I often read apologists articles wherein it something is said to the effect, regarding the topic of viciousness ordained by god in the OT, that that's all over now, the law was fulfilled by jesus. However, jesus did not repeal the godly commands, by his presence. And perhaps the law he was coming to fulfill was the law of the prophet arriving to begin a new epoch, an anointing unto higher consciousness (christ-hood) , for gods people. However, I don't find that jesus alleged arrival revoked the jurisdiction of gods laws.

(Excerpt) The Bible Ten Commandments were not an afterthought by God, given to the Jews to keep them in line. The essence of the Ten Commandments has always been in existence, because they reflect the very nature and character of God. There are many references in the Bible that describe the Ten Commandment Law and that describe the character of God using the same words.

So, then while one sect of the Abrahamic philosophies condemn what are called archaic muslim honor killings, including stoning, in the 21st century, is it not then a criticism levied against one's own god, if one is a member of christianity or judaism, that ordained that to be right behavior (righteous)!?


And I realize there are some contextual issues that arise from that implication. Some say that when jesus admonished to "keep my commandments" he was not talking about the 10 commandments. But what if he was talking about his commandments, because gods people, to whom he was speaking, already knew through the OT that gods laws were eternal. So it wasn't a matter of disregarding the OT 10, else we wouldn't have them taught and honored in the faiths today. What if he was talking about keeping his new testament commandments while honoring the law that shall never pass away.(As related in the OT also)

Moses claimed IAm, gave the 10 commandments to him, and in the NT jesus says when one has seen him, they have seen the father. (I and the father are one) God even said, in the OT, there is no other god but him, so how could gods son not be him, that impregnated a virgin with the spirit to come to life as jesus!?

Thoughts? (And so as to ward off Baiter's, this Atheist asks this question of the religious, for the same reason many people here enjoy decent conversation. We like to hear what we think about our faith/life/self. There are some people that don't know it all. So they like to read and remedy as they're able. Respect that, rather than criticize and project against someone you don't know (Atheist in my case), and we can maybe all learn how to be a cordial community, at least. Thank you in advance,for leaving bait outside the thread.

When I asked a vicar whether it was necessary to abide by god's law, seeing as Jesus has come and changed everything - something I'm told here when I pay too much attention to the OT - he gave me the following passage to read:



So does all the old stuff stand? Should we still be stoning people for picking up twigs on the Sabbath?

I read someone here not long ago, that said jesus asks it of the christians, they can not disobey, when jesus said go and preach the gospel. So I imagine, recalling that opinion, relative to the context of jesus teachings, that that passage pretty much says jesus ordained the OT laws were inviolable. Or , still valid, even after his coming.

Remembering also that as early as the 1600's the church did put people to death, through the authority of the scriptures. Hangings, being crushed to death by stones, (stoning , none the less), burnings at the stake. Not to mention torture, effected in the name of the same cause. Gods ordinance. And to this day, parochial schools will often implement corporal punishment, because of the OT admonition regarding spoil the rod/child, as there is also the admonishment in scripture, about raising a child in the way they should go, so as to not stray from the path, as adults.

The "church" put a lot of people to death, even other Christians.

This article is a fascinating look into persecution. I'd recommend reading it, especially if you're at all intereted in the religious persecution that went on the USA before the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

I believe I may have posted this once before...

Hostile Bonnets and Gowns

There is a reason for tolerance, equality, and the ability to fight back stongly and with conviction without destroying your own reputation.

What I've never understood, and would be happy to have an explanation for, is how come Jesus said he was not there to abolish god's laws, but to fulfill them, and yet when he was presented with a woman who was guilty of adultery he altered god's law. He added the "let he who is without sin" bit, which is an addition to the original law which just required there to be two or more witnesses... there was nothing in the original rule that said they had to be without sin. How can he uphold his father's laws whilst changing them at the same time? God said that the punishment for adultery was death... Jesus said the punishment could only be carried out by those who were free from sin (an impossibility by biblical god standards)... there's a whopping great difference, and yet he claimed he didn't intend to abolish god's law. God said to kill the adulterer, and Jesus spared the adulterer. It befuddles me.

I would have to argue that Jesus came to fulfill the law and not to abolish it. In addition you can see in the Qu'ran these types of contradictions. First men were not supposed to drink when they prayed for example and then they couldn't even touch alcohol.

