Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?

I know it was, my point was that you misrepresented what he said. You argued completely against the qualitative sense of the noun, and argued that it was not possible. Colwell did not say this.

That’s good, because previously you said the opposite.

If you disagree with the scholarly consensus on this, please just do your own study of the Greek and submit your conclusions to a relevant peer reviewed journal.

But this is my point; Harner acknowledges the very point you were arguing against. You didn’t seem to realize this.

I couldn’t agree more.

No I am not, because I provided specific evidence for it, evidence which I have presented several times and which no one here ever even goes near.

You haven’t addressed anything that I already said about this.

Do you understand that in Greek grammar the gender of nouns does not necessarily indicate the gender of the subject?

Wouldn’t one have to be a person to be grieved?

Wouldn’t one have to be a person to call out in the street?

Proverbs 1:
20 Wisdom calls out in the street,
she shouts loudly in the plazas;
21 at the head of the noisy streets she calls,
in the entrances of the gates in the city she utters her words:
22 “How long will you simpletons love naiveté?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?

Yes, wisdom is personified in several places, including Proverbs, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. But it only goes so far. Can one commit blasphemy against Wisdom? is Wisdom called Holy? Is one ever baptized with Wisdom?

Does that mean Elijah is also God? [typo: I have corrected the name to read Elijah]

2Ki 2:11

And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

A whirlwind would certainly be manifested by “clouds”…

As I said earlier, our discussion here should be discontinued until you respond to my earlier comments. If we create a third thorough discussion the amount of material will simply go off the hook and will be too long to keep track of. I must note that the slip of my typing figures wrote ‘title’ in regards to ‘son of man’ in Daniel 7 – I’m well aware that this was not a title at all outside Jesus’ words (I’ve read Hurtado’s papers). Later on, you talk about me referencing some books – you strangely include The Jewish Gospels, which were mentioned by you, not me (I simply responded to your mentioning of it, since you confused it with Border Lines, the book I cited, and sent me to a critical blog review of it written by someone who didn’t even understand the book). I did, however, refer to Border Lines (I think you accidently called it Dividing Lines), which I understand through reviews on it as well as the words of Richard Hays that I quoted in his book I did read. Either way, these are just some qualifying points. I’ll wait for your responses to my arguments whenever you’ve prepared them.

1 Like

I did not confuse Jewish Gospels with Border Lines (I just mis-typed it as Dividing Lines from memory just now, thanks for the correction). What you don’t understand is that Jewish Gospels makes the same argument as Border Lines. That’s why criticism of the argument in Jewish Gospels is relevant, because it’s criticism of the same argument used in Border Lines. And no, the review wasn’t by someone who failed to understand it. The review was by someone who has said the same things about it as scholars such as Schafer and Hurtado.

I included Jewish Gospels in my list, because when you commented on that blogger’s review, you made claims about the content of Jewish Gospels. The fact that you were unaware that Jewish Gospels makes the same argument found in Border Lines, indicated to me that you hadn’t actually read Jewish Gospels. But yes, let’s continue this in the main discussion when I have made my fuller reply.

In Second Temple Period Judaism, blasphemy could be committed against God, God’s appointed agent or representative, God’s attributes, God’s throne, God’s temple, and God’s law.

"Though blasphemia was understood in a variety of ways in the first century, it almost exclusively dealt with offences committed against God or his representative, whether person, place, or thing. 6

6 Examples include God’s agent or spokesperson, God’s temple or holy site, and God’s law.", Brian Han Gregg, The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 194.

1 Like

I have some big disagreements over you claiming that the arguments in Border Lines is the same arguments in The Jewish Gospels, however I will hold it in until we more fully continue this. Until then!

Are any of these an unforgivable sin?

Furthermore, is wisdom as intimately and frequently connected to both God and Jesus as the Holy Spirit is?

I hear the creaking of shifting goalposts. How is this relevant?

I don’t see the Holy Spirit frequently and intimately connected with Jesus. In the New Testament it is spoken of in the same way as it is in the Old; the Holy Spirit is something which can come upon people, dwell in people, be transferred to other people by people, be poured out among people, and is spoken of consistently as a manifestation of God’s presence and power. It isn’t spoken of as more frequently and intimately connected with Jesus than it is with other people; in fact most of the references in the New Testament relate it to people other than Jesus.

Both wisdom and the word of God, on the other hand, are personified much more than the Holy Spirit. In particular, Philo referred to the word of God as the creator, first begotten son, chief of the angels, high priest, and man of God.

But I said intimately connected to both God and Jesus.

And I am pointing out that I don’t see the Holy Spirit as frequently and intimately connected with God and Jesus. I see it as frequently and intimately connected with God, but not with Jesus. I gave my reasons for this.

Pouring the Spirit upon all flesh is prophesized in the Old Testament but realized only in the New Testament.

15 “If you love me, you will obey my commandments. 16 Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you.

So here the Holy Spirit will be with believers forever.

Actually I think Jesus was speaking to his disciples, not all Christians forever, but apart from that, yes, pouring the Spirit out is prophesied in the Old Testament but realized only in the New Testament.

I did not misrepresent what he said. I did not say it was not possible to have a qualitative sense. I quoted Colwell using his own rule to say that, and I quote, "Kai theos nv o logos looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule.” I was just showing you that Colwell, based on his rule believed the Word was God is a much more likely translation than the word was divine. You may disagree with Colwell, but are you saying that he did not think his rule made the Word was God the more likely translation?

You appealed to Colwell’s rule specifically to argue that grammatically it must be understood as a definite noun. You also said “even if you could translate it as an adjective ‘divine’”, indicating that you did not think it was possible to have a qualitative sense. If you really meant to day “Yes I agree it’s a qualitative noun, and therefore adjectival, and I agree that “divine” is a translation indicated by the grammar”, you could have said it more clearly.

And I showed you why modern scholars argue that Colwell’s reasoning was not sound, firstly because his study was so limited in its scope (and therefore misled him), and secondly because he over-stated the strength of the evidence he did have.

Of course I am not saying that. Didn’t you read what I wrote? I quoted later scholars saying specifically that Colwell’s confidence in his study was misplaced, and led him to the wrong conclusions. I quoted several scholars pointing out that Colwell’s rule does not make “the word was God” the more likely translation. I quoted Carson saying specifically " it is a fallacy to argue, on the basis of the fact that a predicate noun preceding a copulative verb is anarthrous, that it is highly likely to be definite". I also quoted Carson saying specifically that Colwell’s rule does not address the translation “divine” at all, contrary to your claim.

I don’t know what Carson meant, but I quoted Colwell addressing exactly that issue. Maybe he wanted more written about it and Colwell does not provide more than what I quoted, but he obviously does address it.

You are confusing two separate issues. Colwell thought that his rule addressed that issue. Carson points out that it does not. That is why Carson says “Colwell’s rule does not address this issue at all”. Can you really say you do not know what Carson meant by that?