In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Anyone want to explain how Jesus isn't God based upon this passage verse 6 in particular?
Philippians 2:5-11
Moderator: Moderators
-
Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9199
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Philippians 2:5-11
Post #1Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image
."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image
."-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9041
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1237 times
- Been thanked: 313 times
Re: Philippians 2:5-11
Post #91Comment?onewithhim wrote:I think this is one of the worst renderings I have seen. There are many versions that actually say the exact opposite of what your version above says.Wootah wrote: In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Anyone want to explain how Jesus isn't God based upon this passage verse 6 in particular?
I'll quote a few, but first I would like to make the point that the verses above contradict themselves.....verses 8 and 9 contradicting verse 6. Your verse 6 says that Jesus was equal to God, being, in effect, God. But in verse 8 it says that Christ was obedient. Does GOD obey anyone? God is the ultimate in power and wisdom. If Christ is God, why would he have to obey anyone? And who would this individual be that he was obeying?
Then in verse 9 it says that God exalted Christ because he obeyed. Christ was exalted to a level that he wasn't before. How can God become higher than He was at any point in history? I think being God is the highest anyone can be. Yet Christ was made higher than when he started out. That does not harmonize with the idea that he was God. God doesn't need to OBEY , nor can He be EXALTED to a higher position.
Therefore, these verses contradict verse 6 that erroneously states that Jesus is God.
Now, there are several versions that say, or are in agreement with, what the following says, at Philippians 2:6:
(1) "Although he was like God in nature [that is, he was SPIRIT; see John 4:24], he never even considered seizing the chance to be equal with God." (21st Century New Testament)
(2) "Who, being in the form of God [spirit], did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." (NIV)
(3) "Who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." (New American Standard Bible)
(4) "Who, although he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." (Revised Standard Version)
(5) "He was in the form of God, yet he laid no claim to equality with God." (Revised English Bible)
These are just five versions that render Phil.2:6 in a much different way, and I could post several more if you wish.
They all say that Jesus would not even try to GRASP a position like the Most High, and to "GRASP" means to take something that one did not possess before. If you would like to understand the meaning of "GRASP" further, a brilliant discussion about this can be found in Jason BeDuhn's book, Truth in Translation. He is not affiliated with any religion, so has no ax to grind. A book well worth reading.
So, no, Jesus is NOT God, and it is really quite easy to see this when considering versions other than whatever yours is. It probably follows the KJV, which made a quite incomprehensible rendering of the original Greek text.
Re: Philippians 2:5-11
Post #92[Replying to post 87 by onewithhim]
Post #5 repeated:
Harpagmos (Phil. 2:6)
Notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered this NT Greek word:
1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ��παγμὸς] equality with God� - NEB.
2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God� - TEV (and GNB).
We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (��παγμὸς).
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder� and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).� - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.
“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpaz�).� - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.�
And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.� Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ �
Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.� - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.� - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize� used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize�!
We can easily see this “taken by force� meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.
In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force.
Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;� Job 29:17 “spoil� (a “prize� taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;� Is. 42:22 “prey;� Is. 61:8 “robberies;� Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;� Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;� Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;� Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;� Ezek. 19:3 “prey;� Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;� Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;� Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain� (through the use of “harpazo� or “force�); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;� Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;� and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims� (compare ASV).
So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery� or “taken by force� without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.�
For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery� (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.� This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!
Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.
Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].� In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.� - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.
When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!
Post #5 repeated:
Harpagmos (Phil. 2:6)
Notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered this NT Greek word:
1. “He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ��παγμὸς] equality with God� - NEB.
2. “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God� - TEV (and GNB).
We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (��παγμὸς).
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder� and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).� - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.
“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpaz�).� - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.�
And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.� Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:
“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ �
Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.� - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)
“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.� - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.
The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize� used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize�!
We can easily see this “taken by force� meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.
In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force.
Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;� Job 29:17 “spoil� (a “prize� taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;� Is. 42:22 “prey;� Is. 61:8 “robberies;� Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;� Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;� Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;� Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;� Ezek. 19:3 “prey;� Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;� Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;� Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain� (through the use of “harpazo� or “force�); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;� Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;� and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims� (compare ASV).
So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Many trinitarian translators, however, either make nonsense out of the meaning of Phil. 2:6 by actually using the proper meaning of “robbery� or “taken by force� without showing God’s clear superiority over Jesus which the context demands, or, instead, making sense of it by choosing a word that doesn’t have the proper meaning of “taking by force.�
For example, the King James Version (KJV) does use “robbery� (a nearly-accurate meaning for harpagmos) but obviously mangles the meaning of the rest of the statement so that it doesn’t even make proper sense: “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.� This is a nonsensical statement even by itself. In context it is even more inappropriate!
