The Shema and Jesus' Obedience To It

Ratiocination · Aug 19, 2014

Buki said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Unless you are keeping the feast days we are not in agreement.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Not sure I follow your point...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We were talking about 'Nobody knows the day or the hour!', you postulated that this was a well known idiom and the Jews would know exactly what was meant, I replied that I'd never heard this before. I was kind of expecting you to point me in the right direction here! [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Q. 1) Why would Jesus use a 'Hebrew idiom', which implies lack of knowledge, to describe his own knowledge?[/FONT]

Buki said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The highlighted bold text in John is Yeshua explaining exactly what shema yisrael adonai eloheinu adonai echad.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]No, the text was about 'Jesus being 'in' the Father and vice versa', no explanation was offered as to the meaning here, either by the Bible verse itself, or by you![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Q. 2) What is implied/explained by Jesus being 'in' the Father, and the Father being 'in' the Son? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Buki said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You want to present Yeshua as not being divine when he declares that he is the Alpha and Omega. He received worship while in the flesh here on earth.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Incorrect! JW's proclaim Jesus divinity around the world in every nation (Matt. 24:14).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So where does Jesus declare he is the Alpha and the Omega? Will you also insist here that one of the many speakers in Revelation is 'most definitely' Jesus as opposed to another speaker?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Also I asked another poster on here to define 'worship' but I don;t think they responded, maybe you can help? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Buki said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Any doctrine the tries to reduce Yeshua as anything other than part of the godhead is in error and is a complete misunderstanding of what Echad means. I gave you a clear answer that you apparently ignored.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To be completely fair Brother, any doctrine that says Jesus is this or that but completely fails to prove this scripturally is most likely the one in error. No where in scripture do we have an explanation of Jesus as part of some Godhead! We just have your own presumptions that this is what's meant by Echad! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I asked you to show everyone the range of meanings given for the usage of Echad in the scriptures, you didn't! I thought that surely this would help your argument, but you didn't, why not???[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Strong's Hebrew: 259. ×Ö¶×Ö¸× (echad) -- one [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Echad means 'One', '1', cardinal number!!![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]While I don't disagree that Echad can mean unity, everywhere you find this implied in the scriptures you'd be left with the question 'one' what, and you have to refer to the context for the answer. Well.... we have context in Jesus life course and obedience to the Father, demonstrating who he believed the Shema was referring to, and it was the Father alone![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As I pointed out in the OP, you need to ground your assumptions within the scriptures themselves. Maybe start with Jesus' main drive and focus while on the earth, and that was the making Holy of his Fathers name.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Q. 3) Why limit Echad to mean 'unity', when it's used as a cardinal number also?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

Buki said:
Echad is also used in Genesis 3 when talking about a man leaving his mother and his father to cleave to his wife and they become one (echad) flesh. That is the jewish word used.

Clearly the husband and wife remain 2 individuals yet united in purpose (echad)

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Genesis 1:5 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
.and there was morning, one (Echad) day. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Q. 4) How many days are mentioned in Genesis 1:5?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As I stated over and over, Jesus' coming to earth and demonstrating an obedient and submissive life to the Father IS Unitarianism! You've got a lot of explaining to do if you're to change that basic premise! And to be fair all it's been so far is verses in isolation with your own personnel spin and insistence upon singular meanings.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Q. 5) When did Jesus come to the earth and demonstrate Trinitarianism?

[/FONT]

Ratiocination · Aug 19, 2014

Belcantobaptist said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I'm sorry but you have very little idea of what context means if you think that 27 chapters and the two sentences later you wish to rip out refutes in any way the theophanies of the Old Testament that soundly refute Unitarianism. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Well lets think about this for a minute![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible says all over that 'Jehovah appeared' to certain one's in times past.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible also says that Jehovah's glory if seen by Moses would kill him![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible says that Moses could only see Jehovah's 'goodness'![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible therefore implies that these 'appearances' of Jehovah we not literal, but were in some sense 'good' representations of him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You see Obama appears in my house everyday, but then I change the channel![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I see your need to try and tie in the 'unseen' father in the NT and God in the OT, but it's really just an assertion on your part, and avoids certain logical points along the way...[/FONT]

BelCantoBaptist · Aug 19, 2014

Ratiocination said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Well lets think about this for a minute![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible says all over that 'Jehovah appeared' to certain one's in times past.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible also says that Jehovah's glory if seen by Moses would kill him![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible says that Moses could only see Jehovah's 'goodness'![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Bible therefore implies that these 'appearances' of Jehovah we not literal, but were in some sense 'good' representations of him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You see Obama appears in my house everyday, but then I change the channel![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I see your need to try and tie in the 'unseen' father in the NT and God in the OT, but it's really just an assertion on your part, and avoids certain logical points along the way...[/FONT]

Unfortunately for you the WTBS feeds you this heavily skewed and erroneous way of exegeting the Bible. In fact you can't even exegete it yourself as you need the Governing Body to tell you what it means.

