What is Jesus saying in John 8:58 and what is he not saying?

[clefty]

John says:

no actually that is what King Jimmy’s translators translate...what THEY think John writes in the Greek...John having written it in Greek and using the Greek root word to loosen...deriving its meaning from a dissolving or unbinding or unfastening...Jimmy's translators have been exposed elsewhere as error prone and agenda driven...so let’s be more careful...thanks...

You directly contradict John:
Of course, that's NOT what John says. John does NOT say:
Rather, here's what John says:

again translators translating from Greek chose to use this form of loosen as John used this form of loosen ONE time in the Greek New Testament...kinda like Paul stole from the Hebrew language the word Sabbath to write in Greek a sabbatismos to write "a Sabbath keeping remains" in Greek...a word not found again in Greek...which is still for His people by the way...Heb 4:9

Just as Jesus, according to John, said that God was his Father, Jesus, according to John, was making Himself equal with God, and Jesus, according to John, had broken the sabbath.​

well John was listing the grievances of the Jews yes...the reasons they sought all the more to kill Him...

I just NEED to believe the Bible, and since the Bible declares that Jesus had broken the sabbath, I NEED to believe that Jesus had broken the sabbath...not sure why you NEED to lie, and contradict the Bible so bad...wait, yes I do...you are of your father, the devil.

ouch...feel better?

John also says he was an evil doer malefactor sorcerer John 18:30 do you believe your bible? It says it right there...John even says “He has a demon and is mad” John 10:20...why DO you listen to him? Oh my...Matthew even says “Let Him be crucified” Matt27:23 do you agree? Is right there Matthew said it...believe your bible will you...

Or is this what John (and Matthew) say because it is what the Jews said...

John made an accurate list of Jewish reasons to kill Him 1) the Sabbath was loosened or as Jimmy’s team said was broken 2) He said Yah was His Father 3) making Himself equal with God...

But did Yahushua do the last one? I mean is saying “Our Father” equating ourselves with Him? Hmmmm...

It's funny how you're trying to bind up the Scripture, here, by your human tradition of adding things to Scripture. Whereas John states that Jesus had broken the sabbath, you write your own replacement for John's Scripture by telling us that John states that Jesus had "loosened the Sabbath from the Pharisee's [sic] grip".

ummm now the human tradition is the majority which as you claim as did the Jews He broke the Sabbath...which in greek had more to do with loosening as John could have used the Greek word for break or disobeyed or sinned as that is what breaking His Law actually is...

In John 5:18, John is reporting what Jesus did; in John 5:18, John is not presenting a record of anything that may or may not have been "the perspective of the Pharisees".

John was a devout Jew who did not seek to kill Him...as he apparently realized his fellow Jews had a silly list of reasons to kill Him.

Sorry--that's not what John says. John does not say:

Rather, John says:​

[/LEFT]

Why do you call Pharisee-made commandments, "the Sabbath"? John, of course, certainly does no such thing.​

Pharisees had added their own list of commandment keeping which Yahushua was unbinding/loosening/dissolving/breaking

According to John, in John 5:18, the Jews "sought the more to kill" Jesus because Jesus

• had broken the sabbath
• said that God was His Father
• was making Himself equal with God

And, of course, John nowhere says that Jesus was blaspheming, nor that the Jews tried to kill Jesus for blaspheming.

ummm yes John 10:33 they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy...John didnt although he wrote He made Himself God...even Matthew wrote “This Man blasphemes!” Matt 9:3 so should John and Matthew have picked up stones too?

[No he doesn't, you self-righteous, anti-Christ, heretic sinner. LOL @ your stupidity for having just told me that John is writing "their perspective" when he writes "he...said also that God was His Father".

ouch...yikes...teeth gnashing...

• Biblico-historical fact: Jesus had broken the sabbath
• Biblico-historical fact: Jesus said that God was His Father
• Biblico-historical fact: Jesus was making Himself equal with God

is what King Jimmy's translators translated from the Greek yes indeed...and yup He did and knowing they sought to kill Him...NOT John...John didn't...is why He continued to say...until the end of the chapter...more on that later...

John, in John 5:18, does not tell us what the Jews thought. Rather, among other things, John here tells us what the Jews sought: "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him"

yes...exactly...Jews sought not John...John knew He merely loosened the Sabbath freed it from their traditions...didn't SIN as well that would be breaking the Law...is why John didn't write that...

Think of the unmitigated stupidity of what you're claiming, here: you're saying that John is telling us the Jews THOUGHT that "[Jesus] said also that God was His Father", and then you go on to claim that Jesus then corrected these Jews for thinking what you say they thought.

yes...He called the Almighty One His Father...Abba...and taught us to do the same...do we then also equate ourselves with the Almighty Ones? NO of course not...is why we do NOT read it as He equated Himself with the Father...but the Jews did...

In order to be able to correct someone for thinking that

"[Jesus] said also that God was His Father", it would need to be false that "[Jesus] said also that God was His Father". So, why are you claiming that it is false that "[Jesus] said also that God was His Father"?

you missed...I am claiming by saying He said the Almighty One is His Father Yahushua is NOT EQUATING Himself to Him...as why the Jews sought to kill Him and not John...I am not either...you? I mean you think He broke the Sabbath and so did away with it...

Perhaps so,

good...yes perhaps...

though John, in John 5:18, does not tell us that they thought He was making Himself equal with God. Rather, John tells us that Jesus was making Himself equal with God.

in a list of other grievances they compiled seeking to kill Him...John of course continues the discourse to the end of the chapter...allowing Yahushua to clarify...

I mean if John actually thought that...He really should be more clear and as it would have been so much more helpful to readers who struggled for hundreds of years to insert that equality...