I think that I can concede that if there was a God, and if God had a plan, it would make sense that he could change the way he decided to do things.

For example, if I were to say to the parent of an out of control 7 year old boy, "You need to spank your son because he needs discipline" and the parent went home and beat the crap out of her kid splitting his lip and abusing him, then I might realize that this person is off some how and next time I'd say "Don't hit him at all"

What I am aiming for is a middle ground. Perhaps God doesn't know how to handle people in the day to day living of life because when he created man he wasn't planning on kicking them out of the garden of eden.

Perhaps all of "this" is just a mess and there really isn't any way to resolve it and the best he can do is try to just keep man cruising until the afterlife.

If you are going to question this kind of thing you need to accept the story. Its like if you question whether or not Snape is on the bad side in HP and you start debating evidence and motivation...you have to assume that HP is a "real thing" for that moment.

But if someone keeps saying "Its all made up anyway" then the debate is pointless.

So this is perhaps why its confusing for believers to deal with people who start threads like this and then when they present their views they start hollering "God doesn't exist anyway" or "The bible is flawed"

That is baiting. Not explaining the character's motivation.

Ah yes, I remember that link MissMellsWell. Thank you for sharing it again.

Further reading regarding the topic, within other sects also include: The Burning Times:
The extermination of Witches and other heretics

The Inquisition

I heard an interpretation once about this passage - this guy told me that the Israelite was gathering wood on the Sabbath. Wood is perishable. As a result of this action, he was stoned. Stones are more or less impervious. They will survive for ever (well, not forever, they'll eventually be weathered, but you know what I mean). So the moral of this passage is taht on the sabbath, we should not keep our eyes on perishable, temporary things (like the wood), but instead we should focus on God who is solid and permanent (like the rocks).

I can't say as I agree with the interpretation. I'd go as far as to say I actively disagree with it, but I thought I'd share it with you just as a bit of background on this passage.

As to whether these laws apply today, there is debate amongst Christians about whether the Sabbath, as it was practiced in the Old Testament, still stands. Some will argue that the law is the same and that Christians should observe the Saturday day of rest. Others, such as myself, look at passaged like Hebrews 4, where it is claimed that Jesus was our Sabbath Rest, and all who abide in him abide in the Sabbath. We take this to mean that the Saturday-keeping of the Old Testament was fulfilled in Jesus - an earthly law that came to fruition in the glory of Jesus.

Regardless of which group is right, all agree that killing someone for not keeping this law is no longer a valid action. Without God actively participating in this world to the extent he did in the Old Testament (God is a lot more passive now than he was in the Old Testament), all we have are our own human judgements, and we are Christians are not to judge others, indeed we are commanded to Love one another. We are all guilty of sin, whether it be disobedience to the Sabbath or something else. Without that influence of God actively involved, we as Christians MUST fall back on the general principle of Love your Neighbour, and be guided by the principle of Judge Not.

Regards, PA

love thy neighbour and judge not.
these are good principles.

Carrie is on tv at the mo....her mum is a nutter!

if one lives by the above instructions by jesus does it matter what faith one is? will they still go to heaven?

ok lets see if i can get this right. the bible says that you must believe that jesus is the son of god and that he die for yours and our sins. we have to do the things stated but we have to believe in jesus first and foremost. it is what the bible says not me even tho i do believe it with all my heart. second. about doing work on the sabbath. jesus healed someone on the sabbath and the religious higher ups questioned him because to them it was a sin. jesus asked them who among them if they had a ox in the ditch would not get him out even if it was on the sabbath. i am not sure what the right answer is. i hope that if i do something that is wrong that he will let me know it.

Many years ago, a woman married a man without, unfortunately, fully realising his character. She found him to be a military type personality, who demanded order and pefection. He would give her a list of jobs to do such a get breakfast, clean the floor etc etc. Her whole day was ordered and regimented by these rules. In the evening he would come home, go through the checklist and ensure that all the tasks were completed to his satisfaction, She came to hate both him and the life she led, largely because it was completely dominated by his requirements.

Perhaps due to his nature this man died of a heart attack, and after several years the woman met and married another man, who was the complete opposite of her first husband, He loved her for herself, built her up, praised the many wonderful qualities he found in her. Their relationship grew from strength to strength. Never had the woman been so happy.

