For those who think Christ is not God.

[Johann]

No one really likes to read the scriptures, especially if they are shared in such a way here it has to be studied, just knowing and quoting doesn’t have any effect. On the contrary Bible studies are a different story going verse by verse and actually taking in the milk, and eating the steak.

Most just like milk, I’m saved and that is it,

I don’t have to do anything else, I’m saved and that is it.

One needs to grow and study and digest the word.

Love you.

You said it well Matthew, to me it is unthinkable to NOT study the Scriptures for...


Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luk_4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

...and now the infallible word of the Lord is under question..

Act 17:11 But these Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians. The Berean Yehudim received the dvar Hashem with all readiness, yom yom (daily) making a chazora (review) and examining and horiva over (analyzing) the Kitvei HaKodesh, to see if these things might be so. [Dt 29:29]

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I love this...

More noble than those (eugenesteroi tōn). Comparative form of eugenēs, old and common adjective, but in N.T. only here and Luk_19:12; 1Co_1:26. Followed by ablative case tōn as often after the comparative.
With all readiness of mind (meta pāsēs prothumias). Old word from prothumos (pro, thumos) and means eagerness, rushing forward. In the N.T. only here and 2Co_8:11-19; 2Co_9:2. In Thessalonica many of the Jews out of pride and prejudice refused to listen. Here the Jews joyfully welcomed the two Jewish visitors.


Examining the Scriptures daily (kath' hēmeran anakrinontes tas graphas). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined (anakrinō means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in Act_4:9; Act_12:19, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating.
Whether these things were so (ei echoi tauta houtōs). Literally, “if these things had it thus.” The present optative in the indirect question represents an original present indicative as in Luk_1:29 (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1043f.). This use of ei with the optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination) as in Act_17:27; Act_20:16; Act_24:19; Act_27:12 (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul’s preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).
Robertson's word pictures.
J.

 

[Brakelite]

Scripture can’t change a person, only an individual who seeks truth in faith in God; only God can change the person, J.

God has chosen to use His word to recreate man in His image... To sanctify. It is the only means by which man can be changed.

 

[MatthewG]

God has chosen to use His word to recreate man in His image... To sanctify. It is the only means by which man can be changed.

I don’t disagree but when it comes to individuals as a whole they are responsible for themselves completely alone to God.

Some just believe what the preacher says and goes home and doesn’t mind the Bible. Do you understand how and where I am coming from?

The scriptures do help edify faith, and the person who lets the word sink in God works on them by the spirit like you said brother.

 

[Johann]

I gathered as much from our interactions and consistent with most in this forum. I liken it to Jesus engaging with Nicodemus who thought being born again was to reenter his mother womb. Some passages are easily interpreted as literal, while others are more difficult and require certain keys to unlock their meaning.



Fundamentalists are all guilty of interpreting Scripture through a hyper literal reading of the text. Your Peshat was created by the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi who came under a lot of criticism because of his failure to be able to interpret more difficult text. Judaism & Roman Catholicism are good examples of this.

Having said that, your example of Gen 1:7 was a good one...its just a shame you are not able to practice this methodology within our discussions.

The Pharisee's suffered terribly from what you know as Peshat - consistently they approached the Lord's teaching literally and never came to an understanding of his message. It was a flawed approach! The natural mind cannot discern spiritual things and its of interest that the natural mind always tries comprehend spiritual things in a literal way...always ends badly (John 8 is a good example).

So lets do a test shall we?

Keeping in line with the OP, as to not go off topic lets consider the words of Jesus. I am interested in how you apply a literal interpretation; can you provide an alternative reading of the text? Are you open minded enough to question the notions you attach to the text and what supporting verses do you think help those notions? Please don't screen dump other works...just plainly speak to the text and see where it leads.

John 10:30

No need to peiradzo me F2F the very verse you show me ...

I and HaAv are echad. [DEVARIM 6:4; TEHILLIM 33:6; BERESHIS 2:24]
OJB
..Clearly shows the plurality in the echad whereas yachid is absolute singularity.
I would suggest you listen to Michael Brown's exposition on these very words.


