Basic language refutes trinitarian’s claims, the language of the scripture they claim “proves” Jesus’s deity.
Any way you cut it, it does not make sense.
Logic would dictate that if you were my son you can’t, therefore, be me
If you were my daughter then ipso facto you are not me.
If you are my mother ipso facto you are not me.
If you are my father ipso facto you are not me.
if you are my brother ipso facto you are not me.
if you are my sister ipso facto you are not me.
In order for any of the above persons to be what they are, they by definition have to be NOT ME.
The best way to say it like Colin Brown: “Indeed to be “son of God” one has to be a being who is NOT God!
How does this change the fact that the Hebrew phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used exclusively for angels in the Tanakh?
The irony is that this thread only creates more problems for you. The Christian claim that calling Jesus the “son of God” proves that he was divine has been refuted. I’m not sure what your point is.
Blogging Theology 
Basic language refutes trinitarian’s claims, the language of the scripture they claim “proves” Jesus’s deity.
Any way you cut it, it does not make sense.
Logic would dictate that if you were my son you can’t, therefore, be me
If you were my daughter then ipso facto you are not me.
If you are my mother ipso facto you are not me.
If you are my father ipso facto you are not me.
if you are my brother ipso facto you are not me.
if you are my sister ipso facto you are not me.
In order for any of the above persons to be what they are, they by definition have to be NOT ME.
The best way to say it like Colin Brown: “Indeed to be “son of God” one has to be a being who is NOT God!
LikeLike
“It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with God”.
Not according to Faiz it ain’t.
According to Faiz it can only be an angel, it cannot be anything else
Job makes that clear according to Faiz.
LikeLike
It is a designation for a creature that has a special relationship with God.
Faiz, fyi a creature can be an angel or a man.
LikeLike
Lol Erasmus! Is this how desperate you are?
How does this change the fact that the Hebrew phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used exclusively for angels in the Tanakh?
The irony is that this thread only creates more problems for you. The Christian claim that calling Jesus the “son of God” proves that he was divine has been refuted. I’m not sure what your point is.
LikeLike
“How does this change the fact that the Hebrew phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used exclusively for angels in the Tanakh?”
Faiz, where is your proof. Assertion is not proof.
LikeLike
Correction,
“the Hebrew phrase “bene ha-elohim” is used exclusively for angels in the book of Job”
How does that prove that the phrase cannot also be used of men and that it does not do so in Genesis chapter 6?
LikeLike
“The Christian claim that calling Jesus the “son of God” proves that he was divine has been refuted.”
The Jews thought differently.
LikeLike
Why did the Jews try to stone Jesus if he was just calling himself an angel in accordance with OT usage of the term “bene ha-elohim”?
LikeLike