One day when cleaning out the attic she came upon an old trunk, and in it a list. It was one of those her first husband had made for her many years ago. Hands shaking, she read down it and ticked off each item with increasing incredulity; get breakfast...Yes I do that, clean the floor...yes well I do that too. As she read on she realised that her days were exactly the same now, as they had been with her first husband.

How could she feel so different? As she thought about it, she realised the basic difference was this. In the first relationship she was fulfilling the law as set down by her husband and had been miserable and unfulfilled. In the second she was choosing her life out of love and was completely fulfilled and happy in it. The outcomes were just the same. The original "Law" was being fulfilled in her new life, and yet she had never found it a chore, let alone the soul destroying "requirements" of her first husband.

So yes, the laws are not changed, but when fulfilled as an act of love, they become what jesus represented, and allow us a different, and much more loving relationship with god.

I appreciate that today this story sounds a bit sexist, so if you like, just put the women in charge of writing the list, and have the guy the one doing the housework.

Thank you for adding that story to this thread. Relationships are made by the personalities of two people, joining in a mutual respect for the unique individuality that is alive in each one. Tyranny evokes fear and resentment. Love evokes love. It's all relative, in any case because I think when two people are invested in a union, how one feels about themselves is effected by how they're made to feel by another.

I've known women that were brilliant independent powers within themselves. Only to meet someone that resented that and effected so much intimidation and emotional authoritarian abuse, that those brilliant women shut down. Literally, they're tears flowed more than their joy, at living together. While others met someone that sparked them to blossom to the radiance of their full potential.

Environment, has everything to do with quality of living. And I think if one feels threatened, of if they assume a demeanor of self-depreciation, because of that, they shuttle their own light and potential into the darkness. Maybe it's fear, maybe it's that they've never had a sense of self-worth, from the beginning. But I think , given the myriad opportunities and experiences that call one from that darkness, the opportunity to escape to the light, to the love and sense of self worth and personal pride, is always at hand. One just has to look for it, and let what calls them back to the darkness, pass away. Surely it shall find someone else to consume, so it shall always remain as a present opportunity. But once someone steps into the light of their personal power and sense of self-worth, unless one so chooses, there's no going back. One never appreciates the light so much, as when they step from the darkness.

I think Mr Walker was using this as an allegory about the topic of this thread, not a lamentation of domestic abuse.


Great story Mr. Walker I think this sums it up beautifully.

The man she was married to first was a different man to the one she later married. Are you saying that the god of the NT is a different god? That he changed?

Also, if she didn't do the chores in her new marriage, was there a price to pay for not doing them?

Maybe I am reading something into this that isn't there, but what I get from this story is that god, seeing that man hated his rules and him for making them, changed in order to make himself more pleasing to man.

Great analogy Mr. Walker.


Analogies are not intended to be perfectly equal to what they explain, and can only be taken so far.

I think if you read the Bible looking for God's overall intent you see that God addressed mankind in several different ways. First He addressed man very personally and individually as we see with Adam and Eve who actually took evening walks with God, to being more distant and much more "god-like" displaying His power to create and destroy, to choosing only one tribe of people to call His own and showing them particular favor over all others, to becoming just as vulnerable as them by becoming a man, to currently being distant and quiet on a global/universal scale, but being personal and loving on an individual scale. I believe God is doing this to show man, that no matter how He acts man will find reason to ignore Him, so that in the end no one will be able to say, "Well, if You had just done this or done that I would have followed You," because He will be able to point to others who did experience Him in that way and yet still CHOSE to do their own thing.

So you do believe he is changing to appeal to man? I just want to get this completely straight.

Going back to my earlier post... if Jesus wasn't here to change god's law, why did he make any alteration to it? By stating that only a man without sin could cast the first stone he added to the original law and made it impossible for man to enforce the law god had handed down. How could the law change but remain the same?

As I originally posted Shadow,

Perhaps God saw that mankind was not understanding his meaning. If God set the law down for example that man would be put to death for sin, and then he saw mankind focusing on the punishment rather than the deterrent of it, it would flip around.

Ex I say to you people who murder shall be put to death. I see that this doesn't deter people from committing murder but instead causes people to get carried away by blood lust in wanting to execute people, then perhaps I'd try to convey it in a different sense.

