Did Jesus say he was God???

[Ballpean]

I have been asked to produce evidence of the divinity of Jesus. This is not just good evidence, it is overwhelming evidence.


Words of Jesus

John 14:9 ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
John 14:10 ... the words that I say unto you , I speak not from myself but from the Father abiding in Me doeth His works
John 14:11 ... I am in the Father and the Father in Me
John 10:30 I and My Father are one
John 10:33 ... thou being a man makest Thyself God
John 8:58 Jesus said ... before Abraham was born, Jah (Jah is the short form of Jeshovah)
John 8:59 They took up stones therefore to cast at Him
Mark 2:5 and Jesus seeing their faith saith ... thy sins are forgiven
Mark 2:7 ... who can forgive sins but one, even God
Mark 10:17 ... good teacher Mark 10:18 Why callest Me good? None is good save one, even God John 10:11 I am the good shepherd
Mat. 1:21 ... call his name Jesus; for it is He that shall save his people from their sins
Prophecies of the Messiah Jesus
Isa. 45:21 ... I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides Me a just God and savior, there is none besides Me
Isa. 7:14 ... a sign: behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel (God with us)
Isa 9:6 a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called: Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Attributes of God
Omnipresence
John 1:46 Nathaniel saith unto Him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
John 1:49 Nathaniel answered him, Rabbi thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
John 1:50 Jesus answered ... thou shalt see greater things than these
Omniscience
Luke 6:8 ...the Pharisees watched Him ... that they might find how to accuse him but He knew their thoughts
John 4:17 ... Thou sayest well, I have no husband
John 4:18 for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband
Omnipotence
Mark 4:41 ... Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?

(He turned water into wine, multiplied bread, healed the sick and the blind, raised a man who was dead for four days)
Authority
Luke 4:36 ... for with authority and power He commandeth the unclean spirits and they come out
Mat 7:29 for He taught them as one having authority
Mat 28:18 ... Jesus ...spake... saying, all authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth
The "I am" statements of Jesus
John 8:12 ... I am the light of the world
John 14:6 ... I am the way, the truth and the life
John 6:35 ... I am the bread of life
John 10:9 I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved
John 11:25 ... I am the resurrection and the life
John 15:1 I am the true vine (this is a reference to Jesus being the Paraclete)

They are at one in purpose and compassion. I thinkthere is God in love. If you love someone like a father, or brother/sister etc... you absorb the deity of God in sharing that compassion. You become God, or God-like in your compassion for someone.

Jesus is the deliverance of God's fatherly/brotherly love for mankind by giving us the deity of Christ so that we may learn of his supernatural compassion and guidance to aid us in living life eternally beyond death and into the next life cleansed of sin,and fully enlightened.

 

[look3467]

I think you're the only one who understands what you mean by that.

So once again, if the Devil agrees that Yashua is the "Son of G-d", does that mean you disbelieve it?

(PS "Son of G-d" is a title used for Angels in Job 2.)

The whole issue is about those 3 underline words.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Those underlined words is the whole of this worlds fleshly existence.

Born into this world we become servants to: by desire, as food for our fleshly wants.

That is what the devil was trying to affirm of which Jesus was trying to conquer.

You see, Jesus being of the same stock (Human flesh as Adam) had to in the flesh not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the first Adam did.

Ref:Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

There you have the contrast. One giveth the other taketh away.

The one (Jesus)taketh away can not participate as did the first one,(First Adam) so the devil is establishing that fact by posing the question to Jesus of which Jesus, in the power of God, denies the participation, thus being obedient where the first one was not.

Are you beginning to see the picture?

The devil is an agent of God, the op-poser, the adversary.

Without him, there would be no definition to what is good.

So, as an agent of God, the devil is obedient to confirm Jesus as the Son of God by posing the question, "Turn these stones into bread.

If Jesus had wanted/desired to prove to the world and the devil His relationship with God as God, then He would have failed.

The proof that He was God was in His denial.

Only God Himself could create a living soul, and only God Himself can save the living soul.

The living soul has no power other than what the creator allows.

So, Jesus never said He was God for if He did, the whole process of His coming would have be for naught.

He alluded to it by many references to which He was accused of blasphemy for what they believed He was making Himself being equal to God.

You see what I am seeing? It is not as man sees but as God sees.

What a man sees is without faith in God. What God sees is His love for His creation regardless of who or what we are.

When we are able to see it that way, our perspective changes to one where we'll find the reason why Jesus would say, "Love your enemies, do good to them that dis-spitefully use you".

