Jesus is not God

[jimb]

Psalm 82 New International Version
Psalm 82
A psalm of Asaph.
1 God (Elohim) presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods” (Elohim):

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 “The ‘gods’ (Elohim) know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods” (Elohim);
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

8 Rise up, O God (Elohim) , judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

In verse 7, a characteristic of these Elohim is given: ‘But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like any other ruler.’ We know that Elohim can refer to human magistrates (Exodus 21:6; 1 Samuel 2:25), and that’s precisely what is being addressed in this Psalm.

In the verse 8, "Rise up, o (Elohim), judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance," Elohim is invoked as a just and powerful judge. Here are some characteristics or functions of Elohim in this context:

1. Judge of the Earth: Elohim is called to rise up and judge the earth, indicating His role as the supreme and sovereign judge over all nations.

2. Universal Sovereignty: The verse states that all nations are His inheritance, highlighting Elohim's universal authority over all humanity.

3. Justice and Righteousness: As a judge, Elohim is expected to act with justice and righteousness, making impartial and correct judgments.

4. Protection and Governance: Elohim is invoked to intervene and govern, protecting the righteous and executing justice upon the unrighteous.

These functions emphasize Elohim as a divine figure of power, justice, and sovereignty over all creation, especially in contexts of divine judgment and governance.

1. Judge of the Earth:
   • In the Old Testament, Elohim is invoked as the supreme judge over all nations. His role is to execute justice and righteousness. This concept aligns with Jesus’ teaching about judgment. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks about the final judgment, separating the righteous from the unrighteous (Matthew 25:31-46).
   • Reference: Matthew 25:31-46
2. Universal Sovereignty:
   • Elohim’s authority extends over all humanity. Similarly, Jesus is described as having all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).
   • References: Matthew 28:18, Revelation 19:16
3. Justice and Righteousness:
   • Elohim’s judgments are just and righteous. Jesus, too, embodies perfect justice and righteousness. He consistently upheld God’s moral law and demonstrated compassion for the oppressed and marginalized.
   • References: Acts 10:38, Hebrews 1:8-9
4. Protection and Governance:
   • Elohim intervenes to protect the righteous and execute justice. Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, cares for His flock, protects them, and ensures their well-being (John 10:11-18).
   • References: John 10:11-18

Additionally, Isaiah 9:6 prophesies about the coming Messiah (Jesus): “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” In this verse, “Mighty God” (El Gibbor) emphasizes Jesus’ divine nature and power. It echoes the concept of Elohim as the supreme and mighty ruler. Jesus fulfills this prophecy, embodying the characteristics of Elohim in His ministry and sacrificial work.

In summary, the Psalmist invokes the coming of the Christological Elohim (Jesus).

​

​

​

How can Elohim be both singular (God) and plural (gods)?

 

[Betho_br]

How can Elohim be both singular (God) and plural (gods)?

In Psalm 82:1, the Hebrew text says:

אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט

Transliteration: Elohim nitzav ba'adat-El, beqerev elohim yishpot.

Here, the word "Elohim" appears twice but with different meanings. Let's understand this:

1. Elohim as Singular Subject:
- The first occurrence of "Elohim" (אֱלֹהִים) in the verse is translated as "God" in the singular ("God" in the NIV Bible, I disagree, I understand "god" to refer to the Christological Elohim). This is grammatically justified by the singular verb "nitzav" (נִצָּב), which means "stands" or "positions Himself." In Hebrew, when a singular verb is used, it indicates that the subject is also singular. Therefore, even though "Elohim" has a plural form, the singular verb indicates that it refers to the one god.

2. Elohim as Plural:
- The second occurrence of "Elohim" (אֱלֹהִים) is translated as "gods" in the plural. This is indicated by the context and the phrase "beqerev Elohim" (בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים), which means "in the midst of the gods." The verb "yishpot" (יִשְׁפֹּט) is singular, but the context suggests that here "Elohim" is being used to refer to divine beings or judges, often understood as angels or human leaders with divine authority.

