Another ego is shiny brightly upon his own high horse with dreams of grandeur...easily deflated with the reality and presence of scripture and its truth it brings.
I see you are still forcing Jesus to be your God and not even a god, again. You won't give up your delusional thoughts of a man created by God, his Son, who served him, the Father, to call him the same God Almighty himself and without any scriptural support as always.
Let me pick at your central scripture verse as only a verse you can produce at one time. Anything more would be a miracle for you to tie other scripture together in one setting....there it is, John 5:18 and then there is a reference to John 10:33 and your typical misunderstanding of that one as well.
I see you are grossly misunderstanding John 5:18b and continue to pound on
@Wrangler with it, in your desperate promotion of your triune non-descript god once again. It never stops it seems.
John 5:18b
"He was even calling God his own father, making himself equal with God." (NIV)
Folks knew that a son or any child carried the authority of their Father as even a prince does with his King.
Yes, the Pharisees were correct in stating that Jesus was making himself equal with God, his Father. And they did have this understanding that God was his Father because they believe that God was their Father as well.
Further, when Christ said God was his Father, the Pharisees correctly interpreted his words meaning Jesus had authority on this earth., as the Son of God.
And scripture also says that Jesus called God his Father, clearly, not calling himself God. Or even worse and impossible that he was saying he is 'God the Son.' So Jesus' authority came to him because he was the Son of God, not God himself. And again, the Pharisees knew of him, and by his words to be all true. They just did not want to believe however that he; Jesus, would be their Messiah, as the Son of God!
Incidentally, the terms of Son of God and Messiah or Christ are really co-references for each other. Foe example see Matt 26: 63b...And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the
Christ, the
Son of God.
The idea of people being 'equal' with someone is found in other areas of scripture. For example, when Joseph ruled Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, 'You are equal to Pharaoh himself' (Gen 44:18).
Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered 'equal with us' (2 Cor 11:12).
Now no Christian believes that Joseph, the Pharaoh, or Paul and his enemies or competitors, are 'of one substance,' and comprised of 'one being' simply because they are called 'equal.'
John 5:18b should be treated like the other verses that mention 'equality.'
Jesus was using God’s power and authority on earth, and was thus 'equal' to God in the same way Joseph, who was using Pharaoh’s authority and power, was equal to Pharaoh.
Why would someone make Jesus the same as God Almighty? Unless of course they wanted to promote a worn-out false religious theory drawn from paganism of dual or tri gods and god-men. The Trinity with its Triune non-descrpit god comes to mind.
The Pharisees clearly saw Jesus in action and listened to his words intensely. Yes, they called Jesus a blasphemer because they never believed in him as truly the Messiah of God, the true Son of God, the Father. They also always wanted to kill him as he was a huge wart on their popularity, control of the people and their wealth, riding on the backs of the common folk. They expected a powerful strong man as their Saviour. They were looking for a strong man as a Barabbas and more, to conquer the Romans and usher in their own Messiah and their own Kingdom fashioned in their own image, on this earth.
Claiming to be the true Messiah, as the Son of God, and also 'a god' of divine status was the essence and foundation for calling Jesus a blasphemer. As I said before, they knew Jesus was calling himself the Son of God, of his Father. They also believed
he was an equal with God his Father in his role. They just did not want to believe that this man was their Messiah, their Savior and also doing divine works of the Father, their Father they presumed. That is what they meant by blasphemy.
Note: your insane ignorance and dishonesty of what scripture says about the man, Jesus. He was not a mere man....just as you are not just a mere man.
The English word “anthropology,” meaning “the study of man,” is derived from
anthropos. “man', a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals.”
anthropos is translated as “man.”
The word
anthropos occurs
550 times in the Greek text from which the
NIV and several other translations, call it as 'mere man'
only in this one verse - John 10:33. This variance borders on dishonesty and demonstrates a willingness to bias the text beyond acceptable limits. They all place a Trinitarian spin on this verse. The Jews would have never called Jesus a 'mere' man. They called him what they believed he was—a 'man.' They were offended because they believed that he, 'being a man,' made himself a god - John 10:33 (
i.e., someone with divine status) working on behalf of the true divine one, YHWH.
Let me quickly dive into John 10:33 then aswell..to clear up more of the mess you have made with scripture.
John 10:33
“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere (
added in for the Trinitarian cause and bias) man, claim to be God.” (NIV)
From an older commentary I dug up...
Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point was made under John 1:1 that usually when “God” is meant, the noun theos has the definite article. When there is no article, the translators know that “god” is the more likely translation, and they are normally very sensitive to this. For example, in Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translated it “god.” The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, “they changed their minds and said he was a god.” Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated “a god.” It is a general principle that theos without the article should be “a god,” or “divine.” Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow YHWH, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was “God.” On the other hand, Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God’s work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be “a god” or “divine.”
This is the real beauty about the truth, it needs no defense, and stands upright without any supporting fabricated and opinionated lies that want to trample it underfoot at all costs. If one's sound conclusions are not grounded in scripture with serious study, and if this scripture exists and has been tampered with in any way or form, then it most probably is a lie. Start again from scratch....is my advice
Happy trails of dreams of a Trinity god...APAK