Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?
- Thread starter John Zain
- Start date
Firstly, that the Jews may not have understood the Messiah to be God is largely irrelevant as it would seem from Jesus' discussions with his disciples that they never understood the Messiah had to die.
Secondly, if perfect creatures were used as a sacrifice for sins, and these sacrifices had to be performed again and again, what difference is there then if Jesus is just a mere creature? Just because he was a human that didn't sin doesn't mean that suddenly his sacrifice would be good for all sins, everywhere, at all times. A creature is a creature, and this leads to all sorts of difficulty.
teddy trueblood
Member
Unless you can show me a Jewish writing from before the second century A.D. which clearly states that the Messiah will be God, I will have to stick with what I have seen in the OT and in reference works concerning the Jews up to and during the NT times: The Messiah was not expected to be God. Did you look up the scriptural reference?
Only a perfect human's sacrifice could blot out the original sin of a perfect human. Even 'perfect' animals were not truly perfect and, even if they truly were perfect, they still could not substitute for all time for a perfect human. No one since Adam's sin has been a perfect human until Jesus arrived.
Jesus' sacrifice was only for Adamic sin. One is still responsible for his own personal sins, some of which are apparently even unforgiveable.
FrustratedForumer
Member
The Trinity is the gospel!
E
Elijah674
Guest
The Godhead's teaching is the 'Gospel' of the 'Doctrine of Christ'! 2 John 1:9-11
--Elijah
FrustratedForumer
Member
Exactly, all three!
stovebolts
Member
Many Jews, mostly teachers and those in authority at the time didn't understand Jesus to be the Messiah and those Jews maintain that stance to this day.
Who is Moshiach?
You asked some good questions earlier on, and they establish that yes, Jesus was a man. To that end I will not disagree. Jesus was a man.
But what I would like to talk about, would require me to ask you a few questions if you don't mind, and they come from John's gospel.
1st Question: John 1:15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.
What does John the baptism mean by, "for he was before me". Keep in mind that John was born before Jesus. (Luke 1).
What does this mean in your estimation?
John 8:57-58 The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
Is Jesus saying that he existed before Abraham was born? And why is Jesus referencing Exodus 3:14 with his reply? How do you think the Jews took that but more importantly, why?
And what's up with this? Are they wrong is saying that Jesus makes himself like God? And what about where it says, "unto whom the word of God came"
John 10:33-36 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Taking a step back, just so we can look at what the word of God represented,
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
How was everything created? Yes, through the word of God, for everything was created that was spoken of. (Genesis 1, "God Said").
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
So we see that Jesus not only speaks for God, but God's word has taken on flesh and "tabernacles" among us. Simply put, Jesus is the very word of God. The word which created everything, everywhere. But I think it's more than that, because scripture states also that he is begotten of the Father, yet in Lukes account we see these words. Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.
How do you put this all together? I'll be interested in your response. And thank you for your response in advance.
Grace and Peace.
Last edited by a moderator:
The point I made was that it really doesn't matter whether or not the Jews thought the Messiah would be God since it seems as though they didn't think he would have to die.
Can you provide Scripture to back up that claim?teddy trueblood said:
Jesus' sacrifice was for all sins that were, all sins that are, and all sins that will be. We must confess our sins but we are forgiven based on the shed blood of Christ.teddy trueblood said:
Drew
Member
Sure. I will do so, and while I am just getting into this thread and have read only 1 or 2 posts, I am quite confident that some other Trinitarians here will engage your arguments fully.
Drew
Member
I think you cannot legitimately assume that there must be explicit declarations of Jesus' divinity in order for His divinity to be deduced. Jesus was very cryptic on many occasions and I am convinced that he asserted His divinity both through carefully coded statements and through the actions He undertook. That Jesus spoke cryptically is, I think, beyond legitimate dispute.
