the POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royal I

[AVmetro]

Ev..

Ev..

Idiot. There is no passage (neither OT nor NT) in which Jesus is called "Almighty God."

I can't believe you even tried it on, you ignorant pillock.

Glad I could ruffle your feathers.....

There is equally no passage (neither OT nor NT) in which anyone other than Christ or YHWH is called "mighty God".

There we see how your logic is selective...

 

[AVmetro]

Ev....

Ev....

A basic rundown....

Exodus 7

Really? We see here that Moses is clearly called "God" within an analogy. As you can see, Aaron is called "Moses" to the Pharoah....Is 'Aaron a 'title' here?

Psalm 45

Who was this actually intended for? Was it Solomon? Or was it Jesus? See Ps16:10 "...because you will not abandon me [David] to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay."
Is the above Psalm applicable to David despite the fact that it was "applied" to David. No..cf..Acts2:29 "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day........Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay."

We see that Messianic Psalms originally applied to one, do not actually apply at all, but were intended for the Christ. Here is some commentary on the matter:

Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible

Chapter 45

This psalm is an illustrious prophecy of Messiah the Prince: it is all over gospel, and points at him only, as a bridegroom espousing the church to himself and as a king ruling in it and ruling for it. It is probable that our Saviour has reference to this psalm when he compares the kingdom of heaven, more than once, to a nuptial solemnity, the solemnity of a royal nuptial, Mt. 22:2; 25:1. We have no reason to think it has any reference to Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter; if I thought that it had reference to any other than the mystical marriage between Christ and his church, I would rather apply it to some of David’s marriages, because he was a man of war, such a one as the bridegroom here is described to be, which Solomon was not. But I take it to be purely and only meant of Jesus Christ; of him speaks the prophet this, of him and of no other man; and to him (v. 6, 7) it is applied in the New Testament (Heb. 1:8), nor can it be understood of any other. The preface speaks the excellency of the song (v. 1). The psalm speaks, I. Of the royal bridegroom, who is Christ. 1. The transcendent excellency of his person (v. 2). 2. The glory of his victories (v. 3-5). 3. The righteousness of his government (v. 6, 7). 4. The splendour of his court (v. 8, 9). II. Of the royal bride, which is the church. 1. Her consent gained (v. 10, 11). 2. The nuptials solemnized (v. 12–15). 3. The issue of this marriage (v. 16, 17). In singing this psalm our hearts must be filled with high thoughts of Christ, with an entire submission to and satisfaction in his government, and with an earnest desire of the enlarging and perpetuating of his church in the world.To the chief musician upon Shoshannim, for the sons of Korah, Maschil. A song of loves.

