So thankful you agree with me God's Truth. You don't know how many times I've be perpetrated as a liar by some on this forum. Thanks for replying.
What is Jesus saying in John 8:58 and what is he not saying?
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
So thankful you agree with me God's Truth. You don't know how many times I've be perpetrated as a liar by some on this forum. Thanks for replying.
God's Truth
New member
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read your posts this morning and to have another person who has considered carefully, further than regular teachings from man, and one who can empathize with me.
Yes ... so refreshing.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Yes, Jesus had broken the Sabbath. Are you really
too stupid to actually read the Bible for yourself? According to John, in John 5:18,
Jesus had broken the sabbath:
What part of John's saying (in his historical narrative about Jesus' doings) that "he [Jesus] had broken the sabbath" do you not get?
No.
WHAT is what WHO said?
Which verse are you referring to, here? Please quote the exact text you are calling "their assessment of Jesus Christ"? In reading John 5:18, we are reading John's historical statement about what Christ did and said, and I agree with John's statement. Why do you blatantly contradict John's statement?
I agree with Jesus, and, wherever "them" agree with Jesus, I agree with "them", too. Why do you disagree with Jesus? Because you're a Bible-despising anti-Christ.
oatmeal
Well-known member
No he had not. that was the view of his enemies.
For Jesus to fulfill the law, he couldn't be breaking the law.
Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled
Matthew 26:54
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
John 15:25
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
We fulfill the law, not by sinning, but by obedience to the truth.
Romans 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 13:8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:10
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
2 Corinthians 10:6
And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jesus Christ in order to be a perfect saviour had to be sinless.
If he broke the law concerning the sabbath, he would not be the lamb without spot or blemish.
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
He was tempted to sin but did not
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Jesus certainly opposed and disobeyed the unscriptural legalism the religious elite, the scribes and Pharisees..., that was imposed upon God's people, but Jesus did not break the law, but fulfilled it.
It was the enemies of Jesus Christ that concluded that he had broken the law, but as it typical with religious people, they accused the innocent of those sins they habitually committed
ARIANISM
Arianism is a nontrinitarian Christological doctrine which asserts the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father at a point in time, a creature distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to him, but the Son is also God (i.e. God the Son). Arian theology was first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria of Egypt.
The term "Arian" is derived from the name Arius; and like "Christian", it was not a self-chosen designation but bestowed by hostile opponents—and never accepted by those on whom it had been imposed. The nature of Arius' teachings and his supporters were opposed to the theological views held by Homoousian Christians, regarding the nature of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. The Arian concept of Christ is based on the belief that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father.
Arius stated: "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not." The Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, convened by Emperor Constantine to ensure Church unity, disagreed and declared Arianism to be a heresy. According to Everett Ferguson, "The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ***
The exact relationship between Jesus and God was the subject of an early theological controversy referred to as "Arianism" that was resolved by the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.
Although Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the Son of God in the New Testament a literal interpretation of that relationship would conclude that Christ was created by God and therefore subordinate to God the Father!
That interpretation was finally rejected in AD 325 where it was reaffirmed that the Trinity refers to the teaching that the one God is comprised of 3 distinct, equal, eternally co-existing persons - the Father, the Son (incarnate in Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
Together, these 3 persons are often referred to as the "Godhead."
Although dismissed as heresy, modern groups that have retained some form of Arianism are the Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons!
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
Too bad that scripture does not teach a trinity, but that Jesus is the son of God and that since God begat His son, His son had a beginning just like it says in Matthew 1:18
18 Now the birth [Greek is gennessis, or beginning as in the book of Genesis] of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Arius was and is right. The decision to pervert the true nature of God and His son by accepting the pagan concept of a trinity was a very bad ill informed decision.
I am thankful for those believers that can actually read and believe scripture to see that the trinity is a pagan lie adopted by possibly well meaning Christians that did not learn to read and believe God's word
Right Divider
Body part
You are a cherry-picker. Jesus was God that took on human flesh. In our and His humanity, there is a beginning. In HIS DEITY Jesus is the eternal God, the creator of all things.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
The best that can be said for you is to dismiss you as a fool who, in your anti-Christ self-righteousness, is willfully, flat out denying the truth that John, himself, stated about Jesus: "he...had broken the sabbath".
Since you refuse to accept the truth explicitly stated, by John, about Jesus, in John's Gospel, what use could there be in trying to reason with you? You're obviously not amenable to reason.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
It was John, who spake by the Holy Ghost, in penning John 5:18, who stated, therein, that Jesus had broken the sabbath.