You seem to suggest that each time God set down the law, mankind followed it perfectly. If mankind corrupts the law into something very different than what the law was intended to solve, (for laws are supposed to solve problems for man), if the law simply created new problems because of mans inability to properly understand the implications, then the law would need to be adjusted.

Here's an example

Megans Law

http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/nat...CFRmxgAodlE8RPQ

This law was designed to protect children by giving citizens the right to know if Sex Offenders live in their neighborhood.

Now say a person looks up a Sex Offender and finds out that the man who lives on the corner is a registered offender. They then rally the neighbors and start harassing the man to move out. In some cases people have taken up vigilante justice and attacked the offender.

Is this what the law intended?

If you consider what it takes to make someone a sex offender you will find for example that if a 21 year old man has sex with a 17 year old girl who says she is 18, he can be prosecuted for statutory rape. So now he's listed as a registered sex offender and people find out that he's in the neighborhood and don't know the details of his story and shun him. Is this what the law intended?

If you were someone who knew the details of his case, what would you likely say to a group of overzealously panicked people? You might, if you were sympathetic to him, suggest that people didn't know the whole story. If someone replied "I don't care he's a sex offender and that makes him a pig in my book, I don't want him living here"

You might suggest to the person that they consider that they have probably made mistakes similar to his (in this specific case) and that its a bit much for the person to be so certain in their righteous anger.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is about the actions of the group in implementing the law, not the law itself.

I'm not sure how I did that. I've posted in numerous threads that I believe god's law is impossible to live by.



But the law itself was not carried out in that instance. God stated that a woman guilty of adultery should be killed. Jesus made killing the woman impossible, and therefore prevented the law from being fulfilled. I am just trying to understand how the law can be fulfilled and not fulfilled at the same time.

If Jesus didn't change any aspect of the law then why do we not still kill people for adultery now? If god had said "if a woman is guilty of adultery deal harshly with her" then I would assume that the choice of punishment was up to mankind, but he stated that the punishment should be death.

Can someone point me in the direction of the bit of the bible that says we shouldn't kill people for the crimes that were punishable by death in the OT?

I have a hard time imagining god - this superior being who knows all - not knowing that his creation would not follow his law. In fact, I've read on this forum, some Christians post that he never intended man to follow it, and actually intended for man to fail and need forgiveness. If that's the case, and he knew man would fail, and wanted it, why would he need to change when man could not follow it?

Read what I wrote again. There is a difference between the intent of the law and the application.

The Megan's Law example is exactly the difference.

Why did God give us the laws in the first place? The laws were designed to protect people. It the law gets corrupted by the application of the law then its no longer the same law.

No, I am not saying God is changing to appeal to man. I am saying that God is establishing precedents for each and any excuse that man may try to use to avoid taking responsibility in the end. When we stand before God in the end and He begins to judge, there will be those who will come to Him and say, "If the world had been perfect, and if I'd been perfectly healthy and lived in an environment made specifically for me and if you had been there for me to see and talk to I would NEVER have chosen to disobey, it's your fault that I'm in the position I'm in!" He will point to Adam and Eve and say, "The evidence does not support your case. I walked with them every evening. I made them perfect, I placed them in a Garden made specifically for them, I only gave them one command... and they still managed to choose to do what they would. Sorry, next case." Others will come up and say, "You don't know what it's like to be human, to be hurt, to have people look down on you, to have your friends getting drunk around you, to be hungry, to be tired, to have all these temptations around you." He will point to Jesus and say, "The evidence does not support your case. I lived as a man, I was hungry, tired, tempted by Satan himself, I was spit on, beaten, and died in a humiliating way. Sorry, next case." Who knows, there may actually be those who will stand before Him and actually say, "I chose not to believe in you, I wanted to be and do what I willed, and I now deserve to suffer eternal separation from you."

Iams,

If Jesus was as aware and enlightened as you would claim he was(is?) then why would he consider himself humiliated to have been spitten on and beaten?

That would be me if there is a God.


hyper he didn't say it was humiliating to be beaten and spit on, he said he died in a humiliating way


humiliating
adj : causing awareness of your shortcomings; "golf is a humbling
game" [syn: demeaning, humbling, mortifying]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Humiliate \Hu*mil"i*ate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Humiliated; p.
pr. & vb. n. Humiliating.] [L. humiliatus, p. p. of
humiliare. See Humble.]
To reduce to a lower position in one's own eyes, or in the
eyes of others; to humble; to mortify.


