ArchivedJesus asking God to make his disciples God?Yo Masquerade,
Ok I am awaiting to here you’re very typical Muslim argument concerning John 10:30, but first let me comment on what you’ve said so far. The translation of “Son of God” literally means son of God, I have no idea where you got this idea, that upon research the Son of God would somehow change to Servant of God. If the Original Koine Greek uses the word servant, that’s what it would be translated to, but it read Son therefore Christ is the Son of God. If you would like to discuss the metaphorical implications of this terminology later, that we can do. In any event, besides the fact Christ is truly the Son of God, he did take upon himself the form of a servant at the incarnation (Phil 2) – however Christ playing submissive type roles is not in anyway related to the issue of his deity/divinity as i will talk more about later. First of all, there is no grounds for your insertion of "servant" in brackets, the Father-SON relationship is one Christ emphasises over and over again. Secondly id like to emphasise the typical and obvious Straw mans fallacy of this argument, which is made in ignorance of the Fact that Incarnation theology as taken from the Bible shows the voluntary descent of Christ (who is eternally existent) when he assumed the form of a man, laying aside his glory and divine rule and authority in order to fulfill the functional roles of Prophet, Messiah, and High Priest as the Old Testemant prophets prophesied. For further proof of this notion, we continue reading chapter 17 until we reach verse 5. “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Two things to note – 1) Before the creation, Christ possessed glory that he shared with the Father. This in itself is a strong proof of Christs deity, for two reasons, the first being the fact Christ is again acknowledging his pre-existence to creation - as the eternal word of God (which is in fact eternal as other passages of the Bible show), and secondly God in Isaiah says explicitly that he does not share His glory with another. The fact Christ and the Father shared their glory does not contradict Isaiah, for Christ and the Father are indeed hypostasis of the One true God. 2) The verse implies that this glory Christ had is not with him at present, since he is asking the Father to restore this glory he once had and shared with the Father – why is that? Because Christ voluntarily laid aside this glory due to Him in his own voluntary act of submission and humility – when he was made in the likeness of men. Furthermore, to emphasise the fact that the Fathers glory is indeed the Sons glory, Consider the following verses in parallel: Matthew 16:27: ”For the Son of Man is going to come IN HIS FATHERS GLORY with his angels…” Matthew 25:31: "When the Son of Man comes IN HIS GLORY, and all the angels with him” Both verses talk of Christ’s second coming, Matthew 16:27 says that the son of man is coming in His own glory. 25:31 says that the son of man is coming in his Fathers glory. Is this a contradiction? Surely not, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The explanation is simple, since the Fathers glory is the Sons glory, the terms can be used interchangeably. Actually as we have said over and over again, Christ voluntarily laid aside this authority, and actually such submissive language that Christ uses in relation to the Father is only used after the incarnation when Christ voluntarily chose to act in submission and humility (let us also consder that among the verses that imply a submission motif, their are many that show strong parity). The difference between the issue of Christ playing a submissive role in relation to the Father, and the issue of Christ being equal in deity as the Father, lies in the fact that the former issue concerns personal orientation, choice, and representation; whilst the latter more concerns aspects such as nature, characteristics, and being. Therefore the co-existence of both issues does not present a dilemma. As for the miracles Christ performed, yes Christ attributed these works to His Father, because if He Himself were to boast of Himself, this would contradict this humble nature he took upon himself – the humble nature which allowed Him to wash his disciples feet - the humble nature shown when he declared that he came to serve rather than be served and the humble nature that was shown when he voluntarily laid aside his divine rule on earth. HOWEVER, the fact Christ had the power to do miracles of Himself is something he makes very clear, the first example that springs to mind is when Christ said that HE had the power to lay down his life and HE had the power to raise it up again. His omnipotence is explicitly implied in other statements – I can show them to you if you’re not willing to take my word for it at this stage. There is 2 issues you have brought up here, one is based on the fact that Christ was sent by the Father, and the second issue is based on the fact that Christ says that the Father Is the Only True God. Dealing with the “sent” issue first: The fact that Christ was sent by the Father, is again irrelevant to the issue of the status of his nature which is equal to that of the Father. The 'sent' nature of Jesus is mirrored by the 'sent' nature of