"I and the Father are one. . .the Jews picked up stones again to stone Him" This is just one of the strong statements of Jesus' Messiahship and Deity (cf. John 1:1-14; 8:58; 14:8-10, esp. 17:21-26, which also uses the word "one"). The Jews understood completely what He was saying and counted it as blasphemy (cf. John 10:33; 8:59). They were going to stone Him based on Lev. 24:16.
In the early controversy over the person of Christ (i.e., Arius - the first born; Athanasius - fully God) John 10:30 and 14:9 were used often by Athanasius (see The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 444). For "Arianism" see the Glossary.

I take the words of Christ Jesus as literal, echad, yet distinct...


Unite co: Unit ab: Unity: The pictograph h is a picture of a wall. The d is a picture of a door. Combined these mean "wall door". A wall separates the inside from the outside. Only through the door can one enter or exit uniting the inside with the outside.
AHLB
Shalom
J.

 

[Johann]

God has chosen to use His word to recreate man in His image... To sanctify. It is the only means by which man can be changed.

Isa 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!


Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
J.

 

[Johann]

Basically you said it yourself in your other post when you posted the scriptures identifying the Christ himself. Fact is Joe God does not have a God nor was He anointed, He does the anointing.

Thomas knew who God was, he was an apostle of Jesus and followed the same God as Jesus. The Bible does not contradict itself, Thomas was so excited to realize the individual standing before him was actually the resurrected Jesus, in fact the Jesus that was resurrected by God Himself. Acts 2:32
Your Hebrew version even chose to include the exclamation point at the end. How many times have you personally said my God when excited sir? More that we can count for sure. I recon I would have been excited as well. We get excited when it happens today, and it is a fairly common occurrence, but in those days it was unheard of.

Robert, too many scriptures that clearly shows that Jesus Christ is God and not a "created" being but the living Creator..who is God since only Elohim can create.
J.

 

[Johann]

None of us do Joe, heck, I wish I could remember a quarter of the knowledge I take in, sadly we all are far from perfect. You know the Bible points out that we may live an eternity, but will never know what God knows Ecc 3:11. But although scientists may b correct that we use just a minuscule portion of our brain capability, no doubt by the end of the millennial reign of Christ when all has been brought back to perfection, we will be quite capable.

Shalom to you
J.

 

[Johann]

And I don't even touch on the fact that the trinity never gets mentioned in the bible, that it's all a creation of the RCC and has pagan roots cos i know someone will just blow up and have a hissy fit.

Definitely implied, no question about it.
J.

 

[APAK]

And reducing the divinity of Jesus to mere human, or an angel, destroys that whole paradigm that truly encapsulated the true character of God Himself... Self sacrificing love.

Loud words without real basis Bro. Scripture has to dictate your doctrine not the other way around, and then if applied, not by deliberately misusing or pleading ignorance with scripture as you basis of coverup.

Again there is no scripture that says the chosen human image of God, his Son, according to the plan of God, that was conceived before the 1st Adam, was divine. He shared in the Father's divinity and spirit not of his own. Sharing divinity and his HS does not make both divine and of the Same spirit B. As those in Christ are not divine and are not God, or the Father either. This is all a vain attempt and leap of faith, a human self-borne faith that you and others are making because they cannot bring themselves to believe that the true Son God who was born/created/begotten by his Father, of his own Holy and Divine Spirit was a human being with only one human nature - as if a dual nature would be so bizarre. They believe in a make-believe Son as the same god as the Father, who is the only real God that I worship. This is the real scriptural -borne paradigm and captures the true character of God, the one and only Father God.