The Bible says that God appeared to people, but John 1:18 contradicts your idea that God the Father appeared to people as does 1 Timothy 6:14-16 and John 6:46. Your exegesis is faulty which leads to your final point which is refuted entirely by Exodus 33:11 and Exodus 24:9-11. Your assumption of Unitarianism still has not been proven and yet you continue to assert it in all your arguments. Here's a nice piece that clearly refutes your assumptions above: Yet another Look at the Trinity | The Trinity and the Plurality Study | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Ratiocination · Aug 19, 2014

Belcantobaptist said:
Unfortunately for you the WTBS feeds you this heavily skewed and erroneous way of exegeting the Bible. In fact you can't even exegete it yourself as you need the Governing Body to tell you what it means.

Poor me huh?

Belcantobaptist said:
The Bible says that God appeared to people, but John 1:18 contradicts your idea that God the Father appeared to people as does 1 Timothy 6:14-16 and John 6:46. Your exegesis is faulty which leads to your final point which is refuted entirely by Exodus 33:11 and Exodus 24:9-11.

Pick and choose! And my final point....
The bible doesn't Just say that 'God' appeared, it clearly says 'Jehovah' or 'YHWH'! (how ever you prefer) appears. Which leads you to the following logical problem.
You need to have a multitude of definitions for the term 'Jehovah' in the scriptures, no such definitions are explained or sniffed at in the scriptures, only by your faulty teachers. (the mist is clearing) Jehovah refers to the Father alone, as stated in the OP.
You see for your argument to work it simply rests on YOUR definition of 'Jehovah' at any one time, that's not just a exegetical nightmare, it's plain lunacy!
Where do you get your exegetical licence to define terms such as 'Jehovah' throughout the bible where you choose? The problem is you've built an argument on YOUR definition of 'Jehovah' in certain texts... Please tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what you've done!
And BTW I never said that the Father had appeared literally to anyone, hence the point of Moses and Obama!

Belcantobaptist said:
Your assumption of Unitarianism still has not been proven and yet you continue to assert it in all your arguments.

Lol, Jesus demonstrates his obedience to the Father throughout the NT, that's the portion from Matthew to Revelation...

Belcantobaptist said:
Here's a nice piece that clearly refutes your assumptions above: Yet another Look at the Trinity | The Trinity and the Plurality Study | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Thanks I’ll take a look... Anything specific you want to discuss from there?

Der Alte · Aug 19, 2014

Ratiocination said:
Der Alter said:

Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Click to expand...

Indeed! So according to Jesus obedience to the Shema as demonstrated by our Lord. We should honour Jesus because we honour 'Jehovah' (The one Jesus identified as the Father in the Shema) if we don't, we cannot truly honour the Father... Simples!

Just the slightest little tweak on what the scripture actually says to make it line up with WTBS doctrine. The scripture I posted, & which you quoted, does not say "We should honour Jesus because we honour 'Jehovah'!" let's read it again "all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." Honor the father exactly the way we honor the Father. If we, for whatever reason, give Jesus any less honor than we give the Father we are not honoring the Father. Does the doctrine of the WTBS fully honor Jesus exactly as the Father is honored or does it eternally relegate Jesus to a lesser, subordinate position?

BelCantoBaptist · Aug 20, 2014

Ratiocination said:
Pick and choose!

No one is picking and choosing, if anyone it's the WTBS who is picking and choosing.

And my final point....
The bible doesn't Just say that 'God' appeared, it clearly says 'Jehovah' or 'YHWH'! (how ever you prefer) appears. Which leads you to the following logical problem.
You need to have a multitude of definitions for the term 'Jehovah' in the scriptures, no such definitions are explained or sniffed at in the scriptures, only by your faulty teachers. (the mist is clearing) Jehovah refers to the Father alone, as stated in the OP.
You see for your argument to work it simply rests on YOUR definition of 'Jehovah' at any one time, that's not just a exegetical nightmare, it's plain lunacy!
Where do you get your exegetical licence to define terms such as 'Jehovah' throughout the bible where you choose? The problem is you've built an argument on YOUR definition of 'Jehovah' in certain texts... Please tell me I'm wrong, but that's exactly what you've done!