In any event, it is an exceedingly dubious move for anyone to assert that the only category of evidence to sustain Jesus' divinity are direct statements. The Bible is not a set of declarative statements of theology (although such statements do appear from time to time). It is primarly an historical narrative, with real people and all sorts of modes of expression. So it is really not correct to restrict the body of evidence relevant to Jesus' divinity to "direct statements".
Drew
Member
This has been posted in other threads, but is relevant here:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Let us now consider the implications of Jesus not being the embodiment of the God of Israel, knowing that He was not, and yet going ahead and making the statement that He makes.
Jesus knows the Old Testament inside and out. Would Jesus place Himself in the role of the God of Israel as "mother hen" if He (Jesus) did not believe that He was the embodiment of the God of Israel? Let the reader judge how likely that is. One would need to believe that Jesus has used the “hen with Israel under its wings†metaphor without being aware that this very same metaphor has been used to characterize God in the Old Testament.
On his final journey to Jerusalem, we have this statement from Jesus:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Jesus is drawing on this image from the book of Ruth:
"May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge."
Jesus is setting Himself in the role of Israel's God.
Jesus is setting Himself in the role of Israel's God.
This is Trinitarian theology, understood how it is means to be understood - not in terms of arid conceptual categories, but in terms of the very concrete story of Israel, abandoned by her God, and then looking keenly forward to His return.
Jesus is that very return of the living God to the people of Israel.
Let us now consider the implications of Jesus not being the embodiment of the God of Israel, knowing that He was not, and yet going ahead and making the statement that He makes.
Jesus knows the Old Testament inside and out. Would Jesus place Himself in the role of the God of Israel as "mother hen" if He (Jesus) did not believe that He was the embodiment of the God of Israel? Let the reader judge how likely that is. One would need to believe that Jesus has used the “hen with Israel under its wings†metaphor without being aware that this very same metaphor has been used to characterize God in the Old Testament.
Drew
Member
On the matter of the absence of texts that assert that the Messiah will be divine.
I generally agree - there is very little evidence in the Old Testament that would support the notion that the Messiah would be divine.
But a critical point needs to be raised here: it is simply incorrect reasoning to conclude that Jesus cannot be both Messiah and divine. Why is this reasoning incorrect? Precisely because the Old Testament never rules out the possiblity that the Messiah will be divine.
It is absolutely vital to understand this. And, as I (and perhaps others) are prepared to show through Biblical arguments, the Old Testament provides tantalizing hints of the possibility of a divine Messiah.
I generally agree - there is very little evidence in the Old Testament that would support the notion that the Messiah would be divine.
But a critical point needs to be raised here: it is simply incorrect reasoning to conclude that Jesus cannot be both Messiah and divine. Why is this reasoning incorrect? Precisely because the Old Testament never rules out the possiblity that the Messiah will be divine.
It is absolutely vital to understand this. And, as I (and perhaps others) are prepared to show through Biblical arguments, the Old Testament provides tantalizing hints of the possibility of a divine Messiah.
FrustratedForumer
Member
Three Persons -- One God
The Bible presents to us a Father who is God (John 3:16), a Son who is God (Philippians 2:5-8; John 1:1), and a Holy Spirit who is God (Acts 5:3, 4); yet these are not three Gods, but one and the same God.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to explain what the word Person means as applied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are accustomed to think of persons as individual human begins, and we know that three persons cannot be one being. The Persons of the Godhead are clearly distinguished from one another in many passages of Scripture; yet they cannot be separated. This truth is beyond complete understanding by our finite minds.
No illustration of the Trinity will suffice to explain this relationship, but we can perhaps get some help by trying to express the relationship mathematically. Men would ordinarily say of the Persons: one plus one plus one equals three. But it would be more accurate to say: one times one times one equals one, for each of the Persons is fully God in the absolute sense, and the three together are the one self-same God.
It is not possible for me to explain this truth fully, but it is necessary to know and to state clearly what the Bible actually says.
