't matter to most if He is divine,but not God. He has to be God. And if that is the case...somebody's got some 'splaining to do. As I examine the scriptures I realize that some of the things listed can been seen from at least two-three different perspectives. {~~ doesn't think that Jesus and his Father not being the same person negates Jesus' divinity. Ask me how, if you care, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 19, 2009 7:00:17 GMT -5
{~~ doesn't think that Jesus and his Father not being the same person negates Jesus' divinity. Ask me how, if you care, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 19, 2009 8:14:17 GMT -5
If Jesus were not to be God then that would change the face of Christianity as it generally presents itself... He has to be God. And if that is the case...somebody's got some 'splaining to do. "Christianity" is apparently more diverse than many people give it credit. |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 19, 2009 9:14:15 GMT -5
You and I agree here. I was saying as Christianity generally presents. The vast majority of denominational doctrines under the Christian branche believe Jesus is God. Not all, definately not, but the majority. That's the standpoint that I am coming from here. From your quote it appears that I as individual am saying Jesus has to be God. I want to emphasize that I am saying general Christianity says this is the case. As you have seen here, when Christian groups leave this thought path they are considered cults or unbelievers by general Christian views. If Jesus were not to be God then that would change the face of Christianity as it generally presents itself... He has to be God. And if that is the case...somebody's got some 'splaining to do. "Christianity" is apparently more diverse than many people give it credit. |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 19, 2009 10:38:39 GMT -5
This page link of towerwatch.com kind of touches on what we mentioned here. Be mindful that towerwatch.com has a slant just like any site. They of course believe that JW's teachings are separate from Christianity and are incorrect. So I post this not in support of the slant, but in support of the dissection of the scripture and original text. www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_World_Translation/nwt_errors.htm |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 19, 2009 10:49:43 GMT -5
Did the first-century Christians believe Jesus was God? I ask because many non-trinitarian Christians consider the 'triune god' concept to be an ex-post facto injection of the local pagan custom of that era along with the cross image, the 'immortality of the soul' doctrine, and the celebration of certain festivals and holidays.
As for me, I believe that there is a quite a lot wrong with "how Christianity generally presents" (as Outtie puts it).
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 19, 2009 11:10:32 GMT -5
I am actually in agreement with Leja, except that I am not sure that there is a lot wrong. However, I do believe that there are MANY MANY MANY questionable portions of doctrine througout Christianity across the board.
When I came to discover Christianity purely on my own without relying on what I was taught I remember thinking OMG what if Jesus is not God (in the way that I was taught). As soon as the thought manifested I rebuked myself because it seemed like such blasphemy. Later on I realized that God wants us to seek the truth. The truth will stand no matter what! If you stumble upon something that appears a solid evidence that not support what you have been taught or your biasis, you musn't hide it just to prove your own stance.
However I am inclined to be that we as humans don't really have all the answers. Most of what we believe is based on faith and OUR(or church's) interpretation of the scriptures.
I think it's important to discuss and talk with folks of other doctrines within Christianity and religions all together. I have learned a lot doing so instead of listening to other people experiences...oh they are a cult. Oh they are demonic. Etc... etc.
With that being said Leja, that's where the huge debate comes in. What were the early Christians truly doing/thinking/believing? How much of that has been distorted through out history?
I went through the same thing about Catholicism. I once asked why do we consider Catholics to be a cult when the catholic practices are closer to early Christianity than other denominations. They were the direct link. Protestantism is a break off of that which actually occurred because a king decided he wanted another wife. I mean let's be real here. Yes, I am not saying that this wasn't apart of God's plan,but the events are there. We can not deny them.
That is why I believe in researching historical context as well as having spiritual quiet time where I am directly reflecting on scripture with the Lord's help.
History IS important. Folks who argue "the problem with people is they want to get all analytical about the bible and all historical when it's a spiritual text". True, but both extremes are misleading in my opinion.The bible is also a historical text and it should be considered as such as well. How people behave, their practices, their faith, their religious texts...all important factors of the time period in which they lived.
God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. However people's interpretation of God and how God should be reveranced has changed through out time and still continues to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Highly Favored on Oct 19, 2009 14:00:57 GMT -5
"I once asked why do we consider Catholics to be a cult when the catholic practices are closer to early Christianity than other denominations." (Outtie)
I'm not sure I agree. Would you please explain?
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 19, 2009 14:07:40 GMT -5
Outtie's entire last post was absolutely beautiful. I could have cried. That right there...is what the journey's all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 20, 2009 10:00:52 GMT -5
I want to correct something I implied yesterday. Protestantism did not start with Henry VIII. Nor did the Anglican church for that matter. He simply popularized it to the masses. Also, Anglicans do not consider themselves Protestant. I thank God for bringing this to me today in a random way for I do not want to present any falsities, nor do I want my own views to lead to the spread of inaccurate information.  Be back with more later. |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Oct 20, 2009 11:44:27 GMT -5
"The Word" is the "Truth"....proceed
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 20, 2009 12:02:40 GMT -5
Please allow me to clarify here. 1. When I said protestant I was speaking too general. There are several protestant branches that heavily parallel Catholicism. I was speaking of baptist, Pentecostal,apostolic holiness. These groups as they generally present themselves are more prone to call groups within Christianity that do not parallel their exact believes cults. This is the case with Catholicism from my experience and as seen on this message board. 2. Also, I am speaking from information I’ve read that derives moreso from a historical perspective outside of the bible. This comes from various literary types of those times including political texts and not the bible alone. From the biblical perspective I believe many denoms practice what is seen in the bible baptism, last supper(communion), washing of feet even speaking in tongue. It’s the way that Catholics(and parallel protestants) practice these ritual and even the beliefs that stem from them that IMO are moreso like the practices of earlier Christians than the denominations I mentioned. However, really I should not have compared. It’s really not a matter of comparison. However, below I will list somethings: The concepts of purgatory/limbo—Abraham’s bossom is seen in Early Christianity. Transubstantiation (or even “ Real Presence”) as a means to explain the Eucharist (Holy Communion) taken from-> this is one of the ideas that have lead critics to believe that there ‘s pagan influence throughout the growth of Christianity. Any Immersion as opposed to submersion in regards to baptism-widely debated Liturgy style gatherings The belief in Martyrs---often saints in Catholicism—as something that should be honored. Etc… just seems really similar to me. "I once asked why do we consider Catholics to be a cult when the catholic practices are closer to early Christianity than other denominations." (Outtie) I'm not sure I agree. Would you please explain? |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Oct 20, 2009 12:10:36 GMT -5
Who is the word and what do you mean by truth? "The Word" is the "Truth"....proceed |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Oct 20, 2009 12:12:15 GMT -5
So...doesn't what you just posted indicate that certain practices of Catholicism are markedly different from first-century Christianity...and moreso resemble the pagan-influenced "christian-type" movements that arose alongside Paul and Peter 'nem? Just asking.
|
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
