No, you're not. You're trying to make it say that Jesus denied being God, and this is the furthest form the truth. When Jesus says "for what good work do you stone me?" that is clearly a rhetorical question, not a statement that he is being stoned for a good work. Neither does he state that the Son of God is anything less than God. That, you see, is a created assumption that is found in a JW doctrinal statement, not the biblical text itself.
"Neither does he [Jesus] state that the Son of God is anything less than God", this statement made by you is ridiclous and hardly proof that Jesus being the Son of God meant he was God. Jesus never stated many things, he never stated he wasn't a homosexual, or that he doesn't lives in a cave on the moon, or that he likes picking his nose and eating the produce. You using the "never denied" argument proves nothing and means nothing.
Jesus stating he was the
"Son of God" b
y definition means he was NOT God, since you cannot be the Son "of" something and yet be the "of" that you are the Son to, this is contradictory, Jesus was never contradictory. You, rosenritter, are the Son of your Father, thus you are
not your Father. Jesus was the Son of God, thus he was not the God to whom he is a Son to.
I never said Jesus denied being God in John chapter 10. What John chapter 10 does show however is Jesus stating the reason why the Jews wanted to stone him for blashmey, Jesus said
"do you say to me..‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son.."
Again, the blasphemy the Jews were stoning Jesus for was because Jesus called God is Father,
not because he said he was God. Nowhere in John chapter 10 do we find Jesus once saying he was God, repeatedly we find Jesus claiming that God was his own Father, then we have Jesus himself saying that they wanted to stone him because he said he is God son.
NWL said:
did Jesus say that they were stoning him and I quote, "because [he] said, I am the Son of God?", did Jesus say that or did he not?
Yes, he did. The Jews said they were stoning him because he made himself equal to God. Jesus said that they said he blasphemed because he said he was the Son of God. These statements do not stand in disagreement, nor did the Jews seem to think there was any difference. It's only the Jehovah's Witness (and other Unitarians) that say there is a difference, not the Jews of Christ's audience.
As I mentioned before, someone being called the "Son of God" and someone being called "God" are two completely different things, for you to cheekily claim they are synonymous is dishonest. I've already stated how John 10:33 CAN be translated "make yourself a god", there are no grammatical or contextual reasons why the verse cannot translated in such a sense:
Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, by the respected trinitarian, Dr. Robert Young: "`makest thyself a god,' not `God' as in C.V. [King James Version or `Common Version'], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- `gods .. gods,' where the title is applied to magistrates, and others ...."
Trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
"making himself a god." - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint.
Translator's Handbook by Newman and Nida:
"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.
As I have shown it is NOT only JW or Unitarians who are aware the text can read differently, the context actually favours the translation "a god". The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy because Jesus made out he was the Son of the One true God, the Father, they were NOT stoning him because he was claiming to be the Father or the one true God. If you rosenritter went around claiming to be a literal Son of God, claiming that God was your direct Father you would be blaspheming and be accountable for death, Jesus made the claim that his Father was God, that he was Gods Son, thus the Jews wanted to stone him.
You keep evading this over and over. Jesus was not simply calling them corrupt judges. Having already identified himself as the judge over all the world, that he should arise and inherit all nations, he likewise identifies himself as the God that judges among the gods. You see, God himself is immune to charges of blasphemy. If you cannot see how that answers a charge of blasphemy then your compass needs checking.
I'm not evading that point you've made, I've asked repeadbly to show me where in John chpater 10 Jesus says any of that? Where does Jesus in John chapter 10 state he is "judge over all the world that he should arise and inherit all nations"? Where does Jesus identify "himself as the God that judges among the gods", stop saying it and show it to me roseritter!??
As I've mentioned repeatably Jesus said no such thing, all Jesus quoted was "are you not gods", nowhere does he say he was the God who judges among the Gods in Psalms 82, you again have assumed this, all Jesus does is remind the Jews that they are the gods of Psalms 82, anything else and you're adding to scripture, show me where Jesus states otherwise, stop evading this point.
How many judges of the quick and the dead are there NWL? John 5:22-27 is already stated and on the record by the time we get to John 10. All judgment is given unto the son, the father judges no man, he says. So who is it that judges among the gods? The Psalm and Jesus agree that it is Jesus. A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
This is irrevalant, Jesus was not claiming to be the "God who judges" simply because Jesus reminded the Jews that they were the "gods" of Pslams 82. Until you provide evidence for your assumptions they remain assumptions.
What does this have to do with anything? Jesus is LORD and Christ.
What does this have to do with anything? The JW doctrine is wrong in this regard.
Nice to know, now please refrain from making statements that are unrelated to the discussion.
What the heck are you talking about? Jesus is not a "little god" anyplace but JW doctrine. Yes, if we assume "little god" then it would have pacified the Jews, wouldn't it? Except the text shows us that it only angered them more, and they continued the process of stoning for blasphemy.
As I've shown the Jews saying "you make yourself a god" to Jesus in John 10:33 is a very possible translation of the Hebrew, do deny this would be dishonest. Moreover you evaded the question. Please answer the question:
If Jesus was a little god or secondary god to Almighty God Jehovah, if the Jews said to Jesus "we are stoning for blasphemy because you make yourself a god" and Jesus replied "are you not gods" would Jesus comparing himself to them claiming to be the same type of god as them be a good defence for an accusation of blasphemy if Jesus was NOT God but a god?
hief "A" steals $100 from an old lady on the street, theif "B" then steals the $100 from the same old lady and thief A see's this. Thief A then accuses thief B of being a thief and states he will call the police on him because he has committed a crime. Thief B then says to Thief A "Why are you snitching, are you not a thief?". Does thief "B" make a valid point in his own defence regarding thief's "A" accusation?