Is Jesus God?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,823
13,186
113
Ksublett, sir, could you slow down and take a little more time to tie together your thoughts for those of us who have trouble following them? I would like to know what you are saying but as soon as I think I'm on the right track I become thwarted by, well. This



"zēt-ēsis, eōs, , A.seeking, search for 3. inquiry, investigation, esp. of a philosophic nature,
inquire into the future by augury, Id.Phdr.244c

The Levites were SOOTHSAYER-Sorcerers using loud instrumental NOISE to drive away the evil gods (of the flies) and trying to attract good spirits or demons. They inspected the meat also.

Quarreling is also: III. Have to seek, feel the want of,hina zēteoien sitiaHdt.1.94; “NerōnaPlu.Galb.8:—Pass., “zētoumenos hois apeleipes

scĭo , scibitur, to split, divide; perceive; to have knowledge of or skill in any thing, Jesus called the Scribes or Doctors of the law hypocrites. In Ezekiel 33 Christ named speaking for pay, singing and playing instruments.

Plat. Phaedrus 244c otherwise they would not have connected the very word mania with the noblest of arts, that which foretells the future, by calling it the manic art. No, they gave this name thinking that mania, when it comes by gift of the gods, is a noble thing, but nowadays people call prophecy the mantic art, tastelessly inserting a T in the word. So also, when they gave a name to the investigation of the future which rational persons conduct through observation of birds and by other signs, since they furnish mind (nous) "
i can help you out there; i've already read the nonsense in another thread. he's convinced that when Moses came down the mountain with the commandments of God, God was more upset at the fact that the Israelites were playing music than that they were worshiping an idol.
so he considers all of the OT from that point on blasphemy and lies, unless it suits him to pick out one verse or another to condemn joyfulness.
to him, David is the abomination of desolation.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
i can help you out there; i've already read the nonsense in another thread. he's convinced that when Moses came down the mountain with the commandments of God, God was more upset at the fact that the Israelites were playing music than that they were worshiping an idol.
so he considers all of the OT from that point on blasphemy and lies, unless it suits him to pick out one verse or another to condemn joyfulness.
to him, David is the abomination of desolation.
wow, I genuinely hope you have that confused...
 
J

ji

Guest


I could be clever, but not in this forum.

At the time He was human, for me and for all who are saved by Him. He is also the Lamb of Yahweh. He has many titles. As for the Godhead dogma you put forth, yes, that word is used in the Word, refering to Christ as the Godhead, as a man is the head of his wife, so Jesus is the Head of the Body....

I am not being clever, I am being faithful to what I have been taught by the Word, guided by the Holy Spirit.
you can go back to the comment which i posted mentioning your double standard when you condemned islam(based on facts) and hold onto your personal fantasies when it cones to Faith in Godhead..its not trinity...there is an order.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,823
13,186
113
K

Kerry

Guest
When a people that know better turn against God, the out fall is not good. Look at Israel, they knew better and for 1,500 years they were not a nation. scattered to Germany and Russia and tried to be exterminated. Yet God held to His promise. How Good is our God. Amen and Amen.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
I meant look at Ukraine they said I would rather team up with Russia than America. Why? because Russia don't put up with Homo's and they do not allow abortion. Putin would make a great president.
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
I'm still waiting on that one leader to come for the thousand year term :) He'll be the perfect King
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,268
6,555
113
When did anyone damn Islam. The Word is specific about any new gospel being purported by anyone. There is only one Gospel, that being the one taught by Jesus Christ. Anything after would be contrary to the Word. If believing the Word is using facts, well, I must be guilty. Now get yourself together, and stop putting words into posts that are nowhere near. I think the fork test tells me you are done. Good bye.

you can go back to the comment which i posted mentioning your double standard when you condemned islam(based on facts) and hold onto your personal fantasies when it cones to Faith in Godhead..its not trinity...there is an order.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
613
113
70
Alabama
Yes that sounds nice.
I have to leave for the time being though and can continue tomorrow.
You're also welcome to PM me if you like.
Some of these posts may be lengthy but this is where we need to start with understanding the basic problem that man has in trying to conceptualize God.

LINGUISTIC VALENCE
The problem most people have in trying to grasp the concept of the nature of God is that they have not first wrestled with how scripture itself deals with the concept of God. Trying to get our minds wrapped around the concept of God, particularly as it relates to Jesus is a difficult undertaking. The difficulty is in our language use. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known definition as an example. "God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man" (unknown source). Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it does present three immediate problems.
1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it. This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula.
2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it within the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.
3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the characteristics and relations of a thing.

In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. "God is one ‘being’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘being’; an undivided essence."

The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. Who he is, is Jehovah. What he is should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three hypostatic distinctions.

God has never given us anything by which to formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. These would be qualities like Eternal, Self-existing, self-sustaining, Transcendent, All-powerful, All-knowing, All-wise, and Ever-present. The character of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. He is HOLY, loving, just, righteous, gentle, merciful, and so on. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

These attributes do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.

When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describes as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological diciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.

Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God in three distinct facets. These functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.

These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my 40 plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.

We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
I like when folks pull out the Greek. Were you there did you understand the slang? If I said something was groovy would Webster define that? Or if it was far out
I've recently decided to completely study Greek because so many people like to bring it out and claim that something is mistranslated, when anytime I've actually checked (And it takes me a loooong time sometime to be certain just about one word, because I am not fluent in the language by any standard)....there is never a mistranslation. I don't believe there is anything wrong with our English translation but there are times when I believe the Greek can settle a disagreement. I can't remember what group had this controversy or when, but I heard once that there was a disagreement about what water baptism meant.

One camp was basically saying that could merely sprinkle water on someone and it was baptism, others said you actually had to go underwater. When the Greek was brought out, it was found that it actually means "to be immersed in water" or "submerged in water", something of that nature. I never studied the Greek on that point myself, I just remember reading this in an article about why Greek can help. Going to Greek or Hebrew doesn't imply anything is wrong with our translation, but it can settle issues when someone places a private meaning upon a word in English that isn't a part of the original words definition in the native tounge. Like "Eunuch" for example, some of the homosexual crowd love to say that word somehow translates to Gay.

It really shouldn't be neccessary but there are so many private interpretations floating around, there should be at least some percentage of Christians that can read the scripture in it's original language to help defend against false teachings. After all, if no one knows and no one checks.....people can claim the Greek says anything they want if you don't know it yourself. If you don't even make an attempt to study it, your not in the greatest position to reply to the claims that such people make. Not that this is a duty every single Christian has, but these are roles some people in the Church should fill I do believe.
 
Mar 12, 2014
240
2
0
Thomas Campbell at the Redstone Baptist Association
The trinity concept is Father, Son and Spirit which in paganism is father, spirit (mother) and little son. I have challenged or requested input but I can find no recorded history before H. Leo Boles who taught TRITHEISM which is polytheism.

Jesus of Nazareth was given the AUTHORITY of that three-member family as the ANTITHESIS of pagan polytheism.

The "trinity" originated by H. Leo Boles and still promoted by Lipscomb University is
A God Father
Jesus as eternal Son
A Holy Spirit "who" is a God Person.

"They" are ranked 1, 2 and 3. John Mark Hicks says that "they" all have their own centers of consciousness (spirit) and "each" has "their" special talent which uniquely fits each to be the GOD of their own dispensation.

"It appears to be a query with some who profess to hold this doctrine, whether it be correct to use the term person when speaking of the above distinct characters in the divine essence. As to this, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. In the mean time, all that we pretend to say in favor of this application of the term is,

that although the term person(which, in relation to men, signifies a distinctintelligent agency or rational being,coexisting with others in the same common nature),is not manifestly applied in the Holy Scriptures to any of the Sacred Three:
nor indeed can be so applied in strict propriety, according to its literal and obvious acceptation;for when applied to God, instead of meaning a distinct intelligent beingcoexisting with others in the same common nature,

we must mean by it, if we think and speak correctly,

one and the self-
same individual being so existing as to constitute in and to itself
so many distinct or different, real and relative characters, or subsistences
,
......[The church fathers did not use "person" but "personae."]

each of which is but another name for the self-same individual essence or being considered as existing in the specified relation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Again, it is a query with others, who profess to hold this doctrine, whether the relative terms Father, Son and Spirit, be real or economical. To this we would reply, that if we allow the Holy Scriptures to speak at all intelligibly upon this most profound and sacred subject,
we must understand the above appellation as declarative of real internal essential relations,

independent of any external work or economy whatever.
For if the terms Father, Son and Spirit, be not declarative of real or essential relations, that is, of relations that have their foundation in the divine nature, and essentially or necessarily belong to it as such,

Then the only conclusion left is that:
the Scriptures do not reveal to us three distinct characters so related;
but three distinct independent divinities or Gods, necessarily self-existent,
and absolutely independent of each other;

each and every one of them possessing the self-same properties, and of course, each of them so exactly the same in all respects, as to be absolutely undistinguishable one from another, by any means, property or attribute whatsoever;

and, of course, three eternal self-existent independentcoexistentGods; each of them infinitely complete or perfect in and of himself, as possessing every possible perfection of being.

