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:

[placebofactor]

[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.

Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said to her (Mary), the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing (Jesus) which shall be born of thee shall be called THE SON OF GOD."

Jesus is the Son of God in his divine and eternal nature. This is clear from all the New Testament writings; his Sonship burst forth into human form, now able to be touched, noticed, and understood by men. Made known by his birth, through the power of the Highest. Born an infant of days, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh; he is God with us.

[tygger2]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #30]
placebofactor: He has been given all things John 16:15, "ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS ARE MINE:" Note the word "ALL." It DOESN'T MEAN HALF, OF 99% IT READS, "ALL." Why is that so difficult to understand? He is our Shepherd, are Mediator, our Judge and jury.
..............................................................................
(KJV) .... 1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.

(NIV) …. Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under Christ.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #28]
The same word (en) is translated 18 times as "through" in NASB.

Can you post your Col 1:16 by NASB using the word "through?"
I already posted mine and through was not used.