Jump to content
The World News Media

Donald Diamond

Member
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Donald Diamond's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

18

Reputation

  1. But your argument was that the phrase “son of god” meant God Himself, or “of the same nature as God”. It clearly does not. I agree with you that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus. But in that very statement, there is a distinction between God and Jesus. Where did I say that Jesus couldn’t even spit on the ground? I agree that the Pharisees had added traditions to the Sabbath requirements, but the point here is that if John believed and wrote that Jesus broke the Sabbath, he is agreeing with Jesus’ opponents that he was a sinner. That cannot be true. John can only be quoting the accusations of Jesus’ enemies. I have no need to take up anything with “Bible writers” - references are put in Bibles for various reasons. It is your argument that Jesus’ opponents were telling the truth when they said there was a law that required Jesus should die for claiming to be the Son of God. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this is correct. As you cannot, the only conclusion is that this was another lie on their part. Absolutely. Therefore the comment that Jesus broke the Sabbath must have been the Pharisees view - not the Gospel writer. Thanks for that - hopefully OK now. I believe I have explained more than once how I understand the term “god” when used in relation to Jesus (including how he himself used it in John 10 – which was the original question). I have pointed out that you expressed your question in terms of a false dichotomy (i.e. only allowing one of two answers when there can be more). This is a debating technique, So you must see that I am suspicious of you demanding a specific form of words. Please define what you mean by a “legitimate god” – do you consider Zeus to be a legitimate god? Dagon? Baal? If you mean, is he God (Jehovah) then the answer is no - but I think you already know that. D.
  2. As the Jews were sons of God, angels are called sons of God in Job and Adam was son of God (Luke 3:38), I have demonstrated absolutely that son of God does not mean “of the same nature as God”. Col 2:9 states that something of God dwells in Christ. That is very different from what you are claiming. The Jewish leaders did not make the false distinction between God’s Sabbath and the Jews Sabbath that you suggest. They were claiming that Jesus broke the Sabbath law of God – otherwise there is no point to their argument. Of course, he did not – their claims were false. Your quotation of Lev 24:16 is taken out of context. The full context shows that it related to reviling God. Lev 24:10-16 Now an Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel. And the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought in the camp, and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. ….. And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be clear to them. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. There is no way that John 19:7 is referring to this text. Jesus was not reviling God. The problem with your argument is that when the Jewish leaders said: "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God." – they were lying. There is no such law as the Jewish leaders claimed. More evidence of false witness. I demonstrated that the high priest wanted Jesus dead – yes? While the Jewish leaders could not find anyone to bear false witness at that time, I have shown clearly that they were perfectly happy to support it – yes? John could not have written that Jesus broke the Sabbath. What is recorded is the claims of Jesus’ opposers. At John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father”. This is not an argument about English. The word “own” (in Greek this would be idios). Jesus did not use that word – he used the normal adjective “my” – it has nothing to do with translation. Jesus’ opposers had to change it. It was false witness. In your church do you regularly stone members who refer to God as “my Father”? I’d better not join. D.
  3. Having made such a mess of formatting, I will not attempt to cut your post up to address your response. I showed from scripture that the term Son of God does not mean "of the same nature as God". Neither Col 2:9 not Matt 22 state that Jesus is God. Try reading these passages without trinitarian blinkers (I don’t mean to be offensive). I agree with you that Matt 26 states that Jesus was the son of God, the Christ. That is not the same as being God Himself. When I was a trinitarian, I was told that is was, but when I studied the scriptures I realised it had no basis in scripture. You said: So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him? At last – progress. Just as they claimed he broke the Sabbath or cast out devils by Beelzebub. Matt 26 shows that the leaders were prepared to support false accusations, and John 11:49:50 tells us "Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." It is spelt out in black and white. Why do you treat Jesus' opposers as if they were genuine believers speaking the truth? Although you say you have addressed it, it remains the fact that: a) Calling God "My Father" is not blasphemous b) The opposers claimed that Jesus said "My own father" when he did not. The terms "representative" and "image" mean that it is not the original. D.
  4. God is not the fruit of David’s loins – that is ridiculous. The prophecy in 2 Sam 7 is about a human son. Jehovah (YHWH) says “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”. Well, his opposers claimed it was what he said, not how he said it, so your premise is false. According to scripture (and your own admission) “Son of God” does not mean “God”. As you pointed out, the Jews were sons of God. Angels are probably called sons of God in Job, Adam was son of God – in no case does “son of God” mean “God Himself”. You have no scriptural basis for your claim. So my understanding of the term “Son of God” comes from scripture, Why would God use the phrase towards humans, if it is a term that means God Himself? In Matthew 26, Jesus does not affirm their accusations the he claimed to be God - He confirms that he is claiming to be the Son of God (not God Himself). The high priest claims this is blasphemy. Why do you believe this when in the same passage we are told: John 11:49,50 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." They wanted false testimony in order to get Jesus killed. Why do you build your case on the evidence of those who opposed Jesus and were prepared to lie to get him killed. You have to read the accusations of the Jewish leaders in the light of the plot to kill him. Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, Matt 12:14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. John 7:25,26 Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? (not that this is God!). If you reread my post you will see that at John 5 Jesus said “My Father” – the Jews claimed he said “My own Father” – they put their spin to misrepresent what he said. As I pointed out, Jesus used the term “My Father” dozens of times with no adverse reaction. There is nothing blasphemous about calling God “My Father” – it was a trumped up charge. Again, I believe I have clearly explained the three uses of the term god in scripture. It can be used a) Of the true God, Jehovah (YHWH), b) Of false gods Of representatives of the true God (like Psalm 82, John 1:1, Moses) I have real problems with formatting this post - so please excuse if disjointed. D.
