- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Rules: A debate between myself and WJ only.
============================“Why do you accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”.
This is what Jesus said to those who thought he was claiming to be God. Jesus answer remains the same for anyone today who claims that Jesus was claiming to be God/The Almighty.
WJ, “Why do you accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”. He did not say that he was God. Read it for yourself.
John 10:32-36
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”’? 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’?
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 18 2011,16:06) Rules: A debate between myself and WJ only.
============================“Why do you accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”.
This is what Jesus said to those who thought he was claiming to be God. Jesus answer remains the same for anyone today who claims that Jesus was claiming to be God/The Almighty.
WJ, “Why do you accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”. He did not say that he was God. Read it for yourself.
John 10:32-36
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”’? 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’?
t8Ha Ha.
So you start a debate off with a false accusation? Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God”. But we also believe that the term “Son of God” is not antithetical to the word “God”.
Now if you will be honest you will admit that John’s testimony was that because Jesus said he was the “Son of God” to them (John and the Jews) it meant he was claiming equality with God.
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and “BECAUSE THAT THOU, BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF GOD“. John 10:33
John himself understood that for a man to claim to be the “Son of God” meant he was claiming equality with God.
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. John 5:18
These are John's words t8, are you accusing him of blasphemy because he said Jesus claim was “that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. and that he had broken the Sabbath?
But you see only those who have their spiritual eyes opened by revelation can a man like John, Peter and Thomas understand what “Son of God” means.
If it was no big deal to call himself the Son of God because they believed they were all “Sons of God” then why did they want to stone him? Why did the devils fear him and cry out “Thou art the Son of the Living God” and then Jesus tell them to hush and not reveal it?
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, BECAUSE HE MADE HIMSELF THE SON OF GOD. John 19:7
Why did the Jews want to stone him for saying he was the “Son of God” if that was a common term and didn’t mean to them he was making himself equal to God?
Is the term “Son of God” antithetical to the term God?
Why did the devils tremble because he was the “Son of God”?
Why did they equate Jesus claim as the “Son of God” to miraculous powers like coming down off the cross?
Why did it take supernatural revelation from the Father that Jesus was the “Son of God” if it was a common thing?
Why did the Angel announce at his birth he would be the “Son of God”?
Surely you have more than this t8?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 19 2011,09:05) John himself understood that for a man to claim to be the “Son of God” meant he was claiming equality with God.
We are sons of God WJ, so are Angels called by this.You forget too easily that we will become what Jesus is. We will be like him and he calls us brother.
Jesus said he was the son of God. So why do you accuse him of saying he was God when he said he was the son?
A son or the son of God is OF God. Yes being a son or being the son has position, privilege etc. But it never makes you God. Jesus reminded those who accused him of saying he was God that he was the son of God and that they all were gods, sons of the Most High. He was showing the usage of theos as applied to being the son and a son.
You obviously missed that.
The other thing you missed is that to be equal to something is also a confession that you are not that thing. (3+2)=(1+4). In identity the numbers are different. In nature, quality, quantity, they are the same.
It goes back to being able to differentiate between identity and nature. You have proven in the past that you don't know the difference. This point is beyond you and hence why you repeat the same error.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 19 2011,09:05) Is the term “Son of God” antithetical to the term God? Why did the devils tremble because he was the “Son of God”?
Why did they equate Jesus claim as the “Son of God” to miraculous powers like coming down off the cross?
Why did it take supernatural revelation from the Father that Jesus was the “Son of God” if it was a common thing?
Why did the Angel announce at his birth he would be the “Son of God”?
Surely you have more than this t8?
If this is your best shot, then you have already lost.The son of God is the son of God.
Are you the same being as the person who calls you son? (i.e., your father?).
All you are doing WJ is making the same error as those who accused Jesus of saying that he was God.
Jesus reminded them of the usage of the word theos in the OT which says, “You are gods. You are all sons of the most high”. So why accuse him of blasphemy when his point was that he was saying that he was the son of God?
Jesus did not blaspheme yet you are arguing that Jesus did indeed claim to be God.
Jesus did not blaspheme WJ.
Hi t8
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 19 2011,09:05) John himself understood that for a man to claim to be the “Son of God” meant he was claiming equality with God.
We are sons of God WJ, so are Angels called by this.
Really? Where are the scriptures that call the angels “Sons of God”?For unto “which of the ANGELS SAID HE AT ANY TIME, THOU ART MY SON, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb 1:5
Why do you deny the scripture that says the Father has never been a Father to or called Angels his sons?
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) You forget too easily that we will become what Jesus is. We will be like him and he calls us brother.
And what is that t8? You do not even tell us “What” he is. You say he is not merely a man yet you say he is not God. If he is not a mere man or God, what is he t8?Besides we will never be like him in every way because he is the “Only Begotten Son” and always will be, right?
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) Jesus said he was the son of God. So why do you accuse him of saying he was God when he said he was the son?
So once again what is “The Son of God”. You can’t define the term as far as Jesus so how can you say that the Son of God is not God like the Father is God? Once again why do you accuse Jesus of not being the “Only Begotten Son” by claiming he is not God like the Father?Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) A son or the son of God is OF God.
Yes and being the “son of man” is of man, so does that mean he is not man?Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) Yes being a son or being the son has position, privilege etc. But it never makes you God.
It does if you are the “Only Begotten Son of God”.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) Jesus reminded those who accused him of saying he was God that he was the son of God and that they all were gods, sons of the Most High. He was showing the usage of theos as applied to being the son and a son.
Jesus was not a Polytheist and was not teaching Polytheism and if he was why would he use the example of fallen wicked judges who will die like men as being “gods”. Remember t8 Jesus merely quoted the Psalmist words to rebuke them for their Hypocrisy for accusing him for claiming to be the Son of God.Look again t8 they were accusing him of saying he was the “Son of God” and that is why they were going to stone him. Why is that t8?
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, “because he made himself the Son of God. John 19:7
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) You obviously missed that.
You obviously missed the point that John made about Jesus claim to be equal to God because he said God was his own personal Father. (John 5:17-19)Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) The other thing you missed is that to be equal to something is also a confession that you are not that thing. (3+2)=(1+4). In identity the numbers are different. In nature, quality, quantity, they are the same.
Yes but they are all “numbers” right? Your logic says that if you identify a hammer then any hammer that is made exactly like it is not a hammer but is less in quality, nature, and quantity than the original hammer.Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2011,08:43) It goes back to being able to differentiate between identity and nature. You have proven in the past that you don't know the difference. This point is beyond you and hence why you repeat the same error.
Yes, and you cannot separate identity from nature can you?For example if I say “there goes that four legged creature that barks and is mans best friend” then you identify it is a dog by its nature, right?
But you are saying that to identify a Dog as a Dog is wrong because it is not the original Dog. That is poppycock!
The law of God is “Every seed bears after its own kind“. (Gen 1:11-25)
If Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” then is he of the God kind or not?
Did God have a Son that is not after his own kind?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 25 2011,08:31) Really? Where are the scriptures that call the angels “Sons of God”?
I don't want to diverge too much here, but angels are called sons of God below. You may disagree that one or more of the scriptures below are not referring to angels, if so, that is another topic and belongs elsewhere. But the first 2 should be good enough.Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.Job 1:6
When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?Genesis 6:2
the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,…Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 25 2011,08:31) And what is that t8? You do not even tell us “What” he is. You say he is not merely a man yet you say he is not God. If he is not a mere man or God, what is he t8?
Do you doubt scripture?If so, your argument is not with me as I am merely repeating that which is written.
Philippians 3:21
who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.We will have a body like his. We are also told that we can participate in divine nature.
2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.Jesus will call us brothers.
Hebrews 2:11
11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.WJ, if you just let go of your own understanding and stubbornness with your own doctrines, then scripture would be able to teach you many things. As it stands, your eyes are closed and your ears only hear what you want to hear. This is fulfillment of 2 Timothy 4:3.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 25 2011,08:31) Look again t8 they were accusing him of saying he was the “Son of God” and that is why they were going to stone him. Why is that t8? The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, “because he made himself the Son of God. John 19:7
Great we have progress. This has been my point all along. Jesus never claimed to be God here. He said he was the son of God. Good to see that you can change your mind. You are being wise if indeed you are able to change your mind when presented with truth that conflicts your current understanding.Quote You obviously missed the point that John made about Jesus claim to be equal to God because he said God was his own personal Father. Um yeah, that also supports our view. God is his Father. More progress.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 25 2011,08:31) Yes, and you cannot separate identity from nature can you?
Pity you said that. But we have made progress all the same.It is OK for you to have no distinction between identity and nature. It limits your understanding and makes it hard when identifying God/Adam/The Devil etc.
Because qualitatively speaking there are more that are called theos, adam, and devils.
This will likely fly over your head too. But I write it for the benefit of those who happen to read this post that are teachable.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 13 2011,17:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 25 2011,08:31) Really? Where are the scriptures that call the angels “Sons of God”?
I don't want to diverge too much here, but angels are called sons of God below.
Of course you don't want to diverge because there are no scriptures that says “angels” are Sons of God is there?Quote (t8 @ Mar. 13 2011,17:23) You may disagree that one or more of the scriptures below are not referring to angels, if so, that is another topic and belongs elsewhere. But the first 2 should be good enough.
Ok lets look at them…Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.Nope no mention of angels here. Is satan an angel and if so where is the scripture for that? Pure conjecture!
Job 1:6
When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?Once again no mention of angels. Who are the morning stars? Pure conjecture!
Genesis 6:2
the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful,…Once again no mention of the angels, and many scholars understand this verse to be speaking of the Sons of Seth.
Ambiguous at best!
Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.What are you saying with this scripture? That we are angels also?
t8 Why are you teaching falshoods that you have no scriptural backing for? Your writings are replete with false doctrine and unscriptural content.
I am amazed how some people are so dull of hearing that they turn the ears and shoulder away from plain pure truth to accept another Jesus.
This scripture speaks well to those who have set themselves against the scriptures, and who have not accepted all of them!
But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Zech 7:11
I will get to the rest of your points soon!
WJ
You say pure conjecture, and this is coming from a man who teaches the Trinity doctrine. I hope you can see the irony.
Nayway, WJ it is OK if you do not believe that angels are sons of God. It matters not to me either in this debate and yes it is possible that they are not the sons of God, although I think very unlikely.
After all it was the anointed cherub who became corrupted and many think this is a reference to Satan before he became Satan. It is also written that Michael and his angels fought the Devil and his angels and there was no more room left for them in Heaven. We know that Michael is one of the chief princes and yes the Devil has angels like Michael does. So it seems that they are all angel, but granted The Devil might be the odd one out.
Also, your sons of Seth comment is your opinion too. There are 3 main views about this Genesis verse and the Seth argument is one of them and often cited as the least likely. This is because the resulting offspring of the sons of God and the woman of men were men of renown who were legends of old, (giants). As a result God destroyed the world and started again with a pure man and his family. Many argue that it is not written that women were not allowed to have relations with the sons of Seth and destroying the world because the sons of Seth tried to multiply on the Earth seems unwarranted. The sons of God as the angels argument does have a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis, and couple that with the same verse in the Book of Enoch which definitely depicts angels, it seems the more likely option.
But for this debate let's assume (for now) that none are angels and they are not sons of God at all. What is your point? If they are not sons of God, what bearing does this have on your argument?
I certainly do not need to prove that angels are sons of God to prove that Jesus is not God, but the son of God instead.
So if you really want to debate further regarding angels and sons of God, then it warrants it's own topic or debate. Feel free to start that yourself. Please do that rather than reply here as posts need to stick to the topic if the topic is to be of value to readers. I prefer not to have a diverging and inflated topic that people lose interest in.
Going back to the debate, Jesus is the son of God and he did not blaspheme by saying that he was God. No that accusation was a misconception and he defended himself from that accusation by reminding those who he was talking to about the use of elohim/theos in scripture and reiterated that “he was the son of God”.
Hi All
For further clarification on the topic “sons of God” I posted this in another thread….
“Well the Hebrew text you quote does not read they are “angels” ( mal'ak) but rather the are “sons of God” (ben)
The Hebrew word for “angels” is mal'ak and the Hebrew word for “sons of God” is ben.
Please present a scripture that says “ben” is “mal'ak”!
Of course it looks like you want to drop it.
I will touch on more later!
WJ
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2011,03:28) But for this debate let's assume (for now) that none are angels and they are not sons of God at all. What is your point? If they are not sons of God, what bearing does this have on your argument?
Hi t8The point of contention was you putting Jesus in the same context of other “sons of God” which you also claim can be angels in an effort to detract away from the fact that Jesus is “The Only Begotten (Monogenes) Son of God” and according to the scriptures that means he is the “Only” Son that is the “Godkind” or the exact nature of the Father meaning all that the Father is Jesus is in nature, essence or substance.
Everything has essence, substance or being! And everything in and outside of creation is in a particular class of being. Everything is also “identified” by what type of essence, substance or being he or it is.
You have denied this basic truth. Jesus in nature is the “exact representation of his being” just as you are the exact representation of your human Fathers being. All that makes your Father human, you are. All that makes the Father God, Jesus is!
Is Jesus being exactly like the Fathers being? Yes or No
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,04:58) Of course it looks like you want to drop it. I will touch on more later!
WJ
Not true again WJ. I don't want to drop it at all. I want a dedicated topic for it.You are so negative that you end up with the most negative conclusions and most of the time, they are not true.
You need to change your attitude to that of Jesus Christ who being in the form of God humbled himself as a servant and never complained.
Yet you complain about everything and even things that are not only much less than what Jesus had to endure, but are actually OK to endure.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,05:15) Is Jesus being exactly like the Fathers being? Yes or No
Yes. He is LIKE his Father an exact representation of him.NOTE: Some important differences from scripture below:
- God is invisible.
- Jesus is visible.
- God is an eternal spirit.
- Jesus has a body.
Also, because Jesus represents God and is the image of that invisible God, we know that he cannot be God.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,05:15) The point of contention was you putting Jesus in the same context of other “sons of God” which you also claim can be angels in an effort to detract away from the fact that Jesus is “The Only Begotten (Monogenes) Son of God” and according to the scriptures that means he is the “Only” Son that is the “Godkind” or the exact nature of the Father meaning all that the Father is Jesus is in nature, essence or substance.
Wrong again WJ. The fact that Jesus is “The Only Begotten (Monogenes) Son of God” supports my view that Jesus is not God, but THE son of God.Back to the drawing board WJ.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 17 2011,04:58) Please present a scripture that says “ben” is “mal'ak”!
I thought I replied to this. Maybe in another topic.
What I said was that I doubt such a scripture exists, but it is easy to prove.Malachi the prophet is a man, who must be a son of God, due to contributing scripture to the bible. (All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God and all scripture is inspired by God).
Malachi is actually the word for angel. So this man was called mal'ak.
I have more examples if you wish to pursue this further.
BUMP for WJ.
He complained in the Hot Seat forum that I was being hypocritical for not answering all his questions.
I said that I am very happy to answer any of his questions and that he should highlight any I may have missed answering.
While he brought this up, I thought he should be reminded of this debate that is awaiting his response.
Feel free to concede, reply, or say you need more time.Hi t8
Like I said, I wasn't the one crying about others not answering questions. I merely have pointed out that you guys accuse others for not doing what you do not do yourselves.
WJ
WJ, as you have probably read before.
There is a difference between avoiding a question and not reading a question.
The latter happens because we do not read every post in the forums and thus questions do get missed.
However, questions will eventually be noticed if you ask it often, but you do have the power to bring a question to our attention through a PM or in a debate.
If you think we or anyone else is avoiding a question and they avoid a debate on the question too, then there is the Hot Seat as a last resort.
You don't need a lot of intelligence to see that we have a system here to deal with unanswered questions and your accusation that we are being hypocritical because we have not answered every question ever asked of us is a silly thing to say especially in light of recent efforts to set up a Hot Seat forum that deals with this.
We would hardly do that if what you say is true because we would be condemning ourselves. Setting up the Hot Seat has shown my motive which is that questions are not avoided. It is not hard to work this out WJ. You just need to read the obvious signs rather than coming to absurd conclusions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