Where does Jesus refute that He is equal with God? Obviously nowhere.

John continues the passage with Yahushua Himself clarifying "the Son can do NOTHING by Himself...UNLESS...the Father..." keep reading...until the end of the chapter John writes. Oh and read what John write Yahushua saying...not inserting or adding your custom or tradition or interpretation to it..."26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." Who has LIFE IN HIMSELF and GRANTED it another? Hmmmm… Yahushua is clarifying the hierarchy and NOT equating Himself with the Almighty One...that was done hundreds of years later and at fancy councils full of scholars and doctors of the law all dressed pretty dresses I imagine...

Where? No part of John 5 is a record of Jesus arguing with John about anything.

right...because John at this point did not write "He is equal with the Almighty One!!!" He had listened to Yahushua say 30 "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." clearly NOT equating Himself with the One who sent Him...Yahushua is recorded by John who was listening 36 "For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent." Happily Yahushua was talking to the disbelieving Jews and not the other Jew John...who was beginning to not only believe but understand...is why he NEVER clearly wrote Yahushua is EQUAL to YAH...and Christendom struggled for centuries to make that so...building the Trinity

LOL that you are saying it was "the Jewish perspective" which was claiming Jesus said God was His Father.

​

right but saying the Almighty One is our Abba is NOT the issue...He did say that...taught us to pray it too...are we equating ourselves to the Almighty One? No of course not...disbelieving Jews thought so...is what and why John wrote it...He did say Father MY Father...but also called us His brothers AND mother...IF we do our Father's will...hey put that stone down...ha

Jesus, of course, nowhere denied that He was equal with God, nor did He deny that, by saying God was His Father, He was making Himself equal with God.

no John did not...just let Yahushua air it out...until the end of the chapter and beyond...nor did John clearly AFFIRM He equated Himself with the Father...IS WHY the struggle for centuries...how many dead? killed? burnt alive? not just typing on some keyboard "HERETIC!!!"

In other words, you are, here, claiming that Jesus denied that He said that God was His Father. Got it.

did you even read anything...ever?...of course He Yahushua called the Almighty One His Father...He couldn't do anything unless His Father willed it...read a little more of the chapter...

Oh...and don't forget the other part of what you're calling "the Jewish perspective": that Jesus said that God was His Father!

ok I won't...I am not so inclined to perseverate over John's writing He loosened the Sabbath from Pharisee's restrictions to it...

So, according to you, Jesus did not really say that God was His Father--it was merely "the Jewish perspective" that Jesus said that God was His Father.

asked and answered...need I say it in Greek?

So, since you claim that "this Jewish prespective [sic]" is that Jesus said God was His Father, what you're telling me, here, is that "John then writes that even Yahushua denies [He said that God was His Father]".

nope...I address why Jews sought to kill Him for saying it...which John merely writes Yahushua says 41 “I do not accept glory from human beings," why NOT? Because we are to 44 "seek the glory that comes from the only God"

So, why do you claim Jesus never said that God was His Father?

I don't...if you weren't so apoplectic you would read more carefully what I write...hmmm or more importantly what John writes...

By this, do you mean that Jesus begins making Himself not equal to God? 'Cause, of course, nowhere in John 5 do we find Jesus making Himself not equal to God.

again read carefully what is NOT there which is WHY it took centuries for Christendom to come to official conclusion on it...OH WAIT...IT STILL is divided as to the progression of the Spirit...from the Father alone of from both Father and Son...yup still divided after almost 2000 years as John does NOT make the claim that Yahushua says more than what He says...

What about their claim that Jesus said that God was His Father? Is Jesus refuting their claim that God was His Father? (After all, remember....you're the one who has told me that it was the Jews' claim that Jesus said that God was His Father.)

your are getting me dizzy...following your serpentine back and forth...

LOL Says the self-righteous, Pharisaical hypocrite who refuses to even read verse 18!

Oh I read it...even in Greek and commentaries...and well...43" I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him." did Yahushua know about what was to come about this issue? I mean could He NOT make it more clear...being sent in someone else's name is well...NOT EQUAL to the one SENDING...now true diplomatic preference and protection is provided to the courier of the King as it is as King were there himself...but the messenger is NOT the king...but the message IS the king's...is why the messenger is "protected" and a representative...you follow?

So?

so clearly Yahushua states in verse 19 that He can DO NOTHING by Himself but what He sees His Father doing...because whatever the Father does the Son also does...you know to DO His Father's will NOT BECOME THE FATHER...or replace what the Father wants done...His Will His Law...His Character...but you would claim He did away with the Sabbath...by loosening it from the Pharisee's traditions...you give the Jews way too much credit...POWER...to be able to break what the Father determined was to be Holy and Eternal...

In other words, you're telling me that Jesus never actually said that God was His Father, because (according to you) it was just "the Pharisee's [sic] perspective" that Jesus said that God was His Father, and it was wrong? Got it.

nope you don't...see above please...

Wait....exactly what (if anything) that you are calling "the Law" are you saying I am having the Son break...or not keep?

the very Sabbath institutionalized before the fall even...by the Father when He rested after six days of creating...breaking that is going against the Father's will and not His will be done on earth as it is in heaven...as we pray to our Father that it be done...

you have the Son SIN...as that is what breaking the Law is...John has Him loosening dissolving unbinding the Sabbath from the Pharisee's additional laws...YOU have Him SINNING...

What (if anything) are you calling "His Own Law", here?

"I am Lord of the Sabbath" gives Him authority as it is His Law too remember the messenger speaks in the KING'S authority...why would the Lord of the Sabbath seek to destroy the very thing authorizing His power...it is His sign His Seal...like Lord of London would ever consider destroying London...or the Lord of the Rings his rings...

