We can't judge god by our standards.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(07-12-2013 11:34 AM)Free Wrote:  It is interesting to note that- if we accept some of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as being things he actually said- it can be demonstrated that Jesus himself was a polytheist.
How so?

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(07-12-2013 12:04 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 11:34 AM)Free Wrote:  It is interesting to note that- if we accept some of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as being things he actually said- it can be demonstrated that Jesus himself was a polytheist.
How so?

This will indeed be lengthy, so give yourself some time to read it through thoroughly.

I have spent at least 2 decades studying ancient texts in an effort to give myself a greater understanding of one of history’s greatest religious teachers, Jesus of Nazareth. After countless hours of research, I will now attempt to provide a thesis regarding the idioms and interpretation for John 10.30 in an effort to demonstrate the actual meaning of the verse, and also demonstrate polytheism.

Listed below you will find verses 10.30 to 10.36 from the Gospel of John as seen in the King James modern version, as well as in numerous other versions:

Joh 10.30 - “I and the Father are one!
Joh 10.31 - Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Joh 10.32 - Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me?
Joh 10.33 - The Jews answered Him, saying, “We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10.34 - Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, "I said, You are gods?"
Joh 10.35 - “If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken,
Joh 10.36 - do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?


Now we will look at each verse independently and explore for the idioms, particularly for John 10.30.

In John 10.30 some of the context can be used to help us understand what is meant by the use of the word "one" at the end.

It is generally agreed among scholars that the word "one" refers to a state of being in which Jesus is claiming that he is of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father. This agreement is based upon textual evidence found elsewhere in the New Testament where the use of the term "are one" is clear in its meaning of essence/nature/substance/purpose.

The uttered words of Jesus makes this quite clear in John 17:22, where he uses the term again in reference to his apostles becoming as one. Paul also uses this same idiom in his letters at Romans 12.5, 1Cor 3.8, 1Cor 10.7, and 1Cor 12.12.

Yet, the Christian religion uses this verse in their claim that Jesus is saying that he is God, as in the Supreme Deity. They base this belief upon the capitalized use of the word "God" which the Jews used in their accusation against Jesus in John 10.33.

In English, in regards to the Christian religion at least, when the word "God" is capitalized it always refers to the Supreme Deity. English grammar and punctuation developed like any other language, with improvements in grammar and punctuation occurring over hundreds of years. Names became capitalized, as well as places and some other things. It's an innovation which evolved in an effort to increase comprehension and meaning.

However, the original texts of the Gospels did not have this form of capitalization and grammar. The word "God" which we see in the English for John 10.33 has no capitalization in the Koine Greek. If translated totally into lower-case, the Gospel would display every use of the word "God" as "god." Therefore, with this reasoning we can determine that the English capitalized used of "God" in John 10.30 was the effort of Christian scribes to invoke their comprehension of that word as referring to the Supreme Deity.

But what if it actually does not refer to the Supreme Deity? Is it possible that it could refer to something other than the Supreme Deity? Before we examine that possibility, let us go back and have another look at John 10.30 to seek out if the idiom currently agreed upon infers anything else.

When we examine the context we see two distinct entities being referenced; The Father and Jesus. Therefore, let us reason:

a) With the current agreed upon idiom, Jesus is saying that he and the Father are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

b) In the same Gospel of John, at 14:28, Jesus states that the Father is greater than he himself is. Jesus also makes clear the distinction between himself and the Father in John 5.19, John 5.26, and John 5.30.

c) With those verses noted above in the Gospel of John considered, Jesus distinguishes himself as not being equal to the Father, and in fact regards himself to be less.

d) Therefore, the logic concludes that Jesus cannot be declaring himself as the Supreme Deity in John 10.30, otherwise we must acknowledge a contradiction.

e) We are left with only two choices; 1.) Jesus is not saying he is the Supreme Deity; 2.) Jesus has contradicted himself.


So now in an effort to determine which 1 of the 2 in the above is the truth, we will examine the postulated idiom for John 10.30 to see what it infers.

In John 10.30, the Koine Greek word used for Father is transliterated as "pater." This means a parent or father either physically or figuratively. Since Jesus is referring to God as Father, then he is making a distinction between himself and the entity of Father. So let us reason:

a) Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father in John 14.28, John 5.19, John 5.26, and John 5.30,.and therefore we have strong supporting evidence to support that he may also be doing it in John 10.30.

b) Since Jesus regards God as a Father in John 10.30, it infers that Jesus is a son of God the Father.

c) Since Jesus lays claim to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, yet distinguishes himself from being the Father, then it infers that Jesus regards himself to be a god, since the idiom describes the same qualities as that of the Supreme Deity, but yet is distinguished from the Supreme Deity.

d) If you are son of an elephant, you would also be an elephant. If you are the son of a lion, you would also be a lion. If you are the son of a man, you would also be a man. Therefore, if you are the son of a god, then you would also be a god.


Therefore, with reason we can determine what the idiom from John 10.30 infers as so:

1.) Jesus claims God as a Father, and that they are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

2.) Therefore since Jesus claims God as a Father, it logically and reasonably follows that he claims he is a son of God the Father.

3.) Therefore it follows that Jesus claims to be a god, since a son is a product of its father consisting of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.


So now let's test this again with John 10.33 while using a small-case "god" in place of the interpolated upper-case "God:"

John 10.30 – “I and the Father are one!

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

With the lowercase "god" in place of the uppercase, we still have the exact same reason why the Jews would want to stone him. The reason is still identical as it would be with the uppercase God; it breaks the Jewish 1st Commandment as far as those Jews were concerned. So far this appears to be working without any problems, but what else can we determine to help verify that the lower-case "god" is the intended meaning of John 10.33? Let's take a close look at what Jesus says in John 10.34 as a response to the accusation of him presenting himself as a god in John 10.33:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34: - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'"


What we see above is very interesting. When the lowercase use of "god" is used in John 10.33, Jesus replies to it with a lowercase use of "gods" in John 10.34. This completely agrees with the accusation of him regarding himself as a god. However, when we examine John 10.33 with the uppercase use of God, and then apply Jesus' use of the lowercase "gods" in John 10.34, it is markedly non sequitur. Jesus’ response simply does not agree with the idea that the Jews' are accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity.

Why does Jesus defend himself with a partial quote of a Psalm 82.6 which mentions the lowercase "gods" - which does not refer to the Supreme Deity - if the Jews has accused him of referring to himself as the Supreme Deity? His response simply does not address any accusation of any claim made by him of being the Supreme Deity.

It would appear that if Jesus had understood the Jews as accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then he would have used some scripture which would have supported any claim he supposedly made of being the Supreme Deity. But the scripture he did use does not defend against any accusation of him presenting himself as a Supreme Deity at all. In fact, when we fully look at the Psalm Jesus used to defend himself, we see this:

Psa 82:6 – “I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.”

Jesus used the scripture above to defend against the accusations of the Jews, but what is interesting about the Psalm is that the rest of it also says "and all of you sons of the Most High." The rest of that Psalm would also address the other inference from John 10.30 that Jesus has claimed to be a son of God the Father.

Hence, so far it appears that Jesus' use of that Psalm as a means of defense against the accusation of the Jews addresses all three idioms postulated in John 10.30. But can we use any other supporting evidence to justify our position on the 3 idioms we postulated in John 10.30, as well as the postulation that the lower-case "god" was to be the intended meaning in John 10.33?

Let's now take a look at John 10.33 - 10:36, with the Psalm in its entirety worked in:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34 - 36 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods (and all of you sons of the Most High?)' Since God regarded those who had the Word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"


When we examine the quote above, we again see that in John 10.34 - 36 Jesus continues to use the lower case "gods" as a means against the accusation made by the Jews in John 10.33. Jesus is still not addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, but is clearly addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as a god, and a son of the Supreme Deity. Jesus is arguing to the effect that since the Jews' own book demonstrates where God had previously regarded people in the past as gods and sons of the "Most High," then why would his accusers have any problem if Jesus also regarded himself as a god and a son of God.

But what is even more revealing about the quote above is the reason Jesus gave for the Jews' accusation of blasphemy against him:

... because I said I am also a son of God?

But where did Jesus previously say he was also a son of God in which it caused the Jews to want to stone him for blasphemy?

You will notice that it was not until immediately after Jesus said "I and the Father are one" that the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Since we do not see the direct statement of "I am the son of God" anywhere previous to John 10.36, then what we are left with is only 10.30 as being the only logical place where the words of "I and the Father are one" can invoke the understanding as also meaning "I am a son of God." So again, let us reason:

a) In John 10.30 Jesus says that he is of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of God the Father, which carries the connotations in meaning that he is a son of God the Father and therefore he is also a god.

b) The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for the blasphemy of breaking the 1st Commandment because of the connotation that Jesus claimed to be a god.

c) Perplexed by the actions of the Jews, Jesus asks them why they were about to stone him.

d) The Jews explained the blasphemy accusation was because they understood Jesus' words as him claiming to be a god.

e) Jesus defends his position of being a god by quoting Psalm 82.6 which demonstrated that God had previously regarded other people as gods and sons of God, which set a precedent.

f) Jesus continues to defend his position of being a god and a son of God with reasoning by stating that since it was acceptable for God Himself to regard persons in the past as gods, then the Jews should have no problem with Jesus regarding himself in like manner.

g) Jesus shows us in John 10.36 that the reason the Jews accused him of blasphemy was because he had said that he was also a son of God, which completely contradicts the Christian belief that the Jews in John 10.33 understood Jesus as claiming to be the Supreme Deity. In John 10.36, Jesus tells us precisely why the Jews were going to stone him for blasphemy, and no where does Jesus say that it was because he had made any claim of being the Supreme Deity but rather "because I said I am also a son of God."

h) Therefore, Jesus is addressing two accusations in these verses: 1. His claim to be a god. 2. His claim to be a son of God
.

No where does Jesus ever address any accusation of any claim of him presenting himself as the Supreme Deity. There is no text to support that position, and plenty of text to completely refute it.

So now let us put the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36 in order with my comments in parenthesis to see the final product:

John 10.30 - I and the Father are one!

(Jesus is claiming to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, making a distinction between himself and the Father by simply mentioning the Father aside from himself. If he was referring to himself as the Supreme Deity, he would in effect be saying "I and myself are one," which makes no sense. Claiming God as a father immediately invokes the understanding that if God is his father, then undoubtedly he would be a son of God. Remember, if you are the son of an elephant, you would also be an elephant. Therefore, if you are the son of a god, then you would also be a god. Jesus' statement in John 10.30 invokes both claims of him being both a son of God, and therefore also being a god.)

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"


(Once again, Jesus claims God as a father, which again invokes the understanding that he is claiming to be both a son of God, and therefore also a god.)

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god!"

John 10.34 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'


(If the postulated use of the lower-case "gods" in John 10.33 is accepted, then Jesus' use of Psalm 82.6 as a means of defense perfectly addresses that accusation. The Jews are effectively saying "You are claiming to be a god," which prompts Jesus' defense of essentially, "So what? Is it not written in your books where God said 'I have said you are gods?' What's the problem?'")

John 10.35 - 36 – “Since God regarded those who had the word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"

(In John 10.35 - 36 above, Jesus is clearly defending himself against an accusation of him claiming to be a god and a son of God. He provides reasoning that since God had referred to others in the past as 'gods' and 'sons of the Most High', then the Jews who were accusing him should have no cause to accuse him of blasphemy if he referred to himself the same way. Jesus' position was that since he claimed that he had the word of God with him just like those mentioned in Psalm 82.6, then he had as much right to regard himself as a god and a son of God just like those mentioned in Psalm 82.6.)

In conclusion, I believe that the Christian interpolation of a capitalized "God" in John 10.33 confuses the entire meaning of what occurred in the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36. By accepting the capitalized "God" in John 10.33, it renders all following defenses made by Jesus as being non sequitur, because his defenses do not address any postulated accusation of him claiming to be a Supreme Deity. On the contrary, if John 10.33 is accepted as being a lower-case "god," which does not refer to the Supreme Deity, then all of Jesus' following defense arguments address that accusation perfectly, and the conversation between Jesus and his Jewish accusers makes perfect sense.

Therefore, my official position is that the Jews did not understand the words of Jesus in John 10.30 as a claim of him being the Supreme Deity, but instead understood him as claiming to be a god, and a son of God the Father. Hence, the evidence above demonstrates that not only did Jesus regard himself as being a god, he also believed and demonstrated with textual evidence that God Himself regarded other people as gods and sons of God according to Psalm 82.6.

In conclusion, I will write up a realistic modern day translation and interpretation of the meaning of John 10:30 in the form a few paragraphs as though they would appear in a non-fiction novel:

I am the Father are one!” Jesus exclaimed. It was then that some of the Jews began to pick up stones to stone Jesus.
Perplexed, Jesus asked those who were about to stone him, saying, “I have preformed many great works from my Father. For which of those works do you intend to stone me?
The Jews replied, “We do not intend to stone you for any great works, but instead because you, being but a mere man, have presented yourself out to be some kind of god.”
Jesus then asked, “Is it not written in your own bible where it says, ‘I have said that you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High?Now think about this, if God regarded those whom he was addressing in that Psalm of David as being ‘gods, and sons of the Most High,’ and you wouldn’t dare to change that particular scripture one iota, then why do you accuse me- whom the Father has sanctified and sent out into the world- of blasphemy just because I have also claimed to be a son of God?


Therefore, I conclude that the meaning of John 10:30 as uttered by Jesus of Nazareth is that he is making a claim that he is a son of God- which is verified by his own words of “because I have also claimed to be a son of God,”- which in turn carries the connotation that he is also a god.

This is precisely why the Jews wanted to stone him, because claiming to be a god is a violation of the 1st Commandment which states, “I am your God, you will have no other gods except Me.”

However, because Jesus defended himself as being a god, this also demonstrates that his beliefs were rooted in polytheism.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
07-12-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
The argument that we can't judge God by our standards actually makes more sense to me than a lot of arguments in favor of a god.