Throughout the Scriptures the Gospel message is plain: God the Father sent His Son to redeem fallen man; The Son willingly came to die for the sins of the world; and the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, regenerates the heart by the Word of God which He inspired, takes the things of Christ, and shows them unto us who love Him (see John 16:12-15).
Colossians 2:9 speaks very plainly: "In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
Further Bible proof of the Trinity
I have already alluded to some Bible proofs of the Trinity. One of these is the use of the plural in reference to God. In creating man, God said, "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). If there were only one Person in the Godhead, does it not seem unlikely that God would use the words "us" and "our" in this instance? Would He not have been more likely to say, "I will make man in my image"? (see also Genesis 3:22). Again, in Isaiah 6:8 God refers to Himself as "I" and "us", indicating both unity and plurality in the same Being.
Another Bible proof of the Trinity which has already been mentioned is the fact that each of the Persons is individually called God.
The Bible presents to us a Father who is God (John 3:16), a Son who is God (Philippians 2:5-8; John 1:1), and a Holy Spirit who is God (Acts 5:3, 4); yet these are not three Gods, but one and the same God.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to explain what the word Person means as applied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are accustomed to think of persons as individual human begins, and we know that three persons cannot be one being. The Persons of the Godhead are clearly distinguished from one another in many passages of Scripture; yet they cannot be separated. This truth is beyond complete understanding by our finite minds.
No illustration of the Trinity will suffice to explain this relationship, but we can perhaps get some help by trying to express the relationship mathematically. Men would ordinarily say of the Persons: one plus one plus one equals three. But it would be more accurate to say: one times one times one equals one, for each of the Persons is fully God in the absolute sense, and the three together are the one self-same God.
It is not possible for me to explain this truth fully, but it is necessary to know and to state clearly what the Bible actually says.
Throughout the Scriptures the Gospel message is plain: God the Father sent His Son to redeem fallen man; The Son willingly came to die for the sins of the world; and the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, regenerates the heart by the Word of God which He inspired, takes the things of Christ, and shows them unto us who love Him (see John 16:12-15).
Colossians 2:9 speaks very plainly: "In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
Further Bible proof of the Trinity
I have already alluded to some Bible proofs of the Trinity. One of these is the use of the plural in reference to God. In creating man, God said, "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). If there were only one Person in the Godhead, does it not seem unlikely that God would use the words "us" and "our" in this instance? Would He not have been more likely to say, "I will make man in my image"? (see also Genesis 3:22). Again, in Isaiah 6:8 God refers to Himself as "I" and "us", indicating both unity and plurality in the same Being.
Another Bible proof of the Trinity which has already been mentioned is the fact that each of the Persons is individually called God.
teddy trueblood
Member
Stovebolts post #67 and Drew #69
I’d love to discuss with you. However, Stovebolts, I’d have to start with one of your points (Jn 1:1?; Jn 8:58?; other?) and discuss back and forth until we have both exhausted our knowledge on that subject before going on to the next point. It still seems best to me that we do it on a one-to-one discussion. I cannot possibly answer everybody else and concentrate on those lengthy discussions which will result from the topics you have listed
(I see that since your first posts (67 and 69) noted above the list has continued to grow.)
Also I would like a real reply to each of my points which have been ignored since post #30 above. If Jesus were understood (by fellow Jews or even by his own disciples) as one who claimed to be God or equal to God, how can the following be true?:
The Jews rounded up some false witnesses to make up lies to obtain a death sentence for Jesus. Not even one of these made a claim that he was God or equally God. (Matt. 26:59-67)
John summed up his whole Gospel by saying that it was written that we may believe "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." There is no mention in that summary of the entire Gospel of what would be the most important thing of all - that Jesus is God! (John 20:31)
Jesus taught in the Jewish synagogues and the temple. This would never happen if any of the authorities believed he claimed to be God (or that his followers believed such a thing). - Matt. 26:55; John 7:14, 28. Matt. 4:23.
After Jesus' death and for the remainder of that first century (at least), Jesus' followers taught in Jewish synagogues. Again, this would not have been allowed if there were any suspicion that they believed Jesus to be God. Acts 9:20; 13:5, Acts 13:13-15.
There is no clear, undisputed scripture plainly stating that Jesus is God. If he were actually God, this should be just as important as who else is God and, therefore repeated hundreds of times in clear, undisputed scriptures just as is the knowledge that the Father is God. Hints and possibilities did not do it for the God of the OT: YHWH nor that same God of the NT: the Father. Why should it be left to 'hints' for another person to be understood as equally God?
I’d love to discuss with you. However, Stovebolts, I’d have to start with one of your points (Jn 1:1?; Jn 8:58?; other?) and discuss back and forth until we have both exhausted our knowledge on that subject before going on to the next point. It still seems best to me that we do it on a one-to-one discussion. I cannot possibly answer everybody else and concentrate on those lengthy discussions which will result from the topics you have listed
(I see that since your first posts (67 and 69) noted above the list has continued to grow.)
Also I would like a real reply to each of my points which have been ignored since post #30 above. If Jesus were understood (by fellow Jews or even by his own disciples) as one who claimed to be God or equal to God, how can the following be true?:
The Jews rounded up some false witnesses to make up lies to obtain a death sentence for Jesus. Not even one of these made a claim that he was God or equally God. (Matt. 26:59-67)
John summed up his whole Gospel by saying that it was written that we may believe "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." There is no mention in that summary of the entire Gospel of what would be the most important thing of all - that Jesus is God! (John 20:31)
Jesus taught in the Jewish synagogues and the temple. This would never happen if any of the authorities believed he claimed to be God (or that his followers believed such a thing). - Matt. 26:55; John 7:14, 28. Matt. 4:23.
After Jesus' death and for the remainder of that first century (at least), Jesus' followers taught in Jewish synagogues. Again, this would not have been allowed if there were any suspicion that they believed Jesus to be God. Acts 9:20; 13:5, Acts 13:13-15.
There is no clear, undisputed scripture plainly stating that Jesus is God. If he were actually God, this should be just as important as who else is God and, therefore repeated hundreds of times in clear, undisputed scriptures just as is the knowledge that the Father is God. Hints and possibilities did not do it for the God of the OT: YHWH nor that same God of the NT: the Father. Why should it be left to 'hints' for another person to be understood as equally God?
stovebolts
Member
Not a problem Teddy.
How about the one on one debate, except it won't be a debate. It can just be a study.
You need to know that my time is hit and miss... so there may be times when it might take me a few days to respond simply because there is only one of me, and I need to allocate my time appropriately.
If that's ok with you, post your questions in the 1 on 1, and hopefully on Monday I'll be able to reply accordingly.
Have a great weekend.
How about the one on one debate, except it won't be a debate. It can just be a study.
You need to know that my time is hit and miss... so there may be times when it might take me a few days to respond simply because there is only one of me, and I need to allocate my time appropriately.
If that's ok with you, post your questions in the 1 on 1, and hopefully on Monday I'll be able to reply accordingly.
Have a great weekend.
FrustratedForumer
Member
REALLY?
Remove blinders before proceeding...
"Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." ( Mark 12:29)
"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." ( John 14:6-7)
But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working still, and I am still working.' This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. ( John 5:16-18)
"Whoever hates me hates my Father also." ( John 15:23)
"If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." ( John 10:37-38)
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works." ( John 14:10)
"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished." ( John 5:19-20)
"Call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father - the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah." ( Matthew 23:9)
"The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." ( John 5:22-23)
"If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me." ( John 8:42)
"All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." ( Luke 10:22)
teddy trueblood
Member
I sent a message for a one-on-one for us (I hope I got your name right - I'm afraid I may have written "stove posts") earlier today. I hope you have a great weekend, too.
Ted
teddy trueblood
Member
This was in response to
While I'm waiting for a one-on-one with StoveBolts, I'll try to at least start with your list.
"Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." ( Mark 12:29)
This is a quote of the famous Shema of Deut. 6:4. In the OT it does refer to the Father by His only personal name YHWH in Hebrew. This name is traditionally transliterated into English as "Jehovah" (see Psalm 83:18 in KJV, for example). Some Bibles, however, transliterate it as 'Yahweh' and most mistranslate it as LORD (all caps).
"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)
Yes, Jesus says that he and his Father are one, but in what sense? It seems most likely that it is in the sense of John 17:22 - "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."
This 'oneness' has been identified as "a unity of personal relationship," "one of love and obedience." This 'oneness' of love and obedience is further explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3 - "... the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
And, of course, these are certainly not scriptures "plainly stating that Jesus is God."
Last edited by a moderator:
teddy trueblood
Member
See answer above.
We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.†- RSV.
So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, “must†be God Himself (by some trinitarian standards of evidence)!
I’m sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16.
And, again, this is not a scripture "plainly stating that Jesus is God."
Last edited by a moderator:
teddy trueblood
Member
Jesus cleared up the problem of healing on the Sabbath: “it is lawful [in accord with God’s intended requirements for the Sabbath] to do good on the Sabbath.’†Then he healed a man on the Sabbath. - Matt. 12:10-13.
It is clear, then, that healing on the Sabbath was actually lawful in God’s eyes but unlawful in the eyes of the Jewish authorities only!
Obviously the Apostle John knew that Jesus had healed lawfully on the Sabbath. He knew that Jesus would never break the Sabbath as lawfully established by God. Only Jesus’ Jewish opponents believed Jesus was breaking the Sabbath!
Therefore, John could not possibly be saying that Jesus was “breaking the sabbath†(John 5:18). Obviously, instead, this is what Jesus’ Jewish opponents were saying (or thinking).
Therefore, it must be the Jews who are saying at John 5:18 “not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal [ison] with God.†- NIV.
Furthermore, it is obvious that John would never distort God’s word by saying that if anyone calls God his Father, he is necessarily claiming to be equal with God! - John 8:41; Matt. 23:9; John 20:17; Is. 64:8; Jer. 3:4, 19; Luke 3:38; Ro. 8:14, 15; Gen. 6:2; Job 38:7. - It must have been the words of those who by their traditions “nullify the word of God.â€
If it truly were John who, when writing this account long after Jesus’ death, inserted such a false accusation of his own, then, the following respected trinitarian scholars and translators would not have Jesus answering that ‘future’ (John’s Gospel was written over 50 years after Jesus’ death) ‘inserted comment’ of John’s by speaking immediately to those Jews:
"So Jesus answered them, ‘I tell you, the Son cannot do anything of his own accord ...†- John 5:19, An American Translation, Goodspeed.
“So Jesus made this answer to them: ....†- Moffatt.
“So Jesus answered them: ...†- C.B. Williams.
“‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered them, ...†- William F. Beck.
“So Jesus answered them, ...†- Good News Bible.
“To this charge Jesus replied, ....†- The New English Bible (and the REB).
“To this accusation Jesus replied: ...†- The Jerusalem Bible.
These respected trinitarian translators have said Jesus replied to this accusation. He couldn’t have replied to a comment that John was to make in the distant future; he must have responded to the comment made at the time by the Jews!
Additionally, the following major trinitarian references confirm the clear and necessary understanding that this was actually the Jews’ statement or thought (not John’s).
“The Jews taxed [Jesus] with making himself equal with God [at John 5:18].†- p. 499, Vol. 2, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1976, 1986.
“Our Lord’s opponents say that He has ‘called God his own Father [John 5:18].’†- The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 968, Vol. 2, Eerdman’s Publishing, 1956, 1984.
“[John 5] verse 18. Making himself equal with God. This the Jews understood from the preceding verse.†- Adam Clarke’s Commentary, 1826.