the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is unquestionably 'part of the divine essence' and it is said to be 'sent' by the Father, and Christ The Son states that he sends forth the Spirit of God also. Does this in any way make inferiority-assertions about the Spirit of God? Of course not. And if such is the case, and the Holy Spirit is sent by Christ, are we to assume as the premise dictates that the Spirit of God is then inferior to Jesus Christ? Ofcourse Not, this is the language of operations, of actions, of historical tasks and roles. One simply cannot move from 'sending' to 'inferiority of nature' in biblical texts. Regarding the second issue you raise: Lets point out some other observations we can make from the verse (which you conveniently left out) before we answer the actual objection. First of all, in this verse, Christ equates knowing Him with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation. This implies that Christ was essentially equal with the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him. Theres plenty of of other verses where Christ directly points to faith in Himself as the source for eternal life: "The Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life" (John 3:15-16). See also John 5:21, 26; 6:33, 54; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6. Now, regarding your objection, IF Jesus said, "Only You, Father, are the true God," He would, indeed, be proclaiming what you are trying to argue – that the Father alone is God. However, that's NOT precisely what Jesus said. He said to the Father, "You, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." There is subtle presupposition in your line of reasoning, that since Christ refers to the Father saying “You, the only true God,” that He thus emphasizes that only – and only in an absolute sense is the Father God. The presupposition is that the person in question is a uni-personal being. For example, human nature is such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Person and Being; therefore, any example of a human person saying that another human person is the "only" something, indeed does not mean to include themselves in the description. HOWEVER, what if there is Biblical evidence of a Being that subsists in more that one person - a multi-personal being? If such a Being exists (and the Bible teaches that God is such a Being), it must be admitted that each Person of a multi-personal Being can be described as the "only" something, without necessarily excluding other Persons of that Being from that description. Put another way, Jesus includes the Father in the identity of the True God. However, if Jesus is the same Being as the Father, He does not logically exclude Himself from that category. Indeed, it is logically fallacious to claim that He does. Only if one assumes before hand that God is uni-personal can one conclude that John 17:3 proves that only the Father is true God. Therefore, the whole argument itself is begging the question. If God is uni-personal, this verse does not teach it. Jesus says that eternal life is an intimate personal knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, whom the Father has sent. Our hope for eternal life, then, resides in knowing both the Father and the Son in a personal way, and knowing them as they truly are: One God, One Lord, One Savior. Well first of all, the crucifixion was an event Christ prophesied Himself and proclaimed on numerous occasions, secondly the Curicfixion was an event prophesied by the Old Testemant prophest not only directly but symbolically as well. Therefore your “a priori theologically motivated” interpretation for what Christ meant by “completing” the work given, cannot logically stand amidst all this. His work is not complete before his death (10:18; 19:28, 30), but he says, "I glorified [edoxasa, aorist] you on earth, having completed [teleiosas, aorist] the work. . . ." Although The NIV translation is grammatically possible, it misses the eternal, confident perspective evident in Jesus' statement that his work is already over. I have already properly explained this verse above. So let me just clarify a few further things, the Bible makes it Clear that Christ is the Logos of God – the eternal Word/Will of God. So it is in this sense that Christ existed with the Father (eternally) before the creation. Wherever God is, there His will/word is also since its an essential part of His being i.e. Its a "hypostasis" of God. Also as I stated above not only is Christ asking to be glorified, but to be glorified with the glory HE HAD WITH the Father as I emphasized in my above explanation. First of all the word “one” especially the greek form of the word, has various connotations/meanings to it. Although I could study verse 11 in its wider context and still come up with the conclusion that Christ is divine, I will spare myself the unecessary trouble and assume for arguments sake that John 17:11 has nothing to do with Christs divinity. Let me take the position that the “oneness” Christ refers to is referring "purely" to a oneness of purpose, will, and community rather than a oneness of essence or nature. My main point is, the word “one” and its implications must be studied in its immediate context, so therefore even IF (as I have agreed