Are you saying that God the Father honours His father and mother (Exodus 20:12)? Whom would you say is God the Father's father? And whom His mother?

He ALONE is IMMORTAL and seeks to explain that hierarchy...establish HONOR to the elders retaining the oracles and customs handed down to them...of course some children would ask "so who's your daddy?"

No wonder you deny that Jesus--the Son--did not really say that God was His Father: if the Son says that God the Father is His Father, apparently, according to you, that must mean that God the Father says that God the Father is God the Father's Father. Oh, and who is God the Father's neighbor?

sorry I couldn't understand what you were asking with your foot in your mouth...

No. God never lies. But you LIE, every time you write one of your shallow, heretical, Christ-despising, antinomian, anti-Christ posts on TOL.

ok good...so you done?

Hope I clarified that John wrote that 1)Yahushua indeed loosened the Sabbath from the Pharisees additional bindings
B) He did call the Almighty His Father and taught us to do the same and finally to clarify: what the Jews claimed Yahushua was doing by calling Him Father which was equating Himself with the Almighty...

however John then continued to write what Yahushua said to clarify His relationship to His Father...the order of His relationship to His Father He obeys...

and centuries later the church fought to finally settle it as it was NOT CLEARLY written by John...and it decided as the as the Jews did that He had said Father=Son...and even STILL it remains unsettled within Christendom as it is SPLIT between the east and the west as to where does the Spirit come from?...

Why didn't either John or Yahushua make it even MORE clear?...




Ok so let's PRETEND that Yahushua DID break the Sabbath...nevermind invalidating Him as sinless and perfect sacrifice...

Does the One with authority to dispense the original Law abrogate that Law with a secondary command?

For instance "Thou dost NOT Kill/murder"...but then He killed to make skins...smote HOW MANY?...ordered Israel to do the same to woman children animals even the innocent babies...does that mean He revokes the Law for His people? That He now allows them to chose who and when to kill?

How about "Thou dost not make images or worship those made"...yet again has Israel make a bronze serpent...cherubim...etc does that release His people to make their own images and into idols worshipping...Catholics even claim BECAUSE Yahushua became INCARNATE He became visisble and thus we ARE able to make images...and worship/venerate through them to the One adored...

How about "Thou dost NOT commit adultery" and then He has Hosea married a woman with many relationships...are we now allowed to defile our marriage bed?

After all...He did so that means SO CAN WE!!!!

But But But...He broke the Sabbath...SO CAN WE!!!!

Do you see what you do? You EQUATE yourself with the Holy Savior HIMSELF...because He did so can I...

Of you Yahushua says 43"...you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him." as you accept those that did come and said He broke it...and taught it was changed...because it was NOT a perpetual sign between Him and His obedient people.

You accept another christ...a vicar who claims authority to change both TIMES and Laws...



BUT rather THINK NOT...ok? STOP thinking as the slandering Jews did trying stir up the people against him with a claim that poor Stephen taught "Jesus changed the customs Moses delivered to us"...Acts 6:14...Luke was quite clear that allegation was a FALSE WITNESS verse 13 as Stephen did NOT teach Jesus changed the Sabbath...is WHY the Apostles all kept it...

They remembered that Yahushua instructed prayers Matt 24:20 that in the future times of trouble and persecutions that the Sabbath be kept as fleeing is not really "rest" ya dig?

Notice He did NOT ask for prayers that the Temple be preserved or even that they pray they themselves were spared...RAPTURED...but just that the Sabbath be kept Holy...a day of rest...oh and winter times...Yahushua fully expected winter times to continue...

Wonder what you imagine we would be doing if the calendar in Eden was NOT rejected...certainly NOT Ham Dinners on Sunday after church...LOL

Well get ready cuz Isaiah prophesized in the new heaven and the new earth from New Moon to New Moon...Sabbath to Sabbath ALL will worship...Isa. 66:23

 

[clefty]

It is a shame that you believe the false accusations that is recorded that the enemies of Christ leveled against him

Right?

These slandering Jews were even about to TEAR each other and Paul APART in Acts 23 the violence getting so bad the Roman commander had to send in the cavalry to restore the peace...over what? Paul teaching about "the hope of the resurrection"...NO mention of Yahushua was necessary and already they were at it...verse 9 Pharisees had claimed they saw nothing wrong with Paul or his teaching...

now IMAGINE Paul teaching the Law was destroyed or changed and no more Sabbath and they could all finally eat cats rats bats and wombats!! Oh my...

and instead of being slandering false witness rumors Acts 6:13-14 IMAGINE if poor Stephen had taught the same "Sabbath is no more...we can finally eat dog meat!"

and now IMAGINE either Stephen or Paul teaching "God is NO LONGER just ONE but 3 in 1... in a mysterious thing called a Trinity...oh and we actually eat a 1/3 of it and drink His blood"



Acts 5 had the Jews angry at the apostles because they were reminding the Jews of their killing Him...oh and saying "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins"...for THIS they were going to SLAY as in KILL them...

verse 34 But Gamaliel stood up and said "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought"...

verse 40 the Jews agreed with Gamaliel and just BEAT the apostles and let them go...for teaching Yahushua was to give repentance and forgive Israel...

Now IMAGINE if Peter had preached "BTW The Sabbath and the rest of the Law is done away with at the cross...OH and goyim are now welcome to worship with us but no longer under the Law as it has been NAILED...the goyim can now crowd our temple and synagogues without concern about the customs Moses delivered as Jesus changed them anyway...we all can eat cat rat bat and wombat...together...or separate...and have every day off in Jesus and not just once a week...oh and wait until you hear about this new Trinity thingy"

Oh my...oy veh...certainly NOT...YAH forbid...​

 

[oatmeal]

Right?