Not to see Jesus as God is to see Jesus as just one of us with no power to do anything but what we are selves can do.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

This means nothing to me. Neutral means just that. I'm strictly arguing on the grounds of theology. I don't have to take sides nor do I have to be a believer in any particular religion (i.e. Christianity, Judaism or Islam) in order to debate biblical subjects.>>>Dirty Penguin

In order to win debating any issue means the side you stand on, you must argue it with passion. (Meaning be well informed)
So, in neutrality, there is no leg to stand on, therefore no win.(No anchor)

As a Christian, I stand on a solid foundation of beliefs as my arguing points, be it real or not, I do stand.

I do take sides, and I argue from that position.

That's the way I look at it and have no problem people believing different.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Ballpen

I agree with your selection of verses.

But you see, mankind cannot see as God sees until the spirit of God is in them.

The whole purpose of Jesus' mission was in re-birthing of the human spirit.

Until that happens, you will continue to see and hear of people believing that Jesus was just another prophet and not the Son of God.

That view is nothing new, for the very people who should have accepted Him rejected Him, but not without reason, which is the issue that is not seen.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Dirty Penguin]

By the way D. Penguin please note the following commentary!

"God is the author of the Scriptures which He has given through human agencies"

And this person knows this how? I don't believe this to be true. We have no originals of the scriptures. All that exist are copies of copies of copies. We all have our interpretation of scripture which is evident by the length of this thread.

Anyway, D. Penguin, as far as Christians are concerned (conservative ones) a person cannot properly interpret Scripture unless he is a believer.

And they're wrong. Shucks, not even christians, EVEN conservative ones agree totally on the interpretations they hold in regards to scripture and it's obvious chistiandom disagrees considering the many, many denominations. And for the record there are plenty of non-christian biblical scholars in the field.

As the Catholic readers of this response may note, Origin and Philo are swear words to the Fundamentalist.

Your point...?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In order to win debating any issue means the side you stand on, you must argue it with passion. (Meaning be well informed)

And neutrality does not mean one is not well informed. Take a judge in a court of law. He or she is well informed on the case at hand given the current evidence presented. That judge will then have to enter a verdict. We require the judge to be neutral, impartial and unbiased in order to render judgment effectively. I'm neither a catholic nor a protestant and I judge the content and the historocity of your scriptures accordingly.

So, in neutrality, there is no leg to stand on, therefore no win.(No anchor)

See above. Additionally, you have me confused with others here . I seek neither wins and losses. I see debate in an effort to share and receive information. Just because I have shown Yeshua not to be "God", as he showed in your scripture, does not mean I have "won". Ultimately you will continue to believe he is regardless what I say.

As a Christian, I stand on a solid foundation of beliefs as my arguing points, be it real or not, I do stand.

And as a non believer I stand firm on mine.

I do take sides, and I argue from that position.

I don't. I have no problem debating scripture or dating the existence of aliens. I'm not arguing on the grounds of belief. I'm debating on the grounds of evidence.

 

[Jacksnyte]

So, as an agent of God, the devil is obedient to confirm Jesus as the Son of God by posing the question, "Turn these stones into bread.

If Jesus had wanted/desired to prove to the world and the devil His relationship with God as God, then He would have failed.

The problem with examples like this is that no one actually witnessed these events. Jesus was supposedly alone in the desert, and there is no record of him ever relating the story of these events to anyone, so what validates this story other than a group of men arbitrarily deciding it is truth, regardless of there being nothing with which to corroborate it?

 

[Firstborner]

Yes, read the works of the early Christians.

No. Read the works of the earlier Christians.

 

[Falcon]

No ! Read the works of the earliest Christians from the Book of Acts 2: 42... Doctrine , breaking of [ Blessed /Sacred] Bread , unbroken succession , only found in Christ's Apostolic Church, certainly not in your temple, church or hall.

 

[Protester]

I have been asked to produce evidence of the divinity of Jesus. This is not just good evidence, it is overwhelming evidence.


