Advanced Notice: I am unable to add highlighting to the Hebrew text due to the way it operates from right to left. It's not an issue with Greek; but this will unfortunately make it harder for people who can't read Hebrew and I apologize.After thinking about John 10:34's "you are gods", it made me realize that this proves Christ's deity, as He was the first (and only) God-Man, allowing us to become "
like God"
through Him (of course whether one does or doesn't want God's thinking is up to them). Naturally I got curious to the unitarian point of view-- and caused me to go through multiple sources of arguments. They didn't seem to think verse 34 was important. then again trinitarians probably ignore it, too.
First we'll get into
ProveYourFaith's video on ignoring passive / active and context pertaining to John 3:13 -- basically he says both the Greek and Hebrew are the same and thus create a contradiction, so they have to be negated and Christ's statement of ascending *of His own power* is nullified.
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeoTh3snfl0Quote:
John 3:13 And no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν (verb indicative perfect active 3rd person singular) εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
(LXX) 2 Kings 2:11 καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν πορευομένων ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἐλάλουν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἅρμα πυρὸς καὶ ἵπποι πυρὸς καὶ διέστειλαν ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων καὶ ἀνελήμφθη (verb indicative aorist passive 3rd person singular) Ηλιου ἐν συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν
2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2 Kings 2:11 וַיְהִ֗י הֵ֣מָּה הֹלְכִ֤ים הָלוֹךְ֙ וְדַבֵּ֔ר וְהִנֵּ֤ה רֶֽכֶב־אֵשׁ֙ וְס֣וּסֵי אֵ֔שׁ וַיַּפְרִ֖דוּ בֵּ֣ין שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם וַיַּ֙עַל֙ אֵ֣לִיָּ֔הוּ בַּֽסְּעָרָ֖ה הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃
To go through it quickly, Elijah went up with God's power (passively) via the windstorm, and Christ ascended via Himself (actively), since
Christ was doing the action. LXX included to show this as well, albeit the LXX isn't inspired of course.
Note: Often 1 Corinthians 15:50 is used by trinitarians to say "flesh and blood" can't *enter* into heaven to refute unitarians (thus 'proving' John 3:13). This is incorrect however, as Paul was saying flesh and blood can't *inherit* the Kingdom of God-- inheriting the kingdom is not the same as entering (re: royal priesthood). And since Elijah was taken up (by God), it's safe to say that 1 Corinthians 15:50 would even have less relevance in that regard; so this does no good for proving John 3:13 and adds more confusion.
Now we'll take some quotes from
biblicalunitarian.com on John 3:13 to get it out of the way
Source:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/john-3-13biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
The Jews would not have taken John’s words to mean that Christ “incarnated.” It was common for them to say that something “came from heaven” if God were its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. Most Christians experience the Lord blessing them by way of other people or events, but realize that the ultimate source of the blessings was the Lord. We should apply John’s words the same way we understand James’ words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God’s plan, and then God directly fathered Jesus.
Here
biblicalunitarian.com is taking a different stance from
proveyourfaith, they claim Christ's statement of 'no man has ascended up to heaven' as being a figurative ascension as relating to James 1:17: so "Christ" is from "above" in the sense from God. So let's see if the words and contexts match up:
Quote:
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν (adverb) ἐστιν καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, παρ᾽ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα.
John 3:13 And no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν (verb indicative perfect active 3rd person singular) εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
James 1:17's "above" is an adverb. Whereas the "ascend" in John 3:13 is active and in context means that *CHRIST* is doing the action (actively). If we were to accept biblicalunitarian.com's argument,
John 3:13 would also have to use an adverb for ascension, it does not. So they've shown that they rely on English tranlsations and ecumenical philosophy to make an assumption.
That and the context wouldn't even work if we were to assume Christ is a 'good thing' (adverb) from God when speaking to the audience, and we would also have to ignore the fact Christ was literally referring to ascending to Heaven on His own power: of which the Jewish audience at the time would be familiar with since 2 Kings 2:11 uses passive and not active since Elijah did not do it of his own power.
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
There are also verses that say Jesus was “sent from God,” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus “comes from above” and “comes from heaven” (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of “heaven” and pour out a blessing (Mal. 3:10 – KJV). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven.
Jesus was "sent" by the Father, but that's not what John 3:13 is getting into. That's like if I said I like the flavour of apples, and then someone else claimed I hate bananas. Sure we're dealing with fruit, but the contexts and situations are different.
#1 Christ claimed He ascended by His own power (active - NOT an adverb), anyone who knows Greek will understand the concept
#2 The Father sending Christ is not (directly) related to Christ's ascending of His own power
#3 John the Baptist did not claim to ascend of His own power (active)
#4 biblicalunitarian.com just starts to attempt
to compare English synonyms that aren't in any way shape or form related to the original language text in question.
Basically the rest of their article focuses on "sent" which as we've seen in the Greek has nothing to do with what they're trying to make the Bible say.
Moving on to John 2:19. Again Christ uses active (meaning HE'S doing the action in question) *indicative of future*, and of course that makes sense since the "temple" (Him) was to be raised up in the future of the context of the verse:
Quote:
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ (verb indicative future active 1st person singular) αὐτόν.
Let's take a look at what biblicalunitarian has to say:
Source:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/john-2-19biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.
Ahhh... but if we say that the Father and Son are the same essence (Godhead | trinity), then BOTH statements are
simultaneously correct and thus prove the trinity. So they've just inadvertently proven the trinity by themselves. Of course they claim that if both were simultaneously were correct it would be a "contradiction", but it
wouldn't if Christ claims deity...
Take notice that biblicalunitarian.com and proveyourfaith both keep chanting "the Bible cannot contradict itself", yeah but they're using that as an excuse whenever anything contradicts what THEY say and PROVES the trinity.
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21 – NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.
That's more of a narration than a refutation of 'ἡμέραις' being future
active. Christ raised Himself up (and at the same time the Father raised Him up).
Also Christ was not speaking in 'veiled terms' but DIRECTLY explaining the temple analogy, the Jews didn't get the reference since they were assuming the temple was physical the whole time (so it was veiled to them through THEIR own ignorance), when it never was because...:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 3:16 Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν;
Christ is the temple, and the temple is IN US as a result. Not only does 1 Corinthians 3:16 shoot down the 'veiled terms' argument from biblicalunitarian.com (and I'm not even sure where they were going with that but it's wrong), but it also links the essence of Christ and the H.S. together.
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: “By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead.” Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.
#1 Jesus was not speaking in veiled terms, but very literal terms that any believer understands per 1 Corinthians 3:16. The focus is NEVER on the physical
#2 Christ raised Himself, and the Father raised Christ *simultaneously* (they keep repeating this
as they can't answer it directly)
#3 The fact that [some] of the Jews being against Jesus have nothing to do with Christ being the temple and ascending to heaven on His own power
#4 Unbelievers not understanding that Christ is the temple has nothing to do with the fact that He is, and ascended to heaven on His own power
#5 John 2:19 is essential for solidifying the fact that the emphasis is not on the physical, but the mental / spiritual.
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev. 22:17-20; Mal. 1:6-8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he “just felt like it.” John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”
#1 Again they keep repeating veiled terms; but
we know it was never veiled.
#2 The statement of Christ "
fully obeying" 'the Will of the Father' doesn't exist, and in fact creates a contradiction:
Quote:
John 6:40 And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on Him, will have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
If Christ had to perform the 'Will of the Father', He would have to believe in Himself for salvation. But wait! Biblicalunitarian.com tells us there are no contradictions and they've just created one!
#3 Again biblicalunitarian.com is playing word games
with the English by saying it was Christ's 'destiny' to say it without Him (Christ) actioning it. In the Greek (ἐγερῶ) means that the action is CHRIST raising the temple Himself and not anyone else.
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.
