Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You're welcome. I live for these kinds of discussions. However, I've probably reached my limit on this one. Not saying I wouldn't consider anything more.
Did Jesus tell the Pharisees that they were gods? - John 10:34
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The short answer is, "Yes." But...
That may mean something different to me than it does to you.
Which is fine.
From my perspective, a Prophet is someone God speaks through.
God gives them a VERY SPECIFIC message to deliver,
Typically word-for-word. Not just an impression.
Although, that can happen as well.
Not merely someone who speaks on behalf of God.
The Prophet is a conduit for a message from God to humankind,
Not simply a preacher, or priest, who represents God.
The preacher, or the priest, can speak "the word of God" as a representative.
A Prophet is similar to an angel (messenger) given a specific message by God to deliver.
How do you see it?
And how does this make them a god?
No worries.You're welcome. I live for these kinds of discussions. However, I've probably reached my limit on this one. Not saying I wouldn't consider anything more.
Curious about your reaction to my post #42.
If you care to. Thanks.
Last sentence from post #16. (quote from Bible commentary)
I overlooked this bit about "a divinely appointed office".
Are these the gods of today? (or some of them?)
Ephesians 4:11 KJV
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
@mailmandan
Yes, Steven,
A Land Lord is a Lord over a terrtiory.
Judges in offices are similar to God but not God himself.
A supervisor is like a god; they are in charge in seeing over you.
There are many gods in this world; that also includes useless idols.
A Land Lord is a Lord over a terrtiory.
Judges in offices are similar to God but not God himself.
A supervisor is like a god; they are in charge in seeing over you.
There are many gods in this world; that also includes useless idols.
There is also a common teaching in morMonism that once you leave this world you become a god of sometype, i use to have these same thoughts before when I hated God.
I assumed i was God, and when i left here i became my own god, and this was before I even know mormisM existed.
The truth is while there are many gods here on this earth there is only one true living eternal God above all gods and when we die here i believe God gives a spiritual body to live in, and we dont become gods.
Pslam 95:3 For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.
I assumed i was God, and when i left here i became my own god, and this was before I even know mormisM existed.
The truth is while there are many gods here on this earth there is only one true living eternal God above all gods and when we die here i believe God gives a spiritual body to live in, and we dont become gods.
Pslam 95:3 For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I already explained how this makes them a god.
It goes back to agency. Imagine yourself a king from 5,000 years ago. A company of ambassadors come from a far away land. The agent speaks for the principle. Regarding the topic of trade, the principle has authorized his representative to speak on his behalf with instructions on what to say. This agent is NOT the principal but IS in a position of authority in terms of speaking the principles words.
The same with a prophet.
In a debate between preachers, prophets or preachers, there can be no question the authority rests with the prophet. And in this sense, they are gods.
You may be like a friend of mine. 1st, he starts off with his opinion. Then he tries to make sense of the facts. If you start with the fact that there are many lords and gods in human history, including today, including prophets, then you will grasp how this makes sense.
Perhaps you could start by embracing synonyms.
- chief
- director
- leader
- lord
- boss
- governor
- chieftain
- ruler
- commander
- honcho
- overseer
- ascendency
- supervisor
- superintendent
- command
- lord and master
- dominion
- head
- overlord
- captain
- employer
- sachem
- headman
- judge
- patriarch
- maestro
- hierarch
- manager
- mastery
- owner
- commandant
- padrone.associated word: dominicide
- possessor
- proprietor
- sea captain
- sahib
- subjugation
- sui juris
- superiority
- virtuoso
- skipper
Ah, okay thanks.
Let's see if I have this now.
A (little g) god represents (the Big G) God.
Being a (little g) god means to act on behalf (agency) of (the Big G) God.
Reminds me of this.
Which make us all gods. (if we do our part)
2 Corinthians 5:18-20 NIV
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself
through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,
not counting people’s sins against them.
And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors,
as though God were making his appeal through us.
We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Yea. The capitalization adds to confusion but stands for sense 1, the Supreme Being, of which there is only one supreme; lowercase represents other senses, which is not limited in number.
As I understand it, the verse in question (Psalms 82:6) uses the Hebrew elohim, which is plural.
Which would refer to all gods, including "the Supreme Being". (as you wrote)
This begs more questions. Like...
Are all these other gods in the spiritual realm under the authority of Satan? (gods = demons)
Or does the Divine Council include gods NOT under the power of darkness?
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
FWIW....this portion of the passage is telling because it indicates that the Jews were NOT saying that Jesus was claiming to be Almighty God, but claiming divinity because Yahweh was his “Father”.
In Greek it becomes obvious, but not in the English translations which are notorious for ignoring the definite article with reference to God.
“31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them,
“I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (theos)
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? (theos)
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ (theos) to whom the word of God (ho theos) came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s (ho theos) Son’?”