And why as many do, as you are doing here, in ignorance, keep saying that the Son of God is now a mere man if you one does not believe he is also the God of all? Why succumb to this type of loose and fancy free and careless talk? So if the Messiah, the human image of God is not divine or even God himself they he is must a MERE man?. This is obviously an ignorant and desperate attempt to plead to others of the same thought as a type of mass virtue signaling to then jeer and scoff at others who are not wearing the same ridiculous and ineffective mouth piece. How is the Son just a mere human being, when he was the only one created by the HS with another human mother? He was the only one that shared in the divinity of his Father from his birth and was 'possessed' by the HS after his baptism. He was the only only chosen of God to be the answer to the 1st Adam of death. Just a mere man then, how degrading and disgusting!

 

[Johann]

I would like to suggest that what Jesus feared was the result of the world's sin being placed upon Him, and His Father finding it so repulsive Jesus would never see Him again.

No fear on Christ Jesus part,

Joh_10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Joh_10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.


G74
- Original: ἀγωνία
- Transliteration: Agonia
- Phonetic: ag-o-nee’-ah
- Definition:
1. a struggle for victory
a. gymnastic exercise, wrestling
2. of severe mental struggles and emotions, agony, anguish
- Origin: from G73
- TDNT entry: 03:20,2
- Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine
- Strong’s: From G73; a struggle (properly the state) that is (figuratively) anguish: - agony.
Total KJV Occurrences: 1
• agony, 1
Luk_22:44

No "fear" on the part of Jesus, that is reading into the text.


Agony
AG'ONY, n. [Gr. a contest with bodily exertion; a word used to denote the athletic games, in Greece; whence anguish, solicitude; from L. ago. Gr. to strive. See Act.]
1. In strictness, pain so extreme as to cause writhing or contortions of the body, similar to those made in the athletic contests in Greece. Hence,
2. Extreme pain of body or mind; anguish; appropriately, the pangs of death, and the sufferings of our Savior in the garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22.
3. Violent contest or striving.
Webster
J.

 

[APAK]

Well, You did not offer a detailed critique yourself, you just claimed it was rubbish because you did not agree with the bold statements that he clearly backed up. The 2.65 billion have faith in God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they don't have to prove it to you. Your remark was sly and a dig and not constructive either, so I gave it back to you the same way you dished it out.
You want to be entertained?

The "Deity of Christ, Part 1" by Phil Fernandez summarized by me:

“ looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” Titus 2:13
>>>Do you see something there equating God and the Savior? Maybe you can, maybe not?

“Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1
>>OH my, another referrence as God. Shall you search all the various translations to find something contrary?

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28
>> The Father did not purchase with His blood, The Holy Spirit didn't either. Let's see, who's left???

“Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” John 20:28

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” Matthew 1:23
>>> Jesus had many titles: The WORD, the Bread of Life, The Way, The Truth and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the Doorway, the Resurrection and the Life, the Alpha and the Omega, the Vine, the Light of the World, the I AM (an introduction He gave to Moses of all the I am's in the Book of John).

“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Colossians” 1:16-17
>>>Jesus is the Creator!

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1
>>> This plainly states, Jesus was in the Beginning, Jesus was with God and Jesus is God.

“And the Word became flesh, and a]"> dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of b]">[b]the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14
>>>God became flesh, pretty straight forward, if you didn't quite catch on to the first verse!

But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. Hebrews 1:8
>>> Did you get that? The Father addresses the Son as GOD! H E L L O!

Jesus accepted worship on varous occasions. Angels are forbidden to receive worship, only God is worshipped. God will not have any gods before Him. Therefore, Jesus is God.

He forgave sins – only god can forgive sins.

He called Himself the I AM, (Yahweh). Implying He was the one who spoke to Moses.

He called Himself SAVIOR, when it clearly says in the OT that God alone is Savior and there is no other.

He is the Bridegroom of Israel. The OT says God is the Bridegroom.

He claimed to be LORD of the Sabbath, when God alone created and set apart the Sabbath.

Are you entertained?

It's sad that you do not understand scripture by your own research Ron. There is not one scripture in this typical Trinitarian outburst or shotgun blast of scripture you have sprayed over the page that says the Son of God is truly God let alone a deity of any kind, unless you want to make him a mythological pagan deity. Truly.

