Donald Diamond
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Donald Diamond
-
-
9 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
Where did you show this? and from what scripture?
Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. What does that mean to you? Does it mean that there is something of God that did not dwell in Jesus? please explain.
Jesus' claim of being THE Son of God, means He has the same nature, is of the same substance. You cannot get a zebra from a duck, they are different in nature.
Jesus DID break the Jews Sabbath, but He did not break God's Sabbath. Big difference, but one that helps us see clearly the mind of the Jewish leaders. Each time Jesus said that He was the Son of God to the Jewish leaders/Pharisees and they got angry. Why? You may think it was a false anger to trump op a charge against Him, but you yourself agreed that they could not find any false testimony. So while they might have wanted Jesus gone, they couldn't do it with false testimony or false witnesses, so it had to be true testimony. Jesus statement was true and according to Jewish law, not God's law, this would be considered blasphemy. Does your Bible reference Leviticus 24:16 from John 19:7? Consider why it does. What reason, just because of the word blasphemy? nope, or it would be referenced most other places.
I don't think you are grasping the meaning of what this is saying. Why would the whole nation perish? Because they would lose their position, as in verse 48:
If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
Like I just showed above, they could not kill Jesus on false testimony or false witnesses, it had to be true. Also, notice how the account is written in John 5:18. This is all written by John, he is not recording a statement by anyone when he wrote this. He was recording the facts, inspired too I might add.
a) According to the Jewish law it is, because it is claiming the same nature as God. That is why it is blasphemous. Lev 24:16
b) This is not even a point actually. Its like saying Jesus didn't speak English so the Bible I use is wrong.
I never said Jesus was the Father, but Scripture says that Jesus has the fullness of deity (all that makes God God) in Himself. If you look in the mirror who's image do you see? If Jesus is the exact image of God, then Jesus is what God looks like. Like I said what other representative has the qualities that Jesus has? None, so He does not fit into that category of your three and He doesn't fit into the false god category either.
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. -
15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
Yes, the formatting was a little bit messed up. I'll just cut and paste to answer you.
-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”.
So are you saying that Jesus was only human? Colossians 2:9 says otherwise. Also look at Jesus explanation to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:42-46 on this very subject.
-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?
It IS how He said it. He claimed to be THE Son of God, meaning to come directly from God and not a son of God as the Jews were. This would be His claim to be of the same nature as God, the form of a cat begets a cat, the form of a dog begets a dog, the form of God begets God. You do not get a camel from a hippo. Just as you are human, so too were your parents. Jesus was begotten of God, and thus the same form/substance/nature, God. Does that make Him the Father? Nope. My scriptural support comes from many places and we can get into each one if you'd like, but I have given you Matthew 26 and Jesus affirms that He is THE Son of God, THE Christ.
-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."
So are you saying the Jews didn't really think it was blasphemy? Just trying to attach something to Jesus to kill Him?
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!).
Keep reading in your quote of Matthew 26, in verse 60 specifically. It says they did not find this false testimony. They did not find anything to prove their want. Their deeds were being done for what? So they would not lose their place among society (John 11:47&48). It was only at verse 63-66 of Matthew 26 did they find anything that could stick, it was Jesus claim to be of the same nature of God, being THE Son of God. Matthew 12:14 only speaks that the Pharisees were getting nervous and started to think about what they could do to stop Jesus. It doesn't say they had made up any lies or false testimony. Your John 7 reference does nothing but confirm that Jesus is the Christ, you have added what you want it to say with "(not that this is God!)." This is an argument from silence.
-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.
I understand what you are saying, but I've already discussed this above. The fact that Jesus said "My Father" is true, but when did He say this to the Scribes and Pharisees and they not get angry? He said this to the crowds and to the disciples, but the only times He said this to the Pharisees and Jewish leaders they got angry and wanted to kill Him. So it wasn't like the Pharisees and Jewish leaders heard this and dismissed it as you claim, but rather regular people and the disciples heard it most.
-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.
A representative does not have the fullness of deity, nor is the representative an exact image of God. (Colossians 2:9 & Colossians 1:15) So where does Jesus fit in your three? What other representative in the Bible have these qualities?
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.
-
18 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
I agree with the first part, however scripture never says not a divine being.
Your quote from 2 Samuel says, He will be a descendant of them, come from their people.
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”.QuoteYou are assuming how Jesus used the term. Like I said, and it seems you have discarded, is that the Jews themselves believed they were sons of God. So this is not something new. The difference isn't what Jesus said, but how He said it.
Well, his opposers claimed it was what he said, not how he said it, so your premise is false.
QuoteJesus was a Jew, so He would be considered a son of God just as the Jews were. That isn't what Jesus said, He said He was the Son of God.
