God will not give His glory to another, or will He?

[Rosenritter]

Jesus was not a Levitical priest, so there was no way He would have lied by claiming that He was a priest.

Hebrews 5:8-10 KJV
(8) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
(9) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
(10) Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.


Looks to me like he had the right and authority to call himself a priest.

Were the priests of the temple men or gods?
If the priests were men, then the example Jesus is giving is of how men can still be blameless when they do certain things that can be considered to be profaning the Sabbath.

Men can be blameless when fulfilling their ordained roles in service of God (or God by extension, in the example of the temple. David was held blameless for eating the shewbread as it was given to him by the priests, and he was in the service of God as the then-ordained and future-to-be-established King of Israel.

Jesus continued to antagonize the self-proclaimed experts of the Law by revealing their errors relating to the Law.
I can provide dozens of examples of Jesus doing that very thing, if you want.

So why would he antagonize them by making Himself God? For divorce, covetousness, and the like these reasons are obvious and I am sure very easy for you to explain. What would not fit this picture is continuing is for a mere man to give the signs and answers that make himself God.

 

[Rosenritter]

If Jesus will be sitting on the throne of David, He is worthy of worship as a king without needing to be worthy of worship as a god.

What? The angels of God will worship a human king? Besides, none of those examples had him being worshiped as a king, and we are told not to worship men or angels!

Luke 4:8 KJV
(8) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

 

[Rosenritter]

Here are both uses in the same Psalm.

Psalm 82:6,8 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. אֲֽנִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיֹון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃ 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. קוּמָה אֱלֹהִים שָׁפְטָה הָאָרֶץ כִּֽי־אַתָּה תִנְחַל בְּכָל־הַגֹּויִֽם׃​

I highlighted God and gods in both verses.
Please note that the Hebrew word is EXACTLY the same in both verses.

You do realize that the capital G in God was added by the translators, right?

Would you prefer the scriptures were all lowercase or WRITTEN WITH CAPS LOCK?

Tell me, what possible sense does it say for a "god" that shall "die like men" to judge among the gods and judge the earth? Your unwillingness to honor the Son as the Father is interfering with your ability to read with sensible interpretation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, I think you are arguing by reflex here. I'll use the same explanation a second time and maybe you'll see it.

Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Identity: the LORD.
Title / role 1: the LORD the the King of Israel,
Title / role 2: the redeemer of Israel, the LORD of hosts

Check the grammar of the verse in KJV.
It clearly is speaking about two beings: the King of Israel and the redeemer.

God as the redeemer is well established in scripture already: Job 19:25, Psalms 19:14, and many more besides.

Psalms 78:35 KJV
(35) And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

Surely you wouldn't say that is a "Trinitarian" edit to try to make two Gods (please say no?) Because that's an almost identical structure to the passage in Isaiah. That isn't a "Trinitarian edit" but rather a consistent means of translation of the Hebrew.

Maybe you are not seeing that the KJV added the word "his" to change the translation from "The king of Israel and redeemer" to "The king of Israel and his redeemer"?

One of which that I have seen is that some people react to its flaws and then deny that Jesus is our Lord and our God. It leaves such an impression that they just can't get "Trinity" out of their heads to evaluate the text clearly... and I even say this of a friend who debated with me for a whole month before he finally recognized that I was not arguing a "Trinity."

You are arguing a "Binity" (two persons in one being).

I don't argue a Binity (Trinity Lite) model... but there are certain facts and certain statements that are made that are clear and definitive. Our understanding must first accommodate those items and only afterwards do we have the luxury of constructing a model for the benefit of analogy and comprehension. We should never filter the facts to match our understanding (that would be backwards.)

It sure seems that you are arguing a Binity.

What makes your argument different from a Binity argument?

Jesus had the authority to interpret the Sabbath commandment, by right of being the Creator of the Sabbath commandment. Man is not the master of the Sabbath, and that claim would have had you rightfully stoned under Mosaic law. But did Jesus argue that his disciples were not breaking the Sabbath under their interpretation or the interpretation of Moses or the prophets... as would a man? No... he didn't both with such trivialities and and said that He has the right to interpret the meaning by virtue of being its Lord....

