Of course it did.
That's not the subject of debate.
The issue here is only your personal religious belief that Jesus' words were somehow tantamount to claiming "equality" with God.
That word "equality" is not in the Bible -- it is your personal construct, and that of likeminded believers.
I would only suggest there may be other ways to interpret the words.
Of course it did. That’s not the subject of debate.
***That’s precisely the subject of the debate.
The issue here is only your personal religious belief that Jesus’ words were somehow tantamount to claiming “equality” with God.
***That is not a religious belief. It is a historical observation. Historians don’t have a problem with it, but apparently you do. And to think, you were the one who went out of his way to point out the differences between religious faith and history. You can’t even tell the difference yourself.
That word “equality” is not in the Bible — it is your personal construct, and that of likeminded believers.
***Neither is the word “Trinity”. That’s a worn out old argument. It is NOT my personal construct, it is acknowledged by the vast majority of historians. If you were the history buff you claimed, you’d know this to be the case.
I would only suggest there may be other ways to interpret the words.
***There was only one way: to tear one’s clothes in crying out blasphemy, or, as the bible records, to pick up stones to kill the man or throw him off a cliff. If there is such another way to interpret Jesus’s words, why didn’t he correct the supposed misinterpretation? It would be a hellofa lot easier than dying & being resurrected. Your suggestion and your other correspondence here shows you to be a pisspoor historian.