Why Did the Chief Priests Need to Hire False Witnesses?

teddy_trueblood · Post by **teddy_trueblood** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:28 pm

When the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were attempting to gather evidence to kill Jesus, why did they have to hire false witnesses?

And why did these same priests and false witnesses never say that Jesus believed (or taught) that he was God? Instead the high priest finally said to Jesus: â€œTell us if you are the Christ, the Son of Godlâ€œ - Matt. 26:59-63 NIV.

teddy_trueblood · Post by **teddy_trueblood** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:16 pm

John.14
1.[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
2.[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

The words used in John 14:7 which are translated as â€œseenâ€� are a form of the NT Greek word horao.

Notice the relationship between "know" and "see": 3 John 11 - "the one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen [horao] God." And 1 John 3:6 -

"No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen [horao] Him or knows Him." - NASB.

We can see, then, that horao ("see") can mean the same thing as "abiding in" or "knowing," and all three may have the figurative meaning of agreement in purpose and will with someone else.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, p. 380, tells us:
"What is seen in a vision is a revelation from God. Statements that human beings have seen or will see God Himself do not refer to a perception of a physical aspect of God by human physical senses but a process of coming to some amount of understanding of God, often just a simple realization of His greatness or some other aspect of His nature, either by a revelatory vision (Isa. 6:15; Ezk. 1:26-28), â€¦ or by their acquaintance with Jesus Christ (Jn 14:9, cf. 1:18)." â€“ Eerdmans, 1991.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, 1986 printing, Zondervan, pp. 513, 515, 518, explains the meanings of horao.

"Horao" means "... become aware (Gen. 37:1). (b) figuratively it comes to be used of intellectual or spiritual perception .... It also means ... attend to, know or have experienced (Deut. 11:2), or be concerned about something (Gen. 37:14; Is. 5:12)." - p. 513. - - "Besides the general meaning of to know, horao and its derivatives can mean to obtain knowledge". - p. 515.

This trinitarian reference also states:

"For the NT God is utterly invisible (Jn 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Col. 1:15) ... yet the resurrection narratives especially stress that the risen Christ is visible." - p. 518.

Professor Joseph H. Thayer (who was "the dean of New Testament scholars in America" - Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. IX) in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ("a standard in the field") also defines horao with similar meanings and specifically tells us that John 14:7, 9 is in the category of "2. to see with the mind, to perceive, to KNOW."

In discussing this meaning of horao, Thayer writes:

"to know God's will, 3 John 11; from the intercourse and influence of Christ to have come to see (know) God's majesty, saving purposes, and WILL, Jn. xiv. 7, 9". - p. 451, Baker Book House, 1984 printing.

We can understand, then, why the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, Zondervan, explains John 14:7 this way:

"Once more Jesus stresses the intimate connection between the Father and himself. Jesus brought a full revelation of the Father (cf. 1:18), so that the apostles had real knowledge of him." - footnote for John 14:7.

So there is no real reason to insist that John 14:7, 9 shows Jesus as being equally God with his Father. The probability is that, in harmony with the usage of the time, Jesus was merely saying that what he spoke came from God, and what he did is what God directed. He meant that understanding what he did and said was like knowing ("seeing") God* (as, in a similar sense, those who literally saw angels sent by God and speaking God's words were said to have "seen God"). Jesus is totally in harmony with ("one" with) the Father in purpose so that we can "see" the Father's will in Jesus.

As in all other "Jesus is equally God" evidence, we find that the trinitarian "proof" is a scripture that can honestly be translated or interpreted in at least one other way which would prove no such thing!

We never find a statement clearly stating that "Jesus is equally and fully God" in Scripture. And yet other such essential knowledge that leads to eternal life is clearly and repeatedly emphasized: "Jesus is the Christ [Messiah]," "our savior and king" - the one who appears before God in heaven in our behalf, the one through whom we must approach God. Surely this most important information in the Bible of exactly who God is and exactly who Jesus is would not be hidden from us in the slightest degree!