to for arguments sake) the “oneness” Christ speaks about in this passage is not referring to nature/essence at all, you cannot logically try and draw a correlation between this “oneness” and the “oneness” Jesus speaks of 7 chapters prior to this one. If you want to investigate the true meaning Christ was trying to convey in John chapoter 10 when he states “I and the Father are one”, you must study the relevant preceding and proceeding verses. So lets see shall we. The preceding verses to Christ’s proclamation of “oneness” with the Father (verses 24-30), reveal that Christ grants eternal life and has the power to preserve his believers from perishing. Jesus equates His power to keep His sheep firmly in hand with His Father's power to do the same thing, yet for Christ to be able to both preserve life and grant eternal life he must be one with God since only God can do these things: "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I PUT TO DEATH AND I BRING TO LIFE, I HAVE WOUNDED AND I WILL HEAL, AND NO ONE CAN DELIVER OUT OF MY HAND." Deuteronomy 32:39 The statement in verse 30 is a direct statement confirming this oneness, which logically speaking directly implies a oneness of nature and power, and not just purpose or will – as the verses leading up to it allow us to conclude. The Jewish crowd that heard these words knew exactly what Jesus was saying and many believed that Jesus had committed blasphemy by claiming to do what only God can do. And in verse 30, when Jesus claimed to be One with God. The Jews picked up stones to stone him, understanding exactly what He meant by that statement. In verse 33, the crowd clearly said why they wanted to stone Jesus: "because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Furthermore, it is important to note that whenever Jesus was accused of something that was untrue, he always directly defended himself. e.g. Matthew 11:16-19, In Mark 3:21-3:24, John 8:47-48, on all such occasions when Jesus was accused of being many things, he rebuked those who titled him such things that he was not, and defended himself. Jesus’ answer is that it is not blasphemy based on the Law (Psalm 82) to call certain people 'gods' (which is spoken to civil magistrates – so called, because of their authority and power; and because they do, in some sort, represent the divine majesty, in the government of nations and kingdoms), thus it is definitely not blasphemy if applied to Jesus since Jesus was more worthy to be called 'god' than any of the others in Psalm 82. In other words, it was not blasphemous for Jesus to claim divinity because he was, in fact, divine. Jesus' use of Psalm 82 refutes the foundation of the Jews' accusation. “then what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?” (John 10:36) Jesus clearly acknowledged that he did say that he was God's Son. This was not a statement fabricated by his enemies, Jesus clearly said it and asked why it was blasphemous for him to claim this title. The judges in Psalm 82 do not "make themselves" gods, but rather the divine title is given to them by God, on the basis of their commission ("to whom the Word of God came."). In affirming that He is the Messiah, Jesus uses this general principle to declare that His divine title ("the Son of God") was not of His own proclamation, but comes as the result of the Father's commission ("sanctified and sent into the World") "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 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." Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.” Immediately after quoting Psalm 82 in His defense, Jesus again returns to the testimony of His works. Jesus then repeats what He has previously asserted in slightly different words: "The Father is in Me and I in the Father." This further appeal to an intimate relationship, in which the Father's intimacy with the Son is no less than the Son's intimacy with the Father, incites the Jews beyond talking and Jesus must elude them and flee. The statement about seeing God face-to-face has to do with God as He really is in the fullness of His glory. It does not rule out seeing God in one of His visible manifestations. In fact, people in the Bible did see God in His visible manifestations and survived. This was true with Hagar, for example, in Genesis 13:13. If you look at Genesis 32:30, you will notice what Jacob says: For I have seen God, face to face, and my life is preserved. Indeed, Jacob saw God face-to-face, but only in a visible manifestation of an angel and not God as he really is; otherwise, Jacob would be dead. In Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah claims to have seen God on His throne, as does Ezekiel in his vision. In the case of Jesus the Messiah, this is when God became Man, so in the form of man, one could look upon Him and not die as Jacob could look upon God in the form of an angel and not die. John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Sonwho is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3), “God ... manifested in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). He therefore declares “I and My Father are one” – two separate persons of one indivisible substance (John 10:30). Christ consequently declares, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame