Keeping the commandments and LDS theology

[Theo1689]

This is most certainly true...I was on the JW and CATH boards for 4 years each, back in the 2000's. And what you say is true, though I did not see Catholics quote them that much. Mormons seem to quote them the most.

I was on the Catholic board for a number of years, but most of my knowledge of them come from James White's debates. For about 10-12 years James was in the "Great Debate" series in Long Island, NY, and every year he would debate a Catholic apologist on a particular topic. He debated Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, Mitch Pacwa (easily the most polite debater), Art Sippo (easily the rudest), Gary Michuta, and Peter Stravinskas.

Gerry often had a book called "Jurgens", which is basically an ECF quote book, categorized by doctrine, that he would quote from, demonstrating that he didn't even know the sources of the quotes he was quoting.

The typical line they liked to give is, "This has been the 2000-year-old constant teaching of the church. There's one debate with Matatics where he was defending a teaching about Mary (I forget which), and James asked him for a Father who taught it in the first century. "Mr. White, I don't have to give you quotes from every century". Okay, how about the second century? "Again, I don't have to give you quotes from every century." How about the third century, then? "Mr. White, I don't have to give you quotes from every ECF who ever taught the doctrine." To that James replied, "I'll settle for just ONE!", and the entire audience (made up of Protestants and Catholics) roared with laughter.

 

[brotherofJared]

Have you forgotten that Jesus is BOTH 100% God and 100% man?

Have you forgotten that according to god those other gods are gods? Can a god be anything other than 100% god? If these gods were going to die like men, then wouldn't they also need to be 100% man as well? It is apparent that none of those gods had life in themself. At least, we can't see that they did from the text. But we can see that God called them gods

Did Jesus' God nature die, when Jesus died on the cross?

And will our nature die? What do you think drives the nature of man? Do you think that flesh, dust of the ground, has nature? Well, you might, but I believe the character of man existed before they were born. I can see that in my own children and in other people's children. Children from the same family have their own character that could not possibly be taught or formed out of their chemical and material makeup.

 

[brotherofJared]

Sorry, but "besides me" doesn't mean "next to me" or "compared to me."

LOL. I've just demonstrated that it means that there are others, they just aren't equal to me. You can ignore it all you want, but it's still there.

In fact, He flatly denies this, saying "apart from Me, THERE IS NO GOD.

TO US, that is true. But throughout the Bible, it specifically mentioned the existence of other gods. Ps 82 is a great example.

What part of "NO GOD" do you not understand?

What part of the rest of the Bible do you not understand?

The tone of the Psalm is both heavenly and earthly

The tone of the psalm is that the council took place in heaven.

since true gods would not judge unjustly, nor favor the wicked.

That's not my argument. I've never said they were true gods. The text doesn't suggest that they are. But it does specifically say that God said they are gods.

And we know it is earthly as well, because it exhorts these "gods" to uphold the fatherless and helpless. And there were fatherless and weak people in Israel when Asaph wrote this Psalm. Also, it could not have happened BEFORE the earth was formed, because it says "all the foundations of the EARTH ARE shaken." EARTH--which you said hadn't been formed yet. And it says "ARE" SHAKEN. Present tense.

Oh. no doubt that the earth is involved, but that doesn't address WHERE THE COUNCIL TOOK PLACE.

I never said that the "gods" in Ps. 82 are going to be humans.

I don't believe I ever said that you said that.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the argument. Angels can't die. Gods can't die. If the council took place in heaven, they weren't mortals and they weren't humans that could die. You at least concede that men do die, it seems, logically, that those beings became human and that they died. Just like God did who was also in that council in heaven. He became human and died. Those other gods, as logic dictates based on my argument that the council took place in heaven, also became human and died. You would have to prove or provide some kind of evidence that the council took place on earth, in mortality and you can't, not from the Bible and certainly not from any extra-biblical source.

 

[The Prophet]

LOL. I've just demonstrated that it means that there are others, they just aren't equal to me. You can ignore it all you want, but it's still there.

TO US, that is true. But throughout the Bible, it specifically mentioned the existence of other gods. Ps 82 is a great example.

What part of the rest of the Bible do you not understand?

The tone of the psalm is that the council took place in heaven.

That's not my argument. I've never said they were true gods. The text doesn't suggest that they are. But it does specifically say that God said they are gods.

Oh. no doubt that the earth is involved, but that doesn't address WHERE THE COUNCIL TOOK PLACE.

I don't believe I ever said that you said that.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the argument. Angels can't die. Gods can't die. If the council took place in heaven, they weren't mortals and they weren't humans that could die. You at least concede that men do die, it seems, logically, that those beings became human and that they died. Just like God did who was also in that council in heaven. He became human and died. Those other gods, as logic dictates based on my argument that the council took place in heaven, also became human and died. You would have to prove or provide some kind of evidence that the council took place on earth, in mortality and you can't, not from the Bible and certainly not from any extra-biblical source.

 

[Theo1689]

Have you forgotten that according to god those other gods are gods? Can a god be anything other than 100% god? If these gods were going to die like men, then wouldn't they also need to be 100% man as well? It is apparent that none of those gods had life in themself. At least, we can't see that they did from the text. But we can see that God called them gods

But WHY did he "call" them gods?
For the same reason Paul referred to idols ("who are nothing in this world") as "so-called" gods?

It amazes me that you refuse to accept that the Psalmist could be using the term symbolically, or metaphorically, and you DEMAND that it is being used "literally", when there are TONS of examples of the Bible where terms are used merely figuratively:
"Hate you father and mother..."
"Take up your cross and follow me...."
"I am the door..."
"I am the vine, you are the branches..."


It also amazes me that you will literally spend HUNDREDS of hours trying to defend a SINGLE interpretation of Ps. 82:6, but summarily ignore all the other passages, even though your argument (eg. "beside") is shown to be false.

 

[The Prophet]

Mormon Canon clearly says impossible for more than ONE GOD ​

 

[Theo1689]

Hey. Theo, Matt debated with a Mormon named Larry about the existence of other gods/Gods out there, and Larry fell back on Ps. 82, while ignoring the rest of the Biblical witness...and he also refused to answer Matt's simple answer about how God knows of NO OTHER GODS, so how could the "gods" in Ps. 82 be real, true Gods? It is a fun read:

Mormonism and the council of gods

This dialogue is the second one with Matt Slick and the Mormon named "Larry." Larry tries to defend the idea of Mormon polytheism.

carm.org

In fact, this might make an interesting and entertaining OP, with quoting the whole thing, though it would need to be broken up into several posts. But do notice the same deflection, the same tap-dancing around, to get out of answering a simple question about Is. 44, in light of Ps. 82.



Matt's response is brilliant. I wish I had thought of it!

Like I said, the Mormons simply run off of a script, and when you take them off it, they flounder.

They're also more interested in "damage control", and trying to prevent current Mo's from leaving the church. And fortunately they don't know any Hebrew or Greek, so when the Mopologist says, " 'beside' simply means alongside of", they buy into it.

Different languages have different semantic ranges. And they're not transferrable.

So for instance, the English word "can" may mean:
- "ability" ("Emily can sew");
- "permission" ("Tom can go to the washroom");
- a metal food receptacle ("hand me a can of tuna");
- (informal) a toilet ("I gotta go to the can");
- (informal) termination from employment; ("my boss canned me for being late.");
- (informal) prison ("I got sent to the can");

There is no comparable Greek word, or French word, or Italian word, or Hebrew word, that is going to have that same semantic range. Each denotation will have its own unique word in the target language.

So when someone translates a text from (say) French, and in English it becomes, "He brought me a can of tuna", you can't simply argue, "well, 'can' also means toilet, so that's what it means here."

Yet that is PRECISELY what they do with "beside".
The underlying HEBREW term means "other than", or "except", and it does NOT mean, "proximally alongside".

 

[Bonnie]

I was on the Catholic board for a number of years, but most of my knowledge of them come from James White's debates. For about 10-12 years James was in the "Great Debate" series in Long Island, NY, and every year he would debate a Catholic apologist on a particular topic. He debated Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, Mitch Pacwa (easily the most polite debater), Art Sippo (easily the rudest), Gary Michuta, and Peter Stravinskas.

Gerry often had a book called "Jurgens", which is basically an ECF quote book, categorized by doctrine, that he would quote from, demonstrating that he didn't even know the sources of the quotes he was quoting.

The typical line they liked to give is, "This has been the 2000-year-old constant teaching of the church. There's one debate with Matatics where he was defending a teaching about Mary (I forget which), and James asked him for a Father who taught it in the first century. "Mr. White, I don't have to give you quotes from every century". Okay, how about the second century? "Again, I don't have to give you quotes from every century." How about the third century, then? "Mr. White, I don't have to give you quotes from every ECF who ever taught the doctrine." To that James replied, "I'll settle for just ONE!", and the entire audience (made up of Protestants and Catholics) roared with laughter.

Good story. So ,I take it Gerry didn't even find ONE quote about that doctrine about Mary....?

 

[Bonnie]

Like I said, the Mormons simply run off of a script, and when you take them off it, they flounder.

They're also more interested in "damage control", and trying to prevent current Mo's from leaving the church. And fortunately they don't know any Hebrew or Greek, so when the Mopologist says, " 'beside' simply means alongside of", they buy into it.

Different languages have different semantic ranges. And they're not transferrable.

So for instance, the English word "can" may mean:
- "ability" ("Emily can sew");
- "permission" ("Tom can go to the washroom");
- a metal food receptacle ("hand me a can of tuna");
- (informal) a toilet ("I gotta go to the can");
- (informal) termination from employment; ("my boss canned me for being late.");
- (informal) prison ("I got sent to the can");

There is no comparable Greek word, or French word, or Italian word, or Hebrew word, that is going to have that same semantic range. Each denotation will have its own unique word in the target language.

So when someone translates a text from (say) French, and in English it becomes, "He brought me a can of tuna", you can't simply argue, "well, 'can' also means toilet, so that's what it means here."

Yet that is PRECISELY what they do with "beside".
The underlying HEBREW term means "other than", or "except", and it does NOT mean, "proximally alongside".

Again, good post, though I think you mean "besideS" in the second to last sentence, not "beside." There is a lot of difference between the two words, adding the little "s" at the end, isn't there?

 

[Bonnie]

LOL. I've just demonstrated that it means that there are others, they just aren't equal to me. You can ignore it all you want, but it's still there.

TO US, that is true. But throughout the Bible, it specifically mentioned the existence of other gods. Ps 82 is a great example.

What part of the rest of the Bible do you not understand?

The tone of the psalm is that the council took place in heaven.

That's not my argument. I've never said they were true gods. The text doesn't suggest that they are. But it does specifically say that God said they are gods.

Oh. no doubt that the earth is involved, but that doesn't address WHERE THE COUNCIL TOOK PLACE.

I don't believe I ever said that you said that.

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the argument. Angels can't die. Gods can't die. If the council took place in heaven, they weren't mortals and they weren't humans that could die. You at least concede that men do die, it seems, logically, that those beings became human and that they died. Just like God did who was also in that council in heaven. He became human and died. Those other gods, as logic dictates based on my argument that the council took place in heaven, also became human and died. You would have to prove or provide some kind of evidence that the council took place on earth, in mortality and you can't, not from the Bible and certainly not from any extra-biblical source.

You demonstrated nothing, boJ. "BesideS" in this context does NOT mean "alongside of me." It means "except, apart from." Does it make sense for God to say "Alongside of me, there are no gods"? Do you think God is saying the other gods went on vacation or something, and just were not physically standing next to God at that time?

The Bible mentions the existence of FALSE GODS, and "so-called gods." But repeatedly says there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. That NO God came before Him and none will be formed after Him. God Himself in Is. 44 says He knows of NO other God. I believe God...why don't YOU?

Yes, I do understand the argument quite well--I just reject your misinterpretation of the Psalm as seen through Mormon pagan polytheism. Angels can't die, that is true. But these could be the "divine council" in heaven, that God was "standing" in the midst of, while both God and the holy angels LOOKED TO EARTH and saw the corruption of earthly rulers there, especially in God's own, anointed people, the Israelites. Couldn't they? It does NOT necessarily mean that those who are being judged are in heaven WITH GOD.

Remember this from Isaiah 3?

The Lord takes his place in COURT;
he rises to judge the people.
14 The Lord enters into judgment
against the elders and leaders of his people:
“It is you who have ruined my vineyard;
the plunder from the poor is in your houses.
15 What do you mean by crushing my people
and grinding the faces of the poor?”
declares the Lord, the Lord Almighty.

Where is this "court"? Where is God "rising" FROM?

However, God isn't judging the angels, but the corrupt human rulers everywhere and especially in His own covenant nation, Israel, who are supposed to rule with justice but instead, favor the wicked and render UNjust judgments.

 

[brotherofJared]

But Jesus Christ was never an angel; prior to His Incarnation, He was the eternal Word of God Who was God. NOT a created angel.

Not if we are to rely on the Bible. Gal 4:14. Do you suppose that Paul was referring to Jesus before his incarnation or after or both?

NOT a created angel.

Show me where God created any angels.

And where does the Bible say that Adam was first Michael the archangel? Show me that, boJ.

That's not even an argument right now. Thus it is irrelevant and simply a deflection of the actual argument. Where did the council take place? In heaven or on earth. If on earth, where? Do you know of any mortals that stood in council with God in heaven, in the mortal body? If you do, how could they be in heaven in the presence of God and live?

My argument is seeking cohesion with your claim that these beings could be angels.

Angels can't die, that is true. But these could be the "divine council" in heaven, that God was "standing" in the midst of, while both God and the holy angels LOOKED TO EARTH and saw the corruption of earthly rulers there, especially in God's own, anointed people, the Israelites. Couldn't they?

If you believe they could be angels and angels can't die, but God told them they could die, how could that happen if not exactly the same way it happened with Jesus Christ is Paul called an angel?

 

[brotherofJared]

Also, it could not have happened BEFORE the earth was formed, because it says "all the foundations of the EARTH ARE shaken." EARTH--which you said hadn't been formed yet. And it says "ARE" SHAKEN. Present tense.

God was talking about the gods and their actions. The results of their actions would be all the foundations of the earth are shaken. What they did would cause that. Because Jesus was talking to them about it, it's obvious that it didn't happen yet, so tense is relatively unimportant. It is a condition brought about because of actions that are ongoing and therefore the conditions are ongoing. Bonnie, those who walk in darkness today and have no knowledge shake the foundations of the earth, for those they afflict and like ripples on a pond, no one is afflicted in isolation.

The modern Christians have neither knowledge nor understanding. They walk about in darkness all the foundations of the earth are shaken. It is obvious to me that it is the walking in darkness that shakes the foundations, so AS LONG AS THEY ARE DOING IT, then the foundations of the earth are shaken. This is cause and effect. Any time the cause occurs, the effect immediately follows. Tense has nothing to do with the interpretation of the passage. You are manufacturing excuses.

 

[brotherofJared]

Heiser isn't the Bible.

Neither are you. I would accept his exegesis before I ever accepted yours. The point, however; isn't about Heiser, it's about our critics. It doesn't matter who says it, if it disagrees with their philosophy, they will ignore it. Only what they believe is true.

Ergo, he has no authority.

Neither do you.

He is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean he is correct.

I say the same thing about you all the time.

Plus, he has stated many times that Mormons misuse his research on this.

It doesn't matter. I'm not misusing his research.

Does he think these verses are prophetic as to what would happen to Jesus at the hand of the Sanhedrin, a thousand years later?

No. I drew the obvious connection in events. I didn't say it was a prophecy and made no connection between Heiser and the connection I made. Again, your running off on a tangent hat doesn't have anything to do with the argument.

I can mention a scholar who does NOT agree with Heiser...that just shows a range of scholarly opinions out there. But I am ONLY going by the bible.

There is a range of opinions. I am ONLY going by the Bible. You are clearly ignoring the parts that you don't agree with.

You claim that there are NO OTHER gods. Clearly, according to the Bible, there are other gods.

 

[brotherofJared]

Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, John 17:3, etc. and etc. Is there more than one TRUE God?

You probably know this is coming, what about Ps 82 says that any of them are true gods?

 

[brotherofJared]

Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, John 17:3, etc. and etc.

All of these infer other gods. The most blatant of them is 1 Cor 8 (you focus on vs 4, but the context clearly asserts that God the Father is God, not Jesus, yet you believe that Jesus is God also. That makes two Gods and clearly shows that other gods do exist. Your unwillingness to see that, doesn't change it.

Does full deity die like men?

Where do these adjectives come from? You seem to have dozens of them and yet none of them are in Ps 82. But yes. full deity do die like men. You claim that Jesus is 100% God. Can anyone get more than 100%? Jesus died like men. You know this, yet you seem to think it's a point to argue.

 

[brotherofJared]

Can you explain to me why you do not understand that God the Son, and God the Father separate PERSONS but not separate GODS?

Because the Bible teaches that they are separate beings. Why don't you address the scriptures offered that demonstrate that that is what the Bible teaches. You all obviously don't believe the Bible.

Since all three Persons in the Godhead are called "God" in the Bible

Together they are called God and each of them separately is called God. That would indicate that each of the three beings is individually a God and that together they form a team, so to speak, called God. The Bible clearly teaches that the are separate beings, I have demonstrated this before. Christ's baptism is a prime example. They were in three separate places and each identified. Now, a single entity that is pretending to be three separate entities is just playing games. Does your God play games? Does he do charades at the speed of light. Now I'm a voice from heaven, now I'm standing in the water, now I'm a dove, lets move them around, which one am I now? Does your God do that? If he is a single being who has three personalities, why doesn't he ever say that? He says I am one, and you assume that he has three heads but one body. Why not the more logical conclusion that he is three beings who are one? The Book of Mormon does and even with that, you still think it's saying that they are three persons who are one being.

yet the Bible clearly and unequivocally says there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD?

Oh, but it doesn't say that. That's the way you interpret it, but that's not what it says. You simply throw out the parts you don't like and ignore the passages db offered where the Bible teaches that the ONE God, is not the Son. The appropriate thing to do is explain how those verses mean something that they don't, that somehow they support your ludicrous definition of one God. But you all won't, instead, you all stomp around in darkness shaking the foundations of the earth, taking another third of it's inhabitants with your false beliefs

 

[brotherofJared]

You demonstrated nothing, boJ.

LOL. So says you.

You can ignore the demonstration, but you can't say I didn't demonstrate it.

But repeatedly says there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD

No. It actually doesn't repeat that very often, but I'm sure you insert it wherever you please. The problem here is, Bonnie, that we have never argued that there is more than one true God. Never. But there are other gods. Why do you think it's important to argue something that isn't an argument? Are you trying to score empty points?

Yes, I do understand the argument quite well

I disagree. IMO, you continually miss the points and start arguments where there are none.

 

[The Prophet]

LOL. So says you.

You can ignore the demonstration, but you can't say I didn't demonstrate it.

No. It actually doesn't repeat that very often, but I'm sure you insert it wherever you please. The problem here is, Bonnie, that we have never argued that there is more than one true God. Never. But there are other gods. Why do you think it's important to argue something that isn't an argument? Are you trying to score empty points?

I disagree. IMO, you continually miss the points and start arguments where there are none.

 

[brotherofJared]

Where is this "court"?

The judgment after the world is destroyed.

Where is God "rising" FROM?

His seat in heaven, after the world is destroyed.

However, God isn't judging the angels

No. He's not. He's judging the dead who have been resurrected, those whose deeds were good, to the resurrection of life and those whose deeds are evil, to the resurrection of damnation.

but the corrupt human rulers everywhere

It actually says he rises to judge the people WITH the rulers. It fits the final judgment to a Tee.
That is obviously after the fact where men actually cannot die, ever.
Ps 82 is before the fact because in Ps 82, those beings actually could die like men. If they were angels, and I believe they are, then they could die just like the God who told them they could die, by being born in mortal bodies. Hence the pre-existence of spirits.

 

[Theo1689]

Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, John 17:3, etc. and etc.

All of these infer other gods.

You keep claiming this, but you never actually demonstrate it.
All of these passages VERY clearly proclaim that ONLY ONE GOD EXISTS.
And you want to twist them to make them claim the OPPOSITE.

The most blatant of them is 1 Cor 8 (you focus on vs 4, but the context clearly asserts that God the Father is God, not Jesus, yet you believe that Jesus is God also.

This is a typical tactic of Mormons. We list 14 verses, to demonstrate we're not simply quoting one verse out of the Bible, to show that it is an ongoing and repeated teaching, but then you go and try to select the "easiest" verse for you to respond to, the "low-hanging fruit", and IGNORE the rest.

There are a NUMBER of issues to be addressed here, which you IGNORE, and they are as follows:

1) 1 Cor. 8 does NOT exclude Jesus from being God, it does NOT say "Jesus is not God", and in fact, there are MANY passages which teach that Jesus IS God;

2) 1 Cor. 8 is about "idols", and specifically whether Christians can eat meat sacrificed to them. Paul's answer is that "an idol is NOTHING in the world", and the "gods many" are PRECISELY the idols of the heathens, which "are nothing in this world".

3) There is an EXPLICIT assertion of strict monotheism in this passage, which Mormons IGNORE, "There is NONE other god BUT ONE" (v. 4).

4) Mormons ASSUME that the verse "to US there is but one God", is relative, meaning there are allegedly many gods, but we are only to recognize one of them. But Paul has ALREADY explained that all the other "gods" are "idols", and don't exist. Further, the Mormons ignore the far more reasonable interpretation that "to us there is ONE god", because we believe TRUTH, and in TRUTH, only one God exists.

5) 1 Cor. 8:6, which Mormons use to try to say, "Jesus is excluded from the one true God", is actually an expansion by Paul of the Sh'ma, the daily Jewish prayer found in Deut. 6:4, where it is proclaimed that the one true God of existence is both "God" and "Lord". So Jesus IS included in that.

That makes two Gods and clearly shows that other gods do exist. Your unwillingness to see that, doesn't change it.

No, that doesn't follow at all.
You are ASSUMING "unitarianism".
You are ASSUMING "only one person per god".
You are ASSUMING that deity works the same way as humanity.

I would point out that the Bible NEVER describes the Father and Son as "two gods", and for very good reason: ONLY ONE GOD EXISTS (Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, etc. etc.)

You see, you RANDOMLY and self-servingly jump to "Ps. 82", as if that were the "baseline" or "default" by which all other related passages are to be measured. And you do this because of your FALSE THEOLOGY.

Do you know what had already been determined BEFORE Ps. 82 was written?:

Deut. 4:35 ... the Lord is God; there is no other besides him
Deut. 4:39 ... the Lord is God... there is no other.
Deut. 32:39 ... and there is no god besides me;
2 Sam. 7:22 ... neither is there any God besides thee, ...
2 Sam. 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD?
1 Kings 8:60 ... the Lord is God; there is no other.
1 Chr. 17:20 ... neither is there any God besides thee, ...
Isa. 44:6 ... I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.
Isa. 44:8 ... Is there a God beside me? yea,there is no God; I know not any.
Isa. 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:
Is. 45:21 ... there is no God else beside me;
Isa 45:22 ... for I am God, and there is none else.
Isa. 46:9 ... for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

And even four Psalms after Ps. 82, we read:

Ps. 86:10 ... you alone are God.


So I think it's ABUNDANTLY clear that you are MISINTERPRETING Ps. 82. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence against your position.


And here's an interesting thing... Mormons keep telling me that the "one true God" of the OT is Jesus, not the Father. And since Ps. 86:10 tells us that the Son, in the Old Testamnt, "[he] ALONE is God", then ACCORDING TO MORMONISM, that denies that the Father is God.

Go figure!

But yes. full deity do die like men. You claim that Jesus is 100% God. Can anyone get more than 100%? Jesus died like men. You know this, yet you seem to think it's a point to argue.

Jesus was 100% God.
He was also 100% man.
His deity didn't die. His humanity did.

So no, you have offered ZERO evidence that "full deity do die like men".
Jesus didn't die "because" He was deity.
He died DESPITE being deity.
He died because He took on a body of flesh.