These slandering Jews were even about to TEAR each other and Paul APART in Acts 23 the violence getting so bad the Roman commander had to send in the cavalry to restore the peace...over what? Paul teaching about "the hope of the resurrection"...NO mention of Yahushua was necessary and already they were at it...verse 9 Pharisees had claimed they saw nothing wrong with Paul or his teaching...

now IMAGINE Paul teaching the Law was destroyed or changed and no more Sabbath and they could all finally eat cats rats bats and wombats!! Oh my...

and instead of being slandering false witness rumors Acts 6:13-14 IMAGINE if poor Stephen had taught the same "Sabbath is no more...we can finally eat dog meat!"

and now IMAGINE either Stephen or Paul teaching "God is NO LONGER just ONE but 3 in 1... in a mysterious thing called a Trinity...oh and we actually eat a 1/3 of it and drink His blood"



Acts 5 had the Jews angry at the apostles because they were reminding the Jews of their killing Him...oh and saying "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins"...for THIS they were going to SLAY as in KILL them...

verse 34 But Gamaliel stood up and said "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought"...

verse 40 the Jews agreed with Gamaliel and just BEAT the apostles and let them go...for teaching Yahushua was to give repentance and forgive Israel...

Now IMAGINE if Peter had preached "BTW The Sabbath and the rest of the Law is done away with at the cross...OH and goyim are now welcome to worship with us but no longer under the Law as it has been NAILED...the goyim can now crowd our temple and synagogues without concern about the customs Moses delivered as Jesus changed them anyway...we all can eat cat rat bat and wombat...together...or separate...and have every day off in Jesus and not just once a week...oh and wait until you hear about this new Trinity thingy"

Oh my...oy veh...certainly NOT...YAH forbid...​

The outlandish claims of the religious elite are so off that it is hilarious

 

[7djengo7]

It is a shame that you believe the false accusations that is recorded that the enemies of Christ leveled against him

LOL

What's that, Polly? You say you wanna cracker?

 

[7djengo7]

biblehub heard of it? Use it much?​

Yeah, I use it. I've also heard of Beelzebub, who obviously uses you much.​

John also says he was an evil doer malefactor sorcerer John 18:30 do you believe your bible?

No he doesn't say that, you vicious anti-Christ liar. He (John) nowhere says that Jesus was an evil-doer, nor a malefactor, nor a sorcerer. Not in John 18:30, nor anywhere else.

Here's John 18:30:

They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

Look, you vicious, Bible-despising, lying fool: THEY said, "If he were not a malefactor...." It is NOT John saying, "If he were not a malefactor...."

We do not read:

[John] answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

Nor do we read:​

[I, John] answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.​

Here's what we read:​

They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

One needs to be incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid to espouse the error you are here espousing....or, a vicious, Bible-despising, lying fool. I really hope, for your sake, that you really are just that cognitively stupid, rather than such an abjectly shameless liar; for, in any case, you are definitely one or the other.​

John even says “He has a demon and is mad” John 10:20

No, he (John) does not say "He has a demon and is mad". Rather, in John 10:20, he (John) says:

And many of them said, He hath a [demon], and is mad; why hear ye him?

He (John) does NOT say:

He hath a [demon], and is mad; why hear ye him?

He (John) clearly states WHO said "He hath a devil", referring to them by the phrase, "many of them".

If you're not actually lying through your teeth about these passages, it is astonishing how unmitigatedly stupid a fool you are to be able to err so egregiously as you are doing regarding these simple Bible passages!

Matthew even says “Let Him be crucified” Matt27:23

No, he (Matthew) does not say "Let Him be crucified".

He (Matthew) does not say:

Let him be crucified.

Rather, he (Matthew) says:

But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

do you agree?

Of course I do not agree with you that he (Matthew) says "Let him be crucified"! Only an abject idiot with a straw bale for a brain, or a vicious, Bible-despising liar, could claim that he (Matthew) says "Let him be crucified", as you are claiming.

These Bible verses that you have just cited and viciously spat upon are of absolutely no help to you in your pathetic, futile attempts regarding John 5:18.

In John 5:18, he (John) says:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

He (John) does not say:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because [they thought, believed, said, imagined, made an accusation that] he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.​

In John 5:18, there is nothing even remotely like the "They answered and said unto Him" of John 18:30, the "And many of them said" of John 10:20, or the "But they cried out the more, saying" of Matthew 27:23. Believe me, I see why you, a self-righteous Christ-despising anti-Christ are motivated to pretend to believe that there is, and why you wish there were such a thing therein. But the fact is, there ain't.

You self-righteous, God-despising, Bible-despising sinner, I will pray for you, that God might soon remove the anti-Christ blinders that have been foisted upon you by your father, the devil.

Remember, about two or three of your previous posts ago, you, in your self-righteous, Satanic arrogance, snidely quipped:​

already dusting my sandals...​

See, even therein you demonstrate yourself to be a liar, for, lo and behold, despite your having said that, you're still here--after so many posts ago--trolling me! Try, now, to make good on your word, there, Satan, and by all means, take your leave.​

 

[clefty]

Sorry...double post

let me better use this space to re address the OP

His “I AM” statement in John 5:58 is an on going argument.

Even including a spate with the the Jews during the Feast of Tabernacles John 7:25 is this not He whom they seek to kill? Leads to “You both know Me and you know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself but He who sent Me is true whom you do not know. 29 But I know Him for I am from Him and He sent Me” even this upset them and they sought to take Him...He warned that He would not be around much longer Feast of Tabernacles is in the fall...Passover was coming...

And they of course began to wonder where He was going that “they would seek Him and not find Him and where I am you cannot come”...if indeed Yahushua was going to the Gentiles...John 7:35

It’s like they all already knew what so many here reject...Sabbath was made for man...and not just Jews...

Jews just like to claim it is only theirs (and Christians believe their false witness He changed the customs delivered from Moses Acts 6:13-14) and that only they know HOW to keep it...silly lying Pharisees and those that believe them...

but even back then they wondered if He was going to the dispersion the 12 tribes James 1:1 and to the goyim to teach them...

That His Father’s House is a House of prayer for ALL nations just like it was when the ekklessia was in the wilderness...One Law for Native and Foreigner within their gates...

 

[clefty]

Yeah, I use it. I've also heard of Beelzebub, who obviously uses you much.​

lol...you are fun...Beelzebub eh? Only Pharisees used that term...the irony...

No he doesn't say that, you vicious anti-Christ liar. He (John) nowhere says that Jesus was an evil-doer, nor a malefactor, nor a sorcerer. Not in John 18:30, nor anywhere else.

Here's John 18:30:



Look, you vicious, Bible-despising, lying fool: THEY said, "If he were not a malefactor...." It is NOT John saying, "If he were not a malefactor...."

We do not read:

Nor do we read:​

Here's what we read:​

Context silly...you know...background... build up...verse 9 affirms it was a Sabbath verse 10 has the Jews therefore say to him “It is the Sabbath...it is not lawful for you to carry your bed.”

John even clearly states verse 16 FOR THIS REASON the Jews persecuted Yahushua and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath” Verse 17 “BUT....

And then John begins the defense Yahushua makes regarding these accusations of the Pharisees which you side with.

“My Father has been working...”

”SEEEEE?!! We don’t have to keep the seventh day Holy anymore!!!!”

Any other reader would clearly see there is Camp A vs Camp B and John narrates the building tension and controversy having Yahushua counterpunch about His Father working and THEN John writes THEREFORE exactly after that retort...therefore what? “Jews sought ALL the more to kill Him”...

ANY other reader sees the exchange...except those hell bound I mean hell bent on claiming Jesus broke the Sabbath...which of course is a SIN...

You have YET to provide provision to HOW Yahushua could break the Sabbath and it NOT be a sin...I even conceded your point that He did and with 2 3 witnesses from scripture PROVED that Yah breaking His Own Law did NOT abrogate it or suspend its binding on Israel...

But in this case as He was to be a PERFECT sacrifice His breaking the Law and not loosening it from a Pharisiacal prohibition they created...would INVALIDATE HIM HIS SACRIFICE...

So you MUST show HOW He could break the commandment and NOT invalidate His role as PERFECT Sacrifice...

One needs to be incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid to espouse the error you are here espousing....or, a vicious, Bible-despising, lying fool. I really hope, for your sake, that you really are just that cognitively stupid, rather than such an abjectly shameless liar; for, in any case, you are definitely one or the other.​

feel better? Perhaps save your energy for reading what John actually wrote in the Greek? A word rooted in LOOSEN.

No, he (John) does not say "He has a demon and is mad". Rather, in John 10:20, he (John) says:

well if you would ignore as much as you do in 5:18 you would read “He has a demon and is mad” because John listed the reasons Jews sought to kill Him...

He (John) does NOT say:

again IGNORE as you do the “many of them said”

He (John) clearly states WHO said "He hath a devil", referring to them by the phrase, "many of them".

If you're not actually lying through your teeth about these passages, it is astonishing how unmitigatedly stupid a fool you are to be able to err so egregiously as you are doing regarding these simple Bible passages!

Stupid is NOT seeing the Camp A vs Camp B of the issue...John clearly states Jews sought to kill him and lists why...

No, he (Matthew) does not say "Let Him be crucified".

He (Matthew) does not say:



Rather, he (Matthew) says:

you just have to ignore who is doing the saying JUST AS you do who is seeking to kill Him

Of course I do not agree with you that he (Matthew) says "Let him be crucified"! Only an abject idiot with a straw bale for a brain, or a vicious, Bible-despising liar, could claim that he (Matthew) says "Let him be crucified", as you are claiming.

These Bible verses that you have just cited and viciously spat upon are of absolutely no help to you in your pathetic, futile attempts regarding John 5:18.

I am not denying the scriptures I am denying your insistence that Yahushua broke His Father’s SIGN AND SEAL that He claimed is PERPETUAL and ETERNAL...but you would have Him be a LIAR

In John 5:18, he (John) says:



He (John) does not say:

well John writing in Greek certainly did say He loosened the Sabbath spiritually minded readers understand it to mean He FREED it from man’s additions...

In John 5:18, there is nothing even remotely like the "They answered and said unto Him" of John 18:30, the "And many of them said" of John 10:20, or the "But they cried out the more, saying" of Matthew 27:23. Believe me, I see why you, a self-righteous Christ-despising anti-Christ are motivated to pretend to believe that there is, and why you wish there were such a thing therein. But the fact is, there ain't.

You self-righteous, God-despising, Bible-despising sinner, I will pray for you, that God might soon remove the anti-Christ blinders that have been foisted upon you by your father, the devil.

Remember, about two or three of your previous posts ago, you, in your self-righteous, Satanic arrogance, snidely quipped:​

phew...gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothes to follow?

See, even therein you demonstrate yourself to be a liar, for, lo and behold, despite your having said that, you're still here--after so many posts ago--trolling me! Try, now, to make good on your word, there, Satan, and by all means, take your leave.​

you have no idea how big my sandals are...and the amount of dust I pick up around here...