Your turn...I really think we've done this a few times already where you eventually take your toys away and go home. The thing is you are not a serious believer, at least in scripture, the word of God, Ron.

Just take the copied first verse you downloaded from some place, Titus 2:13. Is this saying really that Christ is divine or God, seriously? You are fooling yourself if you think it does mean this. This verse is a significant one and there are two other verses that I'm familiar with that reinforced what it actually means.

Matt 16:27 - For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each
person according to what they have done.

Luke 9:26 - Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

Now remember, these are Christ's words that may carry more weight don't you think?

Bible Study 101: what is common in the two verses I just quoted Ron? Hint: the words are bolded.

Then you have your answer and it isn't that the Son is divine or God either!!

Yes, you do continue to entertain me with your foolish attempt to show a face that you genuinely are attempting to know and mature in the word of God, and you are not alone, as you said; you have over 2 billion like you, you said, so they cannot all be wrong and therefore must be right aye?...the path to destruction is very wide and the popular route Ron, remember that one..

 

[face2face]

No need to peiradzo me F2F the very verse you show me ...

I and HaAv are echad. [DEVARIM 6:4; TEHILLIM 33:6; BERESHIS 2:24]
OJB
..Clearly shows the plurality in the echad whereas yachid is absolute singularity.
I would suggest you listen to Michael Brown's exposition on these very words.


"I and the Father are one. . .the Jews picked up stones again to stone Him" This is just one of the strong statements of Jesus' Messiahship and Deity (cf. John 1:1-14; 8:58; 14:8-10, esp. 17:21-26, which also uses the word "one").

The Jews understood completely what He was saying and counted it as blasphemy (cf. John 10:33; 8:59). They were going to stone Him based on Lev. 24:16.

I take the words of Christ Jesus as literal, echad, yet distinct...

Unite co: Unit ab: Unity: The pictograph h is a picture of a wall. The d is a picture of a door. Combined these mean "wall door". A wall separates the inside from the outside. Only through the door can one enter or exit uniting the inside with the outside.
AHLB
Shalom
J.

It’s of no surprise you would do as the Jews of his day did and make certain assumptions about the import of his words. For now, I am not wanting to expound the verse.

You believe Jesus’ words reference his messiahship and deity…one of which is not in view.

In what way is Jesus said to be one with his Father?

Fact, it is evident that Christ was speaking to the Jews as the Son of God as per John 10:36 – context is king, its also clear the Oneness being referred to is in view of John 10:37.

The last words of this verse that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father refers back to the words of Jesus in John 10:30 that initiated this controversy between him and the Jews.

It is the essential theme of the Gospel of John that Jesus and the Father are one. “that the Father lives in me, and I live in the Father.”

So once again you haven't adequately explained in what way is Jesus one with his Father.

Given the Lord's words about deeds (works) and that he is a Son doing his Father's pleasure in preaching and teaching in what way can it be said they are one?

I'll leave that for you to digest.

Lets try John 6:54

Do you do as the listeners did here and interpret this as literal?

 

[Johann]

Lets try John 6:54

Of course this is not literal F2F, I might live in the jungle but I am not a cannibal friend.
Let's try hermeneutics shall we
Anagogical
Moral
Allegorical
Literal
Pardes
Remez
Drash
Peshat
I'm no fool and if I am a fool it is for the cause of Christ in rightly cutting straight the D'var of YHVH friend.
Don't peiradzo me, suggest you do look up the word.
J.

 

[Johann]

Given the Lord's words about deeds (works) and that he is a Son doing his Father's pleasure in preaching and teaching in what way can it be said they are one?

Very simple. Three in Person yet echad, not yachid.
J.

 

[Brakelite]

Loud words without real basis Bro. Scripture has to dictate your doctrine not the other way around, and then if applied, not by deliberately misusing or pleading ignorance with scripture as you basis of coverup.