Click to expand...

Sorry but no, no one has taken out Jehovah from the Bible or put in any faulty definitions or anything. Your own literature in the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures" says that the Bible is free from error. You can't have it both ways, either people tampered with the Bible or they didn't.

Jehovah is not an accurate name of God either, it's a Latinization of YWH. Superstitious scribes afraid to violate the commandment of not using God's name in vain put the vowel sounds for adonai over YWH thus Jehovah.

And BTW I never said that the Father had appeared literally to anyone, hence the point of Moses and Obama!

Click to expand...

Sorry but Exodus 33:11 refutes you. God Himself says "Face to Face" which obviously means face to face, does it not? You're cleverly attempting to avoid the question by throwing up a host of other issues a standard JW tactic of obfuscation.

Lol, Jesus demonstrates his obedience to the Father throughout the NT,

Click to expand...

Sorry Jesus actually demonstrates His deity throughout the NT, the WTBS can edit text and hid things or obfuscate as much as it wishes but the fact is the same Jesus is God.

that's the portion from Matthew to Revelation...

Click to expand...

Yeah condescension will not win you any debates here. I know you as a JW think you have "The Truth" but in reality you do nothing but fulfill Romans 1:18 and onward.

Thanks Ill take a look... Anything specific you want to discuss from there?

Click to expand...

Anything you wish, the WTBS has never given an explanation of the theophanies in the OT.

Click to expand...

Ratiocination · Aug 21, 2014

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This thread is about grounding, so far it seems your grounding is simply rested on certain words in certain texts that require an insistence on a particular meaning, even though those words have multiple meanings in and of themselves, again a Unitarian understanding is take from the larger context of obedience and sin, and Jesus life and service to whom he understood the Shema to be referring to.[/FONT]

Belcantobaptist said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sorry but no, no one has taken out Jehovah from the Bible or put in any faulty definitions or anything. Your own literature in the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures" says that the Bible is free from error. You can't have it both ways, either people tampered with the Bible or they didn't.

Jehovah is not an accurate name of God either, it's a Latinization of YWH. Superstitious scribes afraid to violate the commandment of not using God's name in vain put the vowel sounds for adonai over YWH thus Jehovah.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You currently require 5 definitions for 'God' in scripture...[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]God the Father[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]God the Son[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]God the Holy Spirit[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Triune Being[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Divine Essence[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hopefully I can point out this fallacy as the convo continues...[/FONT]

Bel said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sorry but Exodus 33:11 refutes you. God Himself says "Face to Face" which obviously means face to face, does it not? You're cleverly attempting to avoid the question by throwing up a host of other issues a standard JW tactic of obfuscation. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I've answered all of your objections succinctly! Here's more detail...[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The bible clearly defines the 'Appearances' of God/Jah, as stated in Exodus [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Exodus 33:19, 20) But he said: I myself shall cause all my goodness to pass before your face, and I will declare the name of Jehovah before you; and I will favor the one whom I may favor, and I will show mercy to the one to whom I may show mercy. 20 And he added: You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Exodus 33:11) And Jehovah spoke to Moses face to face, just as a man would speak to his fellow. When he returned to the camp, his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, as attendant, would not withdraw from the midst of the tent.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You never did respond to the verses in Ex. 33:19,20 but insisted that 33:11 'refutes' me! Another logical fallacy perhaps, but ignoring that for the moment, why do we have a contradiction of terms here in Exodus?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The answer is simple, let's think of the logical flow here... [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Genesis 16:7-13) Later Jehovahs angel found her at a fountain of waters in the wilderness......[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Jehovahs angel went on to say to her: ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]10 Then Jehovahs angel said to her: ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]11 Further Jehovahs angel added to her: ...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]13 Then she began to call the name of Jehovah, who was speaking to her: You are a God of sight, for she said: Have I here actually looked upon him who sees me?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Who's actually speaking here???[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Apologies the next portion of text is from Judges and Ive snipped lots out that wasn't completely relevant to the point but please read the entire text...[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Judges 6:11-23) Later Jehovahs angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Oph′rah, ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]12 Then Jehovahs angel appeared to him and said to him: Jehovah is with you, [LITERALLY???] ...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]14 Upon that Jehovah faced him and said: Go in this power of yours, ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]15 In turn he said to him: Excuse me, Jehovah. With what shall I save Israel? ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]16 But Jehovah said to him: Because I shall prove to be with you, and you will certainly strike down Mid′i·an as if one man.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]17 At this he said to him: If, now, I have found favor in your eyes, you must also perform a sign for me that you are the one speaking with me. ... [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Accordingly he said: I, for my part, shall keep sitting here until you return. 19 And Gid′e·on went in and proceeded to make ready a kid ... brought it out to him under the big tree and served it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]20 The angel of the [true] God now said to him: ...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]21 Then Jehovahs angel thrust out the tip of the staff ...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As for Jehovahs angel, he vanished from his sight. 22 Consequently Gid′e·on realized that it was Jehovahs angel.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]At once Gid′e·on said: Alas, Sovereign Lord Jehovah, for the reason that I have seen Jehovahs angel face to face! [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]An interesting dialogue no doubt you'll agree! Notice something interesting here though. An angel is the one doing the talking throughout this entire passage. But notice how the writer doesn't always mention the angel at times and just refers to him as 'Jehovah'? It even refers to Jehovah as sitting under the tree, when that wasn't literally the case, was it?