.... and used the analogy that the priests of the temple profaned the sabbath and were held blameless, because it was in service to the temple. And did he not also say that a greater than the temple is here? His servants are also held blameless in his service. That's a tall statement.

It is a tall statement and it is inaccurate as well.
There are three versions of this event, and only the one in Matthew includes the account about the priests working in the Temple on the Sabbath and that Jesus is greater than the Sabbath.
This indicates that the part about Jesus being greater than the Sabbath came from something He said on a different occasion that was added to this event by the writer of Matthew.

The other two are more accurate because they only speak about David being in need and hungry and eating the showbread.

Mark 2:24-28 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

Luke 6:1-5 1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. 2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days? 3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; 4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? 5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

So, what do we have to deal with?
The disciples are hungry enough to gather grains directly from the plants on the Sabbath, even though harvesting grains is "work" and is forbidden on the Sabbath.
David was hungry enough to go into the Tabernacle and eat the shewbread that was sitting there, even though only Levitical priests were allowed to enter the Tabernacle and to eat the shewbread.
Jesus claimed the disciples were innocent of guilt for their actions because the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

Conclusion: God sees man's physical needs (hunger) as more important than ritual obedience, therefore man is the master of the Sabbath and the Sabbath is not the master of man.

(You are missing this most important point because you are seeking to put Jesus as GOD of the Sabbath instead of hearing what He is actually saying.)

 

[genuineoriginal]

So why would he antagonize them by making Himself God? For divorce, covetousness, and the like these reasons are obvious and I am sure very easy for you to explain. What would not fit this picture is continuing is for a mere man to give the signs and answers that make himself God.

You are making the same mistake that the Pharisees made.
The Pharisees claimed that only God could do certain things, so when Jesus did those things with the power and authority God gave Him, they refused to believe that God gave Jesus the power and authority to do those things.
Jesus did try to correct them by telling them that God gave Him the power and authority, but they rejected His words.

John 5:19-27 19 [JESUS]Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.[/JESUS] 20 [JESUS]For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.[/JESUS] 21 [JESUS]For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.[/JESUS] 22 [JESUS]For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:[/JESUS] 23 [JESUS]That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.[/JESUS] 24 [JESUS]Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.[/JESUS] 25 [JESUS]Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.[/JESUS] 26 [JESUS]For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;[/JESUS] 27 [JESUS]And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.[/JESUS]​

Isn't it interesting that Jesus declared His humanity when speaking about the power and authority that God gave to Him?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Besides, none of those examples had him being worshiped as a king, and we are told not to worship men or angels!

You provided 7 examples of men worshiping Jesus.
Whether they worshiped Him as the Messiah (Christ), the King of Israel, or merely as a man with the power to grant their petitions, they still worshiped Jesus as a man, not as God.

Luke 4:8 KJV
(8) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Do you honestly believe that the way Satan wanted Jesus to worship him is the same as the way the ruler with the dead daughter worshiped Jesus?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Would you prefer the scriptures were all lowercase or WRITTEN WITH CAPS LOCK?

Are you upset that the Psalm used the exact same word for "ye are gods" and "Arise, O God"?
Hebrew was written in "all caps" with no spaces, and it was up to the reader to understand meaning according to the context.

Tell me, what possible sense does it say for a "god" that shall "die like men" to judge among the gods and judge the earth?

Aren't you really asking whether it makes sense for a mortal man to be raised up to a position where He is subject to only God Himself and everything else is made subject to Him?

1 Corinthians 15:27 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

We have already been given an example of this:

Genesis 41:39-40 39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: 40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.​

Everyone had to treat Joseph as if Joseph was Pharaoh himself, with the exception of Pharaoh himself.

Your unwillingness to honor the Son as the Father is interfering with your ability to read with sensible interpretation.

You have an inability to understand that I do honor the Son as I honor the Father and that I can do that without claiming the Son begat Himself by being His own Father.

 

[Rosenritter]

Check the grammar of the verse in KJV. It clearly is speaking about two beings: the King of Israel and the redeemer.