To strain the fictitious gnat you perceive here and to validate your Sabbath rejection and rebellion you ignore AND reject the CONTEXT...the BUILD UP of the controversy AND the sides of the issue...

And you also ignore that EVEN LATER Yahushua addresses this event...

Obviously He picked a fight with the Pharisees (and not just this Sabbath another thing you ignore or reject) with deliberate intention...and in order to reveal His role and authority once and for ALL...

John later writes in chapter 7 that during the feast of tabernacles...hmmmm is Yahushua NOT keeping the Law?...that the issue whether Yahushua equates Himself to Yah continues from chapter 5 as that is what the Pharisees claim

John now records His saying verse 16 “My doctrine IS NOT MINE...but His who sent Me” The King sends someone inferior...a diplomat or courier...that in and of itself should settle it...

but NOOOOO Yahushua needs to pick a fight AGAIN accusing them that none of them are keeping the Law Moses gave them...(BTW Moses gave them a Law THAT HE WAS GIVEN by Yah Himself just in case you read it as “see it is NOT the Law given by God!!!”...or something else you misperceive)

ok where were we? Oh yeah so Yahushua picks this fight accusing them of NOT keeping the Law Moses gave them so verse 19 “Why do you seek to kill me?” Verse 20 the people are shocked and horrified responding “you have a demon” yes John did write that...

Verse 21 “I did ONE WORK and you all marvel”...ok see? He is still sore about what they were after Him about...His healing the blind man on the Sabbath...REMEMBER THE SABBATH (see what I did there?) He healed the lame man?

Because since then He had fed 5000 people...walked on water...taught the tough teaching on eating Him and drinking His blood...oh wait...ok that’s another topic despite being similar to this one as if had He actually taught to literally drink His blood He AGAIN would be breaking the Law...and invalidate Himself to be PERFECT SACRIFICE...I mean John did write that yes?

Ok ok...so seriously where were we? Oh yes...Sorry textual criticism is tedious...demands focus...

Ok so fast forward...ALOT has happened since that Sabbath He healed the lame man and yet here He is John 7:21 going on and on about it now...even talking about circumcision verse 22 ‘Moses therefore gave you circumcision...” OK OK settle down I can hear you screeching “See it aint from God Moses gave da law!” But expecting readers JUST LIKE YOU happily for you it is added that Moses did get it from the fathers...) ok so...where was I?

Oh yeah...Yahushua speaks now on how Pharisees would circumcise A MAN (wait!...I thought the custom of Moses was on the 8th day of infancy...you mean there were men willing to be circumcised? And on a Sabbath? some translations do say boy) sorry...

ok so...Yahushua is complaining that they would circumcise on the Sabbath to keep Moses’ law SO WHY are they angry at Him for making a man completely well? (Another point of interest is that in Jewish tradition Yah created man the sixth day but an infant becomes WHOLE on his eighth day after birth by becoming cut)

so...well?...does the lesson end there? After all this time Yahushua is still sore and desirous of protecting Himself His KEEPING of the Sabbath...

and now FINALLY completes the lesson to the Pharisees to YOU AND YOURS that would claim He BROKE IT...cuz...JOHN WROTE IT...

Yahashua concludes: Verse 24 “Do NOT judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement”

your judgement wasnt even spiritual let alone righteous...your carnal desire to actually BREAK the SABBATH...and to claim ”I AIN’T UNDER NO LAW!” has you even drag poor John into your conspiracy and rebellion and even invalidate Yahushua Himself as not a perfect sacrifice cuz you insiste He BROKE THE SABBATH...

You do judge “according to appearances...” don’t feel bad though...sadly you are NOT alone in this rebellion and rejection that which was MADE FOR MAN...by a Lord of the Sabbath Who HAD to DIE because the Law could NOT be changed...and to add insult to injury He HAD to DIE and by those who would change both TIMES and LAW...

uncomprehending AND ungrateful...yours continue with “thanks...but whatever...we do what we want...we be free from all dat”...

All this to avoid a day off which your Creator gave you...pathetic...

And this Sabbath you are probably celebrating what others died for...the “unalienable rights” He gave you to worship freely as your conscious dictates...the irony...

But for me and my house we’ll worship God first then celebrate this less and less Protestant country...HalleluYah

 

[7djengo7]

lol...you are fun...Beelzebub eh? Only Pharisees used that term...the irony...

You just called Jesus a Pharisee, you lying, Bible-despising anti-Christ. Jesus is recorded in Matthew 12:27 as having used the term, 'Beelzebub':

And if I [Jesus] by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?

How do you expect anybody to take you the least bit seriously when you, at the very front of your rambling, broken-English dungheap of a post, shamelessly (nay, proudly) err at such a plain, fundamental point as that wherein you have just erred?

(Quick, do something--anything....Maybe try repeating your cherished little quip about "teeth-gnashing", in another futile attempt to save face for your irrational, anti-Christ ravings!)

 

[7djengo7]

But for me and my house we’ll worship God first then celebrate this less and less Protestant country...HalleluYah

You're no Protestant, whatsoever. You're an anti-Christ. Were you a Protestant, then you'd believe the Bible, and you wouldn't make it your mission to deny, and viciously attack the Bible, and those who love, and believe the Bible. But you've manifested that that is your sole mission, here. You've devoted yourself to thinking irrationally, and you're manifestly devoid of any capacity for rigorous analysis (which blight goes hand-in-glove with, and is amplified, by your glaring, systemic, fundamental failure to write coherently in the English language). You're a fruitcake, and, frankly, a genuine freak. You're a wolf. You're a wolf--and not even disguised in a scintilla of a shred of sheep's clothing. You've repeatedly demonstrated your vicious commitment to lying, and to spitting on Christ.