Again there is no scripture that says the chosen human image of God, his Son, according to the plan of God, that was conceived before the 1st Adam, was divine. He shared in the Father's divinity and spirit not of his own. Sharing divinity and his HS does not make both divine and of the Same spirit B. As those in Christ are not divine and are not God, or the Father either. This is all a vain attempt and leap of faith, a human self-borne faith that you and others are making because they cannot bring themselves to believe that the true Son God who was born/created/begotten by his Father, of his own Holy and Divine Spirit was a human being with only one human nature - as if a dual nature would be so bizarre. They believe in a make-believe Son as the same god as the Father, who is the only real God that I worship. This is the real scriptural -borne paradigm and captures the true character of God, the one and only Father God.

And why as many do, as you are doing here, in ignorance, keep saying that the Son of God is now a mere man if you one does not believe he is also the God of all? Why succumb to this type of loose and fancy free and careless talk? So if the Messiah, the human image of God is not divine or even God himself they he is must a MERE man?. This is obviously an ignorant and desperate attempt to plead to others of the same thought as a type of mass virtue signaling to then jeer and scoff at others who are not wearing the same ridiculous and ineffective mouth piece. How is the Son just a mere human being, when he was the only one created by the HS with another human mother? He was the only one that shared in the divinity of his Father from his birth and was 'possessed' by the HS after his baptism. He was the only only chosen of God to be the answer to the 1st Adam of death. Just a mere man then, how degrading and disgusting!

Loud words also my friend without scripture. I know you have posted scripture before, and there is much in what you sayi agree with. For example the following...

He shared in the Father's divinity and spirit not of his own. Sharing divinity and his HS does not make both divine and of the Same spirit B. As those in Christ are not divine and are not God, or the Father either.

I agree that the Son, while on earth, had no divine attributes of His own to depend on. He lived by faith, everything He knew, everything He did, was revealed to Him in the exact same way the truth is revealed to all of us. His advantage is that He had no sin that separated Him spiritually from God. But there is sufficient evidence and sound biblical exegesis that reveals Christ's existence before the incarnation. Not as just an idea, but as the acting vessel for His Father throughout biblical history. But we've gone through all of those things before. You know them, but deny their relevance. Thus there is really little more we can do except pray. God bless bro, love you.

 

[Brakelite]

No fear on Christ Jesus part,

Joh_10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Joh_10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.


G74
- Original: ἀγωνία
- Transliteration: Agonia
- Phonetic: ag-o-nee’-ah
- Definition:
1. a struggle for victory
a. gymnastic exercise, wrestling
2. of severe mental struggles and emotions, agony, anguish
- Origin: from G73
- TDNT entry: 03:20,2
- Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine
- Strong’s: From G73; a struggle (properly the state) that is (figuratively) anguish: - agony.
Total KJV Occurrences: 1
• agony, 1
Luk_22:44

No "fear" on the part of Jesus, that is reading into the text.


Agony
AG'ONY, n. [Gr. a contest with bodily exertion; a word used to denote the athletic games, in Greece; whence anguish, solicitude; from L. ago. Gr. to strive. See Act.]
1. In strictness, pain so extreme as to cause writhing or contortions of the body, similar to those made in the athletic contests in Greece. Hence,
2. Extreme pain of body or mind; anguish; appropriately, the pangs of death, and the sufferings of our Savior in the garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22.
3. Violent contest or striving.
Webster
J.

And what was that cup that Christ drank on behalf of mankind?
KJV Revelation 14:10
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Christ, because of righteousness, was resurrected. But He did truly literally die the death sure mankind because of sin. Sin, which is so offensive to God and which causes separation between God and man, the sin of all mankind was laid upon the Lamb who now the full burden of guilt and condemnation to the cross. "Why has thou forsaken Me?". The Father could no longer press close to His Son, the full weight of sin and it's consequences must be felt in order to be a full propitiation. Jesus, for a time, could not see any hope, just as the unrepentant sinner must feel.

 

[APAK]

Loud words also my friend without scripture. I know you have posted scripture before, and there is much in what you sayi agree with. For example the following...

