//The Jews’ accusation is that in calling himself Son of God he is making himself equal to God. He did not say that this was untrue; he pointed out that scripture allowed for it.//

-It is erroneous and misleading to consider the interpretation of Jews—precisely the Pharisees—as authentic for the mere simple fact they were regarded by Jesus himself as liars, hypocrites and fools (Luke 12:1; Matthew 23:13; Matthew 23:27-28; Matthew 16:3). In fact, they tried by hook or crook– as hard as they could to twist and put words in Jesus mouth.

-Jesus did not show that scripture allows people to be considered as Deities—on the contrary, he was proving the very exact opposite.

//Later, he said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)//

“And He (God) said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20).

//That is not the reason for calling him μονογενος.//

-Oliver Elphick, still refuse to understand that the title “Unique Son of God” does not equal divinity.

//He was with the Father before the world was created,//

-He was with himself?
-Actually, we were all with God, Almighty before the world was created—in His Divine knowledge. This is a basic Islamic concept.

// So we see that God describes the Son as God and Lord, the creator and maintainer of the universe, eternal, sitting at the right hand of the Father and one whom the angels should worship — but no one may be worshipped but God alone.//

-Hebrews is a word by word quotation of Psalms 45:6-7
-Obviously, this is not God talking here rather a quote made by the unknown author of the book of Hebrews.

- It is originally funny that you are making such a weird deluded argument: God calls himself–My God–talks with himself—and worships himself.
-Hilarious!

-Furthermore, Hebrews 1:8—‘the Greek translation of this verse can be translated in different ways. For example: But of the Son, (God )says:

“God is your throne forever and ever”’ (Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, a historical Introduction to the early Christian Writings, pp421).

-Hence, this passage would not be referring to Jesus as Divine rather that God is his deity.

//In becoming a man he temporarily ceased to use the powers of divinity, but he did not therefore cease to be divine; he still possessed all his divine power, but he chose not to use them for a time.//

-Your argument is flawed.
-When Jesus/God (according to your faith) asserted the fact that he did not know when the judgment day is (Mark 13:32)—he did not ceased to use his powers— how can this be? It was he who allegedly created it in the first place!!! Thus, either he was lying or He forgot—two incomprehensible notions.

//If you cannot understand or appreciate it, that does not stop its being true!//

-Actually, no one can and you failed (still are) to logically explain it.

//Because God exists in three persons, he is obviously able to converse between the persons//

-Are you saying that God talks with himself
-If He is three persons—why do you desperately label yourself as monotheistic? You are not—you are polytheistic . Three cannot be one—as much as one cannot be three—Is that so hard to understand, Elphick?

-Back to my argument—Jesus clearly identified himself as a Prophet according to your scripture—a Prophet to whom? To God? But….HE IS GOD (as per your belief)!!!
-Saying that the Father and Jesus are two different persons in the Three in one God—does not refute my point as the one God is both the Father and Jesus—therefore when Jesus/God talks with the Father/God—God is talking with Himself as He IS ONE AND BOTH!!!

//and we see this from the beginning of the bible, as in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7//

-The practice of pluralizing words of authority was common in the ancient Hebrew language. The words for lord, master and God might appear in the plural to DENOTE A SINGULAR BEING if that being held authority. If the context expressed control and/or authority, the verb might be pluralized also. In Hebrew usage, “God” (Elohim) always appears in the plural for obvious reasons.

-In Genesis 39:2, the Bible states that Joseph was in the house of his “master” the Egyptian. The translators render “master” correctly as singular in this instance — even though the word is PLURAL in the Hebrew text! A similar pluralization takes place in Exodus 21:9, speaking about the “owner” of an ox with the tendency to gore. The word is translated in the singular even though it also occurs in the plural. Again, the substantive reason for pluralizing the above two examples in the Hebrew text is because both “master” and “owner” denote authority and control — thus qualifying under the principle of the “Royal We.”

-Another illustrative example I can give is from the first verse of the first book in the Bible—Genesis 1:1.

-It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word that refers to God is Elohim—which if you translate it literally means Gods—not God yet it is rendered in all your biblical versions as singular God. Why? Because you will end up being polytheistic—believing that Gods created the world

-As a matter of fact, in the Hebrew Bible, when applying to God, ‘Elo.him’ is used as a PLURAL OF MAJESTY, DIGNITY, OR EXCELLENCE. (Ge. 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in…['Elo.him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a SINGULAR verbal predicate, and takes a SINGULAR adjectival attribute…. ['Elo- him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness, and majesty, being equal to The Great God.” — The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

-In Smith’s Bible Dictionary we find this explanation of “Elohim”:

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures TWO chief names are used for the ONE true divine Being — ELOHIM, commonly translated God in our version, and JEHOVAH [YEHOVAH], translated LORD. Elohim is the plural of Eloah; it is often used in the short form EL (a word signifying strength), as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs. Gen. 17:1; 28:3; Ex. 6:3. The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world. The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons [or duality of persons] in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God. — Page 220.

-Peace out.

It is not surprising that these people who are in unbiblical roles and under unbiblical restrictions are thereby exposed to sexual temptations that they cannot resist.

But I have no desire to defend the RC church! It is a heretical organisation; indeed, anyone who follows all its doctrines cannot be saved. When you argue against it, I cannot disagree; but that has nothing to do with biblical faith.

The Jews’ accusation is that in calling himself Son of God he is making himself equal to God. He did not say that this was untrue; he pointed out that scripture allowed for it. Later, he said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)

>> -Was Jesus unique in a sense? Yes! He was born without male intervention?
>> -Does that render him Divine? I don’t think so.

That is not the reason for calling him μονογενος. He was with the Father before the world was created, and it was through him that God created the world. (John 1:2-3) John does not even mention his virgin birth, because he is concerned to describe Christ in his divine aspect. See also Hebrews 1:

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?
Or again,
“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 Of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

So we see that God describes the Son as God and Lord, the creator and maintainer of the universe, eternal, sitting at the right hand of the Father and one whom the angels should worship — but no one may be worshipped but God alone.

>> -I already asked you—if he ceased or didn’t have Divine capabilities—what made him Divine?

And I really have made it clear, that Christ is divine from all eternity. In becoming a man he temporarily ceased to use the powers of divinity, but he did not therefore cease to be divine; he still possessed all his divine power, but he chose not to use them for a time.

>> -Being three distinctive persons does not change the fact that they still are the one and only God.
>> -Hence, when Jesus talks with His Father—he is addressing himself as he is God– the one and only– who is both Jesus and the Father.

Here you simply deny the truth. If you cannot understand or appreciate it, that does not stop its being true! Because God exists in three persons, he is obviously able to converse between the persons, and we see this from the beginning of the bible, as in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

-You quoted two passages in order to support your claim– that the title “Son of God” designatesd ivinity. As for Matthew 26:63-66, nowhere does the passage mentions anything about deity. In fact in John 10:24-30, Jesus rebuke the accusation of divinity attributed to him by clarifying what was mentioned previously in the scripture ““Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?” Hence, both your poor arguments fall into cold water.
-The Title “Son of God” was used to many icons in the Bible (again if you wish, I can enumerate them for you)—if it signified Divinity then you have a jumbo serious problem here—How many Gods do we have

//This shows that you are wrong about the title “Son of God”. As Jesus used it, the Jews correctly understood him to be claiming equality with God.//

-On the contrary, that shows how poor and desperate your claim really is.
-Just because the Jews accused him of so—does not mean their charge was true.
-Furthermore, Jesus (pbuh) himself declined equality with God—just a few verses earlier—Isn’t that obvious?

//Further, Jesus is not just a son of God, he is the unique Son of God:
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18) Here the last phrase translates το ονομα του μονογενους υιου του θεου. μονογενος was traditionally translated “only-begotten”, but is better translated “unique” or “one of a kind”. Therefore no other occurrence of “son(s) of God” is relevant, because Jesus is in a different class from any of them.//

-Was Jesus unique in a sense? Yes! He was born without male intervention?
-Does that render him Divine? I don’t think so.

// You insist on your misunderstanding of the Trinity and argue on the basis of that. So you don’t reach any valid conclusions. Jesus became a man on earth; he temporarily ceased to use his divine power in respect of his life as a man.//

-I already asked you—if he ceased or didn’t have Divine capabilities—what made him Divine?

// Also the three persons of the Trinity are each and all together God, but they are distinct persons too.//

-Being three distinctive persons does not change the fact that they still are the one and only God.
-Hence, when Jesus talks with His Father—he is addressing himself as he is God– the one and only– who is both Jesus and the Father.

-I read your comment on Mithra–I will return on that in the couple days to follow–I am sorry, i have been stock with exams lately (and got sick–still am).

-Peace out.