A supposition this, not less repugnant to our reason than to the most express and unequivocal declarations of Holy Scripture,for the divine CHARACTERS are constantly represented as coexisting in the most intimate and inseparable unity of essential relationship one with another,and as having the most entire, inexclusive and all-comprehensive interest in each other, as their correlative names most evidently and incontestably declare. Accordingly the Father saith, "This is my well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
 
Mar 12, 2014
240
2
0
i can help you out there; i've already read the nonsense in another thread. he's convinced that when Moses came down the mountain with the commandments of God, God was more upset at the fact that the Israelites were playing music than that they were worshiping an idol.
so he considers all of the OT from that point on blasphemy and lies, unless it suits him to pick out one verse or another to condemn joyfulness.to him, David is the abomination of desolation.
Their sin in Exodus was THEY ROSE UP TO PLAY

N
ow, if you don't know what the word PLAY means then you need some new sermon outlines.

Paul said that THEY ROSE UP TO PLAY and this was connected to Apis (Osiris, Isis, Horus trinity) and he called it DEMON worship.

PLAY is Demon Worship and so all instruments and instruments parse to Enchantment or Sorcery. Miriam and Levites prophesied with instruments which means soothsaying or sorcery.

The Law of the Monarchy is NOT the Law of Moses which included no musical noise. They had a covenant with Death.

The speakers, singers and instrument players in Revelation 18 are called SORCERERS and John says they will be cast alive into the lake of fire.I said that David was the protypical oriental tyrant and the singing and dancing with the campfollowing girles induced him to GO NAKED. He was not a worship leader and he did not lead worship. God gave these kings to carry out their captivity and death sentence BECAUSE of PLAY at Mount Sinai.

But, that's another thread. E-mail and I will respond.
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
Wow, I can not believe what I just read. Anytime you think you've seen it all on CC, think again......lol
 
Mar 12, 2014
240
2
0
Wow, I can not believe what I just read. Anytime you think you've seen it all on CC, think again......lol
BELIEVE IT. You can get a Phd without knowing what happened at Mount Sinai.

Romans 10: 13 - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


Only those who REQUEST A holy spirit or A good conscience by being "washed with water into the Word" or into the School of Christ can read BLACK text on BROWN paper.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,268
6,555
113
The question asked is how can Jew and Gentile call upon the name? Simple, Salvation is from the Jews. We enter by the Gate possessed by the descendants of Abraham. That Gate is Jesus, Yeshua. Those who enter become part of the Commonwealth of Israel, yes, it is written in the New Testament, or Brit Hadasha.........

If you read all of the Word, the above is quite clear.
 
J

ji

Guest
To all concerned with my posts,and those who think am spreading my views instead of Holy Scripture,apologies..my only intention was get to some answer...and i got a lil info from one,which i already mentioned...
i would like to take leave from here so...
Whatever the case,Jesus is Lord God and without Him we cannot enter Heaven...that we can all agree.
God Bless:)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,823
13,186
113
We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.
that is very interesting! it's a blessing to have you around, oldhermit :)
the word "one" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is אֶחָד (H259)
i read that it's used in a few different ways: as the numeral one (and 11), as an ordinal (e.g. 'first'), as a pronoun, and also giving the sense of unity or accord. it's the same word used here:
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
(Genesis 1:9)

i think it's use here can give us some insight:
obviously the land was not all gathered into one singular point, but in one unified whole that is understood as not being a number of separate masses. we're probably all familiar with what's commonly called "Pangea" -- although all the land was one continent at some point, if we were to observe it, or indeed if we show a map of it, we can identify today's continents: that bit over there is Australia, and that section would become Africa, etc. - but all of it is part of Pangea. in the same way, America is one nation, but has 50 states, and all of them are part of America, but no single one is the totality of the country.
so too the Lord is "one" God, in that there is no other God, and all that is truly God is an aspect of God. Jesus is not the Father, but He and the Father are one.

