# Calling All Bible Experts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536 "2009-07-19T16:04:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/61 "2009-07-20T12:48:43Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > First let me get my own pov out front. I was raised on the idea that the Bible is the inerrant Word. As it was a solid Episcopal upbringing, the emphasis on the Bible was relatively muted when compared to what is called today “Bible based”, but nonetheless. I’ll spare you the details of my spiritual path I am, now that I think about it, past middle age and have finally come around to being, I suppose, a mongrel Pantheist and Taoist of the quietism type. > > As a Pantheist, I parse The Golden Rule as a fact rather than advice: As I do unto others, in thought word and deed, I am _ **literally doing it to myself.** _ The idea that I am actually doing right or wrong to someone else is merely projection and illusion, literally a dream. From this pov, forgiveness is a no-brainer and Jesus speaks of it metaphorically in Luke 6:37 and Matt 6:14, 15. > > As FAIAC, this could easily be interpreted as the whole of the Word. Comment welcome. > > As a Christian based Taoist, I believe the Creator(Tao) speaks to all humanity all the time. The only thing that stands between me and immediate transcendence is my attendance to what I call my own thoughts. My transcendence or salvation, if you will, will be found in the very instant I put aside ALL thought and finally hear It That Speaks. At that one instant do I awaken to Eternity. Whew. > > Imo, any “scripture” which purports the Deity to be anything but unconditional love is certainly not inerrant. But let’s put that aside and look at what I perceive to be a major contradiction in the Bible which, I posit, is in itself is sufficient to declare it fallible. There have, of course, been many pointed out but I would like to confine ourselves to this one. It has benefit of being a simple logic problem. > > In these verses (from the KJV) > > we are told to include the middle and in these, > > we are told to exclude it. The neo cons prefer these:) > > Imo, one condratiction implies at least the possibility of there being others. I’d like someone to convince me that the above is not self-contradictory and if that turns out to be impossible, why the contradiction shouldn’t allow a reasonable person like myself to take the rest of the Bible with a grain of salt. > > Thanks for listening. I hope I’m on the right track here to address the question. I don’t see a real contradiction but I understand the apparent one. There are other passages. Spitting out the luke warm or if you break one small part of the law you’re guilty of all. IMHO the point is, always be striving for growth and don’t settle for the middle. Realistically along the way we will be a mix of things some positive and negative. If we are in the middle in some areas _as we pass through_ then we are on the right path. If we stall in the middle and use justifications to become stagnant we are no longer on the path of growth. As far as the Bible goes. It’s a great piece of literature and great food for thought on certain principles and life philosophies. It’s not the word of God and it’s a mistake give it any authority as such. We are the interpreters of whatever comes our way. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/62 "2009-07-20T16:44:40Z")
**comsosdan,** Thanks for your considered reply. I was going to let the whole rest but since a new voice brought it up > [@](#): > > I don’t see a real contradiction but I understand the apparent one. I will try one more time. What do you think? Consider a Venn Diagram. A large circle, C, representing everybody. Within C are two smaller non-intersecting circles, X and Y. The area in C but not in X or Y is Z. The people within X, all accept some proposition, p. The people within Y all reject p. The people in Z neither accept nor reject p. Now if the leader of X says to his constituents, “Any who do not accept p are against us”, he is saying, “Z is against us.” But if he says,“Any who are not Y are with us”, he is saying, “Z is with us”. He cannot possibly say both and not contradict himself. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/63 "2009-07-20T17:12:45Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Well, you’re introducing “disagree with” as separate from “is against”. (And similarly “agree with” as separate from “is with”). This distinction wasn’t part of the original wording. So let’s remove it. We’ll replace “disagree with” with “is against”, and replace “agree with” with “is with”. [You might say this is an over-literal reading of the passage and not actually in its spirit, but I think it’s fine] > > So now your postulated scenario is that A is with B, D is against both A and B, and C is neither with nor against A and B. > > And the two statements under consideration? The two statements were “Anyone who isn’t against me is with me” and “Anyone who isn’t with me is against me”. If A were to make these two statements, he would be making the claim that no one like C exists; that everyone is either with A or against A. And this is not a contradictory claim; it’s certainly logically possible that no one like C exists. It’s certainly logically possible that there are just two opposing camps and everyone aligns with either one or the other. This isn’t the case in the scenario you propose, but that just means it’s possible for A to be wrong. > > Your scenario becomes one in which the two claims are both false. Well, fine, we can imagine both claims coming out false. But we can also imagine both claims coming out true (just remove C from the picture), which goes to show, they don’t contradict each other; they don’t comprise a logical inconsistency. Maybe, then, what the OP has in mind is a contradiction like this: P: There are people like C. Q: Anyone who isn’t for us is against us. R: Anyone who isn’t against us is for us. It’s plausible to think that someone might read Q and R, “intuit” (so to speak) P as a hidden assumption, and then feel “There’s a contradiction around here somewhere.” But since P was never written down, the person feeling the contradiction might have difficulty articulating what the contradiction is supposed to be. And indeed, there were, at the time that Jesus is portrayed as having said Q and R, billions of people who fit in category C and it was completely obvious that this was so. So if Jesus said Q and R in a context where P was implicitly understood by everyone to be true, then Jesus contradicted himself, if not in what he explicitly said, then in what he explicitly said taken together with what he implicitly affirmed. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/64 "2009-07-20T17:18:48Z")
@ **Adhay** , Back when I used to do a lot of theological fanwankery, what I said about these two verses was that they simply imply (among other things) that it is possible for someone to be “for us” but not “with me [i.e., Jesus.”] So take the two statements S: He who is not against us is for us. T: He who is not with me is against me. There’s no contradiction here, strictly speaking, because the two statements, simply put, don’t contain any of the same predicates. “Against us” /= “Against me” and “For us” /= “For me.” Anyway, that’s how I remember what I used to say, but it’s been a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/65 "2009-07-20T17:21:12Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > **comsosdan,** > > Thanks for your considered reply. I was going to let the whole rest but since a new voice brought it up > > I will try one more time. What do you think? > > Consider a Venn Diagram. > > A large circle, C, representing everybody. > > Within C are two smaller non-intersecting circles, X and Y. The area in C but not in X or Y is Z. > > The people within X, all accept some proposition, p. > The people within Y all reject p. > The people in Z neither accept nor reject p. > > Now if the leader of X says to his constituents, “Any who do not accept p are against us”, he is saying, “Z is against us.” > But if he says,“Any who are not Y are with us”, he is saying, “Z is with us”. > > He cannot possibly say both and not contradict himself. Note that **Adhay** ’s illustration here lends credence to the reading of his OP’s intent that I give in post #63. **Adhay** is taking on board as an implicit assumption the statement “There are people in Z.” (If there were no people in Z, there would be no contradiction. Indeed, the two statements taken together simply imply that there are no people in Z.) ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/66 "2009-07-20T17:44:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Adhay is taking on board as an implicit assumption the statement "There are people in Z Of course. If X and Y were opposite semi-circles in C, we then could talk about male and female, even and odd and the OP would never have appeared. For that matter, Jesus would not have had cause to make the distinctions he did, regardless of which formulation (exclusive/inclusive) you decide to accept. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/67 "2009-07-20T17:49:35Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > Of course. If X and Y were opposite semi-circles in C, we then could talk about male and female, even and odd and the OP would never have appeared. For that matter, Jesus would not have had cause to make the distinctions he did, regardless of which formulation (exclusive/inclusive) you decide to accept. So just to explain why the “of course” here is not a matter of course, the thing is when you start talking about statements being in contradiction with each other, people who know something about logic will expect to find the contradiction contained entirely within those statements that you have _explicitly written down_. The contradiction you are talking about is not contained within the statements you explicitly gave to us. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/68 "2009-07-20T19:07:48Z")
I think the existence of Z is implied by Jesus in both formulations. inclusive “Those who are not against us are with us.” Y is defined as those against us. He states that there are those (Z) who are neither us nor Y. exclusive “Those not with us are against us”. If Y is the only alternative to us, then the statement is tautologous and is without meaning. This implies an alternative to Y, Z. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/69 "2009-07-20T20:07:22Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > @ **Adhay** , > > Back when I used to do a lot of theological fanwankery, what I said about these two verses was that they simply imply (among other things) that it is possible for someone to be “for us” but not “with me [i.e., Jesus.”] > > So take the two statements > > S: He who is not against us is for us. > T: He who is not with me is against me. > > There’s no contradiction here, strictly speaking, because the two statements, simply put, don’t contain any of the same predicates. “Against us” /= “Against me” and “For us” /= “For me.” > > Anyway, that’s how I remember what I used to say, but it’s been a long time. Have to admit I am not following a lot of this. Even though the predicates are different between the two I cannot see either one standing on its own as they are patently false in any but the most abstract sense. The issue is the excluded middle. As a thought experiment where you define two, and only two, choices (for us/against us) it may stand up to logical rigor. However, the real world is nothing like that. I may not be against you but that does not make me for you either. For example, I am not “for” the British Cricket team at all. However, neither am I “against” the British Cricket team. I frankly do not care about them one way or another. So, if the British Cricket team said: “He who is not against us is for us” would be absolutely wrong. I am as “for” the Australian Cricket team as I am “for” the British. As for Jesus on something I am down with what he was saying so I am “for” him. On other things I am not with him so I am “against” him. I am not seeing the necessity for an this-or-that (and no other) choice. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/70 "2009-07-20T20:31:40Z")