  5. You appear to expect me to answer your questions, but are not prepared to address any of my replies. Jesus and the Jews were well aware of the prophecy that God would have a Son - he would be a descendant of David - the fruit of his loins. Not a divine being. 2 Sam 7:12-16 When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. (ASV) Peter pick this up in Acts 2. Acts 2:29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. Scripture is clear that by the term "Son of God" in the sense Jesus uses it, means a specific human descendant of David. You have no evidence that "Son of God" meant "God Himself." other than quoting the opposers of Jesus and trinitarian dogma. You have also given IMHO no satisfactory explanation as to why, when accused of claiming to be God, Jesus' should immediately point out that a) humans could be called gods without it meaning they were claiming to be the true God, and b) he was claiming to be the Son of God (not God Himself). In John 5 the Jewish leaders claimed that Jesus a) broke the Sabbath, and b) made himself equal with God by calling him "his own Father". Both these statements are untrue. Jesus used the phrase "My Father" dozens of times and nobody took exception. Jesus did not say "My own Father" but simply "My Father". The Jewish leaders misquoted him, in order to set the people against him. I didn't address your question as to whether Satan was a false god, as the point is was making is that there is a third use of "god" in scripture - you only allowed two - a false dichotomy. Satan is not in the category which allows for representatives of God to be called gods. He would be a false god. D
  6. It is an academic book (it is based on the Greek text and concentrates on the Greek vocabulary) - you will primarily find it in universities or theological schools. There appear to be copies all across America including Southern California. https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation-1-5/oclc/37812629&referer=brief_results and https://www.worldcat.org/title/revelation/oclc/37686762&referer=brief_results Word Commentaries are written by reputable theologians with expertise in Biblical languages. https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=hotseries&q=se%3A%22Word+biblical+commentary%22 D
  7. Well I think you have got the point. Moses was neither a false god nor a true god. The questions you asked was a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives. (Source: http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/fallacies/false-dilemma.php ) There is a third option which is what Jesus explains. How can you possible suggest that Jesus is confirming that he was claiming to be God, when Jesus's reply was that humans could be called gods? Jesus is also exempted from being the the God of Isa 43:10 as he did not have authority of himself. He derived it from his Father. I also pointed out that the Jews wanted Jesus dead for personal and political reasons. Where is your evidence that "The statement of being God's Son, does invoke the thought within the Jews that He was making himself out to be God." You appear to be accepting the argument of those who opposed Jesus and wanted him dead as true. D.
  8. As far as I am aware it is not online. The quote is from my notes which I made when I had to read it as part of a course on exposition I attended while at university. It is available on Amazon but rather expensive. I have managed to find a photocopy of pages 364 to 367 which I would happily scan for you. I don't want to put it on line but would willingly email it to you if you can message me your email address (not a good idea to include it in a post). D
  9. An interesting comment from a reputable scholarly (trinitarian?) commentary: David Aune in Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentaries, Nelson, Dallas, 1997, page 365: “A comparison between the analogous lists of prerogatives in I Chon 29:11 (prerogatives of God) and Dan 2:37 (prerogatives of the king bestowed by God) with Rev 5:11 suggests that the ascription of these prerogatives to the Lamb means, not that the Lamb is thereby venerated as God (similar prerogatives could also be ascribed to kings) but that these qualities are bestowed upon the Lamb by virtue of his investiture.” DAVID AUNE is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the University of Notre Dame. He holds an M.A. from Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, an M.A. from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Among his publications are The New Testament in its Literary Environment and Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (editor). Food for thought . D
  10. In an earlier post I drew your attention to 1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king. (ASV) In this sentence construction there is only one instance of the verb, and it has two objects - Jehovah, and the king. It is one act. You replied: " I do not consider this equal." In the passage the act of worship is made for different reasons - to Jehovah because He is God, and to the king, who is His representative. Yet in Rev 5, you argue exactly the opposite, where the context makes it even clearer that the attribution of honour, glory, worth etc to the one who sites on the throne and to the Lamb is for different reasons. The words "same" or "equal" do not appear in the text. Your argument therefore appears to be inconsistent, and the "nuances" you try to introduce are based on a theological dogma instead of what the text actually says. D
  11. You cannot seriously be suggesting that Moses was a false god. Have you read in scripture what should be done with false gods and those who follow them? Satan is not a representative of God. Do you agree that in Psa 82, the judges who represented God are called gods? Do you understand Jesus' argument in John 10 when he quotes this passage to refute the argument that he was making himself God? D.
  12. Jesus is neither a true god nor a false god. As Jesus explained from Psa 82, "god" is a term that can be used for those who represent Him. Did not YHWH (Jehovah) make Moses god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1 - there is no "as/like" in the original Hebrew)? Was that a true god or a false god? D
  13. There is nothing here that talks about "equal" honour, glory, worth, power etc. Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain,..... The Lamb receives these accolades for doing something that God could not do i.e. die. But God and the Lamb are worthy for different reasons. The writer is not concerned about "quantities" or "sameness". D
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.