Verses 1-5 Some make Shoshannim, in the title, to signify an instrument of six strings; others take it in its primitive signification for lilies or roses, which probably were strewed, with other flowers, at nuptial solemnities; and then it is easily applicable to Christ who calls himself the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys, Cant. 2:1. It is a song of loves, concerning the holy love that is between Christ and his church. It is a song of the well-beloved, the virgins, the companions of the bride (v. 14), prepared to be sung by them. The virgin-company that attend the Lamb on Mount Zion are said to sing a new song, Rev. 14:3, 4. I. The preface (v. 1) speaks, 1. The dignity of the subject. It is a good matter, and it is a pity that such a moving art as poetry should every be employed about a bad matter. It is touching the King, King Jesus, and his kingdom and government. Note, Those that speak of Christ speak of a good matter, no subject so noble, so copious, so fruitful, so profitable, and so well-becoming us; it is a shame that this good matter is not more the matter of our discourse. 2. The excellency of the management. This song was a confession with the mouth of faith in the heart concerning Christ and his church. (1.) The matter was well digested, as it well deserved: My heart is inditing it, which perhaps is meant of that Spirit of prophecy that dictated the psalm to David, that Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets, 1 Pt. 1:11. But it is applicable to his devout meditations and affections in his heart, out of the abundance of which his mouth spoke. Things concerning Christ ought to be thought of by us with all possible seriousness, with fixedness of thought and a fire of holy love, especially when we are to speak of those things. We then speak best of Christ and divine things when we speak from the heart that which has warmed and affected us; and we should never be rash in speaking of the things of Christ, but weigh well beforehand what we have to say, lest we speak amiss. See Eccl. 5:2. (2.) It was well expressed: I will speak of the things which I have made. He would express himself, [1.] With all possible clearness, as one that did himself understand and was affected with the things he spoke of. Not, "I will speak the things I have heard from others,’’ that is speaking by rote; but, "the things which I have myself studied.’’ Note, What God has wrought in our souls, as well as what he has wrought for them, we must declare to others, Ps. 66:16. [2.] With all possible cheerfulness, freedom, and fluency: "My tongue is as the pen of a ready writer, guided by my heart in every word as the pen is by the hand.’’ We call the prophets the penmen of scripture, whereas really they were but the pen. The tongue of the most subtle disputant, and the most eloquent orator, is but the pen with which God writes what he pleases. Why should we quarrel with the pen if bitter things be written against us, or idolize the pen if it write in our favour? David not only spoke what he thought of Christ, but wrote it, that it might spread the further and last the longer. His tongue was as the pen of a ready writer, that lets nothing slip. When the heart is inditing a good matter it is a pity but the tongue should be as the pen of a ready writer, to leave it upon record. II. In these verses the Lord Jesus is represented, 1. As most beautiful and amiable in himself. It is a marriage-song; and therefore the transcendent excellencies of Christ are represented by the beauty of the royal bridegroom (v. 2): Thou art fairer than the children of men, than any of them. He proposed (v. 1) to speak of the King, but immediately directs his speech to him. Those that have an admiration and affection for Christ love to go to him and tell him so. Thus we must profess our faith, that we see his beauty, and our love, that we are pleased with it: Thou are fair, thou art fairer than the children of men. Note, Jesus Christ is in himself, and in the eyes of all believers, more amiable and lovely than the children of men. The beauties of the Lord Jesus, as God, as Mediator, far surpass those of human nature in general and those which the most amiable and excellent of the children of men are endowed with; there is more in Christ to engage our love than there is or can be in any creature. Our beloved is more than another beloved. The beauties of this lower world, and its charms, are in danger of drawing away our hearts from Christ, and therefore we are concerned to understand how much he excels them all, and how much more worthy he is of our love. 2. As the great favourite of heaven. He is fairer than the children of men, for God has done more for him than for any of the children of men, and all his kindness to the children of men is for his sake, and passes through his hands, through his mouth. (1.) He has grace, and he has it for us; Grace is poured into thy lips. By his word, his promise, his gospel, the good-will of God is made known to us and the good work of God is begun and carried on in us. He received all grace from God, all the endowments that were requisite to qualify him for his work and office as Mediator, that from his fulness we might receive, Jn. 1:16. It was not only poured into his heart, for his own strength and encouragement, but poured into his lips, that by the words of his mouth in general, and the kisses of his mouth to particular believers, he might communicate both holiness and comfort. From this grace poured into his lips proceeded those gracious words which all admired, Lu. 4:22. The gospel of grace is poured into his lips; for it began to be spoken by the Lord, and from him we receive it. He has the words of eternal life. The spirit of prophecy is put into thy lips; so the Chaldee. (2.) He has the blessing, and he has it for us. "Therefore, because thou art the great trustee of divine grace for the use and benefit of the children of men, therefore God has blessed thee for ever, has made thee an everlasting blessing, so as that in thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.’’ Where God gives his grace he will give his blessing. We are blessed with spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus, Eph. 1:3. 3. As victorious over all his enemies. The royal bridegroom is a man of war, and his nuptials do not excuse him from the field of battle (as was allowed by the law, Deu. 24:5); nay, they bring him to the field of battle, for he is to rescue his spouse by dint of sword out of her captivity, to conquer her, and to conquer for her, and then to marry her. Now we have here, (1.) His preparations for war (v. 3): Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Most Mighty! The word of God is the sword of the Spirit. By the promises of that word, and the grace contained in those promises, souls are made willing to submit to Jesus Christ and become his loyal subjects; by the threatenings of that word, and the judgments executed according to them, those that stand it out against Christ will, in due time, be brought down and ruined. By the gospel of Christ many Jews and Gentiles were converted, and, at length, the Jewish nation was destroyed, according to the predictions of it, for their implacable enmity to it; and paganism was quite abolished. The sword here girt on Christ’s thigh is the same which is said to proceed out of his mouth, Rev. 19:15. When the gospel was sent fort to be preached to all nations, then our Redeemer girded his sword upon his thigh. (2.) His expedition to this holy war: He goes forth with his glory and his majesty, as a great king takes the field with abundance of pomp and magnificence—his sword, his glory, and majesty. In his gospel he appears transcendently great and excellent, bright and blessed, in the honour and majesty which the Father had laid upon him. Christ, both in his person and in his gospel, had nothing of external glory or majesty, nothing to charm men (for he had no form nor comeliness), nothing to awe men, for he took upon him the form of a servant; it was all spiritual glory, spiritual majesty. There is so much grace, and therefore glory, in that word, He that believes shall be saved, so much terror, and therefore majesty, in that word, He that believes shall not be damned, that we may well say, in the chariot of that gospel, which these words are the sum of, the Redeemer rides forth in glory and majesty. In thy majesty ride prosperously, v. 4. Prosper thou; ride thou. This speaks the promise of his Father, that he should prosper according to the good pleasure of the Lord, that he should divide the spoil with the strong, in recompence of his sufferings. Those cannot but prosper to whom God says, Prosper, Isa. 52:10–12. And it denotes the good wishes of his friends, praying that he may prosper in the conversion of souls to him, and the destruction of all the powers of darkness that rebel against him. "Thy kingdom come; Go on and prosper.’’ (3.) The glorious cause in which he is engaged— because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness, which were, in a manner, sunk and lost among men, and which Christ came to retrieve and rescue. [1.] The gospel itself is truth, meekness, and righteousness; it commands by the power of truth and righteousness; for Christianity has these, incontestably, on its side, and yet it is to be promoted by meekness and gentleness, 1 Co. 4:12, 13; 2 Tim. 2:25. [2.] Christ appears in it in his truth, meekness, and righteousness, and these are his glory and majesty, and because of these he shall prosper. Men are brought to believe on him because he is true, to learn of him because he is meek, Mt. 11:29 (the gentleness of Christ is of mighty force, 2 Co. 10:1), and to submit to him because he is righteous and rules with equity. [3.] The gospel, as far as it prevails with men, sets up in their hearts truth, meekness, and righteousness, rectifies their mistakes by the light of truth, controls their passions by the power of meekness, and governs their hearts and lives by the laws of righteousness. Christ came, by setting up his kingdom among men, to restore those glories to a degenerate world, and to maintain the cause of those just and rightful rulers under him that by error, malice, and iniquity, had been deposed. (4.) The success of his expedition: "Thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things; thou shalt experience a wonderful divine power going along with thy gospel, to make it victorious, and the effects of it will be terrible things.’’ [1.] In order to the conversion and reduction of souls to him, there are terrible things to be done; the heart must be pricked, conscience must be startled, and the terrors of the Lord must make way for his consolations. This is done by the right hand of Christ. The Comforter shall continue, Jn. 16:8. [2.] In the conquest of the gates of hell and its supporters, in the destruction of Judaism and Paganism, terrible things will be done, which will make men’s hearts fail them for fear (Lu. 21:26) and great men and chief captains call to the rocks and mountains to fall on them, Rev. 6:15. The next verse describes these terrible things (v. 5): Thy arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies. First, Those that were by nature enemies are thus wounded, in order to their being subdued and reconciled. Convictions are like the arrows of the bow, which are sharp in the heart on which they fasten, and bring people to fall under Christ, in subjection to his laws and government. Those that thus fall on this stone shall by broken, Mt. 21:44. Secondly, Those that persist in their enmity are thus wounded, in order to their being ruined. The arrows of God’s terrors are sharp in their hearts, whereby they shall fall under him, so as to be made his footstool, Ps. 110:1. Those that would not have him to reign over them shall be brought forth and slain before him (Lu. 19:27); those that would not submit to his golden sceptre shall be broken to pieces by his iron rod.

Verses 6-9 We have here the royal bridegroom filling his throne with judgment and keeping his court with splendour. I. He here fills his throne with judgment. It is God the Father that says to the Son here, Thy throne, O God! is forever and ever, as appears Heb. 1:8, 9, where this is quoted to prove that he is God and has a more excellent name than the angels. The Mediator is God, else he neither would have been able to do the Mediator’s work nor fit to wear the Mediator’s crown. Concerning his government observe, 1. The eternity of it; it is for ever and ever. It shall continue on earth throughout all the ages of time, in despite of all the opposition of the gates of hell; and in the blessed fruits and consequences of it it shall last as long as the days of heaven, and run parallel with the line of eternity itself. Perhaps even then the glory of the Redeemer, and the blessedness of the redeemed, shall be in a continual infinite progression; for it is promised that not only of his government, but of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end (Isa. 9:7); even when the kingdom shall be delivered up to God even the Father (1 Co. 15:24) the throne of the Redeemer will continue. 2. The equity of it: The sceptre of thy kingdom, the administration of thy government, is right, exactly according to the eternal counsel and will of God, which is the eternal rule and reason of good and evil. Whatever Christ does he does none of his subjects any wrong, but gives redress to those that do suffer wrong: He loves righteousness, and hates wickedness, v. 7. He himself loves to do righteousness, and hates to do wickedness; and he loves those that do righteousness, and hates those that do wickedness. By the holiness of his life, the merit of his death, and the great design of his gospel, he has made it to appear that he loves righteousness (for by his example, his satisfaction, and his precepts, he has brought in an everlasting righteousness), and that he hates wickedness, for never did God’s hatred of sin appear so conspicuously as it did in the sufferings of Christ. 3. The establishment and elevation of it: Therefore God, even thy God (Christ, as Mediator, called God his God, Jn. 20:17, as commissioned by him, and the head of those that are taken into covenant with him), has anointed thee with the oil of gladness. Therefore, that is, (1.) "In order to this righteous government of thine, God has given thee his Spirit, that divine unction, to qualify thee for thy undertaking,’’ Isa. 61:1. 1. The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he has anointed me. What God called him to he fitted him for, Isa. 11:2. The Spirit is called the oil of gladness because of the delight wherewith Christ was filled in carrying on his undertaking. He was anointed with the Spirit above all his fellows, above all those that were anointed, whether priests or kings. (2.) "In recompence of what thou has done and suffered for the advancement of righteousness and the destruction of sin God has anointed thee with the oil of gladness, has brought thee to all the honours and all the joys of thy exalted state.’’ Because he humbled himself, God has highly exalted him, Phil. 2:8, 9. His anointing him denotes the power and glory to which he is exalted; he is invested in all the dignities and authorities of the Messiah. And his anointing him with the oil of gladness denotes the joy that was set before him (so his exaltation is expressed, Heb. 12:2) both in the light of his Father’s countenance (Acts 2:28) and in the success of his undertaking, which he shall see, and be satisfied, Isa. 53:11. This he is anointed with above all his fellows, above all believers, who are his brethren, and who partake of the anointing—they by measure, he without measure. But the apostle brings it to prove his pre-eminence above the angels, Heb. 1:4, 9. The salvation of sinners is the joy of angels (Lu. 15:10), but much more of the Son. II. He keeps his court with splendour and magnificence. 1. His robes of state, wherein he appears, are taken notice of, not for their pomp, which might strike an awe upon the spectator, but their pleasantness and the gratefulness of the odours with which they were perfumed (v. 8): They smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia (the oil of gladness with which he and his garments were anointed): these were some of the ingredients of the holy anointing oil which God appointed, the like to which was not to be made up for any common use (Ex. 30:23, 24), which was typical of the unction of the Spirit which Christ, the great high priest of our profession, received, and to which therefore there seems here to be a reference. It is the savour of these good ointments, his graces and comforts, that draws souls to him (Cant. 1:3, 4) and makes him precious to believers, 1 Pt. 2:7. 2. His royal palaces are said to be ivory ones, such as were then reckoned most magnificent. We read of an ivory house that Ahab made, 1 Ki. 22:39. The mansions of light above are the ivory palaces, whence all the joys both of Christ and believers come, and where they will be for ever in perfection; for by them he is made glad, and all that are his with him; for they shall enter into the joy of their Lord. 3. The beauties of his court shine very brightly. In public appearances at court, when the pomp of it is shown, nothing is supposed to contribute so much to it as the splendour of the ladies, which is alluded to here, v. 9. (1.) Particular believers are here compared to the ladies at court, richly dressed in honour of the sovereign: Kings’ daughters are among thy honourable women, whose looks, and mien, and ornaments, we may suppose, from the height of their extraction, to excel all others. All true believers are born from above; they are the children of the King of kings. These attend the throne of the Lord Jesus daily with their prayers and praises, which is really their honour, and he is pleased to reckon it his. The numbering of kings’ daughters among his honourable women, or maids of honour, intimates that the kings whose daughters they were should be tributaries to him and dependents on him, and would therefore think it a preferment to their daughters to attend him. (2.) The church in general, constituted of these particular believers, is here compared to the queen herself—the queen-consort, whom, by an everlasting covenant, he hath betrothed to himself. She stands at his right hand, near to him, and receives honour from him, in the richest array, in gold of Ophir, in robes woven with golden thread or with a gold chain and other ornaments of gold. This is the bride, the Lamb’s wife, whose graces, which are her ornaments, are compared to fine linen, clean and white (Rev. 19:8), for their purity, here to gold of Ophir, for their costliness; for, as we owe our redemption, so we owe our adorning, not to corruptible things, but to the precious blood of the Son of God.