Words of Jesus

John 14:9 ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
John 14:10 ... the words that I say unto you , I speak not from myself but from the Father abiding in Me doeth His works
John 14:11 ... I am in the Father and the Father in Me
John 10:30 I and My Father are one
John 10:33 ... thou being a man makest Thyself God
John 8:58 Jesus said ... before Abraham was born, Jah (Jah is the short form of Jeshovah)
John 8:59 They took up stones therefore to cast at Him
Mark 2:5 and Jesus seeing their faith saith ... thy sins are forgiven
Mark 2:7 ... who can forgive sins but one, even God
Mark 10:17 ... good teacher Mark 10:18 Why callest Me good? None is good save one, even God John 10:11 I am the good shepherd
Mat. 1:21 ... call his name Jesus; for it is He that shall save his people from their sins
Prophecies of the Messiah Jesus
Isa. 45:21 ... I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides Me a just God and savior, there is none besides Me
Isa. 7:14 ... a sign: behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel (God with us)
Isa 9:6 a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called: Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Attributes of God
Omnipresence
John 1:46 Nathaniel saith unto Him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
John 1:49 Nathaniel answered him, Rabbi thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
John 1:50 Jesus answered ... thou shalt see greater things than these
Omniscience
Luke 6:8 ...the Pharisees watched Him ... that they might find how to accuse him but He knew their thoughts
John 4:17 ... Thou sayest well, I have no husband
John 4:18 for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband
Omnipotence
Mark 4:41 ... Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?

(He turned water into wine, multiplied bread, healed the sick and the blind, raised a man who was dead for four days)
Authority
Luke 4:36 ... for with authority and power He commandeth the unclean spirits and they come out
Mat 7:29 for He taught them as one having authority
Mat 28:18 ... Jesus ...spake... saying, all authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth
The "I am" statements of Jesus
John 8:12 ... I am the light of the world
John 14:6 ... I am the way, the truth and the life
John 6:35 ... I am the bread of life
John 10:9 I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved
John 11:25 ... I am the resurrection and the life
John 15:1 I am the true vine (this is a reference to Jesus being the Paraclete)

Terrywoodenpic,I see your problem. I remember seeing the Canon of the second largest Anglican church on t.v. describe what Anglicans believe. They believe in Church tradition, human reason, oh and the Bible. If you put those other two items in your belief system, you don't end up with the Bible. The Bible contradicts many the Anglican and many of the positions of the largest churches--and the mainline churches as well. The conservative Lutherans and others found this syncretic practice to be destructive, and worked at getting rid of it. Other churches through the years or even centuries have just gotten worse and worse because of syncretism (putting new wine into old wine skins), until it's embarrassing --and totally wrong-- to include the word "Christian" in the same sentence in a description of these churches. So, many an atheist has sprung from the Anglican or in the case Antony Flew and off-shoot of the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church. One should read his obituary, Professor Antony Flew, Philosopher in The Times (London) Sunday Times. Being English (Terrywoodenpic) you had a very good chance of hearing of him, Pity, he never came full circle and to become a Christian.

Some people, with God's choosing, can overcome the syncretic churches they were raised in and become Christian we of course can only hope that fellows like you are so blessed and realize it.

Albert Barnes one of the most popular American New Testament Commentators of the 19th century (no his commentaries are certainly not perfect, an I believe he was brought up for heresy twice in the Presbyterian church, though not found guilty each time, though perhaps he was, in Calvinist eyes) he really comes up many times with insightful material.

Matthew 11
28“Come to me, all you who labor and are heavily burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”"

Barnes Commentary

Matthew 11:30:
Verse 30. My yoke is easy, etc. That is, the services that I shall require are easily rendered. They are not burdensome, like all other systems of religion. So the Christian always finds them. In coming to him, there is a peace which passeth all understanding; in believing in him, joy; in following him through evil and good report, a comfort which the world giveth not; in bearing trials, and in persecution, the hope of glory; and in keeping his commandments, great reward.

(g) "my yoke is easy" 1Jn 5:3

REMARKS ON MATTHEW CHAPTER 11

(1.) Anxiety about the person and works of Christ is peculiarly proper, Mt 11:2,3. John was solicitous to ascertain his true character; and nothing is of more importance for all, than to understand his true character and will. On him depends all the hope that man has of happiness beyond the grave. He saves, or man must perish. He will save, or we must die for ever. With what earnestness, therefore, should the old and the young inquire into his character and will! Our eternal all demands it; and while this is delayed, we are endangering our everlasting felicity.

(2.) Clear proof has been furnished that Jesus is the Christ, and can save us, Mt 11:4,5. If his miracles did not prove that he came from God, nothing can prove it. If he could open the eyes of the blind, then he can enlighten the sinner; if he could unstop the ears of the deaf, then he can cause us to hear and live; if he could heal the sick, and make the lame walk, then he can heal our spiritual maladies, and make us walk in the way of life; if he could raise the dead, then he can raise those dead in sin, and breathe into us the breath of eternal life. If he was willing to do all this for the body, which is soon to die, then he will be much more willing to do it for the soul, that never dies. Then the poor lost sinner may come and live.
....
(4.) The wicked take much pains, and are often fickle and inconsistent, for the sake of abusing and calumniating religious men, Mt 11:18,19. They found much fault with our Saviour for doing the very same thing which they blamed John for not doing. So it is commonly with men who slander professors of religion. They risk their own characters to prove that others are hypocrites, or sinners. The object is not truth, but calumny, and opposition to religion; and hitherto no means have been too base, or too wicked, to pour contempt on the followers of Christ.