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:27 pm

You are dancing around the evidence.
You give your private interpretation
for seen me seen the Father
but what about "haven't I" and "not known me"?
Wasn't he answering the Father question?

Isa.9
1.[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

teddy_trueblood · Post by **teddy_trueblood** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:42 pm

You are dancing around the evidence.
You give your private interpretation

Dear Flesh,

I have provided evidence from many noted trinitarians concerning your posts on this site.

When I provide my 'private interpretation,' I back it up with a proper investigation of the scriptures (such as examining all the uses of ehyeh in the writings of Moses, or all the uses of Greek constructions by John which are truly parallel to John 1:1c, or all the uses of theos by John (as used in John 1:1c).

All I ask is a fair and honest reply to my research and the quotes from trinitarian scholars I have provided.

But so far they have all been ignored by you and another so-called 'trinity-proof' given instead.

So, I will try not to answer your trinity 'evidence' any longer unless you change tactics. If anyone else wants to know what the answer is to your further 'Jesus is God' posts, I will provide it for them.

Sincerely,
Ted

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:49 pm

You got sensitive and ignored to answer the meat and potatoes.
Is that how you proved your case?

but what about "haven't I" and "not known me"?
Wasn't he answering the Father question?

Isa.9
1.[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The reason i stated you are dancing around the evidence
is because Jesus claiming to be the Father is clearly written.
It is not a translation issue as you claim.
I means I, and me means me.
Doesn't Isa.9 agree with that?
Are there two mighty Gods?

teddy_trueblood · Post by **teddy_trueblood** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:56 pm

If anyone wishes to know the answer to any trinity 'evidence' by Flesh, please let me know (either here or in a private message).

Ted

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:23 pm

John.14
1.[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
2.[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

Shermana · Post by **Shermana** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:27 am

InTheFlesh wrote:John.14
1.[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
2.[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

Like with 1 John 5:20, the rest of the verse and the subsequent text helps in clarifying the context:

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Adds a bit more clarity to the subject. Jesus was not saying He's the Father, that would be Modalism if he was. He's saying that the Father is in Him, like how he dwelt in the Temple doing His work through Jesus. Those who use this verse as a proof text are indisputably promoting Modalism.

Does this sound like Jesus is saying that He's the Father?

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Certainly not.

So any Trinitarian who thinks Jesus is declaring that He is the Father, is inexplicably promoting a Sabbellian/Modalist view. Yashua is merely saying that he's the Father's representative and that he is the Temple/Dwelling Place for His work to be done.

New International Version (Â©1984)
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

So Jesus is saying that He's the Father and that he's going to the Father? Not quite. There's more to the surface of this passage than what many Trinitarians think.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:28 pm

Is Jesus not both the son of man and the Son of God?

The Son of God has no father!

Heb.7
1.[3] Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The son of man says the Father is greater than him.
The Son of God claims to be the Father.

1John.3
[1] Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
[2] Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Tit.2
1.[13] Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

teddy_trueblood · Post by **teddy_trueblood** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:49 pm

Otseng- Guidelines for this forum:

No single translation trumps another, and when differences of opinion arise regarding various translations, Hebrew and Greek sources will have a greater authority.

(emphasis added)

Flesh:

The Son of God has no father!

This statement is so far from the truth that it needs no reply.

Tit.2[:13]

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Another questionable translation. Even a number of trinitarian Bibles render this as:"glorious appearance of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." Showing this to be referring to two different persons (only one of whom is God).

Also modern trinitarian Greek grammar experts' discussions of similar expressions in scripture show the reason for the above rendering.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:37 pm

The Son of God has no father!

This statement is so far from the truth that it needs no reply.

Your opinion is not truth, the scriptures are.

Heb.7
1.[3] Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

How can someone with no descent have a father?

When was his first day if he has no beginning of days?

Please provide doctrine to support your theory that the "Son of God" has a father.