Replies

Christ's argument here is a "how much more than" line of reasoning. If human magistrates are called "gods" who will perish, how much more is the Christ worthy of the title of God? It is self-evident, however, that Christ is God:

That's what the false teachers smear onto the text. He is CORRECTING THEM, explaining why "Son of God" is not "God".

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

Another standard verse toss. Does anybody bother doing just a little homework? Minimal attention is required. Take it literally, for real, because words can be used to mean anything. This verse points the direction to go. The beginning. Genesis 1:1. And there it is:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heaven and the earth.

Apply a false premise and the whole argument becomes nonsense.

The usual response would be the next verses in John, because prepositions can be jerked with to twist meanings (I refer to the stand line of interpretations, which fly in the face of any knowledge of Torah whatsoever). But back to what the word Elohim means:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

That's what the false teachers smear onto the text. He is CORRECTING THEM, explaining why "Son of God" is not "God".

Notice you do not give any reasons why He MUST be saying "the Son of God is not God." So, in other words, you're just making an assertion.

The usual response would be the next verses in John

I'm not sure why that would be the first response, since your response was entirely nonsensical.

How does Genesis 1:1 affect, in any conceivable way, the reading of John 1:1? You did not explain, and before I can give a response, you must finish yours. You also did not bother to explain your use of Hebrews 14:12.

**That’s what the false teachers smear onto the text. He is CORRECTING THEM, explaining why “Son of God” is not “God”.**

Well, in the scriptures, Jesus Christ (and his apostles) NEVER used the phrase “God the Son”. That’s where ‘Drs’ such as MacArthur stumble. They fail to see that ‘God is a Spirit’ only, and not a physical image. They think that he is both, and therefore ‘two persons’. Jesus Christ does such a wonderful job of explaining the Godhead, only for carnal minds to think of the Father as being an older (looking) version of the Son.

They also use the phrase ‘God the Holy Spirit (Ghost)’, which isn’t scriptural either. They interpret that the Spirit that proceeds from the Father is another person of God, coequal to the Father. When in reality the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

The ‘Word’ (the Father. remember that Christ sourced his words and works directly to the Father that dwells in him) was made flesh, that is, visible to mankind. Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God.

Want a visible image of the Father? One has to look to Jesus Christ.

Here’s an unrelated question:

I looked at your homepage and saw the Flag of Israel. I discovered years ago that it’s not all that old. What a couple hundred years? A year or so ago I was staring at the ‘star’ of David, and realized that there are six triangles that meet in six places, creating a six sided center. Do you find that a bit curious?