In retrospect, I’m somewhat embarrassed that I brazenly tried to evaluate any claims about these statements without reading enough context to know how to actually interpret them. (Something I still haven’t done, mind you). That was silly of me. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/71 "2009-07-21T15:25:10Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > **comsosdan,** > > Thanks for your considered reply. I was going to let the whole rest but since a new voice brought it up > > I will try one more time. What do you think? > > Consider a Venn Diagram. > > A large circle, C, representing everybody. > > Within C are two smaller non-intersecting circles, X and Y. The area in C but not in X or Y is Z. > > The people within X, all accept some proposition, p. > The people within Y all reject p. > The people in Z neither accept nor reject p. > > Now if the leader of X says to his constituents, “Any who do not accept p are against us”, he is saying, “Z is against us.” > But if he says,“Any who are not Y are with us”, he is saying, “Z is with us”. > > He cannot possibly say both and not contradict himself. I think I really don’t get the point you’re trying to make by finding a contradiction there. If you want there to be one have at it. My question would be so what? Is it significant? There are much more blatant contradictions in the Bible and any reasonable study of it’s history easily demonstrates that it’s folly to consider it the inerrant word of God. I was answering from a philosophical point of view and what I consider to be what Jesus taught. consider > [@](#): > > Matthew 5:48 > Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. and > [@](#): > > Ro 3:23 > for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, It seems nobody has a chance. Until > [@](#): > > Heb 6:1 > Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and > [@](#): > > Ro 12:2 > And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. If you want to single out one point in time and apply a that principle to that moment there is contradiction. Seeing it in a realistic view of the process of growth it is not. In other words Z will not stay Z since life and people are not stagnant. {for the most part} ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/72 "2009-07-21T16:41:48Z")
> [@](#): > > I think I really don’t get the point you’re trying to make by finding a contradiction there. If you want there to be one have at it. My question would be so what? Is it significant? There are much more blatant contradictions in the Bible and any reasonable study of it’s history easily demonstrates that it’s folly to consider it the inerrant word of God. I must say I don’t disagree with you in any way at all except of course regarding the contradiction we’ve been talking about. I only chose it as an example because it seemed to be a self-evident problem in logic, which to you apparently it is not. No problem. IMO, there is much truth to found in the Bible, esp. the NT. My position is that (since we agree it is not inerrant) I am free to pick and choose. I refer to my OP: > [@](#): > > Luke 6:37 > Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven > > Matthew 6,14,15 > For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: > But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. To my mind, there is no wiggle room here. From my Pantheistic pov, we are eternally and unconditionally forgiven. However, I cannot recognize that I have forgiveness unless I offer it to all without reservation. Which is to say, to love God and my neighbor as myself is the whole of the Law, on these two commandments, etc. I did a lot of hitchhiking on the 101 way back when there were actually six stop lights to negotiate thru Santa Barbara. This generally meant walking a couple of miles to get out of town. On the back of a road sign written in pencil I discovered the following: 1. Love God 2. Trust your neighbor 3. Share 4. Pick up after yourselves 5. Have fun My five commandments. Thanks again for your input. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/73 "2009-07-21T17:58:02Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > IMO, there is much truth to found in the Bible, esp. the NT. My position is that (since we agree it is not inerrant) I am free to pick and choose. I refer to my OP: Not only are you free to pick and choose I think it’s something mandatory that comes with being human. Sadly some choose to hand over their thinking to others because they’re convinced in some way that they need to do that. Even that is picking and choosing though. > [@](#): > > To my mind, there is no wiggle room here. From my Pantheistic pov, we are eternally and unconditionally forgiven. However, I cannot recognize that I have forgiveness unless I offer it to all without reservation. Which is to say, to love God and my neighbor as myself is the whole of the Law, on these two commandments, etc. I too think forgiveness is underrated and misunderstood. I’m working on it. I’m convinced that clinging to anger and resentment creates a lot of negative energy as well as any need we have to feel morally or spiritually superior. I wonder how we forgive completely but still promote justice and defend ourselves. For example. If I catch an employee stealing I can forgive the human failing because I have plenty of my own but that forgiveness doesn’t mean they still have employment with me. It’s an ongoing exercise in not only understanding but trying to apply it in real life terms. For me it’s about seeing how closely and undeniably we as a race sharing a life on this planet are connected. We often act as if it isn’t true but it’s the truth we must keep moving toward to continue to grow. > [@](#): > > I did a lot of hitchhiking on the 101 way back when there were actually six stop lights to negotiate thru Santa Barbara. This generally meant walking a couple of miles to get out of town. On the back of a road sign written in pencil I discovered the following: > > 1. Love God > 2. Trust your neighbor > 3. Share > 4. Pick up after yourselves > 5. Have fun > > My five commandments. > > Thanks again for your input. That’s great. Sincere thanks for sharing it. It reminded me, years ago a friend showed me a poem she had found handwritten in a used Bible at a used book store. It was a paraphrased version of this poem but I’ve always loved the subtle real life thought behind it and the meaning of the teachings IMHO. I See Christ Not only in the words you say Not only in your deeds confessed But in the most unconscious way Is Christ expressed. Is it a beatific smile, A holy light upon the brow? Oh no, I felt His presence while You laughed just now. For me 'twas not the truth you taught, To you so clear, to me so dim, But when you came to me, You brought a sense of Him. And from your eyes He beckons me and from your heart His love is shed, 'Till I lose sight of you And see the living Christ instead. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/74 "2009-07-21T19:25:41Z")