After quoting Jesus’ words of John 5:19, 20, Noted trinitarian scholar and translator Dr. William Barclay writes in his popular and respected Daily Study Bible Series:
“This is the beginning of Jesus’s answer to the Jews’ charge that he was making himself equal to God.†- p. 188, Vol. 1, The Gospel of John, Rev. ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.
And notice this translation of John 5:18 by the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992:
“The Jews said, ‘First Jesus was breaking the law about the Sabbath day. Then he said that God is his Father! He is making himself equal with God!’.â€
Now let’s look at the Greek term “equal.â€
The trinitarian reference work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 496, 497, states:
“Although it is impossible to make a clear and universally applicable differentiation between the two word-groups, as they are often interchangeable, in general the isos group [ison] indicates more strongly an external, objectively measurable and established likeness and correspondence, while the words connected with homoios express more substantial, essential likeness .... Although the term does not appear in the NT, a note on homoousios [clearly more closely related to homoios above, not ison] has been appended to the article on homoios in view of the crucial importance of the term in the debates on the person of Christ in the early Church [325 A.D.]. It was opposed by the Arians but included in the Creed of Nicaea (325) asserting that Christ was ‘of the same substance [‘essence,’ ‘nature’] as the Father,’ and as such passed into the Nicene Creed.â€
So, right off the bat, we can see that, in general, if we wanted a term to show Jesus’ real equality (in his very “essence†or “natureâ€) with God, we wouldn’t use the term ison. -- [Of course this is all in accordance with the incredible trinitarian principal that no inspired Bible writer can actually come out and say: “three persons make up the only true God, and those three are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritâ€] -- And, although homoousios [“of the same substanceâ€] was never used in Scripture to show Christ’s relationship to God, it was nevertheless so applied, after much violent, heated debate, in 325 A.D. (over the objection of the vast majority of Bishops who preferred the term homoiousios [“of similar substanceâ€]).
Obviously it was felt necessary by these 4th century Church trinitarian policy-makers to use this non-Biblical term instead of ison in order to declare Jesus’ essential equality with the Father. The fact that Scripture never uses it for this purpose is, therefore, very significant!
But let’s continue the examination of ison (or isos). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 2, p. 968 (1984 reprint), discussing isos, reveals:
“In Mt 20:12, ‘made them equal’ means ‘put them upon the same footing,’ i.e. regarded their brief service as though it were the very same as our long hours of toil. In Lk 20:36 the context restricts the equality to a particular relation.â€
In other words, ison at Matt. 20:12 makes the workers measurably “equal†in only one external aspect: the amount of money they were to receive. They were really very unequal otherwise. Also in Luke 20:36, as the trinitarian reference book quoted above tells us, those resurrected humans and God’s angels are not necessarily considered equal in essence in this scripture but in only one particular relation: they will not die again.
So, Jesus’ apparent arrogation (in his enemies’ eyes, at any rate) to himself of the authority to “change†God’s Sabbath law (which, of course, he was not really doing) made him appear to them to be claiming to be “equal†to God (in that particular aspect: “changing†God’s Law - only).
It seems reasonably certain from the above that the Jews didn’t really believe Jesus was actually claiming to be God but attempting to usurp God’s authority in this one respect! But, since these were Jesus’ enemies who were making this false charge at John 5:18, it really matters very little what they claimed!
What does matter, however, is what Jesus claimed. How did Jesus answer this false charge by his enemies?
“To this charge Jesus replied, ‘In truth, in very truth I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he does only what he sees the Father doing....’†- John 5:19, NEB.
So Jesus did not claim that he was Almighty God or even equal to Him. He clearly told the Jews that he was not God, but that, even as God’s spokesman, he could not act upon his own initiative. Can we really picture the Almighty God of the universe saying that he could do nothing on his own initiative?
We find, then, that the Jews made a charge, and Jesus refuted it. He never claimed to be God. He never claimed to be equal to God!