Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
John 10:34 - "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?
I doubt you've stumped BJB, but please allow me to interject. Obviously you know of other translations, and have selected the ones that support your proclivities.
As exemplified by the account of the adulterous woman, John has been meddled with -- the manuscripts don't agree -- and that's why the translations don't agree. In the ones you've selected perhaps a little 'g' god reveals big 'G" God the Father.
Plus, how could Jesus be in his own bosom?
Keep trying bro Trapped, you haven't cinched your argument with that verse. Exemplary try tho.
|
There is no nefarious intent behind the translations I chose. The Greek word in the bolded portions is "Theos" which does not mean "Son" but means "God", so I went with the translations that were truer to the Greek. I don't know how much more to say clearly that I'm not looking for a fight or argument or potshots, but to have a conversation.
I realize I may not have explained the point I'm trying to make. I am not arguing for a Trinity. I am not arguing that Jesus is God
the Father. Jesus cannot be in His own bosom. He cannot be sent by Himself. He cannot have forsaken Himself. He cannot have prayed to Himself. All that is ludicrous and nonsensical.
Jesus and the Father are two separate, distinct entities, just as a father and son in human life are two different human beings.
What I'm "gunning for" with BJB is just on the divinity of Jesus only. I'm not trying to show that Jesus is God the Father. I am only trying to grapple with Jesus obviously being more than just a man. Jesus is God, but He's not God the Father. If you want to say "little g" god, that's fine with me, since I think that falls in line with the C.S. Lewis quote I posted earlier about "God-kind". Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God the Father, must, by simple human logic be God-kind, just as a man having a son did not have a baby raccoon, but a baby man. They are both men but are not the same man. So Jesus is God (or god, or God-kind, or of the "race of God") but is not God the Father. To me all this makes sense.
BJB didn't address my question related to Christ's death, but kind of dismissed it. If Jesus was only a man, and not divine, then his death could only substitute for one other person. This is obvious. It's precisely because He's of the God-kind (with it's divine, eternal, infinite, all-encompassing attributes that humans just don't have) that His death was sufficient for all of mankind.