I agree that the Son, while on earth, had no divine attributes of His own to depend on. He lived by faith, everything He knew, everything He did, was revealed to Him in the exact same way the truth is revealed to all of us. His advantage is that He had no sin that separated Him spiritually from God. But there is sufficient evidence and sound biblical exegesis that reveals Christ's existence before the incarnation. Not as just an idea, but as the acting vessel for His Father throughout biblical history. But we've gone through all of those things before. You know them, but deny their relevance. Thus there is really little more we can do except pray. God bless bro, love you.

I just don't dig incarnation at all bro. it is all made up as a kluge job to make it all fit the narrative of Jesus = God and that he was divine. And because of this 3rd - 4th century ignorant bridge job, a new term needed to be invented, the infamous hypostatic union idea to now fix the incarnation error, to now make Christ BOTH human and God. A lot of horse manure in my book.

Yep we have been through all this before...I agree...
You know though you might be diminishing the character of God with your thoughts here, by lowering him as actually being the image he created for us? I would think he is not one of his creatures he made and he did beget him...Something you might want to take a few seconds at least to ponder over..

I still strongly believe there is no scripture that says Christ pre-existed before his human birth. And you might know I already have debated all scripture places at my feet by others and I believe I have explained them all away with commentary. Else if not, I would have changed my mind many years ago.

Anyway, all is good as gold here Bro. I hope the same is for you.

 

[marks]

Marks, would you say you tend to apply a literal reading of this text? I've noticed in my time here few believers actually refer to the Bible to support their beliefs and when they do they tend to take the text at face value. Would you say this is your approach?

I believe what it says, if that is what you are asking me.

There is a lot more to interpreting language than saying, "a literal reading", however, having determined the saying of the passage, I accept it as true, yes.

I've seen over and over that as people disagree over the meaning of a passage, it always seems to come to the point where there is a verse that says something, and one person says, It means what it says, and another says, Actually, It means something different.

I'm of the mind that having found that a passage seems correctly translated, I accept it's saying.

It seems many people have a lot of reasons to think that when Jesus says He shared glory with the Father before the world was, that He really didn't mean that, instead meant something else, I just don't see it.

What I do see is that when we let do not hold to the sayings the Bible makes, and find a "spiritual meaning", or call it allegory and "interpret" it, or call it idiomatic and "re-interpret" it, though there be no corresponding idiom in Scripture, everyone who does that comes up with their own ideas. And we end up with a million points of view.

But everyone who says, He said He shared glory with the Father, so, He did, we all understand exactly the same thing.

So when I think about places like,

Ephesians 4:13-14 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

If we are to come to unity in knowledge, how will we do that?

Much love!

 

[Waiting on him]

If we are to come to unity in knowledge, how will we do that?

Only when truth is acknowledged.

 

[face2face]

Of course this is not literal F2F, I might live in the jungle but I am not a cannibal friend.
Let's try hermeneutics shall we
Anagogical
Moral
Allegorical
Literal
Pardes
Remez
Drash
Peshat
I'm no fool and if I am a fool it is for the cause of Christ in rightly cutting straight the D'var of YHVH friend.
Don't peiradzo me, suggest you do look up the word.
J.

So then, am I to presume a text must be obviously figurative before you will look for deeper (alternative) spiritual meaning? The first text you instantly applied trinitarian formula without even considering an alternative interpretation.

My direct approach with you failed, that is clear to all in this thread, however this approach has highlighted that you suffer from confirmation bias which as you know is seeing Scripture through one's existing beliefs or theories.

The Jews in Jesus' day were plague but this approach to God's Word, as I believe Christians are today.

I am confident if I posted any and every verse which speaks to the closeness of Father to Son, and Son to Father, you would instantly assert Trinitarian doctrine, even though the text might hold deeper more profound meaning.

So what is the extreme assertion of false teaching upon John 6:54? Well its the the Roman Catholics belief in the transubstantiation which is consistent with a hyper-literal reading of the Word.

Lets look at another shall we?

John 17:5