Primarily, it helps argue the existence of God. If God is above us as he would be, then we can't be subjected to the same method of proof anything in the literal world would. No God described by any religion could be, because no religion describes a breathing, living version of God walking among us (par Jesus, since I'm speaking of modern times.) Of course, this argument only proves reason to believe in a God, not the actual existence of one.

When people say the God of the Bible is immoral, this stance helps as well. I myself really only focus on and follow the New Testament, so everything God did in the Old Testament, which I believe was written very obviously for political and social gains in the time period, is irrelevant to me. But you could defend God's supposed actions since he is above us, he knows more than us and knows better than us, and he is justified. I can't make this argument because I don't think it any of the events God is being held accountable for by non-Christians even happened.

Finally, this argument helps theists who are having trouble with their faith and are angry at God because their life is in a bad place. Everything is happening for a reason, God is doing this to help me, etc etc.

The argument that we can't judge a god by our standards probably helps the theist's position more than anything. But it doesn't actually prove anything. Deism, at best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fat Mac's post
07-12-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
Take that Mac! I popped your cherry for likes! Tongue

I find it funny that an entity, created by man, is said can't be judged by the standards of those who created it. Well paint me pink and slap me silly. Laughat

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
07-12-2013, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 12:59 PM by childeye.)
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(06-12-2013 10:15 PM)Free Wrote:  I dunno, but maybe I am just a hard-core atheist who prefers to go from Point "A" to Point "B" and end such an argument as quickly and efficiently as possible.

There is no god, ergo there is nothing to judge.
There is no point A or point B in the above reasoning since the very issue of whether God exists is essential to the significance of the two points as per the topic. Your reasoning begins with the premise there is no God so there is no point discussing anything concerning the term. In other words, in your mind you have justified your logic as fact by arbitrarily changing the definition of the term God in this thread to mean superstition.

Pardon my saying so, but frankly speaking, this type of thinking is not unlike throwing over the chess board so that you don't lose the game. If you are so sure your atheism is built on a solid foundation of reasoning, then you would be open to considering that even as a Christian, I also am an atheist if I were to use your definition of God.

Quote: Moreover, to speculate that God does not exist is futile particularly if one has no idea what a Godhead is.

Quote:I do not speculate about the non-existence of your god. I state it as factual due to a lack of any evidence to the contrary.
First of all I would say "peace". Then I would humbly point out that your statement is illogical. If God existed, it is common sense I didn't invent Him since He would logically precede my existence. He would be everyone's God. Without proof, indeed there is nothing factual. But you have inverted the issue by saying lack of evidence is factual proof something doesn't exist. It's as if you said I don't exist because somebody on the other side of the world doesn't know I do, simply because they have no proof that I do. Consequently you are in fact speculating about the non-existence of God. Once again I suspect that when you say God you mean superstition. This is why I pointed out the issue of a Godhead so that you might understand the true meaning of the term. Otherwise, you in effect are saying that the moral goodness in mankind is superstition.

Quote:I assure you I understand Christianity and all Abrahamic religions far far more than any Christian I have ever known. Where your vision is limited by beliefs, my view is built on the historical aspects of these religions. Hence, understanding the Christian concept of the "Godhead" is very elementary.
To make this simple, I believe that Love is the moral goodness in mankind. I did not invent this anymore than I invented 1+1=2. I simply see it as self evident. Of course if I change the 1 to mean 0 then 1+1 does not equal two anymore. Love sits at the Godhead as surely as 1+1=2 sits at the Godhead. To understand the Godhead is to know that no man can change the facts. We all must submit to a Truth or we deceive ourselves. Hence the Godhead gives the true meanings to ignorance and knowledge.

Quote:All morality would be subjective including the very meaning of the term "morality". Sanity would mean the same as insanity to the insane. Therefore there does exist politics and there are some things that are moral and immoral objectively speaking.

Quote:I have no idea what your point is here.
I am saying that who sits at the Godhead defines the encompassing moral terms known as good and bad. I am saying it lives in all men as such and is not created by any man on this earth, but rather men are subject to it. I am saying a turd is not milk for the baby anymore than the breast of the woman is the anus. I am saying there is a moral Truth that rules in us as our goodness (Godliness), and an immoral lie that rules in us as our sin (ungodliness). I am saying there is always politics, hence there is a Godhead, hence there is a God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(07-12-2013 12:47 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Take that Mac! I popped your cherry for likes! Tongue

I find it funny that an entity, created by man, is said can't be judged by the standards of those who created it. Well paint me pink and slap me silly. Laughat

Gah! I'm no longer pure! Tongue

Yeah, when you put it that way it sounds silly. And I think you're correct, if we're talking about the entity described in the Old Testament.

Since I, for the most part, disregard the Old Testament, I believe that God is more like Jesus (...since, you know, he technically is.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:09 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(07-12-2013 07:57 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 08:20 PM)childeye Wrote:  You do well in your honesty. It would be a hypocritical mind that would throw away something it does not understand. This response you give in your post already shows a perfectly logical reasoning that understands why some one cannot judge God, by assuming that God is all knowing and we are not. The only recourse for those who would berate you for your common sense, is to point out the pre-supposition that God is all knowing. However no one here will claim they know everything and cannot therefore say for certain that God is not all knowing. Otherwise they would be hypocrits, doing the very same thing by pre-supposing God is not all-knowing. This is why when it comes to the Godhead it will always be a matter of faith. For there is no higher seat.

But this issue is being lost in the semantics. Who says we cannot judge whether some emotions are good and some bad? We are meant to experience them both so as to know the difference. The bible says we will judge angels. The pride issue confounds the entire reasoning. It's not supposed to be personal. Otherwise vanity would rule again in heaven just as it did with Satan in power.

It's clear you don't understand the OP. I can judge god by his actions if those actions, if committed by man, would land him in jail. The god we created is suppose to be everything and in everything. If god is everything, then god is also plant and animal, which includes humans. Therefore, god is also human.

Even a toddler has a sense of morality and empathy. God appears to have none. There is no point in listing all the atrocities. One I find particularly heinous is the infanticide, which if god is to take credit for our biology, is still doing today on a massive scale.

Since we have the capacity for judging right and wrong amongst ourselves, and god has so glaringly obvious human characteristics, then logically we also have the ability to judge him as well. Otherwise - why give us the capacity for judgment and insist that we can't use it on the very being that so in adequately and downright negligently created us...

I don't believe in god. Therefore, judging something I don't believe exists is pointless. What I'm actually saying is that I'm judging the god humans so obviously created.
Since you are judging the god (false god) humans created , then you are not judging God. We are therefore in agreement, I don't believe in the god humans created either. However I logically therefore do believe in the word of God that clearly is able to expose the false god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(07-12-2013 12:38 PM)Free Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 12:04 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  How so?

This will indeed be lengthy, so give yourself some time to read it through thoroughly.

I have spent at least 2 decades studying ancient texts in an effort to give myself a greater understanding of one of history’s greatest religious teachers, Jesus of Nazareth. After countless hours of research, I will now attempt to provide a thesis regarding the idioms and interpretation for John 10.30 in an effort to demonstrate the actual meaning of the verse, and also demonstrate polytheism.

Listed below you will find verses 10.30 to 10.36 from the Gospel of John as seen in the King James modern version, as well as in numerous other versions:

Joh 10.30 - “I and the Father are one!
Joh 10.31 - Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Joh 10.32 - Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me?
Joh 10.33 - The Jews answered Him, saying, “We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10.34 - Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, "I said, You are gods?"
Joh 10.35 - “If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken,
Joh 10.36 - do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?


Now we will look at each verse independently and explore for the idioms, particularly for John 10.30.

In John 10.30 some of the context can be used to help us understand what is meant by the use of the word "one" at the end.

It is generally agreed among scholars that the word "one" refers to a state of being in which Jesus is claiming that he is of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father. This agreement is based upon textual evidence found elsewhere in the New Testament where the use of the term "are one" is clear in its meaning of essence/nature/substance/purpose.

The uttered words of Jesus makes this quite clear in John 17:22, where he uses the term again in reference to his apostles becoming as one. Paul also uses this same idiom in his letters at Romans 12.5, 1Cor 3.8, 1Cor 10.7, and 1Cor 12.12.

Yet, the Christian religion uses this verse in their claim that Jesus is saying that he is God, as in the Supreme Deity. They base this belief upon the capitalized use of the word "God" which the Jews used in their accusation against Jesus in John 10.33.

In English, in regards to the Christian religion at least, when the word "God" is capitalized it always refers to the Supreme Deity. English grammar and punctuation developed like any other language, with improvements in grammar and punctuation occurring over hundreds of years. Names became capitalized, as well as places and some other things. It's an innovation which evolved in an effort to increase comprehension and meaning.

However, the original texts of the Gospels did not have this form of capitalization and grammar. The word "God" which we see in the English for John 10.33 has no capitalization in the Koine Greek. If translated totally into lower-case, the Gospel would display every use of the word "God" as "god." Therefore, with this reasoning we can determine that the English capitalized used of "God" in John 10.30 was the effort of Christian scribes to invoke their comprehension of that word as referring to the Supreme Deity.

But what if it actually does not refer to the Supreme Deity? Is it possible that it could refer to something other than the Supreme Deity? Before we examine that possibility, let us go back and have another look at John 10.30 to seek out if the idiom currently agreed upon infers anything else.

When we examine the context we see two distinct entities being referenced; The Father and Jesus. Therefore, let us reason:

a) With the current agreed upon idiom, Jesus is saying that he and the Father are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

b) In the same Gospel of John, at 14:28, Jesus states that the Father is greater than he himself is. Jesus also makes clear the distinction between himself and the Father in John 5.19, John 5.26, and John 5.30.

c) With those verses noted above in the Gospel of John considered, Jesus distinguishes himself as not being equal to the Father, and in fact regards himself to be less.

d) Therefore, the logic concludes that Jesus cannot be declaring himself as the Supreme Deity in John 10.30, otherwise we must acknowledge a contradiction.

e) We are left with only two choices; 1.) Jesus is not saying he is the Supreme Deity; 2.) Jesus has contradicted himself.


So now in an effort to determine which 1 of the 2 in the above is the truth, we will examine the postulated idiom for John 10.30 to see what it infers.

In John 10.30, the Koine Greek word used for Father is transliterated as "pater." This means a parent or father either physically or figuratively. Since Jesus is referring to God as Father, then he is making a distinction between himself and the entity of Father. So let us reason:

a) Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father in John 14.28, John 5.19, John 5.26, and John 5.30,.and therefore we have strong supporting evidence to support that he may also be doing it in John 10.30.

b) Since Jesus regards God as a Father in John 10.30, it infers that Jesus is a son of God the Father.

c) Since Jesus lays claim to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, yet distinguishes himself from being the Father, then it infers that Jesus regards himself to be a god, since the idiom describes the same qualities as that of the Supreme Deity, but yet is distinguished from the Supreme Deity.

d) If you are son of an elephant, you would also be an elephant. If you are the son of a lion, you would also be a lion. If you are the son of a man, you would also be a man. Therefore, if you are the son of a god, then you would also be a god.


Therefore, with reason we can determine what the idiom from John 10.30 infers as so:

1.) Jesus claims God as a Father, and that they are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

2.) Therefore since Jesus claims God as a Father, it logically and reasonably follows that he claims he is a son of God the Father.

3.) Therefore it follows that Jesus claims to be a god, since a son is a product of its father consisting of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.


So now let's test this again with John 10.33 while using a small-case "god" in place of the interpolated upper-case "God:"

John 10.30 – “I and the Father are one!

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

With the lowercase "god" in place of the uppercase, we still have the exact same reason why the Jews would want to stone him. The reason is still identical as it would be with the uppercase God; it breaks the Jewish 1st Commandment as far as those Jews were concerned. So far this appears to be working without any problems, but what else can we determine to help verify that the lower-case "god" is the intended meaning of John 10.33? Let's take a close look at what Jesus says in John 10.34 as a response to the accusation of him presenting himself as a god in John 10.33:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34: - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'"


What we see above is very interesting. When the lowercase use of "god" is used in John 10.33, Jesus replies to it with a lowercase use of "gods" in John 10.34. This completely agrees with the accusation of him regarding himself as a god. However, when we examine John 10.33 with the uppercase use of God, and then apply Jesus' use of the lowercase "gods" in John 10.34, it is markedly non sequitur. Jesus’ response simply does not agree with the idea that the Jews' are accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity.

Why does Jesus defend himself with a partial quote of a Psalm 82.6 which mentions the lowercase "gods" - which does not refer to the Supreme Deity - if the Jews has accused him of referring to himself as the Supreme Deity? His response simply does not address any accusation of any claim made by him of being the Supreme Deity.

It would appear that if Jesus had understood the Jews as accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then he would have used some scripture which would have supported any claim he supposedly made of being the Supreme Deity. But the scripture he did use does not defend against any accusation of him presenting himself as a Supreme Deity at all. In fact, when we fully look at the Psalm Jesus used to defend himself, we see this:

Psa 82:6 – “I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.”

Jesus used the scripture above to defend against the accusations of the Jews, but what is interesting about the Psalm is that the rest of it also says "and all of you sons of the Most High." The rest of that Psalm would also address the other inference from John 10.30 that Jesus has claimed to be a son of God the Father.

Hence, so far it appears that Jesus' use of that Psalm as a means of defense against the accusation of the Jews addresses all three idioms postulated in John 10.30. But can we use any other supporting evidence to justify our position on the 3 idioms we postulated in John 10.30, as well as the postulation that the lower-case "god" was to be the intended meaning in John 10.33?