(5.) The purest characters may expect the shaft of calumny and malice; and often in proportion to their purity, Mt 11:19. Even the Saviour of the world was accused of being intemperate, and a glutton. If the only perfectly pure Being that ever trod the earth was thus accused, let not his followers think that any strange thing has happened to them, if they are falsely accused.
....
(8.) The poor and needy; the weary and heavy laden; the soul sick of sin and the world, conscious of guilt, and afraid to die, may come to Jesus Christ, and live, Mt 11:28-30. The invitation is wide as the world. The child and the old man may seek and find salvation at the feet of the same Saviour. No age is too young; no sinner is too old. Christ is full of mercy, and all who come shall find peace. Oh, how should we, in this sinful and miserable world, borne down with sin, and exposed each moment to death, how should we come and find the peace which he has promised to all! and take the yoke which all have found to be light!

We are to give reasons for our beliefs, but we can never expect reason is going to get a person to believe in Christ or God for that matter.

 

[Firstborner]

Yeah, look up the "Comma Johnanum", you will see that 1 John 5:7 was deliberately changed for the Latin and this only was accounted for in the Greek copies much much later. I'm assuming your Church or Pastor is King Jamse only-ist and never bothered to discuss this issue.

And the ironic thing about 2 Tim is that it's a pseudipgraph to begin with!

The Comma was dropped for a time and then reinserted at a later time because there was convincing evidence it had been purposely excluded when it was present from the beginning. We have no texts earlier than the 4th century that would include this verse, but it was quoted in the second century.

No Church schlar any longer accepts its authenticity. [ Johannine Comma ] . But even though the "Comma "is not a biblical passage it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the [ early ] Christians was fully Trinitarian.

The comma is scripture, there are sufficient grounds for accepting it's authenticity. None of the early Church writers who used it though gave it a sense that it is used now. Trinitarians in the 4th and 5th centuries did not use the verse as a proof text because they were very aware that was not it's meaning. It simply means they are in agreement, much like all the members of the Church of Christ who are still separate individuals.

 

[Firstborner]

No ! Read the works of the earliest Christians from the Book of Acts 2: 42... Doctrine , breaking of [ Blessed /Sacred] Bread , unbroken succession , only found in Christ's Apostolic Church, certainly not in your temple, church or hall.

How did you arrive to all that from Acts 2:42?

How do you know it's (whatever it is) is not found in my church?

 

[Shermana]

The Comma was dropped for a time and then reinserted at a later time because there was convincing evidence it had been purposely excluded when it was present from the beginning. We have no texts earlier than the 4th century that would include this verse, but it was quoted in the second century.



The comma is scripture, there are sufficient grounds for accepting it's authenticity. None of the early Church writers who used it though gave it a sense that it is used now. Trinitarians in the 4th and 5th centuries did not use the verse as a proof text because they were very aware that was not it's meaning. It simply means they are in agreement, much like all the members of the Church of Christ who are still separate individuals.

We have texts from the 4th century that include the verse? It was quoted in the 2nd century? By all means, show a link! Wow, if only I was allowed to say "There are sufficient grounds for accepting it as authentic" and stuff without showing any proof, that would make things much easier.

What's sufficient is that it may have been added in the 4th century in the Latin first. Jerome may have been in on it. The text you think of from the 2nd century which I'm guessing you're drawing from does not at all include it word for word.

 

[Shermana]

Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of the comma in the centuries following the Textus Receptus has been one of initial acceptance followed by near-total rejection. This history is summed up in the Introduction to the 1808 New Testament in an improved version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, which did not contain the Comma Johanneum, where the editors explained their reasons for rejecting the Textus Receptus as follows: "1. This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manuscript earlier than the ninth century. 3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after this text 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged. 7. It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omitted by Luther in his German version. In the old English Bibles of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets: but between the years 1566 and 1580 it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose authority, is not known."[20] The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, an edition of the King James Version published in 1873, and edited by noted textual scholar F.H.A. Scrivener, one of the translators of the English Revised Version, set the Comma in italics to reflect its disputed authenticity, though not all later editions retain this formatting. Modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.[21]

"The silence of the great and voluminous Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses

The first work to quote the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the 4th century Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius. Wallace notes:

"Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text."[7]
​

This may be in fact where it comes from:

The earliest reference to what might be the Comma appears by the 3rd-century Church father Cyprian (died 258), who in Treatise I section 6[6] quoted John 10:30 against heretics who denied the Trinity and added: "Again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[4][7] Daniel B. Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text—"written that". In noting this, Wallace is following the current standard critical editions of the New Testament (NA27 and UBS4) which consider Cyprian a witness against the Comma. They would not do this were they to think him to have quoted it.

i.e. saying "These three are one" in reference to what was not originally written OF the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" model that was becoming popular to interpolate at the time, it may be related to Matthew 28:19's forgery as well.