The context in which "Elohim" is used helps determine its meaning. In the first instance, the context suggests that it is god (NVI Bible "God") who positions Himself in a divine assembly. In the second instance, "Elohim" refers to the members of the assembly, i.e., other divine beings or authorities (Christological Elohim).

 

[Betho_br]

Yes and no. As I said, Alexander the Great referred to himsel as the Son of God, and also indirectly as the "Son of Most High", since Zeus, Amun-Ra, and Marduk are all considered the highest amongst their relative pantheon.


I disagree. The text is not related to Daniel but to Maccabees, or specifically it reads as a prophecy that King Philip of Macedon receives from God. The 4Q246 text describes the Spirit of God resting upon a person who falls before their throne, hence a king, of an impending wrath that will released into the world. The description that the king's life will be shortened is also historically accurate regarding King Philip. The text goes on to describe much war and slaughter, from which a prince, that is Alexander, will become king of Assyria (then Persia) and Egypt. Alexander rules this land and is known as the Basileus or emperor. When Alexander dies, his son Alexander IV, who is "designated his name" is also called "The Great", since he is referred to as Megas Basileus or Great Emperor, even though he ruled via regent and was killed at age 14.

*Edit - The prophetic nature of the text, whilst connected to Maccabees, would have been in relation to Ezekiel during the time Babylonian exile 593-571 BCE.


This is when you accept that the Son of God and Son of Most High can not, and do not, refer to Alexander the Great. The origin therefore is neither Greek pagan nor strictly "Judeo-Palestinian", but a reference to a historical person and the claims he made.

The fact that the "Professor" even used Judeo-Palestinian shows a firm pro-Christian and anti-Jewish bias.


This conclusion is therefore an anachronistic testification, since there is no proof Jewish people believed in the theological notion that the Messiah would be a Son of God. You could say that the Son of God described in 4Q246 was the "sign" that precedes the "eternal kingdom", which is exactly how it reads.


It isn't an issue when the Son of God is a reference to Alexander the Great.


It is neither precise nor a proof of any conclusion. Luke describes Jesus as being both the son of El Elyon and YHWH to inspire a cohesion of beliefs. This is independant of what is written in 4Q246.

Nevertheless I have shown you enough proof about who the Son of God in 4Q246 is being referred to, and how the text relates to Maccabees 1 and not Daniel.

While some propose that the "son of God" refers to Alexander the Great, this interpretation has limitations:
- Alexander did indeed claim divine status, but the context of the 4Q246 text doesn't align precisely with his historical reign.
- The text speaks of tribulations preceding the "son of God," whereas Alexander's rule didn't fit this pattern.
- Additionally, the text's focus on an "eternal kingdom" doesn't match Alexander's relatively short-lived empire.

 

[GoodAttention]

While some propose that the "son of God" refers to Alexander the Great, this interpretation has limitations:
- Alexander did indeed claim divine status, but the context of the 4Q246 text doesn't align precisely with his historical reign.

Please explain what doesn't align?

- The text speaks of tribulations preceding the "son of God," whereas Alexander's rule didn't fit this pattern.

It is tribulation, singular, and includes "coming upon the land", referring to land that belonged to King Philip, not Alexander. This is of course the Battle of Thebes, where Alexander lays siege to the city, slaughtering the inhabitants or putting them into slavery, and burning it to the ground. It fits the description of the text as there is no pattern to look for.

- Additionally, the text's focus on an "eternal kingdom" doesn't match Alexander's relatively short-lived empire.

You are confusing what refers to what from the Christian view point.

The text says "They will reign only a few years over the land", referring to Alexander the Great who reigned 7 years, and his son who reigned via regent for 14 years. The reference to any "eternal kingdom" after this is irrelevant, and you are only giving it relevance because it sounds like Christian scripture. The truth of the matter is, 4Q246 is a apocryphal at best if we could even call it scripture.

Unfortunately these days Christians will bend apocryphal texts to fit the narrative rather than calling it out for what it is.

 

[Betho_br]

Please explain what doesn't align?

It is tribulation, singular, and includes "coming upon the land", referring to land that belonged to King Philip, not Alexander. This is of course the Battle of Thebes, where Alexander lays siege to the city, slaughtering the inhabitants or putting them into slavery, and burning it to the ground. It fits the description of the text as there is no pattern to look for.


You are confusing what refers to what from the Christian view point.

The text says "They will reign only a few years over the land", referring to Alexander the Great who reigned 7 years, and his son who reigned via regent for 14 years. The reference to any "eternal kingdom" after this is irrelevant, and you are only giving it relevance because it sounds like Christian scripture. The truth of the matter is, 4Q246 is a apocryphal at best if we could even call it scripture.

Unfortunately these days Christians will bend apocryphal texts to fit the narrative rather than calling it out for what it is.

I used the term "tribulations" to refer to the terms "oppression" and "great massacre" from Geza Vermes' translation of 4Q246 . The Dead Sea Scrolls [Complete English Translation] (The term "tribulations" does not even appear in this translation)

The title “Son of God” was not completely foreign to Palestinian Judaism (174; Hengel 1976, 45)... Hengel, M. (1976), The Son of God: The Origins of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (London: SCM).

Let's look at some quotes:

There is debate among scholars regarding who is being referred to in this text. Opinions vary widely, from Alexander Balas, to the Antichrist, to Melchizedek or Michael. However, such scholars as Émile Puech and John Collins understand the name-titles in the text to be references “to a messianic figure at the end times.”88 What does this mean for our study of the New Testament? As VanderKam explains, the language of 4Q246 does not mean Jesus is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. “It does indicate, however, that some sectarian Jews were already using the title ‘son of God’ to refer to an exalted messiah to come.”89
88. VanderKam and Flint, Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 335. 89. VanderKam, “Scrolls and Early Christianity,” 75.

A text that became known following a public lecture more than twenty years ago, but whose photograph was not made public until 1991, sheds important light on the question of usage of the epithet "Son of the Most High" in Palestine in the time of Jesus. The text is an Aramaic fragment designated 4Q246 and often referred to either as the Aramaic Apocalypse or the Son of God Text. 4Q246 1:1-2:9 tells of the advent of a king who will conquer the nations and rule with justice. The most relevant part of the text reads as follows: Evans, Craig A. (1997). Flint, Peter W. (ed.). Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 94.
https://www.google.com.br/books/edition/Eschatology_Messianism_and_the_Dead_Sea/DDUw9mvbq4AC?hl=pt-BR&gbpv=1

 

[GoodAttention]

I used the term "tribulations" to refer to the terms "oppression" and "great massacre" from Geza Vermes' translation of 4Q246 . The Dead Sea Scrolls [Complete English Translation] (The term "tribulations" does not even appear in this translation)

In this translation Geza Vermes' describes a single "great massacre in the provinces..." that continues to correlate with the regional structure of ancient Greece, and the massacre following the Battle of Thebes. The Son of God being a self-proclaimation is considered also, including support for the following.

King who preceeds wrath, whos life is shortened, and vision to be fulfilled is King Philip of Macedon, who was assassinated and had plans to conquer Persia and create unify Greece.
Son of God is Alexander the Great, who referred to himself or made himself the son of Gods across the Greece, Egypt, and Babylon.
Son of Most High is therefore a reference to what he claimed, that being the son of Zeus, Amon-Ra, and Mardok, each the "most high" of their pantheon
King of Assyria and Egypt takes into consideration the Persian empire succeeding Babylon, and is therefore Assyria, and Egypt, both conquered
He will be called grand, or Great, Megas for Alexander the Great and his son
Two names, one designated from the first, is Alexander III and his son Alexander IV.

The title “Son of God” was not completely foreign to Palestinian Judaism (174; Hengel 1976, 45)... Hengel, M. (1976), The Son of God: The Origins of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (London: SCM).

None of the quotess below contain any reference to a source other than 4Q246...

Let's look at some quotes:

There is debate among scholars regarding who is being referred to in this text. Opinions vary widely, from Alexander Balas, to the Antichrist, to Melchizedek or Michael. However, such scholars as Émile Puech and John Collins understand the name-titles in the text to be references “to a messianic figure at the end times.”88 What does this mean for our study of the New Testament? As VanderKam explains, the language of 4Q246 does not mean Jesus is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. “It does indicate, however, that some sectarian Jews were already using the title ‘son of God’ to refer to an exalted messiah to come.”89
88. VanderKam and Flint, Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 335. 89. VanderKam, “Scrolls and Early Christianity,” 75.

Uses 4Q246 as source for "Son of God"

A text that became known following a public lecture more than twenty years ago, but whose photograph was not made public until 1991, sheds important light on the question of usage of the epithet "Son of the Most High" in Palestine in the time of Jesus. The text is an Aramaic fragment designated 4Q246 and often referred to either as the Aramaic Apocalypse or the Son of God Text. 4Q246 1:1-2:9 tells of the advent of a king who will conquer the nations and rule with justice. The most relevant part of the text reads as follows: Evans, Craig A. (1997). Flint, Peter W. (ed.). Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 94.
https://www.google.com.br/books/edition/Eschatology_Messianism_and_the_Dead_Sea/DDUw9mvbq4AC?hl=pt-BR&gbpv=1

Uses 4Q246 as source for "Son of God".

 

[Betho_br]

In this translation Geza Vermes' describes a single "great massacre in the provinces..." that continues to correlate with the regional structure of ancient Greece, and the massacre following the Battle of Thebes. The Son of God being a self-proclaimation is considered also, including support for the following.

King who preceeds wrath, whos life is shortened, and vision to be fulfilled is King Philip of Macedon, who was assassinated and had plans to conquer Persia and create unify Greece.
Son of God is Alexander the Great, who referred to himself or made himself the son of Gods across the Greece, Egypt, and Babylon.
Son of Most High is therefore a reference to what he claimed, that being the son of Zeus, Amon-Ra, and Mardok, each the "most high" of their pantheon
King of Assyria and Egypt takes into consideration the Persian empire succeeding Babylon, and is therefore Assyria, and Egypt, both conquered
He will be called grand, or Great, Megas for Alexander the Great and his son
Two names, one designated from the first, is Alexander III and his son Alexander IV.



None of the quotess below contain any reference to a source other than 4Q246...


Uses 4Q246 as source for "Son of God"


Uses 4Q246 as source for "Son of God".

To discuss the terminology and context of 4Q24 and its possible references, it is important to consider a holistic analysis. Biblical citations, such as in Psalm 82:6, and their relation to the text found in 4Q24 cannot be ignored. It is also not improbable to conjecture that 4Q24 could refer to a figure like Alexander the Great, given his historical and textual parallels. For example, in the book of Isaiah, chapter 45:1–6, the Hebrew Bible attributes to Cyrus a significant title of "anointed," which shares the same Hebrew term as "messiah," denoting liberation for the Jewish people. These connections are crucial for a deeper analysis of the possible references and meanings of 4Q24 within a broader historical and textual context.

 

[GoodAttention]

To discuss the terminology and context of 4Q24 and its possible references, it is important to consider a holistic analysis.

Yes I agree, if by analysis you are open to both include and reject references based on good argument.

Biblical citations, such as in Psalm 82:6, and their relation to the text found in 4Q24 cannot be ignored.

Yes exactly. This verse, and importantly the two that follow, add further weight to the reference being about Alexander the Great and not Jesus.

6 you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
8 you will fall like every other ruler.

Note how the description is not a positive one, describing a mortal man who falls, which is more symbolic of Alexander the Great, given he was a ruler who died young, than Jesus or a Messianic figure.

It is also not improbable to conjecture that 4Q24 could refer to a figure like Alexander the Great, given his historical and textual parallels. For example, in the book of Isaiah, chapter 45:1–6, the Hebrew Bible attributes to Cyrus a significant title of "anointed," which shares the same Hebrew term as "messiah," denoting liberation for the Jewish people. These connections are crucial for a deeper analysis of the possible references and meanings of 4Q24 within a broader historical and textual context.

Yes. Just as Psalm 82:6-8 describes the son of the Most High in a very human, not special, not unique way, we should move away from seeking any connection to 4Q246 to Jesus at all, and hold the connection that the scriptures and history tell us. It is unfortunate that the only reference to a Son of God in the pre-Christian scriptures relates to a man that we know claimed this of himself, being Alexander the Great.

However it would be a tragic poverty of knowledge to disregard all the evidence, both in the scriptures and history, and still conclude that 4Q246, an unauthored, undated, unreferenced, and only copy of an Aramaic text describing a Son of God in a prophetic manner must be the earliest reference to Jesus.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Take what ever meaning out of the word "Forsaken" you like .. I agree it could mean many things however, one thing it does not mean is that Jesus is forsaking himself .. that Jesus is calling out to himself in some masochistic delerium .. forgetting his identity .. that he is actually God - THe Father" and could free himself in a blink of an eye and destroy all those nasty Romans and Pharasees.

how is the atonement effectuated when God sacrifices Himself, to Himself?

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"

Believers are trying to reconcile contradictory scriptures, but unbelievers don't have a problem with this. The latter don't require the Bible be coherent. Nor do they expect it to be given the number of authors writing from different times, places, and circumstances.

And this kind of discussion is what I mean when I use the word theology - thought that is relevant only to a believer. There are academic topics involving religion like comparative religion or the influence of the Bible on history or culture, but they are not theology to me - just these kinds of debates, the ones that require a god belief to matter.

 

[Betho_br]

Yes I agree, if by analysis you are open to both include and reject references based on good argument.


Yes exactly. This verse, and importantly the two that follow, add further weight to the reference being about Alexander the Great and not Jesus.

6 you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
8 you will fall like every other ruler.

Note how the description is not a positive one, describing a mortal man who falls, which is more symbolic of Alexander the Great, given he was a ruler who died young, than Jesus or a Messianic figure.


Yes. Just as Psalm 82:6-8 describes the son of the Most High in a very human, not special, not unique way, we should move away from seeking any connection to 4Q246 to Jesus at all, and hold the connection that the scriptures and history tell us. It is unfortunate that the only reference to a Son of God in the pre-Christian scriptures relates to a man that we know claimed this of himself, being Alexander the Great.

However it would be a tragic poverty of knowledge to disregard all the evidence, both in the scriptures and history, and still conclude that 4Q246, an unauthored, undated, unreferenced, and only copy of an Aramaic text describing a Son of God in a prophetic manner must be the earliest reference to Jesus.

THE LITERATURE OF ANCIENT EGYPT AN ANTHOLOGY OF STORIES, INSTRUCTIONS, STELAE, AUTOBIOGRAPHIES, AND POETRY Third Edition
Edited and with an introduction by WILLIAM KELLY SIMPSON With translations by Robert K. Ritner, William Kelly Simpson, Vincent A. Tobin, and Edward F. Wente, Jr. YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS/NEW HAVEN & LONDON

The people of his time will rejoice,
For this son of a man will establish his name for ever and eternity.
But those who fall into evil,
Those who raise the cry of rebellion,
They have lowered their voices through dread of him.
The Asiatics will fall before his sword,
The Libyans will fall before his fire;
Rebels will fall before his wrath,
And enemies will fall through / awe of him,
For the uraeus on his brow will subdue his enemies for him.
He will found Inbu-Heqa,13
So that never will Asiatics be permitted to come down to Egypt.
They will seek water in the manner of beggars
So that their herds may drink.
Then Ma’at will return to her throne,
And Chaos (Isfet) will be driven off.
Joyful will he be who will see (these things),
He who will serve the king.
The wise man will pour water for me (at my tomb)
When he sees my prophecies fulfilled.’’

13. A border fortress, whose name means ‘‘Walls of the Ruler,’’ constructed by Amenemhet
I as a protection for the eastern Delta against Asiatic invaders

This "son of man" will then defeat the internal and external enemies of Kemet through power and counsel. Consequently, "Then Maat will return to its place. And the isfet will depart. Those who observe it can rejoice" (68-70). This optimistic statement reflects not only a profound belief in the power and inevitable triumph of Maat but also, as Petrie, W. M. Flinders (1934, 198 feet) notes, contains a parallel belief in the honored sovereign as a savior-king with "no evil in his heart," who upholds Maat and seeks Maat for his people, as outlined in the Books of Contemplation. According to Petrie, W. M. Flinders (1934, 199), this expresses a kind of "Messianism almost fifteen hundred years before its appearance among the Hebrews."

Although the Hebrews lived in Egypt for several periods, and Jesus was also called out of Egypt and hid in the Egyptian maternal tribe of Ephraim in Israel, and extensively used the expression "Son of Man," the Egyptian messianic prophecy is a good example that not everything refers to Jesus.

 

[GoodAttention]

THE LITERATURE OF ANCIENT EGYPT AN ANTHOLOGY OF STORIES, INSTRUCTIONS, STELAE, AUTOBIOGRAPHIES, AND POETRY Third Edition
Edited and with an introduction by WILLIAM KELLY SIMPSON With translations by Robert K. Ritner, William Kelly Simpson, Vincent A. Tobin, and Edward F. Wente, Jr. YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS/NEW HAVEN & LONDON

The people of his time will rejoice,
For this son of a man will establish his name for ever and eternity.
But those who fall into evil,
Those who raise the cry of rebellion,
They have lowered their voices through dread of him.
The Asiatics will fall before his sword,
The Libyans will fall before his fire;
Rebels will fall before his wrath,
And enemies will fall through / awe of him,
For the uraeus on his brow will subdue his enemies for him.
He will found Inbu-Heqa,13
So that never will Asiatics be permitted to come down to Egypt.
They will seek water in the manner of beggars
So that their herds may drink.
Then Ma’at will return to her throne,
And Chaos (Isfet) will be driven off.
Joyful will he be who will see (these things),
He who will serve the king.
The wise man will pour water for me (at my tomb)
When he sees my prophecies fulfilled.’’

13. A border fortress, whose name means ‘‘Walls of the Ruler,’’ constructed by Amenemhet
I as a protection for the eastern Delta against Asiatic invaders

This "son of man" will then defeat the internal and external enemies of Kemet through power and counsel. Consequently, "Then Maat will return to its place. And the isfet will depart. Those who observe it can rejoice" (68-70). This optimistic statement reflects not only a profound belief in the power and inevitable triumph of Maat but also, as Petrie, W. M. Flinders (1934, 198 feet) notes, contains a parallel belief in the honored sovereign as a savior-king with "no evil in his heart," who upholds Maat and seeks Maat for his people, as outlined in the Books of Contemplation. According to Petrie, W. M. Flinders (1934, 199), this expresses a kind of "Messianism almost fifteen hundred years before its appearance among the Hebrews."

Although the Hebrews lived in Egypt for several periods, and Jesus was also called out of Egypt and hid in the Egyptian maternal tribe of Ephraim in Israel, and extensively used the expression "Son of Man," the Egyptian messianic prophecy is a good example that not everything refers to Jesus.

Yeah...

I'm not sure how "son of a man", which would be a mistranslation of man from Amun or Mont, becomes "son of man".

But then again I'm also not interested in any discussion or quote from Flinders Petrie, a known racist who believed in racial biology, and that Ancient Egyptian culture and religion was introduced by a Caucasoid dynastic race that subdued an inferior native population.

I suggest you consider a different source if you want to discuss further, otherwise invite me to your next white supremacy meeting so I know who DNA will be used as evidence against me.

 

[Sargonski]

Believers are trying to reconcile contradictory scriptures, but unbelievers don't have a problem with this. The latter don't require the Bible be coherent. Nor do they expect it to be given the number of authors writing from different times, places, and circumstances.

And this kind of discussion is what I mean when I use the word theology - thought that is relevant only to a believer. There are academic topics involving religion like comparative religion or the influence of the Bible on history or culture, but they are not theology to me - just these kinds of debates, the ones that require a god belief to matter.

It is not that the scriptures are contradictory with other scripture - in this case it is scripture contradicting man made Trinity Dogma .. trying to fit scripture into that woefully flawed perspective of God -- that is not the perspective of any of the Bible Characters .OT nor New --

 

[Sargonski]

Psalm 82 New International Version
Psalm 82
A psalm of Asaph.
1 God (Elohim) presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods” (Elohim):

Thank you Brother Betho .. showing us the hands of the devil .. right there in scripture. I can give you many other examples even better than this one .. the hands of an tampering with Holy Scripture.. aka "pious fraud" a shamefull thing.

More recent translations are correcting this fraud which is a good thing .. monotheistic artistic license gone wild is a bad thing.

Here is a New English Translation .. with footnotes linked .. the Assembly of EL . is the Assembly of EL .. a divine council overwhich EL presides .. YHWH featured as addressing the divine council .. later on he goes on to condemn the Sons of EL .. YHWH being one of those Sons Deut 32:8

The "Sons of God" .. the "Elohim" to battle with each other to see who will be high God of Earth .. this Song is about YHWH winning that battle over the other "Sons of God Supreme" EL Oliun.

Psalm 82[a]​

A psalm of Asaph.​

82 YHWH stands in[b] the assembly of El;[c] in the midst of the gods[d] he renders judgment.[e]

The phrase עֲדַת אֵל (ʿadat ʾel, “assembly of El”) appears only here in the OT. (1) Some understand “El” to refer to God himself. In this case he is pictured presiding over his own heavenly assembly. (2) Others take אֵל as a superlative here (“God stands in the great assembly”), as in Pss 36:6 and 80:10. (3) The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El, who presided over the Canaanite divine assembly. (See Isa 14:13, where El’s assembly is called “the stars of El.”) In the Ugaritic myths the phrase ʿdt ʾilm refers to the “assembly of the gods,” who congregate in King Kirtu’s house, where Baal asks El to bless Kirtu’s house (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 91). If the Canaanite divine assembly is referred to here in Ps 82:1, then the psalm must be understood as a bold polemic against Canaanite religion. Israel’s God invades El’s assembly, denounces its gods as failing to uphold justice, and announces their coming demise. For an interpretation of the psalm along these lines, see W. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC 5:533-36.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is not that the scriptures are contradictory with other scripture

There are many examples of contradictory scriptures, but believers aren't free to say so. Only people with no dog in that hunt are - people who don't care that contradictions exist. The believer's job is to try to reconcile these contradictions by redefining words.

the hands of the devil

You reminded me of a song:

I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for

How about a cover of that song from our band? That's my wife on bass and vocals, my friend Khanu on rhythm guitar, and me on vocals and lead guitar. This verse above comes at 1:41. It ends with a bit of melodic improvisation:

 

[Betho_br]

There are many examples of contradictory scriptures, but believers aren't free to say so.

LYRICS: There were ninety and nine that safely lay In the shelter of the fold; But one was out on the hills away, Far off from the gates of gold. Away on the mountains wild and bare; Away from the tender Shepherd’s care. “Lord, Thou hast here Thy ninety and nine; Are they not enough for Thee?” But the Shepherd made answer: “This of Mine Has wandered away from Me. And although the road be rough and steep, I go to the desert to find My sheep.” But none of the ransomed ever knew How deep were the waters crossed; Nor how dark was the night the Lord passed through Ere He found His sheep that was lost. Out in the desert He heard its cry; ’Twas sick and helpless and ready to die. “Lord, whence are those blood-drops all the way, That mark out the mountain’s track?” “They were shed for one who had gone astray Ere the Shepherd could bring him back.” “Lord, whence are Thy hands so rent and torn?” “They’re pierced tonight by many a thorn.” And all through the mountains, thunder-riv’n, And up from the rocky steep, There arose a glad cry to the gate of heav’n, “Rejoice! I have found My sheep!” And the angels echoed around the throne, “Rejoice, for the Lord brings back His own!”

But Jesus didn't say any of this!

Matthew 18:12
“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?

Luke 15:4
“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost until he find it?



Jesus said that he takes greater pleasure in rescuing one lost sheep than in rescuing ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent!
Furthermore, the text of the Christian Bible states that the Shepherd left these 99 wolves in sheep's clothing in the MOUNTAINS and DESERT, logically, the wolves' place of residence...

This error was observed twenty years ago in this Christian hymn and even so, it spread to several nations in other languages...

 

[Sargonski]

There are many examples of contradictory scriptures, but believers aren't free to say so. Only people with no dog in that hunt are - people who don't care that contradictions exist. The believer's job is to try to reconcile these contradictions by redefining words.

You reminded me of a song:

I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for

How about a cover of that song from our band? That's my wife on bass and vocals, my friend Khanu on rhythm guitar, and me on vocals and lead guitar. This verse above comes at 1:41. It ends with a bit of melodic improvisation:

Good grief mate .. aside from that fact that "I was a punk before you were" .. you completely missed the play. This is not about scripture contrading scripture. This is about man made trinity dogma contradicting not just scripture .... but "The Word"

So .. man made dogma is contradicting scripture .. that dogma a creation of the hands of man under the influence of the Devil ... Chief God of the Earth ... Tester of Souls .. a job title bestowed on him by the Supreme God.

and so ... if you wish a son that fits the bill .. and I was a U2 fan way before you were as well .. har har .. but, I would like to introduce you to another ....

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
But what's puzzlin' you is the nature of my game

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

and so ... if you wish a son that fits the bill .. and I was a U2 fan way before you were as well ..

Was that a typo of song? I'm not looking for a son.

Actually, I wasn't a U2 fan. We just covered Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For because I liked the song. The only other U2 song I'm familiar with is With Or Without You.

What I was was an electric guitar fan, especially guitarists like Dickey Betts, Duane Allman, and Jerry Garcia (Allman Brothers and Grateful Dead) - melodic improvisational rock, but also a fair amount of blues. Here's a sample of that if you're interested. It's one of two Dire Straits songs we covered, the other being Sultans Of Swing:

I would like to introduce you to another ....

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
But what's puzzlin' you is the nature of my game

You must think I'm young. That song was two years old when I bought the album in 1970 while living at the dorms at UCLA. I've known those lyrics for over fifty years. And, I learned that very distinctive Keith Richards guitar solo not long afterward. That's how one learned electric guitar in the early seventies - he learned to copy records, because there were no rock guitar teachers yet to show us how to play those songs and almost none of the music we liked was published yet. My first guitar teachers taught me jazz and standards. It was that or go study flamenco, which is acoustic guitar.

 

[Sargonski]

Was that a typo of song? I'm not looking for a son.

Actually, I wasn't a U2 fan. We just covered the Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For because I liked the song. The only other U2 song I'm familiar with is With Or Without You.

What I was was an electric guitar fan, especially guitarists like Dickey Betts, Duane Allman, and Jerry Garcia (Allman Brothers and Grateful Dead) - melodic improvisational rock, but also some blues a fair amount of blues. Here's a sample of that if you're interested. It's one of two Dire Straits songs we covered, the other being Sultans Of Swing:

You must think I'm young. That song was two years old when I bought the album in 1970 while living at the dorms at UCLA. I've known those lyrics for over fifty years. And, I learned that very distinctive Keith Richards guitar solo not long afterward. That's how one learned electric guitar in the early seventies - he learned to copy records, because there were no rock guitar teachers yet to show us how to play those songs and almost none of the music we liked was published yet. My first guitar teachers taught me jazz and standards. It was that or go study flamenco, which is acoustic guitar.

LOL .. well .. OK then . Old enough to have lived through the 60s.. but then how did you find yourself down such a rabit hole - looking for a son ? Who asked to you look for a son friend ? And while I would like to help you with your search .. all we are asking here is that you have a little sympathy .. for the forgotten son .. of the Most High one .. and the contradiction .. of monotheism.. on the basis of this fellow .. "Chief God over the Earth" -- did you not understand that this does not fit in .. with your regular sin .. nor the Trinity Jargon

Spent some time pass the duchi on da left pan side I take it .. playing guitar in a circle singing cum ba ya .. Jah Rastafa ! .. one of my favorite characters in the Story. ..

the gal in the song is pretty .. not the U2 song I had in mind

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus is not God

Sure, I understand, he is not G-d, he never claimed to be as such, please, right?

Regards

 

[Betho_br]

Jesus is not God

Sure, I understand, he is not G-d, he never claimed to be as such, please, right?

Regards

In the Christian Bible, it is literally written that Jesus is the Logos (the Word), an Elohim (a Christological theos, a divine judge), Adonai, the Lord over all and the Messiah. Anything beyond this is interpretation and philosophical development.