John 5:17-18

[placebofactor]

John 5:17-18, “Jesus answered them (the Jews), my Father worketh hitherto, and I work. And therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

In order to understand the impact Jesus' words had on the Jewish mind, we have to take ourselves back 2000 years. The Jews understood from Jesus' words, and in their understanding, that whatever the Father’s work was, the Son’s work was the same, showing and also proving that He and the Father are one. Not only had Jesus broken the sabbath, but He had also made Himself equal to God. And for both crimes, according to the Jewish law, he must be put to death.

John 19:7, “The Jews answered him (Jesus), we have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

The chief priests of the temple charged Jesus with blasphemy, voting that he deserved to die. Matthew 26:65-66, “The high priest (tore) his clothes, saying, he (Jesus) has spoken blasphemy; which further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. What think you? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”

As far as the Jews were concerned, and according to the law, Jesus' words were a capital offence, for saying that whatever things the Father does the Son likewise does. Jesus did his work in the same manner, with the same authority, energy, power, and effect as the Father. And for this, he was loved by the Father and hated of men.

Your thoughts:

[1213]

....As far as the Jews were concerned, and according to the law, Jesus' words were a capital offence, for saying that whatever things the Father does the Son likewise does. Jesus did his work in the same manner, with the same authority, energy, power, and effect as the Father. And for this, he was loved by the Father and hated of men.

What would have happened, if they would have heard Jesus saying: the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28?

[placebofactor]

....As far as the Jews were concerned, and according to the law, Jesus' words were a capital offence, for saying that whatever things the Father does the Son likewise does. Jesus did his work in the same manner, with the same authority, energy, power, and effect as the Father. And for this, he was loved by the Father and hated of men.

What would have happened, if they would have heard Jesus saying: the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28?

What the Lord said to the Temple priests and what he said to his disciples were two different things. What the priests heard him say was he was the Son of God, and in their mind, they knew he was making himself equal to the Father.

Jesus said the "Father is greater than I,"

In verse 24, Jesus said, "the Father had sent him." In John 13:16, Jesus said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." So it's in this sense that the Father is greater than the Son, and in this sense should the passage be understood.

[1213]

....As far as the Jews were concerned, and according to the law, Jesus' words were a capital offence, for saying that whatever things the Father does the Son likewise does. Jesus did his work in the same manner, with the same authority, energy, power, and effect as the Father. And for this, he was loved by the Father and hated of men.

What would have happened, if they would have heard Jesus saying: the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28?

What the Lord said to the Temple priests and what he said to his disciples were two different things. What the priests heard him say was he was the Son of God, and in their mind, they knew he was making himself equal to the Father.

And because of what Jesus said, I think it is now clear that they made a mistake, or intentionally interpreted the words against Jesus.

[placebofactor]

....As far as the Jews were concerned, and according to the law, Jesus' words were a capital offence, for saying that whatever things the Father does the Son likewise does. Jesus did his work in the same manner, with the same authority, energy, power, and effect as the Father. And for this, he was loved by the Father and hated of men.

What would have happened, if they would have heard Jesus saying: the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28?

What the Lord said to the Temple priests and what he said to his disciples were two different things. What the priests heard him say was he was the Son of God, and in their mind, they knew he was making himself equal to the Father.

And because of what Jesus said, I think it is now clear that they made a mistake, or intentionally interpreted the words against Jesus.

No mistake, the priests knew the law; they understood Jesus correctly. His words to them indicated that he claimed to be equal to his Father by declaring to be the Son of God. That was blasphemy according to the law of Moses.

[tygger2]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary:

"`Son of God' in Heb[rew] means `god' or `god-like' rather than `son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Job 1:6 ... Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the `sons of God' form Yahweh's [Jehovah's] heavenly train [angels] or subordinates" - p. 1133. And, "`Son of ...' is an idiom for `having the characteristics of' or `doing the work of'." - cf. Mt 5:9, 45. - p. 1134, 2nd ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publishers.