#1 as we've shown in the Greek, ἐγερῶ means that Christ *was* doing it in the active. So only if you are ignorant of what the Bible actually says will you make a claim of John 2:19 being in the 'passive' of Christ not actually doing it Himself.
#2 the "you" (ὑμεῖς) in Acts 5:30 is NOT active like the "raised" (ἐγερῶ) in John 2:19. Acts 5:30 actually disproves biblicalunitarian.com's claim as a result:
Quote:
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hung on a tree.
Acts 5:30 ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς (pronoun personal nominative plural) διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου·
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ (verb indicative future active 1st person singular) αὐτόν.
#3 No, the "types" of wording are very clear in the original language texts since they utilize characteristics not found in English, thus not conveyed in translation and allowing interpretations to be based with translations
#4 again, Christ raised Himself (according to the Greek, and only 'debatable' in the English)
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
6. Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”
Again, Christ directly raised Himself up per the original language text.
With that out of the way (which will be required to understand John 10), we have sufficiently proved that Christ ascended
by His own Power and subsequently
raised the temple Himself (for He
is the temple: and the Father also simultaneously raised 'the Temple' per Godhead). Now let's get into John 10 which is heading back towards 'you are gods'.
Here are the main set of verses:
Quote:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:31 Ἐβάστασαν πάλιν λίθους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα λιθάσωσιν αὐτόν.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them: "many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?"
John 10:32 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· πολλὰ ἔργα καλὰ ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός· διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε;
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying: "for a good work we don't stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.
John 10:33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them: "is it not written in your law that I say: you are gods?"
John 10:34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε
...
John 10:38 But if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works: that you may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in Him.
John 10:38 εἰ δὲ ποιῶ, κἂν ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύητε, τοῖς ἔργοις πιστεύετε, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί.
Quote:
Psalm 82:6 I say: you are gods and all of you are children of the most High
Psalm 81:6 ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες
Psalm 82:6 אֲֽנִי־אָ֭מַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִ֣ים אַתֶּ֑ם וּבְנֵ֖י עֶלְי֣וֹן כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃
And now let us see what
biblicaluintarian says on the subject.
Here is the video of John W. Schoenheit with some commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=526&v=k0JVVlWQonISchoenheit's statement could probably be summed up with one paraphrased quote: "I and my father are of one purpose / one heart / united / one goal -
what a wonderful statement for Jesus to make". Basically, his argument is that "one" actually means "one purpose" (and not '
one essence'). He further extrapolates this by using the NIV's translation of 1 Corinthians 3:8's "one purpose".
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.” The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 – KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.”
The unitarians then argue that because believers can be 'one' and God is 'one', this then refers to: 'one in purpose' (both for God and believers). They will then cite this verse:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 3:8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
1 Corinthians 3:8 ὁ φυτεύων δὲ καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, ἕκαστος δὲ τὸν ἴδιον μισθὸν λήμψεται κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον κόπον·
As believers when we become trichotomous, are indeed 'one' with God since we're receiving the Holy Spirit who is a member of the Godhead:
Quote:
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, just as I (plural).
John 17:11 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς (pronoun personal nominative plural from ego).
#1 None of the Apostles
or anyone in the Bible ever says 'they are
one'
with the Father. Being one with the Father is a unique statement that only Christ claims.
#2 The Jews went to STONE Christ after He said "I and the Father are one", and their reaction was that you're a MAN and you make *yourself God*.
#3 Believers are 'one' when they get the Holy Spirit; which is explicitly why this analogy is used with the planting and watering. You can't do that as an unbeliever, and as a result are not trichotomous and lack the Holy Spirit. That's not to say
we become a trinity, but we get God's essence.
#4 'One' in the Greek *does not mean* 'alike'
#5 'One' in the Greek *does not mean* 'one purpose'
#6 If Christ was only claiming 'one purpose' the Jews wouldn't have went to stone Him because that wouldn't be claiming deity
#7 In John 17:11, if we were to accept 'one' being 'one purpose', that means Christ would have always have to have been one purpose (as his claim), as opposed to us BECOMING 'one purpose'. Which means Christ would have always been in that state,
anyways. So in a way, that would disprove unitarianism by their own terminology.
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
2. Christ uses the concept of “being one” in other places, and from them one can see that “one purpose” is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God’s children “one.” In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” We think it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” just as he and his Father were one being or “substance.” We believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered.
#1 as we have previously say, John 17:11 is used to affirm receiving the Holy Spirit, in which you get God's essence.
#2 in other verses that use 'one', THEY STILL DON'T UTILIZE 'X and the Father are one'. The key is 'father' and 'one'. So let's review their claim:
Quote:
John 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also the scattered children of God, gathered into one.
John 11:52 καὶ οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, just as I (plural).
John 17:11 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς (pronoun personal nominative plural from ego).
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
In the Greek it starts to look a lot different and English translations start to allow for more contradictory statements. John 11:52 has nothing in common with Christ's statement in John 10:30 (and you'll notice ἐσμεν is added whereas John 11:52 lacks it), and in John 17:11 'εἰς ἕν' isn't directly stated...
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
3. The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the “sheep,” the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.
But if Christ is 'one purpose' with God, and we're 'one purpose' with God,
does that mean that we also are to keep and protect the sheep, and that no one can take them out of OUR hands as well?
The problem of glossing over all of these unique terms in Greek and slapping on 'one purpose', the unique attributes and statements start to also apply to us, so this turns Christ into a 'useless middleman'. If we're 'one purpose' with God, then we get the same attributes as Christ, since we would HAVE to be 'one purpose' with the father as well to make unitarianism consistent.
Doctrine broken.
Now let's see what biblical unitarian has to say about John 10:33 (when the Jews pick up the stones after Christ says He and the Father 'one'):
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point was made under John 1:1 that usually when “God” is meant, the noun theos has the definite article. When there is no article, the translators know that “god” is the more likely translation, and they are normally very sensitive to this. For example, in Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translated it “god.” The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, “they changed their minds and said he was a god.” Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated “a god.” It is a general principle that theos without the article should be “a god,” or “divine.” Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was “God.” On the other hand, Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God’s work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be “a god” or “divine.”
Okay, let's go through the 'theos' claim, for starters Greek (unlike English) uses a lot of conjugations, all of which have been ignored by 'biblicalunitarian.com'. In green is an explanation of the corresponding conjugation (and I've made all of the GOD words in capital, since capitalization doesn't matter and was never used in the original Greek, as context and *common sense* would allow you to distinguish):
Quote:
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:30 ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
...
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying: "for a good work we don't stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself GOD.
John 10:33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν (noun accusative masculine singular common).
John 10:34 Jesus answered them: "is it not written in your law that I say: you are GODS?"
John 10:34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί(noun nominative masculine plural common)ἐστε
John 10:35 If He called them GODS, unto whom the word of GOD came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:35 εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς (noun accusative masculine plural common) πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (noun genitive masculine singular common) ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή,
...
Acts 12:22 And the people gave a shout, saying: "It is the voice of a GOD, and not of a man".
Acts 12:22 ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει· Θεοῦ (noun genitive masculine singular common) φωνὴ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου.
Acts 28:6 However they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a GOD.
Acts 28:6 οἱ δὲ προσεδόκων αὐτὸν μέλλειν πίμπρασθαι ἢ καταπίπτειν ἄφνω νεκρόν. ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ αὐτῶν προσδοκώντων καὶ θεωρούντων μηδὲν ἄτοπον εἰς αὐτὸν γινόμενον μεταβαλόμενοι ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν (noun accusative masculine singular common).
'Theos' doesn't necessarily need an article to explicitly refer to God, but biblicalunitarian is trying to say that the 'GOD' in John 10:33 was a 'lesser god'.
Creating some bizarre artificial distinguisher causes a lot of chaos.