Each one of your posts on here amounts to nothing but a long, loud fart. You're insane if you seriously expect anybody to actually try to wade through the entirety of the massive quantity of broken-English gibberish that you are habitually vomiting out. If you mean something when you write, and you want to express what you mean, via writing, you should learn how to use basic punctuation, and English grammatical structure. It's not my problem if English is not your native tongue.

You should abandon your God-despising, anti-Christ heresy, and become a Protestant, instead, you self-righteous antinomian sinner. That would be one more step toward making America a Protestant country, again. Though I've been exceedingly patient with you thus far, be sure that I'm prepared to endure only so much of your raucous, banal attention-begging antics on TOL, and you can be sure that I will not be resorting to such a sorry shtick as saying "I shake the dust off my sandals", and then immediately writing ten more, even longer posts--that's your shtick.

 

[clefty]

You just called Jesus a Pharisee, you lying, Bible-despising anti-Christ. Jesus is recorded in Matthew 12:27 as having used the term, 'Beelzebub':

oh boy...you sure got me...of course He used the term...because Pharisees like you USED IT FIRST...they thought of it...JUST LIKE when John wrote the Pharisees’ point of view they came up with first which was: He broke the Sabbath...NOW HERE again the Pharisees came up with it and His counter was “IF I cast out demons by Beelzebub” BECAUSE they had AGAIN accused Him of something they came up with FIRST...

just like you here:

“Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
Yeah, I use it. I've also heard of Beelzebub, who obviously uses you much.”

Me:
“lol...you are fun...Beelzebub eh? Only Pharisees used that term...the irony...”

So again YOU came up with the term Beelzebub just like the Pharisees did...He merely swatted away the Pharisees their teeth gnashes...clothes ripping...and hair pulling (which by your avatar if you...seems to be done)

How do you expect anybody to take you the least bit seriously when you, at the very front of your rambling, broken-English dungheap of a post, shamelessly (nay, proudly) err at such a plain, fundamental point as that wherein you have just erred?

seeing what you do with scripture... or again your avatar...I don’t expect you to take much seriously...except your howls ad Homs and clamorings for censure and false accusations like the antifa who also hate the truth...and very seriously hate it...

(Quick, do something--anything....Maybe try repeating your cherished little quip about "teeth-gnashing", in another futile attempt to save face for your irrational, anti-Christ ravings!)

do something? You mean just remind you that you need to come up with how Yahushua was able to supposedly break the Law and NOT sin...? But you don’t seem to respond to instruction...

in the mean time maybe I should order this for you from Amazon...they are quick...

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Pharisee-New-Look-Jewishness/dp/1592443133

 

[7djengo7]

oh boy...you sure got me...of course He used the term...because Pharisees like you USED IT FIRST...they thought of it...

Yeah, you're right: I did get you, you yoyo.:loser: Which is exactly why, here, you've pathetically, shamelessly just now moved the goal posts.

Here is what you had initially said, you lying, anti-Christ devilspawn:

lol...you are fun...Beelzebub eh? Only Pharisees used that term...the irony...

Initially, you had said ONLY Pharisees used that term. Initially, you had not said Pharisees USED IT FIRST. But, when--by quoting a Bible verse which records Jesus' (a non-Pharisee) having used that term--I pointed out your manifest stupidity in your having said that ONLY Pharisees used that term, why, instead of humbly acknowledging your ridiculous error, you simply try, in glaring futility, to pretend that you did not say that ONLY Pharisees used that term.

How is being the ONLY party to use the term, 'Beelzebub', the same as being the FIRST party to use the term, 'Beelzebub'? That's right, Professor: it's NOT, you lying, anti-Christ serpentseed.

 

[7djengo7]

He merely swatted away the Pharisees their teeth gnashes...clothes ripping...and hair pulling (which by your avatar if you...seems to be done)

???

LOL @ your frenzied, devil-driven incoherence.:rotfl:

 

[7djengo7]

no actually that is what King Jimmy’s translators translate...what THEY think John writes in the Greek...John having written it in Greek and using the Greek root word to loosen...deriving its meaning from a dissolving or unbinding or unfastening...Jimmy's translators have been exposed elsewhere as error prone and agenda driven...so let’s be more careful...thanks...

again translators translating from Greek chose to use this form of loosen as John used this form of loosen ONE time in the Greek New Testament...kinda like Paul stole from the Hebrew language the word Sabbath to write in Greek a sabbatismos to write "a Sabbath keeping remains" in Greek...a word not found again in Greek...which is still for His people by the way...Heb 4:9

Since your handling of English is monstrously deranged, it is not clear what (if anything) is your complaint, here, regarding the King James Version of John 5:18. Is your complaint that they put the English verb, 'to break' ("had broken"), for the Greek verb, λύω? If that's what you're complaining about, why, you've already hilariously shot yourself in the foot, there, by your having said:

Pharisees had added their own list of commandment keeping which Yahushua was unbinding/loosening/dissolving/breaking

If you--the magisterial scholar of Greek you imagine yourself to be--can put 'to break' for λύω, treating it as a synonym of 'to loosen', as you just did here, then you're a rank hypocrite for condemning the KJV for also putting the verb, 'to break', for λύω.

 

[clefty]

Yeah, you're right: I did get you, you yoyo.:loser: Which is exactly why, here, you've pathetically, shamelessly just now moved the goal posts.

Here is what you had initially said, you lying, anti-Christ devilspawn:

Aaah yes thanks...you remind me of Matt 5:11

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and FALSELY say all kinds of evil against you because of me“

You have initiated on my part an interesting search and finding:

Luke 13:31 “On that very day some Pharisees came saying to Him, “Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.”