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The expression 'Face to Face' appears again here aswell, so with all considered from Moses encounter and Gideon's, and with Moses being denied a look at the face of God, it seems quite fair to assert that Moses was also in a 'face to face' meeting with an angel also.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]An accurate exegesis must take into account these subtleties in scripture, without jumping to the gun like you seem to have done. An 'appearance' of Jehovah doesn't have to be literal at all, that's your doctrine first approach to the text!!! [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](Galatians 3:19) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Even the mosaic law given in Exodus, where we find expressions such as Jehovah said to Moses, was infact the literal voice of angels! It seems the WBTS got it spot on here doesn't it?
[/FONT]

Bel said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sorry Jesus actually demonstrates His deity throughout the NT, the WTBS can edit text and hid things or obfuscate as much as it wishes but the fact is the same Jesus is God.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The entire concept of obedience runs parallel with the idea of sin, they are infact opposites unarguably. Jesus dying for our sin therefore requires obedience by him toward another, that other is the father! The entire NT speaks of this obedience and loyalty and fully explains how/why a perfect man was required to finish of the sin that Adam began! So no I contest strongly that the NT 'focuses' on the divinity of Christ, but instead focuses truly on the lamb of God as a perfect sacrifice to finish of sin and reconcile mankind to God. That IS Unitarianism right there... Trinitarianism actually makes a violent stab at the very fabric and understanding of Jesus role as mediator and the perfect sacrifice required to save mankind... We'll get into this a bit more I hope but suffice to say, the NT is ALL about our reconciliation to God through this unblemished, perfect Lamb.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We do not contest the divinity of Christ, it's a scriptural fact! To assert that we do is nothing more than a straw man, and shows just how flimsy your argument has become... But to then glean Triune God from that divinity is also a non sequitur (it does not follow)!
[/FONT]

Bel said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Yeah condescension will not win you any debates here. I know you as a JW think you have "The Truth" but in reality you do nothing but fulfill Romans 1:18 and onward.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We'll see... I look forward to your response[/FONT]

Ratiocination · Aug 21, 2014

Der Alter said:
Just the slightest little tweak on what the scripture actually says to make it line up with WTBS doctrine. The scripture I posted, & which you quoted, does not say "We should honour Jesus because we honour 'Jehovah'!" let's read it again "all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." Honor the father exactly the way we honor the Father. If we, for whatever reason, give Jesus any less honor than we give the Father we are not honoring the Father. Does the doctrine of the WTBS fully honor Jesus exactly as the Father is honored or does it eternally relegate Jesus to a lesser, subordinate position?

Here's the text in a bit more context...

(John 5:19-24) Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that YOU may marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes those alive whom he wants to. 22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Most truly I say to YOU, He that hears my word and believes him that sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.

These verses says that the Son only does the things that the Father would have done, so in that sense they are worthy of the same honour.

A question: Who's the boss in these verses?

Der Alte · Aug 21, 2014

Ratiocination said:
Here's the text in a bit more context...

(John 5:19-24) Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that YOU may marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes those alive whom he wants to. 22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Most truly I say to YOU, He that hears my word and believes him that sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.

These verses says that the Son only does the things that the Father would have done, so in that sense they are worthy of the same honour.

A question: Who's the boss in these verses?

Very good find some way to make what Jesus said so severly limited that it virtually has no meaning. Jesus did not so limit what He said.

Joh 5:23 -
Origen Against Celsus Book VIII
ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

" But if the same question is put to us in regard to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to be honoured was given to Him by God, "that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father."