 

[Muffled]

So the Devil was testing Jesus to see if He was G-d, because no man, not even the Jewish Christ as he is written to be as a man, could possibly resist. The only way possible to refuse to bow down to the Devil in exchange for worldly power could be by being G-d himself, no one else possible.

That is the first time I've heard that one, got a link to back your claim that this says Jesus was being tested to see if he was G-d rather than to simply tempt him as a man?

The devil knows that he can't tempt God. However he thinks that God in the flesh would be more susceptible.

 

[Nemo Hawkins]

Yes but he isnt referred to as "The son" , he is referred to as "The son of God".

YER THAT the son of god not the son

also how can u be 100% of to things?

 

[Muffled]

What Shermana said.

And I also have to add this...I've given you the correct understanding of your bible plenty of times. No, Yeshua is not "God". It wasn't something he taught his followers. They thought he was the son, servant or and/or ambassador sent from "God". The devil did not think Yeshua was "God". Nowhere in the 4 gospels do any of the verses reveal Yeshua as such nor is it in the book of Revelation. You've shown yourself to have a great lack of knowledge of your scripture and the history surrounding them.

You are incorrect. You do not present a correct understanding of the Bible. Private interpretation is misrepresented by by my conservative brother but it is apt to apply to your conclusions. By what spirit did your understanding form. My understanding flowed from the Holy Spirit and for that reason it is correct because it comes from God. However even without that your position is defenseless.

 

[Muffled]

Penguin, where did you get your authority to say that you have the correct interpretation? Please show me Book, Chapter and Verse , where it says that any individual is correct "by private interpretation ' .I'll be waiting for your unBiblical answer !

You are incorrect in a way about private interpretation as referring to an individual. Much of our Bible comes by that type of "private intrpetation."

However it is correct to believe that two people claiming that their understanding is from the Holy Spirit and haveing opposite understandings usually means that one person is wrong about hearing from the Holy Spirit. Those in authority don't necessarily hear from the Holy Spirit. Numbers do not help. There is the story of the prophets of Baal advising the Israeli King to go to war but the prophet of God had the opposite. Those with the larger numbers were wrong because they weren't hearing from God.

 

[Muffled]

They are at one in purpose and compassion. I thinkthere is God in love. If you love someone like a father, or brother/sister etc... you absorb the deity of God in sharing that compassion. You become God, or God-like in your compassion for someone.

Jesus is the deliverance of God's fatherly/brotherly love for mankind by giving us the deity of Christ so that we may learn of his supernatural compassion and guidance to aid us in living life eternally beyond death and into the next life cleansed of sin,and fully enlightened.

That is quite obviously not the case according to scripture. Love of family is Philos. The love of God is Agape. The former is an imperfect love; the latter a perfect love.

 

[Shermana]

You are incorrect. You do not present a correct understanding of the Bible. Private interpretation is misrepresented by by my conservative brother but it is apt to apply to your conclusions. By what spirit did your understanding form. My understanding flowed from the Holy Spirit and for that reason it is correct because it comes from God. However even without that your position is defenseless.

I call Shenanigans, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by using it as the base of your argument and lying about it. I know for a fact you did not get your interpretation from the Holy Spirit, and I risk blaspheming it by calling you out if such an accusation is wrong, which its not. One of us is blaspheming it. For the sake of your soul I highly recommend you repent of using the "Holy Spirit" defense as your justification instead of logically resolving the problems. I can promise as sure as G-d lives that G-d did not give you the interpretation you claim to have, and that he does not approve of you claiming your answer comes from the Spirit. It appears that you consider any differing interpretation from your own to be "Private" and thus yours isn't private because you think you have been Supernaturally blessed. I can tell you now, when Peter said "be ready to have an answer" he didn't mean "Tell them that the Spirit told you!"

I know for a fact you did not get your answer from G-d, and I will risk his wrath if I'm wrong, which I know I'm not.