darinhouston wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:34 pm
]Whether it's true or not, that's some pretty bad logic. To suggest that calling God his father would have immediately made them think he was claiming to be God Himself is utter insanity unless you have context or other passages
Dwight - As a matter of fact, I do John 19:7 I guess it's not utterly insane after all. You often use hyperbole, as if that gives your argument validity. It was just as blasphemous for Him to claim He was God's Son as it was to claim He was God.
Well, that’s quite a logical leap. I concede they stoned him for claiming to be Son of God. That’s exactly what John 19:7 says. I also agree that it is just as blasphemous to claim to be God’s Son as it is to claim he was God, himself. But, this does nothing but support my own position - your position is not only that he claimed to be God’s son and having authority or equality with God as such, but that they stoned him for claiming to be God. This does not help your argument.
Dwight wrote:First, he states that the Jews thought Jesus was "breaking the Sabbath." Incidentally, this is something Jesus himself then denies - is John then in conflict with Jesus? Of course not. John was merely stating the Jews' position, not his own. That one is easy, but the next is really no different.
Dwight - You are mistaken on both counts. Not only did John admit, as Jesus Himself did, that He was breaking the Sabbath, but also that Jesus was making Himself equal with God. In response to their accusation that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath (verse 16), Jesus says (verse 17), "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." So Jesus is saying "Yes", that He works every day, including the Sabbath, just like His Father does. In Genesis, God rested from His creation work, but it doesn't say that He rested totally from anything else, nor does it say that He rests every Sabbath Day. In fact, Jesus did many miracles on the Sabbath, showing us plainly that the Father Himself DOES work on the Sabbath.
This is perfectly illustrated in my earlier suggestion that Joseph (yes, a type of Christ) was considered "equal" with Pharaoh. It is in this sense that I believe they meant to stone him
Jesus never admitted and John never stated that Jesus “broke” the Sabbath - yes, all agreed that he worked on the Sabbath, but — but again — it was the error of the jews to think he “broke” it - Jesus corrected them by telling them the Sabbath was a servant, not a rule (nothing was broken). Jesus never broke any rule - in fact, in this case, he upheld it when it is properly understood. Again, you are siding with the jews against Jesus and John. This does not help your position.
Dwight wrote:
Dwight - On the contrary, we can see clearly their thinking in other verses: John 10:33 " ... For a good work, we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." It's a ridiculous to conclude that they had any "Joseph/Pharoah" principle in mind. We see their thinking again in John 19:7: "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God." This shows us clearly, in their thinking, that it was blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God, just like it was blasphemy to claim to be God. By the way, the apostle John agreed, because that WAS his commentary, not just what they were thinking.
I believe we’ve discussed John 10:33 before - first, there is no article - I don’t think this reference is specifically thinking of Yahweh - theos without the article, etc. But, also, — again — what THEY thought isn’t the point. You claimed I sinned by disagreeing with John and that he believes Jesus was claiming to be God - this verse isn’t anymore helpful than John 19:7. You say that this isn’t just what they were thinking but was John’s commentary - what makes you think so? At least in this passage, it’s a direct quote of the jews. “The Jews answered him, saying ‘xxxx’”
As to Joseph, I never suggested they had Joseph in mind, but it's an example where this form of "equality" without "identity" is considered in the Bible and is a pretty good parallel, seeing as Joseph is meant to be a type of the Christ.
Dwight wrote:
Dwight - Equating Himself or making Himself equal are NOT two different concepts. They are the same thing.
Not always. The term, even in English, has a bit of a semantic range - but the important thing in this discussion is that you ascribe it the most elevated and dogmatic position with very little merit other than it is consistent with your interpretation of other passages. What you fail to appreciate is that it is also consistent with mine.
Dwight wrote:
in whatever sense they meant "equal," why would you take your theology from the group of Jews who were consistently used by John as examples of error?
Dwight - I don't, I take my theology from what the apostle John himself said.
[see above]
Dwight wrote:
Notably, right after this in John 5, Jesus makes it clear that the Father was greater than he was and that he obeyed his Father. This would be an odd thing for John to reinforce if he had just immediately previous to that been trying to make the point that Jesus was fully and unequivocally equal with the Father. (or for Jesus to make after claiming to be fully equal in every way with the Father).
Dwight - Not at all, we see throughout the book of John that Jesus and the Father are separate and yet One. John is foundational in the Trinity doctrine.
We simply disagree here. Once you get past a couple of basic concepts and preconceptions, I find the focus of John to be very supportive of the human messiah aspect of Jesus (even if the Trinity is true, I don't believe that is the focus of GJohn). Notably, John tells us his thesis....
John 20:31... "but these are written so that you believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that by believing you will have life in his name)."
As such, everything should (to the extent it can be) interpreted in light of his stated objective.