I have to contend with the variation in time zones, I’m a few hours ahead, and I’m usually busy in the evenings. I don’t have to justify my reasons for not calling until the 18th. Post the 18th check me, otherwise keep your spurious statements to yourself, thanks.

A 15 minute phone call?

Dr. White does his show on the road from hotel rooms all over the world….and you can’t squeeze in 15 minutes after all this bluster and posturing?

We have our answer…too bad you couldn’t do more than shoot from behind the keyboard…that would have been instructive to hear.

Regarding Daniel 7, you say it the word is serve not worship. Here are the references to the word in Daniel. 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 3:28, 6:16, 20, 7:14, 27. The context for all of these is serving God or gods.

To correct you, the word used in Daniel 7 is פּלח, whereas in 3:12 the word סגד is used for worship, what is funny is that the verse also uses the word serve (פּלח) right before it does worship, therefore presenting a clear cut dichotomy between worship and serving.

But you miss the point. Who is the only one that all nations will serve for ever? It is God alone. Surely you believe that? Jesus is saying that all nations will serve him forever.

The problem is, you’re confusing yourself, no where does Jesus make the claim that persons will serve him forever, that’s not the case presented in Matthew 26:62-66.

Playing with words the way you do has stopped you from seeing the main point of what is being said.

It’s actually called the science of hermeneutics and not playing with words, and I do hope you can study it. Perhaps you should dabble a bit in understanding Hebrew, I can give you the information for either Rabbi Ben Abrahamson or Rabbi Michael Skobac, the latter of which who is helping me with understanding the Hebrew Tanakh in explicit detail.

This reply does not engage with what I said nor does it engage with the scriptures. You make a straw man rather than deal with what I said.

Actually sir, what you’re doing here is openly denying my response to you. A denial is not a refutation or a rebuttal, let’s first understand that. Secondly, if it is, that what I wrote was not relevant to your statements, then the rest of your comment would be based on what? If it’s based on my statements, then you’ve conceded that you’re being dishonest and they were relevant, for if there weren’t, you’d have no reason to respond to them. Simple logic.

I never said the title Son of God automatically means divine. I wrote,
“First Jesus says he is the Christ/Messiah, the Son of God. The prophets before Jesus make it very clear that this Son sits at God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1) and how you are to treat this Son.” You do not even deal with what I wrote.

I dealt with the crux of your position. That being that because he claims to be a son of God, that him saying this, automatically makes him the son of God in Tehellim 110:1, however this is not the case. I refuted your position by using a method from PMI, where we establish a base case and demonstrate how to proceed from thereon. I did so by establishing that the title ‘son of God’ was not unique to Jesus and therefore it does not imply, i.e. it is non-sequitur to assert that the verse from Tehellim refers to him.

Your quotes about Psalm 2:12 are just wrong. The word “kiss” is in the Hebrew and so is the word “son”. Just seach for these words in a search program and you can easily see. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.cfm#strongs Words 1247, 1248, 1249

Please learn to read properly Samuel, my article focused on the word ‘son’, which as demonstrated in the Hebraic rendition is not present in any of the major codices save for the Syriac. We see this as demonstrated by Exegete, Adam Clarke and for the sake of argument, let’s examine the Hebraic rendition from the Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint:-

Septuagint:

Masoretic text:

The word son is present in neither text. It’s only present in your current edition because Christian textual critics have included the Syriac rendition of the verse in their canonical codices. However as seen above, neither the Septuagint nor the Masoretic text contain the words: υιου [Greek] or בְּנוֹ [Hebrew]. In fact by breaking down the Hebrew, your position is clearly rendered void:

The word means “son” or “chosen/pure” Even if you take it to mean “chosen” it is referring to the chosen son of v. 7.

The ‘son’ referred to in verse 7 is David, see 2 Samuel 3:18, which reads:

“Now do it! For the Lord promised David, ‘By my servant David I will rescue my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and from the hand of all their enemies. ’”

Something of which the Jewish exegete Rabbi Rashi also concurs with:

You are My son: The head over Israel, who are called “My firstborn son.” And they will endure through you, as is stated concerning Abner (II Sam. 3:18): “for God said, etc., ‘By the hand of My bondsman David shall I deliver… Israel.’” And for their sake, you are before Me as a son because they are all dependent upon you.