Yes, as we have seen above, even in the KJV it is apparent from context that the purpose of this example is to emphasize lowliness of mind, humility: to regard others as better than yourself (vv. 3-5). Paul certainly wouldn’t destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn’t robbery for him to be equal with the Most High! Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility! Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul’s example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won’t give even a moment’s thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.
Trinitarian scholar R. P. Martin, for example, feels the context (especially the obvious contrast of verses 6 and 7) clearly proves that harpagmos in verse 6 means Christ refused to seize equality with God. Emphasizing the fact that this is a contrast with verse 6, verse 7 begins with “but [alla].� In accord with this, he tells us,
“V[erse] 6b states what Christ might have done [or could have attempted to do], i.e. seized equality with God; v. 7 states what he chose to do, i.e. give himself.� - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 604.
When even a number of the best trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not God!
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9041
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1237 times
- Been thanked: 313 times
Post #93
Yes, but we can't forget that Jehovah has made it clear that we must accept His arrangement in the process of returning to Him, and those stipulations include (and, indeed, are paramount) accepting Jesus as Christ and Savior---that Jesus made it possible to escape death by dying in our place.brianbbs67 wrote:Peace again. If Christ is God or not doesn't matter, unless you believe he changes God's instructions? If not(christ being God or not), it matters not as long as we believe in God and thru Him receive forgiveness. The message is the same no matter which way you believe. Repent and follow God. Same message in the OT. Its the cohesive message of God. Come back to Me and be forgiven.PinSeeker wrote:So you and others say (incorrectly). Unfortunate.brianbbs67 wrote:That actually proves nothing as to Jesus being God....PinSeeker wrote: [Replying to post 72 by JehovahsWitness]
LOL! Actually, I did forget one... somehow... --
To both of you, context is key. But some pointedly ignore such things...
- “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.� [John 8:58]
Grace and peace to all.
Grace and peace to you.
"Jesus said...'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6)
-
Avoice
- Guru
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:41 am
- Location: USA / ISRAEL
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 34 times
Re: Philippians 2:5-11
Post #94[Replying to post 84 by marco]
Love each other? Like he loved us?
If he loved us he would've condemned his disciples from plucking corn on the Sabbath.
Jesus said what do you profit if you love this those that love you. Oh that is so loving.
Love those that hate you? And just what will that produce?
Turn them from hating you into loving you?
And just what Christian does that? Maybe from the mouth out they say it but it's not from their heart. Love the person who molested and murdered your child?
He wants a world where hateful people are allowed to hate. And nice people are to love them. And if they do evil to you let them snack you on the other cheek. He wants evil people ewarded and loving people is a waste of time.
He wants evil people to be loved. Why?
To be God-like? God loves those who hate him? And those who love him he could care less about?
Christians are spending eternity in his world. Forced to love all the evil spirits. That's the deal they cut when they said 'jesus is my lord'. OMG
Love each other? Like he loved us?
If he loved us he would've condemned his disciples from plucking corn on the Sabbath.
Jesus said what do you profit if you love this those that love you. Oh that is so loving.
Love those that hate you? And just what will that produce?
Turn them from hating you into loving you?
And just what Christian does that? Maybe from the mouth out they say it but it's not from their heart. Love the person who molested and murdered your child?
He wants a world where hateful people are allowed to hate. And nice people are to love them. And if they do evil to you let them snack you on the other cheek. He wants evil people ewarded and loving people is a waste of time.
He wants evil people to be loved. Why?
To be God-like? God loves those who hate him? And those who love him he could care less about?
Christians are spending eternity in his world. Forced to love all the evil spirits. That's the deal they cut when they said 'jesus is my lord'. OMG
Post #95
[Replying to post 89 by onewithhim]
Yes, but we can't forget that Jehovah has made it clear that we must accept His arrangement in the process of returning to Him, and those stipulations include (and, indeed, are paramount) accepting Jesus as Christ and Savior---that Jesus made it possible to escape death by dying in our place.
"Jesus said...'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6)
Presumably you believe that the verse you cited backs up what proceeded it. If so, then this is an example of taking a verse out of context and reading things into it that have little to nothing to do with what His words actually say. An example of putting words in Jesus' mouth.