Psalm 82 and a few others I can't recall just now.

The application is merely figurative. Not an actual 'title' to be possessed. The context indicates that it is probably more on the sarcastic side if anything. Let's note a few commentaries:

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

John 10:34

Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law…
In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and pretended to understand, and interpret, even in (Psalms 82:6) ; for the law includes not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament: it is an observation of one of the Jewish doctors F20, that


``with the wise men of blessed memory, it is found in many places that the word law comprehends the Prophets and the Hagiographa.''

Among which last stands the book of Psalms; and this may be confirmed by a passage out of the Talmud F21; it is asked,

``from whence does the resurrection of the dead appear, (hrwth Nm) , "out of the law?"''

It is answered,

``as it is said in (Psalms 84:4) : "Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will still praise thee, Selah; they do praise thee", it is not said, but "they will praise thee"; from hence is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, "out of the law".''

The same question is again put, and then (Isaiah 52:8) is cited, and the like observation made upon it. Moreover, this is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they introduce another citing a passage of Scripture thus F23, (Mktrwtb bytk alh) , "is it not written in your law", (Deuteronomy 4:9) , "only take heed to thyself"… so here the Scripture follows,
I said, ye are gods?
which is spoken to civil magistrates, so called, because of their authority and power; and because they do, in some sort, represent the divine majesty, in the government of nations and kingdoms. Many of the Jewish writers, by "gods", understand "the angels". The Targum paraphrases the words thus:


``I said ye are accounted as angels, as the angels on high, all of you;''

and to this sense some of their commentators interpret it. Jarchi's gloss is, ye are gods; that is, angels; for when I gave the law to you, it was on this account, that the angel of death might not any more rule over you: the note of Aben Ezra is, "and the children of the Most High": as angels; and the sense is, your soul is as the soul of angels: hence the F24 Jew charges Christ with seeking refuge in words, that will not profit, or be any help to him, when he cites these words, showing that magistrates are called gods, when the sense is only, that they are like to the angels in respect of their souls: but let it be observed, that it is not said, "ye are as gods", as in (Genesis 3:5) , but "ye are gods"; not like unto them only, but are in some sense gods; and besides, to say that they are like to angels, with respect to their souls, which come from above, is to say no more of the judges of the earth, than what may be said of every man: to which may be added, that this objector himself owns, that judges are called (Myhla) , "gods", as in (Exodus 22:9) ; the cause of both parties shall come before (Myhla) , "the judges"; and that even the word is used in this sense in this very psalm, from whence these words are cited, (Psalms 82:1) , "he judgeth among" (Myhla) , "the gods"; and both Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret this text itself in the same way, and observe, that judges are called gods, when they judge truly and aright: all which is sufficient to justify our Lord in the citation of this passage, and the use he makes of it.


Matthew Henry's Commentary
He proves that none could pluck them out of his hand because they could not pluck them out of the Father’s hand, which had not been a conclusive argument if the Son had not had the same almighty power with the Father, and consequently been one with him in essence and operation. IV. The rage, the outrage, of the Jews against him for this discourse: The Jews took up stones again, v. 31. It is not the word that is used before (ch. 8:59), but ebastasan lithous — they carried stones —great stones, stones that were a load, such as they used in stoning malefactors. They brought them from some place at a distance, as it were preparing things for his execution without any judicial process; as if he were convicted of blasphemy upon the notorious evidence of the fact, which needed no further trial. The absurdity of this insult which the Jews offered to Christ will appear if we consider, 1. That they had imperiously, not to say impudently, challenged him to tell them plainly whether he was the Christ or no; and yet now that he not only said he was the Christ, but proved himself so, they condemned him as a malefactor. If the preachers of the truth propose it modestly, they are branded as cowards; if boldly, as insolent; but Wisdom is justified of her children. 2. That when they had before made a similar attempt it was in vain; he escaped through the midst of them (ch. 8:59); yet they repeat their baffled attempt. Daring sinners will throw stones at heaven, though they return upon their own heads; and will strengthen themselves against the Almighty, though none ever hardened themselves against him and prospered. V. Christ’s tender expostulation with them upon occasion of this outrage (v. 32): Jesus answered what they did, for we do not find that they said any thing, unless perhaps they stirred up the crown that they had gathered about him to join with them, crying, Stone him, stone him, as afterwards, Crucify him, crucify him. When he could have answered them with fire from heaven, he mildly replied, Many good works have I shown you from my Father: for which of those works do you stone me? Words so very tender that one would think they should have melted a heart of stone. In dealing with his enemies he still argued from his works (men evidence what they are by what they do ), his good works — kala erga excellent, eminent works. Opera eximia vel praeclara; the expression signifies both great works and good works. 1. The divine power of his works convicted them of the most obstinate infidelity. They were works from his Father, so far above the reach and course of nature as to prove him who did them sent of God, and acting by commission from him. These works he showed them; he did them openly before the people, and not in a corner. His works would bear the test, and refer themselves to the testimony of the most inquisitive and impartial spectators. He did not show his works by candle-light, as those that are concerned only for show, but he showed them at noon-day before the world, ch. 18:20. See Ps. 111:6. His works so undeniably demonstrated that they were an incontestable demonstration of the validity of his commission. 2. The divine grace of his works convicted them of the most base ingratitude. The works he did among them were not only miracles, but mercies; not only works of wonder to amaze them, but works of love and kindness to do them good, and so make them good, and endear himself to them. He healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, cast out devils, which were favours, not only to the persons concerned, but to the public; these he had repeated, and multiplied: "Now for which of these do you stone me? You cannot say that I have done you any harm, or given you any just provocation; if therefore you will pick a quarrel with me, it must be for some good work, some good turn done you; tell me for which.’’ Note, (1.) The horrid ingratitude that there is in our sins against God and Jesus Christ is a great aggravation of them, and makes them appear exceedingly sinful. See how God argues to this purpose, Deu. 32:6, Jer. 2:5; Mic. 6:3. (2.) We must not think it strange if we meet with those who not only hate us without cause, but are our adversaries for our love, Ps. 35:12; 41:9. When he asks, For which of these do you stone me? as he intimates the abundant satisfaction he had in his own innocency, which gives a man courage in a suffering day, so he puts his persecutors upon considering what was the true reason of their enmity, and asking, as all those should do that create trouble to their neighbour, Why persecute we him? As Job advises his friends to do, Job 19:28. VI. Their vindication of the attempt they made upon Christ, and the cause upon which they grounded their prosecution, v. 33. What sin will want fig-leaves with which to cover itself, when even the bloody persecutors of the Son of God could find something to say for themselves? 1. They would not be thought such enemies to their country as to persecute him for a good work: For a good work we stone thee not. For indeed they would scarcely allow any of his works to be so. His curing the impotent man (ch. 5) and the blind man (ch. 9) were so far from being acknowledged good services to the town, and meritorious, that they were put upon the score of his crimes, because done on the sabbath day. But, if he had done any good works, they would not own that they stoned him for them, though these were really the things that did most exasperate them, ch. 11:47. Thus, though most absurd, they could not be brought to own their absurdities. 2. They would be thought such friends to God and his glory as to prosecute him for blasphemy: Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Here is, (1.) A pretended zeal for the law. They seem mightily concerned for the honour of the divine majesty, and to be seized with a religious horror at that which they imagined to be a reproach to it. A blasphemer was to be stoned, Lev. 24:16. This law, they thought, did not only justify, but sanctify, what they attempted, as Acts 26:9. Note, The vilest practices are often varnished with plausible pretences. As nothing is more courageous than a well-informed conscience, so nothing is more outrageous than a mistaken one. See Isa. 66:5; ch. 16:2. (2.) A real enmity to the gospel, on which they could not put a greater affront than by representing Christ as a blasphemer. It is no new thing for the worst of characters to be put upon the best of men, by those that resolve to give them the worst of treatment. [1.] The crime laid to his charge is blasphemy, speaking reproachfully and despitefully of God. God himself is out of the sinner’s reach, and not capable of receiving any real injury; and therefore enmity to God spits its venom at his name, and so shows its ill-will. [2.] The proof of the crime: Thou, being a man, makest thyself God. As it is God’s glory that he is God, which we rob him of when we make him altogether such a one as ourselves, so it is his glory that besides him there is no other, which we rob him of when we make ourselves, or any creature, altogether like him. Now, First, Thus far they were in the right, that what Christ said of himself amounted to this—that he was God, for he had said that he was one with the Father and that he would give eternal life; and Christ does not deny it, which he would have done if it had been a mistaken inference from his words. But, secondly, They were much mistaken when they looked upon him as a mere man, and that the Godhead he claimed was a usurpation, and of his own making. They thought it absurd and impious that such a one as he, who appeared in the fashion of a poor, mean, despicable man, should profess himself the Messiah, and entitle himself to the honours confessedly due to the Son of God. Note, 1. Those who say that Jesus is a mere man, and only a made God, as the Socinians say, do in effect charge him with blasphemy, but do effectually prove it upon themselves. 2. He who, being a man, a sinful man, makes himself a god as the Pope does, who claims divine powers and prerogatives, is unquestionably a blasphemer, and that antichrist. VII. Christ’s reply to their accusation of him (for such their vindication of themselves was), and his making good those claims which they imputed to him as blasphemous (v. 34, etc.), where he proves himself to be no blasphemer, by two arguments:— 1. By an argument taken from God’s word. He appeals to what was written in their law, that is, in the Old Testament; whoever opposes Christ, he is sure to have the scripture on his side. It is written (Ps. 82:6), I have said, You are gods. It is an argument a minore ad majus—from the less to the greater. If they were gods, much more am I. Observe, (1.) How he explains the text (v. 35): He called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken. The word of God’s commission came to them, appointing them to their offices, as judges, and therefore they are called gods, Ex. 22:28. To some the word of God came immediately, as to Moses; to others in the way of an instituted ordinance. Magistracy is a divine institution; and magistrates are God’s delegates, and therefore the scripture calleth them gods; and we are sure that the scripture cannot be broken, or broken in upon, or found fault with. Every word of God is right; the very style and language of scripture are unexceptionable, and not to be corrected, Mt. 5:18. (2.) How he applies it. Thus much in general is easily inferred, that those were very rash and unreasonable who condemned Christ as a blasphemer, only for calling himself the Son of God, when yet they themselves called their rulers so, and therein the scripture warranted them. But the argument goes further (v. 36): If magistrates were called Gods, because they were commissioned to administer justice in the nation, say you of him whom the Father hath sanctified, Thou blasphemest? We have here two things concerning the Lord Jesus:—[1.] The honour done him by the Father, which he justly glories in: He sanctified him, and sent him into the world. Magistrates were called the sons of God, though the word of God only came to them, and the spirit of government came upon them by measure, as upon Saul; but our Lord Jesus was himself the Word, and had the Spirit without measure. They were constituted for a particular country, city, or nation; but he was sent into the world, vested with a universal authority, as Lord of all. They were sent to, as persons at a distance; he was sent forth, as having been from eternity with God. The Father sanctified him, that is, designed him and set him apart to the office of Mediator, and qualified and fitted him for that office. Sanctifying him is the same with sealing him, ch. 6:27. Note, Whom the Father sends he sanctifies; whom he designs for holy purposes he prepares with holy principles and dispositions. The holy God will reward, and therefore will employ, none but such as he finds or makes holy. The Father’s sanctifying and sending him is here vouched as a sufficient warrant for his calling himself the Son of God; for because he was a holy thing he was called the Son of God, Lu. 1:35. See Rom. 1:4. [2.] The dishonour done him by the Jews, which he justly complains of—that they impiously said of him, whom the Father had thus dignified, that he was a blasphemer, because he called himself the Son of God: "Say you of him so and so? Dare you say so? Dare you thus set your mouths against the heavens? Have you brow and brass enough to tell the God of truth that he lies, or to condemn him that is most just? Look me in the face, and say it if you can. What! say you of the Son of God that he is a blasphemer?’’ If devils, whom he came to condemn, had said so of him, it had not been so strange; but that men, whom he came to teach and save, should say so of him, be astonished, O heavens! at this. See what is the language of an obstinate unbelief; it does, in effect, call the holy Jesus a blasphemer. It is hard to say which is more to be wondered at, that men who breathe in God’s air should yet speak such things, or that men who have spoken such things should still be suffered to breathe in God’s air. The wickedness of man, and the patience of God, as it were, contend which shall be most wonderful. 2. By an argument taken from his own works, v. 37, 38. In the former he only answered the charge of blasphemy by an argument ad hominem—turning a man’s own argument against himself; but he here makes out his own claims, and proves that he and the Father are one (v. 37, 38): If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.


Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Is it not written? (ouk estin gegrammenon). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of grapw (as in 1 Kings 2:17) in place of the usual gegraptai. "Does it not stand written?" In your law (en twi nomwi umwn). From Psalms 82:6. The term nomoß (law) applying here to the entire O.T. as in Psalms 12:34; Psalms 15:25; Romans 3:19; 1 Corinthians 14:21. Aleph D Syr-sin. omit umwn, but needlessly. We have it already so from Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:17. They posed as the special custodians of the O.T. I said (oti egw eipa). Recitative oti before a direct quotation like our quotation marks. Eipa is a late second aorist form of indicative with -a instead of -on. Ye are gods (qeoi este). Another direct quotation after eipa but without oti. The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Psalms 82:6 as calling them "gods" (qeoi, elohim) because they were God's representatives. See the same use of elohim in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:9,28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way.

************

God bless,
AV

 

[Evangelion]

Wasting my time again, AV?

We see here that Moses is clearly called "God" within an analogy.

Duh. Obviously it's a non-literal reference. You've missed the entire point, as usual. Cirisme disputed the fact that mortal men receive the title "god" (elohim.) I have since proved that this is indeed the case. Once again, you've resorted to the Trinitarian double standard - "The application of elohim to Christ always means that Jesus is God, but never when it is applied to anybody else." Circular reasoning.

*snip*

Your lengthy commentary citations (all this from the guy who says he doesn't use commentaries, eh?) do nothing to prove that Jesus is God. I have discussed Psalm 45 numerous times here at TOL, and I have always agreed that it contains a Messianic reference. This does not, however, detract from the fact that its initial application was to a Hebrew king. Like so many Messianic references, it has a dual application.

Thus, from the New American Bible:

• 
  My heart is stirred by a noble theme, as I sing my ode to the king. My tongue is the pen of a nimble scribe.
  You are the most handsome of men; fair speech has graced your lips, for God has blessed you forever.

As the psalm says, a scribe is singing about the king. Then we get to verse 7, but the subject has not changed.

• 
  Your throne, O god, stands forever; your royal scepter is a scepter for justice.

That is a direct reference to the king. The footnotes of the New American Bible prove the point:

• 
  [Psalm 45] A song for the Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia.
  
  1 The court poet sings (Psalm 45:2,18) of God's choice of the king (Psalm 45:3,8), of his role in establishing divine rule (Psalm 45:4-8), and of his splendor as he waits for his bride (Psalm 45:9-10). The woman is to forget her own house when she becomes wife to the king (Psalm 45:11-13). Her majestic beauty today is a sign of the future prosperity of the royal house (Psalm 45:14-17). The psalm was retained in the collection when there was no reigning king, and came to be applied to the king who was to come, the messiah.
  
  2 O god: the king, in courtly language, is called "god," i.e., more than human, representing God to the people. Hebrews 1:8-9 applies Psalm 45:7-8 to Christ.

It was customary to refer to the Hebrew king as "God" (or rather, as "elohim") because he represented God to the people – not because he was literally God. God gave His authority to the Hebrew kings; in that sense they sat on the throne of God, and in that sense they were addressed as elohim in their court.

Indeed, I Chronicles 29:23 tells that:

• 
  ...Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of his father David.

Now, if we were to quote this verse out of context...

• 
  Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD

...we might receive the impression that Solomon was "the LORD" – or at the very least, equal to Him.

But return it to context...

• 
  ...Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king in place of his father David

...and everything makes perfect sense.

 

[Evangelion]

See, the really ridiculous part is that you've actually proved my point for me, by citing Robertson:

• 
  The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Psalms 82:6 as calling them "gods" (qeoi, elohim) because they were God's representatives. See the same use of elohim in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:9,28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way.

I don't believe that you actually think about this stuff before you post it, AV.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I like Evang's strategy.... he talks like he is winning when he is getting pasted.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

I tis interesting how those who say commentaries are suspect use them so much

 

[Zakath]

At almost 40,000 characters in length, AVmetro's cut and paste job has to be one of the record longest wordcount for posts in TOL! Amazing...

 

[Evangelion]

I like Knight's strategy - he stands at the sidelines and shoots spitballs at the contestant he likes the least, whilst taking care to avoid any personal involvement in the debate itself.

Care to show me where I was wrong, Knight? No?

Didn't think so.

 

[Evangelion]

I guess the limit on post length has been dropped.

Correct?

 

[Pilgrimagain]

it only applies to pro-evangelion posts.

 

[cirisme]

Zak,

At almost 40,000 characters in length, AVmetro's cut and paste job...

Are you so bored that you would sit there and count all 40k!?

Ev,

Care to show me where I was wrong, Knight?

If you can't see, then you need some major psychological help.

 

[me again]

• Posted by Evangelion
  I like Knight's strategy - he stands at the sidelines and shoots spitballs at the contestant he likes the least, whilst taking care to avoid any personal involvement in the debate itself.

ROFLMBO

 

[me again]

No hard feelings intended, but...

No hard feelings intended, but...

AVmetro,

Holy Toledo!!! That was a long cut-n-paste on your part!!! I'd love to take a vote:

• How many people took the time to read AVmetro's lengthy cut-n-paste?

 

[Zakath]

Did I read all of AVmetro's cut and paste?

Did I read all of AVmetro's cut and paste?