And noted Biblical Hebrew expert, Gesenius, tells of only three scriptural Jewish understandings of "Sons of God":

"The appellation of `sons of God' is given in the Old Test. - (a) To angels .... (b) to kings ... as being the substitutes of God on earth .... (c) to men who piously worship God." - pp. 126-127, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker Book House.

Luke also gives another Jewish understanding of the term "the Son of God" in the sense of one who was actually created by God: Luke 3:38 (KJV, RSV).

So what should we honestly conclude from the fact that Jesus was repeatedly called the Son of God in the inspired word of God?

[onewithhim]

....As far as the Jews were concerned, and according to the law, Jesus' words were a capital offence, for saying that whatever things the Father does the Son likewise does. Jesus did his work in the same manner, with the same authority, energy, power, and effect as the Father. And for this, he was loved by the Father and hated of men.

What would have happened, if they would have heard Jesus saying: the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28?

What the Lord said to the Temple priests and what he said to his disciples were two different things. What the priests heard him say was he was the Son of God, and in their mind, they knew he was making himself equal to the Father.

Jesus said the "Father is greater than I,"

In verse 24, Jesus said, "the Father had sent him." In John 13:16, Jesus said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." So it's in this sense that the Father is greater than the Son, and in this sense should the passage be understood.

The Pharisees accused Jesus of making himself equal to God. They were wrong. In reality he was saying clearly that he was God's Son. They wanted to twist that to mean something else---anything to get him to be castigated. He never indicated that he was God or equal to God. To say "the Father is greater than I" is clear and precise. It was that way before he came here and continued to be that way even after he returned to heaven.

"I am God's Son"....John 10:36.

"The head of the Christ is God."....I Corinthians 11:3.

[1213]

...
No mistake, the priests knew the law; they understood Jesus correctly. His words to them indicated that he claimed to be equal to his Father by declaring to be the Son of God. That was blasphemy according to the law of Moses.

Is it blasphemy, when the book of Moses, Job or Psalms speaks of sons of God?

When men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them, God’s sons saw that men’s daughters were beautiful, and they took any that they wanted for themselves as wives.
Gen. 6:1-2
Now on the day when God’s sons came to present themselves before Yahweh,[a] Satan also came among them.
Job 1:6
I said, “You are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, and fall like one of the rulers.”
Ps. 82:6-7

[onewithhim]

[Replying to 1213 in post #8]

The Jews stretched the laws to where they were almost non-discernible. How could God's Son be guilty of blasphemy?? He was totally innocent. The Jews made up their own rules about what was acceptable and what was not. They always searched for ways to trip Jesus up, even if they had to lie. They wouldn't accept him as the Messiah and wanted him out of the way, because he threatened their status and their way of life. To accuse him of blasphemy was just one of their evil schemes to get him eradicated.

[Capbook]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary:

"`Son of God' in Heb[rew] means `god' or `god-like' rather than `son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Job 1:6 ... Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the `sons of God' form Yahweh's [Jehovah's] heavenly train [angels] or subordinates" - p. 1133. And, "`Son of ...' is an idiom for `having the characteristics of' or `doing the work of'." - cf. Mt 5:9, 45. - p. 1134, 2nd ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publishers.

And noted Biblical Hebrew expert, Gesenius, tells of only three scriptural Jewish understandings of "Sons of God":

"The appellation of `sons of God' is given in the Old Test. - (a) To angels .... (b) to kings ... as being the substitutes of God on earth .... (c) to men who piously worship God." - pp. 126-127, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker Book House.

Luke also gives another Jewish understanding of the term "the Son of God" in the sense of one who was actually created by God: Luke 3:38 (KJV, RSV).

So what should we honestly conclude from the fact that Jesus was repeatedly called the Son of God in the inspired word of God?

I just believe there are no contentions to those who were called "son of God, or sons of God" as God themselves.
Only to Jesus as "Son of God" opposed by the Arians by adding words to the original languages, and produced paraphrase translations to suit their beliefs.