John Gill Commentary
even as they honour the Father; that the same honour and glory may be given to the one, as to the other, which must never have been done was he not equal with him, since he gives not his glory to another, Isa_42:8. Indeed, all men do not honour the Father as they should; the Gentiles, who had some knowledge of God, glorified him not as God; and the Jews, who had an external revelation of the one, true, and living God, which other nations had not, yet were greatly deficient in honouring him, which made him complaining say, "if then I be a father, where is mine honour?" Mal_1:6.

A.T. Robertson Joh 5:23 -

That all may honour the Son (hina pantes timōsin ton huion). Purpose clause with hina and present active subjunctive of timaō (may keep on honouring the Son).

He that honoureth not the Son (ho mē timōn ton huion). Articular present active participle of timaō with negative mē. Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonouring Jesus is dishonouring the Father who sent him (Joh_8:49; Joh_12:26; Joh_15:23; 1Jo_2:23). See also Luk_10:16. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship. The Gospel of John carries this high place for Christ throughout, but so do the other Gospels (even Q, the Logia of Jesus) and the rest of the New Testament.

Ratiocination · Aug 22, 2014

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Err Houston............![/FONT]

DA said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Very good find some way to make what Jesus said so severly limited that it virtually has no meaning[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The meaning is simple from the verse itself. Just read it without your Trinitarian goggles on! This verse is describing the the relationship between two individuals that is sooooo close that Jesus will act in the same manner as the Father given the same circumstances. Very simply really...[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You have honed in on a snippet of that verse and presented an argument that is flawed because the context is ignored. It doesn't need any Trinitarian tampering...[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This thread is about grounding your belief through the demonstration of Christ in his obedience to the the Shema, thus showing whom he believed the Shema to be referring to, and that was the Father alone. When you lack grounding, you lack any kind of foundation, you'll be left with no option but to read verses, or in this case a single statement, completely isolated from the rest of the verse or surrounding context. This is YOUR problem Der, not mine, as I explained. Please take time to address my points and questions, don't ignore them because that won't make you sound too convincing...[/FONT]

DA said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Jesus did not so limit what he said[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](John 5:19-23) Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that YOU may marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes those alive whom he wants to. 22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]25 “Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Jesus explains his relationship with the Father in the surrounding verses. Look at the whole Der, don’t stop at 'proofing'![/FONT]

Der said:
Joh 5:23 - [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Origen Against Celsus Book VIII [/FONT]
ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

" But if the same question is put to us in regard to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to be honoured was given to Him by God, "that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father."
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Your link just takes me to an extensive list of even more extensive writings, could you please give me the link to the actual page?[/FONT]

Der said:
John Gill Commentary
even as they honour the Father; that the same honour and glory may be given to the one, as to the other, which must never have been done was he not equal with him, since he gives not his glory to another, Isa_42:8. Indeed, all men do not honour the Father as they should; the Gentiles, who had some knowledge of God, glorified him not as God; and the Jews, who had an external revelation of the one, true, and living God, which other nations had not, yet were greatly deficient in honouring him, which made him complaining say, "if then I be a father, where is mine honour?" Mal_1:6.

A.T. Robertson Joh 5:23 -
That all may honour the Son (hina pantes timōsin ton huion). Purpose clause with hina and present active subjunctive of timaō (may keep on honouring the Son). [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

He that honoureth not the Son (ho mē timōn ton huion). Articular present active participle of timaō with negative mē. Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonouring Jesus is dishonouring the Father who sent him (Joh_8:49; Joh_12:26; Joh_15:23; 1Jo_2:23). See also Luk_10:16. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship. The Gospel of John carries this high place for Christ throughout, but so do the other Gospels (even Q, the Logia of Jesus) and the rest of the New Testament.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Lol, Ignoratio elenchi! [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]They don't address my points or Question Der...

(You said you had the 2008 CD Rom, that should have the Trinity[/FONT] brochure. And any publications printed after 2000 are on the web site, there's an online library similar to the CD, so you won't need to buy a new one as everything is added to the web site. Go to JW . org click publications on the top banner, then click online library on the left)

Search

Search

The Shema and Jesus' Obedience To It

Ratiocination

Senior Member

More options

Ratiocination

Senior Member

More options

BelCantoBaptist

Newbie

More options

Ratiocination

Senior Member

More options

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.

More options

BelCantoBaptist

Newbie

More options

Ratiocination

Senior Member

More options

Ratiocination

Senior Member

More options

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.

More options

Ratiocination

Senior Member

More options

Similar threads