I’d expect the same warning from you if Herod was to kill all TOL members...I mean you know...you might disagree with me but...LOL

Initially, you had said ONLY Pharisees used that term. Initially, you had not said Pharisees USED IT FIRST. But, when--by quoting a Bible verse which records Jesus' (a non-Pharisee) having used that term--I pointed out your manifest stupidity in your having said that ONLY Pharisees used that term, why, instead of humbly acknowledging your ridiculous error, you simply try, in glaring futility, to pretend that you did not say that ONLY Pharisees used that term.

How is being the ONLY party to use the term, 'Beelzebub', the same as being the FIRST party to use the term, 'Beelzebub'? That's right, Professor: it's NOT, you lying, anti-Christ serpentseed.

Funny how so many forget Yahushua was even Jewish...let alone taught lived and upheld the Law as for our example...

some claim even claim He was Essene to be exotic I guess but nope...when truth be told this Rabbi was certainly NOT a Sadducee...right?

Now the question remains: How many texts to you need to show Yahushua was indeed teaching as a Pharisee? Consulted with them? Commended them? Dined with them?

I mean just cuz it looks like or walks like or quacks like doesn’t mean...or?

 

[7djengo7]

Aaah yes thanks...you remind me of Matt 5:11

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and FALSELY say all kinds of evil against you because of me“

You have initiated on my part an interesting search and finding:

Luke 13:31 “On that very day some Pharisees came saying to Him, “Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.”

I’d expect the same warning from you if Herod was to kill all TOL members...I mean you know...you might disagree with me but...LOL





Funny how so many forget Yahushua was even Jewish...let alone taught lived and upheld the Law as for our example...

some claim even claim He was Essene to be exotic I guess but nope...when truth be told this Rabbi was certainly NOT a Sadducee...right?

Now the question remains: How many texts to you need to show Yahushua was indeed teaching as a Pharisee? Consulted with them? Commended them? Dined with them?

I mean just cuz it looks like or walks like or quacks like doesn’t mean...or?

LOL

Go beg for attention from someone else, troll.

 

[clefty]

Since your handling of English is monstrously deranged, it is not clear what (if anything) is your complaint, here, regarding the King James Version of John 5:18. Is your complaint that they put the English verb, 'to break' ("had broken"), for the Greek verb, λύω? If that's what you're complaining about, why, you've already hilariously shot yourself in the foot, there, by your having said:

What was so hard about understanding that Sabbatismos is more Hebrew than Greek in Heb 4:9 used only ONCE in Greek NT like your choice of break for “loosen”

If you--the magisterial scholar of Greek you imagine yourself to be--

no need to project or make things up we all know who the inquisitional Pharisee is here...

can put 'to break' for λύω, treating it as a synonym of 'to loosen', as you just did here, then you're a rank hypocrite for condemning the KJV for also putting the verb, 'to break', for λύω.

well if I was being paid by the King I would go with the first definition not the 3rd definition I offered...oh wait...as a Sunday keeping man the king might fire me with actual fire...if I insisted on the first definition...hmmmm...what to do...

at least I offered it as 3rd

Wiki here has it in 7th...

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/λύω

1. I loose, loosen, untie
2. slacken
3. unbend
4. set free, release
5. redeem
6. dissolve, sever
7. break (up), destroy
8. abrogate, annul
9. atone, amend
10. profit, I am useful
11. first-person singular present active indicative/subjunctive of λῡ́ω (lū́ō)

 

[7djengo7]

What was so hard about understanding that Sabbatismos is more Hebrew than Greek in Heb 4:9 used only ONCE in Greek NT like your choice of break for “loosen”



no need to project or make things up we all know who the inquisitional Pharisee is here...

well if I was being paid by the King I would go with the first definition not the 3rd definition I offered...oh wait...as a Sunday keeping man the king might fire me with actual fire...if I insisted on the first definition...hmmmm...what to do...

at least I offered it as 3rd

Wiki here has it in 7th...

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/λύω

1. I loose, loosen, untie
2. slacken
3. unbend
4. set free, release
5. redeem
6. dissolve, sever
7. break (up), destroy
8. abrogate, annul
9. atone, amend
10. profit, I am useful
11. first-person singular present active indicative/subjunctive of λῡ́ω (lū́ō)

It's downright creepy how you are using posts directed at me to carry on a conversation with yourself. What about "Go beg for attention from someone else, troll," do you not understand?

 

[clefty]

LOL

Go beg for attention from someone else, troll.

Naaaaaw...not for attention to me...maybe to look at these

http://thinkfaithfully.blogspot.com/...ly-he-was.html

https://www.boundless.org/blog/jesus-the-pharisee/

I mean LOOK AT THIS!!....talk about the enmity Jews had for the goyim which He abolished in His flesh Eph 2:15...not the Sabbath, mind you, but this:

The Pharisees of Bet Shammai controlled Jewish life and thought during the first century; the School of Shammai denied salvation to the Gentiles; the Shammaite Pharisees and priests considered Jesus a danger to the Jewish people; the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed because of Bet Shammai's hatred of the Gentile world;
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Pharisee-New-Look-Jewishness/dp/1592443133

even this:

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-48_en.html

perhaps after as long as it took them to make Him look less Jewish with their antisemitic traditions...we will begin to see Him as more of a Rabbi of the Hillel

Thanks for the blessings...this quick search was fun...

 

[oatmeal]

LOL

What's that, Polly? You say you wanna cracker?

You deny the Lord that bought you

 

[JudgeRightly]

You deny the Lord that bought you

Bearing false witness is a sin, Oatmeal.