Let's now take a look at John 10.33 - 10:36, with the Psalm in its entirety worked in:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34 - 36 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods (and all of you sons of the Most High?)' Since God regarded those who had the Word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"


When we examine the quote above, we again see that in John 10.34 - 36 Jesus continues to use the lower case "gods" as a means against the accusation made by the Jews in John 10.33. Jesus is still not addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, but is clearly addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as a god, and a son of the Supreme Deity. Jesus is arguing to the effect that since the Jews' own book demonstrates where God had previously regarded people in the past as gods and sons of the "Most High," then why would his accusers have any problem if Jesus also regarded himself as a god and a son of God.

But what is even more revealing about the quote above is the reason Jesus gave for the Jews' accusation of blasphemy against him:

... because I said I am also a son of God?

But where did Jesus previously say he was also a son of God in which it caused the Jews to want to stone him for blasphemy?

You will notice that it was not until immediately after Jesus said "I and the Father are one" that the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Since we do not see the direct statement of "I am the son of God" anywhere previous to John 10.36, then what we are left with is only 10.30 as being the only logical place where the words of "I and the Father are one" can invoke the understanding as also meaning "I am a son of God." So again, let us reason:

a) In John 10.30 Jesus says that he is of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of God the Father, which carries the connotations in meaning that he is a son of God the Father and therefore he is also a god.

b) The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for the blasphemy of breaking the 1st Commandment because of the connotation that Jesus claimed to be a god.

c) Perplexed by the actions of the Jews, Jesus asks them why they were about to stone him.

d) The Jews explained the blasphemy accusation was because they understood Jesus' words as him claiming to be a god.

e) Jesus defends his position of being a god by quoting Psalm 82.6 which demonstrated that God had previously regarded other people as gods and sons of God, which set a precedent.

f) Jesus continues to defend his position of being a god and a son of God with reasoning by stating that since it was acceptable for God Himself to regard persons in the past as gods, then the Jews should have no problem with Jesus regarding himself in like manner.

g) Jesus shows us in John 10.36 that the reason the Jews accused him of blasphemy was because he had said that he was also a son of God, which completely contradicts the Christian belief that the Jews in John 10.33 understood Jesus as claiming to be the Supreme Deity. In John 10.36, Jesus tells us precisely why the Jews were going to stone him for blasphemy, and no where does Jesus say that it was because he had made any claim of being the Supreme Deity but rather "because I said I am also a son of God."

h) Therefore, Jesus is addressing two accusations in these verses: 1. His claim to be a god. 2. His claim to be a son of God
.

No where does Jesus ever address any accusation of any claim of him presenting himself as the Supreme Deity. There is no text to support that position, and plenty of text to completely refute it.

So now let us put the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36 in order with my comments in parenthesis to see the final product:

John 10.30 - I and the Father are one!

(Jesus is claiming to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, making a distinction between himself and the Father by simply mentioning the Father aside from himself. If he was referring to himself as the Supreme Deity, he would in effect be saying "I and myself are one," which makes no sense. Claiming God as a father immediately invokes the understanding that if God is his father, then undoubtedly he would be a son of God. Remember, if you are the son of an elephant, you would also be an elephant. Therefore, if you are the son of a god, then you would also be a god. Jesus' statement in John 10.30 invokes both claims of him being both a son of God, and therefore also being a god.)

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"


(Once again, Jesus claims God as a father, which again invokes the understanding that he is claiming to be both a son of God, and therefore also a god.)

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god!"

John 10.34 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'


(If the postulated use of the lower-case "gods" in John 10.33 is accepted, then Jesus' use of Psalm 82.6 as a means of defense perfectly addresses that accusation. The Jews are effectively saying "You are claiming to be a god," which prompts Jesus' defense of essentially, "So what? Is it not written in your books where God said 'I have said you are gods?' What's the problem?'")

John 10.35 - 36 – “Since God regarded those who had the word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"

(In John 10.35 - 36 above, Jesus is clearly defending himself against an accusation of him claiming to be a god and a son of God. He provides reasoning that since God had referred to others in the past as 'gods' and 'sons of the Most High', then the Jews who were accusing him should have no cause to accuse him of blasphemy if he referred to himself the same way. Jesus' position was that since he claimed that he had the word of God with him just like those mentioned in Psalm 82.6, then he had as much right to regard himself as a god and a son of God just like those mentioned in Psalm 82.6.)

In conclusion, I believe that the Christian interpolation of a capitalized "God" in John 10.33 confuses the entire meaning of what occurred in the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36. By accepting the capitalized "God" in John 10.33, it renders all following defenses made by Jesus as being non sequitur, because his defenses do not address any postulated accusation of him claiming to be a Supreme Deity. On the contrary, if John 10.33 is accepted as being a lower-case "god," which does not refer to the Supreme Deity, then all of Jesus' following defense arguments address that accusation perfectly, and the conversation between Jesus and his Jewish accusers makes perfect sense.

