Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jesus responds | Bible general Archive 3 | Noveta | 163022 | ||
Yes this helps. Keeping it simple always helps me. But this leds me to this question. In the King James Version it says they stoned him because he was saying he is GOD. But Jesus response and says he is saying he is the Son of God. Calling your self the Son of God doesn't mean you are saying you are GOD. Many religions believe Jesus is the Son of God. But they don't believe he is GOD. But he is saying he is the Son of God in this verse, but later when he also says "that the Father is in me, and I in him." Which means he was saying he is GOD, correct? You know they say the important question to answer, is who do you say that I am? Many people say they are safe because they do believe he is the Son of God, but they don't have to believe he is God? Which they say is how Peter responded to this important question. How do I respond to that? Someone is asking me these important questions, thanks again for your help. God Bless, Noveta |
||||||
2 | Jesus responds | Bible general Archive 3 | BradK | 163025 | ||
Hi Noveta, Marvin Vincent says this about 10:30: "30- One (en). The neuter, not the masculine (eis), one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power." The Commentary Critical gets it right on in conveying the power of the original Greek: "30- I and my Father are one—Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying. “Are” is in the masculine gender—“we (two persons) are”; while “one” is neuter—“one thing.”" The grammar makes it abundantly clear. So, there is no mistaking that Christ is claiming to be God- One in essence! Note the Jews immediate reaction in vs. 31! They knew exactly what He was claiming- they just didn't believe it! "Who do you say I am", is still THE most important question. If Jesus be not God- One in essence- then He can't save us from our sins. He is both fully God and fully man. Incidentally, to be our Mediator, Christ had to (and does) fulfill 3 conditions: 1. He must be a man. The Apostle assigns as the reason why Christ assumed our nature and not the nature of angels, that He came to redeem us. (Hebrews ii. 14–16). It was necessary that He should be made under the law which we had broken; that He should fulfil all righteousness; that He should suffer and die; that He should be able to sympathize in all the infirmities of his people, and that He should be united to them in a common nature. He who sanctifies (purifies from sin both as guilt and as pollution) and those who are sanctified are and must be of one nature. Therefore as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same. (Hebrews ii. 11–14.) 2. The Mediator between God and man must be sinless. Under the law the victim offered on the altar must be without blemish. Christ, who was to offer Himself unto God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be Himself free from sin. The High Priest, therefore, who becomes us, He whom our necessities demand, must be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. (Hebrews vii. 26.) He was, therefore, "without sin." (Hebrews iv. 15; 1 Peter ii. 22.) A sinful Saviour from sin is an impossibility. He could not have access to God. He could not be a sacrifice for sins; and He could not be the source of holiness and eternal life to his people. This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people. 3. It was no less necessary that our Mediator should be a divine person. The blood of no mere creature could take away sin. It was only because our Lord was possessed of an eternal Spirit that the one offering of Himself has forever perfected them that believe. None but a divine person could destroy the power of Satan and deliver those who were led captive by him at his will. None but He who had life in Himself could be the source of life, spiritual and eternal, to his people. None but an almighty person could control all events to the final consummation of the plan of redemption, and could raise the dead; and infinite wisdom and knowledge are requisite in Him who is to be judge of all men, and the head over all to his Church. None but one in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead could be the object as well as the source of the religious life of all the redeemed. As it was necessary that Christ should be both God and man in two distinct natures and one person, in order to effect our redemption, it follows that his mediatorial work, which includes all He did and is still doing for the salvation of men, is the work not of his human to the exclusion of his divine nature, nor of the latter to the exclusion of the former. It is the work of the theanthropos, of the God-man. [Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic Theology.] I trust this willl shed more light on this questions and help toward on answer. BradK |
||||||