> [@](#): > > I too think forgiveness is … misunderstood. Yeah, not many realize that forgiveness without forgetting is not forgiveness at all. > [@](#): > > I’m working on it. Me too. > [@](#): > > I’m convinced that clinging to anger and resentment creates a lot of negative energy as well as any need we have to feel morally or spiritually superior. The past exists only in the mind. Clinging to it, cherishing our grievances is THE graven image we are warned not to worship. Indeed it is the only form of blasphemy and is the only reason we seem separated from each other and from God. Hell, indeed. > [@](#): > > For me it’s about seeing how closely and undeniably we as a race sharing a life on this planet are connected. We often act as if it isn’t true but it’s the truth we must keep moving toward to continue to grow. And all God’s chillen say Amen. Sweet poem, btw. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/75 "2009-07-22T13:40:57Z")
The Bible was written by human beings, humans beings decided what was inspired by A God, and called it the word of God, so one can choose what human they want to believe. Most people pick and choose what suits their own desires. Neither Jesus or God wrote anything. The few writings that the Bible says Jesus wrote, were in sand…long ago washed away. So if Jesus wanted a book I would think He would have written one Himself. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/76 "2009-07-22T13:56:01Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The Bible was written by human beings, humans beings decided what was inspired by A God, and called it the word of God, so one can choose what human they want to believe. Most people pick and choose what suits their own desires. > > Neither Jesus or God wrote anything. The few writings that the Bible says Jesus wrote, were in sand…long ago washed away. So if Jesus wanted a book I would think He would have written one Himself. You forgot to add “So There!” ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/77 "2009-07-23T12:41:26Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Not only are you free to pick and choose I think it’s something mandatory that comes with being human. Sadly some choose to hand over their thinking to others because they’re convinced in some way that they need to do that. Even that is picking and choosing though. > > I too think forgiveness is underrated and misunderstood. I’m working on it. I’m convinced that clinging to anger and resentment creates a lot of negative energy as well as any need we have to feel morally or spiritually superior. > I wonder how we forgive completely but still promote justice and defend ourselves. For example. If I catch an employee stealing I can forgive the human failing because I have plenty of my own but that forgiveness doesn’t mean they still have employment with me. It’s an ongoing exercise in not only understanding but trying to apply it in real life terms. > > For me it’s about seeing how closely and undeniably we as a race sharing a life on this planet are connected. We often act as if it isn’t true but it’s the truth we must keep moving toward to continue to grow. > > That’s great. Sincere thanks for sharing it. It reminded me, years ago a friend showed me a poem she had found handwritten in a used Bible at a used book store. It was a paraphrased version of this poem but I’ve always loved the subtle real life thought behind it and the meaning of the teachings IMHO. > > I See Christ > Not only in the words you say > Not only in your deeds confessed > But in the most unconscious way > Is Christ expressed. > > Is it a beatific smile, > A holy light upon the brow? > Oh no, I felt His presence while > You laughed just now. > > For me 'twas not the truth you taught, > To you so clear, to me so dim, > But when you came to me, > You brought a sense of Him. > > And from your eyes He beckons me > and from your heart His love is shed, > 'Till I lose sight of you > And see the living Christ instead. In India there is a sect that greets people with the words" I see God In you". Kind of the same thing, just shorter. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/78 "2009-07-23T13:16:48Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > In India there is a sect that greets people with the words" I see God In you". Kind of the same thing, just shorter. Well that’s just the greeting. Later, when you get to know them, it gets longer. I See God Not only in the words you say Not only in your deeds confessed But in that dot upon your head Is God expressed. etc. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/79 "2009-07-24T11:50:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Well that’s just the greeting. Later, when you get to know them, it gets longer. > > I See God > Not only in the words you say > Not only in your deeds confessed > But in that dot upon your head > Is God expressed. > > etc. Yes, I think Jesus (If he was quoted right) also meant that, when he referred to the psalmist " I say you are Gods sons of the most high" This was his reply when accused of blasphmey. He reminded the priests and Pharisees that their fathers were called Gods and sons of God. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536.md?page=3)