Therefore, my official position is that the Jews did not understand the words of Jesus in John 10.30 as a claim of him being the Supreme Deity, but instead understood him as claiming to be a god, and a son of God the Father. Hence, the evidence above demonstrates that not only did Jesus regard himself as being a god, he also believed and demonstrated with textual evidence that God Himself regarded other people as gods and sons of God according to Psalm 82.6.

In conclusion, I will write up a realistic modern day translation and interpretation of the meaning of John 10:30 in the form a few paragraphs as though they would appear in a non-fiction novel:

I am the Father are one!” Jesus exclaimed. It was then that some of the Jews began to pick up stones to stone Jesus.
Perplexed, Jesus asked those who were about to stone him, saying, “I have preformed many great works from my Father. For which of those works do you intend to stone me?
The Jews replied, “We do not intend to stone you for any great works, but instead because you, being but a mere man, have presented yourself out to be some kind of god.”
Jesus then asked, “Is it not written in your own bible where it says, ‘I have said that you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High?Now think about this, if God regarded those whom he was addressing in that Psalm of David as being ‘gods, and sons of the Most High,’ and you wouldn’t dare to change that particular scripture one iota, then why do you accuse me- whom the Father has sanctified and sent out into the world- of blasphemy just because I have also claimed to be a son of God?


Therefore, I conclude that the meaning of John 10:30 as uttered by Jesus of Nazareth is that he is making a claim that he is a son of God- which is verified by his own words of “because I have also claimed to be a son of God,”- which in turn carries the connotation that he is also a god.

This is precisely why the Jews wanted to stone him, because claiming to be a god is a violation of the 1st Commandment which states, “I am your God, you will have no other gods except Me.”

However, because Jesus defended himself as being a god, this also demonstrates that his beliefs were rooted in polytheism.



Free - I like you - but - FCUKHobo




When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
07-12-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(07-12-2013 12:38 PM)Free Wrote:  Listed below you will find verses 10.30 to 10.36 from the Gospel of John as seen in the King James modern version, ....

However, because Jesus defended himself as being a god, this also demonstrates that his beliefs were rooted in polytheism.

I see where you're coming from.
I appreciate all the effort you put into it.
I see you resorted to quote the johannine gospel. Due textual and critical reliability issues of that gospel i'm inclined to take it as a grain of salt. John not only being the last gospel to be written of the canon (the least historically reliable of the 4) and with a clear theological agenda has greek influences starting the the "Logos" notion. Any evidence elsewhere? Consider

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 01:34 PM by Free.)
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(07-12-2013 12:51 PM)childeye Wrote:  In other words, in your mind you have justified your logic as fact by arbitrarily changing the definition of the term God in this thread to mean superstition.

How do I change something to mean it as a superstition when it exists in its natural state as, in fact, a superstition?

Until you can demonstrate otherwise, then of course it is a superstition. The burden of proof is upon he/she who makes a positive claim, not upon those who dispute the claim. Since it is your position that your god exists, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that as being truthful conclusively. Until you do, then the default position is that God does not exist.

Quote:Pardon my saying so, but frankly speaking, this type of thinking is not unlike throwing over the chess board so that you don't lose the game. If you are so sure your atheism is built on a solid foundation of reasoning, then you would be open to considering that even as a Christian, I also am an atheist if I were to use your definition of God.

Your comprehension above is lacking reason. If you were to use my definition of God (that God is a superstition), then you could no longer be a Christian. Therefore, how could you call yourself a Christian if you believed that God was a superstition?

Quote:
Quote:I do not speculate about the non-existence of your god. I state it as factual due to a lack of any evidence to the contrary.
First of all I would say "peace". Then I would humbly point out that your statement is illogical. If God existed, it is common sense I didn't invent Him since He would logically precede my existence. He would be everyone's God. Without proof, indeed there is nothing factual. But you have inverted the issue by saying lack of evidence is factual proof something doesn't exist. It's as if you said I don't exist because somebody on the other side of the world doesn't know I do, simply because they have no proof that I do. Consequently you are in fact speculating about the non-existence of God. Once again I suspect that when you say God you mean superstition. This is why I pointed out the issue of a Godhead so that you might understand the true meaning of the term. Otherwise, you in effect are saying that the moral goodness in mankind is superstition.

Again, the burden of proof is always upon he/she who makes the positive claim. Until such proof is provided, the claim is false. If this were not true, then anyone could claim that anything does exist, and we would all have to accept that existence with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

That is not reasonable.

Therefore, when I state as factual that God does not exist it is no different than stating as factual that an 8 legged flying monkey is orbiting the earth does not exist. It's a simple matter of applied reasoning in which there is no evidence for either your god or the 8 legged flying monkey.

Does the tooth fairy exist? Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? If you agree that they do not exist, then why do you agree?

Think about that, and only then will you have begun to understand the mind of an atheist.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: