Did Jesus claim Divinity?

[Mathetes the kerux]

When one is faced with having to accept illogic as Trinitarians must do, they invent their own logic.

What can I say, we have different God's, you have three and I have one... NO Stop... don't try to explain the circle again... because we will only end up going in circles.

Peace

Your comments just prove your ignorance as to what Trinitarians actually believe.

Disagree . . . fine. But at least be intellectually honest enough to correctly represent what we believe. Otherwise your attempts at sounding "logical" are hot air. Be charitable. Represent us rightly.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Isn't this what we are arguing about? My point is that John 17:3 contradicts the idea of the Trinity.



Yes, if God is God then he is God.



because you say so? I don't see your argument.



Yes it is. Are you trying to say that the Father is not the only one who is the Father; Jesus and the HS are also the Father? It says The FATHER is the only true God.



Let me get this straight. Are you saying that there are two Jesus's that can talk to each other? This sort of dissection of Jesus into two consciouses has to be some sort of heresy. Look at the measures you have to take to attempt to keep your views in tact.



translation: God MUST have had a reason. You believe slashing pregnant bellies is moral because it's in the Bible. Fine. There is nothing more to debate. Just realize that this line of reasoning can be used to support any book that is claimed to be divinely inspired.



I'm pretty sure this would be considered a Trinitarian heresy...calling the Father a fraction of God.




I know. Maybe your interpretation of 17:3 is wrong. It is a MUCH clearer statement than 10:30, which you cite. Nowhere in 10:30 does Jesus claim to be God. Verse 17:22 will clear that up for you: "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE"

The main point is that we need a starting point in which to interpret the handful of cryptic verses that Trinitarians rely on. I would argue that the starting point is that Yahweh, God the Father, is the only true God. This is so central to Jewish theology and there is no indication that such a radical disruption of this monotheism occurred. Again, look at Mark 12:29. Jesus is asked about the most important commandment. What does Jesus say? He perpetuates the core Jewish principle that God is one. If the Trinity were true why would Jesus perpetuate the traditional, core, monotheistic view of Judaism? I think this is very compelling.

John 17:3
3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
NASU

I don't see how this contradicts Trinitarian theology. Jesus does not say "you are the only true God and I am NOT part of that" or in any way exclude a Trinitarian understanding from the statement. In order for there to be a contradiction there would have to be a statement of exclusion. As is there is none.

You must understand that this is the END of the Gospel that already explicitly calls Christ God:
1. John 1:1
2. John 8:58
3. and to come John 20 (Thomas' statement)

So . . . the hermeneutical principle of faith . . . Scripture interprets Scripture . . . requires that whatever 17:3 means . . . IT IS NOT CONTRADICTORY to what the Author has already stated and has yet to state. Ergo, John 17:3 CANNOT exclude an understanding of the Father as God (the One True God in the passage at hand) AND Christ as partaker in essence (John 8:58) title (John 20:28 o theos) or position (John 1:1 preeminence and equality).
Rather the passage needs to be understood in the unique Christology of John . . . it is a parallel statement to:

John 20:30-31
30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
NASU

having the thrust of the monogenes in relationship to the Father . . . the ONE AND ONLY who has been sent . . . come down from heaven.

It in NO WAY contradicts a Trinitarian understanding when viewed in the proper hermeneutical light. The words of Christ are keyed into John's purpose of the writ and must be understood in that light as per the hermeneutical principle of authorial intent. IOW, if John didn't mean it that way (which he could not have per the passages mentioned) it cannot be construed that way. Any interpretation must be consistent with the whole of the work and intent of the author.

 

[Gary51]

Your comments just prove your ignorance as to what Trinitarians actually believe.

I'm fully aware of what Trinitarians believe, and why. I am also fully aware that they are wrong. Ignorance lays with the trinitarians because of their failure to see our view on the subject.

Disagree . . . fine. But at least be intellectually honest enough to correctly represent what we believe.

I cannot represent what you believe, as I don't believe it. That would be illogical.

Otherwise your attempts at sounding "logical" are hot air. Be charitable. Represent us rightly.

Being charitable goes both ways, have you seen how some of your allies post. There is even a mod trying to flame.

As for sounding logical, you have three whole God's that is really one God, which can be devided into three thirds of one God.... if that makes sense to you, then it's like I said, you have your own logic.

Peace

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I'm fully aware of what Trinitarians believe, and why. I am also fully aware that they are wrong. Ignorance lays with the trinitarians because of their failure to see our view on the subject.

I cannot represent what you believe, as I don't believe it. That would be illogical.


Being charitable goes both ways, have you seen how some of your allies post. There is even a mod trying to flame.

As for sounding logical, you have three whole God's that is really one God, which can be devided into three thirds of one God.... if that makes sense to you, then it's like I said, you have your own logic.

Peace

Gary, if I am going to present what another believes it is charitable to present what they believe RIGHTLY . . . and if I have issue with it then to argue from WHAT THEY ACCURATELY BELIEVE and dismantle the presuppositions.

You said that we believe in three gods . . . WE DO NOT. That is NOT charitable. While this may be what you think our beliefs logically arrive at, it is not charitable to say that this is IN FACT WHAT WE BELIEVE . . . UNLESS you add a clarifying statement like:

Trinitarians believe in ONE God in three persons . . . for me I cannot see how this is and it leads me to logically see God then as three gods.

In this statement one has correctly posited what we believe and then ADDED their own conclusions to it. THAT IS CHARITABLE. While I would wholeheartedly disagree . . . at least you have represented what I believe correctly.

It is called grace . . .

Being charitable goes both ways, have you seen how some of your allies post.

And since when has the actions of others determined your course of action? Jesus died on the cross while we were yet sinners (I suppose we can agree on that) THAT MAKES CHARITY ONE WAY DUDE. Others who are trin's here and there actions should NEVER determine your gracious response dude.

 

[Gary51]

Gary, if I am going to present what another believes it is charitable to present what they believe RIGHTLY . . . and if I have issue with it then to argue from WHAT THEY ACCURATELY BELIEVE and dismantle the presuppositions.

That would be fine... but you said REPRESENT.... your beliefs, which I cannot.

You said that we believe in three gods . . . WE DO NOT.

I know that you don't believe in three God's, I've already stated that I know what Trinitarians believe, and why. I said you had three God's... now it's not possible for me to describe your view in a logical manner that will sound logical to you... because there is no logic there. We've already been round the houses discussing circles and parts of circles.

That is NOT charitable. While this may be what you think our beliefs logically arrive at, it is not charitable to say that this is IN FACT WHAT WE BELIEVE . . . UNLESS you add a clarifying statement like:

It maybe that any opposing opinion will sound uncharitable to you.

Trinitarians believe in ONE God in three persons . . . for me I cannot see how this is and it leads me to logically see God then as three gods.

I think most people start out debating in that manner... but from what I see on CF, it soon get's more human. Human pride takes over and the method of debating changes.

In this statement one has correctly posited what we believe and then ADDED their own conclusions to it. THAT IS CHARITABLE. While I would wholeheartedly disagree . . . at least you have represented what I believe correctly.

It is called grace . . .

And since when has the actions of others determined your course of action? Jesus died on the cross while we were yet sinners (I suppose we can agree on that) THAT MAKES CHARITY ONE WAY DUDE. Others who are trin's here and there actions should NEVER determine your gracious response dude.

Having a go at an individual, in an uncharitable way, is a fault of human pride... as you have just proven, by shouting and calling me dude.

Peace

 

[Nadiine]

Gary, if I am going to present what another believes it is charitable to present what they believe RIGHTLY . . . and if I have issue with it then to argue from WHAT THEY ACCURATELY BELIEVE and dismantle the presuppositions.

You said that we believe in three gods . . . WE DO NOT. That is NOT charitable. While this may be what you think our beliefs logically arrive at, it is not charitable to say that this is IN FACT WHAT WE BELIEVE . . . UNLESS you add a clarifying statement like:

Trinitarians believe in ONE God in three persons . . . for me I cannot see how this is and it leads me to logically see God then as three gods.

In this statement one has correctly posited what we believe and then ADDED their own conclusions to it. THAT IS CHARITABLE. While I would wholeheartedly disagree . . . at least you have represented what I believe correctly.

It is called grace . . .



And since when has the actions of others determined your course of action? Jesus died on the cross while we were yet sinners (I suppose we can agree on that) THAT MAKES CHARITY ONE WAY DUDE. Others who are trin's here and there actions should NEVER determine your gracious response dude.