In John 5:18, we read:
We do not read,
Just as John is explicitly stating that Jesus said that God was His Father, John is explicitly stating that Jesus had broken the sabbath, and that Jesus was making Himself equal with God. Do you also wish to say, "It was the enemies of Jesus Christ that concluded that he said that God was his Father"? Do you also wish to say that Jesus did not say that God was His Father? John's clause--"because he not only had broken the sabbath"--is no more a record of what was said or thought by the Jews, than is his clause, "but said also that God was his Father". And, there is nothing about it to even so much as hint that it is such. I understand that you, being a self-righteous, anti-Christ heretic, wish it were such; however, it ain't. You're simply trying to eisegete something into John's text that, very palpably, is nowhere to be found therein.
Greetings again 7djengo7,
Matthew 5:17–20 (KJV): 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
To break a God-given Law is to sin, and yet Jesus claims and the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus did not sin:
John 8:46 (KJV): Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Hebrews 4:15 (KJV): For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
1 Peter 2:22–24 (KJV): 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Could you explain your statements that Jesus broke the Sabbath Law?
Kind regards
Trevor
I would like to briefly ask: Did Jesus break the Sabbath Law? Consider his teaching at the beginning of His ministry:
Matthew 5:17–20 (KJV): 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
To break a God-given Law is to sin, and yet Jesus claims and the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus did not sin:
John 8:46 (KJV): Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Hebrews 4:15 (KJV): For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
1 Peter 2:22–24 (KJV): 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Could you explain your statements that Jesus broke the Sabbath Law?
Kind regards
Trevor
oatmeal
Well-known member
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
To what are you referring by your phrase, "the Sabbath Law"?
What John tells us, in John 5:18, is that Jesus "had broken the sabbath":
Whether or not you, by your phrase, "the Sabbath Law", are referring to what John is referring to, by his phrase, "the sabbath", the Bible fact is that, as John states, Jesus "had broken" what John is referring to by his phrase, "the sabbath".
Now, which of these did John state?
Now, which of these did John state?
OR
That's right: John stated the former, which you, oatmeal, and all other self-righteous, anti-Christ, Bible-despising heretics blatantly reject. John did not state the latter; rather, the latter is what you, in your devotion to your heresy, vainly wish he would have stated.
John explicitly stated that Jesus had broken the sabbath; John did not state that the Jews thought, said, imagined, concluded, or alleged that Jesus had broken the sabbath. John tells us, here, not what these Jews thought; rather, he tells us what these Jews sought. And he tells us exactly what Jesus did and said which provoked them to seek what he says they sought.
John explicitly stated that Jesus had broken the sabbath; John did not state that the Jews thought, said, imagined, concluded, or alleged that Jesus had broken the sabbath. John tells us, here, not what these Jews thought; rather, he tells us what these Jews sought. And he tells us exactly what Jesus did and said which provoked them to seek what he says they sought.
According to John, Jesus, the Lord of the sabbath, "had broken the sabbath", and, as you correctly point out the Bible truth that Jesus did not sin, we see that Jesus, the Lord of the sabbath, had broken the sabbath without sinning--just as we see that Jesus was making Himself equal with God without sinning.
Could you explain why, in the first sentence of your post, you said to me, "Did Jesus break the Sabbath Law?", as if to ask me a question, and yet, in the same post, before I had ever even seen it--let alone responded to it--you said I had made "statements that Jesus broke the Sabbath Law"? If, as you say, I had made "statements that Jesus broke the Sabbath Law", then why would you need to "briefly ask" me, "Did Jesus break the Sabbath Law?"
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
oatmeal, when you blatantly contradict John, as you do, here, why ought anyone take your word over John's word?
Perhaps so, although John doesn't explicitly state, in John 5:18, that it was the view of Jesus' enemies. One thing is clear, though: It is John's view--as he explicitly states in John 5:18--that Jesus had broken the sabbath.
Notice the title you gave this thread: "What is Jesus saying in John 8:58 and what is he not saying?" Now, regarding John 5:18, why is it that you are not interested in asking, "What is John saying in John 5:18, and what is he not saying?"
Again, here's John 5:18:
Which does John say, here?
OR
Which does John say, here?
OR
Which does John say, here?
OR
Greetings again 7djengo7,
Kind regards
Trevor
Possibly you could explain the difference.