am i correct in gleaning from a few minutes googling that that Greek word εἷς in John 10:30 ("
I and the Father are one") carries the same sort of connotation? not necessarily a numeral, though it could also be used that way, but "one" in the sense of unified identity?

i still think that a lot of the problems we have wrapping our head around this stem from our western mode of thought, which goes back to Greek views of the universe where matter was viewed as discrete packets with sharp borders. in some ways the scientific revolution of quantum theory bridges eastern & western thinking, and it's often misused in the context of philosophy, but here might be a case where it could help us understand God from a more appropriate perspective.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,823
13,186
113
David was the protypical oriental tyrant and the singing and dancing with the campfollowing girles induced him to GO NAKED.
you poor soul, how many lies are in you!

And David danced before the Lord with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod.
(2 Samuel 6:14)


You can get a Phd without knowing what happened at Mount Sinai.
for sure!
and you can devote yourself to things taught by demons and be just as ignorant.

Christ can set you free, little one. turn to Him!
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
613
113
70
Alabama
that is very interesting! it's a blessing to have you around, oldhermit :)
the word "one" in Deuteronomy 6:4 is אֶחָד (H259)
i read that it's used in a few different ways: as the numeral one (and 11), as an ordinal (e.g. 'first'), as a pronoun, and also giving the sense of unity or accord. it's the same word used here:
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
(Genesis 1:9)

i think it's use here can give us some insight:
obviously the land was not all gathered into one singular point, but in one unified whole that is understood as not being a number of separate masses. we're probably all familiar with what's commonly called "Pangea" -- although all the land was one continent at some point, if we were to observe it, or indeed if we show a map of it, we can identify today's continents: that bit over there is Australia, and that section would become Africa, etc. - but all of it is part of Pangea. in the same way, America is one nation, but has 50 states, and all of them are part of America, but no single one is the totality of the country.
so too the Lord is "one" God, in that there is no other God, and all that is truly God is an aspect of God. Jesus is not the Father, but He and the Father are one.

am i correct in gleaning from a few minutes googling that that Greek word εἷς in John 10:30 ("
I and the Father are one") carries the same sort of connotation? not necessarily a numeral, though it could also be used that way, but "one" in the sense of unified identity?

i still think that a lot of the problems we have wrapping our head around this stem from our western mode of thought, which goes back to Greek views of the universe where matter was viewed as discrete packets with sharp borders. in some ways the scientific revolution of quantum theory bridges eastern & western thinking, and it's often misused in the context of philosophy, but here might be a case where it could help us understand God from a more appropriate perspective.
ἕν is simply the primary number but is can be used in quite a variety of ways. You can see all the different uses for ἕν in Strong's or the NAS Exhaustive Concordance. But, the use of the word in John 10:30, like anything else in scripture is defined by its contextual application. The context of 'one' is in relationship to Jesus and the Father as the shepherd of the flock. The flock quite obviously represents the people of God. The shepherd is represented in the following ways. Jesus says, I am the good shepherd" to whom the flock belongs and that no one can snatch them out of his hand. He than says that they also belong to the Father and no one can snatch them out of his hand. He closes this illustration then with the statement, "I and the Father are one." The question then is one what? Contextually, they are one shepherd, one owner of the flock. Always allow the context to define its own use of language. We learn from a number of O.T. passages like Psalms 23 and Ezk.34 that the Shepherd of Israel is Jehovah. The Jews to whom Jesus spoke did not miss the implication of Jesus' illustration. They knew who the Shepherd of Israel was and just who Jesus was claiming to be. Their response was to pick up stone to stone him for blasphemy, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Although Jesus never said in his illustration "I am God" they immediately and correctly made the connection. Now, if Jesus is not God, then they not only had a right to stone him to death for blasphemy, they had an obligation to do so. If on the other hand, Jesus is God as he presented in the illustration then the people were wrong for wanting to stone him.

What you are going to find is that one cannot always just go to a Greek lexicon and simply search for the definition of a word and satisfy its use in a particular text. I see this quite often. There are times when the use of a word is defined by its relationship to the context in a way that is not always restricted to its lexical definition. It is interesting how the Holy Spirit seems to elevate human language to express ideas beyond what the strict definition of the words themselves can express. No one writes like the Holy Spirit.