You're right - unfortunately, a majority of people who attack the Trinity don't even understand what Trinity means.
(not that they'de 'get it' if they did know the proper definition).

According to scripture, Christ's true identity is given by the Father only. One won't be enlightened until God delivers it to them directly.

Mt. 16
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

---Jesus also told them not to reveal His true identity yet -
20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. " (Matthew 16:15,16,20; also Mark 8:29,30)

& those He healed:
15 Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick,
16 warning them not to tell who he was. (Matthew 12:15,16) (Matthew 8:3,4) (Mark 5:42,43)

Do a study on "son of" in ancient language and it means one is 'of the direct order of'/'bloodline of' the one who they claim.
Christ is saying here that He is directly OF GOD - bloodline/order. Same family. This makes Him equal as God by title.
The title, "Son of God" is a claim to divinity in their language & understanding)
Which is why you see the people get furious when He uses that term, "Son of God":

John 10:36
do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

John 19:7
The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die,
because He made Himself the Son of God.” (blasphemy is grounds for death by stoning).


These tests are proof of what they understood of the title:
Matthew 27:40
and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself!
If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”

Matthew 26:68
and said, " Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?"
(here they accuse Him of blasphemy after asking if He's claiming to be Son of God)

and here again:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=4&verse=40&end_verse=42&version=50&context=context

In the above verses, they are understanding Jesus' claims of DIVINITY - and then testing Jesus by asking Him to perform Supernatural acts that no regular person could do. AND they call it blasphemy that He claims to be the Son of God. Why blasphemy if He's just claiming He's God's prophet or regular human being?

• come down off the cross (miraculously save Himself)
• blindfold Him & tell him to tell them who hit him
• turn stone into bread

You don't ask people to do these things if they aren't claiming to be regular people. You ask it of people claiming to be something more.

What THEY understand Jesus to be saying is what is most relevant and important, not what we understand it to mean 2000+ years later in English.
They understood Him to claim divinity in several passages.
Jesus never once set their alleged "confusion" or "misunderstanding" straight by DENYING that Divinity or what they understood Him to be saying. If an angry crowd was accusing you of claiming to be God (blasphemy) & picking up stones to stone you, wouldn't you quickly and vehemently tell them you didn't mean that and make sure they understood you correctly?
Not once did Jesus deny or correct what they believed Him to be saying.

Yes, Jesus claimed Divinity, and more importantly, the people understood His claims as Divinity and more importantly than that, JESUS NEVER DENIED IT

 

[Zebra1552]

Isn't this what we are arguing about? My point is that John 17:3 contradicts the idea of the Trinity.

Your point has no merit because it is backed by only speculation.

Yes, if God is God then he is God.

No. If He is God, he has to be real.

The Father, because He is God, is real. The Son, because He is God, is real. Same with the Holy Spirit.
​

because you say so? I don't see your argument.

Because of the evidence found throughout the Bible, which has already been quoted on numerous occasions.

Yes it is. Are you trying to say that the Father is not the only one who is the Father; Jesus and the HS are also the Father? It says The FATHER is the only true God.

It does not, however, say that the Father is the only God. It says that the Father is the only true God. And I have already given you the language for 'true'. Stop speculating on Scripture and let it speak for itself.

I am saying that the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit, and all are God. Three parts of the same whole.

And that ignores which character was speaking- Jesus as a man, or Jesus as God, or both. There is plenty of reasonable doubt for your interpretation.
​

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that there are two Jesus's that can talk to each other? This sort of dissection of Jesus into two consciouses has to be some sort of heresy. Look at the measures you have to take to attempt to keep your views in tact.

You ask a question, then you assume that you are right right after you ask it? Do not quip strawmen arguments at me. I am saying that Jesus is fully God and fully man, and you have no idea which one was speaking. I am not sifting Jesus into two personalities, I am pointing out that you have no idea what was going on and all you have is speculation, and I am pointing this out by doing some of my own.

Your statement has a huge flaw in it. You would have to prove that it did not have a point to it; that it was unnecessary. In order to do that, you would have to know what God knows and knew at the time the acts were carried out, and you cannot possibly have that knowledge.
​

translation: God MUST have had a reason. You believe slashing pregnant bellies is moral because it's in the Bible. Fine. There is nothing more to debate. Just realize that this line of reasoning can be used to support any book that is claimed to be divinely inspired.

No. I believe it is moral because God has reasons for everything He does. Not because it is in the Bible. Because of the evidence, not because it is in a book.

Divide a circle into three parts. Now 3=1. It is one God in three Persons, not three persons in one God. Fractions, not whole numbers.
​

I'm pretty sure this would be considered a Trinitarian heresy...calling the Father a fraction of God.

I am pretty sure you have no other argument so you are accusing me of heresy. Come up with reasons.

I know. Maybe your interpretation of 17:3 is wrong. It is a MUCH clearer statement than 10:30, which you cite. Nowhere in 10:30 does Jesus claim to be God. Verse 17:22 will clear that up for you: "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE"

Then you still have the I AM statements to deal with. Good luck.

The main point is that we need a starting point in which to interpret the handful of cryptic verses that Trinitarians rely on. I would argue that the starting point is that Yahweh, God the Father, is the only true God. This is so central to Jewish theology and there is no indication that such a radical disruption of this monotheism occurred. Again, look at Mark 12:29. Jesus is asked about the most important commandment. What does Jesus say? He perpetuates the core Jewish principle that God is one. If the Trinity were true why would Jesus perpetuate the traditional, core, monotheistic view of Judaism? I think this is very compelling.

Jewish theology is not Christian theology. And you are again dealing in speculation.

 

[scriptures]

Trinitarians believe in ONE God in three persons . . . for me I cannot see how this is and it leads me to logically see God then as three gods.

Your problem is, there is no such thing as one God in three person......

The Bible is clear ......

God almighty is YHWH and Jesus is the son of God ......

 

[Hentenza]

Your problem is, there is no such thing as one God in three person......

The Bible is clear ......

God almighty is YHWH and Jesus is the son of God ......

So, do you believe in the atonement of Jesus on the cross?

 

[angelmom01]

The scriptures very clearly reveal to us that Jesus Christ is GOD (theos = deity, divinity) manifest in the flesh:

Psa 68:18-19 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah.

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


So then who is THE LORD GOD?


Jesus is not the Father, but that doesn't mean that He is not God.

He is God manifest in the flesh, the only begotten Son of God.

The Father is SPIRIT and INVISIBLE (and was IN THE MAN, JESUS CHRIST).

Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is "the image of the invisible God".

"God" is not a proper name; it is a TITLE. A title that belongs to not only The Father, but to Jesus Christ.... and to the Holy Spirit which is the spirit OF GOD.

Not only that but we all be partakers of the Father's nature, which is why it said "ye are gods".

 

[scriptures]

So, do you believe in the atonement of Jesus on the cross?

Yes, the Bible is clear.....


(Joh 3:16 ASV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

 

[Nadiine]

The scriptures very clearly reveal to us that Jesus Christ is GOD (theos = deity, divinity) manifest in the flesh:

Psa 68:18-19 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah.

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


So then who is THE LORD GOD?


Jesus is not the Father, but that doesn't mean that He is not God.

He is God manifest in the flesh, the only begotten Son of God.

The Father is SPIRIT and INVISIBLE (and was IN THE MAN, JESUS CHRIST).

Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is "the image of the invisible God".

"God" is not a proper name; it is a TITLE. A title that belongs to not only The Father, but to Jesus Christ.... and to the Holy Spirit which is the spirit OF GOD.

Not only that but we all be partakers of the Father's nature, which is why it said "ye are gods".

Um, I was with you until your last paragraph.
If you're referring to partaking in obtaining DEITY, then I completely disagree.

If that's the case, this is my reply:
If you look at the word definition and in the context of Ps. 82 where it originally was quoted from, you see that it didn't mean gods as in "deities", but gods as in "judges/rulers".
(God delegates His authority & power to judge to earthly judges & rulers to oversee people in God's place or stead.
Just like a shepherd tends God's flocks in His physical absense, God grants judges and kings His authority (& power) to rule and judge/sentence/punish people for evil and wrongdoing and establish order on earth).

We are NOT little gods (ie. deities) and we're not going to be gods/deity (Mormons teach that). Better explained in this short verse commentary:

Commentary by A. R. FAUSSET

PSALM 82​

Psa 82:1-8 . Before the great Judge, the judges of the earth are rebuked, exhorted, and threatened.

1. congregation--(Compare Exd 12:3 16:1 ).
of the mighty--that is, of God, of His appointment.
the gods--or, "judges" ( Exd 21:6 22:9 ), God's representatives.
2. accept the persons--literally, "lift up the faces," that is, from dejection, or admit to favor and communion, regardless of merit ( Lev 19:15 Pro 18:5 ).
3, 4. So must good judges act ( Psa 10:14 Job 29:12 ).
4. poor and needy--(Compare Psa 34:10 41:1 ).
5. By the wilful ignorance and negligence of judges, anarchy ensues ( Psa 11:3 75:3 ).
out of course--(Compare Margin; Psa 9:6 62:2 ).
6, 7. Though God admitted their official dignity ( Jhn 10:34 ), He reminds them of their mortality.
7. fall like, &c.--be cut off suddenly ( Psa 20:8 91:7 ).
8. As rightful sovereign of earth, God is invoked personally to correct the evils of His representatives.

 

[angelmom01]

Um, I was with you until your last paragraph.
If you're referring to partaking in obtaining DEITY, then I completely disagree.

If that's the case, this is my reply:
If you look at the word definition and in the context of Ps. 82 where it originally was quoted from, you see that it didn't mean gods as in "deities", but gods as in "judges/rulers".
(God delegates His authority & power to judge to earthly judges & rulers to oversee people in God's place or stead.
Just like a shepherd tends God's flocks in His physical absense, God grants judges and kings His authority (& power) to rule and judge/sentence/punish people for evil and wrongdoing and establish order on earth).

We are NOT little gods (ie. deities) and we're not going to be gods/deity (Mormons teach that). Better explained in this short verse commentary:

Commentary by A. R. FAUSSET

PSALM 82​

Psa 82:1-8 . Before the great Judge, the judges of the earth are rebuked, exhorted, and threatened.

1. congregation--(Compare Exd 12:3 16:1 ).
of the mighty--that is, of God, of His appointment.
the gods--or, "judges" ( Exd 21:6 22:9 ), God's representatives.
2. accept the persons--literally, "lift up the faces," that is, from dejection, or admit to favor and communion, regardless of merit ( Lev 19:15 Pro 18:5 ).
3, 4. So must good judges act ( Psa 10:14 Job 29:12 ).
4. poor and needy--(Compare Psa 34:10 41:1 ).
5. By the wilful ignorance and negligence of judges, anarchy ensues ( Psa 11:3 75:3 ).
out of course--(Compare Margin; Psa 9:6 62:2 ).
6, 7. Though God admitted their official dignity ( Jhn 10:34 ), He reminds them of their mortality.
7. fall like, &c.--be cut off suddenly ( Psa 20:8 91:7 ).
8. As rightful sovereign of earth, God is invoked personally to correct the evils of His representatives.

Well Hello Nadiine,

Long time no hear.

I did not say that we become diety (God), did I? I said that we become partakers OF HIS divine nature. Hence the use of the little "g" when I said that we are "gods", which is scriptural:

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Isa 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

We are part of the family of God.

Please, don't start throwing Mormonism in my face again just because you know that I grew up as one. You also know that I left that church AND IT'S FALSE DOCTRINES - BEHIND!! Thanks!!

 

[Nadiine]

Well Hello Nadiine,

Long time no hear.

I did not say that we become diety (God), did I?

This is how I framed my reply:

Um, I was with you until your last paragraph.
If you're referring to partaking in obtaining DEITY, then I completely disagree.
If that's the case, this is my reply:

I purposely asked if that was what you were stating becuz I wasn't sure =)

I said that we become partakers OF HIS divine nature. Hence the use of the little "g" when I said that we are "gods", which is scriptural:

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Isa 41:23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

We are part of the family of God.

Please, don't start throwing Mormonism in my face again just because you know that I grew up as one. You also know that I left that church AND IT'S FALSE DOCTRINES - BEHIND!! Thanks!!

To be honest, I was'nt sure if it was you, it's been a real long time ago and I ran into someone else with a similar name to yours here and wasn't sure if they were you.
So no, I wasn't purposely throwing Mormonism up becuz of your background (you give me too much credit to remember all this stuff LOL )

Anyhoo, we are not and will not be of the same essence as God as "gods".

This commentary explains it well:

a. Is it not written in your law, "I said, ‘You are gods’": The judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men.
Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods."

b. If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came: Jesus is saying "If God gives these unjust judges the title ‘gods’ because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the ‘Son of God’ in light of the testimony of Me and My works?"
i. Jesus is not taking the statement "you are gods" in Psalm 82 and applying it to all humanity, or to all believers.
The use of gods in Psalm 82 was a metaphor - and Jesus is exposing both the ignorance and inconsistency of His accusers here.

 

[angelmom01]

I'm not sure I entirely agree that we are not of the same essence as God.

We are joined together as one body through one spirit - the spirit of God. This doesn't make us God, but it is in this way that we are partakers of His divine nature.

 

[JoyJuice]

Um, I was with you until your last paragraph.
If you're referring to partaking in obtaining DEITY, then I completely disagree.

If that's the case, this is my reply:
If you look at the word definition and in the context of Ps. 82 where it originally was quoted from, you see that it didn't mean gods as in "deities", but gods as in "judges/rulers".
(God delegates His authority & power to judge to earthly judges & rulers to oversee people in God's place or stead.
Just like a shepherd tends God's flocks in His physical absense, God grants judges and kings His authority (& power) to rule and judge/sentence/punish people for evil and wrongdoing and establish order on earth).

We are NOT little gods (ie. deities) and we're not going to be gods/deity (Mormons teach that). Better explained in this short verse commentary:

Commentary by A. R. FAUSSET​

PSALM 82​

Psa 82:1-8 . Before the great Judge, the judges of the earth are rebuked, exhorted, and threatened.

1. congregation--(Compare Exd 12:3 16:1 ).
of the mighty--that is, of God, of His appointment.
the gods--or, "judges" ( Exd 21:6 22:9 ), God's representatives.
2. accept the persons--literally, "lift up the faces," that is, from dejection, or admit to favor and communion, regardless of merit ( Lev 19:15 Pro 18:5 ).
3, 4. So must good judges act ( Psa 10:14 Job 29:12 ).
4. poor and needy--(Compare Psa 34:10 41:1 ).
5. By the wilful ignorance and negligence of judges, anarchy ensues ( Psa 11:3 75:3 ).
out of course--(Compare Margin; Psa 9:6 62:2 ).
6, 7. Though God admitted their official dignity ( Jhn 10:34 ), He reminds them of their mortality.
7. fall like, &c.--be cut off suddenly ( Psa 20:8 91:7 ).
8. As rightful sovereign of earth, God is invoked personally to correct the evils of His representatives.

Mmmmm...well no. They did mean the Gods of God in the function of judging and not human judges themselves. Remember the early Israelites came from the Ancient Near East and shared the views of polytheists prior to adopting the Mountain God of their own. This Psalms just reflects that.

 

[Nadiine]

Mmmmm...well no. They did mean the Gods of God in the function of judging and not human judges themselves. Remember the early Israelites came from the Ancient Near East and shared the views of polytheists prior to adopting the Mountain God of their own. This Psalms just reflects that.

?
Sorry I disagree.
By the time Psalms came around, they were well versed in their own theology despite paganism around them.

It doesn't matter, it doesn't mean deity - man is not a god nor will man ever be a lesser deity at any time, it isn't biblical.

 

[Nadiine]

I'm not sure I entirely agree that we are not of the same essence as God.

We are joined together as one body through one spirit - the spirit of God. This doesn't make us God, but it is in this way that we are partakers of His divine nature.

We are partakers by being adopted into His family - we are not literally of His nature (deity-wise).
We're adopted. Spiritually awakened/made alive in Him and thru Him.
He is the vine, we're the branches - (grafted in).

We have a spirit and soul and I believe that would be the 'essence' of having any likeness of God Himself and that's where it would end, not going into any type of deification if anyone wants to take it there.
It's our very nature to want to elevate ourselves to being more like or equal with God - and I would always exercise caution in this area becuz of where it leads.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, the Bible is clear.....


(Joh 3:16 ASV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Could a mere man atone for the sins of the world?

 

[Nadiine]

Could a mere man atone for the sins of the world?

nope (ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God).