Multiple roles or titles is not the same as multiple beings. I don't know why you are arguing on this point, as I have yet to see any evidence that any normal source that thinks in the peculiar way that you insist here. For example, have you found even one commentary that remarks on the English after your fashion?

1. If you know only the Old Testament, The LORD is both King of Israel and his redeemer.
2. But if you also know the New Testament, Jesus is both the King of Israel and his redeemer.

Maybe you are not seeing that the KJV added the word "his" to change the translation from "The king of Israel and redeemer" to "The king of Israel and his redeemer"?

Maybe you are not seeing that Hebrew lacks a lot of words (and punctuation) that are required for English grammar. After that fashion, would you rather that was written, You would rather that read "Thus saith LORD King Israel redeemer LORD Hosts" since you are objecting to inserted words? A redeemer redeems someone or something, and the immediate context of the passage previous is the redemption of Jacob and Israel.

Isaiah 44:2-6 KJV
(2) Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.
(3) For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
(4) And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
(5) One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Will you also say that Jacob and Jesurun are two people? Or in this case do you allow one people to have multiple names? What about Israel, does he make up a third person?

The subject of the previous passages is Israel, not the LORD. Of Israel, the LORD is his King and his Redeemer. That parallel naming structure is used throughout. That you're fighting against something this obvious indicates that you likely have a bit of prejudicial conditioning that infringes on objective evaluation. Regardless, the problem for you here was that "the first and the last" is an identification of the LORD, and this is the identification that Jesus chose for himself in Revelation.

I don't think you have a very strong position on this one point. May we move on?

 

[Rosenritter]

You are arguing a "Binity" (two persons in one being).
It sure seems that you are arguing a Binity.
What makes your argument different from a Binity argument?

Before you ask me to differentiate myself from someone else's argument, I would want to have that argument defined. Even if I use your spare summary of "two persons in one being" that still leaves the problem that "person" is undefined, the same loophole (or sinkhole) that plagues Trinity definitions. If you provide your personal definition I will do my best to tell you where the difference lies, or acknowledge if you have accurately assessed my understanding.

Is that a fair enough request?

It is a tall statement and it is inaccurate as well. There are three versions of this event, and only the one in Matthew includes the account about the priests working in the Temple on the Sabbath and that Jesus is greater than the Sabbath. This indicates that the part about Jesus being greater than the Sabbath came from something He said on a different occasion that was added to this event by the writer of Matthew. The other two are more accurate because they only speak about David being in need and hungry and eating the showbread.

No, that is a very wrong way to read the gospels... a somewhat Islamic approach. All scripture is inspired, the gospels are guaranteed to be correct. When one account says one thing, and a second another, that means that both of those things were said, not that we get to pick one and discard the other. Do you have in mind that Jesus had a limited data plan and only had so many words that he could use before running out? I guarantee that Jesus had time to speak all the words in those gospels, and more. The limiting factor is on the gospel writers ability to record all the words. An omission from one or more gospels does not mean it didn't happen. That's why we have multiple witnesses.

John 21:25 KJV
(25) And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So I specifically object to your method of interpretation, of rejecting a gospel account as being authentic (something added in by an author later from a different event) simply because one or more gospels recorded other words as well. Such defies the inspiration and preservation of scripture and is unjustified even from a carnal sense of interpretation.

 

[Rosenritter]

You are making the same mistake that the Pharisees made.
The Pharisees claimed that only God could do certain things, so when Jesus did those things with the power and authority God gave Him, they refused to believe that God gave Jesus the power and authority to do those things.
Jesus did try to correct them by telling them that God gave Him the power and authority, but they rejected His words.

John 5:19-27 19 [JESUS]Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.[/JESUS] 20 [JESUS]For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.[/JESUS] 21 [JESUS]For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.[/JESUS] 22 [JESUS]For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:[/JESUS] 23 [JESUS]That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.[/JESUS] 24 [JESUS]Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.[/JESUS] 25 [JESUS]Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.[/JESUS] 26 [JESUS]For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;[/JESUS] 27 [JESUS]And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.[/JESUS]​

Isn't it interesting that Jesus declared His humanity when speaking about the power and authority that God gave to Him?

Declaring that you have life in yourself just as the Father has life in himself is not a statement of mere humanity. Declaring that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father is not a statement of mere humanity. Declaring that the Son shall raise the dead as he wills is not a statement of mere humanity.

How do you manage to miss that as you went picking out half a verse to stand alone?

 

[Rosenritter]

You provided 7 examples of men worshiping Jesus.
Whether they worshiped Him as the Messiah (Christ), the King of Israel, or merely as a man with the power to grant their petitions, they still worshiped Jesus as a man, not as God.

Do you honestly believe that the way Satan wanted Jesus to worship him is the same as the way the ruler with the dead daughter worshiped Jesus?

1. What part do you not understand that the Jews did not worship other humans or their human kings?

2. The ruler with the dead daughter worshiped Jesus as one who had power over life and death, with power reserved for God. Satan is on the record as having already tried to make himself God.

Isaiah 14:13-14 KJV
(13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
(14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

So yes, Satan did want Jesus to submit to him thus. Does it make sense? Just as much sense as when he tried to rise above his Creator the first time, or perhaps more sense, as perhaps he reasoned he might have no better chance then when God was "manifest in the flesh."

And one more thing, since we veered into here. Jesus was there when Satan was cast down. The devils were subject to his name, not the name of another.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Multiple roles or titles is not the same as multiple beings. I don't know why you are arguing on this point, as I have yet to see any evidence that any normal source that thinks in the peculiar way that you insist here.

Normal English grammar is not a peculiar way to understand what you are reading.

Maybe you are not seeing that Hebrew lacks a lot of words (and punctuation) that are required for English grammar. After that fashion, would you rather that was written, You would rather that read "Thus saith LORD King Israel redeemer LORD Hosts" since you are objecting to inserted words? A redeemer redeems someone or something, and the immediate context of the passage previous is the redemption of Jacob and Israel.

You missed the word "and".

The subject of the previous passages is Israel, not the LORD. Of Israel, the LORD is his King and his Redeemer

Is Israel a person, justifying the pronoun "his", or Israel a nation, justifying the pronoun "its" as found in some other translations?

Isaiah 44:6 CSB 6 This is what the Lord, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Lord of Armies, says: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.​

That you're fighting against something this obvious indicates that you likely have a bit of prejudicial conditioning that infringes on objective evaluation.

You brought up this verse as speaking of both Jesus and God, then we got into an argument about grammar because your prejudicial conditioning prevents you from understanding the grammar rules regarding to the use of "and his" in the verse.

Regardless, the problem for you here was that "the first and the last" is an identification of the LORD, and this is the identification that Jesus chose for himself in Revelation.

You think reading Jesus as using "the first and the last" as a title for Himself is of supreme significance.
I can't see how it is significant when Jesus never claimed "I am God" but has claimed to be the "Son of God".

 

[Rosenritter]

Are you upset that the Psalm used the exact same word for "ye are gods" and "Arise, O God"?
Hebrew was written in "all caps" with no spaces, and it was up to the reader to understand meaning according to the context.

Aren't we speaking English right now? Upper and lowercase do carry meanings within English, any any respectable translation takes this into account. Surely you are not suggesting that it is a "prince of men" that is judging among the other gods in the judgment?

Aren't you really asking whether it makes sense for a mortal man to be raised up to a position where He is subject to only God Himself and everything else is made subject to Him?

No, I wasn't, but since you bring up the question, that would not make sense. 1 Corinthians 15;27 makes sense within the framework that Jesus has his name by inheritance, greater than the angels and worthy of worship, being our creator that made all things.

We have already been given an example of this:

Genesis 41:39-40
39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:
40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.[/BOX]​

Everyone had to treat Joseph as if Joseph was Pharaoh himself, with the exception of Pharaoh himself.

God is not the Pharaoh.

You have an inability to understand that I do honor the Son as I honor the Father and that I can do that without claiming the Son begat Himself by being His own Father.

You must not honor the Father as our Lord Creator God then.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, that is a very wrong way to read the gospels.

Do each of the synoptic gospels state the exact same things?
No.
Are there reasons for why the synoptic gospels are different?
Yes.

All scripture is inspired, the gospels are guaranteed to be correct. When one account says one thing, and a second another, that means that both of those things were said, not that we get to pick one and discard the other.

If you read the gospels, you see that the timing of the events are different from each other.
I have no doubts that Jesus stated that the priests worked on Sabbath and declared that one greater than the temple was there, but the fact that the words are missing from the other two gospels indicates that the words were not stated in that context.

Mark is considered by scholars to be the original gospel that Matthew and Luke were derived from.
Luke is stated to be the one with the most research to ensure the accuracy of the gospel.
Neither of those two have the additional words that the Matthew narrative has.

The gospels are highlights of 3-1/2 years of Jesus teaching and preaching.
One gospel will condense several events into a single event while another gospel has them as several events.

Do you have in mind that Jesus had a limited data plan and only had so many words that he could use before running out? I guarantee that Jesus had time to speak all the words in those gospels, and more. The limiting factor is on the gospel writers ability to record all the words. An omission from one or more gospels does not mean it didn't happen. That's why we have multiple witnesses.

I have no doubt that those extra words of Jesus found in Matthew were said by Jesus when He was healing at the temple and not when He was standing in a field with disciples gathering grain to eat.

So I specifically object to your method of interpretation, of rejecting a gospel account as being authentic (something added in by an author later from a different event) simply because one or more gospels recorded other words as well.

It is obvious that there are differences in the accounts of this and many other events.
What we do with those differences can cause a lot of doctrinal disputes.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Declaring that you have life in yourself just as the Father has life in himself is not a statement of mere humanity. Declaring that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father is not a statement of mere humanity. Declaring that the Son shall raise the dead as he wills is not a statement of mere humanity.

How do you manage to miss that as you went picking out half a verse to stand alone?

Where did I ever say "mere humanity"?
Are you reading things into my words based on your preconceptions?

Is that the reason you continue to miss the obvious, like this one?
[JESUS]the Father hath . . . given to the Son to have life in himself[/JESUS]
Jesus never claimed to have life in Himself for any other reason than that the Father gave it to Him.

Jesus never claims to have any authority, any power, or any words that He was not given by the Father.

 

[genuineoriginal]

1. What part do you not understand that the Jews did not worship other humans or their human kings?

Probably the part where you confuse the English meanings for worship with the Hebrew meanings and assume that they are the same thing.

2. The ruler with the dead daughter worshiped Jesus as one who had power over life and death, with power reserved for God. Satan is on the record as having already tried to make himself God.

The Bible has several examples of God's prophets raising the dead.
There is no reason to assume that the ruler believed Jesus was God instead of believing Jesus was a prophet of God.

 

[Rosenritter]

I have no doubt that those extra words of Jesus found in Matthew were said by Jesus when He was healing at the temple and not when He was standing in a field with disciples gathering grain to eat.

It is obvious that there are differences in the accounts of this and many other events.
What we do with those differences can cause a lot of doctrinal disputes.

Including the doctrinal dispute of biblical integrity. You're saying that the Gospel of Matthew is wrong, that it incorrectly states the context.

Matthew 12:1-9 KJV
(1) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
(2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
(3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
(5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
(6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
(7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
(9) And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:


You didn't even allege that the accounts conflicted, you just arbitrarily decided one or more gospels was wrong because one author included words the others had not.

 

[Rosenritter]

Where did I ever say "mere humanity"?
Are you reading things into my words based on your preconceptions?

Is that the reason you continue to miss the obvious, like this one?
[JESUS]the Father hath . . . given to the Son to have life in himself[/JESUS]
Jesus never claimed to have life in Himself for any other reason than that the Father gave it to Him.

Jesus never claims to have any authority, any power, or any words that He was not given by the Father.

Because to claim otherwise would be a claim of individuality or separation.

 

[Rosenritter]

Probably the part where you confuse the English meanings for worship with the Hebrew meanings and assume that they are the same thing.

The Bible has several examples of God's prophets raising the dead.
There is no reason to assume that the ruler believed Jesus was God instead of believing Jesus was a prophet of God.

John 20:28 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Because to claim otherwise would be a claim of individuality or separation.

Individuality and separation of Jesus from the Father is the only way to understand the things Jesus said about Himself and the Father.