John 10:30 I and the Father are one."
and
John 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Did Jesus lie in these two verses?
The Bible says that a virgin will conceive. It doesn't say how she would conceive.
While it doesn't get technical and go into the mechanics of it, Scripture says....
Luke 1:34-35 34And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"
35And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God.
Matthew 1:22-2322 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
Interesting name He was given there.....
And you totally didn't address the key verses there, which are.....
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."
****
Show me in the Bible where the Lord changed the difenition of words (the Father still means the Father, and Son still means Son and most Highest still means Heavenly Father) the Lord is not the author of confusiion.
John 17:
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
• • •
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Is the Bible just snippets of individual verses? Do you have to take the Bible as a whole or just in parts?
Here’s the pattern people follow as regards the Bible:
1. I believe X (someone taught me this or I discovered it for myself through research or the input of the Holy Ghost
2. I scour the Bible and find verses supporting X
3. I ignore mitigating verses or verses that contradict what I already believe.
You cannot ignore the whole to the convenience of the parts. It’s like treating a human being as a toenail or tooth. Neither accounts for the whole.
For your belief convenience you accept the Trinity, but to get there one has to ignore the parts of the Bible that refute the Trinity, not the least of which is that the Trinity is never established by the words of God or Jesus in either testament as a doctrine of salvation.
That is believing in the Trinity doesn’t save you. Therefore not believing in the Trinity doesn’t condemn you. Arguments that one doesn’t believe the “right” Jesus because one rejects the Trinity are also illogical.
Look at the Jews. God from the beginning establishes behavior as a reflection of belief. Works matter in Hebrew theology and in modern Jewish theology (Jews constituting 1/12th of Israel). Works is part of salvation. Many modern Christians decry works as a saving sacrament, but Jews don’t. Who is correct?
Jesus never condemns the Pharisees for works or for observing the Law, but for hypocrisy in works and observing the Law.
The Bible, using both the Old and New Testaments, establishes God the Father and Jesus Christ, His Son, as God. There isn’t an argument in favor of monotheism in the Bible, just against worshiping false, man-made idols. Jews reject Jesus’ divinity and use monotheism as an argument.
Christians accept Jesus’ divinity and invent the Trinity to reconcile it to monotheism and distinguish it from Roman Theology and other pagan polytheistic systems within the Roman World. These are political and philosophical responses to religious and political realities, not Biblical ones.
In the Bible context matters. Who is the audience, what is the message, and who is the messenger all act in concord to establish the Mind of God, that is God’s intent.
Let’s take a look at two of your verses and put them into Biblical context. I am not trying to force you to believe something, just showing you that there can be alternative conclusions, OK?
I am not looking to injure your beliefs or testimony. This is, for me, a discussion not an argument or fight.
John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “... Whoever has seen me has seen the Father...”
Acts 7:55, “But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.”
What did Stephen see? Don’t interpret or attempt to reconcile the two passages at first. Just view them for what they say.
Clearly they are open to interpretation. If you reject the Trinity you see that Stephen saw Jesus Christ and God (not Jesus Christ, but possibly appearing similar or like Jesus Christ): Two personages, not one.
To view those verses that way is not illogical, just not in keeping with what you believe to be true and that’s OK.
Trinitarians reconcile the two by making Stephen’s vision allegorical and not physical, that is “standing on the right hand” isn’t a location, but a metaphor. That’s OK, too.
Each of us has to decide for ourselves which one makes more sense. That confusion exists tells us that there is more to salvation than currently meets the eye. I believe that Jesus doesn’t lie and neither does Stephen. Jesus (the Son of God) and God (the Father, His Father) are not one and the same. I choose the iota. http://www.xefer.com/2002/10/iota
Let’s look at Luke 1:34-35
34And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
35And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God.
Here’s Young’s Literal Translation:
34 And Mary said unto the messenger, ‘How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?’
35 And the messenger answering said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;
The word being translated as “virgin” really means “man” and in this context - “husband”. See here: http://biblos.com/luke/1-34.htm
Mary understands the Angels message to be imminent conception and replies, logically, how can I a human woman and a virgin be pregnant without sexual intercourse with my husband Joseph. This is logical on its face and also proper given that Mary knows the prophecies regarding a soon to come Messiah - a man in the flesh - that will redeem Israel.
The Angel corrects her explaining the method: Luke 1:35
Take a look here at the Greek used: http://biblos.com/luke/1-35.htm
We don’t know the method, but it is miraculous as are all God’s actions. The Greek word used to describe the action is “procreate”. Note also that the scripture is specific. This is God Most High acting and not the Lord God.
You don’t have to agree, you just can see that there are logical and faithful God-loving interpretations that are different from what you believe.
Imagine how this story must have sounded to a Greek speaking Jew. Holy-begotten means “sacred procreation”.