God reduced his own position when Jesus died as man. God is immortal. God can not die. And so to die is to humble himself.

true,

to quote Iams:


The way I read this is that jesus fully experienced being humiliated, where what I am inquiring about is if jesus was a fully enlightened individual, than how would he have been humiliated? It is a question of "understanding from perspective". Only one that is uncertian of themselves, and thus drawing on others for their identity can be humiliated. I am curious as to how this is viewed, as the enlightened may understand what humiliation is but will not experience it. Was Jesus not enlightened?

That's what I read too.

When the bible was written the idea of "humiliation" was not the same as it means today.

Your comments are akin to comments of the thief on the cross who questions what the heck is really going on if he's really the son of God.

Hmm

Think the scene in The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe where Aslan is killed by the White Witch. Do you think ASLAN was humiliated or do you think he was humbled? Its like the way people always say "condescending" thinking it means "patronizing"

Patronizing is looking down to someone. Condescending is lowering oneself.

Its a slight but distinctly different meaning.


He died a humiliating death means what the definition stated. Not the modern decision that humiliating is like he was embarrassed or something.

Hyper, I do not believe Jesus was an enlightened being, I believe Jesus is God in the flesh, significantly more than enlightened and yet also completely human. I did not say He was humiliated I said he died in a humiliating way, in a way intended to be humiliating which is part of what crucifiction was intended to be.

Then god doesn't understand what it is to be humiliated like a human?

No he doesn't. He might understand how a person feels by way of interacting with his friends and the Apostles but he didn't lower himself to humanity for this reason.

I think He may well have known what it means to be humiliated Shadow. Think about it. The people of his neighborhood and His family all knew that He was conceived well before his parents were actually married. I'm sure there was plenty of taunting and harassing, so I think He knew what being humiliated was like.

My dictionary: condescending: to patronize

LOL

I know, that's what its come to mean but that's not what it originally meant.


Not splitting hairs just showing how the slight difference in the definition of a word can sometimes cause it to be overlooked in nuance.

I would not view Aslan's death as either humiliating or humbling.

Perhaps that will help you understand my question to IAMS better.



But who is the judge? If it is not Jesus (and thus God) that sees it as humiliating, than how can the experience of Jesus be used validly in the example you provided?



So would this imply he "grew" into his godhood? (as a human grows into enlightenment).

You may need a better dictionary.

hu·mil·i·ate (hyū-mĭl'ē-āt')
tr.v., -at·ed, -at·ing, -ates.

To lower the pride, dignity, or self-respect of. See synonyms at degrade.

[Late Latin humiliāre, humiliāt-, to humble, from humilis, humble. See humble.]

lol

That was only one of the definitions...just giving truethat a little dig.

The people of that time (and heck even the people today) viewed it as humiliating, it was intended to be a humiliating experience.


How would it imply that He grew into godhood? I believe Jesus is fully man and fully God. Yes, I know it seems like a contradiction, but we are talking about an omnipotent being, so He is able to do it.

So are the people god? Or is it god is empathic? (since he is using the perceptions of the folk of the time to "feel" what humiliation is)

The reason I ask do you think he grew into godhood is because you used a childhood experience where he supposedly would have been "un-enlightened", and thus defining himself through those around him, yet later in life he is "more than enlightened". (I know you hold an "everything and nothing"(all god all human) all at once view. I am just trying to understand it a bit better - as in what it means to you)

Frankly, I'm not sure I can answer your question because it just doesn't make sense to me.

What is your definition of "humiliating" and what is your definition of enlightened?


It seems to me that you are trying to squeeze God definitions into a human sized kleenex box and its not making too much sense.

to put it a different way, why does your god define himself through the humans of the time?

this plays to the issue of rank. is your god a god if nobody recognizes him as a god?

truthat,

to be humiliated, you have to have an ego that draws its value from the perceptions of others.

So does this god have such an ego?

Part of enlightenment is to lose the ego completely.

That's so true!!!

No to be humiliated you just have to have the capacity to be humbled. No ego necessarily needed. That's why I said that people tend to take modern interpretation of the words we use as "gospel" (excuse the pun) when its not necessarily true.




God certainly wouldn't have had his pride curtailed or destroyed. He wouldn't be meek or modest in spirit.