A small word (ho) but with a big meaning. When “theos” is used in scripture with a reference to Yahweh and his son in the same passage, the definite article (ho) defines who is Yahweh, and who is the one divinely appointed by him.
The judges in Israel were called “gods” because of their divine appointment to act in God’s behalf.
Jesus at his baptism received his appointment as God’s representative. The people were told that “this is my son” and that he had the approval of his God and Father.
The word “theos” in itself does not just pertain to Yahweh, but according to Strongs, it can mean...
“a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”
Even satan is called “theos” because he is “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:3-4)
So calling Jesus “theos” doesn’t mean calling him “Yahweh”. Nowhere is Jesus ever called “ho theos”. He never once said that he was “ho theos”. (Meaning “THE God” of the Jews.)
They had ceased using the divine name and replaced it with the title “LORD”, always translated with capital letters in English to show where it had been substituted. All the Greek gods had names, so this nameless Jewish God could only be identified with the definite article. Who told the Jews to cease saying the divine name?....NOT GOD! He told Moses specifically, in Exodus 3:15...
“This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.”
If you look at the words quoted in Greek in John 10:31-36, you can see which “theos” pertains to Yahweh and which does not, by the use of the definite article.
So why did the Jews want to pin a charge of blasphemy on Jesus? Because it carried the death penalty. If Jesus had claimed to be Yahweh, the Jews would have had a case against him, but Christ had to die as an innocent man. The Pharisees were simply sealing their own fate......orchestrating the death of a man whom they despised because he showed them up to be what they really were....and condemned to eternal death. (Matt 23:33)
Are you saying that Jesus did not claim his deity?
In verse 30 Jesus said...
John 10:30 NIV
I and the Father are one.”
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
You know, I was thinking of starting a separate thread about the angels capacity to rebel.
To answer your question, I say no; the Divine Council consists now of no fallen angels.
Great, thanks.
Perhaps we can continue the discussion in your new thread.
cc: me to the thread launch, if you would. Thanks.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Jesus never claimed to be “deity”....he only claimed to be the divine “son of God”.
He worshipped “the only true God” himself. (John 17:3; John 20:17)
One sentence, taken out of context does not constitute a doctrine. There is not a single statement in the Christian scriptures where Jesus or his Father state that he is in any way equal to his God.
If you read Revelation 3:12, written long after Jesus’ returned to heaven you will see that the Father is still the God of Jesus, even in heaven. How can a god have a god?
John 17:20-22.....Jesus also said...
“I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.”
This “oneness” is a unity of spirit and purpose......it doesn’t mean that Jesus and his Father are “one” entity in two “persons”....this passage demonstrates the same “oneness” with Jesus and his disciples.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Well said. Even if it were, a duo does not a trinity make.
Verse 22 talks about us being one also. By trinitarian logic, that would make us God also, wouldn't it - or at the very least, a multi-person Being?
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Abuse definitions. Words are infinitely elastic and can mean whatever one wants them to mean - NOT.
St. SteVen said:
In verse 30 Jesus said...
John 10:30 NIV
I and the Father are one.”
And Jesus didn't correct them, or deny it.
"God's Son" (capital S)
John 10:30-39 NIV
I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them,
“I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,”
they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[c]?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
St. SteVen said:
In verse 30 Jesus said...
John 10:30 NIV
I and the Father are one.”
In verse 30 Jesus said...
John 10:30 NIV
I and the Father are one.”
The "Pharisees" Jesus was speaking to understood him.
And Jesus didn't correct them, or deny it.
"God's Son" (capital S)
John 10:30-39 NIV
I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them,
“I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,”
they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[c]?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
I thought I just gave it to you.
St. SteVen said:
In verse 30 Jesus said...
John 10:30 NIV
I and the Father are one.”
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Doubling down on error.
It's more like they misunderstood him - about this and many other things. It's so funny how you rely on what those in great error say over the narrative, which is that Jesus is the son of god.
Again, it's funny how often trinitarians try to use the absence of something to support a conclusion but the whole doctrine is absent but that absence meaning nothing! This is a great example of artificial synthesis and cherry picking.
It's already been pointed out to you numerous times that Jesus did not correct others and that is again, ignored by you. For instance, the people of Nazareth said he is the son of Joseph. No correction ... You say .... nothing. Nevermind evidence that does not support my conclusion!
What eisegesis are you reading into the text now? Abuse of capitalization. What is the difference between God's Son and god's son? Neither are proper nouns. I think this is one of the best examples of indoctrination in our culture. This is where so much of your confusion comes from regarding properly understanding Ps 82:6 and 1 COR 8:5.
In the alternative, titles are usually capitalized. Mayor Giuliana.
That saw cuts both ways.
Can you support non-Trinitarianism without "cherry-picking", or an argument from silence?
Similar threads