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?QuoteLook over at John 19:7, the Jews pointed out that they had a law, and by this law they were to kill Jesus. What was this law? Leviticus 24:16 is what is referenced in most Bibles at John 19:7. This is talking about blaspheming the name of Yahweh. How did Jesus blaspheme the name of Yahweh? The Jews spelled it out in the accounts in John, because He said He was the Son of God, thus making Himself of the same nature, God.
a) yes, I agree
b) see above
a&b) yes, look also at John 19:7 and Matt 26:63-66, specifically verse 65.
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!).
QuoteWhere is the misquote what verse? I mean right there in Matthew 26 Jesus affirmed their accusations.
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.QuoteWhat are the three uses of god then? Please categorize The Father, Jesus, Satan, Moses and kings. Maybe this will help me understand your point of view better and allow me to ask better questions.
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. -
27 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Is $24.62 expensive where you are?
I'm Scottish - need I say more......
D.
-
10 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
Were the Jews not called sons of God? The book of Deuteronomy tells us that the people of Israel were the sons of God. (14:1 and 32:8 specifically). Why would they make such a fuss over another Jews saying what they already believed? In John 5 there is another description of the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, over basically the same thing. John records why, with the same statement of calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. The Jews were called sons of God so why would they get upset about another Jews saying it? Because it wasn't the same thing. Jesus was saying that God is His direct Father, and this is what both passages tie together, and why the Jews wanted Him dead. It would be blasphemy for a Jews to claim this, but not so to claim to be a son of God. It was not an argument, it was a statement by the Jews.
You never addressed the question with Satan that I brought up, why?
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
-
9 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
Interesting that there is not a single copy available in any public library in Southern California. Others in the series, but not the ones by David Aune.
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
-
3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
I'm saying that Moses was not a god, not in the sense of Isiah 43:10.
Is Satan a god? That is the question. I didn't say he was a representative of God.
I do agree that in Psalm 82 the term "gods" is used of men, and it also shows their inability to be god as described to us by Isiah 43:10. Absolutely Jesus used this to show them that they themselves (men) were called gods, however the argument was not whether or not Jesus was a god like they had been called, but rather that it was not blasphemy when He said He was Gods Son. The statement of being God's Son, does invoke the thought within the Jews that He was making himself out to be God. This is demonstrated by the action they were going to carry out. Jesus wasn't trying to get them on a technicality, but instead was using scripture to support His claim. Others had been called "sons of God", all of Israel for that matter, but that wasn't the same or they wouldn't have wanted to stone Jesus. They would have accepted it just on the fact that Jesus was a Jews also, so His claim would be along the lines of their own. So in the refutation at John 10, Jesus was not claiming to be a man just as all the rest of the Israelite's who had been called gods, but rather to prove His statement true. Jesus being directly from the Father, this was something they could not handle because it would make Jesus God as well.
So then what kind of god is Jesus in John 1:1? A god like Moses?
Is He on par with Satan as far as gods go?
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.
-
2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
Can you provide a link so that I may research this as well please?
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
-
13 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
The clarity of equality is in what every creature in heaven and on earth say in verse 13 :
"to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" This here is the subject of the statement, both the Lamb and the one who sits on the Throne. The compound predicate is the "blessing and honor and glory and might" The predicate is describing the subject, there is no differentiation between the Lamb and Him who sits, they both are the subject equally. If this were not the case, then we would have separate lists, one for each the Lamb and Him who sits. Equality of these respects (honor, glory,might and blessing) is demonstrated by the complex subject, but it uses singular verbs.
I understand that this is English grammar , however the same applies in this instance in the Greek grammar.
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
-
12 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
The clarity of equality is in what every creature in heaven and on earth say in verse 13 :
"to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb" This here is the subject of the statement, both the Lamb and the one who sits on the Throne. The compound predicate is the "blessing and honor and glory and might" The predicate is describing the subject, there is no differentiation between the Lamb and Him who sits, they both are the subject equally. If this were not the case, then we would have separate lists, one for each the Lamb and Him who sits. Equality of these respects (honor, glory,might and blessing) is demonstrated by the complex subject, but it uses singular verbs.
I understand that this is English grammar , however the same applies in this instance in the Greek grammar.
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
-
12 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
I would call Moses a false god, a representative none the less, but not a god as described in Isaiah 43:10.
would you say the same of Satan? Neither true or false? just a god like Moses?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:
so is Jesus a true god or not? What does John 1:1 speak to you?
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
-
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:
So are you saying that the honor is only because of Jesus role to be judge? How then how do your reconcile the scriptures in Revelation?