If GOD doesn't refer to the GOD of the Bible, it refers to one that's made up. That's it. There are no other contexts for the word.So, if Christ wasn't claiming to be God, He would be claiming to be 'another God' not of the Bible. But if He was claiming to be 'another God', the Jews wouldn't have went to stone Him... so you hit a brick wall and the Jews have to be making the statement that Christ is claiming to be the God of the Bible. Otherwise they wouldn't have a problem with itNow, let's find some verses that lack a definitive article which do point to God (of the Bible). After a few seconds:
Quote:
Romans 3:5 εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω.
No definitive article, and Paul is absolutely referring to God (of the Bible). So again, biblicalunitarian.com is making reflex responses without bothering to verifying the claim because they don't want it to be true. If you
absolutely don't want something to be true, why would you bother to double-check?
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
2. We take issue with the NIV translation of “mere man” for the Greek word anthropos. The English word “anthropology,” meaning “the study of man,” is derived from anthropos. Spiros Zodhiates writes, “man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals.” [1] In the vast majority of versions, anthropos is translated as “man.” The word anthropos occurs 550 times in the Greek text from which the NIV was translated, yet the NIV translated it as “mere man” only in this one verse. This variance borders on dishonesty and demonstrates a willingness to bias the text beyond acceptable limits. Unfortunately, the NIV is not the only translation that puts a Trinitarian spin on this verse. The Jews would have never called Jesus a “mere” man. They called him what they believed he was—a “man.” They were offended because they believed that he, “being a man, made himself a god (i.e., someone with divine status).
This statement makes absolutely no sense since they're trying desperately so hard to change the context "anthropos!!! NIV!!! trinitarian bias!! lower case 'god' with divine status!!!". GOD either means GOD OF BIBLE or NOT GOD OF BIBLE. That's it. There's no such thing as GOD referring to 'divine status'. You won't find that anywhere, period. That's changing *the very definition* of what the terminology 'GOD' is.
Quote:
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying: "for a good work we don't stone you; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself GOD.
John 10:33 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν
So let's break it down:
καὶ (and) ὅτι (because) σὺ (you) ἄνθρωπος
(noun nominative masculine singular common) (man) ὢν ποιεῖς (make) σεαυτὸν (yourself) θεόν (GOD)
The Greek is actually far more direct and literal. you man
MAKE yourself GOD. And dropping the article actually makes it more broad because it becomes GOD and not 'a' God, or 'the' God-- but **GOD**.
So a man who
straight up makes himself **GOD**.
Moving forward, the biblical unitarians skip right past John 10:34 and go to John 10:38:
biblicalunitarian.com wrote:
1. In most versions, though not all, this phrase is rendered, “…the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.” Trinitarian theology understands this to mean the Son and Father are unified in essence, and thus to be “in” one another, it is claimed, is to be mystically one-and-the-same in being, though remaining as separate, individual persons. This understanding of the phrase is biblically unsustainable, however. Only when the verse is isolated from other verses that use the same language and read from the perspective of an already developed Trinitarian theology, does it have the meaning Trinitarians ascribe to it. To get to the truth of what the verse means, we must read the entirety of Jesus’ teaching on this subject and let that guide our interpretation. There are two other passages in John where Jesus speaks of the same thing: John 14:10-23 and John 17:21-23. These shed light on his meaning here. When we study those passages, we see that the Lord has in mind being unified in purpose, and his words make no sense if they are understood in a Trinitarian sense.
Okay, I'll have to address the throng of other verses biblicalunitarian.com keeps circling around since this is starting to go past my original point (I'll address them in additional posts when I have some time).
Back to the meat of what I was intending to write about:
Quote:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them: "is it not written in your law that I say: you are GODS?"
John 10:34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί(noun nominative masculine plural common)ἐστε
We are 'GODS' because of getting Christ's thinking, the H.S. etc. In other words, God makes us like Him, not us. And that's only possible via the GOD-MAN Jesus Christ (who 'ascended' by His own power). There were a lot of other links and stuff which I forgot / didn't have the time to cover, so, hopefully that will be continued in posts to come.
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