But his presence as a man is "To give a lower condition or station to"




Jesus wasn't EMBARRASSED he was humbled.


Here's an interesting take on it

http://www.voiceofonecrying.com/humility.htm

So according to that quote, truethat, since "jesus is god", his humility is founded on what he thinks of himself?


For the enlightened, there are no stations, everything is eqaul, so there is no humbling. So do you think jesus was enlightened (or as IAMS put it beyond enlightenment)?

I'm not sure what you are saying......there's an expression "Make your point, don't ask me to make it for you."


What are you trying to get across?

I'm trying to get across that being humble has nothing to do with what other people think of you. Its not about "thinking" its about "being." I don't know if that makes it clearer but I hope so.

How do you define HUMBLE?

Answer the questions then

I am using your definitions of humble. If jesus was enlightened (or beyond), he would have had no ego, and thus would have not been humbled by his treatment. He would not have thought higher of himself prior to the stoning and crucifiction. There would have been no humbling.

My point is, given everything you and IAMS have stated, Jesus was not enlightened.

Fine.

Now back to IAMS, since I was looking for a christian perspective on this.

I was looking for a more in depth explanation of how jesus can be humbled if he is enlightened (not the "all god, all human" version).

Further, given the added "childhood experience" scenario, do you think he was born man but matured to a godstate?

I think part of the issue here hyper is that your trying to fit Jesus/God into the "enlightened/unenlightened" format and it just doesn't work. Jesus was not an enlightened human, He is God in a human body, with all of the strengths and weaknesses that entails, and this is one of those events that just do not fit into any other kind of format. How do you define a being capable of creating everything we see around us with the complexity of subatomic reality simply by speaking it into being who decides to take a part of Himself and constrain it into the body of one of His creations?

Did he feel shame? If a human can feel it, then He felt it. Could He feel joy? The answer is again, if a human can feel it, He felt it. Was He still God when He was feeling these things? Yes, He was. How is that possible? He's an omnipotent being functioning within a reality He created, why wouldn't it be possible?

What question?

See this is why I said "Make your point don't ask me to make it for you"

Obviously you have something in mind and you are playing word games to suggest that because I can't disprove what you are thinking that means you are right.

But you haven't stated what you are thinking. Lay your cards on the table and realize that this is a discussion not a CONTEST to see who can win the secret answer.

And you haven't answered my questions at all. What do you define as "Enlightened" What do you define as "Humble"

Why haven't you answered those simple questions?


And again God would have thought of himself as "Higher" because he is HIGHER

You are using the aspiration of human enlightenment to describe God. Its a human perspective.




Not seeing anything in the definition of the word Enlightened to address what you say about Ego?

Looks......Nope, no use of the word EGO. What does EGO have to do with being enlightened?

That's why I asked you to define what you mean by Enlightened?

Because as you can see this definition is a human definition to describe something that one aspires to.

Its a Buddhist term and therefor entirely irrelevant to the conversation unless you can make clean how you are connecting the two.

Are you stating that you think Jesus and God are Buddhist?

http://buddhism.about.com/cs/bodhisattvas/a/Enlightened.htm

fair enough IAMS.

To me, it still sounds too much like a child's explanation of how his favorite superhero can do something - "he can because he is....." without giving any depth.

Perhaps your explanation of this is that your god is too far beyond your capabilities as a mere human to comprehend him fully. Fair enough.

Still, one important point that comes through is "does your god need humans (or something) to recognize him as a god?"



silly truethat, there is no right or wrong answer to this. It was simply an exploration of what IAMS perspective is.

Ok, now I am befuddled. Son, some time back you told me I was wrong for attributing human emotions to the biblical god... but now you're saying he experienced them. I don't see how the two things sit together... either he can experience them or he can't.

Glad were on the same page then.

So what was the point you were making?

"I and my Father are one..." He did not say they were one and the same. "One" is greek is neutral which should connote "unity" not identity. Eastern customs and mannerisms would undertand the thought process of seeing Jesus is seeing the Father in an authority role only, again not identity. Because Jesus had been given authority from the Father. It is sort of like when the Judges of Isreal were called "gods". It depicts their authority not deity by any means. This concept is threaded into modern history with the term "lord". To call or refer to someone as "Lord" is speaking to their position of authority, not deity.