:down: :down: :down: :down:

 

[1013]

although I've got the title under my name, I don't function as moderator in this particular forum, so don't assign any more significance to what I say here.

I'll agree that AV's post was excessive. for a post this long, unless one is really interested in the topic, it isn't great for conversation.

I'm sorta interested in the topic and may read it myself but it is still a bit much.

here's a suggestion for knight. We get loads of space for pictures so why not also allow us to post huge amounts of text in sort of a personal text repository that users can link to when they want to illustrate complex ideas. It'll be out of the way but allow us to make large amounts of information accesable more frequently.

 

[Zakath]

Another possiblity that won't increase TOL's overhead...

Many ISPs allow users some amount of storage. If we put frequently used materials on our own web pages, we'd merely have to include a link to the particular page in our post.

Voila! Info without using up TOL space...

 

[me again]

In lieu of having a repository for cut-n-paste tracts -- Just post a link to the website where the material is posted!!!

 

[AVmetro]

Good night you people.....

Good night you people.....

I tis interesting how those who say commentaries are suspect use them so much

Evangelion stated that in order to prove something from scripture, you must quote extra-biblical sources in order to validate your position. I responded in what I felt constituted "proof" to him I do not rely upon opinon driven commentaries in order to support a biblical fact.

Ev, for example, quoted Justin Martyr on one occasion in order to refute a pre-existant Christ. .....Simply asinine methodology

I'm also interested in hearing whether Ps16:8 is "dually" applicable...

God bless ye,
Jeremiah

 

[Evangelion]

AV -

Evangelion stated that in order to prove something from scripture, you must quote extra-biblical sources in order to validate your position.

That is a gross over-simplification. I said that if you're talking about the definition, meaning and significance of words, you need to show extra-Biblical evidence that your position is valid, i.e. lexicon or commentary. You have not done this. You have merely cited a few Trinitarians who have said that Jesus is God because he is called elohim in Psalm 45. That's a classic case of circular reasoning and double standards.

I responded in what I felt constituted "proof" to him

But you failed.

I do not rely upon opinon driven commentaries in order to support a biblical fact.

No, you simply post a string of unsubstantiated assertions.

Ev, for example, quoted Justin Martyr on one occasion in order to refute a pre-existant Christ.

No I didn't. I quoted JM one one occasion in order to prove that (a) JM did not believe Jesus to be eternal, (b) JM did not believe Jesus to be the creator of the world, and (c) JM did not believe Jesus to be truly God (i.e., God in simpliciter), but merely a super-powerful divine being, generated by God.

If you can't even understand what I'm writing, it's no wonder you're barely treading water in our debates. I think it's high time you familiarised yourself with the evolution of Trinitarianism, as expressed by the early Church fathers, debated by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and defined by the various Creeds and Ecumenical Councils. I'm not here to provide you with a free education, so get off your backside and start learning.

 

[Evangelion]

Here's a bit of information for Maranatha, who was objecting to the BDB translation of el gibbor because he believes that it is unjustifiable to translate the word el as "mighty."

Maranatha, it may surprise you to learn that el is far more flexible than you imagine:

• In the KJV, the English word "God", (as found in most translations of the Hebrew Scriptures) is actually a rendition of several different Hebrew words - sometimes one, sometimes another. In this instance it is the word El. El signifies strength or power. It is not an exclusive reference to Deity.
  
• This can be proved by the following list of texts (by no means exhaustive) from the KJV, in which English translations of El are in italics:
  
  Genesis 31:29.
  It is in the power of my hand. (El.)
  
  Deuteronomy 28:32.
  There shall be no might in thine hand. (El.)
  
  Nehemiah 5:5.
  Neither is it in our power. (El.)
  
  Psalm 36:6.
  Like the great mountains. (El.)
  
  Proverbs 3:27
  In the power of thine hand to do it. (El.)
  
  Psalm 89:6.
  Who among the sons of the mighty. (El.)
  
  The context in every one of these verses shows that word "El" means "powerful" or "mighty." It is variously translated into English by the KJV writers as "God, god, power, mighty, goodly, great, idols, might, strong god, god-like one, mighty one, mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes, angels, god, false god, (demons, imaginations), the one true God, mighty things in nature, strength, power."
  
  In each case, the meaning is dependent upon the context of the passage, and the other words with which El is combined. We know, for example, that it is found in many Hebrew names, such as Elkanah, Daniel, and Ezekiel.) The mere presence of el in someone’s name, is nowhere near enough to prove that they are truly God.
  
• The Messiah (whom we know to be Jesus) is called "El Gibbor" (a Messianic title), of which the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon says:
  
  'Divine hero', reflecting the divine majesty.
  
• You may be also interested to know that the LXX, according to L. C. L. Brenton's 1851 translation renders Isaiah 9:6 as follows:
  
  "For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."
  
  In this translation, neither "mighty God" nor "everlasting Father" appears. There is a marginal rendering of the verse, however, which notes that according to the Alexandrine text, after the words "great counsel" follow "Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty One, Potentate, Prince of Peace, Father of the age to come." The argument for the Trinity from this verse is eliminated if we accept the Septuagint translation - but even if we do not, it is clear that the Trinitarian interpretation is by no means definitive.