Yes, it was more like a rhetorical question. You have not adequately explained your position, and I suspect you do not have a real answer otherwise you would give a simple explanation or answer. Rather you revert to your usual abuse as in the following:
Kind regards
Trevor
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
The difference between your use of your phrase, "the Sabbath Law", and John's use (in John 5:18) of John's phrase, "the sabbath"? Sure I can. You, by your use of your phrase, "the Sabbath Law", are saying that Jesus had not broken whatever it is you are calling "the Sabbath Law"; whereas, John, by his use of his phrase, "the sabbath", is saying that Jesus had broken what John is calling "the sabbath". If, by your phrase, "the Sabbath Law", you happen to be referring to that to which John is referring, by his phrase, "the sabbath", then you are, therein, flat out contradicting what John is saying.
Here is my position:
Jesus HAD BROKEN what John is calling "THE SABBATH", which is manifestly clear from the fact that John stated that Jesus "HAD [not only] BROKEN THE SABBATH":
Rather than stating that Jesus had not broken the sabbath, John is stating that Jesus had broken the sabbath.
A simple explanation or answer to what? To what you wrote to me: "Did Jesus break the Sabbath Law?" I do not know to what (if anything) you are referring by your phrase, "the Sabbath Law", so, the best I can do is to say that, IF you happen to be referring, by your phrase, "the Sabbath Law", to that to which John is referring (in John 5:18), by his phrase, "the sabbath", THEN, of course Jesus did break what you are referring to by your phrase, "the Sabbath Law".
So, to what (if anything) are you referring by your phrase, "the Sabbath Law"?
How do you reckon it is abuse for me to call self-righteous, anti-Christ, Bible-despising heretics such as yourself, "self-righteous, anti-Christ, Bible-despising heretics"? You're telling me that, by stating the truth, I'm guilty of abuse. I suppose, then, that, in order to not be guilty of what you call "abuse", I should adopt your policy, which is the policy of not believing the truth, and of opposing the truth.
Greetings again 7djengo7,
Kind regards
Trevor
This is to acknowledge that I have read your post.
Kind regards
Trevor
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You've done the best that any anti-Christ heretic could ever hope to do, with John 5:18, on behalf of your anti-Biblical cause, and yet, your best, of necessity, amounts to naught but a heap of dung.
A recap:
Here are three Bible truths given in John 5:18, which you, for the sake of trying to bolster your anti-Christ heresy, oppose:
- Jesus had broken the sabbath
- Jesus said that God is His Father
- Jesus made Himself equal to God
Back to OP:
Yes, Jesus didn’t say: “I am God”.
He also didn’t say: “My (or your) Father in Heaven is God”.
The reason is simple because, as it could be deduced from Jesus sayings/message, God refers to the One Will/Power of the Father in Heaven and Him (Jesus), unified, since before Creation, by the divine spirit of Love, the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
On the other hand, I personally knew/discovered that Jesus is my Creator (as the Father in Heaven is) because, thanks to Him ‘only’, I was able getting the logical answers of all my important questions about my being and the world as it is designed (as it is in reality). In other words, Jesus saved me from the ignorance that every human baby has to be born with (this natural universal weakness is known, since the far past till our days, as the Original Sin). But I also understand that the great majority of Christians around the world are not supposed seeing Jesus, as I do; the all-knowledge divine teacher (the Light of Knowledge).
Yes, Jesus didn’t say: “I am God”.
He also didn’t say: “My (or your) Father in Heaven is God”.
The reason is simple because, as it could be deduced from Jesus sayings/message, God refers to the One Will/Power of the Father in Heaven and Him (Jesus), unified, since before Creation, by the divine spirit of Love, the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
On the other hand, I personally knew/discovered that Jesus is my Creator (as the Father in Heaven is) because, thanks to Him ‘only’, I was able getting the logical answers of all my important questions about my being and the world as it is designed (as it is in reality). In other words, Jesus saved me from the ignorance that every human baby has to be born with (this natural universal weakness is known, since the far past till our days, as the Original Sin). But I also understand that the great majority of Christians around the world are not supposed seeing Jesus, as I do; the all-knowledge divine teacher (the Light of Knowledge).
oatmeal
Well-known member
Regardless of your "evidence" if Jesus had broken God's laws concerning the Sabbath he would sinned therefore would not qualify as a lamb without spot or blemish.
He would have disqualified himself as man's Redeemer.
For that matter if He was God, he would have sinned against his own laws.
He would be found a liar