Yes, but we can't forget that Jehovah has made it clear that we must accept His arrangement in the process of returning to Him, and those stipulations include (and, indeed, are paramount) accepting Jesus as Christ and Savior---that Jesus made it possible to escape death by dying in our place.
"Jesus said...'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6)
Presumably you believe that the verse you cited backs up what proceeded it. If so, then this is an example of taking a verse out of context and reading things into it that have little to nothing to do with what His words actually say. An example of putting words in Jesus' mouth.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9041
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1237 times
- Been thanked: 313 times
Post #96
Please explain how I have "put words in Jesus' mouth." I don't see your point.WeSee wrote: [Replying to post 89 by onewithhim]
Yes, but we can't forget that Jehovah has made it clear that we must accept His arrangement in the process of returning to Him, and those stipulations include (and, indeed, are paramount) accepting Jesus as Christ and Savior---that Jesus made it possible to escape death by dying in our place.
"Jesus said...'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6)
Presumably you believe that the verse you cited backs up what proceeded it. If so, then this is an example of taking a verse out of context and reading things into it that have little to nothing to do with what His words actually say. An example of putting words in Jesus' mouth.
Post #97
[Replying to post 92 by onewithhim]
Not sure what you don't understand. Let's take it one step at a time.
Did you cite John 14:6 because you believe that the verse backs up the preceding paragraph that you wrote?
Not sure what you don't understand. Let's take it one step at a time.
Did you cite John 14:6 because you believe that the verse backs up the preceding paragraph that you wrote?
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Philippians 2:5-11
Post #98Resist not Evil? Reject the devil(ha'satan) and he will flee from you. This one works for sure.Avoice wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Wootah]
God.
Creator of heaven and Earth
Transformed himself into a human in order to save those who would rather let him kill himself than be obedient to his Torah.
Allowing himself to be spit on and humiliated and nailed to a tree to die slowly. WHAT A HORRIBLE THING TO SAY ABOUT GOD
Christians say Jesus (God) replaced the law (replaced himself) and gave them a new set of rules. Oh my....they have no idea what they are obligating themself to do by obeyibg the one called jesus.
Jesus commands:
RESIST NOT EVIL
LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU, DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU AND PRAY FOR THEM WHICH DESPITEFULLY USE YOU
THEY DO LOVE THEIR ENEMY. THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR ENEMY ALL THEY HAVE. THEY ARE GOOD TO THE ONE WHO HATES THEM AND DESPITEFULLY USES THEM. Only they don't realize it.
THEY SHOULD REMEMBER THAT JESUS COMMANDS THAT THEY LOVE OTHERS AS HE HAS LOVED THEM.
BEHOLD HOW HE LOVED THEM!
OF COURSE HE COMMANDS THEM TO LOVE THEIR ENEMY. Very clever
Christ affirmmed the Torah. Never once did he preach against it. Even in your grain picking example. This was a tradition as was ritual hand washing. Not God's commands but men's.
Telling people to pray for their enemies is not against Torah, either.
Doesn't mean we have to bow to them.
The 613 Misvots of Mosche are easy enough to follow. Especially since most are not applicable since we have neither a theocracy or a Temple. When the 3rd temple is built, then yes, we must obey God,fully. Right now, we have but a few to follow and people can't seem to do the least of them.(decalogue) Number 4 is missed alsmost entirely.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 9041
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1237 times
- Been thanked: 313 times
Post #99
brian had said that it doesn't matter if Jesus is God or not, so I wanted to make the point that God and Jesus are different individuals with different positions, so it really does matter what the relationship between the two is.WeSee wrote: [Replying to post 92 by onewithhim]
Not sure what you don't understand. Let's take it one step at a time.
Did you cite John 14:6 because you believe that the verse backs up the preceding paragraph that you wrote?
I still don't understand how I put words into Jesus' mouth.
Post #100
I was looking to explain it. If you're still interested in understanding, then answer the question in my previous post.onewithhim wrote:brian had said that it doesn't matter if Jesus is God or not, so I wanted to make the point that God and Jesus are different individuals with different positions, so it really does matter what the relationship between the two is.WeSee wrote: [Replying to post 92 by onewithhim]
Not sure what you don't understand. Let's take it one step at a time.
Did you cite John 14:6 because you believe that the verse backs up the preceding paragraph that you wrote?
I still don't understand how I put words into Jesus' mouth.