Rev 5:12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
Here we see that this same honor is bestowed upon both equally, nothing is mentioned about judging, but rather complete honor, glory (which God has said He would not share) and might. This is equal devotion, equal worship, equality.
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
-
5 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:
The passage is exactly that, the equality of honor.
I understand and quite agree with you on the length of this thread. We are going around in circles saying the same thing we just did. None of us is getting through to the other in a way that each of us understands our respective points. I do appreciate the conversation though.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this and for expressing yourself without making it personal.
D
-
16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
It could be tempting to speculate on some sort of heavenly judicial scenario in the spirit world, incorporating scriptural glimpses such as Job 1;6; 2:2, and maybe ancient Jewish commentaries, alternative renderings of scripture (such as De.32:8), and much earlier writings about pantheons of angelic gods in an antediluvian or other setting.
For a number of reasons, I prefer a more "down to earth " understanding.
Brown-Driver-Briggs states that the word elohim used at Ps:82:1 can mean rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.
Other Bible references such as Paul's words at 1 Cor 8:5-6 show that there are many viewed as "gods" on earth and the crowd's attribution to Herod at Acts 12:21-22 underlines that humans with power over others could be viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods" regardless of their deserving that description.
So the gods referred to in Psalm 8 appear to be humans with power of judging over other men (thus viewed as "mighty ones" or "gods"). From Moses onward, judges existed among God's people for good (1Ki.10:9) or bad (Mic. 4:11) depending on the historical circumstances. As such, Psalm 8 indicates they would be called to account for any injustice in exercising that office by their Supreme Judge, Jehovah.
In the account recorded at John 10:31-39, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82:6 when rebutting the Jews' accusation of blasphemy for calling himself a "god",(their inference on the fact he had said he was God's son). He showed that as the scripture actually referred to humans rightly as gods, there was no crime in his reference to himself as Gods son.
I agree with you entirely. These judges had the power of life and death over the people, and were acting in the place of God. They could therefore be called "gods" as God's representatives (so they were neither false gods, nor the true God). However, they were not acting justly and would die, just like all men do.
Jesus' quote of this passage in John 10 is a very clever refutation of the accusation that he was making himself God. He is very emphatic about this:
John 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
D
-
43 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:
yes, but that is not the question. The question is not about why it is about how. How do you honor one more than the other?
of course it is, Read Philippians 2, what does Jesus empty Himself of? Verse 6 says He was in the form of God. Jesus, when He came to the Earth made Himself humble and He emptied Himself of the form of God. So then, who would He be subject to then? Men? nope, The Father.
I believe I have answered this several times now. We honour the Father for having supreme authority - we honour the Son for having been delegated authority in relation to judgement and raising the dead from his Father. We honour the Son in executing judgement and raising the dead as if it was the Father doing it. The reason for honouring them is different - so it is like comparing apples and oranges. Jesus says the Father is the greater in this respect as he can do nothing of his own accord - but the passage is not concerned with "quantities" of honour, It is an imposition on the text.
Philippians 2 says nothing about God giving up His supreme authority. And you did not address Isaiah 40 onwards.
I feel I have answered your questions, and we have wandered far from the original issue (I take my share of the blame), so am happy to leave it there unless you have something new and relevant to ask. I don't feel it is fair to make this thread a free for all on every trinitarian proof text.
D.
-
On 4/22/2016 at 4:36 PM, Shiwiii said:
It is actually not a contradiction. You and I are equal as being human. We are not equal when it comes to authority. If you were a Judge and I was a lawyer, in your court you would have the authority. In the street, we are equal.
What we are disagreeing on, is not why, but rather the degree of honor. You and others here have inserted different forms of honor to be applied to the Son and to the Father. I am saying that there is no difference, one must honor both equally.
Sorry for delay in replying. The text simple says that in relation to authority over judgement and raising the dead, we should honour the delegatee as we would the delegator. That is not a difficult concept.
The problem you need to deal with is that supreme authority is an essential attribute of God. Try reading from chapter 40 of Isaiah and you will see that repeated chapter after chapter. So it is simply not possible for the Father and Son to be equally God while not being equal in authority. IMHO you are putting the false accusation of the Jewish leaders ahead of the plain statements of Jesus.
As I have pointed out before, your argument leads to two god persons, one of whom is dependent for his authority on the other. I cannot see that in scripture.
D
-
12 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
I Don't agree. Why would Jesus say to honor Him the same as his Father? You are trying to invent different kinds of honor.
You may not agree (which is fine). However, you appear to be arguing that the Son was claiming to be equal with God, while you also maintain that the Son was NOT equal to the Father in authority, That is a self contradictory argument. The fact that you can't see that is disappointing.
I have specifically addressed the question you ask here. We are told to honour the Son as we honour the Father because the Father has granted the Son authority over the judgement and raising the dead.
John 5:22, 23 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. (ASV)
I feel you have not addressed any of my arguments which directly deal with the points you made. However, I am happy to leave it for the readers to make up their own minds.
D
-
2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
No, they are not equal in authority, the Son is subject to the Father. Just like you are subject to your boss. But you are equally humans. Outside of your work, you are both treated equally.
Supreme authority is an attribute of God. You find that all over scripture. You appear to have invented two god-persons, one of whom is supreme, and the other who is not, but is subject to the first. This is confusion, and the passage does not support such a notion.
The passage says nothing about whether the Son and the Father are equally God - it is about the inequality in authority between the Father and the Son which leads to the Father granting the Son authority in judgement and raising the dead - something he does not have of his own accord. This refutes any notion that Jesus is claiming equality with God.
D
-
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:
I never said that the Son and the Father were not equal, just the opposite actually.
Jesus is claiming to be God, or else why would the Jews want to kill him? It is clear in the text, based upon the statement Jesus made. Then He goes on to say we must honor Him just as we honor the Father.
Well Shiwiii, I have quoted what you said. It is here:
This is what you said and what I was addressing:
" I do not believe that the Father and the Son have equal authority. The Father is over the Son. "
If the Father is over the Son, they are not equal.
If you read the greater context (ie the gospel records) you will see that the Jews (which in the gospels generally means the leaders of the Jews) sought to kill Jesus, and they were prepared to bear false witness against him. They were intimidated by him and were afraid he would cause an adverse reaction from the Romans. Have you not read that?
The accusations made against Jesus were:
a) He broke the sabbath
b) He made himself equal with God.
If Jesus broke the sabbath, he would be a sinner - Jesus was born under the law.
So both these accusations were false. The most likely explanation is that the leaders were attempting to turn the people against him. They wanted Jesus dead. That accords with the greater and nearer context.
What the text tells us is that we are to honour the Son as we honour the Father who is over the Son and grants him authority over the judgement and raising the dead..
We honour them for different reasons. Therefore arguments about "equal honour" are meaningless.
D
-
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:
What is the point of bowing down if one is already bowed down? That is my point. If one is already at the feet of another, then "prostration" ones self is already done. So then the word proskuneo has to have more of a meaning in those instances.
Falling down and prostrating oneself are not the same thing.
D
-
2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
"Jesus never said he was equal to God, "
Actually that is exactly what He said, the Jews knew it, John knew it, but you do not. It's ok if you cannot wrap you head around any opinion other than your own.
But you just agreed with me when you said:
" I do not believe that the Father and the Son have equal authority. The Father is over the Son. "
So your argument is that Jesus was claiming equality with God, even though you accept that Jesus was not equal in authority. Am I the only one who finds your argument self-contradictory?
D
-
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:
"Jesus never said he was equal to God, "
Actually that is exactly what He said, the Jews knew it, John knew it, but you do not. It's ok if you cannot wrap you head around any opinion other than your own.
Jesus' immediate response to the claim that he was making himself equal to God was to state that he could do nothing of his own accord. That is as clear a refutation of the claim as you can get. Jesus then continues with further statements about his dependence on the Father.
D
-
10 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
You do honor your parents in different ways, but the respect you give them is equal. The devotion you give to them (in a normal functioning family) is equal, Their value to you is equal (50% dad's input and 50% mom's for your being here). If I understand your point correctly is that your relationship between them in different. I would agree. As far as honor being the definition of deity, you are correct, but who else in the Bible are we told to honor equally with the Father? There is no one else to which this honor is applied equally, except Jesus.
The equality is in the description of honor and how that honor is applied. It is a value you place on. Like before, your parents each have a value of 50% of your being brought into this world. This is not an absolute because some people do not place equal value to each of their parents, but for the sake of argument it is what I am using to convey the message. Here in the verse we are talking about equal value is to be placed upon the Son as is to the Father. How one chooses to act this honor out is the difference between what you are I are saying. If we both are called to the Royal palace, how would we show honor to the Queen? Would it be acceptable if we have different ways of doing this? likely not.
The point of the passage is that we are to honour the one sent (the Son) as we honour the sender (the Father) - and as you say, the Father and the Son are not equal. It is also that we honour the one receiving the auhority (the Son) as we would honour the giver of the authority (the Son). The Son does not have that authority instrinsically - only the Father has. In no way is this passage suggesting that Jesus is God. It is about recognising that authority in judgement and raising the dead that the Father has bestowed on the Son and honouring him accordingly. Jesus is making a stupendous claim here - but it is not a claim to be God Himself.
D
Why do Jehovahs witnesses belive in two Gods?
in Topics
Posted
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.